Sitting of 19 April 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Somerset County (Western Division), v. Vaughan Hanning Vaughan Lee, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [April 17] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure (Cefn Drawen) Provisional Order*[126]; Inclosure Bettws Disserth) Provisional Order*[127]; Inclosure (Ashleside) Provisional Order*[128]; Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment*[133]; Parish Registers*[132]; Military Manœuvres* [134].
First Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)*[129]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)*[130]; Local Government Provisional Orders*[131].
Second Reading—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) [7]; Parliamentary Elections Expenses [34].
Select Committee—Electric Lighting*[122], nominated.
Considered as amended—Army (Annual)*[105]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Leahy, Mr. Gray, Mr. O'Sullivan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LEAHY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill would introduce two useful changes in the system of electing Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. In the first place, it proposed that the elections of Poor Law Guardians should be every three years, instead of annually, as at present. This was most desirable, as it was very inconvenient to have an annual election, from the excitement that took place. Besides, the expense of electing these officers would be greatly diminished by allowing them to hold office for three years. In the second place, the Bill proposed to substitute the ballot for the existing method of election by voting papers. He contended that it was, on all hands, acknowledged that the ballot was the better way of taking the sense of the electors, and he could not see why the system should not be applied to elections of Guardians as

  925
  it was in every Parliamentary and Municipal contest. There were very many serious evils connected with the present system of sending out voting papers to be delivered and collected by the police at the houses of the electors. Without making any insinuations against the police, it was undoubted that in many cases these voting papers were tampered with. If the ballot system was adopted, it would do away with all this irregularity. He did not see that there was anything proposed by this Bill to which anybody could make any serious objection; and he was therefore at a loss to know what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who had put down a Notice in opposition to it, could advance to justify the action he had taken. It was not necessary to make any lengthened observations in support of so simple a measure, and he would therefore merely move its second reading.
  MR. GRAY, in seconding the Motion for the second reading, said, that four years ago he had the honour of introducing this Bill. On that occasion, in 1878, there was a tolerably exhaustive discussion on the subject. The Bill was not then read a second time; but it was not met by a direct negative, as was now proposed. By a Motion tantamount to the Previous Question, the House decided that as a Select Committee had been appointed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), now Secretary to the English Local Government Board, it would be undesirable to read the Bill a second time. The subject was fully investigated by that Committee, and he had had the honour of being one of its Members. It might be urged that the Committee reported against the introduction of the system of voting by ballot for Poor Law Guardians generally; but any Member who took the trouble to read the entire of the Report, and to examine the evidence given before the Committee, must see that the conclusion arrived at was somewhat inconsequential. The objections to the present system were set forth in full detail in that Report; yet, after stating the various irregularities, the intimidations, the tamperings with voting papers, the delays and confusions which frequently arise under the present system, it said—"We therefore recommend that the system of voting by ballot
  926
  should not be adopted." The hon. Member for Oldham, who was Chairman of that Committee, would not, he thought, feel any objection to his saying that the Report in its present condition was a somewhat limp document. It acknowledged the weakness of the present system, it rejected the proposition to adopt voting by ballot, but suggested nothing instead. The fact was, the Report, which at first read admirably, was so cut up before adoption that its conclusions were an absurdity. In 1878 he showed, in instancing various abuses, that tenants, especially in the rural districts, were subjected to the grossest intimidation by bailiffs and agents, compelling them to vote for the landlord's candidates. It might be alleged now that things had greatly changed since then, and that the same amount of intimidation was not likely to be practised in future. It might even be shown that intimidation was not confined to the landlords, that it was practised by representatives of popular interests, and by clergymen of various denominations. But he was equally opposed to all intimidation, desiring that every man should be able to vote according to his conscience. It was also shown to the Committee that those who desired to tamper with voting papers followed the policeman from house to house, asking the voters—many of whom were ignorant persons—to allow them to fill up the voting papers, and invalidating them very often by either filling them wrongly or deliberately making some slight error. The manner in which ballot papers were marked was now widely known in Ireland, and many people had an idea that these voting papers should be marked in the same way. He knew a Queen's Counsel in Dublin, who assumed that he ought to mark the voting paper he received for the election of Poor Law Guardians in a manner similar to the way he marked the ballot paper for a Member of Parliament. But this was sufficient to invalidate a voting paper; and anyone who desired to invalidate it, had only to suggest to the elector that he should put a cross opposite to the name of the person he desired to see elected. So rigid were the rules, that if a voter, instead of waiting for the policeman to call, brought the voting-paper to the Returning Officer, the vote was invalidated. If he

  927
  put it into the post it was invalidated. A most mischievous arrangement under the present system was that the rate-book, as it stood, was taken as the register of the votes in an electoral division. The consequence was that great uncertainty was introduced into the elections, and it was only after the worry and expense of a contest that a candidate could obtain a scrutiny, which generally lasted for days, and might have the effect of reversing the result of the election. He had never heard a suggestion even in favour of retaining this system. He knew some difference of opinion existed with regard to the first proposition in this Bill—namely, triennial elections. He himself supported it, because the only apparently good objection he had ever heard against the substitution of balloting for the present system being that it would involve a large amount of additional expense, extending the period of election from one to three years, would counteract any additional expense that might arise. A proper registry would tend, in his opinion, to reduce expense, because candidates would be able to calculate their chances, and contests would be fewer in number. The second proposition was substantially that the system of voting should be assimilated to that adopted in Municipal and Parliamentary elections. The onus probandi of showing that the ballot would not be applicable to Boards of Guardians lay upon the opponents of the Bill. To accomplish proper secrecy in voting, he proposed that property holders having multiple votes should receive a separate voting paper for each vote; thus a man having six votes would receive six papers. He left the framing of rules for carrying out this system to the Local Government Board. An important aim of the Bill was to secure that every man who wanted to vote should record his vote in person. The present system of proxy voting was an outrageous abuse. A property holder having 18 votes, against the poor man's one, could hand 12 of them over to a nominee, who, as wire-puller in the district, could use them for purely party purposes. A property voter should exercise his own discretion as to the candidate for whom his votes should be recorded. He had heard that a well-known electioneerer in Dublin held nearly 1,000 proxy votes, and that one agent thereby returned most of the
  928
  Conservative Guardians to the South Dublin Board. The Secretary of the Local Government Board, Mr. Banks, showed the Committee that an enormous number of complaints reached his Board each year of intimidation and undue influence; but, notwithstanding that, the Board did not make any inquiry as to how those votes were obtained. Passing by altogether the allegations of corruption, or intimidation, or other forms of undue influence which, if proved before an Election Petition Judge, would result in the disfranchisement of the constituency, and taking cognizance merely of the inquiry whether the candidate declared elected had received a majority of valid votes, this entire Board was occupied in this investigation six weeks each year. This statement alone was sufficient to prove the desirability of introducing vote by ballot. But that prolonged investigation did not represent all the complaints, because it was only after a local scrutiny had proved unsatisfactory that the matter went before the Local Government Board. In Dublin, for instance, where the Returning Officers were lawyers of experience, that scrutiny occupied a fortnight. Mr. Banks also deposed to the widespread tampering with votes, and to undue influence upon voters, being careful to point out that this was not restricted to Roman Catholic clergymen, but extended to Protestant and Presbyterian, in fact, to clergymen of all denominations throughout Ireland, as well as to bailiffs, rent warners, agents, mobs—he himself (Mr. Gray) had heard of a mob following a policeman from house to house insisting upon the voting papers being delivered up to them to be filled as they wished or to be destroyed. These complaints, Mr. Banks said, were of everyday occurrence. He urged some objections against the substitution of the ballot system; but they were very slight, and, subject to their removal, he favoured the proposed change. One was the expense, which he estimated would be double; but this was met by the triennial election. Mr. Banks further said that it would be a great hardship upon a poor man to have to walk to the polling booth. It would be a greater hardship upon him to be unable to exercise the franchise at the election of a Guardian. The greatest distance which would have to be walked would be three miles

  929
  and a-half, and no person who knew Ireland would say that that was a very formidable difficulty. Mr. Banks further said that females who would be entitled to vote would be afraid to come to the polling stations. But everyone knew that the system of election by ballot in Ireland was monotonous in the extreme, and that the most timid female need have no apprehension of walking into the polling booth and recording her vote. He further said that it would be hard upon a working man to be taken from his labour to exercise the franchise. No doubt it would; but in as much as an extension of the hours of polling was introduced in England to provide against that difficulty, he saw no reason why a similar plan should not be applied to Ireland. He had very warm hopes that the Bill would receive the support of the Government, and be read a second time at an early hour to-day. He had in contemplation at one time the introduction into the Ballot Act Continuance Bill of a clause extending this principle to the election of Guardians; and if the Bill should, unfortunately, be rejected today he should make an endeavour in that direction. The system which the Bill proposed to introduce had worked so well in connection with the election of Members of Parliament and of Municipalities in Ireland, and the abuses of the existing system were so patent and undisputed, that he hoped they would not be forced to wait much longer for this much-needed reform in Ireland. This question had been so long before the House—for four years it had been brought forward by himself, and previously by the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen—that he really thought it was time to settle it on the basis of the Bill which he now supported. The introduction of the system could do no mischief, while it would do away with a great deal of inconvenience and a great deal of feeling of injustice which existed in connection with the election of Poor Law Guardians. There might have been some kind of reason for the proxy vote, and for the present system of election when it was first introduced. The functions of Boards of Guardians were then solely confined to the administration of the rates for the relief of the poor, and it might have been felt necessary to give the property class a preponderating power by the ex-officio representation, as well as by the enor-
  930
  mous power of the proxy system. But since that time the functions of Boards of Guardians in Ireland had been greatly enlarged, and it was scarcely going to far to say that at present the relief of the poor was not the most important duty they had to exercise. The entire powers of the Public Health Act of 1878, which were of very great importance, were now vested in the Guardians of the rural districts as the rural sanitary authority. They had the power, for instance, of entering any man's dwelling, of shutting it up if they thought it necessary, or ordering improvements at the expense of individuals; they had the power of burning clothes, of compelling persons to leave their homes and go to hospital; in fact, they had the most despotic powers, not merely over the purses, but over the persons of those within their jurisdiction. It was of the utmost importance that these powers should be fenced round with safeguards, which would inspire a feeling of confidence in the constituencies. The tendency of the time was to increase the powers of Poor Law Guardians, and therefore the necessity became greater for so managing their election as to enable them to command the confidence of their constituents. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that under the existing system they did not command the confidence of their constituents, and that it was impossible they could do so so long as the present causes of complaint existed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Leahy.)
  MR. TOTTENHAM, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months, said, as he understood the measure, its object was to insure the holding of office by the representatives of the Land League for the period of three years instead of one, and, in districts where that wicked and inhuman organization had no power, to throw the nomination of the Poor Law Guardians into the hands of the Roman Catholic Clergy. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) said he considered voting by the cumulative vote an abuse.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he referred to the proxy vote. The Bill did not deal with the property vote.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that being so, he had nothing further to say upon the point. The hon. Member for Car-low also stated that intimidation had been constantly used by bailiffs and agents of landlords, and in some cases by the Roman Catholic Clergy. He said that intimidation on the part of the representatives of the landlords was not likely to be repeated; but he did not say that it was not likely to be repeated on the part of the other intimidators, the Roman Catholic Clergy, whose influence had been used in the most illegitimate manner at Parliamentary and Municipal elections. Looking to the part taken by those gentlemen in the support and in active advocacy of the principles of the Land League, he trusted that the House would hesitate before placing this new weapon in their hands. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months"—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that he rose thus early in the debate for the purpose of stating that it was his intention to support the second reading of this Bill. As he understood the Bill, it was a measure intended to correct abuses, and to require all whom the law invested with the right of voting for the Board of Guardians to exercise their right on their individual responsibility. In his opinion, the less the people were led in such matters the better it would be for the general community, and the more they were called upon to act for themselves the better security we should have for good order. It would be better that the voter should walk to the polling booth and record his vote, under any conditions of secrecy that might be imposed, rather than that voting papers should be left by a policeman one day and called for the next. What they had to determine, in the first place, was whether this Bill was necessary, and that depended on whether any abuses existed under the present system which required to be remedied. In reference to this point, he might observe that the Committee which was appointed in 1878 to inquire
  932
  into the subject, and which was of a cosmopolitan character, comprising hon. Members from both sides of the House who were practically acquainted with the municipal affairs of Ireland, and who were men of great knowledge and of business habits, had reported—
  "That the abuse and inconvenience of the voting paper system as at present carried out were very great; that intimidation, tampering, and forgery of papers were practised, and frequently voters did not receive their papers at all, and in other cases they were invalidated from 'trifling technical errors.'"
  He asked the House whether a system which admitted of these irregularities deserved to be supported? He would not occupy the time of the House by referring, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had so moderately and clearly done, to the evidence given by that distinguished official, Mr. Banks, who probably knew more about the working of the Poor Law system than any man in Ireland. One of the principal objections taken by Mr. Banks to the introduction of the ballot was that secrecy could hardly be secured to illiterate persons; but it appeared that Mr. Banks had then altogether overlooked the provisions of the Ballot Act for securing secrecy. When the Committee to which he referred held its sittings the Ballot Act was on its trial, and the system was hardly understood in the different aspects in which it was intended to be applied in the country. But they had now had a long experience of the Ballot Act, and he asked was there any Member of the House prepared to go back to the system of open voting in existence before? ["No, no!"] Then, why should not the system be extended to all cases in which they wished to secure the independence of the voter? He cared not by whom intimidation was practised; it ought to be put a stop to. If it were desirable that the independence of the voter should be secured in the case of a Parliamentary election, it was still more desirable that that independence should be maintained in the case of an election of the Board of Guardians, whose power was exercised at the doors of the voters, who had the control of their roads, and of almost all public matters in their immediate neighbourhood. It was most important, therefore, that the voters should exercise their right of voting free from intimidation and from undue influence,

  933
  and with a due sense of their responsibility. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) objected to the triennial period, and was afraid Guardians would be elected by the influence of the Land League; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) wanted to prevent that influence, and therefore he supported the Bill. The object of the Bill was to prevent the election of Guardians by any such influence, and the first step towards that was to make the voters independent. He believed, in addition to the almost unanimous opinion of the Committee of 1878 in favour of triennial election, that it was the general feeling in England that Guardians should hold office for three years; but it was further urged that in all of the public bodies there was a system of election by rotation, so as to prevent all the old members from going out together, and a fresh set coming in who would possess no acquaintance with their duties, and that if this triennial system were adopted with reference to Poor Law elections a new Board, unacquainted with the business it would have to perform, might be elected every third year. That objection was purely theoretical. He did not suppose it ever happened in Ireland that an entire Board of Guardians went out at any election. On the contrary, from their position and influence in the district, most of the Guardians were sure to be re-elected. Assuming that the three years' tenure of office tended to make Guardians independent, he was in favour of that tenure. It would probably be also less expensive than the present system of annual elections. The Bill was framed with extreme moderation, and with great consideration for existing arrangements. As he understood it, it did not propose to interfere with any existing votes, and that all it did was to require the personal exercise of the vote. The franchise was not altered, the votes of property and of occupiers remained the same, while the personal exercise of the vote would be much less embarrassing when it was only to be exercised triennially. It did not lay down hard-and-fast lines, but gave the Local Government Board power to make the election rules. The Local Government Board had come in for some hard knocks in the House; but he must confess he still had confidence in it. He thought there were a few alterations on points of
  934
  detail which he should be disposed to make in the measure in Committee, and this he reserved the right to himself to do. Believing the Bill did not interfere with any right of property, that it would assist in establishing individual responsibility among the people of Ireland in the exercise of the franchise, and would at the same time secure independence, he should give it his cordial support.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he could not take the same view of this proposal as that taken by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and he should feel it his duty, if they went to a division, to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leitrim. He would not follow the abstract arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the question of the ballot. The principle of the Bill under discussion had been rejected by the able Committee which sat to consider the question in 1878. That Committee had been described as a cosmopolitan one. Whatever that term might mean, the Committee was certainly a good one. It thoroughly thrashed out the subject, and very frankly stated in its Report the arguments in favour of the Bill which it had seen fit to reject. The question was considered with reference to England and Scotland, as well as Ireland; but for neither of those countries had any Bill similar to that now under their discussion been brought forward. He should like to know how the owners of property were to have their proper weight in Poor Law elections if this system was carried out? It was quite true that on the last occasion when this subject was brought up he moved the Previous Question, and he did so because a Committee was then sitting, charged with the business of investigating this very matter. The Committee of 1878 was not so much in favour of altering the present system as had been represented. Several witnesses condemned the present system, but others had proved that the system was convenient as affording the greatest facilities for every class. Mr. Banks stated that, in his opinion, the present system of election was the simplest, the most efficacious, and cheapest. The question of election by ballot came prominently before the Committee, and the system was objected to by some witnesses on account of the increased in-

  935
  convenience it would entail as compared with the present system, by reason of imposing on the voter the necessity of attending to record his vote, and of its unsuitableness to plurality of voting. It was for these reasons, amongst others, that he was opposed to the Bill. The Committee, by a majority, found that it was not desirable to apply the ballot to the election of Poor Law Guardians. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) was in a terrible state of mind about voting by proxy, and before the Committee he formulated a paragraph which he proposed should be introduced into the Report, and which summed up in the most forcible manner what he conceived to be the abuses of the system. The Committee admitted that there were some abuses in connection with it; but they added that in certain cases it was a most valuable mode of recording one's vote, and on a division the hon. Member stood alone—in a minority of 1—in support of his paragraph. The hon. Gentleman who sat behind him (Mr. Tottenham) had raised the point as to what sort of Guardians were likely to be elected if the proposal was agreed to? He did not want to enter into that large question. He very much agreed in what the hon. Gentleman said as to Guardians being elected for three years; but they must not look at the matter as merely for the present, but must look forward a little. As long as there was life there was hope, and he did not yet despair that some time or other, almost hopeless as the case might seem, a better state of things might arise in Ireland. But it was a mere mockery to say that the laws enacted in Parliament had at present any force in Ireland. The objections he had raised were not of a polemical or Party nature at all; they were difficulties which beset the progress of such a proposal as this with regard to England and Scotland. His right hon. and learned Friend opposite entirely supported the Bill. The measure was one of extreme importance, and in his opinion it was one that, if introduced at all, ought to be made a Government measure. Although his right hon. and learned Friend, with a light heart, gave his assent to this proposal with regard to Ireland, he would like to know what Her Majesty's Government, who were always for assimilating the laws of these countries, intended to do with respect
  936
  to England and Scotland? If his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment went to a division, he would certainly support him.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he was glad that the Government showed no hesitation in supporting the second reading of this Bill. He did not think it possible to adduce a stronger argument for the passing of this measure than the Report of the Select Committee of 1878. They reported, emphatically and distinctly, that all the Irish witnesses examined were in favour of the alteration of the system of voting by ballot. The Irish witnesses who were in favour of the present system were officials; while the non-official witnesses condemned it. He had sat for 12 or 14 years, both as an elected and an ex-officio Guardian, and he had no hesitation in saying that nothing could be more mischievous than the present system of election. A crowd followed the policeman leaving the papers at the houses of the electors, and the unfortunate voter was surrounded by the friends of both candidates; and the fact was that at present, in connection with the election of Poor Law Guardians, there was no such thing as freedom of election. Notwithstanding the evidence of Mr. Banks, it was not possible for a solid or substantial argument to be used against the passing of this Bill; and when Municipal Corporations and Members of Parliament were elected by ballot, what reason could be adduced why Poor Law Guardians should not be elected by the same system? He could quite understand how the hon. Member for Leitrim's political vision was distorted, and why he saw in every Irish measure a Land League scheme. But, speaking as an Ulster Member—and in Ulster they knew nothing of the intimidation of the Land League—he could say that no difference of opinion existed among the Ulster Members as to the desirability of having Poor Law Guardians' elected by ballot. If the hon. Member for Leitrim wanted to get rid of the intimidation of the Land League, the bailiff, or anyone else, he could not do better than give the voter the protection of the ballot. He was glad the Government intended to support the second reading, and after that stage he hoped they would give some facilities for passing the Bill into law.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, after the excellent and very reasonable speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he thought it unnecessary to prolong the conversation to any extent. It seemed that it was only on Wednesday that he and his Friends could enjoy the luxury of agreement with Her Majesty's Government, and of seeing their arguments not only adopted by the Government, but so well supplemented as they had been to-day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comprised the object of the Bill in a single sentence, when he said that the object of the Bill was to recognize and protect the freedom and conscience of the individual voters. Moreover, his right hon. and learned Friend embedded in his speech one or two remarks which he would like to see illuminated as political maxims, and hung up in whatever room the Cabinet met to discuss the affairs of Ireland. He had not much fault to find with the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket); but he might say it was a black-letter speech, or a technical plea. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of those exceedingly artful speakers who employed the perfection of their artfulness in order to conceal their art. He dealt what was as nearly as his courtly nature would allow a rebuke to the hon. Member for Leitrim for dragging the large question of the Land League into the scope of the second reading of this modest Bill, and then he proceeded to say the laws passed in that House had at present no force in Ireland. It was very singular that that remark was never made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the proposal was to pass a restrictive measure for Ireland. They should not forget the fact that 500 or 600 of their countrymen were now in gaol in Ireland, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that at present the law had no force in Ireland. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), like the character in Dickens's novel who was always bringing into his conversation the subject of King Charles's head, had dragged the Land League into that discussion. In fact, the hon. Gentleman could not deliver his sentiments for a moment on any imaginable topic with-
  938
  out referring to that "inhuman and wicked association." The reason of this was not far to seek. The Land League had extended its protection to the tenants whom the hon. Gentleman had evicted and cast out upon the highway, and therefore it was perfectly natural that he should attack the Land League in return whenever he had the opportunity. There was no orator in the House of Commons who made such liberal draughts on the adjectives as that hon. Gentleman; but he might remind him that the adjective taken alone did not make any solid form of argument. It was a curious fact that the only opposition offered to that small and inadequate Bill for the good of Ireland came from the immediate Representatives of the landlord class in that country. It was notorious that the country had been administered solely hitherto in the interest of the landlord class; and when it was said that, according to the objects of the Bill, the representatives of the Land League should be put into the various offices, the meaning was that men who were in sympathy with the electors should hold those offices instead of those mean creatures, the followers of the landlords in Ireland. It was wonderful that any man of the experience and sagacity of the hon. Gentleman should think that, when the citadel of the landlord class in Ireland had been battered down, he could any longer defend the outworks of their stronghold.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he had received many communications on that subject from persons on both sides of politics, some of whom thought it would be very advantageous, from a Conservative point of view, if the ballot were adopted at the election of Guardians. Among those communications was the following, which, with the permission of the House, he would read:—
  "Honoured Sir,—There was a deal more rows about the election of Guardians than the election for the county. I was bothered entirely between them, and the ballot would be a grand thing, for a man could say and do what he liked. Mr.—was pressing me one way, and I was not wanting to offend him, and how did I know but what the reduction would be depending upon it. Three shillings in the pound we are expecting, and the boys on the other side going for ruin like mad, and am bound to get a taste of the stick. I gave them the slip to go to the funeral of my cousin and forgot to fill it in the paper at all; but I am very sorry

  939
  ever since, because if I had voted I would have only had one party against me, and now I have got the two, and them calling me a snake. So I hope your honour will get me the ballot against next year."
  He would add nothing, but simply support the Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the Attorney General for Ireland had departed on that occasion from the usual prudence of his Profession by going beyond his brief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that no man objected to vote by ballot at Parliamentary elections, or would wish to return to the former mode of voting. Now, he protested against the doctrine that the ballot in itself was a good thing, and that there was not a man in the House who objected to it. Every honest Member of the Tory Party must admit that a most disgraceful system of voting by ballot now existed. The ballot had been brought in by the Liberal Party professedly to put down corruption; but it had increased corruption, because it had enabled men to take bribes from both sides, and to tell falsehoods. Again, he maintained that the time was inopportune for bringing in a Bill of that kind. It reminded him of the saying about Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Murder now stalked through Ireland, and the Government looked coldly on, the Prime Minister intimating that he did not know whether he would bring forward any measures to restore peace and the authority of the law, because he did not know whether he could get the clôture passed by the House. He (Mr. Warton) wished to have no more Irish legislation until Ireland was at peace, and the supremacy and authority of the law were asserted. All these questions were comparatively trumpery so long as the Queen's supremacy was not enforced. It was idle for the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to attempt to ridicule the frequent references made to the Land League in their discussions. The fact was that the Land League was everywhere, and the Government knew it, but did not suppress it as they ought to and could have done if they had used more vigorous measures. The clause which required that everyone should attend in person to vote was a disfranchising clause, because at present votes could be given without personal attend-
  940
  ance. He was in favour of taking the votes at Parliamentary elections by means of voting papers.
  COLONEL NOLANrose to Order. He wished to know whether it was regular to discuss the clauses of a Bill on a Motion for the Second Reading?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that such a course was irregular, unless the clause so discussed raised some principle of the Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, and conclude by expressing his determination to oppose the further progress of this measure by every means in his power.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that, as Chairman of a very large Union in Ireland, he wished to give his support to this Bill; and he hoped that the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken would not persevere in his intention to block the Bill, as the Government had adopted its principle. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had represented his hon. Friend the Member for the County Carlow (Mr. Gray) as having said that the Roman Catholic Clergy interfered much in these elections. Now, what he understood his hon. Friend to say was that the elections were interfered with equally by clergymen of all denominations. In his part of the country the Clergy interfered very little in Poor Law elections. In future he believed that these elections would turn less upon Land League or Catholic questions than upon questions of expenditure, and the ballot would promote the return of Guardians pledged to economy. The objections raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) were exactly the same as those which the Tory Party used at the introduction of the Ballot Bill for Parliamentary elections. At that time the Conservatives, seeing that it was impossible to stand against the feeling in the country and in Parliament in favour of that measure, took the course of raising a number of technical objections. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that plural voting could not be worked under this Bill; but it was hard to understand what difficulty could arise in a voter having to fill up a dozen papers instead of one. As to the illiterate voter, he must be got rid of—he must be handed a paper

  941
  like anyone else, and if he filled it up wrongly he must surfer the loss of his vote; but there would not be one in a hundred who would be so stupid. The ballot for Poor Law elections must be adopted first in either England or Ireland; and it was of ten times more consequence to Ireland, where many Boards of Guardians were like County Municipalities, and the constituencies were mostly small farmers, who felt the want of the ballot. It was natural that the demand should come first from Ireland; and if the Bill were blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—who, however, might relent in this case when he saw what was the wish of the Irish Members—he trusted that the Government would defeat his obstruction by giving facilities for the progress of the Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was glad that the Government had at last opened their eyes to the expediency of permitting this very much needed Bill to pass through the House. It was a very small Bill, but one very much required in many parts of Ireland, and would simply have the effect of giving freedom of judgment to the men entitled to vote. The existing system was the cause of very great abuses, and he had known voters over and over again to destroy their papers by voting for both candidates when only entitled to vote for one, acting under representations from the agents. He had often heard men say they would be very glad to be rid of the vote altogether in consequence of the intimidation to which it had laid them open. This measure would give freedom of action to the small holders throughout the country, and they were the men who most required it. It did not at all affect property votes, but merely did away with deputies and asked men to vote for themselves. He hoped, therefore, that if any obstruction were offered the Government would give facilities for the passage of the Bill, and bring it to a successful issue this Session.
  MR. FINDLATERcould not allow the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridport to pass without expressing his opinion that the best mode of making Her Majesty's Government respected in Ireland was by passing good and just laws. He intended to support this Bill in its integrity. When ho first read the Bill he did not approve of the sections
  942
  which required the personal attendance of voters; but, having heard the able arguments in favour of it put forward by the hon. Member for Carlow, he felt that his first impression was erroneous. The arguments from the Conservative Leaders against the Bill did not possess the slightest weight. The Attorney General for Ireland appeared to have examined the Bill with minuteness and care, and his approval of it did not deserve the description "perfunctory," applied to it by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He could not agree with Members who considered the effect of this Bill would be to enable Roman Catholic clergymen to exercise undue influence. It effect must be quite the contrary. At the last election for the county which he represented, he found a landlord's agent presiding in one of the polling booths, speaking to different voters in the most familiar manner, with the object, no doubt, of influencing their votes. A great many Roman Catholic clergymen were also present; but he did not observe any attempt on their part to interfere with the election. It was a very valuable measure, and would prove most beneficial to Ireland; and he trusted that the dreadful system of blocking would not be employed to defeat it.
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he thought very much credit was due to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) for the manner in which he had presented this Bill. In support of the case made out by the hon. Member, he would mention an instance of proxy voting which occurred a few days ago at the election of Guardians for Rathdrum. A large sheaf of voting papers having been handed in on behalf of Earl Fitzwilliam, a gentleman who attended on the part of the tenant farmers insisted upon seeing them, and found that they did not bear Earl Fitzwilliam's signature, but that they had been signed by some bailiff or under-agent.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the 4th clause, which insisted upon the personal attendance of voters. This absolutely took away all right of voting by proxy, which had existed in Ireland since the institution of the Poor Law system, and still existed in England. To take from the beneficial owners of property all right of voting by proxy would result in the election of a worse class of

  943
  Guardians. He had seen amongst the lowest class of ratepayers' Guardians as great a tendency to "job" as amongst grand jurors. Practically, if this clause passed a person who did not reside in Ireland would not have a vote, although the principle of the Poor Law was not representation of persons, but representation of property. With this reservation he supported the Bill, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would not block it on going into Committee.
  MR. HIBBERTbegged to assure his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Plunket), who had made some reference to his absence from the discussion, that he entirely sympathized with the objects of the Bill. When he moved for the appointment of a Committee on this subject in 1878, he included Ireland and Scotland in his Motion, because he thought if it was desirable to consider the law with regard to England, it was equally desirable to consider it as regarded Ireland and Scotland. He had a very strong opinion that when they were considering any question of administration it was desirable to consider it as regarded the Three Countries, and not as it affected one country separately. On that Committee they had the presence of several hon. Members for Ireland, and many witnesses from Ireland were examined, and the evidence of the majority was decidedly in favour of an alteration of the present system. He could not, of course, speak of the necessity of an alteration in Ireland so strongly as he could with regard to the necessity of it in England. He believed that in the large towns of England a strong feeling existed as to the importance of altering the present system of electing Guardians. In Lancashire great excitement very often arose in connection with those elections, because they were made political elections like most other elections in that county; and the abuses were so great and so objectionable, that he had been pressed over and over again by gentlemen representing both sides of politics to push forward as far as possible this question. He did not think that in Lancashire there was any subject upon which a stronger and more unanimous opinion prevailed than the subject of altering the present system of electing Guardians and substituting the
  944
  ballot for the voting papers now used. He would go further, and say that all elections should be by ballot where it was possible or desirable to have it. He would not confine the ballot mainly to Poor Law Guardians, but would extend it to Local Board and other elections. Therefore, speaking for himself personally and not as a Member of the Government, he entirely sympathized with the Bill, and hoped it would soon become law. With respect to the 4th clause, which necessitated the attendance of the voter at the polling booth, of course there was much to be said on both sides; but that was a matter for discussion in Committee. The great objection to the present proposal when it was brought before the Committee was that of expense; but he thought that had been met by the proposal to make the tenure of office three years instead of one.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 31: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS EXPENSES BILL.— [BILL 34.]
(Mr. Ashton Dilke, Mr. Barran, Mr. Burt.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. ASHTON DILKE, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: Sir, the measure, as I introduce it to the House, may be divided into two parts, the latter of which, I think, may be taken almost as a necessary corollary of the first. The first portion of the Bill provides for the payment of the absolutely necessary expenses—the expenses of Returning Officers—of a Parliamentary election out of the local rates; but the second part of the Bill is new, although its provisions are adopted in almost every foreign country. A measure with a similar intention to that contained in the proposals of the first part has frequently been proposed to this House; but the principle of the second portion of the Bill has been passed over altogether. The measure is one which has been very closely identified with the name of my

945
right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) when he was an independent Member. It was brought in as an Amendment to a Corrupt Practices Bill, introduced by a Conservative Government, and it was carried by a small majority; but not meeting with the approval of the Government, they succeeded in procuring a majority against the proposal on Report, and on the third reading of the Bill it was cut out of it by a still larger majority. The proposal was again introduced in 1872 by the right hon. Gentleman when the Ballot Bill was before the House. It received the approval of the Liberal Government of the day; but it was not carried, and has not since been renewed. Therefore, the Bill I have now to introduce to this House has, on a previous occasion, been carried in the teeth of a Conservative Government, and rejected in spite of the approval of the Liberal Government. I hope that it will be more fortunate on the present occasion, and that it will receive the support of a majority of the new House of Commons. The chief, and, in fact, the only grave objection raised against the Bill, on the Conservative side, is simply the question of cost. In connection with that point, I have been engaged during the past Recess in speaking to a good many meetings in various parts of the country on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and included in that was this question of payment of election expenses out of the rates. I have brought it forward in order to ascertain the feeling of the working classes on the subject; and I venture to say, though it is a proposal to put on the shoulders of the ratepayers certain expenses, yet of all the propositions I have submitted to the various meetings I have not found one which is more thoroughly popular, or where the working classes of the Kingdom more thoroughly see the advantage they will gain by the carrying out of the proposal, which, is not to be weighed in the same balance with the very trifling expenditure it will involve. When the proposal was first brought forward there were no Members of this House who could fairly lay claim to the title of being direct Representatives of the working classes; but in the present Parliament we have at last secured the presence of several hon. Gentlemen who come directly under that description, and who
946
are intimately connected with the working class interest, and so far the object of the Bill may be said to have been attained; for although my right hon. Friend, in introducing it, deprecated its being a measure exclusively for the benefit of working men, or calculated to secure the return of working men, there can be no doubt that it was generally so accepted by the House, and that that was the general impression conveyed to the country. But even if it were not desirable to increase the representation of that class, there is another class to whom the franchise may, before many years, be given, to which this Bill will apply with greater force than the working classes. I refer to the agricultural labourer. With regard to that class, a Conservative Statesman has lately said that he would be glad to see them represented; and if that feeling had been shared by his Party, it ought not to have been difficult for that Party to let the labourers have one of the county seats which were at the command of the Party; but the remark referred to is, perhaps, to be regarded rather as a Platonic expression. I think, however, it will be admitted that a candidate of the agricultural labourers would find considerable difficulty in raising even the comparatively small sum necessary for the payment of the Returning Officer's expenses, if there should not be an extension of the law in the direction which I propose. I believe that even those expenses will be considerably diminished if this Bill is passed. The expenses to the community at large, I believe, will be considerably reduced. I found my argument on the facts as to the expenditure at the last General Election in 1880. The Return, which gives the expenses of the Returning Officers, and, at the same time, the general expenses of the Election, is an instructive one, because it shows that the Returning Officers' expenses vary enormously in different constituencies. At Abingdon, where 900 electors were polled, the Returning Officer's expenses were£177, giving an average of 4s. per elector; but in Barnstaple, where 1,650 electors were polled, the expenses were£92, a cost of 1s. 2d. per head. Taking boroughs of medium size, I find that at Warrington, where 6,000 electors were polled, the Returning Officer's expenses amounted to£630, or about 2s. per

947
head; whereas, at Burnley, where I suppose the electors were moved by the economy which distinguishes their Representative, 7,600 were polled at an expenditure of£153, or 5d. per head. Coming to the very large boroughs, I find that in Lambeth 50,000 electors were polled at an expenditure of£1,557, being an average of about 8d. per head; but in Leeds, the polling of 49,000 electors only cost£559, or 3d. per head. I think that demonstrates very clearly that wherever we find inequalities of this kind we may assume that the lower value and not the higher value is the true one; and, therefore, I think I should not be taking too sanguine a view if I say that if this Bill were passed the Returning Officers' expenses generally would be diminished, possibly by more than one-half, because, as the expenditure would be met by the various Municipalities, it would be open to criticism and revision. As it is, the cost is almost ridiculously small. I have estimated that the total cost of the average annual rate required will amount to one-eighth of a farthing in the pound—that is to say, if we take the cost of a General Election—and the fact is that we have one every four years on the average—we find that it would require a rate of half-a-farthing in the pound for the year of the Election. I know, however, that there is a very great objection to do anything which would tend to increase the local rates, the whole theory of the Conservative Party at present being to throw local rates as much as possible, not on local bodies, but upon the Consolidated Fund. There will, however, be far less likelihood of extravagance if the expenses are thrown on the rates than there will be if they are paid out of the Consolidated Fund; and a Motion to make the expenditure Imperial has been already rejected by a large majority. We are told that if this Bill is passed, we shall see a greater number of candidates than we do at the present moment. I am inclined to think that is true only to a limited extent; and, if it is true, I am inclined to think it is not an unmitigated evil. I believe it would be better for this House if, instead of being divided into Liberal and Conservative camps, we had an independent feeling which, under the provisions of the Bill, I think we should have. One important fact should not
948
be forgotten in connection with the question. There are constituencies in the United Kingdom which have never been contested on account of the enormous expense that would be incurred; and I contend that it would be better to have a surplus of candidates than we should have such a gross scandal as we have—namely, some constituencies in which there have not been contests for a quarter of a century, or, as in some cases, since the passing of the first Reform Act. The practice of foreign countries is favourable to my proposal. In a Return published last year it is set forth that in Austria, Hungary, France, and Italy, all necessary election expenses are paid out of national money—that is, out of the Consolidated Funds. In Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark, the election expenses are paid out of the local rates, as I propose in the present Bill. These facts show that there is a universal consensus of opinion that the necessary expenses should be paid by the electors themselves, and not by the candidates. The candidate, by offering himself to a constituency to serve them, confers a great favour on a constituency; and the expenses that a candidate would, in any case, have to incur, would, no doubt, be heavy enough. It may be said that the Returning Officers' expenses amount to but a small proportion of the whole expenditure; but that is not so, for although in many cases the saving of the official expenses will make but little difference to the candidates, still, in the case of working-men candidates, it will be found that the Returning Officers' expenses amount to a considerable proportion of the whole expenses incurred on their behalf. There is, no doubt, the evil of the multiplication of candidates as a possible one to be guarded against if this Bill be passed; and several proposals have been made with regard to this evil. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson), as far as I know, however, has proposed the only one likely to be available—namely, that a candidate not polling a certain number of votes should be fined a fixed sum, or compelled to pay his share of the election expenses; but it is open to many of the same objections as the present plan, and therefore I propose a better method, and a method which is uniformly adopted in almost every other

949
country, and the second part of the Bill, which has not yet been mooted in this country, has been brought in to effect that purpose. I propose, in the second part of the Bill, that if a candidate does not gain an absolute majority of the electors he shall not be elected, and that there shall be a second election, to be decided by a relative majority of votes. A sub-section of the clause also omits what are known as the three-cornered constituencies, where it would be difficult to apply the section. I trust, however, before the Bill passes into law, that three-cornered constituencies will have gone the way of all flesh. I should now like to say a few words with regard to the proceedings of the various political associations that have sprung up on both sides during the last few years. When I first brought in this Bill there was a division taken upon it, and in the course of some discussion, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) said he regarded the Bill with suspicion, as I was the nominee of a Caucus—that very much dreaded and detested body. Well, Sir, I can say that the provisions of the Bill are meant, if to do anything, to neutralize the power of the Caucus. If a candidate is appointed by the managers of a Party that the electors do not like, the electors have at present no power to object to the selection made. For instance, at Wigan, during the spring of last year, there was a contested election, when there were two candidates in the field. The borough is one which contains a considerable Irish vote, and where, the working-man element being rather strong, it might be presumed that there was also a certain amount of the English vote which was opposed to the Government on the burning question—namely, the application of exceptional laws to Ireland. What happened was this. The Conservative went to the poll on the ordinary platform of the Party, and the Liberal went to the poll, and, in order to secure the Irish vote, pledged himself to oppose the Bill which the Government was then fighting for so determinedly in the House. Therefore, those Liberals who voted for that candidate were in the position of persons who voted against the Government; and the result of that was that if a moderate Liberal elector of that constitency wanted to show he supported the Government
950
in the crisis, he had only the option of voting for the Conservative candidate, and the Liberal candidate, in spite of the Irish vote, was thrown out by a considerable majority. What I contend is, that if this Bill had been in operation we should have had three candidates—a Conservative candidate, a candidate receiving the support of the Irish electors, and a candidate who would have received the votes of the Ministerialists in the borough; and I think it would have been a valuable indication to the Government if they had been able, without having the accusation of splitting the Party cast in their teeth, to run such candidates as would have given them a clear test of the feeling of the country. In that way they would have been able to have learnt whether it was with them or against them. With regard to the action of Liberal associations throughout the country, that action, as is well known, has been introduced very largely in order to prevent splits in the Party organization, and the running of superfluous candidates; and that they succeeded at the last General Election, in 1880, is evident from the fact that there is only one seat in the Kingdom—that in the Tower Hamlets—which has been lost to the Party, and which did not finally result in representing the feelings of the electors, as there were too many candidates running for the seat, and votes were thrown away upon candidates who had no chance of success. In 1874 we find that no less than 13 seats were absolutely thrown away by the fact of so many splits taking place in the ranks of the Liberal Party, in consequence of which candidates were run upon whom votes were thrown away, and which, if they had been given to another candidate, would have been sufficient to carry the election. Whilst I say this, I do not wish to see standing at every election a cut-and-dried Liberal or a cut-and-dried Conservative, for I hold that we should have independent candidates as well as independent speech in a constituency. Under the present system, however, we have sometimes found that a candidate will go down to a constituency and will be addressed by a minority of the electors, who hold strong views on some particular point. He will be asked to give a pledge on some particular question, and he consents, often to the detriment of his own

951
moral character, either because he knows that he is not likely to have the opportunity practically to carry it out, or because he will be able in some way to get out of his pledge in the future. We have seen that to be the case on both sides, in order to secure the Irish vote, or the temperance vote, or the suffrages of those in favour of the county franchise. But if there was such a law as is proposed in the machinery of the Bill, each Party would be enabled to bring forward a candidate of its own, and so discover what was the exact amount of support that would be given to their views, so that if their candidate was beaten he could retire before the second ballot. In foreign countries the system I propose is almost of universal application; and there the question of expenditure is really considered to be one of no practical importance at all. In England, which is much wealthier than other countries, the question of expenditure will be still more insignificant and trifling. I do not believe that second elections in this country would number one in 40, although in Continental countries they number one in six or one in eight, because among our own political Parties it is a settled custom to run a Liberal against a Conservative. Nor do I believe that the expense of elections, once placed in the hands of Municipalities, would be large. In conclusion, I will give expression to the hope that the Government will assist me to carry the Bill, which I believe will be found a successful measure, and not an unpopular one in the country. I beg to move its second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ashton Dilke.)
MR. J. E. YORKE, in opposing the Motion, said, that, in his opinion, it was not expedient to charge any portion of the expenses of Parliamentary candidates upon the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) seemed to be one of those happy people who took a delight in all proceedings connected with elections, and who thought those proceedings could not be too much prolonged. He appeared to approach the question from a feeling that the more the candidates the merrier would be the contest; but that was not his (Mr. J. R. Yorke's)
952
own feeling when he contemplated the number of candidates which would be started by the crotchetmongers throughout the country, and the prolonged turmoil which would be inevitable through the two contests it was now proposed to institute instead of one election. He therefore condemned the proposal as unnecessary and, to some extent, cruel to the candidates, as subjecting them to additional torture. The expense of an election depended upon the time it occupied; and under the Bill there would be a period before nomination, the period between the nomination of the first election, and then a period of not less than five, and not more than eight, days before the second election. What the consequent expense would be he would leave to the imagination of hon. Members, who already smarted under the cost of the present system, with its official, its permissive, and its illegitimate heads of expenditure. The measure had, indeed, so narrow a scope that it would scarcely be worth opposition were it not for the principle which it involved. Besides, there were several expenses attendant upon a Parliamentary election; but the Bill dealt with only one, and no adequate reason had been shown for transferring the expense of elections from persons now willing to bear it to persons who would be very unwilling to bear it indeed—namely, the ratepayers. The hon. Member had referred to other countries; but he had not attempted to show that the system in operation there was attended by any special advantages. If the present election arrangements were to be interfered with at all, he thought there was an overwhelming case in favour of placing such charges on the National Exchequer, for he was at a loss to see how the expenses of the election of Members of Parliament who were to deal with Imperial interests could fairly be made a charge upon the rates. The ratepayers, indeed, were at present looking forward to the promised settlement of the whole question rather in the direction of relief than of an increase of their burdens, as was now proposed. The second part of the proposal was entirely new to the English Constitution, and he was opposed to it on the ground that it would needlessly multiply contests, introduce into public life the unpleasantness inevitable to prolonged strife, and lower

953
the character of the Representatives of the people in that House. A class of candidates would, no doubt, be enabled to come forward who were at present debarred from doing so; but men were what their opportunities made them, and, as a rule, it was not desirable that a working man should represent a large body of his fellow-countrymen. In the ranks of labour men of exceptional gifts were occasionally found. Such men had done honour to their order in that House, and no one could pretend that the question of money had ever jeopardized their election. Funds for popular candidates were always forthcoming. He did not believe that any genuine working-class representative was ever prevented by the want of pecuniary means from being elected to that House. The real difficulty with working men was how to support themselves when they were in the House of Commons, seeing that an annual subsidy, which would be requisite for the purpose, was different from a lump sum. He thought it unfair to throw the cost of the Bribery Commissioners upon the ratepayers belonging to the incriminated boroughs; and especially there was one point which he wished to put forward, and that was what the position of women would be under this Bill. He had always held that a woman who was in possession of property, or who occupied a house which would entitle a man to a vote, ought not to be prevented from voting. He had never gone further. Now, in the case of a Bribery Commission, it appeared very hard that women who had never had an opportunity of being bribed or of demonstrating their superior virtue, should be called upon to pay for the misconduct of their male neighbours who enjoyed the franchise. But this Bill would inflict a permanent, instead of an occasional, injustice, for those women would be charged with a rateable proportion of the costs of elections. He trusted the House would not accept this measure. He noticed that the silver side of the shield was turned towards them, and that Ministers who before supported the measure were now conspicuous by their absence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, indeed, in 1871, said that, partly by their own fault and partly by the fault of others, Her Majesty's Government
954
had fallen out with more than one class of the community; they had fallen out with the Army and with the licensed victuallers; but that Bill would do still greater mischief, because it would throw further taxation on the shoulders of the whole community. But, if that was the case in 1871, the argument was still stronger now, seeing that since then the community had been made to suffer from the imposition of additional burdens, such as the Education rate and other charges. He was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had come into the House. In 1871 the right hon. Gentleman somewhat complained of the lukewarm manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with the question. But, in as much as this year a large and comprehensive measure had been brought in by the hon. and learned Attorney General, dealing with all other branches of the Election question, but not mentioning this, he trusted the Government had changed their minds, and would not be found voting for the second reading. For his own part, he felt he had discharged his duty to the long-suffering ratepayers by resisting this attempt to throw an additional burden upon backs too little able to bear this grievance.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid, it was with very great pleasure that he had observed that the hon. Gentleman who had opposed the Motion for the second reading of the Bill (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had said very little in favour of the course he had taken, and practically nothing against the clause which provided for the Returning Officers' expenses. It was in that clause he (Mr. Broadhurst) was chiefly interested. In effect, it was not wholly one for the purpose of relieving working men from the difficulties of Parliamentary expenses; but it was a proposal rather for the object of giving a wider choice of candidates to the constituencies. There were two questions always put when the name of a candidate was mentioned. The first probably was, What were his politics? And the second was sure to be, What was his power to meet the expenses of the election? And it was very often the case that the second question ultimately came to be the most important, because, whatever his politics might be, or his capacity to represent the constituency faithfully, unless he was able to meet

955
the enormous cost of the election, his chance of being returned was poor indeed. In his opinion, the ratepayers ought to bear the burden of the expenses; and, whilst the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had shown that under it the additional cost to the rates would be very small indeed—so small that it was hardly worthy of discussion—yet the advantages to the candidate would be enormous, the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) said that working men would find very little difficulty in meeting the cost of Parliamentary contests. He begged to assure the hon. Member that that was not the case. The difficulties were enormous indeed, and one of the most aggravating and irksome difficulties was that of the Returning Officers' charges. By the recent laws regulating elections, it was necessary for a candidate to pay a deposit before he could legally become a candidate at all, and that brought about in some cases a most peculiar and contradictory state of things. In his (Mr. Broadhurst's) own case, in the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, there were four candidates at the last General Election. His hon. Colleague, and those upon his side, were hoping they would be reduced to three. He himself was secretly praying that there would be either five or only two, because, according to the number of candidates on the day of nomination would be the relative cost to each. As it was, he found very great difficulty to obtain the£250 that he had to pay way by of deposit before he could be legally a candidate. That was an obstacle that Parliament should remove at once; and, as a matter of good taste, all rich men who were capable of meeting the expenses should vote for the Bill in order to remove the difficulties that stood in the way of their less fortunate fellow-countrymen. He did not think there was any force in the objection that working men would make frivolous proposals of candidates, as no one would be so interested in keeping the number of candidates down as the ratepayers themselves. He did not believe either that there would be any great increase in the number of labour candidates. With regard to the general opinion on the subject, he could say, from his own experience, that he had never addressed a public meeting during the last two years in aid of a proposal
956
similar to this at which there was any opposition offered to it. Another powerful reason why Parliament should remove these expenses from candidates was, that while they were called upon, and were willing, to pay these large sums of money for seats in Parliament, the constituencies could not be persuaded from the belief that Members had some pecuniary interest in obtaining a seat in the House, their argument being that if there were so many who were willing to pay those large sums for seats in the House there must be some means of recompense. The sooner such an impression was removed the better. He, therefore, cordially supported the second reading, and hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would permit them to take a division upon the question.
MR. GREGORYopposed the Bill, contending that there was no need at the present time for any such legislation, and that no sufficient reason had been shown for any change in the present system. He was unwilling that anything should be added to the already heavy burdens upon the ratepayers, and could not vote for a measure which would impose upon candidates the anxiety of a second election within eight days of the first. He had no confidence in the predictions that the cost would be infinitesimally small, as he had seen so many similar prophecies falsified by the result. Just the same thing had been said of the Education rate, which in some instances had risen to 1s. or 1s. 6d. in the pound. As things were, the present expenses were not generally felt by gentlemen who presented themselves as candidates, or who were properly qualified to be brought forward for seats in the House. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Broadhurst) admitted that labour candidates were not generally prejudiced as things were, and he did not think the Bill would add to their number. But it would, if carried, certainly lead to a large increase in the number of candidates, by encouraging persons to come forward who would not be bonâfide ones, and who, at their own will, would be able to add to the burdens of the locality. It was said that the agricultural labourers would not have the same means of returning their own candidates as were possessed by the large towns. Well, the county franchise had not yet been extended, and that question,

957
therefore, had not yet arisen, But the agricultural labourers had not been unable to provide means for their unions and other objects, and he (Mr. Gregory) did not doubt they would be able to do so also for election purposes. Besides, the Returning Officer's expenses were only a fraction of the total expenses of a candidate, and were far less than the other expenses necessarily incurred. The second part of the Bill, dealing with re-elections in certain cases, he thought was simply extravagant and preposterous, and the result would be to make life intolerable to the man who had to be elected a second time within eight days after his first election. As no benefit would, in his opinion, be derived from the measure, he should decidedly vote against the second reading.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he regretted that he could not support the Bill in its present complex form. The first part of it embraced a proposal he had over and over again supported in the House. Indeed, two Sessions ago he had himself brought in a Bill on the subject. The objection as to the expenses falling on the ratepayers was, in his opinion, of no weight. They would be infinitesimal, and, therefore, he could not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that there would be a pressure on the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr Broadhurst) had shown it would not be a farthing in the pound. But, even if it were otherwise, he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) thought that the ratepayers ought to pay for the privilege of representation in the House of Commons; and the ground upon which he supported the first part of the Bill was not on economic grounds, but because he was of opinion that the present system of payment by Members of the legal machinery for conducting an election was an entire reversal of the principle of representation. If it was a privilege to be represented in the House of Commons, those who enjoyed that privilege ought to pay for the legal machinery which was necessary to conduct the election. The present state of things reversed the relation between the Member and the constituents. Instead of being a person who was conferring a benefit on the community, it represented him him as a person who was receiving a favour at the hands of the constituency.
958
The present system was a prolific source of corruption, because the constituencies were taught to regard the candidate as a person whom they were benefiting. As a rule, only rich men could come forward as candidates, because it was only they who could incur the expenses of election. He himself had fought three contested elections, and, therefore, knew the trouble and misery of a contest. He regretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had introduced the proposal of a second election, as he thought it was useless and dangerous. Life would be positively miserable if a man after going through one contest had to go through a second, and perhaps a third, for there might not be an absolute majority of electors in the second any more than in the first election. Where were they to stop? He was sorry that a useful measure had been spoilt by the introduction of such a proposal. Under the circumstances, he could not support the Bill, though he would not vote against it, because the first part was a proposition of his own. He should walk out without voting. ["No, no!"] He really did not know what the principle of the Bill was—whether it was contained in the former or the latter proposals, and he certainly could not support the latter.
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he opposed the Bill on the ground that it was a proposal to impose additional expense upon the ratepapers of particular localities, which ought to be paid out of the National Exchequer. They had been told that the addition which the proposal of the Bill would make to local rates would be very small. That might be so; but the Conservative Party objected not so much on the matter of cost, as on the matter of principle, and he could not understand, if the House were to pass the Bill, how they could oppose the payment of Members of Parliament. They might depend upon it that, if they conceded this point, the inevitable consequence would be a proposal to pay Members of Parliament. The principle was not a novel one, but had been before the House six or seven times. A Bill to the same effect was introduced in 1867 by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the present Postmaster General, when it was carried by a small majority of about 3. It was again introduced in 1871, when it was strenuously opposed by the

959
hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Home Secretary, both of whom were Tellers against it. The Home Secretary then made a forcible speech on the subject. Proposals to the same effect were brought forward in 1872–3, and defeated by large majorities. The Bill was both impolitic and unjust; impolitic, because it was very undesirable that the Representatives of the people should be more under the control of their constituents than they were at present. They did not want in the House of Commons machines and delegates; they wanted Gentlemen able to exercise their own judgment, and to give their own free expression of opinion upon questions that came before them. If this proposal were carried it would tend to put Members of Parliament more under local influence than they were at present. It was unjust, because owners of personal property would be exempted from paying the expenses; while the owners of real property, already burdened too highly, would have an additional burden thrown upon them in having to defray them. The analogy of Municipal elections did not apply, for the candidates had simply to perform local duties and were elected for local purposes, whereas Members of that House dealt with national matters. The effect of the Bill, too, would be to promote Parliamentary contests, to bring into the field men who were anxious to air their own projects, and largely to increase the number of candidates who would be able to gratify their personal ambition at the expense of the constituency. The local rates had already to bear the expense of registration, which was an expense which ought to fall on the National Exchequer, and he did not wish to go further in the same direction. He was satisfied that the professed object—namely, to introduce more working-class Members of Parliament—would not be secured by the Bill. He did not object to working men's candidates; he should like to see more of them, and he was sure that Conservatives generally would welcome a greater number of them than were in the House at present. But the Bill would not add to their number, while it would certainly interfere most seriously with the dignity, patriotism, and independence of Members of Parliament.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) had just said he would like to see a larger number of labour Representatives in the House, and yet he objected to remove what constituted the chief obstacle in the way of their coming here. The hon. Baronet said the object would not be attained, even if the Bill were carried; and what he meant by that he (Mr. Anderson) supposed was, that the other expenses were so high that still the labour candidates would not be able to secure election. Still, the hon. Baronet said that if the Bill were carried, the number of candidates would be greatly increased; and he (Mr. Anderson) would ask, would not the other expenses tend to check the multiplication of candidates in the same way that it would check the number of labour candidates? The hon. Baronet was not entitled to both of these consequences, but must take the one or the other, as the one destroyed the other. He (Mr. Anderson) thought if the Bill were carried, with certain necessary modifications that it would be requisite to introduce into it in Committee, it would remove the great obstacle that working men had to obtaining seats in Parliament. Already they had a few very able men of that class, and very good Members they were, and he joined with the hon. Baronet in wishing there were more of them, because the number they had was very small as compared with the proportion that working men bore in the electorate. But the principal reason he supported the Bill, or at least the 1st clause, which threw the expenses of the Returning Officer on the constituency, was that the candidate had no sort of control over those expenses. All the other expenses connected with the election were more or less in the hands of the candidate and his committee; but when they came to the expenses of the Returning Officers he was absolutely helpless, and had simply to pay down a large sum of money that was expended by people over whom he had no control. He thought it was a fair argument that in all our other elections the public paid such expenses, not merely the Municipal elections, but the School Board and Parochial Board elections; and he did not see why there should be any difference in Parliamentary elections. He admitted, however, the Bill ought to be guarded;

961
and the Bill, as it stood at present, was entirely unguarded, for there was nothing to prevent any number of candidates coming forward, and there was no kind of stipulation—as there had been in all the other Bills on this subject—that, unless a candidate carried a given proportion of votes, he should be punished by being made to pay the expenses of it, as far as his share of them went. Under the Municipal Election Act, at present candidates had nothing to pay, and the result was sometimes very curious. It happened the other day in his own constituency that one gentleman got himself nominated in some three, four, or five different wards, thus putting all those wards to the expense and trouble of a contest, which was a great abuse; because, if elected in all of them, he could only sit for one. That was an abuse, and in the same way, under this Bill as it stood, a candidate might get himself nominated in a dozen different constituencies, and put them all to the expense of a contest. That would certainly be an abuse; but there was nothing to prevent proper safeguards being put into the Bill at some other stage. As regarded the 2nd clause, he did not take the same view as the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), who declined to vote for the Bill because that clause was in it. He (Mr. Anderson) objected to that clause just as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the course he should take would be to support the Bill in its leading clause, and in Committee endeavour to get the 2nd clause thrown out, and that was the course he would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to take. He thought the 2nd clause was a distinct blot on the Bill. It tended to complicate the matter, and produce a confusion in the desire to support the Bill, which, otherwise, on its merits, the Bill was fairly entitled to. For these reasons he should support the second reading; but would endeavour to get the objectionable clause thrown out afterwards.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he did not consider that there was anything to complain of under the present system. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had stated that he had fought three contested elections. As the hon. and learned Member had won all those elections he had not
962
much reason for complaining. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had fought five contested elections, and only won two. Consequently, he had more reason to complain of the present system than the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury had. It was said that gentlemen were deterred from becoming candidates in consequence of the expense attaching to candidature. When the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General lost his seat for Brighton, the borough of Hackney, at its own expense, returned the right hon. Gentleman. He also believed the return of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for Birmingham did not cost him 1d. He did not think anyone who was sufficiently distinguished for a large number of people to desire to see him in Parliament was ever kept out on the score of expense, while the present system acted as a deterrent to candidates who had no claim to election. He apprehended that the larger the constituencies were the greater would be the number of candidates. If this Bill were passed the country would be flooded with "bogus" candidates, simply desirous of bringing themselves and their crotchets before the public. This would be the case at General Elections, but much more the case at by-elections, where men who were obscure would strive to attain that importance in the country for which a by-election afforded special facilities. It seemed to him that the present system acted as a deterrent upon men coming forward who had no claim to a seat in that House, and who did not enjoy the confidence of any large section of any constituency; and, believing that the Bill, by removing that deterrent, would cause very great evils, he should vote against it.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he rose for the purpose of saying a word or two with respect to the views of the Government on this question. He thought the House must feel a sense of satisfaction at the tone of moderation which had prevailed on both sides. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Ashton Dilke), in introducing the Bill, stated that on the second reading of the Bill, which included the first proposal, in a previous Session, it was carried at that time, although the Government of the day were in opposition to it, the Government of the day being then the Conservative Party; but a little later,

963
when a Liberal Government was in Office, and a similar proposal was made, it was not carried; and he (Mr. Hibbert) thought his better part would be, if he was to offer the support of the Government, to say as little as possible about the former action of Parliament on the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), who had moved the rejection of the Bill, seemed to think he (Mr. Hibbert) was an impartial person in his views on the question; but he was not so impartial as the hon. Member thought, for he had voted on every occasion for the proposal contained in the 1st clause; and, therefore, he had great pleasure now in giving his support to the proposal, and also in giving the support of the Government to it. His hon. Friend had stated that the proposal of the returning expenses was a small matter, and that the amount needed would be very small; but there was no doubt the opposition to the Bill was based not on the amount of the expense thrown on the rates, but on the principle. There was a distinction between this proposal and other matters of expense to which objection was made as falling upon local rates. In this case, the extension of expenditure upon the localities which were interested in the return of Members would be borne by those localities; but if it fell upon the national purse, of course, all persons throughout the country would have to pay, whether they were privileged to return Members or not. Every borough had not the privilege of returning a Member of Parliament; and, certainly, if exceptions were made in cases of this kind, it would not be objected that the expenses should fall rather upon the rates than upon the national purse. It was objected by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) that, if this expense was allowed to fall upon the rates, there would probably before long be a demand that the Members' expenses should be borne in the same way. That he (Mr. Hibbert) considered was a very long way off, and he did not think it was a proposal which would meet with very large support in the present House of Commons, or in the country; and if such a proposition was ever made, it would be upon a fair discussion as to whether the expense of such payment should be thrown on the local rates, or
964
on the national funds. But, upon the main question, as to whether the cost of what were called Returning Officers' expenses—that was, the necessary expenses of the machinery of an election—should be paid by the candidate, or should be paid by the localities interested in the return of the Members, then, he thought, there were very strong reasons why a change should be made, and that the expense should cease to be paid by the candidates, and should be thrown upon the rates. This proposal he did not support merely because its working would admit the working man, because he did not think legislation should be carried out with the view of promoting class interests of any kind; but on broader grounds, he said that what had to do with the proper machinery of returning a Member of Parliament, ought to be not only conducted by the localities interested, but ought to be paid for by them; and he thought it would not be difficult to show that the very fact of candidates being called to pay these necessary expenses had been one very great reason why other expenses which were not so legitimate, and practices which were in a great many cases illegal, had by degrees grown up, and money had been so very lavishly expended in the various elections of the country. On the ground, therefore, that the change would lead to a greater economy, he also supported the proposal. He believed that if elections were conducted at the expense of the locality there would be very much smaller settlements made for Returning Officers' expenses, and that what had been charged in such cases would be found in some cases to far exceed what was necessary for the purpose. He was told on good authority that before the last Election the Returning Officers in the Metropolis held a meeting, at which they came to an agreement to demand even a larger sum for expenses than was allowed under the Act passed a few years ago, and detailed in the Schedule of the Act. On the ground, then, that this measure would clear the way to greater purity of election, as he thought; on the ground, also, of leading to greater economy, and on the ground of giving all classes more freely an opportunity of seeking the suffrages of the various boroughs or counties, he thought the 1st clause of the Bill deserved the support of

965
the House. At the same time he felt bound to say that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in his remarks that the clause did want some provisions which should, to a certain extent, prevent any large acquisition of what were called "bogus" candidates. The Bill of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General did contain such a proposal. It provided that in case a certain proportion of votes was not given for any candidate, a part of the money which had been paid for the Returning Officer's expenses should be taken from him and not returned; but that in the case of a proper proportion of the votes being cast, the amount of money paid for the admission of a candidate should be returned to the candidate. In Committee, he should propose, if the Bill passed the second reading, that some such provision should be made, and probably it would be accepted by his hon. Friend. As to the 2nd clause of the Bill, he must say that he could not give the support of the Government to the proposal except to this extent. The Government were willing that the Bill should be read a second time; but they would take a discussion upon it in Committee, and he did not wish in what he had said to commit the Government in any way upon the 2nd clause. There were, no doubt, great objections against it; and, no doubt, there were strong reasons for it, that some such change was in existence in all countries, with the exception of Spain. With the understanding that the Government were only committed to the second reading of the Bill, and that the 2nd clause was open to question, he should support the Motion.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that it was curious to find that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hibbert), as representing the Government, should get up and say that, although he did not like the Bill as a whole, he was, nevertheless, prepared to give to it the support of the Government. The hon. Gentleman wanted to modify the 1st clause, and said he would oppose the 2nd.
MR. HIBBERT: I ought to have said, if I did not sufficiently explain myself, that if the 1st clause is adopted, it will require some additional provision being made to prevent "bogus" candidates coming forward.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that that was with regard to the 1st clause. The 1st clause was to be modified, and the 2nd expunged. Was that so?
MR. HIBBERT: Hear, hear!
MR. J. G. TALBOT: That was rather a remarkable proceeding. There was no precedent for throwing the expense on the ratepayers. No one could complain of what the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Ashton Dilke) had done; but it was matter of some complaint that Her Majesty's Government should have treated the matter so slightingly. In fact, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) were the only occupants of the Treasury Bench. All the Members of the Cabinet were absent, and only one of the Members of the Government, representing the Local Government Board, came forward to support a Bill which contained an important principle, in as much as it sought to amend the representation of the people. The practice hitherto had always been that the expenses at elections should be borne by the candidates themselves. The matter was not, perhaps, of first-rate importance; but still alterations of the Constitution ought not to be made in that manner. If the Government really wished that this important change should take place, why did not one of their chief authorities come forward and say so boldly? He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was one of the few Members who had no Returning Officer's expenses, and he was also returned by an absolute majority of the electors, and therefore he could not have any personal objections to the measure; but he thought there were one or two sound and Constitutional objections to a proposition of this sort being brought forward in the manner it had been. To some extent this was a sentimental grievance. What was desired was that all kinds of persons should be at liberty to come forward and seek the suffrages of the electors. Looking at the matter practically, that was not a desirable state of things. It was no use mincing matters, nor representing things as they are not. The fact was that representation in Parliament was a matter of serious and earnest business. It had been said that this was a measure to increase the number of the working men

967
Members of that House. Well, he had no objection to a working man being in the House; but if, however, those persons wished to represent constituencies, they should be prepared, like other candidates, to devote their lives to the Business of that House. This representation was not a thing to be taken up and put down at pleasure; and unless a man was able by himself, or through his friends, to pay the moderate Returning Officer's fees now demanded, could it be supposed that he was a fit and proper person to sit in that House? Was it right that this attempt to change our present system should be made in so unsatisfactory a manner? As to the second portion of the Bill, it had been so much objected to by all the Members who supported the first section, that it would not be worth his while to spend any time in criticizing it. After all, this was merely tinkering at a great question. If they were to consider the question of the representation of the people, let them do so broadly on the invitation of the Ministers of the Crown. If they were to have Reform Bills, let them not have them in the form of tinkerings on Wednesday afternoons, but on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, so that the House might know what they were going to vote upon.
MR. CROPPER, in opposing the Bill, said, that he considered the 2nd clause to be a deterrent to every hon. Member, as no one was anxious to prolong the excitement of a contested election. If the 1st clause of the Bill were passed in its present form, constituencies would run the risk of having all sorts of candidates thrust upon them; and it was possible that, in the event of an election taking place, there might be found in every borough returning Members to that House a Temperance candidate, a Home Rule candidate, and candidates representing all other kind of crotchets so well known to hon. Members. In fact, ambitious persons might put up for three or four places, not only to get a name, but in the hope that by some lucky chance they might get into Parliament. In reference to the allusions which had been made to the question of paying Members for their services, he would remind the House that that was not the only place where men gave their services for nothing. The whole magis-
968
tracy of this country gave their services I for nothing. He had no doubt that some time or other Her Majesty's Government would bring in a measure embodying the best part of the Bill; but, in its present form, he could not support it.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped that, when he rose to say a few words in support of the Bill, it would not be supposed for a single moment that he intended to supply the want that had been complained of—the absence of leading Members of the Government on the occasion of this debate. He hoped it would not be thought unnatural that he should say a few words in favour of a proposal which he had advocated in season and out of season, both when Liberal and when Conservative Governments had been in Office. He had brought it forward on seven different occasions, and had met with various results. The first time the subject was brought forward was when the Conservative Government was in Office in 1868. It was carried twice in Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill, and it was only at the very last moment that it was rejected. The next time the proposal was brought forward it was only lost by the very narrow majority of 3. On the subsequent occasions, he was sorry to say, it fared worse, and was rejected by increasing majorities. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had expressed the hope that he (Mr. Fawcett) had changed his opinion in reference to this proposal; but he had not changed his opinion, and should certainly support the principle of the Bill, because the more he thought of this ques-question, the more it seemed to him that it embodied a principle which it was of increasing importance that that House should recognize and accept. A great deal had been said, as had often been said before, about the effect that this proposal of throwing the expenses upon the rates would have in encouraging the number of candidates at a contested election; but it appeared to him that if the proposal were properly safeguarded it would tend in the exactly opposite direction; for, at present, constituencies were interested in extravagance, whereas, if this proposition were carried out, constituencies would be interested in economy. If at the present time it appeared that there was not likely to be a contest,

969
it was perfectly well known that a certain number of hundreds of pounds which would, otherwise be spent would not be spent; and, under these circumstances, the persons who would participate in the advantages of that expenditure were naturally interested in creating a contest. But supposing this Bill were carried out, who would suffer from an unnecessary contest? It would not be the candidate who was subjected to a vexatious contest, but the constituency, and the consequence would be that the whole public sentiment of the constituency would be against the person who had thrown that unnecessary expense upon the ratepayers. But it was often said that the great argument in favour of making the constituencies responsible for the expenses would be that it would have the effect of bringing forward more working-men candidates. That was very desirable; but he always thought it was unfortunate to discuss this proposition on that narrow issue. He hoped one result of that measure would be, not only to admit working men more readily into that House, but to throw the doors of that House more widely open to those who did not possess a great amount of wealth. But the great importance of the measure, as he (Mr. Fawcett) viewed it, consisted in the fact that it was the recognition of a principle, and that principle was simply this—that a Member who came into that House ought to feel that he undertook a great and important duty—one that he ought not to play with; and, that being the case, it seemed to him of the first consequence that everything should be done to make the constituencies feel that a man who undertook that duty, and discharged it faithfully, ought not to have to pay for the privilege of doing it; and that, at any rate, they should, as far as possible, lessen and lighten the pecuniary burden which might be imposed upon him in the discharge of that public and local duty. It seemed to him that, from that point of view, this measure would improve and place upon their true footing the relations which should exist between Members and constituencies. A great deal had been said in the course of the debate about the second part of the Bill, and one of his chief reasons for troubling the House with these few remarks was that there should be no doubt upon that
970
point. Certainly he should be sorry if his hon. Friend who had brought in the Bill (Mr. Ashton Dilke) should for a moment suppose that in voting for the second reading of the Bill he was voting for the 2nd clause of the Bill. He objected to that 2nd clause, not only on the grounds that had been stated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but for a wider and a different reason. If anyone would look to the Bill of his hon. Friend, and see the conditions with which he had found it necessary to surround that clause, it at once became evident that it would be almost impossible to work that clause in constituencies which returned more than one or more than two Members. In a few years time the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and the great question of the re-distribution of seats would become questions of absorbing importance to that House. He knew that in expressing the opinions he was about to express, he was expressing opinions which many hon. Members on that side of the House did not share; but he felt that whenever the question of re-distribution should again have to be considered, it was of the first importance that they should not drift in the direction of single-Member constituencies, but that they should have constituencies in which two or three or four Members could be returned, so that not only the majority should have a chance of being represented, but that different sections of opinion should have a chance of being represented in proportion to their voting strength. That being the case, he should be sorry if, by a side wind, as it were, he were in any way made to support a proposal which would render it very difficult to have constituencies in future with two, three, or four Members. Another objection which had been urged to the Bill was one which had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), who had always taken such a great interest in the question of local taxation. He said that if the charges were to be transferred from the candidates, they ought to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and should not be thrown upon local taxation. He (Mr. Fawcett) was as anxious as the hon. Baronet could possibly be that no charges should unnecessarily be thrown upon local taxation; but it

971
seemed to him that there was an insuperable objection to that proposal of throwing it on a public fund. Public money was too often considered to be no one's money, and it was supposed that the Consolidated Fund was a great source of wealth which could be drawn upon at will, and by drawing upon which no one became the poorer. If, therefore, they paid these expenses out of the Consolidated Fund, they interested the constituencies in extravagance; whereas, if they paid them out of the local rates, they interested them in economy; and, moreover, it had always appeared to him that the principle of maintaining the local as well as the Imperial character of representation had been felt by the Conservative as well as the Liberal Party. He would not delay the debate at that hour of the afternoon with any further observations. This question could be raised in many different ways. It could be brought up in connection with the Corrupt Practices Bill or the Ballot Bill. But he could not resume his seat without expressing his satisfaction at the announcement that had been made that afternoon, on the part of the Government, that at length the principle was recognized by the Government that constituencies and not candidates should in future be responsible for the necessary expenses of elections. In recognizing and supporting that principle, he believed an important step had been taken to place the relations between constituencies and Representatives on an improved basis, and not a little would thus be done to place the representative system of this country on a more satisfactory basis. Under these circumstances, he rejoiced in the announcement that had been made on behalf of the Government by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert); and, with the qualifications which he had stated, he should certainly give his cordial support to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, in opposing the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, said, he was surprised to find that a Ministry who professed to be the friends of the ratepayers were supporting a proposal to lay upon that body an additional charge of something like £300,000 whenever a
972
General Election took place. He was not sure that it was desirable to have no property qualification; in any case, the present law produced some of the effects of a property qualification. Men who aspired to a place in that House should have some independent means and some leisure. He was utterly unable to see how a skilled artizan, or a bonâfide working man, could, after a hard day's toil, come down to the House, and sit up to any hour of the night, as hon. Members were obliged to do. For precisely the same reason, he objected to professional men, whose whole time was employed in their profession, being Members of Parliament. He was prepared to vote against officers on full pay being eligible as Members, and for the same reason he had voted against the admission of clergymen. It was singular that no one had attempted to explain the second part of the Bill, which referred to "absolute and relative" majorities. He confessed he did not know what was meant by a "relative majority," and had supposed, after the condemnation of the phrase "bare majority," that any such epithet was un-Parliamentary. However, his objection to the Bill was that it would add, no matter how slightly, to the local burdens; and he should, therefore, vote against the second reading. The Members on the Opposition side of the House were fighting for a great principle, and that principle was that no addition should be made to the rates.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked what was the real objection felt by hon. Members opposite to the Bill? The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had stated it very fairly. He said that at present there was a high property qualification necessary to enable Gentlemen to become Members of that House, and he desired that that property qualification should continue. According to the hon. Member's view, it was the business of the electors, not to ask anyone what his political views were, but to select some wealthy neighbour as their Representative, to do what he liked, because he knew infinitely better than the constituency. He (Mr. Labouchere), however, wished to point out that the world was not divided into men who had nothing and men who were rich. There

973
were a number of persons in the country who, being possessed of £300 or £400 a-year—too small an income to allow them to stand for a constituency under the existing system, on account of the heavy expenses an election entailed—would, under other and more favourable circumstances, be able to obtain a seat in that House, and who would make useful Members of it. It was out of the question to say that these expenses were very little, because in some constituencies, especially in counties, they were very great. He was very glad that the Government had stated that they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he was also very glad that they intended to oppose the 2nd clause in Committee, for he was decidedly opposed to the introduction of the double system of election. It was satisfactory to hear the opinion boldly expressed by them that the expenses in question should be thrown on the ratepayers, and he hoped that the Bill would become law.
MR. LEWISsaid, he thought the House had just reason to complain of the absence of Members of the Government when a Bill of that sort, making two vital changes which were totally unconnected with each other, was being considered. Hon. Members knew perfectly well, from the course of proceedings that went on, that the Government had no opinion. Members of the Cabinet, when this new Reform Bill came on, took care to desert the House, and sent the most amiable and respected, but still a subsidiary, Member of the Government to represent their opinions. Did the Government think that way of playing fast and loose with a question of Reform, which, inter alia, introduced the French practice at elections, would satisfy their Friends in the House or in the country? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) proposed to take his knife and cut the 1st clause of the Bill into little bits, and cut out Clause 2 altogether. That was not the sort of reform which would satisfy the aspirations of the Radical Party or the Birmingham Caucus. They wanted something far stronger and more drastic than the milk-and-water proposals of the Bill. The Government had themselves a Bill dealing with the election expenses, for that was the real object of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with regard
974
to the Corrupt Practices Bill; but they had not ventured to put such a proposal as this in that Bill. Yet that Wednesday afternoon, with the Front Ministerial Bench deserted, they were asked to pass that Reform Bill in petto, for the purpose of satisfying hon. Members below the Gangway, and showing that there were some Radical Members of the Government who were prepared to play helter-skelter with the Constitution, and, for that afternoon, at any rate, would show how Radical they were. He himself happened to be in a peculiar position, because he had voted for Clause 1 in the last Parliament; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General mistook what Clause 1 was.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, that he had never proposed that all expenses should be thrown on the rates. He had limited it to the Returning Officers' expenses.
MR. LEWISsaid, he should like to give the House an opportunity of voting on Clause 1, although his own opinion differed from that of most of those on the Opposition Benches. He believed the result of that portion of the measure would be that they would have every wretched "ism" on the Liberal side represented by a candidate at elections. He believed one result would be that the Conservative Party would benefit by the expenses of elections being thrown on the constituencies, because the Vegetarians, the Dipsomaniacs, and Hypochondriacs would have a candidate, every conceivable opinion of the smallest and most minute character in the Liberal Party, from the lowest class of working men upwards, would be represented at the poll; and he believed that in many constituencies, where an unfortunate Conservative candidate could not at the present time show his face, they would find the Conservative candidate at the head of the poll, attended by all the Radical "isms" a long way below him. That was a result he should be glad to see; but he would rather not see that if it involved the sacrifice of a principle. He himself believed that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the 1st clause of the Bill, for it was in the interest of the Conservative Party; but it was not popular with the Party, for reasons which it was not necessary to go into. Still, he should have voted for it, as he had done on a previous occasion;

975
but he declined to be dragged through the Lobbies with that double-barrelled Reform Bill, merely on the idea that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board would be able to convince the lion. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) that he ought to submit to the physical deformity which he proposed to inflict on the Bill—namely, to cut out Clause 2 and leave only a part of Clause 1. There seemed, however, to be no probability that there would ever be any practical step taken by this great Legislature during 1882. They would probably end, as they had begun, with a considerable amount of speechmaking, and no legislative results. Every step that was taken by the Liberal Government seemed to be directed to that end—utterly to destroy every capacity of legislation for 1882 They might, therefore, just as well discuss that Bill as anything else; and, so far as he could judge, that seemed to be the opinion of Ministers of the Crown who had absented themselves on this occasion. He protested, however, against the Government voting in favour of the second reading of a Bill, the main principle of which they disapproved.
MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing the Bill "body and soul." The ratepayers had enough to pay, and did not want to be further burdened. There were plenty of candidates willing to pay their own expenses, and they were a better class of candidates than those who would go upon the rates. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had said there would be a less amount of expenditure; but he (Mr. D. Davies) could, not agree with him in that, for he believed there would be much greater expenditure if this Bill became law. There would be a contest at every General Election in every constituency. Now, at the last two General Elections he had had no contest. But that was not for want of candidates, because on the last occasion three gentlemen from Loudon came down, and, having looked at the place, went away again. If his constituents, who were Liberals, had to pay the expenses, of course those gentlemen would have contested his seat; but when they knew that they would have to pay expenses they did not like the look of matters. He should, therefore, stand to his guns, although he voted against the Government.
MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he could not support the Bill, as he did not approve of its principle. He saw no connection between paying the expenses of local elections out of rates and the proposal to pay the election expenses of Members of Parliament. Neither did he think that the ratepayers of England should have any additional burdens imposed upon them, as would be the case if the Bill became law. At present they had a great many burdens placed upon them for national objects which they ought not to bear; and if those expenses were added those burdens would be further increased. He considered the measure would be most iniquitous. He protested against the Bill, and regretted that the Government had announced their intention of supporting it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 85: Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
Bill committed for To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  INCLOSURE (CEFN DRAWEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands known as Cefn Drawen Common, situate in the parish of Glascwm, in the county of Radnor, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]

  INCLOSURE (BETTWS DISSERTH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands known as Bettws Disserth, situate in the parish of Bettws Disserth, in the county of Radnor, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, read the first time. [Bill 127.]

  INCLOSURE (ASHLESIDE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands known as Ashleside Common, situate in the parish of Coverham, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and

  977
  Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLAKE, Bill to amend "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act, 1874," ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLAKE, Colonel COLTHURST, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. O'SHEA, Mr. O'CONNER POWER, and Mr. COLLINS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133.]

  PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BORLASE, Bill to make provision for the better preservation of the ancient Parochial Registers of England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BORLASE, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. MELLORE, and Mr. COCHRANE-PATRICK.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132.]

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Childers, Bill for making provision for facilitating the Manœuvres of Troops to be assembled during the present Summer, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CHILDERS and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill l34.]
  House adjourned at Six o'clock.