HC Deb 01 August 1871 vol 208 cc657-75

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Corrupt Practices and Personation.

Clause 22 (Striking off vote for bribery or personation).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

moved, in page 15, line 42, and page 16, line 1, to leave out the words "or any other person on his behalf," on the ground that it would be impossible to tell, out of 5,000 or 6,000 votes, which was the personated one; and, moreover, that inasmuch as under the Corrupt Practices Act the penalty for the personation of voters was the loss of the seat, it would be quite within the power of anyone, without communicating with the candidate at all, to render the election illegal.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 42, and page 16, line 1, to leave out the words "or any other person on his behalf."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped that the words as they stood would be adhered to, because they were those of the Corrupt Practices Act. He feared the omission would open the door to fraud. He did not think the clause should apply except where the candidate or his agent had acted.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

observed that personators would most probably not be asked to vote either by the candidate or his agent. There would be a kind of freemasonry among them directing the personators to go and do what was intended. He protested against the innovation upon the privileges of the House which had been shown in the conduct of this Bill. He also protested against the abnormal silence preserved upon the other side of the House, and assured hon. Members opposite that if they did not talk they would at least have to walk. Rather than see so imperfect a measure pass he would sit till the end of the month, or even of October.

MR. COLLINS

said, that there would be no means under this Bill of having a fair election, because if personation took place those false votes must remain unless there was a scrutiny, and it was shown that the personation had taken place at the instance of the candidate, his agent, or some person on his behalf.

MR. JAMES

said, that this objection had been stated and answered over and over again; and the truth was that it was only a small defect, which would be far more than counterbalanced by advantages derived from the Bill. He would remind the Committee that at present votes were never struck off the poll without proving agency so as to affect the seat, and a fresh election was better than a scrutiny.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

believed that personation would become much more rife under the ballot system. No doubt a personated vote might be struck off upon proof of agency; but under a system of secrecy proof would be much more difficult even than it was at present. He suggested a clause should be added that where personation prevailed to any considerable extent the election should be void.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that suggestion would better apply to the next clause. He acknowledged that there was no happier looking man in the House than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Hope) under the infliction of these long sittings, and no doubt he would be quite willing to sit on till October; but it was doubtful whether other Members felt so happy. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would withdraw his Amendment. The object of the clause was to amend the Corrupt Practices Act, and as an interpretation had been given to the words, it was rather dangerous to leave out or take in any new words.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would be willing that the words should be "agent or person authorized on his behalf."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought that it would be far better to leave the words as they now stood.

MR. J. LOWTHER

believed that the difficulty in passing this clause arose from treating and personation being mixed up together in it.

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

The Committee divided: — Ayes 93; Noes 48: Majority 45.

MR. J. LOWTHER

moved, in page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words— Has been guilty of the offence of treating any voter at such Election, or that a candidate or any other person on his behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman had the other day withdrawn the clauses relating to corrupt practices, the subject of treating, which generally came under that head, ought not, in his opinion, to be dealt with in the present clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "has been guilty of the offence of treating any voter at such Election, or that a candidate or any other person on his behalf."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. COLLINS

remarked that mere treating was no offence as far as he was aware, and that he should at the proper time move to insert the word "corrupt" before "treating."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, treating was legally defined in the Corrupt Practices Act. Personation was not the only offence which ought to be dealt with in this clause. If a candidate by himself or his agent induced a voter to vote by bribery, treating, or undue influence, surely the same result ought to follow as would be brought about by inducing anyone to personate a voter.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

observed that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), by his Amendment, was starting from false and narrow premises, and that he was altogether premature in his proposal.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had no wish to raise any point unnecessarily, or to press his Amendment if it were understood that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) would raise this point in Amendment to other clauses.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he thought the subject ought to be considered apart from the latter part of the clause, which had reference to personation. Under the clause as it stood, votes might be struck off which a candidate never received, as, of course, it would be impossible to ascertain how anyone had actually voted. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for York.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that under the existing law if a candidate or any person on his behalf induced an elector to vote for him by means of bribery, treating, or undue influence, such vote was struck off on a Petition being presented. This clause was an attempt to approach as near as possible to the existing law.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

pointed out that as under the Ballot nobody could know for whom an elector had actually voted, great injustice might be inflicted by the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

explained the meaning of the clause to be that, if on an inquiry being instituted it was discovered that a candidate had induced an elector to vote by means of bribery, personation, or undue influence, a vote should be struck off the number recorded for such candidate. Instead of striking off the special vote, as was done at present, it was proposed to strike off a vote.

MR. PELL

viewed this as something like a beggar-my-neighbour arrangement.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

remarked that it was a common thing for a man to take a bribe from one candidate and then vote for another.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to know what would happen if it were proved that a man had been bribed by both parties.

MR. COLLINS

supposed that in such a case each party would lose the vote.

MR. JAMES

reminded the Committee that under the existing law a candidate would lose his seat upon proof of the commission of bribery.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, if a man lost his seat it was of little consequence to him if a vote or two were struck off his list. How could personation on behalf of a particular candidate be brought home, unless it was proved that the man who had personated had really voted for a particular candidate? In his opinion no clause in the Bill would be so unworkable as this.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

replied, that it came within the province of a Court of Justice to receive evidence of the fact that one man had personated another. The clause dealt with the case of personation—it did not matter as to the person for whom he voted.

MR. JAMES

said, if an avowed agent of the candidate were found in a room with a voter, and it was proved he offered him a sovereign to personate another voter, and he did do so, the offence was not for whom he voted, but for voting as representing another person.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

protested against legislation which might have the effect of retaining upon the poll for any candidate a vote proved to have been fictitious.

MR. EASTWICK

objected to the clause. It would be very hard that a candidate should be punished for the indiscretion of persons acting on his behalf.

MR. COLLINS

said, it would be punishing the constituency and not the candidate.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

concurred in the indignation that had been expressed against bribers; but whilst endeavouring to prevent the committal of an illegal act they must not lose sight of justice. He thought it a monstrous injustice that by the act of some injudicious friend, or possibly enemy, 200 or 300 votes might be struck off the poll of a candidate who all the time was ignorant of the commission of the act complained of. The true way to punish bribery and personation was by retaining a counterfoil of each voting paper, not necessarily for publication, but for use if called for by the Election Judge or other competent authority, in the event of a subsequent inquiry. He hoped the common sense of the country would compel the adoption of some means of detecting the guilty voter.

MR. COLLINS

said, what the hon. Baronet complained of was only part of the general law of agency. An agent must be one that had been appointed or ratified by a candidate before his acts could make the latter liable. His calling himself an agent would not do. A Member could not be unseated except for an act done by himself or his agents, or because the bribery or treating was of such an extent as to render the seat void by common law.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretaion of the law, having in view the Westbury decision.

MR. COLLINS

repeated that agency must have formed an element in the decision of the Judge.

LORD HENRY THYNNE

said, the act condemned was the act not of an agent, but of a supporter, who was a rival in business of the opposing candidate. It would be all very well if Judges acted uniformly upon the principles enunciated by the hon. Member for Boston, then candidates would know what they were about. But the misfortune was that one Judge took one view of the law while another viewed it differently, and a very great confusion was the result.

MR. JAMES

said, the Judge in the Westbury case would not have unseated the candidate unless there had been proof of agency. It had been expressly sworn that the candidate asked the manufacturer whose act was impeached to canvass particular voters in his interest.

Question put, "That the words 'has been guilty of the offence of' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 35: Majority 134.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved, in page 16, line 2, after "offence of," insert "unduly influencing or."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COLLINS

proposed to add "or the polling more than once of any elector." It was clear that a man voting twice from a double qualification would affect the poll just as much as a man who voted once without any qualification at all.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was disposed to view the Amendment favourably, and would take the opportunity of considering it before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

moved the following Amendment, in page 16, line 5, after "Election," insert— And it is also proved that the voter so bribed or treated, or the individual guilty of such personation, has voted for the candidate on whose behalf such bribery, treating, or personation is alleged to have been committed, in order to question the whole principle of the clause, which, it appeared to him, was based on a wrong principle, namely—that of taking away from a candidate a vote when it could not be proved that the vote had been given for him. The clause could not be considered as a punishment to the voter, because it mattered not to him personally whether the vote was struck off or not. The voter was already liable under the present law, which rendered personation a misdemeanour. It was impossible to have a scrutiny unless it was known how the voter had voted. It was quite possible to have an inquiry without a scrutiny. An elector might, for instance, be questioned as to how he had voted, and if he stated how he had given his vote that admission might be taken as evidence. This clause was likely to lead to such unfairness that he felt justified in moving the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, in resisting the Amendment, said, the easier course would have been for the hon. Baronet to move the omission of the clause, since he had expressed his disapproval of it. The sort of inquisition as to the past history of the voter, suggested by the hon. Gentleman, was anything but desirable in a Court of Justice.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

supported the Amendment, for the reason that the clause as it stood reduced the question to a mere lottery. After admitting that it was impossible to have a real scrutiny, the right hon. Gentleman was assenting to an absolutely sham scrutiny. No doubt there might be false agents; but there might also be many distinct cases of bribery, without the ability to prove them under this clause. Unless it could be proved, by means of some such provision as was proposed by his hon. Friend, for whom a person bribed or otherwise influenced had voted, the votes must be struck off in the dark and haphazard, a proceeding to which he, for one, strongly objected.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

objected to the punishment of an innocent voter because of bribery by a guilty one. He agreed that, under this clause, a scrutiny was inoperative.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GORDON

moved the omission of the words which made the clause applicable to Parliamentary elections in Universities, in which open voting still prevailed.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

supported the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

moved the rejection of the clause, on the ground that the existing law was sufficient to meet the case.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

seconded the Amendment, remarking that the effect of the clause would be to let a minority of electors, personators, and other disreputable persons escape scot free, while the innocent voters would suffer. All the vices of elections would be increased by the adoption of a system under which an illegal vote cannot be pursued.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

supported the Amendment, on the ground that as the clause would involve the Judges in the administration of haphazard legislation. He thought it would be preferable in cases of proved personation to give an additional vote to the poll of the candidate whose voter had been personated, rather than to strike one from the list of the candidate for whom the fictitious vote had been given.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 91: Majority 67.

Clause 23 (Seat vacated for personation).

COLONEL BERESFORD

, moved in page 16, line 12, leave out "or any other person," and insert "or agents or person authorized." He pointed out that at most elections a lot of disreputable persons were to be found to do any work asked of them; and he maintained that it would be unjust to the candidate to vitiate the election either on account of the conduct of such persons or the over-zealousness of partisans.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 12, to leave out the words "or any other person," in order to insert the words "his agent or other person authorised by such candidate." — (Colonel Beresford.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he saw no objection to the Amendment.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

remarked that a similar Amendment had been negatived in a previous clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

approved the Amendment, desiring to restrain the liability of the candidate to the acts of his paid agents.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, on re-consideration, declined to accept the Amendment, having regard to the fact referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

remarked that a man might be an agent in small matters without being such an active agent that his acts would vitiate the candidate's election. The question of agency would have to be laid down by the Judge.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if hon. Members did not like the clause they could divide against it.

MR. HERMON

suggested that the clause should be defined in the Interpretation Clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, a better definition was already given in the Corrupt Practices Act, which was incorporated by Clause 28, and that it was always safe, in amending an Act, to use the words of that Act.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he could not understand why the Committee, having a perfectly clear conception of its own meaning, could not define that meaning in the Bill, especially as it would prevent the recurrence of hardship such as had occurred in the case of Westbury.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to point out, in the absence of the legal Advisers of the Crown, what section of the Corrupt Practices Act defined the phrase?

MR. JAMES

said, there was no clause in the Corrupt Practices Act defining "an agent;" that was left to the Judges, who had construed the description less harshly as regards candidates than Committees had done. He held it to be impossible to define "an agent" in the Bill. If they inserted the words "legal agents" they would open a floodgate to bribery, by enabling all persons except those coming under the designation to commit offences which were sought to be checked.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, it would be better to insert the meaning of the Committee than to leave the question vague and to the decision of the Judge. Judges were not all of one opinion. The question was what were the words by which the intention of the House of Commons would be best carried out?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it had been held that whenever a judicial definition had been given of certain words it was better to adhere to those words.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 82: Majority 102.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 (Returning officer may order persons charged with personation to be taken into custody. 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 86).

MR. CHARLEY

said, that if the power of arrest were merely permissive, it would be quite useless. Under the existing law it was compulsory, and he did not see why this Bill should depart from the present law in that respect. The hon. and learned Member, therefore, moved, inline 27, leave out "may," and insert "and he is hereby required."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought if the returning officer was fit for anything, he was fit to have a discretion in that case.

MR. J. LOWTHER

, unless that Amendment was accepted, intended to move the omission in the next line of the words "after such person has voted." It was a monstrous thing that a person should be allowed to vote notwithstanding there was a distinct statement made to the returning officer that he was about to commit personation.

TUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, they could not invest the returning officer with judicial functions.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

quoted the words of the existing statute, which made it not only lawful for the returning officer or his deputy to order the person charged into custody, but positively required him to do so immediately. Before the present law was altered they ought to have an explanation of the reason for altering it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he hoped as they had the rare advantage that afternoon of the presence of a Law Officer of the Crown that these points would be authoritatively set at rest. A still more serious alteration than the one just indicated was about to be made by the Bill in the existing law. At present the voter who was personated obtained redress by a scrutiny, and could remove the false vote before the Election Judge; but under this Bill a false vote once given must remain for ever. He wished to prevent a man who was notoriously about to commit personation from being allowed to record an indelible vote.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

, in answer to the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. A. Cross's) question, admitted that he did not himself see why the present law should be altered.

Amendment (Mr. Charley) agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER

suggested that it should be provided that if it was represented on reliable testimony before the returning officer that a person coming to vote was not the voter he professed himself to be, the vote tendered by him should not be put into the ballot-box with the other votes, but placed on a separate file, and treated in a separate fashion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

objected to the suggestion, because it would enable the agent to find out how the person had voted.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the Attorney General would promise to consider the subject.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

promised to do so.

MR. GORDON

moved the omission of words which made the clause applicable to elections for Universities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Persons charged with personation to be taken before two Justices, 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 87), struck out.

Clause 26 (Payments not made through agent or included in return deemed to be corrupt).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved to leave out the clause.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he wished to offer the strongest protest against the omission of this clause with the consent of the Government. If it were so omitted, he would unhesitatingly say that his vote on the second reading had been obtained under wrong pretences, because the omission of this clause, and the clauses connected with it, would make the measure simply a Ballot or Secret Voting Bill. He gave his vote on the second reading, not simply for a Secret Voting Bill, but for a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. If the alternative had been presented to him of voting for a Ballot Bill pure and simple, in July, or waiting until next Session for a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, however strongly he might favour the Ballot, he unhesitatingly declared he would not have voted for the second reading of a Ballot Bill in July, he would have waited until next year, when they could have considered not only the Ballot, but other provisions to attain what the Liberal party had in view—namely, greater freedom, tranquillity, and purity at elections. The Select Committee on whose Report the Bill was based had not to consider a Ballot Bill, they were not appointed to consider secret voting; but, according to the terms of reference, they were appointed to consider what would promote the tranquillity, the freedom, and the purity of elections. He was a Member of that Committee, which did not attribute the first importance to the Ballot, but considered fairly every proposal which they thought would promote the object they were appointed to secure; and many of the recommendations of the Committee were supported by it in entire independence of party. He ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, that the almost unanimous feeling in this House was, that the object of this Bill was not simply to introduce the Ballot, but to secure purity of election; and for this purpose there was no more important proposal than that which was now to be abandoned by the Government. We might have the Ballot and absolute secrecy; but we all knew there was nothing which tended so much to produce impurity at elections as that system which had grown up, and which this clause was designed to meet, of making the return of election expenses to the auditor a monstrous sham and a farce, upon which no reliance was to be placed. On the occasion of the last General Election at Bridgewater the expenses of the candidates were returned at £1,000, or an average of £250 each; but he should not be exaggerating if he stated that the evidence taken before the Commission showed that the four candidates spent nearly £16,000. And yet the Bill was to be passed without these clauses. He knew the Government would say that next year we should have to consider a Corrupt Practices Bill; but there was no guarantee at what period of the Session they would be able to consider it. The Government were already deeply pledged in the matter of legislation. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was zealous in the cause of legislation, and who was so sincere that he never said he would legislate if he did not mean to undertake the task, had already under serious consideration with a view to legislation no fewer than 20 subjects. They might be told that this clause could be re-introduced next Session; but there was no security that it would come on at a time more favourable for its consideration than the present, and he would not be a consenting party to postponing it. They voted for the second reading, not of a Secret Voting Bill, as the Prime Minister persistently called it; but of a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, and if they abandoned this clause they would not be doing what they could to secure the great object in view, which was to introduce greater tranquillity, freedom, and purity into Parliamentary elections.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, when the hon. Member rose, he was on the point of rising to explain why the Government proposed to omit this clause. The hon. Member did not seem to remember that time was an element in the questions they had to consider, and that the House ought not now to be detained discussing this Bill longer than was necessary. Originally, this clause was put in chiefly because the Report of the Select Committee had alluded to this branch of the question; but, in order to insert it at all, the Preamble of the Bill had to be enlarged by stating that it was a Bill relating to procedure at elections "for other purposes connected therewith." This rather vague addition had to be made to the original title of the Bill in order to insert the clause. The Government would be glad if it could be fully considered; but it had nothing to do with the two main objects of the Bill—namely, the alteration in the system of nomination, and the mode of taking the poll. It was an amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act, for which, doubtless, many arguments might be adduced, and which at the proper time he should be prepared to support; but it was quite distinct from the two main objects of the Government and their supporters in pressing the Bill. The Government was well aware that this important question ought to be considered, and the offer they made to insure its consideration was this—the Election Petitions Act, passed by the late Government, expired at the end of next Session, and consequently it would be necessary to propose further legislation. The Act might have been put into the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill of this year; but, instead, the Government would undertake, if they were still in office, to bring the matter forward before next Easter, in order that the House might fully consider the question, and it would be more convenient then than it was at this period of the Session to consider this clause and the clauses depending upon it. This clause and other new clauses constituted, in fact, a new Elections Petitions Bill, which would involve almost as much discussion of details as they had had already. He did not question the earnestness of the hon. Member for Brighton in wishing to pass the Ballot Bill; but if he ever had charge of a Bill himself, or seriously sought to assist those with whom he had a common object, he would find that there were some cases in which, in order to get one thing, you had to separate it from others. If he ever got to the practical work of legislation instead of talking about legislation, he would certainly learn that lesson.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, if further reasons were wanted for the retention of the clause they were to be found in the facts that it embodied a proposal recommended by the Select Committee, and that the Preamble of the Bill was enlarged in order that it might be added. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to bring forward the subject next year, if the Government were still on that bench. The right hon. Gentleman was bursting with good intentions. There was not a better-intentioned man in the world; and the good intentions of the Government were enough to pave the avenue of "another place." Let the Committee test these intentions. There had been an intention, during the present year, to have a complete Army Regulation Bill and a Mines Regulation Bill. There had also been the intention to pass a Local Government Bill, a Judicial Committee Bill, and a Bill which might have prevented what took place in Hyde Park last Sunday; but he wanted to see performances and not intentions. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) in looking upon this clause as a valuable element in the Bill. The evil which it was intended to cure was one which went beyond the scope of politics, and which was a scandal to their constitutional system. This clause afforded a chance of meeting that evil; but because of the extraordinary mismanagement and obstinate pertinacity of the Government, which had prolongued the discussion on the Bill to the 1st of August—they were not to be allowed to apply a simple remedy. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton would divide the Committee on the question whether the clause should be omitted.

MR. COLLINS

said, he was surprised by the proposal of the Government to omit a clause of this sort from the Bill. The object of secret voting was to get rid of bribery and corruption, and therefore the Ballot was simply a means to an end, and he felt certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to accept this clause it would have been passed in far less time than it had taken to discuss its omission. Every Member of Parliament was doubtless anxious to enter the House of Commons with as little expense as possible, and this clause would protect them from their agents, seeing that if a condidate paid any expenses after the time for petitioning had passed, such a payment would be deemed a corrupt payment, and would invalidate the seat. At present election agents waited till the expiration of the time for petitioning, and then sent in accounts to the sitting Member, assuring him that he could now pay any amount of money with perfect safety, as the question could not be investigated. The present clause, would, however, prevent such arrangements, and it would assist the Ballot in putting down corruption. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, and consent to accept the clause.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the matter. There was no notice of Amendment to the clause, and he had no idea that it was to be opposed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

explained that the Government proposed the omission of this clause because it introduced new matter into the Bill, and was an Amendment to the Corrupt Practices Act. With respect to there being no Amendments, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had proposed to substitute a longer and more stringent clause, and alternative proposals had been made by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) and others. To go into these clauses would be to commence a discussion that might last for days, or even weeks, and that would not be desirable, as the subject of corrupt practices must come before Parliament next Session, when the Elections Petitions Act would expire. If the present Government remained in office they would bring the subject forward next year, and before Easter if it were possible to do so, and then hon. Members could take an opportunity of discussing these Amendments.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he could not find any of those alternative clauses on the Paper.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the statement of the noble Lord was correct. The only Amendment now on the Paper was that of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross).

MR. R. N. FOWLER

supported the omission of the clause. If it were discussed he should have to state at length the serious objections which he entertained to it.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

much wished to retain this clause, and warned the Government that their system of promising what they would do next Session could not be carried on any longer. A Licensing Bill had been promised by the Government for Session after Session, but it had never been passed. He did not think that all important legislation ought to be put on one side merely to suit the private arrangements of the Government with their supporters.

MR. COLLINS

would have preferred the clause as amended by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); but as the clause in the Bill was, on the whole, fairly worded, he would take it as it stood in order not to waste time.

MR. FAWCETT

said, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill in favour of the omission of the clause would, if consistently carried out, favour the postponement of the whole Bill until next Session. The main object for which the Bill was forced on was to have the next General Election conducted under the Ballot; but if it was important that the next General Election should be conducted under the Ballot, it was equally important that there should be sufficient guarantees to secure tranquillity and purity of election. If the Ballot would conduce to the purity of election so would the present clause, and if it were not inserted in the Bill, the Ballot would not be tried under favourable and proper circumstances.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that if they were to obtain the sanction of the Committee to all that the Bill professed to do, it was clear, he thought, that they could not have the Ballot within the ordinary Session, which was the one thing upon which the attention of the country had been fixed. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for withdrawing this provision.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

wished to know whether if the clause passed the candidate would be relieved from any legal liability respecting those expenses which might not be included in the return to the returning officer, but which had been bonâ fide incurred?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he must decline to enter into any discussion of the clause which the Government wished to omit. To attempt to deal with this unpleasant question now would be to postpone the Ballot.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he thought the clause should be amended. Looking to the importance of the Amendments that remained on the Paper, it was impossible that this Bill could be passed through Committee that night. As for the Autumn Session, that might or might not come to pass: in his opinion it would not.

MR. COLLINS

said, that if this clause were omitted, the Bill would be one simply for secret voting.

MR. EASTWICK

protested against the system which had been adopted by the Government of pressing forward measures which took up the whole time of the House, and which kept them from the Estimates and from other necessary business.

MR. CHARLEY

said, that the Committee had already passed three clauses relating to corrupt practices.

SIR HENRY HOARE

wished to know if a Corrupt Practices Bill would be brought forward next Session before Easter?

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

supposed that, after what had occurred, they would hear nothing more about obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told them the other day that this clause was going to be omitted. At the Mansion House dinner allusion was made to a minority in the House which was always obstructive; but now it was discovered that the allusion was to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and those who acted with him—a small minority who did not agree with anybody upon any subject. Last year, on the Education Bill, they occupied eight nights before the Speaker left the Chair, and 16 nights when he had done so. Yet the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was continually throwing out taunts against those who sat opposite, because, as he said, they obstructed the passing of this Bill, when, in fact, they had done nothing else but amend it. He was sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite below the gangway were not present a short time ago when the Attorney General was compelled to admit the necessity for an Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), this being the first time during the discussions that a Law Officer of the Crown had made his appearance. And the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had accepted no fewer than six Amendments proposed by himself. He and his Friends hoped they would hear no more of obstruction as applied to them; if there were any, it was legitimately caused by the fact pointed out by the junior Member for Brighton that this Bill no longer bore the character which first impressed it, but that from the necessities of the Government and the political exigencies caused by their vacillation and incompetency, which were generally admitted by the majority, even on their own side, it had been reduced until, instead of embracing the recommendations of the Select Committee, it was simply a Ballot Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 84; Noes 181: Majority 97.

MR. FAWCETT

said, it would conduce to the convenience of Members to know if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to go on with the 27th clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

replied that he did; and he hoped the Committee would be able to assent to it without any lengthened discussion.

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair, to report Progress.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.

The House resumed its Sitting at a quarter past Nine of the clock.