§ Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
§ Clause 38 (Continuation of trial of election petition).
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 22, line 28, to leave out from "trial" to the end of the clause, and insert—
Or of all the proceedings in relation or incidental to the petition, the authority of the said judges shall continue for the purpose of the said trial and proceedings.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 40 (Power to election court to order payment by county or borough or individual of costs of election petition).
§ On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were made:—Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning of line to "the High," and insert "in;" page 25, line 26, after "shall," insert" in principle, and so far as practicable; "page 25, line 29, leave out from "expenses" to end of line 30, and insert "on a higher scale than 92 would be allowed in any action, cause, or matter in the High Court."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 42 (Removal of incapacity on proof that it was procured by perjury. 31 and 32 Vict. c. 125. s. 47).
§ On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment was made:—Page 26, line 9, leave out from "accordingly" to the end of the clause.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 43 (Amendment of law as to polling districts and polling places).
§
MR. H. H. FOWLER moved, in page 26, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (3), and insert—
The power of dividing a borough into polling districts vested in a local authority by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the enactments amending the same may he exercised by such local authority from time to time, and as often as the authority think fit, and the said power shall be deemed to include the power of altering any polling district, and the said local authority shall from time to time, where necessary for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, divide the borough into polling districts in such manner that—
So much of section five of the Ballot Act, 1872, and the enactments amending the same as in force and is not repealed by this Act shall apply as if the same were incorporated in this section.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved, in page 26, line 28, after "county," to insert—
In the county of the town of Gal way there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint.
Galway had always been treated exceptionally under the electoral law, because there were no wards in it, and a large part of the constituency was rural. Barna was four miles outside the town, and contained a few hundred voters.
93
For many generations the candidates had been allowed to supply cars. For these reasons, he hoped the Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 26, line 28, after the word "county," to insert the words "In the county of the town of Galway there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)expressed his readiness to accept the Amendment; but invited objections, if there were any, to the proposal from Irish Members. Galway had always been treated as being in a peculiar position. It was not divided into wards, nor into district polling places.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, his borough—Londonderry—was in precisely the same position, because a large part of it was rural. He trusted the Attorney General would be consistent, and allow the principle of this proposal to be applied to the various constituencies generally. Otherwise, he hoped the Amendment would not be passed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not object to every facility being given to the voters of the county of the town of Galway; but, unquestionably, the conduct of the Attorney General was remarkable. The principle was equally applicable to Waterford and Cork. He objected to one isolated provision relating to one Irish borough being inserted in the middle of the English section of the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), while holding that Galway had always been an exception amongst all the other Irish boroughs, requested the hon. Member for Galway to bring up the Amendment on the Irish section of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 44 (Election commissioners not to inquire into elections before the passing of this Act).
§ MR. RAIKES moved to leave out the clause, on the ground that, as amended, it proposed to grant an amnesty for all 94 electoral offences committed before the passing of the Bill. Had the Bill contained this clause when originally introduced it would not have reached the Committee stage; and if the clause were allowed to remain in it the title of the Bill should be "A Bill for the absolute condonation of corrupt practices." The Government seemed anxious to screen some of their Colleagues.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 26, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'notwithstanding the provisions of the Act' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)regretted the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this clause. He imputed to the Government that they wished it passed to screen their Colleague. The clause was not inserted by the Government; it was brought up at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was for weeks on the Paper—it was acquiesced in by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and was read a second time without challenge. It was, therefore, wholly unjust of the right hon. Gentleman to charge the Government with introducing the clause in their own interests. The fact was that in some cases the defeated party in an election dared not petition; and if they were successful in the next election, their opponents were in the same position. Thus a vicious continuity of corruption was established, which the clause was intended to break.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEconfessed that he looked upon the clause as one of the most valuable parts of the Bill; and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend should have moved his Amendment in the temper which he had displayed. He (Mr. E. Clarke) cared not for corruption in the past. All he aimed at was to prevent corruption in the future. There were many boroughs which were not only corrupt in themselves, but were the cause of corruption in others. In them corruption was kept alive by the reluctance of men to petition, as they knew their conduct in the past would be inquired into. The Attorney General was right in saying that the suggestion first came from him—although the final terms were settled by an hon. Member 95 opposite. The clause would do more to establish purity of election than all the pains and penalties which the Bill contained. The Bill would be grievously impaired if the clause were omitted, and he hoped that the Government would stand fast by it.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERdenied that the clause had been accepted unanimously, because he had never assented to it, having said "No" when it was put from the Chair, and only abstained from pressing his objection on account of the lateness of the hour. They all knew there were certain boroughs which were notoriously corrupt. At the last General Election those boroughs returned 11 Liberal and only three Conservative Members, so that the supporters of the Government had the predominance in corruption; and hence the desire of the Attorney General to procure for those boroughs an act of indemnity in regard to the past.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDconsidered that when on the Report of the Judges the House voted the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the electoral history of a borough the inquiry would be incomplete unless they examined into the circumstances attending the elections previous to that one which was the original subject of inquiry by the Judges. The impression abroad was that the object of hon. Members was not so much to secure purity of election in the future, as to protect themselves and their pockets. The clause would prevent the whole truth being ascertained, and therefore he should oppose it.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) would allow him to say—as he seemed disposed to lay down the law—that his experience of elections, both as a Member of that House and of the Bar was slight. While they laid down the most rigid restrictions with regard to the use of ribbons or torches, they were folding themselves in a cloak of virtue, and declaring that there should be no inquiry into the past. The argument of the Attorney General that the liability to such inquiry would prevent the presentation of Petitions was disproved by the cases of Gloucester, Boston, and Canterbury. The clause meant that every Member of the House would whitewash himself in respect of the 96 past. He believed in the professed object of the Bill, but not in its structure. The Bill was not unconnected with Party purposes, and would have been framed on different lines if it had been simply designed for effecting purity of election.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER, HERSCHELL)said, he trusted that many hon. Members opposite would share with him the regret with which he listened to the closing observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He confessed that, for his part, he did not give the greatest credit for a desire for purity of election to those who were always insulting others with respect to their motives. When the hon. Member said this Bill was not unconnected with Party objects he forgot that his insinuation was made in reference to a proposal which originally came from the other side of the House, and was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); and he did not hesitate to tell the hon. Member that he insulted them when he said that, by accepting an Amendment from the Opposition, which they professed to believe would advance the object of purity of election, they did so from Party motives, and to screen themselves. ["Oh!"] If the hon. Member would not feel insulted by such an accusation, he did not envy him the bluntness of his moral feelings. It was an intentional insult, and one which they had a right to resent. If the hon. Member did not consider it an insult to be called a hypocrite, a humbug, an impostor, and false to the professions he made, he did not care much for his notions on such matters. [A laugh.] It might be a matter of laughter to him; but it could not be so to anybody who took an honourable view of the proceedings of life. When the hon. Member said this clause was passed for Party objects, did he remember that it passed without a single objection from the other side, except a solitary "No" from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler)? The hon. Member had spoken of boroughs like Gloucester, in which both Parties had never been slow to petition against each other, undeterred by the fear of exposing the corruptness of the constituency. But did not the hon. Member know of many other instances where the converse prevailed? Whether he knew it or not, it 97 was well known to others that there was many a case of the kind in which electoral corruption had been allowed to go scot-free. The Government believed that this Bill would give a new chance to electoral purity, and that many boroughs which had not been pure heretofore would endeavour to be pure in future. They said to the boroughs—"Here is a new system introduced, a new effort made in favour of purity. If you carry out the spirit of this Act, you will be pure, and you will be in a position, whatever may be your past record, to petition against those who may be guilty of corrupt practices."
§ MR. GIBSONobserved, that the Solicitor General had argued the case with his usual clearness, though he had, perhaps, infused into it rather more warmth than was necessary. He should support the Amendment, because he considered it was a rank absurdity to appoint Commissioners to inquire into the electoral history of a borough, and, at the same time, to tell them they must limit their inquiry to what happened at the very last election. If the ascertainment of truth was the object of the Bill, he could not understand how the clause could be defended. If, in the case of witnesses, it was necessary to give an amnesty as to the past, Parliament would be required to pass a fresh Amnesty Bill after every General Election. If they could not got rid of the clause altogether, he should seek, by two Amendments, to bring it into harmony with his arguments—namely, to give the right to the Royal Commissioners to inquire into the history of every election, if they thought fit to do so; but providing, at the same time, that any witnesses who were examined as to corrupt practices in which they might have been engaged in the past should be freed from the consequences of such corrupt practices. The House was now entitled to consider the Bill independently of the trivial discussion which took place on this point in Committee, and he should be glad if, when the Bill left the House, this clause were not found in it.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think it was sufficient if the witnesses examined as to corrupt practices in the past were freed only from the consequences of any corrupt practices in 98 which they might have taken a part. He (Mr. Anderson) thought it was necessary to exempt the witnesses from the publicity of any inquiry into past circumstances. If Election Commissioners had the right to inquire into the past electoral history of the constituency previous to the passing of the Act, the result would be that many Petitions that ought to be brought would not be brought, owing to dread of the exposure which might ensue, and thus the purpose of the Act might in many cases be defeated.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that, as a matter of fact, he did suggest that he and his hon. Friends should not divide the Committee when the clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The clause did not appear in the original Bill; the Government had merely taken it up, and, therefore, they were not bound to defend it to the utmost. Since the Committee stage he had carefully studied this matter, and he had come to the con-elusion that it would be better to leave the clause out altogether.
§ MR. BULWERconsidered that, in this matter, some discretion ought to be vested in the Election Commissioners. The clause enacted that no witness called before the Commissioners should be liable to be asked any question relating to any corrupt practices committed prior to the passing of the Act. There never was anything more absurd. The Tory "man in the moon" might come forward and give evidence against the Radical candidate, and the counsel of the latter could not put a question to him as to his previous career.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)There are Amendments to meet that case.
§ MR. BULWERYes; but Amendments might, or might not, be accepted, and he was speaking of the clause, and he would give his hearty support to the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the clause had been made part of the Bill by a great surprise. His breath was almost taken away when he heard that the clause was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and he was so dumbfounded that he was not able to say a word. If, after the Bill, they were sure of entering upon a political millennium, he would be ready to wipe off 99 the past; but since he could not believe that such was likely to be the case, he thought they would not act wisely if they were to begin by condoning the past. He should, therefore, decidedly vote against the clause.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the Attorney General exercised a wise discretion when, at a late hour at night in Committee, he accepted this clause, for it would prevent the corrupt pactices of Taunton, the borough which he represented, from ever coming before the public. In his (Mr. Callan's) opinion it would be most injurious to allow this clause to remain in the Bill, and he would illustrate its effect by two or three cases from Ireland. Take, for instance, Dublin City. Up to the time when Commissions of Inquiry were sent out corruption prevailed most extensively amongst the freemen of Dublin. It was exposed, however, by one of these Commissions, and since then Dublin was a model to the Kingdom for the purity and independence of its elections. Then see what was the result in Sligo, which was Conservative, and in which corruption prevailed so extensively that the borough was disfranchised; and Cashel also, which belonged to the great, free, and independent Liberal Party, which, too, was disfranchised for corruption. Then look at Bandon—Orange Bandon—where on whose gates were inscribed the words—" Turk, Jew, or Atheist may enter here, but not a Papist." There corruption always prevailed. At the last election the Hon. Percy Bernard took a consignment of the free and independent electors of that town to Plymouth, regaled them magnificently, and presented them with £20 each, and, of course, the electors were too late to take part in the election when they returned home. A Petition was presented, but by arrangement it was withdrawn, and Mr. Bernard retired; and although that House of Liberal purists were well aware of the facts they did not issue a Commission. A Liberal was elected at the next election; but, of course, he could not say that the hon. Member was guilty of corrupt practices, as he was now a Member of the House. It was the same thing in Portarlington and Athlone; and as for Dundalk, it was so thoroughly corrupt that if this clause was withdrawn a Liberal candidate could never face that constituency again. He was not, 100 therefore, surprised that the Conservative Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) and the Liberal Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) should have come to an agreement on this question, following the good old Scotch proverb—"You scratch me and I'll scratch you."
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 33: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 27, line 6, to leave out from "question," to "prior," in line 7, and insert—
For the purpose of proving the commission of any corrupt practice at or in relation to any election.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 54 (Obligation of witness to answer, and certificate of indemnity).
§
MR. GREGORY moved, in page 31, after sub-section (4), to insert—
Where a solicitor or person lawfully acting as agent for any party to an election petition respecting any election for a county or borough has not taken any part or been concerned in such election, the election commissioners inquiring into such election shall not be entitled to examine such solicitor or agent respecting matters which come to his knowledge by reason only of his being concerned as solicitor or agent for a party to such petition.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 58 (Definition of candidate, and saving for persons nominated without consent. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, s. 3.).
§ MR. GORST moved the omission of certain words, the effect of which would be that it would be for the Judge to determine when was the commencement of an election. A candidate, as the clause stood, might spend any amount of money on a constituency for a considerable period up to the commencement of the election, as defined by the Bill, and escape all penalty.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 32, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "candidate," to the word "and," in line 16.—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
101§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment, as he had sufficiently met the case put by his hon. and learned Friend.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 32, line 16, to leave out from the word "issued," to the word "accordingly," in line 18, and insert the words "but nothing' in this section shall prevent such person from being responsible for any act done for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election, although done before he was so nominated as or declared to be a candidate,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), remarking that he had drawn up the Amendment at the request of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), offered to withdraw it.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there was a good deal of "nursing" of constituencies going on at this time, and objected to the Amendment being withdrawn.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he should oppose it, unless it were restricted to acts done by the candidate personally.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 59 (General interpretation of terms).
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 33, line 29, at the end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—
The expression 'committee room' shall not include any house or room occupied by a candidate at an election as a dwelling, by reason only of the candidate there transacting business with his agents in relation to such election; nor shall any room or building be deemed to be a committee room for the purposes of this Act by reason only of the candidate or any agent of the candidate addressing therein electors, committeemen, or others.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 33, line 29, at end, insert—
The expression 'person' includes an association or body of persons, corporate or unin-
102
corporate, and where any act is done by any such association or body, the members of such association or body who have taken part in the commission of such act shall be liable to any line or punishment imposed for the same by this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved in page 34, line 11, at end of line, to insert as fresh paragraph—
The expression 'personal expenses' as used with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to any election includes the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in relation to such election.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 34, line 18, at end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—" The expression 'Licensing Acts' means the Licensing Acts 1872 to 1874."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 34, line 20, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "and time shall be reckoned as in those Acts."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 62 (Commencement of Act).
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he desired to take the opinion of the Committee upon the question of the commencement of the Act. He understood it was not very likely there was to be a General Election in the course of the coming autumn—the Prime Minister was the only person who could inform them upon that head. Now, this was a very complicated Bill, and it would take some time to realize its provisions. To admit of the constituencies having time to understand the Bill, he intended to propose that the Act should not come into operation until the 1st day of January, 1884. Certainly, the 1st of September next was too soon for the Act to come into operation, and he trusted some later day would be fixed upon. The 1st of January next would be a very convenient date; but he would not be adverse to it being provided that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of November next.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three," and insert the words "January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was desirous that the country should fully understand the provisions of the Act; but he did not think that its operation should be delayed so long as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He (the Attorney General) was particularly anxious that the Act should come into operation before the next municipal elections. If the 15th of October would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he would be quite willing to so far delay the operation of the Bill. That date would afford the constituencies plenty of opportunity for studying the provisions of the Act.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the time suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was too short. The Act would probably not obtain the Royal Assent until the end of this month, and after that it would have to be printed and circulated.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not understand, if there was not to be a General Election within the next two months, why the Bill should be hurried on at this break-neck pace. It was not yet clear that Parliament would be prorogued by the 1st of September, and therefore it was absolutely absurd to suggest that the Act should come into force on that day. The country ought, at least, to be given two or three months in which they might become familiar with the provisions of the Act. This was a new Act, which would require to be printed and circulated, and very carefully studied indeed. He ventured to say that even the professional classes in the country would have little or no knowledge of the provisions of the Act before November next; and, in his opinion, it was a thoroughly reasonable proposal that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of January. The Bill was brought in on the 15th of February, 1883, and therefore it might have 104 been reasonable at that period to have fixed the 1st of September as the day upon which the Act should come into operation. The month of August was now pretty well advanced, so that even the 15th of October was too early a date upon which the Act should come into operation. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the concession of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
MR. GORSTreminded the Committee that the Ballot Act, which was very much more complicated than this Act, came into operation directly it was passed. The Ballot Act was full of most novel and difficult provisions, and it was necessary that the Returning Officers throughout the country should at once make themselves masters of those provisions. He believed that, as a matter of fact, the Bill became law on the very day it was passed, and that within a week or two of its passing there was an election at Pontefract, and a few days later one at Preston. Both those elections were conducted by the Returning Officers without a single hitch or mistake. Now, if the people of this country could make themselves masters of the Ballot Act in short a time, why should they not do the same in this case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down knew perfectly well that people did not sit down and study for months Acts of this kind. If anyone wished to make himself master of this Act, he could do so in a very few days, and there was not the slightest necessity to postpone the operation of the Act, so long as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had spoken about municipal elections. Was it clearly understood that this Bill was to apply to municipal elections?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Definition Clause provided that corrupt practices should affect municipal elections.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had actually made a comparison between this Act and the Ballot Act. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware what people had to study in this Act of Parliament? Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware 105 that the Act contained a succession of enactments of a highly penal character, which the electors, and candidates, and agents had to understand at the risk of their liberty, their character, their credit, and at the risk of their seats? He (Mr. Lewis) was not at all surprised at the peculiar course the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had pursued in regard to this Bill, when he found at the end of their deliberations that he looked upon this Act as an analogous measure to the Ballot Act. He supposed they would have the privilege and pleasure of welcoming the hon. and learned Gentleman in the next Parliament—he hoped they would. But suppose there should be a General Election this autumn, was the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of an opportunity being afforded to candidates, and agents, and electors, to understand the complications of this measure, and of ascertaining what were the crimes which were now, for the first time, to be visited with such extraordinary penalties as the Bill provided? There was only one condition on which he (Mr. Lewis) would assent to the operation of the Bill being fixed for the 15th of October, and that was that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who certainly had conducted the Bill with remarkable courtesy, would give up his recess to the preparation of a treatise upon the Act, and issue it on the 1st of October. He had no doubt that a treatise prepared by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so valuable and complete, that anyone, after its perusal, would be enabled to go through an election with safety to themselves. The principle of the law of this country was that everyone was presumed to know the law. Could any candidate, agent, or elector, be presumed to know this Act unless he had an opportunity of studying it and understanding it? They knew that one of the results would be that many lawyers would set to work to make explanations of the Act which would be most useful; but how could that be done in the middle of the Long Vacation, when people were away shooting? There were certainly some 60 or 70 Members of the House of Commons—those who had taken part in the discussions upon the Bill—who understood a little of its provisions; but what could the great mass of the people of the 106 country be expected to know about the measure? He hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), if he could not succeed in obtaining the postponement of the operation of this Bill until the 1st of November, at least would persist in his Amendment.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that if there was not to be an Election before the 1st of November, why should the Bill be brought into operation before that date?
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, it was very necessary some time should be given for the consideration of the provisions of the Act. It was impossible for any layman to understand the Act in a moment. He did not object to the Act on account of its penal character; but he contended that, inasmuch as it was an Act of that character, it was absolutely necessary the public should have an opportunity of understanding it. Having regard to the Long Vacation, he had some doubt as to whether it would be sufficient to postpone the operation of the Act to the 1st of November even. Personally, he should prefer to see the 30th of November fixed upon. He did not think the municipal elections ought to enter into their consideration at all. The real question was, that inasmuch as under this Act people would be exposed to very severe penalties they should be able to obtain full knowledge of those penalties; that they should know in what way they were affected by the Act.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that they had already passed the words "first of," so that they had no option but to fix upon the 1st of some month or other.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to adopt the 15th of October; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) insisted upon the 1st of a month, he (the Attorney General) should be obliged to take the 1st of October.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his Amendment ought to be to leave out the words the "first day of September." He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his present Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthen moved to leave out the words "first day of September."
§ Amendment proposed, Clause 62, page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "first day of September."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved to insert, in the place of the words just omitted, the words "fifteenth of October."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 3, to insert, after the word "the," the words "fifteenth of October."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'fifteenth day of October' be there inserted."
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that this was a totally different Act to the Ballot Act. The Ballot Act affected the Returning Officers; but this Act affected the whole country.
MR. GORSTsaid, he never drew an analogy between the Ballot Act and this Act. What he said was, that if the people could get up the Ballot Act in a short time, they could also get up this Act, if they wished to do so, in a short time; and the hon. Gentleman who had attacked him knew that perfectly well. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) knew as well as he (Mr. Gorst) did, that if anyone wished to get up an Act of Parliament he could do so easily enough, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) also knew well enough the truth of what he (Mr. Gorst) had said.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he had only one other word to say. This was a thoroughly practical question, and one which ought not to be evaded. He would put a practical case to the House. Supposing a vacancy occurred in a county, and the election was to take place in the third week in September, he wanted to know what opportunity the electors would have of informing themselves of the provisions of the Act, which probably would not have been printed until the first or second week in September It seemed to him they were really endeavouring to prevent those who were to be affected by the Act from having an opportunity of considering it.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should prefer the 31st of October to the 15th of October.
§ Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out "fifteenth," and insert "thirty-first,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
§ Question put, "That the word 'fifteenth' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 29: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (for Mr. DALRYMPLE)proposed to leave out Subsection (2). He moved this Amendment to elicit from the Lord Advocate the reason why the provisions of the Act should not apply to Scotland.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (2) of the Clause.—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the reason why the provisions of the clause did not apply to Scotland was that, under the Act of 1853, very efficient provision was made for the matter dealt with by the clause. It was thought that the present law had worked exceedingly well.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in page 36, line 23, after "Act," proposed to add as new subsection:—
(5.) Court of Oyer and Terminer shall mean a Circuit Court of Justiciary, and the High Court of Justiciary shall have powers to make Acts of Adjournal regulating the procedure in Appeals to the Circuit Court under this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 36, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (7), and insert—
§
(25 and 26 Vic. o. 35; 39 and 40 Vic. c. 26.)
The expression 'Licensing Acts' shall mean 'The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862,' and 'The Publicans' Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' and the Acts thereby amended and therein recited;
The expression 'register of licences' shall mean the register kept in pursuance of section twelve of the Act of the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-eight,
§ Amendment agreed to.
109§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (11).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 13, after "Court," to insert "or to the trial of cases at the Royal Courts of Justice."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 64 (Application of Act to Ireland).
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, to leave out Sub-section (2).
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)proposed, in page 37, line 17, after "Act," to insert—
(16.) The provision of this Act, with regard to costs, shall not apply to Scotland, and, instead thereof, the following provision shall have effect:—The costs of petitions and other proceedings under 'The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and under this Act, shall, subject to any regulations which the Court of Session may make by Act of Sederunt, be taxed as nearly as possible according to the same principles as costs between agent and client are taxed in a cause in that court, and the auditor shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses on a higher scale.
§ Amendment agreed to.