COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th July.] [SIXTEENTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 06 July 1883 vol 281 cc612-64

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Disqualification of Electors.

Clause 32 (List in register of voters of persons incapacitated for voting by corrupt or illegal practices &c.) agreed to.

Clause 33 (Notice of paid polling agent, &c. and preventing his voting).

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, they were imposing, by this clause, an immense number of difficulties upon the candidate, as well as the Returning Officer and other persons engaged at elections. The enormous details involved in these operations would impose great labour upon these individuals, and could not fail in some cases to end in default. He thought it must be accepted that the object of the candidate and election agent was to conduct the election with due regard to the spirit of the law.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond), dealing with the first part of the clause; and, until that Amendment had been disposed of, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be premature.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, his sole object was to save the time of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and of the Committee, in discussing this clause. He had a strong impression that the multitude of details set forth would impair the efficiency of the measure; and if some of them could he got rid of, he believed it would be of the greatest advantage to the working of the Bill. He would like to see the clause withdrawn, for the purpose of reconsideration.

MR. J. HOLLOND

said, he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name.

MR. CALLAN

wished to put a question to the Chairman on a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

said, there was no Question before the Committee.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was about to propose an Amendment. It would be quite time enough for hon. Members to call him to Order when he had transgressed the Rules of the Committee; but he was perfectly within his right, and was, moreover, acquainted with the Bill, of which it appeared to him a good many Gentlemen opposite knew nothing.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment which he intended to propose.

MR. CALLAN

said, there was a great difficulty already in counting the constituency even under the Ballot Act. Under the present Bill a candidate would have to appoint, under his own hand, a polling agent, a clerk, and messenger for every polling booth, who must make a statutory declaration before a magistrate, and whose appointment must be made by 8 o'clock in the morning. It would be impossible to carry out this portion of the Bill. Let the Committee consider for a moment the county of Cork, which was 70 miles in length, and see how it was possible for the provisions of the clause to be complied with. At the present day a candidate was bound to sign the appointment of every polling agent who entered the booth, and that agent must produce to the Returning Officer a statutory declaration as well as his appointment in writing. He believed that in the Universities of the country the candidate, relying on the discretion of his agents, signed these appointments in blank. He wished to have omitted from the clause the words which provided that the election agent should send to the Returning Officer before the day of the poll a list stating the name of every person appointed on behalf of the candidate to be a polling agent, clerk, or messenger, and specifying whether such person was paid or not. As to that part of the sub-section which required that the list should contain the description of every such person, and, where he was an elector, his number in the register of electors, that he admitted to be right and fair; but he foresaw the impossibility of handing to the Returning Officer before the day of the poll the name of every polling agent, clerk, or messenger. It would be utterly beyond the power of any candidate or his agent to comply with the requirements contained in the 1st sub-section. He was not speaking in any obstructive spirit; he was addressing himself, through the Chair, to the President of the Local Government Board particularly, because he knew that he was acquainted with the working of the Ballot Act, and was, therefore, aware of the enormous difficulties placed in the way of candidates in complying with the Act. Referring again to the county of Cork, he pointed out that there were 27 polling places, for every one of which the appointment of three separate individuals would have to be signed. Again, if it were possible to supply the names of the polling agents, clerks, and messengers to the Returning Officer, the election agent would be certainly unable to supply them to the candidate on the opposite side. He challenged any Member of the House, who was acquainted with the management of elections, to say that it was possible in any but the very smallest constituency—Portarlington, for instance—to comply with the requirements of the section. Nothing could possibly result from the clause but vexation and trouble; for instance, what was the use of sending in on the day before the poll a list containing all the details mentioned, and requiring that a copy of it should be sent to the agent of every other candidate, who would probably not receive it until 48 hours after the election? The clause imposed such enormous difficulties in the way of everyone engaged in the conduct of an election, and it was, moreover, so unnecessary, that he believed the mere statement of the case to the Attorney General would secure the alteration which he desired. At present, a candidate had simply to appoint a polling agent, clerk, and messenger, and send in their names with the statutory declaration to the Returning Officer; but if a personation agent were appointed, not only his name, but his address must be given. He thought it would be an improvement of the present law if a candidate, or his election agent, were compelled to give the name as well as the address of the persons employed at the polling booth; but he could not agree to the proposal to place upon the candidate and his agent conditions with which it was utterly impossible to comply. He, therefore, proposed to leave out the words "before the day of the poll."

MR. J. HOLLOND

said, that, in that case, his Amendment would take precedence of that of the hon. Member. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 17, after the word "officer," to insert the words "one clear day."—(Mr. J. Hollond.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was always ready to listen to suggestions coming from any Members of the Committee. As persons employed as polling agents, messengers, and clerks were disqualified from voting, it was necessary that some information should be given as to the persons employed in the manner specified by the clause. He was prepared to consider whether, within a reasonable time after the election, there might not be a Return made with regard to these persons; and with that object he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to withdraw the clause.

MR. CALLAN

said, the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Brighton was an instance of the complete ignorance of Members of that House with respect to the actual working of elections. One might take a morning stroll over the whole constituency represented by the hon. Member; but it would take a day and a-half to go over his constituency, and probably a week to cover the county in which it was situated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ONSLOW

said, before the clause was withdrawn, he wished to point out the impossibility of complying with its provisions, so far as related to giving to the Returning Officer the names of persons from whom committee rooms were hired on behalf of the candidate. It might be possible in the case of a room taken from one individual; but how, in the case of an Association, would it be possible to give a description of every one of, say, 15 Directors? If words were introduced into the Bill which would render it unworkable, it was necessary that the Committee should take some steps to guard against such consequences.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked whether it was worth while to disqualify a person properly employed at an election? He believed that about an equal number were employed on both sides, and in that case their votes would have no influence on the result of the election.

MR. WARTON

said, that throughout the Bill the Government had introduced a number of cumbersome and unworkable provisions. In assenting to the withdrawal of the clause, he hoped it would not be understood that there was any agreement on the part of the Committee to these small details. He trusted that when the new clause came forward they would not be told that they had already assented to something of the same sort. For his own part, he protested against these miserable and petty reservations.

Clause negatived.

Proceedings on Election Petition.

Clause 34 (Time for presentation of election petitions, alleging illegal practice, 31 & 32 Vict. c., 125).

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that the Committee had already agreed to a reduction of five days, and the result was that the number of days during which a Petition might be presented now stood at 39. The Attorney General knew that, under the present law, the time for petitioning was limited to 20 days; and he (Mr. Macfarlane) had not heard that any sufficient cause had been shown for doubling or even trebling that period. He would point out to the Attorney General that if the 21 days specified in the 1st sub-section of this clause were maintained, it would be possible for the person petitioned against to sit and vote for nearly two months in that House without having the right to do either the one or the other. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to press the Amendment he was about to propose, unless the Attorney General would give some sufficient reason for this enlargement of the time in which a Petition might be presented. He thought the proposal in the 1st subsection was unreasonable, because Petitions were always based upon some act which had taken place at the election, and not upon anything connected with the question of accounts. He understood that if the expenses of an election exceeded the amount which was named in the Schedule, the seat of the candidate would be ipso facto lost. He asked that a reduction of the period of suspense during which a Petition might be sent in should take place, because he did not want to facilitate or assist those electoral Micawbers who were always on the watch for something to turn up against a candidate. Without detaining the Committee any longer, he begged to move that the number of days specified in the sub-section be reduced to seven.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 29, to leave out the word "twenty-one," and insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

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

MR. CROPPER

said, he thought it would be better to reduce the number of days specified.

MR. WARTON

said, it seemed to him they were departing from the existing rule, which required a Petition to be presented within a certain number of days of one definite starting point—namely, the day on which the candidate was returned. This system would be attended, in his opinion, with several curious and objectionable results. He, therefore, opposed the departure from the existing practice.

MR. CALLAN

pointed out that in Ireland a Petition had to be presented within 28 days after the Return had been lodged in the hands of the Returning Officer. That system had been found to work satisfactorily, and, as far as he was aware, no complaint had ever been made against it. Why, then, did the Government propose to prolong this period of agony from 28 to 56 days? For his own part, he thought the proposed number of days too many. It might be alleged, in favour of the Go- vernment proposal, that the Petition might be dependent on the amount of the election expenses returned; but he thought the election agent would be a great fool who should make a Return of expenses upon which a Petition could be founded. If they gave the candidate an opportunity of making a Return before the Petition was lodged, they held out to him a great inducement for manufacturing a Return. He thought it better to keep to the period of 28 days, which had already worked well.

MR. RYLANDS

said, this was not a question which required to be argued at very great length. He thought that while sufficient time should be given for presenting a Petition, hon. Members did not desire that it should be prolonged beyond what was absolutely necessary. If, to the 35 days already provided, they added seven days, as proposed by the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Macfarlane), there would result 43 days during which time a Petition might be presented. That was considerably more than the time at present allowed, and he should be glad if the Attorney General could see his way to agree to the suggestion.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he considered that the period of 43 days was unnecessarily long. Nevertheless, he hoped the Attorney General would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that an offence affecting the election might occur on a false Return being made, and it was for that reason the Government took that offence as their starting point in the present case.

MR. LEWIS

said, that it was evident that many hon. Members, having assisted the Government in making the Bill as binding and stringent as possible, now wanted to find some means of escaping from it. The seven days proposed by the hon. Member for Carlow would be insufficient, because longer time would be required for the examination of Returns and the consultation with solicitors and counsel in order to be assured that a Petition would lie. Therefore, he said, that if any useful alteration were to be made of the number of days specified in the sub-section, it would be necessary that at least 10 or 14 days should be allowed from the day on which the Returning Officer received the Return, within which a Petition might be presented.

MR. RAIKES

said, as he read the clause, it related only to Petitions founded upon illegal practices, and he gathered that it was intended to leave the law with regard to corrupt practices in the same state as they found it.

MR. GORST

pointed out that the time proposed was practically eight weeks, because it was exclusive of Sundays. If the Government would reduce this to seven weeks he thought they would be making an acceptable concession.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that if, as his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had pointed out, it were necessary, in the case of Irish elections, to send up to Dublin to examine accounts and consult solicitors and counsel, it would be so because a scrutiny was required by the unsuccessful candidate. He asked whether all those expenses were to come into the maximum fixed by the Schedule?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that, under the existing law, a Petition on the ground of corrupt practices would have to be presented within 21 days after the election.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, although he considered 42 days quite long enough for a Petition to be hanging over the head of a Member, yet he was entirely in the hands of the Attorney General, and as he had been asked to accept 14 days he was willing to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 29, to leave out the word "twenty-one," and insert the word "fourteen."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CALLAN

said, he hoped he should get the assistance of the Attorney General and the President of the Local Government Board in moving the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Tip-perary (Mr. Mayne). The next sub-section said— If the election petition specifically alleges a payment of money, or some other act to have been made or done since the said day by the member or an agent of the member, or with the privity of the member or his election agent in pursuance or in furtherance of the illegal prac- tice alleged in the petition, the petition may he presented at any time within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment or other act. Now, if the acts referred to did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner until after the time specified he would be precluded by the clause from presenting a Petition. But he thought that if any payment had been made, or act done, in deliberate contravention of the Act, that a Petition should be presented at any time, and not within 28 days after it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner. During his own candidature, he was in his sitting room at 12 o'clock on the night preceding the day of election; some sand was thrown up to the window; and a person whom he had never seen before came to the window and said—"Mr. Callan, you will certainly be beaten by a majority of 50; but if you will promise me £500, I promise you that you shall be returned by that majority." He did not, of course, yield to the temptation, and he was defeated by the exact majority named by this interesting stranger. He knew since then that £500 had been paid to this person to corrupt the electors of the borough, which was one of the most rotten in Ireland. Now, he asked, why he should be precluded from petitioning in that case after even a lapse of 12 months? The fact that the money had been paid did not reach his ears until six months afterwards. He saw no reason whatever for precluding him from presenting a Petition, because he could not get the necessary proof within the prescribed 28 days. The proposal of the Government was equivalent to placing a premium on the concealment of illegal practices for the time specified. He appealed to the Committee to say whether it was not giving an absolute bill of indemnity for any illegal practices that could be kept secret for 28 days after they were committed? For these reasons, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne).

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 38, to leave out the words "twenty-eight days," and insert the words "twelve months."—(Mr. Callan.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Louth would not press this Amendment. All that the hon. Member had stated with respect to corrupt practices was not touched by the clause. The law at present was that within 28 days after the election the Petition might be sent in. Some short Statute of Limitation was absolutely necessary, and the time fixed in the sub-section appeared to the Government to be reasonable.

MR. CALLAN

said, it was professed by the Government that their wish was to put down corrupt and illegal practices by this Bill. But why did the Bill give an indemnity to a man guilty of illegal practices, provided he was able to conceal them for 28 days after he had committed them? He would abide by the Amendment he had moved, and he must say that it did not look very well for the pure intentions of the Government to place a premium on the concealment of illegal practices for 28 days.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 5: Majority 210.—(Div. List, No. 179.)

Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 5, after the word "section," to insert the word "first."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 (Withdrawal of election petition).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed to omit Section 4, considering the penalty too severe for what might be, under some circumstances, a trivial offence. He would not go into the matter now; but he hoped the Attorney General would, before Report, consider whether he could modify the penalty.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 40, to leave out Sub-section (4).—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

said, men were punished for misdemeanour, and it was therefore important, if possible, to stop this practice, which prevailed to a great extent in former times. The punishment proposed was a maximum punishment; but if the Amendment were withdrawn he would consider the matter.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, it might, no doubt, be advisable to mitigate this penalty, for if it was made too severe there would be great danger of another evil which was more serious than this—namely, arrangements before elections that no Petition should be presented on either side.

MR. ONSLOW

suggested that after a Petition had been lodged it should be held to be the duty of the Petitioners to proceed.

THE ATTONEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was the law at present, for a Petition could not be withdrawn without the leave of the Judge, either for some special reason, or for want of sufficient evidence.

MR. LEWIS

said, it was notorious that the law as it stood had been evaded. It had been evaded in the present Parliament. Cases were perfectly well known, and, therefore, what was the use of the Committee passing a clause of this most stringent and violent character—hard labour for withdrawal? The withdrawal of a Petition was not theft, and it was no offence in itself. The Committee had better not in cumber the Report too much, for there were very many questions left for the Report. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton started hares, and immediately chopped their heads off. He did not understand the object of making suggestions, and then withdrawing them. This was a very important matter. He could remember the time when it was a common practice for Representatives of both sides to meet and withdraw Petitions against each other. That was within the past 25 years; but it was no longer legal. But were they going to send men to prison with hard labour for doing what Members of that House had done—namely, come to an understanding, and then announce the vacation of the seat? There should be some reasonable punishment; but nothing so stringent and violent as this. He should support the Amendment, unless the penalty was reduced to moderate dimensions; and if the Amendment was withdrawn he should then propose to reduce the punishment to simple imprisonment by striking out the words "with or without hard labour," and give an alternative of a fine of £1,000. He did not approve of the withdrawal of Petitions; but what he urged, was that there ought to be some relation between the character of the offence and the extent of the punishment. Unless the Attorney General would modify the penalty he should support the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought the hon. Member did not realize that the country was getting purer and purer every year in regard to elections. He would suggest to the Attorney General, if he reconsidered this matter upon Report, that he should go a little further. This clause only dealt with the withdrawal of Petitions; but surely the Attorney General was aware that very often there was a corrupt practice in regard to the withdrawal of a candidature. A candidate often came forward, and, on receiving his expenses, withdrew his candidature. He should be glad if the Attorney General would add something to deal with that sort of thing.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that with regard to his starting hares and chopping their heads off, his object was to save time. He did not object to the principle of this sub-section at all, but simply to the excessive penalty it imposed on minor as well as major offences; and as the Attorney General had promised to consider the matter he thought it was the most practical course to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "with or without hard labour."—(Mr. Lewis.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was in the hands of the Committee in respect to this matter; but he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he had an Amendment to propose, and did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee; but he was dead against hurrying this Bill through, whatever the period of the Session, for it was one which might affect every Member, and ought, therefore, to have the most careful consideration. He thought the penalty under this clause a great deal too severe, and should move to reduce the term of imprisonment from 12 to 6 months.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 8, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert the word "six."—[Mr. Onslow.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think he was open to the charge of having rushed the Bill through Committee. With regard to the Amendment, he had already given way to what he thought was the reasonable proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); but he could not consent to minimize the punishment too much, and he hoped the Committee would allow him to adhere to the term in the clause.

Amendment negatived.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFE

wished to know why the Director of Public Prosecutions was to be appointed with the approval of the Attorney General? He thought that was a bad Proviso, for it would give a political colour to the whole matter. He would move the omission of that Proviso pro formâ, in order to hear the explanation of the Attorney General.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 14, to leave out the words "appointed with the approval of the Attorney General."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that personally he should be glad if this duty did not devolve upon himself; but at present the Director of Public Prosecutions acted in all eases under his direction. There must be some sort of supervision, and by the method proposed there would be a double check on the appointment. The Director of Public Prosecutions would have the right of selection; and if the person selected were a fit and proper person the Attorney General would never object to him; but by this mode there would be a double check. At present the Election Commissioners were appointed by the Attorney General.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

agreed with the hon. Member that there was too much of this Attorney General lawmaking.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he hoped the words would be retained, as they would provide Parliamentary responsibility.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he thought it very invidious for the Attorney General to have this power.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had now to appoint all the officials that went down to an election trial; and they were subject to the approval of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 (Attendance of Director of public prosecutions on trial of election petition, and prosecution by him of offenders).

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON moved to insert in page 24, line 26, after "approve," the words— Provided always, That such barrister or solicitor shall not be connected by birth or residence, or in any other manner, with the constituency in which the election petition is being tried. He proposed this in the interest of the public confidence in the officer sent to represent the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that he might be above a breath of suspicion; and hoped the Attorney General would either accept the Amendment, or provide some other safeguard against any doubt being entertained in the locality as to the perfect impartiality of the barrister or solicitor selected.

Amendment proposed,

In page 24, line 26, after the word "approve," to insert the words—" Provided always, That such barrister or solicitor shall not be connected by birth or residence, or in any other manner, with the constituency in which the election petition is being tried."—(Mr. H. B. Samuelson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LEWIS

said, that when hon. Members proposed Amendments they should understand the construction of clauses. The words "connected in any other manner" would cover the whole range of the world's history, and the universal connection of mankind.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, he should not object to the words "in any other manner" being withdrawn, if that would satisfy the hon. Member for Londonderry, who always appeared to think that if any other Member than himself proposed an Amendment he must have some interested motive; and that when bos locutusest—giving the first word in an American sense—when he had given his judgment upon the matter there was nothing more to be said. If the Attorney General thought nothing of this sort could be done he would withdraw the Amendment; but, at the same time, he thought some such Proviso should be inserted.

MR. CALLAN

suggested that baptism certificates and vaccination certificates should be required, and said it was very refreshing to find the hon. Member rebuking the hon. Member for Londonderry, who probably knew more about the subject than all the hon. Members opposite, including the bumptious Member for Banbury.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

expressed the hope that decency would be preserved in the debate; and he would ask the Chairman whether it was in Order to describe a Member as the "bumptious Member for Banbury?" The remark did not apply to him, because he did not represent Banbury; and entirely in the interests of Order he called the Chairman's attention to the remark.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will, I am sure, feel the propriety of withdrawing the expression.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

asked whether it was Parliamentary to call the hon. Member for Londonderry a "boss."

THE CHAIRMAN

I am not called upon to give an opinion upon the word. I am not aware that it is an English word.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I am sure every one of us wishes to proceed as we have hitherto. I appeal to the hon. Member for Louth to withdraw the words he had used, which are liable to be misunderstood.

MR. CALLAN

said, that when the hon. Member withdrew the offensive term he had applied to the hon. Member for Londonderry, he would withdraw his words, but not until then.

MR. LEWIS

said, he did not feel in any way insulted; on the contrary, he regarded it as a highly classical allusion, of which a man might be proud.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, he meant it in that sense.

MR. CALLAN

said, he meant his observations in the same sense.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON moved to omit words in the clause, in order to protect localities from having all the expenses put upon them, if the Director of Prosecutions should ask a single question of a witness.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 36, to leave out all the words from "if" to "or "in line 38.—(Mr. Gibson.)

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, the subject with which this clause dealt was one to which he had given some time and attention. The evident intention of this clause was the prevention of the suppression of evidence, which had often occurred in the past. That was a very intelligible object; but he thought the framer of the clause had hardly seen the whole bearing it would have on Election Petitions. If agreed to as it stood, it would have a great effect in discouraging Election Petitions; and as an Election Petition was an initial step to the full exposure of electoral impurity, any stumbling block in the way of a Petition must assist the extension of electoral impurity and illegalities. The reason why a defeated candidate petitioned against his rival was that he wanted the seat for himself, or desired another election, at which he might hope to gain the seat. They could not expect people to petition on the high moral ground of exposing electoral impurity; and it was certain that no Petitioner would take upon himself all the trouble and expense, and odium and wear and tear connected with a Petition, if he thought that so much electoral impurity would be exposed that a Commission would follow upon the Petition. He would wish to unseat his adversary, but not to show sufficient reason for the Commission reporting the prevalence of extensive corrupt practices. If it was thought likely that the Director of Pro- secutions would produce evidence against the Petitioner and his friends, great pressure would be put upon the defeated candidate not to present a Petition; and so the clause would discourage bonâ fide Petitions. At the same time, he thought it was likely to encourage frivolous Petitions, because many persons, not having sufficient evidence themselves, would petition on the chance of the Director of Prosecutions discovering sufficient evidence to unseat the Member. Therefore, he thought the clause had better be omitted. Later on he should propose an Amendment to abolish what was at present a great discouragement to the production of evidence—namely, the fear of disfranchisement, as he believed that would be the best way of meeting the difficulty.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, this provision was founded on the recommendations of the Committee of 1875; but, in some respects, it did not go so far as those recommendations. It was pointed out by evidence before that Committee that one of the great evils was that, although evidence came out before an election tribunal showing that persons had been guilty of corrupt practices, in consequence of which a Member was unseated, the very people who had committed corrupt practices, as a rule, suffered no punishment. All their malpractices might be exposed, but they went entirely free; and it was felt by the Committee to be desirable to let all persons know that if an Election Petition came about there would probably be proceedings against everyone concerned. At all events, in making a clause of this kind they had acted upon the strong recommendations of the Committee, who went fully into the subject. He thought that the fear of what might happen to individuals who indulged in corrupt practices would be found to have a very beneficial result.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, his great hope was that the Government would persevere in the clause, adopting the provision of the Bill to the altered circumstances of the electoral system.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that for a great part of the Session he had been engaged in one of the Standing Committees in the House, and on that Committee there had been constant allusions made to the Public Prosecutor. He was glad to know that the Attorney General had found some use for the Public Prosecutor; and he trusted that this official would, in future, do good and useful work.

MR. RYLANDS

said, it appeared to him that this was one of the most valuable clauses of the Bill. They ought to take care, now that candidates were to be liable to such heavy penalties, that men who committed illegal offences, thus endangering the position of the candidate, should also be severely punished. What had been the state of affairs hitherto? Why, clearly that Election Judges had looked upon these inquiries as most disagreeable duties; they had sat, perhaps, for a day or two, then a case had been proved of corruption; agency had been accepted, by the Judge stating that he considered agency proved; and at once the counsel on each side put their heads together, and absolutely crushed inquiry, and although there had been persons far more guilty than the candidate they had got off scot free. That clause would be one which would bring under punishment a number of people who ought to be punished; and he trusted it would have a deterrent effect upon the people who, at election times, were only too prone to break the law.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 (Power to Election Court to order payment by county or borough or individual of costs of election petition).

MR. SALT moved the omission, pro formâ, of Sub-section (2). The effect of this section would be that the Court might, if it thought fit, order a person found guilty of corrupt practices to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the proceedings before the Court. Now, under previous sections they knew that a man guilty of corrupt practices was liable to imprisonment and to fine, as well as to certain civil disabilities. That sub-section created another penalty to which he might be liable. He (Mr. Salt), not being a lawyer, was, perhaps, not a person very competent to understand the details of this matter; but it seemed to him that, in addition to suffering all the other penalties, a man might be condemned to pay the whole costs of an Election Petition. He did not know whether that was meant or not; but, certainly, it was a proper inference from the marginal note—namely— Power to Election Court to order payment by county or borough or individulas is of costs of election petition. Of course, with regard to counties and boroughs, there were, no doubt, cases in which a community should be charged with the costs of the Petition. But, with regard to individuals, he thought ignorant persons like himself had a claim to know pretty clearly what was intended.

Amendment proposed, in page 25, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Salt.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. In the case of a perfectly innocent candidate, it was strictly unfair that he should be called upon to bear the costs of proceedings occasioned by the corruption of a constituency in which he played not the slightest part whatever. Again, if a person, against the will of the candidate, corrupted a constituency, why should he not bear the costs of the inquiry, either wholly or in part? He thought many hon. Members would consider it very unjust that a poor candidate should pay thousands of pounds for that which he had endeavoured to prevent, while the man who committed the offence should not be required to pay a single farthing. Sub-section 2 was very simple. It simply provided that if a man should himself have committed an offence of a corrupt or an illegal practice he might be called upon by the Court to pay the costs of, or incidental to, any proceeding in respect of the said offence. It was only so far as this particular act was concerned that it was intended he should bear the costs of the inquiry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed to add a few words to this clause to remedy a great grievance. He cordially agreed with the former part of the clause to which the Attorney General had just adverted; and he thought the Committee would quite understand the force of the Amendment he was now about to move, especially when he had troubled them with a few figures. The first case which he would bring under the notice of the Committee was one in which the Attorney General was involved, and even victimized. The Committee would be surprised to learn that the costs of the Taunton Petition amounted to no less than £9,822; and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, although he had his costs allowed, was, nevertheless, compelled to put his hands in his pocket and pay out something like £2,000. At Stroud there were three or four contested elections within six months of one another. According to the Report of the Committee, the costs of the first Petition amounted to £5,144; and the costs of the second Petition were, as nearly as could be ascertained, £6,889; the costs of the third amounted to £12,000; and the costs of the fourth Petition were £5,155 on the one side, and £6,624 on the other, making a total of something like £12,000. What he proposed to do was to put an end to this scandal by providing that a man petitioning against an election, and alleging that corrupt practices had been committed, and the Member defending his seat should be placed on the same footing, as if an action had been brought in the Superior Court, and the costs should be taxed on the same scale. He did not think he need trouble the Committee with any further remarks on this point; and he would, therefore, content himself by moving to add at the end of the clause— (3.) The rules and regulations of the Supreme Court of Judicature with respect to costs to be allowed in actions, causes, and matters assigned to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court shall apply to the costs of petition and other proceedings under The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and under this Act, and the taxing officer shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses that would not he allowed in an action in the Queen's Bench Division on the higher scale.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he intended to ask the Attorney General a few questions on this matter; because, although they would all agree with the principle of the Amendment, he was not at all clear in his own mind as to the extent to which it was possible to carry it out. He had always heard, although he spoke from imperfect information, that one of the main reasons for excessive costs of Petitions was the change of venue; in fact, trial on the spot had proved more expensive than trial at Westminster. Why was this? Because of the enormous fees that it had been found necessary to pay for the experienced and able counsel who were engaged to support the Petition or defend the seat. His own impression was that there were many expenses which really depended upon the wish of both sides to the Petition to obtain the best possible professional assistance in the conduct of their case, and that, whatever rules they might make, that feeling would still guide the parties to an extent far greater than in the case of an ordinary suit in the Superior Court. If that be so, might not the Amendment result in this—that, although the taxed costs would be smaller than now, the costs beyond the taxed costs which would have to be met by the unfortunate person who was unjustly attacked, and in favour of whom costs might have been given, would be found greater than now? If this were so, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) would be entirely defeated, and the future state of things would be worse than the past.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was not the slightest doubt that in consequence of the change of venue the costs of election inquiries had increased very much. In the one case they had to bring witnesses to London, and in consequence of that fact fewer witnesses, no doubt, appeared. On the other hand, inasmuch as great interests were involved for the county, or the constituency, or for the borough in question, it was very natural the parties wished to have the best legal advice they could get. He knew no part of professional duty which required as great tact as the conducting of election inquiries. Take the case of a man whose honour was involved, and whose position in the House of Commons was at stake. He naturally got the best legal advice to be had, and, if he could, would secure the services of the most skilled attorney, and the most eminent counsel. These professional gentlemen had to break off the continuity of their professional practice in London; and in consequence of having to separate themselves from their ordinary practice, for weeks and sometimes for months, they would not undertake the support or de- fence of Election Petitions, unless they received extremely large fees. That would continue, do as they would. A solicitor would not leave his London business, and a counsel would say he would not go unless he was properly compensated. The client would, therefore, be deprived of the counsel's services, and, in all probability, would have to obtain inferior advice. [Cries of "Both sides!"] He admitted that both sides would, in such a case, have to put up with inferior advice; but it would be really leaving justice to take its chance. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) seemed to be labouring under some mistake. At present the cost of an Election Petition were taxed under the Act of 1868. The Amendment would, no doubt, result in lessening the costs between party and party to some extent; but it could not prevent a client making a special arrangement, under which he would have to pay certain given sums for counsel, for instance. He believed the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory)—who represented the Law Society—had been consulted on this matter, and that he was of opinion that there was no objection to the Amendment. He (the Attorney General) was sure his Profession would be glad to make any sacrifice which would tend to lessen the extravagant cost of Election Petitions, and he thought that they might accept this Amendment as a step in the right direction.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had had no opportunity of consulting his Colleagues in the Law Institution; but, personally, he approved of the Amendment. The Amendment would not interfere with the employment of the best counsel, as, no doubt, the taxing master would take a reasonable view of the Act, and allow higher than the usual fees for the counsel retained. The Amendment was certainly a step in the right direction, although it might not have any extensive operation.

MR. LEAMY

said, he was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was prepared to accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech appeared to defend the charging of heavy fees by eminent counsel. Eminent counsel, of course, had a right to get as much as they could; but the Committee must recollect that one of the objects of this Bill was to cheapen elections. What would be the good of allowing a poor man to get elected cheaply, if as soon as he was elected a rich man could bring an action against him, and involve him in very heavy costs? He (Mr. Leamy) hoped that in future there would never be such a scandal as one Election Petition costing as much as £12,000.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

urged upon the Committee the necessity of taking this question into serious consideration. It would be frequently found that men would get together a few hundred pounds to enable them to pay the expenses of an election; but then a rich man, who, perhaps, had been beaten in the election itself, might bring a Petition against the successful candidate, drive him out of the field, and get elected himself. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) knew a gentleman who many years ago was elected by his fellow-citizens in a Cornish borough. He was most fairly elected; but a Petition was brought against him, and he afterwards stated in that House that he knew he would have succeeded in the Petition if he had gone before the Committee, but that he could not bear the expenses even of a successful Petition. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had upon the Paper a clause which would be to restrict the power of Petitions; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) hoped that that clause might be favourably received by the Government. The case could be conceived of a rich man saying—"I will allow a poor man to get elected, but will bring a Petition against him, in which he will be unable to bear the costs." A poor man's friends might be willing to advance him a few hundred pounds necessary to contest a constituency; but he would not be able to get his friends to assist him in defending a Petition. He hoped the Attorney General would either propose some method himself, or would accept, more or less, the fresh clause the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth intended to bring on, by which the power of petitioning might be limited. He was convinced that, although they might have the best intentions in the world, without some such restricting clause their good intentions would be nullified.

MR. LEWIS

questioned whether the Amendment would, in the least degree, affect one of the greatest items of expense in connection with Election Petitions—namely, the fees given to the eminent counsel who were retained. When the House of Commons surrendered its right to try Election Petitions, it had to make a choice between the convenient and less expensive trials up here, and the long weary trials in the locality concerned. Probably by trials in the constituency itself they arrived at the truth more easily; but great sacrifices were necessitated. Both sides at an Election Petition desired to retain the best counsel that could be got. Now, there was a Trades Union among the Members of the Bar; the late Sir Henry Jackson always described the Bar as a Trades Union. All the leading counsel who used to go to Election Petitions made a bargain amongst themselves that they would never go for less than 200 guineas for the first day, and a refresher of 50 guineas for every subsequent day. He (Mr. Lewis) would not say that that was an unreasonable arrangement to make amongst themselves; but he desired the Committee to understand the real difficulty in this matter. He (Mr. Lewis) had himself put an Amendment on the Paper to this clause. He believed the clause would turn out to be as impractical as many other parts of the Bill, and his Amendment was simply to test the opinion of the Committee upon the matter. He considered that it was no use supposing that they could narrow the costs of an Election Petition by this clause. The two greatest items of expense were counsel's fees and payment to witnesses. If this clause were passed, the solicitor who had to conduct the Petition would say to his client—" Do you wish to have Mr. Sergeant Buzfuz? Because, if you do, you will be required to pay him so-and-so." Whatever arrangement was come to between the counsel and client as to fees, no taxing master could touch. Now, with regard to witnesses. They were, by the Court of Queen's Bench scale, allowed so much a day; but a solicitor would say to his client—" Such and such a person cannot be depended upon, so you must allow me to be more liberal with them." If a client gave special instructions respecting certain witnesses, the taxing master could not interfere in the matter. There was no doubt that this Bill would leave the greatest anomaly and scandal behind—namely, the great cost of Election Petitions; and he did not see how they were going in any way to diminish this cost. Although he was prepared to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), he could not but believe that its effect would be nil.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

denied that counsels' fees were the largest items of expense in Election Petitions. For instance, in the Stroud case out of £5,155, the total costs of one of the parties, the counsel's fees amounted to £1,820. If a man engaged first-class men he must pay for them. What he (Mr. Fowler) proposed to do was to interfere with the unlimited discretion of election agents to employ whom they liked at enormous fees. Personally, he considered there were many members of the Junior Bar quite as competent to conduct Election Petitions as the most eminent counsel. He was fully persuaded the Amendment he proposed was a step in the right direction.

MR. STANTON

said, it was quite true that the costs of the Petitions which were heard in his own borough (Stroud) were very excessive; but he could not see in what way they could have been reduced. Eminent counsel were engaged, and therefore eminent fees were paid. In Stroud the expenses of the witnesses, and the long time which the trial lasted, were two of the chief causes of the great expenditure. The expenses of witnesses in election trials were necessarily large, because it was impossible to know what course the proceedings might take; it was quite impossible to know in what order the witnesses would be called. Hon. Members who had had much to do with Petitions knew full well the way in which they were got up; it was well known how every minor act of bribery was sought after. It struck him that the only way to reduce the enormous expenditure in Election Petitions was to do a very simple thing, and that was not to allow anyone whose hands were not clean to reap advantage from a Petition. He believed that if the Bill contained some such provision a stop would be put to many Petitions. He felt that if in the cases at Stroud the Petitioner had known that his own con- duct would have been inquired into by the Court, instead of there being four Petitions there would only have been one.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, there appeared to be no doubt that the Amendment went in the right direction. There did, however, exist considerable doubt as to how far it did go. The evidence given in the Stroud case went to show that the larger part of the costs consisted of something very like treating; and he could not see how, by the Amendment, this large item of expenditure would be stopped. He was informed that if one of the parties to the Petition gave written authority to the agent managing the case to incur certain expenses the taxing power of the Court would not be able to interfere.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, if a man chose to throw his money away it was purely his own fault.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the great evil was that in the case of a Petition the rich man had an immense advantage over the poor man. They could not prevent the rich man engaging the best counsel; they could not properly deal with the expenditure at election trials in the spirit in which they wished to deal with it, unless the Government would endeavour to find some means by which the rich man should not be able, by the mere length of his purse, to put the poor man at a disadvantage. The Amendment might prevent an attorney getting too much money; but it would not prevent the rich man getting an advantage over the poor man.

MR. LEAMY

said, the only way in which the rich and the poor man could in this matter be put on equal terms was to introduce a scale of fees for counsel. He was quite sure any proposition of the kind would meet with the most bitter opposition from Members of the Profession; but notwithstanding that, such a proposition would not be without precedent. In Bills for the extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts scales of fees were introduced, under which attorneys were allowed 10s., 15s., or 20s., as the case might be, for every case in which he appeared before the Judge. Why should not the same thing be done in this case? Why should it not be said that any barrister appearing before an Election Court should not be allowed to claim more than so many pounds a-day? That would prevent the rich man bring- ing down the best counsel from London, and paying him, say, £1,000 for his services, because the opponent, if he were called upon to pay the costs, would only have to pay the scale fees.

MR. GREGORY

said, that if parties wished to go beyond any scale of fees fixed upon they could not be prevented from doing so.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it had been stated that the Bill was intended to destroy the power of the purse. It would certainly do that in regard to the election expenses; but if it failed to do so in respect to Election Petitions it would be of little use. The lament of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) was that at present Election Petitions resulted in great expenditure. The only remedy was to forbid the employment of solicitors and barristers in election trials. Let the candidates themselves fight the matter out before the Judges; let them dispense with all legal advice. This was only a desperate suggestion on his part; because he saw the lawyers could not agree among themselves as to what should be done.

SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY

said, the only doubt there appeared to be was as to whether the Amendment would do a great deal of good or very little. Under the circumstances, the most rational course for the Committee to pursue would be to agree to the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

remarked, that the practical effect of the Bill would be, on the one hand, to lessen the cost of an election; but, on the other, to increase materially the expense attending Petitions. He did not imagine that that was the intention of the Government in bringing forward the Bill, and he did not think that the Bill could be made satisfactory or perfect unless they agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite in regard to this question of the payment of costs. He was very strongly of opinion that unless they made the payment under an Election Petition the same as other legal payments in an action at law, they would not have Election Petitions conducted, so far as the expenses were concerned, upon a reasonable scale; and, in addition, it was most probable that the number of Petitions would be much greater than they otherwise would be. A case had been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to the scandalous treating which had taken place in the trial of an Election Petition. He thought that was a case in which the Public Prosecutor would have only done his duty if he had prosecuted the parties for treating, seeing that the Petition had arisen out of the election proceedings; but he presumed that there was no machinery by which the conduct of the parties could be brought under the notice of the Public Prosecutor. Nevertheless, the conduct of the two candidates who were having their case tried before an Election Judge was open to the gravest reprobation. It was clear that each was doing his utmost to bribe the witnesses to perjure themselves in the case. Both of the candidates, and their solicitors also, appeared to have acted in a highly corrupt manner in attempting to encourage perjury on the part of the witnesses on both sides. An inquiry ought to have taken place; and if the law was to be administered at all, it should be, as far as possible, administered in a temperate and impartial manner; and any attempt to prime witnesses with strong drink downstairs before they were brought in to give their evidence appeared to him to be a thorough burlesque upon justice; and he thought the Judge would have been justified in interfering in rather a highhanded manner, and in having the parties brought before him. As to the fees, he did not see why an account of them could not be delivered as well as the expenses. He knew there was a strong desire to secure the services of some barrister of eminence, whose name was often in the newspapers, and who had a large practice, although his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion was that the business would be much better done by a less known and cheaper man. He thought the Amendment went scarcely far enough, and that it should apply not only to the costs between party and party, but that no client should be able to contract himself out of the provisions of the Bill. If he did so, his conduct should be condemned, and any payment he made should be held to be a corrupt payment, especially if he paid anything beyond the taxed costs as between attorney and client.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. M'COAN moved to add at the end of the clause— No Election Petition shall be lodged until an abstract of the evidence by which it is proposed to support it has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and his fiat thereon obtained. He gathered that it was the feeling of the Committee to keep down the expenses as far as possible, and to prevent the prosecution of frivolous Petitions. He therefore proposed to add these words to the 4th sub-section of the clause. He thought they would meet the difficulty, and that they would certainly prevent frivolous Petitions. It might be objected that the Director of Public Prosecutions was acting as a subordinate, and was, therefore, to some extent, under the influence of the Attorney General for the time being, so that he might have a political bias; but he thought that objection would be met by the fact that, whether the fiat to prosecute was issued by the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General, it would still be open to Parliamentary criticism, and there would, consequently, be an ample guarantee that nothing like a political job, whether Whig or Tory, would be perpetrated. He, therefore, submitted this Amendment to the consideration of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 35, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "no Election Petition shall be lodged until an abstract of the evidence by which it is proposed to support it has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and his fiat thereon obtained."—(Mr. M'Coan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

remarked, that if the Committee saw what the Amendment really amounted to, he was satisfied they would be of opinion that it could not be accepted. In 1868 the House gave up its right to try its own Election Petitions to the Judges of the Superior Courts; but he did not think the House wished, at the present moment, to go further, and to give up the right to try Election Petitions to the Public Prosecutor. How would the Director of Public Prosecutions know whether the evidence upon which he was called to act was correct or not? Of course, it could only be developed as the inquiry went on.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought there was a great deal more in the matter than the Attorney General seemed to think. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had raised an important point in his opening speech—namely, whether the Public Prosecutor was an independent officer or not? If he (Mr. Biggar) remembered rightly, the present Public Prosecutor was a very independent gentleman indeed—a man who might be mistaken in his judgment, but a man who was always disposed to do what he thought for the best. He (Mr. Biggar) was of opinion that it was desirable to make applications of this nature to some such person as the Public Prosecutor, and for this reason—that one great cause of the excessive expense occasioned by the presentation of a Petition was that the person who lodged the Petition, whether it related to a borough or a county election, during the whole of its progress was continually looking around for evidence to enable him to get up his case. The result was that a very large amount of expense was incurred, and there was a considerable prolongation of the trial. All that expense would, in a great measure, be obviated if the person proposing to lodge a Petition had to make, before some preliminary tribunal, a statement of the case on which he proposed to found his Petition. It might turn out that there was no pretence of a case whatever; and, in that event, permission to go on with the Petition would be refused. He did not think, on the other hand, that any legal authority would be disposed to throw any unreasonable obstacle in the way of litigation. On the contrary, the Public Prosecutor would probably be very easily satisfied in regard to what was to be considered a primâ facie case. But where there was no primâ facie case, it would be unreasonable to allow a person to lodge a Petition against the candidate upon his own responsibility, his sole object being to crush his opponent by rendering him liable to pay excessive costs.

MR. LEAMY

said, the sense of the Committee was against the proposal, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it. At the same time, he (Mr. Leamy) had a strong feeling that something ought to be done to prevent people from recklessly rushing into Court with Petitions. He would suggest that any person who filed a Petition and failed to sustain it, should be sent to gaol for six months with hard labour. The Petitioner would be attempting, to some extent, to interfere with the rights of the constituency, and would be bringing serious charges against another person. Therefore, in any case in which he failed to sustain his charge, he ought to be sent to gaol.

MR. M'COAN

said, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, either by addressing it at any length or by pressing the Amendment to a Division; but, contrary to the judgment of the Attorney General, he was of opinion that the suggestion embodied in the Amendment was not so frivolous as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. The intention, at any rate, was good—namely, to supply some kind of counterpoise to the advantage which a rich man might have over a poor man. He thought it was worthy of consideration whether that object could not be achieved by some such Amendment as this; and he would be glad if the Attorney General would direct his attention to the matter, with the view of proposing some means by which this desirable end could be accomplished.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clause 38 (Engagement as agent of person previously found guilty of corrupt or illegal practice).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he wished to give an explanation with regard to this clause. He did not propose to carry the law any further than it was now carried by Clause 26, so far as it might be deemed to be expedient to make the candidate responsible for the acts of his agent. He did not think it right in the case of this clause to take the course which the Committee took in Clause 26, and he would move the omission of the clause altogether.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. RAIKES

said, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to strike out this clause; but it would not be necessary, of course, to move it now. The Attorney General had omitted to state that there was one other important change which he had proposed to make in the law. At one time a disqualification attached to an agent who had been found guilty by a jury, and that was the only disqualification; but it was proposed by this clause, as it stood in the Bill, to extend that disqualification to any person actually reported by the Election Court or by an Election Commission. It was not a question between an agent and a sub-agent as to persons who might have been employed, and who had been found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices, but it applied to all persons who had been reported by an Election Judge. He thought it would have been extremely difficult to justify such a proposal. He was glad that the Attorney General did not intend to take that course, but that he was willing to accept the suggestion that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, there was one point of an important character in regard to the clause to which he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General. It had reference to engaging the services of a man who had just been unseated on Petition. The words were "a person personally engaged." They all knew that it was almost impossible to prove personal engagement. In his own (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) case a candidate was unseated on Petition. He immediately went down to the borough, and introduced another candidate, and, in point of fact, was the main reason of the second candidate's return; but it was impossible to prove that he was in any way "personally engaged," and when he went into the box he actually swore there was no personal engagement between himself and the candidate he was successful in returning. When the Petition was over, and the candidate was unseated, within a short time after the result of the Petition was made known the former candidate, who had been instrumental in returning the second candidate, claimed £1,000 from the Gentleman he had succeeded in getting in, which sum that Gentleman refused to pay, on the ground that, although he was actually seated, he was only seated for a short time; whereupon this person issued a writ. He thought the point was an important one, and he trusted the Attorney General would consider it, in order to insert some provision in the Bill to guard against a similar case hereafter—namely, the use by a candidate of the services of a person who had just been unseated. It was a great evil that the moment a candidate was unseated he should be able to go down to the borough again, in order to nominate and actively support another person in securing the seat of which he had himself been deprived. He, therefore, hoped the clause would not be withdrawn at once, and he would move, in line 4, the insertion of words to carry out the object he had in view.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman cannot do that; I have already put the Question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he had been speaking in opposition to the omission of the clause. He wanted it to stand part of the Bill, and not to be struck out.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot amend a clause after the Question has been put that it stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not rise before I put the Question.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he thought the Chairman was mistaken, and that he had risen before the Question was put.

MR. RAIKES

said, the hon. Member was in error. He had himself preceded the hon. Member; but he (Mr. Raikes) did not rise until after the Question had been put that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and he had addressed the Committee upon that Question.

Clause struck out.

Clause 39 (Inquiry by Director of Public Prosecutions into alleged corrupt or illegal practices).

MR. GORST moved, in page 26, line 15, after "prosecutions," to insert "or his assistant." He wished to point out to the Committee that in the early stage of the Bill a Motion had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), and strongly supported by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, for the establishment of a sum- mary tribunal for the purpose of dealing with offences against the election law at the time they were committed. The tribunal proposed by his right hon. Friend was a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, consisting of two Justices of the Peace. To that Court great objection was taken by the Attorney General, and a kind of challenge was thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman to his opponents. "Find me a tribunal," said the Attorney General, "and I will be quite ready to fall into your views, and see if anything of the kind can be done." He (Mr. Gorst) did not think that the Committee at that time noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself found a tribunal in a clause they were now coming to. The tribunal found by the Attorney General was a barrister specially appointed for the purpose of sitting in the town where the election was taking place, and punishing, by summary procedure, offences against the election law. He was not, however, going to discuss Clause 40 at the present moment; but he intended only to move now to add to the words "Director of Public Prosecutions "the words" or his assistant," meaning, thereby, somebody sent down by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute offences against the election law by means of the summary tribunal which the learned Attorney General proposed to create. He thought that was a convenient Amendment upon which to inquire what the intentions of the Attorney General were respecting this tribunal; and he hoped the relevancy of the Amendment would be clearly understood. The Attorney General proposed to established a local tribunal, and he (Mr. Gorst) was strongly in favour of a local tribunal; but he objected to the mode in which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to carry out that idea. It seemed to him something like shutting the door of the stable after the horse was stolen, to send down an official to conduct an inquiry six months after the election was over. He ought to be sent down at the time the election was going on. Apart from the question of expense, he did not see any difficulty in having a barrister, such as was described in Section 40, sent down to any borough where corrupt practices were taking place, and there would be no difficulty in having an assistant of the Public Prosecutor sent down also. There would then be a tribunal on the spot. The Public Prosecutor, or his representative, would be in the borough, and it would be his duty to see that the law was observed, and then they might have some some prospect of seeing an election conducted legally, without anything in the nature of a violation of the provisions of the Statute. That was the reason why in foreign countries there was no such open violation of the law as that which characterized English elections. Abroad this sort of violation of the law was unknown. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had spoken of the manner in which elections were conducted at Breslau, and the hon. Member had drawn a contrast between the order and quiet which prevailed in an election at Breslau, and the disorder and illegality which characterized a similar proceeding in an English town. Why was that? It was because there was no officer in England to see that the law was observed. In Breslau, if a man were to commit any of the illegal acts which were over and over again committed at an election in Newcastle, or Leeds, he would have the Public Prosecutor down upon him, and would be sent to prison for openly violating the law; whereas in an English constituency there was nobody to see the law put in force, and no local tribunal to take cognizance of the offence. The consequence was that the law was frequently violated before the eyes of everybody. There was nobody to enforce it, and it was broken in a manner which was scandalous to their civilization. He therefore begged, for the purpose of raising the question whether there ought not to be a legal administration of the law, to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 15, after the word "prosecutions," to insert the words "or his assistant."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved the Amendment in the present clause. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the object of the clause. It was quite correct to say that in an early part of the Bill his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) had raised a question as to a summary tribunal which should deal with offences under the Act on the spot. The view of the right hon. Gentleman was that there should be some tribunal so constituted that if a person was caught red-handed he might be tried at once and punished. But this clause had nothing to do with that question. While his hon. and learned Friend was looking for a Judge, he (the Attorney General), in this clause, was looking for a Prosecutor. If they pursued the subject now they would have to discuss it all over again upon the next clause, which appointed Special Commissioners to make an inquiry whether there was reason to believe that a considerable number of the electors of a county or borough had been guilty of some corrupt or illegal practice. The present clause raised the question of placing the prosecution of such persons in the hands of a public officer, and of not leaving it to private persons. It had nothing whatever to do with the tribunal, but simply with the institution of the prosecution.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought the misunderstanding was rather on the part of the Attorney General than of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite as much searching, not for a Judge, but for a Prosecutor. The object of his hon. and learned Friend was this—that they ought to have some summary tribunal for dealing with these matters; and in order that that summary tribunal might be of the greatest use, they ought to have a Public Prosecutor wherever it was required at an election. It was in order to make the summary tribunal the Attorney General was about to institute of some use, that his hon. and learned Friend proposed there should be power to prosecute before it, and they could not have that duty properly discharged unless they had a Prosecutor; so that his hon. and learned Friend was quite as much in search of a Public Prosecutor as of a Judge. The question of the Judge would come up further on.

MR. GORST

remarked, that if the Attorney General would look at the consequential Amendments which appeared on the Paper, he would find that he (Mr. Gorst) was not open to the criticism to which he had been exposed Among the Amendments, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words:— Upon the request of any candidate at an election the returning officer shall apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions to appoint an assistant to attend during the election in the county or borough at which such election is taking place, and it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to send forthwith such assistant, and to charge his remuneration and expenses to such returning officer. The returning officer shall be entitled to recover the sums so charged from the candidates, as part of the expenses of the election, in addition to the sums allowed to be charged under The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875.' This officer would go down and attend elections at the time they were taking place, and the officer so sent down would make all the necessary inquiries, and summon before the proper tribunal any person whom he might find offending against the law. As the Attorney General had placed the question of the Prosecutor first in Clause 39, and had left the tribunal over until they reached Clause 40, he (Mr. Gorst) was obliged, of course, to keep the same order. In this clause he proposed that there should be a Public Prosecutor, and when they reached Clause 40 he intended to propose that there should be a local tribunal. He wished to impress upon the Attorney General that there ought to be in every constituency in places where corrupt practices were known to taking place an officer of the law for the purpose of seeing that the law was observed, and for the purpose of putting the law in motion against any person, whoever he might be, who intended to break the law. He was quite certain that until that was done in some form or shape they might pass what clause they liked, but they would never put down corrupt practices at elections. The only way in which these sort of practices were to be put down was by having some person in the place in the position of a public officer whose duty it would be to watch the election.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the consideration of the Amendment for the present. He should like to ask the Committee to consider what it was they were called upon to do by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They were really asked to send down a barrister to every election, and that meant a barrister of seven years' standing, so that they might probably have to send some 400 barristers of seven years' standing down to the different constituencies to watch the proceedings. That could not be done without incurring considerable expense. And what was the barrister to do when he reached the constituency? He would be a stranger to the constituency, and if he were sent down to detect bribery he would be the last man who would be able to do so. He would sit in the bar-room of an hotel all day long, and would have no information brought to him. Was he to act the part of a detective, or was he to act as the advocate of a detective if any case of bribery were found out? What was it that his hon. and learned Friend meant?

MR. GORST

said, he did not see why the officer should be a barrister of seven years' standing.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

remarked, that he might be a solicitor; but, at present, he did not know what the duties were which this individual was to perform. If he was to institute a prosecution, he must be necessarily be a man connected with the Legal Profession, and therefore he must be a barrister or a solicitor. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he was to detect the crime, or that he was to prosecute the offender before the magistrates when the crime was detected? It was evident he was not to be the Judge and to preside over the tribunal, and therefore he must be a stranger to the town.

MR. GORST

asked why he should be a stranger to the town?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked of what use, if a person was to be placed in a capacity to represent the public, would be the appointment of a local man, who would be certain to be a friend to one side, and under the influence of one side, and could not represent impartial justice as the Public Prosecutor would represent it? He did not think that the proposal was a practical one, or that it would do the slightest good. There could be no utility in sending a man down to a constituency who would know nobody, and who would be supplied with no information, and whose only alternative would be to sit in the bar-parlour of an hotel all day long. Of what assistance would such a man be in discovering or bringing to light cases of bribery?

MR. LEAMY

saw a further objection to this Amendment. If the Public Prosecutor was only to send down his assistant, they would have that assistant roaming about one or two constituencies during the election; whereas in other constituencies, and perhaps those in which his presence was most required, there would be no public officer at all. He thought the Attorney General had shown conclusively that the gentleman appointed, whoever he might be, would spend the whole of the day in an hotel. Who was to come before him? The election would last only eight or nine hours; and suppose the police were to arrest a man, and bring him before this officer on a charge of bribery, or the commission of some other corrupt practice, unless they could show that the man had been receiving or paying money, it was very unlikely that the Public Prosecutor or his assistant would be able to do anything of himself. At the same time, he thought it would have a very good effect if the constituency thoroughly understood that there was a person who could seize on any man who was guilty of bribery, or of any other illegal act; and he (Mr. Leamy) intended to move a clause later on requiring the Returning Officer, as soon as he received a writ, to publish all the sections of this Bill which contained the punishment to be inflicted upon voters who were guilty of any of the corrupt or illegal practices set forth in the Bill. He thought that would have a most wholesome effect; and if an elector had staring him in the face the fact that if he was guilty of a certain offence he would be liable to a certain punishment he would not be so likely to commit it.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the establishment of a tribunal to act on the spot in certain cases would unquestionably be one of the best provisions which could be inserted in the Bill. Indeed, he believed it would do more to check corruption than anything else they could do. All the other pro- visions were of little significance in comparison with that; but, at the same time, he failed, to see how the Amendment could accomplish that object. He understood his hon. and learned Friend to desire to appoint a Prosecutor without a tribunal to try the cases. No doubt a Public Prosecutor might be a useful officer; but he would be an expensive one, and might not be necessary, and unless they appointed a local Court he did not see what value the Amendment would have. In foreign countries a security for the purity of elections existed in the fact that alongside of all elections was a person engaged in watching that no illegal practices were committed. His opinion was, that if they adopted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) they would do more to put down corruption than anything else.

MR. LEWIS

said, he objected to the clause as a whole, and also to the manner in which it was proposed to carry it out. What would be the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions if he were to go down to make inquiry in the way suggested? It was quite evident that he would become the mere depository of all the tittle-tattle of the place on one side or the other. What was the necessity of such a provision? As the Bill stood, they had given ample power for the presentation of Petitions, which was the only resort of persons who were discontented with an election. In the next clause they appointed Commissioners, and sent them down to the constituency at the instance of an aggrieved Petitioner who desired inquiry. They now proposed that, in order to check the corrupt practice which might have prevailed, an inquiry should be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis) that the real objection was to the clause itself. Although he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he certainly could not support the clause. He would not inquire what the object of the next clause was; but, in regard to the present clause, he thought that its object had been misconceived by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). The Public Prosecutor could not try anybody at all. He would be simply sent down to the constituency to see if he could pick up anybody and send him for trial, and he (Mr. Lewis) did not think that was a sort of thing they ought to sanction at all. They ought to rest quite content with the eagerness of political partizans, without sending down the Public Prosecutor.

MR. GORST

said, he would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, because he had been impressed by what hon. Members had said, that it was not necessary to have a Public Prosecutor without a local tribunal; and as the hon. and learned Attorney General had not yet provided a local tribunal, it was unnecessary to take up the time of the Committee by looking for a Public Prosecutor. There was one observation of the Attorney General which he desired to answer, in order to show that he was not as ignorant as the Attorney General seemed to suppose. He had never contemplated that the Public Prosecutor should send down a stranger. The Attorney General knew the Public Prosecutor better than he (Mr. Gorst) did; but the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that he would appoint the worst man to represent him he could find. If the Public Prosecutor were a man of sense, he (Mr. Gorst) presumed that when he appointed an assistant he would look out for some independent and impartial solicitor in the constituency itself.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

How could you find him?

MR. GORST

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked how they could find him? He (Mr. Gorst) would undertake to say that there was not a constituency in which they could not find a respectable solicitor who took no part in Party politics of any kind, and who would be perfectly adequate to exercise semi-judicial functions at the time of an election. That was the sort of man he would recommend; but as there was no use in searching for a Public Prosecutor, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

desired to say a word before the Amendment was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had asked why a barrister of seven years' standing should be sent down to a borough to listen to all the tittle-tattle of the place; and the hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that the Public Prosecutor would be able to obtain no evidence which he could lay-before any tribunal. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) contended, on the other hand, that witnesses would be taken before the representative of the Public Prosecutor, who would be in a position to give some substantial evidence upon which the Assistant Public Prosecutor would be able to set the law in motion, and have the case adjudicated upon at once. It therefore seemed to him that the Amendment was a feasible one, and he did not see why it should not be introduced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman move the other Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper?

MR. GORST

No.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. LEWIS

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the nature of clause. It said— Where information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions that any corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed in reference to any election, it shall be his duty, subject to the regulations under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, to make such inquiries and institute such prosecutions as the circumstances of the case appear to him to require. Did the Attorney General really think that such a provision would answer any practical purpose in the interests of purity of election? It seemed to him (Mr. Lewis) to be wholly a mischievous and a useless provision.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were cases in which persons would go to the Public Prosecutor and his representative and say that wholesale bribery was going on, and that A, B, C, and D could give him conclusive proof of it. Directly he received such information the Public Prosecutor could put the law in motion; and he thought it would be better to leave the duty of entering upon the case to the Public Prosecutor, rather than to persons who might have been taking part in the election on one side or the other.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40 (Special Commissioner for trial of persons charged with corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, a great many representations had been made to him on the subject of this clause, which did not deal with a summary tribunal, but a tribunal to be appointed after the election on the representation of a certain number of electors. A great many Members on both sides of the House desired to see the tribunal sitting during the election. He was anxious to do all in his power to meet the views of those hon. Members, and would therefore take the matter into consideration, to see whether he could provide, not only an inquiry after, but, if possible, during the election. This clause was perfectly isolated from the rest of the Bill; therefore, under the circumstances, he should be prepared to strike it out, with the object of dealing with the matter at a later stage.

MR. GORST

said, he intended to propose an Amendment to convert the Court from one which should sit after the election into one which should sit during the election; but, as he understood the matter, the Attorney General was going to take the whole subject into his consideration, with a view, if possible, of meeting the wishes of the Committee. He would not, therefore, move his Amendment at present; but he hoped he was right in supposing that the possibility of having a tribunal which should sit during an election would be considered by the Government with the desire of adopting such an arrangement if practicable.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

agreed with the postponement, but wished to say that they were postponing too many clauses. ["No, no!"] Well, if they were not postponing this clause they were striking it out, in order to bring up another one in its place, which was almost the same thing. ["No, no!"] Not necessarily, perhaps, but in all probability that was what they would do. He wished to warn the Committee against the danger of leaving too many questions to be discussed on the Report stage; and to suggest that, if they were not careful, the points at issue on Report would be as numerous and as trouble- some as they had been in the Committee.

MR. RAIKES

said, that if this clause was struck out now, he could only hope that it would re-appear. It appeared to him by far the most practical clause of the Bill. There was one point which, so far as he could judge, appeared to have escaped the attention of the Attorney General, and also the Members of the Committee, and he would make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to it. The clause in its present form provided for inquiry into corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring; but the Commissioner only had power under it to punish for corrupt practices. There was no provision in the clause for the punishment of illegal practices, or illegal payments, employment, or hiring; but in Sub-section 4, the Commissioner, on convicting a person for an illegal practice in connection with an election might, if he thought it expedient, let him off, awarding no other punishment than the incapacities that attached to such conviction. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government that the Commissioner should not have power to punish for illegal payment, employment, or hiring; but, while he should prefer to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to punishment for corrupt practices, he should be glad to see the clause re-appear. The omission he pointed out appeared to him to be a serious error in the drafting. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might read the clause two or three times, but nowhere in it would he find provided punishment for illegal practices. There were two other points to which he wished to call attention, and to make proposals, one being in the spirit of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) at an earlier period. He (Mr. Raikes) was anxious that the person who held this Commission should be one who was not liable to the suspicion of political bias; and he, therefore, proposed that he should be a person who had not been a candidate at any election during the five years preceding his appointment. It seemed to him (Mr. Raikes) that it would be a very unsatisfactory element in such inquiry if, in considering cases where malpractices were charged against one side or the other, the person conducting the investigation were a person who had recently been a Member of the House, or a candidate for a seat in Parliament. Such a person would hardly be able to hear a case with that partiality which he ought to possess. He had known cases where Commissioners who had been candidates at elections, and who might have been extremely desirous of doing their duty in a most impartial manner, still had entirely failed to satisfy the constituency amongst whom they had sat that that was the case. The question then arose, how far these inquiries were to affect the status of Members of the House? The Bill, in the general clauses, provided elaborate machinery for the trial of Election Petitions; but, as he read this clause, it would be competent for a Commissioner to try a candidate or Member of the House six months after the election, and probably long after the time for petitioning had expired, and if he found him guilty thereby to void the seat and expose the Member to all the penalties of the Bill. It seemed to him (Mr. Raikes) that that, perhaps, was hardly intended; and he wished to put in words making a saving clause, to the effect that neither the candidate nor his principal agent should be liable to be tried by such Commission. If the other side wished to have a shot at a candidate or his principal agent, they had an opportunity in their power to lodge a Petition against the return; but if the clause passed in a form similar to that in which it now stood, it might give political opponents an opportunity of satisfying their vindictiveness or malignity. He mentioned these matters now because he was anxious that the Attorney General, who was going to bring in the clause in a new shape, should have them under his consideration, and might, therefore, make the section more workable and more practicable.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to line 39, in Sub-section 2, he would find that for the purposes of this Act the Commissioner was to have all the powers of a Petty Sessional Court, in addition to the powers conferred by the measure. A Petty Sessional Court could try a case summarily, and impose summary punishment; therefore, the Commissioner would be able to act summarily. Then, again, a candidate need not subject himself to this jurisdiction unless he thought proper. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's entire criticism of the clause altogether failed. He (the Attorney General) trusted that upon this subject there would be no misunderstanding. With regard to the tribunal, it would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir B. Assheton Cross) had said that he would endeavour to find it; and he (the Attorney General) could only say that anything that came from the right hon. Gentleman would be received by him with every desire to meet his views if it were possible. He (the Attorney General) could not take upon himself fuller obligations in this matter.

MR. BOURKE

said, that before they parted with this clause they ought to have a satisfactory understanding from the Attorney General as to whether or not it was to re-appear? Though the Attorney General proposed to withdraw the clause for the present, was it to appear in another shape? He did not understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had pledged himself in the matter; on the contrary, though there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that the principle laid down in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was one the Committee ought to sanction, the Attorney General had not committed himself to that view. From what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman to-day it was clear that the Government did not look upon this proposal with any degree of favour. Therefore, he thought that before they passed away from the clause it would be well for the Committee to understand whether the Government really did intend to bring up any clause analogous to that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent or not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was understood to say that the Government would take the point into consideration, with a view, if possible, of making some proposal with regard to it.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that he had lately been thinking a great deal over this question, and it had suggested itself to his mind that this Court might safely be the local magistrates. The local magis- trates desired to prevent bribery; it was their object that elections should be conducted decently, and in an orderly manner; and it certainly appeared to him that, unless they availed themselves of the local magistrates, they would be unable to obtain another local tribunal.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought that as his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was not present, he might say in his name that he thought the Attorney General had, on the whole, exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing this clause. There had been a great consensus of opinion in the House that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was quite right in suggesting to the Committee that it was desirable to have a summary tribunal to decide on the spot during the election, if possible, in the case of offences discovered as the election was going on; but such tribunal would not at all be provided by this clause. This clause would enable disgusted opponents—there were always people disgusted with the result after an election—to wait four, or five, or six months before taking any action, and then action might be taken just at the time when everybody was forgetting the animosities of the contest, and were making up their political differences. The effect of the clause would be to bring up the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor into the county or borough, and to have the constituency again annoyed and disturbed when everybody wanted to forget and forgive. He was pleased, therefore, on the whole, that the clause had been withdrawn. He understood the Attorney General to say that he had no intention of presenting this clause again to the notice of the Committee, but that he would be prepared to give the fullest and most favourable consideration to any clause that might be presented from any part of the Committee. That might have reference to the real inquiry to be made on the spot while the election was being carried on. He (Mr. Gibson) understood that while the hon. and learned Gentleman would give that favourable consideration to Motions made on that (the Opposition) side of the House, he would endeavour himself to suggest, if he found it feasible, some clause that might have the effect of satisfying the demands which had been made. He understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not pledge himself dogmatically that he would be able to do that, but that he would loyally endeavour, with the aid of Members of the Committee, to present such a clause for their acceptance.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was sorry to find that the Attorney General had yielded to pressure and had withdrawn the clause, which he believed to be one of the most healthy sections of the Bill. At present, if a candidate was guilty of illegal or corrupt practices, there was no remedy against him, unless some interested party went and lodged a Petition, and, at the same time, lodged £1,000 as security for costs. And then what was everybody's became nobody's business—to preserve the electoral purity of the country. True it was that there was a Proviso that after an election, upon a Petition signed by two or more electors of the borough or county, the House might, if it so thought fit, if it were informed that a considerable number of electors had been guilty of corrupt practices, address the Crown to give effect to the representation, just as if it had been moved by a Report of the Election Judges. But how had that Proviso worked. It had been in force now more than 20 years, and had never yet been acted upon—in fact, it was practically a dead letter. Substantially, the only manner in which they could get at the corruption of a constituency was by means of an Election Petition; but an Election Petition could not be instituted, as he had said, unless there was some patriotic or interested party prepared to lodge £1,000 to cover any possible expense. That seemed to him to be a very undesirable method of securing an inquiry. He was not at all in favour of having an inquiry during an election. They could not send Public Prosecutors or barristers of 10 or 15 years' standing all over the country whilst an election was going on, and if they sent to one constituency they would have to send to all. The Attorney General, or the Public Prosecutor, whoever he might be, might be at the time looking after his own election, and they would not be able to send him all around the country. It was a kind of hodge-podge to think of being able to send him down to the constituencies to make inquiries at a General Election. In the future this might occur. After an election something might gradually ooze out about corrupt practices, and they might not have to try the candidate or the election agent, but some other person who might be guilty. He knew a case himself in which corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in a constituency. The evidence that was obtained was overwhelming of its kind, and a Petition was determined upon; but it so happened that the candidate who was defeated started for another constituency and obtained a seat, the result being that he abandoned the proceedings. The candidate, who was beaten in this case, had incontestible evidence of corrupt practices prevailing—in fact, sufficient to disfranchise the constituency; but yet he did not want, like Quintus Curtius, to throw himself into the breach and lodge £1,000 in Chancery which might never be returned to him; and, consequently, all these corrupt practices went by the board. If such a clause as this had been in force retribution would have followed quick upon the sucessful candidate who had been guilty of corrupt practices. He might not have lost his seat; but he would have been pilloried before the public, and would have suffered the punishment assigned to him. He must say that he knew a number of constituencies where, if this clause had been in operation, the evil practices of which the persons had been guilty would have been detected. He was sorry to find on this occasion great sympathy with the Front Opposition Bench and the Treasury Bench. No doubt, both of them would have been more or less affected, and to his mind it would have been more during the last Election, if this clause had been in operation. In fact, he believed that if there had been such a law as this when an appeal was last made to the constituencies, one-half of the Members of this House who escaped Election Petitions would subsequently, have been got at and exposed for malpractices. And what would have happened at the last Election would happen at the next. He exceeding regretted the abandonment of this clause, believing that in letting it go the Government were throwing a sop to corruptionists, and those who hoped to profit by corruption.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he wished to make an observation with regard to this clause. In the early part of the Bill the Government had provided an innumerable quantity of offences; in fact, they had made it almost certain that every candidate must break the law in some particular or other. What had they done after that? They had taken very good care that no one should be prosecuted under the provisions of this Act unless, so far as he could see, an Election Petition was lodged. What was the result of that? Why, that the expense to the party lodging the Petition, who had to give a guarantee of £1,000, would be £4,000 or £5,000, and that was altogether beyond the capacity of a large proportion of those who were candidates for election, or who might be in the future. If a wealthy candidate was guilty of an offence, and his opponent was not a wealthy man, he would, in all probability, get off scot-free; whereas a poor candidate who might be guilty of some trifling act, which under the Bill would be illegal, might be overwhelmed by the force of a Petition brought against him by some well-to-do opponent. It was proposed in this clause that the Public Prosecutor should initiate a special tribunal to try the case if 10 electors in the constituency gave information and appealed to have the case tried. These 10 electors would be parties who were interested in having freedom and purity of election amongst the constituency to which they belonged; and, more than that, under the clause, if a delinquent was convicted he would be punished, and the constituency which was of a corrupt nature would have to pay the expenses of the proceedings, although, on the other hand, if these 10 gentlemen who appealed to the Public Prosecutor were proved to have made a vexatious complaint, they would have to pay the cost of the proceedings. It seemed to him that the clause might have been so improved as to render it acceptable; at any rate, he believed that this was one of the most desirable clauses of the Bill, providing, as it did, for a comparatively cheap tribunal to try these cases. If this clause was not inserted there would be no means of trying these cases, except through the action of an Election Petition, which was always a very expensive and most unsatisfactory method, and for the reason that if a man was very rich he could go to the expense of suborning witnesses; whilst a poor man must depend upon the justice of his case.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had not spoken in the course of this debate, except upon subjects upon which he had some experience, and in which he felt deeply interested. It was a fact, that when an Election Petition was presented it was necessary for the Petitioner to lodge £1,000, and it was also necessary to charge the candidate, by himself or by his agent, with having been guilty of corrupt practices such as would invalidate the election. That was a sine quâ non. Though they might prove that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, if they could not bring home to the candidate, or his agent, the corrupt practices, the Petitioner would be mulcted not only in his own costs, but also in those of the candidate. The most difficult thing in the matter of an Election Petition was to bring the charge home to the candidate, though it was often very easy to prove that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. At his own election, in Dundalk, in 1880, he was defeated. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; he was defeated, but it was by corrupt practices. Treating was so extensive that he had it in his power at the election to bring home corrupt practices to upwards of 100 electors in that borough. He had his Petition prepared; but having obtained a seat within four days for his native county, why should he petition and risk £1,000? He felt sure, however, that he could have proved that corrupt practices extensively prevailed; but the difficulty would have been to have brought it home to the minds of the Judges that the candidate or his agent was implicated. If this clause had been in operation he could have got 10 electors to allege that corrupt practices extensively prevailed without difficulty, and thereupon he could have brought evidence to prove the case. He was not at all surprised at the Attorney General yielding in this case, not because of the objection taken from that (the Opposition) side of the House, but because it came from the eminent jurists below the Gangway. The objection to the clause, he believed, came from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Why did these hon. Members, who held themselves up as the only pure Members of the House, object to this clause? Why did the Attorney General yield to the request of his supporters to expunge the most important clause in the entire Bill, when by its agency he could bring home their guilt to erring candidates, and impose upon them the punishment they deserved? As he had said, if this clause had been in operation at the Dundalk Election he could have proved that upwards of 100 voters had obtained £5 or £10 each for their votes. Probably he could not have brought that home to the satisfaction of his opponent; but he felt sure that he could have brought home to the mind of an impartial investigator the fact that such corruption existed, and would have been able to have obtained the disfranchisement of the borough.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Member of the new Rule relating to wearying the patience of the Committee.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was not aware that wearying the patience of the Committee was an offence so long as he spoke pertinently to the point. He was fully alive to the fact that it was easy to weary the patience of Members below the Gangway when he referred, in the clear way he was doing, to their malpractices.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not intend to prolong this discussion to any length; but he felt so strongly upon this particular clause that he should take the opportunity of dividing upon it.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 164: Majority 159.—(Div. List, No. 180.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

MR. ONSLOW

said, that upon this Motion he wished to put a question to the Government. He did not know whether there was any truth in it, but he had heard from certain hon. Members that Her Majesty's Government intended to propose a series of Amendments on the next clause. Not one of them was down on the Paper; and really, on an important clause like this, affecting as it did a large and interesting trade, the Attorney General should give them some facilities for ascertaining what the Amendments were to be.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the Government would take care to put the Amendments on the Paper, so that the Committee would have an opportunity of determining upon them before they were asked to discuss them.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The House suspended its Sitting at ten minutes before Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.