Commons Sitting of 10 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Spirits (Ireland); Chancery Amendment; Returning Officers.
2° Standard of Gold and Silver Wares; Criminal Justice; (No. 2); Joint Stock Banks (Scotland); Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Highway Rates; Heritable Securities (Scotland); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Jury Trial (Scotland); Incumbered Estates (West Indies); Benefices Augmentation; Friendly Societies (No. 2).
Reported—Savings Banks.

BRIBERY, &c., BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred had gone through the whole of its provisions with great care, and had amended the Bill in several respects. They had added to it several clauses, taken out of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), and also other clauses that were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). There were especially some clauses with respect to an election officer, which, although their spirit was contained in the clause of his (Lord J. Russell's) Bill relative to agency, yet must be considered as being entirely new. He believed these new clauses were of very great importance, and would be of essential service in furthering the object of the measure; and he hoped that, with them inserted, the Bill would encounter no difficulty in passing through Committee. He thought it would not be desirable to proceed during the present Session with the Controverted Elections Bill.
MR. H. T. LIDDELLsaid, as the noble Lord did not think it desirable to proceed with the Controverted Elections Bill this Session, he (Mr. Liddell) wished to make
1444
a few observations for the purpose of setting himself right with the Committee and the public, in consequence of having given notice of an important change which he wished to submit to the consideration of the House with regard to the tribunal before which controverted elections should be tried. He had intended to bring that subject before the Select Committee appointed to consider the Controverted Elections Bill; but as it appeared that that Bill was to be postponed until another Session, of course he should have a future opportunity of doing so. He believed that the Bribery Bill they were now about to discuss, if it passed into a law, would go a great way towards diminishing those cases of bribery and corruption which had so long been a scandal to the country, and thereby materially diminish the necessity of appointing Committees to inquire into controverted elections. None of them could, however, be so sanguine as to suppose that these cases would be entirely put a stop to by any legislation that might be adopted, and he thought that with respect to the cases of controverted elections which might arise after the passing of this Bill, they would be almost entirely classed under the head of constructive agency, the point of dispute which it was always most difficult to settle.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Imposing penalty for Bribery, &c).
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought the word "authorised" should be inserted in the clause, so that it should read, "any other authorised person in his behalf." Without some such word the candidate might be made liable for acts in regard to which he was in no way whatever responsible.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had great doubts about the adoption of the word "corruptly" in the latter part of the second section of this clause:—"Or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid [procure a place] on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election."
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, it would be possible for a man to allege having voted for a candidate as, among other reasons, a ground why a place should be obtained for him, and the Select Committee thought that, unless the word "corruptly" were inserted, too much would be left to the jury.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Committee should remember that they were now en-

1445
gaged in consolidating the law, and it was an important object to make the law perfectly clear by not having an unnecessary quantity of words, and at the time to include in the law those words which had had a legal meaning put upon them by the courts. The Statute of Geo. III. ran in these terms:—"If any person, after the passing of this Act, by himself or any other person or persons for or on his behalf;" and the courts of law had put the construction upon those words, that they meant that the party did it by himself, or by the agent acting for him, for whom, by the common law, he would be responsible. He thought it not advisable to alter the words.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, though an agent might by a given authority bind you in your civil matters, if he exceeded his authority you could not be rendered criminally responsible for anything he might do. He was not at all sure, however, that they did not run wide of this theory whenever they came before a Committee of the House of Commons, and that it would not be wise to introduce some words in the clause to show that they were not altering the law in this respect.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that "any other person on his behalf," implied that that person should be "authorised" on his behalf. The addition was, therefore, unnecessary.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he should like to know how many Members of that House had unjustly lost their seats from the interpretation of agency by Committees? He had himself nearly lost his seat for matters done by others of which he was as innocent as the child unborn. It was monstrous that a candidate inclined to do what was right, and who regarded bribery and corruption with scorn and horror, should be sacrificed because some person who might be a member of his committee at the election, had exceeded his authority, and thought he could benefit his candidate by making a promise. No man ought to be considered an agent if he exceeded his authority. The words "on his behalf" were too loose and too dangerous to be allowed to remain as they were without some addition.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he was of opinion that the clause implied all that the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe) wished to convey by the word "authorised."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, great care should be taken framing the clauses
1446
of such a Bill as the present, because a general authority might be given to an agent to do all things which were perfectly legal, while he might receive no authority whatever from his principal to do acts which were illegal; and it would be monstrous if a person employed an agent who, against his authority and without his knowledge, committed acts of bribery, that the candidate should be liable under the Act to the penalties, should go forth branded as a criminal, and be rendered incapable of sitting in Parliament for seven years. To justify the imposition of such penalties as that on a candidate, it ought to be shown that he had given authority to the agent to do the particular act charged as bribery, otherwise he might find himself stigmatised as a criminal when he was perfectly innocent, and for that reason he should say the word "authorised" ought to be introduced.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought that they ought to consider this clause not merely with a regard to the interpretation by courts of law, but by Committees of that House. They ought never to forget that in passing Bills of this nature. He thought the word the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) first introduced was a very good word, one which was very well understood, which well conveyed the meaning, and one, upon the whole, which would lead to the administration of justice, in these cases. But he considered the introduction of the word "authorised" would not so alter the clause as to at all interfere with the courts of law. He would go further and suggest the addition of the words "actually authorised," or "legally authorised," which he considered an addition that the Committee would do well to adopt.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought there was no ground for the apprehensions expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully). It would be recollected that this was a penal Act, which would be construed strictly, for if anything more than another was settled, it was that a man could only be convicted of a criminal offence where it was proved he had a criminal intention in committing the act with which he was charged. Nothing could be more fixed than that principle of law, which, as applied to cases of this description, affirmed that no one was criminally responsible for the act of another, unless he had expressly authorised the person charged to commit it. The clause as it stood must lead to the

1447
question, whether the candidate authorised the particular act in question. A person might authorise his agent to bribe generally—an offence which could be dealt with by the present Committee law; but when they came to criminal charges, the only question was, whether a particular offence was proved, because, unless there was a! distinct and particular authority, the party could not be convicted. He did not apprehend there would be any danger in construing the Act as it stood, and considered that the proposed alteration was unnecessary.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that the words proposed to be added were quite unnecessary in all eases where there was a special prosecution for a criminal offence. It was quite true that, in a civil action, and before an Election Committee, an act done by an agent might he deemed in law to have been clone by the principal, and lie must be bound thereby, although it might happen that he was entirely innocent of the particular act, and gave no actual authority for its performance; but the present clause was introduced with a view to criminal proceedings, and it was clear that no one could be convicted of a criminal offence by reason of any constructive authority supposed to be conferred on an agent. If an indictment were preferred against any candidate for bribery committed by an agent, it would be incumbent to show that the particular act charged was committed by the express authority and with the knowledge of the candidate, and it was questionable whether an offender might not escape in consequence of the introduction of those words. The present clause meant merely to define bribery in respect to probable prosecutions; but it would be found that, by other parts of the Bill, acts which constituted bribery would also void the election, and questions would be raised before Committees as to whether the election of persons returned to Parliament was voided by what was alleged to be an act of bribery committed, not by the candidate himself, but one who was alleged to be his agent. But although such questions might arise, he thought it was better to guard against the evil which would arise by the insertion of the words than to anticipate any inconvenience that might arise, so far as regarded the civil liability. He thought that the introduction of the word "authorised" alone might do more harm than good with reference to
1448
criminal prosecutions, and that the clause was better as it stood.
MR. PHINNsaid, there was no provision given in the Bill with reference to voiding elections before Election Committees; the disability was a practical result of the criminal conviction, as would be seen by the 6th clause.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, that on many occasions persons had been considered agents by Election Committees on account of baying been seen in a committee-room with a candidate, and having afterwards called upon persons requesting them to vote for such candidate. The candidate was clearly not responsible for the act of any person whom he had not specially authorised, and it was to avoid that that the words were proposed to be added to the clause by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli).
MR.AGLIONBYsaid, he wished to know what would be the effect of such a clause upon an Election Committee? It had been said that it would not come before them to be construed, but the Act would be referred to by the Committee to see what the Legislature intended. He must say, for one, that, looking at the Act as a guide to the intentions of Parliament, on the face of the Act, they would appear extremely stringent, inflicting, as they did, such heavy penalties. On the whole, if a division took place, he should vote for the addition of the words.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he hoped the principle of law, which considered a candidate liable for the acts of his agents, would not be altered, and he considered, if the proposed words were added, it would open the door to corruption.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, unless there was some rule laid down as to a special authority, any Member living near the part he represented would be obliged to deal with his political opponents, otherwise he might be charged with dealing with tradesmen for the purpose of obtaining their votes.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was afraid that would not meet the difficulty, as the same charge might be brought against him for dealing with his opponents.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the law, according to the Act of Geo. II., already provided against those who gave money, either by themselves or others, for the purpose of obtaining votes. The object of the present Bill, as stated in the

1449
preamble, was to make the laws for preventing corrupt practices in the election of Members to serve in Parliament more efficient, whereas it would seem to be the wish of hon. Gentlemen on the other side to make the laws less efficient. It was quite a different question as to what the Election Committees might consider with regard to the Act; the real question had reference to the penal consequences to the man who gave money for bribery, and it was evident it made little difference in the principle whether a man gave another a large sum of money to be used in bribery generally, or whether he authorised him to bribe in a particular case. At all events, he thought it would not be right to make the law less stringent than before.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, the real question they were now discussing was as to the definition of bribery, for it could not be denied that the definition adopted in the present Bill, although it might be taken from an old Statute, would be looked upon as the definition of bribery solemnly adopted by the House of Commons while legislating on the subject. He thought it was highly desirable that there should be no doubt as to the intention of the Legislature, and, therefore, that the proposed words should be introduced.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if he rightly understood hon. Gentlemen opposite, they were desirous of introducing a change in the law administered by Election Committees, which he thought would be most objectionable.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, it could not be the intention of Parliament to punish persons for acts committed without their sanction and authority; and he considered that if any persons calling themselves agents of candidates, who committed acts of bribery, were to involve their principals in the general consequences of those acts, a feeling of sympathy for the persons unjustly punished, which would be most injurious to public morality, would be excited throughout the country.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that with reference to the taunt of the hon. and learned Attorney General, ho begged, on behalf of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, to repudiate any desire to render the law against bribery less stringent, or to afford the slightest protection to persons committing such an offence.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he was of opinion that the introduction of the words "actually authorised" into the clause would be perfectly useless, and that the adoption of these words might lead to very mischievous results, in consequence of the minute and refined questions that might arise in courts of law as to their precise meaning. He considered that the best plan was to make the language of Acts of Parliament as clear, plain, and simple as possible, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would assent to the clause as it now stood in the Bill.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he should support the introduction of the words "actually authorised." He must say he considered that the law of agency was on a most unsatisfactory footing. If the servant of a gentleman went into a town, without any authority from his master, and told electors that if they voted for a particular candidate, his master would recompense them for the service, would the master, under such circumstances, be held responsible for the act of his servant? [An hon. Member: No, no!] Well, he (Mr. V. Smith) could not help thinking that the master would be in great danger of being held responsible if the case was decided by a partisan jury. He considered it most desirable that they should have as strict a definition as possible of the meaning of the words "on his behalf," and he therefore hoped that the words "actually authorised" would be inserted in the clause.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he would venture to assure the Committee that no such consequences could arise from the clause as were apprehended, and that no man could be convicted under the clause, unless he had actually authorised the commission of the offence. If the addition of these words had the effect of throwing doubts upon the law affecting any branch of civil agency they certainly ought not to be inserted, because if any part of that law required alteration, it should be dealt with by a specific enactment. The Committee had received the unanimous opinion of all the legal members that such would he the effect of such an alteration of the clause, and he hoped therefore that it would not be pressed.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that as there was no Amendment before the Committee, ho would propose that the word "authorised" be inserted in the clause, after the

1451
word "person." He regarded the word "actually" as surplusage, but of course it was competent to any hon. Member to move the insertion of that word also. He should divide the Committee on the Amendment.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he did not, from the fair grammatical construction of the clause, think there was any necessity for the introduction of the word.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that no amendment of the clause would be necessary if the Committees of the House of Commons were composed of competent lawyers. That, however, was not the case, and the very fact of the long discussion which had taken place on this clause sufficiently showed the necessity of some more precise definition of agency than it at present contained.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there seemed to be some misapprehension as to the object of this clause, and its bearing with respect to Election Committees. The object of the clause was to provide for the punishment of bribery in certain cases, but that was a very different matter from the questions which were submitted to Election Committees, who had no power to punish persons guilty of bribery. The clause with which the Committee was now dealing had reference to the punishment of persons guilty of bribery, and the definition of the offence. The right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) had asked whether a servant who, without any authority from his master, promised money or any other consideration to electors who voted for a particular candidate would thereby expose his master to punishment for bribery? He (Lord John Russell) thought that the best answer to that inquiry was given on the high authority of Lord Lyndhurst, who, when Chief Baron, with reference to the interpretation of the words "on his behalf," occurring in the Treating Act of William III., said it was quite clear, from the words of the section, that the act must be done by the candidate himself, or by some person for him acting on his behalf; and that the words "on his behalf" must be taken to include any acts done by the desire and with the knowledge of the candidate—acts which the candidate procured to be done. It was, therefore, clear that a person acting on behalf of a candidate, without any authority whatever, would not expose such candidate to the consequences of his acts.
1452
Question put, "That the word 'authorised' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 141: Majority 31.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether this clause would render it illegal to pay the travelling expenses of voters?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it did not touch that question. It had been held by many Election Committees that, if money paid as travelling expenses was so given, as a cloak for bribery, it was illegal; but that it was not illegal to give money bond fide for travelling expenses. This state of the law would not be affected by the present clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 (Further defining Bribery).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether it was not exceedingly oppressive to enact that a man should be deemed guilty of bribery, and therefore a misdemeanant, if he "asked for" a bribe? That would make any man guilty of an offence if he asked for a shilling to purchase liquor.
MR. PHINNsaid, that this very provision was contained in the Statute of George II. He thought it was very desirable for the protection of candidates from applications for places that it should be made an offence to ask for anything as a consideration for voting.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he objected to the provision because he thought it could not be enforced.
MR. AGLIONBYwould support the clause as it stood, because it would have the desirable effect of protecting candidates from those pressing applications for situations to which they were exposed, particularly when standing for largo towns.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he believed that no prosecution could be sustained under this provision, and he would, therefore, suggest that it should be omitted. He believed that it was very mischievous to have on the Statute-book laws which could not be enforced; and he should, therefore, move to amend the clause by striking out the words "or ask for" in the definition of the offence to which it referred.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, that by passing the clause as it stood they might purchase exemption for themselves, but they would

1453
in many cases subject their constituents most unjustly to actions.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the words had better remain as they were. Half the instances in which it was alleged that candidates had been guilty of corruption arose from voters having asked for something—a thing to which every Member was exposed in the course of his canvass; and it would be a great protection to a candidate in such a case if he were enabled to say to the voter, "You are asking me a question which involves you in the liability to penalties." When once voters got to know that the mere corrupt solicitation involved them in heavy penalties they would be very likely to desist.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that in criminal legislation they ought above all things to be correct and definite; and, if there was one case more than another to which that principle ought to be applied, it was a case of this kind, in which they professed to make a conversation a crime, which conversation was always likely to be loosely reported. He objected to their attaching the penalty of a misdemeanor to words so vague as those of "indirectly asking for."
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that while they protected the candidate they must not forget the voter. Now, there would always be, as at present, many voters who were very ill-informed as to the contents of the Act of Parliament; and, if upon a canvass an elector should say to the candidate, "Will you be good enough to do something, for one of my sons?"—that would render him liable to prosecution. Some one of the adherents of the candidate might take up the words, frighten the voter by telling him he had committed an offence, and give him the alternative of voting in a certain way or of being prosecuted. Here, therefore, would be a means of enforcing votes which no candidate ought to possess.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was also of opinion that the voter would often quite unknowingly and unconsciously render himself liable to prosecution, and that then, if he happened to be overheard by an unscrupulous political opponent, this would frequently be made use of in order to squeeze out his vote contrary to his wishes and intentions.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that many dreadful consequences had been conjured up as the result of these words; but when they knew that for seventy or
1454
eighty years this had been the law of the land, and that the words were used in the old Act of Parliament, these apprehensions ought to be diminished. He thought it ought to be marked by this Act that it was an offence for a man, who ought to vote according to his political preferences, to seek for some inducement or bribe in return for that vote.
"MR. I. BUTTsaid, the noble Lord was scarcely accurate when he alleged that anything like this had been the law of the land before. It was true that the 7th of George II. made the asking for a place or gift a misdemeanor, but that Act did not contain the words "indirectly ask for." These words made the offence most indefinite and vague; and the fact he had stated took away very much of the force of that which would otherwise be a strong argument.
MR. E. BALLsaid, in making this law they ought not to make it so stringent as to be entirely inoperative. The very fact of a man whom a candidate canvassed for his vote saying, "I hope I shall have the pleasure of drinking your honour's health," would subject him to this penalty. He (Mr. Ball) had never heard that a man asking a Minister in that House for a place disqualified him from sitting in that House. Why, then, should he (Mr. Ball) place a voter in a position such as he should not like to be placed in himself?
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was convinced that the offence created by the clause would be used as a means of intimidating the voter.
MR. J. G. PIIILLIMOREsaid, he considered that the clause would remain a dead letter if these words were insisted on. The clause proposed to enact the same punishment for different offences — the same for asking for and the same for receiving a bribe. Now, although perhaps morally there was no difference between the two offences, as regarded society there was a broad distinction.
MR. BOOKERsaid, he would suggest that, instead of making the asking for a bribe a misdemeanor, it should be made to involve only the forfeiture of the vote.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there was perhaps some force in the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) that the two offences received the same punishment, and he would therefore consent to leave out the words in question, on the understanding that he should afterwards propose

1455
words which would have the effect of inflicting some penalty on those who asked for a bribe.
Words struck out from the clause.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORproposed the insertion of words making any payments for the conveyance of voters illegal. The conveyance of voters formed a very large item in the expenses of every candidate both at county and borough elections, and as the House of Commons were determined to put down bribery, not only directly but indirectly, it would be very desirable to make this payment entirely illegal.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he should oppose the introduction of the proviso, the effect of which, he thought, would be to disfranchise the out-voters in counties. It would be a great injustice to those voters to expect them to go to the poll at their own cost.
MR. GOULBURNwould suggest to the noble Lord that this was not the proper place in the Bill to bring on the question, and that it would be more convenient if he were to bring up a separate clause referring to the subject.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, that the effect of such a proviso would be practically to disfranchise a large portion of the out-voters in counties. Every one knew that many voters, if not brought up to the poll at the expense of one or other of the candidates, would not vote at all.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he would not at present press his Amendment, but on a future occasion he would bring the question under the consideration of the House.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Defining Treating).
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped that some explanation would be given as to whether the extreme severity of this clause was necessary. The first part of the clause provided that—
"Every candidate at an election, who shall by himself, or by or with any person, or by any other ways or means on his behalf, at any time either before, during, or after any election, directly or indirectly give or provide, or cause to be given or provided, or shall be accessory to the giving or providing, or shall pay, wholly or in part, any expenses incurred for any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person, in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at such election."
He wanted to know the meaning of the
1456
words "in order to be elected or for being elected?" They must be either superfluous, or else they must have some meaning, and he should be glad to know what their meaning was? He would suggest to the Committee that the comprehensive wording of this clause would forbid the most ordinary hospitality on the part of a Member of that House. The words in the clause were "at any time, before, during, or after any election," so that the time was perfectly unlimited. He did not intend to propose any Amendment, but he wished to hear some explanation as to the necessity of this enactment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the provisions in the clause consisted of a re-enactment of the provisions of existing Statutes. Those provisions, however, had not been found to operate oppressively. On the contrary, they had not been effectual in attaining the object for which they had been framed, for, as the Committee were well aware, treating had prevailed to a great extent at elections of late years. In his opinion the exercise of an ordinary hospitality upon the part of a candidate towards his agents would not come within the operation of the clause.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the difficulty he entertained was as to the wording of the clause. It appeared to him that if any candidate invited his agent or any of the members of his committee, he would be liable to a penalty, as he did so for the purpose of being elected.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he believed that a vast amount of corruption was carried on by the system of treating. With regard to the words complained of by his right hon. Friend. they were the same words as existed in the Statute passed in the year 1695, in pursuance of a Resolution of that House against treating, and again, in the 5 and 6 Vict. c. 102, and he did not think that it would be advisable to leave them out in the present clause. It was most desirable to put an end to treating as much as possible, as it had, no doubt, been carried on to a considerable extent. In one case that had come before a Committee of that House, on which he had served, it had transpired that there were, during an election at Huddersfield, fifty public-houses filled with voters and four filled with non-voters, and scenes of great profligacy occurred. It was most desirable to prevent the recurrence of such scenes, and he was, therefore, opposed to the words complained of by his right hon.

1457
Friend (Sir J. Pakington) being struck out of the clause.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he wished to know whether, if this clause were carried, it would be legal to give refreshment tickets to voters?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALstated that the practice of Election Committees differed very much as to what they considered treating. His own opinion was, however, that such tickets would be clearly illegal, and he had no doubt whatever, but that a court of law would so decide it.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he then thought it highly important that the Committee should clearly understand whether or not the clause would have the effect of making refreshment tickets illegal. If it did so, it was his opinion that one-half, at least, of the electors would be practically disfranchised, for great numbers of the poorer voters would never come to the poll unless their expenses were paid.
MR. STANHOPEsaid, he was of opinion that if the granting of refreshment tickets were made illegal, the result would be that many voters would be prevented from coining to the poll at all; and if no modification were made in the clause, he should, at a later stage of the Bill, move the insertion of a clause to the effect that the officers connected with an election should, upon application to the candidates, have power to issue to each voter a refreshment ticket not exceeding in value the sum of two shillings.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he did not see why polling places might not be so placed throughout the various counties as to render it unnecessary that electors should have to go to any considerable distance from their homes in order to give their votes. If that were done, the payment of travelling expenses or the giving of refreshments would be rendered wholly inexpedient. For his own part, he should hope that the Committee would refuse to adopt the clause which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat. down had announced it to be his intention to propose.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he admitted that the law of treating was exceedingly uncertain, because it could not be clearly defined what were, and what were not, legal refreshments; in order to get rid of that uncertainty which was admitted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would suggest that this clause should be post-
1458
poned with the view of its being so amended, as to remove all doubt in the matter.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid. that it was the conflicting decisions of Election Committees that had rendered the law of treating uncertain; it was not the law itself that was uncertain; and if he were asked to give his own individual opinion upon the point which had been suggested by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison), he should have no hesitation in saying that such refreshments were illegal.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must maintain that the existing law was quite sufficient to meet all cases of illegal treating. This clause simply consolidated that law without rendering it more severe.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, that if a candidate were to entertain an agent and two or three friends at dinner, in the course of the canvass, it would not be construed to be a corrupt influence, but merely the exercise of ordinary hospitality. If this were really so, how could it be a corrupt action to give a poor man who came from a distance of ten or fifteen miles, and was obliged to travel at his own expense, either some slight refreshment, or a ticket of the value of two shillings for his day's entertainment? If the one case was merely the exercise of ordinary hospitality, it would be extremely hard to constitute the other a corrupt action, either on the part of the candidate or of the poor man who received the ticket. The question of travelling expenses appeared to be unsettled, and he hoped the noble Lord the President of the Council would be able to give some understanding upon it before the clause was further proceeded with.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he thought it would not be unreasonable to give a voter who had broken into his day's labour, and had travelled a distance of four or five miles at his own cost, some slight refreshment. He trusted the noble Lord the President of the Council would give some distinct understanding whether payments of this nature were to be considered illegal or not.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that he should have supposed that a dry discussion on technical phrases would not have produced a very lively or entertaining debate in the House of Commons. He confessed, I however, that be had never assisted at any-

1459
thing more amusing than the discussion upon this Bill. How any Gentleman could conceive that bribery could be carried on at elections in any but in one of three ways, namely, agency, travelling expenses, or treating, he could not imagine. Both sides were agreed that they would get rid of this dreadful thing—bribery. The first thing which came under consideration was agency, and the Committee immediately putting to spoil the Bill by putting into it a piece of bad law instead of good law, in order that the country gentlemen might understand it. Then, upon travelling expenses, they proposed to leave matters just as they now stood. Was it possible to stop bribery in this way? The whole thing was a perfect farce. Then they came to refreshments. Call it a two shilling ticket, or any sum they pleased. But it was through these refreshments, and through these travelling expenses, that all bribery was carried on. ["No, no!"] Well, he would admit that there were some common, stupid fellows into whose hands a guinea was placed. But that was the exception. The main part of the bribery was carried on through the three things he had named, and against any effective alteration of these three things the Committee opposed itself strongly. The House of Commons talked about bringing in Bills for the purity of election! It was really surprising that Gentlemen having cut their wisdom teeth should sit there all night, and discuss matters after such a fashion.
MR. NAPIERsaid, be thought they were bound to define more explicitly what treating was, and he hoped the clause would be postponed for that purpose.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he saw no necessity whatever for postponing the clause, as it simply consolidated the existing law of treating. There could be no doubt that refreshments were illegal, and the only reason why they had not been declared so by Committees was because, when a contest took place at county elections, it was agreed on both sides that refreshments should be distributed to the electors.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the Bill ought not to be disposed of until the question of travelling expenses and refreshment tickets was set at rest, but at the same time he considered that they ought to form the subject of a separate clause, to be dealt with hereafter. The clause now before the Committee was
1460
directed solely to the evil of treating, and, in his opinion, it went beyond what was required for putting a stop to treating. He thought the words" for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person or any other person, to give or refrain front giving his vote at such election, "were all that were necessary, and he would move an Amendment, that the words "in order to be elected, or for being elected," be omitted.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he fully concurred with the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) in thinking it desirable to preserve the present provisions of the law, and he believed the effect of linking together the words of the Act of William III. and of the Act of Victoria would be to make the law clearer and more stringent. The Act of William was to prevent treating after the issue of the writ, but the Act of Victoria extended the time, and contained words which were of a very different nature from those in the former Act. The words inserted in the Act of Victoria were "for the purpose of corruptly influencing such person or any other person from giving his vote at such election;" and the Committee would see that that was an offence entirely different from that affected by the Act of William. For instance, there might be refreshments given at a county election upon both sides to a moderate extent, which could not be said to be given for the purpose of corruptly influencing the voter, but the more recent Act took cognisance of that extravagant treating which was principally entered into for the purpose of exercising a corrupt influence. But if the Act said that a person would be guilty of this offence, not only for corrupt treating, but who should pay any expenses incurred for eating and drinking, in order to be elected or for being elected, then any treating, the most moderate, which would not corruptly influence a man's vote, would amount to the offence of treating under the Act. He quite agreed that the Committee ought to decide this question of refreshments upon the present clause. The case was one upon which "much might be said on both sides." A great deal might be said in favour of moderate refreshment to voters who had conic several miles to give their votes, but the most prevailing argument to his mind was, that treating, under any circumstances, opened the door to corrupt influences, and that it was better to abolish

1461
it altogether, relying upon it that men who came from a distance to vote for a candidate would not go without a dinner. They would have some friend or other who would give them a dinner. [Laughter.] He thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood, forbidding treating by the candidate altogether. If other words were required to make this intention more clear, he should be in favour of inserting them, and not of omitting the words proposed to be left out. He saw hon. Gentlemen opposite smiling when he said that voters who came from a distance would not go without a dinner. If a man had three or four labourers who came with him to the election, and if he took them and gave them some bread and cheese, that would not be a very corrupt transaction, and would not come within the scope of the present Bill.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he should support the Amendment; but he considered the worst state in which they could leave the law would be to allow the question to remain an open one, and thus give to each Election Committee the power of acquitting a guilty man, or of ousting an innocent one at their pleasure.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, it appeared to him that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) had produced the strongest argument in favour of allowing candidates to give moderate refreshments to voters. The noble Lord had told them that he had found it utterly impossible to eradicate that practice, and that candidates on both sides were compelled to issue tickets for reasonable refreshments. Now, he (Lord Lovaine) thought the Committee would act wisely if they were to come to the conclusion that a practice so common and so necessary could not be put down by Act of Parliament, and that it would be better for them to attempt merely to restrict it within proper limits.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he believed that the honest and more intelligent portion of the working classes were favourable to the abolition of the refreshment system, which was the great nuisance of elections, and the cause of the scenes of riot and debauchery that disgraced our election contests. If voters would not come to the poll unless they were brought there and unless they had something given them to eat and drink afterwards, they did not deserve to have the franchise. Working men often sacrificed a day for the purposes of pleasure, and he believed they would
1462
cheerfully sacrifice a day's work to vote for the candidate of their choice. He hoped the Committee would decide in favour of leaving the clause as it stood.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he wished to draw the attention of county Members to the alteration which this Bill would make in the present law. Every person might sue any county Member who should give a farthing for travelling expenses or refreshment tickets. ["No, no!"] Why the agreement between the two candidates to issue these tickets would not prevent these proceedings, and any person would be authorised to sue any one who issued these tickets, and they might bring as many actions as there were refreshment tickets issued. County Members would thus have all the attorneys in the country at their backs, and if they did not take care there would be no county Members in the House, for, like the railway speculators two or three years ago, they would get out of the way to avoid the formidable consequences that would ensue. When, therefore, it was said that this Bill made no alteration in the law, he wished to draw the attention of county Members to the fact that they were altering the law, and in a manner which deserved their serious consideration.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he would remind the Committee that the effect of this clause would be, that no agreements to pay travelling expenses or to issue refreshment tickets would be made, and thus a source of heavy expense and the pernicious custom of giving refreshment tickets would be done away with. It must be in the recollection of the Committee that a Bill had been brought in to legalise the system of issuing refreshment tickets, but the feeling of the House was against it, and that portion of the Bill allowing persons to give a reasonable sum for refreshment was negatived by a considerable majority. There was great difficulty in drawing the line between innocent bribery and corrupt treating, and he wished that the word "corrupt" had overruled the whole of the clause. In many boroughs, having a partly country constituency, a candidate went out seven or eight miles from the borough to canvass. He was introduced to gentlemen who knew the voters and their houses, and they accompanied him on his canvass. When they returned to the candidate's inn in the borough dinner was found prepared for him; but, unless he turned out of the room these gentle-

1463
men, who had been canvassing with him all day, they would be subject to the penalties of this clause. The candidate of course asked these voters to dinner "in order to be elected," because, unless he did it, he could not canvass this district. If the word "corruptly" were introduced at the beginning of this clause, it would meet the case lie had supposed.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that a different construction was put upon this clause by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) and the noble Lord the Lord President. His right hon. Friend thought that "in order to be elected" meant something corrupt, but the noble Lord did not understand these words to mean anything corrupt, but said that it would extend to any treating of any kind. There ought to be some corruption to bring parties under this clause, and it should not apply unless the act were done to get a man to vote for a particular candidate, who otherwise would not do so. He agreed that the word "corruptly" ought to override the whole of this clause.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he thought that they ought then to settle the question of treating; and for his part, be wished to make it clearly illegal. He would propose that there should be addded to the clause the words "or for any ticket or order entitling any person to refreshment."
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member cannot move this Amendment at present.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it had been ruled in the Court of Exchequer that giving moderate refreshment to a voter was not illegal; the distinction drawn being, that to give refreshment for the purpose of influencing an election was illegal, but that moderate refreshment, not given for a corrupt purpose, was not illegal. That distinction, which had, he believed, been drawn by Lord Lyndhurst, could not, however, he acted upon if the clause should pass as it stood, and the same penalty would attach to an offence, whether it were done corruptly or innocently. The clause, as it stood, was not only absurd, but could not be carried out.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was ready to admit that it had been decided that moderate refreshments not given for the purpose of corrupting the voter were not illegal. But there had also been a contrary decision upon the same subject. He understood that those payments for re-
1464
freshments were frequently justified on the ground that the voter would not go to the poll unless his travelling expenses and the expenses of his refreshments were defrayed by the candidate. But it appeared to him that in such a case the treating was decidedly illegal, because money or money's worth had been given for the purpose of carrying an election.
MR. E. BALLsaid, be would suggest that the word "corruptly" should be struck out of a line in the middle of the clause, and placed after the word "shall" in the first line, so as to govern the whole clause; he thought that alteration would get rid of the difficulty. He had conferred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst, and that course had his approval.
MR. PHINNsaid, he thought the time was come when the Committee should determine, first, what the law was; and secondly, what it ought to be on this subject. They would recollect that the Treating Act was passed, not merely for the purpose of putting down corrupt treating, but to diminish the expense of elections. There had been a long series of decisions and many conflicting opinions as to whether moderate refreshment tickets were or were not within the Treating Act; but bon. Members forgot that that Act had reference to a very different state of things to what at present prevailed. When the decisions in question took place there were only one or two polling places in a county, but they were now multiplied almost indefinitely, so that there was no necessity for voters coming a great distance to poll. The law had been settled on the subject by one very remarkable case known to all counsel practising before Committees, that of the North Cheshire Election Committee; which decided that where a moderate refreshment ticket was given indifferently, and not with a view to influence the election, it was not illegal. That decision was concurred in by Sir Robert Peel and by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), although from different reasons, and therefore there could be no doubt that at the present moment the giving of such moderate refreshment was not illegal. But ought that state of the law to continue? Was it not a system which might open the door to great abuse? He quite concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) that it was time to settle the question by the direct decision of the House, for he must say

1465
there were so many difficulties, moral and legal, and so many prejudices to combat on the part of county Members, that he did not think that any other decision than that of the whole House upon the question would receive the respect of individual Members and Committees. They ought not, in his opinion, to leave open the door to corruption, which they would do unless they rendered such treating illegal. If, however, they did away with it at all, although almost every hon. Gentleman had argued it was necessary for counties, could they, he asked, have one rule for counties and another for boroughs? He was convinced that if they allowed a moderate refreshment for the counties, they must leave it open for the boroughs. He did think the Amendment proposed would meet the difficulty; he should therefore suggest that the clause should pass as it stood, but that another clause should be I brought up to put a stop to the practice, which was a most objectionable one and ripened the door to a great deal of corruption. It was desirable, for their own sakes, to limit as much as possible the expense of elections, and that object was quite within the scope and meaning of the Bill.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it ought to be clearly understood that the treating they were going to punish in that way was corrupt treating. He understood his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was willing to withdraw his Amendment, provided that the word "corrupt" should be placed at the commencement, or so as to govern the whole clause. He thought that would enable them to pass the clause as it stood but for one or two questions which had been raised, which could not be properly discussed without further notice—namely, the questions of travelling expenses and refreshment tickets. The question of travelling expenses should be settled in a clause by itself, and the House ought to have full notice of its introduction. The question of' refreshment tickets, if the law was to be settled on that subject, had better be discussed in the House after full notice.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite willing that the word "corruptly" should be transferred from the middle to the commencement of the clause, and he would consent to the alteration on the understanding that the sense of the House should be taken upon the question of refreshment tickets, and with the proviso that, should it not be carried, it should
1466
not be considered unfair on his part, upon the bringing up of the Report, to move to strike out the word "corruptly."
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he quite approved of the course proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), and consented to by the hon. and learned Attorney General; but he would suggest, in addition to the clause with respect to the refreshment tickets, that the question of travelling expenses should be distinctly raised for the opinion of the House, so that they might be declared to be either legal or illegal. The question was, no doubt, much more important to counties than boroughs, although they, to sonic extent, were interested, for it often happened that men would go from Northumberland to Cornwall to vote. He hoped, therefore, some other hon. Gentleman would give notice of his intention of raising that question, and he trusted that the law upon this important subject would be settled.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would suggest that the wording of the first portion of the clause should be uniform with the preceding clauses, it being the same in effect.
MR. THORNILYsaid, he must protest against the payment of travelling expenses, and supplying refreshment tickets, which he considered would do infinite mischief and lead to great corruption. In fact, he considered if such a principle were affirmed by the Bill, it would do more harm than good. It was the duty of constituents to go to the poll as they went to fairs and markets, and if they did not choose to go at their own expense, they ought to remain at home.
MR. BARROWsaid, he would never consent to a course which would practically disfranchise a large portion of his constituents, who, unless their reasonable travelling expenses were paid, would be unable to attend to give their votes. It was all very well for rich farmers, who might have friends to give them dinners after they had gone to the poll, but it was was not so with the poorer class of constituents.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, there were 36,000 electors in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and, taken at 2s. per head for refreshment, to say nothing of the cost of conveying them to the polling places, the whole would amount to such a sum as to deter any but wealthy men from seeking to represent the place.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, the election of 1807 for the West Riding cost 250,000 l., that of 1826 cost 170,000 l., and of late it had been reduced to about 14,000 l. It was rather curious that the Gentlemen most anxious to put down bribery and corruption were those who represented close boroughs. He believed all the county Members in the kingdom were desirous of putting down these practices. They were aware that corruption existed in the boroughs; but all that was sought to be done was to give a reasonable amount of refreshment to those electors who came a distance. He did think that men giving up a day's work, and coming a distance to vote, were entitled to something—if only a crust of bread and cheese. In boroughs men were not required to go any distance, and therefore their case could not be compared with counties.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he had stood three elections for the borough which he represented, and they had not cost him three shillings. He believed that the new boroughs enfranchised by the Reform Bill had all started pure, but had been demoralised by the machinery of corruption in the hands of wealthy men. Remove the machinery, and he believed that the practice would soon disappear. If hon. Gentlemen would give them the ballot, he should have no objection to two-shilling refreshment tickets, or even fifty-shilling tickets. At a late election in America, the candidates started on what he was sorry to say was called the English principle, namely, that of tapping barrels of ale, and everything went off gloriously to the close, when it was found that the electors had all voted against the treating candidates.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the hon. Member for the West Riding who sat on that side of the House had spent no money in two-shilling tickets at his election.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Undue influence defined).
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the clause would be more distinct and would better meet the views of the country, if the word "spiritual" be coupled with "temporal" as to undue influence. He would, therefore, propose the insertion of the word "spiritual" in the 41st line between the words "loss" and "or." He need scarcely remind the Committee of the denunciations from the altar during the last general election by the Romish priesthood
1468
in Ireland. The rites of the Church were denied to those who should dare to vote in opposition to the commands of their clergy. On that ground he was of opinion that the words should not be limited to harm or loss of a temporal nature.
MR. SPOONERseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 41, after the words "injury, damage, harm, or loss," to insert the words "temporal or spiritual."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 125: Majority 99.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he could not allow this clause to pass without expressing his belief that it would be perfectly abortive so far as the prevention of intimidation was concerned, while, at the same time, it might open the door to great injustice. For instance, supposing a landlord were to give notice to quit to one of his tenants, the tenant would have a right of action against him for so doing, if it happened that his landlord had before that canvassed him, and he had voted against his landlord's wishes. The same would be the case with regard to tradesman and customer, supposing that the customer were to cease dealing with a tradesman whom he had formerly canvassed, and who had voted against his desire. At the same time, however, he must say that the difficulty of procuring evidence necessary to connect cause and effect in such cases would render the clause almost inoperative. For instance, how would it apply in such a case as the following:—Not long ago a constituent of his, a greengrocer at Bristol, told him that in the course of the late election he had been requested by a customer of his, a large hotel keeper, to vote for Mr. M'Geachy, the Conservative candidate. To this he replied that he had always been a Liberal, and meant to vote, as usual, for the Liberal candidates. The hotel keeper then asked him to split his vote for Mr. Berkeley and Mr. M'Geachy. When the polling day came, down came a fly from the hotel keeper to carry him to the poll, but the greengrocer had already taken himself off there, and had duly recorded his vote for Berkeley and Langton, the Liberal candidates. Soon after he called at the hotel, expecting an order as usual for potatoes and cabbages, but, instead of that, he received a peremptory order to quit the premises, coupled with a strong hint that if he didn't he would be kicked out. He

1469
was told, too, never to trouble himself to call again, for his bill would be paid at once, and all future dealing with him stopped. How, he asked, would this clause deal with a case of that sort? He contended that the clause would be perfectly inoperative against the coercion of landlords or customers, and that it would fail entirely to check that election "screw" which was the great curse of the existing electoral system. He was satisfied that this clause would not prevent the cases of intimidation which were now so general, and he considered that he was entitled to protest against attempts to deal with the question in this manner, because that House had thought fit, in direct opposition to the opinion of 200 representatives of the people, of one-half the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and of the great majority of the country, to reject the measure he had proposed with the object I of repressing the exercise of undue influence at elections.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he objected to that portion of the clause which rendered liable to punishment persons who, by "any fraudulent device or contrivance," interfered with the free exercise of the franchise of any voter. He considered that the phrase might be applied to every minute interference, such as the harmless hoaxes sometimes resorted to of inducing voters to go into other counties by invitations to pretended entertainments or festivities, in order to prevent them from giving their votes. He thought, if people were foolish enough to be duped in this manner, that it was rather below the dignity of legislation to interfere for their protection. He would also suggest that the clause did not contain any provision with regard to the votes which were given under undue influence. If these votes were left upon the poll, although persons who exercised intimidation might be punished, the candidate in whose behalf intimidation was practised would still derive the advantage of the votes given under such influence. He considered that they ought to provide that all votes given under intimidation should be in valid.
Mr. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it was important that the words to which the right hon. Gentleman referred should be retained. The main object of the clause was to guard the free exercise of the franchise, and he could not conceive that any interference, by fraudulent devices or contrivances, with the free exercise of that
1470
right could be regarded as a harmless hoax. The right hon. Gentleman's other proposal for expunging votes obtained by proved acts of undue influence was, however, quite unobjectionable.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he would then move that at the end of the clause which defines the various acts that shall constitute the "offence of undue influence," and provides that persons committing it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to forfeit the sum of 50 l. to any person who shall sue for the same, words be added to the effect that votes so given shall be of no effect.
Another Amendment proposed, in page 4, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and the Vote so given shall be utterly void and of none effect."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to know what would be the bearing of the clause upon clerical intimidation? He put the question because the Committee which tried the Sligo election came to a Resolution that there had been an exercise, on the part of the Roman Catholic priesthood, of an influence inconsistent with their duties as ministers of religion, and destructive of the independence of the voters. He wished to know if this clause would apply to such cases as that?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was not then present, to give the hon. and learned Member opposite a more distinct answer than he himself could do; but he should think the words in the clause, "who shall in any other manner practise intimidation upon or against any person," would apply to such acts as were alleged to have been committed, in some instances, by Roman Catholic priests.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) were both of opinion that the spiritual intimidation to which the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had referred would be reached by this clause, if such intimidation was exercised through any act, such as the denial of the Sacrament, or of any of the offices of the Church.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he considered that a vote given tinder undue influence, as well as a vote given in consequence of bribery or treating, ought to be declared null and void, and he believed that nothing would more tend to prevent intimidation

1471
than the knowledge that the votes obtained by it would be valueless.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there were I cases in which places were kept in a state of positive consternation during elections by organised mobs, which were more dangerous by the facilities afforded by railway companies. In some of these cases a thousand men were thrown upon a town to overawe the voters going to the poll. In such a case the Amendment would be operative, and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) was, therefore, extremely valuable, especially as elections now would be confined to one day.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, that in Scotland the very disgusting practice of spitting upon the voters as they went to the poll prevailed—so much so that it was often difficult to tell the colour of a man's coat who had been subjected to this insult. This clause inflicted a fine of 50 l., which, considering that the offence to which he had referred was generally committed by boys, hounded on by older persons, was hardly a suitable mode of checking the beastly practice in question. He would suggest that a good flogging would be a very fit punishment for such offenders.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the clause did not render it compulsory to inflict the whole amount of the fine; and, besides, the alternative of imprisonment was contained in its language. If, however, the hon, and gallant Member wished to level a special penalty at the particular kind of intimidation to which he had adverted, he ought to propose a clause of his own for the purpose.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it appeared to him that it would tend to very great confusion if these words were now inserted inserted. Cases of bribery and treating could easily be substantiated by proof; but he was afraid they would have a host of very doubtful questions raised as to how far a man might have been intimidated to give the vote he had recorded. lf, indeed, a person were convicted of intimidation and undue influence, and certain voters were pointed out and proved to have been so influenced and intimidated, there might he some propriety in disfranchising such voters; but if persons could come to that House with an election petition and say that the election had been gained by undue influence, and there being evidence of the agent of some landlord having said that he hoped the tenants would all vote according
1472
to the wishes of their landlord, and if it were shown that customers had said to their tradespeople that they hoped they would give their votes in a particular way, why they might go on with such cases, and strike off vote after vote ad infinitum, and a state of things would result that would be attended with the most injurious consequences.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 132: Majority 69.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive.
Clause 10 (Electors not to be paid for services at elections).
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, if a candidate paid even any suns of money to his attorney, who might be an elector, he would violate the provisions of the Act, and do that which, by this clause, would render him exposed to a fine of 100 l. for a misdemeanor. Now, this clause would necessitate a candidate to have recourse to a low class of attorneys, because he could not employ either a counsel or an attorney, however respectable, connected with the district he might seek to represent. This, he considered, was carrying the principle of caution to a ridiculous and unnecessary extent, and he trusted this clause would not be persevered in.
MR. H. T. LIDDELLsaid, he had given notice of a clause in substitution of the proposed clause, which he thought would meet the objection of the hon. Gentleman. He wished to propose the following clause—
"That if any person shall, either during any election of a Member to serve in Parliament, or within six calendar months previous to such election, or within fourteen days after it shall have been completed, be employed at such election as counsel, agent, attorney, poll-clerk, flagman, or in any other capacity, for the purposes of such election, and shall at any time, either before, during, or after such election, accept or take front any such candidate or candidates, or from any person whatsoever, for or in consideration of or with reference to such employment, ally sum or sums of money, retaining fee, office, place, or employment, or any promise or security for any sum or stuns of money, retaining office, place, or employment, such person shall be deemed incapable of voting at such election, and his vote, if given, shall be utterly void and of none effect, and shall render him liable to forfeit the sum of 5o l. to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit."
MR. PHINNsaid, the clause certainly went very much further than was either necessary or expedient; but it must be

1473
recollected that very gross abuses under the old system prevailed. He would give an instance:—A candidate, on one occasion, engaged all the attorneys in the district as his agents. By this manœuvre he not only gained the votes of the attorneys, but the votes of all their friends, and thus the election was gained. It was to remedy similar abuses that the clause in question was framed. He must say, though he never had occasion to make use of the assistance of attorneys in his electioneering affairs, that it was tolerably well known the great source of expense to candidates was the expense of attorneys. He was, however, of opinion that the clause might be modified with advantage. He considered, however, that the penalty of 50 l. was too small, as the advantages to the attorney in election proceedings made this amount a matter of small consideration. He thought it would be advisable to make any payment to attorneys, with votes, as agents, illegal, and if such attorney voted after receiving payment, he should be subjected to a penalty of 100 l.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he also thought the clause highly objectionable. Was it intended that the candidate should do his own work at an election? If so, let it be said at once; but, surely, that could not be the object of the clause. To employ an agent practically was to pay him, and for any practical use, an agent must be a man living on the spot. The clause prohibited the employment of any man who could be of the slightest use, and what would be the consequence? Some stranger would be employed—a "man in the moon," who came from a distance—and the evil would be increased rather than remedied. He was willing that an agent should be prohibited from voting. He approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Liddell), and that the object of this clause would be attained by making the voting of paid agents penal.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, this clause was not originally in the Bill. All he proposed in the original clause was to prevent more effectually than was now done by law the influence of attorneys and agents. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was perfectly true as to the utility of having an agent on the spot. If an attorney was prevented from acting, some one else would be provided—perhaps his assistant, whether his son or junior partner. He was, therefore, inclined to go back to the ori-
1474
ginal clause, and perhaps the best way would be to strike out the clause now, and have one brought up at a future stage.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he saw the clause in the Bill with much satisfaction, for he was satisfied until lawyers were prohibited from doing anything at all at elections, the evils sought to be remedied would never he abated. It was the attorneys who had all the influence, and who put the screw on electors. He thought that candidates ought to be able to do entirely without attorneys, and when this was the case, he was certain that electioneering corruption and intimidation would cease, but not till then.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause proposed to operate on attorneys who exercised influence in a double capacity on the vote of an elector. In the first place he could exercise a direct influence at the time of election, and in the other he could exercise influence where there was no election by the acquaintance he had with the affairs of the voter. By means of this knowledge he could speculate at an election time on the voter. But the clause would be practically of no avail, for, at the time of an election, the attorney would act through some relative or clerk, and when an election was going on, the clause would not operate at all. So, therefore, the two great evils the clause was intended to cure would not be reached at all. The clause had been much discussed in the Select Committee. It was carried, however, by the perseverance of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He (Mr. Walpole) was doubtful of the expediency or effect of the clause, and he apprehended it would not pass the House. He thought, however, that every evil the clause was intended to remedy would be remedied by the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell), which was to prohibit attorneys from voting who received money from a candidate.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not object to the withdrawal of the clause, but regretted that the hon. Member for Manchester, who had introduced it to the Committee, was not in his place. The argument of the hon. Member was, that something ought to be done to prevent the enormous influence of attorneys in boroughs and counties; and he agreed with a further remark of his, that the employment of attorneys was the only legalised bribery in existence. Something ought certainly to be done to meet this evil, though he would not nsist upon the exact words of this clause.

1475
Clause struck out.
Clause 11 (No cockades, ribands, or other marks of distinction to be given at elections).
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the clause only rendered liable to penalties any "person to be hereafter elected." Supposing, however, that a candidate who gave away these badges was not elected, he would be held to have committed no crime whatever, and might give away as many cockades as he liked. Instead, therefore, of the words "No person to be hereafter elected," he should propose the insertion of the words —"No candidate before, during, or after any election, in regard to such election."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. BOOKERsaid, he should move the rejection of the clause. He thought the time was come to ask whether or not we were to have popular elections, and were to appeal to the people on popular principles. The whole thing seemed so absurd, and so totally at variance with popular elections, and with all that to which the people had been accustomed at elections, that if only one Member voted with him he should divide the Committee against the clause.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, his idea of what constituted a popular election was as much opposed to that of the hon. Member's definition as it was possible to be. He wished to ask whether there would be any objection to raise again the question in regard to that intolerable nuisance at elections— flags and banners? He would like to know whether this point had been considered in the Committee.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that since the House had deliberately upon two occasions had this question before it, and had rejected the proposition, the Committee thought it was hardly within their province to insert a clause upon the subject in the present Bill. As to the clause now under discussion, it did not prevent the use of cockades and favours, but it only prevented the candidates from giving these or other marks of distinction, which was no new principle. He therefore hoped the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Booker) would not divide the Committee.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 (Voters not liable to serve as special constables.)
MR. SOTHERONsaid, he wished to ask, supposing a disturbance arose during an election, why a voter should not be compellable to serve in order to quell it?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the reason was obvious—namely, that no special constable sworn in to keep the peace on such an occasion ought to be a political partisan.
MR. MILESsaid, that in some of the small boroughs almost all the respectable inhabitants were voters. It was notorious that election riots did not originate among the electors and respectable men, but among the non-electors, and people coming into the town from a distance. The respectable men, who were also voters, were just those who ought to be special constables.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that, if an elector were willing to serve as a special constable, this clause did not prevent him from doing so; it only enacted that he should not be "liable or compelled to serve."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the provision contained in this clause was only a re-enactment of one which was contained in the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 37.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 39: Majority 145.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 (Recovery of Penalties).
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment with a view to render the penalties imposed under this Act recoverable in the county court of the district where the offence was committed, as well as in the superior courts. He thought it would be most salutary that the proceedings in cases of this kind should be conducted in the locality in which the voter resided, because by that means the force of public opinion would be brought to bear upon the offender in the most direct manner. He had been induced to move this on account of the communications he had received on the subject, and from a belief that if constituencies had any easy and cheap mode by which they could punish bribery, they would do more to put down such an offence than the Legislature could.
MR. PHINNsaid, he objected to the Amendment, which he said had been deliberately considered in, and rejected by, the Select Committee. He thought it was very desirable that there should be a little delay—a little time for consideration—in the bringing of actions of this penal character. If this Amendment were agreed to, a host of actions of this kind were sure to be brought after contested elections, where

1477
party feeling had run high. The result would be that this measure would be made the instrument of oppression, that party animosity would be perpetuated, and that the county courts would be brought into disrepute. The Committee should remember that the proceedings under this clause involved, not only the recovery of penalties, but the disfranchisement of offending electors.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that a precedent for the Amendment was furnished by the Customs Act of last year, which made penalties for offences against the revenue laws, to the amount of 100 l., recoverable in the county courts.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought it would be most undesirable to invest tribunals like the county courts with the power of trying the delicate and difficult questions that would arise under this Act. He could not consent that a judge sitting without a jury, and uncontrolled by the presence of an efficient bar, should be invested with the power of deciding questions involving the right of an elector to retain his vote.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he also objected to the Amendment, and trusted that it would be withdrawn.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he was of opinion that every facility should be afforded for the enforcement of penalties, but at the same time it was of the utmost importance that in questions of this description the tribunal appealed to should be viewed with respect by all parties, and that might not be the case with regard to county courts in the existing actions to which this clause referred. He should, on that ground, oppose the Amendment.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that the object of the whole Bill would be defeated if facilities were not given for the recovery of the penalties. No one would encounter the expense and delay of bringing an action in the courts at Westminster. He thought the Committee would do well to adopt this Amendment, as the heaviest blow that could be aimed at bribery.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he thought that, if the county courts were so little entitled to respect, they ought not to be intrusted with the cases which were now brought before them, for, although the amount to which their jurisdiction was limited was comparatively small, still the question of justice was of as much interest as in the case of larger sums. With regard to the objection that the excitement attendant upon elections would be prolonged, if it
1478
held good at all, it was equally applicable to the Bill as it at present stood. The Bill went, to some extent, upon the principle of working upon the feeling of shame, and it would be more effective if the cases were decided in a local court. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must object to the Amendment. There was no appeal from the county courts but in exceptional cases. When cases of magnitude were brought before the Courts of Exchequer, there was a power of appeal. He thought it would be very inexpedient to give to the county courts a superior power, particularly on questions on which great excitement must necessarily exist.
Amendment negatived.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to inquire how the costs of prosecutions were to be paid. He thought they ought to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and not out of the county rates.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was intended that the costs should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

STANDARD OF GOLD AND SILVER WARES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill—the object of which appeared to be to stamp as gold something not much better than brass—to explain the reason he had for introducing it, and to what point he intended to reduce the standard.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, by the law of this country, as it now stood, no article of gold manufacture could be sold of a lower standard than eighteen carats fine. There was a very valuable trade in watch-cases of that standard, but there was a large and increasing trade in the world in watchcases of a lower standard of fineness; and very great complaint was made by the manufacturers of Birmingham, Coventry, and Liverpool, of their being shut out from a participation in this trade by the restriction to which he had referred. They were anxious, therefore, for such a change of the laws as would admit of articles being manufactured of a lower standard, which should be stamped so as to show the exact quantity of fineness, and sold for what they really were. This request appeared to him

1479
to be reasonable; and with regard to the question which the right hon. Gentleman had put to him, as to what was the standard to which he intended to descend, he would observe that he believed the greater part of the trade to which he had referred was in articles of ten carats fine; and as the object was to put such a stamp upon the article as would show exactly what it was worth, so that there could be no fraud upon the public, he saw no reason why they should not descend to twelve, or even ten carats, which he believed was the lowest standard of which such articles were manufactured.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he begged on the part of his constituents to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill, which would prove very beneficial to the watch-case trade.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he had been requested by the great body of the gold manufacturers of the metropolis to say that they entirely disapproved of this Bill, and that they considered it would drive the respectable trade away front England if articles were allowed to be manufactured and sold as gold which in point of fact were only one-third gold. They were of opinion that the high character of the gold manufacture of this country was owing to the high standard which the manufacturers were obliged to maintain, and that if that standard were to he lowered the trade in watch-cases would be driven away to Geneva. He understood that the object was to enable certain manufacturers of Liverpool and Birmingham to manufacture lower classes of goods, in order to compete with America, where there was no standard at all.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he believed that the bon. Member who last addressed the House spoke the sentiments of certain London monopolists, who supposed, mistakenly however, that they derived advantage from the present state of the law. It was supposed that the watch trade would have suffered from the establishment of free trade, instead of which it had wonderfully increased since that era. The trade was in a progressive state of improvement, but his constituents complained that they were obliged to send the works they manufactured to America or France, in order that they might be put into eases made in those countries of a lower standard than was legal in England. Why this restriction should be put upon the trade was to him a matter of absolute mystery. The fact
1480
was, that small watch-cases could not be made of gold at eighteen carats fine. The gold was too ductile. But, in asking to be allowed to make watch-cases at a lower standard, it was not sought to deceive the public. All that was asked was, that the number of carats should be stamped; that there should be appropriate marks for eighteen carats, fourteen carats, or twelve carats, as the case might be.
Bill read 2°.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should move that the Chairman report progress, because he considered that this Bill was part and parcel of the system of proselytising which it was sought to put in practice in Scotland. There were 250,000 Roman Catholics in that country, and their religious rights ought to be protected.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Dunlop) would be allowed to proceed with the Bill; the object of it was to remove the outcast children from the streets, after they were taken up; if any relative or guardian gave security they would be discharged.
MR. LUCASsaid, he could not allow the Bill to proceed. He had suggested certain amendments to the proposer to guard against its proselytising tendencies, but they were rejected. Since the division on the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill, they had a right to look on that House as pledged to a proselytising course, which they should resist by every means in their power. One Amendment he had suggested was, that the religion of every child should be registered. A clause was inserted in the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill to that effect, but it had been thrown lout by the Lords. Now, a registry was the only protection for the religious rights of these wretched beings, but it was refused, because it was intended to trample on their religious rights, because that House was determined that the Catholics of this country should have no rights; it was part of the system of their aggression against their religious rights and liberties which they witnessed every night in that House. He had proposed three Amendments: first, that every school should state whether it was intended for all denominations or for one only; second, that a child should be sent to the school of his

1481
own denomination, if there was one in the locality; and third, that schools for all denominations should have a code of rules approved by the Secretary of State. These were the securities he asked for the religion of the children; they were refused; if an equivalent was offered he would accept it; but unless some security was given it would be better for the children that they were still in the streets than in these schools. It was because he believed that the moral nature of the children sent to such institutions as that presided over by Dr. Guthrie would be more perverted than it would be if they were left in the streets, that he opposed the present Bill. He did not expect that the Committee would agree with him in that; but he trusted they would at least support his Amendments.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he could not consent to the further progress of this Bill at so late an hour, and would take all the means in his power to prevent it which the forms of the House allowed. There
1482
had been an undertaking to introduce a clause which would meet the views of the Roman Catholic Members on the subject, but which had never been brought forward, and he therefore gave notice that he would bring up such a clause. He considered the decision the other day a most tyrannous one, and a vote which inspired him with the greatest dread as to the future proceedings of the Government.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that seeing it was the intention of hon. Members to obstruct the further progress of the Bill that evening, he would reluctantly consent to postpone the Committee, as he could see no use in attempting at that time to proceed with it.
MR. BRADYsaid, he would warn the House against proceeding with the persecuting system which had recently been commenced, and which they might one day see cause to regret.
House resumed. Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.