Commons Sitting of 1 August 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution reported—Ordered—First Reading—Prince Arthur's Annuity* [280].
Ordered—First Heading—Occasional Sermons* [281]; Military Manœuvres* [279].
Second Reading—Pedlars Certificates* [271]; Factories and Workshops Acts Amendment* [255].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Summary Jurisdiction, &c. (Ireland)* [253]; Telegraph (Money)* [274].
Considered as amended—Clerk of the Peace (County Palatine of Lancaster)* [265]; Judgments (Ireland)* [167].
Third Reading — Local Government Board* [230]; Reductions ex Capite Lecti Abolition* [260], and passed.
Withdrawn — County Courts Jurisdiction and Procedure* [31]; Public Health and Local Government* [269].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ASIATIC CHOLERA.—QUESTIONS.
DR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the cases of Asiatic Cholera reported as existing at Hull did not take place in ships several days before they reached that port; and, whether any case of Asiatic Cholera has been as yet reported within this Kingdom?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: In answer, Sir, to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that I received a telegram from Hull shortly after I answered the Question put the other evening that there had been a case of cholera at Hull, and I requested Mr. Simon to send down one of the Inspectors. A Report was received the next day which I find on examination since is quite confirmed. It is to the effect that it was not a case of cholera that had been imported into Hull; it was the case of a ship coming from Cronstadt, in which a man died two days after leaving Cronstadt and five days before reaching Hull. In another ship a man had died of cholera at Cronstadt 13 days before arrival at Hull. There was no case of cholera after arrival at Hull. The Medical Department has no information of any case of Asiatic cholera in this country.

METROPOLIS — MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL GILPINregretted he did not see the Home Secretary in his place; but after the Notice he had given he thought that in common courtesy the right hon. Gentleman should have been present. In his absence, however, he must ask the question of the First Lord of the Treasury, By whose sanction the meeting in Trafalgar Square took place, after it had been forbidden by the Chief Commissioner of Police; and if he considers it in accordance with law that a public meeting should be held within half a mile of the House of Commons for the purpose of discussing a question that was then occupying the attention of that House?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I really think that I need not vindicate my right hon. Friend from any want of courtesy. I do not suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself believes my right hon. Friend capable of discourtesy to himself or to any other Members of the House. My right hon. Friend has been labouring lately under very severe indisposition. I hope he is quite sufficiently recovered to attend the House, and that only accidentally he has not been able to commence business quite so early as he usually does, though much earlier than almost any other person I know. But, though I do not excuse him, I must excuse myself, because I have no documents in my possession; and having expected that my right hon. Friend would be here to answer the Question, I must request the hon. and gallant Gentleman to receive my answer with some indulgence as to minute particulars.
MR. BRUCE: I am sorry, Sir, I was not in my place when the hon. and gallant Gentleman put his Question. My hon. and gallant Friend asks by whose sanction the meeting in Trafalgar Square took place. He must be aware that all meetings are either legal or illegal. If they are legal they require no sanction on the part of the Government, and if they are illegal Government cannot sanction their being held. Late on Sunday evening I received notice that the meeting which was to be held in Hyde Park was to be adjourned to Trafalgar Square, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against the grant to Prince Arthur.

655
It became my duty to communicate immediately with the promoters of the meeting, and to inform them that any meeting held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, consisting of more than 50 persons and within a mile of the Houses of Parliament was unlawful, and could not be permitted. That communication was made, and in the course of the communication I was assured that the object of the promoters was not to meet for the purpose of petitioning Parliament; in fact, they issued a notice calling the meeting for other purposes—that is, for the purpose of considering questions connected with the annuity to Prince Arthur. It was clear that under these circumstances the meeting was not an illegal one. Meetings for other purposes than that of petitioning Parliament may be held in Trafalgar Square or anywhere else without those who take part in them being subject to prosecution or the meetings being illegal. The only illegality which can possibly arise would not be one which would justify the interference of Government, and that is a meeting which might cause obstruction to public traffic. If any obstruction arises, the person causing it may be summoned for the offence, but the obstruction would not in itself constitute an unlawful meeting.
COLONEL GILPINasked if it was legal at such a meeting to discuss any measures pari passu with the Houses of Parliament; why measures had been taken to greatly increase the police force in the neighbourhood of the Houses, and why the troops had been ordered to remain in their barracks?
MR. BRUCE: It was quite impossible at one time of the day to know what was the object of the meeting. If called to petition Parliament it would clearly have been an illegal meeting, and it was most important, if it was an illegal meeting, that the soldiers, who were constantly in that neighbourhood, should not take part in it. The Horse Guards had, therefore, issued an order to prevent the attendance of soldiers. The illegality had reference entirely to the object of the meeting—to petition Parliament.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEwished to have it distinctly understood whether meetings, if not intended to present a Petition to Parliament, at any hour of the day or night, might be called in any
656
public square or place within one mile of the Houses of Parliament, whatever obstruction might thereby be caused to the public traffic. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think it essential that the Government should introduce a Bill to remedy this extraordinary state of things?
MR. BRUCE: I have already stated that there is no power to prevent any public meeting unless convened within the distance named for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, which has been by statute declared to be illegal, or in case of a declaration made upon oath that a breach of the peace is apprehended.

PRINCE ARTHUR'S ANNUITY.
Resolution reported;
"That the annual sum of £15,000 be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the coming of age of His Royal Highness."
MR. HADFIELDasked whether the annuity was to be absolute, or, as in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, inalienable. He was informed that without some provision in the Act it would be in the power of Prince Arthur to encumber the grant—that was to say, to cripple his power of serving the State. The country was entitled to the full benefit of any services the Prince could give.
MR. GLADSTONE: So far as I am able to form an opinion, I very much concur with my hon. Friend in the view he takes of the wise and prudent form of framing a provision of this kind. The annuity was not given in the nature of absolute property like an estate, but it was given for the purpose of supporting a certain dignity of a Royal character; and, consequently, the permanence of the annuity ought, I think, to be assured. My hon. Friend has justly referred to the case of the Duke of Edinburgh, in which the 3rd clause of the Act provides—
"That the annuity granted in pursuance of the Act shall, if Her Majesty thinks fit to direct, be a personal and inalienable provision,"
and we shall exactly follow the same form of drawing the Bill for the purpose of granting the annuity to Prince Arthur.
Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Bill "to enable Her Majesty to settle an Annuity on His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY ANDMUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [H.L.]03.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY ANDMUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [H.L.]03.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 31st July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Corrupt Practices and Personation.
  Clause 22 (Striking off vote for bribery or personation).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, in page 15, line 42, and page 16, line 1, to leave out the words "or any other person on his behalf," on the ground that it would be impossible to tell, out of 5,000 or 6,000 votes, which was the personated one; and, moreover, that inasmuch as under the Corrupt Practices Act the penalty for the personation of voters was the loss of the seat, it would be quite within the power of anyone, without communicating with the candidate at all, to render the election illegal.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 42, and page 16, line 1, to leave out the words "or any other person on his behalf."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped that the words as they stood would be adhered to, because they were those of the Corrupt Practices Act. He feared the omission would open the door to fraud. He did not think the clause should apply except where the candidate or his agent had acted.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved that personators would most probably not be asked to vote either by the candidate or his agent. There would be a kind of freemasonry among them directing the personators to go and do what was intended. He protested against the innovation upon the privileges of the House which had been shown in the conduct of this Bill. He also protested against the abnormal silence preserved upon the other side of the House, and assured hon. Members opposite that if
  658
  they did not talk they would at least have to walk. Rather than see so imperfect a measure pass he would sit till the end of the month, or even of October.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that there would be no means under this Bill of having a fair election, because if personation took place those false votes must remain unless there was a scrutiny, and it was shown that the personation had taken place at the instance of the candidate, his agent, or some person on his behalf.
  MR. JAMESsaid, that this objection had been stated and answered over and over again; and the truth was that it was only a small defect, which would be far more than counterbalanced by advantages derived from the Bill. He would remind the Committee that at present votes were never struck off the poll without proving agency so as to affect the seat, and a fresh election was better than a scrutiny.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that personation would become much more rife under the ballot system. No doubt a personated vote might be struck off upon proof of agency; but under a system of secrecy proof would be much more difficult even than it was at present. He suggested a clause should be added that where personation prevailed to any considerable extent the election should be void.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that suggestion would better apply to the next clause. He acknowledged that there was no happier looking man in the House than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Hope) under the infliction of these long sittings, and no doubt he would be quite willing to sit on till October; but it was doubtful whether other Members felt so happy. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would withdraw his Amendment. The object of the clause was to amend the Corrupt Practices Act, and as an interpretation had been given to the words, it was rather dangerous to leave out or take in any new words.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would be willing that the words should be "agent or person authorized on his behalf."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that it would be far better to leave the words as they now stood.
  MR. J. LOWTHERbelieved that the difficulty in passing this clause arose

  659
  from treating and personation being mixed up together in it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 93; Noes 48: Majority 45.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, in page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words—
  "Has been guilty of the offence of treating any voter at such Election, or that a candidate or any other person on his behalf."
  As the right hon. Gentleman had the other day withdrawn the clauses relating to corrupt practices, the subject of treating, which generally came under that head, ought not, in his opinion, to be dealt with in the present clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "has been guilty of the offence of treating any voter at such Election, or that a candidate or any other person on his behalf."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. COLLINSremarked that mere treating was no offence as far as he was aware, and that he should at the proper time move to insert the word "corrupt" before "treating."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, treating was legally defined in the Corrupt Practices Act. Personation was not the only offence which ought to be dealt with in this clause. If a candidate by himself or his agent induced a voter to vote by bribery, treating, or undue influence, surely the same result ought to follow as would be brought about by inducing anyone to personate a voter.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), by his Amendment, was starting from false and narrow premises, and that he was altogether premature in his proposal.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had no wish to raise any point unnecessarily, or to press his Amendment if it were understood that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) would raise this point in Amendment to other clauses.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the subject ought to be considered apart from the latter part of the clause, which had reference to personation. Under the clause as it stood, votes might be struck off which a candidate never received, as, of course, it would be impossible
  660
  to ascertain how anyone had actually voted. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for York.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that under the existing law if a candidate or any person on his behalf induced an elector to vote for him by means of bribery, treating, or undue influence, such vote was struck off on a Petition being presented. This clause was an attempt to approach as near as possible to the existing law.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONpointed out that as under the Ballot nobody could know for whom an elector had actually voted, great injustice might be inflicted by the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained the meaning of the clause to be that, if on an inquiry being instituted it was discovered that a candidate had induced an elector to vote by means of bribery, personation, or undue influence, a vote should be struck off the number recorded for such candidate. Instead of striking off the special vote, as was done at present, it was proposed to strike off a vote.
  MR. PELLviewed this as something like a beggar-my-neighbour arrangement.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKremarked that it was a common thing for a man to take a bribe from one candidate and then vote for another.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know what would happen if it were proved that a man had been bribed by both parties.
  MR. COLLINSsupposed that in such a case each party would lose the vote.
  MR. JAMESreminded the Committee that under the existing law a candidate would lose his seat upon proof of the commission of bribery.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, if a man lost his seat it was of little consequence to him if a vote or two were struck off his list. How could personation on behalf of a particular candidate be brought home, unless it was proved that the man who had personated had really voted for a particular candidate? In his opinion no clause in the Bill would be so unworkable as this.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that it came within the province of a Court of Justice to receive evidence of the fact that one man had personated another.

  661
  The clause dealt with the case of personation—it did not matter as to the person for whom he voted.
  MR. JAMESsaid, if an avowed agent of the candidate were found in a room with a voter, and it was proved he offered him a sovereign to personate another voter, and he did do so, the offence was not for whom he voted, but for voting as representing another person.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKprotested against legislation which might have the effect of retaining upon the poll for any candidate a vote proved to have been fictitious.
  MR. EASTWICKobjected to the clause. It would be very hard that a candidate should be punished for the indiscretion of persons acting on his behalf.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, it would be punishing the constituency and not the candidate.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONconcurred in the indignation that had been expressed against bribers; but whilst endeavouring to prevent the committal of an illegal act they must not lose sight of justice. He thought it a monstrous injustice that by the act of some injudicious friend, or possibly enemy, 200 or 300 votes might be struck off the poll of a candidate who all the time was ignorant of the commission of the act complained of. The true way to punish bribery and personation was by retaining a counterfoil of each voting paper, not necessarily for publication, but for use if called for by the Election Judge or other competent authority, in the event of a subsequent inquiry. He hoped the common sense of the country would compel the adoption of some means of detecting the guilty voter.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, what the hon. Baronet complained of was only part of the general law of agency. An agent must be one that had been appointed or ratified by a candidate before his acts could make the latter liable. His calling himself an agent would not do. A Member could not be unseated except for an act done by himself or his agents, or because the bribery or treating was of such an extent as to render the seat void by common law.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONdiffered from the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretaion of the law, having in view the Westbury decision.
  MR. COLLINSrepeated that agency must have formed an element in the decision of the Judge.
  LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, the act condemned was the act not of an agent, but of a supporter, who was a rival in business of the opposing candidate. It would be all very well if Judges acted uniformly upon the principles enunciated by the hon. Member for Boston, then candidates would know what they were about. But the misfortune was that one Judge took one view of the law while another viewed it differently, and a very great confusion was the result.
  MR. JAMESsaid, the Judge in the Westbury case would not have unseated the candidate unless there had been proof of agency. It had been expressly sworn that the candidate asked the manufacturer whose act was impeached to canvass particular voters in his interest.
  Question put, "That the words 'has been guilty of the offence of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 35: Majority 134.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, in page 16, line 2, after "offence of," insert "unduly influencing or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COLLINSproposed to add "or the polling more than once of any elector." It was clear that a man voting twice from a double qualification would affect the poll just as much as a man who voted once without any qualification at all.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was disposed to view the Amendment favourably, and would take the opportunity of considering it before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHmoved the following Amendment, in page 16, line 5, after "Election," insert—
  "And it is also proved that the voter so bribed or treated, or the individual guilty of such personation, has voted for the candidate on whose behalf such bribery, treating, or personation is alleged to have been committed,"
  in order to question the whole principle of the clause, which, it appeared to him, was based on a wrong principle, namely—that of taking away from a candidate a vote when it could not be proved that the vote had been given for him. The

  663
  clause could not be considered as a punishment to the voter, because it mattered not to him personally whether the vote was struck off or not. The voter was already liable under the present law, which rendered personation a misdemeanour. It was impossible to have a scrutiny unless it was known how the voter had voted. It was quite possible to have an inquiry without a scrutiny. An elector might, for instance, be questioned as to how he had voted, and if he stated how he had given his vote that admission might be taken as evidence. This clause was likely to lead to such unfairness that he felt justified in moving the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in resisting the Amendment, said, the easier course would have been for the hon. Baronet to move the omission of the clause, since he had expressed his disapproval of it. The sort of inquisition as to the past history of the voter, suggested by the hon. Gentleman, was anything but desirable in a Court of Justice.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsupported the Amendment, for the reason that the clause as it stood reduced the question to a mere lottery. After admitting that it was impossible to have a real scrutiny, the right hon. Gentleman was assenting to an absolutely sham scrutiny. No doubt there might be false agents; but there might also be many distinct cases of bribery, without the ability to prove them under this clause. Unless it could be proved, by means of some such provision as was proposed by his hon. Friend, for whom a person bribed or otherwise influenced had voted, the votes must be struck off in the dark and haphazard, a proceeding to which he, for one, strongly objected.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYobjected to the punishment of an innocent voter because of bribery by a guilty one. He agreed that, under this clause, a scrutiny was inoperative.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GORDONmoved the omission of the words which made the clause applicable to Parliamentary elections in Universities, in which open voting still prevailed.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsupported the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved the rejection of the clause, on the ground that the existing law was sufficient to meet the case.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTseconded the Amendment, remarking that the effect of the clause would be to let a minority of electors, personators, and other disreputable persons escape scot free, while the innocent voters would suffer. All the vices of elections would be increased by the adoption of a system under which an illegal vote cannot be pursued.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsupported the Amendment, on the ground that as the clause would involve the Judges in the administration of haphazard legislation. He thought it would be preferable in cases of proved personation to give an additional vote to the poll of the candidate whose voter had been personated, rather than to strike one from the list of the candidate for whom the fictitious vote had been given.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 91: Majority 67.
  Clause 23 (Seat vacated for personation).
  COLONEL BERESFORD, moved in page 16, line 12, leave out "or any other person," and insert "or agents or person authorized." He pointed out that at most elections a lot of disreputable persons were to be found to do any work asked of them; and he maintained that it would be unjust to the candidate to vitiate the election either on account of the conduct of such persons or the over-zealousness of partisans.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 12, to leave out the words "or any other person," in order to insert the words "his agent or other person authorised by such candidate." — (Colonel Beresford.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHremarked that a similar Amendment had been negatived in a previous clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERapproved the Amendment, desiring to restrain the liability of the candidate to the acts of his paid agents.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, on re-consideration, declined to accept the Amendment, having regard to the fact referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGremarked that a man might be an agent in small matters without being such an active agent that his acts would vitiate the candidate's election. The question of agency would have to be laid down by the Judge.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if hon. Members did not like the clause they could divide against it.
  MR. HERMONsuggested that the clause should be defined in the Interpretation Clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, a better definition was already given in the Corrupt Practices Act, which was incorporated by Clause 28, and that it was always safe, in amending an Act, to use the words of that Act.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he could not understand why the Committee, having a perfectly clear conception of its own meaning, could not define that meaning in the Bill, especially as it would prevent the recurrence of hardship such as had occurred in the case of Westbury.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to point out, in the absence of the legal Advisers of the Crown, what section of the Corrupt Practices Act defined the phrase?
  MR. JAMESsaid, there was no clause in the Corrupt Practices Act defining "an agent;" that was left to the Judges, who had construed the description less harshly as regards candidates than Committees had done. He held it to be impossible to define "an agent" in the Bill. If they inserted the words "legal agents" they would open a floodgate to bribery, by enabling all persons except those coming under the designation to commit offences which were sought to be checked.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, it would be better to insert the meaning of the Committee than to leave the question vague and to the decision of the Judge. Judges were not all of one opinion. The question was what were the words by which the intention of the House of Commons would be best carried out?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it had been held that whenever a judicial definition had been given of certain words it was better to adhere to those words.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 82: Majority 102.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Returning officer may order persons charged with personation to be taken into custody. 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 86).
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that if the power of arrest were merely permissive, it would be quite useless. Under the existing law it was compulsory, and he did not see why this Bill should depart from the present law in that respect. The hon. and learned Member, therefore, moved, inline 27, leave out "may," and insert "and he is hereby required."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought if the returning officer was fit for anything, he was fit to have a discretion in that case.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, unless that Amendment was accepted, intended to move the omission in the next line of the words "after such person has voted." It was a monstrous thing that a person should be allowed to vote notwithstanding there was a distinct statement made to the returning officer that he was about to commit personation.
  TUB ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, they could not invest the returning officer with judicial functions.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSquoted the words of the existing statute, which made it not only lawful for the returning officer or his deputy to order the person charged into custody, but positively required him to do so immediately. Before the present law was altered they ought to have an explanation of the reason for altering it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped as they had the rare advantage that afternoon of the presence of a Law Officer of the Crown that these points would be authoritatively set at rest. A still more serious alteration than the one just indicated was about to be made by the Bill in the existing law. At present the voter who was personated obtained redress by a scrutiny, and could remove

  667
  the false vote before the Election Judge; but under this Bill a false vote once given must remain for ever. He wished to prevent a man who was notoriously about to commit personation from being allowed to record an indelible vote.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in answer to the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. A. Cross's) question, admitted that he did not himself see why the present law should be altered.
  Amendment (Mr. Charley) agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested that it should be provided that if it was represented on reliable testimony before the returning officer that a person coming to vote was not the voter he professed himself to be, the vote tendered by him should not be put into the ballot-box with the other votes, but placed on a separate file, and treated in a separate fashion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobjected to the suggestion, because it would enable the agent to find out how the person had voted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the Attorney General would promise to consider the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpromised to do so.
  MR. GORDONmoved the omission of words which made the clause applicable to elections for Universities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Persons charged with personation to be taken before two Justices, 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 87), struck out.
  Clause 26 (Payments not made through agent or included in return deemed to be corrupt).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to leave out the clause.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to offer the strongest protest against the omission of this clause with the consent of the Government. If it were so omitted, he would unhesitatingly say that his vote on the second reading had been obtained under wrong pretences, because the omission of this clause, and the clauses connected with it, would make the measure simply a Ballot or Secret Voting Bill. He gave his vote on the second reading, not simply for a Secret Voting
  668
  Bill, but for a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. If the alternative had been presented to him of voting for a Ballot Bill pure and simple, in July, or waiting until next Session for a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, however strongly he might favour the Ballot, he unhesitatingly declared he would not have voted for the second reading of a Ballot Bill in July, he would have waited until next year, when they could have considered not only the Ballot, but other provisions to attain what the Liberal party had in view—namely, greater freedom, tranquillity, and purity at elections. The Select Committee on whose Report the Bill was based had not to consider a Ballot Bill, they were not appointed to consider secret voting; but, according to the terms of reference, they were appointed to consider what would promote the tranquillity, the freedom, and the purity of elections. He was a Member of that Committee, which did not attribute the first importance to the Ballot, but considered fairly every proposal which they thought would promote the object they were appointed to secure; and many of the recommendations of the Committee were supported by it in entire independence of party. He ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, that the almost unanimous feeling in this House was, that the object of this Bill was not simply to introduce the Ballot, but to secure purity of election; and for this purpose there was no more important proposal than that which was now to be abandoned by the Government. We might have the Ballot and absolute secrecy; but we all knew there was nothing which tended so much to produce impurity at elections as that system which had grown up, and which this clause was designed to meet, of making the return of election expenses to the auditor a monstrous sham and a farce, upon which no reliance was to be placed. On the occasion of the last General Election at Bridgewater the expenses of the candidates were returned at £1,000, or an average of £250 each; but he should not be exaggerating if he stated that the evidence taken before the Commission showed that the four candidates spent nearly £16,000. And yet the Bill was to be passed without these clauses. He knew the Government would say that next year we should have to consider

  669
  a Corrupt Practices Bill; but there was no guarantee at what period of the Session they would be able to consider it. The Government were already deeply pledged in the matter of legislation. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was zealous in the cause of legislation, and who was so sincere that he never said he would legislate if he did not mean to undertake the task, had already under serious consideration with a view to legislation no fewer than 20 subjects. They might be told that this clause could be re-introduced next Session; but there was no security that it would come on at a time more favourable for its consideration than the present, and he would not be a consenting party to postponing it. They voted for the second reading, not of a Secret Voting Bill, as the Prime Minister persistently called it; but of a Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, and if they abandoned this clause they would not be doing what they could to secure the great object in view, which was to introduce greater tranquillity, freedom, and purity into Parliamentary elections.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, when the hon. Member rose, he was on the point of rising to explain why the Government proposed to omit this clause. The hon. Member did not seem to remember that time was an element in the questions they had to consider, and that the House ought not now to be detained discussing this Bill longer than was necessary. Originally, this clause was put in chiefly because the Report of the Select Committee had alluded to this branch of the question; but, in order to insert it at all, the Preamble of the Bill had to be enlarged by stating that it was a Bill relating to procedure at elections "for other purposes connected therewith." This rather vague addition had to be made to the original title of the Bill in order to insert the clause. The Government would be glad if it could be fully considered; but it had nothing to do with the two main objects of the Bill—namely, the alteration in the system of nomination, and the mode of taking the poll. It was an amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act, for which, doubtless, many arguments might be adduced, and which at the proper time he should be prepared to support; but it was quite distinct from the two main objects of the Government and their supporters in pressing the Bill.
  670
  The Government was well aware that this important question ought to be considered, and the offer they made to insure its consideration was this—the Election Petitions Act, passed by the late Government, expired at the end of next Session, and consequently it would be necessary to propose further legislation. The Act might have been put into the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill of this year; but, instead, the Government would undertake, if they were still in office, to bring the matter forward before next Easter, in order that the House might fully consider the question, and it would be more convenient then than it was at this period of the Session to consider this clause and the clauses depending upon it. This clause and other new clauses constituted, in fact, a new Elections Petitions Bill, which would involve almost as much discussion of details as they had had already. He did not question the earnestness of the hon. Member for Brighton in wishing to pass the Ballot Bill; but if he ever had charge of a Bill himself, or seriously sought to assist those with whom he had a common object, he would find that there were some cases in which, in order to get one thing, you had to separate it from others. If he ever got to the practical work of legislation instead of talking about legislation, he would certainly learn that lesson.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, if further reasons were wanted for the retention of the clause they were to be found in the facts that it embodied a proposal recommended by the Select Committee, and that the Preamble of the Bill was enlarged in order that it might be added. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to bring forward the subject next year, if the Government were still on that bench. The right hon. Gentleman was bursting with good intentions. There was not a better-intentioned man in the world; and the good intentions of the Government were enough to pave the avenue of "another place." Let the Committee test these intentions. There had been an intention, during the present year, to have a complete Army Regulation Bill and a Mines Regulation Bill. There had also been the intention to pass a Local Government Bill, a Judicial Committee Bill, and a Bill which might have prevented what took place in Hyde Park last Sunday;

  671
  but he wanted to see performances and not intentions. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) in looking upon this clause as a valuable element in the Bill. The evil which it was intended to cure was one which went beyond the scope of politics, and which was a scandal to their constitutional system. This clause afforded a chance of meeting that evil; but because of the extraordinary mismanagement and obstinate pertinacity of the Government, which had prolongued the discussion on the Bill to the 1st of August—they were not to be allowed to apply a simple remedy. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton would divide the Committee on the question whether the clause should be omitted.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was surprised by the proposal of the Government to omit a clause of this sort from the Bill. The object of secret voting was to get rid of bribery and corruption, and therefore the Ballot was simply a means to an end, and he felt certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to accept this clause it would have been passed in far less time than it had taken to discuss its omission. Every Member of Parliament was doubtless anxious to enter the House of Commons with as little expense as possible, and this clause would protect them from their agents, seeing that if a condidate paid any expenses after the time for petitioning had passed, such a payment would be deemed a corrupt payment, and would invalidate the seat. At present election agents waited till the expiration of the time for petitioning, and then sent in accounts to the sitting Member, assuring him that he could now pay any amount of money with perfect safety, as the question could not be investigated. The present clause, would, however, prevent such arrangements, and it would assist the Ballot in putting down corruption. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, and consent to accept the clause.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSalso appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the matter. There was no notice of Amendment to the clause, and he had no idea that it was to be opposed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the Government proposed the omission of this clause because it introduced new
  672
  matter into the Bill, and was an Amendment to the Corrupt Practices Act. With respect to there being no Amendments, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had proposed to substitute a longer and more stringent clause, and alternative proposals had been made by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) and others. To go into these clauses would be to commence a discussion that might last for days, or even weeks, and that would not be desirable, as the subject of corrupt practices must come before Parliament next Session, when the Elections Petitions Act would expire. If the present Government remained in office they would bring the subject forward next year, and before Easter if it were possible to do so, and then hon. Members could take an opportunity of discussing these Amendments.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not find any of those alternative clauses on the Paper.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the statement of the noble Lord was correct. The only Amendment now on the Paper was that of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross).
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsupported the omission of the clause. If it were discussed he should have to state at length the serious objections which he entertained to it.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONmuch wished to retain this clause, and warned the Government that their system of promising what they would do next Session could not be carried on any longer. A Licensing Bill had been promised by the Government for Session after Session, but it had never been passed. He did not think that all important legislation ought to be put on one side merely to suit the private arrangements of the Government with their supporters.
  MR. COLLINSwould have preferred the clause as amended by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); but as the clause in the Bill was, on the whole, fairly worded, he would take it as it stood in order not to waste time.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill in favour of the omission of the clause would, if consistently carried out, favour the postponement of the whole Bill until next Session. The main object for which the Bill was forced on was to have the next General Election

  673
  conducted under the Ballot; but if it was important that the next General Election should be conducted under the Ballot, it was equally important that there should be sufficient guarantees to secure tranquillity and purity of election. If the Ballot would conduce to the purity of election so would the present clause, and if it were not inserted in the Bill, the Ballot would not be tried under favourable and proper circumstances.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that if they were to obtain the sanction of the Committee to all that the Bill professed to do, it was clear, he thought, that they could not have the Ballot within the ordinary Session, which was the one thing upon which the attention of the country had been fixed. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for withdrawing this provision.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYwished to know whether if the clause passed the candidate would be relieved from any legal liability respecting those expenses which might not be included in the return to the returning officer, but which had been bonâ fide incurred?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must decline to enter into any discussion of the clause which the Government wished to omit. To attempt to deal with this unpleasant question now would be to postpone the Ballot.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the clause should be amended. Looking to the importance of the Amendments that remained on the Paper, it was impossible that this Bill could be passed through Committee that night. As for the Autumn Session, that might or might not come to pass: in his opinion it would not.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that if this clause were omitted, the Bill would be one simply for secret voting.
  MR. EASTWICKprotested against the system which had been adopted by the Government of pressing forward measures which took up the whole time of the House, and which kept them from the Estimates and from other necessary business.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that the Committee had already passed three clauses relating to corrupt practices.
  SIR HENRY HOAREwished to know if a Corrupt Practices Bill would be brought forward next Session before Easter?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsupposed that, after what had occurred, they would hear nothing more about obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told them the other day that this clause was going to be omitted. At the Mansion House dinner allusion was made to a minority in the House which was always obstructive; but now it was discovered that the allusion was to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and those who acted with him—a small minority who did not agree with anybody upon any subject. Last year, on the Education Bill, they occupied eight nights before the Speaker left the Chair, and 16 nights when he had done so. Yet the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was continually throwing out taunts against those who sat opposite, because, as he said, they obstructed the passing of this Bill, when, in fact, they had done nothing else but amend it. He was sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite below the gangway were not present a short time ago when the Attorney General was compelled to admit the necessity for an Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), this being the first time during the discussions that a Law Officer of the Crown had made his appearance. And the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had accepted no fewer than six Amendments proposed by himself. He and his Friends hoped they would hear no more of obstruction as applied to them; if there were any, it was legitimately caused by the fact pointed out by the junior Member for Brighton that this Bill no longer bore the character which first impressed it, but that from the necessities of the Government and the political exigencies caused by their vacillation and incompetency, which were generally admitted by the majority, even on their own side, it had been reduced until, instead of embracing the recommendations of the Select Committee, it was simply a Ballot Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 84; Noes 181: Majority 97.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it would conduce to the convenience of Members to know if the right hon. Gentleman in

  675
  charge of the Bill intended to go on with the 27th clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that he did; and he hoped the Committee would be able to assent to it without any lengthened discussion.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair, to report Progress.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at a quarter past Nine of the clock.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Clause 27 (Prohibition against hiring rooms at publichouses).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought they should consider carefully whether they should include counties in the clause. In many places in counties it would be impossible to find any places for meetings except publichouses. It might also operate hardly on candidates if the squire, or the clergyman, or the large farmer, who alone could give a room to hold meetings, might refuse to do so. He therefore moved the insertion of the words "in any borough" after "election."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that, if there was much opposition to the clause, its consideration might very well be postponed till the Election Petitions Bill came before the House. It would scarcely be possible to pass such a clause in reference to boroughs only.
  MR. DIMSDALEsaid, he thought this was one of the best clauses in the Bill, and he should feel bound to support it.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the conduct of the Government had been so uncertain that they had been compelled to abandon a great part of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He contended that the fact was as he had stated. They had already lost 20 minutes, and he believed
  676
  that was part of an arrangement to which the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) was a party. They never knew what the Government would do from day to day. Vacillation was their policy. Not only publichouses, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but also respectable hotels, and even establishments like Willis's Rooms, would come under the operation of this penal clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee whether the clause would likewise be applicable to pastrycooks' and grocers' shops where wine was sold. To accept the clause would be tantamount to passing a vote of censure by a side wind on all the licensed victuallers in the country. ["Question!"] It was all very well for the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) to call out "Question;" but could he or any other hon. Gentleman show why the licensed victuallers, a most respectable body of men, should be subjected to this stigma.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), because he considered the clause, as it stood, one of the most valuable additions to the Bill. In cases in which men's passions were so much excited it was, in his opinion, desirable to do away with the publichouse element.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that at the last election for Oxford he and his right hon. Colleague determined to hold no meetings in publichouses, and in districts where a room of sufficient size could not be hired they addressed their constituents in a tent, which was moved from one place to another. This plan might be easily adopted in other places. He regretted to find that meetings at which a candidate was present would be exempted from the operation of the clause.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsupported the clause in its entirety, with the exception of that portion of it on which he intended to propose an Amendment which was identical with that of the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). The object of the clause was to get rid of a lot of villainous beershop keepers who kept open their rooms for the purpose of intoxication. The candidates were unable to avoid using such places. He believed that the clause would tend to the

  677
  respectability of the elections and the extinction of the evils which now existed.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that there were institutions called Working Men's Clubs, which some of the magistrates had recently declared were subject to a fine. Some of these institutions had very large rooms, in which the working men assembled, and he wished to know whether the Vice President of the Council intended to exclude the use of such rooms. If so, the consequence would be that the working men would have no opportunity of meeting to consider political questions. What he wished to provide against was, that working men should not be excluded from the use of their own rooms merely because they came within the definition of the licensing laws. He used the case of working men's clubs not only for itself, but, if possible, more especially to illustrate the difficulty—not to say impossibility—virtually of drawing any line of demarcation that should at once be just, impartial, and practical between working men's clubs, where intoxicating liquors were sold, and houses duly licensed for their sale. He said nothing of the loss to the revenue. In most country towns, especially, it must be borne in mind that the assembly rooms—and, indeed, generally the only available large room—was attached to an hotel. Did they propose to exclude such rooms in reference to Parliamentary and Election Committee meetings?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was willing to meet the point which had been raised by providing that the clause should be confined to places in which any intoxicating liquor was licensed to be sold by retail.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that the justices would not admit that such rooms were licensed; but they held that if intoxicating liquors were sold the person occupying the place was liable to a fine.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that in the county in Scotland with which he was best acquainted, the only large rooms available were those attached to inns and hostelries, and a declaration that such rooms were not to be used for election purposes would amount to a prohibition of political meetings altogether. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) had kindly suggested that they should travel about with tents; but the county in question was excessively damp, and the consequences to
  678
  health might be serious. Legislation of this kind was legislation run mad.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member had not read the end of the clause, which referred specially to political meetings.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there was no doubt an exemption in favour of any political meeting at which the candidate was actually present, but unless he was present the meeting was practically prohibited, as he had shown already. In how many parts of a county at once was the candidate expected to be?
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the meetings of a "committee" in publichouses were prohibited, but who the committee were was not defined. The result would be, if the Act passed, that ingenious people would at once begin to draw distinctions as to what was a committee and what was not. Clauses of this kind might be passed to gull the public out-of-doors; but a penal Act must be construed strictly, and of course the gentlemen who assembled at the "Dog and Duck," and the "Green Dragon" would never call themselves a "committee," but merely "friends of the candidate." In the small borough which he formerly represented he made it a rule never to have a committee at all, for every committee-man might commit the candidate. Under this provision any two justices might inflict a fine of £5.
  SIR JOHN HAYwished to know what was meant by the hiring of a publichouse for the purpose of an election. His impression was that in some cases no other place could be secured fit for the purpose of public meetings.
  MR. J. FIELDENsaid, he had no objection to accept the clause so far as it related to boroughs, but he strongly objected to its being applied to counties, where it was often found difficult and in some cases impossible to procure rooms for election purposes, except in the houses of public entertainment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERstated that the clause was introduced very much on account of the unanimous suggestion of the Committee on elections, which made its recommendation in the following words:—"We are of opinion that the use of rooms in publichouses is a fruitful source of expense and corruption." That conclusion was arrived at after much examination and evidence, and was entirely

  679
  confirmed by his own electoral experience.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, they ought not to exclude any of those who were entitled to the franchise from a fair means of meeting together and expressing their views by such a clause as this. The clause, if adopted, would put a severe penalty upon an unfortunate landlord, whose room might be engaged at an election time without his knowing that those who engaged it used it for election purposes and sent out letters headed "committee room."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that before the Bill was reported he would examine the clause and see if it was open to the charge preferred against it by the noble Lord, of leading to the infliction of penalties upon, an innocent landlord. If that were the case he would take steps to guard against it; but he imagined that the clause only referred to rooms which were notoriously used as committee rooms, and about which there could be no mistake on the part of a landlord.
  SIR JOHN HAYremarked that in the principal towns in Scotland there were the means of assembling political meetings in the large rooms attached to the hotels and inns; but if the clause were passed, voters belonging to the grouped burghs, and those resident in the rural districts, would be entirely debarred from meeting for political purposes. Being a resident in Scotland, he knew that to be a fact, and he challenged contradiction.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet who had just spoken had challenged any hon. Member to contradict his statement. He (Mr. M'Laren) accepted the challenge. He believed there was not a burgh in Scotland, small or great, which would have the slightest difficulty in getting a public meeting if the clause was passed. First of all, every burgh had what was called a town house or council chamber, not always very large. Then there was always a school house, and school houses as a rule were larger than the largest room in publichouses in small burghs; and above and beyond these, there were the places of public worship. ["Oh!"] Let him explain to hon. Gentlemen who knew less of Scotland than the hon. and gallant Baronet, that the Dissenting chapels were not consecrated, and that
  680
  they were not regarded in a different light from the market-place. He could give them an instance in proof of what he was stating. At the time of the Anti-Corn Law agitation, when Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright went down to Scotland, they asked him (Mr. M'Laren) to arrange meetings for them in a great number of towns and burghs in Scotland. He corresponded for that purpose, and he never had the slightest difficulty in getting the use of Dissenting chapels in any burgh of Scotland during the whole of the meetings for the abolition of the Corn Laws. In Edinburgh, electoral meetings had been held over and over again in places of worship, and it was perfectly preposterous to say that if this law were passed, there would be a difficulty in getting places for the holding of those meetings. He had only to say that he most cordially approved, of the clause, and in so far as Scotland was concerned, his opinion was—and he had great experience with regard to the whole of Scotland — that no difficulty whatever would follow the passing of this clause.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the clause could not possibly work in Ireland. Churches or chapels could not be obtained there for the purposes of public meetings, and in many parts of Ireland it would be impossible to obtain committee rooms except at inns or hotels.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that Scotland was particularly fortunate or unfortunate in being able to hold political meetings in chapels; but in England places of worship were not desecrated in that manner, and if meetings were not to be held at inns they could not be held at all. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it would be unfair to distinguish between boroughs and counties, and he thought an alteration might be made in the clause by which public meetings could be held at inns, while committees should be forbidden there.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, that in Ireland and in some of the counties of England a prohibition of the holding of election meetings in publichouses would be tantamount to prohibiting their being held at all. He suggested that the clause should be so amended as to make it apply only to those towns or villages which contained more than 100 dwelling houses. In a village containing more than 100 dwelling houses no doubt a suitable

  681
  room in which to hold a meeting could be found without going to the publichouses.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKheld that there was nothing in the clause to prevent a meeting being held in a publichouse; the evil it was intended to correct was that of a candidate making a publichouse his head-quarters, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentlemen would persevere with the clause. His experience of Ireland was different from that of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens), whose knowledge possibly of that country was greater than his own.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the clause would be changed in accordance with the title, and made operative to prohibit the hiring of rooms in publichouses instead of, as was now the case, prohibiting the meeting of persons who did not hire them.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) would modify his suggestion, as he understood all he wanted was that a publichouse should not be resorted to unless when there was no other place to go to. [Mr. TORRENS assented.] The hon. Member had witnessed the working of the Ballot in Australia, and whatever he suggested was worthy of being considered, especially as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) could only speak theoretically.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, this clause had nothing to do with the working of the Ballot, and he felt that it would have been better probably had its consideration been put off with Clause 26 until next year. He had thought, however, that there was an unanimous opinion, that it was desirable, if possible, to stop the holding of election meetings at publichouses. It now appeared that there was a great difference of opinion on the subject, and a suggestion had been made to omit the first paragraph of this section. If it would settle this discussion, he thought they might take advantage of the suggestion, and retain the second paragraph only.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that with regard to his proposal excepting counties from the clause, his objection was not based on the principle of the clause, but on the state of various counties in different parts of England.
  682
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had talked about meeting in chapels and school rooms; but he could conceive nothing more objectionable than that such buildings should be devoted for weeks together to such assemblies. When, again, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) talked about meeting in tents he was sure he must have referred to aggregate meetings, and not to those held from day to day. However, having regard to the tone of the debate, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to have an answer to the question he had already put. The clause had broken down completely, and was virtually abandoned to the winds and waves. He had never before seen such a case of official floundering. He had himself said he was willing to abandon the first part. What was meant by a publichouse? Did it mean a person whose staple trade being something else besides alcoholic stimulants had a wine licence? Would the clause embrace a meeting held at Willis's Rooms, or at St. James's Hall? What was the definition of the committee? The fact was, the very first lines presented a mass of legal difficulties.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, that certain Members had permanent committee rooms in that Metropolis in a building which was the property of the Westminster Palace Hotel Company, but which did not form an ordinary part of their hotel. It would be a great inconvenience to the occupier of those rooms if they were obliged to seek accommodation for their meetings elsewhere; and he wished to know whether that case would come under the prohibition contained in the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that that would depend on whether in the premises in question intoxicating liquors were sold. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) he might say that they had had his assistance in several discussions upon that Bill, and the experience of the first day convinced him that it was not desirable to take any notice whatever of the tone in which that hon. Gentleman addressed them. As to the definition the hon. and learned Member required of a publichouse, if his object was to have a reasonable discussion of the

  683
  clause, he was sure that he could answer his own question himself. But if there was any difficulty in the matter it could be dealt with in the Interpretation Clause.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the practice of the right hon. Gentleman did not correspond with his profession, as he had been compelled to accept a great number of Amendments which he (Mr. C. Bentinck) had proposed. ["Oh, oh!"] "Oh!" These were the facts, and facts were stubborn things, and there was no use in saying "Oh, oh," in that hectoring and bullying tone. ["Oh, oh!"] It came very well from a Member of the Government, who was obliged to attack this quarter of the House by speeches in the Mansion House, to speak in that way; but he must be very well aware by this time that he should be the last to complain when he had been obliged to take all they had given to him from that side of the House. He referred to the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) if the Interpretation Clause in the Bill did not form part of the second line of the clause now under discussion, and if he did not answer the question he (Mr. C. Bentinck) would insist on an answer, and failing an answer he would consider it his duty to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. BRUENasked if the clause comprehended other houses than those where intoxicating liquors were sold to be consumed on the premises.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had mentioned already that he would alter the words "sold by retail," so as to make them read "licensed to be sold," with the view of including such places.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought publicans need not be much alarmed, because the Government said that meetings should not be held in their houses, for the fact that the Government declared that a political meeting must not be held at a given spot was no proof that it would not be held at that precise place within a very few hours afterwards. He hoped the most valuable part of that clause would not be thrown over by allowing grocers who sold intoxicating drinks to let their rooms to candidates. A great deal had been said about the difficulty of getting accommodation for Committees, but there was one point not
  684
  brought under the notice of the Committee, and that was the great nuisance to candidates from parties offering their rooms for the purpose of the election, and making the acceptance of the offer a condition of obtaining their vote. In fact, he would have preferred a clause restricting the choice of committee rooms to publichouses only, instead of the present proposal, which left a candidate more than ever at the mercy of grasping individuals, who wished to let rooms in private houses for committee rooms. He intended to move "That the clause should include temperance hotels." In the northern counties there were many temperance hotels, and it was unjust that a direct premium should be placed on them.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that the Interpretation Clause, which excluded all houses in which intoxicating liquors were sold by retail on the premises, covered all possible cases.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexplained that his remarks referred to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to insert words relating to those who were licensed to retail liquor.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COLLINSmoved that the first paragraph of the same clause be omitted, which prohibited the meeting of a committee for election purposes in any publichouse, and which imposed penalties on any person holding such meeting or allowing it to be held in his house.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, to leave out from the first word "The," in line 3, to the word "house," in line 12, both inclusive.—(Mr. Collins.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 83; Noes 164: Majority 81.
  MR. MONKrose to a point of Order. An hon. Member having passed the clerks in the lobby for the "Ayes," and having had his name recorded as having voted with the Ayes, afterwards retraced his steps and went into the lobby for the "Noes" and voted with the Noes also. ["Name!"] He was a Member of the Government. He meant the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, whoever he was, has been counted by the tellers for the Noes.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought it right that he should give an explanation to the Committee. He passed the Division List in the lobby of the Ayes, and then, finding that he had made a mistake, he retraced his steps, and passed by the tellers of the Noes. His vote was given for the Noes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The vote of the hon. Member must be counted on the side on which he passed the tellers, and therefore the Ayes were 83, and the Noes 164.
  MR. COLLINSexpressed his approval of the principle of the clause, but thought it would require more careful wording, so that it might not prohibit a candidate from hiring a private sitting-room at an hotel.
  MR. CANDLISHremarked that in the last division many Members had not voted according to their desire. The change of procedure was very sudden, and its suddenness had, he believed, led to some mistakes. To give the Committee an opportunity of coming to a fair decision, he moved to insert words providing that no room at a publichouse should be used for the meeting of the committee of any candidate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be the same in effect as the question upon which the Committee has decided.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he thought there had been some confusion in the voting on the last division, and he proposed as an Amendment, in page 18, line 13, after the word "hired," to insert the words "or used," so that the clause would read—"no room shall be hired or used at a publichouse for any purpose connected with an election, &c." A great abuse arose from people assembling at publichouses under the pretext of conducting an election.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 13, after the word "hired," to insert the words "or used."—(Mr. Samuelson.)
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it was necessary for a candidate to have some place whereat to hold the meetings of his committee, and great inconvenience might arise from laying down the strict rule that no publichouse should be used for the purposes connected with the election.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted, and then the second part of the clause would effect all that was intended to be accomplished by the first part, which the Committee had properly decided to omit, as its object was carried out by the second part.
  MR. COLLINStrusted that the Government would adhere to the proposal to prevent the system of hiring rooms in publichouses; but the insertion of the word "used" would make the clause too stringent, because its adoption would prohibit any number of persons going to the bar of a publichouse and discussing the prospects of the election.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the question was not only one of hiring, but also of paying considerable sums for drink in a publichouse. If the words were not inserted it would be better to abandon the clause.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it was all very well for the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to make the statement he had; but with the exception of Glasgow and Edinburgh he had never seen more drunken persons in the public streets than he had seen in Sheffield. The hon. Member for Banbury's (Mr. B. Samuelson's) Amendment, if carried, would preclude all except local men from contesting boroughs. In the few contests in which he had been engaged he had invariably had to stop at an hotel or publichouse, and he had to live upon a certain modicum of intoxicating liquors; but if candidates were to be excluded from using hotels where was he to go? In the middle of September it would be too late to camp out, and unless he could obtain the friendly aid of some inhabitant of the borough it would be impossible for him to contest the borough.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he was not surprised at the hon. Member for Sheffield's remarks after the character the borough had received from the noble Lord. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield considered that unless the Amendment was carried there was not much chance of his being re-elected, or, at all events, he would not be much aided in attaining that object. He had had a seat in that House since 1857, and he had always had his committee room at the Bridge House Hotel, and he defied anyone to prove that a shilling's worth of drink had been given to anyone,

  687
  or that drinking had gone on in the committee room. There would be the greatest difficulty in obtaining committee rooms in the Metropolis if the clause were adopted. The borough of Banbury contained more publichouses than any borough in the kingdom, and the hon. Member had probably prepared his Amendment with a view of saving his pocket.
  MR. MELLY, in advocating the adoption of the Amendment, said, he considered the clause would be inoperative without it. With regard to the borough of Stoke, to which allusion had been made, he believed 600 publichouses were used between him and the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. They did not hire one of them, and without doubt most of the expenses connected with them were defrayed by the committees of the respective candidates. It was idle to suppose that the hiring of a room in a publichouse for the candidate's private use would render him liable to the penalties of the Bill.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he spoke disinterestedly on the question, because he never used publichouses for committee rooms, or, indeed, in any other way. It would be impossible to conduct an election in many boroughs without having committee rooms at publichouses.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as the object of the Committee was to prevent the using or hiring of rooms in publichouses for the purposes of elections, he must remind the Committee that a room might be used without being hired. He suggested to insert words to make the clause read thus—
  "That no room should be hired or used at a publichouse, by the candidate, or by any person on his behalf, for any purpose connected with the election, except as a lodging, or for the purpose of holding public meetings therein."
  MR. LOCKEcontended that if rooms in a publichouse were not allowed to be hired there would be in many large towns no place in which the committee of a candidate could hold their meetings. It would be extremely difficult, for instance, to find a room for such a purpose even in the City of London, if meetings could not be held in such places as the London Tavern or the Cannon Street Hotel. He protested against legislating for large towns in this way.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONobserved that the objections of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) and
  688
  the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) did not apply to the Amendment before the Committee, but to the whole section. If proof of agency were insisted on before it could be made penal that meetings should be held at a publichouse it would be almost as well to leave the clause as it stood.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMmaintained that it was absurd to suppose it would be impossible to procure rooms in the City of London for the purpose of holding committee meetings, except at a publichouse. In order to make the clause effective the right hon. Gentleman would, in his opinion, have to face the difficulty of using the word "committee." The members of a committee could not be prevented from lodging at a public-house or from having persons call on them there to discuss matters connected with the election; but a stop could be put to committee rooms being established at such places, and that wholesale treating being carried on in them which had hitherto been a disgrace to our elections. If the right hon. Gentleman could not frame words now to meet the difficulty, he would suggest that the clause should be postponed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that supposing the word committee to be inserted, the whole intent of the section would be considerably diminished, because it was notorious that very often only a nominal committee was appointed, and consequently the second paragraph contained no mention of the word committee. He thought the clause was sufficiently guarded by saying that it applied only to rooms hired, or used as a publichouse by the candidate, or by any person on his behalf.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he understood that the suggestion thrown out was that the publichouse should not be used for a corrupt mode of promoting elections. He had no objection to this if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to bring up a new clause to carry this out.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he should move presently the omission of the words after "lodging."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) was to insert after "hired" the words "or used."
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, a friend of his going down to a large constituency, gave out that he should not

  689
  hold any meeting at a publichouse, and the consequence was that from both parties in the constituency he received the offer of school rooms and other rooms for the holding of his meetings. And he was sure that such rooms could be obtained wherever an election was to be held. And such would be the case with the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) if he left the Bridge House Hotel.
  MR. BRUENasked whether the word "used" would not include the use of the hotel or publichouse when a candidate was canvassing.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that he should not consider his getting his dinner there a purpose connected with the election.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that canvassing was something connected with the election.
  MR. CAWLEYcautioned the Committee, lest by making the clause too stringent they should defeat their own object. If a candidate was taking refreshment in a hotel, and a number of his political friends called upon him, was he to say he could not see them?
  Question put, "That the words 'or used' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 88: Majority 75.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved that after "publichouse" there should be inserted "by a candidate, or by any person on his behalf."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think it would be necessary to put in the words "as a lodging," but if he should find that they were necessary he would undertake to put them in on the Report.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that he must again suggest the omission of the words "that of holding a meeting at which the candidate is present." He did so for this reason. The Committee had prohibited the holding of a meeting in a publichouse, except where a candidate was present. Now, what would happen in a town with several hundred small publichouses? Why, that very publican would go to the candidate and solicit him to hold a meeting at his house for his benefit. It was most undesirable to expose a candidate to solicitation of that kind.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, to leave out from the word "except," in line 14, to the word "present," in line 15, both inclusive."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONagreed with the Amendment; but, at the same time, he was strongly convinced that the whole clause was impracticable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the clause and bring up a fresh one on the Report. It would not be the first time the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no necessity for re-considering the clause. If on the discussion of a clause it was found desirable to amend it, that was no reason for withdrawing the clause. He thought what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) had much weight. The legal definition of a candidate was a man who had been nominated. He was willing to omit the words objected to.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, in the county with which he was acquainted he could not find a larger room except in a publichouse. It might be said that a chapel or a school room might be used; but there might be great favouritism in the use of such buildings. As nominations had been done away with, and the opportunities of candidates meeting the constituents had been diminished, the Committee should recollect that if candidates were deprived of the use of a public room, the electors might be unable to ascertain who the candidates were.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved that it appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's definition that any person might hire every publichouse in the country until the day of nomination, and yet be free from liability.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, that when he fought the campaign in Berkshire his committee found great difficulty in getting rooms. To meet this they carried a tent about with them, and found it suited exceedingly well.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that if in canvassing counties candidates were not to be allowed to address the electors from the window of a public-house, or in a room in the building, there would be a great restriction of the rights of the electors to hear the sentiments of those who wished to represent them.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEreminded the Committee that the abolition of public nominations had been agreed to on the understanding that opportunities would be given for candidates to meet the constituents in a more decorous manner; and on this ground he thought meetings should be permitted at public-houses.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a candidate was correct, the portion of the clause already accepted would be of no effect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the definition of a candidate in 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, read thus—
  "A candidate at any election shall include all persons elected to serve in Parliament at such election, and all persons nominated as candidates at such elections, or who shall have declared themselves candidates after the issuing of the writ, or after the dissolution or vacancy."
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that made a considerable difference, and as the use of school rooms for elections was much objected to, he hoped the exception would be retained in the clause.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he hoped that the exception advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) would be acceded to.
  MR. COLLINSstated that the legal definition of a candidate did not agree with the popular acceptation of the word, and expressed his disapproval of any prohibition which should prevent candidates from meeting the constituents.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that in large boroughs candidates were accustomed to address ward meetings. In many wards it was impossible to find any room which was open to all parties, except the rooms connected with public-houses, and it would not be right to shut the candidates out from the use of such rooms.
  Question put, "That the word 'except' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 93; Noes 128: Majority 35.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that candidates were now prohibited the use of any room where anything eatable or drinkable could be obtained.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of
  692
  the Bill to explain whether persons who held wine licences were comprised in the definition he had given.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had been in the habit of addressing public meetings in the De Grey Rooms, York, and under the clause he should be unable to do so. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he realized what had been done, for the carrying of the Amendment had reduced the clause to an absurdity, because it would prevent a meeting being held in any assembly room.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to re-consider the matter, because the Committee had been taken by surprise by the course he had adopted. He should regret exceedingly if he were compelled to vote against the clause; but the carrying of the Amendment had reduced electioneering to an absurdity, and he must therefore vote against the clause as it stood.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that if the clause stood in its present form there was not a single large room in Westminster in which it would be possible to hold a public meeting.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 92: Majority 22.
  Clause 28 (Application of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, to this Act).
  MR. LIDDELLproposed that the Committee should now report Progress, as the Committee had now arrived at a reductio ad absurdum, and it would be impossible to hold public meetings at all. He wished the Government to consider the position in which they now stood.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexpressed a hope that the Committee would pass the clause, as there were no Amendments to it. It merely proposed that the terms "corrupt practices" and "corrupt practice" in the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, shall be deemed to include anything which under this Act renders an election void.
  MR. WHITBREADsuggested that the Government should take a little time to consider what progress had actually been made, and whether they were determined to make an effort to bring the

  693
  Bill to a conclusion at present, or adjourn its consideration to an October or November Session.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, a great portion of the difficulties of the present Session had arisen from the want of sufficient arrangement in many of the important measures introduced by the Government. October, November, and December were three of the most valuable months of the year for the maturing and preparation of the business of the coming Session, yet these were precisely the months which the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) proposed to absorb for the purposes of an Autumn Session. He could not conceive anything more fraught with injury to the real business of the nation than such a proposal, the probable results of which rose superior to any mere party considerations. If next Session the measures brought forward by the Government proved to be crude and ill-digested, the whole Parliamentary system would run the risk of falling into disrepute.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) always spoke in the mildest manner; but in this instance he appeared to have undertaken the task of holding the nose of the House of Commons, while the First Lord of the Treasury poured down its throat a very nauseous draught. The testimony given by different ex-whips before the Committee on Public Business was strongly opposed to the holding of Autumn Sessions, which ought to be reserved for occasions of great national importance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The suggestion which my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) has made will certainly be considered by us. I am bound to say that I am very sensible of the spirit of co-operation with which the Committee has addressed itself to-night to the consideration of a clause which, upon first sight, appeared to be very easy; but upon closer acquaintance, though it seemed to everybody a popular view, has been found much more difficult than any of us anticipated. I cannot, therefore, but acknowledge the kindness of the Committee in continuing its labours until this late hour for the sake of getting through the clause. And with that sense of its politeness, I do not think that we ought to go on with the Bill on Thursday. It is quite true that the real
  694
  duration of our labours depends upon the new clauses, which are not in our hands. We will, however, consider the matter, and announce to-morrow whether we will go on with the Bill or not on Thursday.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  OCCASIONAL SERMONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE, Bill to enable Incumbents of Parishes, with the approval and consent of the Bishop of the Diocese, to admit to the pulpits of their Churches persons not in Holy Orders of the Church of England for the purpose of delivering occasional sermons or lectures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COWPER-TEMPLR and Mr. THOMAS HUGHES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 281.]

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Bill for making provision for facilitating the Manœuvres of Troops to be assembled during the ensuing autumn, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CARDWELL and Sir HENRY STORKS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 279.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.