COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 1 August 1871)

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, 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. FORSTER
suggested 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. DIMSDALE
said, he thought this was one of the best clauses in the Bill, and he should feel bound to support it.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, 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-IBBETSON
said, 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 HARCOURT
said, 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 HOPE
supported 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. WHEELHOUSE
observed 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. FORSTER
said, 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. WHEELHOUSE
observed 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 HAY
said, 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-IBBETSON
said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member had not read the end of the clause, which referred specially to political meetings.

SIR JOHN HAY
said, 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. COLLINS
said, 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 HAY
wished 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. FIELDEN
said, 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. FORSTER
stated 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 HAMILTON
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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 HAY
remarked 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'LAREN
said, 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 HENRY
said, 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 BARTTELOT
said, 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. TORRENS
said, 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 SHERLOCK
held 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. COLLINS
said, 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 HAMILTON
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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-BEACH
said, 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 BENTINCK
said, 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 HAMILTON
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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 BENTINCK
said, 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. BRUEN
asked if the clause comprehended other houses than those where intoxicating liquors were sold to be consumed on the premises.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, 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. LOWTHER
said, 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. LOWTHER
explained that his remarks referred to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to insert words relating to those who were licensed to retail liquor.

§ MR. COLLINS
moved 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.

§ MR. MONK
rose 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 LEFEVRE
said, 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. COLLINS
expressed 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. CANDLISH
remarked 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. SAMUELSON
said, 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.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, 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 HARCOURT
said, 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. COLLINS
trusted 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. MUNDELLA
said, 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 HAMILTON
said, 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. LOCKE
said, 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. CLAY
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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. LOCKE
contended 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. SAMUELSON
observed 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 WYNDHAM
maintained 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. FORSTER
said, 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. SAMUELSON
said, 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 HERBERT
said, he should move presently the omission of the words after "lodging."

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) was to insert after "hired" the words "or used."

§ MR. AUBERON HERBERT
said, 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. BRUEN
asked whether the word "used" would not include the use of the hotel or publichouse when a candidate was canvassing.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
replied that he should not consider his getting his dinner there a purpose connected with the election.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, that canvassing was something connected with the election.

§ MR. CAWLEY
cautioned 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?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
moved that after "publichouse" there should be inserted "by a candidate, or by any person on his behalf."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, 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 HARCOURT
said, 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.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
agreed 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. FORSTER
said, 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-TEMPLE
said, 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 HAMILTON
observed 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 HERBERT
said, 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 NORTHCOTE
said, 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 HOPE
reminded 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. CAWLEY
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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. CAWLEY
said, 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 HOARE
said, he hoped that the exception advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) would be acceded to.

§ MR. COLLINS
stated 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. WHEELHOUSE
said, 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.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, that candidates were now prohibited the use of any room where anything eatable or drinkable could be obtained.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
asked 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. LOWTHER
said, 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. RAIKES
said, 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. SMITH
said, 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.

§ MR. LIDDELL
proposed 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. FORSTER
expressed 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. WHITBREAD
suggested 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 SANDON
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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.