[BILL 107.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 16 March 1880 vol 251 cc1100-63

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—{Mr. Attorney General.)

Mr. ANDERSON,

in moving that the House go into Committee on the measure that day month, said, he was very much disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind to go on with this Bill, after the very strong feeling expressed by the House, and after the appeal made to him at the previous Sitting, by the Leader of the Opposition. However, they must do what they could to convince the country, if not the House, of the impropriety of the practice which the Government had adopted of hurrying through a Bill of this important character, when the House was, practically, half dissolved, the Benches were empty, and the measure could not be discussed. The Bill had been brought in so late that it was impossible for the country to be aware of what it was intended to accomplish. Last night, in reply to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he gave Notice on Monday week that the Bill would be proceeded with. Now, he (Mr. Anderson) had had the curiosity to refer to the report of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to see what the right hon. Gentleman had actually said, and he found that all he then said was that it was not impossible to proceed with this Bill, and that it was not impossible even to deal with the question of the conveyance of voters to the poll; but the right hon. Gentleman did not give the slightest indication of the way in which he proposed to deal with it. Therefore, his statement received no attention at the time. It was never doubted that if the Government intended to deal with a matter that was illegal it would not be by making it legal, but by attaching a penalty to it to prevent the illegality. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given any hint at that time that it was his intention to make the evil practice a legal practice, he would have now found it impossible to carry out his designs. He (Mr. Anderson) thought that, under these circumstances, the Bill ought not to be proceeded with. Nothing was known of the nature of the Government measure, and what would be the mode of dealing with the conveyance of voters, until Thursday morning, when the Bill was distributed. Then, for the first time, he learned its nature, and on that day the Government insisted on the second reading before the Bill could have become generally known. The country was entirely unaware of it, and yet it was a measure of the utmost importance, affecting every borough from Land's End to John o'Groat's House, and in Ireland also. No time had been given to the constituencies to consult with their Members, or to petition against it. In the most arbitrary way the Chancellor of the Exchequer was using the power which the Government had at the end of a Session to pass what it pleased. There was no opposition, which the small number of Members remaining in the House at this late period of the Session could organize, which would be of the slightest avail against the determination of the Government to carry it through. They could force it through in spite of opposition, especially when they had in the other House means, by suspending the Standing Orders, to run it through all its stages there in one day. That was a pestilential practice, which he thought should be put a stop to, for it gave the opportunity to a powerful Government to be guilty of serious abuses. On this occasion the Government was abusing its power, and he hoped the country would see it. It might seem a very clever election trick to legalize this evil custom of conveying voters to the poll; but, in place of pleasing anyone, it would have a very different effect. It was a bid for the cabman's vote. He did not think the cabmen's vote was a very important one, or that it was worth bidding for by such a bribe as the offer in this Bill; and he hoped the House would not allow it to pass even now. A measure dealing with corrupt practices at elections should deal with several other corrupt practices. These could not be dealt with in an expiring Parliament, nor could this particular one be fairly dealt with. He trusted other hon. Members would join with him in protesting against this Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) with great pleasure. He also had the greatest possible objection to this Bill, which seemed to him a measure to legalize corruption. He was not one of those, though he had pretty advanced opinions of his own, who went so far as to urge that in this country it was desirable that Members of Parliament should be paid. They had a large class of men of culture and leisure who were willing to serve their country in various public capacities, whether in that House or in some of the various forms of local government, or in other ways, without remuneration. The result of paying Members had, in America and other places, given rise to a class called professional politicians. The intrusting of the affairs of a country to such a class was undoubtedly an evil. But, whilst he was against the payment of Members, it seemed to him a most objectionable and injurious practice, that which prevailed in this country, of obliging Members virtually to pay for their seats by the great expense attending elections. It was well known that already the expense attending elections was so great that Members had to pay very heavily indeed for a seat in the House. Indeed, in many cases the expense was so great that only plutocrats could engage in a contest. The tendency of the present system was to make the House more and more a House for the rich, for although there were some seats which were accessible to those who wore not rich the great majority of them were only accessible to those who were. There were scandals in connection with the electoral system to which they had become accustomed by habit; but the intelligent foreigners who came amongst them must look at the state of things with the utmost astonishment. He protested against the manner in which the Government were pressing forward the Bill at a time when it could not be sufficiently considered. In counties, the law allowed the hiring of carriages for the conveyance of voters to the poll; and the result was that counties, above all other places, were the seats of the rich and stupid. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but he had heard a county Member say—"I'm not clever, but I'm good enough for a county." It was only men of great position who could aspire to county seats, and those who had been engaged in county contests were aware that the greatest item of expense was the hiring of carriages to convey voters to the poll. Hitherto, the conveyance of voters had been prohibited in boroughs, but the Government now proposed to abolish the prohibition; and the passing of the measure would be not only to render it possible for borough Members to spend money in conveying voters to the poll, but would, practically, make it obligatory on them to do so. At the present time the position of a Member of Parliament was not altogether one of honour and pleasure. A great deal of hard and dreary work had to be performed; and it was hard, under such circumstances, that Members should be obliged to pay more and more for their seats. It was extraordinary that the Government should deem it necessary to press the Bill, when there was so little time to spare, and when there was an important financial measure still to be considered. The object of the Bill was clear; but he really saw no necessity for it whatever. They had been told that carriages were necessary at elections, in order to convey cripples and such like persons to the poll; but he did not conceive that cripples formed a large pro- portion of the population. True, in some cases, the law was evaded by corrupt constituencies; but there were many constituencies in which the law was not evaded, and it was hard that pure constituencies should be made to suffer for the misdeeds of the constituencies which were not pure. It would be a much more simple process to enforce the law in corrupt constituencies. Scotland was a law-abiding country, and its people were not in the habit of spending their money recklessly and of evading the law. He maintained that if the Bill became law in England the inevitable effect would be to force a similar provision upon Scotland. He felt somewhat jealous of Scotch electoral purity, especially when he heard that a large Tory purse had been provided for Scotland, and that the contents of the purse were to be lavishly distributed, so as to enable Tory candidates to contest Scotch burghs. The real fact was that the Conservative Party did not want to keep down the expense of elections, as they felt that the more expensive elections were the more likely it was that the majority of the House would consist of Tories. The success of the Conservative Party had hitherto largely depended upon public-house and Church support; and it seemed that the Government wanted to add another interest to the number—namely, the cab interest, which, in future, would be zealous on behalf of the Tory cause, if the present Bill became law. They well knew that in many constituencies contests were "got up," especially by the lawyers, entirely for the sake of making money fly about; and the effect of the passing of this Bill would be the give the cab owners, as well as the lawyers, an incentive for creating contests, where, under ordinary circumstances, they might be avoided. For those reasons, he should resolutely oppose the Bill at every stage of its progress.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, order in to add the words, "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committoe,"—(Mr. Anderson) —instead thereof.

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

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he would give his most cordial assent to the proposal of the Government, because he considered it an enabling Statute. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had told them a good deal about the rich candidate, but had said nothing about the poor voter. The humble class of voters were generally hard at work during the day, and could only get away to vote at a certain hour. This Bill would enable them to go to the poll with convenience and comfort; and their case was far more worthy of consideration than any possible disadvantage which might arise from the increased expense of the election. In counties the conveyance of voters to the poll was sanctioned by law. He should give his strenuous support to the Bill, and he congratulated the Government upon having the courage not to give way to the opposition which had been raised to it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GLFFARD)

said, there was nothing in the nature of bribery in the conveyance of voters to the poll; it was simply an indemnity to the voter enabling him to vote. It was not only on the Conservative side of the House that the desire prevailed to repeal the statutory prohibition which existed, but was not observed, in regard to the conveyance of voters in boroughs; for the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had on more than one occasion called attention to the injustice and inequality of this provision of the Statute. The voter also ought to be considered, for there were boroughs in which it became a serious inconvenience, if not an actual deprivation of the opportunity of voting, if the voter could not be taken to the poll. So universal had the want of the power to do so been felt that the prohibition was universally violated on both sides. He never knew of a contested election coming before an Election Judge in which it had not been proved over and over again that both sides had systematically disobeyed the existing law, which in itself was a novelty, and which in all the constituencies had been felt to be unjust. No penalty had ever been prescribed for a violation of the statutory provision; and it had been felt that it was not desirable under the circumstances, and in view of the General Election, to leave upon the Statute Book a provision which had been constantly and persistently neglected.

MR. E. JENKINS

felt that the argument of the Solicitor General was fallacious. He also felt that the present was a most inopportune time for forcing the Bill through the House, as it would be impossible to give the measure adequate consideration. When the Representation of the People Bill was being debated considerable discussion took place as to the advisability of allowing the conveyance of voters to the poll, and a gentleman who was not now a Member of the House—Mr. Bernal Osborne—stated that as much as between £2,000 and £3,000 was required in the borough of Westminster for conveying voters to the poll alone. The Government might, therefore, have a motive in passing this Bill, because the First Lord of the Admiralty was about to contest that constituency, and it might be desirable to give the right hon. Gentleman an advantage over two competitors who were certainly not prepared to spend so large a sum of money to enable true Liberals to record their votes. The Solicitor General had soared into the region of morals, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked why voters should not be conveyed to the poll? The answer was that a vote was not only a right, but a privilege and responsibility, which an elector had to exercise. Why should a voter be conveyed to the poll in order to be enabled to exercise his privilege? There was no reason why such a thing should be done. The Solicitor General considered that there was nothing wrong in the hiring of vehicles; but he was prepared to join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point also. Anything in the nature of a bribe to induce constituencies to do their duty was wrong; and, unquestionably, the conveyance of voters to the poll was in the nature of a bribe. The Ballot Act was now in force, and the principle of that Act was secrecy of voting. It was a mistake to canvass for voters, especially under the Ballot. He preferred to let the voters decide for themselves what they would do; but the object of the present Bill was to marshal voters together at the poll. It was conceivable that voters so taken might vote against you; but there was not a shadow of doubt that if you filled an omnibus with men, and took them to the poll, they would vote for you in the great majority of cases. The effect of the Bill would be to interfere with the free operation of the Ballot; and for that and the other reasons he had assigned he should consistently oppose the measure.

MR. D. O'CONOR

understood that the complaint of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was that the Government had taken no step to settle the question after the Report of the Committee in 1875. In the Committee a proposal was made to legalize the conveyance of voters; but it was negatived by 11 to 5. This was, no doubt, a very proper question to be discussed by Parliament; but he objected to the sense of the House being taken upon the question when there was barely a quorum present, and when it was scarcely possible for the House to know the opinion of the country upon it. He was ready to admit that a difference of opinion existed on the question; but he thought the subject should be left to be dealt with by the new Parliament. He should, therefore, though he did not feel very strongly about the measure, vote against it.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, he objected to the passing of the Bill on several grounds, the first of which was that it had been left to the last moment of the Session, when the majority of hon. Members had gone away. Both the House and the public out-of-doors should have had fair time to consider it. There was something very like a trick in trying to force the Bill through the House under present circumstances. The Bill proceeded in a wrong direction; and whenever legislation took place it should, instead of repealing the prohibition, extend it to counties. After all, there was no necessity for the Bill, as the Statutes for the continuance of which the Bill was introduced would not expire till the end of 1880. Another objection was that it had been provided in the Ballot Act that there should a polling-place within four miles of every voter, and that obviated the necessity of employing conveyances. There would be no real inconvenience to voters if the hiring of cabs and other vehicles by candidates were rendered illegal. They would go to the poll as they now went to church or market—at their own expense, and they would be more free than they were at present to follow their own convictions in voting. The unrestricted use of vehicles handicapped the poor candidate as compared with the rich. It would go a long way to interfere with the secrecy of the ballot, and it was directly conducive to bribery. Not only cabs, but vehicles of any kind might be hired; and their owners would thereby be attracted to a particular candidate's cause. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) had succeeded in carrying a Bill reducing the expenses of Returning Officers; but now the Government brought forward a measure which would open the door to increased election expenses. As there was a complaint throughout the Kingdom that elections were every year becoming more expensive, an effort should be made to reduce and not to increase their cost. It had been stated that if the Bill were not passed there would be an inequality and an undue advantage to those who had carriages of their own, and whose friends had carriages; but he thought the use of those private vehicles should also be made illegal. He trusted that the Government would not press the present Bill, but allow the House an opportunity of discussing the question in all its bearings on a future occasion.

MR. FORSYTH

said, he would give his last vote in Parliament in favour of the Bill for the following reasons:—Because the law was systematically avoided, no penalty being attached; because there was no moral turpitude in conveying a voter to the poll; because the present law favoured the rich candidates, who could use their own carriages and those of their friends, while the poor were prevented from hiring the only conveyances available to them; and because the existing law virtually disfranchised voters who were physically infirm.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

admitted that the present state of the law was very unsatisfactory, but thought it very much to be regretted that the Government, having those strong opinions, should not before this have brought forward a measure on the subject. He thought this present proposal of the Government would press with great hardship upon the poorer class of candidates. It would be used as a means of extortion, for every voter would claim his right to be carried to the poll. Much unnecessary expense would be caused by the measure. He thought that was a very fair reason against such a change. He thought that in the experience of the last few years there was enough to justify the House in maintaining the prohibition against the use of conveyances at elections. It had been asked, why prohibit a thing which was innocent in itself? He replied that there was the ground of public expediency in favour of prohibiting a law which was in itself innocent, just as they prohibited colours and flags, and some of the paraphernalia of elections, which, though innocent in themselves, were capable of leading to abuse. It was very much to be regretted that the Government had brought this measure forward on the very eve of the Election, and under circumstances which made it impossible fully to take the sense of the House on the subject. It had been said that the present law was condemned in a considerable number of cases; but the House ought to be informed to what extent. They could only gather that knowledge either from a full House, such as there was not at present, or from a Committee of Inquiry, which might fairly take up this and several other questions with regard to the procedure at elections. He thought that the Government ought fully to look into the case against the objectionable clause of this Bill, and, at least, postpone it till next Parliament, when it could be better considered.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked that the Solicitor General had laid great stress on the importance of assimilating the practice in counties and boroughs as to conveying voters to the poll. If Her Majesty's Government were so anxious to assimilate the positions of the borough and county voters, they could not do better than assimilate the county franchise to the borough franchise. They had always opposed that measure, and he could not understand why they should want assimilation on one point and not on another. If the law was to be altered, it should be altered in the opposite direction from that proposed by the Government. The privilege of conveying voters to the poll should be abolished in the counties as well as in the boroughs. He had some experience of this matter; and he was strongly of opinion that the voters of the rural districts in Scotland, at least, would very much prefer to convey one another, instead of leaving that duty to the candidates. If a candidate in a county had the footing he ought to have to justify his going to the poll, he could have no possible difficulty in getting his friends to take their friends to the poll in the conveyances which all farmers possessed. The proposed law, and the law now existing in counties, gave to the wealthy candidate an advantage over his poorer competitor. He agreed with what had been said with regard to the improper time chosen for introducing the Bill. Either it ought to have been introduced earlier in the Session, or left over till next Session. As for the contention that the existing law was absurd, because it was a law without a penalty, he asked why the Government did not propose a penalty? He did not think that that was a reason for passing the Bill, which he hoped to see withdrawn.

MR. STANTON

said, that in the borough he represented it would be a hardship to many of the working men if they could not be conveyed to the poll. Nevertheless, he objected strongly to the time and the manner in which this Bill was brought forward. It would have been better to deal with the subject after the General Election.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

thought that, as he had said before, the true solution of the difficulty about payment for conveyances at elections was to render it illegal for any person to receive payment in consideration of the letting of a vehicle for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll. He felt bound to make his protest against the way in which the Government were forcing this Bill through the House. He had had some opportunities of testing public opinion on the matter, and he had found that there was a very strong feeling against the manner in which it was being pushed on, and a very strong suspicion as to the motives which induced the Government to proceed with it under such exceptional circumstances. He did not know that they could do much more in opposing the Bill; but, at any rate, it would go forth to the country that there were a number of Members who had entered a strong protest against it, and who had shown that they were determined to oppose the unnecessary increase of election expenses to the best of their ability. He condemned the action of the Government, in pushing the matter forward at the present moment, when it was impossible, in the necessarily deserted state of the House, to obtain a proper discussion, as most unfair.

MR. W. HOLMS

expressed his regret that the appeal made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous night to withdraw the Bill had not been complied with. The Government had brought forward this measure in a surreptitious manner. They had attempted to force it through the House before either the country or hon. Members had an opportunity of fully understanding its scope. It was printed on Wednesday night, and the second reading was proposed to be taken on the following day. The Bill tended to increase the cost of elections; and not only so, but it opened a door to bribery. The cost of elections in large constituencies was simply enormous. The mere cost of posting election addresses in a constituency of 48,000 electors amounted to £200. With such a fact before them, he asked the Government to reflect what the cost of an election would be to a candidate if he had to pay for conveying voters to the poll. One of the difficulties in large constituencies was that of getting the electors to the poll; and he ventured to say that difficulty would be greatly increased if the Bill were passed. If they expected to be conveyed to the poll as a matter of course, they would become even more apathetic than they were at present. If candidates were to be saddled with the cost of taking voters to the poll, why should they not be called upon to pay the voters for the time they lost in exercising the franchise? One proposition was as reasonable as the other. In legalizing a corrupt practice, as the Bill proposed to do, the Government would be going back to the evil practices of the corrupt reign of Charles II., when, for the first time, the conveyance of voters to the poll was paid for by the candidates. He protested earnestly against such a measure as this being passed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought that one important consideration was left out of sight in this matter. What was the chief object of holding an election? It was to collect the sense of the constituencies; and it was, therefore, right and proper to take means to enable the largest possible number of electors to record their votes. It very often happened that there was much difficulty in bringing workmen to the poll, especially when they were employed at a distance from home, and consequently from their proper polling-places. Of course, it was very desirable that men thus situated should not be virtually disfranchised. Such would be the case if they were not enabled to come to the poll by means of conveyances; unless, indeed, they choose to sacrifice either the whole or a part of a day's pay. They ought to bear that in mind, and consider how these persons could best come up to the poll and exercise their franchise. That, however, was not the only question, for they had also to consider the desirability of maintaining the law in its present state. It was tolerably clear that a law that was constantly evaded, and for the breach of which no penalties were assigned, was not entirely satisfactory. Then came the question in what way it could be altered. If they took the Spartan view of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd),no doubt they would have a distinct policy. The hon. and learned Member said—"Make this a corrupt practice;" and when he was pressed with the argument that, by doing so, the House would be giving an advantage to those who had friends willing to hire carriages, or who had carriages of their own to use, he said he was prepared to make it illegal for any person to convey a voter, even in his own carriage. Obviously, by adopting such a rule, they would make the system consistent; but such a law would undoubtedly keep a large number of voters from the poll, and would probably never be passed by the House. However, the Government had thought it desirable to have an alteration of the law which, at the present time, was practically set at nought. It was right and proper that the law should be declared one way or another. It seemed impossible to make the conveyance of voters to the poll a corrupt practice, and the only course open was to repeal the prohibition against it. It was always objectionable to have a law which was evaded with impunity. There were several arguments in favour of the alternative they had adopted. It was very doubtful whether the Bill would increase the expense of elections. That which was done clandestinely was in general done more expensively than what was done openly and legally. It was expedient that in elections expenses should be incurred through the election agent, and that a candidate who wished to conduct his election purely should be able to say—"I will pay nothing but the expenses properly passed through the election agent." As things were at present, the item for the conveyance of voters was not a regular or legitimate part of an election bill; and he believed it would be far better to alter the law as the Government proposed. He did not know whether the law was now evaded in Scotland; but under the Bill it would not be compulsory to engage carriages to take voters to the poll. Their Scotch friends could still conduct elections in their own way.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, it was useless to attempt to argue a question of this kind when there was no House to argue it before, only a remnant of the House being now present. There was no doubt that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated was true, and that it was desirable the subject should be decided one way or another, as the law was now constantly being evaded, and it was undesirable that such a state of things should continue. But by whom ought the matter to be decided? It ought to be decided by the House of Commons, and by a full House of Commons. At that moment, however, while the Government were pressing the Bill forward, the settlement of the question one way or the other depended entirely on the opinions of the few Members who might chance to be present. It was generally understood, when the Dissolution of Parliament was announced, that no Business of any important character would be taken. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it to be understood that this Bill would be proceeded with; but it was not generally known what the nature of the proposal would be. Now, he could not help asking the question why, if the Government attached so much importance to the Bill, they had not introduced it earlier in the Session? The subject was not very complicated; but it made several considerable changes in the law which ought not to have been proposed just at the end of the Session. Those changes would inevitably tend to increase the practice of hiring vehicles, and, in consequence, the expenses of elections. That fact alone was a sufficient reason for taking the opinion of the whole House; and he, therefore, regretted that the Government had felt it their duty to proceed with the Bill.

MR. MILBANK

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the Government were trying to do all they could to collect the sense of the constituencies. On that (the Opposition) side, they had tried to do so by getting an extension of the hours of polling. Representing a county 80 miles long by 50 broad, and with 47 polling-places, he had had a good deal of experience in bringing voters to the poll, and he knew there was a great deal of difficulty in doing so, because many held back to the last merely from a desire of being carried to the poll. He trusted that after the next Election a Liberal Parliament would come in, and that they would then pass, not a retrograde Bill, but one which should be for the benefit of the whole country.

MR. MELDON

considered that before the House divided upon the question it should take notice that the candidates had been already fixed and determined upon. Candidates trying to get into Parliament always considered the expense; and, at the present moment, there were no candidates trying to get into Parliament who had not considered how much it would cost them to enter the House. It seemed to him, therefore, very unfair that now at the last moment without Notice, and when the House was utterly unfit to pass an opinion, the Bill should be forced upon them. The purpose of the Bill was clearly not in the interest of the candidate generally; but what its precise object was he failed to see at present. The point he had mentioned was one, however, of considerable weight; and for it and other reasons he considered the Bill should not be forced upon the present Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 55: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 43.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Repeal of s. 36 of 30 & 31 Vict. 102, as to payment of expenses of conveyance of voters to the poll).

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after "1867," to insert "and the twenty-fifth section of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,' and the twelfth section of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.'"—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

MR. W. HOLMS,

in moving, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "and the twenty-fifth section of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,'" said, that the object of the Amendment was to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. He believed he was speaking on behalf of the Representatives of Scotland generally when he said that they had no desire to be included in the Bill. They were not in the habit of violating the law, and candidates for Parliamentary honours were not in the habit in election contests, even in large constituencies, of employing conveyances to take voters to the polling-places. He ventured to take this opportunity of saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he stated that it was desirable to bring the electors to the poll, and to endeavour to find the best means of doing so, was quite correct; but that was no justification for the employment of cabs and carriages in boroughs. He had no objection to the use of carriages in counties, or in boroughs which, from their extent, were like counties; but he failed to see the slightest ground for their employment within those boroughs where the distance from the voter's residence to the poll was not excessive. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, to amend the said Amendment, by leaving out the words, "and the twenty-fifth section of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868.'"—(Mr. W. Solms.)

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

MR. ANDERSON

had entertained some hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he saw so very thin a state of the House as that which now prevailed—when the House itself was practically more than half dissolved, and when no less than 55 Members had voted against going on with the measure at all, feeling as they did so strongly the unfairness of forcing it upon the House at this late period of the Session—would not have proceeded further with the Bill. He appeared to be disappointed in that expectation, since it had been concluded to go on with the Bill. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had done so, he (Mr. Anderson) must be allowed to say that no ground had been shown for extending the provisions of this nefarious Bill to Scotland. Scotland, as was shown by all hon. Members who had spoken, did not at present practice any infringement of the law. Therefore, there could be no reason why the House should introduce into Scotland a provision to legalize a practice which did not exist now in any part of Scotland. There might be less to be said on behalf of England; but if the conveyance of voters was so largely practised at the present moment in the English borough elections, and the law was universally evaded, the best way of dealing with the question would be, not to repeal the law, but to attach a penalty to its infringement. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have selected this moment, when Parliament was about to expire, for proposing to make legal what the law declared to be illegal. He certainly did not know a single reason why the Scotch constituencies should be compelled to make use of conveyances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was no compulsion, but that the constituencies could still abstain from employing cabs if they liked. No doubt that was so; but it implied a general abstention which could only be obtained by universal agreement on the part of the candidates, because if one candidate adopted this nefarious practice the others must necessarily do so. Therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was no compulsion, he did not give a correct view of the case. He trusted that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), and exempt Scotland from the operation of the Bill.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this very important fact— that almost every Scottish Member in the House had voted against the Bill in the last division. It would be an extraordinary thing to thrust upon Scotland a measure to which it was totally opposed. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, even at this last moment, leave out Scotland if he was determined to go on with the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

believed that the Government had had a great deal of trouble during the last two or three Sessions with the Irish Home Rule Members. If they wanted to create a strong Home Rule feeling in another part of the Kingdom they could not do better than persevere with this clause, which was to force upon the people of Scotland a principle that was repugnant to their feelings. It was opposed by every Member present who had a seat for Scotland, and by some of those who had voted for the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make progress with the Business of the House, it would be wise to make the small concession now asked for on behalf of Scotland.

MR. E. JENKINS

hoped that Her Majesty's Government would re-consider the matter. He joined with the other Scotch Members in impressing upon the Government the inadvisability of making this addition to the Bill. The measure was bad enough before; but the proposal now submitted to the Committee would make matters much worse. It was proposed to tie down the high principles of Scotland and its electoral morality; and he thought the Scotch Members were justified in resisting and protesting against any such attempt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now that the object of the Bill was to give an opportunity of taking what was called the sense of the community; and the right hon. Gentleman used this argument, which it was only worth while to consider because it came from the Ministerial Bench, that because there was an existing evasion of the law the law ought to be abolished. Were they to abolish every law in regard to which there was a persistent evasion? There were laws against stealing that were not always obeyed, and there were laws against murder that were persistently evaded. Were they, then, to legalize theft and assassination? He had never yet heard that argument used—although, perhaps, the time might come when it would be used by a Conservative Ministry—as a motive for changing the law. The proposal now made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to repeal the law because it was evaded; and the Scotch Members seemed to be almost the only Members left who were in favour of purity of election. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Well, he would not exactly say that, but would modify the assertion, and would say that the Scotch Members were the only Members now left who were in favour of extreme purity of election—that extreme purity of election which enabled them to say that in no borough of Scotland whatever was it the habit to convey the voters to the poll, nor was it desirable that that practice should be resorted to. He thought Scotland had a very strong claim to be left out of the Bill; and he put it strongly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether their wishes should not be complied with.

MR. BAXTER

wished to add his voice to the appeal which had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. He believed there was no desire whatever in Scotland for the application of the Bill to that country. He had never heard of any practice in Scotland like that which was adopted in England; and he was satisfied that the Scotch Members on both sides of the House would join in stating that the people of Scotland were quite unanimous in opinion. He did hope that that being the state of matters, and looking at the result of the recent division, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that, of course, it was not desirable to have more distinctions than they could help in particular parts of the United Kingdom; but, at the same time, he fully admitted that there was a difference, as far as he was able to learn, in the way in which the law was acted upon in Scotland and in England. There was no doubt that in England the law was a mere snare and delusion at present, because it was systematically evaded. It was really of no use, and was the cause of the greatest inconvenience. In Scotland, he was assured, the wording of the law corresponded with the general practice. Therefore, it was obvious that there did not arise the same difficulty which rendered it necessary to make this change in England. Therefore, as there seemed to be a general opinion on the part of the Scotch Members on the subject, the Government would be quite prepared to recognize that feeling, and to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "1867," to insert "and the twelfth section of 'The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.'"—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

MR. E. JENKINS

imagined that, after what had just taken place, the Government were now ready to say that they were not prepared to go on with the Bill. That would certainly be the best means of relieving themselves from the extraordinary position in which they had been placed. The position they had placed themselves in was this. They had made a concession to Scotland which they were not prepared to give to the rest of the United Kingdom. Immorality was to prevail in England, Ireland, and Wales; But the law which prohibited it was not to be touched in Scotland. He wished that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would get up in his place and answer these statements if he was able, instead of objecting to them in an inarticulate fashion. He would repeat that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government placed them in an absurd and anomalous position. He challenged the Government, or the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, to controvert that assertion. Anything that was passed by Parliament should be good for the whole United Kingdom; but the suggestion now made by Her Majesty's Government was that the law should be continued as it stood in regard to one part of the United Kingdom, and that it should be repealed in regard to another part. What was the difference between the borough of Durham and the borough of Dundee? The class of voters was the same; the borough was the same size; and he saw no reason why, in the one case, the voters should be conveyed to the poll at the expense of the candidate, while, on the other, they should not. His own opinion was that the same principle should apply to both. The Solicitor General based the Bill upon high moral principles. It was rather an unusual thing for a lawyer to do; but the hon. and learned Gentleman did it, and the Committee had listened to his arguments, although not without some surprise. If that was so, he wanted to know how the Government could escape from the dilemma of encouraging the morality of one part of the Kingdom, and discouraging it, or, at any rate, throwing cold water upon it in another? He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Truro would be able to prove anything to the contrary. He awaited the hon. and gallant Member's argument with considerable curiosity. Personally, he thought that the concession made by the Government placed the Committee in an anomalous position, and that they ought not to press the measure further.

MR. MONK

said, he wished to say a few words before they went to a division on the clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given way to the appeal made to him by the Scotch Members, on the ground that the law had, on the whole, been carried out satisfactorily in Scotland, while he said that it had been evaded in other parts of the Kingdom. But he did not propose to maintain the present law, and make it more stringent, and thus to assimilate the law in both countries. But he proposed to repeal it altogether in the case of England and Ireland, and to retain it in the case of Scotland. That was a manifest inconsistency; it was scarcely possible to be guilty of a greater one, and he was astonished to find that a right hon. Gentleman, occupying a prominent position in the Government of the country, should come down to that House and say—"We have an election law which has acted very well in one part of the Kingdom, though it has been evaded in other parts; therefore, the best thing we can do is to maintain it in Scotland, where it is generally observed, but to repeal it in regard to the rest of the Kingdom where it is evaded." The Government acknowledged that the law was good for Scotland; and if it was good for one part of the country surely it ought to be good for the whole of the country. He thought the constituencies of the Kingdom would be very much astonished, when they read the papers to-morrow, to find that the Government had maintained this law for Scotland, but were determined to repeal it in regard to England. That was the state of the case at present; but he merely presented it as a reductio ad absurdum. He sincerely trusted that the Government would rest content with the discussion that had taken place, and by withdrawing the Bill, would consent to have one general law for the whole of the Kingdom.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had paid very little attention to the present state of the law. The whole law was an anomaly. In the counties it remained unaltered. The provisions of the present Bill would affect only the law in boroughs, and would assimilate it to that which existed already in the counties. But in addition to the counties, the House of Commons had selected certain boroughs in which the practice was also permitted, on the ground of their extent. The Government had now consented to exempt Scotland from the operation of the clause; but they had only done so at the express wish of the Scotch Members, who had pressed it upon the Government. He quite concurred in the opinion that there was no necessity for a change in the existing law in Scotland. The Government yielded to the appeal made to them; and now hon. Members said it was illogical and absurd to proceed with the Bill, and that they ought not to make any change in the law at all. The arguments which had induced the Government to make the concession were a sufficient answer to the view of the question now put forward by hon. Members opposite.

MR. ANDERSON

was sure that all the Scotch Members, and all the Scotch constituencies, were very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making a concession in their favour; but, at the same time, he did not claim for Scotland the exclusive purity which the hon. Member for Dundee claimed for it, and he should be glad to give all the assistance in his power to the Members for England and Ireland in opposition to the Bill, not merely on Scotch grounds, but upon Imperial grounds. As a Scotch Member, he was obliged to the Government for their concession to Scotland; but, as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, he must continue to protest against the application of the Bill to England and Ireland. He was surprised that the Irish Members had not made a similar appeal to the Government as that which had been made by the Scotch Members on behalf of Scotland; but he was unable to say from his own experience whether the law was carried out in Ireland or not. If the present law was carried out in Ireland as well as in Scotland, he thought the Irish Members should make a similar appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as that which, had been made on behalf of Scotland. As to what the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said in regard to the law being evaded at present in England, there was upon the Paper an Amendment to the same clause by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) which would meet that objection. The object of that Amendment was to make the law uniform everywhere, and, in order to prevent it from becoming an absurdity and an anomaly, it proposed to attach a distinct penalty to the infringement of the statute. He thought the Government had placed themselves in a slightly inconsistent position by the concession they had made, and he thought the best course would be to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea. At the same time, as a Scotch Member, he thankfully accepted the concession which had been made to him.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had expressed surprise at the absence of a claim on the part of Ireland to the same concession which had been made to Scotland. If the hon. Member had noticed the state of the Irish Benches, he would have seen why the Irish Members did not object. In fact, the Irish Members were occupied elsewhere. He believed, however, that they objected very much to this Bill; and he (Sir John Lubbock), as an English Member, also wished to record his objection against it. He should be glad to know why this Bill was to be forced upon the English borough Members against the general opinion of the English borough Members? There might be solid and substantial reasons for allowing the conveyance of voters in counties; but those reasons certainly did not apply in boroughs. If the law was to be made equal, the best way would be to assimilate that of the counties to that in force in the boroughs, rather than that the law in the boroughs should be made the same as that in the counties. He did not see why the English Members should not be treated in the same way as the Scotch Members. He thought the Bill would add very much to the expense of contested elections; and, introduced as it was at the last moment in an expiring Parliament, the House generally had good reasons for entering a strong protest against the way in which they had been treated. The Bill had been sprung upon the House as a complete surprise. He had hoped, when the division showed there was so large a minority against the principle of the Bill, that Her Majesty's Government would have given way. Such a course would have been appreciated in the country; and, even now, he would make an appeal to them not to press the Bill against the strong general wish that had been expressed.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

really thought that the way in which the Government were forcing the Bill through the House was scarcely decent. He was not affected by the Bill, because he was a county Member; but, inasmuch as the expense of the conveyance of voters in counties frequently amounted to half the entire cost of an election, he thought the practice ought to be made illegal in counties. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had agreed to the exemption of Scotland, because, he said, Scotland was so pure and so moral; but there were many towns in Wales which were quite as pure as any in Scotland, and, therefore, when the proper time came, he should require to have that exemption extended a great deal farther. In point of fact, he wished to see no such invidious distinction made between different parts of the Kingdom, and he should give his vote in favour of making the law of England and Wales the same as that of Scotland and Ireland.

MR. DILLWYN

joined in the appeal to the Government that they would reconsider the question. He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the pressing on of this Bill was not a breach of an implied understanding? He could not but think that was so. At the beginning of the Session the Government brought in a Resolution to stop obstruction. They were extremely disappointed, and read the Opposition a lecture, because they did not oppose the Resolution, and they did not know what to do. The action of the Government looked as though they wanted the Opposition to fight them in view of the Dissolution. Well, the Dissolution was announced, and the Opposition were well pleased, and promised to give the Government every facility to transact and get through the ordinary Business of the Session. But that was upon the understanding that that Business should be winding-up Business, and not taking up new matters. They did give every facility for the passing of necessary Bills; but they never expected to be called on to repeal an important clause in a former Act of Parliament as was now proposed. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would take the Corrupt Practices Bill, no one knew that he meant anything of that kind; they thought it was a Bill of a different nature. He, therefore, did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see the fairness of this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had given way to the Scotch Members, of whom a good many happened to be present, and he had also given way to Ireland. Now he was asked to exempt Wales, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) said they were pure in Wales. He hoped they were, and he saw no reason for retaining Wales within the operation of the Bill; but he wished to join in a general appeal. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer made one exception after another, where would he stop? He had not heard the English Members; they were not there, they were scattered all over the country, they did not know the nature of the Bill. The constituencies did not know, and had had no opportunity of expressing, an opinion upon the measure. It was too large a question to be carried through in the last week of a dying Parliament, and it was a breach of an implied understanding to proceed with it. He respectfully urged the Government to notice the appeals which had been made to them, including that of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) on the previous evening; and he pointed to the large and important minority in the last division as an additional argument for withdrawing the Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had spoken of an implied understanding; but he wished to remind the hon. Member, that on the day on which he men- tioned the Dissolution, he stated what Business the Government hoped to proceed with, and he expressly mentioned this Bill as being one that they thought they could and should proceed with. Not only so, but he took occasion to refer to some observations previously made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) as to the importance of dealing with the question; and he said that as the Bill which the Government first introduced could not deal with that question, it would be withdrawn, and another Bill would be introduced. Therefore, the attention of the House was from the first directed to the fact that the Government did intend to deal with the subject; and as the subject was one with which the House was familiar, there was no ground for saying that they had been taken by surprise. As to the other question which had been raised, the hon. Member said the Government admitted that the Scotch boroughs were pure, and Wales was also pure. No doubt, both those statements were quite true; and he would go further, and say the English constituencies were also pure; but the broad distinction between the English practice and the Scotch practice with regard to the conveyance of voters was this—that in the great majority of large boroughs in England it was done, whilst in Scotland they were assured it was not done. There was nothing in the law that rendered the conveyance of voters a corrupt practice, or imposed a penalty upon it; and the provision, being simply a prohibition without imposing a penalty, was exceedingly inconvenient. It was to get rid of that inconvenience that the Government proposed to legalize what was practically done at the present time. Then they were told by the Scotch Members that in Scotland the case was different, and that the Scotch practice was in conformity with the words of the law. Therefore, there was no occasion to make any alteration in order to bring the law and practice of Scotland into harmony, because they were in harmony already. That being so, the Government admitted the plea of the Scotch Members. But if the present state of things worked well in Scotland, it did not work well in England, because the difference in practice rendered it impossible to meet the spirit of the law with regard to the payment of these expenses. Having agreed to the wish of the Scotch Members, the Government were now met by them in a way which he hardly anticipated, seeing that the Government had made what they thought was a graceful concession. However, he must not complain of ingratitude; he would only say that there was reason in the one case, and not in the other.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he did feel grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his graceful concession to Scotland, not because he had as yet any strong opinion on the merits of the question, but because he thought the House was not in a position to decide it. It had already been pointed out that a large number of borough Members were opposed to the Bill, and the absence of those hon. Gentlemen on the present occasion was attributable to the fact that the borough elections would come on before the county elections; and, therefore, there was a greater pressure upon them. When they examined the Division Lists, they would probably find that a House chiefly composed of county Members had been employed in deciding a question affecting borough Members.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he also, as a Scotch Member, felt grateful for the concession made to Scotland; but it seemed to him that if the Scotch Members, having gained their point, now deserted their English and Irish brethren, that would be the height of baseness. He was very glad, indeed, to give what assistance he could to England, Ireland, and Wales in the matter. He wished to add one word as to the declaration which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time the Dissolution was announced. It was true the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government proposed to proceed with the Bill dealing with corrupt practices, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give the House the least idea what the nature of the Bill was to be. He did not tell them it was to be for the legalization of corrupt practices, and they were led to believe that it would provide a better tribunal for trying and punishing such offences. Therefore, he thought there was some ground for the charge that this was a breach of an implied understanding. When the hon. and learned Solicitor General said Parlia- ment had already sanctioned payments for conveyance in five boroughs, it should be added that those boroughs were of the nature of counties, because the distances to be traversed were considerable. Besides, Parliament had already settled that question. What he wished to call attention to was the fact that the Amendment related to the exclusion of Ireland; and as the Scotch Members had previously enjoyed the advantage of the sympathy and support of the Irish borough Members, he thought it only right that, now the Irish borough Members had been obliged to leave on urgent business of a public character, the Scotch Members should endeavour to take their part. There was scarcely a single Irish borough Member left in the House; and, therefore, he hoped that the Government would consent to drop the clause relating to Ireland. He hoped that Ireland, as well as Scotland, was pure; but he would remind the House that the Irish were an impulsive people, and that Irish cars were somewhat dangerous vehicles.

MR. SULLIVAN

hoped sincerely that the Government would not take advantage of the absence of the Irish Representatives to persevere in their intention of bringing Ireland within the scope of the Bill. He trusted that, having agreed to omit Scotland, they would in this case do justice to Ireland. The Irish Members were always glad to take a share with their Caledonian Friends. The House would be aware that there were only a few large cities and towns in Ireland, and, therefore, the conveyance of voters could only affect a few places; but, nevertheless, he would strongly appeal to the Government to let them alone. There were not half-a-dozen Irish Members within the Palace of Westminster at that moment; and it would create a most painful impression if the Government, having acceded to the request of the Scotch Representatives, should, in the absence of the Irish Representatives, not deal in a like manner with Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

observed, that representations were pretty generally made to him officially by Irish Representatives with reference to Bills which they did not like. Last night there was a case in point, when two Irish Members pressed upon him the undesirability of proceeding with the Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill; but he was bound to say that not a single representation had been made to him on the part of any Irish borough Members that they opposed this Bill.

MR. SULLIVAN

remarked that Ireland was not in the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

replied, that the hon. Member did not speak for a borough, and, therefore, he would repeat the statement which he had made. He knew that there was in some of the large boroughs a good deal of laxity; but there might be no objection to legitimatize payments for conveying voters to the poll.

MR. SULLIVAN

would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether Ireland was mentioned in the Bill at all? He knew very well that it was not, and, therefore, how could he expect that Irish Members would appeal to him with reference to a Bill which did not include Ireland? It was now sought to bring Ireland in, and that made the matter inconceivably worse, because it would be in the nature of a surprise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the allegation of surprise was rather a doubtful point. The hon. Member knew very well that if Ireland was not expressly excluded from an Act of Parliament, it must be taken to be included.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, an appeal had been made to the Irish Members to express their opinions on the subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had clearly shown why the Irish Borough Members were silent, and he did not think that that silence could be very well construed into consent. The reason given for their silence was the very strongest reason why the Government should leave Ireland out of the Bill. It would be a very extraordinary step on the eve of a General Election, when everybody was anxious to be away on important business, to make such an important change as the Government proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had referred to the representations made to him against Irish Bills being forced on at this period, and perhaps the measure now in question was even more important, because it bore directly upon the elections themselves. He was grateful to the Scotch Members for their support, and he was sure that had the Irish Members realized at an earlier period the magnitude of the change that was to be made in the electoral law, they would not have left the duty of opposing it in the hands of their Scotch Friends. They were no more in favour than were the Scotch Members of a Bill whose effect would be to legalize corruption at borough elections.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

thought the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was wrong in speaking of the Amendment put down by the hon. and learned Attorney General as a mere drafting Amendment, and in stating that if Ireland were not expressly mentioned, the Bill would necessarily apply to Ireland. The fact was that the substantive part of the Bill was a measure to repeal a part of the Representation of the People Act, 1869; but that Act applied only to England, and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General was necessary in order to repeal the same clause of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act. The Amendment was only put upon the Paper yesterday, and, therefore, the Irish Members had not had an opportunity of understanding that it was intended by the Government. They had had no Notice whatever, they were absent, and it was totally contrary to all precedent to apply, at a moment's Notice, for a clause of that importance.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

hoped the Government would accede to the number of appeals that had been made to them, and would leave Ireland out of the Bill. It was a very extraordinary thing, on the face of it, that when any portion of the old system of electoral corruption had been got rid of, the Government should find any possible excuse for attempting to re-enact it. Surely, if they wished to give more license, this was hardly the time to bring about such a change. The absence of the Irish borough Members had been explained, and he believed that there was only one, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), anywhere near the House, and he had already spoken strongly against this measure. The idea that the Scotch Members were somewhat ungrateful because, when they had got their country saved from the Bill, they would not abandon England and Ireland, was absurd. A concession of that kind, with such a reservation, would become not so much a concession as a bribe. It would be tantamount to saying—"You are strong, you can have your way; but we shall want from you as a condition of your own exemption, that you allow us to force this objectionable system on England and Ireland and Wales." He was very much obliged to the Scotch Members for their steadfast opposition to the Government proposal. If the Government wanted equality, let them attain it by levelling down the system of corruption, and getting rid of it altogether, instead of levelling up so as to reproduce a corruption which had been thought to be abolished. He earnestly hoped the Government would press the matter no further. If it were forced upon Ireland, it certainly would create great surprise and indignation when it became known.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must object to a phrase, which he used rather playfully than otherwise, being made such serious use of. When he said the Scotch Members were not grateful, he did not mean to imply that hon. Members who objected to the Bill should waive their objections to it, because he had agreed to the exemption of Scotland. He wished to point out to the House what the real action of the Government in this matter had been. In the first instance, what the Government proposed to do was to bring in a Bill for the continuance of the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act. They introduced a mere Continuance Bill, and when it had been introduced, the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who took great interest in those questions, expressly challenged them upon the question whether they did not intend to deal with the subject of conveyance of voters. The hon. Baronet pointed out, and many other hon. Members for English boroughs supported him, that the subject was in a position in which it was most inconvenient that it should be left. That related to England, and the reason why it was inconvenient was that the practice in the large boroughs of England was different to the wording of the law. That being so, he proposed to withdraw the Bill which had then been introduced, and to bring in another which would deal with the question before the Dissolution; and he expressly stated that it would deal with the question which the hon. Baronet had drawn attention to. He most distinctly drew attention to it; and if the hon. Baronet were only now present, he was quite certain the hon. Baronet would confirm his recollection of what took place when the hon. Baronet acceded to the proposal with his usual courtesy. Well, the Bill was introduced in a form which he did not particularly remark at the time would have applied only to England, for it dealt only with the English Act. That point was afterwards observed, and Amendments were put down by the hon. and learned Attorney General to carry it over the whole of the United Kingdom. It was certainly possible, and, indeed, not improbable, that the point which did not seem to have attracted the same attention in Ireland that it had attracted in other parts of the United Kingdom might have escaped the attention of the Irish Members, who might not have been aware that the Bill was intended to apply to Ireland. At all events, it was quite certain that there had been no interest felt in the matter in Ireland. No representations of any sort had been made, and the point seemed to be one of comparatively little urgency or importance there. He would remind the Committee that the Bill was, in its nature, of a temporary character. It only proposed to continue the Parliamentary Elections Act to the end of the year 1881; but it was important in this respect that, in regard to this particular question of the conveyance of voters, it contained a provision which was intended to apply to the Elections that were immediately at hand. There were strong reasons for passing such a clause with regard to Ireland. Those reasons had been shown not to exist in the case of Scotland—at all events, to the same extent—and there was no reason particularly to believe that they existed to the same extent in Ireland; and the Government would be quite prepared to allow this Amendment of the Attorney General's, which was a, post facto Amendment, to be withdrawn, and to confine the Bill to the case of England. [A laugh.] Well, hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but the Bill was intended to meet a difficulty, which was not a theoretical, but a practical difficulty. The practice they complained of largely existed, and he ventured to say that a large number of hon. Gentlemen had been systematically in the habit of resorting to that which would be made legal by this Bill. The question of purity was absolute nonsense; and when it was said that this was a Bill which implied that they were to have more corruption in England than in other parts of the United Kingdom, he said that was unmitigated and undiluted nonsense. There was no doubt whatever that the practice of the conveyance of voters was one which was perfectly reconcilable with the utmost purity of election. The Government would now withdraw the Amendment, and adhere to the Bill in the form in which it was originally introduced.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

remarked, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the objection that the Bill would act against the purity of election was pure and unmitigated nonsense. Now, he (Mr. H. Samuelson) was perfectly certain that it would open a door to corruption, and in a great number of boroughs it would enable pressure to be put upon the owners of vehicles, and enable candidates to bribe them by hiring their conveyances. If he might use an expression not much stronger than that used by the right hon. Gentleman, he would say that it was disgraceful on the part of the Government to persist in thrusting such a Bill down the throats of an unwilling Parliament, against the declared wishes of almost every borough Member who had spoken. The unfairness of the course adopted by Government was manifest, when hon. Members considered how impossible it was to obtain a proper expression of opinion on the subject in the then deserted condition of the House. Speaking for himself, he might say that he had had occasion to gather the opinion of more than one or two constituencies upon the subject since it had been before the House; and he could unhesitatingly affirm that public opinion was strongly against the proposal. Then the right hon. Gentleman had told them something that required a little investigation. He said that the Bill was only a temporary measure; but he quite forgot that to repeal a section of an Act of Parliament was not a temporary measure, but a statute intended to remain in force permanently. He (Mr. H. Samuelson) pre- sumed that a clause once repealed stood repealed—not temporarily, but for all time—unless it were re-enacted by a new law. Nobody objected to the continuance of the Act which the Bill proposed to continue; but what they did object to was having forced upon England a provision which was not considered proper for Scotland and Ireland. He asked the Government to go one step further in their concessions, and to withdraw the clause altogether.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his wish to withdraw the Amendment now before it. That was an Amendment containing a proposal to include in the Bill the case of Ireland. If the Committee were desirous of continuing the discussion upon the case of England, it would probably be found the most convenient course to withdraw the Amendment in the first instance.

MR. MONK

said, he desired to say a word or two with regard to the withdrawal of Ireland from the operation of the clause. Scotland had already been withdrawn from the operation of the Bill. Ireland was now to be withdrawn also, and England and Wales were alone to be affected. Under these circumstances, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the necessity for the Bill at all? It was not the 2nd clause of the Bill that was wanted. No clause of the Bill was wanted. The Corrupt Practices Act was in force until the end of the year, and there would be ample time, when the new Parliament met, to consider the whole question; and whatever Government happened to be in Office, it would become its duty to bring in the Bill which the present Government were on the point of introducing a week ago. The effect of this clause, in regard to England would be, as it would have been in the case of Ireland and Scotland, to increase the expense of elections. It was all very well to say that the law was in some cases evaded; but if they legalized the payment of these expenses, the result would be that they would prevent a large number of candidates from coming forward, who would be unable to bear the enormous expense that would be put upon them by legalizing the conveyance of voters to the poll. As the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) had just stated, it would act as a bribe to many cab-owners and livery-stable keepers. It would be necessary for the candidates to engage every vehicle, not only in the town, but in the neighbourhood. It was a movement in the wrong direction; it was a movement that would prevent a poor man from having a seat in that House. He confessed that he was astonished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should persist in endeavouring to force the Bill, at this period of the existence of Parliament, down the throats of hon. Members, when he had been obliged to give way with regard to Scotland and Ireland. He hoped that not only would the Amendment be withdrawn, but that the Bill itself would be withdrawn with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. DILLWYN moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 19, after "shall," to leave out the remainder of the Clause, and insert— Be read with the addition of the words, 'on proof that any such illegal payment shall have been made, the person or persons having made, or in any way authorized such payment, shall be liable to be convicted before any Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and on conviction such Court shall be empowered to award the punishment of a fine of five pounds for each such offence.'

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, he had an Amendment which would come before that which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He proposed, in page 1, line 19, to move, after the word "repealed," to insert the words "except as regards Wales."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would come before that. He was bound to say that he had considered with very great care the question submitted to the Committee in that Amendment, and it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, if it were adopted, would not merely be to annul the object of the Bill; but that, practically, the ultimate effect of it would be to reverse it. When the House sent a Bill to a Committee for the express purpose of having its clauses considered, to reverse the object of the Bill and to send back to the House a measure which carried out exactly opposite objects, would be irregular. It was open to the hon. Member for Swansea to raise the question he was desirous of dealing with on the Report of the Bill, because that would be considered by the House itself, and the House would be its own master. It certainly appeared to him, that so far as the Committee were concerned, they were required by the House to consider any Bill sent to them in accordance with the objects with which it had been sent.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that this clause, as it now stood in the statute was a delusion and a snare, and his (Mr. Dillwyn's) object in proposing this Amendment was to make the enactment which it was proposed to repeal something otherwise than a delusion and a snare. He had thought that that would be a better mode of carrying out the object and intention of the Act, than by repealing the clause; but if the Chairman said that he was out of Order, he would at once bow to the hon. Gentleman's ruling. He did not think the Amendment had the effect which the Chairman attributed to it; but if the hon. Gentleman thought so, he would not press it.

MR. E. JENKINS

rose to a point of Order, and what he was about to say would be said with all due respect to the Chair. He wished to call attention to the fact that this clause proposed to change a clause in the Representation of the People Act, and that the clause in the Representation of the People Act was immediately directed to the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea. The clause in question said that it should not be lawful for any candidate, or for anyone on his behalf, at any election, to pay any money on account of the conveyance of a voter to the poll, either to the voter himself or to any other person, or for any other person to receive it from the candidate, and so on. He submitted very humbly that that clause raised the whole question. It was raised directly by the Bill before the Committee, and his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr, Dillwyn) was right in proposing a certain other mode of dealing with the question that was not laid down by this particular clause. The mode suggested in his hon. Friend's Amendment was that penalties could be imposed for an infringement of the law, instead of repealing the clause in the Representation of the People Act. He begged to submit that point to the consideration of the Chair, and to ask if it had not been overlooked—namely, that the whole section of the Representation of the People Act was dragged into discussion?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that was not at all the question before the Committee. The Bill proposed to repeal the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act of 1867. The effect of that section of the Act of 1867 was to declare a certain practice to be illegal. The object of the present clause was to make that practice legal. The proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was not only to leave the practice illegal, but, by amending the clause, to attach a penalty to the illegality, and to affirm the opposite of the principle; in point of fact, to reverse the principle which it was sought by the Bill to affirm. That being so, it appeared to him that it was not within the functions of the Committee to take such a course without the sanction of the House.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had no wish to call in question the ruling of the Chair; but he ventured to suggest whether it would not be competent to strike out the words of the clause, and then to insert another clause in the sense of the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea. The Bill was not confined to the repeal of this particular clause, but had other objects in view—namely, to continue the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act. This was an essential part of that Act, and, therefore, it appeared to him that, having struck out that particular clause repealing this provision of the Corrupt Practices Act, they might alter the Corrupt Practices Act in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea. If that were correct, surely the same process could be effected in any one clause. If it were possible to strike out the clause, and then move an Amendment in the sense of the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, surely they could do the same thing by one process which they would have power to do by two.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the observations of the hon. Member for Heading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would have great force, if this was one of the sections of the Act it was proposed to continue; but the Bill simply proposed to continue the Corrupt Practices Act, and the section affected by the Amendment was one of the Representation of the People Act which it was not proposed by the present Bill to continue. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) could only be considered by the House and not by a Committee. The House was entirely its own master and could frame its own propositions, which a Committee was not always at liberty to do.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that, looking at the difficulty in which the Committee was placed, and the extreme importance of discussing the question from every point of view, and considering the alternative proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), it became a question whether, instead of repealing this provision of the Representation of the People Act, they ought not to abandon the Bill altogether. It was obvious, by the ruling of the Chair, that they were not in a position to discuss certain alternatives which ought to be before the Committee. The only way in which it could be done was, to ask the Committee to adjourn, in order that at a subsequent stage they might have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter. In the position they were now in it became almost essential to take that step.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Bill had been read a second time, and its principle had thereby been affirmed. The principle of the measure was contained in the 2nd clause, and it was simply wasting the time of the House to make such a proposal as that which had been made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).

Amendment (Mr. Dillwyn), by leave, withdrawn,

MR. MORGAN LLOYD moved, the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to insert in page 1, line 19, after the word "repealed," the words "except as regards Wales." Now that Scotland and Ireland were excluded from the operation of the Bill, he saw no reason whatever why Wales also should not be excluded. Wales was as distinct from England as Scotland and Ireland, and for this purpose there would be no inconvenience in separating Wales from England. With regard to Wales, he was able to say that the people there were perfectly satisfied with the law as it now existed, and, as far as it went, their wish was to extend the prohibition rather than to repeal it. So far as his experience went, and he knew something of Wales, there had been no practice in Wales that was at all in violation of this enactment. He believed that what he said would be confirmed by other Welsh Members present. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government ought to agree to exclude Wales from the operation of the Bill. The concessions which had been made in favour of Scotland and Ireland equally applied to Wales. Therefore, without taking up the time of the Committee further, he would simply move the Amendment to except Wales from the operation of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, at end of Clause, to add the words "except as regards Wales."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

could hardly suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris was serious in making this proposition. The cases of Ireland and Scotland were obviously dealt with separately, because they were dealt with by separate Acts. The complaint made was, that as the Bill was originally drawn it did not include Scotland and Ireland; but with regard to Wales, the hon. and learned Member seemed to forget that the Bill did include Wales. The Act of Parliament, the section of which it was proposed to repeal, affected Wales as well as England. With reference to the Question as to the facts of the case in regard to Welsh elections, he entirely disagreed with the hon. and learned Mem- ber. He did not know what the hon. and learned Member's experience was with regard to borough elections in Wales; but his (the Solicitor General's) own experience was, that in contested elections in the boroughs of Wales, the practice of conveying voters to the poll in cabs and carriages be believed to be the universal practice. For that reason, it was obvious that the suggested Amendment, if it was seriously pressed, was hardly worth arguing or discussing.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, although he had contested a Welsh constituency, was certainly not a Welshman; while his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), was not only a Welshman, but represented the people of Wales. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had no desire to enter into a wrangle as to the facts of the case; his own desire in rising had been to point out that there was no constitutional reason why Wales should not be excepted, or, indeed, why Lancashire or Yorkshire, or any other part of the Kingdom, should not be excepted. There was no question of constitutional ground at all. The practice was not carried out in all that part of Wales with which he was acquainted, and he was certainly acquainted with a very large part of it. The cases of Scotland and of Wales were identically the same. The practice was one which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out, existed only in England. The right hon. Gentleman said, it was the common practice in England, and he went so far as to charge hon. Members, who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and who said that it was a question of purity of elections, of talking pure, unmitigated, undiluted nonsense. He hoped he should never hear such language again from the right hon. Gentleman. It might be pure, unmitigated nonsense. He would not enter into that question now; but what he wished to appeal to was the facts of the case. He knew a county in which a very rich man was a candidate, and he actually bought up the whole of the cabs, conveyances, and omnibuses of the whole of the county. Was that purity of election? The result was, that the person to whom he alluded got the vote of every omnibus owner, cabman, and carriage owner in the county. If this clause were repealed, the same thing would be done in every borough. He would ask if any hon. Member believed that it would not be done? He believed it was done now, and if so, was the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified in saying that those who spoke of purity of election were talking pure, unmitigated nonsense?

MR. DILLWYN

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make sure of his facts before he spoke of pure, unmitigated nonsense. In regard to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, that hon. and learned Gentleman had made a statement that was scarcely consistent with the facts. He (Mr. Dillwyn) was in a position to give evidence upon the subject himself. At the last General Election he stood a contest in a Welsh borough, and he did not employ a single cab at all. He was therefore able, personally, to combat the facts of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) said that Wales was separate and distinct from England. That was perfectly true, and it was much more separate and distinct than either Scotland or Ireland. The legislation for Wales was, in many respects, separate, and it had a different set of Turnpike and Road Acts from any other part of the Kingdom. There could be no question as to Wales being entirely separate and distinct from England.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to except Scotland, because the Scotch Members were present to oppose the repeal of the clause so far as Scotland was concerned. He had also excepted Ireland, because the Irish Members were not present to oppose it. He wished now, as an English Member, to question the propriety of continuing to include England. During the whole of the discussion not a single Member on the other side of the House had risen to say a word in favour of the Bill. The whole defence of the measure had rested with Her Majesty's Government, who had given first one reason, and then another, for proposing it. All other Members who had taken part in the discussion had protested as indignantly as they could against it. Under these circumstances, he thought it was unreasonable on the part of the Government to press the Bill at that particular time. As the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) had shown, it might be used as an engine of corruption. It was a Bill to give a rich candidate, in every English borough, a great advantage over a poor candidate, and it would also give those candidates who had had notice of the Bill a great advantage over those who had had no notice, because they might already have gone and engaged the cabs. He, therefore, hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not insist on pressing the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the question before the Committee now was the exclusion of Wales. He ventured now to point out that in the division that took place a short time ago the Amendment was supported by all the Liberal Members. Every Welsh borough, with one exception, was represented by a Liberal; and, therefore, the conclusion might be drawn that all the Welsh boroughs were opposed to the Bill. The Welsh Members who were present were against the measure; and it might, therefore, be assumed that all the Representatives of Wales were against it. Under these circumstances, they had a right to expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the example of what had been done in the case of Scotland, would agree now to exclude Wales from the operation of the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

hoped that nothing of the sort would be done. He more than doubted the propriety of excluding Scotland and Ireland, and if Wales was to follow, the result would be that they would have left out of the Bill all those parts of the Kingdom in which the distances from the polling places were largest. This objection would apply strongly in the case of Wales, where, in many places, the voters had to come from a distance. He thought, under such circumstances, that it was only right to provide conveyances for them.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

had very little doubt that the Bill, if it passed, would lead to corruption. Now, they objected to be corrupted in Wales. They were a very pure and moral people. Standing in that very spot last year he had had the pleasure of stating figures to the House which proved beyond all doubt that the people of Wales were at least double as moral as the people of England. That could be proved in various ways, which, however, he would not trouble the House with now, He heartily supported the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had just spoken, stated that the boroughs of Wales were of so extensive a character, and so scattered, that the conveyance of voters to the poll in cabs was a matter of necessity. Now, as far as he was acquainted with the boroughs of Wales, he did not think that description of them was a correct one. If his hon. Friend would go down to Wales, he (Mr. Vivian) would be happy to have an opportunity of showing him that no such necessity existed. In the meantime, he hoped his hon. Friend would take his word for the fact that such a necessity did not exist. He did not forget the extremely close fight which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had in a Welsh borough at the last General Election; but what the practice was in Cardiff he was unable to say. He did know, however, that the legalizing of this practice might be used as an engine for obtaining votes; but whether the system was resorted to at Cardiff or not he was not prepared to say. The borough of Swansea was quite as large a borough as the borough of Cardiff, and there were quite as many people in it; yet his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) told them that at the time he fought a contest, six years ago, he did not find it necessary to employ cabs, and that cabs were not employed. Now, why should poor Wales have this Bill imposed upon it when Wales did not require it? He showed, last year, that Wales was far more separated from England than either Scotland or Ireland. They were a far more different people than either, and they had no wish for this Bill. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris would persist in his Amendment and divide the House, if necessary, upon the exception of Wales. He was equally strong, in a charitable sense, in hoping that England might also be excepted from the operation of the measure. He was certain that if the conveyance of voters to the poll were rendered legal it might be used as a very serious engine of corruption.

MR. SULLIVAN

had heard with the greatest astonishment the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he did not apprehend that corruption would follow from the Bill. He (Mr. Sullivan) could assert, from his own experience in canvassing at elections, that the Bill would have, for its immediate and necessary result, gross corruption. He could relate his own experience in connection with a county—not the one he had the honour to represent—in which car hire was allowed. Formerly, and not very long since, the practice was to bribe a man by buying a gooseberry bush. A candidate went to canvass a voter and gave 10 guineas for a gooseberry bush. That practice was gone now; but what remained? If they canvassed a voter, he said, "Well, there's nothing going." "Oh, no! there's nothing going," was the reply. "But I have two sons," he said, "fine slips of boys, who should be employed at the Committee Booms. Will you engage my boys? Two or three guineas a-week will be very acceptable." That was the practice now, and it was the mode of corruption that was resorted to. He might state what had happened to himself. He himself canvassed a man who said—"I have got a yoke." "Well, I wish you joy of your yoke." "But how much am I to get for the use of my yoke?" That was cab hire. Let there be no disguise about it. They were about to open the door to the grossest corruption. Every man who, like his friend, had a yoke to be hired would expect a £5 note for his yoke; and, call it what they pleased, legalizing the conveyance of voters in the way now proposed would simply be opening the door to a new system of bribery.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was sorry that he had not been present at the early part of the discussion. He found that several remarkable things had happened, one of which was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used much stronger language than he was usually in the habit of indulging in. If Scotland, Ireland and Wales were left out, this Bill would have an extraordinary look. When, in 1867, the provision in question was passed, it was thought to be a great step towards purity of election. Now, when the Government was all powerful, and could pass anything they pleased, they presented a Bill in which they admitted that Ireland and Scotland cared more for purity than England did—["No, no!"]—well, then, that they cared less for the purity of England than they did for that of Ireland and Scotland. The statement had been made that this was a step towards purity; but it was extraordinary that such a statement should have been made. They knew in a great many of the contested elections in England, the practice of employing cabs had been disused in consequence of this provision, and no one could deny that it had worked beneficially. In his own borough, in 1874, they had as sharp a contest as it was possible to have. The constituency was as near as possible polled out, from 20,000 to 22,000 recording their votes out of 24,000, and no cabs were employed on either side, and he had no doubt the election was better conducted in consequence. Of course, if this Bill were passed, cabs would be employed, and for anyone to maintain that to make this change was not going back upon the progress they had hoped to make towards purity, was one of the most inexplicable things he had ever heard of.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

ventured to say that while the employment of cabs was most objectionable, this was not the worst part of the Bill, for, speaking from his own experience, the payment of railway tickets would be a much more serious matter. This might lead to the paying of wages as well, or the giving of compensation to people coming from a distance, so that allowing payment of railway fares was, in his opinion, more dangerous than permitting the employment of cabs. The employment of cabs, in his experience, had gone out of fashion, and since 1867 cabs had not been employed, and the giving of railway tickets to out-voters had been discontinued. He knew that any appeal of his would be of no avail; but he must add his protest to that of the other Members who had appealed to the Government. They made a great parade of the provisions of the Bill which they brought in themselves in 1867, and they got great credit for the determination to introduce a new system of election. It was by them that Judges were substituted for the old Committees on Election Petitions, and that increased strin- gency of the election law had been introduced. On the whole, the changes then made had worked beneficially. He did not say that the law had not been a good deal in advance of public opinion. It had been thought a very hard law, and often proved a terror only to those who obeyed it; but, during the 13 years of its operation, public opinion had been growing. The people had become more and more used to these restrictions; the cost of elections had diminished; public purity had grown; and it was now very much to be regretted that the present Government, who so very properly introduced this amendment in the law, should now come to repeal it. The House could not but see that the time was singularly inopportune. The Government chose their own time for the Dissolution, and it might be supposed they dissolved at the moment most suitable for their own purposes. They had a right to appeal to the people at their own time, and he gave them the credit of a sincere desire to obtain the real opinion of the country. He did not think they would hold Office for one hour longer than they thought the feeling of the country was at their back. But, at the last moment, they proposed to make an important change in the machinery of elections. The Liberal Party had appealed to them to let the law stand as it was. They appealed to their generosity as a Government—to their generosity as the Party in power—to their generosity as English Gentlemen, and they said—"Do not take advantage, at the eleventh hour, of your majority to force an alteration in the law which will operate prejudicially to the eliciting of the true feeling of the country."

MR. E. JENKINS

wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General a question with regard to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman put the argument before the House that they were only passing a clause that would be of a temporary character; but he took it that this was an absolute and permanent repeal. He would like to know if that was so?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, there was some doubt whether it was not so; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not referring to that clause, but to the Corrupt Practice Act, which must be renewed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked, that then it would have the effect of being a temporary repeal, because it was a repeal of a provision in an Act which itself soon expired. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "Yes; it is a temporary provision for the next Election."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reply to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and say whether, while he permitted the employment of cabs, he would forbid the payment of railway fares. There was a difference of opinion about cabs; but he had never heard but one opinion as to the payment of railway fares. He thought it would be most unreasonable to re-introduce that practice. As the Bill was now drawn, would it permit the payment of railway fares with respect to boroughs? No answer had been given on that point, and he thought it ought to have an answer.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, the repeal was a repeal of a specific provision with regard to the conveyance of voters in cabs.

MR. MONK

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. The Bill repealed the whole of the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act, and in that would be found a provision covering the payment of railway fares. If they repealed that section, they would legalize the giving of money to a voter to enable him to obtain a conveyance to the poll. That would open a very wide door to bribery. He saw the hon. and learned Gentleman had now the clause before him, and perhaps he would now state whether that was correct or not?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

read the clause which dealt with conveyance by rail as well as by cabs and carriages.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

asked the hon. and learned Solicitor General to inform the Committee what provision existed in any statute making it illegal to pay the railway fares of out-voters, except the 36th section now read? And, would he undertake to tell the House if there was any law in existence, once that section was repealed, which would prevent any candidate paying railway fares?

MR STANTON

remarked, that he asked the hon. and learned Solicitor General that question the other night, and the hon. and learned Gentleman stated it would make no difference whether the voter was conveyed by carriage or rail.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now see that the repeal of the clause in question was not a temporary measure, like the Continuance Bill. The continuance of the Corrupt Practices Act was a temporary measure; but this repeal of a clause was permanent. Now, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had become convinced of that fact, he would see that the ground had somewhat changed. He had already performed two very graceful acts. He first exempted Scotland, then Ireland. Now let him exempt Wales. Not a single Welsh Member had asked for this Bill. After the right hon. Gentleman had performed that third graceful act, he would, by easy stages, have arrived very near the point which would be the most graceful of all, that of abandoning the Bill altogether.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it occurred to him that the change involved by this clause was much more serious than at first appeared. A clear distinction had been hitherto maintained between borough and county elections. The county representation was far more general and national than the representation of the boroughs, but this clause would tend to undermine that distinction.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he would move to report Progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this Bill was of a temporary character, and then the hon. and learned Solicitor General got up and said—"This part of the Bill is not of a temporary character, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was alluding to the Corrupt Practices Act." The Chancellor of the Exchequer was too honourable to take advantage of that argument, and he had practically admitted that he was under the impression that the Bill was only of a temporary character. In the circumstances in which the Committee was placed, the best way was to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must apologize for not having perfectly correctly stated the effect of the clause in point of repealing the Act. What was in his mind was this. The Bill they were passing was a Bill which was to continue only for a limited time. It was, therefore, obvious that it would be necessary within that time to bring the Act under the re-consideration of Parliament; and when it was again brought forward, that would be the time when any further consideration of this subject might very properly take place. He was sorry he fell into an error in speaking of the repeal of this clause as if it had been part of the Corrupt Practices Act itself. But the effect would be, as it was proposed that this Bill should be passed for a restricted period, that it would be necessary before the expiration of the time to bring the whole proceeding up for consideration. The question before the Committee, when the Motion to report Progress was made, was whether they were to exempt Wales from the operation of this Bill? There could be no possible ground for making such an exemption. The case of Wales was wholly different from that of Scotland and Ireland. The representative systems of Scotland and Ireland were under separate Acts, and it had been the practice of Parliament to deal with them by separate legislation. It was not unreasonable to suppose that the attention of these countries had not been drawn to the effects of this Bill; and in view of what had been stated by the Scotch and Irish Members, it seemed desirable to exempt these parts of the United Kingdom, and confine the Bill, as originally drawn, to England, including Wales. It would be quite preposterous, however, to exempt Wales. It would only be breaking up the Bill piecemeal. He did not exactly know upon what ground they were asked to report Progress. Was it upon the question whether they were to confine the Bill to a particular part of England and strike out Wales? If so, that was a point upon which they could make up their minds now. Or, if it was upon the question of payment of railway fares, then it was open to any hon. Member to move an Amendment; but he did not see any reason to suspend the progress of the Bill on that account.

MR. MUNDELLA

remarked, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be competent for any hon. Member to move Amendments; but he did not say that he would accept them. Payment of railway fares would open the door to the widest corruption. At the recent election at Sheffield, 9,000 voters were absent, owing to the distress in different parts of England. Would the right hon. Gentleman legalize the enormous expense which the conveyance of such a number of voters to the poll would entail? It would mean this, that they would turn their boroughs into seats for the plutocracy of the country. Surely they were not going back at this time of day to such a state of corruption! It would be open to candidates to pay poor men first-class fares as bribes for their votes. He trusted the House would not allow the Bill to pass without some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would accept an Amendment which would exempt from repeal that part of the clause which referred to the payment of railway fares.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had mentioned one reason why they should have Progress reported—namely, that the Government should have time to find out the exact meaning of the clause. Even if the Government thought it right to pass such an important change with regard to the Election, at the very last moment, when hon. Members were nearly all away, and it was impossible to have full discussion, at any rate, they ought to be well aware of what they were passing, and they should have had advice from their legal Assistants which could not be contradicted. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General would allow him to ask him this question—Was it, or was it not, the case at that moment, according to the law as it stood, that the conveyance of voters by railway in boroughs was illegal?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

replied, that if a person gave any valuable consideration to a voter with reference to his vote that was by law bribery. If it was to induce him to vote, it was not only illegal, but would invalidate the election. If a payment for the actual conveyance of a voter was made, that was only illegal under this section. The whole question turned upon what was done in bringing in out-voters. In one or two cases elections had been invalidated through bringing in out-voters, but that was because consideration had been given to the electors to induce them to vote for a particular candidate. But where nothing had been done but the mere conveying of the voter, or the mere payment of the conveyance, that was merely made illegal by the 36th section; and the repeal of that section was to render legal in all boroughs what was already legal in counties and in five boroughs.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was sorry that he should have to be so persevering in this matter. There had been a general understanding in the country that the conveyance of out-voters by railway in county elections was illegal, and that in boroughs it was not, and that the same general bribery law applied to both. He asked, if that impression was or was not erroneous?

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

remarked, that what sometimes happened in the case of county voters was that an out voter would receive first-class railway fare, and would travel third-class, and pocket the difference himself. Surely that must be regarded as bribery?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had always understood that in counties it was illegal to give actual money to voters for the purpose of paying their fares from a distance to the poll, but that it was not illegal to give them railway passes. He understood now from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that the repeal of this clause would still leave it illegal to give money to borough voters to come to the poll, but would not make it illegal to give them railway tickets. Therefore, the repeal of the clause would place borough voters in the same position as those in counties, and would add enormously to the expense of borough elections, because it would virtually compel candidates to give railway tickets in order to induce out-voters to come to the poll. Therefore, according to the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the repeal of the clause would place boroughs exactly in the same position as counties in regard to voters who were residing in out-districts.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he felt compelled to ask another Question. It was difficult to get at the exact legal meaning of the clause. He dare say it was his own fault entirely; but he was sorry to say he could not understand the exact interpretation of the law which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, especially when he compared what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said with what he had said before. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was not, however, a lawyer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a lawyer; but the right hon. Gentleman was certainly responsible for the Bill, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before they went to a division, to inform the Committee whether or not he considered, if they passed the clause, they would or would not render the conveyance in borough elections by railway legal?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

In answer to the question, I understand that we should.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General on this question took a different view from that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It was quite clear that at present, the law was this. In all the boroughs except the five excepted ones—namely, those agricultural boroughs which were supposed to be more like counties in their constitution than boroughs—it was an illegal thing to pay for the railway fare of an out-voter, and although no specific penalty was attached by statute to the illegality, he apprehended there might be ways and means found of punishing as a criminal act the illegal thing done. At all events, they were in this position. One or two or three illegal acts—or, perhaps, even 10 or 12—might be overlooked; but still the time would come when, if those illegalities were accumulated one upon another, the Election Judges, rightly enough, would consider that they could draw the inference that deliberate corruption had been committed by the systematic infringement of the law. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that if this clause went out of the Statute Book, it would in the future not be illegal to pay the railway fares of out-voters. He wished to ask if his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General differed from that view? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said "Yes" They were now considering the Motion to report Progress, and if anything could justify that Motion, it was that the Leader of the House said one thing, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General said another—or, rather, they could not make out exactly what it was, the hon. and learned Solicitor General did say. At all events, it would be only fair to give an adjournment, in order that the draftsman of the Bill could be consulted by the Government, so that the matter might be looked into, and that the law they intended to enact for the future might be made practically plain. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who always supported his Party, but, at the same, time always endeavoured to be just, had put his finger at once upon this discrepancy, and had pointed out what might be understood to be the rationale of the distinction. In the boroughs, according to the Common Law, residence was in general the qualification required. Originally borough voters were exclusively freemen; but the qualification had been enlarged by the addition of householders until it had grown to its present dimensions. In the counties the qualification was entirely different, and residence had never been insisted upon. As far as the boroughs were concerned, the consequence was that the burgesses lived within the borough and voted at their own homes. It was quite true that an occasional absence would not disqualify them from voting, if they chose to come up to the poll; but if the House allowed this clause to be repealed, they would be making a provision which would entail upon borough candidates an enormous expense for the conveyance of out-voters to the poll, and would incur the danger of introducing still greater corruption in the bringing up of voters. As far as boroughs were concerned, the law was clearly defined. Every man who paid a voter did an illegal act, and if he did an illegal act, he broke the law, and if he broke the law he did it his peril. As a rule, Englishmen did not care about breaking the law, and candidates generally set their faces against breaking it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now going to do what would be at once to make legal a thing which, for 13 years, had been made illegal at the suggestion of his own Party. The opinion on that side of the House seemed to be unanimous, and, with the single exception of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, no hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, outside the few Gentlemen on the Front Bench, had condescended to address the Committee on the subject at all.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

begged the hon. Member's pardon. He had spoken upon it.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

said, he had not the honour of hearing his hon. Friend. At any rate, for a considerable period no hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had taken part in the discussion at all, and there appeared to be some difference of opinion on the Front Bench. He had never been an Obstructionist himself, nor had he taken part in any kind of obstruction; but he thought this was a most serious matter; and, in his opinion, there ought to be an adjournment, at all events, in order that the question might be more fully considered. When the proper time came he should move the Amendment of which he had given Notice; but he thought it would be much better if, after a little adjournment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself prepared to say that, on the whole, this legislation was introduced in order to get over the cab difficulty that was said to exist in the boroughs, and was not directed to the railway question at all. The most satisfactory course would be for the Government to meet the difficulty themselves by adding a few words to the clause. He had not heard any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman justify for one moment, as a thing to be desired, the payment of these railway fares, although they had said something about assimilating the law in the boroughs to that in the counties.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

was extremely sorry that he had not been able to make himself understood to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster); but he had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to explain his view of the law, and he had thought that most hon. Gentlemen understood him. The reason he differed with the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) was this—The hon. Member stated that an Election Judge, if he came to the conclusion that the law had been persistently disobeyed, and that voters had been conveyed to the poll, might hold that, although that was a corrupt practice, it was not affected by the statute. Now, that question had deliberately come before the Judges, who gave a long judgment on the subject, and had pointed out that the operation of the clause was not of such a character as to void the seat. He was sorry that it should be understood that, in making that statement, no one could discover what his view of the law was. He did not believe that there was any difference of opinion either between himself and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question altogether turned upon the use of the word "conveyance." If they paid money to a voter to induce him to vote, and the man put the money in his pocket—in such a case as the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had pointed out—although the man did not vote at all, they had done that which was not an offence against this section, but an offence against the law of bribery and corruption. The primary meaning in the minds of the framers of the statute was that if a carriage went to a voter's door and brought him to the poll, it would not be illegal; but if they paid money to the voter himself, for securing his conveyance to the poll, or paid a voter for the hire of his carriage, that would be illegal. The case of paying the railway company, and giving the voter a ticket which had enabled him to go to the poll, would probably be in the same category as conveying the voter in a carriage from his own door. It would be the same as paying the carman the fare of the person he was to bring to the poll. Hon. Members seemed to think that there was some great difference between himself (the Solicitor General) and the hon. and learned Attorney General, because his hon. and learned Friend had expressed his opinion that there was no difference between a railway carriage and any other carriage. He (the Solicitor General) never supposed there was. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General never would have said that to give an out-voter money for the purpose of going to the poll would not have been bribery, because it had been held to be bribery, and had affected the seat on more than one occasion. That was the distinction he had endeavoured to point out.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was afraid that he was very dense, but he certainly did not yet quite comprehend the matter. When he first heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was drawing a distinction between railway passes and cab hire in this way, that the voter in the one case might be conveyed actually to the poll. But there was a remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman just now, in which he spoke of conveyance to the poll generally. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) presumed the Committee were to understand that if this clause were repealed, which did, in the Solicitor General's mind, make it illegal to convey the voter to the poll in boroughs, there would be a different state of matters, and what was illegal now would become legal?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

Exactly.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, it was difficult to understand what the hon. and learned Solicitor General really meant, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had already expressed two opposite and distinct views upon the question. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) quite understood the second opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he thought it was the right one. He ventured, however, to think from the discussion which had taken place, that the clause in the Representation of the People Act was not so nugatory nor so useless as was generally supposed. If it had not entirely stopped the employment of cabs at borough elections, it had, at all events, put an end to the giving of railway tickets for the conveyance of the out-voters to the poll. According to his own experience, that practice had actually ceased, and was never resorted to in a borough election now. He certainly never heard of a case at the last General Election. He would, therefore, venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, after the discussion which had taken place, and seeing that the clause was not so nugatory as the Committe supposed it had been—on the whole, it would not be wise now to abandon the Bill altogether?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not see that anything had occurred that made it at all desirable to abandon the Bill, or even to report Progress. The point was one which might be reserved for consideration upon the Report, as far as it related to boroughs. The main object of the Bill had been accepted by the House on the second reading, and he thought the Committee would now do well to accept and pass the clause so as to provide for the conveyance of voters from their homes to the poll. That, he took it, would be the principal effect which this section would have. With regard to the question whether it was legal to give the money to the voters to enable them to pay their fares, he had always understood that they might give railway tickets, but that they might not give money. Where a cab was employed, it was not considered wrong to offer a voter a seat in such cab; but they might not give him a shilling to enable him to hire a cab for himself. He thought that was the point which was really under consideration now, and as it was a simple one, there was no reason whatever for reporting Progress. They were perfectly in a position to proceed with the Bill, and, if necessary, they could introduce a clause on the Report to limit the section to the conveyance of voters to the poll within the boroughs.

MR. MONK

understood, from what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that no matter how large a number of the constituents of a borough might have gone to distant places, if this clause of the Representation of the People Act were repealed, it would be competent for the candidate to send railway tickets to them to enable them to return to their homes and proceed to the poll. If that were the case, he was afraid they would find that when an election was approaching, a large number of the electors would avail themselves of the opportunity of visiting their friends at a distance, in order that they might be brought back at the expense of the candidates. If the Committee assented to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, they would, in his opinion, open the door for bribery and corruption still wider, and he thought it should be their object to put an end to such practices altogether.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, with reference to the observation of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Henry Jackson) that no one on his side had risen to support the Bill, that he had already addressed the House at considerable length upon it. On reading the two statutes, he had no doubt whatever that in repealing the Act of 1867 they would place the borough voters exactly in the position they were placed in by the Act of 1863 in regard to conveyances to the poll. Under the clause now proposed by Her Majesty's Government, it would be perfectly legal to pay for the conveyance of voters by railway tickets from any part of the Kingdom to the poll. He was, therefore, glad to hear the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be better not to report Progress, but to hold out the promise of a specific section making it illegal to convey voters to the poll from places outside the borough at great distances. He agreed that to legalize such conveyance might open the door to bribery.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he should like to have it thoroughly understood whether Her Majesty's Government did hold out that promise to the House or not?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes, I do.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

would, in that case, recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee not to take a division upon his Motion for reporting Progress.

MR. E. JENKINS

remarked, that the point at issue did not arise alone upon the question of the payment of railway fares; but there was another question in regard to the duration of this clause. Before he consented to withdraw the Amendment, he wished to know whether the Government would consent to make the duration of the clause coincident with the duration of the Bill?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the proposal was not only to cover railway fares, but the hire of carriages, cabs, and conveyances of every kind.

MR. DILLWYN

remarked, that the Government, in two important particulars, had already consented to alter the Bill. They had agreed to exclude Ireland and Scotland from the operation of the measure; and in regard, to other matters, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General seemed to be unable to master the provisions of the Bill. Considerable doubts appeared to prevail in his mind, and, under those circumstances, he was of opinion that it was desirable to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It would be folly to go on now upon the assumption of the request laid down by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, that they were not to do this unconstitutional act for more than an experiment. He certainly thought they ought not to consent to replace permanently an important clause of the Representation of the People Bill, which had worked well for so many years.

MR. NEWDEGATE

hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee would not press the Amendment, because they had now a distinct promise from the Government that the objections which had been urged against the clause should be compensated, and that another clause should be introduced to meet these objections. He failed to see what further object could be gained by reporting Progress.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not seem to understand that there was a second point—namely, that this clause in a temporary Bill would replace permanently a section of the Act of 1867. He did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have made any statement in regard to that point, or that he had even promised to consider it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not see how any change could be made in that respect. What he said was that the Bill itself was a Bill of a temporary character. It would be necessary in another year, or before 1881, to review the whole question; and, therefore, this provision would be brought under consideration then.

MR. E. JENKINS

thought it should be clearly understood that, if this Bill expired in 1881, the clause of the Representation of the People Act would still remain repealed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, there would be no difficulty in inserting a clause in the present Bill to provide that the measure, which was generally looked upon as a Bill to alter the Corrupt Practices Act, should be made to expire at the same time as the Corrupt Practices Act. Nothing could be easier than to make the repeal of the clause of the Representation of the People Act expire at the same time. It was not unreasonable to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do this, because it was perfectly evident that he had brought in the Bill in the belief that the clause would expire at the same time as the Corrupt Practices Act. As that was the original intention of the Government, it was by no means unreasonable to ask them to adhere to it.

Question put, and negatived.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 47:Majority 19.—(Div. List No. 44.)

SIR HENRY JACKSON

expressed every confidence in the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but would suggest that if they could introduce a form of words in Committee, instead of leaving the Amendment for Report, it would be better and more convenient every way. Without wishing to insist on the precise praseology, he proposed that an addition should be made as follows:—"So far as regards the conveyance of voters by cabs or carriages within any borough." This would confine the operation of the repeal of the clause to that part upon which the Committee seemed agreed—that was to say, it would repeal only that part of the Representation of the People Act so far as the section in that Act prohibited the conveyance of cabs and carriages within the borough. It would not repeal the Act so far as it related to the prohibition to the conveyance of voters by railway or steamer, or the conveyance of voters from afar. Lawyers were always in favour of expressing a meaning by a Proviso; but, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said, the limitation to railway fares might be inconvenient. He wished to raise the point, and get the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, and, if possible, the principle conceded.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after the word "repealed," to add the words "so far as regards the conveyance of voters by cabs or carriages within any borough."—(Sir Henry Jackson.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, that as at present advised, he should suggest that the words "by cabs or carriages" should be struck out of the Amendment, and then it would read, "so far as regards the conveyance of voters within any borough." But he hesitated to accept the Amendment formally without some further consideration. It would be better, he thought, to bring up an Amendment on Report; but at present he could only say that, with the words to which he had referred struck out, he saw no objection to the Amendment.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

was ready to omit the words "by cabs or carriages." The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, would see the difference between his bringing up an Amendment on Report, and the Government undertaking to do so. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to have an Amendment drafted confining the repeal to what was done within the borough, then he would give his word to give no further trouble in the matter. He thought it would be more convenient and businesslike to adopt an Amendment now.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

had no objection to putting on record the intention and meaning of the clause. He would accept the Amendment in the following form:—"So far as regards the conveyance of voters within any borough." But this was with the understanding that, if found necessary, they would make an alteration on Report.

Amendment amended, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. E. JENKINS moved the addition of the words, to the words just added, "only during the continuance of this Act." This would limit the operation of the clause to the time the Act was in force.

Amendment proposed, at end of the Clause, to add the words "but only during the continuance of this Act."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

could not accept the Amendment. More than once during the discussion the condition of things had been explained. When the Act expired, the whole question must be re-considered, and this, among other subjects, must necessarily come under discussion.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

believed that when this Act expired, then that part of the old Act which had been repealed would revive.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, this did not agree with the opinion of the Solicitor General; and having so high an authority at his back, and the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) on the same side, he might well be anxious to have the matter placed beyond doubt. Would it be fair and reasonable to repeal this section suddenly, when it was adopted after two nights of discussion? It would not be right to repeal the section permanently by this single clause, and the Amendment marked the clause as one of a temporary character.

MR. CHADWICK

said, if the expiry of the clause in the temporary Act allowed the repealed clause in the old Act to revive, there was no need of the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24;Noes 39: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 45.)

MR. DODSON

put a question as to the interpretation of the Act. As he understood the case, the majority had just voted with the intention that the repeal of the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act should be a permanent repeal? In that case he would ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General's attention to the 3rd clause of the Bill, which recited that this Act, and the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, should continue in force until December 31, 1881. Then, when this Act repealing the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act expired on December 31, 1881, did not the repeal expire, and would not the 36th section be revived?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

said, this was a point which had often been before the Courts of Law, and he should hesitate to decide it. It might be argued on the one side that the repealed Act could not revive and, on the other side, it might be said that inasmuch as the repealing Act itself expired by the effluxion of time, the old Act revived. This question had been repeatedly discussed in Courts of Law since Lord Brougham's death, and he was not prepared to say how the decision would be in this instance.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, did the Government really propose to pass a Bill, leaving it absolutely uncertain, and admitting of long discussion and equally strong argument on either side, and upon which the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not express an opinion? The whole object of the Bill was to repeal this particular clause in the old Act; there was nothing else in the Bill; and yet the Government had brought it in with such a knowledge of its real meaning, that the Solicitor General said there might be endless discussions as to whether or not the clause would re-appear at the end of 1881.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

understood this was a mere academic or legal question as to the effect of the clause. But, with regard to the intent and meaning of the Bill, he could but repeat what had been said five or six times, this was a temporary Act, expiring in 1881, and the effect of that would be to bring the whole system under review before that time, and the question of the conveyance of voters would naturally arise and be considered then.

MR. DODSON

said, that might be the intention of the Government; but, in passing a Bill, the House should, as far as in them lay, express the views and intention of Parliament in passing it. It was never the intention to pass an Act concerning which the hon. and learned Solicitor General, a legal authority and Adviser of the Government, said it was a disputed point in Courts of Law, and so supported with equal argument on both sides, or, at least, by such good arguments on both sides, that he declined to give his own opinion. In view of his silence, it was a nicely balanced question, and were they to go deliberately out of their way to pass a Bill of this character? The Government were bound, at least, to insert words in the Bill to make its intention clear.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

said, this legal problem was one they were not unfamiliar with in the Courts, and over and over again it had been debated in reference to the network of Acts. But he desired to know what was the meaning of the few words in the clause fol- lowing the words "as far as unrepealed until 1881?" There was, no doubt, some latent meaning, but it was not clear to him.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)

explained that it was undesirable, as part of an Amending Act, dealing with the Corrupt Practices Act—the Act of 1871, 1879, and so forth, that they should be repealed, or allowed to expire, without protecting them by the latter part of this clause.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 36; Noes 25: Majority 11.—(Div. List, No. 46.)

Clause 3 (Continuance of Act), agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, a further Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had put upon the Paper was not in Order, and could not be put. It was not within the scope of the Bill.

DR. CAMERON

wished to move an Amendment, to leave out the expenses of conveying country voters and the payment of railway fares. In effect, the Amendment would reverse the action of the Bill; but, if it was in Order, he thought it desirable that it should be put. One argument in favour of the Bill was, that it was impossible to keep the law in an undecided state, and it had been said it was a matter of little consequence which way the law was altered; but he thought it was a matter of considerable consequence.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the objection that the Amendment would reverse the action of the Bill was fatal to it. It sought to make the effect of the measure the opposite to the form in which it came from the House, and, therefore, it was irregular.

DR. CAMERON

said, perhaps the best way would be to bring it up on Report.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.