SECOND READING. [FIRST NIGHT.]

HC Deb 24 April 1882 vol 268 cc1327-65

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Bill was one the importance of which could not be too much exaggerated. He regretted, however, that the Attorney General had not, after further consideration, introduced more alterations into the Bill, but had presented it again in much the same shape which it assumed when it was originally brought in last Session. He entirely approved of that House taking steps to put a stop to the bribery of which they had recently had such startling revelations in the Report of the Commissioners. The Act of 1854 did a good deal at first in the way of checking bribery and corruption; but the ingenuity of lawyers and of others concerned in elections subsequently enabled them to evade many of its extremely beneficial provisions. Therefore, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in bringing in another Bill to do away with the scandal which undoubtedly existed. He rose for the purpose of saying that if hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House would he guided by his advice, and that of those who sat with him, they would assent to the second reading of the Bill, in order to take a step in the right direction and stop bribery. He thought the bribery which went on was a disgrace to the age; and anything that he could do to put a stop to it he would do to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. Having said this, he should best discharge his duty by pointing out, in no captious spirit, what he considered to be serious defects in the measure. He quite concurred in the propriety of the provision which made treating an offence on the part, not of the candidate only, but of all persons who resorted to it. Nor had he any objection to that part of the Bill relating to corrupt practices, except that, in his opinion, the penalties enacted were far too severe. Indeed, he feared that by their severity the Government would defeat the very object they had in view. Where a candidate was guilty of corrupt practices in any shape—whether of bribery, treating, undue influence, or of intimidation—no punishment could be too severe for him; but the case was different with regard to acts done by agents and other persons, over whom the candidate had practically little or no control. When they came to the 4th section, where they were dealing with a candidate who had been guilty by his agents, what was the penalty they were going to impose upon him? He should never be capable of again sitting in the House of Commons for such a county or borough, and if elected such election should be void. That was a terrible penalty. The candidate might have no knowledge whatever, morally or practically; of the corruption. He might be a man who had represented the place for many years, and who had an excellent character. He thought it would be going a great deal too far to impose such a severe penalty as that. He thought that the tendency of the present age in all Criminal Law was rather to diminish than to increase the penalty. He did not want to lessen the liability of the candidate, or his agent, as it at present stood; but he was strongly against increasing it as proposed. The other candidate might be as guilty, and yet get off scot-free. He thought that undue severity would defeat its own object. Treachery might be introduced into the opposite camp; and he did not see how a man could possibly be safe against treachery. When they came to the question of illegal practices, they were introducing quite a new element into the Law of Elections. These illegal practices, although they rendered persons liable to a penalty—and, very properly, a heavy penalty—had not the same effect as corrupt practices, so far as the seat was concerned. There was a great deal which he would like to see stopped very much. It would be well to do away absolutely and entirely with paid canvassers. There was the question of conveyance of voters to the polls. He was prepared to discuss that when he came to it. Then there was the question of placards; but he did not know how, in the case of a constituency like Westminster, a man was to bring his views before the electors, except by placard, in certain cases. But, under this Bill, if a man paid for the posting of placards, he would come under the penalties. The next head related to election expenses. He approved of the attempt which the Attorney General had made to limit the expense of an election, because there was no doubt that if they allowed extravagant expenditure, somehow or other it ended in bribery or corruption, or that something was wrong. He had always appreciated the great difficulty of the House with regard to that question. It was impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast line on the subject of expenditure. The General Election in 1868 did not take place until December. What was the result? During the whole of the Recess, from the time that Parliament was prorogued to December, electioneering work went on. He addressed the people of Lancaster; but his friends came, he thought, to a very wise determination. They had one meeting immediately after Parliament broke up, and they agreed not to speak for three months. But he did not think everybody else took that course; and the expenses went on increasing during the whole of the three months. In 1874 the Election was wanted as soon as possible. It could not be said that the Elections of 1868 and 1874 were conducted with the same expenditure. He wanted to know whether all the expenditure, from the time of a Dissolution till the time of Election, which might be some months afterwards, was to be allowed? There was, of course, a very great difference on the question of election expenditure between the case of a large straggling county and that of a small borough. In fact, the circumstances of the two were as different as they could possibly be. He wanted to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the definition in Clause 55 of the time at which the expenses were to begin. He could not make out from the Bill the time when the expenditure was to begin. That time should be made absolutely clear. There never had been a rule that a candidate must not spend beyond a certain sum. But the moment they laid down a scale beyond which a candidate might not go, it was absolutely necessary that they should state in the Bill itself at what time the expenditure was to begin and when it was to end. The Bill provided that no payment or deposit was to be made by a candidate except through an election agent; but the election agent was not to be appointed until just before the election. A person might be a candidate months or years before an election took place. As to the question of expenses he was referred to the Schedules. As he read it, all the expenditure which might legally take place was contained in the Schedules—that was to say, the expenses you incurred under the 1st Schedule must be included in the 2nd. The 1st Schedule showed how many persons you might employ; and as he read the 2nd Schedule, it showed how much money you might spend. The Bill provided that there should be only one election agent. He himself would not like to pay for more than one. But take the case of a large county. How could one agent have control over what was going on in different parts of the county unless he was allowed to appoint throughout the county some persons whom he could trust? The Bill should provide that the agent should be entitled to appoint a sub-agent for each polling district, in order that his instructions might be carried out. The Bill provided that the agent might not vote; but if you employed your own solicitor to act as agent, why he could not vote he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could not understand. The Bill would prevent you from employing as agent those who were most conversant with the subject simply because they were voters. He could not help thinking that the Schedules were drawn up by some person who had had nothing to do with large boroughs or counties. With regard to the clerks and messengers that might be employed, he contended that, under the Bill, very great inequalities would arise; so that while in Westminster, for instance, 40 clerks and the same number of messengers would be employed, in East Surrey only nine clerks and nine messengers; and in Herefordshire, with a constituency of 10,000 electors, there would be 34 clerks and 34 messengers. [The right hon. Gentleman made several other comparisons between the number of clerks and messengers to be allowed in boroughs and in counties to enforce his objection to the provision of the Bill on the subject.] Again, the election agent had to make a return of expenses within 40 days from the day of election, according to the very proper provisions of this Bill. But what would be the consequence? A newly-elected Member might not sit or vote until that return had been made under penalty of £100 for every occasion on which he sat or voted; and the result would surely be that no Member would take his seat within a period of 40 days from his election, unless he felt absolutely certain that his agent had complied with the law. He submitted that in the case of a new Minister taking Office after a General Election, this part of the Act would have an absurd and unintended effect. With the provisions of the Bill by which an agent was compelled to make up his accounts within a certain time, he cordially agreed; and he held with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the concealment of election expenses was a serious offence. But while there was in the Bill much that he approved, there were matters of detail, such as the 25th clause, to which he entertained a decided objection. That clause provided— That any elector letting a committee-room for the purposes of an election, or beneficially interested in the proceeds of such letting, is prohibited from voting at the election. There was a great snare in that clause, because, in many cases, no meeting rooms could be hired for the purposes of elections, except public halls, which were usually the property of Companies; and surely it could not be intended by the framers of the Bill that the shareholders in such Companies should be disqualified for voting if meetings were held in the build- ings owned by them. These and similar details showed the imperfections of the Bill, but, were, after all, minor matters. The measure had a far more considerable defect, to which he felt bound to call attention. The authors of the Bill proposed to inflict penalties hitherto unheard of, which, he hoped, would not be allowed to be enacted in their present shape; and the worst of it all was that the Bill, while diminishing the control of a candidate over his agent, left the political character and Parliamentary prospects of the candidate to the decision of a single Judge. To such a principle he absolutely and entirely demurred. He was sure the House would never pass that. Other offences were dealt with by Courts, from which appeals were allowed; but the class of malpractices against which the Bill was directed were left to the decision of a Judge who sat without a jury, and from whose decision there was no appeal. He would give all the help he could to the passing of the Bill through Parliament; but, as at present framed, two effects would happen. It was a great snare for the innocent candidate; while the man who contested a seat, and did not happen to get it, might get off scot-free, unless a Public Prosecutor was introduced. He was very much afraid it would lead to political clubs, not in burghs, not in counties, but organizations elsewhere who had their own particular crotchets—antivaccinators and anti-vivisectionists—who would send down their agents to particular towns at election times. They would greatly increase the strength of those political agencies which some people were wicked enough to call Caucus, and the elections would not be conducted by the best men. They would also leave the candidate much more helpless than at present, unless they put some safeguards in this direction.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

pointed out that the chief expenses at elections were those of advertising, supplying committee-rooms, and of agents. In London, for instance, it was necessary to advertise in the daily papers, and such a paper as The Times could not, of course, publish an election address on the same terms as those of The Little Pedlington News. He did not see how an election could take place in a large constituency if this Bill were passed into law. In the City the rent of committee- rooms, as his hon. Friend—a late opponent—the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin) would bear him out, was enormous. In the City of London, which returned four Members, with a University vote, and had a constituency of 22,000, the cost allowed under the Bill would be £2,940, or £980 for each candidate. He wished to know, in the event of a bye-election, which was almost as costly as a General Election, whether this £980 was all that the candidate in the great constituency of the City of London would be allowed to incur? It was proposed in this measure to prohibit the use of rooms in public-houses as committee-rooms. Although he approved of this provision, it was a step which was calculated to increase the expenses of an election, as publicans granted the use of their premises at a cheaper rate than that at which they could be obtained from any other tradesman. Another cause of expense was the employment of agents. In the City there were 19 polling districts, and where there were a large number of districts an election could not be conducted without considerable expense. The defects of the Bill seemed to him to be those parts of it which dealt with the points at which he had glanced. He should be as glad as any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to see an end put to those improper and illegal practices at some elections, which, wherever they prevailed, caused disgrace. At the same time, he recognized the fact that it was a great mistake to go in advance of public opinion in this matter. Certain questionable acts public opinion did not brand as corrupt, and to punish persons who committed, them would be to enlist the sympathy of the House in their behalf. He hoped the House would seriously consider the provisions of the Bill, and when they got into Committee would materially alter and modify them. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That, considering no corruption has been proved to exist in the larger town constituencies, or in any county constituency, it is inexpedient to adopt such uniform restrictions and punishments as will render the fair conduct of an election in a great constituency perilous and penal.

MR. WARTON

, who seconded the Amendment, criticized the drafting of the Schedule of the Bill. There were, he said, some proposals in the Bill which, in his opinion, were quite impracticable. How was it possible, for instance, to pay the expenses of public meetings with such a sum as £20, or to defray the charge of postage and telegrams with £10 per 1,000? He felt quite sure that, in the large constituencies particularly, the Bill would prove useless.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering no corruption has been proved to exist in the larger town constituencies, or in any county constituency, it is inexpedient to adopt such uniform restrictions and punishments as will render the fair conduct of an election in a great constituency perilous and penal,"—(Mr. Robert Fowler,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. HINDE PALMER

approved of the spirit in which the proposed second reading of the Bill had been met by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He regarded the Bill as a great and useful attempt to remove a scandal that had for too long a period existed among the electoral body, bearing on its face an evident sense of political immorality. He believed the Bill would be open to considerable criticism when it got into Committee; but he could hardly believe the worthy Alderman hoped to carry his Amendment, which did not go to the root of the mischief. He had always thought the right principle was to lay down a distinct law, setting forth what were to be illegal and corrupt practices, and then prohibit anything like an indulgence, directly or indirectly, in those corrupt and illegal practices. The difficulty he felt in the Bill was to be found in the Schedule, which established a maximum for the expenses of all elections, according to a graduated scale. He feared it was impossible to do this. At the same time, other parts of the Bill—as, for instance, the 6th section—struck a blow at many things in detail which rendered expenses in frequent cases enormous. Again, he had an objection to that part which dealt with the solemn declaration to be made by the candidate, and filed with the election agent's account. In addition to the affidavit so provided by the Bill, he would propose that the candidate, on taking his seat, should present to the Clerk of the House a duplicate of such declaration, verifying a true statement as to the total amount of expenses. He believed that a provision to that effect would work very satisfactorily. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would take into conderation the suggestions which had been made from both sides of the House.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

regarded the Bill as unworkable, owing to the attempt of its authors to apply it to constituencies wholly diverse in their character. For example, the maximum expenditure allowed for constituencies of 20,000 was £920; but a candidate who contested Westminster, observing a reasonable calculation for the employments allowed for in the Bill, would incur an expenditure of £1,377, while in East Surrey his expenses would not exceed £769. In other matters of detail the Bill appeared equally impracticable. For instance, a man who gave a dinner to two or three friends six months before the election would, if he were known to be a candidate, be disqualified. It seemed unfair, also, that disqualification should result from the mere act of an agent for so great a length of time as the Bill provided; and that the same number of agents, messengers, and clerks should be provided for constituencies extending over large and small areas. He was not particularly interested in protecting the Licensed Victualler; but he thought that in this Bill he was extremely hardly treated. He would give one instance. Clause 37 stated that— The holder of a licence for the sale by retail of any intoxicating liquor (whether for consumption on or off the premises), who permits any act which constitutes bribery, treating, or undue influence within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts as amended by this Act, to take place upon his licensed premises, shall be guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, as the case may be. How could he possibly prevent these acts in some cases? If the words "knowingly permits" had been inserted it would have been right; but only the word "permits" was contained in the clause. In short, the Bill was full of pitfalls for candidate, agent, and voter, and made them liable to severe punishment. It would be unworkable owing to its stringency. He thought the wisest course the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could adopt would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, with orders to report to the House in three or four weeks; and it might get through this Session, after being carefully amended in Committee.

MR. CARBUTT

considered that no Bill would meet the wants of this country unless it had a clause in it to the effect that public-houses should be closed on the day of election. He had intended to move that as an Amendment, but was informed that if he were successful it would have the effect of throwing out the Attorney General's Bill, and, as that was not his wish, he did not intend to move his Amendment; still, he hoped the Attorney General would consent to a clause to that effect being inserted in the Bill in Committee. Last year he had a Bill for the purpose, and a Wednesday's Sitting was set apart for it. They did not go to a division; but he believed they would have carried it if they had. This year he wished to reintroduce the same measure; but the Motion was blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who stated that his reason for doing so was because he preferred pure beer to pure elections. It was the belief of many persons that if they closed public-houses on election days, elections would be conducted in comfort and there would be much less bribery, because it was when people got "fuddled" with beer they committed acts of bribery and corruption, for which they were punished. He had again gone through the evidence which bore upon the point, and it appeared to be conclusive as to the demoralizing effects resulting from the practice of giving away refreshments from public-houses during elections. The closing of public-houses at Newport had a marked effect in putting a stop to the riot and disorder which formerly prevailed there.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he wished to call attention to a few points which had not been touched upon by the previous speakers; and, in doing so, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would acquit him of all hostile intention towards the Bill. In his opinion, the immediate duty of the House of Commons was to apply some remedy to the mischiefs which were growing to an enormous extent at elections. He only envied the hon. and learned Gentleman his great opportunity for applying some real remedy to this present state of things. He was afraid, however, that the House was attaching more importance to that part of the Bill which referred to the amount of election expenses, than to that part of it which dealt with corrupt and illegal practices. The Bill ought, in fact, to be called, not the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, but the Parliamentary Elections (Limitation of Expenses) Bill, for that was much the more prominent portion of the Bill, and the House was likely to lose sight of the main and most important portion of the measure, which was the suppression of corrupt practices. He did not wish, on the present occasion, to say anything upon the closing of public-houses on the day of election; but when that proposal was made he should certainly oppose it. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was unfair to the Licensed Victuallers, who would be affected by that proposition, and did not see any defence for two sections of it in particular—namely, the 8th and the 38th, which affected licensed houses. He could not see why there should be a legislative prohibition against the holding of committee-rooms at public-houses. He sat for a constituency among whom, at the election, there were no committee-rooms held at public-houses; but he had also been concerned in two other elections, in which committee-rooms were held at public-houses, and his experience had been that there was no connection between the work of the committee-room and the business carried on in the public-house in which the committee-room was held. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he could only say that had been his experience; and the House should bear in mind that there were many places in which it was impossible to obtain committee-rooms except at public-houses. He was entirely disinterested, as far as his constituency was concerned; but he did not see any reason for imposing a special disqualification upon a particular trade, when it had not been rendered necessary by anything which had occurred in the course of election proceedings. But there was a still more indefensible proceeding proposed in the Bill. The 38th section provided that— Where a holder of a license for the sale by retail of any intoxicating liquor on any premises (whether the license be for consumption on or off the premises) is found guilty of any corrupt practice, either on conviction or by the report of an election court, such holder shall, in addition to any other punishment or incapacity, and if in the case of a report by an election court he has obtained a certificate of indemnity notwithstanding that certificate, be liable to forfeit his license and to be disqualified for a period not exceeding three years from holding a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors on those premises. That was making a special penalty for one trade; but let them see what the penalty was for those who were found guilty. In Section 30 there was a provision to which the attention of the House had not been called, and which, in his opinion, ought certainly to be struck out of the Bill. It was to the effect that one Judge should have the power of giving judgment on an Election Petition. The position of a Judge was already invidious enough; but this would be throwing on him a burden too heavy. Section 32 made an entire change in the duties which the Judges had to perform, and the altered position of the Judges deserved the serious attention of the House. He believed that that provision would unduly enlarge the duty of the Judge. Again, in the 12th section of the Bill, there was an unjust distinction instituted between those who were charged with illegal and those who were charged with corrupt practices. Those who were accused of illegal practices might demand to have their cases tried before the ordinary tribunal of Judge and Jury; while those charged with corrupt practices had no option given to them whatever, but might, without having any legal advice, be then and there summarily convicted, and on conviction fined a sum not exceeding £100, and be declared incapable for five years of voting, or of being put upon any registry in the United Kingdom. That was a power too large to give to any tribunal whatever, and certainly too large to be given to a single Judge. Again, the 42nd section provided that— Where an indictment for any offence under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts or this Act is removed into the High Court by a writ of certiorari issued at the instance of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General suggests on the part of the Crown that it is expedient for the purposes of justice that the indictment should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, the order that such indictment shall be so tried shall be made as of course by the High Court. A case occurred within the last few months in which the Attorney General made an application to the High Court to change the venue in a ease like that; hut the Court declined to do so, as no ground had been shown to induce it to think that the case could not be fairly tried within the local jurisdiction. The proposal, however, here was that the Attorney General, who must always be more or less a political partizan, should suo motu remove the trial of a case from one Court to another. The 36th clause contained a remarkable provision. It was to this effect—that if, within six months after an election, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or any number of the residents in any borough or county, not fewer than 10, should apply to the High Court, stating they had evidence to show that a considerable portion of the electors had been guilty of corrupt practices, the Court might then appoint a barrister, being one of Her Majesty's Counsel, as a Special Commissioner to inquire into the matter, and on proof, fine or imprison the persons so charged. If the applicants failed to substantiate their allegation, they should then pay the costs of the procedure. It was hardly likely, however, that electors would put themselves in such peril, when they could, without incurring any risk in regard to costs, go to the ordinary tribunals of the country. The expression "a considerable number" was too vague, and the power given to the Special Commissioner, whom he hoped to see swept from the Bill, was too large. A speedy and effectual means of putting an end to corrupt practices was that suggested by Lord Beacons-field in proposing the Reform Bill in 1867. The suggestion was that after an election a certain number of electors should, upon finding a security for £250, be allowed to present a Petition to the Supreme Court, stating that they had reason to believe that corrupt practices had taken place. Thereupon two Commissioners were to go down, not to try the case as between two parties, but with power to examine witnesses and to report to the House whether corrupt practices had been resorted to or not, and their Report was to be conclusive, unless it were challenged within 30 days it was laid upon the Table. If such a scheme were adopted a speedy stop would be put to corrupt practices. The real mischief at present was that the hearing of an Election Petition was the trial of a cause between two parties. Two things were a great scandal under the present system of dealing with corrupt practices. In a good many boroughs, especially those in which the representation was divided between one Liberal and one Conservative, inquiry was avoided because of the risk of disfranchisement. There were at least a dozen boroughs in the country which, if brought to the test of an Election Inquiry, would share the fate of those corrupt constituencies with which the House would, he hoped, shortly deal. The other matter was, that when a seat was attacked, and a particular case of corrupt practices was proved, the advisers of the sitting Member confessed that the election was void. By confessing that at an early period, in most cases, though not at Gloucester, the Judges had been prevented from making a Report which would lead to the discovery of extensive corrupt practices. In many cases the prevalence of corrupt practices was suppressed by both sides. If the House would only send down within a month of an election a couple of barristers, with power to examine witnesses and call for documents, their Report would seldom be challenged. He wished to make one observation with regard to canvassers. In the Schedule of the Bill he found that one election agent might be employed who might be an elector, but who could not vote. But the clerks and messengers could not be electors. He did not see any reason for that. Now that the electoral body was so greatly increased, it would be most difficult to find men who could be depended upon and who knew the place, and yet were not voters. It would be much better to deal with the question in a straightforward way. In one cathedral city he believed that as many as 800 persons were employed on one side as canvassers or poll clerks. The straightforward course would be to provide that 40 or 24 hours before the opening of the poll the agent of each candidate should send a list of the persons he had employed for reward to the Returning Officer, and that that officer should be bound to refuse the vote of every person so employed. At present the Returning Officer could not refuse the vote of such persons, although the votes would be struck out on a scrutiny. He hoped that some of the matters he had indicated might be incorporated into the Bill. It was his desire, and that of other hon. Members on that side of the House, to assist, by every means in their power, the passage of a substantial measure for the prevention of corrupt practices.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

, after expressing a hope that the House would allow the second reading of the Bill to be taken that night, said, it would, perhaps, be convenient if he were now to reply to some of the observations which had been made by the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. He felt it his duty, in the first place, to acknowledge the fairness of the tone in which the debate had been conducted, and also of the way in which the attempt of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of corrupt practices had been received. Above all, he must express his gratification at the courtesy which had been shown by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the value of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to the clauses of the Bill. He could assure the House that no Member who had taken any interest in the subject could be more sensible than he (the Attorney General) was of the difficulty of dealing with the matter. To adopt a general measure dealing with the interests of different constituencies, entirely distinct in size, differing in the density of their population, and varying in their circumstances, would be, under the most favourable circumstances, no easy task. He was sure that neither the experience nor the ability of any one Member would enable him to carry such a measure; and, therefore, every suggestion and every amendment which hon. Members representing different constituencies with different interests might wish to make would be at least accepted for the purpose of being fairly considered, and would not be objected to simply because it was an amendment of the Bill. There was, no doubt, very much in the Bill which was deserving of discussion and consideration; and if, after consideration and discussion by the House, it should be found that any clause either required alteration or should be struck out of the Bill altogether, hon. Members would find him at least ready to accept to the extent of fully considering any suggestion they might make. He trusted that, having said so much, the House would now allow him to make one or two general observations. The Bill proceeded upon two distinct lines, and had two distinct objects in view. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had said, one object was to lessen the expenses of elections, and the other was to deal vigorously, and he hoped successfully, with corrupt practices. He believed that the Bill satisfactorily dealt with the growing evil of unnecessary expenditure at elections, and that it would do a great deal in the direction of putting an end to corrupt practices. His objection to the great expenditure which it was now necessary to incur proceeded from three distinct grounds. In the first place, this large expenditure deprived the House of the services of many men who would be useful in the House; secondly, it threw an unnecessary burden upon those who were there; and, thirdly, the expenditure itself led to corrupt practices. It was almost impossible to draw a line between the expenditure that was lavish and extravagant in a great degree, and that which involved the commission of corrupt practices. One kind of expenditure led to another; and by paying a man highly and extravagantly for services rendered at elections, and by that means making it a source of great profit to him, they enlisted the services of a class of men whose minds naturally had a tendency towards corrupt practices. If they could enlist the services of volunteers, instead of these paid agents, they would get rid of the class who now set an example of corruption, and were the means of corrupting others; while, at the same time, they would obtain a much juster representation. Then, thirdly, he attached considerable importance to the changing of paid agents into voluntary services; because he entertained a great hope that if they could get rid of the influence of wealth, if they could diminish the chances of the success of a rich man as against a poor man, if they could enlist the services of volunteers, who would be actuated less by the hope of personal advantage and gain than by the enthusiasm of their political convictions, they would obtain a much truer representation in the House of Commons, and would return to the House those who would represent the majority of the people, and not so much the wealth of the country. Dealing with the subject of the reduction of expenditure, he knew there were many who felt that it was impossible to reduce the expenditure—at least, to the extent that was attempted by the present Bill. He admitted that if they were to continue to conduct elections on the system upon which they were conducted at present, there would be great force in that idea; but the object of the Bill was to alter the system on which elections were now conducted. If they were to pursue the old system of paid agents and paid canvassers, of circulating addresses in three or four different ways; if they were to continue in the large constituencies to issue 50,000 or 60,000 circulars, and to employ small armies to carry about printed addresses and notices, he was prepared to admit that no result could be produced in diminishing the expense of elections. But it was to get rid of this system that the present Bill had been introduced. He was afraid that the provisions of the measure would not meet with universal favour; but he trusted that the experience of hon. Members would induce them to admit that the worst evil of the present large expenditure was that it did not enable the country to obtain a true expression of the political opinion of the constituencies. Some assistance in considering this question would be derived from a perusal of the Return which had been presented to the House of the Expenses incurred at the last General Election. He believed that those expenses in the last Election reached a larger sum than they had ever reached in any previous General Election. In looking over the Return, hon. Members could not help seeing that the expenditure was not a matter of necessity, but rather a matter of fashion and custom. At present, it was a matter of habit to place upon the candidate many expenses which were altogether unnecessary. He would take two cases. First, the Welsh county of Montgomery. In that county there was a constituency representing 5,291 electors, and of those 4,273 polled. The unsuccessful candidate polled 2,041 votes, and expended £13,053—that was to say, he expended the sum of about £6 5s. per vote. This was the published expenditure, returned by the agents of the candidate; and he altogether failed to see what necessity there could be for such an expenditure. Turning to another county—Herefordshire—the contrast was most remarkable, and it showed what the necessary expenditure really ought to be. He found that in Herefordshire the lowest of the successful candidates polled 2,726 votes, and his expenses came to £296, or 2s. 1d. per head. How was it that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) was successful with so small an expenditure, when the candidate for Montgomeryshire was unsuccessful, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure to which he was put? The real reason was that the hon. Member for Herefordshire worked with a voluntary force. He represented the tenant farmers of the county, who set to work with willing enthusiasm. They brought their gigs and their dog-carts, and carried the voters to the poll, and they carried the election for the smallest conceivable amount of expenditure. They carried it simply by the force of public opinion. That was not the case with regard to the candidate for Montgomeryshire. He had paid agents all round him, who were not animated by enthusiasm for his cause, and who imposed black mail upon him at every stage of the contest. He had no doubt that that gentleman most reluctantly yielded to the demands made upon him, and his opponent, who was successful, also spent a very large sum indeed, showing that the excessive expenditure was simply the habit of those who conducted the election on both sides. It was quite possible to keep the expenditure within the amount provided by the Bill. In 35 of the borough constituencies, the expenditure that was returned was less than that which had been suggested by the Bill. In some eases all the candidates spent less; in some the successful candidates spent considerably less; but in 35 constituencies candidates were able to conduct their elections for an expenditure much less than that specified in the Bill. In the Metropolis itself—in Hackney and Finsbury—the successful candidates incurred expenses within the limit fixed by the Bill; and he would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) to the fact, that while the hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to contest the City of Lon- don on the scale of expenditure suggested by the Bill, it was nevertheless possible for two Members of the Government now sitting on the Bench with him (Mr. Fawcett and Mr. J. Holms) to be returned for Hackney for a sum considerably within the limit. How was it they were able to do so? It was because they appealed to voluntary support. They had no paid agencies, and no committee rooms. They told the electors that they were not going to spend money; but that, if they were returned, it would be because the electors agreed with them in political opinion, and would be prepared to return them free from all expense, except that which was strictly legitimate. How was it that one of the Members for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was able to win his election, and to poll more than 15,000 votes for an expenditure far below the sum mentioned in the Bill. He was a totally independent candidate, and he appealed as an old Member to the electors for their support. His success was entirely due to voluntary effort. Then, again, his right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) had been enabled, by means of an organization, to which reference had frequently been made—[Cries of "Oh!"]—an organization perfectly voluntary, and without any paid agency, to become successful candidates, and to carry their elections at a moderate expense, quite within the limit fixed by the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had not spent one-half the sum which would be allowed under the Bill, and yet he was successful. He might go through many other constituencies of different sizes. His right hon. Friend opposite, who sat for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), conducted his candidature on the same principle, and was equally successful. There were many other Members in the House who had been returned the same way, and without unnecessary expense. He could mention, at least, 35 cases, which proved that, with voluntary effort, this very large expenditure was altogether unnecessary. Some hon. Members thought there would be considerable difficulty in reducing their expenditure to the figure mentioned in the Bill. But the inconvenience suggested would apply to every candidate alike. The Bill dealt with no one unfairly, but left the same and equal weapons to all parties. If they found that they had to reduce the amount of their printer's bill they would find that their opponent would also find it necessary to reduce his. They would find it essential to keep the amount expended for paid agency on both sides to the same figure; and if they found it requisite to measure the length of their weapons they might depend upon it that their opponents would be placed under a similar disadvantage. They would simply be required to collect their forces with care and caution, and to rely upon voluntary effort and the strength of their political convictions, instead of trusting, as was the case in too many instances, upon the length of the purse of one candidate or the other. It was impossible to press this point too strongly upon the attention of the House—namely, the necessity of establishing an entirely new order of things. It had become absolutely essential that the present vast and useless expenditure incurred in election contests should be got rid of, and that corrupt practices should be put an end to; but, of course, the details of the Bill would have to be considered in Committee. He desired now to refer to the criticisms which had been passed upon the Bill, and especially to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out one matter, which he would assure his right hon. Friend had already engaged his attention. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the existence of an inequality in respect of a borough constituency and a county constituency, which proceeded from one or two causes. The principle he (the Attorney General) had gone upon was to make a paid agent applicable to 500 electors in one constituency, and to a polling district in another. Now, he thought there was a reason why a county, in this respect, should be treated differently from a borough. It had occurred to him that if the House of Commons preferred to have two Schedules instead of one, the principle might be met by adhering to the principle of restraining the agencies, and by acknowledging the application of a principle of difference in the case of a borough and of a county constituency. He, therefore, hoped the proposal he had intro- duced into the Bill would meet the views of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had also expressed a fear lest treacherous agents might be introduced from the camp of the enemy. He had heard a similar objection raised before; but he was of opinion that a treacherous agent existed only in theory, and never in fact. He derived his experience from the evidence given in the trial of Election Petitions; and he was prepared to say that it was next to impossible for a treacherous agent to go through an election contest without being detected, and his treachery being proved. And he ceased to be an agent directly his treachery was proved. At the present moment a treacherous agent, if undetected, could cause a Member to lose his seat; and, therefore, he had the candidate at his mercy, and every man who desired to become a Member of the House of Commons must run this risk. It was, however, a risk which was more nominal than real, and was a matter which, among other things, must be left to the Judge. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted an absolute definition of the time when a person could be said to have become a candidate. Now, he (the Attorney General) contended that that was an impossibility. They might define who was a candidate; but it was an impossibility to define when the expenses connected with an election should have commenced. Of course, the expenses must be connected with the election; but they might commence several years before a contest became probable or imminent. Expenses might be incurred long prior to the actual contest in inducing the electors to look favourably upon a particular candidate; but they would not be expenses "in and about the election." The same difficulty existed at the present moment as that which the right hon. Gentleman predicted under the provisions of the Bill. But by practice they knew what were election expenses, and what were not election expenses; and if they found that a candidate did not return what really formed part of his election expenses, then a heavy penalty was imposed upon him, which would not be imposed if the Judge came to the conclusion that they were legitimate election expenses. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a distinction should be drawn in the expenses incurred in an election campaign that was long, and another that was only short. Now, personally, he (the Attorney General) thought that the campaign of 1874 was quite long enough. What advantage could there be in having a six months' campaign? What advantage could there be in prolonging an election contest, with all its difficulties and animosities, for a period of six months? The sharper and shorter the contest was the better, and there was no satisfactory result to be attained by disturbing a constituency for six or eight months by commencing the campaign at an unnecessarily early period. There might be some justice in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the maximum expenditure allowed by the Bill; but he (the Attorney General) felt that there would be considerable advantage in fixing a maximum expenditure, and that the principle could not be abandoned by the Government. It must not be forgotten that they had a very skilful class of persons to deal with when they found it necessary to engage electioneering agents, who had always been in the habit of making money out of an election. And when they said, as they did by the Bill—"You shall only employ a certain limited number of people," there was a possibility that their directions would only be nominally obeyed, because the persons who had always been in the habit of making money out of the candidates would still be on the look-out for it. He would give an instance to explain what he meant. Suppose the candidate were to say—"I will only employ one agent and one clerk or messenger;" the agent would reply—"Well, if I am bound to employ only one person to assist me, I can only say that I will only employ one clerk or one messenger; but I will enter into a contract with a printer, and will issue 5,000 circulars, paying men for distributing them." In that way the money would be spent all the same in employing voters to deliver the circulars, and the difficulty would still exist unless Parliament fixed a maximum expenditure in the Bill. Therefore, while he was willing and anxious to meet the evils that had been pointed out, and to accept any practical suggestion that might be offered for meeting those evils—especially that which related to the unequality of fixing the same maximum for constituencies differently placed—he must ask the House to support him in laying down the principle of a maximum expenditure. He made these observations in reply to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had criticized the maximum principle, and had pointed out the effects which it was likely to produce; but he was satisfied that if the Government were compelled to give up that clause the greatest benefit of the Bill would be got rid of. At the same time he hoped the House would not suppose that he suggested that there should not be a perfectly free discussion of the matter. All he desired to point out was that unless they wished to make the Bill comparatively useless in its operation the principle of a maximum expenditure must be retained. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the penalties imposed by the Bill were too severe; and he had given as an instance, that a candidate who had all his life represented a particular constituency would, in the event of losing his seat, in consequence of the improper practices of an agent, be disqualified for ever afterwards from representing the constituency in which the offence was committed. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very great hardship that a corrupt agent should be the means of inflicting great hardship upon an innocent candidate, and that the innocent candidate should have to bear the burden of his agent's malpractices. But it must not be forgetten that penalties for this offence already existed; but that they had proved ineffective, and after an absence of a year or two the same candidate had been returned, and the same agent had been guilty of similar illegal practices. The right hon. Gentleman complained that a candidate should lose his seat for the acts of another person; but the law already said that, and the reason why it was now proposed to make the penalty more severe was that while in some cases an undoubted hardship was inflicted upon an innocent candidate, in other cases a candidate who had lost his seat for corrupt practices immediately set his agents to Work to regain it; and although without hope of regaining it in that particular Parliament, as soon as a new Parliament was summoned he was returned for the old constituency. The reason why it was now proposed that a candidate should be disqualified for life for sitting for a constituency which had been corrupted by his agent was because it was felt that if an agent knew that in the event of his being guilty of corrupt practices he would lose his candidate, he would be much less likely to resort to corrupt practices than he was now. The fact was that the inadequacy of the existing penalties had led to the introduction of the Bill; and this provision was to be defended, like the others, on the ground that it would make both candidates and agents more careful in future. The consciousness that the candidate would lose the seat for ever, if corrupt practices were established, would make the agent much more careful than he was now. He had very little more to say. He quite admitted that this was one of the matters of the very highest importance, and it ought to be discussed by the House without Party feeling, in the desire to arrive at the best possible conclusion. If it was considered that the penalty proposed by the Bill was too severe, it was open to the revision of the House; but he should certainly adhere to the opinion which he had expressed. There were many other minor matters dealt with in the Bill; but he hoped he had satisfied the House that the Government were anxious to change the present system of elections, and to cause them to be conducted in a more satisfactory manner in future. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) spoke of the difficulty connected with the sending out of circulars. He (the Attorney General) wished to get rid of the system altogether; but it was not convenient, neither would it be proper, that he should enter into a criticism of the details of the Bill upon the Motion for the second reading. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) said that a Member should be required to make a declaration, when he came to the Table to be sworn, that he had complied with the provisions of the Act. There was, however, a practical difficulty in the way of the adoption of such a provision. Forty days were allowed for the return of the election expenses; but the candidate who had been returned was allowed to take the Oath and his seat as soon as the Return to the Writ had been made. It would, therefore, not be in the power of a Member to make such a declaration until after the 40 days had expired; and he might have been sitting and voting in the House for many days before that period arrived. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had pointed out a difficulty in regard to one particular clause, and had stated that it would require alteration. The difficulty was this—that a Member might have taken his seat, and at the last moment find that an improper expenditure had been incurred through inadvertence, which incapacitated him from legally discharging his duties as a Member. He (the Attorney General) had been under the impression that the clause had been drawn so as to meet that difficulty. It had been drawn, at any rate, with that intention, and he would see that it was framed in that sense. By the 14th clause, protection was extended to Members in all cases where the expenditure had been incurred inadvertently, or through miscalculation; and where it was plain that there had been no intention of breaking through the provisions of the Act no penalty would be incurred. Any person placed in such circumstances would be at liberty to make an application to the Judge; and a discretion was allowed to the Judge which he could exercise in giving relief to any candidate or agent who might be innocent. He should have no objection to extend the provisions of the Bill even more generously than he had attempted to frame them in behalf of persons who might have offended innocently. Suggestions had also been made of an alternative character. It had been pointed out, in the course of the debate, that there were other courses that might be taken as well as those which were provided in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had referred to a suggestion made by Lord Beaconsfield in 1857 that, apart from the Election Petition, there should be power to obtain a Commission of Inquiry into the existence of corruption at previous elections. For some reason or other, a Bill upon that subject was not introduced until long after the suggestion was originally made, in 1868, when the Government of Lord Beaconsfield brought forward a Bill dealing with the question of corrupt practices at elections. By the 57th section, the view which Lord Beaconsfield had put forward was carried into effect, and provision was made that, in the event of the electors petitioning, there should be power to issue a Commission. That power had existed since 1868, and in introducing the present Bill he had considered it advisable to carry that principle still further, and to give the Election Judges and Commissions power to deal with a much wider range of questions than was at present submitted to them. There was one other point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had referred to, and that was the proposal to allow one Judge instead of two to inquire into an Election Petition. Originally the investigation was intrusted to a single Judge; but in 1879 a change was made, and it was directed that the inquiry into Election Petitions should in future be conducted by two Judges. The principal reason for the determination to revert to a system of single Judges was that it was proposed by the present Bill to cast a great many duties upon the Election Judges in investigating corrupt practices, from which they were altogether free now. As a matter of necessity, this would tend to prolong the inquiry before the Judges; and if two Judges were insisted upon he doubted whether the judicial strength of the country would be sufficient to meet the demands upon it. It was therefore proposed that they should go back to the system which prevailed previously to 1879, and which past experience proved to have worked very well. He had not succeeded in discovering that the decisions given by two Judges had been any more satisfactory than those which were given formerly by one, and there was certainly a greater sense of responsibility in one Judge than existed in the case of two. Not only the necessity of economizing the judicial strength of the country, but also the result of past experience, justified the proposal to return to the system of trying Election Petitions by one Judge only. But here, again, although he was personally in favour of a single Judge, he had no wish to press his view too strongly, if he found that the feeling of the House was against him. He thought he had now touched upon almost every subject, ex- cept one, and that was one which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). His hon. Friend had spoken strongly upon the necessity of closing the public-houses on the polling day. That was a matter which certainly required very grave consideration indeed, and in respect of which there was a great deal to be said on both sides. No one who was acquainted with the way in which elections were now conducted could fail to see that there was a great deal of force in the arguments of his ton. Friend. The great mass of the corrupt practices now resorted to took place in the public-houses. Not only did treating take place in the public-houses, or in some room adjoining, or connected with it, but bribery as well; and he was certainly of opinion that if it were practicable to compel the public-houses to close on the polling-day that they would get rid of a vast amount of the corrupt practices which took place under the roof of these houses. When the argument was used that such a provision would penalize the Licensed Victuallers, he did not believe that that view would be accepted by the Licensed Victuallers themselves—at any rate, by the respectable portion of them, who wished to conduct their business reputably. He had received a deputation from the Licensed Victuallers, and they had expressed themselves most reasonably and sensibly upon the subject. There was, undoubtedly, a great deal to be said on both sides; and they had mentioned, as a matter worthy of consideration, whether, rather than be placed under restrictive legislation, which would make them incur the risk of losing their licences in the event of any breach of the Act being committed on their premises, they would not prefer to have their premises closed altogether on the polling day. But there were other considerations which affected the question. For instance, if they were to close the public-houses on the polling day were they to close them absolutely? Was there to be no opening of the door to the bonâ fide traveller? On the other hand, was the restriction to be applied only to borough elections, because in county elections a voter frequently had to travel seven or eight miles before he reached the polling-place, and was he to be prohibited from putting up his horse at a public- house, or from obtaining anything to eat for himself? Was it intended that the operation of public-house closing should only be partial, and not general—that it should be confined to borough constituencies, and should not include the county constituencies? Then, again, another question would arise—Was the clause to be confined to Parliamentary elections, or must they have the necessity placed before them of extending the legislation to municipal contests also? If, for instance, there was a municipal election in Birmingham, and it was confined to a single ward, were they to close the whole of the public-houses in the municipality? If that were not done, there would be no advantage in closing them in one ward and in allowing them to remain open in all the others. He wished to point out these considerations to hon. Members; but he thought he was justified in saying that if such a clause were proposed the Government would be quite ready to consider it, and the objections to it would not come from that Bench. He had only one observation more to add. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), who had often bravely fought the battle of the Licensed Victuallers, no doubt from a feeling of gratitude towards them for their efforts on his own behalf, said that the legislation proposed by the Bill with regard to the Licensed Victuallers was exceptional legislation. He (the Attorney General) altogether dissented from that view. At the same time, he was prepared to admit that they had to deal with the Licensed Victuallers, in one sense, exceptionally, because it became their duty to deal with a particular class of corruption, which consisted of treating; and treating was only carried out at public-houses, because liquor was the article by which it was carried out. If treating took place with other commodities, restrictions would have to be placed on those who sold those commodities. They dealt with the evil of corruption wherever they had reason to believe that it existed. They dealt with it as far as the agents were concerned, and they dealt with it where members of his own Profession were concerned. It was the desire of the Government to deal with it wherever it was likely to be found. Why, then, were they bound to deal with the Licensed Victuallers and to have the appearance of dealing with them exceptionally? It was because treating took place in the Licensed Victuallers' houses. As he had already pointed out, if treating took place by giving a penny bun to the voter, it would be their duty to go to the confectioner's shop and to lay down the same restriction. But those who committed the corrupt practices never attempted to treat with anything but the liquor sold at the Licensed Victuallers' houses. There the evil was; and they went to the fountain head, and endeavoured to destroy it wherever they found it to exist. It was even to the interest of the Licensed Victualler himself that the evil should be dealt with; and the matter was very much in his own hands, because he could speedily put a stop to it if he thought proper. He was certain there was no honest man in the country, who knew what had taken place in certain constituencies, but must admit the necessity for passing a Bill to deal with the evil of corruption; and he hoped and believed that the House would see that the time had come when they must take upon themselves the duty of aiding the honest and thwarting the dishonest man. In that case, he felt sure it would not be long before the Bill which he now asked should be read a second time would pass into law.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he was very much in favour of a measure for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices at elections; but he was bound to say that some portions of the present Bill were too Draconian in their severity. The first provision to which he applied that remark was that which proposed to keep a candidate out of his constituency for ever on account of acts committed by his agent, of which he might know absolutely nothing, except in the legal meaning of the term. His agent might, for instance, have made a speech which he had not had the opportunity of repudiating. Surely, such an offence was too severely dealt with by excluding him for ever from the representation of his constituency. The next fault he found in the Bill was that it proposed to keep a candidate out of Parliament for 10 years who was found guilty of corrupt practices. The House should bear in mind that these clauses not only included bribery, but treating, amongst the corrupt practices on account of which a man would be precluded from sitting in Parliament. Bribery, of course, stood in a different position to other acts, because it was an offence which could hardly be committed without the cognizance of the candidate; but with regard to treating and other trifling acts of the kind, he defied the most careful candidate to prevent them. The Bill, therefore, in his opinion, was too severe in dealing with these matters. The same remark applied to what was called "undue influence," a term which raised a question of great importance in connection with Irish elections, because it was well known that it would be construed by the Irish Judges in a very different manner to that in which it would be construed by the Judges in England. He was confident that for every case of undue influence recorded against an English candidate there would be five or six against Irish candidates; and, therefore, for the reasons he had assigned, he was compelled to drop the defence of the portions of the Bill to which he had referred. It would seem that the Attorney General believed that, in all cases of corrupt practice, he would be dealing with a dishonest candidate and a dishonest constituency, but not a dishonest Judge. The latter, however, was not an impossibility; and he contended that some protection against the action of a dishonest Judge should be afforded by the Bill; and, for his own part, he did not know of any more effectual means of keeping Election Judges in order than by allowing the re-election of candidates. The clauses in question certainly appeared to him to require alteration, and, unless they were modified, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill very strongly. He would go farther, and say that Irish Members would act very unwisely if they allowed the clauses to remain in the Bill in their present form, because there was nothing whatever to prevent a Judge keeping a leader of the Irish Party out of Parliament on the plea of undue influence. It must be remembered that most of the Judges on the Irish Bench were by no means unscrupulous; and it would be a very easy matter to effect the exclusion of a candidate, because, as he had already pointed out, the term "undue influence" would be differently construed in Ireland to what it would be in England. It was, therefore, incumbent upon Irish Members to scrutinize the clauses of a Bill which gave power to any Judge to keep a candidate out of Parliament during a period of 10 years. For his own part, he hoped the clauses would be modified by the Attorney General in the direction indicated; if not, the hon. and learned Gentleman would find that he should take a very keen interest in every line of the Bill when it went into Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

trusted the Government did not propose to insist upon the second reading of the Bill at that Sitting. It was difficult to overestimate the importance of a measure that was to alter the whole system under which Members were elected to that House. But what was the occasion on which they were expected to accept the second reading of the Bill? He would not say it had taken the House by surprise, because he supposed hon. Members ought to have known that it was coming on that evening; but his own impression was that it was part of the arrangement of last week that it should be taken, not on Monday, but on Tuesday. That might have been a mistake for which he alone was to blame; but, however it might be, it was a mistake very largely shared by Members on both sides of the House, and, that being so, he thought the Government ought not to press the Motion for the second reading to a division on the present occasion. But that was not the only reason. How much time had been given to the discussion of the Bill? The second reading, he believed, was only moved at half-past 9 o'clock that evening, and hon. Members would know very well that the hours after that time were of much less value for the purpose of a debate of this kind than the hours that preceded it, and this was especially true on the day when the Prime Minister made his Financial Statement. Was it possible that the House, after listening with the closest attention to a speech by the Prime Minister of two hours in length, presenting arguments which it required the utmost stretch of the mind to follow, lucidly as the right hon. Gentleman unfolded them, should be in a condition to give the present most important Bill the attention which it required? Since the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's Statement, the House had been addressed by some of the foremost and ablest Members, and yet no one who had listened to them could doubt how flat their speeches fell upon the ears of hon. Members, and how feeble was the attention given to arguments even such as those of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke). They had also been addressed by his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill (the Attorney General), and even that speech had fallen upon a wearied and inattentive House. Under the circumstances, he trusted the discussion would be allowed to extend to another day, when the House would be able to approach it unfatigued by any previous question, and, doubtless, continue the favourable criticism which had up to that time been extended to the well-meaning measure under discussion. For these reasons, and in order to give the House an opportunity of further discussion, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the second reading would be allowed, to be taken that evening. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to consider whether it was desirable to spend another day in debating matters which could be perfectly well discussed upon the clauses of the Bill in Committee. For his own part, he did not think there would be any injustice to Members of the House in asking them to continue the discussion upon the present Motion; and he was, therefore, compelled to express a hope that the hon. Member for Hertford would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. GORST

said, he could but express his astonishment at the course taken that evening by the Government with regard to this Bill, because it was within his recollection that Tuesday next was the day appointed for the express purpose of the discussion on the Motion for the second reading. Private Members had been asked to give up their rights for the purpose of taking this stage of the Bill on Tuesday, and the day was named after a debate in which the subject was thoroughly discussed. The Bill before them was of the greatest interest to hon. Members, and the discussion which had taken place was by no means proportioned to its importance. It had certainly been a very short one, and he appealed to hon. Members in all parts of the House as to whether they would not like a further opportunity of discussing subjects upon which they could bring their own personal experiences to bear. For his own part, he was sure that if the Government would consent to adjourn the debate until to-morrow morning they would have the advantage of listening to many interesting experiences from Members of the House, who had not been able to take part in the discussion; and he believed also that the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill would receive suggestions from various parts of the House which could not but be of use when it went into Committee. His approval of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was given from no feeling of hostility to the Bill, because he had already promised his active support to a measure of this kind. He thought it well that Members who desired to address the House on the principle of the Bill should not be denied the opportunity of doing so. He believed, for instance, that the observations which his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) might make would be listened to by the House with great attention; and although he did not desire to enter into his own experiences of elections, he very much wished to offer some observations upon the principles involved in the Bill. If the debate were adjourned until tomorrow he should ask permission to do this. It was hardly possible that the debate of that evening could be prolonged to any great extent, seeing that it was then half-past 12 o'clock, and bearing in mind the speech to which they had listened at the beginning of the evening. For these reasons he hoped the Government would, out of consistency with their own desire to obtain Tuesday for the discussion of the Bill, consent to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had no hostile feeling towards the Bill. On the contrary, he only regretted that it was not retrospective in its character, because, if it were, it would clear the House of nearly half its Members. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the Bill would be better taken again to-morrow, because it related to Ireland as well as to England, and the columns both of English and Irish newspapers would be filled up with the debate on the Budget, and only a very small portion of space would be allotted to the debate on the present Bill. If the debate were adjourned until Tuesday the question would be better ventilated in the public Press, and the experience of many hon. Gentlemen in regard to elections would be added to the information already possessed by the House. While he held that the Bill was very much desired by the country, and was in an especial manner necessary for some English and Welsh constituencies, he considered that the principles of the measure required to be narrowly scanned. He had been struck by the altogether insufficient, and he might almost say the absurd reason given by the Attorney General for reverting to the practice of trying Election Petitions with one Judge only—a practice which had been condemned by the House so recently as in the year 1879. This was a question upon which he desired to address the House, and he accordingly appealed to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) to consent to the adjournment of the debate, the Motion for which, he was quite sure, was made without any intention to delay the progress of the Bill, which he was as anxious as any Member of the House to see passed, amongst other reasons, because it struck at the rich parvenus who spent money corruptly in order to obtain seats in the House. Feeling that the question ought to be fully discussed and ventilated, he suggested that the debate might be adjourned with advantage until to-morrow.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he hoped the Government would reconsider their objection to the adjournment of the debate, because he had understood that a Morning Sitting was to be taken to-morrow for the especial purpose of discussing the Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General, having courteously invited Members who had experience in electioneering matters to suggest to him Amendments by which the Bill might be improved, he would ask him how it was possible that those Amendments could be properly considered by him unless he allowed hon. Members an opportunity of giving reasons in support of them on the second reading? As he understood that the noble Marquess in moving that the House should meet to-morrow at 2 o'clock indicated that it was for the purpose of discussing this Bill, he hoped the noble Marquess would adhere to the arrangement he then made.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Certainly it is the intention of the Government that the Morning Sitting shall be devoted to the discussion of the Municipal Corporations Bill, and there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to shorten the debate if it appears to be the desire of a considerable number of Members to take part in the further discussion. What we have asked the House to do is to continue this debate a short time longer—say for an hour—and if there then appears to be a still unsatisfied desire on the part of a considerable number of Members to take part in it we should not feel justified in our opposition to the adjournment of the debate. All that we have asked the House to do is not at this somewhat early hour to adjourn the debate, but to continue to a reasonable time, and then, if it seems desirable, to adjourn the debate.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the noble Marquess, in speaking of this as an early hour, had forgotten that the House was bound by his Resolution to meet at 2 o'clock. He did not think the Government would gain any advantage by continuing this debate any further this evening. The Budget speech had been able, as it always was; but it proposed very few changes, and there was no reason for discussing it further now.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

There is nothing more difficult than to decide whether a debate should close or not; but I think, on the present occasion, we should save time by agreeing to an adjournment for one or two reasons. In the first place, considering the understanding there undoubtedly was that tomorrow was the day on which there would be a continuation of this discussion, we must bear in mind that those who are now present may be ready to go to a division; but there may be other hon. Gentlemen who have expected that the debate would be further continued. I must point out also that there is a general opinion throughout the House that not only should some measure be passed this Session for the restraint of corrupt and illegal practices, but also that the Bill of the Government furnishes a basis upon which such legislation should be founded; although, on the other hand, there may be some Amendments which it would be desirable to discuss. Those may, of course, be discussed in Committee; but I always find that a discussion on a second reading gives a good opportunity for bringing forward points that have to be considered, and I think that if there is any considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who wish to bring forward such points, it must be remembered that it was the expectation of the Government, when they first proposed a Morning Sitting for to-morrow, that this Bill would not have made such progress, and it would be necessary to go on with it to-morrow; and many Members have taken it for granted that the Business for to-morrow will be the discussion of this Bill. I think some who are not present might have reason to complain that they had not an opportunity of making speeches and suggestions which they wished to offer if that is not so. But the noble Marquess fairly says that if after another hour's discussion the House wishes to adjourn the debate he would have no objection to adjourning. According to my experience of the conduct of Business, I am of opinion that we should save time by adjourning now and seeing if we could get on with other Business. At the same time, I think the House will do well if it can come to a decision on the second reading of this Bill, because I feel that it is a Bill drawn with considerable care, and one which furnishes ground for legislation of an important character; and it is in no spirit of hostility to that Bill that I make this suggestion.

MR. BUXTON

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to an adjournment. Much had been heard this Session about the extraordinary waste of time and the amount of Business to be got through. No argument had yet been brought forward which might not have been equally well advanced in Committee; and it seemed to him that now was the time for taking the second reading. The hon. Member for Hertford had expressed some surprise at the opposition to the second reading, and he agreed with the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had given his support generally to the principles of the Bill, and the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised referred entirely to matters which might be brought forward in Committee. Many of those points were of considerable importance, and it might be well for the Government to consider them; but they were not directed against the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would press for a division.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the noble Marquess stated that undoubtedly a Morning Sitting was asked for for Tuesday to take this Bill, and it was on that understanding that hon. Members consented to the proposal. If the Government did not accede to the adjournment of this debate he wished to know whether, if the second reading was carried tonight—though he did not suppose it would be—the noble Marquess would agree to the House meeting at the usual hour to-morrow?

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he hoped the Government would consent to what was really inevitable—namely, to put off the further discussion on the second reading of this Bill until to-morrow. A fair discussion on the second reading really shortened and facilitated the discussion on the clauses in Committee; and in a Bill of this character, with so many clauses, it was exceedingly difficult when in Committee to discuss some of the clauses and, in the light of other clauses, keep within the limits of Order. It might continually happen in discussing the clauses that it was necessary to refer to other clauses, and in that way Members might run themselves against the Rules of Order, which were drawn somewhat tightly on some occasions. It would be impossible to discuss those clauses when there had been no preliminary discussion on the joint working of the clauses. He was certain the Government would lose no time by consenting to adjourning the debate until tomorrow. On the contrary, they would very likely lose time if they tried to force on the Committee stage of this Bill. The Irish Members took very great interest in the Bill for the repression of corrupt practices, because corrupt practices had been the main enemy of nationality in the Irish elections; and therefore it was from no objection to the Bill that they asked for further time, not only for the discussion of the clauses, but for the consideration of the general scope of the Bill, taking the clauses together. That was a matter upon which they claimed to have a right of speech; and although he entirely appreciated the great zeal which the Attorney General had shown in this matter, and though he was certain that it would be much appreciated in the borough of Taunton, yet he hoped that out of consideration for other boroughs, which, perhaps, did not take so great an interest in the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices, the Government would kindly consent to the adjournment of the present discussion.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I should like to assure the House that the Government have no desire to prevent the fullest discussion of this measure. The information which has been given to the House is rather scanty, and the desire to prolong the debate appears to be attributed to some hon. Members who are not here now. But enough has been said to convince the Government that considerable opposition will be offered to the progress of the Bill; and as we do not wish to have the appearance of desiring to limit the discussion of so important a measure, we shall offer no opposition to the adjournment of this debate. The Bill will be taken at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and I hope it will not be necessary to occupy the whole of the Sitting with it, but that, after the second reading, we may be able to utilize the remainder of the Sitting. The second Order will be the Municipal Corporations Bill; but that is only on a formal stage, and I hope we shall be able to proceed with the third Order, which relates to the Ballot Act.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the House would assent to the suggestion of the noble Marquess that if this debate was adjourned the whole of the Sitting to-morrow would not be taken up by the same Bill. He should not have risen except to thank the Attorney General for the way in which he had received the suggestion he himself had made; and he should give his earnest support to the Bill.

MR. W. H. SMITH

asked if the Budget Resolutions would be taken to-morrow?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, it would be convenient to take them to-morrow.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.