COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.]

HC Deb 15 May 1882 vol 269 cc680-767

[FIRST NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Corrupt Practices.

Clause 1 (What is treating).

MR. WARTON

proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "such persons," and insert the words "the agents of candidates." It appeared to him that the clause as it stood went too far. It declared that— Whereas under section four of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, persons other than candidates are not liable to any punishment for treating, and it is expedient to make such persons liable. The following portion of the section, from lines 11 to 21 inclusive, were very large and wide. They made it possible that any person, utterly unconnected with the candidate in any way whatever, who might ask another person, who might ask somebody else, and so on ad infinitum, to supply or give food or refreshment or do something else—they made it possible to punish such persons for treating, and to render the vote of the elector who accepted refreshment void. It seemed to him that the real origin of corruption must be in the candidate himself; and his object in moving this Amendment was to punish the agents of candidates for treating; but not to make any person liable who was only a partizan without having the least connection with the candidate. Under the stringent meaning of this section every such person would be liable. The hon. and learned Attorney General knew perfectly well that the doctrine of agency in election matters had been extended far beyond what was ever known before. A man was an agent for the candidate whether he liked it or not—an involuntary agent, so to speak. There were numerous cases in which a man having been seen speaking to another man was immediately converted into an agent. At present the doctrine of agency had been pushed so far that it was most undesirable to extend it further. In point of fact, a very trifling act rendered a man guilty of treating as the law now stood. Not only was a candidate, and every agent he might directly appoint, liable, but every person whom they were seen speaking to for a single moment. If the Committee really wished to strike at corruption they should strike at it by means of the candidates themselves, and those who acted as their agents. They all knew what Party feeling was at an election time; that there were men who honorably devoted themselves to the interests of the Party; and it would be a very hard thing if a person in that position, talking with a friend about the election, or treating a friend at election time, having no connection whatever with the candidate, and no interest in the election beyond the success of his own political opinions, should be held, under the stringent provisions of this section, to have rendered himself liable to punishment for treating. If they drew the line so tight they would defeat the object they had in view. It was an overstrained piece of legislation, which sought to make people too virtuous. He was satisfied that any attempt to make the people too moral would entirely fail. He looked upon such stringent legislation as ridiculous and absurd, and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "such persons," and insert the words "the agents of candidates."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry that the first Amendment proposed was one that he could not accept; but he was sure the Committee would see that it was impossible he could accept the present one. The question of treating at elections was becoming every day a more serious question; and it was extending not only to Parliamentary, but to municipal elections. Municipal elections and Parliamentary elections were made to depend on each other; and if they stopped bribery, as he hoped they would succeed in doing by this Bill, care must be taken lest those who were restrained from bribing should be driven into employing a minor method of influencing the vote, by treating. Let the Committee see what it was that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend proposed. At present no person was held to be guilty of treating or corrupt practices except the candidate or his agents. Was it not necessary to guard against persons, who might not be proved to be agents, corrupting the constituency by opening the public-houses and treating indiscriminately? His hon. and learned Friend was wrong in the interpretation he had placed upon the clause. Before it could be constituted into an offence, it was necessary that proof should be given that the treating took place for the purpose of influencing an elector to give, or to refrain from giving, his vote; and, therefore, the act of any person in paying for drink or refreshment for a friend, or influences altogether apart from the election, would not be held to be treating at all. The drink or refreshments must have been given for the purpose of influencing the vote. His hon. and learned Friend asked the Committee by legislation to declare that a man who could not be proved to be an agent might treat as much as he liked; that he might open every public-house, and corrupt the voters as much as he could; and that unless it could be shown that he was an agent his acts should not be punishable. The clause proposed to punish persons other than the candidates and agents who were guilty of treating. The treating was equally dangerous, whether the person doing it could be proved to be an agent or not. Substantially, the clause kept the law as it was; and all the Committee was asked to do was to extend the law to the acts of other persons besides the candidate and his agents.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked that upon this particular point he was unable to agree with his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Warton). He thought it was quite necessary that other persons besides the candidate and his agents should be punished if they were guilty of treating for the purpose of influencing the election. He should be much more with his hon. and learned Friend when the Committee came to deal with another part of the Bill, as to the way in which it was proposed to affect the candidate himself. There were various parts of the Bill that he entertained strong objections to; but he certainly could not support the present Amendment.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General had forgotten to read the latter part of the clause, because it went a great deal beyond influence. It applied not only to undue influence in regard to the elector, but to the Influencing of any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote, or on account of such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting at such election, or otherwise, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election. He thought that the clause was either great nonsense, or else it was one of the most stringent and tyrannical provisions he had ever read.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was the old law.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said he would come to that point by-and-bye. He wanted to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the word "influence," because it was possible to influence a man in many ways besides giving him money? They might influence a person in standing as a candidate by offering him entertainment and provisions. No definition whatever was given in the Bill of what "entertainment or provision" was. By-and-bye he should have occasion to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to some questions in regard to "entertainment and provision" in regard to electioneering matters before an election, which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would find it difficult to answer. He only wished now to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this clause, strong as the language was in which it was drawn, referred to matters before the election just as much as to those which occurred during the election. It was impossible to say whether a candidate who was asked to come down and stay at the house of a friend during the election, in order to avoid the inconvenience and expense of putting up at a hotel, might not have been participating in treating and corrupt practices. If that were not so let the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what it was that was really meant. He would take the case of a gentleman who desired to stand as a candidate, and a friend, who was an elector, said to him—"You cannot afford the expense of living at a public hotel during the time of the election; come and stay with me." If the candidate agreed to stay with his friend, it certainly might have an influence in the election; and if an Election Petition were presented against the return, both the candidate and his friends might be found guilty of corrupt practices. He did not at all mean to say that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) would be altogether right in confining the question of treating simply to the candidate and his agents; but it was quite clear that the clause, as it was drawn, was far too wide in its terms. The net of the hon. and learned Attorney General was, however, much too widely spread; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) took a division upon the subject, he (Mr. C. Bentinck) should vote with him, because he thought the Committee were invited to tread on very dangerous ground.

MR. GORST

said, the remarks of the light hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last were not confined to the Amendment now before the Committee. The simple question before the Committee was, whether treating should be applied to the candidate and his agents only, or to all persons? Upon that point he did not think there could be much difference of opinion; and he was unable to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).

MR. WARTON

intimated that he would not press the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) if he proposed to move the next Amendment in line 11, to leave out "any person," and insert "the agent of any candidate?"

MR. WARTON

said, the Amendment had reference to the same point, and he would not waste the time of the Committee by moving it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved, in page 1, line 11, after the word "who," to insert "corruptly." The Act of 1854 confined the punishment for treating to the candidates and their agents. The present clause proposed to extend the liability for treating to persons other than candidates, and it further proposed to make treating, what in point of fact it was not at present—namely, a criminal offence, and to visit it with severe and unexampled penalties. In altering the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854 for this purpose, a word of essential importance was left out, which was inserted in the Act of 1854. In the Act of 1854 treating was defined in this way—any candidate who shall "corruptly" be guilty of treating; and it had been held again and again that the word "corruptly" influenced the whole construction of the sentence. It was provided by the present clause that any person who by himself or any other person, either before, during, or after an election, was directly or indirectly guilty of treating, in order to induce a voter to give or to refrain from giving his vote, he should render himself liable to certain penalties. But the word "corruptly," which appeared in the Act of 1854, was of great importance. He would read a sentence from a judgment by Lord Blackburn, in which that noble and learned Lord said— As to this word 'corruption' it is used in connection with, treating. It does not necessarily mean wickedly, or immorally, or dishonestly, but with the object and intent of doing that which the Legislature plainly means to forbid. In fact, giving meat and drink is treating, when the person who gives it gives it with the intention of influencing the vote, and not otherwise; and in all cases where it is attempted to show that meat and drink have been given it becomes a question of fact for the Judge to find out whether the intention with which it was given is made out, and in each individual case that must stand upon its own grounds. If the word "corruptly" were not inserted the construction of the clause would amount to this—post hoc propter hoc. Wherever refreshment was given, however innocently, the heavy penalties which this section proposed to inflict for treating would be imposed. For instance, if a person met a friend on the way to the poll and said, "Come and have some lunch with me," if the invitation were accepted, notwithstanding that both might have made up their minds how they were to vote, if they did vote at the election, both of them, in consequence of this innocent act of hospitality, might be treated as felons and subjected to disqualification and severe penalties. He was sure that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could not mean to carry the clause to such an extreme length; and he would therefore ask him to insert the word "corruptly," so as to make the clause correspond with the Act of 1854.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after "who," insert "corruptly."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'corruptly' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in his view that treating was now for the first time made a criminal offence. That was not so. It was at present a criminal offence on the part of the candidate. The whole question of the legal effect of the word "corruptly" was discussed in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," which arose out of the Cambridge Election. In that case Sir Frederick Slade, innocently, and without the slightest intention of breaking the law, allowed money to be paid for the expenses of a voter at an election, and the matter was considered on an appeal to the House of Lords, and the late Lord Cranworth held that "corruptly" meant nothing, unless it meant for the purpose of procuring the vote. In that case, treating with such an object would be corrupt; but the word "corrupt" did not define the offence. It had no strict legal meaning; but it might mislead the unwary. A person could not be found guilty unless he was proved to have given drink or other entertainment for the purpose of influencing the vote. The Judges also said that the insertion of the word did no harm. Under the circumstances, he (the Attorney General) had to consider what course he ought to take. He was anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee. If the word were inserted he did not think it would do any harm, because the Judges had already held that it had, in relation to the briber, no legal effect. He would, therefore, give way if the Committee preferred that the clause should be made to agree with the Act of 1854, rather than prolong the discussion, because there was so very much more in the Bill that deserved consideration. To save time, if the Amendment were pressed, he would accept it; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that it was altogether unnecessary.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked that, although it was true some Judges were agreed that the word "corruptly" did no harm, others might say, finding the word in the Act of 1854, and expressly left out in the Act of 1882, that there must have been some intention on the part of the Legislature in omitting it, and that, therefore, they would give effect to the omission. He, therefore, thought it would be much better to restore the word.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WARTON

said, he had two Amendments to propose in the clause to provide that the guilt of treating should be confined to persons duly appointed agents, and before, during, or within 28 days after the election.

MR. ONSLOW

observed that before the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend came in he had an Amendment to propose. He wished, in the first place, to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General what he meant by the word "before?" The clause said— Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before during, or after an election," &c. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should lay down how long before an election took place corrupt practices could be supposed to have prevailed. The words as they stood were very wide, and might mean from the time of the last previous election up to the time of the next election. It might be construed to mean that if a person went down to a constituency with the desire of becoming a future candidate, when there was no election pending, and paid something for an entertainment of a very harmless character it was an illegitimate attempt to influence the constituency. There were many instances, he believed, in which candidates and the agents of candidates subscribed something towards a particular entertainment. How long before an election was that to be considered corrupt practice? Without some distinct definition the most innocent acts might be set down as connected with the election, and so falling under the head of corrupt practices. He fully admitted that certain acts, which were innocent when no election was in prospect, would become corrupt practices after a vacancy had been declared, or when a General Election had become imminent. He, therefore, thought it was advisable that the Committee should have an explanation from the hon. and learned Attorney General as to what was exactly meant by the word "before." In order to bring the matter regularly before the Committee, he would move the omission of the word "before."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "before."—(Mr. Onslow.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'before' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the word had the same meaning as it had in the Act of 1854. Section 4 of that Act contained the same word, and whatever was meant then was meant now, as the present clause was a copy of that section. He could not give a definition of the word "before." If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, the consequence would be that months and months before an election there would be open houses. The entertainments referred to by the hon. Member, when there was no election in prospect, had never been held to void an election or to affect the return. The only corrupt practices which affected the return were acts which were committed for purposes of bribery and treating. It was much better to leave every case to be dealt with according to its own circumstances. If treating took place for the purpose of obtaining votes the Judge, on the trial of the Petition, would unseat the Member. Otherwise he would not. That had been the doctrine expounded by the learned Judges on every occasion, and there had never been a complaint that any Member had been improperly unseated for treating. Each case stood by itself; and if the hon. Member insisted on the Amendment he should be compelled to oppose it. They had done very well for 28 years without any definition, and if a definition were attempted difficulties would arise.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he knew there were very great difficulties in the way of defining the extent of the word; and he felt with the hon. and learned Attorney General that it was almost impossible to alter the clause, or to attempt a definition. The difficulty, however, was a minor one in this instance, where the difficulty really arose was later on, when they came to deal with the maximum expenses. The difficulty would then become a very serious one.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he believed that the clause created a new offence altogether. The candidate himself, if he sanctioned treating, or was guilty of it himself, was, undoubtedly, liable to the penalties of the Act; but, in this case, the Committee was enlarging the penalty, and was making the candidate responsible for the act of any person who chose to treat a voter six months before the election. Therefore, he was inclined to think that the clause should be qualified in some way. As they were extending the Act of 1854, and making the candidate responsible for the acts of other persons, he thought this ought not to be permitted without a strict limitation of the responsibility.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he wished to put one point to the hon. and learned Attorney General. In all boroughs and counties they had committees for election purposes, and each of the committeemen was supposed to be an agent of the candidate—in fact, as the Attorney General knew, the Judges had always ruled so. Was he to understand that if it could be proved that any committeeman who was supposed to be an agent had spent a sovereign or two in treating, although the Member for the time being, or the candidate, might know nothing about it, the act of the committeeman might be brought up afterwards against the candidate, and the candidate, or it might be the Member, would be liable to suffer the penalties imposed by the Bill? If they made the Bill more severe than the present law, they might depend upon it that there would be many more Petitions than there were now. He was satisfied that the insertion of this little word "before" would give rise hereafter to considerable difficulty; and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General, with the great legal acumen he possessed, with the assistance of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, would be able to define what the word was to mean. If not, he was afraid that great difficulty and scandal would arise.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought the present clause should be read in conjunction with the corresponding clause of the Act of 1854, The clause of that Act provided that any person, who should corruptly do such and such acts before the election, should be liable to certain penalties. The present Bill extended the penalty, and made it a criminal offence; but it seemed to him that the two clauses, with the Amendment already accepted by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, might be made the same, with the same penalty and the same definition attached to the offence as that which was contained in the Act of 1854.

MR. WARTON

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that as they were extending the penalty they ought in some way to qualify the responsibility. Every candidate would know when he became a candidate, and would know very well whether, if he was guilty of treating, he did so with a corrupt motive. But it would be very different if he were to be rendered responsible for the acts of every zealous partisan, even before he really became a candidate, and even although the treating was done in the most innocent manner possible. The question was by no means as simple as his hon. and learned Friend seemed to suppose. Everything depended upon the person by whom the offence was committed. What he meant was this. When a man started as a candidate he knew the precise moment at which he did start, and it might be a reason why he should abstain from giving or contributing towards any public entertainment, or from giving drink to people; but a middleman, who was only a friend of the candidate, with the most innocent intentions, might very easily be caught by the stringent provisions of this section, if the Government persisted in retaining the word "before," which made it apply to acts committed long before the election. The hon. and learned Attorney General told the Committee that the clause was a copy of the section of the Act of 1854. Now, he (Mr. Warton) had the section of the Act of 1854 before him; and, without quibbling at minor alterations of small importance, he was prepared to contend that there was a very great difference indeed, especially when he came to the later part of the section. At any rate, the section of the present Bill was by no means an exact copy of the section of the Act of 1854; and he thought the Committee ought to be exceedingly careful, when the penalty was made to involve such serious consequences, how they extended the law. Under all the circumstances, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow).

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he wished to point out to his hon. and taught Friend the Attorney General that this section differed very materially from the corresponding section of the Act of 1854. The word "before," in the Act of 1854 was limited by these words—"every candidate who at an election shall before." That showed that the word "before" could only apply to the time of election, when the candidate was fairly in the field. But the present clause provided that "any person who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election," and, consequently, a far more extended meaning was given to the clause.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he would like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General if the clause was to extend to acts of private hospitality? In the North of England they were a very hospitable people; and it had been his good fortune, during the time of election, to be entertained by a personal friend. He wished to know whether, if the same thing occurred hereafter, a similar act of hospitality would render his friend liable to a penalty for treating? He believed that the object of the hospitality thus extended to him was the promotion of his election, which seemed to bring it within the words of the Bill, and made those who offered and those who shared it guilty of a "corrupt practice."

MR. GORST

said, he could sympathize with the desire of his hon. Friends on that side of the House to obtain from the Government, if possible, a definition of the time at which an election was to be considered to have commenced; but it would be impossible to give such a definition, and the ultimate determination of the point would in every case have to be left to a legal tribunal, and the Judge would have to say at what precise date the election contest began. He confessed that he was unable to see any real hardship in the provision contained in the section, either to the person accused of corrupt practices or to the candidate. Of course, any person who committed the corrupt practice of treat- ing would know very well whether he did it for the purpose of influencing votes at the election, if there was an election actually taking place or in prospect; and if it could be shown that he was not acting with a view to an immediate election, then the Judge would acquit him of any corrupt practice. In point of fact, what the candidate or any other person had been doing either before, during, or after an election would be for the Court to determine; and it would be necessary to determine each case by the particular circumstances attending it. Then in regard to the candidate himself He would not be held liable for the acts of any person until such person became his agent. He would know when the election commenced, so far as he himself was personally concerned, and whether any persons, either directly or indirectly, had been clothed by him with the character of election agents; and until the time arrived at which the contest really began, and certain persons were placed in the position of agents, he would not be liable for their acts.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought the Committee ought to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon this point. He would assume that some person had been guilty of treating before the election; that, knowing an election was likely to take place within the year some person living in the borough did treat, by asking electors to entertainments within his own house, with the intention thereby of influencing the next election. This would be done at a time when there was no election but by-and-bye an election took place, and the candidate, on going down to the borough, appointed this gentleman his election agent. The candidate might know nothing about him, or what had taken place previously, and, being in complete ignorance, he appointed him to act as his agent. Under such circumstances, was the candidate to be held responsible for acts committed by the agent years before he became a candidate?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he was clearly of opinion that, under such circumstances, the candidate would not be held responsible. He believed it never had been so held against the candidate. The liability of the candidate would always be con- fined to the acts of those whom he directly constituted his agents, or those whom he recognized as his agents, after he became a candidate. So far as he was aware, there had been no case in which a candidate had been held responsible for acts committed by any person before he became a candidate. In answer to the question of his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), he trusted—indeed, there was every reason to believe—that when his hon. Friend was entertained it was with no corrupt intention; and, therefore, it would clearly not come within the conditions of the section.

MR. CALLAN

said he believed that Members of Parliament were supposed to be candidates for the next election, so long as they continued to represent a constituency. Personally, he had not issued any address or solicited any support in his county (Louth); but he certainly intended to be a candidate again, and he might, therefore, be regarded as a candidate in expectation. Now that the Irish Members had been gratified by the removal from Office of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, he certainly proposed to go over to Ireland and visit his constituents. In all probability, he should dine every day with persons invited to meet him for the purpose of hearing his views on political matters; and he wished to know whether that would be deemed treating and a corrupt practice within the meaning of the present section? [An hon. MEMBER: Not unless the motive was a corrupt one.] Was he to understand that the word "corruptly" had been inserted in the clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Yes.

MR. CALLAN

said he had not been aware of that fact. Of course, it completely changed the aspect of affairs.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said he desired to point out that the whole of this section did not bear upon any specific candidate, as the corresponding section of the Act of 1854 did, but applied to treating by any candidate or other person in his behalf before, during, or after the election. In point of fact, it struck at all political entertainments which might be given at any time in any borough or county; and he was afraid that it might affect any meeting of a Liberal or Conservative Association given for the promotion of the objects of their respective Parties. Indeed, it might put a candidate to the trouble and expense of defending himself from charges in connection with a political entertainment given some four or five years before. For instance, it might be contended three or four years hence that the banquet recently given at Liverpool, at which the Marquess of Salisbury was present, came within the scope of the clause. The section, therefore, would require a good deal of guarding in order to prevent abuse. At the proper time he intended, himself, to propose the omission of the words "or otherwise for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election." In the meantime, he would support the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) if he pressed the Amendment, unless the Government consented to some modification of the clause, so as to make it clearly applicable to a particular election.

MR. HOPWOOD

held that any further limitation of the clause would be detrimental, and hoped that the Government would stand firmly by the section as it stood. If they adopted the Amendment the effect would be to give the briber or treater a starting point, and show him how far he might safely go in the direction of corrupt practices without voiding the election. It seemed to him that the clause was already fairly limited by the proviso that the corrupt practices must have been done for the purpose of influencing the person to whom the drink or entertainment was given. It must have been done with a corrupt motive. He admitted that there was similar looseness in defining many misdemeanors and crimes, and that many persons might, by possibility, be brought within the range of the law; but, as a matter of fact, it was not found that they were unfairly brought within it. People were very slow to commence a malicious prosecution unless there were good grounds for proceeding with it; and if any man was guilty of a corrupt practice for the purpose of influencing an election, no one would dispute that he ought to come within the four corners of the definition contained in the clause. Any further limitation, therefore, would have a disastrous effect upon the good working of the clause.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would not give way upon this point. If treating were to be made more safe it would be better to strike out the clause altogether. It would only make treating the more sure to define the times and occasions on which it might safely be resorted to. They had already inserted a safeguard in the section by providing that the treating should have been given for the purpose of corruptly influencing the vote, and that was the full extent to which they ought to be called upon to guard it.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had left the House, as he confessed that he did not understand the answer his hon. and learned Friend had given to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), because it appeared to be absolutely in conflict with the decision in a case with which the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would be quite familiar. It was alleged that the acts of a person before the election would be a corrupt practice, and must be dealt with by the Election Judge, on evidence, in the same way as any other corrupt practice. The case to which he referred was one which was actually adjudicated upon. The allegation was that the candidate had accepted the services of a particular Association without the least knowledge that corrupt practices had been committed by the Association before the election; but, nevertheless, on account of an offence committed by the Association prior to their services being accepted by the candidate, the candidate was unseated. [An hon. MEMBER: Where was it?] It was at Taunton, and the candidate was Mr. Serjeant Cox, who accepted the services of the Conservative Association of the borough, after, he regretted to say, they had been guilty of a corrupt practice. It appeared that the Association had been in the habit of paying voters, not for any real loss of time, but 5s. a head for attending the Registration Court. The Judge very justly held that that was obviously bribery and a corrupt practice; but, nevertheless, the act was committed some months before the election, and without the knowledge of the candidate himself. But the fact that it had been done by persons whoso services the candidate afterwards accepted as his agents was sufficient, in the opinion of the Judge who tried the case, to unseat Mr. Serjeant Cox. Therefore, it was evident that the decision of the Judge was entirely at variance with the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor General.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had no wish to refer especially to the circumstances of the Taunton Election alluded to by his hon. and learned Friend. He knew perfectly well that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was unseated took no part in the corrupt practice for which he was unseated. No doubt, the Conservative Association of Taunton had been dealing with matters connected with the registration before the month of September; but the payments themselves were made within one week of the polling day, and they were made by the committee who were acting as agents for the purpose of conducting the election. Further, they were payments made to voters who were not required to appear, and had not appeared, in the Revising Barrister's Court at all; but each of whom received 5s. for his supposed attendance. He had said the payments were made within a week of the polling day; but he believed that, at any rate, they were made within 14 days; and the learned Judge who tried the case held that, on proof of the agency of the Association being brought home, the payment was a corrupt payment. The case put to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was a very different one. If a person, at a time when no election was imminent, and when no candidate had been in any way recognized, committed an act which might be construed into treating, the candidate, if without adopting such acts, simply employed such person as his agent, he would not be, as far as he (the Attorney General) knew, liable for the acts of the agent before the election commenced. But the case referred to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was entirely different, and the acts then done were entirely within the scope and period of "election agency." With regard to the Amendment, he must ask the Committee to adhere to the clause as it stood. It was entirely in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1854, and he could not accept any modification of the clause which would not stand the test of examination. In this case he feared that the Amendment would not stand such a test, because he believed that the omission of the word "before" would only open the door to corrupt practices before the election, which might have a material effect upon the result of the subsequent contest.

MR. RAIKES

said, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was of opinion that the clause should not be altered, that the words which occurred after the word "before" really governed the whole matter, and the clause would be as much effective if they left out the whole of those words, and made it read— Any person who by himself or by any other person, either directly or indirectly, gives, or provides, or pays wholly or in part; and so forth. The same result would be arrived at as by retaining the three specifications inserted in the clause "before, during, or after an election." If they left out those words, and substituted words showing that the act done had reference to the election, they would operate both before, during, and after an election, and would have special reference to the act done. He certainly felt that if they retained the clause as it stood there would be very great danger in regard to the political banquets already spoken of, and a candidate might place himself in a position in which he had not hitherto been placed. It was hardly possible, he thought, to prevent those without checking the expression of public opinion either on one side or the other. He believed that most Members of the House had attended a political banquet at one time or another. He thought the Committee were fighting with a shadow in arguing about these particular words, because, after what the hon. and learned Attorney General had said, they might leave out all these words and insert something to indicate that the clause had some bearing on the election which would make it operative as to corrupt practices, and not leave the matter open to all sorts of difficulties. It might be found, if they retained the clause in its present form, that they had caught persons they had no desire to catch.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

asked if the Committee were to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) in the sense attributed to his words by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General—namely, that where a person had been guilty of a corrupt practice, and he was appointed by the candidate as an agent, such candidate would not be liable for any of the practices he might previously have been guilty of?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that an appointment made under such circumstances would not render the candidate responsible for the acts of the agent. It would be necessary to bring home to the candidate a knowledge of the agent's previous acts of corruption before he could be disqualified. But he could not be made responsible for acts of which he had never heard.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he thought the Committee ought to consider carefully the operation of the clause. It clearly had the objection that it enormously enlarged the scope of the present Act; and it had already been pointed out that the clause differed very materially from the corresponding clause of the Act of 1854, and would in no way confine the corrupt acts to the pending election. It had been suggested that some words might be introduced which would have that effect; and he would submit for the consideration of the hon. and learned Attorney General that after the word "election," in line 12, the words "in connection with or in reference to such election," might be inserted. It seemed to him that these words would have the effect of providing that the practices dealt with in the clause were connected with the election. It would be just as well to omit the words "before, during, or after" and let the clause read— Any person who corruptly by himself or by any other person in connection with or in reference to an election should commit corrupt practices.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

said, he was sorry that he could not accept the words suggested. It was, however, distinctly provided that the treating must have been for the purpose of influencing the vote of the elector.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he wished to point out another thing that was very likely to happen. Had his hon. and learned Friend considered the case of bribery at a municipal election? The candidate might innocently employ some agent in a Parliamentary election who had been guilty of corrupt practices at a municipal election; and, as the Bill now stood, the candidate would be disqualified by reason of such practices, although he might have been in total ignorance of them. By Clause 4, the candidate was to be punished for any corrupt practices committed by his election agents; and if the corrupt practices were to be any corrupt practices committed "before" an election they might have been confined entirely to a municipal contest. Consequently, if a man committed any of these offences during a municipal election, and was afterwards appointed the agent of a candidate at a Parliamentary election, the Member returned might lose his seat for what occurred at a municipal election of which he knew nothing whatever. His hon. and learned Friend would be aware that it was a common practice to employ the same agents at a Parliamentary election as those who had been employed in a municipal election. Therefore, under this Bill, it would become necessary for the candidate to know everything that went on at a municipal election. It was monstrous to retain the words "before, during, or after," because they could not be interpreted to include everything that was done at municipal elections. No one cared much what was done at municipal elections, still less did anyone care to petition; but when, by this Bill, they made what was done in the way of treating at municipal elections a corrupt practice, they might depend upon it that many a man would lose his seat in the House of Commons.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the clause was being argued on fallacious grounds. The clause applied to candidates, and others as well as agents. It proposed to put down corrupt practices by persons other than the agent. It was impossible to define the meaning of the word "before." He wished it could be defined, because he admitted that the case was open to considerable hardship. At the same time, the word could not be omitted, because, if it were, the door would be opened to all kinds of corrupt practices.

MR. WARTON

said, hitherto candidates at elections had had very respectable agents. He doubted whether, after the passing of this Act, any respectable agents would be found.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, the discussion on the clause had chiefly turned up to this upon the actions of the agents of candidates. He wished to point out that candidates would have to study their own actions a great deal more than hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine. It was a well-known fact that a very large proportion of hon. Members were very naturally the candidates at the next election. In every one of the large boroughs hon. Members were called upon frequently to subscribe to charity dinners. It could not be said that hon. Gentlemen would subscribe as munificently as they now did if they were not the Representatives of the boroughs in which the dinners were given. Who was to say that the subscriptions were not given, in great part, because the giver hoped to sit again? Was that corruptly giving "drink, entertainment, and provision" in the hope of being re-elected the Representative of the constituency, or not?

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

asked what would be the effect if a candidate subscribed towards the incidental expenses of a political banquet? Very often there were musical entertainments at political banquets, or political discussions, interspersed with song; and towards the incidental expenses of these gatherings the borough Members themselves were very frequently invited to subscribe. What would be the effect if a candidate subscribed a guinea, or a couple of guineas, towards these expenses? The reason why he asked the question was that they were dealing with motives. That was a very difficult subject to enter into; and he would like to know what the effect would be in the case he had described?

MR. GORST

said, he rose for the purpose of giving to the Committee what he thought was a simple, but a very practical reason for leaving the words unchanged, and that was that precisely the same words occurred in the statutory definition of bribery, and in the statutory definition of undue influence. It would be a misfortune if the definition of cor- rupt practices were different as to the time during which it occurred from the definition of bribery and undue influence. The words "before, during, or after an election" appeared in the clause defining other election offences; and he thought that was a very good reason why the words should not be altered.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he did not think the reason given by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) at all a good one. It was absolutely necessary that hon. Gentlemen should put their heads together, and try to come to some intelligent definition of the particular words under consideration. He maintained that provision for a person might mean accommodation in a hospital. There were large subscriptions given by hon. Members of the House, which would not be given at all only they happened to be the Members for the particular borough in which the subscriptions were raised. They never could conceal those facts, especially with regard to charities. He remembered the late Colonel Sibthorpe said that bribery was far from him, and he would never stoop to the suggestion; but who would deny him the right to exercise Christian charity? And he did exercise his Christian charity very considerably. For aught they knew, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might exercise Christian charity in the borough of Taunton; and was it to be said that, because he did exercise Christian charity, and because he relieved the suffering poor, or contributed to an hospital, he should be unseated? He and his friends felt very considerable alarm at the clause as it now stood. Political clubs were now to be found in every constituency. They were not confined to any particular Party, and large subscriptions were given towards their maintenance. Everybody knew full well that those clubs were established for influencing voters. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General attended a meeting at Burton-on-Trent at the commencement of the year; and very remarkable speeches were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by the Home Secretary. What did they hear at that time? Why, that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) had subscribed £35,000 for the purpose of establishing a Liberal Club with all modern appliances; and the Home Secretary spoke of it as the munificent benefaction of the hon. Member for Derby to the town. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had not read the last sentence of the first paragraph, or he would see that the clause went a great deal further than mere influencing, for it was said— Or otherwise for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election. Was not the club at Derby founded and fitted up with all modern appliances, and comforts, and luxuries, for the purpose of influencing voters and procuring votes? Hon. Members opposite, including one of the great stars of the Birmingham Caucus—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—who were so indignant when anything was said about influencing voters, said nothing about this great Liberal Club at Burton-on-Trent, the opening of which was attended by one of the Chief Law Officers of the Crown. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would take the opinion of the Committee upon this question; and he hoped that before the discussion was finished they would hear some more satisfactory explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown than had hitherto been vouchsafed to them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he referred to subscriptions, that he was his (the Attorney General's) Predecessor in the representation of Taunton, and when he (the Attorney General) went there he found the subscriptions to charitable institutions at a very low ebb. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken about the opening of a Liberal Club at Derby. Unfortunately for him, it was not opened at Derby at all; and there was not a Member for Burton-on-Trent.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he ought to have said the club was opened in Burton-on-Trent. Both the Liberal Members for East Staffordshire were present, and Burton-on-Trent was a considerable place in East Staffordshire.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the Committee to consider the Question before them. It was really whether the word "before" should stand or not. He admitted the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) were well-founded—that they were proposing, no doubt, a penalty in respect to the clause which did not exist before; and, so far as unseating a Member, the word "before" had always existed, and it had always received a proper construction from the learned Judges before whom Election Petitions had been heard. An act of corruption must have a direct bearing on the election, and it must be the act of the candidate himself, unless agency existed at the time the act was done. He could not consent to the omission of the word "before."

MR. WALPOLE

said, if the word "corruptly" had not been introduced in the clause, there would have been great force in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). He was a Member of the Select Committee by whom the matter was very carefully considered. The word "corruptly" governed the whole clause. If a person was guilty of what would be called treating, but did not do it corruptly, whether it was before or after, or during an election, an offence would not have been committed. If they omitted the word "before," what would happen? Why, that any person might treat any number of electors just before an election; might influence their votes by doing that; and the consequence would be that, because they had not got the word "before" in the clause, there would be no offence committed, and the very corruption they wished to guard against would immediately take place. He would submit to his hon. Friends around him that as long as they had secured the insertion of the word "corruptly," they would do wisely not to press the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

suggested that lines 19 and 20 should be left out, namely— Or otherwise for tie purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would leave out those words he would then confine the treating to inducing men to refrain from voting, and then there would be great force in retaining the word "before."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, when they got to those words he would state his views upon them.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was sorry to say his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was absent. His hon. and learned Friend was not satisfied with the assurance they had received from the Law Officers of the Crown that candidates would not suffer from the act of their agents before an election. All he wished to ask was whether, on further consideration, they could show there was a real danger of candidates suffering from the acts of their agents, the hon. and learned Attorney General would, on Report, consent to insert words to guard against the danger?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would consider any suggestion; but he could not at present hold out any promise as to what he would do.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

said, he was President of two cricket clubs, one in his constituency, and one near where he lived, who recently played against each other, and he entertained them at lunch. Many of the players might be voters. He would like to know whether that would be considered corruption?

MR. GREGORY

agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that they would open the door to every sort of corruption if they struck out the word "before." He could not help thinking that the insertion of the word "corruptly" provided all the protection needed.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, because as it stood at present it was not likely to receive any serious support. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment he (Mr. Paget) would have an opportunity of proposing the addition of the words he had. suggested.

MR. RAIKES

also suggested to his hon. Friend the wisdom of withdrawing the Amendment. If he would do that he (Mr. Raikes) would be prepared to move to leave out the words "before, during, or after an election," and then they would be able to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. Paget). They would get rid of the words "before, during, or after an election," and they would stand exactly where they did now; but it would give an opportunity for an Amendment to be moved which was regarded with considerable favour by many Members of the Committee.

MR. ONSLOW

said, when he moved to omit the word, he saw the difficulty at once. They had had a very interesting discussion, and the suggestion of his hon. Friends was one which he could safely adopt. He begged, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WARTON

said, he wanted to know exactly where they were. If the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment, would the Chairman rule that the word "either" stood part of the clause? If he did so, they would not be able to introduce the words suggested by the hon. Members for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget) and Preston (Mr. Raikes). Personally, he would like to see some such words as "in respect of any election" inserted.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the Committee unanimously agree that the Amendment may be withdrawn, then the word "either" still stands. At the present moment the question is on the word "before."

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, there was still a little misconception. The point was, whether the word "either," which came immediately before the word "before," necessarily remained part of the clause, or whether it would be competent for any hon. Member to move the omission of the word "either."

THE CHAIRMAN

If the Amendment is withdrawn by the consent of the Committee, then we are at the last decision, which is the word "corruptly."

Amendment negatived.

MR. WARTON

moved, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days," so that the clause would then read— Any person, who by himself or any other person, either before, during, or within twenty-eight days after an election," &c. That seemed a reasonable addition, yet he could hardly imagine that treating would go on 28 days after an election. Something of the kind should be inserted, and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would assent to his suggestion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, if they accepted the Amendment, treating on the 29th day after an election would be made legal. He trusted the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had quite misunderstood the Amendment, which was intended to make treating up to the 29th day after an election illegal. It showed the importance of considering these matters at length, when one so learned as the Attorney General so completely misunderstood them.

Amendment negatived.

MR. R. H. PAGET

moved to insert, after the word "election," in line 12, the words "in connection with or with reference to such election." The hon. and learned Attorney General had already pointed out that the words "for the purpose of influencing" did give the matter a certain connection with the election; but he (Mr. R. H. Paget) wished to insure that the connection should be more clear, more distinct, and that it should be placed beyond all dispute that the transaction must be "in connection with or with reference to such election." The end of the clause, which subjected any person, whether an elector or not, to the most severe penalties if he took "any such meat, drink, entertainment, or provision," did render it very necessary that there should be some kind of limitation.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, after "election," to insert "in connection with or with reference to such election."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would accept the words if he could. He believed it would be dangerous to insert the proposed words.

MR. RAIKES

said, the clause as it stood was penal, inasmuch as it provided a penalty for a particular offence, and that was an offence which candidates had not been tried for hitherto. The Judges would have no difficulty in deal- with the clause, having regard to its penal character.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he thought that before they proceeded further it would be well if the hon. and learned Attorney General would tell them what was meant by the words "meat, drink, entertainment, or provision?"

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, entertainment might mean meat, or drink, or provisions.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, it would be desirable to strike out the words, if the Attorney General could not explain their meaning. He would now move the omission of the word "provision."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "provision."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

MR. WARTON

said, the word "entertainment" seemed to be changing its meaning. Formerly it was used to mean food, drink, and forage for man and beast; but now it was employed in connection with musical parties.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WARTON

moved to omit the word "entertainment," in page 1, line 14.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WARTON

moved, in page 1, line 15, before "influencing," to insert "corruptly."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

assented to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

moved, in page 1, line 15, after "influencing," to insert "thereby."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the word; but he could not see that it would at all alter the meaning.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RAIKES

moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "or any other person." He proposed the Amendment for the purpose of putting two questions to the hon. and learned Attorney General. It seemed to him that as the clause now stood they would be prohibited from giving any refreshment to committee clerks. If that was not intended, it would be necessary to put in some words to protect them. The clause said— Any person, who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of influencing that person or any other person," &c. He presumed that if they provided refreshment for their committee clerks, they did not do it for any other purpose than to influence their election. He confessed the subject was one of importance, and he should like to have an answer from the hon. and learned Attorney General. He should also like to know if every person, whether an elector or not, who received provision or entertainment for the purpose of influencing an election was to be liable to two years' imprisonment?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "or any other person."—(Mr. Raikes.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension with regard to committee clerks. Of course, if committee clerks were given proper refreshments there could be no objection whatever. The words were those of the old Act, and they were necessary, because they must not treat A, B, and C, in order to get the vote of D.

MR. RAIKES

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

suggested that after the word "election," in page 1, line 16, it would be well to insert the words "for any particular candidate or candidates." It appeared to him that the clause as it stood was rather vague. They were about to punish people for inducing other people to give their votes. No one would care to induce people to give their votes merely for the sake of voting in the abstract, but in order to secure the return of some particular candidate. By inserting the words he suggested, they would show the people clearly what the offence was.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to insert the words "for any particular candidate or candidates."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)

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

MR. GORST

said, he thought nothing could be more calculated to lead to wholesale corruption than such a Proviso, because it would enable a man to take up his position in front of a polling booth and promise a pint of beer to every man who would come and vote, and he would bring all sorts of people to vote from other than patriotic motives.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that he did not see the force of the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as, under the existing system at the present time, people were brought up and given pints of beer; but as it did not seem to find much favour with the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

moved, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "or otherwise;" and asked what was meant by "or other wise?" A gesture or a look might be included in these words. Every turn of the body or glance of the eyes might be considered corruption. The words seemed to him unnecessary, and he thought they might be left out of the paragraph.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that these words were intended to apply to general treating rather than to particular treating. At the same time, he thought the word "corruptly" might be inserted in this part of the clause; and he would be willing to propose, in order to show that he wished to provide every safeguard, to introduce the word "corruptly," after the word "otherwise," if there was any objection to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after the words "or otherwise," to insert the word "corruptly."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'corruptly' be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought this was a very wide extension of the Act of 1854, in which there were no words to this effect. At the commencement of this evening's discussion, the hon. and learned Attorney General stated that the word "corruptly" was of no value whatever, although he consented to its insertion, and the Act would be judged of without respect to that word. That was a very wide clause, and the Committee had now extended it to the period before, during, and after an election; and that meant that every private entertainment which a gentleman might give to his political friends, would render him liable to come within the purview of the section. They had had no case submitted of any evil arising from the absence of such a provision. That was a new law, and, although they might modify the enormous penalties attached to an offence under this Act, they could not lose sight of the fact that the hon. and learned Attorney General was dealing with the matter now in the severest form; and he would ask the Committee to leave out the words— Or otherwise, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election. The Committee had dealt with the treating of voters to induce them to vote. If that was not far enough, it was a very serious matter to extend the clause to every act which a man in a political position might do, and to bring him within the meshes of this clause.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

rose to a point of Order, and asked whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee that the hon. and learned Attorney General should withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Committee might first decide upon the larger proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word "election" to the word "shall," in line 20.—(Mr. Henry S. Fowler.)

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

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

pointed out that all the other parts of the clause dealt only with electors who had votes; but if these words were left out, anyone who was bribing or treating a none-lector, in order that he might influence an elector, would not be brought within the Act.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would like some further information as to these words. There had been no suggestion of anything that was not met by the Act of 1854; and they were now embarking on a serious proposal, and they ought to be very careful in doing so. He was very much afraid of these words as they stood, and until they had more information he should be disposed to vote against the provision.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that as there was on the Whole some doubt upon this point, he would ask leave to postpone the question till Report. If a discussion was entered into now, a great deal could be said which he did not think would be conclusive. He thought the clause met all that was required, and he would ask his hon. Friend to give way upon this point.

MR. HOPWOOD

said he should be very sorry to see any words left in this Bill which destroyed its probable effect hereafter. The ways of bribing and treating were so multifarious and so nefarious that it was impossible to anticipate, them all; and to call upon the hon. and learned Attorney General to say what might be foreshadowed or aimed at by particular words, was giving him a task to which he ought not to be subjected. It was the part of the Committee here to provide that everything of a corrupt character should be dealt with. That was done by the suggested words, and he thought that the interest of any person who came before the Judges would be thoroughly guarded.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that, while he agreed with his hon. Friend that they ought to deal with cases of corrupt practices, he thought they ought to be careful not to create pitfalls, in which, men might find themselves, in consequence of the words of the Bill being so wide as to include instances that were not at all contemplated at the present moment. He was glad to see that his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) was willing to give up these words, because he did not think they were necessary.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, these words would not depend on the substance of them. He could understand that hon. Members were not desirous of creating pitfalls; he sympathized with them in that respect. He supposed that everybody would agree that treating people in a public-house was a corrupt practice for the purpose of influencing an election; but it might be difficult to prove that those persons who went into a public-house and obtained beer for a nominal sum, or for nothing at all, were voters, and that it was intended to corruptly influence. He thought the words might be judiciously modified; and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General, when he re-considered this question and brought the clause up again on Report, would retain the substance of it. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he did not think there was any real fear of a Judge holding that such hospitality as had been alluded to come within the clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General had proposed to insert the word "corruptly" before "promoting;" but he should have thought that without the word "corruptly" there would be no danger of such hospitality being brought within the Act. He did not think that any Judge would say that an entertainment of friends was intended to corruptly influence them.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not wish to embarrass the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; but he would suggest the question whether it would not be possible to omit these words?

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) seemed to be under the impression that it was necessary to show that there were voters in a public-house; but that was a mis- take. Treating was entirely different from giving a man food and drink.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WARTON

proposed to leave out the words "person whether, an." He said, these words were inconsistent with the Act of 1854, and the clause must be made consistent by saying "and every elector who accepts." He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to consider whether the omission of these words was not essential to the grammatical construction of the clause?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21,to leave out "person whether an."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed "That those words stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment. It had been made an offence to treat a person other than a voter, because he might obtain the vote of another person who was an elector. Therefore, so long as it was an offence to give a voter beer, it should be equally an offence in the case of a non-voter. There were, however, some Amendments he should be willing to make. He would propose to insert the word "corruptly" before the word "accepts."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22,after the word "who," to insert the word "corruptly."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

suggested the substitution of the word "person" for "elector."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, after the word "person," to insert "if an elector."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (What is corrupt practice).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved, in page 2, line 1, after "Parliament," to insert "or laying any wager or bet on the result of any election." The hon. Gentleman said the practice had sprung up of, instead of bribing a man, making a bet against the side of the man laying the wager. That was another mode of bribing; and it had been held that where it could be shown that a bet had been made to induce a man to give his vote, that was a corrupt practice.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 1, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "or laying any wager or bet on the result of any election."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought the hon. Member did not quite see the effect of this Amendment; for the effect of it would be, that if any person, anywhere, made a bet on any election with which he had no connection whatever, he would be guilty of a corrupt practice, and would be liable to imprisonment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Punishment of candidate guilty personally of corrupt practices 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125).

MR. WARTON

said, he had an Amendment to move in line 7, with reference to corrupt practices. It seemed to him a most unmerciful proposal that the terrible punishment named in the clause should be inflicted upon a candidate for the commission of a single corrupt practice, and therefore he wished some words to be introduced which would restrict the application of the penalty to cases in which corrupt practices had been committed to a considerable extent. He did not feel bound to the precise wording of the Amendment; all he desired was that it should be made clear that the penalty did not apply to one act only. A man might commit an act of the kind when in a state of drink, or appearances only might be against him; nevertheless, as the clause stood, he would be disqualified for 10 years for sitting in the House of Commons. In deciding whether this most severe punishment should be inflicted for the commission of a single corrupt act—and he contended that it should not—hon. Members would do well to bear in mind the sacred words, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." As he had said, he was willing that the wording of the Amendment should be changed, if necessary; and perhaps "corrupt practices to some extent" might be acceptable to the hon. and learned Attorney General. In the meantime, he begged to move the words he had offered to the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 7, to leave out "any corrupt practice has," in order to insert "corrupt practices to a considerable extent have."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. ONSLOW

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would agree to an Amendment which would carry out the object of the hon. and learned Member, even if his proposal were not accepted in its present form. For his own part, he thought the best words for the purpose would be "where corrupt practices have been proved." It certainly did seem hard that for one act of this kind alone the enormous penalties of the clause should fall upon a candidate. If what had been done during the Birmingham Elections—namely, giving breakfasts to persons who worked on the elections—had taken place under this Bill, they would not have had the two right hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the Government in the House at the present time. It seemed absurd that, because a particular individual gave a glass of beer to another, or treated him in any way, these severe penalties were to fall upon him. Moreover, one was equally liable whether a foolish thing of the kind were done by an agent, or any other person constituted his agent by becoming a member of an election committee in reference to the election, and that, in his opinion, constituted an additional reason why the clause should be modified.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken was quite mistaken as to what had occurred at Birmingham. There had been no case whatever in which any candidate, or any agent of any candidate, or any person or association on behalf of a candidate, had given any breakfasts after the election.

MR. WARTON

thanked the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) for the suggestion of words that much im- proved his Amendment, and which he thought should be substituted for the words moved.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said it would, perhaps, be more courteous to the Committee to state at once that he was quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed. It was only right that, to some extent, persons should be protected against the acts of their agents; but it must be borne in mind that the clause applied only to an act done with the knowledge and consent of the candidate.

Amendment negatived.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that the clause should be made stringent with reference to corrupt practices. He had already expressed that opinion. But he objected to the last three lines of the clause, which provided, after the infliction on the candidate of the penalty of being incapable of sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years from the date of the Report, that he was also to be Subject to the same incapacities as if, at the said date, he had been convicted on indictment of a corrupt practice. The candidate would not have been convicted by a jury; and, although it was intrusted to the Judges to determine whether the seat should be vacant, he did not think that a man ought to be subject to these penalties without conviction on trial. He begged to move the omission of the lines in question, and trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would be able to agree to his proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "void" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that candidates were only incapacitated for having been guilty, knowingly, of a corrupt practice. The question was this—If a candidate had been disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years, ought he to be allowed to vote during that period? He said no. It appeared to him wrong that a candidate guilty of corrupt practice should be allowed to vote, while a person in a more humble position was disqualified. Again, there would be no doubt that substantial justice would be done, because the candidate would always have an opportunity of being heard; and no Judge would be likely to inflict these penalties unless the candidate had knowingly committed the acts contemplated by the clause.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he did not object to the incapacities at all; he claimed for the candidate that he should be tried. Let him be tried and convicted, if guilty, and he had no objection whatever to the penalties following; but if there was no trial and conviction, he certainly objected to the penalties.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 54: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 81.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Punishment of candidate guilty by agents of corrupt practices).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "whether," leave out "a candidate," and insert "any of the candidates."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SALT

said, the object of the Amendment standing in his name was obvious. The penalties in the clause to which candidates might become liable, owing to the action of other persons, were so great that, in his opinion, it was exceedingly important that it should be made, beyond all doubt, clear that the act had been committed under the authority of the person liable to them. Having another Amendment to the clause on the Paper, he took the opportunity of saying that he considered that the penalties in the Bill were too great; and the effect of it, if passed in its present form, would be one of two things—either the best men in the country would be deterred from becoming candidates at all, or the Bill would defeat its own object, for everyone would be afraid to carry out its provisions. He would not go into any arguments in support of that view, but would simply move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, leave out "his agents," and insert "any agent (authorised in writing by himself to act on his behalf.)"—(Mr. Salt.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'his agents' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was not all indisposed to accede, in one sense, to the view taken by the hon. Member opposite with regard to the penalty in this clause. But, so far as the written authority to agents was concerned, he must point out that if candidates were protected in the manner proposed in the Amendment, they would only have to put pen and paper out of the way, and then there would be an end of their liability. Of course, he must not anticipate the next Amendment which the hon. Member proposed to move; but he might say that he was perfectly willing to give way to the feeling of the Committee on the subject of the period of disqualification. He had proceeded on the principle that the greater contained the less, and he was ready to agree to a limit of seven years if the Committee wished it. He trusted that this modification of the punishment would meet the hon. Member's Amendment, which he should be unable to agree to in the form in which it stood upon the Paper. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he trusted the hon. Member would consent to its withdrawal, inasmuch as, for the reasons advanced, it was quite impossible for him to agree to it.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he agreed in the view of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that if it were required that agents should be nominated in writing, no agents would be nominated at all. For that reason he was unable to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that with the spirit of the Amendment, and the arguments by which it had been supported, he entirely concurred. The Bill, if passed in its present form, would probably frighten the best men from becoming candidates; and he doubted whether, when the election was over, it would be put in force, because the tendency was to administer the Criminal Law in a lenient rather than in an inexorable spirit. He was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Attorney General was willing to agree to a reduction of the term of disqualification to seven years. Nevertheless, he was of opinion that the existing law went far enough, and when the time came he should certainly feel it his duty to press that view upon the Committee.

MR. GREGORY

was understood to say that he should have been glad if something in the direction of the Amendment of his hon. Friend could have been adopted. Unfortunately, in election cases the Law of Agency had been abrogated or reversed. The principle of the Law of Agency was that a man should only be liable for acts which were within the scope of the authority which he had delegated to another, much less for those which were of an illegal character; but a candidate at an election was not only made responsible for illegal acts and those which he had not authorized, but for acts of this kind committed by sub-agents whom he might have never seen, and to whom he personally might not have given any authority whatever. Before the Bill was passed, he hoped that some rule would be devised for regulating the appointment and nomination of agents, and which would limit the liability of candidates.

MR. RATHBONE

objected to the principle that candidates should be liable only for the acts of agents directly appointed by them. His opinion was that under such an arrangement any amount of corruption might exist, and the candidate would be subject to no penalty at all. Still, he thought the provision in the clause ought to be used with great care and discretion.

MR. ONSLOW

drew the attention of the Committee to the words "his agents" in line 21 of the clause. By Section 1, an agent might be some person who had committed a foolish act at a municipal election; so that a candidate might go down to a borough or county and appoint a man who had been an agent at an election in a municipality, where he had committed bribery, but of which the candidate knew nothing whatever. He put it to the Committee whether a person ought to be liable for such acts, of which he knew nothing? And, further, he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he could define the term "agent," because it was difficult for any Gentleman seeking the honour of a seat in that House to know what an agent was, or to know what foolish thing he might have committed? In many towns there were both Liberal and Conservative Associations, as well as annual municipal elections, and members of these Associations might have committed acts of treating in connection with those elections, and be subsequently placed on Parliamentary Committees. Nevertheless, the severe penalties of the Bill might fall upon the candidate for acts of which he knew nothing, because it was provided in Clause 1, that— Any person, who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, &c……shall be guilty of treating. He thought it was really necessary that gentlemen who might become candidates for a seat in the House of Commons, under such circumstances, should know who were and who were not their agents.

MR. HENEAGE

said, it appeared to him that if the clause passed, no one would ever stand for an election with another candidate, because if the latter were supported by any Association, committee, or agent, the former would be liable for their acts. An hon. Member near him said that was the case now; but that, under present circumstances, made the case rather worse. They might make the penalties as severe as they liked on those who performed corrupt acts at elections; but why make the unfortunate candidate, who knew nothing of them, liable for heavy penalties? He could not support the Amendment before the Committee, because to call a man an agent only when he was appointed in writing would, in his opinion, be absurd; still, he thought the agent ought to be appointed by the candidate, and not be agent of any Association.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he believed it would be difficult for anyone accurately to define the term "agents," so that, on the one hand, candidates should not be improperly subject to the consequences of their acts, and, on the other, that they should not be able to free themselves from the legitimate consequences of the acts of their agents. Still, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would devote his mind to the matter with a view to attaining the real object in view. He believed if the Bill had been in force in its present shape, and the same practices had occurred as had occurred during the last General Election, scarcely a Member of the House would not be liable to disqualification and heavy penalties. An incident had occurred in the course of this discussion to which he would for a moment ask the attention of the Committee. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), in support of his argument, had stated that breakfasts had been given in Birmingham at the last Elections; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had risen, and, in perfect good faith, denied that that was the fact. But, curiously enough, the document which he held in his hand contained an account of the cost of the breakfasts to which the hon. Member for Guildford had alluded. A friend of his had gone to the office of the Town Clerk, at Birmingham, for the purpose of examining some documents, and there he met with the accounts of the election expenses of Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Muntz. In those accounts there were charges for a number of breakfasts, as well as several other curious items; for instance— T. W. Wilson, £5 for creating a disturbance on the 27th of March." "All Saints' Ward, Breakfasts, £12." "St. George's Ward, Breakfasts for 166 men; 676 Sandwiches." "St. Stephen's Ward, 116 Sandwiches and 106 Cups of Coffee, 52 Breakfasts; and so on. There had clearly been many breakfasts; far more than were necessary. Another item was— Cooking for election day, and taking four rounds of beef to the Free Christian Chapel. These accounts were illustrations of acts that a candidate might become liable for through his agents; and he certainly did not wish to use them for the purpose of making any Party attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) or the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He simply pointed out that, if the Bill had been in operation at the time those breakfasts were given, they would have been liable to be for ever disqualified from sitting for the town of Birmingham in that House.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

I rise for the pur- pose of saying that I understood the allegation to be that these breakfasts were after the election.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that was not so. He had distinctly stated that the breakfasts were given by the candidates' supporters during the elections to persons who worked on the elections. He merely wished to point out, without making any observations in a Party spirit, that the practice which had existed in Birmingham would have disqualified under the present Bill everyone of the Members for Birmingham—a circumstance which showed how perfectly innocent persons would be punished; and, therefore, he trusted the Law Officers of the Crown would give their minds to the question before the Bill left the House, with a view to defining, as exactly as possible, what constituted "an agent" within the meaning of the Bill. He was quite aware of the difficulty of definition; but surely, under a Bill like this, bristling with such heavy penalties, some attempt ought to be made by the Law Advisers to define the extent of agency.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it would be very desirable, indeed, if the term "agent" could be defined, as, no doubt, agents had often caused grievous wrong to individuals. But to ask for a definition was to ask for an impossibility. A definition had been promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when the Ballot Bill was going through the House; but the right hon. Gentleman afterwards found that he had promised what it was utterly impossible for him to give. He (the Attorney General) could give no definition of the term "agent;" but he was quite willing to put the question to the test by asking any Member of the Committee to furnish him with a definition upon paper. If any hon. Member would be good enough to do that, he promised that the definition should have the fullest chance of adoption. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say one word with regard to the Birmingham Elections on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He was quite sure that the observations of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had not been made in a personal sense; but he was bound to say that his recollection of the statement of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was that it was after the election that certain persons had received breakfasts.

MR. ONSLOW

explained that what he had said was, that it was during the election, and for the purposes of the election, that the breakfasts were given. His remarks had reference to the second line of Clause 1, which made treating a corrupt practice "before, during, or after an election;" so that, according to the wording, it was quite immaterial when the breakfasts were given.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, in that case, he was sure, although he quite accepted the statement of the hon. Member, that his right hon. Friend had misunderstood the allegation. No doubt, coffee and beef during election-day were a fair refreshment that any candidate had a right to give to his clerks. He did trust that now the Committee would be allowed to proceed to a division.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he recognized the difficulty in which the hon. and learned Attorney General was placed; but, at the same time, he fully felt the force of some of the observations which had fallen from other hon. Members. They were bound to define who was an "agent." This was one of the difficulties arising out of the system of secret voting. The evil was felt in the United States; but the remedy there was the enormous size of the constituencies. In the United States they had manhood suffrage, and it was, of course, impossible to bribe the whole of the constituencies. That was how they escaped in America; but he fully appreciated the difficulty there was in escaping the evil in a small constituency, and had done so ever since he had visited America for the purpose of seeing the Ballot in operation there. He had the same feeling about it that Lord Palmerston had, and that feeling he should continue to entertain. If the Government would prevent corruption in limited constituencies, retaining the Ballot, they were bound to define "agency," and who an "agent" was. It was absolutely necessary that this should be defined if justice was to be done; and when the hon. and learned Attorney General spoke of its being impossible, his reply was—"Then, if it is so, you are to blame; you have defined the crime and the criminal; you have undertaken to punish someone whose action and re- sponsibilities you have not defined and have not the means of ascertaining." He foresaw that immense injustice would be done in limited constituencies, unless the meaning of "agents" was defined.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the Committee; but he did think that the hon. and learned Attorney General should endeavour to make some little concession on this clause. At present, the provision was excessively stringent and severe. The matter was not of such interest to him (Sir Andrew Lusk) as it was to hon. Members who had small constituencies, because in a large constituency like his there was no bribery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put a case to them, and had said he should like anyone to define what "agency" was. Well, those Members of the House who had to sit on the Magisterial Bench had every day to decide what agency was. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members demurred to that statement; but he maintained that such was the case. Day by day they had to decide whether certain individuals were agents or servants—there was no mistake about it. They had to do it. The hon. and learned Attorney General had framed the clause in such a way that he did not believe any hon. Member in the House could go through the purest contested election without there being a possibility of bringing him in—through his "agents"—guilty of bribery and corruption. He did not think it was possible to save a candidate from these dreadful penalties; he had looked carefully through the Bill, and that was the conclusion to which he had arrived. The Committee ought to look into the matter with the very greatest care. "Shall not be capable of ever being elected again," was a frightful thing to say; and he would put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General whether it would not be advisable to make the clause a little less stringent.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he appreciated the difficulty of defining "agent;" but he quite felt that unless some definition of "agency" were arrived at, every Member of the House would be in the greatest peril. In the constituency he represented (Liverpool) there were 66,000 voters and 123 or 126 polling districts; and he apprehended that in every one of these polling districts every poll clerk would be, in some sense or other, an "agent." But this was not the worst. Besides these poll clerks there were other clerks and messengers employed; and he feared that, under the Bill as it at present stood, he would have to be responsible for the acts of all such people engaged on his own side. He certainly thought that if they were to maintain the tone and character of the House of Commons, it must be done by maintaining the honour of men who were anxious to do their duty faithfully, and to put down bribery as far as possible. Whet would be the consequence if Parliament made them responsible for the acts of men over whom they had no control, and whom they had charged in every possible way to be guilty of no act of bribery and corruption—if Parliament exposed candidates to the penalties of this legislation for the wrong acts of such people? Why, there would hardly be a Member whom it would not be possible to unseat. There should be a clause inserted in the Bill to the effect that if it could be proved that an agent had committed a wrong act without the consent or against the express orders of the candidate, the candidate should be absolved from the consequences of that wrong act. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would put every Member and every candidate in peril. It was a dangerous thing to throw on a large number of men the power of turning out a candidate at any time. The hon. and learned Attorney General had told them of the difficulties of the situation; but he was increasing those difficulties by increasing the responsibilities of a candidate—by making the candidate responsible for the acts of so many people in such things as treating.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was no alteration whatever in the law in that respect. According to the present law, treating by an agent would unseat a man. He made no alteration in this respect, or in this clause, except as to the term during which a candidate was disqualified.

MR. WHITLEY

But you are increasing very much the responsibility of the candidate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No, no.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that according to his reading of the existing law and the present Bill, the new proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would very much extend the responsibility of a candidate for the acts of his agents.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that with the exception of the term during which a candidate could be disqualified from sitting in the House—upon which he should be willing to meet the Committee—there was no alteration of the present law in the clause.

MR. WHITLEY

By this clause a candidate would be disqualified from sitting for life.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

The clause is going to be modified in that respect.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he was glad to hear that, because, at present, it was a most serious thing; but he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General ought to go farther than that, and make some attempt in some way or other to define "agency."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I wish you could do it.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that to leave the word undefined would be a most perilous thing. No one would go to a greater length in the punishment of bribery than himself. He had no sympathy whatever with those who bribed or treated; but still the Bill would throw on a candidate an enormous responsibility for a thing he might have done everything in his power to prevent, and the matter was a serious one that every Member of the Committee ought most carefully to consider. The question was not one to be discussed from any Party point of view. The integrity of the House was dear to every Member of the House, and he should, therefore, regret exceedingly to see any division on the Bill taken on Party grounds. He did not believe the hon. and learned Attorney General had brought forward the Bill in any Party spirit, and he should be exceedingly sorry if his Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House dealt with it as a Party measure. Let it be their earnest desire on all sides to make the Bill a practical measure that would punish, and severely punish, the briber and the man who treated and corrupted a constituency; and he would ask the Committee to consider very carefully indeed whether they should go farther than that, and, in punishing the candi- date for the act of his "agents," punish one who was entirely innocent, and had done all he could to discourage bribery.

MR. GORST

said, everyone would agree that it would be a very good thing if they could define "agency" in the Bill; but he thought almost everybody must be convinced of another thing—namely, that such a definition was impossible. He did not see that any Member of the House had succeeded in putting on the Paper an adequate definition of "agency." He himself had attempted to define it, but had not been successful in his endeavour. It seemed, therefore, inevitable that the question who was, or who was not, an agent, would have to be left to be dealt with by the Election Court—just as the worthy Alderman who had just spoken (Sir Andrew Lusk) dealt with it in his Court—according to the facts of each particular case. With regard to the responsibility which was imposed on a candidate for the acts of his agents, everyone had always felt that there was something very hard in making a candidate at an election liable for what was done by persons whom he had not appointed, whom he could not control, and of whose conduct he was, to some extent, ignorant. No doubt, they were obliged to make the candidate responsible so far as the validity of the election was concerned, because, if they did not, people would bribe and treat right and left, avoiding direct connection with the candidate. In this respect the clause did not make a candidate one bit more responsible for the acts of his agents than he had been for the last 20 years. The law as to the responsibility of a candidate for the acts of his agents—in fact, in this Clause 4—was exactly the same as that which had prevailed for the past 20 years, the only difference being that it made the consequences to the candidate of the illegal acts of his agents far more serious than they had hitherto been. The hon. and learned Attorney General was willing to discuss with the Committee the desirability of modifying the provision affecting these consequences; therefore, it did not seem to him (Mr. Gorst) that there was any reason why they should any longer delay the progress of the Bill by discussing the question of agency, which no one was in a position to solve. He might, however, say that when the proper time came, he should propose some words in the clause to mitigate still further the consequences which the illegal act of an agent had on the validity of an election; because it had always seemed to him, and he thought it seemed also to other people, unreasonable that an election which had been fairly conducted in other respects, and in which every possible precaution had been taken by a candidate and those who managed affairs for him to keep it pure, should be voided, and the constituency put to the trouble and expense of a fresh election by one or two isolated acts of corruption. The Election Judges, when unseating a Member, had been known to state that they regretted very much being obliged to do that when they knew very well the man had won his election very fairly. Therefore, when the proper time came, he should bring forward a proposal to the effect that, though primâ facie a corrupt act by an agent should void an election, if the candidate could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had exercised every care in the appointment of his agents and the condnct of the election, and if the Court was satisfied that the corrupt acts proved had not affected the result of the election, the Member should still retain his seat.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the difficulty arose not so much from the difficulty of defining what an election agent was, but from the fact that the agent who at Common Law could only make his principal liable when he acted within the scope of his authority, in election matters could make him responsible even where he acted in the teeth of the directions he had received. The reason why candidates were made responsible for the acts of their agents in this way was this, that the relations between the two parties in election matters were not the same as the relations between them for the ordinary purpose of contracts only. An election was a matter concerning the public interest, not an affair between the candidate, a party to a contract, with someone on the other side. It was a contract, if at all, between the candidate and the public, an undertaking by him to the public that the election should be conducted in a pure manner, according to law; and if that contract or undertaking was violated, the law, upon public grounds, held the candidate liable for the acts of his agent. This was very hard indeed on the candidate, and sometimes on the constituency also, who might have set their minds on a particular candidate—a large majority of whom might have properly returned him—while its will had been defeated by the acts of a few corrupt persons. [An hon. MEMBER: It might be only one act.] That was so. It might be only one act committed by one corrupt person. He thought they might do this—they might mitigate the severity of the law as it affected not only the candidate, but the constituency. He was sorry the hon. and learned Attorney General was leaving the House, for he had had a conversation with him on this matter. He forgot whether he had discussed the question with the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but he had talked over the term during which a candidate should be disqualified with the Attorney General, and his hon. and learned Friend had agreed to limit the period to 10 years. [An hon. MEMBER: Seven years.] Well, seven years; he hoped the period would be limited still further. He would suggest that later on they should add the Proviso at the end of the clause, which was embodied in the words the hon. and learned Solicitor General proposed before the Select Committee of 1875, of which both he and his hon. and learned Friend were Members—namely, That if, on the whole of the evidence, the Judge is satisfied and is able affirmatively to find that the election was a pure one, and that the instances of bribery and corruption have been exceptional only, and have not been such as would have affected at all the result of the election, the Judge shall not unseat the Member. He was sorry he had not been able to give the hon. and learned Attorney General Notice of this, which had not struck him until this afternoon; but the idea was not new, at least to one of the Law Officers of the Crown, as he had intimated. He did not know whether his hon. and learned Friend had altered his views; but he intended to make this proposal, and he would now only say, with regard to the term of disqualification, that he was glad the Attorney General intended to save him the necessity of proposing his Amendment, of which he had given Notice, by accepting his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) proposal in even a more lenient form.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, the Committee were obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) for having brought to their notice the hon. and learned Solicitor General's opinion. If the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury had not drawn attention to this opinion, however, he (Mr. Grantham) had intended to do it. It was impossible to define "agency." Before the last General Election, Members had been unseated for the smallest acts of treating, although those acts had been in contravention of the orders of the candidate; and it was very hard that when a candidate had done all he could to make an election pure, he should not only lose it through the act of an agent, but be held responsible for the consequences of the thoughtlessness of that person. He had intended himself to bring forward some such proposal as that which had passed through the mind of the hon. and learned Solicitor General some years ago. Where they were obliged to leave it to a Judge to determine whether a man was an agent or not, they ought also to leave it to the Judge to say what should be the effect of his act. If they left it with the tribunal to judge in the one matter, they should leave it also with the tribunal to judge in the other. The Judge should be called upon to say, first, whether corrupt practices had been proved or not; and, if they had, then what was the heinousness of the offence. Where the door was so wide, the Judge should have some discretionary power to say whether the whole penalty, or only a portion of it, should be inflicted. He hoped the Law Officers of the Crown would take this matter into their consideration again. He fully agreed with hon. Members as to the difficulty of defining the word "agent;" but he certainly thought they should leave it to the Judge to say whether the effect of conduct that was proved against an appointed agent ought to bring on the candidate the heavy penalty it was proposed to inflict.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had informed the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that they had followed the Act of 1854; but if they had followed that Act, they would not now have found themselves in this difficulty. In the Act of 1854 the word "agent" was in the singular. It said no candidate should be guilty of corrupt practices "by himself or agent directly or indirectly." It was an easy thing to prove whether or not a person was "the" agent or not. The present Bill contained the words "any candidate and his agents by him appointed." Therefore, in saying he had followed the Act of 1854, the hon. and learned Gentleman was going a little beyond the mark, having put "agent" in the plural. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the word being used in the singular, the difficulty would be got over. When the time came, he (Captain Aylmer) would move the omission of the letter "s" from the word "agents."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that would be no use, as there was an Act in force which would put in all the "s's," unless it was shown that they were not consistent with the context.

MR. SALT

said, that, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had declared his intention of making some important alterations in the measure, and as they would come under consideration almost directly, he proposed to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, an Amendment of his was next in order, after the word "agents" in line 21. The House, he thought, had not taken notice of the case where a candidate was entirely in the hands of his agent, and where the agent went in an entirely opposite direction to all the candidate's instructions, wishes, and principles.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he thought the hon. Member was referring to an Amendment which came after one he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had on the Paper.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, that was not the case. There was a case actually within his own knowledge where an agent, for his own purposes, had actually disguised what he was going to do that was improper, and went against the orders and wishes of his principals. It seemed very hard that a Member should be unseated through the act of such a person as that. Therefore, he proposed to insert, after the word "agents," the words "with his knowledge or sanction."

Amendment proposed, in line 21, to insert, after the word "agents," the words "with his knowledge or sanction."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would clearly limit the provision to cases in which the candidate was guilty of bribery and corruption himself. By adopting the words "with his knowledge and sanction," the offence would become personal, and the candidate's agents would be perfectly at liberty to bribe, treat, or do anything they thought proper, if the candidate shut his eyes to it. No evil consequences to the candidate would follow. In fact, if this proposal were adopted, it would render the whole Bill nugatory.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WARTON

asked whether they were still at the word "agents?"

THE CHAIRMAN

replied, that it was competent for an hon. Member to propose an Amendment after the word "agents."

MR. WARTON

said, that, in that case, he proposed to insert, after the word "agents," the words "by him appointed," although he supposed it would be negatived, in consequence of the Amendment which had been withdrawn. When they considered the stringent manner in which the clause was drawn, and that if a single improper act was proved—such as giving a single glass of beer worth 2d. to a person who was not a voter—the Member would be unseated, such an Amendment as this should find favour with hon. Members. As he said, the giving away of a single 2d. glass of beer by an agent could be made into a charge of corrupt practice. By such a trivial act as this, the whole machinery of the Act would be evoked; an Election Court would sit, and that Court would decide whether the glass of beer had been given away corruptly or not. He was obliged to put the case in this way. It sounded rather ridiculous, he admitted; but the fault was not his. A Report with reference to this glass of beer would have to be made to Mr. Speaker; also as to whether the candidate or his agents were guilty. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to despair of being able to give a definition of an agent. He could give him one—namely, "any man who did anything illegal at an election, and said he did it in the interests of the candidate." That also, perhaps, sounded ridiculous; but such, practically, would be the definition if the Bill was passed in its entirety. If the hon. and learned Attorney General, the highest legal authority in the House, was unable to give them any better definition of agency, he (Mr. Warton) would urge him to accept the Amendment he had just moved—namely, in line 21, after the word "agents," to insert "by him appointed." The hon. and learned Gentleman would find that in the 31st section of the Act of 1854. He would call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the Schedule he had referred to there was only one agent whom the candidate could pay. Well, this agent, it seemed to him, should be appointed in writing. If the candidate could only pay one person, was it right that he should be liable for the acts of a great many other people who might choose to appoint themselves his agents?

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the Committee that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has given Notice of an Amendment for this stage. I do not know whether he intends to move it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that, after the remarks that had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General—as he felt the difficulty there was in defining "agency"—he did not intend to move his Amendment. When they came to illegal practices, which were an entirely new offence, and for which there was an entirely new penalty, he should certainly press every Amendment he could for the purpose of defining "agency," and restricting the new offence which the hon. and learned Member created.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, after "agents," to insert "by him appointed."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. They had all paid attention to the difficulty of putting any definition on the word "agent." It was perfectly true that it could not be done. They might say that the agency should be the Common Law agency. He was not going to suggest that; but, at the same time, that agency was perfectly understood. The difficulty, however, would be, that directly they started that, people would go beyond it, and they would get the most corrupt elections imaginable. He thought they had much better leave the question of agency exactly where it was.

MR. ONSLOW

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not answered the question he had put to him some time ago. He must press for an answer. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to include any person who might have been guilty of a corrupt practice at a municipal election? The words were "himself or any other person." That "other person" might be the recognized agent of a candidate at a Parliamentary election, a person living in the county. Was the person who stood as a candidate in a county or a borough—because there were many parts of England where municipalities were included in a division of the county—to be included? He would illustrate what he meant by stating what might occur in his own county—which he knew, perhaps, better than any other—although the practical result had nothing to do with that part of the county he represented. The borough of Godalming was a municipality in the Western Division of Surrey. Were they to suppose that to employ at a Parliamentary election any person who had committed an illegal act during a municipal election in Godalming would render the candidate responsible for that illegal act? The person who did the illegal act might be a working man, and he might be employed by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey—or, perhaps, by some Liberal candidate—and his hon. Friend, or this Liberal candidate, would be responsible in the county for what someone who might afterwards become his agent had foolishly done in the borough? This man might be on one of their committees during an election—he would come under the category of "any other person." The candidate might know nothing against him; and the other side, knowing something, might retain what they knew, refraining from raising any objection at the municipal election, and husbanding their knowledge for the Parliamentary election. At that time, a disclosure of some foolish act, of which this person might have been guilty at a municipal election, would bring the candidate under the penalties of this clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No; that is not so.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General a question. When the Bill was being discussed on the second reading, there were some suggestions made as to the Schedule——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! There is an Amendment before the Committee. Does the hon. Member wish to speak on that?

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend whether it was his intention, on any portion of this clause, to make a statement as to the Amendments he proposed to introduce into the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

That point cannot be raised on this part of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GORST

said, he wished to move the insertion of the word "any," in place of the word "a," in line 23. It was a purely consequential Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, leave out "a," and insert "any."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he wished to amend the clause, in line 23, by inserting, after the word "has," the words "through negligence, or want of due care in the appointment or control of his agents." It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Attorney General might mitigate the severity of the clause. He did not wish to repeat the arguments, so elaborately gone into, as to agency; but he would say this—that when they considered that this Law of Agency was a special law, not only different from the ordinary Common Law of Agency, but directly opposed to it, and that they were making a man liable, not for acts he had authorized, but for acts which he had forbidden, and done his best to prevent, they could not be too careful in the safeguards they adopted. The Committee ought to protect the persons who might be responsible for the acts of others by such words as those he proposed. Of course, a candidate at an election knew who his agent was, for he would have the appointing of him; but he would not appoint all those whom the law would recognize as his agents, and for whose acts he would be held responsible. When all the provisions of the Bill were considered, it did seem to him that there ought to be some protection given, not only to the candidate, but to the constituency, whose interests were concerned in the purity of the election. When a candidate went down to a county or a borough, he had a person introduced to him as the regular agent of the place—a gentleman of integrity, ability, and character—and he accepted him as his agent, for the most part, on the recommendation of the friends who had introduced him to the constituency. He could do no less than accept this gentleman; but, in the course of the election, other persons stepped in, whom the law recognized as agents, but whom he had no control over, and of whom he knew nothing whatever. Yet, under this clause, he was to be made liable in the future for that for which he was not liable now. He might by these people be, in a manner, discredited, disgraced, and deprived of all those honours and privileges of civil life in which society was interested, and the duties of which it was important that men of character should be ready to fill. He therefore proposed these words, to provide that a candidate should not be liable for the acts of those persons belonging to the class to which he had referred. At the same time, a candidate must not be allowed to go down to a place and act with indifference and without regard to what was right and proper in the conduct of an election. If a candidate went down to a constituency, and engaged as his agent a man who was notorious for bribery and corrupt practices—a man who, it was well known, would do wrong—then, of course, he ought to be liable for the acts of his agent. When, however, he had made due inquiries, and had done all in his power to secure a person who would conduct the election honestly and purely, it was very hard to make him liable. A candidate ought to control the conduct of an election, and to have information as to how an election was going on; and a Judge, when he came to administer this clause, would inquire whether the candidate had been really careful in the appointment, and in controllng the agent's actions, in order to prevent undue practices?

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after "has," insert "through negligence or want of due care in the appointment or control of his agents."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not know whether the Committee, at the present moment, could realize the scope of that Amendment; but, if accepted, it would be the most serious thing in support of corrupt practices that could be devised. He would rather abandon the Bill than adopt the proposal. By the clause it was determined for what causes an election should be declared void; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) proposed that an election should not be void unless the candidate had himself been guilty of negligence in appointing agents, or had not exercised proper control; and he had supported that Amendment by appealing to the Committee upon the hardships of candidates being held liable for the actions of their agents. That was not a question for the candidate alone; it was a question for the constituency. There were pure and impure men in elections. It was admitted that a pure man ought to be free, and the impure man ought to be held guilty; yet the hon. and learned Member proposed that while the pure man might be rejected, the impure man might be admitted, unless he had been guilty of negligence. Suppose a candidate was abroad. In his case there would be no want of control while abroad, or negligence; and yet if it was proved that 1,000 voters had voted, and 800 of them had been bribed by agents, the election would be a perfectly good election. Was that fair to the constituency? Then, in the case of a large constituency, what personal control could a candidate have over his agents? Candidates might have some control over agents appointed for election purposes, but not over voluntary agents; and yet, unless it was shown that the candidate personally had been guilty of neglect, through this Amendment bribery would take place. He must ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

thought this discussion on the law of agency showed how much they all felt the difficulty they were in, and that it was only because of the necessities of the case that they consented to be so checked. In an election the great object was to gain a seat; and, for that purpose, people of all Parties were willing to incur penalties which they otherwise would not. He should vote against the Amendment, because, in his opinion, it would defeat the whole object of the Bill; and the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite right in saying that the Bill had better go than have that provision inserted in it. At the same time, when the latter part of the clause was reached, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would reconsider the question of the penalty.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GREGORY

said, he wished to propose, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "that" to "borough" in line 26, being the portion of the clause containing the new penalty to be inflicted on a candidate for the action of his agent. He did not propose to leave out the whole of the provision, but only the disqualification. The penalty as proposed in the clause would disqualify a man for ever from sitting for a county or other constituency, and that for an act of a man who it was said to be impossible to define. He proposed to provide that a man should not be so disqualified by the action of his agent. All were agreed that it was difficult to restrict the meaning of "agency" as at present defined. Under the late law the election would merely be void.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

explained that, under the present law, a candidate who had been unseated could, not be re-elected during the then existing Parliament; but the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) would enable such a candidate to return to the constituency and be re-elected immediately.

MR. GREGORY

said, he would not move his intended Amendment if it was understood that the law was not to be carried further than it stood at present.

MR. GORST

said, he wished to move an Amendment with the object of leaving the law as it now stood. He thought it was agreed that the House should do nothing in the shape of a punishment of a Member of Parliament or a candidate for acts not done by his direction or orders; and that the only reason why the present disability existed was that otherwise the moment a man was unseated for corrupt practices the constituency could return him again. He believed that was the reason why it was found necessary to impose on a candidate a disability from sitting again in the present Parliament. He could quite understand the reason for the present law, and he believed that its abrogation would have a bad effect, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had said. It seemed to him that the law at present was sufficiently severe, and that it was enough to say that when a candidate had been unseated for corrupt practices by his agent, he should be unable to sit in the present Parliament. The burden of proof was with those who differed from him.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, after "not," to insert "during the then existing Parliament."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he was rather inclined to accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); and he would assume that a man who, by his agent, had been guilty of any corrupt practices, could not be re-elected for the same Parliament. But then, how long was the Parliament to last? If only for six months, was that a sufficient corrective against the corrupt influences he had extended over the borough. If the hon. and learned Member would go as far as to say that six months was not long enough, would he say a year or two years? If so, he (Mr. Hopwood) believed he could get the hon. and learned Member to seven years, because that was the legal life of a Parliament, and that might be adopted as a safe test by which it could be made dangerous for a candidate so to butter, or water, or manure a constituency, that, if he was unseated, he could, in a short time at all events, reap the benefit of his beneficence through his agent. The constituencies had no one in the House to represent them in that argument; and he was anxious to spread among the constituencies—at least, those who were sincere in the matter—that whatever an agent should do corruptly, he would do it at the peril of hurting the man in whose interest they said or pretended they were acting; so that friends who were injudicious would be curbed in their want of judgment by finding that they were likely to defeat their own object. That was the principle upon which Parliament should proceed in order to put down corruption in Parliamentary elections.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, very often a constituency set their minds upon some particular man whom they wished to represent them; but some indiscreet person, over whom he had no control, might make the election void. That was perfectly right; but the unfortunate candidate should not be prevented in such a case from election when another election took place. It might be argued that a man would be content to be unseated at once, in order that he might gain the effect of his previous bribery; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could imagine that being the case; but he did not think that a man who had had enormous election expenses would be willing to undergo such a punishment. On the other hand, the Committee must consider whether they were not really going too far. Had they been able to show one case in which the existing law was not quite sufficient? He defied anyone to show a single case; and, at all events, they ought to have strong proof before they went beyond the existing law, which, he thought, was sufficient. Unless it could be shown that, under the existing law, cases had happened in which people had deliberately bribed at one election, and gone to all the expense of securing the next election, the present law should not be altered. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would give way upon the point.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were many views to be taken of this matter. In the first place, he had abandoned his own view, and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) having suggested 10 years, he had abandoned his support of that proposal. The hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), had proposed seven years; and the Committee would prac- tically have to decide between that and the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). There was much to be said on each side, and the Committee would have to consider how they could best meet the necessities of the case. He did not consider the candidate so much as the constituency; and he wanted the pure element in a constituency to defeat the impure element, and to enable the element which was not wealthy to contend successfully against that which was wealthy. What was the position of a person disqualified by the action of his agents? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had rightly pointed to a case in which there might be an isolated instance, or a very small amount of corruption; but those were not cases to be considered, because Members were seldom unseated for them; and the Bill dealt with cases of a large amount of corruption. As had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), it was only provided that an unseated candidate should not sit in the then-existing Parliament. A candidate who had spent large sums of money on one election might, in some cases, in a comparatively short time claim his own amongst those who had been previously corrupted; and they, in grateful recollection, would at once accept him as against a pure candidate. The advantage of seven years over 10 was that an unseated Member was prevented from reaping the benefit of what he had sown for a period during which the constituency would have time to reflect upon their conduct, and in which a new candidate could seize hold of the constituency by placing himself before it. It seemed to him that they would be taking a middle course by accepting the suggestion of seven years; and so would, to a great extent, protect the pure against the impure in an election.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to assume the case of a candidate who had corrupted a constituency in a wholesale way; but he (Mr. Donaldson-Hudson) should like to point out that this Clause 4 did not contemplate the case of any candidate who had wilfully corrupted a borough or county. Cases in which corruption had been effected with the knowledge of the candidate were amply met by the 3rd clause, which distinctly stated that where corrupt practices had been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of a candidate, then severe penalties should follow—and those penalties he by no means considered too severe in such cases. But Clause 4 only dealt with cases in which the candidate was innocent; and knew nothing about what might be isolated instances of corruption. Therefore, they would be committing grievous injustice upon such a candidate if they made the penalties more severe than they were at present; and he thought there was everything to be said in favour of not increasing the penalties, and that it would be an anomaly that a candidate should not be able to sit again during the existing Parliament.

COLONEL NOLAN

observed, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had omitted to point out the great changes of principle involved in this Bill. The first point was this—under the old law, no penalty beyond disability during the existing Parliament could be imposed on any candidate unless he was found guilty by a jury, and then he could be excluded for seven years. That principle was, however, removed; and they must now trust to the word of the Judge. He had also told them that the candidate was to be held responsible for the wholesale corruption which might be committed in his behalf. He was to be responsible for the acts of all of his agents, and it was impossible to say in what case he was not to be considered guilty. He (Colonel Nolan) had no desire to press his own opinion; but he had consulted persons who might be said to approach in eminence and legal knowledge on this subject even the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he was informed that if a candidate canvassed a man in the presence of another person, that other person became an agent merely in consequence of that fact. The candidate would never know when he was not making an agent. He might easily know when he was doing so, but he would never know when he was not, so long as he happened to be speaking to two men; and very heavy penalties were to be inflicted on him, not only for canvassing personally, but for connecting himself with any individual who might prove to be an imprudent person. The moment the Bill was introduced, not this year, but shortly after the present Parliament first met, he (Colonel Nolan) raised a strong objection to it when he saw the stringent provisions of the Bill, and especially this terrible clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General assumed that the Judge would be perfectly pure and free from political bias; but he (Colonel Nolan) did not assume anything of the kind, as a matter of course. He believed that in many cases the constituency would be much purer than the Judge; and one objection he entertained to the Bill was that in such cases it enormously increased the power of the Judge. In fact, the Bill shifted, as it were, the centre of gravity from the Representatives of the people to the Crown, as represented by the Judges. It was acknowledged that, on the whole, during the last 20 years the Election Judges had acted fairly, but there had been numerous objections to their decisions; and by this Bill he contended that the Government were weakening the power of the people. It was not a move in a popular direction, but was one altogether in the direction of strengthening the power of the Crown. Nothing would keep the Judges in the right path better than to allow the constituencies to say whether they were right or wrong; and the only way in which they could express that opinion was by permitting the candidate to come forward again for election. He knew that it was quite possible for a man to spend a large sum of money in bribing a constituency; but he believed that this clause would be used by a Judge who had a dislike to a man's politics, or to a man himself, for the purpose of permanently disqualifying him. The whole of the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General, when he said that this was a clause in favour of the poor man, was wrong. It was a clause entirely in favour of the rich candidate, who, by means of his wealth, would be able to work much more subtilely than the poor man. He could make his wealth felt, and insure the opening out of a future market; whereas the poor man, if he came in contact with an impetuous, an ignorant, and occasionally a treacherous agent, would invariably be petitioned against and unseated. And the poor man was much more likely to have a treacherous agent than the rich man, who only worked by indirect means, and knew very well the proper man to go to. Instead of guaranteeing freedom of election, the clause would have an entirely contrary effect, and would be entirely in favour of the man with corrupt motives. He, therefore, trusted that the Committee would refuse to pass it in its present form.

MR. GORST

said, he wished to answer the illustration which had been given by the hon. and learned Attorney General. His hon. and learned Friend spoke of a wealthy man spending a large sum of money in his election; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend must have forgotten the subsequent clauses of the Bill, because any candidate who expended more than a certain scheduled sum in an election would be held to be guilty of an illegal practice, and if convicted of an illegal practice would be debarred, not for seven years, but for ever, from representing the constituency with which the illegal practice had been associated. Now, he (Mr. Gorst) did not in the least object to a penalty which should debar a person from sitting for seven years, or even for ever, if he had himself been guilty of a corrupt practice; but he contended that under this Bill the illustration of his hon. and learned Friend would fail, because it would be impossible for any person to spend a lavish sum of money without rendering himself liable to a conviction for having committed an illegal expenditure. His hon. and learned Friend told the Committee that he pressed this clause in the interests of the constituencies themselves. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that in pressing his Amendment he was doing so in the interests of the constituencies. He thought the constituencies ought to be limited as little as possible in the choice of Representatives; and why should a constituency be unable to select a particular gentleman to represent them in Parliament because some agent, without his knowledge and consent, and contrary to his orders, had been guilty of corrupt practices? It seemed to him to be as much in the interests of the constituency as of the candidate that Parliament should make the penalty in this particular instance as light as possible, if it was to produce any beneficial effect.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, it appeared to him that the period of disqualification was placed at too high a figure. What they wished to provide was, that the candidate who had been guilty of a lavish expenditure, and who had brought about his return, not on account of his political opinions being shared by the constituency, but because he had produced a considerable amount of corruption among the electors, should not, at the succeeding election, be able to obtain the benefit of that corrupt expenditure. That was what he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) intended to prevent by his Amendment. He (Mr. Hinde Palmer) thought that a period of seven years would about cover a period sufficient to prevent that. Personally, he should have been satisfied with an Amendment something like this: To provide that the candidate who had obtained his election through illegal practices should be disqualified from again appearing as a candidate during the then existing Parliament and the succeeding election. But in order to make the matter definite and regular, it would, perhaps, be better to adopt the period of seven years. He thought the period of disqualification specified in the clause was much too strong; and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), which provided that— For ten years next after the date of the Report and his election, if he has been elected within such ten years, shall be void, was also too strong. The middle course of adopting seven years would really accomplish all that was desired—namely, that the candidate whose election had been procured by means of illegal and corrupt practices should not reap the fruits of his lavish expenditure at one election by standing as a candidate at the next. He should, therefore, not vote for the provision that a person should be disqualified for ever; but he would support the proposition that he should be disqualified from becoming a candidate for a period of seven years, believing that such a penalty would produce all the effect desired.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he had also placed an Amendment upon the Paper to provide that the disqualification should extend "during the continuance of that Parliament." He understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to leave it to the Committee to decide whether the period should be seven years or ten. He hoped the Committee would remember the difference between Clauses 3 and 4. Anything in the way of extensive corruption of the constituency would certainly bring punishment upon the candidate, and disqualify him under Clause 3; and he thought it was impossible to believe that the agent would find a way to corrupt a constituency largely without the candidate knowing it; and, if it could be brought home to him, he would be dealt with by Clause 3. But in Clause 4 the Committee were dealing with comparatively small matters. The corrupt practices committed by the agent would only be in some isolated cases—some small cases, just sufficient, perhaps, to disqualify the candidate, but clearly of a very trifling character. He thought the Committee should remember the disqualification created by Clause 3. They had disqualified any candidate from sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years, if he were found guilty, directly or indirectly, of the slightest knowledge of corrupt practices during the election. Under those circumstances, he thought they might safely accept the limitation in this clause which he had suggested by his Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

remarked that two classes of constituencies had to be considered, and he thought the Committee would make a great mistake to deal with only one class. There was a class of small constituencies, consisting of from 1,000 to 2,000 electors, which could be nursed and so managed as to be subjected to a good deal of the influences to which the hon. and learned Attorney General had alluded. But there were also a number of constituencies consisting of a large number of electors to which the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend were totally inapplicable; and if ever this clause were brought in force against them, it would only be in consequence of the conduct of some ignorant and stupid agent who did something of which the candidate entirely disapproved. Of course, it would be a great mistake to make the Act affect the small boroughs, and shut out the large constituencies of the Kingdom. He could only re-echo what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) who preceded him. The hon. and gallant Member had pointed out the difference between Clauses 3 and 4, and reminded the Committee that in Clause 4 they were not dealing with a guilty but an innocent candidate. They had dealt with the guilty candidate with great severity by Clause 3, and the hon. and learned Attorney General was bound to give them some illustration from the Election Petitions to justify the present clause. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was able to cite one case showing the injustice of the present law. It was a case in which an honoured Member, respected on both sides of the House, was unseated because an ignorant agent paid 10s. wages to a man who had recorded his vote. Although the money was paid without the knowledge or sanction of the candidate, he was, nevertheless, unseated, and would have been incapable, according to the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, of sitting for the constituency for a period of 10 years. Happily, the existing law was in force, and the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred regained the seat, and had continued to fill it with great advantage to the constituency. He thought that very good reasons should be given before the Committee consented to increase the penalty, which was, in his opinion, sufficiently severe at present. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper had been referred to; and it was, therefore, only right that he should explain the reason which had induced him to put it down. He had done so in order to provide a middle course between the extreme penalty inserted in the Bill as originally drawn and the course now proposed to be taken. He entirely dissented from the principle of visiting with an extreme penalty a person who was entirely innocent, a consideration which ought never to be lost sight of. It must also be borne in mind that they could not punish the candidate without punishing the constituency. He spoke entirely in the interests of the constituencies, and he repeated that they could not punish the candidate without punishing the constituency. At the same time they might deter honourable and high-minded men from coming forward as candidates, which would be doing more harm to the constituencies than to the candidates. It would only be men of great wealth, who were anxious, from personal objects, to get into the House of Commons, and who were ready to spend any amount of money in corrupting a constituency—it was only such persons who would be induced to come forward if these severe penalties were enacted. Therefore, when he proposed a period of 10 years, he simply did so as a compromise. He had no idea at the time he placed his Amendment on the Paper that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be willing to accept a lesser period. As the matter now stood, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 114: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 82.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the best course to take now would be to omit the word "ever" from the clause.

Question, "That the word 'ever' in page 2, line 25, be left out," put, and agreed to.

MR. SALT

said, he believed that his Amendment came next—namely, after the word "borough," to insert "for seven years."

Amendment proposed, in page 2 line 26, after "borough" insert "for seven years."—(Mr. Salt.)

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

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the Amendment would require one or two additional words. He had intended to propose "for 10 years next after the date of the Report," and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would require the addition of similar words, making it— Seven years next after the date of the Report and his election, if he shall have been elected within such seven years, shall be void. If this alteration were not made it would be impossible to know for what period the seven years were to be computed. It would be necessary to strike out the words from "borough" to the end of the clause, and to substitute these words.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment at present before the Committee was, after the word "borough" to insert the words "for seven years."

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he would propose to amend the Amendment by substituting for the word "seven" the word "five." He had already stated the view he took. He looked upon this clause as it now stood in the Bill as a thoroughly bad clause, and he wished to do everything in his power to lessen the evil and badness of the measure. He thought that five years would be a much better period of disqualification than seven years. One argument adduced by the hon. and learned Attorney General was that it was necessary to introduce safeguards for the next Parliament after a judgment had been delivered, declaring that corrupt practices had been committed. But the average length of Parliament was not more than five years, and the average length of the present Parliament was certainly not likely to be more than five years. Of course, it was possible that there might be a bye-election; but he thought the object of the hon. and learned Attorney General would be entirely gained by making the period five years. Disqualification for that period would be an ample punishment. At present the disqualification was only for one Parliament, and that was not more than three or four years on the average. Five years would, therefore, be greatly increasing the penalty. He wished, however, to call attention again to the fact that it was not a question between the rich man and the poor man; and he was glad to see in the Lobby, in the division which had just taken place, an hon. Member who was popularly supposed to represent the working men of England. He believed that a penal clause of this kind would operate just as much against the poor candidate as against a wealthy one, because an expenditure of 5s. worth of beer would entail just as heavy consequences as the lavish expenditure of a rich man; a trifling expenditure of that nature would be sufficient to unseat the candidate, and the penal consequences would be just the same. If they were to have such a very bad clause at all, and were to place themselves so completely under the Election Judges, they ought to minimize the penalties imposed by the Bill as much as possible; and if he received any support at all he would certainly divide the Committee upon the period of five years as against seven.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "five,"—(Colonel Nolan,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. RYLANDS

said, he would have been very glad indeed if this part of the Bill had been treated in a more scientific manner. They all saw there was a danger, and that through agents there might be considerable corruption, which ought to be severely dealt with by Judges. On the other hand, a very small amount of corruption might have the effect of exposing a candidate to very severe penalties; and what struck him as being unscientific was this—that a hard-and-fast line was laid down for everybody. No distinction was made between the cases in which the Judges found there had been a very large amount of treating by the connivance of agents and candidates and those cases in which there might be one or two small and trumpery cases of treating by agents, in which cases the penalty was to be visited upon the candidates. He had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend had in his mind the case of a candidate who, by means of his agent, had indulged in a large amount of treating. There could be no doubt that in recent cases treating had been more serious to deal with than bribery, because, while there had been little bribery, there had been a great deal of treating, and, in some cases, that treating had been done by the agents of the candidates. The candidate, under those circumstances, ought to submit to the penalty which was due to the offence; but, having now given to treating the character of a corrupt practice, the Committee were afraid lest some trifling matters might be made into very serious crimes, and that the candidate whose agent had been guilty of some small indiscretions might be exposed to serious penalties. That was the unscientific part of the clause to which he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and he believed if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult with his hon. And learned Friend the Solicitor General, he would find that the Solicitor General had, in a public manner, expressed an opinion very much in accordance with the view he (Mr. Rylands) was now submitting to the Committee. If the clause was to remain without any definition, he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Attorney General could have suggested some words which could have given the Judge some power to distinguish between different degrees of treating.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is an Amendment to that effect. The Amendment at present before the Committee is whether "five" shall be substituted for "seven."

MR. RYLANDS

said, that as the matter now stood, if his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) went to a division, he should certainly vote with him, because he thought that five years was certainly a sufficient penalty under the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

opposed the Amendment. He believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member were adopted it might possibly happen that the period of disqualification would be less than at present, because both of the last Parliaments had lasted more than five years.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he was anxious to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he would alter his Amendment to "five years, or the existence of the present Parliament."

MR. CALLAN

said, he would support the clause as it originally stood if the hon. and learned Attorney General would give them some definition of "agency." To show them how important it was, he would recommend hon. Members to read the opinion of Mr. Baron Dowse. In one of his Judgments Mr. Baron Dowse said— We came to the conclusion that every kind of treating given is corrupt. There is not a single Petition in England, Ireland, or Scotland, where the Member should not be unseated; indeed, I have often thought if there was a Petition in every case, and everybody knew what happened in every case, we would have no House of Commons at all. That showed the importance of viewing these matters carefully.

THE CHAIRMAN

When the hon. Member was absent a long discussion took place about the definition of "agency;" and the Question now before the Committee is that the word "seven" stand part of the clause.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was showing how reasonable it was they should lessen the punishment for the act of an agent. Mr. Baron Dowse continued— If we were satisfied that any one agent gave a single man a treat for the purpose of influencing his vote, I would not have the slightest hesitation in saying I would be bound to unseat the Member. As the agency question was not settled, they should minimize the punishment as much as possible. This was not a Bill to make pure elections; it was a Bill to cheapen elections. It was evidently a Bill for the purpose of placing men who had to employ agents at a disadvantage to those who belonged to the popular organizations which were known as the Caucus; and he certainly did think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had a right to complain, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself might be for ever disqualified from sitting, not for Galway, but for any other constituency. If his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division he should follow him into the Lobby.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 77: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 83.)

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

moved, in page 2, line 26, to insert after "years," "next after the date of the Report."

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had tried, but he was utterly unable to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman was proposing.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he agreed to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GORST

said, he wanted to propose an addition of some words to the clause. He did not desire to press the words upon the Government at the present moment; but he merely threw that out for the consideration of the Committee, and if the Committee was favourable to the words, and if they were received with favour by Her Majesty's Government, he should have no objection to withdraw them for the present, upon the Government promising that the matter should receive favourable consideration on Report. He was most anxious that some words should be put in the clause to protect the innocent Member of Parliament. If there should be such a thing as a really innocent Member of Parliament, a Member who had done his utmost to secure a pure election, who had so far succeeded that his election had been in the main a pure one, he (Mr. Gorst) wanted to prevent him being unseated for the act of one man. The Judges had often expressed regret at the rigidity of the present law, and at the necessity which devolved upon them to unseat a man on account of one or two isolated acts which he had been unable to control, and which were done contrary to his express orders. He wanted to induce the Committee to accept something like this—that if it was true that corrupt practices had been committed by a man's agent, his election should be primâ facie void; but it should be open to him to put himself in the witness-box before the Election Court, and prove affirmatively that he had done everything in his power, by care in the appointment of his election agent, and by his management of the election, to secure a pure election; and that if the Election Court was satisfied on those two points, as well as upon the insignificance of the corrupt practices, the election should, instead of being void, be held valid. The words, which he understood had received the support of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he proposed to add to the clause were— Unless such candidate can prove to the satisfaction of the Election Court that he exercised due care in the appointment and control of his agent, and in the general conduct of the election, and that the corrupt practices proved have not affected, the result of the election.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Committee would notice that there were to the Amendment two distinct objections. The first was that the candidate should keep his seat; and the second was that the corrupt portion of the constituency should prevail over the pure portion of the constituency. [Mr. GORST: Just the contrary.] He repeated his assertion. The candidate should not lose his seat. What did that mean? That the corrupt portion of the constituency who had voted for him would keep their Member. ["No!"] They were now saying that the candidate should not lose his seat; therefore, that the constituency should be in the position of being represented by a person who might have a majority of votes obtained by corrupt means. ["No, no!"] That was the view the proposal presented. The proposed addition provided that the election should not be void if the candidate could prove that he had exercised due care in the selection of his agent and in the management of the election. He perfectly appreciated such a provision. The proof that the candidate had exercised due care in the appointment and control of his agent meant nothing at all, because he might actually appoint an agent to get rid of the liability. A man would always say there was no want of care in the appointment of his agent, and that he did all he could to procure a pure election, so that that part of the Amendment would be no safeguard at all. Then, as to the second point, that the election should be held valid if the Court was satisfied, amongst other things, that the corrupt practices had not altered the result of the election, why, when they were dealing with corruption, the greater the corruption the less possibility there was of proving that it had had any influence in the election. In the case of the Sandwich Petition, they knew that 1,400 in a constituency of 2,000 had received bribes; but they never proved a single case. The agent came up and swore he had not bribed anyone, and the men said they had never received a farthing; but afterwards they admitted they had committed perjury. In a severe contest before an Election Judge, and when it was known the seat was at stake, men would not confess to corrupt practices; and the consequence would be that the Judge would not be able to say that corrupt practices had prevailed to such an extent as to influence the result. The practical issue would be that all Election Petitions would be of no avail. Under such an arrangement every voter would be more careful to keep back information, and power would be given to the corrupt element instead of the pure element of the constituency. This question had come before a Select Committee of the House in 1875, and the proposition now before the Committee was negatived, although at the time it was deemed worthy of consideration. He was desirous to assist candidates who were innocent of the acts of their agents, if it were possible to do so; but the Government had to consider also the interest of the constituents. Although he could make no promise that the clause would be altered in the direction indicated, the matter should be considered before Report; and, with that assurance, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would consent to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one that might be accepted, and that upon it the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham might be withdrawn. It was a matter for regret that the question of limiting the period of disqualification under the clause to seven years had been voted upon in the last division by a number of Gentlemen who had not heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he stated, in reference to the term of disqualification, that he was willing to consult the feeling of the Committee. There had clearly been a miscarriage of the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and, therefore, he thought the question ought in fairness to be raised again.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

was understood to say that the words which, in his opinion, would best meet the case were those which he had moved at an earlier period of the discussion on this clause.

MR. GORST

said, he was willing, as he had before stated, to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the Government would consider the point. He should be quite willing to accept another wording as long as it embodied the principle he had in view. They ought to throw upon the sitting Member all the responsibility of proving affirmatively that he had taken due care in the appointment and control of his agents, and. that the election was a pure one.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought the objections put forward by the hon. and learned Attorney General would be obviated by the following words being added at the end of the clause:— Unless the Election Court shall certify that they do not think the candidates ought to be considered responsible for such corrupt practices, and that such corrupt practices have not affected the result of the election.

COLONEL NOLAN

remarked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had mixed together the offences of bribery, treating, and the exercise of undue influence, all of which had been carefully separated in former Acts. He thought the argument as to the 1,400 voters used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not applicable to the case put forward by hon. Members who were contending that a candidate ought not to be unseated for a trivial act. He thought that, before the clause was allowed to pass, some intimation should be given to hon. Members of what the alteration would be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Punishment of person convicted on indictment of corrupt practices).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, by this Bill treating was made a corrupt practice, and punished criminally. Under the old law, treating never rendered a man liable to criminal punishment. He wished the Committee to consider carefully the penalty to which a man rendered himself liable for paying for a glass of beer for another man. He was to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction on indictment, he was liable to be imprisoned for two years, with or without hard labour, and to be fined any sum not exceeding £500. He was convinced that any legislation which created sympathy with the offender was retrogressive; and he knew no more dangerous support of electoral corruption than that which was afforded by undue punishment. He did not propose to ask the Committee to exempt treating altogether, for hon. Members would observe on the next page of the Amendment Paper that he proposed to make it an offence punishable, on summary conviction, by three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, and a fine of £5 for each act of treating. That, he thought, would prevent the offence to a very great extent; but the proposal that it should be punished by imprisonment with hard labour for two years, and a fine of £500, he believed, the Committee would not agree to; and, therefore, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 28, after "practice," insert "other than treating, as defined in this Act."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, in his view, punishment should be speedy and complete. But he objected to undue severity, and considered that small punishments on summary conviction were better than heavy ones on indictment, his reason being that people, when the election was over, did not, as a rule, want to prosecute. He could not help thinking that the smaller punishment of two years' imprisonment summarily inflicted was preferable to its infliction on indictment together with a heavy fine.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that the question raised by the Amendment was not as to the severity of the punishment to be inflicted, the desirability of retaining which, as expressed in the clause, the Committee would have an opportunity of considering later on. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton made two suggestions, the first being that they should declare treating to be a venial practice as compared with bribery, and that a distinction should in consequence be made between the two offences. The second suggestion was that they should take away from the accused person the protection of trial by jury, and allow him to be summarily dealt with by a tribunal composed of the local Justices. He would willingly see the matter dealt with summarily by the local Justices if it were practicable. But did the Committee think that cases of the kind ought to be submitted to a tribunal composed of men who had themselves taken part in the election, and were either on one side of politics or another? It certainly appeared to him that such a tribunal was not fitted calmly and judicially to decide the guilt or innocence of those who, with respect to some of them, would necessarily be their political opponents. He was convinced that the accused person would not wish to come before such a tribunal, and he was equally sure that no such tribunal would wish to exercise the power proposed to be vested in it. The accused person, under the clause, would have the protection afforded by a jury, who would have to be convinced that he had acted corruptly; and he could not but regard this as better than that the local Justices should deal summarily with the case. With regard to the view that treating was to be regarded by the Legislature as a venial offence in connection with Parliamentary elections, the Judges might, of course, be of opinion that such acts had not affected the result of a particular election; but he felt sure the Committee would admit that treating was a growing evil, more especially from the increased importance given to it in connection with municipal elections. It was proposed to deal with corrupt practices at municipal elections after they had disposed of the present measure. If, therefore, the legislation with regard to municipalities was to be founded upon this Bill, he asked, would it not be unwise for Parliament to admit that treating was but a venial offence? Knowing what he did of the growth of treating in the country, he should fear the consequences of a legislative declaration that it should not be dealt with in the same manner as bribery. Were they to say that treating should not be visited with the same moral comdemnation, they would, so far from doing all in their power to put an end to it, be, in his opinion, lending encouragement to this growing evil. The Committee would have an opportunity, when the next Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was reached, of saying whether in their view it should be visited with a lesser punishment. But, in the meantime, he prayed the Committee to consider whether they could at this time declare with safety that treating at Parliamentary elections was an act which would bear the light of day. On the grounds he had stated he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, with respect to the hon. and learned Attorney General there was only one issue before the Committee, and that was whether treating ought to be placed in a different category from bribery and other corrupt practices. For his own part, he thought it would be a great mistake if they were to deal with treating by a rule different to that which they applied to other corrupt practices, because he could imagine cases of wholesale treating which would be quite as bad in themselves as bribery. With, regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, on the subject of dealing with corrupt practices generally by summary jurisdiction, he hoped that whatever vote hon. Members felt fit to give on this Amendment, they would not be understood to prejudge that question. The most important point was to secure the speedy and certain punishment of the offence, and that he did not think a very heavy penalty was calculated to effect. He believed that this would be most easily secured by having a scale of punishment which might be inflicted immediately on the offender by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In that way no person need be deprived of the protection afforded, by having his case decided upon by a jury, because if a person preferred to be tried by a jury he could always claim to be so tried under the Act passed in 1879. It was only necessary to make the penalty imprisonment, say, for four months, and then the offender, when charged before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, could claim to be tried by a jury, whereupon the proceedings would be suspended, and an indictment preferred against him at the next Sessions or Assizes. However, his principal object in rising was to press upon the Committee that in deciding this particular Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, they were not prejudging the question as to whether corrupt practices ought not to be dealt with summarily.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the effect of his hon. and learned Friend's suggestion would be to put treating and bribery on the same level. It meant simply the bringing back of bribery from its position as an indictable offence to that of an offence punishable by four months' imprisonment before a magistrate. That he thought the Committee would never submit to. He should, therefore, vote for the clause as it stood. Everyone knew that treating was just as influential a corrupt practice as bribery, which might be the giving of the most trumpery thing in the world; and he submitted that the two offences ought to be classed, as they were in this Bill, in the same category.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he was willing to leave these offences to be dealt with by a Judge and jury, and in that respect he confidently accepted the clause as it stood at present. It had been his intention to move the omission of the whole of the monetary penalty; but, on further consideration, he thought the clause had better remain as it was. He did not think that any Judge would wantonly imprison a man for two years; but he certainly objected to the Judge having the power of disqualifying him for 10 years, and, therefore, he should use his best endeavours to amend the Bill on that point.

MR. WARTON

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there was only one point before the Committee. That point was, as to whether there was any difference between bribery and treating, and here he disagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There had always been a distinction between these two offences, and even the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had been obliged to put it in this way—that wholesale treating was as bad as bribery. No one would say that treating in the shape of giving food or drink was so serious, or could be so degrading to the giver or the recipient, as the giving and receiving of money. It was mere hypocrisy to say that treating was as bad as the payment of money when they knew that it was not. He hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would press to a division this most important Amendment, which made a distinction between the two offences of bribery and treating.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

contended that the penalty of imprisonment was sufficiently severe without hard labour, and, therefore, moved that the words which provided for the infliction of hard labour be omitted from the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "with or."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

Question proposed, "That the words "with or" stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was compelled, to oppose the Amendment. It was not proposed to make bribery a felony; but, at the same time, if it was the intention to take a step in advance in the direction of putting it down, he did not know of any better mode of dealing with it than by legislation declaring it to be a misdemeanour punishable with hard labour. His opinion was very strong that, if they were to deal effectively with this evil, offenders must be brought down to the level of the ordinary law.

MR. WARTON

argued that men could not be made criminal merely by having that epithet applied to them. Should the Amendment be rejected, the public would be horrified and disgusted at the severity of the punishment to which bribers would be liable. The Attorney General ought to remember the anger of the people at the shameful sentences recently passed upon respectable solicitors and others, when there were men on the Ministerial side of the House who escaped punishment altogether, though steeped to the lips in bribery.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

If the hon. and learned Member's statement that there are many Members of this House steeped in bribery is correct, the sooner we make the offence punishable with hard labour the better.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the tribunal could inflict one day's imprisonment, or a £500 fine. He did not object to a small money fine, because it might be put as a nominal penalty; but he did object to a large one, and to a Judge having power to inflict a £500 fine or imprisonment. To the rich man, to whom imprisonment would be everything, a £500 fine would be nothing, and he would have no difficulty in paying it. The poor man, however, would be utterly unable to pay it, and would of necessity have to undergo imprisonment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he believed the severity of the punishment under this clause would have an effect exactly contrary to that anticipated by the hon. and learned Attorney General; therefore, he should support the Amendment to mitigate the penalty, which was believed throughout the country to be excessive.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that, having regard to the hon. and learned Attorney General's indignant tone in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should like the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain to the House, if he was able to do it, the peculiar modes whereby the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had won his seat for Scarborough.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was sorry the hon. and learned Attorney General wished to maintain the extreme penalties, for the reasons he had already stated. He could not help thinking that this should press upon the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman—that when there was a Petition presented, and the Judge reported bribery, and a Commission was held, a few persons might be scheduled and imprisoned, and a large number equally guilty, perhaps, on the other side, might get off. If, however, summary proceedings were taken, and substantial penalties inflicted, there would be a great chance of obtaining a much larger number of convictions, and of stopping the whole thing. He should have liked to see a provision in the Bill for the appointment of an officer to attend every election on the part of the Public Prosecutor, and deal summarily with offenders against whom bribery could be proved. In this way they would be able to stop corrupt practices. He was very much afraid, however, that the severity of the punishment in the Bill would defeat the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should be very glad to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's views if he could. He had already, to some extent, carried them out by giving the Judge summary powers in certain cases. How could they appoint an officer under the Public Prosecutor to attend every election? It would necessitate the appointment of, at least, 400 barristers at a General Election to go down to the various constituencies for the purpose of preventing or punishing corrupt practices.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 132: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 84.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

said, they were closely approaching the time at which it was understood that Progress should be reported; and he therefore hoped the Committee would let him now make a statement which he thought would carry them a step further. Clause 5 imposed a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding £500. He thought he understood it to be the feeling of the Committee that although the crime should be regarded as one of a grave nature, at the same time the punishment should not be too severe. He quite agreed that they would be more likely to obtain convictions if they deprived counsel for the defence of the weapon of being able to say to the tribunal—"You are about to send that man, who has hitherto held a good position and been considered a respectable man, to a long term of imprisonment." The Government thought they should take the opportunity of limiting the term, therefore they were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and reduce the two years to one year. As to the money penalty, it was necessary that the Court should have the power of inflicting a severe one; otherwise, in grave offences, it would not have recourse to a fine, but would consider itself bound to inflict imprisonment. Of course, it would not be necessary, if the maximum fine was heavy, to inflict it in any case upon a poor man. He had thought it better, considering all the circumstances of the case, to give the Court an opportunity of imposing a large fine. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham sought to reduce the sum to £100; but he (the Attorney General) could not consent to that. He would agree to reduce the £500 to £200. The Committee, however, bearing this statement in mind, would settle the points itself—whether the two years should be reduced to one year, and the £500 fine reduced to a £200 fine.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "two years," and insert "one year."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted."

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

ventured to say that even one year was a most frightful punishment to impose in a case of this kind. Without making a speech on the question—for they had heard quite enough speeches on it—he should move that the term be reduced to three months, which would have a sufficiently deterrent effect. He was satisfied that if they were to have a punishment of this kind it should be a lenient one, rather than almost as severe a one as it was possible to inflict.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, hon. Members must bear in mind that the period of imprisonment decided upon need not be inflicted in every case. It would be the maximum. He could not think how the Committee could say that, however gross was the corruption, it should not be within the discretion of the Judge to inflict a severe penalty. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Attorney General had gone as far as he could go in the way of mitigation.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is that one year be there inserted.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

No; I have moved to reduce it to three months.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the Committee do not insert the one year, the term can be reduced to three months.

MR. WARTON

I rise to Order. We have decided that "two years" shall not remain in the Bill—nothing else. The hon. and learned Attorney General has not moved that "one year" be inserted.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question I put was, "That two years be there inserted." That was negatived, and then I moved, "That one year be there inserted."

MR. WARTON

Is it open to the Chairman to move "one year?" Taking it from you, Sir, that two years has been negatived, and that the hon. and learned Attorney General has not moved the insertion of one year, I would submit that it is perfectly competent for the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to move "that three months be inserted."

THE CHAIRMAN

The two years having been struck out, I moved the remainder of the Amendment, "That one year be inserted." If that is not passed, the hon. and gallant Baronet can move the insertion of three months. The former Question, however, must be decided first. The Question is, "That one year be there inserted."

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he hoped the Committee was not going to accede to the proposition to insert in the Bill this enormous penalty of one year's imprisonment with hard labour. They who had to deal with prosecutions in the country knew that in cases of house-breaking, aggravated assaults, and so on, one year's imprisonment with hard labour was one of the most severe penalties imposed. If the term of one year were inserted in the Bill, it would entirely defeat its own object. He ventured to say that those who would have to administer the Bill would be able to do so with far greater effect if a reasonable and moderate penalty were adopted. A penalty of one year's imprisonment would, under no circumstances, be justified or justifiable. Its magnitude and excessive nature would defeat its own object, and would be fatal to the Bill.

MR. ONSLOW

said, this was a very important point; but as they were fast nearing the time at which the Prime Minister had promised to proceed with other important Business, he thought it would be as well to defer the settlement of the matter in dispute. He could not have agreed to the term of three months; but thought that six months might meet the case. However, as this was to be such a severe penalty for what might be such a trifling offence, he would put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he could not, between this and to-morrow morning, make up his mind to insert a smaller penalty than one year. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the Committee would allow them to determine this one question. The term to be inserted would be the maximum penalty. They had heard of cases where adventurers had utterly corrupted constituencies; where they had gone round in a most reckless manner bribing everyone they could bribe, and had utterly destroyed the effect of an election. This clause would give a learned Judge discretionary power to mete out adequate punishment for such a gross case as that. He hoped they would now be allowed to come to a division.

MR. RAIKES

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not go to a division on his Motion to report Progress, as he thought it was better to get through the Bill as soon as possible. As the Chairman had declared that the Question before him was that the words "one year" be inserted, he thought the most advantageous course for those who thought one year a severe penalty would be to take a division upon that, because then it would be possible to propose six months instead of three. For his own part, he thought three months would not be adequate to meet the public sentiment with regard to these offences. At the same time, there was a great deal to be said for those who thought a year a great deal too much; and he was certain that a great many who remembered the feeling almost of horror which went through the country in regard to the sentences passed last year would understand that there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment. If the proposal should be successfully resisted, he should give his cordial support to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), or any other hon. Member who proposed six months as the limit. In the meantime, he hoped the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, in order that this question might be decided.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he thought hon. Members opposite must have forgotten the discussion which took place before dinner, as to candidates being made responsible for their agents. He thought the only effective plan to prevent corrupt practices was to impose a sufficient imprisonment on those who committed these practices; and unless such penalties were inserted as would deter agents, for which the candidates might be made responsible, he did not see what safeguard there would be. If the maximum was one year, no Judge would be likely to impose the maximum; and he hoped the Committee would support the hon. and learned Attorney General.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 79: Majority 196.—(Div. list, No. 85.)

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

MR. B. SAMUELSON

said, he hoped Progress would now be reported, because he bad another Amendment to propose.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.