CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 8 August 1883)

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Schedule 1, in order that the amount of expenditure allowed to a candidate in boroughs should be increased.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
, in seconding the Motion, said, he did so because he desired some information from the Government as to the course they would pursue with the Schedule; and especially to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether he would give an undertaking to the House that the legal expenditure in the case of a double candidature should be increased to double the amount authorized in the case of a single candidature, instead of being reduced by one-fourth, as was proposed by the Bill as it stood?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Schedule 1."—(Mr. Warton.)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he thought it was a pity to act in this manner, discussing questions twice over. For himself, he thought they would save time by deferring this matter until they reached the Schedule. All he could say was, that it was his personal intention to adhere to the proposals on the Paper; but, of course, he could not pledge himself as to what the House would do. He, however, hoped they would not agree to any proposal to increase the maximum allowed for boroughs. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had put down Amendments to that effect; but if they were agreed to, the allowance for boroughs would be greater than for counties. Borough expenditure was already ample enough, and he 1990 could not acquiesce in any proposal to increase it.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not altered his opinion with regard to the expenditure in counties.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will be inclined to accuse me of inexcusable perseverance in proposing for the consideration of the House the substance of the clause that stands in my name. I am always unwilling to waste any of the time of this House upon that which some seem to consider a small question; but the fact is, that the principle involved, and which my clause is intended to carry out, is a principle the adoption of which has been found essential for regulating, correcting—nay, restoring the elective system in the United States of America, in order to insure the duo representation of the people under that democratic system of government. It is the more remarkable that Her Majesty's Ministers should seek to evade the consideration of this subject, seeing that one of their number, himself a Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is also one of the Members for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), has publicly announced, in a letter, which appeared in The Times newspaper, that it was he who imported into the electoral proceedings of the United Kingdom the system of Convention and Caucus, which has led avowedly, according to Congressional Reports, to the greatest abuses in the United States, and, in fact, formed one of the elements in the differences which brought about the American Civil War. 1991 That has been reported by Congress; and yet, when a Cabinet Minister says that he has been a party to importing this system of Convention and Caucus into the electoral system of this country, which it has already, to a large degree, perverted in the same manner as it perverted the electoral system of the United States, and I submit to the House a clause, which embodies in principle the remedy against the evil of the Caucus that has been adopted by the Congress of the United States, I am met by the hon. and learned Attorney General with evasive answers, as I will show, and with the allegation that this subject is not worth the consideration of the House. Far be it from me, Sir, to presume upon my position as an old Member of the House; but I say that, if the humblest Member of the House adduces such facts as these, when the task of correcting the electoral system is before the House, the people of this country—the constituencies of this country—knowing that the American system has been largely introduced into the Constitution of this country, have a right to demand some fuller answer from the Representative of the Government, a leading Member of which boasts that he has introduced the system of Caucus into the elections of this country, and that, in the year 1880, nearly 80 constituencies were affected by the operation of that system. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive my placing the matter before the House in this form, because, during the 40 years that I have had a seat in this House, I have not been in the habit of presuming on the indulgence of the House. I trust that, in very few instances, it can be said of me that I have troubled the House with any Motion on insufficient grounds; and I am perfectly certain that, in the present instance, it is not upon insufficient grounds that I am acting. Now, the only answer to the purport of what I have said, which the hon. and learned Attorney General gave me on a former occasion was, that the evil, the correction of which is contemplated by this clause, is provided against by the existing law. But, with the permission of the House, I will show that this is not the fact. In the first place, not being a lawyer myself, I desired to be supported by legal authority. I therefore consulted a work upon The Law and Practice of Registration and 1992 Elections, published by Cox and Grady at The Law Times office, which is accepted, I believe, in all our Courts as a work of authority. There I find this passage, under the head of "Belfast Election Petition," at page 302— There is no power given by the Corrupt Practices Acts to deal with the practices, which have effects similar to those covered by the Statutes; and offences not defined by such Statutes; although having the same pernicious results as those which are defined, are not cognizable by the Court. That was a part of the judgment given by Lord Fitzgerald in the Belfast case; and it is to one of those omitted provisions as to offences not covered by any Statute that I now call the attention of the House, and with respect to which I propose the clause that stands in my name. I put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman in this House, asking under what Statute I should, in his opinion, find terms that would meet the abuse to which I pointed; and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred me to the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854, and particularly the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th sections of that Act. Well, Sir, not only have I carefully examined that Statute myself, but I have obtained the best advice I could get in the examination; and I may be permitted to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are no terms contained in it which meet the case that is submitted to the House by the clause I now propose. That clause is founded upon American Statutes, which, in seeking to correct the abuses of the Caucus, is directed against combinations of persons for corrupt purposes; and I now ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out what are the terms in the Statute of 1854, or any other Act existing on the Statute Book, that are directed against a combination or conspiracy such as the Caucus is designated in the recent Statutes of the United States, which are against the action of such combinations. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a discovery beyond the researches of those whom I have consulted, he will be obliged to confess that there are no such provisions in our Statute Book. The 5th section of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854, as it is the most comprehensive, comes, perhaps, nearest to the purpose; but it fails in this point—that not one word is directed 1993 against a combination such as has existed in the United States, and as it exists here, the operations of which are directed, or may be directed, to perverting the representation of the people. That section contains qualifications and conditions which are difficult of proof, such as the use of force, violence, or restraint, abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance. The practices of bribery or intimidation, and other abuses, are comprehended in the Reports of the United States Congress upon the abuses there generated; and I think it would have been well had the hon. and learned Attorney General given the House an opportunity of consulting those American Reports before he proposed to correct the electoral system of this country, under which, as democraticized, such abuses have grown up. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, then, to have this subject examined by competent legal authorities, and to point out the words in any English Statute that are directed against the combination of persons—the conspiracy of persons, to perpetrate abuses such as have been perpetrated by this system of Caucus in the United States. Sir, the House seems paralyzed. It is a strange thing; but perhaps it arises from the somewhat guilty conscience of Gentlemen on my own side of the House. ["Hear, hear!" from Irish Members.] My Friends from Ireland cheer that expression; I am a Member of no faction; I am an old-fashioned English Member, the Representative of a constituency which has never been corrupted. Moreover, having had a long experience of it, I believe it to be one of the most difficult constituencies to corrupt in England. I do not believe that anybody can corrupt or intimidate it; and, as the Representative of that constituency, I venture to press upon the Representative of the Government that, inasmuch as through the vote by ballot and the lowering of the suffrage the electoral system of this country is being assimilated to that of the United States, and inasmuch as one of their own number is the Chief of a Caucus, which that right hon. Gentleman said, in 1880, had extended its action to nearly 80 constituencies, it appears absolutely necessary that this question should be dealt with. I will read to the House the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman in the letter 1994 to which I have referred. The letter is dated the 10th of April, 1880, was published in The Times of the 13th, and concludes in these terms— Altogether, for good or for evil, the organization has now taken firm root in this country, and politicians will do well to give it in future a less prejudiced attention. Now, I fear that there is a prejudice in favour of the system on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers; but in the country there is no such prejudice; on the contrary, it is viewed with profound distrust; and, unless this House adopts some such means as have been found necessary in the United States to correct this evil of the Caucus, I am convinced that this distrust, which is already widely extended, will end in a want of confidence alike in the administration of the law, in the Government, and in this House itself. I beg to move, after Clause 2, the insertion of the following clause, which stands in my name, as embodying the substance of the means which have been found necessary to provide against the abuses of the Caucus in the United States:—

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he would remind the House that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate) had simply repeated what he said a few weeks ago on this subject. When in Committee on the Bill he (the Attorney General) pointed out to the hon. Member that all he wished to deal with could be dealt 1995 with by the existing law, and he had seen no reason to alter his opinion.
Question put, and negatived.
The next new clause on the Paper stood in the name of Mr. HEALY.

§ MR. SPEAKER
having called upon Mr. HEALY,

§ MR. BIGGAR
rose to move the clause, but—

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that he called upon the hon. Member for Monaghan; and, on the occasion of considering new clauses, an hon. Member could not delegate the duty of moving a new clause to another hon. Member; but he must be present to move it himself.

§ MR. SPEAKER
then proceeded to call upon other hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper.

MR. CRAIG-SELLAR
moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 43:— Where the nature of a county is such that any electors residing therein are unable at an election for such county to reach their polling place without crossing the sea or a branch or arm thereof, this Act shall not prevent the provision of means for conveying such electors by sea to their polling place, and the amount of payment for such means of conveyance may be in addition to the maximum amount of expenses allowed by this Act. The hon. Gentleman said, that, in moving the clause, he wished to make one last effort to do something to prevent the disfranchisement of a number of electors in many of the counties bordering on the sea on the West of Scotland. He did not propose to repeat the arguments that were stated almost ad nauseam in Committee; but he would, in a very few words, recapitulate the circumstances connected with this clause. The clause he now moved was in almost identical terms with the original clause in the Bill. That clause was not deemed to be sufficient by some Scottish Members; and an attempt was made to slightly extend the operation of the clause, by enabling electors, in certain cases, to be conveyed by land as well as by sea. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, however, considered that that would not be consistent with the principle of the Bill, and opposed it; and although the extension of the clause was supported by a considerable minority of Members, it 1996 was defeated. Then, on the Motion "That the Clause be added to the Bill," the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) opposed it, and with the assistance of his own followers, and certain Members on the Liberal side of the House, he succeeded in throwing out the clause. He (Mr. Craig - Sellar) trusted he might say without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, or to those who followed him, that, in taking the course he did, the right hon. Gentleman acted in ignorance of the true difficulty of those counties. He felt certain that, if the right hon. Gentleman had known that, practically, he was inflicting a serious injury upon a large number of electors, against whom nothing could be said whatever, he would not have moved the rejection of the clause. He thought he was justified in saying that, because, later in the proceedings on the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman moved a clause which, in a different way, might have partly done what was intended to be done by this clause. But the clause was not accepted; and the position in which they now stood was this—that there was no machinery provided by which these electors could be conveyed to the poll, and they were practically treated as if they were electors in a peccant borough, though, of course, not the smallest suspicion of corruption could be entertained against them. In winter it would be impossible for these electors to go to the poll; and, even in summer, it would be a matter of great difficulty, the result being that quite 45 or 50 per cent of them would be disfranchised. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to support the clause now moved; and he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, inasmuch as it was very similar to the clause which was originally in the Bill, would take into consideration the exceptional circumstances of these electors, and would allow it to be added to the Bill.
Clause (Conveyance by sea of voters in certain cases,)—(Mr. Craig-Sellar,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

§ SIR H. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that what the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) had 1997 stated was quite true. When he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and a good many of his Friends voted against the original clause, they were under the impression that the question of land and sea conveyances ought to be taken together in it. It was, however, afterwards represented to him that a very great hardship would take place in the case of these unfortunate islanders, there being no means provided for conveying them to the poll. He subsequently proposed a clause, to the effect that the votes in such cases might be taken by the Returning Officer going round; but there were certain objections to that proposal, and it was not accepted. He was perfectly willing to accept the clause now moved.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the course of the Government was clear on this matter. The Government, in the original Bill, proposed this clause, thinking that it was necessary in order to allow persons who could not reach the poll by any physical exertions of their own to have the means of being conveyed there. The Government, having inserted this clause in the Bill, voted for it; but they were defeated, and it was the only defeat they received during the progress of the Bill in Committee. The Government thought then, and they still thought, they were right in the course they took; and now that the matter had been brought forward by an independent Member, they must adhere to their former opinion, and vote for the clause.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "unable," to insert the words "without serious inconvenience."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause read a second time, and added.

§ MR. DALRYMPLE
moved to insert the following new Clause:— Where the nature of a county is such that any electors residing therein are unable at an election for such county to reach their polling place without extraordinary inconvenience and expense, in consequence of a polling station not having been provided within seven miles of their residence, this Act shall not prevent the provision of means for conveying such voters to their polling places, and the amount of payment for such conveyance may be in addition to the 1998 maximum amount of expenses allowed by this Act. The hon. Gentleman explained that his clause was intended to meet the case of persons living 10 or 15 miles or more from the polling places, who could not reach the poll for the reason just mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It was especially applicable to thinly-peopled remote districts of the North and West of Scotland; and whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wished it or not, without means of conveyance being provided, the measure would simply be a measure of disfranchisement in the case of electors living in those districts. The number of persons whose case the clause contemplated was no doubt small, but they were scattered in different parts of the counties; and he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General's attention to the clause, feeling certain there would be no abuse of it. He pleaded only for the interest of these electors, and without the least desire to increase the expenditure for the conveyance of voters to the poll.
Clause (Conveyance of voters by land in certain cases,)—(Mr. Dalrymple,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he was sorry he could hot accept the clause. The whole question was discussed at great length in Committee; and they agreed, for better or for worse, that they should get rid of the conveyance of voters. Many suggestions were made in Committee, with the view of providing conveyances for these out-voters; but it was felt that, if once they allowed carriages to be used in respect of certain voters, difficulties would arise which they did not wish to create. A carriage might go out to bring in certain voters; but the carriage was away for the day, and other electors than those whom it was intended to convey might get a ride in the carriage. The result would be, if the election agent came to know of it, that the seat would be gone. He did not think the clause was one which was workable either to the benefit of the candidate or the constituency, and he did not think it was a practical proposal; 1999 because either they must retrace all they had done and say that the conveyance of voters would be allowed, or they must not allow the introduction of carriages into a constituency for a particular purpose. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would be satisfied with the decision already arrived at by the House.

§ DR. FARQUHARSON
said, he only wished to express his disappointment and regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should have finally pronounced sentence of disfranchisement on a considerable number of electors in remote districts in the North of Scotland.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that, undoubtedly, the result of the Bill as it stood would be that a considerable number of electors would be disfranchised. At the same time, he would admit the difficulty of accepting this clause in face of the decision of the Committee.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. FINDLATER
moved the following Clause:— If any action is brought in any competent court to recover a disputed claim against a candidate at an election, or his election agent, in respect of any expenses incurred on account or in respect of the conduct, management, or general business of such election, or incidental thereto, and the defendant admits his liability, but disputes the amount of the claim, the said amount shall, unless the court, on the application of the plaintiff in the action, otherwise directs, be forthwith referred for taxation to the master, official referee, registrar, or other proper officer of the court, and the amount found due on such taxation shall be the amount to be recovered in such action in respect of such claim. Clause (Reference to taxation of claim against candidate,)—(Mr. Findlater,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read the second time, amended, and added.
Clause 1 (What is treating).
2000 Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "person," to insert the words "employed by him."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. MONTAGU SCOTT
, in moving that the following be added at the end of the clause:— Nothing in this section shall prohibit any entertainment given by any person, in the nature of ordinary hospitality, which is not inconsistent with his usual mode of living, and which in any case is not of a corrupt nature or given with a corrupt motive, said: I should have thought it scarcely necessary to do more than submit this very reasonable Amendment to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in order to insure its acceptance; but, as there seems to be some doubt on the point, I will take the liberty of making a few observations in recommending it to the House. I am quite certain that every Member of this House, and every reasonable person outside it, must be in favour of this Amendment. I hope the House will accept it, if the hon. and learned Attorney General will not; and that, in case of his refusal, they will insure that it shall not be rejected. Unless this Amendment be adopted, no candidate will be able, during an election, to entertain any of his friends who may happen to have votes. The possession of a vote will be a peremptory disqualification for the exercise of all ordinary hospitality. No man will be able to invite anyone even to dinner; not even his own brother, if he were a voter, and came to the place where the election was going on in order to vote for him. If he did give such an invitation, it would be construed into a corrupt practice; and even the unfortunate candidate's wife will be unable to invite her friends to a 5 o'clock tea, unless they are spinsters or widows—men in such a case being out of the question. To invite married ladies on such an occasion will be held to be a corrupt act, because they might be supposed to influence their husbands, and there might be a Petition against the return of the unlucky candidate. A more unfortunate position than that for any man in the 2001 position of having been returned, and who might be put to enormous expense through the act of his wife, I do not know. Surely the hon. and learned Attorney General does not wish that the whole country, during a General Election, which sometimes lasts for a month or six weeks, should be told that all hospitality during that period is to cease; that it should be a time of gloom and of fearful suspicion; and that, as soon as the Election is over, there should be a fearful drag on the pocket of every candidate. All I ask is, that reasonable entertainment should be permitted, when there is no political object to be served. We English people all indulge in hospitality; we love to entertain our friends; it is part of our nature to do so; but are we, at election times, to be setting ourselves up as a Pharisaical, disagreeable set of churls, and say to our most intimate acquaintances—"No; I cannot show you the slightest hospitality; I cannot offer you a glass of wine, or even a bit of bread, although you may be my own brother, and, having come some 300 miles to vote for me, are almost starving; you must be off and get some refreshment elsewhere. I cannot tell you where, as the public-houses will all be shut at an election." ["No, no!"] I must remind hon. Members who say "No!" that is so only on the day of polling. The hon. and learned Attorney General actually asks this House—nay, commands it—to decree that, because a man is a candidate, he is to behave in a way which everyone must admit would be very unpleasant, and to tell a friend who says—"I wish you to give me a biscuit?" "O, dear no! this is election time; you must go elsewhere." "But I have come hundreds of miles to vote for you." "I cannot help it; you must go those hundreds of miles back again." I ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, is everybody to be supposed to be corrupt? Is it supposed that every candidate wishes to corrupt the constituencies, and that every constituent should wish to be corrupted? Why, to say such a thing is an insult to the whole country. Are we a free people? No. The hon. and learned Attorney General says, by this Bill — "No; you are wretchedly corrupt; and I will check you in every way, and prevent you from exercising the slightest hospitality; even the slightest humanity." If the hon. 2002 and learned Attorney General will not accept my Amendment, very likely it will not be carried; but I think it incumbent on me to divide the House upon it.
Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words "Nothing in this section shall prohibit any entertainment given by any person, in the nature of ordinary hospitality, which is not inconsistent with his usual mode of living, and which in any case is not of a corrupt nature or given with a corrupt motive."—(Mr. Montagu Scott.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that he was sorry not to be able to accept anything in the shape of ordinary hospitality, and that, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment, which he did not think could practically be considered. The object of the Bill was that nothing should he considered illegal which was not of a corrupt nature, or given with a corrupt motive. An inquiry into hospitality "which is not inconsistent" with a candidate's "usual mode of living" would be very difficult. There was nothing in the clause which would interfere with hospitality. Nobody had been unseated for exercising moderate hospitality, nor would be.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General ought to be exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Montagu Scott) for bringing forward this Amendment. Why should he not satisfy all the good-natured men in the House by adopting the Amendment, seeing that it only embodied the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in a reply he had given to the hon. Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin)? He (Mr. Warton) believed that there was a real danger that some Judges might hold that to be a corrupt practice which was really only the exercise of ordinary hospitality.

§ SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE
said, that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Montagu Scott) had raised one of those points on which the Bill must undoubtedly fail, seeing that it was in one sense an impostor, as it did not provide against the nursing of boroughs. He would take 2003 the opportunity of putting a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General on that subject. A charming entertainment was recently given at Hastings by a Member of Her Majesty's Government, who entertained a large number of working men and produced for their benefit a real live Ambassador. Now, he wished to know from his hon. and learned Friend, whether it was competent for a man with a long purse to go down to any borough, and by a course of assiduous nursing, and giving entertainments of the character of the one he had referred to, impress the electors with the idea that he was a good man to represent them? Would that, either directly or indirectly, he regarded as a corrupt endeavour to influence the borough; and would he be brought within the scope of the Bill? The difficulty of deciding such a point as that was the total absence of any definition as to when an election began.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he must remind the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Hart Dyke) that the Amendment had nothing to do with the nursing of boroughs. As to the entertainment referred to, he thought the guests were the members of a club from London which had nothing to do with the borough of Hastings, for which place their host sat. It would be impossible to lay down a general rule in such cases. Every case must stand by itself, and be dealt with upon its own merits; and the question whether a particular entertainment was given corruptly for the purpose of influencing voters must be determined by the Judges. If a person entertained working men, with a view of nursing their votes, he must, of course, pay the penalty.

§ SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE
said, he was sorry he had mentioned the matter, as it appeared that the entertainment to which he referred had been given to strangers. He only mentioned it as it seemed to be the last case in point.

§ MR. CAUSTON
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would, before the Bill became law, either replace on the Paper the clause of which he (Mr. Causton) had given Notice, prohibiting candidates from subscribing to political clubs, or introduce words of his own to the same effect.
2004 Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 85: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (What is corrupt practice).

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 26, after the word "defined," to insert the words "in this Act or," said, it was rendered necessary by their having introduced a fresh definition of undue influence.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after the word "defined," to insert the words "in this Act or."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, he wished to point out that the insertion of these words would only tend to produce obscurity; and he would suggest that it would be better to leave the clause to remain as it now stood.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he would withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, he would take care that, if necessary, the point involved should be provided for on the third reading, or when the Bill went to the other House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—Transpose the first and second paragraphs, and make second paragraph a new clause after Clause 1.

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "directly or indirectly," said, it was an important one, because the Bill as it stood proposed that "any person who should directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person, make use of any threat," and so on, should be guilty of an illegal practice. He conceived that the words "directly or indirectly" would be mischievous and injurious. They might have been put in with the view of protecting; but he thought they were distinctly penal, and such mystifying words ought not to be used in an Act of Parliament. He could easily imagine the words being mistaken by Judge Lawson, for instance, on a candidate coming before him; and 2005 he could not conceive in what way the Bill would be injured by their being omitted.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "directly or indirectly."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'directly or indirectly' stand part of the Bill."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. The matter was discussed and decided in Committee, and the words objected to by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) were not of his (the Attorney General's) selection, but were in every Act that had been passed relating to bribery and undue influence. Rethought they might be found to be very useful in certain contingencies as a protection to the voter, and should be sorry to take upon himself to alter the law for the first time in this respect. He could give many instances in which, by making the blow fall directly on one person, you could indirectly injure another.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 6, after the word "of," to insert "whether by process of law or otherwise," said, it was drafted directly with the view of preventing intimidation. It was a very common thing in Ireland for a landlord to say to a man—"If you do not vote for So-and-so, I have got an arrear of rent on your farm, and I shall enforce it." Or—"There is an eviction overhanging against you, and I shall carry it out." That was as much an injurious form of intimidation as any other; and what he wanted to secure was, that during an election a voter should be absolutely free from intimidation. By inserting these words they would hit at the system of serving ejectments which prevailed during Parliamentary elections and elections of even Poor Law Guardians in Ireland. They could not say that this practice was an illegal thing. A landlord was perfectly within his legal right in carrying out writs of ejectment; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) was anxious to protect the voter from intimidation of all kinds he must deal with this question. He (Mr. Healy) could not see any 2006 reason why he should not accept the Amendment. The exercise of those legal rights often meant much more to a tenant than other forms of undue influence. If he got his head broken it could be mended; but if he and his family were evicted from house and home because of his vote there was no help for him.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, after the word "of," to insert the words "whether by process of law or otherwise."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he was as anxious as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) himself could be that voters should be protected from undue influence of any kind; but he thought that the words which it was proposed to insert were not necessary. If a threat were made to enforce a process of law for the purpose of making a person vote, or for letting it be known that if the voter did not vote a certain way a writ of ejectment would be served, that clearly would be undue influence, and would fall under that definition. In that case, it would come under the operation of the Act; and if it were not done for that purpose, then the Act would not affect it. He believed, however, if the words proposed were inserted, it might be said that under no circumstances could process of law be enforced at an election time, though its enforcement might be with perfectly innocent intentions. That being so, he saw no necessity for the proposal. Further than that, the acceptance of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Monaghan would, he considered, produce confusion. It being the law already that a legal process must not be used so as to inflict a legal wrong, there was no reason why the Amendment should be adopted.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, they were quite at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) as to what the law ought to be, and how it should be exercised. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the words proposed wore unnecessary they were bound to conclude that he was unaware of the uses to which the influence of property had been habitually put in Ireland. It was a remarkable 2007 fact that never in the whole Parliamentary history of Ireland had an election been voided on account of undue influence on the part of landlords, although everybody knew that that was deeply imbued in the social life of Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) only wished the Irish Judges would accept the interpretation of the law laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but his (Mr. Sexton's) experience of them made him slow to believe that that exposition of the meaning of the Bill would be carried into effect by them. It was perfectly obvious, therefore, that if the Government were sincere in their intention to make the Bill a protection of the conscience of the voter in the exercise of the franchise these words ought to be inserted. The Government were very anxious to provide against one description of corrupt conduct, and they (the Irish Members) claimed that they should be perfectly impartial, and include all classes, and that, if the serving of legal processes was intended to deprive the voter of his right to vote, such conduct ought not to be permitted with impunity, simply because it was done under cover of the law. The Bill as it stood at present would afford no protection to voters against the undue influence of landlords, bankers, and other creditors, who could threaten a debtor with legal process if he should not vote for a particular candidate.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, that the Amendment was not wanted, because a threat to enforce a legal process under the circumstances described by previous speakers need not terrorize electors, who were now protected by the system of secret voting. It seemed to him perfect nonsense to talk of a voter being intimidated to vote in a particular way. If the Ballot Act were a reality, the man's vote would be a secret.

§ MR. HEALY
He call be prevented from going to the poll.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, that, in his opinion, the Bill was a capital one, so far as bribery was concerned; but any enactments as to intimidation were nugatory, owing to the secrecy of the Ballot. If anyone intimidated a voter, the voter would very likely vote against him, as there were no means of finding out in what way he had voted.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it was quite true that since the passing of the Ballot 2008 Act intimidation had very largely diminished in Ireland. In fact, it had almost disappeared; and that was one of the reasons why the Irish Members had asked that Ireland might be exempted from the operation of the measure. The House had decided, however, that the Bill should apply to Ireland; and, recognizing that decision, he now asked that provisions should be inserted in the Bill to insure that the law against undue influence would be exercised equally, no matter from what quarter that influence emanated. The statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was remarkable; but he (Mr. Parnell) preferred to argue this question upon the general principle of intimidation by a creditor against a debtor. He did not wish to argue it on the question of landlord intimidation of the tenantry, although the history of elections in Ireland teemed with examples of landlord oppression. Under the Ballot Act the question had been narrowed to this—that the only way in which undue influence could be exercised was in the way of deterring a man from voting at all. He would not say that was universally the case; but he wanted to point out, however, that there were many examples of that kind of undue influence in Ireland, and that cases were very common in which creditors had said to their debtors—"If you refrain from giving your vote to So-and-so, we will not press you in regard to such a gale of rent;" or, "We will not process you at the next Quarter Sessions for the shop debt you owe." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that such a thing would be undue influence; but, if so, why not make it clear by inserting the Amendment in the Bill? It could not be said the Amendment would be offensive to the landlord class, because it applied generally to all relations of debtors and creditors. In order to prove that pressure of the kind was exercised, he would read to the House, however, without mentioning the names at present, a letter written by a landlord to a tenant, on the 13th of June, 1883, which he intended to bring under the notice of the Irish Executive. The letter said— I see by Mr. — a account for the last half-year, which I have just received, that your half-year's rent, due 25th March, 1883, has not been paid. Our instructions to Mr.— 2009 are that any tenant who brings us into the Land Court will be required to pay his rent within ten days from the dute on which it becomes due, and that no hanging gale will be allowed to such tenant Now, perhaps Mr. — has not made you aware of such decision on our part. Therefore, in such account, we will let matters remain as they are; but I wish to inform you that this rule will be strictly enforced in future, and I hope you will be prepared to meet it. Without any just cause you put us to very great expense in the Land Court. No doubt, you acted according to your legal right, and I think you cannot blame us if we follow your example in endeavouring to enforce our legal rights. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether the direction of such a letter as that to a voter before the election poll would be undue influence? If it would, what objection could the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to the insertion of a plain direction to the Irish Judges that they should put this law in force, since it had been shown that hitherto they had not done so?

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would agree to accept the Amendment, as he (Mr. Clarke) did not believe that the Ballot gave all the protection against intimidation claimed for it. He held that the clause, at present, did not include an expression of intent to put in force a legal remedy among the acts constituting undue influence. He thought, however, that the words proposed would only govern the words "force, violence, or restraint," which would not cover the eases put by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)
said, there was considerable force in the last argument of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was quite plain that the enforcement of a legal right for the purpose of influencing voters would not be included in the words "force, violence, or restraint." Yet it was to these words that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was limited. However, that was a verbal criticism. He did not think there was any difference in principle between the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment and the Government with reference to what was intended by it. He conceived there would net be the slightest doubt 2010 that the enforcement of a legal right which otherwise would not have been enforced, or would have been delayed, for the purpose of influencing votes, or for preventing a man from voting, or for inducing him to vote in a particular way, would be, and ought to be, within the limit of undue influence. There could be no doubt that would come within the words of the clause "inflicting or threatening to inflict injury, damage, harm, or loss." It seemed to him the Amendment was quite unnecessary and undesirable; and he would, therefore, recommend the House to leave the clause as it stood, because, in his opinion, if adopted, it might lead to some inconvenience, and possibly risk.

§ MR. LEWIS
said, he could not share in the view taken of the Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). In his (Mr. Lewis's) opinion, it was not only unnecessary, but, under certain circumstances, positively pernicious. The result would be that any process issued by a creditor at or near the period of an election might be presumed to be a corrupt practice. If a landlord at the time sought to recover his rents, the inference would be that he did it for a corrupt purpose, and not in the exercise of his legal right; and the onus would be on him to prove that he was not actuated by corrupt motives. He was glad, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had opposed the Amendment.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted. It was necessary to meet certain cases of intimidation and corruption, and it would only apply when there was actual damage, injury, or loss. It had been admitted by the Attorney General that they were most desirous of meeting any such abuse as that stated to exist in Ireland, and yet it was not met by the Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, they had it on the opinion of an acute critic of the Bill (Mr. Lewis) that such cases were not included, and that it would be wrong to interfere with the rights of creditors in such cases. Now, he (Mr. Martin) agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry that the clause, as it stood, did not meet the case of serving processes for rent at election; and if the Government admitted that such action was corrupt, he did not see 2011 why they should refuse an Amendment which would make the matter quite clear. He (Mr. P. Martin) submitted, with some confidence, that the evil would not be included in the words quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) took the view that the words "injury, harm, damage, or loss," meant such injury done in a wrongful way—a way which the law would not recognize. But the Judges would be bound to construe these words in accordance with their practice in reading similar words. Why, then, should there be this effort on the part of the Government to resist the Amendment? If the words proposed were mere surplusages, why were they so vehemently contested? The hon. and learned Members for Plymouth and Londonderry believed—and he (Mr. P. Martin) agreed with them—that the words, so far from being unnecessary, were of vital importance, and absolutely necessary, if the abuse which the hon. and learned Attorney General desired to meet was to be corrected and remedied.

§ MR. GREGORY
, in opposing the Amendment, said, it would amount to a total suspension of the power of enforcing the payment of debts during an election, and for some time afterwards. In that way, it would prevent landlords enforcing any claims they might have for rent, or arrears of rent, that might be owing.

§ MR. MACFARLANE
contended that that, instead of being an objection, was an argument in favour of the Amendment. With regard to the use of the evil itself, a friend, and not a landlord himself, might suggest to a voter that he had better not vote; and the result might be that a debtor, knowing himself to be indebted to a person interested in the contest, might abstain from going to the poll. He (Mr. Macfarlane) could see no harm in suspending processes of law during an election, which might have the effect of preventing people from voting.

MR. O'BRIEN
, in supporting the Amendment, said, he would point out as an argument in its favour, that the ignorant classes in Ireland had not yet fully realized how admirable was the protection which the Ballot afforded. He would also remind the House that 2012 there was nearly always a "hanging gale" on every estate in Ireland, so that landlords would never be without the power of threatening process of law in order to influence men's votes. Unless the law was laid down beyond doubt, there would, if there was any looseness about the provisions of the Bill concerning this matter, be Irish Election Judges who would hold that it was no injury, harm, or loss to a tenant if a landlord enforced payment of his legal claims at any time, or in any method he chose. The law had never been so bad in Ireland as the administration of it had been.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the law, he believed, was open to the tenant, if it could be proved that pressure was put upon him to pay a debt with a view to influence his vote. But he (Mr. Newdegate) could not vote for the Amendment, because it might be used to change the legal status of the voter at the time when he was about to exercise the franchise. It would alter the condition of his tenure, and his tenure constituted his qualification.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said, these words were already to be found in the Statute Law, and they would be interpreted in the future as they had been in the past. No Judge in Ireland would make it an offence on the part of a landlord to exercise what Judges had hitherto looked upon as the legal right of the landlord. In the definition of intimidation in the Act of 1855, the words "wrongfully and without legal authority" occurred, and the Judges would be biassed by these words. By accepting the Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would strike a blow at the more general kind of intimidation which would be practised by the opposing parties. In Ireland, much of the intimidation was exercised in bringing to the poll men who were unwilling to vote. If, now, they made it clear that by going to the poll a man would incur no risk, and that it would not be lawful for the landlord, or any other creditor, to put into force the machinery of the law, they would strike a blow at the effort to coerce the voter.
In reply to Mr. HEALY,

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the Government 2013 would not undertake to bring up an Amendment dealing with the question if he (Mr. Healy) withdrew his Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 131: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 267.)

§ MR. HEALY
said, the clause provided that any fraudulent device or contrivance which impeded the exercise of the franchise should be deemed a corrupt practice. Now, he thought any device whatever for such a purpose ought to be rendered illegal; and for that reason he begged to move to leave out the word "fraudulent."
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave out "fraudulent."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. PARNELL
supported the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he saw no distinction between device and contrivance and fraudulent device and contrivance; but he would not offer any opposition to the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving the addition to the clause of the following sub-section:— The printer, publisher, or proprietor of any newspaper who, with a view to damage the candidature of any candidate who has been put in nomination, shall print and circulate any statement, hint, rumour, or suggestion that any such candidate will or may retire before or on the day of polling, or any person printing, publishing, or posting any placards or posters to the like effect, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice. said, that this Amendment would serve no particular Party. Such false statements were made in Liberal and Conservative newspapers alike. He introduced the Amendment because of a circumstance that occurred during the Monaghan Election, and which was intended to injure his opponent, Mr. Henry Pringle. A statement appeared in a Tory paper that Mr. Gladstone had telegraphed to Mr. Pringle that he was desirous that he should withdraw, in order "to bring about the defeat of the rebel candidate;" and Mr. Pringle and 2014 his supporters complained that this injurious and lying statement, as they termed it, had lost him a lot of votes. At any rate, Mr. Pringle only polled the ridiculous number of 270, and he (Mr. Healy) could have easily afforded to allow him to poll a great many more. He must say that newspaper paragraphists of late were allowed too much licence at elections, and, where possible, he thought it ought to be restrained. No persons were the object of so many false stories as the Party to which he belonged; and he thought that some check ought to be put on the kind of injurious stories which he had illustrated. He therefore trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would be disposed to put some check upon practices of this kind, where the candidate had been put in nomination, and had paid his money to the sheriff.
Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 16, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "The printer, publisher, or proprietor of any newspaper who, with a view to damage the candidature of any candidate who has been put in nomination, shall print and circulate any statement, hint, rumour, or suggestion that any such candidate will or may retire before or on the day of polling, or any person printing, publishing, or posting any placards or posters to the like effect, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice."—(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the Government admitted the principle of the Amendment which the hon. Member had moved; and if he would withdraw it, seeing that it dealt with vindictive rumour that was not quite capable of legal definition, they would be willing, on Clause 6, to accept the following Amendment, which, he believed, would be moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson):— Any person, before and during an election, who knowingly publishes any false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate at such election for the purpose of promoting the election of another candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he thought the offer of the hon. and learned Attorney General was a fair and reasonable one.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he was perfectly satisfied with the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and would, therefore, withdraw the Amend- 2015 ment. Before doing so, however, he wished to point out that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) referred to all candidates; while he (Mr. Healy) only proposed that it should affect candidates who were nominated and had paid their money. He certainly did not intend to propose such a ridiculous thing as to prosecute a newspaper for stating that some one of the dozen Members who, perhaps, might have been mentioned had withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving to add the following sub-section to the clause:— Every placard or poster published by any candidate, or on his behalf, during an election, shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of its printer and publisher, and the name of the candidate upon whose behalf and in whose interest it is issued and circulated; and any person printing, publishing, or posting any such election poster or placard which fails to contain the name and address of the printer or publisher, and that of the candidate in whose interest it is issued, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice. said, the necessity for the Amendment was well illustrated by what occurred during the Monaghan Election. His Tory opponent, Mr. Monroe, Q.C., for the purpose of injuring his (Mr. Healy's) candidature, had not scrupled to issue a most offensive and disgraceful placard with regard to him—worse than the placard for which the brother of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) was now undergoing six months on the plank bed. The placard proposed to send the Queen to a place not mentioned on the map, and said that Parnell and his Colleagues were to be the Kings of Ireland. It was printed on green paper, and purported to be an address of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and himself to the Nationalist electors of Monaghan, the clear inference being that it was issued solely for the purpose of influencing the Protestant and Orange voters, and stirring them up to a still greater hatred and fury against his hon. Friend and himself. Why should practices of that kind be allowed? He should have thought that a gentleman occupying the position of a Q.C., and knowing that the editor of a newspaper (Mr. Harrington) was undergoing imprisonment in reference to a similar placard, alleged to have 2016 emanated front "the Invincibles," would have abstained from a disgraceful trick of that kind; but it would seem, however, that no rank or station was too high from which to stoop to electioneering tricks, and it was hard to any honest candidate if these things were not put down.
Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 15, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "Every placard or poster published by any candidate or on his behalf during an election shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of its printer and publisher, and the name of the candidate upon whose behalf and in whose interest it is issued and circulated, and any person printing, publishing, or posting any such election poster or placard which fails to contain the name and address of the printer or publisher, and that of the candidate in whose interest it is issued, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice."—(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the printer's name must appear on every Bill; and, if it did not appear, lie was liable to penalties. Therefore, so far as the first portion of the hon. Member's Amendment was concerned, although, perhaps, unnecessary, it was reasonable enough, and he would not object to it; but as to the second part, it would be too hard to hold a candidate responsible for such placards, which might be issued by any person, and the Government, therefore, could not accept it.

§ MR. HEALY
was understood to intimate that he would withdraw so much of his Amendment as referred to the candidate.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he felt bound to take notice of the words which the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had used with reference to Mr. Monroe, the late Conservative candidate for Monaghan. Considering that that gentleman was not there to defend himself, he (Mr. Gibson) should have thought that the most ordinary sense of fair play and decency of discussion would have suggested to him, at all events, the propriety of some moderation of language in reference to that gentleman. There was not a more honourable man in the Profession, and certainly not a more popular one, than Mr. Monroe. ["Oh!"] He defied anyone in that House to mention one solitary syllable which, during that heated 2017 and anxious electoral contest, Mr. Monroe used on any platform that was not characterized by fair, straightforward feeling, and frank and fearless antagonism. [Cries of "No, no!" front the Irish Members.] He was confident that the placard referred to was not issued by Mr. Monroe, or with his sanction. [Mr. HEALY: It was.] He repudiated the fairness of using any such language as the hon. Member had indulged in towards a late political opponent, and he denounced it as being entirely without a vestige of foundation. ["Oh, oh!"] As a friend and late colleague of Mr. Monroe, he felt bound not to allow the statement to pass unchallenged. He opposed the Amendment.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) had made the closing legal argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) quite unnecessary. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) did not intend to press the latter part of his Amendment. The grounds of the defence of Mr. Monroe by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin were flimsy and inadequate in the extreme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Mr. Monroe was an absent man. Well, if that dogma were to be accepted, the 30,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom who had not seats in the House could never be referred to there. But how did the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself apply that dogma the other night when Mr. Monroe was being feted and feasted by the Conservatives of Dublin? The right hon. and learned Gentleman then repeated, in the most extraordinary and offensive form, the reckless and extravagant charges which were strewn broadcast through Mr. Monroe's speeches during the Monaghan Election. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said further, that a sense of chivalry ought to have kept the hon. Member for Monaghan silent. But it was not because Mr. Monroe was beaten in Monaghan that his conduct should escape notice in that House. And now as to Mr. Monroe's conduct? What was it? Not within his (Mr. Sexton's) memory had any candidate so recklessly and wantonly indulged in the most extreme and extraordinary and fantastic charges against a political opponent. He mixed up the 2018 Members of the Irish Party in Monaghan with charges of assassination and treason and vile offences, and conducted himself altogether in a manner unworthy of a gentleman, and in a manner unworthy of anyone whose desire was to conduct an election in a fair and honourable way, and upon manly and intelligent grounds. He told the electors that Mr. Healy had declared his desire to place his feet on the neck of Protestants, which was a scandalous and a vile statement. His hon. Friend would never use such language, and anyone who imputed to his hon. Friend a desire to indulge in persecution of Protestants imputed what was repugnant to his hon. Friend's nature. He would close by giving the House one instance of the chivalrous feeling, good temper, courtesy, politeness and good breeding which characterized Mr. Monroe's conduct at that election. His hon. Friend's Christian name being Timothy, Mr. Monroe said he never heard of any Tim except two—one was hung at Kilmainham, and the other was the rebel candidate for Monaghan.

§ MR. RYLANDS
, in opposing the Amendment, said, he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had no intention of accepting it.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, he trusted that the first part, at least, of the Amendment would be accepted, for there was at the present time great doubt and uncertainty as to whether the law required the printer's name to be attached to every placard.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would be willing to withdraw the Amendment in its present form, if, instead of the words "and the name of the candidate upon whose behalf and in whose interest," the words were "the person by whose order" the placard or poster was issued and circulated.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he must ask the hon. Member to bring up the Amendment later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Punishment of candidate found, on election petition, guilty personally of corrupt practices).

§ MR. RAIKES
, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "ever," said, 2019 the disqualification of a candidate guilty of a corrupt practice against "ever" being elected was too severe. It was very harsh that a candidate who had given a glass of beer should be punished with such severity. In his opinion, the utmost punishment should be to deprive a candidate from sitting for the borough during the then Parliament and for seven years afterwards, which would prevent his contesting the borough for at least two General Elections; and if the course he now proposed was taken he would afterwards move an Amendment to that effect. This was substantially the same proposition as had been moved in Committee, and which had received great support.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the word "ever."—(Mr. Raikes.)
Question proposed, "That the word ever' stand part of the Bill."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, this was a question entirely for the House to determine; but he would say that, for himself, personally, he adhered to the word used in the clause, and he hoped others would agree with him in that respect. He had conceded point after point during the consideration of the Bill, until he had become ashamed of thinking that the impression should exist that they thought more of themselves than of other people who would be affected, or of purity of election; and he certainly should regret to see a man who had grossly corrupted a borough being able to go back again after a few years.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he had always been in favour of mitigating penalties, where the offence might not have been committed by the candidate personally. But in this case, where the offence was that of the candidate himself, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because he thought the House should mark its sense of the impropriety, and, in fact, the criminality, of the conduct of any candidate who knowingly committed a corrupt practice.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the Amendment was as nearly as possible the same as one which had previously been seconded by the hon. Member for Burnley himself.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he hoped the Government would not bring pressure on their supporters to vote against the Amendment.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
opposed the Amendment. He thought the Bill as a measure directed against corrupt practices would be a mere pretence if the Amendment were adopted.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 61 Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 268.)
On the Motion of Mr. GORST, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 27, leave out from "or of being," to "report," in line 28.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Punishment of candidate found, on election petition, guilty by agents of corrupt practices).
Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 37, after the word "practice," to insert the words "other than treating or undue influence."—(Mr. Parnell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
, in moving an Amendment for the purpose of enacting that a candidate guilty by his agents of any corrupt practice should be incapable of representing the constituency before whom he was a candidate during the Parliament for which the election was held, said, that, by the existing law, the errors of an agent was not a disqualification; whereas the present Bill imposed a severe penalty; and his object in making this proposal was to provide that the punishment should, instead of extending to a period of seven years, not last longer than the then Parliament. He held that the severity of the clause ought to be mitigated in the manner which he suggested, as it would be very hard to subject a man to such a severe penalty as that contained in the clause for acts done by his agents without his knowledge.
Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 41, to leave out the words "for seven years after the date of the report," and insert "during the Parliament for which the election was held."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that was the third time they had discussed this matter, once on the Bill of 1882, once in Committee upon this Bill, and now upon Report. The proposal was one that was arrived at as a compromise; and when the Bill was in Committee, he gave very fully his reasons for believing it to be an improvement on the present law. The point was, that they ought not to think only of the candidate, because the question was one of the constituency; and, that being so, he hoped the House would protect the constituency by adhering to the words of the clause. In the case of gross bribery going on in a borough or county, when it was discovered and punished, if the candidate, guilty by his agent of the corrupt practice, were only prevented from representing the borough or county in which the corrupt act had been committed during the Parliament for which the election was held, he might support a fresh candidate, in the shape of a personal friend it might be, who would represent the constituency until the next Dissolution, when he would step in and obtain the benefit of all his previous bribery. That could not be allowed, and therefore he must adhere to the clause as it stood.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to consider whether the disqualification could not be modified as regarded the offence of undue influence by his agents. The speech of an indiscreet friend, for instance, might lead, under the clause, to the disqualification of a Member for seven years. The question ought to be considered apart from the question of bribery. It was not nearly so bad an offence, and therefore it ought to be visited with a less severe punishment.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he also thought that the punishment which a candidate would suffer in consequence of his agent's misconduct, of which he might have no knowledge, was excessive. He considered that if the clause was passed in its present rigid form, its results would be most unfortunate. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would exclude "undue influence" from the same category as corrupt practices. He (Mr. 2022 Parnell) thought it monstrous that a candidate should be deprived of sitting in the House for seven years through a rash speech uttered by his agent. He hoped the Government would accept the Proviso with reference to the exception of treating from the severe penalties imposed by the Bill, which he intended to propose to add at the end of the clause.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said, that if the term of disqualification were not fairly long, the disqualified candidate would set himself to "nurse" the constituency until the next General Election. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would stand firm to the clause as it stood in the Bill. He considered those who supported the Amendment had a weak and careless constituency in their minds.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
supported the Amendment.

§ MR. LEWIS
, in supporting the Amendment, said, he thought this was senseless legislation. Why should there be this hard-and-fast line of punishment when the offences were so entirely different in degree? The Bill was very detailed in regard to crime, while it was very general in regard to punishment. Some of the punishments provided were disproportionate to the offences, and he considered there ought to be a sliding scale of punishment suitable to the various offences.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 72: Majority 4l.—(Div. List, No. 269.) Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Punishment of person convicted on indictment of corrupt practices).

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out the words of the clause including "personation," said, its object was to put personation on the same level as other offences as regarded punishment — namely, one year's imprisonment.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out all the words after the word "practice," to the word "shall," in line 3.—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the reason why personation was so severely punished was to meet an objection to the Ballot Act, that it would lead to many cases of personation. Personation was in itself a most heinous offence, and deserved severe punishment. Besides, it was a dangerous thing to relax the penalties for such an offence. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. GORST
said, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could have seen his way to accept the Amendment. The punishment of two years' imprisonment was adopted by the House in a kind of panic to satisfy an objection to the Ballot Act, which it suited the opponents of the measure to raise at the time. The severity of a punishment was by no means an index of efficiency as regarded the diminution of the offence for which it was inflicted.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, that, in his opinion, the extreme severity of the clause would defeat itself, and juries would more easily convict if the punishment were lessened. Two years' hard labour, and lying on a plank bed, was about the most severe punishment that could be inflicted on a human being. He did not think, from the experience he had upon the point, the offence existed to a large extent.

§ MR. LEWIS
, while not extenuating the offence, thought that the penalty might be reasonably mitigated. In the case of a son bearing the name of his father, and continuing to occupy, the House would not, in the illiterate classes, adequately appreciate the magnitude of the offence. At all events, one year's hard labour would be enough.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he thought hon. Members forgot that two years was the maximum, and that the Judge would have the power of passing sentence for any period less than two years, if the offence were not of a very aggravated character.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, an Irish Judge would certainly go to the extreme limit of the law. The offence of personation, it should be remembered, only affected one vote; whereas a briber might debauch a whole constituency.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
2024 Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the words "two years," and insert the words" one year."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Sir R. ASSUETON CROSS, the following Amendments made: —"In page 3, line 10, after "thereof," insert "on indictment;" and in page 3, line 13, after "convicted," insert "on indictment."

§ MR. HEALY
, in moving to amend the clause by the insertion of the following words:— No person shall be tried for any offence against this Act under any of the provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, said, he believed the Amendment was one which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) would have no difficulty in accepting, for he (Mr. Healy) need hardly say that it was never intended that that Crimes Act should be applied to cases arising at election times. Indeed, if it were, the Party to which lie belonged would gain more than lose by the application of the Act. For instance, in a case during the late Wexford Election, an employer said to one of his employés—" If you vote for Redmond, take care where you will get your bread henceforward." That was clearly a case within the Intimidation Clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act, and lie (Mr. Healy) was strongly tempted to get that employer prosecuted for the words; it was never intended that a piece o coercive legislation like that Act should be used for the punishment of offences arising out of election contests.
Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 27, after "conviction," insert "no person shall be tried for any offence against this Act under any of the provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882."—(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)
said, he regretted that it was not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) did not wish the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act to be enforced in election matters; but lie (the Attorney 2025 General for Ireland) would give a case to show how that suggestion would operate. Supposing a case of extreme intimidation arose under this Bill, under circumstances of extreme violation, that would be an offence both under the Prevention of Crime Act and under this Act; and yet the result would be, if this Amendment were carried, that the transgression of two Acts of Parliament would prove to be less criminal in the sight of the law than the transgression of one only. He did not see why a man should be exempt from a prosecution under the Prevention of Crime Act, because he also transgressed the provisions of another Act. Again, he could not see any reason why a man should not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Crime Act, simply because the offence for which he was prosecuted arose out of an election contest; or why election cases, any more than any others, should not be tried properly, either by a special jury, or, without prejudice, before a Special Magistrate. ["Oh, oh!"] Really it amounted to this—that it was proposed by an Amendment under the Bill to repeal the provisions of any other Act of Parliament. He trusted, therefore, the House would not pass the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was very much surprised at the attitude taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland). He also thought they were very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the statement he had made. One would really suppose that the Government had deliberately determined to prevent the rapid passage of the Bill by refusing the very reasonable request of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy). He (Mr. Parnell), however, should say that they expected a somewhat larger statement from the Attorney General for Ireland for refusing the concession. The Prevention of Crime Act, he need hardly say, was intended to meet a particular state of affairs totally unconnected with elections—to put down grave offences, such as terrorism, Whiteboyism, and murder—and for that purpose Parliament, under circumstances which were conceived to be of the very greatest urgency, had, after long discussion, introduced into it the most extraordinary provisions with regard to jury-packing and the removal of cases from the venue in which they had arisen 2026 that had ever been asked by any Irish Government for the repression of crime in Ireland. It was never, certainly, proposed that the Act should apply to electoral matters; but now, when his hon. Friend had put it forward as a reasonable concession to make, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would have it that offences under this Corrupt Practices Bill should not be tried under the same law that existed in England. He did not even condescend to show that there was any necessity for such a proposal, he did not allege that there was likely to be a failure of justice in the matter; but without any argument whatever, and without the smallest justification, he sought to apply to offences under this Act the sweeping provisions of an Act passed for a totally different purpose. The Prevention of Crime Act was passed to cover a period of three years, and he was surprised that in a matter which could have but such a temporary effect the Irish Members should be met in this way. One of those three years had already elapsed, and consequently the provisions of the Act would only now be in existence for two years more. But in the next year, in all probability, the General Eelection would take place, and hence the Crown sought to retain these exceptional powers with respect to electoral proceedings in Ireland. If there was any meaning at all in this action of the Government, it was of such a character as would not bear investigation. Was the offence of undue influence in Ireland to be tried by two Resident Magistrates? On the debate on the 3rd section of this Bill, they had a half promise from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England that the construction of intimidation under this Act should not be the same as that under the Prevention of Crime Act, and it was certainly never anticipated that an offender at an election would be tried before the Crimes Act tribunals. At the time it was proposed to abolish trial by jury under the Prevention of Crimes Act, the offences to be tried by Judges were set forth in that Act. When, however, it was found that the Judges declined to accept the responsibility of trying cases without a jury, and after the Irish Members had been forcibly ejected from that House, and could not again, 2027 with any feeling of self-respect, resume the discussion of the Bill, the Government brought forward other provisions providing for jury-packing and change of venue. Now, if the Irish Members were in the House at that time, he thought they would have been able to impress on the Government the necessity of restricting the class of cases to be tried; and yet, in the face of all that, the Attorney General for Ireland came forward and told them that he did not see why cases arising out of elections should not be tried under the Prevention of Crime Act. What was the object of the Government in refusing this Amendment, and maintaining the attitude now exhibited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland? What did they hope to gain? The Irish Members did not desire to delay the progress of the Bill—on the contrary, they had facilitated its progress; but if they were now to be met by a refusal of all reasonable concessions, they would necessarily be obliged to insist and dwell upon different matters in a way in which, under other circumstances, they would not desire to do. He hoped the Government would let the House proceed, and reconsider their decision upon the point. What, he would ask, was the object of throwing down now this firebrand in their midst?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) made it extremely difficult for the Government to accept any suggestion coming from him with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The hon. Member threatened that if the Government did not accept the Amendment, the discussion would be continued for a long time.

§ MR. PARNELL
Excuse me; I did not make, or intend, by the words I used, to make any threat of the kind, and if my words bore that interpretation I withdraw them.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he readily accepted that statement. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be under some misapprehension in relation to the question, inasmuch as under the 1st clause proceedings under the Bill could only be taken by "indictment" or "infor- 2028 mation," involving a trial by jury, and could not, therefore, come within the summary jurisdiction of two Resident Magistrates. It had been suggested to him by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that the only difference the Prevention of Crime Act would make was with regard to special juries.

§ MR. PARNELL
And change of venue.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
thought special juries in such cases were what everybody desired. ["No, no!"] He had, when the question first came on, asked his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to oppose this Amendment. He did so because he thought it would have been for the benefit of all concerned that there should be a change of venue in the trial of offenders under this Bill, and also that cases should be heard by special juries. However, after consultation with his right hon. and learned Friend, they were agreed that the Amendment would make no practical difference, and that the Prevention of Crime Act was passed to meet an entirely different class of offences. Therefore, as there appeared to be so strong a feeling in its favour among Irish Members, and as he did not think the exclusion of cases arising from the operation of that Act would do any practical harm, he would take upon himself the responsibility of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had exercised a wise discretion in making the concession.

§ MR. LEWIS
said, he would also congratulate the Government on accepting the Amendment. It would be a very grave insult to Irish constituencies to place them on a different footing in this matter from that occupied by English constituencies.
Question put, and agreed to.
Words inserted accordingly.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Certain expenditure to be illegal practice).
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, after the word "poll," to insert the 2029 words "or the neighbourhood thereof."—(Mr. Thomasson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 8, after "elector," insert "as an advertising agent."
Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 10, after the word "elector," to insert the words "for the exhibition of bills or advertisements on stations, hoardings, window-boards, or other places belonging to him at least three months previously to the election."—Richard Cross.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Expense in excess of maximum to be illegal practice).
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—Leave out sub-section 3, in page 4, line 21.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Procurement of voting by prohibited persons to be illegal practice).
On the Motion of Mr. GORST, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 24, after "person," insert "votes or;" and in line 25, leave out "whom at the time he knows to be," and insert "knowing that he or such person is."
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 26, leave out "Act or otherwise," and insert "or any other Act or by the common law of Parliament."
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after the word "be," to insert the words "personally liable to the same penalties as if he were."—(Sir Richard Cross).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 27, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "Any person who before or during an election knowingly publishes any 2030 false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate at such election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice."—(Mr. Gibson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
asked, whether if an agent were guilty of that practice it would invalidate the election?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he would consider the point.
And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Further Proceeding on Consideration of the Bill stood adjourned till To-morrow.