Commons Sitting of 10 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) * [288].
Second Reading—Leaseholders (Facilities for Purchase of Fee Simple) [134], deferred.
Committee—Education (Scotland) [226]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) [282].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Isle of Wight Highways (recomm.) [268].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [265], and passed.
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) [21].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF DR. DAVIS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a case brought by Dr. Michael Davis, J. P. against Terence Reilly, for possession of a holding in Coravillis, Inniskeen, county Cavan, and which was tried before Captain Mansfield, R. M. and Messrs. Gibson and Chambers, J. P. who, on examining the documentary evidence, pronounced the complainant guilty of perjury; and, whether he will direct any proceedings to be taken against Dr. Davis?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that in the course of the case referred to one of the magistrates present—namely, Mr. Chambers, did say that Dr. Davis, in an application which he joined with his tenant in making under the Arrears Act, had made an affidavit not in accordance with what the law required, and sworn what was not true. Such statement was, however, made under a misapprehension of the facts, and was not concurred in or approved of by the two other magistrates mentioned in the hon. Member's Question; and on inquiry I do not find that there are any grounds for instituting proceedings against Dr. Davis. It is, of course, no part of my duty to order a prosecution.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CATHOLICS IN DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What provision, if any, has been made for the spiritual necessities of the Catholic inmates of the Donegal Workhouse since the resignation of the Catholic chaplain, the Rev. Hugh M'Fadden, P. P. on the first of May last; is it a fact that the Catholic inmates attend Mass on Sunday in the Parish Church without being in charge of any official in connection with the Workhouse, and is this in accordance with Workhouse regulations; is it a fact that the Parish Priest of Donegal is obliged to employ a Catechist to instruct the Workhouse children after Mass in the Parish Church; is it true that the Catholic Guardians have declined to attend the meetings of the Board in consequence of the majority refusing to appoint a Catechist, there being no Catholic school teacher or official in connection with the Workhouse; and, whether the Local Government Board approve of a Catechist being appointed in the absence of any Catholic official, and have expressed their regret that the majority of the Board will not sanction such appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Roman Catholic chaplain resigned his office in May, and it was found impracticable to obtain the services of another chaplain. The workhouse inmates have, therefore, as the only alternative, been allowed to attend Mass in the parish church on Sundays and Holy days. They are not attended by a workhouse officer to the church, which is only a few hundred yards from the workhouse. The master has reported weekly to the Guardians that the inmates returned in good time, and in good order. The arrangement is, of course, unusual, and is not provided for in the general workhouse regulations. The Local Government Board are not aware of the employment of a Catholic catechist at the expense of the parish priest; but they understand there is a Roman Catholic monitress in the workhouse who teaches the children their Catechism. It is the case that the Local Government Board approve of the appointment of a Catholic catechist, and have expressed to the Guardians their regret that the majority decline to sanction such an appointment. With
  54
  regard to the non-attendance of the Catholic Guardians at the Board meetings, I am informed that it is not known locally that the catechist question is the cause of it.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether this was not a case in which he ought to recommend the Local Government Board to appoint paid Guardians for the district?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that would be a very strong step to take, having regard to the fact that the present Guardians were elected for the general administration of poor relief.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsuggested that the Local Government Board should intimate to the Guardians that they might be compelled to override their decision.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would consider the matter.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE—PENSIONS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners who retired from the force between 1866 and 1874 got only about three-fourths of their pay as pension, although the Act of 1847 gave them their full pay as pension after 20 years' service, and although the majority of these men served over thirty years; whether it is the fact that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the officers of the constabulary who joined and were discharged under the Act of 1847 were pensioned off with their full pay; what is the reason of this inequality in the treatment of officers and men who joined and served in the same force and were discharged under the same Act of Parliament; and, whether the Government will give to pensioners with 30 years' service the full pay allowance to which the Act of 1847 entitled them after a service of 20 years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of these pensioners has been several times debated in this House, and has been frequently considered, and successive Governments have decided that they received the pensions to which they were entitled by law. I cannot undertake to re-open the matter, the details of which are too complicated to be satisfactorily dealt with in answer to a Question; but

  55
  I may mention that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a direct comparison between the case of these men and that of Constabulary officers serving under the Act of 1847 and of the Metropolitan Police can be instituted as he suggests. The officers had to serve for 40 years under that Act before they could retire on full pay; and, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, different statutory provisions exist to affect the construction.

  ARMY—TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of allowing men who have taken their discharge at the expiration of either the first or second period of service, or who have purchased their discharge at any period of service, to re-engage within six months, reckoning their former service? The hon. and gallant Member also asked, Whether the noble Marquess's attention has been called to the refusal of a large number of men to re-engage on the completion of their first term of service, on account of not receiving their Deferred Pay; and, whether he will consider the advisability of issuing such Pay on re-engagement instead of withholding it until discharge?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will be convenient to answer this and No. 6 Question together. There is some confusion in the terms employed. Inducements have been offered to men to extend their service with the Colours, and one of these is the permission to re-engage for pension, if recommended by their Commanding Officer. I believe that the number of men who, up to the present time, have extended their Colour service, is not large. Both the suggestions in the hon. and gallant Member's Questions have been considered; but they would both be in principle opposed to the short service system, and they would also tend actually to defeat the object which we have at present in view, which is to secure an extension of the continuous service of men now serving in the ranks.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: On Tuesday I will ask the noble Marquess, Whether it is not a fact that two officers of the Guards were sent to Portsmouth especially to tempt men recently arrived from India to re-engage, and thus to
  56
  defeat the short service system; and whether that attempt did not fail owing to their not receiving deferred pay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Does the hon. and gallant Member employ the term re-engage or extend their service?
  COLONEL COLTHURST: Extend their service with the Colours.

  ARMY—GOVERNORS OF MILITARY PRISONS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to Articles 376 and 377, Royal Warrant, Pay, &c, 1881, What length of service will entitle existing Governors of Military Prisons to promotion to first class; and, whether appointments to Military Prisons will in future be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 377?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The class refers to the charge, and not to the individual. The condition of receiving the pay of the first class is to be the Governor of a Military Prison of the first class. Article 377 constitutes the rule for future appointments.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—OUTRAGE AT DRUMCLIFFE, CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police and magistrates with regard to an outrage committed on Sunday, the 8th ultimo, at Drumcliffe, in the county Sligo, where five young men, members of the Orange Lodge of Sligo, having first indulged in liquor at the house of a publican named Adams, marched along the highway, wearing Orange sashes, shouted abuse of "Papists" in front of the Catholic Chapel, cursed the Pope, and pursued and fired at a young man named Denis Tighe, a Catholic; why the police allowed, or have not sought to punish, the breach of the Sunday Closing Act which led to this disorder and violence; why Constable Craig, the Constable in charge of the locality, omitted to report the facts to his superiors until after they had been published in the "Sligo Champion" of the 14th instant, six days after the occurrence, when it was no longer possible to conceal them; why Constable Craig, in the summons, charged the act of firing off a revolver at a person as

57
merely a Road Nuisance Offence; why, instead of summoning the five offenders as defendants he summoned two of them as witnesses; why he summoned the man fired at as a defendant, not as a witness; and, why he refrained from summoning several eye-witnesses who could have given conclusive evidence; what notice will be taken of the conduct of Constable Craig; whether the three magistrates who heard the case at Sligo, on the 20th ultimo, dismissed it without prejudice, although several witnesses directly identified the defendants, though the only evidence for the defence was that of two men who had been themselves abettors of the disorderly proceedings, and though the Chairman characterised the "whole affair" as "disgraceful;" and, whether, considering the nature of the evidence, as well as the manner in which the case was managed and presented by Constable Craig, the Government will now order the arrest of all the offenders, and the renewal of proceedings against them?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that a party of young men returning from an Orange meeting at Drumcliffe entered a public-house and had some refreshment. There was no breach of the Licensing Laws, as they were bonâ fide travellers. They subsequently met on the road another party, and a row ensued. Two shots were fired, the Orange party allege from behind a hedge, while the Roman Catholic party allege that they were fired by the Orangemen. The constable followed the usual course of reporting the matter to the district Resident Magistrate and taking his directions. All the parties were summoned, and the evidence was so contradictory that the magistrates could come to no decision, and dismissed both sides without prejudice. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] I assure the hon. Members that both sides swore extremely determined. I will not say there was hard swearing, as it would imply that one side have sworn truly and the other side untruly. Every effort is being made to obtain further evidence, and if the charge of firing shots or carrying firearms can be brought home to anyone, they will be made amenable.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the men were not arrested and searched to see whether they had firearms in their possession?
MR. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the houses of these parties were searched for firearms?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, the houses of the Orange party had been searched, but no firearms found.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a tenant named Thady Timlin, of Culleens, near Ballina, county Sligo, was lately ejected from his holdings for a debt of thirty shillings, one year's rent; whether the ejectment was enforced by the landlord, a person named Henigan, accompanied by a bailiff and two policemen, without the presence of the sheriff; whether they seized, in satisfaction of the debt of thirty shillings, the bedclothes belonging to the old couple who lived in the house, and a crop worth about ten pounds; and, whether the proceeding was legal, and what redress is open to the evicted tenant?
MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a telegram stating that Timlin was evicted for non-payment of two years' rent, amounting to £3. The eviction was carried out by a bailiff named Farmer, acting under a deputation from the Sheriff. He was not accompanied by police; but a police patrol happened to pass while the eviction was going on. The bailiff told Timlin that he might regard all his effects as seized; but it does not appear that anything was carried away. If there is any suggestion of illegality in the proceedings it is not for me to decide the point, as the Courts are open to persons feeling aggrieved.

BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART—IRISH SCIENCE TEACHERS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any arrangement has been concluded between the Department of Science and Art, South Kensington, and the Board of National Education in Ireland, to ensure to the Irish science teachers payment on the results of the May examinations at an earlier period than heretofore; whether the Department will endeavour to make such payments before the new classes are formed in the beginning of October; whether it is still considered

59
necessary that claims from schools not in connection with the Commissioners of National Education should be referred to their Board for the purpose of being supervised by the Board's inspector before payment can be made by the Department; and, whether the delay in paying the Irish claims has not been due principally to the time occupied by the Returns passing through the hands of the Marlborough Street officials?
MR. MUNDELLA: The arrangement which I promised the hon. Member last year has already been made, and we hope to make all payments duly claimed before the end of September. No claims from any schools will in future be sent to the National Board. But in cases of doubt, where Returns are inaccurately filled up, we shall avail ourselves of the assistance of the Board. The delay in the past has been largely due to the complex arrangement which has now been superseded, and to the late date at which the schools sent in their claims, and too often to their inaccuracy when they are filled up. I hope we shall secure much greater accuracy and despatch in the future.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL—CONVERSION OF PERPETUAL ANNUITIES—FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
MR. GREGORYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the proposed conversion of perpetual annuities held by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery will involve any alteration in the accounts kept by him with the suitors of such Court, or in the orders dealing with the funds to which they are entitled, or whether such suitors will be credited as heretofore with sums of £3 Per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities in the books of such Paymaster General?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the conversion of a portion of Government Stocks held by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery on behalf of suitors into Terminable Annuities will not involve any alteration in the accounts kept by him with the suitors, or in the orders dealing with the funds to which they are entitled. The suitors will be credited as heretofore with the Stock to which they are entitled, and with the interest upon such Stock as it accrues due.

NAVT—THE DOCKYARDS—LEADING MEN OF SHIPWRIGHTS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What course they propose to adopt with the present acting leading men of shipwrights in the event of the proposed organization being carried out?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN): All acting leading men of shipwrights will become acting inspectors.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MEDALS FOR VOLUNTEERS—MEDALS FOR LONG SERVICE.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer a medal for long service on the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of Her Majesty's Volunteer service; and, if so, when it is proposed to carry that intention into effect?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As this Question has been already twice answered, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply on the 20th of April last to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell), to the effect that the issue of medals should be restricted to war services, long and meritorious Army service, and the saving of life?

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—VALUATION OF HOLDINGS—"DRISCOLL v. HALL."
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in hearing evidence in "Driscoll v. Hall," the Land Commissioners heard any witness as to value, or confined themselves to hearing evidence as to a legal point; whether they sent a court valuer; in how many cases have they given decisions in which neither they nor the Sub-Commissioners sent a court valuer, and is it an invariable rule not to give judgment unless they or the Sub-Commissioners have sent a court valuer, or heard evidence as to value; and, is it the fact that the rent fixed is greater than what the middleman pays his own landlord for his tenant's land, and for twice as much land in addition, which is in his own possession?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he had referred to the Land Commission

61
on the subject, but had not yet received any reply.

CHINA—THE OPIUM TRADE.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the negotiations with China about opium, which have been proceeding since 1876?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The only information that I am at present able to give my hon. Friend is, that the negotiations, as I stated in this House on April 3, are proceeding, and being carried on; and that proposals have been made by the Chinese Government, to which Her Majesty's Government have signified their readiness, under certain conditions, to agree.

SUEZ CANAL—THE CORRESPONDENCE OF 1872.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he had read Colonel Stanton's despatch of the 14th of September 1872, in which he states, with regard to M. de Lesseps' claim to the exclusive right of ship communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea—
"A pretension which the Khedive is, however, by no means prepared to admit, as he maintains, and I imagine justly, that no such construction can he attached to the terms of M. de Lesseps' Concession, and that there can he no doubt as to his own right to make canals or carry out any other public work within Egyptian Territory,"
before he received the deputation of shipowners on the 13th of July this year, and stated, with reference to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps—
"We (the Government) came to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps, or his Company, had an exclusive right by water through the Isthmus to the Gulf of Suez;"
and, whether he still adheres to that statement?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir. When I met a deputation of shipowners in July last, I was cognizant of the Correspondence in 1872, which related to a claim supposed to have been set up by M. de Lesseps for a monopoly of all waterways between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, both as against the Khedive and any Company. The question discussed with the deputation was not the power of the Khedive to make
62
Government Canals in Egypt, but his power to grant a Concession to an English Company for a parallel Canal through the Isthmus, as urged by several deputations and Memorials of shipowners. It was with reference to this proposal that I used words to the effect—but not the exact words—quoted by the hon. Member, and I see no reason to depart from that statement.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the rate of mortality in the ten cities and boroughs of the Metropolis is not many degrees less than in several of the large provincial towns of the United Kingdom, whose supply of water is drawn in from other than riverine sources, and the sale of which, to consumers, is altogether in the hands of the Municipal Corporations?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The facts, according to the best information I can obtain at so short a Notice, are these. Taking the towns in the United Kingdom with a population above 100,000, and excluding those where the supply is furnished by Companies, or where the supply is partly or wholly from rivers, there are, I think, nine towns where, according to the last published Quarterly Return of the Registrar General, the death rate was higher than in London, and four where it was lower.

TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will communicate to the House, on the Motion for Second Reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill, a statement giving particulars of the sums (if any) advanced by the Irish Land Commission, for the purpose of promoting emigration from Ireland, under Clause 32 of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; "also of the advances made for the like purpose to Irish boards of guardians by the Commissioners of Public Works, under Clause 18 of "The Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882," and of the grants under Clause 20 of the same Act for the like purpose, showing the date and amount of each payment, and the person or persons to whom the same was made?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will communicate substantially to the House what the hon. Member asks for; but I may not be able in the course of a speech to give full details as to dates and particulars of every payment; but I will give a general view and abstract of what has been done. I can see no objection to the hon. Member having the information in the shape of a Return.
MR. SEXTONasked if the Return would be furnished before the second reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not pledge himself to that; but it would be given as soon as possible.
MR. GIBSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the second reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
MR. TREVELYAN: I fear no positive information can be given.
MR. GIBSON: Will it be next week?
MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly.

SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—CETEWAYO.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, if it prove to be the fact that Cetewayo has been compelled to seek British protection in the Reserved Territory, Her Majesty's Government will direct that measures shall be taken to prevent him or his adherents from recommencing war, or using the Reserved Territory as a basis for fresh agitation or military operations in Zulu-land? The right hon. Gentleman added:—I should like to say that I hope this will not be treated as a hypothetical Question. The suggestions I make are only too probable; and I trust we may hear that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to incur the responsibility of doing nothing to prevent the recurrence of bloodshed in Zululand.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Whether the right hon. Gentleman regards this Question as a hypothetical one or not, it does not alter the fact that it is hypothetical, and that it is put in a hypothetical form. Events in Zululand have, no doubt, taken a new and unexpected turn during the last few days. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we only had information recently; and it is impossible at three hours' Notice, and in
64
the absence of positive information as to Cetewayo's movements, to say what will be the action of the Government beyond the maintenance of order in the Re-serve.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I feel that three hours' Notice is not long, and I shall repeat the Question another day; but I may remind the hon. Member that prompt action is needed if anything is to be done.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE VOLKSRAAD.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will communicate to the House the text or substance of the Vote of Censure lately passed by the Transvaal Volksraad upon Her Majesty's Ministers; whether it is a fact that the Transvaal Budget of the year shows a deficit of £200,000; whether he can obtain a summary of the Transvaal Budget; and, whether any time has been fixed for the payment of the £450,000 owing by the Boers to Her Majesty's Exchequer, or any portion of that sum?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the substance of the Resolution adopted by the Transvaal Volksraad, which the hon. Member, with rare wit, calls a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Ministers, was to the effect that the Raad, having seen that the Imperial Government had resolved to take into its own hands the Government of Basutoland under certain conditions, and considering that such a step requires the confirmation of the Cape Parliament, now in Session, resolves that the said step is considered injurious to the peace, welfare, and future union of South Africa, and that this Resolution should be communicated, among others, to the Cape Parliament and the Imperial Government. The Governor at the Cape asked for instructions as to what he should do with the Resolution; and the Secretary of State, on the 26th of July, directed him to inform the Transvaal Government that, in the absence of any explanation of the reasons for which they adopted the Resolution and sent it to the Imperial Government, they must decline to discuss with the Government of the Transvaal a matter which lies altogether beyond the functions of that Government. As to the second Question, I cannot say what deficit, if any, the Transvaal

65
Budget of the year shows. We have not the figures; and, although we could obtain a summary of it, there would be no advantage in doing it. As to the last Question, I must refer the hon. Member to a Return which I laid on the Table of the House three weeks ago, from which he will see that the Debt is £380,000, and not £450,000. No time has been fixed for the payment of this sum, as by the terms of the Convention—which the hon. Member should consult—it is to be paid by an Annuity for 25 years of £6 0s. 9d. per cent.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether one of the conditions of the Convention was not that £100,000 should be repaid last August; and, whether the Resolution of Censure was communicated to the Government through the British Resident in the Transvaal?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; the Resolution was communicated through the British Resident. As to the £100,000, I have so often explained the matter in this House that I really cannot repeat it.

SPAIN—SURRENDER OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES—COLONEL MACEO.
MR. O'KELLYasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government will make any further representations to the Government of Spain in reference to the liberation of Colonel Maceo, who was illegally arrested on British territory, and handed over to the Spanish Government; whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that Colonel Maceo is kept locked up in his room almost constantly, and that, during the four months he has been a prisoner in Pampeluna, he has not been further than fifteen or twenty paces from his cell; whether his family, during their daily visit, are locked up with Colonel Maceo in the cell in which he is confined; whether anyone is allowed to visit Colonel Maceo without the special permission of the Governor of the Citadel; whether the Spanish Government grant only an allowance of six reales (about one shilling and three-ponce per day) to Colonel Maceo to enable him to live; and, whether this treatment of Colonel Maceo is in accordance with the promises made to Her Majesty's Government by the Govern-
66
ment of Spain to treat Colonel Maceo with the consideration due to his rank?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not, at present, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any further representation in the case of Colonel Maceo. The Papers presented to Parliament will show that Her Majesty's Government have made every effort to secure him treatment in a manner according to the promises made, and that they have received on this subject satisfactory assurances from the Spanish Government. Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid will, however, continue to watch the case.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the noble Lord say whether any Representatives of Her Majesty's Legation at Madrid have visited Maceo in prison to find out how he is treated; or do they simply depend upon the representations of the Spanish officials? Time after time I have received letters from Maceo denying the statements.
MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order for introducing controversial matter into a Question.
MR. O'KELLY: Well, Sir, I wish to ask whether the Legation at Madrid has taken the trouble to send someone to find out how Maceo is treated?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The principal complaint, I believe, relates to the fact that the prison at Pampeluna is an exceedingly cold place. That is a proper complaint. With regard to the other Question, I may mention that Maceo's representations have been forwarded to Her Majesty's Government; and, if the hon. Member wishes it, I will lay them on the Table.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the noble Lord inform us whether Colonel Maceo has been living on 1s. 3d. a-day for the last nine months; and, whether such treatment was in accordance with the agreement made by the Spanish Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I really do not know whether he is living on 1s. 3d. a-day or not.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: But will the noble Lord answer the hon. Member for Rescommon as to whether the Representatives of the British Government at Madrid communicated with Maceo himself?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI am not aware whether one of the Legation

67
at Madrid has personally been to the prison or not. I do not suppose the hon. Member thinks that Maceo ought to be visited week by week and day by day; and I do not suppose that a single visit would be any guarantee that during a certain period of time the promises of the Spanish Government would be carried out. We have obtained assurances from the Spanish Government, and we have every reason to believe that the Spanish Government are loyally carrying out their promises.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: But will the noble Lord take pains to get from Maceo himself an account of how be has been treated? That is the question—not whether he will ask any Minister to ask the Spanish Government their opinion.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have already done so, and that communication I have already offered to lay before Parliament.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: But the House has not been informed whether the statement as to 1s. 3d. a-day is correct?
MR. O'KELLY: I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether from this 1s. 3d. a-day Maceo has not to maintain his family?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will forward the Question containing these allegations to Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, and call his attention to it.

SPAIN—MILITARY INSURRECTIONS.
MR. BOURKE: Perhaps the noble Lord can inform the House whether the Foreign Office has any information as to the insurrection which has broken out in Spain?
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: It is a military rebellion; and I should like to know whether the Government intend to send out, as they did to Egypt, Forces to put down that rebellion?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the Question, Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the Minister at Madrid of the outbreak, of which accounts have appeared in the newspapers, in the South of Spain towards the Portuguese Frontier. It appears also that there is a military movement in the extreme North of Spain on the Frontier of France; but beyond that little is known.

MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—ISSUE OF PROCLAMATION PROHIBITING LANDING OF FOREIGNERS.
MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a telegram in The Standard of to-day, which purports to contain the words of a Proclamation from the Superior Commandant at Tamatave, signed Billard, and to the following effect:—
"Considering the attempts of certain officers of Her Majesty's corvette Dryad to impede the course of justice, and to obstruct the action of the authorities by substituting themselves for private persons in questions which do not concern them personally; considering the interference which Commander Johnstone, of Her Majesty's corvette Dryad, believed himself authorized to exercise in requiring the military authorities to render an account of the execution of their orders—Decrees that access to Tamatave is forbidden to all foreign sailors, soldiers, and officers."
He further asked, with reference to the appointment of a successor to Consul Pakenham at Tamatave, to what Power that Consul would be accredited, and from whom he would receive his exequatur?
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, If any further information could be given with reference to the important despatches which arrived at the Admiralty yesterday?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; it is not in my power to make any addition to the short statement I made yesterday upon the subject of the despatches. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may remind him that, so far as I recollect, yesterday I undertook, upon Notice from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), that I would give an answer on an early day as to the appointment of a successor to Consul Pakenham. I propose to answer that Question when the hon. Member puts it down. But I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Consul is never accredited. He is not like a diplomatist, he receives an exequatur, but be is not accredited; and therefore the successor of Consul Pakenham will have a Consular and not a diplomatic position, and will not be accredited to anybody. A more important Question which the right hon. Gentleman asks me is whether we have observed this Proclamation

69
by a gentleman named Billard. In the first place, there is some uncertainty as to this, because The Times contains two Proclamations by some Commandant or gentleman occupying some position in Tamatave, and relating to entirely different matters; and this question is so mixed up with the question mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that I think it would be better to reserve any answer to it until the Prime Minister, myself, or someone else on behalf of the Foreign Office, gives a reply.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLappealed to the Prime Minister to say whether he could give any indication when time was likely to be found for the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, and especially whether any Irish Bills were to be given precedence over it; because he knew that the Representatives from Ireland had been bad boys, while the Scotch Members had been on their good behaviour.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very sorry that comparisons of that kind, which tended to provoke feelings of retaliation, should be introduced into a Question of this sort with regard to the order of Public Business. He could not at that moment say anything about the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill; but he hoped on Monday some arrangement would be made with reference to it. With regard to the Evening Sitting, he hoped they might be allowed to take it, and make all the progress possible with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, and the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill. Yesterday there was only one Motion down on the Paper—that of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), who kindly offered to withdraw it in favour of Government Business. Since then, however, a crop of five others had sprung up; and he would appeal to hon. Members in whose names those Motions stood to give way in deference to the general sense of the House and the necessities of the case. Should they not be able to finish the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill to-night they would be precluded from taking it to-morrow, other Business having been appointed. On Monday
70
they were bound to apply themselves to the Business of Supply, and the first day at disposal would be Tuesday, when it would be made the first Order.
MR. HEALYannounced that he should not proceed with his Motion, which stood second on the Paper.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEappealed to the hon. Members for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), for Westminster (Lord Algernon Percy), and for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), who had Motions on the Paper for the Evening Sitting, to withdraw them.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, Mr. TOMLINSON, Lord ALGERNON PERCY, and Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR agreed not to proceed with their Motions.

EGYPT—INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention had been called to the serious news published in The Standard of that morning, to the effect that the Canal system in Lower Egypt having been allowed to fall into a ruinous state, it was doubly difficult to combat the inroads of the Nile; and, further, that the utter worth lessness of the whole Governmental machinery in Egypt was fully known?
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I have already answered this Question. I have reminded the House that the Egyptian Government had at its disposal the skill of a distinguished engineering officer, Colonel Moncrieff, who was specially charged with this matter.

BANKRUPTCY BILL—THE IRISH CLAUSES.
MR. GREGORYasked the President of the Board of Trade, What were his intentions with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill, which was set down for Saturday? If the clauses relating to Ireland were not added the course of the Bill would be perfectly simple; but if they were introduced they would unquestionably lead to controversy. They would hardly get through it at the Saturday Sitting, and a day next week—perhaps more than one—would have to be devoted to it. He expressed a hope that the Bill would be relieved from the incubus now placed upon it.
MR. GIBSONsaid, he had heard a rumour that it was under the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade to make some modification in the Irish clauses to the extent of applying the local bankruptcy system to Ireland, and of not going on with the other Irish clauses. He mentioned the matter in case the right hon. Gentleman might wish to say something about it.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be in the recollection of the House that originally we proposed that the clauses relating to Ireland should be taken on the Report stage. But objection, deserving of weight, was taken to that, on the ground that it would be a strong measure to ask the House to extend the scope of the Bill in an important respect without having those clauses considered in Committee. Yielding to that objection, what I propose to do is, when the Bill is called on to-morrow, immediately to move that it be re-committed for the purpose of receiving the Irish clauses; and, no doubt, upon that Motion it would be perfectly legitimate for any Gentleman who objects to the extension of the Bill to Ireland to discuss that as a question of principle. I would venture, with the permission of the House, to go a step further, and to make an appeal to hon. Members who take that view, while they should state fully, as they are entitled to do, their objections to the principle, yet, if the decision of the House is against them, and if it should appear, as I think it will, that there is an almost universal concurrence of opinion amongst the representatives of commercial classes in Ireland that this Bill should be extended as proposed, that, at all events, their subsequent opposition on the stage of Committee will be confined to as narrow statement as is consistent with anything like fair discussion. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] I find to-day that there are 30 pages of Amendments on the Paper, and that 255 of these Amendments stand in the names of six Members from Ireland. Now, there is no doubt, if these Amendments are to be pressed with all the pertinacity of which hon. Members from Ireland are capable, at this stage of the Session, it clearly will be almost impossible for the Government to do what they are anxious to do—namely, to give effect to what they believe to be the wishes of the people of Ireland. If so, the whole responsibility must rest
72
with the hon. Members who bring about that result. I hope there is no such intention; and that, the principle having once been decided, the discussion of the details will be confined within very moderate limits.

EGYPT—THE DEBATE ON THURSDAY. EXPLANATION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, in one of the morning papers to-day I observe the statement put into my mouth that I had pledged the Government to withdraw from Egypt at a definite time—namely, in the month of November next; and on turning to the report of my words contained in that newspaper, I find a sentence upon which the misrepresentation of my words is based. I need hardly say, in the presence of many who heard my statement, that I used no words of the kind. The sentence, which has been mis-reported in two newspapers, but which in all the other newspapers I have seen is correctly reported, is as follows:—I said—
"That Sir Evelyn "Wood had expressed the opinion that in the month of November next he would, with one regiment of Cavalry, one battery of Artillery, and eight battalions of Infantry, he able to answer for the tranquillity of the capital."
The word "capital" has been misreported "country," and it is upon that mistake that the misrepresentation has been based.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
In reply to Mr. WARTON,
SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that he had at hand no detailed figures respecting the quality of the London water supply; but there was no doubt that the analysis had shown different degrees of purity in the water of the different Companies.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S CANAL.
In reply to Mr. MONK,
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Chairman of Committees had, at the instance partly of the Local Government Board and partly of the local authorities of the districts through which this Canal passes, induced the Canal Company, he believed, either to introduce a clause in this Bill, or to make independent provision with regard to the purity of the Canal.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
DR. LYONSsaid, there was a semiofficial statement in The Daily News of this morning that the Government intended to proceed with this Bill on Saturday. It would be interesting to the Medical Bodies in Ireland if the Vice President of the Council would state whether that was correct?
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that the paragraph spoken of was not semi-official, and he knew nothing of it. The Government, he added, should require to see their way before they proceeded with any of the Bills that had come down from the House of Lords.

EGYPT—INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, referring to the statement of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he had already answered the Question respecting the state of the Canals in Egypt, said, that the noble Lord had not done so; and he wished, therefore, to repeat the Question.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have answered the Question.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    Clause 8 (Procurement of voting by unqualified voters to be illegal practice).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 97, after the word "practice," to insert the words "Any person who before or during an election knowingly publishes any 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 again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYthought it should be a candidate who had been "put in nomition."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that would leave the door open to false representations before the nomination.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the clause would not reach the issue of forged placards by one Party recommending the voters of the other Party to plump to the disadvantage of their own candidates.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were many reprehensible practices which it was difficult to reach by legislation.
    MR. GORSTthought the Amendment a dangerous one, and one that certainly should not be needlessly or thoughtlessly inserted in the Bill. It would lay the candidate open to the charge of an illegal practice through the verbal statement of an enthusiastic supporter. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERpointed out that the Ballot Act provided how a candidate might be withdrawn, and this must take place several days before the election. The Amendment was therefore unnecessary, and he thought it was dangerous. If the Attorney General inserted words providing that an offence under the clause should be summarily punishable before a magistrate he would not object so strongly to it; but he would prefer that it were withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no dogmatic opinion as to the phraseology of the Amendment; but he thought it would be wiser to let it stand in its present shape. It was calculated to meet a real grievance, because they all knew that one of the greatest abuses and scandals of their Parliamentary electoral system was the publishing and circulation of false statements. The question was not thoughtlessly brought forward, as it was fully considered in Committee, and the Amendment had been on the Paper for three weeks.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the Amendment was very immature, and the more he heard of it the less he liked it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that the Amendment was simply to meet the case of a man who made the statement that there was to be a withdrawal, he

    75
    knowing full well that the statement was false.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the rumour might be spread upon the day of the election, when it would be too late to contradict it, or it would have to be done at an expense that would carry the candidate beyond the amount allowed under the Bill. He thought the Bill would open up all the avenues of political chicanery, which were as bad as all the forms of political corruption which could be devised.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised the purists in the House objected to the Amendment, because its object was simply to penalize the conduct of any person who knowingly published a false statement.
    BARON DE FERRIERESsupported the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed to add to the clause the following Proviso:—
    "Provided that a candidate shall not he liable, nor shall his election he voided, for any illegal practice under this section committed by his agent other than his election agent."
    The consequence of an illegal practice by any other person would be a fine upon such person.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, after the word "candidate," to insert the words "who had been put in nomination."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Report of election court respecting illegal practice, and punishment of candidate found guilty by such report. 31&32 Vict. c. 125).
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 5, line 35, to leave out "agents," and insert "election agent." He said, that if somebody or other should pay a small sum to take a voter to the poll the candidate ought not to be subjected to the severer penalties. He should be
    76
    content that the candidate should lose his seat.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 35, to leave out the word "agents," and insert the words "election agent,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'agent' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, because if it were accepted the maximum penalty was gone. The chairman of the candidate's committee might spend a large sum corruptly, and the candidate might go down at the next election and get the benefit of the corrupt expenditure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Employment of hackney carriages, or of carriages and horses kept for hire).
    On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were made:—Page 6, line 40, leave out "provided that nothing in this section," and insert "nothing in this Act;" page 7, line 1, leave out "by;" page 7, line 2, at end of clause insert as a new subsection:—
    "No person shall he liable to pay any duty or to take out a licence for any carriage by reason only of such carriage being used without payment or promise of payment for the conveyance of electors to or from the poll at an election."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Certain expenditure to be illegal payment).
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved to leave out the clause. He asked what was the use of making things serious which were not really serious? Every man liked to show that he was not ashamed of his Party, and therefore he liked to display a bit of ribbon or a cockade; and what harm was there in that?
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 9, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. War-ton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'No payment or stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the clause had been fully discussed before.
    Question put, and agreed to,
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 11, after the word "torches," to insert the word "fireworks."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fireworks' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not go further than "torches."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 19, after the word "law," to insert the words—"No payment or contract for payment shall be made to or with any returning officer in excess of the amounts claimable as security in Schedule Three to the Act thirty-eight and thirty-nine Victoria, chapter eighty-four. Any payment made to a returning officer in excess of the amounts set out in the said Schedule shall, if such payment be made in pursuance of any claim or demand made by such returning officer, be an illegal practice on the part of such returning officer, out shall not affect the validity of the election."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)resisted the Amendment, pointing out the injustice of preventing a Returning Officer from being repaid for excess of expenditure where a candidate was willing to repay.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsupported the Amendment, which he thought would be useful in keeping down election expenses. He would like to know why a candidate should ever be asked to pay more than the law allowed?
    MR. RYLANDSthought the Returning Officer should be kept within strict limits in his expenditure.
    MR. WHITLEYdefended Returning Officers as a most honourable class of men. They had to find the money with which the polling booths were provided, and they ought to be sure that their expenditure would be repaid.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would be in favour of the Amendment; but he could not find who was to put the law in motion.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that the Returning Officer could, before the election, calculate to a nicety his expenses, and could take care to keep within the Schedule; and he would do so if the candidate was forbidden to pay. Returning Officers were, no doubt,
    78
    honourable men; but there were cases in which they might be tempted to favour candidates from whom they knew they could get their money. It would, however, be better to make the receipt of money in excess of the Schedule by the Returning Officer the offence, instead of the payment by the candidate. He proposed to amend the Amendment by substituting "the receipt by" the Returning Officer in lieu of "any payment made to."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "any payment made to," and insert the words "the receipt by."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the question was this—Were they going to forbid payments which were not excessive? If they were satisfied that the Returning Officer had done his duty, and had done no more than the law required, and if the payments were in excess of what was allowed by the Schedule, were they going to say that that Returning Officer was not to get back that money? The Amendment did not do that. His objection was that the Amendment would prove an utter sham.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Amendment would make Returning Officers get the work done as cheaply as possible, whereas now there was no motive for economy.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, in supporting the Amendment, said, the expenses of the Returning Officer were practically four. These consisted of the cost of printing and issuing notices, of obtaining polling booths, of employing the officers under him, and of his own professional charges for the trouble he was put to in the matter. The Schedule to the Act of 1875 was, he thought, sufficient to meet all expenses. With reference to the cost of polling booths, it was not the case, as had been suggested by an hon. Member, that a Returning Officer could be called upon to provide a house; because there was now in every parish in England such an institution as an elementary school, and such schools were, by Act of Parliament, placed at the disposal of the Returning

    79
    Officer. If a Returning Officer were, by some extraordinary concatenation of circumstances, driven to put up one of the old-fashioned polling booths, the Schedule was amply sufficient to cover the cost. Where the shoe pinched was really in regard to the Returning Officer. The latter might say, before an election commenced—"I cannot carry on this election for the figure allowed by the Act of Parliament. "Will you (the candidate) object to pay me so much more?" It was all very well to say that a candidate was weak-kneed if he acceded to this request; but he was placed in a very awkward position; and he would generally say—" Spend £200 or £300 more, and be very pleasant and agreeable with the Returning Officer," because it was very important, on the election day, to be on good terms with the Returning Officer. It was always an important question as to how the election was fixed with regard to the position of the working men, for it might be arranged for such a day that a large number of the working men electors would be practically disfranchised. The Returning Officer had, therefore, very great power with the candidates, and had no right to place any of them at a disadvantage. The scale on which the Returning Officer was allowed to make his charges was most liberal; and he could not see why the Attorney General should object to the proposal, especially with the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). If necessary, he was prepared to move an Amendment himself, in order to make it quite plain that the clause was only to refer to money received by the Returning Officer in excess of that granted under the Schedule. He did hope the Attorney General would reconsider the matter, and would admit that they were bound to prevent any pressure being put upon a candidate with respect to the expenses of the Returning Officer.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment before the House was one which would fail, and, in fact, spoil the Bill. He suggested that the discussion would arise more conveniently on the Schedule.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they ought to take care that the Returning
    80
    Officer could not make charges as he pleased. Good things were put in the way of the friends of the Returning Officer, and the Amendment would only facilitate corruption.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had already discussed the principle of the Bill. If the House allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn, they could then discuss the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to insert it in the Schedule. If the House was in earnest, any illegal practice on the part of others should be an illegal practice on the part of the candidate also.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSScomplained of the tendency to scatter "illegal practices" all over the Bill instead of grouping them together.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the Attorney General would not oppose it when they came to the Schedule. Although he had the greatest confidence in the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not forget that he was a lawyer; and he did not want the matter adjourned merely until such time as the Government had a majority. At present he (Mr. Labouchere) had a majority, and, if necessary, he would press for a Division in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)remarked, that the desire of the Government to bring the proposal into a Schedule limiting the Returning Officer's charges was a proof of their sincerity; for the Amendment, as it stood, would, in practice, come to nothing.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words inserted in proposed Amendment.
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved further to amend the Amendment by omitting the words—
    "If such payment be made in pursuance of any claim or demand made by such returning officer."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'No payment or contract for payment shall be made to or with any returning officer in excess of the amounts claimable as security in Schedule Three to the Act

    81
    thirty-eight and thirty-nine Victoria chapter eighty-four. The receipt by a returning officer of any payment in excess of the amounts set out in the said Schedule shall he an illegal practice on the part of such returning officer, but shall not affect the validity of the election,' he there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 93: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
    Clause 16 (Certain employment to be illegal).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 23, after the word "whatever," to insert the words "except for any purposes or capacities mentioned in the first or second parts of the First Schedule to this Act or."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISobjected to the Amendments on the ground that it would produce the most dire confusion in reference to the duties of clerks at elections. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham seemed to be running a heat with the Attorney General in endeavouring to make the Bill as obnoxious and perilous as possible. He supposed it was the revulsion from his former occupation that had driven him completely to the other pole; and he was following this course to show how horrified he was at what he had endured when he managed the elections of his Party.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 32: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved to add at the end of the clause—
    "Every bill, placard, or poster having reference to an election shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher there of; and any person printing, publishing, or posting, or causing to he printed, published, or posted, any such bill, placard, or poster as aforesaid, which fails to bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher, shall, if he is the candidate, or the election agent of the candidate, be guilty of an illegal practice, and if he is not the candidate, or the election agent of a candidate, shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)accepted the sub-section, and undertook to put the Proviso in its
    82
    proper place before the Bill went to the other House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Use of committee room in house for sale of intoxicating liquor or refreshment, or in elementary school, to be illegal hiring).
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Any premises on which' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause was discussed for three days, and was carried by large majorities. He therefore hoped the House would not strike it out now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) moved the following Proviso to the clause:—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall apply to any part of such premises which is ordinarily let for the purpose of chambers or offices or the holding of public meetings or of arbitrations, if such part has a separate entrance and no direct communication with any part of the premises on which any intoxicating liquor or refreshment is sold or supplied as aforesaid."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Report exonerating candidate in certain cases of corrupt and illegal practice by agents).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 35, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "Act," inclusive, and insert the words "by reason of the offences mentioned in such further report be void, but the candidate shall not be subject to any incapacity under this Act,"—(Mr. Jesse Collings,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Nomination of deputy election agent as sub-agent).
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 23, after the word "shall," to insert the words "send or."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdraivn,
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 10, at end, to add—
    "Nothing in this section shall be taken to restrict the existing power of any candidate to appoint volunteer unpaid agents in any polling booth."
    In Ireland they found the sheriff obstructing them in every case where they had not chapter and verse to confront him with. In Ireland they never paid anybody at elections now; but if it was not plainly stated in the Act, the Irish sheriffs might insist that they should pay these men.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 33, after the word "same," to insert the words "Nothing in this section shall be taken to restrict the existing power of any candidate to appoint volunteer unpaid agents in any polling booth."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think the hon. Member for Monaghan might be afraid of the consequences stated, as the matter was clearly in the Bill already.
    MR. HEALYremarked, that the Bill would only last for a year, and if they found any difficulty with Irish sheriffs, he hoped that the Attorney General would remember the point. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would bear the point in mind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 23 (Office of election agent and sub-agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 3S, to leave out all the words from the end of the last Amendment to the word "district," in line 36,—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 24 (Making of contracts through election agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 8, after the word "election," to insert the words "but no such polling agent, clerk, or messenger shall, because of any such appointment, be deemed to be an agent of the candidate for any other purpose than that declared in the said appointment."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 9, "That Clause 24 be divided into two Clauses."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the said Clause be divided into two Clauses."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 25 (Payment of expenses through election agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 23, after the word "election," to insert the words "or for the purpose during such election of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from "sub-agent" to "candidate," in line 28, the effect of which was that the agent of a candidate should hand to the sheriff the necessary election expenses at the time of nomination. Now, if the agent lost his train that day the candidate would be done for; and he, therefore, moved to omit the provision.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from the words "sub-agent" to the word "candidate," in line 28.—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment, as, from what the hon. Member for Monaghan said, the provision might give rise to considerable inconvenience under certain circumstances.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 11, line 40, after the word "practice," to insert the words—
    "Any person making any payment for the purpose during such election of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate otherwise than through the election agent shall personally be guilty of an illegal payment."
    The object of his Amendment was to prevent outside associations from interfering in the electoral rights of a con-

    85
    stituency, either by providing money or otherwise.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the object aimed at was already attained by the words in Clause 25; but if it were not, he thought the Amendment would be an undue interference with the liberty of the Press, and it would not be right to prevent pictures, such as had a marked effect at Birmingham during the last election, or placards being circulated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question had been discussed in Committee, and it was then thought that the words used were of too general a character, and that instead of doing good they might work injuriously. Therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsupported the Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that the Amendment would prevent agents of the United Kingdom Alliance from posting bills in favour of any candidate who promised to support the principle of Local Option. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to do that, and to choke off all agitation in favour of any particular Party or principle.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 26 (Period for sending in claims and making payments for election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 12, line 23, at end of line, insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where the election court reports that it has been proved to such court by a candidate that any payment made by an election agent in contravention of this section was made without the sanction or connivance of such candidate, the election of such candidate shall not be void, nor shall he be subject to any incapacity under this Act by reason only of such payment having been made in contravention of this section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 12, line 29, after "court," to insert—
    "And any sum paid by the candidate or his agent in pursuance of the judgment or order of
    86
    such court shall be deemed to be paid within the time limited by this Act, and to be an exception from the provisions of this Act, requiring claims to be paid by the election agent."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Personal expenses of candidate and small expenses of committee room).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 13, line 9, after "agent," to insert" as a new sub-section—
    "The candidate shall send to the election agent within the time limited by this Act for sending in claims a written statement of the amount of personal expenses paid as aforesaid by such candidate."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 14, line 21, at end of line insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where the candidate has named himself as his election agent, a statement of all money, securities, and equivalent of money paid by the candidate shall be substituted in the return required by this section to be transmitted by the election agent for the like statement of money, securities, and equivalent of money received by the election agent from the candidate; and the declaration by an election agent respecting election expenses need not be made, and the declaration by the candidate respecting election expenses shall be modified as specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 21, to insert, at the end of the last Amendment, the words—
    "2. (a.) The transmission of such return and declaration by the election agent shall terminate his general authority to act as agent of the candidate in respect of the election, and such general authority shall not be afterwards revived by any special authorisation given by the candidate to such agent to act on his behalf in any special matter."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 27, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "Provided always, That, if at the time of the said agent transmitting the said return the candidate shall be out of the United Kingdom, such declaration may be transmitted to the returning officer within

    87
    ten days after Ms return to the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Authorised excuse for noncompliance with provisions as to return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 16, line 12, at end of line, insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where it appears to the court that any person being or having been election agent or sub-agent has refused or failed to make such return or to supply such particulars as will enable the candidate and his election agent respectively to comply with the provisions of this Act as to the return and declaration respecting election expenses, the court before making an order allowing the excuse as in this section mentioned shall order such person to attend before the court, and on his attendance shall, unless he shows cause to the contrary, order him to make the return and declaration, or to deliver a statement of the particulars required to be contained in the return as to the court seem just, and to make or deliver the same within such time and to such person and in such manner as the court may direct, or may order him to be examined with respect to such particulars, and may in default of compliance with any such order order him to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 16, line 17, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 20, and insert—
    "An order allowing an authorised excuse shall relieve the applicant for the order, from any liability or consequences under this Act in respect of the matter excused by the order, and where it is proved by the candidate to the court that any act or omission of the election agent in relation to the return and declaration respecting election expenses was without the sanction or connivance of the candidate, and that the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing such act or omission, the court shall relieve the candidate from the consequences of such act or omission on the part of his election agent."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Publication of summary of return of election expenses).
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 8, after the word "person," to insert the word "found."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'found' be there inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 34 (Hearing of person before he is reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice, &c, and incapacity of person reported guilty).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 17, line 31, after "reported," to insert as new sub-sections—
    "(2.) Every person reported by election commissioners to have been guilty at an election of any corrupt or illegal practice may appeal against such report to the next court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery held in and for the county or place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and such court may hear and determine the appeal, and subject to rules of court such appeal may be brought, heard, and determined in like manner as if the court were a court of quarter sessions and the said commissioners were a court of summary jurisdiction, and the person so reported had been convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction for an offence under this Act, and notice of every such appeal shall be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the manner and within the time directed by rules of court, and subject to such rules then within three days after the appeal is brought.
    "(3.) Where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that appeals under this section are interfering or are likely to interfere with the ordinary business transacted before any courts of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, he may direct that the said appeals, or any of them, shall be heard by the judges for the time being on the rota for election petitions, and in such case one of such judges shall proceed to the county or place in which the offences are alleged to have been committed, and shall there hear and determine the appeals in like manner as if such judge were a court of oyer and terminer.
    "(4.) The provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, with respect to the reception and powers of and attendance on an election court shall apply as if such judge were an election court."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 18, line 22, at end, insert as a fresh sub-section—
    "(5.) With respect to a person holding a licence or certificate under the Licensing Acts (in this section referred to as a licensed person) the following provisions shall have effect:

    (a) If it appears to the court by which any licensed person is convicted of the offence of bribery or treating, that such offence was committed on his licensed premises, the court shall direct such conviction to be entered in the proper register of licences.

    89

    (b) If it appears to an election court or election commissioners that a licensed person has knowingly suffered any bribery or treating in reference to any election to take place upon his licensed premises, such court or commissioners (subject to the provisions of this Act as to a person having an opportunity of being heard by himself and producing evidence before being reported) shall report the same, and whether such person obtained a certificate of indemnity or not it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring such report before the licensing justices from whom or on whose certificate the licensed person obtained his licence, and such licensing justices shall cause such report to be entered in the proper register of licences.

    (c) Where an entry is made in the register of licences of any such conviction of or report respecting any licensed person as above in this section mentioned, it shall be taken into consideration by the licensing justices in determining whether they will or will not grant to such person the renewal of his licence or certificate, and may be a ground, if the justices think lit, for refusing such renewal."

    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, in sub-section (b), line 3, before the word "election," to insert the word "Parliamentary."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Parliamentary' be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words inserted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 28, after the word "to," to insert the words "the insertion of any name in."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 35 (List in register of voters of persons incapacitated for voting by corrupt or illegal practices, &c.)
    MR. GIBSON (for Mr. W. H. SMITH)MR. GIBSON (for Mr. W. H. SMITH) moved, in page 20, line 11, after the word "published," to insert the words—
    "(9.) The registration officer shall also, immediately after such report as aforesaid has been made, put a mark against the name of every such person so convicted in the existing register of voters, and any person against whose
    90
    name such a mark shall have been placed shall not be allowed to vote at any election taking place on the same register."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Amendment would give the Registration Officer judicial power, without calling upon the elector to show cause or even identifying him. That proposition was contrary to all law.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Withdrawal of election petition).
    MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved, in page 22, line 2, after "petition," to insert—
    "And shall have power to examine upon oath any person or persons whoso evidence the Public Prosecutor or his assistant, or other representative, may consider material."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)accepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved, in page 22, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (6), and insert—
    "In every case of the withdrawal of an election petition the security shall, subject to any order made by the Court for the payment of the costs, or of any part of the costs, of the sitting Member or Members, become and be absolutely forfeited to the Crown."
    The clause as it stood only proposed forfeiture where the Court was satisfied that the withdrawal was the result of an improper contract. The Amendment would be a protection against vexatious Petitions; and he believed that owing to the ambiguity of the law Petitions would be more numerous than they had ever been before.
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (6) stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment. He thought it would be rather hard that a person who had presented a Petition bonâ fide, and afterwards found that he had been misinformed, should, on withdrawing it, have to forfeit the deposit.
    MR. WARTONhoped that, in the interests of purity of election, the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
    MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that the Attorney General's resistance to the Amendment was in direct contravention of his declarations regarding the object of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 21: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 274.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Further Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
    (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]

      CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
      Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
      Clause 38 (Continuation of trial of election petition).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 22, line 28, to leave out from "trial" to the end of the clause, and insert—
      "Or of all the proceedings in relation or incidental to the petition, the authority of the said judges shall continue for the purpose of the said trial and proceedings."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 40 (Power to election court to order payment by county or borough or individual of costs of election petition).
      On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were made:—Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning of line to "the High," and insert "in;" page 25, line 26, after "shall," insert" in principle, and so far as practicable; "page 25, line 29, leave out from "expenses" to end of line 30, and insert "on a higher scale than
      92
      would be allowed in any action, cause, or matter in the High Court."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 42 (Removal of incapacity on proof that it was procured by perjury. 31 and 32 Vict. c. 125. s. 47).
      On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment was made:—Page 26, line 9, leave out from "accordingly" to the end of the clause.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 43 (Amendment of law as to polling districts and polling places).
      MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved, in page 26, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (3), and insert—
      "The power of dividing a borough into polling districts vested in a local authority by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the enactments amending the same may he exercised by such local authority from time to time, and as often as the authority think fit, and the said power shall be deemed to include the power of altering any polling district, and the said local authority shall from time to time, where necessary for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, divide the borough into polling districts in such manner that—

      (a.) Every elector resident in the borough, if other than one hereinafter mentioned, shall be enabled to poll within a distance not exceeding one mile from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling district need not be constituted containing less than three hundred electors; and

      (b.) Every elector resident in the boroughs of East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury, shall be enabled to poll within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling district need not be constituted containing less than one hundred electors.

      So much of section five of the Ballot Act, 1872, and the enactments amending the same as in force and is not repealed by this Act shall apply as if the same were incorporated in this section."
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved, in page 26, line 28, after "county," to insert—
      "In the county of the town of Gal way there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint."
      Galway had always been treated exceptionally under the electoral law, because there were no wards in it, and a large part of the constituency was rural. Barna was four miles outside the town, and contained a few hundred voters.

      93
      For many generations the candidates had been allowed to supply cars. For these reasons, he hoped the Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 26, line 28, after the word "county," to insert the words "In the county of the town of Galway there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)expressed his readiness to accept the Amendment; but invited objections, if there were any, to the proposal from Irish Members. Galway had always been treated as being in a peculiar position. It was not divided into wards, nor into district polling places.
      MR. LEWISsaid, his borough—Londonderry—was in precisely the same position, because a large part of it was rural. He trusted the Attorney General would be consistent, and allow the principle of this proposal to be applied to the various constituencies generally. Otherwise, he hoped the Amendment would not be passed.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not object to every facility being given to the voters of the county of the town of Galway; but, unquestionably, the conduct of the Attorney General was remarkable. The principle was equally applicable to Waterford and Cork. He objected to one isolated provision relating to one Irish borough being inserted in the middle of the English section of the Bill.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), while holding that Galway had always been an exception amongst all the other Irish boroughs, requested the hon. Member for Galway to bring up the Amendment on the Irish section of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 44 (Election commissioners not to inquire into elections before the passing of this Act).
      MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved to leave out the clause, on the ground that, as amended, it proposed to grant an amnesty for all
      94
      electoral offences committed before the passing of the Bill. Had the Bill contained this clause when originally introduced it would not have reached the Committee stage; and if the clause were allowed to remain in it the title of the Bill should be "A Bill for the absolute condonation of corrupt practices." The Government seemed anxious to screen some of their Colleagues.
      Amendment proposed, in page 26, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Raikes.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'notwithstanding the provisions of the Act' stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)regretted the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this clause. He imputed to the Government that they wished it passed to screen their Colleague. The clause was not inserted by the Government; it was brought up at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was for weeks on the Paper—it was acquiesced in by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and was read a second time without challenge. It was, therefore, wholly unjust of the right hon. Gentleman to charge the Government with introducing the clause in their own interests. The fact was that in some cases the defeated party in an election dared not petition; and if they were successful in the next election, their opponents were in the same position. Thus a vicious continuity of corruption was established, which the clause was intended to break.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEconfessed that he looked upon the clause as one of the most valuable parts of the Bill; and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend should have moved his Amendment in the temper which he had displayed. He (Mr. E. Clarke) cared not for corruption in the past. All he aimed at was to prevent corruption in the future. There were many boroughs which were not only corrupt in themselves, but were the cause of corruption in others. In them corruption was kept alive by the reluctance of men to petition, as they knew their conduct in the past would be inquired into. The Attorney General was right in saying that the suggestion first came from him—although the final terms were settled by an hon. Member

      95
      opposite. The clause would do more to establish purity of election than all the pains and penalties which the Bill contained. The Bill would be grievously impaired if the clause were omitted, and he hoped that the Government would stand fast by it.
      MR. R. N. FOWLERdenied that the clause had been accepted unanimously, because he had never assented to it, having said "No" when it was put from the Chair, and only abstained from pressing his objection on account of the lateness of the hour. They all knew there were certain boroughs which were notoriously corrupt. At the last General Election those boroughs returned 11 Liberal and only three Conservative Members, so that the supporters of the Government had the predominance in corruption; and hence the desire of the Attorney General to procure for those boroughs an act of indemnity in regard to the past.
      SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDconsidered that when on the Report of the Judges the House voted the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the electoral history of a borough the inquiry would be incomplete unless they examined into the circumstances attending the elections previous to that one which was the original subject of inquiry by the Judges. The impression abroad was that the object of hon. Members was not so much to secure purity of election in the future, as to protect themselves and their pockets. The clause would prevent the whole truth being ascertained, and therefore he should oppose it.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) would allow him to say—as he seemed disposed to lay down the law—that his experience of elections, both as a Member of that House and of the Bar was slight. While they laid down the most rigid restrictions with regard to the use of ribbons or torches, they were folding themselves in a cloak of virtue, and declaring that there should be no inquiry into the past. The argument of the Attorney General that the liability to such inquiry would prevent the presentation of Petitions was disproved by the cases of Gloucester, Boston, and Canterbury. The clause meant that every Member of the House would whitewash himself in respect of the
      96
      past. He believed in the professed object of the Bill, but not in its structure. The Bill was not unconnected with Party purposes, and would have been framed on different lines if it had been simply designed for effecting purity of election.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER, HERSCHELL)said, he trusted that many hon. Members opposite would share with him the regret with which he listened to the closing observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He confessed that, for his part, he did not give the greatest credit for a desire for purity of election to those who were always insulting others with respect to their motives. When the hon. Member said this Bill was not unconnected with Party objects he forgot that his insinuation was made in reference to a proposal which originally came from the other side of the House, and was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); and he did not hesitate to tell the hon. Member that he insulted them when he said that, by accepting an Amendment from the Opposition, which they professed to believe would advance the object of purity of election, they did so from Party motives, and to screen themselves. ["Oh!"] If the hon. Member would not feel insulted by such an accusation, he did not envy him the bluntness of his moral feelings. It was an intentional insult, and one which they had a right to resent. If the hon. Member did not consider it an insult to be called a hypocrite, a humbug, an impostor, and false to the professions he made, he did not care much for his notions on such matters. [A laugh.] It might be a matter of laughter to him; but it could not be so to anybody who took an honourable view of the proceedings of life. When the hon. Member said this clause was passed for Party objects, did he remember that it passed without a single objection from the other side, except a solitary "No" from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler)? The hon. Member had spoken of boroughs like Gloucester, in which both Parties had never been slow to petition against each other, undeterred by the fear of exposing the corruptness of the constituency. But did not the hon. Member know of many other instances where the converse prevailed? Whether he knew it or not, it

      97
      was well known to others that there was many a case of the kind in which electoral corruption had been allowed to go scot-free. The Government believed that this Bill would give a new chance to electoral purity, and that many boroughs which had not been pure heretofore would endeavour to be pure in future. They said to the boroughs—"Here is a new system introduced, a new effort made in favour of purity. If you carry out the spirit of this Act, you will be pure, and you will be in a position, whatever may be your past record, to petition against those who may be guilty of corrupt practices."
      MR. GIBSONobserved, that the Solicitor General had argued the case with his usual clearness, though he had, perhaps, infused into it rather more warmth than was necessary. He should support the Amendment, because he considered it was a rank absurdity to appoint Commissioners to inquire into the electoral history of a borough, and, at the same time, to tell them they must limit their inquiry to what happened at the very last election. If the ascertainment of truth was the object of the Bill, he could not understand how the clause could be defended. If, in the case of witnesses, it was necessary to give an amnesty as to the past, Parliament would be required to pass a fresh Amnesty Bill after every General Election. If they could not got rid of the clause altogether, he should seek, by two Amendments, to bring it into harmony with his arguments—namely, to give the right to the Royal Commissioners to inquire into the history of every election, if they thought fit to do so; but providing, at the same time, that any witnesses who were examined as to corrupt practices in which they might have been engaged in the past should be freed from the consequences of such corrupt practices. The House was now entitled to consider the Bill independently of the trivial discussion which took place on this point in Committee, and he should be glad if, when the Bill left the House, this clause were not found in it.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think it was sufficient if the witnesses examined as to corrupt practices in the past were freed only from the consequences of any corrupt practices in
      98
      which they might have taken a part. He (Mr. Anderson) thought it was necessary to exempt the witnesses from the publicity of any inquiry into past circumstances. If Election Commissioners had the right to inquire into the past electoral history of the constituency previous to the passing of the Act, the result would be that many Petitions that ought to be brought would not be brought, owing to dread of the exposure which might ensue, and thus the purpose of the Act might in many cases be defeated.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that, as a matter of fact, he did suggest that he and his hon. Friends should not divide the Committee when the clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The clause did not appear in the original Bill; the Government had merely taken it up, and, therefore, they were not bound to defend it to the utmost. Since the Committee stage he had carefully studied this matter, and he had come to the con-elusion that it would be better to leave the clause out altogether.
      MR. BULWERconsidered that, in this matter, some discretion ought to be vested in the Election Commissioners. The clause enacted that no witness called before the Commissioners should be liable to be asked any question relating to any corrupt practices committed prior to the passing of the Act. There never was anything more absurd. The Tory "man in the moon" might come forward and give evidence against the Radical candidate, and the counsel of the latter could not put a question to him as to his previous career.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): There are Amendments to meet that case.
      MR. BULWER: Yes; but Amendments might, or might not, be accepted, and he was speaking of the clause, and he would give his hearty support to the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the clause had been made part of the Bill by a great surprise. His breath was almost taken away when he heard that the clause was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and he was so dumbfounded that he was not able to say a word. If, after the Bill, they were sure of entering upon a political millennium, he would be ready to wipe off

      99
      the past; but since he could not believe that such was likely to be the case, he thought they would not act wisely if they were to begin by condoning the past. He should, therefore, decidedly vote against the clause.
      MR. CALLANsaid, the Attorney General exercised a wise discretion when, at a late hour at night in Committee, he accepted this clause, for it would prevent the corrupt pactices of Taunton, the borough which he represented, from ever coming before the public. In his (Mr. Callan's) opinion it would be most injurious to allow this clause to remain in the Bill, and he would illustrate its effect by two or three cases from Ireland. Take, for instance, Dublin City. Up to the time when Commissions of Inquiry were sent out corruption prevailed most extensively amongst the freemen of Dublin. It was exposed, however, by one of these Commissions, and since then Dublin was a model to the Kingdom for the purity and independence of its elections. Then see what was the result in Sligo, which was Conservative, and in which corruption prevailed so extensively that the borough was disfranchised; and Cashel also, which belonged to the great, free, and independent Liberal Party, which, too, was disfranchised for corruption. Then look at Bandon—Orange Bandon—where on whose gates were inscribed the words—" Turk, Jew, or Atheist may enter here, but not a Papist." There corruption always prevailed. At the last election the Hon. Percy Bernard took a consignment of the free and independent electors of that town to Plymouth, regaled them magnificently, and presented them with £20 each, and, of course, the electors were too late to take part in the election when they returned home. A Petition was presented, but by arrangement it was withdrawn, and Mr. Bernard retired; and although that House of Liberal purists were well aware of the facts they did not issue a Commission. A Liberal was elected at the next election; but, of course, he could not say that the hon. Member was guilty of corrupt practices, as he was now a Member of the House. It was the same thing in Portarlington and Athlone; and as for Dundalk, it was so thoroughly corrupt that if this clause was withdrawn a Liberal candidate could never face that constituency again. He was not,
      100
      therefore, surprised that the Conservative Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) and the Liberal Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) should have come to an agreement on this question, following the good old Scotch proverb—"You scratch me and I'll scratch you."
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 33: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 27, line 6, to leave out from "question," to "prior," in line 7, and insert—
      "For the purpose of proving the commission of any corrupt practice at or in relation to any election."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 54 (Obligation of witness to answer, and certificate of indemnity).
      MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved, in page 31, after sub-section (4), to insert—
      "Where a solicitor or person lawfully acting as agent for any party to an election petition respecting any election for a county or borough has not taken any part or been concerned in such election, the election commissioners inquiring into such election shall not be entitled to examine such solicitor or agent respecting matters which come to his knowledge by reason only of his being concerned as solicitor or agent for a party to such petition."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 58 (Definition of candidate, and saving for persons nominated without consent. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, s. 3.).
      MR. GORST MR. GORST moved the omission of certain words, the effect of which would be that it would be for the Judge to determine when was the commencement of an election. A candidate, as the clause stood, might spend any amount of money on a constituency for a considerable period up to the commencement of the election, as defined by the Bill, and escape all penalty.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 32, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "candidate," to the word "and," in line 16.—(Mr. Gorst.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment, as he had sufficiently met the case put by his hon. and learned Friend.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 32, line 16, to leave out from the word "issued," to the word "accordingly," in line 18, and insert the words "but nothing' in this section shall prevent such person from being responsible for any act done for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election, although done before he was so nominated as or declared to be a candidate,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), remarking that he had drawn up the Amendment at the request of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), offered to withdraw it.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there was a good deal of "nursing" of constituencies going on at this time, and objected to the Amendment being withdrawn.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he should oppose it, unless it were restricted to acts done by the candidate personally.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 59 (General interpretation of terms).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 33, line 29, at the end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—
      "The expression 'committee room' shall not include any house or room occupied by a candidate at an election as a dwelling, by reason only of the candidate there transacting business with his agents in relation to such election; nor shall any room or building be deemed to be a committee room for the purposes of this Act by reason only of the candidate or any agent of the candidate addressing therein electors, committeemen, or others."
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 33, line 29, at end, insert—
      "The expression 'person' includes an association or body of persons, corporate or unin-
      102
      corporate, and where any act is done by any such association or body, the members of such association or body who have taken part in the commission of such act shall be liable to any line or punishment imposed for the same by this Act."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved in page 34, line 11, at end of line, to insert as fresh paragraph—
      "The expression 'personal expenses' as used with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to any election includes the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in relation to such election."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 34, line 18, at end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—" The expression 'Licensing Acts' means the Licensing Acts 1872 to 1874."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 34, line 20, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "and time shall be reckoned as in those Acts."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 62 (Commencement of Act).
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he desired to take the opinion of the Committee upon the question of the commencement of the Act. He understood it was not very likely there was to be a General Election in the course of the coming autumn—the Prime Minister was the only person who could inform them upon that head. Now, this was a very complicated Bill, and it would take some time to realize its provisions. To admit of the constituencies having time to understand the Bill, he intended to propose that the Act should not come into operation until the 1st day of January, 1884. Certainly, the 1st of September next was too soon for the Act to come into operation, and he trusted some later day would be fixed upon. The 1st of January next would be a very convenient date; but he would not be adverse to it being provided that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of November next.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three," and insert the words "January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was desirous that the country should fully understand the provisions of the Act; but he did not think that its operation should be delayed so long as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He (the Attorney General) was particularly anxious that the Act should come into operation before the next municipal elections. If the 15th of October would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he would be quite willing to so far delay the operation of the Bill. That date would afford the constituencies plenty of opportunity for studying the provisions of the Act.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the time suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was too short. The Act would probably not obtain the Royal Assent until the end of this month, and after that it would have to be printed and circulated.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not understand, if there was not to be a General Election within the next two months, why the Bill should be hurried on at this break-neck pace. It was not yet clear that Parliament would be prorogued by the 1st of September, and therefore it was absolutely absurd to suggest that the Act should come into force on that day. The country ought, at least, to be given two or three months in which they might become familiar with the provisions of the Act. This was a new Act, which would require to be printed and circulated, and very carefully studied indeed. He ventured to say that even the professional classes in the country would have little or no knowledge of the provisions of the Act before November next; and, in his opinion, it was a thoroughly reasonable proposal that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of January. The Bill was brought in on the 15th of February, 1883, and therefore it might have
      104
      been reasonable at that period to have fixed the 1st of September as the day upon which the Act should come into operation. The month of August was now pretty well advanced, so that even the 15th of October was too early a date upon which the Act should come into operation. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the concession of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
      MR. GORSTreminded the Committee that the Ballot Act, which was very much more complicated than this Act, came into operation directly it was passed. The Ballot Act was full of most novel and difficult provisions, and it was necessary that the Returning Officers throughout the country should at once make themselves masters of those provisions. He believed that, as a matter of fact, the Bill became law on the very day it was passed, and that within a week or two of its passing there was an election at Pontefract, and a few days later one at Preston. Both those elections were conducted by the Returning Officers without a single hitch or mistake. Now, if the people of this country could make themselves masters of the Ballot Act in short a time, why should they not do the same in this case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down knew perfectly well that people did not sit down and study for months Acts of this kind. If anyone wished to make himself master of this Act, he could do so in a very few days, and there was not the slightest necessity to postpone the operation of the Act, so long as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired.
      MR. CROPPERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had spoken about municipal elections. Was it clearly understood that this Bill was to apply to municipal elections?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Definition Clause provided that corrupt practices should affect municipal elections.
      MR. LEWISsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had actually made a comparison between this Act and the Ballot Act. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware what people had to study in this Act of Parliament? Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware

      105
      that the Act contained a succession of enactments of a highly penal character, which the electors, and candidates, and agents had to understand at the risk of their liberty, their character, their credit, and at the risk of their seats? He (Mr. Lewis) was not at all surprised at the peculiar course the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had pursued in regard to this Bill, when he found at the end of their deliberations that he looked upon this Act as an analogous measure to the Ballot Act. He supposed they would have the privilege and pleasure of welcoming the hon. and learned Gentleman in the next Parliament—he hoped they would. But suppose there should be a General Election this autumn, was the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of an opportunity being afforded to candidates, and agents, and electors, to understand the complications of this measure, and of ascertaining what were the crimes which were now, for the first time, to be visited with such extraordinary penalties as the Bill provided? There was only one condition on which he (Mr. Lewis) would assent to the operation of the Bill being fixed for the 15th of October, and that was that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who certainly had conducted the Bill with remarkable courtesy, would give up his recess to the preparation of a treatise upon the Act, and issue it on the 1st of October. He had no doubt that a treatise prepared by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so valuable and complete, that anyone, after its perusal, would be enabled to go through an election with safety to themselves. The principle of the law of this country was that everyone was presumed to know the law. Could any candidate, agent, or elector, be presumed to know this Act unless he had an opportunity of studying it and understanding it? They knew that one of the results would be that many lawyers would set to work to make explanations of the Act which would be most useful; but how could that be done in the middle of the Long Vacation, when people were away shooting? There were certainly some 60 or 70 Members of the House of Commons—those who had taken part in the discussions upon the Bill—who understood a little of its provisions; but what could the great mass of the people of the
      106
      country be expected to know about the measure? He hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), if he could not succeed in obtaining the postponement of the operation of this Bill until the 1st of November, at least would persist in his Amendment.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that if there was not to be an Election before the 1st of November, why should the Bill be brought into operation before that date?
      MR. GREGORYsaid, it was very necessary some time should be given for the consideration of the provisions of the Act. It was impossible for any layman to understand the Act in a moment. He did not object to the Act on account of its penal character; but he contended that, inasmuch as it was an Act of that character, it was absolutely necessary the public should have an opportunity of understanding it. Having regard to the Long Vacation, he had some doubt as to whether it would be sufficient to postpone the operation of the Act to the 1st of November even. Personally, he should prefer to see the 30th of November fixed upon. He did not think the municipal elections ought to enter into their consideration at all. The real question was, that inasmuch as under this Act people would be exposed to very severe penalties they should be able to obtain full knowledge of those penalties; that they should know in what way they were affected by the Act.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that they had already passed the words "first of," so that they had no option but to fix upon the 1st of some month or other.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to adopt the 15th of October; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) insisted upon the 1st of a month, he (the Attorney General) should be obliged to take the 1st of October.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his Amendment ought to be to leave out the words the "first day of September." He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his present Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthen moved to leave out the words "first day of September."
      Amendment proposed, Clause 62, page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "first day of September."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      Question put, and negatived.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved to insert, in the place of the words just omitted, the words "fifteenth of October."
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 3, to insert, after the word "the," the words "fifteenth of October."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'fifteenth day of October' be there inserted."
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that this was a totally different Act to the Ballot Act. The Ballot Act affected the Returning Officers; but this Act affected the whole country.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he never drew an analogy between the Ballot Act and this Act. What he said was, that if the people could get up the Ballot Act in a short time, they could also get up this Act, if they wished to do so, in a short time; and the hon. Gentleman who had attacked him knew that perfectly well. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) knew as well as he (Mr. Gorst) did, that if anyone wished to get up an Act of Parliament he could do so easily enough, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) also knew well enough the truth of what he (Mr. Gorst) had said.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he had only one other word to say. This was a thoroughly practical question, and one which ought not to be evaded. He would put a practical case to the House. Supposing a vacancy occurred in a county, and the election was to take place in the third week in September, he wanted to know what opportunity the electors would have of informing themselves of the provisions of the Act, which probably would not have been printed until the first or second week in September It seemed to him they were really endeavouring to prevent those who were to be affected by the Act from having an opportunity of considering it.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should prefer the 31st of October to the 15th of October.
      Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out "fifteenth," and insert "thirty-first,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
      Question put, "That the word 'fifteenth' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 29: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (for Mr. DALRYMPLE)proposed to leave out Subsection (2). He moved this Amendment to elicit from the Lord Advocate the reason why the provisions of the Act should not apply to Scotland.
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (2) of the Clause.—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the reason why the provisions of the clause did not apply to Scotland was that, under the Act of 1853, very efficient provision was made for the matter dealt with by the clause. It was thought that the present law had worked exceedingly well.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in page 36, line 23, after "Act," proposed to add as new subsection:—
      "(5.) Court of Oyer and Terminer shall mean a Circuit Court of Justiciary, and the High Court of Justiciary shall have powers to make Acts of Adjournal regulating the procedure in Appeals to the Circuit Court under this Act."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 36, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (7), and insert—
      (25 and 26 Vic. o. 35; 39 and 40 Vic. c. 26.)
      "The expression 'Licensing Acts' shall mean 'The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862,' and 'The Publicans' Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' and the Acts thereby amended and therein recited;
      "The expression 'register of licences' shall mean the register kept in pursuance of section twelve of the Act of the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-eight,"
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (11).
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 13, after "Court," to insert "or to the trial of cases at the Royal Courts of Justice."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 64 (Application of Act to Ireland).
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, to leave out Sub-section (2).
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)proposed, in page 37, line 17, after "Act," to insert—
      "(16.) The provision of this Act, with regard to costs, shall not apply to Scotland, and, instead thereof, the following provision shall have effect:—
      "The costs of petitions and other proceedings under 'The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and under this Act, shall, subject to any regulations which the Court of Session may make by Act of Sederunt, be taxed as nearly as possible according to the same principles as costs between agent and client are taxed in a cause in that court, and the auditor shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses on a higher scale."
      Amendment agreed to.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
      PART I.

        PERSONS LEGALLY EMPLOYED FOR PAYMENT.
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the 2nd sub-section of the Schedule, Part I.—namely, in page 39. line 7, to substitute the words "for every two thousand electors" for the words "to act within each polling district." This Amendment, which was not moved in Committee, but deferred to the present stage of the Bill, owing to the somewhat hasty manner in which the Schedule had been passed through, was intended to limit the large number of sub-agents which the candidates, in the case of some counties, would be allowed to employ. He bad not heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how far he
        110
        was disposed to go in the direction of this proposal; but he hoped he would see his way to imposing some restriction upon the number of sub-agents which the Bill proposed to allow. It was the 21st clause of the Bill which let in sub-agents for the first time. The clause provided that the election agent of a candidate by himself or by his sub-agents should appoint polling agents, clerks, and messengers for payment on behalf of a candidate at an election, and hire committee rooms on behalf of the candidate. He would remind the House that this matter of sub-agents was an entirely now importation since the Bill of last year was introduced, in which Bill only one agent was allowed in counties, as in boroughs; whereas the sub-section he now proposed to amend affected counties only. He had no doubt that with regard to counties, or, at any rate, some of them, a certain number of sub-agents were necessary, and it was, therefore, quite right that they should be employed; but this sub-section would allow one sub-agent for every polling district in the county, and that, he submitted, was altogether in excess of the requirements of the case. Now, there were many counties in Wales, and he believed in Scotland also, which, although they had, comparatively speaking, a very large number of polling stations, had, notwithstanding, a small number of electors in proportion thereto. Again, he apprehended that by this Bill the number of polling stations would be largely increased, which would, therefore, probably increase the number of sub-agents. He voted in one county that, with but a small number of electors, had 15 polling stations, and the effect of the Bill, in its present form, would be to allow to each candidate for election that number of sub-agents. He confessed to some astonishment that such a provision should have found its way into the Bill since last year; because although it had, undoubtedly, been the habit of some candidates to employ as many agents as possible, yet he believed that no one had ever thought of employing so large a number as that which he had just mentioned. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) bad an Amendment which went in the same direction, with this difference—that instead of substituting, as he proposed to

        111
        do, the words "for every two thousand electors," his hon. Friend would simply strike out the words of the sub-section which allowed one sub-agent for each polling district, the effect of which would be that only one sub-agent would be allowed. He (Mr. Evans Williams) went on the basis of the number of electors in each constituency; and he contended that if it was necessary to restrict the number of sub-agents at all, that principle ought to be the guide as to the number of sub-agents which candidates for counties might be expected to employ. Unless, therefore, that principle was embodied in the Bill, he thought it would be better that the provision as to sub-agents should be left out of it altogether. In proposing this Amendment he was a ware that he should be met by two arguments, neither of which he considered to be of sufficient weight to remove his objection to the Bill in its present form; and the first was that the appointment of sub-agents was purely optional on the part of the candidate. He very much regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not then present, because he had understood the noble Lord to say that it was his intention to move an Amendment practically to the same effect as that on which he was about to take the sense of the House; and when Clause 21, which brought in these sub-agents, was under discussion, the noble Lord protested against it, and said that, although he wished Woodstock to be treated as a county, he was opposed to the employment of so many sub-agents. He (Mr. Evans Williams) thought that the objection to his Amendment, founded upon the fact that the employment of sub-agents was optional, fell to the ground, because the Bill ought to save candidates from undue pressure being put upon them to appoint sub-agents. The second probable objection that would be urged to the Amendment was that the candidate would be restrained from employing too many sub-agents by the maximum of expenditure allowed by the Bill; but, surely, those who used that argument did not suppose that gentlemen could be always referring to the maximum to see that they were not exceeding the prescribed amount. His own fear was that those sub-agents would absorb a great deal more than
        112
        their proper share of the amount; he believed that the effect of the maximum would be to lead people, who had hitherto carried on elections at a lower expense than that set forth in the Schedule, to bring their expenditure up to the maximum in future; and he thought the Attorney General would find that his anticipation of cutting down election expenses to one-third of their former amount, would be in that way counterbalanced. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to see his way to the adoption of the Amendment, which he now begged to move.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 39, line 7, to leave out the words "to act within each polling' district," and insert the words "for every two thousand electors,"—(Mr. Evans Williams,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)regretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for New Radnor. He pointed out that the area of some of the counties was so large that the polling districts were at a considerable distance from the central district, in which cases assistance was necessary to the principal election agent. It seemed to him better not to depart from the principle which had been over and over again acquiesced in; and, therefore, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House upon his Amendment.
        DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, as the hon. Member for New Radnor had stated, it had been his intention to move an Amendment to the 1st Part of the Schedule, to strike out all the words after "sub-agent" down to "district" inclusive; but he should now be satisfied with supporting the Amendment before the House, without taking a Division upon his own. He objected to sub-agents being appointed by the candidate for every polling district in the county on two grounds—first, because sub-agents were altogether unnecessary; and, secondly, because their employment would lead inevitably to increased expenditure at elections. If the Bill remained in its present form, they would have the old state of things re-occurring

        113
        —namely, that a network of sub-agents would be spread over the country, and produce the demoralization which was inseparable from an arrangement of that kind. It had been said, and he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say, that a large county election could not be fought without a correspondingly large number of sub-agents; but that was certainly not the invariable rule, because he himself had fought one of the largest constituencies in Scotland (West Aberdeenshire) with only one agent, and he did not believe the work could have been better done. Further, he believed that the electors themselves very much preferred that mode of doing business to the old system.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 29: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 277.)
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 39, line 28, after the word "Aylesbury," to insert the words "and in the case of any district borough within the meaning of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,'"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. GORSTsaid, he proposed to insert words limiting the amount to that fixed by the 38&39 Vict., so that it should be impossible for more to be paid than the Returning Officer had allowed for the candidate's expenditure.
        Amendment proposed, in page 39, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "not exceeding the amount authorized by 38 and 39 Vict. c. 84."—(Mr. Gorst.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the result of this Amendment would be that if an agent came to another professional man and said—" I have spent £30 more than the candidate is allowed," the candidate might be unseated, although he repudiated the expenditure. The House had already come to a decision upon this point, and he could not assent to the Amendment.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the House would adopt the
        114
        Amendment. It was quite true that there had been a decision on a similar question, but that decision was come to under a misapprehension; and he believed the real sense of the House was in favour of some such proposition as this earlier in the Sitting; and it was only through a misunderstanding as to what Members were discussing that the decision was arrived at. What were they asked to do? The Returning Officer, under the present law, could spend so much money; but they now practically said that that Officer was at liberty to spend more, and trust to the candidate to repay him. If there was one portion of election matters more loose and ill-considered than another it was the expenses entered into by the Returning Officer. If the expenses were paid by the borough, or county, or local authority, instead of by the candidate, a great deal more care would be exercised by the Returning Officer than at present was exercised; and he wondered that the Attorney General, in a Bill which had for its primary object the reducing of expenditure, should refuse to accept such a reasonable Amendment, and one which would have great effect in reducing expenditure in directions in which unnecessary expenditure was made. If the Amendment was adopted, the Returning Officer would have to be very careful to keep himself within the limit of the Schedule of expenses laid down by the law. Those expenses were ample for everything, and some of them were, in fact, excessive; and yet he found that a Returning Officer, being assured that there would be no difficulty in getting the money back from the candidate, would be altogether careless as to the expenditure. In fact, the money paid by the Returning Officer in excess of the scale often went really in the direction of a corrupt influence; for a candidate who would spend any amount of money on the Returning Officer's expenses was very often looked upon with more favour than one who was not inclined to do so. Nothing could be more reasonable than this proposal. The Attorney General almost accepted it that afternoon; and it was only because a number of hon. Members flocked in from another part of the House, and then heard the Government Tellers declare against the Amendment, that it was not adopted by a large majority.

        115
        He hoped, now that the House had the issue fairly before it, and they really knew what it was, they would accept it. It was reasonable and just; and he had no hesitation in saying that it commended itself to the good sense of every Member.
        MR. LEWISrose to Order, and asked whether, this matter having been substantially decided that afternoon, it could be re-opened?
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSpointed out that by the Amendment passed in the afternoon the Returning Officer would be held responsible; but by this Amendment the candidate would be liable.
        MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was surprised that the Government refused to accept this Amendment. The whole principle of the Bill was to reduce expenses, and to prevent extravagant and corrupt expenditure; but, while that was carried out with regard to others, the Returning Officer was made an exception. Why should that be so? It was true the Returning Officer could not recover from the candidate anything beyond the amount fixed in the Schedule; but a candidate was free to make a gift. Why should not all other people taking part in an election be as free as the Returning Officer to ask whatever they chose, provided they were not able to recover by law? This was only an excuse for extortion from the candidate, such as had been practised in the past, and which would be practised again, if the opportunity was given, especially after this debate. A proclamation was now made by the House to all Returning Officers that, if they chose, they might ask as much as they chose from the candidate, although, at the same time, they could only legally recover the amount fixed in the Schedule. There would be pressure put upon the candidate to accede to these larger demands; and he would have to accede in the future as he had done in the past. If the principle and object of this Bill was that there should be cheap, and pure, and honest elections, why should this exception be made on behalf of the Returning Officers? It was within the knowledge of many hon. Members that they had had to pay demands largely in excess of the Returning Officer's expenses, and that was still more certain to occur in the future; because, as
        116
        he took it, this was a plain direction to the Returning Officers that they had free trade, and could exact from candidates just as much as by moral pressure they could be made to pay. It was inconsistent with the scope of the Bill; and he could not understand why the Government refused to accept the Amendment.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was reluctant to intervene in this discussion, because he knew the House was anxious to get through with the Bill; but he must strongly appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. He could speak with a certain amount of personal knowledge and experience in these matters. Everybody who had had experience of Returning Officers, and Irish Members especially, knew that the Returning Officer was generally a pluralist, and what in Ireland was called a "Shoneen "—a sort of half-landlord—one part of the time getting as much rent as he could, and another part of the time getting as much money as he could out of taxation. Just before an election began this officer would send a polite message to all the candidates, if there was a nice young barrister in the town who had no practice, saying it would be a nice thing if they would allow that young man to be his assistant; and so he got, perhaps, £150—£50 from each of three candidates, while, however, his charge did not amount to £30. What he would impress upon the Government so strongly was this—that as the Bill was in its present shape, and as the elections were conducted in Ireland at the present time, and as they had been conducted for some years past, this Bill, instead of reducing, would increase expenditure. Nothing could be further from the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind than to add 1d. of expenditure to the already large sums that elections cost. The Government should bind down the Returning Officers, who were robbers by profession. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, that was so, for they all regarded the candidates as persons whom everybody had a right to rob. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bind down the Returning Officers in this matter.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought they could decide this matter without further discussion at the present moment. It was fully discussed that after-

        117
        noon, when the Attorney General pointed out it was not a matter about which he had any very strong feeling. His hon. and learned Friend had said that he was quite willing to leave the matter to the decision of the House, and the House had decided against the view of hon. Members opposite. ["No, no!"] There must always be upon Government measures Amendments proposed which were not acceptable, but upon which the Government might have no strong feeling. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS said, he did not accept the Amendment.] He begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon—the Amendment had not been accepted; the Attorney General had declined to accept it, but had stated it was a matter on which he had no strong feeling, and one upon which he was willing to be guided by the opinion of the House. He (the Solicitor General) did not think it right to accept the Amendment; the question was one for the decicion of the House.
        MR. HEALY: Who does the hon. and learned Gentleman call the House? Does he mean those who are now in it, or those who will come in presently when summoned by the Bell, and who will vote without having heard a word of the discussion?
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 56: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
        MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to Schedule 1, Part II, line 12—namely, to leave out Section 7. That Amendment, however, had been put upon the Paper under an erroneous impression, for it appeared that its effect would be not, as he desired, to do away with the restriction upon the number of committee rooms in counties, but actually to disallow the expenses of such rooms. He proposed, therefore, leaving the section as it stood, to move a series of Amendments, the effect of which would be to increase the ratio of committee rooms in counties from the proportion of one to every 500 electors to that of one to every 300 electors. He thought that if it was considered proper and necessary to allow one committee room to every 500 electors in boroughs, it could hardly be deemed excessive to allow one committee room to every 300 electors in the scattered constituencies of counties. The constituency he represented, for
        118
        instance, contained 7,000 electors, in a population of 100,000, scattered over an area of 400 square miles; and it was obvious that a larger proportion of centres for political organization would be required for such a constituency than for a compact borough with the same number of electors crowded upon a few hundred acres. If the counties were deprived, as they would be under the Bill, of the legitimate convenience of authorized committee rooms, those interested in elections would be compelled to congregate for election purposes in public-houses, where they would be exposed to many of the influence sfrom which it was the object of the Bill to protect them. The restriction placed upon the total expenditure was a sufficient safeguard against abuse; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would, therefore, see his way to making some concession on this point, which concession, he was sure, would be well appreciated in many constituencies.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must say "no" to the hon. Member's proposal; the Government had conceded a great deal in the way of increasing committee rooms, clerks, and messengers, and he was afraid he could not go any further.
        Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 15, to leave out "5," and insert "3,"—(Mr. Cheetham,)—instead thereof.
        Question, "That '5' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to leave out, in page 40, line 31, the words "and III." He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would see his way to accepting this Amendment. The effect of it would be to exclude Part III. from the maximum Schedule. That which ought to be an allowance for every extraordinary expenditure—that was to say, any unforeseen or un-looked for outlay—was included in the maximum scale. They had heard of a placard being published through a borough requiring immediate answer, and, consequently, immediate expenditure. Accidents would happen, and they might find unexpected occurrences taking place rendering it absolutely necessary, in justice, to exceed the maximum allowed in the Schedule. It was no use giving the

        119
        £200 with one hand and taking it away with the other. This matter had seemed to him to be so important that he had taken the liberty of moving the recommittal of the Bill with respect to this section. Part III. was entirely delusive and absurd, and he, therefore, moved the Amendment standing in his name.
        Motion proposed, in page 40, line 31, to leave out the words "and III."—(Mr. Warton.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'and III.' stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had agreed to a large increase in the maximum sum; but the hon. and learned Member would now add on £200 to every borough and county expenditure in the country, and that was a proposition he (the Attorney General) could not for a moment accept. It would be entirely departing from the Schedule.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. R. N. FOWLERproposed to insert, after "charges," in Part IV., line 32, "and the expenses of advertising." He said that "advertising" was not a corrupt expenditure, and it was admitted to be very desirable in the interest of candidates. Advertising was not an electoral abuse; yet the effect of the Bill would be that it would be quite impossible for a candidate in future to spend much money in advertising. He was particularly interested in this matter, because the constituency he represented was a large and populous one, and advertising necessarily led to considerable expenditure. Probably, the hon. and learned Attorney General only inserted his election address in some local paper. He (Mr. E. N. Fowler) and his Colleagues in the representation of the City of London, had, however, to advertise in The Times, and all the other morning papers, and likewise in the evening papers. If the Bill passed in its present form, they would have very small means, indeed, of bringing their views before the public. The amount allowed for advertising in the Bill was exceedingly small; but his advertising expenses were much larger than those of hon. Gentlemen representing smaller constituencies. Moreover, he was required to pay a considerable sum for committee
        120
        rooms, and in future committee rooms would be more difficult to obtain, because candidates would not be allowed to take public-houses for committee purposes. He maintained that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, and therefore he urged the Attorney General to assent to this Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "and the expenses of advertising."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was true that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure; but it was, nevertheless, a most objectionable expenditure. It was unnecessary and very capable of being overcharged. He did not believe it ever did anyone any good; and of this he was certain—that if what the hon. Gentleman said was true—namely, that advertising was a very large item in his electoral expenses—he ought to be very grateful for the relief this Bill would give him. He would be able in future, if he chose, to devote to any charitable purpose what hitherto he had been obliged to expend on advertising.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made such material alterations in the Bill as compared with the measure brought in last year. He agreed with the Attorney General that, although advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, it was a most demoralizing expenditure in the case of many patriotic newspapers which he knew. In the Bill of last year it was very wisely provided that the expenditure for advertising should only amount to a certain proportion of the maximum expenditure. As the Bill now stood, a candidate, if he chose, could spend the whole of the maximum upon advertising. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that advertising was a most objectionable form of expenditure; and, therefore, he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to revert to the plan which he proposed in the Bill of last year. Under last year's Bill, if a candidate were allowed to spend £350, he was also allowed to spend on advertising and printing, and the like, £100.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. LEWISproposed, in page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

        "Does not exceed

        £500

        200

        "Does not exceed

        1,000

        325

        "Does not exceed

        1,500

        375

        "Does not exceed

        2,000

        400,

        and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."
        He said, the object he had in view in dealing with the item of expenditure, was to draw the attention of the House to the arrangements which were proposed to be made in the event of a single election taking place in a constituency which returned two Members. He desired to accentuate this point, in order that, before they parted with this Bill, they might have some Amendment carried with regard to a difficulty which presented itself to many minds. The reason why he proposed to increase the scale relating to boroughs was that no provision was made for a single election in a double constituency. He maintained that the present scale was altogether insufficient. As the Bill now stood, a single candidate for a double constituency of 20,000 electors could spend £820, and no more. If the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given Notice was not carried, two candidates standing in the same interest could spend £1,640. If the Amendment were carried, those candidates could, however, spend £ 1,230. As an example, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) and his Colleague (Mr. Thompson) in the representation of the City of Durham could, at the next General Election, if the Attorney General's Amendment were carried, only spend three-fourths of what they would be able to spend if they stood separately. He asked the House, as a matter of experience, what was the difference between a single election and a double election? There would be a little more advertising and placarding; but, taking it as a whole, the same ground would be covered, the same work done, and the same number of electors would have to be communicated with. In fact, the same amount of electoral labour would have to be gone through in the one case as in the other. This difficulty had never been attempted to be met by the Government. In fact, there were only two ways of meet-
        122
        ing it—namely, either by increasing the amount which each candidate could spend, or by adopting such an Amendment as that which he now submitted to the House. Personally, he was not interested in the matter; but it was a practical question of the greatest possible importance. It was far graver than many hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. At half-past 1 o'clock in the morning it would be perfectly idle for him to attempt to elaborate his case. He was content to say that, while he thought the scale was too liberal with regard to the smaller boroughs, it was not largo enough in the case of the larger boroughs. It was for the purpose of placing before the House, in a definite form, an alternative proposition, which he hoped the Government might see their way to adopt, and to provide against a great anomaly which presented itself in the case of a single election, that he put his Amendment before the House. That anomaly could only be met in one or two ways—namely, by increasing the expenditure, or by providing that where there was a single election in a double constituency the one candidate might spend so much plus the ordinary expenditure of a single candidate.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

        "Does not exceed

        500

        £200

        "Does not exceed

        1,000

        325

        "Does not exceed

        1,500

        375

        "Does not exceed

        2,000

        400,

        and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."—(Mr. Lewis.)
        Question proposed, "That 'Does not exceed 2,000 … £350' stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the object of the hon. Gentleman was simply to increase the expenditure on elections, and therefore he would not follow the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He (the Attorney General) wished to adhere to the maximum expenditure in the Bill.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. HEALYproposed, in page 40, line 30, after "£350, "to insert the words in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland." He pointed out that by the Bill the cost of elections in Ireland would be very largely increased. He desired to give the hon. and leared Attorney

        123
        General every credit for a wish to cheapen electoral expenses; but this would "be the second Bill which had increased election expenses in Ireland. A clause was put in the Act of 1875, at a late hour in the morning, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members, which had increased election expenses in Irish constituencies. The circumstances of this country were altogether different from those of Ireland. Here there was household suffrage; but in Ireland there was a £4 franchise, and there were only three boroughs—namely, Belfast, Dublin, and Cork—which had more than 2,000 electors. All the Irish constituencies had, on the average, about 600 electors. Why, therefore, should this enormous maximum be thrust upon Irish constituencies? As a matter of fact, candidates in Ireland were not required to expend £30 on an election, as a rule, so that by his Amendment he allowed an ample margin. If, as the Bill provided, they allowed a candidate to spend £100 on personal expenses, £100 for the Sheriff, and an additional £350, it was clear that in Ireland most of the money could only be spent in corruption. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not profess to know anything about electoral circumstances in Ireland, and the whole of this Bill was directed against a state of things which did not exist in Ireland. He would not argue the question over again; but he could not help pointing out that this was one of the evils of dealing with Ireland as if the state of circumstances there was the same as in England. To treat Ireland in this matter as they would treat England was just the same as putting a little boy into his father's clothes. In Ireland they had not the franchise which obtained in England, and, that being so, there were not the same number of voters to take to the poll. Even if they had the same number of voters, there were hundreds of willing and loyal volunteers only too anxious to work in the popular cause. He would give the House his experiences of three elections which had recently come under his notice. He had no desire to be egotistical; but he wished to say that his first election did not cost £20. The recent election, in Wexford, would not have cost £50, and the expenses of the three weeks' contest in Monagham, including the Sheriff's
        124
        expenses, would not have cost the national candidate £350. Now, what would this Bill allow to be spent in Monaghan? Why, £350, £100 personal expenses and £100 for the Sheriff—in all, £550, or, in other words, £300 too much. In whose favour was this Schedule brought in? Why, in favour of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member who sat for Portarlington (Mr. French-Brewster), where every vote cost as much as £15. Portarlington was one of those rotten constituencies which ought to be swept off the face of the earth. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the proposal into his consideration. So far as the part taken by Irish Members in the discussions on the Bill was concerned, he did not think that a single unnecessary objection had been raised, although they considered the measure, in the case of Ireland, to be uncalled for, irritating, and costly. There were, of course, one or two points to which they had felt it their duty to call attention. For these reasons, he trusted the Attorney General would meet them in the matter, and that he would not impose upon them an increased expenditure of the kind he was now objecting to.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there had been full opportunity, when the Bill was in Committee, of considering and moving Amendments to this part of the measure; but he would point out that not a single objection had been raised to the maximum sum fixed in the Schedule. Moreover, no Notice had been given of this Amendment, and the great bulk of the Members for Ireland were then absent from the House. What would be said by Gentlemen opposite if an Amendment proposed that night for the first time, and upon which they had not had an opportunity of voting, were agreed to in their absence? Under the circumstances, he must decline to accept the Amendment. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Monaghan that, at any rate, the opponent of the poor candidate would not be able to spend more

        125
        than he had spent before; and, therefore, he did not think that they were fairly open to the accusation of the hon. Member that they were increasing expenditure by this Bill.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was clear to him that, by the refusal of the Attorney General to adopt a reasonable and proper Amendment like this, Irish Members on those Benches were being-made to suffer for their own virtues. Not only had they maintained an extreme reserve with regard to the Bill; but, having made their protest against its application to Ireland at the very beginning of these discussions, they had since adopted towards it a course of almost absolute silence. He had, from the first, entertained the idea that the Bill would increase expenditure. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the arguments which Irish Members most strongly urged, and which appeared in their speeches on the Motion for going into Committee, was that the scale would increase electoral expenditure in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the sum fixed by the Schedule was the maximum, and that candidates need not go in for the maximum unless they liked to do so. But how could they guard against the misuse of money by wealthy candidates against poor candidates? The hon. and learned Gentleman had more electoral experience than he possessed; but he would ask him, with his knowledge of the circumstances of electoral matters, whether it was not a fact that a rich candidate coming down to fight a poor one would not spend in the contest every farthing that the law allowed him to spend? He had in his own constituency an opponent who, in his opinion, did not contest that constituency on the ground of right; and as there were always persons who thought they must get money by some means or other, what would that candidate probably do? He would adopt the most expensive mode of proceeding, insert as many advertisements in the papers as possible, and, in short, do everything that would bring to the minds of the electors the knowledge that he was a man with money, and that his opponent was a man without it. With regard to the Amendment, the Government was, of course, bound by its own measures; but the House had perfect liberty of action
        126
        in this and in all other matters, and it was only a few minutes ago that it took up a position antagonistic to the Government, who he did not think regretted that their judgment had been overruled. The House had got into the habit of overruling the Government lately; and he trusted that if they were convinced by the argument of his hon. Friend that this Bill would increase the expenditure on electoral contests in Ireland, they would not be deterred by the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General from voting for the proposed Amendment. He hoped no weight would be attached to the argument that a number of Irish Members were absent. The only safe principle they could go upon in such cases was that each Member of the House was supposed to be in his place whenever questions relating to his constituency were brought forward. They should have little regard for the political views of hon. Members, who were so fond of their beds that they could not remain at the House to pass important measures.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite should be met by the Attorney General, because they had shown that the conditions in Ireland were altogether different from those which existed in England. He would not enter into that question, farther than to say that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had made out a case. Now, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not treated the Amendment before the House as a matter of principle; and, therefore, he thought the best thing for the Government to do would be to consider what were the wishes of Irish Members. Moreover, it would be a graceful thing for English and Scotch Members to yield to those wishes. The argument that the maximum sum need not be spent had no force; because if any sum were mentioned, say, £200 or £300, that amount would always be uppermost in the minds of those who were able to spend the money. Moreover, it tended to weaken the morals of volunteers, who would say—" So much money is to be spent; I may as well have some of it." Seeing that the volunteer system obtained in Ireland, he believed that this Schedule would tend to weaken the

        127
        sound and healthy feeling which existed. He believed that if English and Scotch Members yielded, in this instance, to the wishes of Irish Representatives, their action would not be blamed, because it would be seen that its effect would be to keep down expenses at Irish elections; and he thought the Government should give way, on the principle that the Representatives of Ireland knew best what concerned the Irish people.
        MR. LEWISremarked, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would consider the opinions of Irish Members; but he would point out that not more than about one-third of those Members were then present in the House, and that until that evening no Notice of this Amendment had been placed upon the Paper. He believed that the House would not, for one moment, think of taking advantage of the absence of more than two-thirds of those interested in this most important question; and he could not conceive that the Government should not use the utmost influence in their power in order to prevent the proposed alteration being made at that hour, without Notice, to the vast majority of persons interested in the Bill. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had been Member for a very small constituency (Wexford), and he (Mr. Lewis) was ready to admit that £350 was too large a sum to be spent in that borough, and it was for that reason he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to limit the expenditure at elections in the case of small boroughs. But this Amendment proposed that in a constituency of 2,000 electors, or, in other words, of 30,000 inhabitants, there should only be an expenditure of £150, with regard to which he would say that anyone who suggested it as a practical proceeding could know nothing of the facts of electoral life. He did not believe there were 30 Members in the House when this most serious Amendment was proposed; and having regard to that fact, and the lateness of the hour, it appeared that the only way I in which he could protect his Colleagues in the representation of Ireland who were absent was by moving the adjournment of the House. If he did take that course, it would be because he felt most strongly, when an important question
        128
        like this was brought forward under the circumstances described, that, in accordance with the ordinary courtesies of legislation, it should not be pressed to a Division.
        MR. DAWSONsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had himself a Notice on the Paper similar to that to which he then objected. Whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was on the Paper or not, was not the point. They had to consider what was right to be done—whether the Amendment was one which the House should pass or reject. So far as the placing of an Amendment on the Paper was concerned, he was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had that evening proposed one that was not on the Paper. Why, then, had not the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Londonderry put in their objection to that à fortiori, because its principle had been refuted in a former debate in the House? The hon. Member was inconsistent in his objection, because his own Amendment was placed on the Paper in the same way as that of the hon. Member for Monaghan. His hon. Friend said that some of the boroughs in Ireland should be treated differently to English and Scotch boroughs on account of the small number of electors which they contained, and it appeared to him that that was a most reasonable proposal. He (Mr. Dawson) represented the borough of Carlow, which had 8,000 inhabitants and only 300 electors; the number of electors was so small that to require him to expend in contesting the constituency the same amount as would be spent on an English borough of 2,000 electors was out of all proportion to the necessities of the case. The amount spent on the Carlow Election ought not to exceed £50; and yet, as the hon. Member for Monaghan had pointed out, a rich candidate could go there and spend the maximum sum allowed by the Bill—namely, £350. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would withdraw his objection to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who had simply asked the House to do what was just in fixing the amount of expenditure in the case of Irish boroughs at £150.
        DR. LYONSwas understood to say there was some force in the argument of

        129
        he hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that two-thirds of the Irish Members were absent, and that, in those circumstances, the Amendment ought not to be pressed. There had been ample opportunities of raising this question before, which had not been availed of. He suggested that £'200 should be substituted for £150.
        MR. HEALYconsented to this alteration.
        MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, before a Division was taken, the House ought to have the opinion of the Irish Attorney General on this purely Irish question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had had a large experience, not only in regard to his own election, but in other elections; and the House had been told by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that in the borough he previously represented the cost was £500, and in his present seat it was only £350. The Attorney General for England said he knew nothing about the matter, and he had had no time to consult anybody; but surely he had had time to consult the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. There had been no opinion given by the responsible officials, and he thought that before a Division was taken that opinion ought to be given.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. They did not believe the effect of the clause would be to increase expenses; and what they desired was not to produce uniformity, but to fix a maximum for future expenses.
        MR. FINDLATERsaid, nobody was more desirous than he was to reduce expenditure in elections. He had to pay a great deal for his own election; but he did not see his way to fixing £200 as a sufficient amount for a candidate's expenses.
        MR. HEALYsaid, his Amendment only referred to boroughs.
        MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the purport and object of this Bill was to reduce the expenditure at elections, and, unquestionably, it would have that effect in England; but there was good reason to believe that it would have the contrary effect in Ireland, and this was just another proof of the truth of the statement that had often been made, that mere identity of legislation for the two countries would not act equally, but unfairly. In
        130
        this matter, as also in the matter of taxation, the even disposition of burdens on the two countries would act disproportionately and unequally. It was unconstitutional to enter into the question of how many Members there were in the House if there were a quorum; and a quorum was sufficient to legislate. There was now a sufficient House, and he appealed to the House to consent to what was a clear act of justice. This clause would act unequally; it would give relief to England, but not to Ireland; but in Ireland it would increase the burden in this particular matter. He therefore appealed to the House, and to its sense of fair play, if this was likely to be the result, to give Ireland the benefit of the Bill, not by imposing on Ireland the same terms as on England, but by giving it the principle and purpose of the Bill, which was to reduce the expense of elections, and contribute to their purity. It seemed to him that the case for the Amendment was unanswerable, and he hoped the Government would so regard it.
        MR. BLENNERHASSETTsaid, he intended to vote for the Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), and, as he understood, was accepted by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was, he thought, quite desirable that the House should hear the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he was willing to substitute £200 for £250.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would willingly accept any suggestion for consideration.
        MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the only opposition to this Amendment from Irish Members came from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); and it would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member had been that evening very loud in his protestations of the purity of his borough. He stated that he was not afraid of the result of the Bill, and twitted other hon. Members insultingly. The speech of the hon. Member, he thought, made it clear that the hon. Member, at all events, could not be affected by the Amendment; and, considering that no opposition to it came from any other Irish Members, he thought the Attorney Ge-

        131
        neral was not justified in maintaining his opposition.
        MR. WARTONwished to point out that the difficulty the House was now in arose entirely from the coarse and clumsy way in which this scale had been drawn. The idea of drawing a line at £2,000 and making no gradations was perfectly absurd and ridiculous. If there had been a graduated scale, there would have been something like common sense in the Schedule.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £200 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 72: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 279.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the ground taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been against altering the Schedule, therefore he would not touch Ireland at all. The maximum would be £600 in England and Scotland, and in Ireland £500.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 41, line 6, after the word "he," to insert the words "£650 in England or Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir S. Assheton Cross.)
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 40: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 280.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his next Motion would, be to amend the Bill, so as to bring up the scale as nearly as possible to what it was when the Bill was first introduced, a quarter having been taken off by the Attorney General's proposal.
        Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, to leave out "£540," and insert "£710."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, after "2,000," to insert the words "in England, Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. BUCHANANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said he did not wish to increase expenditure. Well, there was no county in Scotland which returned two Members, all the county constituencies returning only one Member; therefore this Amendment would very largely increase the expenditure in every county in Scotland. They had heard what the Irish Members wanted—namely, a diminution of these expenses; but there was not a single Scotch county Member who desired this Amendment. If they were to be expected to vote on this proposal without hearing a word of explanation from the Attorney General, he thought they would have a very good reason to complain.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if hon. Gentlemen knew the difficulty there was in meeting the views of all Members, they would be more prepared to make allowances for the Government. He could not make a concession in the case of a two candidate constituency, unless he did it also in that of a one candidate constituency. The county Members had thought the amount somewhat small; but there would be, even with that, far less expenditure than had occurred in nearly every county election. He thought the hon. Member had mentioned one case where the expenditure was less than it would be under the Bill; but as he was familiar with the opinions of Scotch Members, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) whether he would put Scotland in the same position as Ireland? If any hon. Member would rise to move that, no doubt the House would consider it. It was mentioned in Committee that the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment; and he, for one, would vote with the right hon. Gentleman.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was present when that arrangement was made, and he had understood that 25 per cent was to be taken off when two Members stood together. The expenses of the two, if each candidate stood singly, might amount to £1,000; but where they stood together they would only be allowed to spend £750. As far as his understanding went, it certainly was not intended that when a man stood alone he might spend 50 per cent more than was put down in the Schedule.

        133
        He did not know whether the feeling was shared by hon. Members around him; but he certainly felt that they had a right to complain that, without Notice, such a large percentage had been put upon the possible expenditure of a single candidate. He must say that this proposal was quite new to him. He understood the argument as to hon. Members standing together; and, as far as he recollected, there was an understanding at that time as to the Schedule.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, a proposal was put upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to increase the expenditure to £500; and when the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward, he stated that he did so in consequence of a proposal that he had made, or was about to make, relating to the case of the election of one candidate. It was in connection with this that increase took place, and some discussion had occurred with regard to it, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) stating that he was prepared to accept that increase. No Division was, therefore, taken upon it. Later on the Amendment was withdrawn, and the Attorney General was asked by the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to stand by what he had said, and he had replied that he was. It was impossible to depart from the line taken in Committee.
        DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that this increasing expenditure in counties would be very unpopular in Scotland in at least three counties, of which Linlithgowshire was one. It would very largely increase expenditure, and would increase his own expenditure, for instance, by at least £140 at the next election if this Amendment were carried.
        MR. DICK-PEDDIE: I move to alter the proposed Amendment by the omission of the words "and Scotland."
        Amendment proposed to amend the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "and Scotland."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
        MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment will not apply, as moved by the hon. Member. To carry out the hon. Member's intention the folio wing should be the Motion:—To amend the said proposed
        134
        Amendment by inserting, before "Scotland," the word "in,"
        MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Speaker.
        Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, before the word "Scotland," to insert the word "in."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'in' be there inserted."
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the Amendment was an extremely objectionable one. It seemed to him that the same objection applied to this Amendment as to the Amendment that had been moved just now by the Irish Members. Many hon. Members had loft the House knowing that this proposal was to be made, and that this concession was to be granted. The Attorney General had said that he did not know of any county in Scotland which spent less money than this maximum. Well; but the hon. and learned Gentleman knew a county in England where the expenditure was only £500. True, this figure did not include the cost of conveyances; but these were not to be paid for under this Bill. The fact was that the House was taken by surprise in the Division which had just been taken. He himself attached no importance to the fact that a conversation had taken place in Committee across the Table between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and the Attorney General. He had heard all that had been said with regard to the Sehedules in Committee; and he was quite sure that the House would not endorse this proposal of raising the scale in counties. As he protested against the measure being converted into one for the promotion of corrupt practices, instead of one for their prevention, he begged to move to add to the proposed Amendment "and in Wales," the greater number of Welsh counties being in the position described by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan).
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was a great distinction to be drawn between Irish and English constituencies. That which was in the Bill had been adhered to with regard to Ireland.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 58: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 281.)
        Words inserted.
        MR. HEALYsaid, it was an extremely unsatisfactory state of things that the House of Commons, at that hour of the morning (2.50), should be engaged in the consideration of such an important Bill as this. He thought it would be wise if the Bill were re-committed in respect of the Schedule, so that it might be discussed reasonably. The Scotch Members were not satisfied, the Welsh Members were not satisfied, and certainly the Irish Members were not satisfied.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 45, line 15, at end of Schedule, to insert as a fresh sub-section—
        "For the purposes of this Schedule the number of electors shall he taken according to the enumeration of the electors in the register of electors."
        Amendment agreed to.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 41, line 15, at end of Schedule, to add—
        "Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts Three or Four of this Schedule shall, for each of such joint candidates, he reduced by one-fourth, or, if there are more than two joint candidates, by one-third.
        "Where the same election agent is appointed by or on behalf of two or more candidates at an election, or where two or more candidates by themselves or any agent or agents, hire or use the same committee rooms for such election, or employ or use the services of the same sub-agents, clerks, messengers, or polling agents, at such election, or publish a joint address or joint circular or notice at such election, those candidates shall be deemed for the purposes of this enactment to be joint candidates at such election.
        "Provided that—

        (a.) The employment and use of the same committee room, sub-agent, clerk, messenger, or polling agent, if accidental or casual, or of a trivial and unimportant character, shall not be deemed of itself to constitute persons joint candidates.

        (b.) Nothing in this enactment shall prevent candidates from ceasing to be joint candidates,

        (c.) Where any excess of expenses above the maximum allowed for one of two or more joint candidates has arisen owing to his having ceased to he a joint candidate, or to his having become a joint candidate after having begun his election as a
        136
        separate candidate, and such ceasing or beginning was in good faith, and such excess is not more than under the circumstances is reasonable, and the total expenses of such candidate do not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a separate candidate, such excess shall be deemed to have arisen from a reasonable cause within the meaning of the enactments respecting the allowance by the High Court or election court of an exception from the provisions of this Act which would otherwise make an act an illegal practice, and the candidate and his election agent may be relieved accordingly from the consequences of having incurred such excess of expenses."

        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was satisfied it would have been much better if the Schedule had been left as it originally stood. He was satisfied that the Maximum Schedule was not more than would be required in the case of his own city. The new proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General was to decrease the amount one-fourth for a double candidature. Now, the effect of that would be different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed—there would not be any joint candidatures. He did not, at that time of the morning, mean to divide the House upon this matter, but would simply content himself by protesting against the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Whitley) believed that the expenses of elections in boroughs would be greatly increased, as every candidate would fight separately, in order to get the higher scale.
        Amendment agreed to.

        SECOND SCHEDULE.
        On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Mr. W. H. SMITH), the following consequential Amendments were agreed to:—Page 41, line 30, leave out "on my behalf," and insert "by my authority, or with my knowledge or consent; "line 30, after "person," insert "nor any club, society, or association has;" line 30, leave out "has;" page 42, line 34, after "person," insert "nor any club, society, or association has;" line 34, leave out "has;" page 43, line 32, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" line 37, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" page 46, line 12, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" line 20,

        137
        after "person," insert "club, society, or association."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had to make a request to the House in respect of a technical matter in relation to the Bill—namely, that it should be re-committed in respect of Clause 34, in order to take power to charge certain expenses upon the Imperial Fund in cases where the Election Judge sat as an Appeal Court from the decision of the Commissioner. He would point out to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that having gone through the Schedules very fully in Committee, they could not be expected to go through them again. At the same time, there was a disposition to deal with some of the smaller Irish boroughs—Portarlington, for instance—which did not contain more than about 150 electors, in the sense indicated by the hon. Member.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 34."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        MR. BUCHANANasked the Attorney General to take into consideration the case of the Scotch counties, which were very materially affected by the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the few remarks which he made, had simply repeated the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but there was no reference to any Scotch county.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very fair one, and he thanked him for having made it. Of course, he should offer no objection of the kind suggested; but the Attorney General having spoken of consulting the feeling of Members from Ireland, he trusted he would be guided by the numerical strength of those present. He pointed out that they had just had a large body on their side—namely, 23, the Government numbering only three in the Lobby.
        COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). Seeing
        138
        that the hon. Member was a borough Member, he was unable to understand why he was so interested in respect of the Scotch counties.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 34.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Amendment proposed, Clause 34, page 17, to insert, in Sub-section 4, after the word "Court," the words "and the expenses of the Election Court, and of receiving and accommodating the Election Court."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Bill reported; as amended, considered.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I have to congratulate hon. Members on having reached this stage of the Bill, the discussion of which has engaged our attention for a very long period. I have also to make a particular request—namely, that the House will now consent to the Bill being read the third time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I concur with the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and also express my hope that the House will agree to the Motion for the third reading.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.

      EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      (Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
      EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

        [BILL 226.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mundella.)
        COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had no objection to this Bill, which he believed to be a good one; but he did object to its being considered in Committee at a quarter past 3 o'clock in the morning. He thought, when the House had sat for 11 hours, it might fairly be said that the limit of human endurance had

        139
        been reached. He might, perhaps, have yielded his assent to the Motion, had the House not been going to sit again until Monday; but seeing that they were to meet again to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and that Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House must be worn out, he begged to move that the House do adjourn.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Alexander.)
        MR. MUNDELLAregretted that the consideration of the preceding Business of the day had occupied so long; and, for his own part, he was loth to make any further demand upon the time of hon. Members than was absolutely necessary. He had only brought on the Bill at that late hour, because he was aware that several of the Scotch Members had remained in town on purpose to pass it. Those Gentlemen had urged him to bring on the Bill that evening; and as he believed its provisions were agreed to on all sides, and that it would be passed through Committee in a very short time, he would appeal to the House to allow this stage to be taken pro formâ, on the understanding that Progress would be at once reported, and the Bill considered again in Committee on Monday next.
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, notwithstanding the New Rules that had been passed for the purpose of facilitating the Business of the House, they had been harder worked during that Session than in any previous year. Hon. Members had sat with so much patience that the Government were inclined, if they were allowed, to keep the House sitting all night. He protested that it was not right to allow the Government to take a single Order after the present had been disposed of. Out of deference to their Speaker they ought not to prolong the Sitting one moment beyond that.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend would not be pressed. The remaining Motions ought to be very quickly disposed of; and with regard to the Education (Scotland) Bill he pointed out that unless it was taken then it could not be put down on Monday.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Original Question again proposed.
        MR. HENDERSONsaid, he had protested against the second reading of the Bill being taken at a late hour, and he protested against the Committee stage being taken after 3 o'clock in the morning; but as he was anxious not to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill at that period of the Session, and as the measure contained many valuable provisions, he supposed they must allow it to go into Committee. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council of Education to say that if that stage were taken he would put down the Bill for Monday for further consideration in Committee. That being so, he should not oppose the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
        Original Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mundella.)
        Motion agreed to.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 268.]
      (Mr. Hibbert, Mr. George Russell, Mr. Ashley, Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
      ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 268.]

        COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        MR. HIBBERTappealed to the House to allow this Bill to be considered in Committee. It was necessary that the Bill should go to the House of Lords on Monday; and he regretted to state that, owing to a misunderstanding which had occurred in connection with it, a considerable amount of time had been lost. The Bill had been before a Select Committee; and as its provisions had been accepted by all parties interested in it, he believed it would be disposed of in five minutes.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he coincided with the suggestion made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B.

        141
        Barttelot) that no more Business should be taken at that Sitting.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 26: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
        Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

      LEASEHOLDERS (FACILITIES FOR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
      (Mr. Broadhnrst, Mr. Burt, Mr. R. T. Reid, Mr. Passmore Edwards.)
      LEASEHOLDERS (FACILITIES FOR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.

        [BILL 134.] SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow."
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "upon Monday next,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
        Question put, "That the word 'Tomorrow 'stand part of the Question."
        The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 59: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 283.)
        Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
        Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
      (Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Lamb-ton, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Thomas Richardson, Mr. Gourley, Mr. James Thompson.)
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.

        [BILL 21.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Theodore Fry.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should propose to substitute Monday for to-morrow.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "Monday next,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
        MR. ANDERSONsaid, it used to be the admitted privilege of an hon. Member to put down his Bill for the next day, or any other day he pleased, on which the House was to sit, and when the Order was called it rested with the House to decide whether it should be proceeded with then or not; but the system now was to endeavour to make it an absolute rule that private Members should not be allowed, without opposition, to name the day for their Bills; and the Government had, in this case, given a most improper pledge, and it would be absolutely necessary for private Members to unite against this practice. By the Rules of the House it was practically impossible for a private Member to got a place for any stage beyond the second reading of a Bill.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 47: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 284.)
        MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, that after this vote of the House he begged to move that the Order be discharged.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be read and discharged."—(Mr. Theodore Fry.)
        Motion agreed to.
        Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

      CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
      (Colonel Nolan, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Findlater, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Macfarlane.)
      CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.

        [BILL 282.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the House would allow this Bill to go into Committee. It would not take a minute to dispose of it, because there was no difference of opinion with regard to it amongst the Irish Members, and he did not think that opposition was likely to come from any other quarter.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 1 (Sanitary authority may take possession of site).
        MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he had an Amendment to propose; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have any difficulty in accepting it.
        Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "officer," to insert the words "of a Union."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
        Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to.
        Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

      MOTION.

        SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).—RESOLUTION.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature, 1883. may be annulled."—(Sir. R Assheton Cross.)
        Debate arising.
        Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
        House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.