TWELFTH NIGHT.

HC Deb 02 July 1883 vol 281 cc61-150

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Illegal Practices.

Clause 7 (Expense in excess of maximum to he illegal).

MR. LEWIS

said, he wished to point out that, in addition to the general maximum under the Bill, there was one special maximum, and that was a maximum for miscellaneous matters. He did not understand exactly what was meant by it; but possibly it was intended that the miscellaneous matters, although included in the general maximum, were not to exceed £100, the general maximum running to £350. He did not understand that there was any real necessity for such a limitation; and he should propose to substitute the word "the" for the word "any," so as to make it read "the maximum." He did not understand what was the object of the Attorney General in keeping in these precise words.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 9, leave out "any," and insert "the."—(Mr. Lewis.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the matter was a mere question of drafting, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

MR. LEWIS

said, he had no wish to waste time; but it still appeared to him to be somewhat inconsistent to have a maximum for miscellaneous matters, as well as the inclusive maximum for all matters. He wished to know whether the Attorney General insisted upon it that the miscellaneous matters, which comprehended all and sundry things, should be limited to £100; because that would carry to an extreme the fetters which were placed upon an election? And was the £100 to be included in the general maximum of £350?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that this question could be raised later on in the Bill; and if the Committee took the same view as the hon. Member for Londonderry, he should not object. But he hoped they would not discuss the point until they were fairly arrived at it.

MR. LEWIS

said, he would not press it for the present; but he protested against the wording as it stood, and regarded the matter as one of no little importance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved to insert, in page 4, line 10, after the word "Act," these words— And no further sum shall be paid, and no further expense shall be incurred on account of, or in respect of, the conduct and management of such election by any person other than the candidate, or his election agent (except by a voter for the purpose of recording his own vote, or as otherwise provided by this Act). He was very much afraid that the candidate might be placed in a very bad position. As the Bill was drawn, a candidate would find himself very much hampered, and would not venture to make any expenditure; and the result would be that a large sum of money would be expended without his knowledge or consent by outside people who came from a distance. It had been represented to him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) very strongly that in the case of large towns and populous places beyond the boundaries, the payment of travelling expenses to voters might probably be made by some local Conservative or Liberal Association, or by private individuals, or it might be done on their part, and it would never be charged to the election agent, and he would never know anything about it. It often happened that some zealous friend was anxious either to placard some view which the candidate had expressed, or to put forward some views of his own, and would send down persons to the borough to cover all the walls with placards. What position would the candidate be left in in such a case? Or there was another case to be considered. Some argumentative story might be put out which the candidate would like very much to deny. Those wore two samples of the cases which might arise. Of course, it was necessary to prevent money being spent by other people outside the borough who had nothing to do with it, and of whom the election agent would be supposed to know nothing at all, to the great injury of the bonâ fide candidate.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 10, after the word "Act," insert "and no further sum shall be paid and no further expense shall be incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct and management of such election by any person other than the candidate or his election agent (except by a voter for the purpose of recording his own vote, or as otherwise provided by this Act)."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he quite agreed that it was necessary to get rid of an outside expenditure; but he was afraid that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would carry them further than they ought to go. Another objection which he had to the Amendment was that Clause 7 dealt entirely with the agents of the candidate; and, besides that, the right hon. Gentleman would perceive that in Clause 22 the Bill did endeavour to deal with the point he had raised. Clause 22, which dealt with the outside expenditure, and not with the expenditure of the candidate or the election agent, would be a more convenient place than this in which to make the Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was perfectly content with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he agreed with the view that this outside expenditure ought to be stopped. They ought to put some limit to it, because this was a matter of really vital importance. Under these circumstances, he would willingly withdraw the Amendment —he had no affection at all for its wording—and he would substitute something, with the assistance of the Attorney General, in Clause 22. There was a clause which came before that—Clause 14—on which he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had an Amendment, which would provide that any person employed by or in receipt of a salary from any political or other Association outside the constituency in which the election occurred should be considered as engaged or employed for payment if he acted under such employment for the purpose of promoting, or procuring, or opposing the election of a candidate at any such election. He thought they ought to agree in stopping this expenditure in some form or other. He was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment now, on the understanding that in the course of the Bill the Attorney General would give his attention to the point, for he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not think that the words of Clause 22 were strong enough as they stood.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had a very strong feeling as to the maximum of expenditure, which was a most important point; but he was afraid that, unless they could devise great checks and safeguards, there would almost inevitably be a considerable amount of expenditure outside, which could not be controlled by the candidate or his agent. He could quite understand, with regard to out-voters, that there was a system under which the names of out-voters were recorded in the books of corresponding committees of political Associations in different parts of the country, so that a list of the voters of a particular constituency who had ceased to reside in the district could be obtained by a political Association elsewhere. It ought to be carefully considered how they were to prevent arrangements being made under which these out-voters might be sent, at the expense of the political Association, to vote in the constituency in which they formerly resided; and he did hope that the Attorney General would very carefully consider this point. His (Mr. Rylands's) desire was to support the hon. and learned Gentleman, in every way he could, in keeping the expenditure down; but, at the same time, he thought that in doing that they should, if possible, prevent themselves from being led into a trap, under which they would find themselves confronted by things which a not over-scrupulous candidate would do.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had an Amendment which was directed to the same object, and perhaps he might save time by referring to it now. Both his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and himself had the same object in view—they deprecated the interference, under the guise of Associations, or even by individuals, with the particular constituency in which the candidate and the constituents wore placed face to face with each other. There could be no possible doubt that unless this sort of interference was prohibited under this Bill, that external interference would be powerful, and largely successful. There would be a Society for the prohibition of some object with which the candidate, on one side or the other, was more or less identified; and it would be the duty of that Society to send down lecturers to the constituency. There could be no doubt about that, for the thing had been done already, and it would be sure to be done again. The candidate was not to incur any expense beyond a certain figure, and at the last moment that Association would placard the whole constituency. What was to be done? Some other Society pledged to oppose the first one would go down to the same place and cover the placards of the opposing Society with their placards, denouncing the candidate on the other side and the whole system. It was quite clear that if they fixed the maximum to be spent by the candidate alone, that would be evaded, he would not say in the most disguised, but in the most open manner through the agency of these different Associations which would be created for the purpose. It was, therefore, absolutely imperative that external interference should be prohibited under penalties, and there should be no doubt about it that the candidate or his agent would be subject to these penalties if the expense was not included in the accounts. His own Amendment provided a penalty which did not exist in the Bill at the present moment. No doubt, the Attorney General might hold that Clauses 14 and 22 would have the desired effect; but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought they were not sufficiently punitive—they did not attach sufficient penalties to the offences which it was sought to prevent, and which the House of Commons desired to prevent.

MR. GORST

said, he thought the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were most excellent, but they were founded on a misapprehension of the existing law. As the law stood at present, a person, even when he was not a candidate or agent, was just as guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, when he committed those offences, as if he were a candidate or agent. The punishment for such offences was not confined to candidates or agents, but applied to all persons who transgressed the law; and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was merely a declaration of the law as it existed in its present state, and as it would still remain after the passing of this Bill. It was, practically, no Amendment at all; and he (Mr. Gorst) apprehended that the object of this Bill would be to repress all illegalities, not only on the part of a candidate or his agent, but on the part of any outside Society which interfered in an election. He did not at all share the fears which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, that there would be any difficulty whatever in securing compliance with the law on the part of any outside Society, because the gentlemen who formed a political Society, in London or elsewhere, to influence an election would be well known, and they would take great care that they did not render themselves liable to punishment or penalties by doing any acts which would be an infringement of the law as it existed and as it would remain under the Bill. These Amendments, then, were not wanted; and he thought it would be better not to go on with this discussion, but to wait until the clause dealing with outside payments was reached.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he must congratulate himself on the discovery which had been made by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the Bill was not sufficiently punitive. This was the first time he had heard such an observation made in the course of these discussions. He felt, however, that these outside influences must be dealt with; but he thought it would be found that that was really done in Clause 22. When they came to that clause he should bear in mind what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and he would do his very best to see the extent to which they could safely go.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

thought the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was in error in regard to one point. One thing which was most strongly objected to was that an outside Society should come in and do things which it would be perfectly legal for them as a Society to do, and by which they would not incur any penalty, but which would do an infinite amount of damage to the candidate, because he could not answer them or refute their libels, if that term might be fairly used. He (Sir E. Assheton Cross) accepted the Attorney General's assurance that on Clause 22 he would produce words which would attain the object that they all had in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HICKS,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 10, after the word "Act," the insertion of those words— Provided, That an election for the purposes of this Clause shall he held to commence with the issue of the candidate's address, whether printed or addressed to a meeting of his supporters with a view to the coming election, the appointment of his election agent, or the issue of the writ, whichever may first happen, said, that when this clause was discussed on Friday, a question was raised as to the difficulties in which a candidate and his agent, who were really desirous of complying with the provisions of the Bill, might find themselves placed from not knowing at what period the election was to be held to commence. If he understood the Attorney General correctly on that occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to admit the force of that objection, but said that there were great difficulties in framing any section which would properly define the time at which the election commenced. He (Mr. Hicks) had endeavoured to supply that definition. Whether he had succeeded to the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or to the satisfaction of the Committee generally he did not know, but he had made an honest attempt to arrive at a definition for the purpose of enabling the candidate to know when the time during which his maximum amount was to be spent really commenced. He (Mr. Hicks) certainly approved of having a maximum sum named, but what that maximum sum should be was quite another question. However, when they had a maximum sum, they ought also to know when the time for its expenditure was to be concluded or commenced, or otherwise the candidate, with the best intentions in the world, and after having given his agents strict orders to keep within that sum, might be placed in this position, that expenses of a perfectly harmless character, which had been incurred weeks and months before the time when the election proper began, might by some means or other be construed to be part of the election expenses, with the result that the maximum sum might be found to be exceeded, and the seat lost, notwithstanding the fact that such expenses did not touch, in the least degree, upon corrupt practices. He did not desire to diminish in any way the force of the clause, and he proposed this Amendment in the hope that it would be acceptable to the Attorney General, and that it might really furnish a test by which the time of the commencement of the election might be accurately known.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 10, after "Act," add "Provided, That an election for the purposes of this Clause shall he held to commence with the issue of the candidate's address, whether printed or addressed to a meeting of his supporters with a view to the coming election, the appointment of his election agent, or the issue of the writ, whichever may first happen."—(Mr. Hicks.)

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

MR. ONSLOW

said, this proposal was somewhat on the lines of an Amendment which he had been about to propose himself. He wished to put a question on the subject to the Attorney General. Supposing a candidate was elected, and there was no other election likely to take place for six years. The elected candidate might go down to his borough every year and address his constituents. He might even address them in particular wards, and for each meeting in each ward he might have to pay a certain sum of money for hire of rooms. He (Mr. Onslow) would like to ask whether these payments would have to be included as for election purposes? Undoubtedly, the candidate would go down to address his constituents with a view to the next election, and it was desirable to know whether he would have to include in his election expenses the sums he had paid for the hire of rooms for his annual addresses? This was a matter of the very greatest importance, because if these sums were to be included it would make an enormous difference, as even for the comparatively small place (Guildford) which he (Mr. Onslow) had the honour to represent, £50 or £60 of his maximum might easily go in the hire of rooms before the next election took place, and in other and larger constituencies the candidate might have to pay a great deal more. The words which he (Mr. Onslow) had intended to propose would provide that no payment made after the election or before the receipt of the Writ for the next election should be included. Were they or were they not to include the sums they legitimately and legally spent in delivering addresses to their constituents? Because, if so, they would have for the future to go out to some open space and ask the electors to listen to them there. He would ask the Attorney General to consider the desirability of inserting some Proviso of this sort in order to protect the candidate in the matter of perfectly legitimate expenses which might exceed the maximum amount. A room for delivering an address was not to be got for nothing; they had to pay £10 or £20 for one, and if that was to be included in the maximum the amount would be swallowed up in no time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that this question was quite an old friend, and he thought they had arrived at a satisfactory settlement of it before. He wished to point out that the words of the clause were "conduct or management" of an election, so as to make the clause strike at the election itself. The case put by the hon. Member for Guilford (Mr. Onslow) clearly did not come within the clause, and a Member who went to his constituents to give an account of his actions would not be affected. It was impossible to define a special time for the commencement of an election. The Amendment now before the Committee defined the commencement of the election as dating from the issue of the candidate's address. But the candidate might not issue an address, or he might issue it close upon the election itself, and have incurred a heavy expenditure before it, thereby evading the law; or he might not appoint an election agent until the very eve of the election, and a most extensive system of "nursing" might go on before that; or the Writ might issue four days before the election, after weeks and weeks of canvassing. Practically, there would be no difficulty in the matter; and if any error should be made, there was a new clause already upon the Paper to provide that anything done in good faith, through inadvertence, or unintentionally, should not void the election.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, it was quite true that this point had been discussed at considerable length at the last sitting of the Committee; but he was bound to say that it had not been exhaustively discussed. There might be a prolonged Election Campaign, such as that which occurred in 1868, and the Attorney General met that case by saying that it was an undesirable state of things, and that it must not happen again. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) hoped it would not. But how could they control the mind of the Prime Minister? The same thing might happen again as happened in 1868, if the present Prime Minister was at the head of the Government. The last General Election, although a short one, took them all by surprise, and at the next Dissolution they might have precisely the same state of things as that which existed in 1868, presuming that the Prime Minister did not choose to announce when he intended to dissolve. The Attorney General had addressed himself to the case of the sitting Member, but he had not said a word about the candidate. A candidate might go into a constituency, and might be compelled to hire rooms and so forth, with a view of contesting the seat, long before the election actually took place; and he did not see that a word had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman which at all applied to that case, however directly it might apply to the case of the sitting Member. All the discussion pointed in the direction of the suggestion that there should be some limit fixed and a definite time stated as the time at which the election commenced. Although he did not agree with the particular period indicated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), he thought he could suggest a mode by which this object could be accomplished. He did not see why the Bill should not provide for a stated time, such as that fixed by an Order in Council, or by the Proclamation announcing the Dissolution of Parliament and the time for the assembling of the new Parliament. That date would depend entirely upon the Proclamation and its publication in The Gazette; and he did not see why something of the same sort might not be done in regard to the election expenses. If the Act did not contain a clause to this effect, he was satisfied it would be the cause of great hardship by-and-bye. It was no answer to say that the matter was one that could be left to the Judges. Judges were, like all other human beings, fallible mortals. Their Judgments conflicted every day; and if it were intended that the Bill should provide against the commission of corrupt and illegal practices, it should also provide against the occurrence of cases of hardship. He trusted that when the subject came up again it would be competent for the Attorney General, or for somebody else, to move a clause fixing a limit as to the period at which the election commenced.

MR. W. H. JAMES

wished to ask a question of the Attorney General. The clause contained the expression "before or after the election," and he wished to know whether the expenses incurred by a candidate in respect of registration before the election would come within the clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

replied in the negative. The expenses connected with the registration generally would certainly not come within the words "conduct or management" of an election.

MR. NEWDEGATE

wished to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman which he thought would facilitate the disposal of the question—namely, that they ought to exclude from the cognizance of any Court which would have to adjudicate upon questions arising out of an election all matters relating to registration on either side. Unless there were specific words to exclude the legitimate action of the candidate in connection with the registration of voters, he was afraid that some difficulty might arise.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the clause related to the expenditure of candidates, and he should like to have some general idea as to where they were. In the last discussion upon the subject, nothing was said upon the question of the continuity of the election; but it was said that it ought to be left to the Judge who tried the Election Petition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had called attention to Clause 60 of the Bill. Now, Clause 60 was as clear as possible. It said— In the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, as amended by this Act, the expression 'candidate at an election' means, unless the context otherwise requires, any person elected to serve in Parliament at such election, and any person who has been nominated as a candidate at such election, or has been declared by himself or by others to be a candidate, on or after the day of the issue of the writ for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which such writ has been issued, and the expression 'candidate' shall be construed accordingly. It seemed to him that that clause was as clear as any words could be, and that it limited the effect of Clause 7 in reference to a candidate at any election, by providing that he should be a person who had been nominated as a candidate, who had been declared by himself or others to be a candidate on or after the day of the issue of the Writ, or after the Dissolution or the vacancy in consequence of which the Writ had been issued. The Attorney General said he would see about that when they came to Clause 60; but what he (Sir George Campbell) wanted to know was, whether the Attorney General intended that the maximum expenditure should be limited to a few days after the vacancy had occurred, or whether he intended to strike out that part of the clause altogether, and leave it to the discretion of the Judge?

MR. BIGGAR

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) as to the propriety of defining in the Bill the time at which the election commenced. At present, it was not at all certain, especially when they remembered the remarks of the Attorney General, that the Bill would fix a limit in any way. To show how the matter would work if a definite limit were not fixed, he would call attention to the case of an hon. Gentleman who was in the last Parliament, but who was not a Member of the present one. It was a common report that that Gentleman, who for some time represented a large borough constituency, was in the habit of making all sorts of excuses for giving presents to his constituents. He gave them presents at Christmas; and whenever any member of his family was married, he gave a wedding present to every elector in the borough, and in that way he was able to "nurse" the borough in that most open manner. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that acts of that kind would be brought within the purview of the present Bill, because it would not be held that the hon. Gentleman was a candidate in any sense of the word, and there was no continuity between the presentation of wedding gifts and something that was to take place hereafter in connection with the representation of the borough. Therefore, he did not think the Bill would be of any practical use in such a case, because it could be evaded with the greatest ease. In 1868, he (Mr. Biggar) had something to do with the Election for Belfast, at which the hon. Baronet, now Member for Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) was one of the successful candidates. A practice which the present Bill declared to be illegal was at that time frequently resorted to. But the committee of the then candidate (Sir Thomas M'Clure) would not engage cars to take the voters to the poll, and the candidate himself declined to do it. But what occurred? A number of cardrivers, on the chance of getting paid in the end, supplied cars on the day of election, and he (Mr. Biggar) and others went round among the members of the Liberal Party to collect subscriptions to pay the car-drivers for the services they had rendered. The candidate spent money most lavishly in any way that he held to be legal; but he declined to spend money illegally. Nevertheless, the men were paid, and the law was evaded. He (Mr. Biggar) really did not see that anything would be practically gained by fixing a limit of time at which the election should be said to commence, because such a provision would be quite as easily evaded as any election payment which took place before the time named. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to give another illustration. It was the case of another candidate for Parliamentary honours who would not bribe the electors. His opponent, however, bribed, and succeeded in being returned. The noble Lord who was the unsuccessful candidate (Lord Cochrane), and who only obtained a small number of votes, then called together the men who had given him their support, and made a large and liberal present to each of them. What was the result? When the next vacancy occurred the noble Lord was again a candidate, and he got in with flying colours. But on that occasion he was by no means so liberal or friendly towards those who had placed him in a position of honour. He had succeeded in carrying his point, and was Member for the borough of Stafford for one Parliament; but the noble Lord declined, under any circumstances, to make a present to those who had voted for him on the second occasion, on the ground that it would be held to be bribery. He (Mr. Biggar) was of opinion that there was not a single provision in the Bill which could not be evaded with the greatest ease, and he believed that all the time which was being wasted in the discussion of the Bill might be much more profitably spent.

MR. HICKS

said, he would place himself entirely in the hands of the Committee. He should be very sorry to waste the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and therefore, if it was so desired, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON moved, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "an illegal," and insert "a corrupt." The object of this section of the clause was to define the punishment for the offence of paying expenses in excess of the maximum amount specified in the 1st Schedule of the Act. He did not think that it was likely that any candidate would be found who would knowingly exceed the maximum expenses allowed under the Bill, but in future elections the candidate would be more or less in the hands of his agents. It would be the agent who would have to make the payments; and if any election agent knowingly exceeded the maximum scale, it appeared to him that the punishment named in the Bill was hardly sufficient for the offence. If an agent knowingly committed this offence, it was provided that he should be held guilty of an illegal practice, and the punishment for illegal practices was a fine of £100, together with incapacity during a period of five years from the time of the election for being registered as an elector, or voting at any election in the United Kingdom, whether Parliamentary election or any other election, for a public office. If the Amendment were adopted, persons who knowingly exceeded the maximum scale of expenses would be found guilty of a corrupt practice, in regard to which the punishment was much more severe, the offender being liable to be imprisoned for one year and fined £200. If an agent who committed this offence was only to be liable to a fine of £100 and five years' disfranchisement, it appeared to him (Mr. Buxton) that the penalty' would amount to absolutely nothing. So far as the fine was concerned, it would simply be made an addition to the other election expenses of the candidate; and as to the disfranchisement for five years, he did not see how the election agent of a candidate was likely to have the power of using his vote at any election for that period of time. Consequently, the punishment amounted to almost nothing. If the Attorney General could see his way to the adoption of this Amendment, he (Mr. Buxton) did not think the candidate would ever render himself liable to the penalty, and the only result would be to make it a harder and sharper punishment upon any agent who might be guilty of a corrupt act. It might, of course, be used against a candidate who was guilty of the same offence, but he could not imagine that any candidate would knowingly commit an act of this kind. He begged to propose the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "an illegal," and insert "a corrupt."—(Mr. Francis Buxton.)

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

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought they ought all to be obliged to the hon. Member for his very moderate proposal. The only wonder was that the hon. Member stopped where he did. For his own part, he (Mr. Lewis) would not have felt surprised if the hon. Member had proposed to inflict capital punishment on Members guilty of offences against the Bill. There would have been just as much sense in the one proposal as in the other. Some hon. Members never seemed to be satisfied unless they were proposing the infliction of penal servitude upon their fellow-Members. Now, what was the proposal? A stupid agent or a foolish candidate exceeded the maximum scale of election expenses, and an hon. Member sitting for a miserably small borough, where there need be no election expenses at all, got up and said that if a man did that, he should be sent to prison for one year with hard labour. He should like to know in what school the hon. Gentleman had been trained, and what lawyer or philosopher he had sat at the feet of? He (Mr. Lewis) presumed that hon. Members were sent to that House to make laws that would carry with them the respect of the people, and not to introduce ruthless and reckless propositions which could only earn the contempt of the people. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to regard the proposal with as much horror as he (Mr. Lewis) did; but he thought it ought to be noticed generally by the public what punishment, in the opinion of an hon. Member, ought to be inflicted upon a candidate who exceeded the maximum expenditure allowed by law. He thought the Amendment was utterly unworthy of consideration.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment. The offence which he proposed to visit with a year's imprisonment was, after all, not so much a malum in se as a malum prohibitum. The offence would cause a candidate to lose his seat. If either he or the election agent knowingly exceeded the maximum of expenditure, that result would follow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that it was unreasonable to subject such an offence to the punishment described in the Bill for corrupt practices.

MR FRANCIS BUXTON

said, that after the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman he would not press the Amendment. Of course he knew that the candidate, under the clause as it stood, would lose his seat; but the agent would get off scotfree, and that was what he objected to. It might be said that an action could be brought against the agent after the election was over; but he was afraid that if a candidate took that extreme course he would never find another agent who would be willing to act for him. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had placed upon the Paper the following new sub-section after Sub-section 2:— Any person who does any act which, if it were committed by a candidate or his agent, would be a corrupt practice, illegal practice, illegal payment, employment or hiring, shall he guilty of the same offences, and he liable to the same penalties, as if he were himself such candidate or agent; and any person not being an election agent who pays any money or incurs any expense (not included within the expenses returned by the candidate or his agent) in promoting the election of any candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice. He did not propose to move that section now; but he thought he would best consult the convenience of the Committee if he were to postpone it until they reached Clause 22, which related to the payment of expenses through an election agent.

MR. BIGGAR moved the omission of Sub-section 3, which was as follows:— Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the right of a creditor who when the expense was incurred was ignorant of the expense being incurred in contravention of this section. He believed that, as a general rule, corrupt expenditure was not intentionally incurred, and the cases in which gross and systematic bribery and corruption were practised were very few. He believed that in the great majority of cases the candidate intended to act in perfect good faith, and not to bribe the constituency at all. The position the candidate was in was this. First of all, he came into contact with all sorts of people who did electioneering work, and these men, when the election was over, having played some small part in accompanying the candidate in his canvass, furnished an account for their services at a most exorbitant rate. The candidate knew very well that the claim was of a fraudulent and an extortionate nature; but, at the same time, the person who made it knew very well that in most cases the candidate would not have the courage to defend any action that might be brought against him. In the next place, the persons by whom such claims were made were men of straw from whom no costs could be recovered if they failed to make their claim good. Therefore, in most cases, the candidate was compelled to compromise the action on unfair terms, or to fight it out in Court, where he might, perhaps, get an award from a jury for some small sum slightly above the sum paid into Court, which would compel him to pay very heavy costs. He believed that his hon. Colleague (Mr. Fay), after the last Election, received an account from the keeper of an hotel for the full value of everything supplied, and at the foot of the bill a sum of £100 was added for the use of the house. His hon. Colleague was charged in other respects quite a sufficient sum to pay the hotel-keeper all reasonable and proper charges, and he, therefore, refused to pay this item, and the hotel-keeper put the case in the hands of an attorney, who brought an action in one of the Superior Courts. Thereupon, there were applications for particulars and all sorts of things, which very rapidly swelled the bill of costs, and his hon. Colleague in the end had to pay a large sum in addition to the extravagant amount he had paid in the first instance. If he had gone before a jury his position would have been this. If he failed to obtain a verdict, he would have had to pay a large additional sum in costs; and if he got a verdict, he would have been entirely unable to recover costs from the plaintiff, who was a man of no means whatever, and had neither reputation nor capital. The inevitable result was that he was bound to incur a loss; and, therefore, he came to a compromise rather than be put to further trouble and expense. He would give another illustration. In the Derry Election in 1881 a newspaper account for £109 was sent in for printing and advertizing. Some of the items were charged 10 times more than the ordinary price. The account was, therefore, refused to be paid, and the newspaper proprietor threatened legal proceedings against him (Mr. Biggar), who was responsible for the account. He declined, however, to give way, and required each item to be examined by some com- petent person, and taxed. As he had said, proceedings were threatened against him; but he refused to be victimized, and in the end a sum of £30 was taken in settlement of a claim of £109. That certainly proved that the claim was fraudulent and unjust. At the last Election for Cavan, a personation agent made a claim of £10 against him when he was only entitled to a sum of 18s. 10d. He offered the sum to which the man was fairly entitled, whereupon he was threatened with legal proceedings; but, seeing that he stood firm, the man ultimately took the 18s. 10d. instead of the £10 he at first claimed. But the man who made a perfectly dishonest claim got off scot-free, and suffered neither fine nor imprisonment; whereas, if he (Mr. Biggar) had entered into a compromise with him, and had given him more than he was entitled to, he might have been unseated under this clause for making an illegal payment, whereas the party who forced him into making the illegal payment would have got off scot-free on the plea that he did not know that it was an illegal claim. But newspaper men and car-drivers, and all persons of that kind, knew perfectly well that the claims they were constantly in the habit of making were fraudulent, dishonest, and illegal, and it was altogether improper that they should be specially exempted from liability, seeing that they were the very persons who forced the candidate to make these illegal payments. A vast majority of candidates were most anxious to keep down the expenses of an election, but excessive expenditure was forced upon them by persons who resorted to a system of extortion and fraud. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would consent to strike out these three lines, and render persons who made an illegal claim just as responsible as the candidate who paid it.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, leave out sub-section (3).—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought that the sub-section as it stood would give rise to considerable difficulty. A claim might be made upon the candidate, and the agent would say—"I gave no such order; you have quite misunderstood me, and I do not owe you a penny." Then this section would come in, and the creditor would say that the agent had disregarded his claim altogether, and he would bring an action, and, as they all knew, there were plenty of people who were able to persuade juries that right was wrong, or something that seemed wrong. Witnesses sometimes overstepped the words of truth. He would assume that the candidate was beaten in the action, and that it was hold that according to law his agent had ordered the articles. Was the candidate in that case to lose his seat, and the agent by the result of that action to be liable to penalties? The right of the creditor was preserved, and if it was established ultimately, important consequences would follow. How could the Attorney General save the candidate or the agent?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he quite understood the objection that was raised to the subsection, and in the interests of the honest creditor he was not prepared to say that it was legally necessary at all. Nevertheless, as the matter was somewhat doubtful, he had considered it objectionable to leave the law in an uncertain state. He thought they ought to say what they meant, and if they were of opinion that a creditor should be entitled to recover a just claim, then he thought they ought to say so. They sanctioned by the Bill the employment of committee rooms. Suppose that a candidate was entitled to have five committee rooms, and an application was made to a person to supply a sixth. The person who lent the room might not know that it was a sixth committee room. Why, then, should he not, being a honest creditor, have the right to say—"I did not know that it was in excess of the number provided by law." In such a case, this sub-section entitled the creditor to be paid; and if they said that he should not be paid, they would afford an opportunity for a person to say—"We will spend as much as we like;" and then turn round and say—"We knowingly exceeded the maximum of expenditure, and therefore you cannot recover." He was of opinion that everything ought to be perfectly clear one way or the other, whether such a defence ought to exist or not. He thought they ought to get at the person who did wrong if they could; but the honest creditor would have done no wrong. What he did he would have done unintentionally, not knowing anything to the contrary; and they ought to protect him and enable him to recover his debt. He did not see, because the creditor recovered and showed that the sum was due, that the candidate was placed in any worse position. The effect upon him would always depend upon the fact that the amount was found to be due by the jury. The sub-section had been introduced into the Bill with the view of protecting the honest creditor, and of indicating to County Court Judges that Parliament did not intend that the honest creditor should not be paid by those who had chosen to disobey the law.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he did not think that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had quite understood the objection which had been taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The question which his hon. Friend put was this. Supposing the return of election expenses came up to the maximum scale, and then an honest creditor put in a claim for something additional, what would be the position of the candidate if he paid that claim? If he refused it, it would be submitted to the verdict of a jury, which would probably go against him. If he paid it, he would incur the penalty of having exceeded the maximum scale of expenditure allowed by law. He spoke feelingly on this point, because, after his election expenses were returned in 1868, a person at Deal brought an action against him to recover the cost of certain hired carriages. Now, certainly, he had never hired the carriages, nor had his agent hired them; but, notwithstanding, an intelligent jury decided that he ought to pay for them. The same case might occur again. At the time of which he spoke the candidate was not subjected to these terrible penal clauses. Under this clause, if he resisted the claim he was subjected to an action at law, and if he paid it he was liable to go to prison and lose his seat. He thought that was an unfortunate dilemma in which to place a candidate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had endeavoured to explain the position of the matter. Either the candidate would owe the money or he would not, and the finding of a jury would not put him in a worse position than by law he would be in Before the action was brought. The candidate would have a perfect right to say that he did not enter into a contract or incur the expenditure, and that he should not lose his seat; and if the Judge was of the same opinion, then, under Clause 17 of the Bill, it would be found that every protection was given which could be given to meet the very case that was referred to. If the candidate went before the Judge and said, "I know nothing at all about it," then the words of Clause 17 covered the case. If any further words were necessary to give full protection to the candidate, he would be glad to insert them.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought the Attorney General was quite right in the position he took. It would be a monstrous thing to say that because a candidate had exceeded the maximum expenditure allowed by law a creditor should be prevented from recovering an honest debt. He would, however, call the attention of the Attorney General to language used in the earlier part of the section which, in his opinion, made it necessary that this sub-section should be inserted. The clause said, in the second line— No sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate at an election or his election agent, whether before, during, or after an election, on account of or in respect of or incidental to such election, in excess of any maximum amount in that behalf specified in the first schedule to this Act. Those words were very strong indeed, and he had no doubt, if this sub-section were struck out, that not only the County Court Judge, but every other Judge, would be inclined to say that any expenditure beyond the maximum could not be paid. At the same time, he was bound to agreee with the Attorney General that if an order had been given and the expenses incurred the creditor ought to be paid.

MR. WARTON

said, there was one point to which he desired to call the attention of the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman must, as a lawyer, know perfectly well that there was no obligation on the part of the candidate to spend more than a certain amount of money; but the fact that more was expended could in no way affect the rights of the creditor. Therefore this section was clearly unnecessary, and he thought it was a very bad practice to load Bills with words which were not necessary, and which only led to discussion. Besides, the words, if unnecessary, were actually mischievous when they looked at the rest of the Bill. In Clause 6 they had provided that— No payment or contract for payment shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, be made (c) on account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the first schedule to this Act. This sub-section provided— That nothing shall affect the right of a creditor who when the expense was incurred was ignorant of the expense being incurred in contravention of the section. It might be urged that as Section 6 made no reservation of the rights of a creditor at all in reference to committee rooms, he would not be able to recover an honest debt notwithstanding the existence of this sub-section. Suppose the candidate was allowed to hire five committee rooms, and an agent from some negligence, or, perhaps, through design, hired six simultaneously, would he be in a position to say to each of the six persons from whom a room was hired that there had been an excessive expenditure, so far as the Act was concerned, and he was not allowed to pay for more than five—would he, therefore, escape payment in the case of all six? If the creditor said, "That does not affect me," the answer would be that it did, because by Clause 6 his rights were not guarded, although they might be by Clause 7. What was the construction that was to be put upon the Act if the rights of the creditor were preserved in one section and not in another, so far as committee rooms were concerned? Were they to interfere with the contract between the candidate and his agent, and the contract between the agent and the creditor? No lawyer would for one moment pretend to say that this subsection was necessary. The hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) seemed to think there was something in the words of the second line of the clause, "that no sum be paid and no expenses incurred in excess of the maximum amount." It was obvious, however, that that related to the maximum expenses of a candidate at an election, and did not affect the present question, which applied to a single item. His own impression was that the subsection was unnecessary, and that it would lead to various dangers—among others, to the danger that the extortioners, who abounded at election times, would be induced to make all sorts of extravagant claims. He had no objection to give to a creditor his just rights, but nothing more, and he looked upon the sub-section as dangerous, unnecessary, and inconsistent.

MR. H. S. NORTHCOTE

asked the Attorney General how Section 7 would operate in such a case as this. Suppose the candidate had already expended the maximum amount allowed by the Act, and after the election was over a dishonest claim was made against him, would any expenditure he incurred in defending himself against such a claim be regarded as excessive expenditure over the maximum?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Certainly not.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the fact that the clause was directed against a candidate making an illegal payment might suggest that the creditor was making a fraudulent claim, and was threatening proceedings against the candidate unless the claim was satisfied. They all knew that in election times, in every constituency, a certain number of persons turned up with the sole intention of preying upon the unfortunate candidate. In some places they were more plentiful than in others, but everywhere they existed to some extent, and he was afraid that the Attorney General was making express provisions in the interest of such individuals. If the case were one of a candidate or an agent inadvertently engaging a committee room, it would hardly be worth discussing; but what really would occur would be this—that some person would furnish an account for a committee room, which had probably never been hired at all, and then the candidate, by the threat of an action, would be induced to compromise what he believed to be a dishonest claim. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the section would produce a mischievous effect, and that it ought to be struck out.

MR. LEWIS

said, that, in addition to the difficulty which had occurred to his mind a short time ago, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the retention of this sub-section was likely to increase fraudulent claims, struck him as having considerable force. He was also bound to say that the criticisms of his hon. and learned Friend in regard to the difference apparent between Clause 6 and Clause 7 was perfectly well-founded. It was obvious that a distinction was drawn in preserving the rights of creditors in Clause 7, and ignoring them in Clause 6; and as it was evident that the Attorney General was not very much in love with the section, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to meet it.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would acquit him of any desire to prevent the Committee from coming to a decision upon the clause; but he could not help pointing out that this sub-section was in contradiction to the main principle and idea of the Bill. He understood that the object of the Bill was to prevent any expenses beyond reasonable expense being incurred, and thus of obviating any possibility of bribery. The point at which the Bill started was, that it was a great object for every member of a constituency to see what he could get out of the unfortunate candidate. There might be a good many dishonest creditors, and only one who was honest so far as bribery was concerned, and yet they provided nothing in the Bill to protect the right of the creditor who, when the expenditure was incurred, was ignorant that it was being incurred in violation of the Act. He thought that militated against the spirit which animated the whole of the Bill; and it would further the object of the Attorney General if he would strike out this section altogether, and place every member of every constituency in the same category of being unable to bribe anyhow.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, what the Attorney General did was this. In a subsequent part of the Bill he provided that the candidate should supply a return of his election expenses; but he would not naturally supply a return of unsettled claims. These unsettled claims would not be settled for months, or perhaps for years, and until they were it would be impossible to test the question whether the payments by the candidate had been excessive or not. He presumed it was one of the principles of the law that every person was supposed to know what the law was, and he therefore did not see why they should insert a provision giving a special favour to a person who made a dishonest and illegal claim.

MR. HICKS

said, he should like to know from the Attorney General what was to be the position of a candidate in regard to a creditor who sent in a bill to him for, say, the hire of carriages. The candidate and his agent would say that they had given no such order at all. Was the person who sent in the claim entitled to recover from the candidate, he being the sitting Member at the time; and might the result of the success of the creditor's application be to deprive the sitting Member of his seat?

MR. CALLAN (who rose amid loud calls for a Division)

said, that he did not intend to be put down because hon. Members were impatient. He intended to be heard, and it was such conduct as this, on the Government side of the House, that had brought about the Monaghan defeat. [Cries of "Question!"] He wanted to know from the Attorney General whether the clause would apply to expenses that were incurred in consequence of the provisions of the Act?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the clause dealt only with expenditure that went beyond the maximum election expenses. Suppose a candidate had spent, say, a sum of £500 which he was entitled to spend, and he and the election agent knew that the maximum expenditure had been incurred, then, if he afterwards went and expended more, that would be illegal expenditure; and the question was whether the creditor would be entitled to recover it. Would it be honest to say that, because the candidate had already expended the £500 he was authorized to expend, the creditor should not recover what was a perfectly legal debt? He thought there was much force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and he would, therefore, consider whether a similar promise ought not to be added to Section 6 as that which was now proposed to be added to Section 7. It was quite evident that Clause 6 prohibited expenditure which would not be prohibited under the present clause, and therefore he would consider the matter, which was well worthy of attention.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought that what the Attorney General said would make matters worse rather than better. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to intimate that he would introduce a provision into a subsequent part of the Bill to make illegal and corrupt certain acts on the part of an elector which were previously not only unpunishable but regarded as perfectly proper.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 73: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 157.)

MR. HICKS

said, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, in line 14, to leave out the words "was ignorant of the expense being," in order to insert the words "had no means of knowing that the expense was being." He was in hopes that it would not be necessary to take up the time of the Committee by formally moving this Amendment, because he thought the Attorney General might feel disposed, if he did not altogether accept the Amendment, to introduce words of his own in order to strengthen the clause, and protect a bonâ fide honest candidate. In order to afford him an opportunity of doing so he would move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 14, leave out "was ignorant of the expense being," and insert "had no means of knowing that the expense was being."—(Mr. Hicks.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the hon. Member seemed to be of opinion that under the clause it might be open to a creditor to say he did not know anything about what the law was, although he might know that he was doing an illegal act. He did not think that that was the construction that would be put upon the section; but he saw no objection to making it perfectly clear, and therefore he would insert the words "in fact."

MR. HICKS

"In law or in fact?"

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, it would be only necessary to insert the words "in fact."

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, in page 4, line 15, after the word "being," insert the words "in fact."—(The Solicitor General.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LEWIS

said, that before the Committee parted with the clause, he was anxious to draw attention to an observation which fell from the Attorney General in the early part of the discussion which he was afraid might be misunderstood. The Attorney General said he understood there was a general agreement that certain matters should be left for settlement until they reached the Schedules of the Bill; but, although the Attorney General said that a general agreement had been come to, he (Mr. Lewis) did not wish it to be supposed that he was an assenting party. On a former occasion, they had come to a decision that they could not define by legal words when an election might be said to commence, and that was the only agreement they came to on that point. When they came to deal with the Schedules, it would be necessary to provide for two or three separate things so far as the maximum of expenditure was concerned—namely, for the distinction between single and double seats, the difference between election contests which took place in double constituencies at a General Election and on the occasion of casual vacancies, and other distinctions. Then there would be a difference in the case of elections which occurred suddenly, and others which might last for four or five months. Until these various matters were settled it would be impossible to fix a maximum, and he therefore reserved everything he might have to say on that question until they came to the Schedules later on.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that nearly every mode of expenditure that was possible was mentioned in this clause, and the cost of the next General Election would be a very heavy one, because the Bill would be very little understood, and there would be numerous actions brought against outsiders immediately after the election. It would be absolutely necessary that on such occasions the candidate should be represented at the trial in order to see that he was not inculpated by the charges that were brought against other persons. That would entail a heavy expense, and it was most likely that actions would be brought in order to see whether anything might turn up which could possibly void the election. It would be just as well to know before the Bill passed, whether expenses incurred in that way would be included in the maximum authorized expenditure?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had already stated that such expenditure would not be included.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the question in regard to another case altogether.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Procurement of voting by unqualified voters to be illegal practice).

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause stated that if any person induced or procured any person to vote at an election whom at the time he knew to be prohibited from voting, he should be guilty of an illegal practice. He wanted to know what the Attorney General meant by the use of the word "prohibited," because the register, of course, would have been made up, and that would give the names of the voters who were legally entitled to vote? In the Bill, as it was originally drawn, other words were used—namely, "whom at the time he knew to be disqualified;" and he noticed that in the marginal note attached to the clause the word was "unqualified," and not "prohibited." In order to prevent any confusion he wished to ask the Attorney General what was meant by the word "prohibited?" Was it intended that the register should not be conclusive? What was the meaning of the word "prohibited," and in what sense did it differ from the old word "disqualified," which appeared in the former Bill? In order to raise the question in a regular manner, he would move, as a matter of form, to insert, after the word "prohibited," the words "though on the register."

Amendment proposed, in line 17, after the word "prohibited," insert the words "though on the register."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were persons whose names appeared on the register who were not entitled to vote, such as policemen and others, who were prohibited from voting by Statute. The clause applied to any person who was not entitled to vote. The names of such persons were not struck off the register, but the persons themselves were prohibited by Statute from voting.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was not quite sure whether he was right or not; but, speaking from recollection, he believed that a person who removed from a borough and lost his occupation franchise could vote, although prohibited.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was a matter which applied only to the qualification. He would take care that the point which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) should be duly considered.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought it was rather a strong thing to say that a man who became a policeman, and whose name was on the register, was guilty of an illegal practice if he voted. He might have become a policeman since his name appeared on the register, and it was rather a strong thing indeed to put him under penalties for committing an illegal practice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had already promised to look carefully into the matter. His only desire was to see the law carried out as simply as possible.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to take the case of a man who had had a qualification, and had parted with it. Such a man would have a right to vote, although his name might be struck out on a scrutiny. He would not press the Amendment further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST moved, in page 4, line 18, after the word "election" to insert "or being a candidate engages in a house-to-house canvass." He proposed this Amendment in order to test the sincerity of the Committee, and particularly the sincerity of hon. Members sitting opposite. Nothing had been more strongly denounced than the practice of canvassing from house to house. The Bill did put a stop to one kind of canvassing—namely, paid canvassing; but that was not enough for some people, who were of opinion that they ought to put a stop to canvassing of every description. This Amendment was intended to put a stop to a plan of canvassing which he thought was very degrading, and which he believed it would be very easy to put a stop to—namely, the personal house-to-house canvass, which the candidate and others, to their extreme disgust, had to go through. He objected to this house-to-house canvass, first of all, because it had a bad moral effect. It made the electors believe that the persons who asked them for their suffrages were going to do them a service instead of undertaking a duty; and it led the electors to consider that they were conferring a favour by voting for the candidate at the election, instead of discharging, as they ought to discharge, an important public function. He believed that the vast majority of the constituents did not like it. He was not qualified to speak about the feelings of the working classes, and he was sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was not in his place, in order that he might tell the Committee what the feeling of the working men was upon the matter. As far as his own experience went, he believed the working man in the constituencies did not like the intrusion of a number of persons into their houses at a time, perhaps, when they were having their meals, or at a time when they were not prepared to receive visitors. He only knew that he had been told constantly by the working men he had canvassed that they were very sorry such a practice existed, and that they did not like it, and that it ought to be put a stop to. [Cries of "No!"] There might be a difference of opinion about it among hon. Members; but his own opinion was, that the constituencies did not like the practice. Then, again, he thought it was somewhat degrading to the candidate himself. It did no good. A man could not discuss political questions in the houses at which he called. He had no time for doing so. [Mr. ONSLOW dissented.] The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) represented a small borough; but if he represented a constituency that was reasonably large the hon. Member would not find time to discuss political questions in a house-to-house canvass. All that he could really do was to shake hands with the voter and ask how he was going to vote, which was really an infringement of the Ballot Act; and in many instances, when they asked a man how he was going to vote, his answer was that, as there was the ballot, he should please himself, and would not give any answer at all. The worst evil in this house-to-house canvassing was that it imposed upon the candidate agents he knew nothing about. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) and the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who were in no extreme danger, to say that it limited the expenditure. If those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen embarked in a house-to-house canvass in a large borough, they would soon find themselves associated with agents of whom they knew nothing, and whom they would be very glad to get rid of, if they could only know their character. What happened was this. Persons of this description joined the canvassing party, and followed the candidates about through the streets, introducing them to the electors, knocking at the doors for them, and taking part in that way in the house-to-house canvass. Then, if a Petition were presented, the candidate found it extremely difficult to induce an Election Judge afterwards to believe that a person so intimately associated with the candidate in his election canvass was not an agent. Then he did not see why, if this house-to-house canvassing was so disadvantageous to the candidates in the constituencies, it should not be prohibited by law, and why they should not trust to the natural operation of the law to put an end to it. It was one of those things which could not be abstained from unless everybody abstained; but he believed that it was one of those things which every candidate would be glad to dispense with. [Cries of "No!"] He was satisfied that the generality of candidates at elections would be very glad to dispense with house-to-house canvassing, but they could not do it unless everybody did it. Although there might be two or three hon. Members who liked house-to-house canvassing, generally speaking it would be acceptable both to the constituents and the candidates if the law forbade the continuance of the practice. Then, some people said—"How do you define house-to-house canvassing? Are you to forbid a candidate from calling upon his constituents?" His answer to that was "No;" but he thought there would be no difficulty in expressing in words what house-to-house canvassing meant, and there would be certainly no difficulty when they came before an Election Judge in showing whether a candidate had been engaged in a house-to-house canvass or not. It would be perfectly easy to show where the candidate had crossed the line, and began the practice of house-to-house canvassing. It was entirely a matter for the candidate himself, in which he would be the sole judge, and it would be entirely within his own control. No one would have the slightest difficulty in refraining from following the practice, and if he did not abstain from it he would know that he was committing an offence against the law. He proposed in the clause to define what the illegal practice was, and to add that the candidate should be guilty of an illegal practice if he engaged in a house-to-house canvass. He hoped that all hon. Members of the Committee who disapproved of canvassing in general, and of house-to-house canvassing in particular, would support the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 18, alter "election," insert "or being a candidate engaged in a house-to-house canvass."—(Mr. Gorst.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, his hon. and learned Friend had announced that anybody who opposed the Amendment must be insincere. Therefore, as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) opposed the Amendment, he must unfortunately be insincere. At any rate, he was sincere in his insincerity, because, in his opinion, the Amendment would produce a disastrous effect. Certainly he could not be returned for Woodstock if his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were carried. In small boroughs—and until steps were taken to abolish them small boroughs must continue—it was absolutely necessary for the candidate to enter upon a house-to-house canvass. The electors knew that it was in the power of the candidate to call upon them, and they expected him to do so. His hon. and learned Friend said there was no time for entering into political arguments with a man in his own house. That might apply to a very large constituency; but he had often engaged in long political arguments with the electors of Woodstock, generally with the happiest results. On several occasions he had known an elector to say—and, no doubt, it had occurred to others—on asking him towards the end of the canvass whether he intended to vote for him—"I will vote for you now; but I would not have voted for you if you had not taken the trouble to come and ask me." He imagined that the same thing was very common in the country elections among the farmers. When he talked of house-to-house canvassing, his hon. and learned Friend must recollect that he was applying the clause to counties as well as to boroughs. In a large borough the candidate might have to go up one side of the street and down the other, and a house-to-house canvass would involve an enormous number of visits. But in a county election the only way in which a candidate could meet the farmers was to call upon them at their own houses. He might meet some of them sometimes at an "ordinary;" but, as a rule, the farmers did not attend public meetings, and if the county Member did not call upon them he would frequently find that he would lose their votes. Therefore, although the Amendment was good enough in theory, until the President of the Board of Trade's ideas had attained full development, and they had nothing but enormous constituencies with paid Members, and equal electoral districts, it would be ridiculous to accept an Amendment of this kind. It was impossible to define what house-to-house canvassing was; and if the principle were carried out in all its rigour, it would undoubtedly lead to a great many Members who, like himself, had the honour of sitting for a small borough, being placed in a false position.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the Committee would come to a decision on this point at once. He sympathized with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), but was unable to see how they could be carried into practical effect. The question of house-to-house canvassing had been discussed over and over again, and it had been proved to be a most pernicious practice. It did not exist to any great extent in large constituences, because there the candidates had not time for it; but, unfortunately, it existed largely in small constituencies, and had been shown to be very humiliating to the candidates, who would in many cases be very glad to avoid the process if they could. If it was allowed to continue, however, it would, of course, be used; and if it were prohibited, the prohibition could, as it seemed to him, be evaded in a variety of ways. For instance, it was only necessary to canvass the doubtful voters, of whom there might only be 10 out of 40, in a street; and what was to prevent those 10 being gathered together in one house where they could be met by the candidate?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

remarked, that such a proceeding would constitute a public meeting.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was of opinion that those voters might be got together in such a way as not to constitute their assembling into a public meeting; and, even if it wore not so, what was to prevent the brother of a candidate from carrying on a house-to-house canvass on his behalf, or from asking doubtful voters to see him at his house or hotel with a view to their conversion? He could not see anything more dangerous than the Amendment which had been moved, and therefore he could not accept it, although he would gladly see the practice of canvassing done away with.

MR. MONK

said, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was not able to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because he was sure that the system of canvassing now carried on in small boroughs was not only humiliating to the candidates, but objectionable to the the constituents. His view was that the only way in which a borough or county ought to be canvassed was by public meetings, where candidates could be questioned on all political subjects in which their constituents were interested.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that though the Attorney General had said/and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had confirmed his view, that house-to-house canvassing was humiliating, he could not hold that opinion. He had had a great deal of it in the course of his political life, and he hoped to have a great deal more of it. His constituents felt proud that he had done them and himself the honour of canvassing them. He was sorry that any Gentleman sitting on that side of the House and calling himself a Conservative should have brought forward an Amendment of this kind. He should not have been surprised if the Amendment had been proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he was certainly surprised that it should have come from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

MR. BROADHURST

said, his experience was entirely opposed to that of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). His opinion was that an overwhelming majority of voters in the various constituencies objected to being personally bored by either candidates or other persons who might wish to know how they were going to vote. His opinion was that there should be a complete and absolute prohibition of canvassing for votes, and therefore it was he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham did not go far enough. "What was wanted was that persons other than candidates should be prohibited from canvassing. In the larger constituencies it had became impossible for a man who sought a seat in Parliament to canvass the whole of the voters, and if he was a poor man he stood at a great disadvantage as compared with the rich man, who could afford to employ an army of paid canvassers to do the work for him.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Memeber for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had just sat down, in his objection to the employment of paid canvassers; but he could not see any reason why candidates should not be allowed to canvass personally. He had an experience of the kind in the borough of Preston, in the year 1857; and his opinion, based upon that experience was that a large number of the electors were delighted to see him, and to have from him vivâ voce an explanation of his political opinions with special reference to particular questions. The paid canvasser being a person of the past, the difficulty was to define what canvassing really was; and this difficulty was one which he thought was insuperable, without subjecting candidates to traps and pitfalls into which, without the least guilty intention, they must inevitably fall. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had shown clearly that it would not be possible to carry out the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham, and he hoped no Division would be taken upon it.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) that the condition of things, when the electors of Preston were delighted to be personally canvassed by him in 1857, was very different from that which existed at the present time. He did not think the condition of things at the present time would be met by the Amendment which had been proposed. It would not be possible, for instance, for any candidate to canvass a constituency as large as that which he had the honour to represent. But, at the same time, this canvassing business was at the root of electoral corruption; and as the Amendment which had been proposed would deal with it to some extent he should support it by his vote.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he believed the working classes in the constituencies were in favour of canvassing. He had the honour of sitting for a constituency largely composed of the wage-earning class, and he did not think his constituents regarded canvassing as being either pernicious or humiliating, as had been suggested by the Attorney General. He had sat for the borough of Taunton, now represented by the Attorney General, and he ventured to say that no one could sit for that constituency without canvassing. As far as the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was concerned, he denied that that Gentleman represented the working classes. That Gentleman represented a number of organizations which lived upon the working classes, and which, in the case of the hon. Member, as also in the case of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), took the place of canvassers, and were to be maintained; while canvassing, which they believed would tend to the success of Conservative candidates, was to be abolished.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was of opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment could not have had any view other than a wish to test the sincerity of hon. Members sitting opposite, for it was not possible to imagine anything more inconsequential. House-to-house canvassing was precisely the same in one street as in another. Suppose there were 300 working men at a meeting. Was the candidate to go down and shake hands, without saying a word to them about the election about to take place? There were persons who, for 25 years, had been endeavouring to bring about that state of things; they wanted the candidate to do no more than stand on the platform, which was very disagreeable to some persons. He confessed that the canvassing he had had to do in the three contests in which he had been engaged was the best means by which he could obtain a personal knowledge of his constituents. So far from having found that at all humiliating, his experience was quite to the contrary. When he knew that a person was not in favour of his candidature he did not take the trouble to call on him; he went to persons who were favourably disposed towards him; and he thought it quite right to visit his constituents in that way, because it had often been said to him—"That which is not worth asking for is not worth having, and if you don't take the trouble to come to my door I shall not take the trouble to go to the poll." It seemed to him that the idea in the minds of some hon. Members was that election day should be kept as a day of mourning. He did not suppose anyone wished to go back to the old Carnival days; but he certainly hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass without some little liberty being allowed to the electors and the candidate. For his own part, he thought that to prevent the candidate seeing the voters, and the voters seeing the candidate, was simply absurd; and although a house-to-house canvass might be impossible in some constituencies, still, so long as it was possible in others, he regarded it as a proper practice, and one that ought to he continued.

MR. CALLAN

said, if he could support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) he should feel it his duty to move to add, after the word "canvass," the words "or if a candidate visits his constituents during an election." But he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would set his face altogether against these little Amendments, and endeavour to pass the Bill with as little delay as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham said that canvassing led the electors to think they were conferring a favour on the candidate. He looked upon it as conferring a very high favour indeed; his recollection of one election was that it was a picnic from beginning to end. He could see nothing humiliating or degrading in canvassing, although he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) looked at it in that light.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that he did not think the Amendment was required, because in large constituencies it was certainly impossible for a candidate, without the assistance of volunteers, to canvass from house-to-house. Again, it would be impossible to canvass a county in this way; but in a small borough, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had pointed out, canvassing was one of the most certain ways of winning an election. There were, in every constituency, numbers of persons who would not take any trouble about the election; and his own custom was to call, not on the friendly electors alone, as the hon. Member for Londonderry did, but upon every elector, whether favourable or unfavourable; and it very often happened that he was able to convince an unfavourable elector and win him over to his own side. Looking at the maximum expense allowed in the Bill, it was absolutely impossible to have a personal canvass in large constituencies, and with regard to them the practice must entirely disappear.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 75: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 158.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he proposed to move an Amendment, making it an illegal practice for an agent or any other person, with the approval of the the candidate or his committee, or an Association taking part in the election to visit houses or send circulars with the view of asking persons how they intended to vote. He understood the Attorney General had, on the last Amendment, made a speech practically in favour of this proposal. He did not know whether he was going to accept it; but, if so, he would not say another word in support of it. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) signified dissent.] Then he must appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who was apparently leading the Conservative Party, to use his influence with the Attorney General. Members on those Benches had no influence with the hon. and learned Gentleman—he wished they had—but Gentlemen opposite had very great influence with him, and he wished they would, as arbiters of the destinies of the Members of that House, take this excellent Amendment into consideration, and ask the Attorney General to agree to it. The object of his Amendment was not to prevent A. and B. asking C. and D. how they were going to vote, but to put an end to the system of canvassing which now existed. The Committee had done away with paid canvassers; but there would be a whole herd of amateurs on both sides who would do the work. These people, under the present system, unless the practice was put an end to, would take each of them a certain number of streets, visit every house, and write down in their books how the electors were going to vote. He thought that a bad system, and he believed it was also a bad system in the opinion of the Attorney General.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 19, at end, add "any candidate, or any agent of a candidate, or any other person with the approval of, or under the instructions of, or under the supervision of the candidate, or of his election agent, or of his committee, or of any association taking part in the election, visiting houses, or a place or places of business, or sending a letter or a circular, for the purpose of asking any voters how they intended to vote, or whether they intend to vote for or against any particular candidate or candidates, shall he guilty of an illegal practice."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he certainly agreed that the practice of canvassing was disliked; but then there were many evils in this world which were disliked, and which, as they could not he got rid of, must be endured. The result of the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment, if it were adopted, would be to make it an illegal practice for anyone to go to a neighbour's house and say—"I hope you will vote for Mr. So-and-so;" while the latter part of it seemed to him unfair, inasmuch as it put the penalty on the wrong man. It was true that the object of the Bill was to keep corruption away from the constituencies; but they must proceed on the assumption that the candidate was a pure-minded man. He hoped he might appeal to hon. Members not to discuss any further this Amendment, which the Government were unable to accept.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he should not have risen but for the direct appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Northampton. If he could approve the principle of the Amendment, he should still think that it was expressed in an unfair and impracticable way; and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not consider it necessary to press it.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he also considered the proposal impracticable as against the candidate himself, and hoped the hon. Member would not divide the Committee upon it.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he would like to know why it was more wrong to canvass at a Parliamentary Election than at any other election? A man who wanted a place, or advancement of any kind, had to canvass, and those who did so stood a better chance of getting what they wanted than those who did not. He was quite at a loss to see what reason there was for making a distinction as against Parliamentary canvassing. In the event of the Amendment being carried, which, however, he very much doubted, he intended to propose an Amendment to it, because he considered that the Bill did not go to the true source of corruption—namely, the corruption of the candidate himself, for the purpose of catching votes. It very often happened that Sunday closers and such like people would come to a candidate in large numbers, and exercise such influence upon him, that he would completely give up his own opinion. He should propose, if the Amendment were carried, to insert after the words, "shall be guilty of an illegal practice," the following words:— Any elector canvassing a Parliamentary-candidate, or writing a letter or circular to any Parliamentary candidate for the purpose of asking such Parliamentary candidate how he intends to vote in Parliament, shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, the object of the Amendment was really to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck)—namely, to prevent candidates being pestered by people from the Contagious Diseases Acts Association and others, canvassing the candidates in the interest of their particular Associations. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had, therefore, a clear right to ask the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven. He (Mr. J. Cowen) should vote against the Amendment; but, in the event of the Amendment being carried, he should then propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 69: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 159.)

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that in the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) he should propose an Amendment which stood in his name. It was to add at the end of line 19— And any person, who before, during, or after an election, by poster, placard, cartoon, caricature, or other publication, knowingly publishes any false charge of or against a candidate, or any false statement of the withdrawal of the candidate, in order to influence such election, shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have considered this proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and I am of opinion it is not in Order here. It has no relevancy to this clause, which provides that the procurement of voting by unqualified voters is an illegal practice. The Amendment might be introduced at some later time; but it is clearly out of Order here.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, it seemed to him that, if he might venture to say so, it was as much in Order as the last Amendment. The last Amendment did not refer in the smallest degree to the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The last Amendment, in my opinion, referred to the clause distinctly. It referred to the question of canvassing, to which the clause referred. The clause referred to the candidature, and the Amendment also referred to the candidature. But this Amendment related to cartoons and caricatures, with which the clause does not deal in any degree.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

admitted that the subject dealt with by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin was one of great importance, and suggested that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit it would be better to bring it up as a new clause.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Punishment on conviction of illegal practice).

MR. J. HOLLOND moved, in page 4, line 22, to leave out "five," and insert "seven." His object was to extend the disqualification over the next Election. If a Parliament lived for six years the electors who had been disqualified for illegal practices at the one Election would be able to vote at the next Election, if the clause remained unaltered. His object was to stop that. It would be for the interest of each political Party to take care that those illegal practices were not committed, because they would then lose the votes of the persons committing the illegal practices. He was aware there was great objection to any proposition which would increase the penalties of the Bill; and he would, personally, rather trust to the disqualification of the electors, and the disadvantages it would mean to the political Party to which they belonged, than to any punishment or fine.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, leave out "five," and insert "seven."—(Mr. J. Hollond.)

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

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the Bill was extremely severe as it now stood, and he had steadily voted against all the punishments in the Bill; and he certainly should strongly oppose any increase of the penalties.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. He had otherwise endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Committee, and it seemed that those views ran rather in the direction of leniency than of severity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

then moved to leave out in line 24, "in the United Kingdom," and in line 26, after "Act," insert— Hold for and within the county or borough within which the illegal practices have been committed. According to the original words of the clause, the disability, in regard to voting, would have extended to any election in the United Kingdom. The object of that Amendment was that if the man went to any new place he should go with a now character.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, leave out "in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That the words 'in the United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 26, after "Act," insert "hold for or within the county or borough within which the illegal practice has been committed."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Report of election court respecting illegal practice, and punishment of candidate found guilty by such report).

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the penalties in respect of the illegal practices were too severe. He did not consider that the person guilty simply of illegal practices should be excluded from a particular constituency for his life, or kept out of Parliament for a large number of years. The punishment was altogether too severe, and he, therefore, moved to leave out from the commencement of line 41 to the end of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think that the Amendment can be put, because the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out the enacting part of the clause. The proper thing would be to reject the clause altogether.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought it would be better to dispose of some of the later clauses first. Until the mind of the Committee had been ascertained upon Clauses 12, 13, 14, and 15, it seemed they were not in a condition to say what would be the proper mode of dealing with the Penalty Clause. It would be far better, in his opinion, for them to deal with the corpus of the offence, before they began to deal with the punishment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, if they were to postpone the clause they would have to take it up at the end of the Bill. He might mention that he should subsequently ask to mitigate the penalty in the clause by striking out the word "ever," and he trusted by doing that he should meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, they now came to a very important question. It certainly did seem to many of them very hard indeed that a candidate should be liable to the penalties under the clause, if he had been guilty by his agents of an illegal practice; and, therefore, his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) proposed that in the Preamble, and also in the enacting part of the 2nd sub-section, they should provide some mitigation of the penalty. As his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), in whose name the Amendment stood, had now entered the House, he would content himself with simply moving the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, leave out "agents," and insert "election agent."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincoln- shire (Mr. E. Stanhope) not to press that Amendment. In respect to corrupt practices it always had been the rule that the candidate should be liable for the acts of his agents. Illegal practices were, no doubt, offences of a meaner description; but it was none the less desirable to put a stop to them. It was clear that under the Amendment a man might spend thousands of pounds, and yet the candidate might not lose his seat. Such a thing could not be desired by the hon. Gentleman.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had very properly pointed out that this, if left alone, would open the door to a great amount of expenditure by other agents. That was not his wish. The object that he had in putting down this Amendment was not to increase expenditure by agents other than the election agents, but really to mitigate the severe penalty which appeared in page 5. Now, he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite willing to alter this severe penalty by the omission of the word "ever." That, of course, removed his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) objection to this point; and the whole object of his Amendment was secured. He should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

asked the Attorney General if he would kindly state what were the Amendments he intended to propose?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should, at the proper time, propose to strike out the word "ever," in line 16, page 5, and after the word "borough," in line 18, to insert "except for seven years."

COLONEL NOLAN

said, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, if the clause was to remain as severe as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General proposed to leave it, it was right to limit the action of the clause in other ways. The general effect of the clause was to raise up, in point of punishment, illegal practice to what formerly was the punishment for corrupt practices. If illegal practices were to be as heavily punished as corrupt practices hitherto had been, the law would be very severe indeed. Formerly there was a penalty of £5 or £10 for an illegal practice; but now the offence was to be punished much more severely. He thought it would be very wise to limit the action of the clause simply to electioneering agents. The clause ought to be closely watched, and every effort made to reduce the punishment very much below what the Attorney General desired. An illegal practice ought to be considered an election offence of a much meaner character. That was certainly the state of the law at the present moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had an Amendment which was not on the Paper, and which proposed, after "illegal practice," in line 10, page 5, to insert the words "specified in this Act." His reason for making this proposal was that there were several illegal practices not specified in the Act—such as the wearing of colours. Many illegal practices were specified in the Act, such as the hiring of carriages and conveyances; and it might be right to consider whether these illegal practices were deserving of heavier punishment. But there were also practices, although they could not be called justifiable, to which the severe punishment of the Bill should not be applied; and in respect of which, unless his Amendment were accepted, such punishment might be meted out. It might be a wrong thing to wear Party colours. In Ireland they did not offend very much in this respect, for the reason that they principally wore the green, and that it had been laid down by the Judges that that was not a Party colour. But where Party colours were worn, and it was considered wrong, it surely would be too much to visit such offence with the full penalties of this Bill. If illegal practices were extended to such minor offences as these it would be well to qualify the punishment; but he should prefer amending the clause in the manner he proposed, so as to confine these offences to acts specified in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 10, after the word "practice," to insert the words "specified in this Act."—(Colonel Nolan.)

SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should like to ask a question of the Attorney General upon this subject. The full effect of Clause 10 could not be understood without reading clauses from 12 to 16, because, owing to the manner in which the measure was drawn, though apparently there was a gradation of offence, yet, when they came to punishment, they found there was no such gradation in that part of the Bill. Take, for instance, the case the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) had just quoted, that of wearing colours. Flags, banners, cockades, or ribbons, or other marks of distinction, were not allowed; and no doubt it was true, as had been stated by the Attorney General, that no offence would be committed unless the acts were done by the candidate or his election agent; but there were minor acts of the same character which might be committed very innocently, and it would appear that the same punishment should not be visited in all cases. He should like to know how they stood with regard to Clause 16, because it would be quite possible for some indiscreet enthusiastic supporter, or supporters, to obtain ribbons and wear them as marks of distinction. Under Clause 16, what might happen? Why, this might happen—a candidate might be going about the county or the borough, and might meet these gentlemen decorated in the way suggested, or they might be in the room in which he was speaking, or at dinner, and such candidate might be brought within the powers of Clause 16, Sub-section 2 of which said— A candidate or an election agent of a candidate who is guilty of the offence of illegal payment, employment, or hiring, or who aids or abets, or confirms by the payment of money, or in any other manner any such offence shall he guilty of an illegal practice. It was clear to his mind that the words "aids or abets" or "in any other manner" would render the candidate liable if he came into a company of gentlemen decorated with Party colours. What he was anxious to do was to induce the Committee to take every care not to catch the candidate by some such words as these, and bring down upon him penalties for an offence of which he might be altogether innocent. So long as human nature was human nature, whatever Act of Parliament they passed they would never get a great many people to put aside such a thing as the wearing of a candidate's colours during an election. He wished the Committee to take care not to find a candidate "aiding or abetting," because he might happen to be on a platform with a number of people decorated with his colours, or because he might be dining in the same room with them. Unless this Amendment were adopted, or something were done in the line he was indicating, it would be the easiest thing in the world to bring in a candidate guilty of corrupt practices, and punish him by depriving him of the power of representing the borough in which he mixed with people wearing colours for seven years. He was aware that the Attorney General did not intend to inflict this heavy punishment upon a candidate for such a slight inadvertence; but the clause should be made as clear as possible, so as to prevent the possibility of difficulties arising in the future.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the clause would not go the extent the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) seemed to fear; and all he (the Attorney General) wished to do was to provide that the candidate should not "aid or abet" in the spending of money upon these things mentioned in the clause. He was anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as he possibly could, and he would promise to look into the matter to see how the right hon. Gentleman's view might be best carried out. He should be ready to consent to an Amendment in the spirit of that of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan); and he would, therefore, propose that the words "within the meaning of this Act" should be inserted. That would have the effect of shutting out all illegal practices which were not specified or defined.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he would be happy to withdraw the Amendment in favour of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), if he would move the words he had suggested in the form of an Amendment. He should like to see these words in the Bill before the Report stage, so that he might find out whether the alteration exactly carried out his wishes or not. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James), Amendment made, in page 5, line 10, after the word "practice," by inserting "within the meaning of this Act."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would now propose an Amendment in Sub-section (a) which he thought would meet the objections of hon. Members. Instead of providing that a candidate should be incapable of "ever" being elected for the said county or borough, or of being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for which the election was held, the Amendment would make him ineligible to sit for the county or borough in respect of which the election was held for the seven years next after the date of the Report.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out "ever."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

MR. RAIKES

said, he was glad to find that the Attorney General had substantially accepted his Amendment, and there was now nothing between them except that he would have proposed that a candidate when reported should be excluded from that Parliament; whereas the Attorney General proposed that he should be excluded for seven years. That, however, was not a point upon which he should think it necessary to go to a Division. He was glad that the Attorney General had been so willing to meet the Committee with respect to this matter; and having regard to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to a subsequent Amendment he should not now move his Amendment. He thought the Committee might congratulate themselves on a more conciliatory spirit being shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman than had previously been the case.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was also glad to see this better spirit, and would say nothing further about the matter, though he still thought the punishment was too severe.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Amendment made in page 5, line 18, after the word "borough," by inserting "during the seven years next after the date of the Report "; also in page 5, line 18, after the word "report," by leaving out all the words to the word "held," inclusive, in line 20.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought, after what had been done in line 18, some Amendment was required in Sub-section (b); otherwise the two sections might be I considered in conflict, and there was no knowing what the Judge might do.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, leave out Sub-section (b.)—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the hon. Member would point out what Amendment he thought necessary, he would consider it; but the sub-section made a candidate liable for any illegal act or practice by his agent. They were bound to prevent lawless expenditure, and, although he had given the most elastic clause he could, he must adhere to the clause as it stood.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to strike out Sub-section (b); but his objections had been met by the alterations now made in the Bill. He should, therefore, not move his Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought the punishments too severe, and calculated to defeat their object; but the manner in which the Attorney General had dealt with the point had met the objections, and if they were to put down illegal practices he did not see how they could omit this sub-section. Bearing in mind the way in which the Equity Clause was drawn, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Extension of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, respecting election commissioners and illegal practices).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he wished to amend this clause. As the clause was drawn, it enabled a Commission to be sent down; and his impression was, that after that had been done the Commissioners should inquire into corrupt and illegal practices as defined by this Act and the Election Commissioners Act. He had an Amendment to that effect.

MR. RAIKES

asked what the Amendment was?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was a matter of drafting.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, at end, to insert, "when the election commissioners have been appointed in pursuance of the Act."—(The Attorney General.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 5, line 5, by omitting from "same" down to "and be" in line 8; also in page 5, by inserting— They may make inquiry and hand in their report as if 'corrupt practices' in the said Act included 'illegal practices.'

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Illegal Payment, Employment, or Hiring.

Clause 12 (Providing of money for illegal practice or payment to be illegal payment) agreed to.

Clause 13 (Certain expenditure to be illegal payment).

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 20, after "procuring," insert "or opposing."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was no necessity for these words, as "opposing" an election was already covered by the provision respecting "procuring" an election.

MR. RAIKES

said, he hoped that before Report the Attorney General would consider whether it was possible to insert these words, because there were many persons who went down to boroughs at election times rather to make themselves disagreeable to particular candidates than to secure the election of particular candidates; and it would be rather difficult to fix them with any responsibility for securing an election. They might go down with their cartoons and placards; and he hoped the Attorney General would insert the words "or opposing," in order to deal with those people.

MR. GORST

said, he thought that if any person exhibited cartoons he would be held in law to be procuring the election of a candidate's rival.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was exactly his view, and the matter was not worth a moment's consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he proposed to insert the word "or," in line 21, after "flags," in order to prepare the way for striking out the subsequent words "cockades and ribbons." If the words stood as they were, it was clear that if candidates took down their wives during elections they would buy ribbons of some sort, and yet be made liable for an offence. He did not think anything could be more innocent than buying ribbon to support candidates, or carrying small flags.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 21, after the word "flags," to insert "or."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the object was to prevent frivolous expense. At Sandwich about £2,000 were spent on banners and flags. That was an objectionable practice, and ought not to be allowed. By the Act of 1854 candidates were prohibited from providing any of these distinctive marks. Their object was to promote or procure an election, and there must be systematic expense in that respect. The aim of the clause was to prevent large expenditure in covering places with ribbons and colours, and he did not think this provision would cause any harm. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped the Attorney General would give up "ribbons."

MR. GORST

said, that at present candidates and agents were prohibited from paying money for these things, and the only effect of the clause would be to put other people on the same footing. If the Amendment were accepted, while candidates would be tied down, other people might come in and do what candidates and agents might not do. Those dreadful people from the Birmingham Caucus might come in and provide cockades and marks of distinction which the candidate might not provide. This expenditure was perfectly useless, and it was better to prohibit it by anybody.

MR. RAIKES

said, he was very much inclined to agree with the Attorney General, and he thought his hon. Friend had gone too far in proposing to take flags and banners out of the clause, because they frequently led to riots, in consequence of rival factions rallying round flags. He was glad the Attorney General intended to stand by flags and banners; but hoped he would not take the same course with regard to ribbons and cockades. There could be no objection to cockades and ribbons, though a candidate must not supply them. The agents of the Birmingham Caucus looked very much to business, and he did not think they spent their money on cockades and ribbons. They were not likely to corrupt constituencies by any such things as those; but many innocent people, taking an interest in elections, adopted the wearing of ribbons and cockades to show who their candidate was. He hoped that while sticking to flags and banners the Attorney General would give up cockades and ribbons.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that after what had fallen from hon. Members he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment; but hon. Members seemed to forget that the prohibition referred to was more honoured in the breach than in the observance of it.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

asked who was to pay for cockades, if candidates and agents were prohibited from wearing them? Was a man's wife or daughter to be considered an agent if she wore one?

MR. GRANTHAM

said, there must be some payment allowed for things which were marks of distinction, because even coloured canvass and polling cards were marks of distinction. Some explanation should be given of the term, or great confusion would arise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it no doubt seemed a very small matter as to whether cockades and ribbons were put a stop to or not; but what it was sought to prevent was not the wearing of colours, but the corrupt payment for them, as at Sandwich, on an extensive scale.

MR. LEWIS

said, when he considered that the members of one's family might lay out some money in cockades and ribbons, or other distinguishing marks, it seemed to him there was something in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman which proposed to place an act of the kind outside the penalties of the Bill.

MR. ONSLOW

said, the Attorney General had stated that these words had nothing much in them. But he reminded the Committee that there was now a Blue Ribbon Army and a Bed Ribbon Army. If some enthusiastic individual were to supply a large amount of blue ribbon, and another were to supply red ribbon, for the purpose of decorating children, it would, no doubt, have an effect upon the election. Hon. Members knew that these colours were very prominent marks of distinction; and he thought the words "or other marks of distinction" ought to be in the clause, because they would include blue and red ribbon decorations. He was convinced that this question would be of very considerable importance at the next General Election.

Question put, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the Ayes have it. ["No, no!"]

Question again put.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Ayes have it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had distinctly challeged a Division.

THE CHAIRMAN

thereupon directed a Division to be taken.

MR. SYDNEY HERBERT (seated with head covered)

said, he wished to speak to a point of Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether he had not distinctly declared that the Ayes had it; and, if so, whether the Committee were not bound by that ruling?

THE CHAIRMAN

I gave my decision through a mistake, not having heard any challenge.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 92: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

MR. B. N. FOWLER

said, he rose to move that Progress be reported. He did so on this ground. The Chairman's decision that the "Ayes" had it having been challenged, the House was cleared for a Division; but, on the Question being put a second time, there was no challenge, and then the Chairman gave his final ruling, and declared that the "Ayes" had it. It was not until after that decision was given that the Government again persisted in raising the question, and a Division was taken. That was a proceeding wholly inconsistent with the usual practice of the House in Committee, according to which, when the Chairman gave his ruling, the matter was at an end. Of course, it was quite open to the Government to raise the question again on Report; but, in order to decide upon the Order of the present proceeding, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

begged to assure the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. B. N. Fowler) that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was sitting by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General at the time, and he had heard his hon. and learned Friend distinctly challenge the decision of the Chairman several times.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House did not dispute the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but the fact, nevertheless, remained that the Chairman decided that the "Ayes" had it. Never in his experience before had he known the Committee to go back after the Chairman had ruled. He could understand the difficulty which the Chairman sometimes felt in gathering whether it was the intention to press for a Division, especially when the voices were as faint as those just given by hon. Members opposite; but still the Chairman was in his right in saying that the "Ayes" had it, and it was quite unusual to go back upon his decision.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, it had occurred frequently in previous debates that the Chairman declared that the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had it, not having heard any challenge from hon. Members to the contrary.

MR. ONSLOW

rose to Order. He asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was in Order in referring to what had taken place in previous debates that Session?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he was not referring to any previous debate.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was elucidating his point by a reference to what had taken place on a former occasion. In that case he would not be out of Order.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, it did not admit of dispute that when the Chairman said the "Ayes" had it the decision was challenged. He had himself distinctly challenged it, and he hardly supposed that anyone could object to the rectification of a decision which the Chairman had given by mistake.

MR. RAIKES

said, he thought the discussion they were engaged in was not likely to be attended with any substantial advantage. He could quite understand that some little feeling should have arisen in the minds of hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, on the ground that, after the Chairman had declared that the "Ayes" had it, he should have simply recalled that decision. But he asked his hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) what useful object there could be in pushing the question beyond the point it had arrived at? It was a fact that the occupants of the Treasury Bench were sometimes extremely slack in giving expression to their opinion. It had frequently been his experience in previous Parliaments not to know what the intention of the Government was with reference to Questions put from the Chair. He did not think the Chairman was so much to blame in this case as the Members of the Government; and, that being so, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was listening to the discussion with great attention at the time the Question was put; and he was bound to say he had been much astonished at what he thought to be the assent given by the Government to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He certainly did not expect anything of the kind. It now turned out that he was mistaken, because it was stated that both hon. and learned Gentlemen (the Attorney General and the Solicitor General) had challenged the decision of the Chairman that the "Ayes" had it. However, as no sound of dissent reached his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) ears, he was not at all surprised that the Chairman should have given his decision for the "Ayes." That decision having been given very distinctly, after the Question was put, therefore, he said that his hon. Friends were justified in questioning the Order of the proceedings in the only way open to them—namely, by addressing the Chair from their places, seated, and wearing their hats. He thought, also, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was justified in moving to report Progress, because that appeared to be the only regular way of rectifying the mistake which had occurred. The matter, however, having been cleared up, he trusted his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he extremely regretted that the challenge of the Government had not been loud enough to reach the ears of the Chairman. They promised, however, that there should be no cause for complaint on that ground in future.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he thought it due to the Committee to state that he had not heard any challenge, and that he had given his decision accordingly. As, on a previous occasion, when he was informed that his decision had been challenged, he thought it right to correct the mistake by putting the Question again.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, after the debate that had taken place, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

MR. SHEIL

said, the question that presented itself to some hon. Members on those Benches was as to whether it was competent to the Chairman to alter his mind after he had declared that the "Ayes" had it. The Chairman had stated that he had heard no challenge; and, certainly, none had reached the ears of hon. Gentlemen in that part of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Sheil) that he was not confining himself to the Question before the Committee.

MR. SHEIL

said, he was speaking on the same subject as had been discussed by hon. Members opposite and on the Benches below him. It was not a question of withdrawal, nor was it a question of the mistake of the Chairman. The question was as to whether, having given his decision, it was within the right of the Chairman to alter it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, that nothing more frivolous could be conceived than this prohibition of cockades and ribbons. The use of these insignia was, in the case of many people, the only means they had of expressing their political ideas. They all knew that at the Hastings Election the Government candidate had been sporting colours in profusion—there never was such a display of them. It was going beyond the hypocrisy even of this Bill to make such a paltry provision against the use of cockades and ribbons. The measure was, in some respects, tyrannical; but, in this instance, it was childish; and he would therefore move that the words "cockades, banners," be omitted from the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, to leave out the words "cockades, banners."—(Mr. Warton.)

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he would venture to ask his hon. and learned Friend not to trouble the Committee to go to a Division on his Amendment. He entirely agreed with all his hon. and learned Friend had said on the subject; but they had just had a Division on a part of the question; and if he could see any chance of the Committee reversing its decision, no one would be more desirous than he to vote against the retention of the words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. LEWIS,

in opposing the Motion, said, that the clause referred to the use of bands, torches, flags, banners, cockades, and ribbons. Now, he was reminded of a great celebration which took place the other day at Birmingham, where the Liberal Party had an immense stock of flags and banners, cockades and ribbons, which they could import into other constituencies in time of need, or whenever Liberal festivities were expected. Birmingham, in fact, could deluge any other constituency with flags and banners. He had ventured to say, on a former occasion, and he would repeat now, that it was beneath the dignity of the House, and of the Bill, that it should inflict on any person who might spend a small some of money on such things as flags, banners, cockades, and ribbons the very severe penalties that even yet remained in the Bill. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He should not waste any time, however much he might oppose the Bill. He should not pursue any factious course; but he merely desired to make a few observations preliminary to dividing. He considered it utterly absurd, considering the limit of expenditure which they were going to lay down, to suppose that anyone would be able to spare any money on such frivolities as bands, torches, flags, banners, cockades, and ribbons. He should like to know, in a borough of 2,000 electors, how much of the £50 allowed to be spent by the Schedule of the Bill a man would have to spare for the purpose of decorating himself or the constituency with flags, banners, ribbons, and cockades? He thought the clause absurd and useless.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he should support his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) in his opposition to the clause, not only on the ground that he had stated—that it was entirely unworthy of the dignity of Parliament to descend to foolishness—but also because, while they attempted to punish a person who indulged in those very small things, they loft altogether unpunished those who were guilty of far greater offences—namely, those who, for the purpose of catching votes, gave up their opinions. It was a very common thing now-a-day for a candidate to surrender his private judgment, simply for the sake of obtaining the votes of members of Associations, who were really the curse of the country, and who were the greatest obstacles to good government. He was glad to see the Prime Minister present; because he understood that, subsequently, an hon. Gentleman below the opposite Gangway (Mr. Labouchere), one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, would raise the question as to the distribution of titles for political services. Men who, for political services, accepted titles were, in his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) opinion, far worthier of punishment than those who indulged in the purchase of flags, ribbons, banners, and cockades. The Bill really left unpunished those persons who were guilty of the greatest crimes against good government—namely, those who gave up their own opinions, and adopted the opinions of others, for the sole purpose of catching votes. If his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry went to a Division, he should certainly follow him into the same Lobby.

MR. GRANTHAM

again asked, what was meant by "other marks of distinction?" How could it be said that a payment was made for other marks of distinction? He presumed the clause would prevent a candidate even sending out coloured polling cards. A definition of the meaning of the words was certainly needed; at present, there seemed to be no prohibition whatever to wearing ribbons and cockades. The wearing of such things was legal, but the paying for them was illegal. Under the circumstances, he certainly considered it would be wise to strike out the clause altogether.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

hoped the Government would not insist upon embodying this ridiculous clause in the Bill. What conceivable object could the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), or the Government, have in putting such a clause in an Act of Parliament? It was only intended to give a man just enough to enable him to manage his election. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to consider there was not enough allowed. He would then say that that was supposed to be enough in the mind of the Government to enable a man properly to conduct his election. If any man was foolish enough to waste a certain sum in payment of flags, banners, cockades, and ribbons, why should he not be allowed to do so? If he did so, he would have all the less to spend in other ways. As the clause now stood, if any member of his family bought 20 yards of ribbon for the purpose of making it into cockades, or other marks of distinction, he was to be held guilty of an illegal practice. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] The hon. and learned Attorney General shook his head. Then, what was the use of putting a clause into the Bill upon which no Judge would act? Under the circumstances, he hoped the Government would not insist upon inserting such a ridiculous clause in an Act of Parliament.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would ask the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) to give a little more consideration to the clause. It had nothing at all to do with the maximum expenditure; it had to do with any person other than the candidate, whether the maximum expenditure had been incurred or not. They had now been discussing the clause for upwards of an hour, and he trusted they would be allowed to go to a Division at once.

MR. GORST

said, he was quite sure the noble Lord who had just come into the House (Lord George Hamilton) was not aware that this clause was corrected to carry out the views of his own Colleagues. According to the existing law, the ridiculous things the noble Lord found so much fault with were already offences. According to the existing law, a candidate or his agents were punished if they spent money in the direction in question. The effect of this clause enacted what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) desired—namely, to make that which was an offence in the candidate or an election agent, an offence when committed by anyone else. It seemed curious that, at the beginning of the Sitting, a Colleague of the noble Lord should urge on the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) that this should be the principle of the Bill, and now the noble Lord quarrelled with it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the Government ought to be glad of the assistance which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had just given them in that matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman imagined that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) showed, at an earlier period of the evening, that payments might be made of a much more dangerous character than those for cockades and ribbons, or such like things that women delighted in, which might prove much more injurious to the purity of the constituency. He, therefore, considered it was most undesirable that such payments should be allowed. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham mean to say that nothing that was prohibited by this clause was to be prohibited? That was the point which his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) insisted upon so much. That clause only prohibited bands, torches, flags, banners, ribbons, cockades, and other marks of distinction—that was to say, it prohibited payments of this character which should not be returned by either of the two candidates or their agents.

MR. CALLAN

said, he should support the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) in the opposition he had shown to the adoption of the clause. He (Mr. Callan) was rather struck with the observations of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James), who had, in recommending the clause, pointed out that the 16th clause provided that— A candidate or an election agent of a candidate who is guilty of an offence of illegal payment, employment, or hiring, or who aids or abets, or confirms by the payment of money, or in any other manner, any such offence shall be guilty of an illegal practice, and should, therefore, be incapable of sitting for the particular constituency for seven years. He considered that that was a very severe penalty indeed. Now, what were the marks of distinction? On Sunday last, in County Monaghan, there was a funeral procession, the hearse was supposed to contain the corpse of the great Ulster Liberal Party. Did that come under the terms of "other marks of distinction?" Perhaps not, because it was a mark of extinction; which, by the way, had to-day proved a more emphatic mark of extinction. If an over-zealous friend, or an elector, supplied a band, or a flag, or a banner, which waved over the house in which a candidate was to speak, it was very possible that a Judge might hold the candidate to aid, or abet, or in some other manner be guilty of an illegal practice, and thereby disqualify a candidate for sitting for seven years. He merely rose in consequence of the misleading statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the penalty was a very small one. He was sure very few Members of the Committee would agree with the opinion that seven years' exclusion from the House was a small penalty.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was bound to vote against the clause, because he considered it a monstrous thing to raise the penalty from 40s. to making the election void.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he would remind his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) that payments for those things would only void an election when they were paid by a candidate or his agent. Let him ask the Committee to consider the question really at issue. Formerly there was a certain old way of conducting elections—a way which entailed great expenditure, generally accompanied by a great deal of public demoralization; and the House of Commons generally, the Tory Party included, professed to be anxious to put an end to the old state of things. What did the retention of these noisy and flaring accompaniments of an election—bands, torches, flags, ribbons, banners, and cockades—mean? They would be for the advantage of the public-houses, for they meant nothing more or loss than drink, and unlimited drink. The old system meant public-house at the beginning and public-house at the end. The old state of things amounted to nothing but a lavish expenditure on these kinds of things, which, instead of leading people to consider gravely political questions of importance, led them to consider side issues of a personal character. The old state of things diverted the public mind from the calm consideration of political questions, and excited it by fictitious, and corrupt, and, he thought, very improper means. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said that torches, bands, flags, banners, and such things only excited the women. Good Heavens! He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster giving the Committee to understand that there was very little harm done in exciting women; by cockades, ribbons, &c. He hoped that, although the right hon. Gentleman's election for Westminster was marked by an overwhelming majority, he would trust to other things than cockades, ribbons, bands, &c, exciting the women of the constituency.

MR. GREGORY

said, he would point out that the payment for these things was to be made by a third person, and not by candidates. If they did not retain that clause, no penalty would be imposed upon parties who made these payments. The clause might go too far with regard to cockades and ribbons; but it appeared to him that, if the clause was struck out, any third party might come in, and hire any number of bands, ribbons, torches, flags, and the like, and might, in fact, buy up half the constituency without incurring any penalty. That would be a distinct corrupt practice, and might result in the demoralization of half the constituency. Some such clause as that was absolutely necessary if they meant to provide for a pure election.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, in the earlier part of the evening, when he moved an Amendment in order to provide against the action of the third party, the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) distinctly undertook, on Clause 22, to bring up words which would deal with the outside influences brought into a borough at the time of an election. For that reason he had withdrawn his Amendment.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he voted with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) when he moved an Amendment which was intended to mitigate the severity of the clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member was moved with the intention, if it were carried, of again moving the omission of the words "cockades and ribbons." He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was not prepared to vote against the clause in its entirety, because he considered that something of the kind was required. He considered that the use of torches at elections was extremely dangerous. They assumed very varied forms in different elections. He had known firebrands made and thrown in the midst of a large number of people. He recollected participating in an election contest at Bristol during the last Parliament, and he remembered extremely well the reception which he and some other gentlemen received. [An hon. MEMBER: A Liberal candidate got in!"] Yes; he believed one of the present Members for Bristol was returned. Certainly, a great deal of violence was provoked by the casting about of these firebrands, and by the holding of torches to the immediate danger of a large number of people. Under the circumstances, he should vote for the retention of the clause, although he was in favour of omitting some of the articles specified.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had made answers to one or two of his (Lord George Hamilton's) arguments which required a little attention. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the object of the clause was to stop external expenditure. That was an admission that the limit imposed upon a candidate might be exceeded by persons themselves in externals. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): If we do not stop it.] This clause, therefore, was intended to apply to external expenditure, which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had said, meant a third party. There was, however, not one word in the clause about a third party. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would bring up a clause which would stop all external expenditure—not merely expenditure in connection with bands, flags, ribbons, and cockades—he (Lord George Hamilton) would gladly support him. What was now proposed was, that any person who bought ribbons at an election would be guilty of an illegal practice. That would be absurd. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry would press his opposition to a Division, because it was perfectly clear the clause would not attain the object the hon. and learned Attorney General had in view.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was very much opposed to the clause in all its parts. If the number of clerks and messengers were restricted too largely, and if the use of bands, flags, banners, ribbons, and cockades was prohibited, a candidate, especially in a county, would be unable to make himself personally known to the electors in a desirable way. If bands, flags, banners, ribbons, torches, and cockades were carried through a county, the result was that the electors, whose sympathies were aroused by the emblems they saw before them, were very likely to follow those emblems; and therefore they proved an efficient way of collecting together electors on polling day. They knew what a strong power Orangeism had obtained by the system of carrying banners; and they also knew that the law against Party processions in Ireland was abolished, with practical benefit to the Roman Catholics in the other parts of Ireland.

Question put.

The Committee divided;—Ayes 151; Noes 58: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

Clause 14 (Certain employment to be illegal employment).

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he had an Amendment to move upon the clause, which he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would accept.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 38, after "payment," insert "under."—(Mr. Williamson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, clearly some Amendment was necessary; but he thought it would be better to insert the words "promise of" after the word "or," in the same line.

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

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 33, after the word "or," leave out the words "contract for," and insert "payment of."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—Clause 14, page 6, line 34, after "act," insert the following subsection:— Any person employed by or in the receipt of a salary from a political or other Association outside the constituency in which the election occurs, shall be considered as engaged or employed for payment if he acts, under such employment, for the purpose of promoting, or procuring, or opposing the election of a candidate at any election. He would not move the Amendment at the present moment, but would wait to see what the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed on Clause 22; and then, if necessary, he would bring up his proposal, either in the present or in an amended form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he wished to propose the following sub-section:— If any person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any other person for a constituency, of which he shall be the representative, obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his ceasing to be the representative of the said constituency, or if he shall obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his election for a constituency, which he would not, in the opinion of a judical tribunal, have obtained had he not been a candidate at the said election, he shall be deemed guilty of an illegal practice. He had limited the second part of his Amendment to the result of an election, and it seemed to him that it was perfectly in Order. The object of the proposal was that the public should not regard Members of Parliament as a set of humbugs. It was perfectly preposterous to punish poor men for taking two shillings, or three shillings, or a pot of beer, by way of a bribe, whilst they themselves in that House were allowed to accept bribes by way of titles. On that subject, it would be invidious to make allusion to any particular Gentleman; and he would, therefore, refrain from doing so. No doubt, hon. Gentlemen in that House had received titles, and had fully deserved them; but there were many admitted political partizans who had received titles in the way of bribes. Unless his Amendment were passed, bribery could take place in the House wholesale. If these Gentlemen had not been elected by their constituencies, they would not have had the remotest chance of being made Knights, Baronets, or Peers. Could they only bring in a Bill to put down corruption at elections? Could they fairly say that men were not to sell their votes, and that if they sold them they were to be severely punished, and yet practically say that, in this House, Members should have a right of selling the results of the votes of their constituents to their own profit wholesale? He did not wish to say a great deal in support of the Amendment; but he certainly proposed to take a Division upon it. As he did not wish to be personal, if there was any hon. Member in the House who was anxious for a title, he should be very glad to introduce words making an exception in the case of that hon. Gentleman. For instance, he should be very glad to agree to an Amendment in these words "except in the case of Mr. So-and-so." He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but would at once agree to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 34, after the word "Act," to insert the words,—"(2). If any person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any other person for a constituency, of which he shall be the representative, obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his ceasing to be the representative of the said constituency, or if he shall obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his election for a constituency, which he would not, in the opinion of a judical tribunal, have obtained had he not been a candidate at the said election, he shall be deemed guilty of an illegal practice."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

said, that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) would be certainly one of the most peculiar pieces of legislation anyone could conceive. What the first part of the proposal meant he could not imagine—namely, If any person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any other person for a constituency, of which he shall be the representative, obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his ceasing to be the representative of the said constituency, he should be deemed guilty of an illegal practice. He did not understand this at all. The second part of the Amendment, however, was that in which he (Sir Henry James) personally took the most interest, as it contained the words— Or if he shall obtain a baronetcy, knighthood, or any other title, within five years of his election for a constituency, which he would not, in the opinion of a judicial tribunal, have obtained had he not been a candidate at the said election, he shall be deemed guilty of an illegal practice. He, himself, had been a candidate for a constituency, and must plead guilty of having obtained a Knighthood within five years of his election. He would be thus affected by the proposal, as also would be his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and many others in the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment. I would point out that I have not made this Amendment retrospective.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) would not think him so selfish as to suppose that he only thought of himself and his Friends in this matter. He was thinking of the future; and surely it was fair to suggest that the hon. Gentleman himself might obtain a distinctive title in consequence of being elected, being as he was such a distinguished ornament to the House, and standing as he did so high in the favour of his Sovereign and public opinion. He hoped the Committee would not consent to rob his hon. Friend of the title he was so likely to earn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought there would be some difficulty in carrying out the Amendment; but, at any rate, the hon. and learned Attorney General had thrown more ridicule upon it than it properly deserved. No doubt, the proposal expressed a feeling that was very general in the public mind, and which hardly existed in it before the present Government came into Office—which had only been kindling the public mind since the present Government took the reins of Office. Of course, it might be in the power of a Minister of the Crown to confer titles and rewards for public services, if he imagined his Party and the country were identical, and that services rendered to the one were services rendered to the other—if he thought that contesting an election and spending large sums of money in the interest of his Party were services in the interest of his country. But he contended that, under the present Government, and under the present Prime Minister, Baronetcies and other titles had been almost, he might say, prostituted. What had happened? Let them take two leading instances where a constituency, by a deliberate and uninfluenced vote, had returned certain candidates to that House, and where the present Prime Minister had advised those candidates to throw up their trusts, in order to make room for a Minister of the Crown. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Where?] There was the case of the Radnor Boroughs, for instance. The noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had contested North Lancashire, and was defeated; and, if he recollected right, the elected Representative for the Radnor Boroughs, thereupon threw up his seat, in order to make room for the noble Marquess, and for so doing received a Baronetcy. But that was a mere trifle compared with what had taken place the other day. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), who was being elevated the other day to the head of the now Agricultural Department, was unseated at Chester for corrupt practices—no doubt on the part of his representatives, for he should be sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman himself had been guilty of any dishonourable act. The right hon. Gentleman was, at that time, President of the Local Government Board; but having been unseated for corrupt practices was unable, as was necessary, to take his seat in the House. The right hon. Gentleman, seeing the ground upon which he was held incapable of sitting for Chester, ought to have resigned himself to his position. Not so, however—the Prime Minister at once produced a Baronetcy. [An hon. MEMBER: A Peerage!] Yes, a Peerage from his pocket, which he dangled before the eyes of the various persons in the Liberal ranks who aspired to that dignity, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) rose to the bait and created a vacancy for that constituency. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) maintained, therefore, that this was not a joke, because if public dignities were to be given for political services of so base a description, they were no longer right and proper. He could very well understand the object with which the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) had put this Amendment on the Paper, and it certainly ought not to be treated with the levity that the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to bestow upon it.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has admitted that he sees a difficulty in dealing with the subject. He can well understand the difficulty of carrying out such an Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and yet he has not stated how we are to overcome it; and, at the same time, he says he can understand the circumstances under which it was put upon the Paper. I, myself, can understand the circumstances which led the hon. Member to put it upon the Paper. There is a growing practice in this House, according to which some hon. Members exercise their humour and some their sarcasm, sometimes through the medium of Questions, and sometimes through the medium of Amendments. The hon. Member has found an excellent opportunity of exercising his humour on this clause. The question is, not whether we can understand this matter, but whether we can seriously put such a proposal into the law of the land? The noble Lord has furnished us with information from knowledge drawn from fountains which are quite inscrutable to me; but that information is not the fact. He says that, to his knowledge, a bribe has been offered by the present Prime Minister to two persons—one who represented the Radnor Boroughs in a late Parliament, and the other who was elected during the present Parliament for the borough of Scarborough—to make way for Ministers of the Crown. He says this bribe was, in the first instance, a Baronetcy; and, in the next, a Peerage—that, in view of the offer of these bribes, the seats were vacated, in order that new candidates might be elected who were to hold seats in the Cabinet. Now, there is not a word of truth in the whole statement. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; as regards any offer, or communication, or inducement, or anything of the sort held out to either the previous Member for the Radnor Boroughs or the late Member for Scarborough.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

It is only a coincidence, I suppose?

MR. GLADSTONE

Yes; but is that the same thing? Take the case of the borough of Scarborough. Sir Harcourt Johnstone was Member for that borough. He was a person whom I had long had in my mind to recommend to Her Majesty for a Peerage. He had every qualification; he was—if I may so say—of excellent complexion as a Liberal partizan; he was a person of very high character, and one who had done great service in this House in connection with public measures.

An hon. MEMBER: In what way? ["Cries of" Order!"]

MR. GLADSTONE

He was a person of large fortune; and upon all these grounds, combined with having known him myself from a very early period of his life, he was one who, in my mind, I had marked out for recommendation for a Peerage. Entirely without any communication from him, and, as far as I know—indeed, I am perfectly convinced of it—without any communication from any Member of the Government, he, aware that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to submit the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an Office in the Cabinet, offered to vacate his seat, without allusion or reference of any kind to any reward, or any promotion of any sort. That offer was accepted; and, instead of its being correct, as the noble Lord the Member for "Woodstock says, that thereupon a Peerage was given to Sir Harcourt Johnstone, a very considerable time elapsed. [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] I know not why those jeers should greet a statement of fact of this nature if we are upon a serious discussion. I say a very considerable time elapsed; I cannot recollect the period exactly at this moment.

LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR

said, that 18 months elapsed.

MR. GLADSTONE

My noble Friend's recollection serves him better than mine serves me. He informs me precisely 18 months elapsed before any communication on the subject of a Peerage was made to Sir Harcourt Johnstone; and the noble Lord's doctrine is, that though this Gentleman acted purely of his own motion, and without any expectation whatever, or communication or promise of reward, vacated his seat for a Member of the Government, and a long period elapsed between that act and his receiving a Peerage, that, therefore, he should be under a perpetual ban, and should not be permitted to render service to his country. That is the case of the noble Lord. The case of the noble Lord turns on the fact that some communication, some promise, some expectation—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!]—then what did it turn upon? Was it a charge against Sir Harcourt Johnstone? It turned on the assertion that there was some previous offer, or communication of some kind or other, to justify Sir Harcourt Johnstone in accepting some reward. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It was, perhaps, only intuition.] The noble Lord seriously proposes intuition in the case of the expectations of Sir Harcourt Johnstone as a basis for the acceptance of this Amendment. Surely, that is carrying the jest a little too far. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would do well, I think, to measure his facts a little more. The popular Government which I suppose my hon. Friend desires and anticipates never could be formed if such an Amendment as this were adopted. It would be an absolute impossibility. When the hon. Member's Government is formed, it would probably be one rather more remarkable in a certain degree than the first Government formed by Lord Derby, when, owing to peculiar circumstances, 14 Privy Councillors—nearly the whole of the Cabinet—were sworn in in one day. How would my hon. Friend form his Government, when called upon by the Queen, when the mere fact of their being Privy Councillors, and receiving the attachments of the honour or title of "right hon. Gentleman," would cause them to vacate their seats, and render them liable to punishment? How could my hon. Friend be guilty of an indecency like that? We may go on in a humdrum way, the pendulum swinging from the Opposition to the Government Bench; but the object of my hon. Friend is to bring all this corrupt system to an end, and to form the foundation of a really popular Government. But I have shown that it would be an absolute impossibility for him to form a Government. It would be absolutely impossible for him to form a Ministry, or obtain Ministers, except in one or two instances, where they would not have to be Members of the Privy Council. If there has been any case in which a title has been given, either corruptly or wantonly, under my advice, I challenge discussion. I am not here to say that such a thing is not for the consideration of the House of Commons. It is a matter most proper for the House of Commons to take in hand; but my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, with great kindness and indulgence, would give complete immunity, with respect to the past, to all of us who are old and hackneyed in the ways of wickedness. His vengeance is to be directed against himself, and against the advanced popular Government of which, probably, he had indicated he himself was destined to form at some future time.

MR. CAINE

said, that was the third time, during the discussion in Committee on this Bill, that the name of his noble Friend (Lord Derwent) had been mentioned in connection with corrupt practices. He (Mr. Caine) would like to relate the facts referring to the recent election in Scarborough. Six months before the General Election, Lord Derwent (then Sir Harcourt Johnstone) was suffering from ill-health, and he was exceedingly desirous to retire altogether from the candidature. It was only by the strongest pressure that the noble Lord was induced to stand the annoyance and the worry of the General Election. Within a week of his being returned for Scarborough, by a majority of 580, the noble Lord said to him (Mr. Caine)—"Now the election has been decided by so large a majority, I sincerely trust the Party in Scarborough will allow me to withdraw." His noble Friend was anxious to retire in favour of another Gentleman, in no way connected with the Government, but who had been defeated in another constituency. Again, they put pressure on him to remain; but about six or eight months after he came again, and said his health was so bad that he must really withdraw from the representation. A third time they persuaded him to remain, and it was not until the occasion occurred in which he could retire in favour of his (Mr. Caine's) present right hon. Colleague (Mr. Dodson) that Lord Derwent did retire from the representation of the borough. As a matter of fact, Lord Derwent had been suffering from ill-health ever since. Indeed, he had been so ill that he had only been able to take his seat in "another place "on two occasions. He (Mr. Caine) sincerely trusted that this would be the last time that these ungenerous attacks would be made on an absent man.

MR. LEWIS

said, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had mentioned two instances, about the earliest in point of date, and the most important in point of circumstance, which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took good care not to refer to. He (Mr. Lewis) referred to the subject on the second reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, and he (Mr. Lewis) only referred to the matter indistinctly; but what he suggested then, and what he suggested now, was this—that it was perfectly impossible to expect the public to respect the laws which Parliament passed to prevent bribery at elections, if they (the Government) did not respect the law themselves. If the Government of the day were guilty of acts which bore the complexion of jobbing away seats in the House for titles at their disposal, it was one of the most grievous things that could ever happen. The case that everybody had in their minds the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took care not to refer to. In the year 1868, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) was most unfortunate in Lancashire, and he required a seat. And, before recounting the circumstance, he desired to state it was a mistake to suppose that the Law of Bribery was this—that, unless they bargained beforehand, there was no bribery; they knew perfectly well that, if they gave anything after a certain act was done in respect to that act, they were distinctly and manifestly guilty of bribery. Now, in the face of the House, and in the face of the public, he would recount the facts surrounding the election of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and let them speak for themselves. He made no charge, but was content with the inference which must necessarily be drawn from the facts. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was defeated in North Lancashire, and required a seat. Great as was the property of the family of the noble Marquess, he (Mr. Lewis) had never heard that the noble Marquess or his family was in any way connected with Radnoshire. The Gentleman, however, who represented the Radnor Boroughs, and who was now even a Member of the House of Commons, retired in favour of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess was returned for the Radnor Boroughs within a reasonable time, and the Gentleman was made a Baronet. He could not say the time; but he was utterly indifferent as to whether the Baronetcy was conferred at one, two, six, or twelve months after the retirement. Such were the facts. The noble Marquess wanted a seat, and a vacancy was created, and the noble Marquess filled it up. The Gentleman who retired was given a Baronetcy by the Minister at the head of the Cabinet of which the noble Marquess was a Member. He (Mr. Lewis) hoped it would not be imputed to him that he suggested, for one moment, that this was a promotion in promised payment for the withdrawal of the Member for the Radnor Boroughs. There was one circumstance to show that there was no special reason why the hon. Gentleman should retire from the House, because he got back to the House as soon as he could, and, in fact, now represented Radnor County. He (Mr. Lewis) considered that this case was worthy of the notice of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. But, unfortunately, that was not the only case; and it was because there had been two cases under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman that considerable attention had been directed to the subject. He was not going into the circumstances of the case of Scarborough, though they were certainly exceedingly remarkable. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that, because there had been no sort of promise or suggestion about promotion in connection with the retirement from the seat, that, therefore, there was no blame attaching. Of course, they accepted to the fullest extent the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no sort of promise or understanding in connection with the withdrawal. The facts remained, however, that they had a convenient withdrawal; then a title followed. He asserted that the public were entitled to view these things with suspicion; and he repeated the observations which he made on the second reading of the Bill, that if these things wore done in the highest orders of the State, it was impossible to make persons in the lowest orders of society believe the House of Commons was sincere in its desire to put down bribery and corruption. He imputed nothing in the case of the Radnor Boroughs except this, that the noble Marquess wanted a seat, a vacancy was made, and the Gentleman who made the vacancy had a title conferred on him.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lewis) makes no charges. He has twice stated that in making the most severe charge, and one totally needless, which, I think, few hon. Members in the House but himself would have made. Twice the hon. Member said that I took care not to refer to the case of the Election of Radnor. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that I endeavoured to avoid discussion on a subject of this kind is not a charge? If so, I do not envy the discernment of the hon. Member; and I do not understand what his standard of language or conduct can be, when he professes to make no charge, and, at the same time, makes one of the severest charges he could make against a public man; but he is thoroughly and grossly inaccurate, for he says that the Gentleman who then sat for the Radnor Boroughs surrendered his seat at the beginning of 1869, and got back as soon as he could. He got back more than 11 years afterwards. [An hon. MEMBER: He tried in 1874.] Then he tried in 1874. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say, under such circumstances, that he got back as soon as he could. The hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) surely might have thought that I might have found some difficulty in going back to transactions 14 years old, and to bring to my memory all the particulars of the given transaction. He might have displayed a little charity in the matter; but he has not chosen to do so. I have considered the facts of the case, in the few moments that have taken place since the hon. Gentleman rose to address the Committee. What were the facts? Instead of being made a Baronet as soon, as the hon. Gentleman says, decency would permit—[Mr. LEWIS: I said within a reasonable time.] The hon. Gentleman evidently does not know that nothing was done of the kind for more than five years after the public service bad been rendered, which undoubtedly was a distinct element in the case of the hon. Member receiving the consideration of the Government. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) had been law at that time, I believe I should have had no operation whatever in regard to this Baronetcy; for I believe the time had elapsed in which the conferring of the title would have been an illegal practice. I challenge the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to make good the assertion that he has made, that this was an improper promotion. What ground has he for saying it was an improper promotion? [Mr. LEWIS: I never said it was an improper promotion.] Then, if it was not an improper promotion, why do you make it the subject for controversy? Did this Gentleman render a public service, or did he not? ["No, no!"] It was no public service to enable my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) to take his place here? ["No, no!"] Then I will put the case on the other side. I am not contending that for this public service alone—[Mr. BIGGAR: What else?] I beg that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who frequently intrudes himself on the indulgence of the House, will, for once, spare me his incessant interruption. The contention is, that because the hon. Member in question rendered that public service, though he was otherwise fitted, he ought not to be made a Baronet. The contention is, that because he made an opening for my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), whatever might have been his qualifications for a Baronetcy, that very act alone rendered him disqualified to receive the honour. Such is the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, who comes down here to teach us what is the true standard of purity and public conduct. [Mr. LEWIS dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Then, what does he mean? Has he been talking grammar, and sense, or has he not? He says he has not a word to say against the qualification of the Gentleman who was made a Baronet, or against his fitness for promotion. His only allegation is, that this Gentleman made an opening for my noble Friend near me, to present himself for the constituency of the Radnor Boroughs. Was that, or was it not, a case of disqualification for a man who was previously qualified.

MR. LEWIS

It was a disqualification if it was done for Party purposes.

MR. GLADSTONE

You may call it Party purposes, if you like; I am not going to rake up the transactions of other Governments, but this thing is as old as Parliament; it is no effort to me to find analogous proceedings that have taken place under the charge and responsibility of the Opposition when they were in power. It really appears that everything turns on the question whether a person is qualified to receive it or not, and the hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Lewis) does not dare to say that that Gentleman was not qualified. He will not abandon his charge, he cannot support it; but he is compelled to admit that he has nothing to say against the fitness of that Gentleman to be made a Baronet, and that is the predicament in which the hon. Gentleman stands. This is the case of the hon. Gentleman who was promoted; he had received a mark of the confidence of the borough of Radnor, and he has since received a mark of the confidence of the county of Radnor itself, in being returned as its Representative—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Since the Baronetcy]—showing, I conclude, that they approved of the honour being conferred upon him. He is a member of an old family in the county, of very large property, and on whom no stain or disfigurement has been attached; but because the hon. Gentleman committed the great and grievous sin of enabling my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) to take his share in serving the Queen, he was, according to the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, disqualified from being made a Baronet. I really, Sir, am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry has obtruded a subject of this kind in discussions which hitherto have been carried on in excellent temper and in a judicial spirit. I will not attempt to describe the conduct of the hon. Gentleman. He does not dare, he does not venture, to make the smallest imputation upon that promotion. He knows that it is beyond his power—however good his intention may be, he knows it is beyond his power—he could not find a shred of objection to the promotion, except that the Gentleman who was the subject of it committed a great sin by enabling my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) to present himself to the Radnor Boroughs. I submit that was not a sin which ought to disqualify or unfit a man, who was otherwise qualified, from receiving a mark of honour. That is the case which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry says I have taken good care to avoid.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the remarks he was about to make would be tendered in the greatest politeness of which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was such a master. He desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a strange coincidence which occurred not long ago. A Gentleman, not of old family, but of large property in the South of England, and of large property in the North of England, fought two contested elections in the South of England, in both of which he was unsuccessful. In 1880 he went to the North of England, where he fought another election, and again he was unsuccessful. The three elections cost the Gentleman in question a large sum of money, but shortly afterwards he found himself in the House of Peers. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not know how that Gentleman got there, but he supposed it was certainly not for great public services rendered; he supposed the Gentleman got a Peerage because he fought three contested elections on behalf of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) found no fault with the elevation of Sir Harcourt Johnstone to the Peerage; he found no fault with the action that right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister took in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); neither did he find any fault in the case he himself had just called attention to. The same thing was done in former times, and if it was justifiable formerly, it was justifiable now. It was, however, inconsistent that a Liberal Government should reward Gentlemen for political services, and then bring in a Bill which would send a man to prison who merely gave a glass of ale. All these pretended corrupt practices were not corrupt practices at all, nor were they recognized as such. With the object of dealing with these petty so-called offences, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had introduced these wretched pitfalls for any man who might in future contest a constituency. He had endeavoured to give in a calm, and, he hoped, in no offensive manner, his opinion upon this subject. He could not agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but as he found the Government were determined to carry through at any cost this tyrannical and useless Bill, he should vote with the hon. Member if he went to a Division.

MR. LEWIS

said, he should be unworthy of sitting in the House if he allowed the speech of the Prime Minister to go unnoticed. In language most extraordinary, and in a manner certainly not very calm, the right hon. Gentleman attacked him because he did not attack the person to whom he referred when last he addressed the Committee—the whole burden of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that he (Mr. Lewis) did not attack the character of the hon. Gentleman the present Member for Radnorshire (Sir Richard Price). He Mr. Lewis) had no intention of doing any such thing. The right hon. Gentleman dared him to do it; but never having had the smallest intention of attacking the character of the hon. Gentleman in question, he did not do so, and would not do so. What he did, without uttering one harsh word, was to draw attention to the simple facts. Those facts as narrated by him could not be impeached. The only error in his statement, if error it was, which the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, was that the promotion of the hon. Member for Radnorshire took place at the end, and not in the middle, of the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He did not think the Committee or the country would see any important difference between his statement and the corrected statement of the Prime Minister. He accepted all the daring of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would repeat the charge, if a charge the right hon. Gentleman called it. What he said was that the right hon. Gentleman had taken care not to refer to the case of the Radnor Boroughs, and he was entitled to say that that was the mode of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman, in his second speech, did not say he forgot all about the Radnor case, and therefore he (Mr. Lewis) was right in assuming that the Prime Minister did remember it, though he did not refer to it. He (Mr. Lewis) repeated that the retirement of the hon. Member for the Radnor Boroughs was not a public service, but a Party service, for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister freely admitted that the retirement took place in order to make room for the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). Whether there was any understanding connected with the retirement, they had the different links of the chain—a seat wanted, a seat vacated, and a Baronetcy conferred. With reference to the noble Lord the late Member for Scarborough (Lord Derwent), he had not now referred to the case; but in his speech upon the second reading of the Bill he referred to a case which had taken place in his own Party—he referred to the case of a distinguished lawyer, now long since dead, for whom a vacancy was created under exactly similar circumstances by the late Conservative Administration. He complained of that case; indeed, he was perfectly impartial in his complaints. The Attorney General (Sir Henry James) knew that he distinctly referred to that case, to show that he was not making a Party charge. He had asked before, and he asked now, how they could expect the people to respect the law when corruption was carried on in the highest Departments of the State? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was totally mistaken if he supposed that he (Mr. Lewis) had said that the right hon. Gentleman made any offer to the hon. Member for the Radnor Boroughs to induce him to retire. He made no charge against the right hon. Gentleman, except that which he made against his Predecessors. The Heads of both Parties had been in the habit of doing these things, and he merely asserted that they were done in the interest of political Parties.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that charges of corruption ought not to be made merely because hon. Gentlemen accepted the promotion due to them. That could scarcely be called corruption. The hon. Member's contention, however, was that a man ought to be treated as disentitled to promotion or honour of any kind if his retirement made room for a Member of the Government.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the Amendment under notice was perfectly consistent on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who represented his absent Colleague. They all knew that that Gentleman was opposed to all rewards for public services; and he (Mr. Newdegate) believed he was right in saying that he had marked that particular subject as his own. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton should represent, with regard to this question, opinions which he had hoped were forgotten. There was much truth in the observation made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to the effect that the excessive severity of the provisions of the Bill were inconsistent with the system of Government existing in this country. They might be applicable to a Republic; but they were certainly not applicable to the Constitutional Monarchy of this country. He (Mr. Newdegate) was very anxious that the House of Lords should be strong; and he was happy to see that its functions were of growing importance. He believed that no reward was more appropriate than that which was conferred upon men who had been distinguished by the fidelity of their services in that House. For instance, it was acknowledged on all hands that a Speaker, when he ceased to preside over their deliberations, unless he misconducted himself, should be made a Peer. This system of rewards was the means by which the House of Lords was recruited, and he rejoiced in its existence; but he felt that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had rendered this legitimate system of promotion difficult by adopting that foreign element of secrecy in connection with elections. The whole of the severity of the present Bill had become necessary in consequence of the corruption which had been produced by the Ballot Act; and before these discussions closed, he would bring that fact plainly before the attention of the House. The Committee was in a false position. They were asked to act with undue severity, and in a manner alien to the Constitutional spirit of the country, towards persons in minor positions; and they found it impossible to recruit the House of Lords sufficiently to maintain that great Institution, which he hoped would grow in strength, without violating the principle upon which this Bill was founded, and without having recourse to that secrecy which unavoidably disgraced the electoral system wherever it existed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he could assure the Prime Minister that he intended no joke or sarcasm in bringing forward this question. He intended to discuss the matter as one of principle. He held it to he a great misfortune that the public should think, rightly or wrongly, that the Members whom they elected to represent them in that House, if they voted for Ministers for a considerable time, would somehow or other become Baronets. Hon. Members opposite had given this question a personal character. It was not he that had done so. He had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for a single case in which a title had been conferred corruptly. He did not mean to go into the cases; but he would say that the practice was, and had been, for years in this country to give titles for personal services. Everyone knew that was the case; and he could cite just as many instances, perhaps more, with regard to Gentlemen on that side of the House than with regard to Gentlemen on the opposite Benches. It was a system which had been adopted both by Liberals and Conservatives, and the Prime Minister had only followed in the footsteps of his Predecessors. He could not anticipate the contingency which the right hon. Gentleman shadowed forth of Her Majesty sending for him (Mr. Labouchere) to form an Administration. He was contented in being a humble follower of the right hon. Gentleman. But were Her Majesty to do so, he should at once consult his legal advisers as to whether the appellation "Right honourable "was a title. The conferring of a Peerage conveyed a title; but nothing of the kind was implied in the words "Right honourable." As far as he could see, his chief supporter in this matter would be the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and that being so, he thought his proposal would hardly be considered by the country as a Radical one. Under these circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; and he must content himself with the belief that if his Amendment was in a small minority in that House, it was supported by a very large majority out of it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) would not withdraw his Amendment; for his own part, he (Mr. Biggar) was not at all sure that he would get leave to do so. He thought the hon. Member for Northampton had done very good service in drawing the attention of the Committee to this subject; and, more than that, he was prepared to go a little further than the hon. Gentleman himself. This system of tampering with Members of Parliament by the Government of the day was a great evil. The practice in the case of a wealthy man was to confer upon him a title, say a Peerage or a Baronetcy; but in the case of a man who was not wealthy, these bestowals took the form of Government situations. Whatever they were, they had a tendency to shake the allegiance of Members to their principles and constituents, and to make them disposed to curry favour with the Government of the day. If he could find a satisfactory number of Members to support him in that part of the House, he should certainly challenge a Division on the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton. It seemed to him very hard that penalties should be imposed by the Bill on Members of Parliament who unwittingly spent a little more money than they intended upon their election, while the Government were allowed to heap rewards on Members of Parliament for betraying the interests of their constituents.

MR. SHEIL

said, he would remind the Committee of a circumstance which had probably not entered into the minds of many hon. Members in connection with the present subject. In 1881, Mr. Speaker had thought it consistent with his duty to expel from that House some 20 or 30 Irish Members; and hon. Members would be aware that the right hon. Gentleman in question had since been awarded a very important title. Again, Mr. Lyon Playfair, then Chairman of Ways and Means, had suspended a group of Irish Members. Not long afterwards, the Knight Commandership of the Bath was conferred upon him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 186; Majority 175.—(Div. List, No. 162.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had an Amendment to move on behalf of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). With the view of saving the time of the Committee he would do no more than move the Amendment to which he referred.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, at end of clause, add,—"Any Assistant Commissioner, Registrar, or other officer appointed under the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' who, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, interferes therein, or is engaged or employed either with or without payment, for any purpose or in any capacity whatever, shall be guilty of illegal employment, and shall forfeit his appointment, and any candidate, or election agent of a candidate, who aids or abets, or confirms in any manner such offence, shall be guilty of an illegal practice."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could see no reason why this Amendment should be entertained. His objection to it was that it singled out a particular class of persons holding judicial offices, and subjected them to a disqualification which did not attach to other holders of judicial offices. He could not understand why this class of persons should have been selected, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, if the Amendment were withdrawn, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would bring in a clause which would prevent any persons holding judicial positions from taking an active part in elections. He believed, in that way, the hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce a real improvement into the Bill.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

thought the best course, under the circumstances, would probably be that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) should be postponed till the Report, and then he could raise it himself.

MR. BIGGAR

hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) would fight this matter out now, for it was intolerable that the Land Commissioners should have the power of lowering or raising rents in Ireland according to political considerations. He could not see upon what ground the hon. Gentleman wished to ignore this Amendment, for it was one of the best on the Bill. The Committee knew how directly the Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners were in contact with the tenant farmers, and what pressure they applied to them. That was a public scandal, which ought not to be tolerated.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped, as a matter of courtesy to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson), the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, so that it might be brought up as a new clause upon the Report.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he likewise thought the Amendment might be withdrawn. He should be sorry to take advantage of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) who had put it on the Paper; but this was really a case of some difficulty, and one which he thought would be only aggravated by Amendments of this kind. The Amendment did not include the Chief Commissioners, and it conferred a stigma upon one particular class of officials. It was extremely undesirable to do that, and he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he trusted that before this proposal could be again made the Government would consider the matter with a view to inserting something of the kind in the Bill. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to say that it would be right for Assistant Commissioners to take such a part as they were prohibited from taking by this clause. All he said was that it did not apply to the Commissioners as well; but surely the Commissioners ought to be equally debarred. He could not conceive anything worse for any Party or side in Ireland than that the Assistant Commissioners or Chief Commissioners, or any other persons connected with the administration of the Land Act, should be allowed to take an active part in elections.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had raised two points. First he said the Chief Commissioners were excluded from the clause. Everybody knew that they held such a position that it would be out of the question for them to be employed as election agents, considering their social position and their incomes. On the same ground, County Court Judges, who got very large salaries, would not take employment as election agents. They might take a prominent part in elections, but they would not mix themselves up in the details. But it was a different thing with the Assistant Commissioners and clerks, who had only temporary employment, and to whom a small extra sum of money would be very welcome. If an Assistant Commissioner took an electioneering agency in a county, that would probably be worth a large sum to him in other ways. He might get, instead of temporary employment for one year, a permanent situation. Under the circumstances, it would be better that the Amendment should be withdrawn; but he hoped it would be moved again.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he hoped the Government would not object to consider, without prejudice, the propriety of introducing the Chief Commissioners as well as the Assistant Commissioners; because, no doubt, the observation of the Premier hit the blot in the clause when he pointed out that only the Assistant Commissioners were included. He did not think there was any objection on this side of the House to include every kind of official under the Land Act, and he was sure hon. Members from Ireland would be happy to meet the Premier in that respect.

MR. SHEIL

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had urged that it would be discourteous to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) not to allow this to be withdrawn; but it seemed to him (Mr. Sheil) that if there was any discourtesy at all, it was on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He took upon himself to move this Amendment, and then suggested its withdrawal. If the Amendment was withdrawn it would be raised again, it was said, as a new clause.

MR. CALLAN

said, he wished to meet this Amendment with a direct negative. The Assistant Commissioners were as independent as any men who sat on the Treasury Bench or on the Front Opposition Bench; they were electors, and had a right to interfere in elections, to vote, and to influence their neighbours. The clause was evidently aimed at Mr. Wyllie, who had been Parliamentary agent to the Whigs of Ulster; but he (Mr. Callan) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) might give up the Amendment, for Mr. Wyllie's office was a sinecure, because the Whigs of Ulster were an extinct body, wholly crushed out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not wish to set a bad example; but they had now reached new matter, and he would move that Progress be reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

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