Commons Sitting of 3 July 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment [205].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Thirteenth Night]—R.P.; Medals [188], debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENT—SELECTION.
Leave given to the Committee of Selection to make a Special Report:—
SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYaccordingly reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures:—Lord Eustace Cecil, Mr. H. W. Fitzwilliam, Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
And had appointed in substitution:—Mr. Brinton, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Leamy.
Special Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND).
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will give some intimation, during the present Session, of the manner in which Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with the question of harmless lunatics and idiots in Ireland; and, if he will endeavour to bring in a Bill early next Session to legislate on this important subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not think I could satisfactorily enter upon this subject in replying to a Question; but perhaps I may find an opportunity of doing so when the Estimate for the Lunacy Department is under consideration. I will endeavour to bring in a Bill next Session, should the Bill which has already been introduced in "another place" not reach the House this Session.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOLS COMPULSORILY CLOSED.
  MR. RANKINasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in the case of a school compulsorily closed on account of infectious illness or for any other reason, instructions might be given to the Government Inspector of such school to take into his consideration the length of time for which the school in question had been closed, and to make a corresponding allowance in the acquirements of the children, so as to enable the school to be classified in the same standard, and so to earn the same grant, as it otherwise would have done if it had not been closed?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Under the Code now in force the period during which a school is compulsorily closed does not count as part of the 22 weeks of at-

  179
  tendance which qualifies a child for examination. The Inspector, however, may waive the examination of children who have suffered from epidemic illness; and the fact that the school has been compulsorily closed will be taken into account in assessing the merit grant, as the Code requires the Inspector to have regard "to the special circumstances of the case,"

  THE IRISH BUTTER TRADE-CORK BUTTER MARKET.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the evidence given before the Richmond Commission has satisfied him of the existence of grave abuses in the Cork Butter Market, particularly in the matter of the inspection; and, whether, if unwilling to take the subject in hand themselves, the Government would look with favour upon any well-considered scheme of reform promoted by private Members?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am afraid there is too much reason to think that some abuses do exist, especially in the details of the inspection; and, should any well-considered scheme of reform be promoted by private Members, I will be happy to give it my best consideration.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—WORKHOUSE HOSPITALS.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the workhouse hospitals are in many districts the only similar institutions available for paying patients and people in well-to-do circumstances, who are suffering from infectious diseases; whether he is also aware that there are powers of compulsory removal of such persons from their homes under certain circumstances; whether it is a fact that all persons, except the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are compelled to wear the workhouse uniform, provided by the Guardians, whilst in hospital, and that great exception is taken to this by paying patients; and, whether, taking these facts into account, with a view to check the spread of infection, by removing every obstacle to such persons going into hospital, he would urge the Local Government Board to modify their rules in this respect?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs of this Question. With regard to the dress of patients, the present practice has been in force since the year 1862. Boards of Guardians were then advised by the Local Government Board that persons in fever hospitals ought not to be allowed to wear their own clothing, in order to prevent the danger of infection when they returned to the neighbourhood in which they lived, but that a simple form of hospital dress, having nothing in common with the ordinary workhouse dress, should be provided. The Local Government Board believe that in some instances Guardians relax this rule in the case of the Constabulary and other paying patients; but they regard this relaxation as very objectionable. They think that persons returning to their own homes in the dress they have worn in hospital are likely to spread infection. This opinion appears to be well founded; and I fear, therefore, that any change in the regulations such as is suggested by the hon. Member would not be likely to tend towards the restriction of the spread of infection.

  EGYPT—OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA.
  MR. GOURLEY (for Sir EDWARD WATKIN)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, considering the appearance of epidemic cholera in Egypt, in the vicinity of the Suez Canal, Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to bring about an International Convention as to quarantine, with a view not merely to checking the progress of the disease, but also to minimising inconvenience and loss to the shipping interest and to travellers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the scheme for International agreement as to quarantine formulated in 1879, by Sir Sherston Baker, barrister-at-law, and published in that year by the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) has a similar Question for Thursday, and I propose to reply to his Question now, as well as to that of my hon. Friend. Her Majesty's Government have no present intention of taking steps to bring about an International Convention or Congress as to quarantine, nor have they received any

  181
  proposals to that effect. Her Majesty's Government are acquainted with the proceedings of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, and the views of the author referred to.

  STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)— TRAFFIC AT HAMILTON PLACE.
  MR. ROLLSasked the First Commissioner of Works, If, in consideration of the great inconvenience caused by the block of traffic at the corner of Hamilton Place, arrangements could be made by utilizing Park Lane, at present almost unused, for the traffic going Southward, leaving Hamilton Place free for traffic going Northward?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the Office which I represent has no jurisdiction whatever over the streets, and that I am quite unable to carry out what the hon. Member recommends. I also understand that the police, since 1870, have had no power of regulating the traffic in the streets so as to enforce any such regulation.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the Motion that stands on the Orders of the Day in the name of the Prime Minister, in accordance with the statement which he made in the House yesterday—namely,
  "That Government Orders have precedence, this Evening, of the Notices of Motions and the other Orders of the Day, and that Government Orders have precedence To-morrow."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Do I understand that this is an Order merely for to-day and to-morrow, and that next week, when a Motion is made to take private Members' nights for the remainder of the Session, we shall then have an opportunity of considering the whole of the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes.
  MR. THEODORE FRYwished to express the great regret of himself and other Members that this course on the part of the Government would prevent the Committee stage to-night of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) Bill being taken. This was a measure which had already been read a second
  182
  time by a majority of 3 to 1; and it was of so much importance that he trusted the Government would give a Saturday Sitting in order that it might be pushed forward.
  MR. GORSTcould not say that he felt at all pleased with the precedent that was being set on this occasion. The principle on which the Business of the House had hitherto been conducted was this—If the Government wished to interfere with the days allotted to private Members, they either obtained the general consent of the House and of the Members who had secured those days, or at the end of the Session, when Public Business became urgent, a full statement of the intentions of the Government was made to the House. Neither of these courses had been taken, and he felt considerable alarm that this should be taken as a precedent, and that Governments in the future should come down and demand two or three days of private Members' time without conforming to either of the conditions he had named. He did not wish to oppose this Motion; but he thought it should not be allowed to pass without some protest.
  MR. RYLANDSalso would not oppose this Motion; but he wished to fix upon the attention of the Government the strong necessity there was for not allowing Supply to get further into arrear. He trusted that on Monday the House would have a statement from the Prime Minister that a certain proportion of Mondays and Thursdays would be devoted to this object, for Supply was already in a very backward state, and a considerable number of Votes yet remained to be taken. He quite agreed that it was desirable that those measures which the Government desired to pass should be properly considered; but it was equally important, and not less the duty of the House, that it should insist on having ample opportunities for dealing with Supply.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSagreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member who had last spoken. He thought the Motion ought to be agreed to only on the condition that a distinct statement was made on Monday as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bills before the House. The House also ought to insist on another matter, which was that if private Members' nights were taken the Government

  183
  should not take up the "fad" of one particular section, otherwise he was quite sure the House would not grant the facilities which the Prime Minister desired. He hoped also that some arrangement would be made so that recourse need not be had to Saturday Sittings. Last Session, it would be remembered the House had an Autumn Sitting for the discussion of the New Rules, and just before the House rose in December the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) gave a promise that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the operations of the Sessional Order relating to the Grand Committees before the middle of this July. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but there could be no doubt that there was a distinct understanding. He should like to know what the Government were going to do in the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no doubt that, after the Motion of the Prime Minister on Monday had been made, very little time would remain for private Members. But there was a question in which he was more particularly interested—the South African Question. He understood the Prime Minister to state that he was quite aware that a discussion would be desirable before the close of the Session. He (Mr. Forster) could only state that discussion was made more desirable by the statement that the Envoys were coming over from the Transvaal; and, as they would hardly arrive in this country before the Session closed, it was important that there should be some Parliamentary discussion before the Prorogation. The subject could not be very conveniently discussed in Committee of Supply; but he did not know that any other time could be asked. He hoped, however, that his right hon. Friend would consider the matter between now and Monday; and if it was decided to take the debate on the South African Vote, one night at the beginning of an evening would be fixed.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it might, perhaps, be convenient to the House and the right hon. Gentleman, if he stated that, under the circumstances at present existing, he did not wish to hold the right hon. Gentleman to the conditional promise he had made as to finding a convenient time for the discussion of the Motion of which
  184
  he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice nearly a month ago—that this House should resolve itself into a Committee to inquire into the state of affairs in South Africa. Since that time Her Majesty's Government had taken a very important decision with regard to Basutoland—the principles or the necessity of which he did not at all desire to question; and as to the details, they were not, and, perhaps, could not be, in a condition to be discussed at present. With regard to the Transvaal, he had been desirous, ever since the commencement of the Session, to bring this question under the consideration of the House, and he thought he had some reason to complain that he not been able to do so. He did not wish to dwell upon that now. What he had been anxious to do was, to prove to the House that the Transvaal Convention had failed, and that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for that failure. He thought that the very fact that Her Majesty's Government were preparing to revise that Convention, not yet 18 months old, in concert with persons who, for whatever reasons, had been unable or unwilling to fulfil their obligations with regard to it, showed that it was a failure; and, that being admitted, as he thought it must be admitted, surely it followed that the Government who concluded the Convention were responsible in the matter? Therefore, as the case which he desired to establish seemed to be incontestably proved by facts, he had no wish to call the attention of the House to what had already passed on that subject. But he thought there was much force in the views already expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), especially after the statement that had been made, that the Convention was to be considered by Her Majesty's Government in concert with Envoys from the Transvaal, who could not arrive before the autumn; and it was surely desirable that they should have some distinct statement of what the Government contemplated in the revision of the Convention. He thought they ought to have a full opportunity of debating the matter in the House, and he doubted whether it would be an entirely satisfactory opportunity to do so on the Estimates. He would have thought, after the view expressed by the

  185
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, that he, and those who agreed with him, might have been disposed to obtain by distinct Motion some expression from the House as to the direction in which that revision should take place. He had also been anxious to bring under the consideration of the House the condition of affairs in Zululand. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay), who had great personal knowledge of this matter, had given Notice of a Motion standing on the Order Book, which raised in direct and distinct terms an issue before the House. He did hope that, as he was not now asking the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the conditional promise he made in regard to his Notice of Motion, he would favourably consider the claims of his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding for an opportunity for discussion. It was a matter which had never been discussed in the House, and one on which those on his side of the House held very strong opinions, and on which they thought the judgment of the House ought to be taken.
  MR. W. FOWLERpointed out that the Motion calling upon private Members to give up their Wednesdays was made very much earlier than was usual. In 1878 the Motion was not made until the 15th of July; in 1879 it was the 14th of July; in 1880 it was the 12th of July; in 1881 it was the 1st of August; and in 1882 it was not made until the 24th of July. He did not rise to oppose the Motion; but he wished to point out that they might almost as well be asked to give up Wednesdays altogether—[Cheers.]—for now it was absolutely useless to put down private Members' Bills after the middle of June. [Renewed cheers.] If that was the opinion of the House, of course he would not complain; but till it was made known he thought private Members had a right to protest. He thought the principle involved in the question under discussion was a very serious one.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was glad to see the Home Secretary in his place, as he was in the House when the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War made the statement referred to. There were a large number of Amendments on the Paper, chiefly in the name of his hon.
  186
  and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and himself; and they waived those Amendments on the distinct understanding that the House should have the fullest opportunity of revising the proceedings of the Standing Committees. He only wished to say one word with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) about Supply, and he hoped it would be pressed on the Prime Minister. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the way in which the Prime Minister had fulfilled the pledges with regard to Supply; but there were two Votes which he wished the Prime Minister to except from the ordinary course—namely, the Vote for the Representative in the Transvaal, and the Vote for Major Baring. The appointment of Major Baring would mark a new departure; and there could not be a better opportunity than on that Vote of reviewing the past conduct of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would endeavour to answer, as well as he could, the various points that had been raised. As there was an opinion that the public purse was a bottomless purse, and so capable of meeting every call upon it, so there seemed to be an impression in the House that the time at the disposal of the Government after the middle of July was virtually unlimited, and that they could give as much as every Gentleman might want for the discussion of what he deemed to be a very important matter. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) must point out that the time which they might take, if the House chose to give it—and he was sure the House would bear witness that they had no desire to take it on this occasion, except with the free will of the House—was, after all, only a limited quantity, which it was not in their power to extend, and which they could do no more than distribute as best they could. In taking time to consider the course to be pursued, they had to regard more especially the condition of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said, that the course proposed was quite an exceptional one, and that there had been a desire expressed in the House that it should be marked as an exceptional proceeding;

  187
  and he was seconding the wish of the House that it should not be betrayed into making it a precedent, but that it should be distinctly and fully recognized that the proceeding at present asked for should not bind the House. It had been said that he never admitted a citation from Hansard. He believed that in the course, perhaps, of 50 citations from Hansard, which had been made for him or against him, there might have been one or two cases in which he had said that he could not recognize that they fully conveyed his meaning. With regard to what his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War had said about the revision of the Standing Order relating to Standing Committees, he found, on reference to Hansard, that what his noble Friend had said was—
  "If it was proposed to renew the Resolutions, either in their present or in any other shape, it ought to be done when the House was in a condition to fully and adequately discuss them; and he would make every effort in his power to secure that that should take place before the end of July."—(3 Hansard, [275] 517–18.)
  That accorded with his own recollection. Of course, if the Government made no Motion the matter would fall to the ground; but he would say at once that they would not think it a subject at all fit to be brought forward after the House had ceased the full flow of its attendance; and he therefore trusted that that would be regarded as a satisfactory declaration. With regard to the question of Supply raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands), although it was quite true that the progress made had not been very great, yet it would not be forgotten that upwards of a fortnight was occupied at the opening of the Session in the debate on the Address, and that there was also an interruption—an unavoidable one, perhaps—which occupied two or three weeks in reference to the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. Under the circumstances, the Government were desirous of doing the best in their power, in the first instance, to dispose of the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, and then to launch themselves into Committee on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. He hoped that this would be taken as a distinct and final indication of their intentions to obtain the judgment of the House on these two Bills. With regard to everything else,
  188
  he did not think any difficulty would arise; but the House would hold them responsible for making the best use they could of the limited fund of time now loft, and hon. Members would be judges of how that was done. He quite agreed that a convenient time might be asked for the discussion in Committee of Supply of the Vote for the salary of Major Baring and for the Transvaal; but he was not able to say at present what desire or what cause there might be for a separate discussion with respect to Zulu-land, and he would rather not say anything then on that subject. He entirely agreed with what had been signified by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) with regard to the Transvaal, and hoped a convenient opportunity would be found for the discussion of the question. With respect to Supply generally, he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) would not desire, by thrusting forward Supply, to prevent the adequate discussion of the legislative measures of the Government. The Government thought it was the desire of the House that the two Bills he had mentioned should have preference till they had got through the laborious stage of Committee. After that, or before that if necessary, they should have no disposition, on the one hand, to throw over those Bills which were of interest and importance to the country, and that the country wished to see passed, nor, on the other hand, to give these Bills an undue preference over Supply. He hoped the House would be disposed to sit patiently until these measures were disposed of. They should have a better opportunity of dealing with this subject when they came to consider it on Monday next.
  MR. W. H. SMITHreminded the Prime Minister that as late as last Thursday he made an engagement with regard to the Navy Estimates, with which at present very little progress had been made. They were engaged in an important discussion on the condition of the Navy, and considerable time would still have to be devoted to it. He hoped, therefore, that an early day would be fixed for resuming the discussion on the Navy Estimates. With regard to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he hoped also that some early Monday and Thursday would be taken for Supply, seeing that the Government would have

  189
  Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for their ordinary Business.
  MR. STEVENSONexpressed regret that the opportunity would be lost, through the arrangements made by the Government, of bringing on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill, in which he could assure the House the public took great interest.
  MR. RAIKESconfessed that he was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not availed himself of the opportunity presented him to take a more decided stand with regard to Wednesdays, because he was sure the House would willingly respond to the Government taking that day. ["No!"] At all events, he was content to leave it on record that if the Prime Minister brought forward any proposal to appropriate Wednesdays he would support him. With regard to Tuesdays, however, the case was very different, and he would make an earnest appeal that there should be no invasion of Fridays before the end of July. He wished to call the attention of the Government to a very important Motion of which Notice had been given for the last Friday of the present month, and which referred to the question of National Education. With regard, also, to the Bill which stood first in the Orders of to-morrow, he desired to state that it would be met by a very substantial opposition; and he trusted that on Monday next the Government would be prepared to take a decided course in respect to Wednesdays.
  MR. E. A. LEATHAMsaid, he had secured the first Order on Wednesday week for a subject in which great interest was felt by many Members in the House, and by a large portion of the public—reform of patronage in the Church of England. He had previously been unfortunate in getting an opportunity to bring forward this question, and it seemed as if he would be equally unfortunate this year. Last year he had no reason to complain of the postponement, because the Business then before the House was of an urgent character; but that was not the case now, and he put it to the House whether, under the circumstances, it would be fair for the Government to take Wednesdays? He had been in the House a good many years, and they had always been pottering with the Law of Elections and tinkering the Law of Bankruptcy.
  190
  In a year or two's time they would probably make an entirely new departure on both these questions.
  MR. ONSLOWcomplained of the late period of the Session at which the Indian Budget was usually brought forward, and asked the Prime Minister to consider whether he would give facilities for the discussion of a Motion which he had on the Paper relating to India, and on which the whole question of the Egyptian policy of the Government would be raised? He also hoped the Prime Minister would be in a position, when the Papers relating to the Ilbert Bill were laid before the House, to state the views of the Government respecting that important matter. He trusted, moreover, that on Monday the Prime Minister would be prepared to state that it was not the intention of the Government to afford special facilities to private Members to bring forward any of the huge number of Liquor Bills which had been introduced. He also wished to know whether the Government would give a day for the discussion of the Congo Treaty, should any Treaty be agreed upon?
  MR. CARBUTTremarked, that the affairs of India were generally left over to the end of the Session, and he hoped the Government would afford facilities for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to complain of the increasing attempts which were being made to dissociate private Members from the active work of legislation. Members were selected by constituencies because they believed them capable of promoting legislation on certain questions; but what opportunities were given them of doing so? If a Member by good luck succeeded in securing Tuesday or Friday for a Motion, the probability was that the Government would seize the morning for their own purposes, and count him out in the evening. If he obtained a place for a Bill on a Wednesday which was not in the Easter Holiday, the Whitsun Holiday, or the Epsom week, he might still find that soon after Midsummer his Wednesday was appropriated to the use of Government. He admitted that individual must give way to public interest; but he thought it hard that individual Members should be treated with injus-

  191
  tice and caprice by the Government. He thought that it would have been better if the Government, instead of asking private Members to make a sacrifice on the strength of a statement to be made in the future, had made their statement first, and then asked for the sacrifice
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLcomplained that the only one of the important Bills which the Government intended to pass that related to Scotland was, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, and that did not much matter so far as Scotland was concerned, for there were no corrupt practices in that country. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be great disappointment felt in Scotland unless an opportunity was found of forwarding some of the Scotch Bills now before the House.
  MR. WARTONconsidered there was nothing more discreditable in their proceedings than the way in which year after year the Indian Budget was relegated to the last week of the Session. With regard to the Wednesdays in that House, they were a perfect farce, as a rule, and nine-tenths of the Bills brought forward on that day were perfectly absurd and idiotic. The only useful measure passed during Wednesday this Session was the Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, to which the Government had given a reluctant assent. He hoped that if private Members agreed not to enforce their rights on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the Government would not yield to the demand of a few fanatical Radicals to have Saturday Sittings for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of airing their particular crotchets.
  MR. LABOUCHEREtrusted that the Prime Minister would stand firm, and would prove a perfect Herod to all those innocents on whose behalf appeals had been addressed to him, not making an exception in favour of any one of them. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the simplest plan would be to take all Tuesdays, all Wednesdays, and all Fridays, and, if there were any pressing legislative difficulty, to have Saturday Sittings also. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not Sunday?] He had no objection. What the country wanted was legislation. What Members wanted was to legislate as speedily as possible,
  192
  and then comfortably go away to enjoy themselves.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Government Orders have precedence, this Evening, of the Notices of Motions and the other Orders of the Day, and that Government Orders have precedence To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd July.] [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Illegal Payment, Employment, or Hiring.
    Clause 15 (Use of committee room in house for sale of intoxicating liquor to be illegal hiring).
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that before he proceeded to state his reasons in support of the Amendment standing in his name, he thought it desirable that the Committee should receive some explanation from the Attorney General as to the reasons which had induced the Government to place this clause in the Bill. His object in asking for that explanation was solely for the purpose of facilitating the progress of Business. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite appeared to receive that statement with some amount of impatience; but the Committee were entitled to the explanation he asked for; and if it were necessary for the purpose he should feel it his duty to move to report Progress. Although the Amendment he was about to move did not meet all the objections which he entertained to this clause, it did so to a certain extent. The clause appeared to him to contain one of the most extraordinary and novel proposals ever introduced into a Bill—namely, that places where intoxicating liquors were sold should be excluded from being used as committee rooms on the occasions of Parliamentary elections. He could not conceive that there should be any objection to the use of public-houses as committee rooms

    193
    either within or without the limits of Parliamentary boroughs, and he said it was for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to justify the clause. He apprehended that the existing law was quite sufficient for any legitimate purposes the Government had in view with regard to the use of public-houses at the time of an election; if there were cases of disorder in houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor the law provided remedies which would meet any case of the kind; because they were able to punish the occupier of the premises by taking away his licence, or by any other mode which the law appointed. He could not understand, on general principles, why this particular class of buildings were selected to be dealt with in the manner proposed, or why it was that they were to be so dealt with only at election time. He pointed out to the Committee that in the case of elections other than Parliamentary elections, these taverns, hotels, and public-houses were the very places resorted to for carrying on the business connected with the election. The hon. and learned Gentleman would probably recollect that the London Tavern and the Charing Cross Hotel, amongst others, were made use of in such cases. If there was a charity school to be advocated, or a fund of any kind to be supported, it was always at institutions of that kind that the meetings were held; and he had never heard, in connection with them, that the fact of intoxicating liquor being sold there had led to any abuse. In his own borough, if there happened to be a meeting called for any public purpose, the premises sought out and used were one of the taverns or hotels within the limits of the borough. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could produce some justification of the clause, or state some substantial reasons why licensed premises should not be used as committee rooms on the occasion of elections, he thought the clause ought not to be allowed to remain in the Bill. He passed on to the next point with regard to committee rooms. Candidates would be allowed to have one room for every 500 electors in their constituency; and he would ask, where were they to find those rooms unless in the hotels and other licensed premises? In his own borough he would be entitled under the Bill to have no less than six committee
    194
    rooms at the next Election; but he was sure that, although no man was better acquainted with the borough than himself, it would be impossible for him to find the requisite accommodation. Looking at this question from another point of view, everyone, including the hon. and learned Attorney General himself, knew what was the usual cost of hiring rooms for committee purposes. Licensed Victuallers, as a rule, had only one price, so that a candidate knew exactly what he had to pay; but under this clause he would be quite in the dark as to the cost of a room suited to his purpose. The Government said—"You are not allowed to use any room which comes within the category of rooms ordinarily used for electoral purposes; we prevent you holding your meetings in them; we have fixed a maximum line of expense which you must confine yourself within, nevertheless you must pay any price which is demanded of you." He said that this was not only an inconvenient rule, but also a very unjust one; because the candidate would be exposed to the necessity of seeking in out-of-the-way places for rooms which he could not get in the borough. Then there was the question of private houses, which in the clause was mixed up with the question of intoxicating drinks; and that was why he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to give some logical explanation of his reasons for introducing the clause. The restrictions sought to be imposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to him to amount to this—that people should not use any tavern or hotel for electoral purposes, because they might get intoxicated there. But, surely, the same thing might be said in the case of a private house. What was there to prevent people drinking too much on the premises of a private individual, or in a club? But he would not go into that question now. All he wished to do was to point out the inconvenient and illogical results which must follow, if the proposal in the clause were adopted. The hon. and learned Gentleman forbade the use of rooms in hotels and taverns, because liquors were sold there but he had already shown that if the law were carried out there was a legal remedy for everything in the nature of disorder which might take place. Although the clause struck at the business

    195
    carried on in licensed premises, it would have the effect of protecting coffee taverns and temperance hotels, and, thereby, the honest trader who took out a licence would be placed at a great disadvantage. That was not fair or upright dealing in any way; and he felt sure there must be something at the bottom of it. He said that legislation of the kind proposed was not only pernicious, but humiliating. He was satisfied that the Attorney General himself must have attended committee rooms not only at respectable hotels, but at the public-houses in the borough of Taunton; and, that being so, it was impossible for him to conceive how the Hon. and learned Gentleman, after his distinguished career, could come down to that House and kick away the very ladder by which he had ascended to the Treasury Bench. But what was the cause of this zeal on the part of the Government? He believed it was duo to a desire to make things pleasant with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); they knew there was the temperance vote hanging over, and they wanted to get hold of it. As had been pointed out last night, the hon. and learned Gentleman had never given a vote on the liquor question; and if he had any opinion at all with regard to it he had kept it entirely to himself. His view of the case was that this unjust and un-English-like proposal to shut out a respectable class of men was entirely owing to the desire of the Government to obtain the votes of the Blue Ribbon Army, and perhaps of the Salvation Army also; on no other grounds could he understand this superstitious feeling against entering into those buildings in which liquor was licensed to be sold. His proposal did not go to the very root of the clause; but it would, to a certain extent, raise the principle which it contained; and, therefore, reserving to himself the right of future opposition, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, after the word "premises," to insert "within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could assure the
    196
    Committee that he was not about to follow his right hon. and learned Friend's somewhat discursive speech in all its details; and, although he made it a rule never to enter into any personal matters, he could assure his right hon. and learned Friend that he was entirely mistaken in his opinion with regard to the public-houses and hotels being used for the purpose of election committees in the constituency which he had the honour to represent. Both political Parties wore in the habit of holding their committee meetings in the Town Hall and temperance establishments. The clause was framed with the desire to prevent the corrupt practice of treating; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked him for proofs of the necessity of the clause he pointed to the Election Petitions, which would show that there had been a great deal of treating resulting from the transaction of business at elections in public-houses and hotels; and, therefore, he said that if the Committee were earnestly disposed to put a stop to this corrupt practice the clause was fully justified. But the right hon. and learned Member had pointed out that there were other means of corrupting people than by treating; and, in order to overcome that difficulty, he was willing to add, after the word "premises," in line 7, "or any other premises where refreshment shall be sold for consumption on the premises." In making this proposal, which, the Committee would perceive, brought temperance hotels within the clause, he trusted he had been able to do something to meet the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that exceptional legislation was intended against the Licensed Victuallers.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the Attorney General, by his proposal, had really increased the strength of the objection which his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven had taken to the clause, inasmuch as he had materially enlarged the number of rooms or premises where these committees could not be held. It appeared to him that, throughout the Bill, the Government had considered far too exclusively the circumstances of large towns. It might be perfectly right and proper that committees should not beheld in public-houses in towns even of moderate size; but every Member of the Com-

    197
    mittee would know that there were rural districts in England in which it would he impossible to find for the use of the candidate a committee room of suitable size, unless it were in public-houses, or in the private houses of electors of some position in the district. What would be the effect of this proposal? The houses belonging to private individuals would, no doubt, be readily opened as committee rooms, with or without charge, to the candidate with whose politics the owner agreed; but, just as in the case of the prohibition of hired conveyances, the present restriction would very materially affect the poorer class of candidates. He did not want to look at this question from a point of view favourable to any political Party, but from an impartial one; because he was sure that if they left in the clause anything that was in the nature of injustice they would make the provisions of the Bill unpopular. The Committee had decided that payment for carriages at elections should be an illegal act, and he would point out that that provision could only be carried into effect by very materially increasing the existing number of polling places. Now, for each of those polling places there must be a committee room; but he ventured to say that there would be, in many rural parts of England, places where by no possibility a suitable committee room could be found for the candidate who happened to be politically disagreeable to the principal inhabitants of the district where the election was to be held, except in a public-house, or a very inconvenient one in some small house. That was not a desirable result to be achieved; and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, even if he did not approve the Amendment before the Committee, would adopt some wording which would have the effect of relaxing the stringency of the clause in cases where it was impossible to obtain a proper committee room.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, no one would suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman who just spoken would take any Party view of the question. For a long time there had been a grievance felt throughout the country, owing to the large growth of clubs; and now, for the first time, it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government that there should be an equality of legislation between licensed houses and
    198
    private establishments in which intoxicating liquors were sold. He strongly suggested to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to withdraw his Amendment; because the point which it raised could, in his opinion, be much better discussed on the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton); and, further, if the Amendment were withdrawn the Committee would be able to proceed to the consideration of the very important alteration of which the Attorney General had given Notice, and which, in his opinion, was deserving of the most serious attention of the Committee, inasmuch as it proceeded on lines of equality and justice.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, before the Question was put to the Committee, he wished to say a few words, because he did not see why boroughs were to be entirely shut out from the use of committee rooms in public-houses. In his own borough it was perfectly impossible to address the constituents in the out-lying districts unless public-houses were availed of in which there were large rooms, such as those generally used by the Oddfellows, Foresters, and other Friendly Societies. He had the honour to represent a large borough, in which it was impossible to conduct a house-to-house canvass; and the only way in which it was possible for a candidate to lay his political views before the electors was to make use of the accommodation offered by public-houses in the various districts. The Attorney General, by this clause of the Bill, and by the restrictions he was about to place on the clubs, entirely cut away from him the possibility of addressing his constituents. He would like to know how they were to meet their constituents, if they were to be debarred from the use of the large rooms which had been constantly used for the purpose of addressing the electors? Where there was a bonâ fide club, which had been kept up by the working class for a long time, and at which they were accustomed to discuss political matters on both sides of the question, he could not see the logic of prohibiting that club room from being used at elections. If the Government intended to carry out this proposal it was equivalent to depriving the constituencies of the right of listening to

    199
    their Members; because it was impossible to find, in any other buildings than public-houses, rooms sufficiently spacious to contain a large number of electors. He was as anxious as the Attorney General himself to abolish all improper and illegal practices at elections; but this proposal of the Government would have no less effect than to prevent candidates from meeting their constituents, unless suitable rooms capable of containing a large number of persons were provided for them. For these reasons, he trusted the hon. and and learned Gentleman would reconsider the clause with a view to its alteration.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEagreed that there were assembly rooms in many parts of the country which were used by candidates for the purpose of addressing their constituents, and which were in connection with public-houses. But this clause did not touch such cases.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had conclusively proved that it would be impossible to get committee rooms in many parts of the country if the clause remained unaltered. It had been suggested, however, that the necessary accommodation might be found in private houses. He could not conceive a greater incentive to treating than such an alternative; for instance, a candidate might hold his committee in the drawing-room, and it would be a very easy matter to say to the electors—"If you require any refreshment you have only to step into the opposite room; nobody will see you." When they came to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), he trusted the Attorney General would pay some attention to the fact that it was impossible to obtain committee rooms in many places; and provide that, in the event of there being no suitable room available, the candidate should be allowed to hire one of the usual places through the Returning Officer.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, it would be well for the Committee to remember, in the first place, that there had been a great tendency to encourage the use of more committee rooms than were at all necessary, and that a great deal of the discussion then going on was entirely useless, because the committee rooms which some Members were contending
    200
    for were really not wanted. Having been born in a rural parish, and having had considerable experience in matters of this kind, he believed there was no difficulty whatever in finding the necessary accommodation for electoral purposes wherever it was required. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) complained that the Government prohibited the use of public-houses, and that he would not have in consequence an opportunity of addressing his constituents in the out-lying districts of that borough. He thought the hon. Member, quite unconsciously, of course, had exaggerated the effect of the clause. He had himself attended, on one occasion, a meeting at Portsmouth, which was held at a place where he was certain it would be possible to gather together and address, in the course of a fortnight, the whole of the electors of the borough. The fact was, the Attorney General had acted very wisely and sensibly in introducing this provision, which he was sure would meet with the approval of a considerable number of people in the constituencies. That would be the view taken of the endeavour of the hon. and learned Gentleman to put down and prohibit the use of any place for election purposes where intoxicating liquors were sold. No one was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven should put his foot down for the maintenance of the old tap-room Caucuses; because, when they were abolished, he would probably find very considerable difficulty in carrying on some of those electoral arrangements of which he had, no doubt, had a large experience.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to Order. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman opposite was referring to him in terms that were not consistent with Parliamentary usage.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had listened to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, and he was unable to say that they were in any way out of Order.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he did not mean to offer any affront to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had considerable electioneering experience, and, moreover, expressed himself strongly in favour of the old system of conducting elections in tap-rooms. He thought the Attorney General had taken a distinct

    201
    step in the right direction; and he hoped that he would not listen to any appeal to recede from the position he had taken up. He did not for a moment expect—and he very much doubted whether the Committee expected—that the Attorney General would be able to satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven by his concession. It was not the desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that committee rooms should be prohibited at licensed houses; but it was his desire that they should be permitted in the future, as in the past, to be associated with the bad beer, and worse tobacco, which had the effect of confusing the electors, and preventing their forming any intelligible idea of the candidate's political opinions.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) that he had not intended to make any reflection on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven; but, whatever his intention was, he, and other hon. Members on those Benches, certainly understood him to attribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman an illegal practice. He would only say that the tone of the hon. Member's remarks were not likely to contribute to the progress of the Bill. They were all agreed upon the desirability of altering the law in such a way as would conduce to the purity of election. That was certainly his wish. He could not support the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, because it would introduce a very invidious state of things if they were to allow in counties that which they prohibited in boroughs. It was all very well for his right hon. and learned Friend, who represented a constituency of 19,000 inhabitants, to make that proposal; but in his own constituency, which contained 450,000 inhabitants, it was necessary to work upon totally different lines. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman below him had contended that the clause should not apply to counties, because of the difficulty of obtaining in some poor and scattered districts committee rooms of sufficiently large dimensions. But the difficulty which the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to as existing in counties was certainly to be met with in his own constituency. In a large number of the polling districts of
    202
    the Tower Hamlets the houses were all small; and if the use of the large rooms only to be found in public-houses were prohibited, he would certainly be shut out from addressing his committee in any large numbers. Through that a candidate might be unable, at the time of the election, to address any large meeting. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) said, that was not so."] He would give an illustration of a case which would certainly come under the clause. He himself was constantly in the habit of going round and addressing meetings of his committee. In a large borough, like the Tower Hamlets, the committee was composed of an immense number of persons—indeed, as many as could be got to join it—and he was in the habit of going round in the evening to address meetings of the committee. Those meetings were always largely attended, and they were looked upon as stimulating the efforts of the committee; and he could conscientiously say that if he was prohibited from holding them in the large rooms attached to public-houses it would be impossible to hold them at all, as those were the only rooms suitable to the purpose. It was often very essential that the candidate should be able to address his committee on their various duties, and on the necessity of their doing their utmost in the interests of the cause. That was why he objected to the provisions of this clause, and why he could not support the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). That Amendment drew a distinction which ought not to be drawn between counties and boroughs, and he should vote, himself, for the entire omission of the clause.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was surprised to hear the Attorney General say that he intended to treat clubs established in boroughs as if they were low drinking houses, and as if they were otherwise open to the objection which, no doubt, existed to public-houses. In regard to public-houses, he quite admitted that there were serious objections, indeed, to committee meetings being held in them. He had known in his own case that public-houses were often used as committee rooms, and that an opportunity was thereby afforded for giving free drink

    203
    to persons who visited the committee rooms. Therefore, he went entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in his desire to put a stop to this abuse; and certainly any sale of drink at a committee room which would degenerate into the giving of drink was a proceeding which they would all wish to avoid. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went beyond that, as he (Mr. Rylands) understood. The Attorney General proposed to extend the provision which he applied to licensed houses to respectable clubs which had been established for political purposes in all the large towns of the country. He could only speak in regard to Liberal Clubs; he knew very little about the Conservative Clubs, but he knew the Liberal Clubs of Lancashire very well. He was intimately connected with them, and he understood all about them in his own borough. In the principal polling districts in his borough there were Liberal Clubs, which had been established, and were supported by a number of highly respectable working men who took an active interest in politics. In two or three cases he believed that drink was sold in the clubs; but, as a rule—and he stated it on the best authority—the amount of drink purchased in the clubs was very slight indeed. The management and conduct of the clubs was in the highest degree respectable. What happened in connection with them? Many of his Liberal friends connected with the several polling districts of the borough were in the habit of meeting, from time to time, at the club, to keep an eye upon the general political interests of the ward. He presumed that his political opponents did the same in their clubs, and it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. In the Liberal Clubs political discussions were encouraged among the persons connected with the Association. He was sorry that the Attorney General was not paying very much attention to what he was saying, as he was particularly anxious that the hon. and learned Gentleman should receive some information upon these points. He was informing the hon. and learned Gentleman that in Lancashire the proposal contained in this clause would create a very large amount of irritation and annoyance; and he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman to carry in his mind what it
    204
    was that actually went on amongst the large constituencies of Lancashire. In the different wards of the large Lancashire boroughs the Liberal Party, and no doubt the Conservative Party also, met in their clubs, and at the time of an election those clubs were naturally the centres of the political influence of the respective wards. Then, were they going to shut up these clubs? ["No!"] If the Amendment were adopted, he understood that it would have that effect. What was proposed was, that in these clubs, where drink was only a minor incident in their constitution, no room should be used as a committee room. Well, he contended that that was a monstrous proposition, and that it struck at the political life of the great centres of the population. ["Oh!"] Certainly it did so. He could not ac-count for the desire of the Attorney General to attack these Political Clubs, which, in his (Mr. Rylands's) judgment were most useful. He must say that he thought this proposal ought not to be proceeded with, and he trusted that the Attorney General would withdraw the clause.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that what he had heard from his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) afforded a good lesson. As long as things were favourable to the Party who sat below the Gangway on the other side of the House, and so long as the penalties only affected that (the Opposition) side of the House, so long were hon. Members opposite anxious that the Bill should go on; but the moment it came to deal with that which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) held to be a most legitimate thing, whether in regard to one side or the other—namely, all these clubs, which were established in different localities—that moment the hon. Gentleman got up and denounced the clause as one of a highly objectionable nature, and one which ought not to be allowed to pass. They had a Maximum Schedule in the Bill, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had been going into far too many details. From the beginning to the end, the hon. and learned Gentleman had attempted to show that the people of this great country were not to be trusted for a moment whenever they came to an election; but that every one of them

    205
    were more or less absolutely corrupt. The hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that nothing in the shape of temptation should be placed in their way, and that they should not have the power of getting a glass of anything to drink, or a mouthful of anything to eat. He wished to call attention to one of the statements which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he gathered from it that the hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely going to prevent any room whatever from being used as a committee room, or for any purpose in connection with an election, because the words of the clause were very strong—
    "Any premises on which the sale by wholesale or retail of any intoxicating liquor is authorized by a licence (whether the licence be for consumption on or off the premises), or any premises whore any intoxicating liquor is sold, or any part of any such premises, shall not be used as a committee room for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election; and if any person hires or uses any such premises, or any part thereof for a committee room, he shall be guilty of illegal hiring, and the person letting such premises or part, if he knew it was intended to use the same as a committee room, shall also be guilty of illegal hiring."
    Consequently, wherever the room might be situated, if drink of any kind was sold on the premises, such room was prohibited from being used at an election time as a committee room. He ventured to say that the words uttered some time ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were words that ought not to be passed lightly over. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) knew what the rural districts were, and also what large towns were; and if they were to draw this hard-and-fast line around the candidate, they would place him in a position of the greatest difficulty in regard to obtaining committee rooms at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he knew anything about elections in this country—and it was his bounden duty to make inquiries as to every part of England, so as not to place any candidate in a difficulty as to obtaining committee rooms—if the Attorney General knew anything of such matters, he must know that in the county districts the only places in many localities where there was a room at all was at the back of an inn, where there was usually a large room used for the meet-
    206
    ing of Foresters and other kindred Associations. No other room could be obtained at all. He would ask if the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the Committee where rooms fit for this purpose could be procured on the occasion of an election? If the candidate was a popular man, people would come from long distances to hear what he had to say, and the rooms in which he addressed the electors would be crowded. He must say he thought the Government were carrying this clause a great deal too far. He was in favour of putting down bribery and corruption; but a few good and well-considered clauses would have been quite sufficient, without going so much into petty details. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to pass the Bill he must make many concessions in regard to matters that were absolutely necessary.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the Bill went too far; but the House had assented to the principle, and they were now simply engaged in giving effect to that principle. He thought the alteration proposed to be made in the clause was distinctly in the right direction. It was a just cause of complaint that a person should be placed in an invidious position, and a ban put upon him, because he sold an article which was recognized by the community and the Legislature as a legitimate article of commerce. He thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would make a commendable change. There were clubs which were public-houses in a complete sense; and he thought the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet with general acceptance. He thought that the application of the change was misunderstood. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these clubs were not to be used as committee rooms; but a club room might be used for a public meeting. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said he would not be able, after the clause was passed, to go to a club and address a meeting. He (Mr. Cowen) did not understand the clause to prohibit anything of the kind. There was nothing that would prevent an hon. Member from visiting any club in the borough he represented and making as many speeches as he liked. All the

    207
    clause prohibited was the establishment of a committee room where the business of the election would be carried on. There was no objection to the hon. Member addressing a meeting in any assembly room he might select. He would be quite as open to do so in the future as he had done in the past; but the clause would prohibit the transaction of the business of an election in clubs as well as in public-houses, where liquor was sold. In that respect, he thought the clause had a tendency to equalize all parties. Hon. Members would be aware that there were two kinds of clubs. There were clubs and clubs. There were clubs of which he did not wish to speak harshly; and, therefore, he would only say that he had no special liking for a Caucus Club.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEwished to ask the Attorney General how such a case as this would stand? In the borough he had the honour to represent (Exeter), a Political Club existed containing a large room for the use of which it was expected that the borough and county Conservative Associations would pay an annual rent, and employ it for a committee room or other similar purposes. Members of the Club had a right to use the room in their individual capacities; and he wished to know if it would be illegal for them to hold meetings at election time in what might be regarded as a committee room? As far as he understood the Attorney General's meaning, the effect of his proposal would be that A, B, and C might not meet together as members of an election committee, but might do so as members of a Political Association.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was a matter of interpretation. In the case which the hon. Member had put to him, it was certainly intended that the clause should not apply in any way. In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he would only say that they might hold as many meetings as they liked for the purpose of addressing their constituents. The large rooms capable of containing many persons were not the rooms they wanted for committee rooms, and the clause, as it was now worded, would not affect them. The intention of the clause was to pre-
    208
    vent the carrying on of the business of the election, from day to day during the time of the election, at a place in which intoxicating liquors were sold. Hon. Members knew very well how the business of an election was conducted in such places.
    MR. RITCHIEasked if it was not competent for a candidate to assemble his committee at a public-house for the purpose of addressing them?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would be quite within the competence of a candidate for the purpose of addressing them as much as he liked; but if they sent out canvassers from that committee it would be an ordinary committee room, transacting ordinary committee work. Gathering the committee together for the purpose of addressing them would certainly and distinctly not be within the clause. All they had to deal with was the question whether the business of the election should be conducted in a public-house where the means for carrying on these corrupt practices existed, and where temptation might be employed? Hon. Members wished to separate the question of clubs from the question of public-houses. He quite agreed that, in one sense, it was a matter of detail. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said there were altogether too many details in the Bill; but this was rather a serious and important question. The committee had been told that the matter would interfere with the whole basis of political life; but surely it was a very simple question, although a serious and important one, to say whether a committee room should be held at a public-house or not. He thought they might separate the question of a committee room being held in a public-house from the question of Political Clubs; and he would endeavour, if it was the wish of the Committee, to direct his attention to this matter, in order to see whether hereafter it might not be possible to include a provision in the Bill which should separate the club from the public-house.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the question was, no doubt, a very important one, especially if it was taken in conjunction with a subsequent Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord G. Hamilton), which pro-

    209
    vided that the premises of any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant should not be used as a committee room. It would become a serious matter, therefore, if there were no possibility of taking a club room for such a purpose. In regard to the question as it applied to large constituencies, he ventured to think that in large counties, like North-East Lancashire, North Lancashire, and Cumberland, if they excluded the possibility of taking rooms in a public house, and using them for committee rooms, there would be very great difficulty in obtaining rooms at all. He certainly failed to see how, in many cases, it would be possible to find a room; and when they came to consider the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex he should certainly support it. He should have a great deal to say bye and bye in regard to the question of clubs; but, in deference to the suggestion which had just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that they should postpone the consideration of that question now, he would defer those remarks for the present.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the sop which the Attorney General bad thrown out to the Temperance Party would before long be found a very disagreeable matter for digestion. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman had yielded to the representation of some of the purists of the House with reference to the exclusion of public-houses. He thought a favourable addition would be made to the clause if it proposed to include coffee-houses, because in many respects they were much more objectionable than public-houses, and bore a worse character. He certainly thought the more they were brought under supervision, not only during elections, but at all other times, the better it would be for the public morality. It was suggested that rooms would be obtainable in every constituency without having regard to the public-house. Now, he had had the honour of assisting to conduct the first election of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in 1874. At that time he had charge of the Murrough district, and there was not a single house in the district except the priest's, the Protestant minister's, the schoolmaster's, and the public-house. He had addressed a meeting of 200
    210
    electors from the window of the public-house, and he had used the tap-room as a committee room. ["Oh!"] Yes; it was quite true that he did so, and he was made welcome to it without payment. He thought there were very few of the temperance advocates who would give the use of a coffee shop without requiring payment for it. In two places in his own county, he had had no other house to go to than the public-house. There was no other house in the parish except the police barracks, the Protestant and Catholic clergymen's residences, the house of the National schoolmaster, and one or two private houses. Therefore, if they carried this clause so far as Ireland was concerned, they would altogether prevent a candidate from addressing his constituents in certain remote districts. Legislation of this kind might be all very well in a Parliamentary borough where there were plenty of large public buildings; but in the country districts of Ireland such places were not to be found. The clause said—
    "Such premises shall not he used as a committee room for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election, and if any person hires or uses any such premises or any part thereof for a committee room he shall he guilty of illegal hiring."
    His objection would be largely removed if the Attorney General would add some words to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), to which he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to assent—namely, that the clause should only apply to a public-house which was used from day to day as a committee room. If the clause were passed in its present shape, and a case were brought before the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, he should like to know how Chief Justice Morris would deal with an unfortunate candidate who had used a room in a public-house once a-week for a month? High as the character of the Attorney General was as a lawyer, his remarks would not form the slightest guide to an Irish Judge in deciding what came under the operation of the clause. If anyone hired a room in one of these public-houses he would be guilty of illegal hiring, and would subject himself to the penalties imposed for illegal practices. Nobody who employed a public-house as a committee room, whether he was a Member of Parlia-

    211
    ment, or a candidate, or an election agent, would be knowingly guilty of the offence of illegal employment. But what was a committee room? If the Attorney General would define what a committee room was a great deal of the difficulty would be removed. It had been his fate to contest both a borough and a county, and in each case he had a bed room and a sitting room at an hotel, and he was in the habit of using the sitting room as a committee room. His friends went to him there, discussed confidentially with him what the state of the district was, what promises had been given, who were reliable and who were doubtful, and who ought to be called upon. That was simply committee work; and under this clause the room in which it took place would be held to be a committee room. But was he to be disqualified because half-a-dozen friends went to his sitting room at the hotel and transacted electioneering work there? If a Petition were presented against him he would be compelled to admit that he went over the election books, and that he used the room in every sense as a confidential committee room. If he wanted to address the electors he was obliged to address them from the windows of a public-house; and when he had finished addressing them he naturally went down stairs and mixed among them to ascertain what the state of feeling was. Probably he arranged who was to canvass the district, and because those things happened there, was the room to be called a committee room? If the Attorney General would put words into the clause, or into the Bill, showing that if a man made use of a room in a public-house in order to meet his friends, ascertain their views, and arrange for canvassing the district, the room he used was not to be considered a committee room, then his objections would be removed.
    MR. E. STANHOPEdesired to point out to the Attorney General that, so far from meeting the objection which had been raised by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), he had introduced a fresh difficulty into the matter. His right hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, in regard to the country districts, how difficult it was to obtain a room. He could fully support what his
    212
    right hon. and learned Friend had said, and he believed the same difficulty was felt even in the case of boroughs, and that it would be extremely difficult to get any other place for a committee room in the centre of a polling district than a public-house. If the public-house was prohibited they would have no alternative but to borrow or hire a room in the house of some elector living in the village—he was speaking now of county elections—and that would be open to the gravest objection. If they could not go to the public-house, they would have no other means of obtaining a committee room left open to them. In most county constituencies a candidate desired to meet his committee in each polling district before the day of election, in order that he might address them, and discuss with them the proper steps to be taken in conducting the contest, and in many cases, if the candidate was prohibited from engaging, for that purpose, a room in a public-house, he would have no means of addressing his committee at all. The Attorney General said the candidate might hire a room in an inn for that purpose, and that he might hold a meeting in that room; but he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman at all met the objections of his right hon. and learned Friend. On the contrary, it threw a fresh difficulty in the way.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he thought the experience the House had had of the Bill proved that every clause contained a pitfall for the candidate, and that the present clause surpassed in ingenuity all the other traps contained in the preceding clauses. The Attorney General told them that they might use a room in a public-house for the purpose of holding a meeting; but if at that meeting any unwary man who happened to be present took out his canvassing book and referred to the events of the past two hours, or was induced to anticipate a canvass two hours later, that act would constitute the room a committee room under the Act. A clause of that sort was, in his opinion, absolutely absurd. Any unscrupulous opponent might attend a meeting ostensibly for the purpose of hearing a speech, and he might induce an unwary elector to take out his canvassing book and make a communication to the candidate for the purpose of giving information, in con-

    213
    sequence of which the candidate might be unseated for using a public-house as a committee room. He would also point out to the Attorney General that this clause would contribute very materially towards increasing the expenses of an election. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had remarked that in a large borough constituency like his, and also like that which he (Baron Henry De Worms) represented, it was the custom on both sides to address meetings of the electors in the committee rooms. Of course, they were obliged to hire rooms for those meetings, and if they were obliged to obtain others for committee rooms, it would add a considerable item to the expense. It was not now necessary to obtain special rooms for the purpose of holding a meeting; but they were able to make use of the committee rooms. If, however, this clause passed in its present shape, the candidate would have to incur the additional expense of engaging separate rooms for addressing public meetings. He should be glad to know on what principle the Attorney General proposed to exclude the use of committee rooms for that purpose? He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it was for the purpose of preventing treating; but he (Baron Henry De Worms) wished to know whether the facilities for treating would not be exactly the same in the case of holding a meeting in a public-house, as they would be in that of men sitting round a table in a public-house for the purpose of comparing notes in reference to the canvass? Of course, it might be alleged that the meeting only lasted one evening, whereas the work of a committee would go on for many days; but if it was argued that it was improper to have a committee room at a public-house because it would promote the practice of treating, then that argument was certainly applicable to the holding of a committee in a public-house for any purpose whatever. The hon. and learned Member now went further, and said that they should neither hold a meeting at a public-house nor at a club—acting on the principle of two wrongs making one right. If the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted the principle of the right of a candidate to address the constituents in a room attached to a public-house, he (Baron Henry De Worms) could not understand
    214
    on what principle the hon. and learned Gentleman could exclude the use of a room at a public-house for any purpose whatever. He knew that he might be told that a committee sitting permanently in a public-house would produce drinking; and that any sort of Political Club, where drinking was allowed, ought to be placed under the same category as a public-house. He thought that at least a clause ought to be introduced specifying that particular rooms might or might not be used for the purpose of holding a meeting; that in such rooms drink might not be supplied, but the number of glasses of water which each speaker might drink should be fully set out in the Bill. They were arriving now at a point where they were making the restrictions under the Bill so severe that they would always be evaded; and they were so absurd that the friends of the candidates, on both sides, would be wary before they attempted to put the provisions of the Act in force, because they would be fully acquainted with the absurd stringency of the punishment which would be inflicted on one side or the other in the event of a person being found guilty under the Act. He was not in favour of anything like corrupt practices or treating; but he had had some experience in connection with contested elections, and he was satisfied that a clause of this sort would be utterly absurd, arbitrary, and unworkable.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had an Amendment later down upon the Paper somewhat on the lines of the suggestion of the Attorney General. He thought the Committee would agree that, as far as the statement of the Attorney General went, it greatly modified the clause. At the same time, when the proper moment arrived, he should vote for the rejection of the clause altogether, because he believed that it was the most monstrous proposition he had ever heard; that it would prove utterly unworkable; and that it was not only a pitfall to the candidate himself, but a pitfall to every member of his committee. Where was a candidate to go during an election? If he went to a public-house, the Attorney General ruled that it would be illegal for six or seven of his committee to go there and compare the day's work. Surely that was a thing that was constantly done, and must be done, in the conduct of an election. He had done it himself over and

    215
    over again; and he ventured to say that there had been no illegal practices resorted to, so far as his knowledge went. Certainly the gentlemen he had met on such occasions never treated him to anything, nor had he ever treated them. Under the provisions of the present Bill, the working men were treated as if they were perfect children. They would not know where to go, or what to do, or how they were to carry on the election. He should not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), who proposed to exclude a church or chapel registered or licensed for the performance of public worship from being used as a committee room, because he thought those were the very places where a farce of this kind ought to be enacted, in order to show the solemn character of an election proceeding after the passing of the Bill. He presumed that it was intended in future to exclude places such as the Westminster Palace Hotel from being used for the purposes of a committee room. He thought it was absurd to say that a candidate should not have a committee there, or in some of the old county hotels. He believed, if this clause were passed as it stood, that there would be great difficulty, not only in the rural districts, but in the boroughs as well, in obtaining committee rooms. All he said was this—that if they did eliminate public-houses, they ought to eliminate other places where refreshments of any kind were sold. They ought not to hold a committee room over a butcher's or a baker's shop, because he believed an enormous amount of treating would take place at these shops—much more than in public-houses. The clause was utterly absurd and utterly unworkable; and how the Attorney General, with all his experience of elections, could propose it, he could not conceive.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERdesired to say a word in regard to this clause, because he believed the constituency he had the honour to represent differed to a very considerable extent from that of any other Parliamentary borough or city, except, perhaps, the City of Westminster, which was very much in the same position. In the City of London the rent of rooms was simply enormous, and he did not see how a candidate was to conduct an election in conformity with the pro-
    216
    visions of the Bill unless some special arrangement was made to allow him to hire committee rooms. He was disposed generally to be favourable to the proposition of the Attorney General that committee rooms should not be hired in public-houses; but, at the same time, the hon. and learned Gentleman must bear in mind that while the great object of this Bill was to diminish expense, this particular proposal must necessarily increase the cost of elections in large constituencies. Therefore, it was a proposal that could scarcely be adopted. A publican would lend a candidate his room for a committee room almost for nothing. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laughed; but he thought he was stating a well-known fact, and he might add that the publican did so for this reason. Quite independent of any improper proceeding, or of any treating or corruption, it brought people to the publican's house. Such people wanted refreshments, but they paid for them out of their own pockets. It was, consequently, worth while for the publican to let the candidate have a committee room for a very small sum. That being the case, although he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was disposed to think the proposition otherwise a good one, it was undoubtedly a proposition to increase the expense of elections. Speaking of his own constituency, it would affect them probably more than any other, because the expense of engaging committee rooms would be simply enormous, and he would ask the consideration of the learned Attorney General to that point. The rent of a committee room in Cheap-side, for instance, would be a very different item from the rent of one in Taunton. Probably he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would have to pay 20 times as much as the Attorney General; and, under those circumstances, he felt that it was a matter which required to be very carefully considered, because, although he admitted that it was a good proposition not to have committee rooms in public-houses, the proposal, if carried out, would tend largely to increase the expense of elections.
    MR. WARTONremarked, that one of the most irritating things in connection with this Bill was the cool way in which the Attorney General pooh-poohed facts that were undisputed, relying upon the support of the majority behind him.

    217
    The hon. and learned Gentleman could say nothing, but he was ready to deny anything. He (Mr. Warton) would, however, make an appeal from the Attorney General as a Member of the Government to the Attorney General as a lawyer. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished advocate, and knew very well how to regard evidence in a Court of Justice. He would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how, supposing six hon. Members—the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie)—how, supposing all those witnesses came into Court before the Attorney General, and told him, as a matter of fact, that in their respective constituencies committee rooms could not be obtained except at a public-house, he would receive their evidence? Would he not at once say that he could not resist the evidence? Undoubtedly he would, because in a Court of Justice he would be guided by common sense; whereas in that House he allowed himself to be led away by the feeling of the majority behind him. The scheme proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been shown to be utterly impracticable, both in counties and boroughs. It was all very well for the Attorney General to sneer at the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven; but that did not answer the fact stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that in his constituency he would be unable to obtain a committee room. Sneers and jeers were not argument or evidence; and the hon. and learned Gentleman was driven to something worse than legal subtleties in order to make distinctions in which he even surpassed himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—"You may address your committee in any room you like; but it does not become your committee room." He (Mr. Warton) certainly felt inclined to take the Attorney General at his word, and to advise that on every occasion when a room in a public-
    218
    house was so used, some such notice as this should be put up:—"Nota bene—I intend to address my committee repeatedly in this room; but it is not my committee room." He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would sanction such nonsense in a Court of Justice; he only sanctioned it while sitting on the Treasury Bench. He (Mr. Warton) entirely saw through the design of the hon. and learned Gentleman in this particular case. He was holding with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman desired to strike a blow at the Licensed Victuallers. He disliked and hated them; and this clause was drawn, first, to do injury to respectable traders in the country, who, although they carried on their business under legal restrictions, were a respectable and an honourable set of men. In the next place, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to reject the clubs; but, in consequence of suggesting that no committee rooms should be allowed to be held in a club in which intoxicating drinks were sold, the hon. and learned Gentleman found himself subjected to a terrific onslaught from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who told him that if he took away the use of the club rooms he would hear of the matter again from Lancashire. He (Mr. Warton) asked the Attorney General to have sufficient good sense to dismiss from the Bill these ridiculous clauses, which would only add to the expense of elections, and would produce no good effect whatever. The laws against treating were already sufficiently severe, and it was all nonsense to say that they would be promoting treating by permitting a committee room to be held in a public-house. Were they to have two classes of committee rooms at a greatly increased cost—one outside a public-house, and another in a public-house, where a candidate might address a meeting of his committee? He entreated the Attorney General to get rid of the two inconsistencies which disfigured the Bill, one of which laid down minute and vexatious principles, and threw an undeserved imputation upon one of the most respectable trades in the country, while the other would cause candidates to run imminent risk of exceeding the maximum scale of expenses allowed under the Act.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but the remarks which had been made by the Attorney General in answer to his observations must not be passed over without notice. He had certainly made a complaint that the clause would prevent a candidate from addressing a meeting of his committee; but he understood now that if he hired rooms in a public-house, for the purpose of addressing a meeting of a committee, it would be legal. He wished to know if the hon. and learned Gentleman had considered the full significance of that fact? They had passed clauses of the Bill already saying that the candidate should only have a certain number of committee rooms, and they had passed a clause that he was not to pay for the display of bills. He could understand why he should not pay for the display of bills, and why he should only have a certain number of committee rooms; but now it was to be open to the candidate to engage rooms in every public-house of the borough in addition to his committee rooms, in which to hold meetings of the committee for the purpose of addressing them, and he might be able to placard the whole of those public-houses with bills convening the meetings. The consequence would be, if the suggestions of the Attorney General were accepted, that the provisions they had already passed, in regard to the display of bills and the limitation of committee rooms, would altogether be set aside.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had informed the Committee that the holding of meetings in a public-house would not be against the clause. If that was the conviction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be as well to insert words to that effect in the clause; because, although the hon. and learned Gentleman might hold that opinion, it did not follow that an Election Judge would take the same view as the Attorney General. At the present moment, if a candidate hired a large room in a public-house for meetings, it was usual to give him the use of a back room for the purpose of a committee room for nothing. The present proposal would, therefore, add to the election expenses of the candidate; be-cause, instead of having a committee
    220
    room for nothing, he would have to pay for the use of it, and also for the large room, which it would be necessary to hire for the purpose of addressing meetings of the committee. In the borough of Portsmouth there were about 20,000 electors. By the Schedule attached to the Bill, he would be allowed to have a committee room for every 500 voters, which would give 40 rooms altogether. But at the last election there were, as a matter of fact, 32 districts and 32 committee rooms, and now in future it would be necessary to have 40. He would have to bear the expense of those committee rooms, and beyond that the expense of rooms for holding meetings. Those requirements would add materially to the expense of an election, and the cost would be still heavier, if he was not allowed to make use of the clubs which existed at this moment, and which had been created for political purposes. They wore not spurious, but real and legitimate clubs, in which political discussions were already carried on. He thought the Attorney General would facilitate matters a good deal, if he were to insert in the clause words which would govern the decision of the Judge, and which would provide that the holding of a committee at a public-house would not be against the principle of the clause. But as the effect of the clause would be materially to increase the expense of elections, he would suggest that the best way would be to withdraw the clause altogether.
    MR. LEWISobserved, that little as he attempted to modify any detail of the Bill under which the candidate would incur expense, the Attorney General, by this clause, proposed to do away with the only means a candidate possessed, in most localities, and especially in country districts, of holding meetings and engaging committee rooms. As a rule, in rural districts, the only place which candidates had at their command was the tavern of the village, or small country town. The hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to shut that up. If the Committee would turn to Clause 46, they would see how much further this annihilation of the ordinary means of providing a committee room was carried by the Bill. By Clause 46 it was provided that no part of any premises used by the Returning Officer for a polling station at an election should be used as

    221
    a committee room for a candidate at that election. Then, what would be the effect in a small country town? There might be in a village or country town, besides the public-house, some room or institution appropriated for public purposes; but that would be secured by the Returning Officer for the purpose of taking the poll. The tavern would be closed, which but for this clause might be resorted to by the candidate, and used as a committee room; while Clause 48 enacted that—
    "The same part of any premises, or different parts of the same premises, shall not he used on the day of the poll at an election for a polling station and also for a committee room for a candidate at that election."
    No doubt he would be told that the limitation only applied to the day of polling; but that was the day when it was wanted most, and when the candidate desired to concentrate ail his efforts. Perhaps the Committee would follow him a step further, and look at the next provision in Clause 46. Sub-section 2 said—
    "If any person uses any premises or any part thereof for a committee room in contravention of this section, or hires the same on behalf of a candidate at an election, when he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that part of such premises has been engaged or will be required by the Returning Officer for use as a polling station at the election, he shall be deemed to be guilty of illegal hiring."
    So that a man required to be possessed of the gift of prophecy, in order, among other things, that he might escape the penalties of the Bill. He knew that it was perfectly absurd for him to say anything further. He was sorry to say that many hon. Members seemed to take delight in providing means of embarrassment for candidates on the day of election. The idea that the Bill would decrease the expenses of an election was most prominent; but this clause, instead of narrowing the expenses, increased them. He had no wish to defend the interests of the Licensed Victuallers. He did not look upon the matter from that point of view at all. He did not look at it from the electioneering agent's point of view, or from the publican's point of view; but from the beginning to the end he had looked upon the Bill in reference to the interests of the candidate, the influence and effect it would have upon him, and the dangers with which it was surrounding him. This clause was only one of those
    222
    curious fetters forged by the Attorney General for the purpose of binding hand and foot an unfortunate candidate, and sending him to the poll in a distressed and embarrassed state of mind. What was a candidate for the City of London and other Metropolitan boroughs to do? Every public building would be closed against him. The Westminster Palace Hotel, in the City of Westminster, the Cannon Street Hotel, and all the old-fashioned taverns, formerly available, would be excluded from his use. Where was he to go? He would have to get an unoccupied house in a back street if he could find one. And how much would he have to pay for the use of a place of that kind for a month? It would be a very different matter if it were proposed to take the place for a year or seven years; but to let it for a month might cause a loss of the chance of letting it permanently; and, therefore, the owner would refuse to let it unless the candidate agreed to give him some £20 or £50. That was no fancy idea; but anybody who was acquainted with the City of London would know that it was likely to occur. Those who supported the Bill in all its intensity were setting up a sort of idol, to which they proposed to bow the knee at all hazards. Purity of election was their cry. He had no objection to purity of election; but they proposed to surround the candidate with all sorts of fences which were not really defences, and then to say to him, amid all these difficulties—"You must conduct your election with the utmost purity." It was nothing but playing with the difficulty which stared them in the face. He would take his own case. Whenever he was engaged in a contest in the City of Londonderry he stayed at the head hotel in that city. His friends called to see him there; the canvass books were on the table; they called to tell him they had been to see so-and-so to see which way he was going to vote. He was most happy to see them, and to talk over the result of their labours in a most friendly way. But could there be any doubt, after this clause was passed, that the room in which this took place might be decided to be a committee room? Judges would be found eager, and even greedy, to extend the law, and say that it was an offence. Hon. Members, who never intended to stand

    223
    for a constituency again, could shape the clause as they liked, because they would not feel the effect of it. But those who had hopes of a future Parliamentary life wanted to see how they could practically work an election. He hoped the Committee would not part with the clause until they had exhausted every effort to make it a sensible and a working clause, not in the interests of the publicans, for whom he did not care one jot, or in the interests of any voter, but in the interests and for the safety and protection of the candidate.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) in the hope he had expressed, that the Committee would not part with the clause until they had made it a sensible and a working clause; and he, therefore, thought they had better direct their efforts to that object. The hon. Member had referred to Clause 46. But he (the Attorney General) would remind the Committee that that clause was open to amendment when it was reached, if the Committee thought fit to amend it. It was said that the publicans would let candidates at election times have rooms cheaper in their houses than they could be obtained elsewhere, and that, in some cases, they would let the candidate have a large room for nothing. Why was that? It was on account of the trade that went on there; it was because, at an election time, an abnormal amount of drinking went on at public-houses. There was generally a great congregation of people there, many of whom were electors and about to vote; the excitement in reference to the election was very great; and it was, therefore, advisable that committee rooms should not be held in such premises.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLremarked, that the people paid for their own drink.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was doubtful whether they always paid for it, and he should like to know what guarantee the noble Lord had that they did pay for it? He believed it was a pretty well-known fact that the publicans allowed persons at election time to consume drink pretty freely without paying for it, and the candidate not unfrequently had long scores brought against him after the
    224
    election was over. It was quite certain that many Members of the Committee had applications made to them after an election in regard to the consumption of drink which had taken place on particular premises, and at the instance of persons who were supposed to have had authority to order it, the drink itself having been consumed by electors. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had pointed out what a danger it would be in country places if persons went to the committee room and the least hospitality was displayed towards them. The danger would be greatly increased if the committee room was situated in a public-house; and he was afraid that in many cases the public-house would become, as a matter of fact, an open house with all its temptations. He knew there were many hon. Members who differed from that view; but he trusted that the discussion would not be prolonged, and he earnestly appealed to the Committee to consider whether the time had not now arrived when they ought to come to some decision in regard to the principle of the clause.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that any time had been lost, because they had been practically discussing all the Amendments which had been proposed to the clause; and, in regard to a clause of this kind, long experience convinced him that a general discussion in the first instance cleared the air to a great degree; and that, as a matter of fact, no time was, in reality, lost. The Attorney General said that economy and purity of election could not be promoted by the clause. Now, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not think that economy would be promoted by it, because candidates would find it very much more difficult in a great many places to obtain rooms from private persons, who had not been in the habit of letting out such rooms, than in a public-house. Then, as to purity of election, the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, quite properly, that under the clause as many meetings might be held in public-houses as the candidate liked; but there must be no committee meeting there. A candidate might meet his committee and address them at a public-house; but he must not have a regular committee room there. Now, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was very much afraid

    225
    that that was a trap, not intentionally so; but he feared that it might become one. If a candidate was in the habit of going about from public-house to public-house to make speeches, of meeting his committee, of seeing them before he went in to deliver his address, and then of seeing them again when he came out, the room in which those things took place would be held to be a committee room, and there would be great danger of overstepping the law. If they were to retain the clause, there ought to be a definition of what a committee room was, or otherwise the candidate would be over and over again caught in a trap. It would be quite natural when he was going to make a speech for the canvassers to get up and show their books; and, in that case, the Election Judges would hold that it was a committee room, and an illegal practice, because it was in excess of the number of committee rooms authorized under the Act, and that it had been paid for, for the purpose of holding a meeting. He was of opinion that far greater disadvantage would be reaped from the clause than advantage; and he hoped, before the discussion closed, that the Attorney General would be able to see his way to amend the clause very materially, or to withdraw it altogether.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he had risen several times in order to try and save the time of the Committee by suggesting to the Attorney General why a debate should not take place, and why it would be better to withdraw the clause. It must be quite clear to the Attorney General that the clause did not prohibit the hiring of any number of rooms for the purposes of the election; it only prohibited the use of rooms when they were hired as committee rooms. He had noticed, in the speeches of some of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the Front Opposition Benches, an assertion that committee rooms must be had for the work of the election, and that they could not be dispensed with. The right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), took that view of the question, believing that committee rooms were of the greatest possible assistance in the conduct of an election; and being willing, as usual, to throw over the boroughs whenever they
    226
    thought it expedient to do so, they were perfectly ready to prohibit the use of them in boroughs, as long as they might be retained in counties. Perhaps those right hon. Gentlemen would allow him to tell them that they were entirely mistaken. He believed they had never been engaged in a contested election at all, and he did not think they knew anything about an election contest. As a matter of fact, nothing was more useless in an election contest than a committee room, with the exception of a central room. What was called a district committee room was absolutely useless. Such rooms were spread all over a borough, and no work was done in them at all; they were merely rooms hired for the purpose of feeing the publicans who owned them, and as a means of spending money in the borough. Would this clause stop that practice at all? All it forbade was the use of the committee room; but there was no prohibition against the candidate hiring as many of these rooms as he liked all over the borough, whether at public-houses or not. It would not matter as long as they were not used for the purpose of committee rooms. Now, he would like to ask the Attorney General what was meant by the term "using a room for the purpose of a committee room?" Suppose he (Mr. Gorst) hired a room in a public-house to meet his constituents, what would make it a committee room? He believed that people would go into it, would sit in it of an evening, would smoke their pipes there, and would call for something to drink; perhaps they would not always pay for it themselves, but it would be paid for by others, whose motives it would be for the Election Judges to find out. Well, what would make that room a committee room? Because, whatever it was, they might depend upon it that particular thing would never be done. If it was the use of pen, ink, and paper which constituted the room a committee room, very good care would be taken that no pen, ink, or paper ever went into it; if sitting around a table constituted a committee room, they would take care that the people who went there sat against the walls. Whatever performance constituted the use of a committee room that performance would be avoided, and there would be nothing to prevent a room being

    227
    hired and drinking going on, unless this clause went a great deal further, and prohibited the hiring of more than a certain number of rooms for any purpose whatever. In that case it would he said to be an interference with the liberty of a candidate in addressing his constituents. Unless the hon. and learned Attorney General was prepared to carry the clause as far as that, he did not see what the good of the clause was. It would prohibit something which the candidate had a perfect right to do, and would leave quite open that which they desired to suppress—namely, the possibility of opening a number of rooms all over the constituency.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the Attorney General had made an appeal to the Committee not to protract the discussion, and he (Mr. Bentinck) would take the opportunity of stating the course he intended to pursue. He was bound to say that the discussion which had taken place had not satisfied him at all. He apologised to the hon. and learned Gentleman if any remark had fallen from him which the hon. and learned Gentleman considered to be of a personal character. He had not had the slightest intention of saying anything in the least degree disagreeable; and when he had alluded to the borough of Taunton he had only stated what happened during his own time—the time he represented the borough. It was always his practice to stay at one of the houses of entertainment in the borough—namely, an hotel. His right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had referred to a candidate living at one of these houses of public entertainment, and being waited upon by a committee, and he said that the candidate might, in consequence, find himself in a somewhat unpleasant position. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) hoped the Government would withdraw the clause, and, if necessary, bring up something new. At all events, it was quite certain that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire ought to be followed, and that a positive definition should be introduced into the Bill as to what a committee room was. What he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) proposed to do in this case was to withdraw the Amendment at present, because he thought that it might be more conveniently moved at the end of the clause.
    228
    That was the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), and it was one which he believed met with general support, and was the best course that could be adopted. Therefore, if the Committee would give its assent, he would adopt that suggestion. He had only one other observation to make, and it was in reference to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). The hon. Member seemed to be very angry with him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and had made some strong observations; but he was bound to say that he thought the hon. member had hit out rather wildly. The hon. Member talked of his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) being connected with a Caucus, and having to do with the distribution of bad tobacco and sour beer. Now, as a matter of fact, he never was a member of any Caucus; and as to bad tobacco and beer, he thought any hon. Member whose acquaintance he had the honour of enjoying would know that it had not been his practice to supply his friends with such articles; but, on the contrary, the best that could be procured for money. In regard to his election experience, the hon. Member showed a want of knowledge which he might easily have remedied by referring to the ordinary channels of communication. The hon. Member had spoken in terms of reprobation of the practices indulged in at his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) elections; but he could assure the hon. Member that the usual practice in connection with his elections was for him to be returned without any opposition at all. He really thought that the hon. Member must for a moment have fancied himself at a Trade Conference, where whenever he had a disagreeable opponent to deal with who was likely to occasion trouble he had him turned out. He did not think the hon. Member was likely to turn him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) out, and he was not in the least afraid of anything the hon. Member could say.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to enter a protest against the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that committee rooms were absolutely unnecessary. Of course, he was unable to say what the case was in regard to the borough represented by the

    229
    hon. and learned Gentleman; but he could speak for a much larger borough—namely, the one which he himself represented (Greenwich), and which was 13 square miles in extent. In that case, as in that of the large constituency of the Tower Hamlets, represented by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ritchie), committee rooms were absolutely necessary. One committee room in the centre of the district would be perfectly useless. He should like to call the attention of the Attorney General for one moment to a point upon which he wished to elicit from the hon. and learned Gentleman a clear statement—namely, whether or not they were to understand that although the number of committee rooms was limited by the previous clause, the number of rooms in which a candidate could hold meetings of his committee for the purpose of addressing them was unlimited? This was a very important matter. He was quite certain that the Attorney General had no wish to provide traps for the unwary to fall into; but unless some further explanation was given, the result would be that a candidate, although acting in perfect good faith, would inevitably fall into the pit provided for him by this clause.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was of opinion that if the manner in which the clause dealt with committee rooms was correctly stated by the Attorney General, the provision itself was perfectly worthless. The object of the clause, as he understood it, was to put down treating at an election; but if there was any one place where treating would take place to a large extent, it was the place where the clerks made out their canvass books, to enable the election to be carried on. According to the doctrine of the Attorney General, meetings might take place in public-houses, the candidate might call the committee together, hold communication with them publicly, and then privately give every facility for treating to any extent. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) was no advocate for treating the electors. Nothing could be more hazardous than for the candidate to have drinking going on among his committee and paid employés; but unless the principle of this clause was very much altered, he did not see how that evil was to be avoided. He believed that the most sensible thing would be for the Committee to ignore the clause altogether. If the clause was
    230
    intended to have any practical effect, it should prohibit the meeting of electors in a public-house, and the use of the public-house, or any other place where drink was consumed, altogether. If any other course were taken the candidate would simply hire a room, post up a placard to say "this is my committee room," and then the principal part of his supporters would go to a neighbouring public-house, and drink there just as much as if the committee room were actually in the public-house itself; and as far as the consumption of drink was concerned, the provision inserted in the Bill would have no practical effect whatever. Unless the clause were made much more stringent, he thought it would be just as well for the Attorney General to withdraw it altogether.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he thought there was a very simple answer to the point which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). His hon. Friend asked if he was to understand from the Attorney General that a candidate could hire as many rooms as he pleased for holding public meetings, provided they were not used as committee rooms? Now, if his hon. Friend would look at the Schedule he would find that Part II. showed the legal expenses of a candidate, in addition to the expenses under Part I., and one of those items was the expense of holding public meetings. Then, if he went on to Part IV, of the Schedule, he would find that the maximum scale for boroughs, where the number of members on the register did not exceed 2,000, was £350; where it did exceed 2,000, the maximum amount was £380, with an additional £30 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000. If the candidate wished to spend £350 in holding public meetings, he could do so in a constituency which did not exceed 2,000; and in a constituency exceeding that number he could go to the extent of £380, with an additional £30 for every 1,000 above 2,000.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Attorney General should give some kind of explanation in answer to the question which he had put, and which he considered to be a very important one.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had answered it already.
    MR. RITCHIEbegged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; he had not addressed himself to the point at all. Clause 6 made it an illegal practice to pay money on account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the first Schedule of the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that a candidate might hire a room in a public-house for the purpose of addressing a meeting of his committee; but that would not, of necessity, become a committee room, and the point, therefore, was this—that while the Schedule limited the number of committee rooms, the hon. and learned Gentleman was practically doing away with that limit by allowing the candidate to engage a room in every public-house in the borough for the purpose of addressing a meeting of his committee. The noble Viscount the Member for South Wiltshire (Viscount Folkestone) said the expenditure was controlled by the maximum set forth in the Schedule, and that was just what he (Mr. Ritchie) complained of. In addition to fixing a maximum, they were limiting the number of committee rooms, and yet were abolishing that limitation by saying that the candidate might hire a room in every public-house in the place for the purpose of addressing his committee. He wanted to know how the Attorney General intended to meet that point?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid that he must intrude himself upon the attention of the Committee once more, or otherwise he might appear to be discourteous to the hon. Member who compelled him to do so. He certainly thought that he had answered the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman and also by other hon. Members.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had spoken three times, but he had not yet received an answer.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. member had spoken very often, no doubt. The object of the clause was to meet the case of committee meetings being held in public-houses, where meetings might be held in secret from day to day, nobody knowing what went on at them. The case was altogether different with regard to public meetings, and he did not care so much about them, because they were above-board and open to observation,
    232
    and everybody knew what went on at them, and could provide a remedy if anything wrong was done. As to the question of expense to the candidate, if a man engaged more rooms than he ought to have he would have to give an account of them, and the full matter would have to be discussed. There would be two safeguards. First, there was a limitation as to the number of committee rooms; and, next, if a room was hired at a public-house, it must be used for public purposes. In the next place, if an excessive number of rooms were hired, the maximum fixed in the Schedule would come into play.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had invited the discussion which had taken place upon this clause. He confessed, however, on looking at the Amendments upon the Paper, that none of them met the objections which had been so strongly raised, and in which he entirely concurred. A good deal of time would have been occupied in discussing the Amendments, and it was, perhaps, better that it should be occupied in discussing the clause generally as it stood. It seemed to him that the Attorney General had hardly shown sufficient confidence in his own Bill. What he appeared to contemplate was, that the mere fact of a committee sitting in a house of public entertainment would immediately encourage drinking. The hon. and learned Gentleman evidently left out the consideration of the disabilities to which the Bill subjected the committee and the candidate if drinking took place. One of the most important consequences was that the election would thereby be voided, and that the offence could very easily be brought home to the committee. Surely, then, it would be rather a safeguard and a protection that the committee should be sitting in a public-house, so that the agents of the candidate might prevent any practice of that kind being carried on, or any illegal practice whatever being resorted to. He could not help thinking that it was a mere chimera that was raised by the Attorney General, and that the clause was entirely uncalled for by any difficulty which would arise. It was unwarrantable to conclude that the mere fact that the presence of an election committee in a public-house or refreshment-house would lead to corrupt practices.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to put a question to the Attorney General. When he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) addressed the Committee some time ago, he asked the Attorney General to put words into the clause to make it perfectly clear that holding meetings in a public-house would not be prohibited. He thought it was absolutely necessary, before they proceeded with this clause and divided upon it, that the Attorney General should tell them if he did intend to put words into the clause or not; because he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, by the gestures he had made some time ago, to say that he would do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had avoided saying so in express terms. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the Committee some explanation, or the Committee ought to moot the clause with vehement opposition.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had been unwilling to make any positive promise; but he would give an undertaking to this extent—that he would, at the end of the section, or in the Definition Clause, introduce words excepting the hire of rooms used for the purpose of addressing meetings from the operation of the clause. Perhaps it would be advisable to take a Division on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), in order to see what the opinion of the Committee was as to the principle of the clause.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKremarked, that if the hon. and learned Attorney General found that he could not define a committee room in the way he proposed, he hoped he would not leave out of consideration a case where a candidate was himself staying in a house of entertainment. That was a rather important distinction, and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had already illustrated it by his own case.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not see how a Division upon the earlier Amendment would affect the whole of the clause. He himself had an Amendment lower down to include a club in which, by the rules, intoxicating liquors might be supplied to the members; but if he understood what words the Attorney General proposed to insert at the end of the clause, it might not be neces-
    234
    sary for him to propose that Amendment. At the same time, it certainly was not his intention to acquiesce in the clause as it stood in the Bill. He thought that if the principle was once conceded that a committee meeting should not be held at a public-house, it would also be necessary to provide that it should not be held at a club in which intoxicating liquors were provided for the members. He did not see how it was possible to decide every question by a Division upon the Amendment now before the House; and, therefore, whatever was done in regard to the present Amendment, he should consider himself perfectly free to move that which stood in his own name.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had prepared an Amendment which he thought would remove all the main objections which had been raised upon this point, and which would carry out very clearly what the Attorney General had stated, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman had no doubt stated in good faith. At the same time, the Committee could have no certainty and no assurance whatever that the Election Judges would construe the Act in the same sense and spirit as the Attorney General; and the Amendment he would suggest was to insert, after the word "election," in line 9—
    "Provided, however, that nothing in this clause shall render illegal the use of any part of such premises for holding a meeting to address the electors."
    If the Attorney General would accept such a Proviso, he thought it would remove a great part of the objections which had been raised to the clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the object of the Amendment he had now to move was to exclude clubs from the operation of the clause. He was quite prepared to accept any modification of his Amendment which would draw a distinction between genuine clubs and what were sometimes called sham clubs, which were got up on principles very different, indeed, to those of the recognized clubs of the country. He believed he was perfectly correct in saying that in certain parts of the country clubs had been built, and built, in great part, for the special purpose of being used for committee rooms on election days, and for the promotion and procurement of the

    235
    election of certain candidates. Why were clubs built for a special purpose not to be used for that purpose? It was a perfect libel upon most of the clubs of the country to say that they were badly conducted. As a matter of fact, hon. Gentlemen knew that the clubs of the country, as a rule, were conducted with perfect regularity and order. It did seem exceedingly hard to exclude from use buildings which were partly erected for the special purpose—a purpose thoroughly legitimate in itself—of aiding the election of a given candidate. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 6, to leave out the words "or any premises where any intoxicating liquor is sold."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was an admitted fact that there were good clubs as well as bad or spurious clubs. He did not think it was possible to draw, for legislative purposes, a distinction between good and bad clubs. They must take the good with the bad, and ask themselves whether it was better to close a club or not on a polling day? Personally, he should vote against the opening of the clubs; but he admitted that that was an open question upon which there was a great diversity of opinion. He should like hon. Gentlemen to vote just as they pleased; of course, he knew they always did. He was, however, very gratified with the support he had received from the Committee hitherto; but he really considered that that was a question on which they all might take very different views.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, whether the committee of the Reform Club would be supposed to suspend its operation during the Westminster election?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, no election committee meetings were held at the Reform Club.
    MR. W. H. SMITHdesired to point out to the Attorney General the real danger of the proposal he was now making. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) un-
    236
    derstood it was proposed to exclude a genuine Political Club altogether as a place in which a committee, or a candidate, could hold their meetings. But he thought it was very probable that the members of clubs would form themselves into committees within the club itself, in spite of the candidate. The club room, or a room in the club, would not then be a committee room as far as the candidate, or the agent of the candidate, was concerned. If he (Mr. W. H. Smith) knew anything of the enthusiasm of the members of clubs, in such counties as Lancashire and Yorkshire, he was fully convinced, in his own mind, that there was not a club in those counties which, on the day of an election, would not be practically used as committee rooms, for the meeting of committees which would be most efficient committees for promoting the election of the candidate to which the members of the club attached themselves. Would that be a corrupt or an illegal practice, or would it come within the limit of the clause? There would be a committee room, and it would be in a building in which intoxicating liquor was sold. How could they get over the difficulty? He asked the hon. and learned Attorney General, with no desire to put difficulties in his way, because he thoroughly sympathized with the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view, which he understood to be to prevent spurious clubs competing with public-houses.
    MR. GORSTsaid, as the Bill now stood genuine Political Clubs would not be excluded. He supposed a committee could go into the Reform Club for the purpose of opposing or supporting the election of any particular candidate for the City of Westminster according to the rules of the Club; but if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope's) own proposition was carried, then the genuine clubs would be forbidden to sit in any place in which intoxicating liquors were sold.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERconfessed that if those words were retained there would be a remarkable evasion of the law, or else the Political Clubs, especially in the large towns, would be very much interfered with. His experience was that all the ardent Liberal partizans met at a Liberal Club, and he believed that

    237
    the same was the case in regard to the Conservative partizans. Although the members of the club might not actually form themselves into a committee, yet whenever they happened to meet in a club, at the time of an election, they talked about nothing else but the election. He did not suppose there was a committee in a borough which was so effective for the purpose of promoting any particular election as that formed of the members of the clubs, who generally happened to be active partizans. If the clause remained unaltered, the meetings of members of clubs, on days of election, would be prohibited. There would certainly be a feeling that such a prohibition was hardly fair. Clubs were, for all practical purposes, committee rooms; and, therefore, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should avail himself of the suggestion of the Attorney General to vote as he pleased; and his vote would certainly be given against the retention of the words.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, that no one doubted that the good Political Clubs which existed in many Northern towns would, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) were accepted, suffer great inconvenience. On the other hand, the Committee ought to consider that there were many clubs which were really nothing less than very inferior public-houses. Now, what he wanted to put before the Committee was that they were going to close the ordinary avenues to treating by prohibiting the use of public-houses as committee rooms; but, did they not suppose that if they shut the door in that direction, and left it open in another, very soon they would have a fine crop of so-called clubs, which in reality would exist for the purpose of treating at elections? They would be of mushroom growth. It was not necessary that a club should be as old as Brook's or White's, in order to be called a club. He fancied clubs would spring into existence shortly before a General Election, and die very likely as soon as the poll was known. The Committee was engaged in the great endeavour to put down bribery and corruption at elections. "Was it not a necessity that any Act of this kind should inflict inconvenience, and very likely unmerited inconvenience, on many good and honest people? They had to look, not at the
    238
    convenience of the candidate, and not even at the convenience of the voters, but at what they hoped to be the effect upon Parliament in the future, by stopping all the avenues to corruption. He considered that such an object, and such an aim, was one that would justify them in inflicting even greater inconvenience than would be inflicted, by prohibiting the use for committee rooms of all places where refreshments were provided.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the danger referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) was a serious one, and they did not get rid of it by shutting up clubs in pursuance of the Amendment now before them. It was a well-known fact that there were a great many clubs—political and non-political—which had no local habitation of their own. These clubs met at public-houses. Now, if a club, having a room of its own, was able to make itself into an informal committee, was it not equally possible for an informal committee to be formed in a public-house, and thereby bringing about great mischief to the candidate? He feared that they were not protecting themselves by this Amendment.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdesired to offer a remark or two upon what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). The difficulty he felt in the matter was this—that if the views of the Government were carried out they would have to abolish clubs altogether, to shut up their rooms, and not allow people to meet in them, because really their object was political. They were all formed for political purposes; and whenever a meeting of the members took place, they generally considered how they could promote or procure the election of their candidate. What was really required was a definition of what a committee room was; and he did not doubt it was a very difficult thing to arrive at such a definition. He considered it would be rather a mockery to stop committee rooms in one part of the town, and have rooms open in another part in which people met together, and all day long, and considered what steps could be taken for the promoting and procuring the election of a certain candidate. He did not suppose his hon.

    239
    Friend (Mr. Whitbread) was prepared to go so far as to say a club should have its doors locked on an election day. His (Mr. Forster's) difficulty was bow they could prevent such a state of things.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEventured to suggest that they, on the Opposition side of the House, had a right to claim the vote of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) in opposition to the clause. If the clause had any effect at all, it was clear that its immediate effect would be of a most pernicious character. The result of the operation of the clause would be that a vast number of institutions would spring up, like mushrooms, at the time of an election, and they would all be utilized for the most flagrant and corrupt purposes. Such was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and therefore the Opposition ought to claim his vote on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman could not have used a stronger argument in favour of the statement urged two hours ago from the Opposition Benches—namely, that by the effect of drawing the strings too tightly they would produce a greater evil than that which now existed.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEwished to make one appeal to the Attorney General to consider the case of a strictly Political Club which was also the he ad-quarters, as the case might be, of the Liberal or the Conservative Party of the borough, for instance, of Exeter. In that borough the secretary to the Conservative Club was also the Conservative registration agent. In his capacity as secretary he had rooms in the club throughout the year, where, no doubt, he kept his registration books and papers, and carried on his work of promoting and procuring the election of certain men. When an election, however, came round, he would have to turn out bag and baggage, with all his books and papers, and probably, for two or three weeks, occupy rooms, it might be, on the other side of the street. Such was certainly one of the effects of this clause,
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, they were discussing the question as to whether committees should or should not be allowed to be held in Political Clubs. In the first place, they were confronted with the difficulty as to what a committee
    240
    really was. It might occur that a candidate would say that if there were no lists of voters, or other things usually appertaining to a committee, no committee was being held in any particular room. He (Mr. Rylands) was of opinion that they certainly could not prevent a number of electors meeting in a club, and reporting to each other the names of the different voters who ought to be seen, or about whose political opinion it was desirous to got some information. But whether that was done with the consent of the candidate or not, he (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt it would be asserted that a committee was being held in the club, and the candidate would probably be held to be guilty of an illegal practice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had said that if they refused to allow committees in public-houses, but allowed them in clubs, they would have spurious clubs created for the sole purpose of giving drink. It was not necessary to hold committees, in one or other of the clubs, in order to afford facilities for drinking. If they were going to stop treating in public-houses on the day of election, they were going also to stop treating in spurious clubs. Because treating in spurious clubs would be, in no sense, free from the penalty under the Bill. The question really was, did the holding of a committee in a spurious club necessarily lead to corruption? He considered it did; but he was of opinion that if they wanted to stop drinking on the polling day, they ought to pass a law that there should be no sale of drink on that day. He would like very much for the Attorney General to consider for a moment whether he could not meet the Gentlemen who raised objections on this point. Let it be laid down, for instance, in this Act that in those committee rooms held in clubs no drink should be sold or consumed. In fact, let it be made an illegal practice, if drink were sold or consumed. There could not be the slightest reason for inflicting such a serious difficulty on the political Parties of this country, as was now proposed to be inflicted through their clubs. He feared that this really amounted to the striking of a blow at institutions upon which, to a great extent, the political life of this country depended. In the large centres of population clubs did act as great institutions on political subjects. Clubs

    241
    had their libraries, news rooms, discussions, and addresses delivered by their members; and in other ways political knowledge was disseminated by these institutions. These clubs, too, looked forward to the time of an election in the hope of making use of their promises to promote, or procure, the return of the candidate who held the views espoused by the members. He wished, again, to say that if the Attorney General would so frame his clause that no drink should be consumed or sold in the committee rooms of those clubs, he (Mr. Rylands) certainly would be satisfied.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there seemed to be a great difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the Attorney General upon this point. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley had said that the whole political life of Burnley depended upon its clubs. But when that remark was made a sceptical smile stole over the face of the Attorney General. Did not the Government see how absurd their efforts at securing purity of election were? They refused to allow a committee to be held in a public-house; but they made no effort to prevent a committee room being opened next door. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) admitted the immense inconvenience that would arise to electors if the clause remained in its present state; but the hon. Gentleman said, so great; was the case at stake, that it would be worth while to make the electors suffer that inconvenience. The hon. Gentleman evidently did not seem to see what had been strikingly pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—namely, that the political life of many constituencies depended upon its clubs. If they were going to pass what would really put a spoke in the wheel of those clubs, could they doubt for a moment they would deal a blow to the clubs, from which it would be scarcely possible for them to survive? ["No, no!"] An hon. Gentleman opposite cried "No, no!" Did he deny that these Political Clubs were called into existence chiefly with the object of conducting elections? [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I certainly do deny it.] Did the hon. Gentleman deny that those clubs did exercise an immense influence at the time of an election? Did
    242
    he deny that if they took away the stimulus to those clubs which elections provided that they would strike a blow at the very existence of the institutions? He (Mr. Balfour) could not imagine anyone who knew what these clubs were doubting that proposition for a moment. They were called into existence in order to carry their particular candidates through; and it was ridiculous to suppose that if they were prevented from carrying out their object at elections that a very serious blow would not be dealt them. He trusted the Government would withdraw this clause.
    MR. CAUSTONsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would endeavour to prevent the establishment of sham clubs. He had not the slightest objection to bonâ fide Political Clubs, the members of which paid an uniform subscription; but what he did object to was that clubs should receive between elections handsome subscriptions and donations, in order that electors between elections might derive considerable pecuniary benefit, by eating and drinking, at the expense of the rich men of the Party. He trusted the Attorney General would deal with such a case in the Bill. He did not know whether that was the proper clause in which to raise such a point; but the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) just now said that he looked upon these clubs as the proper Party organizations for enlightening the electors on Liberal or Conservative principles. He admitted that Liberals had their clubs as well as Conservatives. It was all very well that they should have; but in some way or other the Committee ought to provide the means to prevent bribery and corruption and unfair treating between elections.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, it was extremely refreshing to hear the words of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton), who certainly had had considerable experience in the organization of Liberal clubs. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman's experience was so great that the observations he had just made would be of great interest in the district to which he belonged. He (Baron Henry de Worms), however, rose to point out the intense absurdity of the position in which the Government had now arrived by this clause. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr.

    243
    Forster) that if the Government wished to be consistent they ought to put a lock on the door of every club on the day of an election. Now, he (Baron Henry De Worms) wanted to ask the Attorney General whether he did not consider it necessary that he should define what a committee room was, and what a committee meeting was? because he took it that the Government had some extraordinary system of curbing and disturbing freedom of speech in members of a club which met together for the purpose of discussing the election and of promoting, as far as they could, the interests of the candidate. And he feared that if the members of a club constituted themselves into a committee meeting, they would, by their act, render a candidate liable for the loss of his seat. Was it possible for absurdity to go further than this—that the members of the Political Club, be it Liberal or Conservative, should be debarred from meeting together at the time of an election for the purpose of promoting the interests of the candidate—the very purpose for which these clubs were really established? He could not conceive anything more oppressive or more ridiculous. If they carried the principle a little further they might say that agents might not meet in a private house for the purpose of promoting the interests or cause of any particular candidate. Where were the Government going to stop? This was really the worst form of political tyranny that ever was imagined. It was only the outcome of this grandmotherly legislation which, on the one hand, affirmed that the working man had not sufficient political influence, and, on the other, treated him as an overgrown baby.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, it appeared to him that this clause was, in its entirety, an absurdity; and he should, of course, vote against it. But with regard to this particular Amendment, he should like to point out to the Attorney General that in the Division which he had represented for many years the state of things had changed very much since 1859. He first contested an election in 1859, and at that time there was hardly a Liberal or a Conservative Club in existence, and committee rooms were almost invariably taken in some public-houses. But since that time the circumstances had entirely altered in every village in South-East Lancashire; and
    244
    he believed in every other Division of Lancashire there was a Conservative or a Liberal Club founded upon limited liability principles, and frequented by the most respectable inhabitants of the village. Those were precisely the places which ought to be committee rooms, because they were under the control of the respectable inhabitants of the district. What would happen if these clubs were closed, and not allowed to be used as committee rooms? Booms would be taken near a public-house, and every facility for surreptitious drinking would be afforded; but if these clubs were allowed to be used as committee rooms—as he thought they ought to be, and for which they were largely intended by their promoters—there would be a certain amount of supervision over them, which would be entirely wanting if the electors were confined within the four corners of this clause. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause altogether.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the only outcome of this matter was that all consumption of drink must be prohibited on the day of election in public-houses and clubs, and also in private houses. It was quite clear that the Attorney General supposed there was a fixed idea that there was treating in public-houses; but, as a matter of fact, there was not; and he challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to produce a single instance in which, where a committee met in a public-house, there was any amount of treating. Her Majesty's Ministers anticipated that there would be some treating in clubs as well as in public-houses; but would there not be treating in private houses also? If electors were turned out of clubs and public-houses, and took rooms near to a public-house, what was to prevent a large quantity of liquor being carried in and consumed, of course at someone's expense? He did not see how drinking could be stopped, because if people wanted to treat they would treat; and whatever number of Acts of Parliament were passed containing further stringent provisions, if people intended to do such things nobody could prevent them. la order to avoid these pitfalls and this invasion of personal liberty, with which the Bill bristled, he hoped this very ridiculous and stupid clause would be withdrawn.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, a question had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to which no clear answer had been given. No doubt the number of committee rooms would be limited by the maximum scale; but, of course, there was no limit to committee rooms if only they were not paid for. As his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had said, there was not a village in Lancashire which did not possess a Liberal and a Conservative Club in which the electors met. When there was an election, the people would, of course, meet in these clubs, and many of them were necessarily employed in the conduct of the election. They discussed all the circumstances and arrangements of the election, and practically they used these clubs as committee rooms. If a candidate was seen going about with these people, or going into the clubs, he would be held to have consented to the use of the clubs as committee rooms; and, therefore, he was afraid that candidates would be placed in great danger, even by the legitimate use of club rooms in this way.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had noticed that one or two Members were adopting a view which he had ventured to put forward—namely, that clubs should be closed on the day of election; but he thought it would be a mistake to suppose that any effect this clause might have would be limited to the day of election. It would, he supposed, apply to the whole time.
    MR. GORSTasked how far this clause would go? In this House there were rooms which were constantly used by people who met to promote and procure the election of candidates. A vacancy hardly ever took place without a meeting between an intended candidate and the leading people of the constituency and the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), or the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Rowland Winn), in a room in the neighbourhood of the House. If such a meeting was a committee meeting, would it not be held in part of premises in which intoxicating liquor was sold? Under such circumstances, would not a candidate at the very outset disqualify himself for election by taking part in a committee meeting for promoting and procuring his election held
    246
    in part of premises where intoxicating liquors were sold?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) could be serious in putting his question. The rooms within the House were held at all times, and not at any particular time. With regard to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), a distinction could be drawn between committee rooms in clubs, in which the parties were in the habit of meeting generally, and those which were employed at the particular time of an election. He was disposed to look favourably upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. The whole effect of the clause was not to upset an election, but simply to impose penalties on certain persons. If persons met in a room in which they had been accustomed to meet, and showed their zeal, perhaps more developed on the election day, that room would not be a committee room for a particular election. He could not conceive it possible that a meeting of persons under these circumstances could be held as a committee room. There was, without doubt, great force in what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) if they could prevent the action of bad clubs; but it was impossible to draw a line. Whatever was the decision of the Committee upon this matter, the Government would accept it.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, hon. Members seemed to be carried away by the idea that by opposing this Amendment they would get rid of spurious clubs. He saw great objection to the existence of such clubs, and felt that they ought to be deal with by law whenever a case arose; but that point did not arise here. The reason why he urged this Amendment was that these clubs were intended to be made centres of political life on one side or the other; and this Bill proposed that they should cease to be the centres of political life.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the Committee was in great difficulty through having to vote upon this Amendment at all. If they voted for it they would be in this position. They would be doing what

    247
    he conceived to be an act of Pharisaical injustice to public-houses, on the hypothesis that, as they were centres of corrupt treating, they were to be closed; whilst, on the other hand, some places which were substitutes for the public-houses were to be allowed to remain open. To be consistent, the Government ought to prevent people drinking at all on the day of an election; and he did not think that some of these clauses were more stringent than that proposal. Such a provision would place everybody on an equal footing. He concurred in the view that there ought to be a definition of a committee room. It was all very well to leave that to the Judge; but anyone who had had any experience in these matters might take a totally different view from a Judge, and it would be impossible to say what view any particular Judge would take. The Committee being in this difficulty, and there being a widespread desire among Members to vote against the clause as a whole, he thought the best thing would be to strangle the clause piecemeal; and he should vote for the omission of these words, in the hope that, eventually, the clause would be entirely omitted, it being an additional infringement of the liberty of the subject.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 141: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
    MR. ONSLOWproposed an Amendment, with the object of putting all kinds of vendors of refreshment, whether in the shape of food or liquor, on an equality. The Attorney General had stated that what he wanted to do was to prevent the meeting of committees in public-houses. He himself should like to see the same meeting of committees prevented in coffee taverns for the purpose of treating. It appeard to him to be quite as wrong to treat a man to coffee and tea and buns as to a glass of beer; and, therefore, he wished to insert, in page 7, line 7, after the word "intoxicating," the words "or other." That, he presumed, would include the selling of all non-alcoholic liquor—such as aerated water, tea, coffee, and cocoa—and what he desired was to put places where those liquors were sold on the same footing as public-houses. If they eliminated one class
    248
    of Her Majesty's subjects from having one kind of committee rooms for election purposes, the same principle ought to be applied to all other subjects. He believed that, as the clause stood, grocers, who had licenses for the sale of drinks, would not be able to let their rooms; but, in order to make this clause consistent—obnoxious as it was—they ought to put in some words such as he suggested. He also wished to insert after the word "liquor," the words "or refreshment of any kind, whether as food or drink." That would include butcher's shops. He knew no place where treating could be done better than in butcher's shops. He had heard, on the best authority, that there was an enormous amount of treating when a committee met over a butcher's shop; and, therefore, if purity of election was to be obtained, all places ought to be put on an equality.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 7, after the word "intoxicating," to insert the words "or other."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should be glad if the hon. Member would not move this Amendment now. He quite admitted the danger of treating in these other places; but, as a matter of principle, there might be treating at temperance hotels as well as elsewhere. He had, however, stated that he would bring up an Amendment, in the proper place, which would apply the clause to places where food or drink was sold for consumption on the premises.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that would go a great way; but, as a rule, chops and steaks were not consumed on the premises. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would also say "on or off the premises," he should be satisfied. If they prohibited drink, they must prohibit food, or refreshment of any kind. He would withdraw his Amenndment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished now to move a clause, which he had prepared hastily, to meet the view of the Committee, as expressed, to some extent, by the Division which had just taken place. He thought he ought not to disregard a

    249
    considerable minority as well as a majority. The Amendment they had been discussing was "any premises where intoxicating liquors are sold." These words would cover the case of clubs of all kinds. The question was raised upon the fact that in a club liquors were not sold, in an ordinary sense of the word, as meant by the Act of Parliament; and, in order to bring the point to a tangible form, he proposed to add after the word "sold," these words—
    "Or is supplied to members of a club, society, or association, other than a permanent political club."
    The clause would then read—
    "Public-house or any premises whore any intoxicating liquor is sold, or is supplied to members of a club, society, or association, other than a permanent political club."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 7, after the word "sold," to insert the words "or is supplied to members of a club, society, or association, other than a permanent political club."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, the words "a permanent political club" presented a difficulty to his mind. It would be a difficult matter for the Judge to decide, and he doubted whether a Judge could decide, what constituted "a permanent political club."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, be thought it was very inconvenient to have to discuss this Amendment within a few minutes of the suspension of the Sitting. It was not so simple a matter as the Attorney General seemed to think. To "supply" was a very different thing from "selling." If a member of a club asked other members to dine with him and supplied them with liquor, that club would at once become premises in which committee rooms might not be taken. The Committee were driving committee rooms into private houses by the Amendment already passed, and now they were going to disqualify private houses from being places where anybody connected with a candidate could take or give refreshment to anybody else. That was a reflection which occurred to him from the word "supply," and he thought it would be wise now to report Progress. The Attorney General had proposed an
    250
    important Amendment at the last moment, which he might have proposed an hour ago, and expected the Committee to come to a conclusion at once. He would move that Progress be reported, in order that this point might be properly considered, for he had great doubt whether it would not go a great deal further than the Attorney General intended.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would not consider the course he had taken unreasonable. He saw no difficulty in considering the permanent clubs. There might be mushroom clubs springing up, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent that.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it appeared to him that the reason given by the noble Lord for reporting Progress was perfectly sound. He had listened attentively to the words of the Amendment as read; but it was impossible to catch them clearly, and he entertained doubts whether they would carry out the intention of the Attorney General.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was very usual for the Committee to afford some indulgence to the promoter and conductor of a measure; and bearing in mind that they were not now on the final stage of the Bill, there would be opportunities for considering any objections to this proposal later on. He admitted that what he was now saying was a claim to privilege; but as it was usual to give that indulgence to the conductor of a Bill when he was endeavouring to make a concession, he hoped Progress would not be agreed to.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, under these circumstances, he would withdraw his Motion; but he hoped the Attorney General would give a full opportunity subsequently to discuss the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (The Attorney General) agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to Bit again this day.

MEDALS BILL.— [BILL 188.]
(Mr. Courtney, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MEDALS BILL.— [BILL 188.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate arising.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Air. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd July.] [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Illegal Payment, Employment, or Hiring.
    Clause 15 (Use of committee room in house for sale of intoxicating liquor to be illegal hiring).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 6, after the word "club," inserted by the last Amendment, to insert the words 'or any premises where refreshment of any kind, whether food or drink, is sold for consumption on the premises."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman only partially carried out the views expressed in his Amendment, and he trusted be would agree to the addition of the words "or off," after the word "on." He pointed out to the Committee that the Amendment referred only to refreshment to be consumed on the premises; but there was every likelihood in some
    252
    cases that it would not be consumed off as well as on the premises. He would take the case of tea, which would very likely be given to certain voters, or it might be to their wives. That tea, in all probability, would not be consumed on the premises, but consumed off the premises; and, surely, that practice ought to come under the category of illegal practices. Then, again, he pointed out that such food as meat of various descriptions had been, and might be, given again at elections, and that under this Act would be an illegal practice if the meat were consumed on the premises; but there was no possibility of it being consumed on the premises, it would be taken away and consumed off the premises. Therefore, be trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of his Amendment, in order to make the clause symmetrical. There would then be the same law for public-houses as for coffee taverns and shops. Let the Committee suppose that the committee room was over a baker's shop; it would be very easy for the baker to give away bread or flour, which could not possibly be consumed on the premises. He could not see that there could be any objection to this alteration, which, it appeared to him, ran on all fours with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after the word "on," the words "or off."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was that the clause should apply to all places where things were sold, so that the purchase of an orange would come under the Amendment which the hon. Member wished to introduce. In this way, the proposed alteration would, affect every retail trade. He believed that, on reconsideration, it would be seen that the Government could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, be thought it desirable that this further Amendment should be placed in the same position as that which had preceded it—namely, that it should be brought up for consideration on Report. It was

    253
    quite true the Amendment proposed to deal with a very minute matter; but he would remind the Committee that a great many minute matters were dealt with in this Bill, and it was an important feature in cases of this kind to consider whether they were carrying out their principles to the proper extent, or tying their own hands so tight as to prevent the attainment of the object they had in view. He would suggest that the Amendment should be brought up on Report.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he presumed, from certain grumblings which reached his ears, that hon. Members opposite were displeased with his speaking on this question. That was possibly due to a feeling that "coming events cast their shadows before." He would ask whether a Member of that House was not to be allowed to express his opinion when he rose to address the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call on the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he, of course, accepted the ruling of the Chairman. He had risen for the purpose of appealing to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) to withdraw his Amendment, and to ask the Attorney General to insert in his proposed Amendment the word "ordinarily" before the word "sold," because the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman might be made to operate unjustly against a candidate. Suppose a candidate took a committee room, and that the hostile political party also took another room in the house, and sold there refreshments, under these circumstances it might be held, strictly speaking, to implicate him in an illegal practice. But if the word "ordinarily" were used it would safeguard the proposed Amendment, and, at the same time, make the clause as effectual as the Attorney General wished it to be.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to accept the word "ordinarily" as suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, it was with some reluctance that he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. If it were an hour later, and more hon. Members were in their places on those Benches, he should have felt it his duty to test the
    254
    feeling of the Committee; but, under the circumstances, he should certainly not trouble hon. Members to go to a Division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting, after the word "is," the word "ordinarily."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he regretted the minute details which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced into this Bill; yet if they did enter into minute details they should endeavour to be perfectly impartial in applying these restrictions. He trusted the Attorney General would accept the Amendment he was about to propose—namely, to add after the words the Committee had already assented to "or any church or any chapel registered or licensed for the performance of public religious worship." They had decided that no houses of physical refreshment should be opened for electoral purposes on the day of election or used as a committee room. He asked that the same rule should be applied to those places which were essentially established for the purposes of spiritual refreshment, and that for election purposes the churches and chapels of England should be closed. He could easily imagine that under the Church Boards Bill proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) even churches might be used as committee rooms at elections. To the possibility of such a practice he wished to put a stop; he wished to prevent the possibility of scenes of irreverence taking place in buildings which were intended to be used for a wholly different purpose. He would now speak of the chapels of the United Kingdom. These buildings of the Nonconformists were registered, licensed, and established by law; they were, indeed, often in the legal possession of the official Trustee of the Charity Commission, who was a public officer. They could not, therefore, be considered any longer as purely private property, and he said they ought to be protected against the chance of irreverence. The minister or the Governing Body of one of those chapels might have such pres-

    255
    sure put upon them at the time of an election contest that they might be almost compelled to place their chapel at the disposal of one of the contending parties, to the utter disgust of many of the congregation. The chapels were licensed for public worship, and he thought it right to say that they should not be used for any purpose except of a kindred nature—that was to say, the teaching of children, or other matters connected with the object for which they were established. It might be said that up to the present time no chapel had been used for a committee room. But it did not follow that they might not be used as such in the future. He believed there was no one on either side of the House who would not regret that the churches and chapels of the Kingdom should be used for electioneering purposes; and, therefore, he asked the Government to place its veto on their being so applied. By adding his Amendment to the clause the Government would not be injuring the Bill, but rather carrying out both its letter and its spirit. There was another aspect of this question to which he would ask the attention of the Committee. Many persons looked upon some of the churches of the country as nothing better than ancient monuments. They were looked upon as ancient monuments; not as religious buildings. That being so, he was right in saying that the feeling of some persons was so strong in the direction of secularizing them that he was justified in moving the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 7, after the word "premises," to insert the words "or any church or any chapel registered or licensed for the performance of public religious service."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was unable to assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The Government had declared, over and over again, their wish that this Bill should pass through the House without any Party feeling being excited, and he was quite sure that it would be the wish of the Committee that the discussion should proceed without the importation into it of religious feeling. He thought this was
    256
    a very objectionable Amendment. Let the hon. Member for one moment consider the nature of the clause, and he would perceive that it was in no way connected with the proposal which he had made. The hon. Gentleman said he objected to churches and chapels being used for election purposes; but that question had nothing whatever to do with the present clause, which applied to committee rooms only.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, his objection was to churches and chapels being used as committee rooms.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the hon. Member could give him one single instance of a church or chapel having been used as a committee room he would very much strengthen his argument in support of the Amendment. He had given the Committee a promise that the word committee room in the clause should not include any room used for the purpose of public meetings. Why churches or chapels should be used for committee rooms, as was apprehended by the hon. Member, he was utterly at a loss to conceive. Moreover, the proposal of the hon. Member might be regarded as an invidious attack upon the Roman Catholic as well as the Nonconformist Bodies. He sincerely trusted that the hon. Gentleman would accept his assurance that the clause would not apply to any buildings used for the purpose of public meetings, and that he would not feel it necessary to prolong the discussion of a question which could lead to no practical result.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not assent to the proposition that this clause was simply meant to put down corruption, although no doubt that was its intention in the mind of the Attorney General. Although the clause appeared to be a very simple one it had given rise to considerable differences of opinion, as would appear from the many Amendments of which Notice had been given. They were now dealing with an Amendment on the Paper; but there was one farther on which dealt with Public Elementary Schools, and he hoped that the Attorney General would see his way to accept it when it was reached. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman, when they came to that Amendment, would not take the same objection as he had taken to the Amendment now

    257
    before the Committee, and say that it was not relevant to the clause. Nobody, he was convinced, wished to see churches and chapels used for election purposes. He had a very strong feeling on the subject himself, and he hoped, before the Bill passed into law, this Amendment of his hon. Friend would be incorporated with it. He thought, however, that it would be better to bring it forward as a separate clause, because they had no desire to mix up a subject of this kind with questions relating to public-houses. As he had already said, he felt very strongly against churches and chapels being used for the purpose indicated; and he was bound to say that many things which had taken place in connection with religious buildings during the last General Election had shocked his mind very much. The practice was a growing one, although it might be said to be new, and he should be very sorry to see it extended. In suggesting to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment and bring it forward in the shape of a new clause he would point out that if it were withdrawn, it would be in Order that it might become the subject of future discussion. If the Attorney General did not assent to that proposal the present discussion must, as a matter of course, be continued.
    MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he wished to point out that the Bill was intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that, so far as Scotland was concerned, they would be placed in rather a peculiar position by the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal. The ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland were not consecrated buildings, as in England, and they were not altogether used for clerical purposes. The Established churches belonged to the heritors, and were frequently used for the purpose of public meetings of every sort. The position of these buildings would be peculiar; because, whilst some of them were used for purposes of public meetings, others were not, and he thought it right to point this out, because he foresaw that the proposal of the hon. Member would lead to great practical difficulties in the case of Scotch churches and chapels.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was very much obliged for the suggestion made by the right hon. Gen-
    258
    tleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that he should withdraw his Amendment, and bring it up on Report in the shape of a new clause. He was quite willing to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request, provided the Government would promise him their support. In that case the discussion would be postponed, and it would not be necessary for him to take up any further time in Committee. ["Divide!"] Hon. Members opposite seemed somewhat impatient of this subject; but they must not suppose that all the clauses of the Bill would be passed simply because they cried "Divide." He protested against the practice of shouting down hon. Members, and he trusted that some means would be found to check such disorderly interruptions. He hesitated to withdraw his Amendment, seeing that the Attorney General had expressed himself practically in favour of its principle, unless he promised it his support hereafter. If hon. Members opposite were honest in their convictions that churches and chapels would never be applied to election purposes, they could have no possible reason for objecting to such use of them being prohibited by the Bill. He would be glad to hear from the Attorney General what prospect there was for the Government entertaining his Amendment on Report, otherwise he should feel it his duty to proceed to a Division upon a question which involved so deep a principle.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, it seemed to him, however advisable it might be to prohibit the use of sacred edifices for election purposes, that the proposal of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Leighton) was incongruous with the present clause. He would not say that it might not be well to re-introduce it on Report; but, at the present stage, it was clearly out of place.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he should have been glad if the Attorney General had put down his foot a little more firmly with regard to the absurd Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. Why should places of worship be made the object of the exceptional legislation which the hon. Member intended? The object of the hon. Member in including churches in his Amendment was very clear, his real aim being the Nonconformist places of worship. The hon. Member knew very well that churches were so guarded

    259
    that they could not be used for any purpose of the kind he had described. But, strangely enough, the Attorney General had said he objected strongly to chapels being used for political purposes. He (Mr. Illingworth) did not know that it was the duty of that House to guard Nonconformist places of worship. Those places of worship were the property of those who built them; and the guardianship of their sacredness in no wise belonged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley Leighton) might have some concern about the effect of those chapels on a General Election; butlethim (Mr. Illingworth) draw his attention to the fact that National schools were always available to the Conservative Party, and that in no instance that he was aware of had they been used by the opponents of that Party. He hoped that neither now, nor at any other time would such a preposterous proposal as this be accepted.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had an Amendment on the Paper, for the purpose of excluding the schools referred to by the hon. Member.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was anxious that the matter should be fairly and properly discussed.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment now, and bring it up as a new clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, lie had an Amendment to move which, he thought, would be acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It was after the words "committee room," in line 8, to insert "as hereinafter defined." He did not wish to renew the discussion they had had this afternoon as to what a committee room was to be. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, no doubt, promised to define what "committee room" was; but surely there could not be any objection to the insertion of these words.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had an Amendment on the Paper which came before that of the hon. Member.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; that is so.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend, he would
    260
    move the Amendment which was, in line 7, after the word "premises," to insert the words—
    "Or the premises of any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant."
    He did not propose to offer any arguments in support of the Amendment, as the subject had been already thoroughly discussed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 7, after the word "premises," to insert the words "or the premises of any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Amendment, coming as it did from such an authority—namely, the noble Lord who had been connected with the Education Department—no doubt, deserved careful consideration. He had considered the matter, and was of opinion that these school buildings ought not to be used as committee rooms; therefore, he should be prepared to accept the Amendment. He was not quite sure, however, that this was the proper place in which to insert the words, although if the hon. Member thought it right to press them, he would at once assent to them.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member would accept the Amendment, he would put it in here; but, if it should be later on found inconvenient, he would agree to its being taken out and put in somewhere else.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, there was another Amendment on the Paper, in the name of an hon. Friend (Mr. Tatton Egerton) which, in the absence of that hon. Friend, he would take upon himself to move. The object of the Amendment was to make the clause clear in regard to clubs. In ordinary cases, good clubs would be lent for the purpose of being used as committee rooms, and would not be let. The Amendment he had to propose would make it clear that the clause did not apply to clubs so lent, but only to those that were let.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 8, to leave out the word "used," and insert the word "let."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. Member probably did not see what would be the effect of this Amendment. If they passed it, the result would be that so long as there was no specific contract for hiring these premises—whether clubs or public-houses—they could be used to any extent. The proprietor of a public-house would be able to say to a candidate—"Come here and use my rooms as much as you like; I will not let, but will lend them to you." It was the use of these rooms, and not the con tract that he (the Attorney General) objected to.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the clause contained these words—
    "and if any person hires or uses any such premises or any part thereof for a committee room he shall he guilty of illegal hiring."
    Clearly those words, which came later on in the clause, would stop the use of public-houses and clubs. The clause went on to say—
    "and the person letting such premises or part, if he knew it was intended to use the same as a committee room, shall also he guilty of illegal hiring."
    How "using" could make "illegal hiring" in the words of the clause, he was at a loss to understand.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the words the hon. Member referred to came later on.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that after the Attorney General's explanation he would not persist in the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would now move the Amendment to which he had referred.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 8, after the word "room," to insert the words "as hereinafter defined."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he must again ask his hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. His hon. Friend wished to put him under a bond to define what
    262
    committee room was; but he was not sure that he would be able to do it. He had promised to say what should not be a committee room—to insert some provision to the effect that the clause should not render illegal the use of these rooms for the purpose of holding meetings at which addresses were delivered to the electors. If he could give a definition in this matter he should be glad to do so. He had not had much time to devote to it—ho had been trying to do it, however, although he could not say he had made much progress. It was not to be understood that in saying this he was giving a definite undertaking to furnish a definition.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he certainly thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in what he said. It was one thing to define what a certain thing was not, but it was a very different thing to define what it was.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought it would better for the words bringing about the proposed alteration to come in where he had suggested, and that the definition of "committee room" should be left for the Interpretation Clause at the end of the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he saw the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection, and would reserve his Amendment to the Report stage, when it was known how the definition of committee room stood. It seemed to him important to define in the Bill somehow what committee room was; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman did his best he should be perfectly satisfied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member whose name was next on the Paper (Mr. Tatton Egerton), he would move the next Amendment, which was, in line 10, to leave out the word "uses." When this were omitted something else would be suggested in its place.
    MR. CALLANclaimed priority for an Amendment he had handed to the Chairman in writing, and which had reference to line 9.
    THE CHAIRMANwished to know to what the hon. Member was alluding?
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had handed to the Chairman an Amendment in MS., to come in after the word "election," which came in before the word "uses."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment should be moved at the end of the clause.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would move the Amendment to which he had referred. It seemed to him that the construction of this part of the clause was very different to that of the first part. He could understand anyone hiring a room of this kind being liable to a penalty; but he could not understand anyone using one being liable.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, to leave out the word "uses."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the word "uses" were struck out, the use of rooms in public-houses would be entirely unchecked—it would be tantamount to saying "you shall not do a certain thing" without imposing a penalty for doing it. If they had said using should not take place, it was necessary to say what should constitute using.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he wished to move, in the name of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex, to insert—
    "Provided always, that this section shall not apply where it can be shown that no other suitable premises were available."
    There were many county, and even borough, districts where no room could be secured for the purpose of a committee room, except in a public-house. He should like to take the hon. and learned Gentleman into some of the wilder parts of his own constituency. He would there find the houses very thinly scattered about. He would find no sort of public place for the transaction of election business, or the holding of meetings but the inns and taverns; therefore, if the public-houses were not to be used as committee rooms, the candidates for the district would have no rooms whatever which they could use for the purpose. And this was not a solitary instance. He believed there were many parts of the country where—as this Amendment suggested—they would only be able to obtain committee rooms in public-houses. The Amendment did not go so far as to state that in unqualified terms—it only
    264
    stated that where it could be shown that there was no other suitable place available, a room in a public house might be used.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 13, to add—"Provided always, that this section shall not apply where it can he shown that no other suitable premises were available."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had already fully discussed this matter, therefore it would not be necessary for him to say much about it. He had done what he could to mitigate any inconvenience which would be felt from the absence of committee rooms; and, if he had stated clearly what was in his mind, hon. Members would be aware that he would agree to the Amendment if he could, but that he feared it would be dangerous to those candidates who wished to conduct elections as purely as possible; and whom he was doing all he could to protect. In the interest of the candidate he could not accept the Amendment. It might be that, being under the impression that there were no suitable premises elsewhere, the candidate, or the election agent, might take committee rooms in a public-house, and it might transpire, subsequently, that there were suitable premises elsewhere. Then he would have to judge what was "suitable," and that would be a duty which it would be most objectionable to throw upon a candidate; and the Judge, on a Petition, would have to say not what was a noun substantive, but what was an adverb, or a verb adverb. By the adoption of the Amendment, they would be putting the candidate at the risk of losing his seat. There would always be the fear of the candidate taking one view of the matter and the Judge another—of the candidate supposing certain premises were "unsuitable," and the Judge declaring they were "suitable." In the interest of the candidate the clause should remain as it was, for it would relieve him of all difficulty. He would know he would not be able to go to a public-house for his committee rooms, and he would not go. He would meet the hon. Member (Mr. Stanhope) and those with whom he was associated if he could; but, really, in the interest

    265
    of those persons he was trying to protect, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, there were many constituencies—his own, which was one of the largest in the country, amongst the number—where it would be impossible in certain districts to obtain a room large enough, except in a public-house. No doubt, it would be difficult to decide what was suitable and what was not suitable; but, at the same time, it could not be questioned that the clause would he felt to be objectionable in many districts. If the candidates were not allowed to avail themselves of rooms in public-houses, in many places the only alternative would be to put up tents for the accommodation of the committees. He hoped some modifying words would be agreed to before the clause was agreed to by the Committee.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he quite felt the force of the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and if he could see any officer to whom the duty of deciding what were and what were not suitable premises could be entrusted, he would press the Amendment strongly. The sheriff would hardly possess the necessary information to enable him to perform the duty—he was, of course, speaking of counties, as the Amendment would not apply to boroughs—and, besides that, the sheriff might be a strong partizan on the one side or the other. Let them take the Northern Division of Lancashire, for instance. In that district—in which he lived, and with which he was, therefore, familiar—there would hardly be a place, except a public-house, which they could get for use as a committee room. This, he was sure, was only one example of a numerous class of cases. As the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) who had put the Amendment on the Paper was not present at this moment, lie (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had consulted with his hon. Friend who had moved it (Mr. Stanhope), and they had decided that the best course would be to withdraw the Amendment, and see whether, before the Billleft Committee, or before the Be-port, they could not find some authority on the spot to whom they could entrust the task of deciding what were and what were not suitable premises. He was quite sure that if the clause were left as it was at present, great difficulty and
    266
    inconvenience would be the result. In many places this would happen—a candidate, knowing the advantage he would so secure in a particular district, would seize on the only available place, not a public-house, for his committee rooms, and the other candidate would be left without accommodation of any kind and would be, therefore, at a great disadvantage. He trusted that the discussion of the matter might now be postponed, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not shirk the duty of considering it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider the matter with the view, if possible, of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    MR. CALLANcomplained of the manner in which the Attorney General had treated him in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly been too liberal in assigning a room 10 feet square for a committee room. The candidate who would require a larger one would certainly run a serious risk of having his election annulled, supposing he were elected.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished, before the Amendment was withdrawn, to make one or two observations which might be of utility later on. The Attorney General seemed to assume that in the case of every election there would be a Petition. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed always to have in his mind how far the Judge might consider that something was right or something was wrong. In the present case he might very well have accepted the Amendment, as it was eminently qualified to describe what was meant. He (Mr. Warton) trusted they would not have a Petition after every election under this Bill; but, however that might be, he certainly was of opinion that such an Amendment as this should be passed, in order to prevent candidates being in some cases altogether deprived of committee rooms. To his mind it would have been well if, throughout this Bill, they had been guided by the rules of plain common sense. Here would have been an opportunity for displaying it—here, finding that in some districts it would be impossible to get committee rooms except in public-houses, they should have allowed them to be taken in public-houses under due precautions

    267
    and safeguards. He would not descend to particulars, as the Attorney General had done; but he earnestly protested against the principle that these matters would in every case be referred to a Judge, as though in every case an Election Petition were imminent. He was afraid that, in too many cases, Election Petitions would follow; but he protested against the assumption that they must follow in every case.
    MR. WIGGINsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would endeavour to devise some means of getting them out of this difficulty. In his own county (East Staffordshire) there were several large districts, such as Cannock Chase, where there was no other accommodation for committee rooms, or for holding meetings, than the village taverns. Unless they were allowed to use those places, there would be no places in which they could hold meetings. He did hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would do his best to get them out of this difficulty.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name—namely, to add at the end of line 13—
    "Provided always, That any club may be used as a committee room, if on the day of polling no intoxicating liquors are sold upon the premises."
    He did not propose to move this Amendment, but the next, which stood in the name of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), he should move. It was as follows:—
    "Provided, That the section shall not apply where it is the ordinary practice of the owners of such premises to let them, or any part of the same, for chambers or offices."
    He did not think he could do better than put to the hon. and learned Gentleman one case to illustrate what the noble Lord had in view in putting the Amendment on the Paper. Let them take the case of the Westminster Palace Hotel. That was, undoubtedly, an hotel where intoxicating liquors were sold; but, on the other hand, a considerable part of it was used as private chambers, committee rooms, places for holding meetings, and the like. His noble Friend was of opinion that where rooms in the hotel were used as private chambers and had separate entrances, they should not come under the provisions of this clause. If
    268
    the Amendment was not acceptable, he was sure his noble Friend would be willing to go farther, and to agree to a modification requiring the rooms to be altogether shut off from the rest of the hotel. He would agree to add the words, "with separate entrances" to the Amendment. He did not think he could put a case that was stronger than that of the Westminster Palace Hotel, which, as they all knew, was used very largely for committee rooms and similar purposes. Surely, if the part used for these purposes was distinct from that used for an hotel, there could be no objection to exempting it from the clause. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 13, add, "Provided, That the section shall not apply where it is the ordinary practice of the owners of such premises to let them, or any part of the same, for chambers or offices with separate entrances."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That those Words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, as the Amendment originally stood on the Paper, it was very different from its present form, and he had several reasons for objecting' to it. These objections did not apply to the Amendment as it now stood. He had no objection to the addition of the words, seeing that these chambers or offices were to have separate entrances. All he could say was, if the hon. Member would allow him to take up the position, he should like to consider the matter, and if nothing occurred to alter his opinion in the meantime to bring up the Amendment on Report.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Westminster Conservative Association possessed offices in a building belonging to the Westminster Palace Hotel. Directly the present tenancy expired, that portion of the building might be thrown into the hotel. This was a case in point. The words as to separate entrance had been put in at his suggestion, because, as they originally stood, there was strong doubt about them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the present Amendment in principle, and wait until the Report for making any alteration that he might consider necessary, the arrangement would be one which would be satisfactory to a great many hon. Members.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)said, he thought this proposal a very reasonable one, and he was quite ready to accede to it. He could hardly put the words down at the present moment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should, in any Amendment he might bring forward, except every portion of an hotel bona fide let off.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought the Attorney General should also put in words providing that the use of public-houses for the holding of public meetings should not be illegal.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider that matter with the other.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, there were many other places besides the Westminster Palace Hotel which would be affected by the clause if it were not amended, the Guildhall Tavern, for instance, where, no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had sat on arbitrations.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he should call attention to this subject again on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would now move his Proviso.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of the clause to add, "Provided, however, That nothing in this clause shall render illegal the use of any such part of any such promises for the holding of meetings or the addressing of electors."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would give as distinct a promise as he could to consider this Proviso, and would endeavour to see whether he could not give way so far as to allow a room to be provided in a public-house for candidates. He would also consider how far concession could be made, if it could be made at all, in the matter of using public-houses for committee rooms.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would prefer having the point he was dealing with settled at once by the insertion of this Amendment. If, subsequently, anything should make it appear that his (Mr. Callan's) interpretation of the clause
    270
    and the Amendment was not correct the clause could be again amended, The hon. and learned Gentleman had no objection to the Proviso, and he (Mr. Callan) could not, therefore, see why he could not accept it; it was no use waiting for the Report when they could settle the matter at once.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the hon. Member would strike out the word "however" he would agree to the Amendment, reserving to himself the right of considering the whole matter later on. It appeared to him that for the purpose of saving time, the best course would be to accept the Amendment.
    Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the clause, "Provided" That nothing in this clause shall render illegal the use of any such part of any such premises for the holding of meetings and the addressing of electors."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, as a matter of convenience, it would be satisfactory if the Chairman would read out the clause as amended to the Committee. Most of the Amendments which had been made had not been put upon the Paper, and many hon. Members, he thought, were "rather in the dark as to what the clause really was.
    THE CHAIRMANread the clause as amended.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the clause before it became a part of the Bill, ought to be corrected in its grammar.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that if anyone had felt a desire to move the omission of the clause before it was read from the Chair that desire must have been intensified by the reading. Whether he looked at it from a grammatical point of view, or from the point of common sense, his love for it did not increase by the operation which had just been gone through. He would not go into trivial matters; but would deal with the clause in its entire and general aspect. It had been greatly amended—he did not think

    271
    there was a clause in the whole Bill which had been more altered during the process of incubation. It had been tightened here and loosened there, and it was a most ghastly instrument now that they had finished with it. For his own part, he maintained the opinion which he originally entertained—namely, that it was one of the most tyrannical, unnecessary, and opprobrious clauses in the Bill; and, at the risk of being charged with repeating arguments, after what he had heard of the present structure of the clause from the lips of the Chairman just now, he was constrained to ask where were the members of a candidate's committee to meet in the future? At a coffee shop? No; for under the benign influence of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) that had been closed to them, as well as the butcher's. The pastrycook's and the baker's had been closed up, and, under the influence of an ex-Vice President of the Council, the school-board premises, he believed, had also been closed up, and there was a hybrid sort of arrangement by which some clubs were omitted from the clause and some were not—it was a kind of clubable conundrum they would have to go through at every election as to what would, in the opinion of the Judge, be a club within the clauses, or a club without the clauses. And they had got finally, to this great height of purity of election—that a candidate must not have a committee in his own hotel. "What," it was said, "do you want to stop in an hotel for for the purposes of elections?" They were not to have meetings for the purposes of elections in their own hotels. Here were 638 Members—English, Irish, and Scotch—sitting down to manufacture these fetters for themselves, and imagining they were doing business which was worthy of the attention of the Legislature of the United Kingdom. It was one of the most marvellous things which could have happened in this 19th century. Anything more contemptible than this clause in all its aspects—in its general aspect, in its limited aspect, in all the details that had been introduced into it, either in the way of tightening or loosening, had never been passed by the British Legislature. Was it not contemptible, when they remembered that they had been since 2 o'clock that afternoon occupied in this way, knowing all the time that
    272
    there were real solid matters of legislation awaiting disposal. But it had pleased Members—many of them, no doubt, because they thought they were saving some amount of expenditure at elections—to set to work to endeavour to improve this miserable clause. He should vote against the clause, mainly for the reason that it was opposed to the primary object the Government claimed to have in view in proposing the clause—namely, the diminution of expenditure. The effect of the clause must be to increase expenditure. It could have no other result. Under the genial influence of the friend of the publican sitting near him (Mr. Onslow), it narrowed the opportunity of all candidates of obtaining rooms for committees. In the counties some candidates would be at their wits' ends when occasion came, to know how practically to work the clause. He saw an hon. Gentleman opposite who, during the early discussions on this Bill, was considerably troubled in his mind to know how he was to manage his own social hospitality. The hon. Member had appealed to the Attorney General for advice as to how he was to get out of the difficulties which beset him in this matter; but with all his pleasantry and genial manner, the hon. Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) would experience great difficulty in obtaining a committee room in his county when this clause became law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General managed to get majorities in the Lobby with him; but how many of the hon. Members who came in to vote for these tyrannical clauses really believed in them? How many who would presently attend to the summons of the Division Bell, in the exercise of their superficial and glossy purity really pretended that they believed in those stringent provisions, which, after all, were the mere display of tyranny? He did not believe there was any clause in the Bill which was more obnoxious to common sense and practical experience, and more defiant of the actual necessities of the case than this. Hon. Members had, over and over again, invited those who supported the clause to give them some intimation as to the class of buildings which would be open to them in many parts of their constituencies for the purpose of conducting the necessary busi-

    273
    ness of an election. No answer was vouchsafed them. They were told, of course, that the chief object was to prevent any possible treating in the committee rooms; but, without any guidance from the hon. and learned Attorney General, they were in darkness as to what the committee room was after all; and he had no doubt that when this clause was passed—as it would be—it would be found to be one of those Parliamentary conundrums and pitfalls studding this magnificent measure, which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) seemed to think one of the greatest achievements of any Ministry.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that if a Division were taken he should vote against the clause. What had been said by hon. Members as to the difficulties which would result from the adoption of this clause was perfectly true; and he had in his mind a place where there was nothing whatever except a railway station, public-houses, a small shop or two, and a few farmers' houses scattered about a distance of two and a-half miles from the station. He should like the Attorney General to inform him where, in the future, they were to hold their committee meetings—where, save on the platform of the railway station?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished also to raise a protest against the clause. This proposal of the Government seemed to him one of the most gross cases of interference with the liberty of the subject which this Bill displayed. It was evident that in many large districts of the country—especially in county constituencies—there were no other places available for committee rooms than public-houses. The definitions of the Bill would present almost insurmountable difficulties on a trial. The question, what was a permanent political club, and what was not a permanent political club, was one which would raise infinite difficulties with the Judges in these trials. This clause, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen)—and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) only regretted that the hon. Member had not gone into the subject more fully—was a ridiculous specimen of bad grammar; it was a most wonderful confusion and involution of sentences as read
    274
    from the Chair. Surely, it would have been better for the Government to have postponed it. It was a very strange thing, indeed, that the Liberal Party, with all their anxiety for the liberty of the subject, should be introducing at this time clauses of such a character. He had heard a foreigner of great intelligence, speaking to day of a debate which he had heard in the House on this Bill, and he used this expression—"In no other country in the world would such interference with the liberty of the subject be tolerated." He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) believed that to be absolutely true. The Government were now carrying through a Bill which would be practically unworkable, and which would, so far as it had any result at all, have the effect of victimizing a few innocent Members—perhaps many. In the end, there would be a universal outcry and a revulsion of feeling against the Bill; all the time they had spent upon it would be wasted, for they would find it would be necessary, either to repeal, or so amend it, as to deprive it of its present characteristics. To his mind, it was extremely unsatisfactory that they should be wasting their time in this manner whilst there was so many questions of far greater importance demanding the attention of the House and the country. He cordially agreed with those who proposed the rejection of this clause.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was aware, he, for one, had not given any opposition to this Bill; but, on the contrary, he had endeavoured to assist the Government as far as he could. This clause, however, was really of a different character to those they had previously considered; and he could not help thinking that it was open to very grave and serious objections, not only as a matter of convenience, but also as a matter of principle. There could be no doubt that it was excessively restrictive in its character; and, as had been pointed out, might lead to very serious difficulty in its operation. He could not help thinking that for a clause of this kind some really valid ground should be shown, and he had failed to find anything of that kind during the discussion that had taken place upon it. As he understood, the only ground for the proposal of such a stringent and restrictive clause was that the presence

    275
    of a committee sitting in a public-house might lead to an undue consumption of liquor. Well, the Attorney General in making this suggestion, he would point out, had not done credit to his own Bill. He (Mr. Gregory) could not help thinking that, under the provisions of the Bill, such a thing as that could not take place, because, if it went on to any extent, it would be a ground for voiding an election; and the members of a candidate's committee setting in a public-house, if they did not do their best to restrict the drinking that might be going on, would be each liable to serious penalties. This argument seemed to him altogether to meet the ground alleged for the introduction of this clause. The section, as it stood, was open really to so much objection in its language, and in the Amendments that had been accepted, that it was now almost rendered grotesque. There was an Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) to the effect that no committee should sit in a house where refreshments of any kind, whether food or drink, were sold and might be consumed on the premises. That Amendment would effectually put a stop to the use, not only of a public-house, but of the village grocer's, or the pastry cook's, or the baker's. The committee would be shut out from any shop where provisions were sold in a village, and he supposed would have to hold their meetings in the street. In a great many places they would have no place at all for their meetings. When one came to read the clause, as it stood, it was obviously open to misconstruction, and it could only lead to difficulty. No solid reason had been alleged for retaining it in the Bill, and great inconvenience had been pointed out which had not been met on the other side of the House. It would be unnecessary and unjust, and he, therefore, trusted the Government would consent to its omission.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, though, of course, he should not expect the Attorney General to pay much attention to anything that fell from him, still he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have done less than give some little heed to the words of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, who was recognized on all sides to be one of the oldest and most respected Members of the House, and
    276
    also one who had very extensive experience in election matters, and whose object in addressing the Committee could not have been other than a worthy one. When such an hon. Member was addressing the Committee it did appear to him (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have done something else than lay almost at full length on the Treasury Bench, ostentatiously paying no attention whatever to the speech that was being delivered. [Cries of"Oh, oh!" and "Question!"] Well, he was only stating the fact, ["Order!"] He was not out of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not put himself to the trouble of even listening to the weighty argument that fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory), who did not often address the Committee. Anyone would have thought that what fell from the hon. Member would have had, at any rate, some little weight with the Attorney General; but not only had the hon. and learned Member ostentatiously refused to listen to what had fallen from, the hon. Member for East Sussex; but he committed a much more unpardonable crime, because he had paid no attention whatever to what had fallen from the Prime Minister this afternoon. The Prime Minister had deeply regretted his inability to provide more time for the discussion of important Business than that which the ordinary laws of nature allotted to them, and he had urged in the House the necessity of economizing the time they had to the last moment. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had no hesitation in saying—and he would signalize to the House and the public the fact—that the Attorney General of England, who had been entrusted by the Prime Minister with the charge of this Bill, had wasted the whole afternoon, and two hours, minus a quarter, of the Evening Sitting, in passing a clause—["No, no!"]—well, in endeavouring to pass a clause which literally was not worth the paper upon which it was set down. The clause was absurd; it was ludicrous; it was utterly futile in its aims; it was unintelligible in its language; and it would prove so unworkable that no Judge in the land would ever think of making an effort even to arrive at what was the intention of Parliament with regard to it. The hon. Member who had just sat

    277
    down had talked about the only refuge for election committees being the streets, and, curiously enough, that had reminded him of a speech that the Attorney General made at Bristol a little while ago—he thought about two years ago—when the hon. and learned Gentleman denominated certain of his opponents as "gutter boys." It appeared to him that the Attorney General had been anxious in this clause to bring his taunt into an Act of Parliament, and to reduce, not only his opponents, but also his supporters, to the level of "gutter boys." He wished to ask the Attorney General—though he had not condescended to answer anything that had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and it was, therefore, hardly to be supposed that he would answer anything that fell from him (Lord Randolph Churchill)—if he would give the Committee a specimen of his great legal ingenuity by explaining, not what was his own aim, but what was the aim of the Government in inserting this clause in the Bill? What had the Government done? They had got out of the House of Commons a tremendous advantage in their method of conducting an election; they had obtained two tremendously strong guarantees for the purity of election. They had limited the number of committee rooms, and then had gone further—or, rather, they were about to go further—and limit the amount of a candidate's expenses, so that by no possibility, if the Bill was fairly carried out, could corrupt or illegal practices, or undue influence, be exercised. These things could not take place if they stuck at their two principles of limiting the number of committee rooms and the amount of a candidate's expenses. What could be the object of the Government in going beyond that and seeking to place the maximum of inconvenience upon the candidate? He wished to know whether the difficulties of Parliamentary elections were not great enough already—before this new law was passed? To hon. Members who wished to conduct elections with tolerable purity, and to save their seats in the House, was it not difficult enough to conduct elections now? Would the difficulties not be great enough even if the Bill stopped
    278
    here and went no further—would the difficulties of conducting an election not be 10 times greater than they were if the Bill passed into law and obtained the Royal Assent now? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell them what was the object of the Government in endeavouring to surround the return to Parliament of a candidate by so many insupportable and impossible obstacles as they found here? The Committee was agreeing to a clause of which the structure was not on paper before it. It was only in their mind in a most hazy form—he did not believe the Attorney General himself knew exactly how it stood, and he was perfectly certain that no other Member of the Committee had the slightest idea how it stood. The Attorney General in one of his speeches—and he had made a great many that afternoon—said he wished to put down the evil of drinking in committee rooms, and that if they did not insert this clause there would be a great deal of drinking in public-houses during elections. [An hon. MEMBER: Treating.] Yes, of course, treating by someone or other at public-houses as this clause was at present. In the course of the afternoon he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had read the clause over and over again, and he had come to the conclusion that they might leave it out of the Bill, or put it into the Bill, and they would produce no effect whatever, either more or less, on the amount of drinking that would take place at a Parliamentary election. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were not to take committee rooms in public-houses, but they might take committee rooms next door to a public-house, so that members of a committee might step out of the one house into the other. By the fact of the committee room, which was not a public-house, being in such close proximity to the public-house, all the friends of the candidate, who wanted to drink, might go from the one to the other, and any amount of drinking could take place; in fact, committee rooms would be sought for in proximity to public-houses, and all the work they had done that afternoon, in spite of the Prime Minister's adjuration to economize the time of Parliament, would be entirely thrown away. All their efforts would have been useless, because of those absurd regulations, which, after all, were only handicap-

    279
    ping and endeavouring to keep out of Parliament the candidates who, in all probability, they would like to see come into it. He could assure the Attorney General that he was in all sincerity putting these objections before him. As a general rule, he and those who thought with him had encouraged the disciples of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench by generally voting with the Attorney General; and it was, therefore, from no hostility to the Bill that he made these observations. He hoped elections would be as pure as possible; but as for the Bill, it would make very little difference to him as far as the constituency he represented (Woodstock) was concerned. He might be said to take a most impartial view of the matter. He believed these clauses, if they passed as they were, would add to the growing unpopularity of the Liberal Party; therefore, there was nothing more disinterested than his attitude in this matter. It occurred to him also that the Attorney General might have considered that which did not seem to have come before his usually highly imaginative mind, that the Bill, as it was drawn, was a Bill for promoting the decaying prosperity of the Bar, and for bringing the sands of Pactolus into the pockets of the senior, or of the dead or dying junior Bar, through the amount of Petitions the Bill would inevitably give rise to. The Attorney General might have considered that, when he was filling his Bill with every imaginable pitfall and trap, such as that committee rooms were not to be taken in public-houses. If the Bill passed in its present shape, no candidate in his senses would think of having a committee room during the progress of his election. It would be madness for any candidate to have anything approaching the nature of a committee room, except, perhaps, at a University election. If he had anyone to assist him, other than his authorized agent, he would be offering himself up to the Attorney General and his satellites, who, like vultures, gathered together from all quarters of the horizon when they smelt the wretched blood of the candidates. That was the whole object of the Bill. He proclaimed this—that the Attorney General had wasted seven or eight hours of public time in passing a clause which in its nature was so in-
    280
    tolerable, and so utterly against all the ideas of liberty which, in spite of Parliament, were maintained in the Courts of Law, that no Judge would ever put it in force.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he did not wish to follow the noble Lord upon the points he had raised. They had discussed these clauses in detail, and it was scarcely necessary to go over the same ground again; but he agreed with the noble Lord that the section was too severe to be operative. But, at any rate, it was the decision of the Committee. He regretted that the noble Lord should have made any animadversions on the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He (Mr. Cowen) had watched this Bill very closely, and was bound to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed very great ability and extreme tact and good temper in his conduct of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been troubled with Amendments on many occasions. He (Mr. Cowen) himself had had to bring before him suggestions which had not been acceptable to him, and invariably the hon. and learned Gentleman had received these proposals with great consideration. On reflection, no doubt, the noble Lord would admit that was the case, and would agree that it was an extremely difficult task to conduct through the House of Commons a Bill of this character, and that there had been great demands made upon the Attorney General's temper and patience. He thought it only fair that some consideration should be shown to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he could not agree with some things that had been said as to the Attorney General's conduct of the Bill. He believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been hardly used, because it was manifest throughout the discussion of the clause that he had, to a very large extent, accepted Amendments that had been moved on this (the Conservative) side of the House. The clauses were greatly benefited by the additions that had been made to it. Personally, he (Mr. Whitley) was one of those who should be glad to see no public-houses used at elections. He believed they had been the source of a great deal of corruption in the past. The clause, as originally drawn, bore hardly upon one section of the community—

    281
    namely, the publicans, whom he believed to be as honourable a class of men as any other, and whom he should be sorry to see stamped as being specially responsible for the treating which had taken place at elections. He looked with great approval upon the Amendment which the Attorney General had consented to, to apply the clause to refreshment houses, and in that matter did not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He did not believe that the clause would touch the general shopkeeper; but understood it to refer only to refreshment houses, where food and drink might be used for purposes of corruption. As amended, the clause was now a great improvement upon the original proposal of the Government, and he, personally, felt very much obliged to the Attorney General for the way in which he had met the proposals which had come from the Conservative side of the House. After the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted proposals emanating from this side of the House, it certainly was rather hard that he should now be taunted with having done so. If he (Mr. Whitley) voted against the clause, it would be on the ground stated by several hon. Members, even by some on the Ministerial side of the House—namely, that in country districts there would be great difficulty in finding rooms for committees if they were debarred from using public-houses.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was not going to make any ill-natured observations in regard to the Attorney General, whose goodnature and kindness of heart they were all so well acquainted with. But, with all his kindness of heart and goodnature, the hon. and learned Gentleman could not reconcile the Committee—and it was to be hoped would not be able to reconcile the Committee—to the adoption of this very singular clause. It was necessary for him briefly to recapitulate the history of the discussion on this clause. As it came before them originally it was simply an attack upon the Licensed Victuallers—it was simply a declaration that these men were a kind of pariahs, who were always acting improperly. When the Attorney General came to this strange proposition, however, ho, to a certain extent, relented, and in his desire—and this he (Mr. Warton) said without the slightest reflection on the hon. and learned Member—to do justice
    282
    to the Licensed Victualler, he still further restricted the number of possible committee rooms. The effect of all the Amendments assented to was this—that, practically, candidates would be left without any choice of rooms at all—that was what it came to. He was not, for one moment, blaming the Attorney General, whose good-tempered tact and kindness everybody was aware of; all knew he wished, if possible, to please everybody, but the result—as was the case in the old fable, to which he had not time to make more detailed reference—was that it ended in his pleasing nobody. The effect of all the hon. and learned Gentleman's attempt at conciliation was this—that in endeavouring to please one class and another, candidates at elections would be left without any committee rooms at all. He did ask the hon. and learned Gentleman most earnestly to consider what would be the effect of the clause as it now stood. Would it not be this—to increase very largely the expenses of elections? A candidate would not be able to have a public-house committee room; he would not be able to have a room in a house in which drink was sold; he would not be able to have one in an elementary school; and he was left in the position of being unable, in a country constituency, to obtain anything in the nature of a committee room at all. At the same time, the Committee were not told what a committee room was. They were left entirely in the dark in this matter; and it seemed to him that if they adopted the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) as to suitable premises, it would have been a great improvement. One of the great evils they were met with throughout this Bill, was the constant reference to the Judge. They were told that the Judge would take this view, and the Judge would take that view; whereas hon. Members who had been candidates at elections hoped that these matters would never come before a Judge at all. He had said before, and he would say again—he would prophecy—that the result of this Bill would be innumerable Petitions and innumerable unseatings of candidates for trifling and trumpery offences. Hon. Members had suffered great inconvenience from the manner in which the issue had been put before them. When the Amendment

    283
    was brought forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), by which it was proposed to omit the words "or any premises where intoxicating liquor is sold," there was a sort of tacit understanding that the question of clubs was connected with that. He (Mr. Warton) had been compelled to vote with the Government, as many Conservatives had done, in the narrow Division that took place; because, as a lawyer, he could not help looking at the words narrowly, and thinking that the words did not apply to clubs. It had been held, on the highest authority, that liquor was not to be sold at a club; the members had to pay for their liquor as they paid for their dinners; but in the eye of the law that was not "paying;" it was something in the nature of a transaction amongst themselves, a sharing of common property. Many Conservatives had been obliged to vote according to their consciences, because these words, in accordance with the law, did not convey the result which was supposed to be conveyed to the Committee. Nothing in the whole course of the discussion on this clause had struck him with more amazement than the way in which, at a quarter to 7 o'clock, the Chairman put this Question; and it had been passed, without anybody saying a word on the subject. He had no doubt this Amendment of the Attorney General would lead, in the end, to very considerable discussion. There would be the greatest difficulty in deciding what a permanent club was—whether permanence meant a club that had stood for a long time, or whether the description would apply to a house newly erected or newly acquired. That was a point which he (Mr. Warton) could not deal with—it was a question for the Judges. The clause was now left in such a state of hopeless entanglement, that when the Judges came to interpret it they would be very much puzzled to say what was a permanent political club and what was not, and would find it very difficult to draw a distinction between those good clubs and those bad clubs, of which much had been heard. He was always anxious to speak of the law as he understood it; and as he gave his vote for the Government on the question of law he, therefore, hoped they would give him the credit of speaking for the law honestly. If anyone pretended to say what the law was,
    284
    he was bound to disregard Party considerations altogether; and it was as a lawyer, and not as a Party man, that he maintained that the Amendments of the Attorney General left this clause in a state of hopeless confusion. To say that these difficulties that had arisen were to be solved by the Judge was a terrible thing. He hoped these cases would not go before a Judge; but it was because he thought that the section was left in such a hopeless state of entanglement that he, for one, should vote against it. He must say he believed the section was one of the most muddling, interfering, troublesome, sections in the whole Bill; but he did think that the Attorney General, in his anxiety to save the time of the Committee, would have done much better to have withdrawn the clause. Peeling, as he did, the necessity, in point of time, for their making progress with measures of importance, he could not help urging on the Government to cut out this provision, which was confusing, and which would lead to expense, not to the Legal Profession, but to the unhappy candidates, who would be entrapped into all sorts of difficulties.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to ask whether, under this clause, it would be permissible to use churches and chapels for electioneering purposes? In Scotland it was the constant practice to use churches and chapels for the purpose of holding meetings. He himself had preached from a Presbyterian pulpit; and he had no doubt that the Prime Minister, who was also a Scotch Member, had performed a similar feat. The people of Scotland would be deeply grieved and disappointed if they were precluded in the future from using their churches and chapels for this purpose, as they felt that such use added very much to their sanctity; and if they were deprived of it, he was certain there would be considerable difficulty in many places in finding places equally suitable for the holding of meetings.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that when the clause was originally proposed it was a very bad one, and one the Committee would have done well to reject; but he had no hesitation in saying that it had been made infinitely worse by the Amendments introduced into it, and if it was desirable to oppose the clause originally, it was imperative on the

    285
    Committee to do so now. It had become a trap for unsophisticated and un-ingenuous candidates. In the first place, no one knew, and no one had been able to tell them yet, what a committee room was. The Attorney General had been appealed to, over and over again, to tell them how the Judges were to define these words—to define what a committee room was, what it was that made a room into a committee room. The Attorney General did not know, and the Judges would not know, what a committee room was; but the Judges would have to find out. The candidate, he supposed, would have to have a committee room—not many, because where many were employed numbers of them were useless. Where, however, was the candidate to hold his committee meetings? He was shut out of the public-houses; he was shut out of all the places where intoxicating liquor or other kinds of refreshments were sold—indeed, he was not sure that the candidate was not shut out of the butcher's shop or the grocer's. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh! yes.] It was clear he was shut out of his hotel. The man who had the imprudence, during an election, to reside at an hotel would, no doubt, have to take extreme good care in everything he did, that the hotel did not accidentally become a committee room. Since the Committee adjourned for the dinner hour, candidates had been shut out of all schools, he was told. He did not know whether they were shut out of all churches and chapels. It seemed to him that if they only knew what a committee room was they would find that no committee room could be held except in the street. The candidate was shut out of private houses where he had the imprudence to give anything to eat or drink; and the whole effect of the clause was that the candidate would, first of all, have to wonder what it was that made a committee room, and, if he was clever enough to find that out, he would have to take precious good care that he did not make any house in the borough which he desired to represent into a committee room. But, then, by this extraordinary trap for the man who might wish to conduct his election purely, there was the most perfect licence to use any room he liked in a public-house, school, church, or chapel, or refreshment room, for purposes of election, so long as it was not a commit-
    286
    tee room; and he could not conceive anything more likely to promote illegal practices and extravagant expenditure during an election than this unlimited means of hiring rooms all over a borough or county, except in public-houses. This clause was originally aimed against Licensed Victuallers specially. Now, as amended, it appeared to have been turned into a most ingenious trap to catch unwary candidates, and into a most ingenious arrangement for allowing the most extensive corruption to prevail. The only class whom he supposed the Attorney General desired to benefit were the lawyers, because this certainly was a clause that would encourage Petitions. If the Attorney General had brought in the clause with the view of assisting members of his Profession who were not Members of the House, and to put a little honest money into their pockets by promoting Election Petitions, it was an admirable clause; but, if it was intended to promote purity of election, it was a very bad clause indeed, and he hoped the Committee would reject it.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, it was quite clear this was a clause aimed solely against public-houses. When the clause was originally proposed, it was seen to be unfair to treat public-houses invidiously; but now, as amended, it was one of the most useless and absurd clauses ever introduced into a Bill of this nature. Why, in the name of fortune, they could not have a committee room in a house in which food was sold passed his comprehension. Those who had any experience whatever in electioneering matters knew quite well how difficult it was to get rooms at all for the use of committees. He should certainly vote against the clause, and he hoped, by so doing, a protest might be entered which would have some effect on the Bill.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEdesired to say, in a very few words, the reason why he should support the elimination of this clause. As his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down had pointed out, as first drawn the clause appeared to be aimed at public-houses. The Attorney General had altered it because, as he had pointed out in an early period of the debate, he did not wish to make any invidious distinction between licensed houses and other houses; he had, therefore, accepted an Amendment bringing

    287
    coffee-houses and other refreshment houses in the same category, and he showed to the Committee that the sole purpose of drawing up the Amendment was to prevent candidates, and those who were likely to support candidates, from being led into temptation. It was evidently the opinion of a great many hon. Members that this clause, as it now stood, was thoroughly unworkable. Personally, he considered it absolutely unnecessary; because, if hon. Members would look at the 1st clause of the Bill, they would find that treating in any way whatever was to be regarded as a corrupt practice, and anyone who indulged in such a practice would be liable to the loss of his election, and possibly to a prohibition to sit for the constituency which he had been wooing again, at all events for the then Parliament. If candidates wore so idiotic as to use public-houses for purposes of treating, he did not think it was at all necessary for the Committee to pass a clause that should save them from their own folly. This clause was absolutely unnecessary, it being provided in the 1st and 41st clauses that these things should not be done under pain of heavy penalties; therefore, he should vote against the retention of the clause.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsupposed that, after what his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) had said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see that he was quite mistaken when he told the Committee that churches and chapels were not used for election purposes. Why, the Prime Minister himself had desecrated churches and chapels by utilizing them for some beggarly electioneering work in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General proposed, he believed, to provide in the clause that schools should not be used for committee rooms; à fortiori, chapels should be included in the prohibition. He appealed to the Attorney General to either accept his Amendment, or to put aside the clause altogether.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had considerable sympathy with the object the Attorney General had in view in not allowing committee rooms in public-houses. Looking, however, at the subsequent part of the Bill, and at the very stringent regulations that were made as
    288
    regarded expense, he did not see how it was possible for them to work the Schedules of the Bill unless they were to have committee rooms in public-houses. As he pointed out in the few words he addressed to the Committee earlier in the afternoon, the expense of committee rooms would be very much increased by the clause as it now stood. Candidates could get committee rooms in public-houses at a very much loss cost than they could get them in other houses. Under the circumstances, he should find himself reluctantly obliged to vote against the clause.
    MR. RITCHIEwished to defend the Prime Minister from the charge of sacrilege which had been brought against him. In Scotland it was not considered a sacrilege to address meetings in churches and chapels. As a matter of fact, it was a very common practice; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman could not be open to the charge made against him by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton). Such was not the case in this country, and he (Mr. Ritchie) thought it would be an invidious thing if candidates were allowed to address the electors in churches and chapels in England. It was perfectly certain that members of the Church of England would regard it as a sacrilege to address meetings in their churches, although it might not be considered so by those who attended chapels—["Question!"]. It was the Question; the question was raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He (Mr. Ritchie) desired to say that he should certainly vote against the clause. The clause, as he understood it, had been proposed in the interest of the reduction of expense, and also in the interest of purity of elections. So far from the clause reducing the expenditure of candidates, he believed it would really increase their expenditure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had shown that he, at any rate, would be placed at a great disadvantage in consequence of not being able to employ the houses of Licensed Victuallers, because he would have to pay very much larger sums for houses other than those of Licensed Victuallers. But apart from this, the hon. and learned Gentleman had told the Committee that in addition to the committee rooms, which would be

    289
    allowed under the Bill, candidates would be allowed to engage public-houses for the purpose of addressing meetings. If this clause did not exist a candidate could engage the large room of a public-house for a committee room, and he could also use it for the purpose of addressing meetings. According to this clause a candidate would be obliged to engage a room for his committee in a house other than a public-house, and he would be obliged to engage a room in a public-house for addressing meetings. He would, therefore, be put to two costs instead of one. With the object of promoting purity of election, he understood the Attorney General to advocate the limitation of the number of committee rooms. It was contended that it was a very common mode of corruption to pay a large sum for the purpose of engaging a large number of committee rooms, and that was one of the grounds on which the Attorney General had advocated the limitation of committee rooms. He (Mr. Ritchie) wanted to know how they could support the present proposition on the ground of purity of election, if a candidate was to be at liberty to engage a large number of rooms in public-houses for the purpose of addressing meetings? If it was a means of corruption to pay large sums of money for the purpose of engaging committee rooms, it surely was an equal means of corruption to engage rooms for the purpose of addressing meetings. He could not conceive how, either on the ground of purity of election or the reduction of expenditure, this clause could possibly be supported. Believing, as he did, that the clause would neither tend to the purity of election nor the reduction of expenditure, and believing also that it amounted to the casting of an unnecessary slur on a large and respectable body of tradesmen, he should vote against it.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, there had been so many alterations made in the clause that he did not think half the hon. Members in the House knew how the clause now really stood. Perhaps the Chairman would be good enough to read the clause again?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to a point of Order. The hon. Member was not present, some time ago, when a similar request was complied with. It would be inexpedient
    290
    to establish a precedent by requiring the Chairman to read the clause, whenever a request was made by Members who had been absent, when it had been once read. He trusted the Committee would not establish a bad precedent by requiring the Chairman to read the clause.
    MR. RAIKESentirely agreed with what had been said by the Attorney General as to the irregularity of appealing to the Chair to read a clause again which was before the Committee; but, having said that, he was bound to say he did not think the Attorney General had done much to shorten the discussion by laying such stress on that point, because, no doubt, a great many Members of the Committee had come into the House since important Amendments had been introduced into the clause. Might he suggest that there would be no impropriety in the Attorney General himself reading the clause? He understood that the Attorney General had consented to insert words in the clause which would make it competent for any candidate to address his constituency in any public-house. In short, that the same Government which prohibited the holding of committee meetings in public-houses was actually about to introduce words to legalize the practice of candidates addressing their constituencies in public-houses. He was bound to say, if that was a fact, they had reached the consummation of the ne plus ultra of hypocrisy. Years ago he remembered having seen meetings held in public-houses on behalf of Parliamentary candidates. When he was an Undergraduate at Cambridge he attended some of the meetings of the Liberal candidate, which were invariably held in a public-house; and he remembered pretty well the scandalous system of drinking and treating which always ensued at those meetings. Was he to understand that this clause, which proposed to tighten and to strengthen the law with regard to the admitted irregularities which might arise in case committee meetings were held in public-houses—was he to understand that the same Cabinet which was proposing to tighten and strengthen that law, was actually about to introduce words which would perpetuate one of the most absolute forms of corruption at the present time?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had charged the Government with hypocrisy. Why, as a matter of fact, the provision as to the holding of meetings in public-houses was inserted in the clause at the suggestion of the very Friends of the right hon. Gentleman himself. They had asked that meetings should be allowed in the large rooms of the public-houses, on the ground that it very often happened that large rooms could only be found in public-houses. Having yielded to that change, which came from an hon. Member opposite—he presumed the right hon. Gentleman at the time the concession was made was absent—the right hon. Gentleman now came forward and accused them of hypocrisy. Under the circumstances, he did not think that the Government need take the words of the right hon. Gentleman very much to heart.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and the Government in general, liked to pose as martyrs because they considered they were doing their duty. If the Government, however, had been hero a long time to-day, they themselves were responsible for taking up the time of the Committee, and they must not regard hon. Members as their vassals and slaves. When an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dixon-Hart-land) asked that the clause should be read, instead of his request being complied with, the Attorney General got up and read the Committee a lecture. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not committed that great mistake, which certainly was not usual in him, they would not have the shameful altercation and disturbance which was likely to ensue. He maintained that they had a right to have the clause read; and, although the Attorney General might desire it, they did not intend to vote in the dark. They had a right to understand the clause as it stood. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that they had pressed upon him certain Amendments to this very ridiculous clause; but, having pressed upon him those Amendments, they desired, before they voted on the Question that this clause should stand part of the Bill, to have the whole clause read. He would, there-
    292
    fore, ask the Chairman very respectfully to be good enough to read the clause, and not allow the Committee to be dictated to by the Attorney General. Certainly, unless they had the clause read again, he should move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that he, with great deference, asked the Chairman once before to read the clause; but at the time there were very few Gentlemen indeed in the House. The Attorney General must remember that an immense number of Amendments to the clause had been accepted, most of which had not been on the Notice Paper at all, and that scarcely one of the Amendments, as they stood on the Paper, had been agreed to. The Attorney General had met hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House with the greatest frankness and the greatest good temper, and he could readily understand the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman in wishing to pass the Bill as soon as possible. This clause, however, was one of the most important clauses of the Bill. Some most important Amendments had been made in the clause, such as had not been made in any other clause of the Bill. He did not wish to detain the Committee more than a few moments. Indeed, he only rose to appeal to the Prime Minister, even if it was a little irregular, to say one kind word in order that the clause might be read from the Chair, so that hon. Gentlemen who were not in the House when the clause was read some time ago might know exactly how the clause stood.
    MR. PELLsaid, he could imagine nothing more inconvenient than that the Chairman should be required to read different clauses of the Bill. Considering, however, the importance of the present clause, he thought that, as so many Amendments had been made to it, an exception might be made in this case. If it were, however, read from the Chair, he hoped the Committee would not take this as a precedent for their future guidance.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that this novel request for the renewed reading of the clause from the Chair would not be pressed. It would be a complete innovation. Indeed, he did not believe that on more than three or four times in the last 50 years, over which his Parliamentary experience ex-

    293
    tended, had a clause, as amended, been read from the Chair. He asked the Committee to consider the request in all its bearings. It was a dangerous request to be made at all; and certainly it was a request which came with very-little grace—he did not now refer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland)—from a Gentleman who had absented himself from the House during the greater part of the discussion, but who, having just arrived, made a peremptory demand from the Chair, and threatened that unless the demand was conceded he would report Progress. It was not that he (Mr. Gladstone) begrudged the few moments that would be occupied in reading the clause that induced him to appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press a demand to which the Government could be no party. A very evil precedent would be established if, in the course of a particular discussion, any Gentleman could ask that the clause should be read from the Chair. Besides that, it was not a very easy matter for the Chairman to read the clause as amended. It was very difficult, indeed, to incorporate the marginal alterations made by the Chairman in a manner perfectly sufficient for his own purposes, but not for the purposes of others. He did entreat the Committee to recollect how dangerous a precedent would be established in this matter.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not think that would be regarded as a precedent at all. He had asked the same thing himself on a previous occasion when the Speaker was in the Chair, and the right hon. Gentleman at once complied with the request.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose to Order. With the object of saving the time of the Committee, he thought, instead of listening to long lectures from the Attorney General and the Prime Minister, they ought, upon this matter, to appeal to the supreme authority of the Chair, and to ask the Chairman whether a bonâ fide appeal had not been made to him, and whether that appeal was not within the right of a Member of the Committee? He respectfully asked the ruling of the Chair upon this point?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must—[Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"] If hon. Gentlemen would only restrain
    294
    their impatience they would find there was nothing disorderly at all in what he was going to say. He begged to say there was no question before them, as he apprehended, of Order involved in this matter. He had never asserted that it was irregular for this clause to be read from the Chair; nay, more, he believed that if 50 hon. Members, one after the other, were to get up in immediate succession, and to demand that for 50 times the clause should be read from the Chair, there would be nothing disorderly or nothing irregular in their so doing. There would, however, be extreme inconvenience if the case were carried to absurd lengths.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had asked the Chairman for a ruling on the point, and he would again most respectfully ask the opinion of the Chair upon the matter?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say there is any point of Order involved in the question. It may, however, shorten matters if I state exactly what took place. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had an Amendment on the Paper, and that Amendment was accepted, or partly accepted, by the Attorney General. The hon. Member (Mr. Onslow) then asked me, as a point of Order, if I would read the clause as it then stood amended. I informed him there was no point of Order at all, but I said I had no objection to reading the clause; but I did find some difficulty in reading the clause, owing to the various Amendments that had been made; and I did not read it in such a manner as I could have wished. Having read it already twice, at the request of hon. Gentlemen, I think it can hardly be necessary, or perhaps hardly proper, that I should read it a third time.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERentirely agreed with the opinion that had been expressed, that there was nothing irregular in an appeal to the Chair to have a clause—the character of which was doubtful to the Committee—read; but, when an appeal was made to the Chair, and the Chair did not respond in the affirmative, it was a distinct declaration, on the part of the Chair, that the Chair was not prepared to read the clause. What he (Mr. O'Connor Power) objected to was that hon. Gentlemen, in that (the Opposition) part of the House, should take the authority of the Chair into

    295
    their own hands, and should not only determine what the Committee should think, but what the Chair was to think, as to the performance of the Chairman's duties. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) concluded his speech with a threat, for he said—"Sir Arthur Otway, I ask you to read the clause, and if you do not, I shall move to report Progress." [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF at this point rose, but was met with loud shouts of "Order, order!"] He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was sitting quite close to the hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was now in the hearing of the Committee, and what he ventured to say was this—that neither the Chairman nor the Committee would stand such a slight for two seconds if it was made by an Irish Member.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order. He distinctly said—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Connor Power is in possession of the Committee.
    MR. RITCHIErose to a question of Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether, if an hon. Gentleman, in the course of the address of another hon. Gentleman, rose to Order, he was not entitled to be heard?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was speaking to a point of Order. ["No, no!"] The Question before the Committee is that this Clause 15 stand part of the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that Clause 15 stand part of the Bill. Do I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Mayo is not speaking to a point of Order?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERtrusted that if he should, by accident, become out of Order, the Chairman would not fail to give him the usual intimation; and he hoped he should not be swayed by the example of hon. Gentlemen near him in disregarding the Chairman's ruling. As the question of Order seemed to be disposed of, he wished to address himself to the point at issue, whether it was necessary, in order to enable the Committee to arrive at a decision, that
    296
    the whole clause should be read from the Chair? He respectfully submitted there was no such necessity, and that hon. Gentlemen who had recently arrived would be inflicting a great hardship upon those who were in possession of the facts of the case if they were to insist upon any such reading; but, at the same time, he wished to avail himself of this opportunity of protesting against the license, which some hon. Gentlemen permitted themselves, in discussions in that House, and he wished to say that hon. Gentlemen below him ought not to imagine that, because they had not the misfortune to represent Irish constituencies, they had a right to do what they liked.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they had got into rather a heated discussion upon a somewhat unimportant question. As he understood the matter, before they divided many hon. Members were anxious to know how the clause stood, and with that object the Chairman was requested to read the clause. The Prime Minister considered that that would be an evil precedent to set. Might he (Mr. Balfour) suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who was in charge of the Bill, should read the clause as amended instead of the Chairman; and might he also remind the Prime Minister of this fact—that before they separated at 7 o'clock an appeal was made to his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) not to press his Motion for Adjournment, though his noble Friend pointed out that as they had not the words of the Amendment of the Attorney General on the Paper, it was very difficult for them to give a decision upon their import? His noble Friend yielded to the appeal of the Prime Minister. Would it, therefore, be too much to ask the Government to yield to the reasonable request, and read to the Committee the clause on which it was now expected to vote?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked that he might be permitted to mention what had really occurred. When they re-assembled that evening they had arrived at a certain stage of the clause. The Chairman yielded to a request to read the clause; and after other Amendments had been made, and other Provisoes added to the clause, the clause was put from the Chair, and then the Chairman

    297
    was again asked, as a matter of courtesy, to read the whole clause as amended. He did so, and when a few other hon. Members arrived at the House it was asked that the clause should be read a third time.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It was read to the Committee about a quarter past 9 o'clock.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was first read immediately after they re-assembled at 9 o'clock, and it was read a second time immediately when the Question was put that the clause be added to the Bill. It stood to reason that if every hon. Member, when he came to the House, could insist upon the clause being re-read, considerable inconvenience would ensue. It was a precedent that could not be allowed for a moment.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought it would be almost impertinent, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, for him to add anything as to the extreme inadvisability of endeavouring to provoke from the Chair a further source of discussion. The Chairman could exercise his own discretion as to whether he complied with the request of any hon. Member to read the clause, and he would only do so if it were desirable in order to facilitate the deliberations of the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) thought it would be a matter of extreme misfortune if any questions of this sort were precipitated in order to disturb their Business, which was already sufficiently confused. He (Mr. Raikes) should not have been sorry if the Attorney General had given them some hint as to some of the words he had added; but, after the course taken by some Members of the Committee, perhaps he was exercising a wise discretion in the course he was pursuing, although he (Mr. Raikes) was not a little surprised to find himself in accord with the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), whom he remembered was not always the most disposed to support the Chair. He was, however, very glad to be fortified with the hon. and learned Gentleman's support on this occasion; and he did appeal to the Committee whether it was worth their while to continue to waste the very precious moments at their command on a matter of this kind?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, his right hon. Friend the Member for
    298
    the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) represented a constituency where there were no committee rooms, and where even the candidates themselves were not allowed to show themselves during an election. But the result of the Attorney General's refusal of a very courteous request on the part of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had been a very great waste of time. Whether hon. Gentlemen were right or wrong in making such a request, the hon. and learned Gentleman might courteously have acceded to it, and then the Committee would have known what it was they were asked to vote upon. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would not have troubled the Committee again, had it not been for the long jeremiad of the Prime Minister, in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to him. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) only wished hon. Members to know what it was they were to vote upon; and if the information had been given at once, without that remarkable outburst from the Attorney General, they would have been in the Division Lobby long ago. In order to enable the Government to give the information now he would move that the Chairman be directed to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that as there seemed to be some dispute about the time when this clause, as amended, was read from the Chair, he might mention that he noted the time when the incident occurred. The clause was read quite distinctly from the Chair at about five minutes past 10 o'clock, and therefore there could be no necessity whatever for reading it again now.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped they might now be allowed to come to a decision upon the clause. It was a great misfortune, after the clause had occupied the attention of the Committee for so long a time, that a decision should not be arrived at? He had not taken any part in the discussion with regard to the question of reading the clause over again; but difficulties did sometimes arise from the House being more full at one time than at another,

    299
    and from Gentlemen who had not heard what had passed being unacquainted with the particular matters under discussion. But it was, he thought, a question of expediency and discretion as to what were the occasions on which a clause should or should not be read again; and, under the present circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. He fancied that most hon. Members in the House had their minds pretty well filled on the subject, and were in a position to come to a decision upon it.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had not altogether gathered the exact position in which his hon. Friend (Sir II. Drummond Wolff) stood with respect to this clause. The right hon. Gentleman could not be aware that the claim, or the request—for, after all, it was nothing more than a request, and a reasonable one—[Interruption.] The Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), who presumed—[Interruption.] The Junior Lord of the Treasury was not in the House when the question was originally raised, and seemed to have been brought in for the purpose of cheering the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] If the Junior Lord of the Treasury would kindly allow him (Lord Randolph Churchill) to proceed, and would not imitate the extremely evil example of some hon. Members, with whom the Prime Minister had often to remonstrate—[Interruption.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The noble Lord must address himself to the Chair.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had been led into these remarks on account of the prominent part that was taken rather unusually by the Junior Lord of the Treasury. What he wished to do was to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that the Motion for reporting Progress—on which he rather hoped his hon. Friend would take a Division—was brought about by the request—the most courteous request—of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) to the Chair being abruptly and with great brusqueness suppressed by the Attorney General, and declared to be irregular. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would not
    300
    think them wanting in any way in respect to him, if, in spite of the words which had fallen from that right hon. Gentleman, and which certainly, on ordinary occasions, would have very considerable weight, they on that side of the House were determined to show to Her Majesty's Government that when a minority, even though it might be a small minority, made a reasonable request it ought to be respected. They were a minority who had on no single occasion obstructed or interfered with the progress of the Bill. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question!"] He challenged any hon. Member who sat on the Ministerial Benches—[Cries of "Question!"] That was the Question. He was supporting a Motion to report Progress—a Motion which he said they were entitled to make because they had not opposed the passing of this Bill through the House. He repeated, that a reasonable request was made for information, and that the Attorney General, presuming on the forces which were behind the Government, and on the singular state of excitement which had been developed among those forces to-night, endeavoured brusquely to suppress that request. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was sure that if the Leader of the Opposition were in possession of all the circumstances of the case he would be inclined to take a favourable view of the position in which those hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion were placed. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) certainly hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a Division.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was unable to follow the noble Lord in the view that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had been unable to grasp the situation; but, however that might be, he did not think the noble Lord was in a very much better position himself. The noble Lord had stated just now that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) made a claim and a reasonable request to the Government. Now, unless his (Mr. Chaplin's) ears had altogether deceived him, it was neither a claim nor a request, but a threat, and a threat which had been put into practice by the Motion to report Progress. He wished to ask hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House in whose interest it was that the claim, or request, or threat, had

    301
    been made? He apprehended that those who had been attending to their duties in the House—who had sat throughout the discussion—were perfectly well informed at that moment as to the nature of the clause under discussion; and, if so, it followed that the claim was made entirely on behalf of those who, like himself—and he acknowledged that he was to blame for not having been present—had absented themselves from the House throughout the evening. But he did not think, because he had chosen to absent himself throughout the evening, that he should come forward at that late hour of the night (12.10), and call upon the Chairman of Committees, under a threat, to read the clause, the nature of which he ought to have instructed himself upon. He should think himself guilty of a most impertinent act if he did such a thing. He hoped that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would think better than to go to a Division on a Motion which could not be justified.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not know how long the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) might have been in the House; but it was clear that he had entirely failed to acquaint himself with the situation. It was not the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), but the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), who made the request to the Government, and that hon. Member had been attending in his place throughout the discussion. What was asked of the Government was, he (Mr. Gorst) was bound to say, a fair request, which ought to have been conceded in common courtesy; because the Prime Minister could not have forgotton that at 7 o'clock that evening the Committee accepted certain words proposed by the Attorney General which were not then on the Paper, and which they might have waited to have seen put down on the Paper for the Evening Sitting. On the request—the very courteous request—of the Prime Minister, all opposition to those words was withdrawn, and the words were allowed to be added to the Bill; and he (Mr. Gorst) thought that courtesy ought to be returned for courtesy, and that when a request was made, after dinner, by a Member like the hon. Member for Evesham, who certainly was not a vigorous opponent of the Bill, that request ought to have been
    302
    granted. It appeared to be the desire of the Government, and, so far as he could judge, it also apppeared to be the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the Committee should divide upon the clause without knowing what it was; for he would venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that not only did the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) not know what it was, but there was not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench who know what it was, and he was perfectly certain that very few of those who sat opposite on the Ministerial side of the House knew what it was. Indeed, he was not quite sure that even the Prime Minister himself knew exactly how it stood. Of course, if it was the desire of the Committee to come to a conclusion upon the clause when no Member of the Committee, or when only a very small minority indeed, knew what they were voting about, let them do so—let them reduce the Parliamentary procedure of that House to the absurdity of passing such things in such a manner. But it really was the fact that these proceedings in Committee on these Bills were pushed to an absurdity, the Government relying, not upon the votes of intelligence, but upon brute force, [Interruption.] He was sorry to see that certain hon. Members were trying to usurp the functions of the Chair by calling him to Order. It was absurd for these matters to be decided by Members who had not heard the arguments.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Motion before the Committee was that Progress should be reported.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was trying, as well as the disorderly interruptions of hon. Members opposite would permit him, to address himself to that question, and he was endeavouring to give reasons why they should not insist on the Committee voting upon a clause with the terms of which they were not acquainted; but he was much hindered by the disorderly interruptions of hon. Members opposite. He was saying that the Government ought to rely upon the votes of persons who had heard the discussions, and who were acquainted with the clause upon which they were going to vote, and that they ought not to rely upon the ignorant votes which they could summon in from the Library

    303
    and the Smoking Room to overbear those who had been endeavouring to support them in passing this Bill, and who were simply animated by an honest desire to know what it was they wore voting about.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he was in his place at 7 o'clock when Progress was reported, and a few minutes after 10 he merely asked that the clause might be read, so that he might not be in ignorance of what it was he was called on to vote upon. If the Attorney General had simply appealed to him, and asked him not to press his request, he would at once have given way, as he wished to show every courtesy to the Government, All he had asked for was for honest information, and he was very sorry that any debate had been raised upon the matter, as he had no desire to see the time of the Committee wasted. He merely wished to know where they were.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFmerely wished to say one word with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who had accused him of having been guilty of a great act of impertinence. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had not made a threat to the Government. The hon. Gentleman had declared that the request made to the Government was not a courteous request, but a threat; and in saying that he entirely misunderstood the subject. The hon. Gentleman was not here himself at the time, or he would have known that the request he had referred to as not a courteous request was that of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), and had nothing to do with anything that he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had had to say. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire had come up from Newmarket, not having assisted in any of the debates that day, and he was perfectly unaware that a short time before 7 o'clock the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), simply at the request of the Prime Minister—a request which, no doubt, was most courteously made—had withdrawn a Notice to report Progress. Now, all that was asked for at the present moment was that hon. Members might be allowed to know the terms of the clause upon which they were asked to vote—it would not take two minutes to
    304
    give the desired information. ["Question!"] What he was saying was the Question. If Progress should now be reported, hon. Members would have the text of the clause upon the Paper tomorrow, and then they would know what it really was; but at the present moment they were asked to vote upon it without knowing what were its terms. He, therefore, respectfully put it to the Prime Minister to let them know exactly what they were going to vote upon, for, surely, the right hon. Gentleman did not wish them to vote without knowing What was the Question before them.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The "Ayes" have it.
    MR. LEWIS: Sir Arthur Otway——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late; the Question has been decided.
    MR. GORST: I beg to say that the hon. Member for Londonderry rose before the Question was put.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I heard the hon. Member for Londonderry most distinctly challenge your ruling.
    MR. ONSLOW: I rise to a point of Order. If the hon. Member for Londonderry had not got up, I should have got up myself some considerable time ago.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Londonderry had risen before I put the Question, certainly I should have no desire to interfere with him.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERrose to Order. When the Chairman of Committees gave a decision the other evening, although the right hon. Gentleman admitted that that decision was made by mistake, the whole Conservative Party protested against any alteration, and that decision had to stand. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was prepared to be guided by one rule applicable to all sections of the House; but he was not prepared, as a Member of the Committee or of the House, to have one rule applied to the Conservative Party, and another rule applied to Irish Members; and he maintained that as the decision of the other evening was allowed to stand, notwithstanding the mistake of the Chairman, the decision of this evening ought to remain, not-

    305
    withstanding the mistake which affected the hon. Member for Londonderry.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lewis.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would not detain the Committee for more than a very-few minutes, simply for the purpose of informing hon. Members who desired to have the clause read, but who had not been able to get it read, what he understood to be its present condition. He thought it was a matter of great importance that there should be a clear understanding as to what was the present condition of the clause. He did not wish to enter into any discussion as to whether it was reasonable or not to ask to have the clause read again, seeing that it was read by the Chairman at about five or ten minutes past 10 o'clock; but it was, perhaps, unfortunate that the clause should have been altered in so complicated a way that even the Attorney General had not in his possession an actual record of its present condition, or he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would have read it to the Committee. Many alterations had been made in the clause. In the first place—and he begged to call the attention of hon. Members to this fact—an alteration had been made so as not to exclude the use as committee rooms of clubs of a permanent character. On the other hand, a committee room of a candidate could not be hired in any house in which refreshment of any kind, whether meat or drink, was sold upon the premises. He need not say that that was a most extraordinary and extreme alteration to make, and it would have the effect of excluding every room in every house of a baker, butcher, or grocer, or any class of traders who sold refreshment of any kind, whether liquid or solid. Another important alteration which had been made in the clause was that committees were not to be held in any school room under a school board. But a far more serious and important alteration than any he had yet mentioned was one at the end of the clause which enabled meetings to be held by candidates at licensed houses of every description, though they could not have committee rooms there. He asked the Committee to vote against the clause as it stood; and he maintained that they ought to do so just because they had no accurate record of it, if for no other reason. He was not going in the least degree to
    306
    join in the dispute as to the propriety or the inconvenience of asking the Chairman to read the clause again; but as no Member of the Government had before him an accurate record of the condition in which the clause now stood, that was an abounding reason why Progress should be reported to enable them to see the clause in print.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 111: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 164.)
    Clause 16 (Punishment of illegal payment, employment, or hiring).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS moved that Progress be reported, it being now 1 o'clock, and the House having been sitting since 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would sit a little while longer, as it was now earlier than the hour at which Progress was usually reported. He thought he could meet the views of hon. Members with regard to Sub-section 2, by agreeing to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which was to strike out all the words from "hiring" to "shall" in line 20. That would have the effect of narrowing the clause very much, and if the Committee would consent to deal with that matter, he would then consent to report Progress.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked whether the Attorney General would make any concession with regard to the amount of fine? The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) proposed to reduce the fine to £5; and he thought if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could see his way to reducing it to that amount, that would give satisfaction.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the two hon. Members who had Amendments down with a view of reducing the fine had been called, but had not risen.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that that did not preclude an

    307
    Amendment being moved, and he should move to reduce the fine.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had not factiously opposed the Bill, and he should not be so discourteous to the Government as not to accede to the appeal, although personally he reserved to himself the right to move the omission of the sub-section.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to move the omission of the words "one hundred," and insert "fifty." His object was to make the clause more workable, believing that all offences of illegal payment would be quite met by a fine of £50, instead of £100. He was of opinion that extreme punishments were calculated to prevent the effective working of the Act, and that if the Committee agreed to this Amendment the working of the Act would be very much simplified.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 16, to leave out "one [hundred," and insert "fifty."—(Mr. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the Committee would realize that he had yielded as far as he could. He must point out that this section imposed no imprisonment, but simply a money fine, and even that fine might be reduced within the discretion of the tribunal. This was a matter of very small importance, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. LEAMYasked whether there was to be an appeal in every case? Because he did not think it would be right to enable magistrates to impose a fine of £50 without an appeal. If this was to be a matter for summary conviction, the right of appeal would be given under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts; but it would never do to allow magistrates to impose a fine of £50 upon a man with whose political opinions they differed. He would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether conviction under this section would come under the Petty Sessions Act in Ireland? If that were so, he should see no objection to the section standing.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he believed there could be no doubt that this matter would come under the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act, and that, therefore, there would be an appeal.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he was not anxious as to whether the amount was £50 or £100; but there was a far more important question arising here than that. The Attorney General had stoutly resisted an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) with a view to the summary punishment of election improprieties during an election. There was nothing in the clause just passed, or in this clause, to prevent instant action being taken for illegal payment, employment, or hiring, while the election was proceeding; and he wished to point out the importance of considering the practicability of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the Attorney General would consider whether he could carry out that Amendment with regard to treating and other crimes which had been passed by for the present, for it seemed to him that the only practical way of putting down all kinds of election crimes was by dealing with them on the spot. He thought they might fully trust the magistrates not to be led away by political feelings, or to turn a case one way or another by reason of political considerations, but to act entirely on the evidence before them. The Attorney General had been strangely inconsistent in rejecting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and then allowing certain crimes to be punished, as they could be under this section, while an election was actually proceeding. The Attorney General had rejected the Amendment because he chose to assume that magistrates would not do their duty in consequence of his allowing them to act while an election was proceeding in cases of illegal payment, employment, or hiring. If there was any sincerity in the Government in wishing to put down bribery, the only effective way to do that was to have a tribunal on the spot to punish crimes as they were committed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to speak more to the Question before the Committee. There is not a word about tribunal in this clause.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the words "summary conviction" were in the clause, and if the Government took objection upon that ground it would be the duty of the Committee to scrutinize every line very closely; and the next time that occurred he should move an Amendment to draw attention to the thorough inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Government.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the statement just made by the Attorney General, in reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), was calculated to mislead the Committee. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that in Ireland there would be an appeal. That might be so; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather implied that there would also be an appeal in England. Was it not the fact that in England there would be no appeal at all? He wished to ash the Attorney General to state distinctly whether, under this clause, imposing a fine without imprisonment, in England there would be any appeal whatever? Would it not come under Section 19 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which gave an appeal only when there was imprisonment?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had stated that there would be an appeal under the Petty Sessions Act in Ireland. Under the English Act an appeal only lay when there was imprisonment, and therefore under this clause there would be no appeal. This question of tribunal and appeal would come under consideration upon Clause 29, or it could be dealt with under Clause 51.
    MR. WARTONprotested against the habit of the Attorney General of referring the Committee to subsequent clauses. It was important they should enter on a discussion of this point. The Attorney General allowed the magistrates to summarily convict in some cases, but not in others.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should like to have a little more information upon this clause. He thought it was desirable that the Attorney General should take steps to gather whether an appeal could be allowed in such cases. He remembered a case in a recent election where an enormous amount of damage was
    310
    done in a borough—several thousand pounds' worth of injury to property—and in respect to which parties were summoned before the magistrates. There was a whip-up of magistrates, the Mayor was there on the Bench, and he was scheduled afterwards by the Commission, and he was assisted by other magistrates, whose names were also subsequently scheduled, and by the casting vote of the Mayor they succeeded in rejecting the claims of those persons whose property had been damaged. Having this instance in his mind, he thought that a more unfortunate tribunal than borough magistrates for deciding matters of this kind could not be imagined. He hoped, therefore, some form of appeal would be provided.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment could not have looked at Clause 51. If he referred to that clause he would find that, as the Bill stood, a person feeling himself aggrieved might appeal to Quarter Sessions. He hoped the Attorney General would consider, in relation to that provision, whether he could give the same tribunal jurisdiction in the direction as to which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was so anxious. But, as the Bill stood, the Amendment was open to all the objections the Attorney General pointed out. He did not entertain distrust of the magistrates; there might be some bad, but he did not believe there were grounds for any general distrust; but for the sake of the magistrates, and the possibility of there being any such distrust, it was very undesirable to trust to them entirely. He only rose to point out that there was an appeal under the Bill, and in the discussion of that clause there would be a more proper opportunity for entertaining this proposal.
    MR. KENNYsaid, under the circumstances, and as Clause 51 provided for an appeal for any person aggrieved under Section 16, it was not necessary to press the Amendment, and he would, with permission, withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 17, after the word "is," to insert the word "personally."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from after the word "hiring" to the word "shall" in line 20.—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Amendment he had to propose had reference to the clause as it originally stood; but the object was one in which the Attorney General participated. There was nothing in the Bill to punish any Association, the agent of which had been guilty of illegal practices; it merely punished the agent, merely subjecting him to a penalty of £100; but if the Association were also punished, and a certain stigma placed upon it, gentlemen who were asked to subscribe to the Association would naturally be somewhat chary of associating with a body which had been punished for illegal practices. He was informed by legal friends that the Amendment, as it stood, was inadmissible, for it was not possible to fine an Association—some individuals must be made liable; and he would, therefore, propose to insert before the word "Association" the words "the committee or directing authority of." The Attorney General would see the object he desired to gain; and if he preferred other words, or would undertake to insert words to meet the object, he (Lord George Hamilton) would leave the matter to him.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 20, add the following subsection:—"(3.) If the agent of any Association shall be guilty of the offence of illegal payment, employment, or hiring, or shall aid, abet, or, by the payment of money, or in any other manner, confirm any such offence, the committee or directing authority of such Association shall be guilty of an illegal practice, and be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the noble Lord did not think he gave any promise to accept any particular Amendment; he had only given a general opinion as to the undue intervention of an outside Association. The Amendment would go a good deal further than was intended, for under it any Association, the agent of which was guilty of any illegal practice during an election, would
    312
    be liable to a fine of £100. Thus an Assurance Office in London might have a person acting as its agent in a distant town, and this agent might be proved guilty of an illegal practice at an election with which the Company had no concern, and yet under the Amendment the Directors would be liable to a fine of £100. There was evidently a miscarriage of words in the Amendment in giving expression to the idea intended to be conveyed. He would suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment, and raise the point in a more substantial manner later on.
    MR. WARTONsubmitted that the noble Lord might, by the introduction of one word, make all clear. If the word "political" were introduced before the word "Association" in the first line in the Amendment, then it would have no effect on other Associations.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was afraid the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member would not meet what he proposed, for it need not necessarily be the action of a political Association; there were many non-political Societies that might materially interfere in an election. But he could see that the drafting of the Amendment would not do. He would take the advice of the Attorney General, withdraw the Amendment, consult with his legal friends, and see if, on Report, he could raise the Amendment in some other shape.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move to report Progress, and for this reason. In reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) the Attorney General intimated that the Bill would not be proceeded with beyond the Amendment standing in the name of that hon. Member, the omission of Clause 16, and it was to be assumed the hon. Member so understood the Attorney General, for he had left the House. It was only fair, therefore, in his absence, that the clause should not be passed, and that the hon. Member should have an opportunity of urging his objections on the morrow to this particular clause.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was some little misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Cavan. He had stated distinctly what he proposed to do with the clause, and the hon. Member for Londonderry, knowing what the Amendments were, and knowing that the clause would be taken, had left with the understanding that the clause would be taken, and what he objected to would be taken out.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) corroborated him in the impression he gathered from the undertaking given by the Attorney General; and he certainly did think it would not be acting in good faith towards the hon. Member for Londonderry to pass the clause. It could really make no material difference, for if there was no objection raised to the clause, it would pass at once at the next Sitting without discussion.
    The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
    The Chairman stated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Five Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he understood that while the hon. Member for Londonderry was in the House he proposed to move the rejection of Sub-section 2; and the Attorney General said if the 1st section of Clause 16 were allowed to pass, and certain other Amendments were accepted, it would still be in the power of the hon. Member for Londonderry to move the rejection of Sub-section 2. The hon. Member for Londonderry, it seemed to him, had gone away under the impression that it was possible for him to move the rejection of Sub-section 2; and, in the absence of the hon. Member, he was willing to make that Motion.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was in the House when the hon. Member for Londonderry spoke, and his belief was that it was understood that if the Amendment to leave out certain words were accepted, the first question to-morrow would be that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill; and he arranged with the hon.
    314
    Member to attend punctually at 12 to discuss the retention of the clause, and the hon. Member left the House under that impression.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not take advantage of any mistake, if mistake there was; but there really was none. It was impossible that the hon. Member for Londonderry could misunderstand. He informed the hon. Member that he was going to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); and thus the clause was rendered quite different to that which the hon. Member for Londonderry had proposed to strike out; and thereupon that hon. Gentleman left the House, willing to accept the clause, and he did so immediately he know what he (the Attorney General) was going to do.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that, after this statement, he would not press his objection.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 205.]
(Dr. Lyons.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 205.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Lyons.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the hon. Member when he proposed to take the Committee stage? He believed this was a Bill very generally accepted, and that there was no opposition to its principle; but he, in common with many hon. Members, had received a number of papers, which seemed to indicate that to one clause in the Bill much exception was taken.
  DR. LYONSsaid, this was not the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred—this was not the Bill affecting medical men. It was a Bill for a special purpose—for giving the Royal University of Ireland power to do that which its predecessor, the Queen's University, did—to nominate to the Medical Coun-

  315
  cil. It was a very simple Bill of one clause.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.