§ 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.
§ 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.)
261§ 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.
§ 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."
§ 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.
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 CHAIRMANI 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!"]
§ 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 CHAIRMANThe 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 CHAIRMANThe 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 CHURCHILLIt 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.]
§ 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.
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.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI heard the hon. Member for Londonderry most distinctly challenge your ruling.
§ MR. ONSLOWI 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 CHAIRMANIf 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.
§ 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 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 CHAIRMANI 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.
311§ 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.)
313§ 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.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.