COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd July.] [FOURTEENTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 04 July 1883 vol 281 cc318-96

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Illegal Payment, Employment, or Hiring.

Clause 17 (Power of High Court and election court to except innocent act from being illegal practice, &c.).

MR. WARTON

said, he had an Amendment before that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), which he was sorry he had not had an opportunity of placing on the Paper. It was, in line 24, after the word "election," to add the words "or the Court of Election Commissioners." They had, in this Bill, re-established and strengthened the Court of Election Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1852; and it was quite possible that in the course of the inquiry made before that Court some allegation might be made as to one of those illegal acts which were not to be tried on Petition, and some candidate or agent might suddenly find his character affected on some point not raised during the trial of an Election Petition. As this was an Equity Clause, he was quite sure the Attorney General would view his Amendment favourably. The principle of Equity should apply whether the Court was an Election Petition Court or a Court of Election Commissioners—the latter Court being carefully preserved by the 10th clause of this Bill, which they had passed. It seemed to him that it would be advisable to leave it open to the last moment for some accusation to be made of some of these illegal practices that they had been dealing with during the past day or so against either a candidate or an agent, or some other person—some accusation that might only come out during the evidence, and might occur to the surprise of the person or persons interested. If it was not troubling the Attorney General too much, he would urge him to agree to these words.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 24, after the words "Election Court," to insert the words "or a Court of Election Commissioners."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry to be obliged to say "No" to this Amendment, which had taken him by surprise. He did not wish to give this power to the Election Commissioners. The object of the clause was to prevent the extreme penalty, which was the loss of a seat, being inflicted on a candidate in consequence of some act of inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation committed. The Commissioners would only come into play after an Election Petition had been determined; and he did not wish to delegate such duties as these to the three gentlemen who might sit as Commissioners. The powers ought to be exercised by Judges; and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had an Amendment to slightly extend the clause and remedy an omission in drafting. He did not propose to go at any length into the matter, and would merely suggest that after the second "agent," the words "or person" should be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 26, after the second "agent," to insert "or person."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought the insertion of these words would be an improvement. Therefore, he would agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was not in his place, he would move one of the Amendments standing in the hon. Member's name—namely, in line 32, to leave out "payment, employment, or hiring." It seemed to him that if a candidate deliberately acted in this way by an illegal "payment, employment, or hiring," he had a right to suffer the penalty.

[After a pause, the hon. Member resumed his seat, remarking that he would not move the Amendment.]

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, in the absence of the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he would move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, that after the word "arose," to leave out these words— From inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature," and insert "from some reasonable cause. During his own last election some wickedly-intentioned person placarded Liverpool with a statement to the effect that he had retired in order to contest Mid Cheshire, and he was obliged to placard the town denying the statement. Everybody in the House would know that the statement was perfectly untrue. Nevertheless, increased expenditure on his part was rendered necessary by the placard; and if this Act had been in force the result might have been that the maximum amount of expense might have had to be over-stepped at the last moment. The Amendment would cover a difficulty of that kind.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not accept the words proposed. He was willing to accept an Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), to make such an act as that complained of an offence under the Act. He had carefully considered the question whether he could be more elastic than he had been; and though he could not say that it would be unconstitutional to give such powers as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) to the Judges, nevertheless it would be a very great power to confer upon them. A candidate might expend a large sum of money from what he might consider some reasonable cause; but the Judge might take a different view of the reasonableness of the cause. A candidate might look upon anything as reasonable—such, for instance, as taking some thousands of people for a house-to-house canvass; but the Judge might think that it was a distinctly illegal practice. The candidate might say—" But I could not have a house-to-house canvass without employing a large number of persons; therefore, in order to carry on my election I found it necessary to spend a very large sum of money." He (the Attorney General) wished he could accept the Amendment; but he thought the Committee would look at the object the Government had in view, and would agree with them that the law should be such that, when it was framed, it should compel obedience to it. It seemed to him that the words— From inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other cause, were sufficient to cover any substantial difficulty which might arise. At any rate, if these words were found to be insufficient, at a later stage he would promise to introduce words to obviate any difficulty.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that during the discussion on the previous clause he had been under the impression that the Attorney General placed great reliance in the common sense of the Judges. Some very important questions had been left to their common sense; and, that being so, he could not for the life of him see why they should not leave it to their common sense also to say whether the excuse given for a payment was a "reasonable" one or not. Surely, the power ought to be left with them of saying that the candidate ought not to be mulcted in a very heavy penalty for some expenditure that he might feel himself bound to incur. If they were to rely at all upon the Judges, they might, at least, leave them to say whether a reasonable cause existed for an expenditure. He did not suppose any Judge would look upon such an expenditure as the payment of thousands of persons for the purpose of a house-to-house canvass as a reasonable expenditure; and that was the only point the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General raised as a reason why he could not accept the Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should like to see the words the Attorney General proposed to accept, on the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), to make acts such as had been referred to offences under the measure. He should like to know what the Attorney General proposed to do, so that on Report he might suggest some other words to meet the case he had in his mind, if the suggestion of the Government was not sufficient.

MR. WARTON

looked upon these words as very satisfactory, with the exception of those "of a like nature," which would tend too much to limit the discretion of the Judge. What acts could be committed which would be "of a like nature "to" inadvertence or accidental miscalculation?" It seemed to him that the clause would be much more satisfactory if these words were omitted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if he struck out the words "of a like nature," he should be practically accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross). As to circumstances of a like nature, it seemed to him that, supposing a candidate was deceived by the statement of some person who came to him for money, and who said that he had been employed, when, as a matter of fact, he had not, such a circumstance as that would apply. Again, a candidate, or an agent, might be misled in making an appointment, or he might be misled into asserting that he had had a certain clerk in his employment, when, as a matter of fact, he had not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

submitted that the words in Sub-section (c)— That such notice of the application has been given in the county or borough for which the election was held as to the Court seems fit"— would not render the provision more satisfactory. This was an unnecessary provision, and if the Attorney General would omit all unnecessary provisions from his Bill he would get the measure through much more rapidly. If a man considered himself entitled to relief from the penalties of the Bill he would be sure to make application, and to give notice of it. Therefore, it was quite unnecessary to retain these words. The Committee had had several of these absurdities before, and it was quite time they had done with them, if they were to make progress with the Bill. He would move the omission of Subsection (c).

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. Warton.)

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 subsection ought to remain. [Mr. WARTON: Why?] It should be retained for this reason—that the error to be provided against arose out of a public transaction—namely, the election. The constituency were interested in the question of the relief claimed, and might object to its being afforded. Therefore, in order that the matter should not be decided behind the backs of the constituency, provision should be made for advising them of what was going to take place. The subsection would provide for this notice, which would give the constituency an opportunity of making themselves heard, if necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would now move the Amendment which stood in his name, and which was consequential upon the Amendment which had been already accepted. It was in page 8, line 2, after "agent," insert "or person."

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 2, after the word "agent," to insert the words "or person."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

MR. WARTON

said, he would submit whether it would not be better to say "such person?" The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see that the words "such person" would identify, without the possibility of mistake, the person intended. They had used the words "such candidate;" and he thought that to be accurate, and to be in keeping with the provisions they had adopted, they should here employ the word "such." If they did not adopt this Amendment they would not be able to say who the person was.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would consent to the insertion of the words "or person" after the word "agent," in line 8 of page 8, striking out the word "or," in line 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7, to leave out the second "or."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 8, after the word "agent," insert the words "or person."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Election Expenses.

Clause 18 (Nomination of election agent).

MR. ONSLOW

said, he wished to propose, in page 8, line 12, to insert after the word "person," the words "not himself." He had personal knowledge of two hon. Members who sat in that House, and who were their own election agents; and he therefore thought it quite reasonable that this Amendment should be adopted. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He quite understood that it was "agreed;" but he should like to ask the Attorney General what he meant by the words "so far as circumstances admit" in the Amendment which he was about to move? The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, if a man was his own agent, why should these words be put in at all? But, surely, for all practical purposes, if a candidate managed his own election he took the part of an agent under the Act; and all the pains and penalties attaching to offences by agents under the Act should attach to him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought he had explained this matter already to the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would now move an Amendment which had been suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had received a great many communications, both in public and private, that there were many purposes for which the candidate might wish to be his own agent. He did not think it would occur very often. Still, he could not deny that if a candidate chose to be his own agent he should be allowed to undertake the duties.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 14, after the word "agent," insert as a new sub-section—"A candidate may name himself as an election agent, and there upon shall, so far as circumstances admit, be subject to the provisions of this Act both as a candidate and as an election agent; and any reference in this Act to an election agent shall be construed to refer to the candidate acting in his capacity of election agent."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

MR. WARTON

said, he really thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would study these words carefully he would come to the conclusion that they would have a most injurious—he might say a most tremendous—result. He (Mr. Warton) intended to formally move the rejection of all the words after the word "agent," in line 3 of the clause, for the reason that they were not sufficiently limited. The hon. and learned Gentleman said by his Amendment that any reference in this Act to an election agent might refer to the candidate. The words were far too wide.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) would, perhaps, allow him to interrupt him. The whole of the sub-section was covered by the words "and thereupon," which provided that until the man chose to occupy the two positions of candidate and agent the difficulties in question would not occur.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he saw the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Sub-section 3, which said— One election agent only shall be appointed for each candidate; but the appointment may be revoked, and in the event of such revocation or his death, whether such an event is before, during, or after the election, then forthwith another election agent shall be appointed, and his name and address declared in writing to the returning officer, who shall forthwith give public notice of the same. He wished to ask a question about this sub-section. What did it mean? What would follow it? Would all acts done by the former agent—for instance, the appointment of the sub-agents—cease to hold good the moment the agent ceased to hold his position? Supposing an agent was appointed, and for certain reasons it was necessary to revoke his appointment, would all those whom he had appointed cease to occupy an official capacity?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that that was not his intention. He had not had his attention called to the matter; but when he looked into it, if he found that it was necessary to provide that the people appointed by the agent should continue at their posts he would introduce words to effect that object.

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

DR. LYONS

said, he wished to call attention to an Irish Act of Geo. IV., c. 58. It appeared that the general principle of this Act was to diminish the expense of candidates to the sum therein mentioned. In Schedule B the candidate was to pay a sum not exceeding £100 to the agent. This measure, he believed, still remained; and as he did not find it mentioned in the Schedule of this Bill, he wished to draw the attention of the Attorney General to this—that if that measure continued in operation, it would entail a charge of £100 on the candidate in addition to the other expenses. He did not think that this was contemplated by the Legislature in this matter. The object of the Bill, he understood, was to minimize the expenditure.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Act referred to by the hon. Member (Dr. Lyons) was an Irish one; but the present was a general measure, which probably would override the provisions of that Act. He would, however, look into the point. But he would clear up what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said. If he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would look at Clause 19, Sub-section 4, he would find these words— The appointment of a sub-agent shall not be vacated by the election agent who appointed him ceasing to be an election agent, but may be revoked by the election agent for the time being of the candidate, and in the event of such revocation, or of the death of a sub-agent, another sub-agent may be appointed, and his name and address. The right hon. Gentleman would find the point he had raised answered in those words.

DR. LYONS

said, he was not aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had put the Act to which he had drawn attention in the Schedule.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

promised to consider the point.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he should like to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it would not be desirable, in a Bill of this sort, to make a Schedule of fees for the unavoidable expenses at elections of such persons as polling clerks, personation agents, and so on. In the Ballot Act there was a Schedule; but it was more or less indefinite, because many of these people pretended they had performed other duties for which they were not at all appointed, and in that way endeavoured to extort more than their regular fees from the candidate. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be desirable, so far as possible, in the Schedule attached to the Bill, to lay down what should be the fees? As to the election agents, they knew very well, by the measure quoted by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), that £100 was a legal fee in Ireland; but in many cases in that country the agents contrived to got much larger sums. Sometimes it happened that agents who were employed, and who were not conducting agents, insisted on much higher fees than the election agent would be entitled to under the Bill. He had heard of a ease, during the Election of 1874, in an Irish county, where an assistant solicitor claimed a fee of 150 guineas from one of the candidates. The ground of his claim was not that he had given services which had occupied certain time, but that his political influence was worth a considerable amount, and that, therefore, he should be paid the large fee he claimed. He (Mr. Biggar) considered that these charges were great evils, and that in a Bill of this sort, to prevent a candidate from controversy or annoyance of discussion with solicitors and others, there should be a Schedule of fees attached to the Bill. Such a Schedule would be a ready answer to any fraudulent claim. He would urge upon the Attorney General the desirability of accepting this suggestion. He should be very glad if the Attorney General would give him his attention. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be discussing some other matter with his Colleagues, while he (Mr. Biggar) was speaking. Under the circumstances, there was nothing for him to do but to repeat what he had said before.

[The hon. MEMBER proceeded to repeat his observations.]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is repeating every word he has just addressed to the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Chairman was perfectly right. The reason, as he had explained, why he repeated his statement, was simply this—during the time he had been addressing the Committee the Attorney General had been in conversation with his Colleagues. He (Mr. Biggar) had wished to elicit a reply; but, seeing that the hon. and learned Member was conversing all the time with the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, he had had no opportunity of knowing what had been said.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his attention had not been diverted from the substance of the hon. Member's remarks. Now, this question of extortion was of peculiar interest to the county of Cavan, and to the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar), who seemed to have been unfortunate in that county, seeing that so strong a man had been unable to prevent overcharge. But the charges the hon. Member had alluded to for polling clerks, personation agents, and others were regulated by the Act of 1875. Probably the hon. Member would study that Act a little more, and if he did, he would find that beyond a certain sum the candidate was not bound to pay one single farthing. However, there ought to be no fear of any clashing between this and any Irish Act of Parliament; and if it were found that inconvenience arose in this way he would promise to obviate that later on.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had done good service by calling attention to this Irish Act. All through this Bill he saw that the position of the conducting agents was left in a state of studied ambiguity. He was at a loss to discover what was intended by the Attorney General with regard to these conducting agents. What did the hon. and learned Member propose that they should receive in future—was it £100, £160, £200, or more? Was it intended to allow a large payment to be made, not for any corrupt purpose, but to secure the best class of men to do the work? If they prevented candidates employing first-class men who were accustomed to work of this kind, they necessarily drove them to the employment of a lower stamp of men, who would do the business of an election, perhaps, in a way which probably was not contemplated by the Bill. If they compelled the candidates to go to a low and inferior class of agents, they might only be able probably to secure the services of those who had become parties to practices which the Bill condemned. He (Mr. Gibson) had not been able to put any meaning upon the words in Clause 25, which said— So far as circumstances admit, this Act shall apply to a claim for his remuneration by an election agent, and to the payment thereof in like manner as if he were any other creditor, and if any difference arises respecting the amount of such claim," &c. The Committee would there note the fact, "so far as circumstances admit." What was the meaning of those words? He (Mr. Gibson) had the honour to represent a constituency (the University of Dublin) where any question of this kind was not likely to arise; but he had very carefully considered the point, and he did not think that the Government could have any distinct or definite view present to their minds as to whether this Bill was intended to apply to the claim of conducting agents; and if it was intended to apply to them, whether it was with the view of keeping them down or the reverse. He would not, however, at the present moment, press the Attorney General for an answer as to the meaning of those words.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would give the answer at once. The words quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to the claim of a conducting agent, as it would apply to the claim of any other creditor. They meant that the claim must be sent in to the Returning Officer, and it did not in any way affect the question of amount. This question had been discussed already, and it had been asked—" Can you get good agents for the payment of £100? "Well, in his own experience he had found that, as a rule, the better the election agents were the less money they wanted; in fact, the best agents he had ever known had been those who had refused to take a farthing remuneration. They worked not for money, but for their Party.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Would the hon. and learned Member give me the address of some of these agents?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the noble Lord would not require the address of these gentlemen, as there were other influences at work upon which he could rely. These agents did what they could—they did their best—for their Party, and felt in doing it that they were performing the highest duty of citizenship. Personally, he had no fear in regard to this matter. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had acquiesced in his view of the matter. He could not define the amount an agent was to have, and the agent must take his chance with other persons. As he had said, it was very often more advisable to appeal to the political views of these gentlemen than to discuss the amount of remuneration they were to have.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he himself entertained very strong opinions as to the class of agents which should be employed, and as to the maximum remuneration to be fixed in the Bill; and he thought it might be fairly considered whether that remuneration might not be dealt with in the Schedule, apart from this other expenditure. They must, of course, have election agents.

MR. WARTON

remarked, that this was a question of very great importance, and was not to be shirked in this way by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It was all very well to talk about men working for nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to get some people to work for him for nothing; but that fact would be entirely owing to his position. The people might expect to get something through the hon. and learned Gentleman's influence, seeing the position he held in connection with the Government, and might be willing to conduct his election for the sake of the interest they took in the success of the Party. But the ordinary agent exercised his functions from a business point of view, and expected to be properly remunerated. In nine cases out of ten the election agents expected to be paid, and they would not get a respectable and able election agent unless they gave him a respectable fee. One of the reasons why he should move the rejection of the Bill, when the proper time came, was because there was no provision in it for the payment of respectable agents. ["Oh!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to say "Oh!" This was a question which had to be faced. They had a provision in the Bill for the employment of one agent, and no more, and the 4th part of the 1st Schedule dealt with the expenses of all the people employed—in fact, all the election expenses were lumped together in what was a most absurdly small sum. There was no provision for the employment of a decent agent, and all that could be given to him would be as much as would be squeezed out of the ridiculously small maximum. A respectable agent required to be paid 100, 200, or 300 guineas. Under any circumstances, they would have the option of being able to work for nothing, or not. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could point out whether there was any provision for the payment of a respectable agent, he (Mr. Warton) should withdraw a great deal of his opposition to the measure. The great majority of these agents were men of business, and knew their value, and they should be paid a fair price; and if they were not in the rare position that the Attorney General himself might be in of being able to secure agents without payment, they would have to resort to disreputable means, and the result would be that elections would be disreputably conducted. If there was one thing more necessary for the proper application of this measure than another, it was that candidates should have the power of employing respectable agents. In this matter the Attorney General seemed to have a supreme contempt for the interest of his followers.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he did not propose to trespass at any length upon the patience of the Committee. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to be impatient; but he could assure them that he was not going to prolong the discussion upon this or upon any other clause. What he merely wished to suggest was that hon. Gentlemen who, in the future, intended to be candidates at elections need not trouble themselves about this Clause 18, or any of the succeeding clauses, because he could not conceive the possibility of any candidate escaping under the clauses which preceded Clause 18. He did not believe, for a moment, that if Election Judges began at Clause 1, in trying Election Petitions, that any candidate in the world, whoever he might be, would ever succeed in reaching Clause 18. He did not intend to repeat the arguments which they had so frequently heard about pitfalls and man-traps, and things of that kind; but he was satisfied that no candidate would ever be able to wriggle through all the meshes of the clause if Election Judges were left the option of interpreting the Act according to their lights. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had refused to give a discretion to the Judges in dealing with these cases. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been most candid. He had admitted, as to the grounds upon which he (the Attorney General) urged the acceptance of this Bill, that the evil of bribery was so great—[Cries of "Question!"] This certainly seemed to him to be the Question. He did not wish to waste the time of the Committee. He very seldom took up its time, and he could say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were only wasting time by interrupting him. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that he believed himself, under this Bill, innocent candidates might be convicted and punished; but that the evils they wished to put a stop to were so great that it was necessary, for the sake of purity of election, that here and there an innocent person should suffer. It amounted, therefore, to this—picking pockets in a crowd was an illegal practice, and, therefore, those who collected crowds took part in that practice. Gentlemen who addressed meetings collected crowds, and, therefore, were guilty of illegal practices. When an observation to the effect that the train was going too fast was made, the reply was—" Oh! but there is a brakesman at the end." The Schedule was the brakesman which was to put everything right.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he wished to say just one word in reply to the Attorney General in an observation he had made. He (Mr. Biggar) had not specially referred to the County of Cavan. He had seen much greater extortion elsewhere than he had ever known practised in Cavan. Candidates were put to a great deal of annoyance by some people—no doubt, in many cases, through blundering—endeavouring to extort more than they were entitled to. The hon. Member for the County of Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) could give instances of wholesale claims of this kind. The Government had declared that their primary object in introducing this Bill was to make elections as pure as possible. Well, he (Mr. Biggar) wished to further that object; and, therefore, he would suggest, in order to lower expenses generally, and to have an election carried on as purely as possible, there should be a power to employ respectable agents. He, for one, should be highly satisfied to see elections purified and election expenses reduced.

MR. HICKS

said, that having, in nearly every Division on this Bill, supported Her Majesty's Government, he took this occasion to urge upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the absolute necessity of having some scale of fees for the payment of agents. He was perfectly aware that in some counties and boroughs agents had conducted elections without any remuneration whatever; but, because that had been done in some cases, it did not at all follow that either those persons would do it again, or that any other agents would desire to do it. Because some gentlemen had worked for nothing, it did not follow that when their places had to be filled by others, those successors would be willing to give candidates the benefit of their opinions and hard work on the same terms. When they were, under this Bill, to have a maximum sum for expenses, it appeared to him highly desirable that they should have a clear and distinct scale for the payment of election agents, seeing how important it was, not only in the interest which this Bill was professedly brought forward to serve, but in the interest of candidates. He wished to see their elections conducted as purely as possible. Candidates should be given an opportunity of employing the best election agents that were to be had, and to pay them not what were exorbitant, but what were reasonable sums. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to meet the reasonable wishes expressed in so many parts of the House in regard to the preparation of a scale of fees.

MR. FINDLATER

said, several hon. Gentlemen seemed very much afraid of being overcharged by solicitors; but, so far as his experience went, there were other people beside solicitors who made exorbitant charges. In fact, he did not see how solicitors could overcharge, as their fees were settled by law, and they could not enforce more. When, however, they came to settle a question of this kind, it was highly objectionable that they should have nothing to guide them. He thought that an officer should be appointed to tax the charges, not only of solicitors, but of all the persons employed.

MR. TOMLINSON

protested against the idea that it was possible to conduct elections by means of agents who were unpaid for their services. If Members of the Committee only considered for a moment what the duties of election agents were, and what a disturbance the acceptance of such a post entailed in the business of a solicitor's office, they would see at once that they would never be able to employ the best men unless they paid them properly for their services. An election agent had to work night and day, to leave all his ordinary clients unattended to, and to perform various duties, many of them of a most disagreeable character. He had to come in contact with people who might some day or other be possible clients, and run the risk of incurring unpopularity with them by having to decline their services. Nothing would be worse, in a case of this kind, than to drive candidates to the employment of solicitors of inferior standing in the Profession. He did not believe that in all parts of the country they could find a class of men who were ready to undertake all the labours and inconveniences of election agency without receiving due reward for their professional services.

MR. GORST

said, he had listened attentively to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), who, he was aware, had had a great deal of experience in election matters. However, he (Mr. Gorst) could only corroborate what had fallen from the Attorney General. In his experience a great number of gentlemen, both barristers and solicitors, had acted as election agents, conducting important, difficult, and intricate elections, and at the end had declined to receive any remuneration whatever.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, he could also corroborate what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham. Some of the most influential solicitors in the West of England had given their services to candidates during elections without payment.

MR. HICKS

(who was received with cries of "Divide! ") protested against the interruptions in which some hon. Members greeted those who wished to take part in the legitimate discussion of the clauses of the Bill. He believed it was perfectly open to any hon. Member—indeed, it was his privilege—to point out as distinctly, and, under any circumstances, as shortly as he could, the views he entertained upon the question before the Committee; and he thought the interruptions with which hon. Members on the opposite side of the House very often met the statements of hon. Gentlemen were more than likely to prolong the debate than shorten it. He wished to say a word or two in answer to the remark that had fallen from hon. Members opposite, that candidates were fearful of being overcharged by solicitors. He (Mr. Hicks) had not entertained any such idea. The object he had in rising was to point out how desirable it was that clients should have an opportunity of paying their agents a reasonable sum, and not that those agents should be left to perform their difficult duties, and receive in payment simply what remained of the maximum sum at their disposal for the conduct of the election. He thought it was desirable that they should have the remuneration of the election agents placed clearly and distinctly as the first charge on the expenses of the election. He wished to repudiate any idea of casting a reflection on so honourable a body of men as the solicitors who interested themselves in election matters; on the contrary, he was desirous of their receiving full remuneration for their trouble.

MR. NEWZAM NICHOLSON

pointed out to the Attorney General that the man who got his election agent for nothing was able to spend a great deal more on other matters than those who had to pay their election agents. It would be advisable that they should have in the Schedule a certain sum to be paid to election agents, and another sum to be paid for the ordinary election expenses.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 (Nomination of deputy election agent as sub-agent).

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, that before they came to the Amendments on the Paper, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General about the sub-agents. He viewed with great apprehension the appointment of these agents, as it would be necessary to have a large number of them, one being necessary in each polling place. He would suggest to the Attorney General whether he would not deal with these Gentlemen specifically in the clause, seeing that the conditions in regard to this matter in counties differed very essentially from those in boroughs. The clause, as it stood, did not convey a sufficiently specific idea on the subject to his mind; and as the employment of these agents was open to possible abuse, he thought it was desirable that they should have the matter specifically dealt with.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that if the hon. Gentleman would read the clause he would find that it referred to the 1st Schedule, which satisfactorily dealt with this question. Some boroughs would always be regarded in the nature of counties.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to move an Amendment. After all they had done in Clause 16 it was clear that this clause should be arranged to suit it. They had stated in Clause 16 that "illegal payment, employment, or hiring," was an illegal practice; and he would call attention to Sub-section 4 of the present clause, which said that— The appointment of a sub-agent shall not he vacated by the election agent who appointed him ceasing to he election agent, but may he revoked by the election agent for the time being of the candidate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to that as answering an objection he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had taken earlier on. All that would have to be done would be to put in words to extend the provisions of Sub-section 4 of this clause to all appointments made by the agent. His present Amendment was to leave out, in page 8, line 39, to the end of clause after the word "accordingly." These words provided that the candidate should suffer the penalties imposed by the Bill as if an illegal act had been the act or default of the election agent, and not the sub-agent.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 39, after the word "accordingly," to leave out to end of Clause.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had stated, over and over again, that he was anxious to do whatever he could to prevent one man bearing the burden of another man's folly; but he could not accept the present Amendment. The candidate must be liable for certain acts of his election agent—the agent who represented him and was properly appointed. When the Bill was originally framed there was only one election agent allowed; but, as it had been pointed out that in large constituencies no one could perform the whole of the work, this provision had been altered. They might have many cases where the agent was obliged to appoint three or four sub-agents, each of whom would stand in the place of one person in the district to which he was appointed. Of course, it was not necessary to have more than one agent; but probably the work would be better carried out if they had this number. If they struck out these words the candidate might say—" I require more than one agent." Sub-agents might, therefore, be appointed, and as there would then be no penalty attached to improper acts on the part of these sub-agents they might employ, say, as many canvassers as they liked, and yet the seat could be maintained. A complaint that the sub agent had been breaking the law would not affect the candidate, because it would be held that it was not the principal agent. The sub-agent must be taken for better or worse. The sub-agents would sometimes become instruments of corruption if the candidates were not liable for their misdeeds.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the candidate would surely be responsible, even if these words were struck out, to the extent of illegal practices. His Amendment only affected illegal payments.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought that the general words, "for the purposes of this Act," would cover the obligation imposed by Clause 16.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, if there was any doubt about the matter, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. A. PEASE

asked for an explanation of the words "done to."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, an election agent was the recipent of certain matters. He admitted the words were very general; but it was difficult to find other more suitable words. The meaning of the words was really that the agent should be passive, and that he should be the recipient of certain things.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ONSLOW

proposed to insert at the end of the clause— And under this Act no person shall be deemed a sub-agent unless appointed as such by the election agent of the candidate. He was not quite sure that these were the proper words to insert in order to attain the object he had in view. What he wished to define, in some direct sense, was the question of agency; a candidate, of course, was liable for the election agent whom he appointed; but he (Mr. Onslow) thought it was rather hard that a candidate should be held liable for the acts of persons appointed by the election agent—namely, for the acts of sub-agents. What he desired to do was to limit the liability of the candidate to these particular individuals. He was of opinion that if some such words as he proposed were added to the subsection, it would be a good guide to the Election Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew perfectly well that the term "agency" was a very elastic one, and that some Judges had laid it down very strictly indeed, while others had been somewhat more lax in what they had done. Supposing, for instance, a candidate was put up for election who belonged to a Political Association, and to that Association be subscribed——

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the hon. Gentleman to forgive him for one monent. He (the Attorney General) was quite at one with the hon. Gentleman. The words were already in the clause. The first words of Clause 19 were as follows:— In the case of the elections specified in that behalf in the 1st Schedule to this Act an election agent of a candidate may appoint the number of deputies therein mentioned (which deputies are in this Act referred to as sub agents), to act within different polling districts; and if the hon. Gentleman would turn to his own Amendment, he would find that this was a provision which he himself wished to make. If the wording of the clause was not sufficient, he should be glad to make it more clear.

MR. ONSLOW

asked whether those were the only persons in a borough or in a county who would be considered by the Judges as agents of the candidate?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman quite valued the importance of his Amendment, for in that Amendment he said— No person shall be deemed a sub-agent unless appointed as such by the election agent of the candidate. A sub-agent was really an election agent. The question was altogether apart from the agent at Common Law.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he then understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the agent in this case was different from the agent at Common Law?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

admitted that an election sub-agent was certainly different from a sub-agent at Common Law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that at this point of the Bill he wished to submit to the Attorney General that this clause might, with great advantage, be omitted. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) should like to see the hon. and learned Gentleman take up to-day the attitude he (Lord Randolph Churchill) so much deprecated in him last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman had provided a maximum of expenditure for counties and for boroughs, and he ought to do all in his power to economize that maximum. If they allowed claims to be made, candidates would have to meet them, whether they liked it or not. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was particularly interested in this clause, because, although he did not represent a county, he would like the Attorney General to put Woodstock in the County Schedule. The professed object of the Bill was to discourage extravagant expenditure at election times; but he feared that if this section were allowed to stand as now framed the candidate would find himself beset with people who wished to be appointed subagents. People would come to him and say—"I see you have power to appoint a sub-agent in my district. Will you appoint me? If you do not, you will regret it." It would be of great service to the candidate if he could say—" Yes; a sub-agent in your district would be very convenient, and I should like to appoint a sub-agent there; but it is not allowed." All these provisions were made for the case of honest candidates; but where they had dishonest candidates, they might depend upon it that those sub-agents were loop-holes for illegal payments. He hoped the Attorney General would give good reason for this clause before it was passed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if, in counties, they only allowed one election agent, it would be simply impossible for him to perform all the duties required of him. In many counties there were so many districts that it was essentially necessary that there should be a certain amount of sub-agents. District boroughs might be taken out of this section if it was thought necessary. This was a general section dealing with counties altogether, and he thought that if they did not allow for sub-agents great inconvenience would ensue.

MR. BRINTON

sympathized with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) very strongly on this point, for he felt that candidates would often be asked to allow the performance of perfectly unnecessary services. He (Mr. Brinton) should be glad if the Attorney General would define between the unnecessary retention of sub-agents in boroughs, even if he allowed a certain number of sub-agents in counties.

MR. RYLANDS

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Brinton) was under a little mistake. The present clause did not apply to boroughs. As he (Mr. Rylands) understood the Attorney General, the appointment of sub-agents was provided for in this clause, in consequence of the pressure put upon the Government by county Members generally. He (Mr. Rylands) had not heard, however, a single county Member say that he wished to have this clause. As he read the clause, a sub-agent might be appointed for each polling district. Would the Attorney General, who might be taken as an authority upon the subject, say whether he had ever found, in his Parliamentary electioneering experience, that men were so willing or anxious to assist a candidate for love of their Party that the candidate, entering upon the career of a contested election, did not find a difficulty in resisting the pressure of persons who desired to become paid sub-agents? He (Mr. Rylands) believed it would be found that sub-agents mostly would not be necessarily solicitors. In many cases the sub-agents appointed would be the most active partizans in the different polling districts, and they would expect to be paid for their services. They might possibly get some volunteers; but, as a rule, in counties partizans wished to render assistance in return for some consideration or other. County Members under this clause would receive applications from each of the polling districts that a sub-agent should be appointed with a fee, it might be an attorney, or it might be a very different class of person who would seek employment under this provision. It appeared to him (Mr. Rylands) that it was not at all necessary to have sub-agents in each polling district. It might be necessary to have two or three in a large constituency; but under the Attorney General's clause pressure would, undoubtedly, be put upon candidates to appoint a very much larger number of sub-agents than were absolutely required; and, in his opinion, if there could be some check placed upon this measure, county Members would find it of great advantage.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had made suggestions which, if acted upon, would indefinitely delay the progress of the Bill, for he had insisted that those who were in favour of the Bill should speak on all clauses, as well as those who opposed it. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and he presumed many other county Members, had held their tongues, because they had been satisfied, because they believed it was absolutely necessary for the proper conduct and management of county elections—counties which were larger than Woodstock—that there should be a provision made for the appointment of sub-agents in the different centres of population, and possibly in every polling dis- trict. He should be sorry to undertake a contested election, unless he had the power to appoint a sub-agent in every polling district. Without such agents, there would be, in his opinion, great mismanagement, and a great danger of practices which would bring one within the penal provisions of the Bill. He hoped the Attorney General would adhere to the clause.

MR. O'KELLY

said, he did not see how, if they were to have sub-agents at all, they could avoid having one in each polling district. He, however, thought it would be very desirable if some provision were inserted in the Bill fixing the remuneration of sub-agents, making the remuneration as low as possible, because every county Member would be exposed to very severe black mail, unless there was some such provision. The Government ought to give some assurance to the Committee that some provision of the kind would be made.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked for a declaration of opinion from the hon. and learned Attorney General that the polling agent would not be a sub-agent.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was clear a polling agent would not be a sub-agent.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

remarked, that this question was one chiefly for county Members themselves, and they were responsible for this clause. He did not think that Members who represented borough constituencies had much interest in the clause. It was with that view that he called the Attorney General's attention to the clause before the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was considered. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) was sure that this clause, as it stood, would entail upon candidates very serious responsibilities, and that the subject which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had raised was worthy of consideration.

MR. GORST

reminded the Committee that the places in which district agents might be appointed included all the Welsh boroughs and Scotch boroughs, except the few which were not district boroughs.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if there was any question as to whether this power of appointing sub-agents should apply to district boroughs it would be easy to provide a different Schedule, so as to include or exclude such boroughs. They could easily say—" For the purposes of this 19th section, such and such Schedule shall not apply."

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, there was one point which he thought might be very conveniently noticed on this clause. It was one to which he called the attention of the Attorney General last year, and it was that there was no definition of the clause to constitute a polling district in a county. It was an important point, for this reason. The number of polling districts in a county were to be regulated by the magistrates, and the number of sub-agents were to be according to the number of the polling places; therefore, the magistrates of a county would really have the power to decide how many sub-agents a candidate might or might not have. He (Lord George Hamilton) thought that some directions should be given to the magistrates, so that when they came to divide a county into polling districts they might know what the wish of the Legislature was—that, in fact, they might give a polling place to so many thousands of electors. As it stood at present, they would find the local authorities in different places arriving at the most conflicting conclusions. In some counties it would happen that there would be more than sufficient sub-agents; while in other counties candidates had not as many sub-agents as they really required. He (Lord George Hamilton) hoped the Attorney General would consider the matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the point raised by the noble Lord would be more properly raised on the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill. This was not quite a question for a Corrupt Practices Bill, though it did indirectly arise on this clause. He (the Attorney General) might point out that a sub-agent could only act within the particular district for which he was appointed; and he thought they might take it for granted that polling districts were only created where a certain number of electors were congregated. They must trust to the magistrates, to some extent, as to the selection of the areas which should have polling stations. He was sure that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would do all he could to consider the point when the Ballot Bill was brought on for consideration.

MR. MAPPIN

asked if it was intended to include the boroughs named in the First Schedule—namely, East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury in the clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had just addressed the Committee in respect of those typical boroughs, and he had said that if it was the view of the Committee that they should have a separate subsection he would provide for it.

MR. MAPPIN

understood that the Members who represented those boroughs did not wish to have a separate section.

MR. BIGGAR

said, there was another point to which he would like the Attorney General to turn his attention. His hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the word "day," in line 1, page 9, the words "following the day." The object of his hon. Friend in this Amendment would seem to be that, supposing a contest was not expected in a borough until the eve of the nomination day, it would be inconvenient for a candidate off-hand to give the names of his sub-agents. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was that in a case of that sort a candidate should be allowed the succeeding day on which he could give notice to the Returning Officer. It was a heavy job to drive over a whole county, and to make the appointment of sub-agents. He (Mr. Biggar) would like to know from the Attorney General whether it would not be desirable, at a future stage of the Bill, to increase the time beyond the day of nomination during which notice could be given to the Returning Officer of the names of the sub-agents; and he would also like the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Eos-common (Mr. O'Kelly)—namely, as to the desirability of a provision fixing the maximum remuneration to be paid to sub-agents and other persons employed under the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that, in respect of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), he had, of course, considered it. In the first place, the day of nomination was always a certain number of days after the issuing of the Writ; and if they agreed to this Amendment it was possible that an election agent need not be appointed until the polling was over. As to the fixing of remuneration of agents, it stood to reason that the payment must be in accordance with the amount of work done, and in consideration of the person who did it. He (the Attorney General) hardly thought it would be right to lay down a hard-and-fast line of payment without considering who the agents were, and what the work was they had to do.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Office of election agent and sub-agent)agreed to.

Clause 21 (Making of contracts through election agents).

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he did not see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General present, and as he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause, which no one could answer except the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, he had no other course to pursue than to move to report Progress.

MR. R. N. FOWLER,

rising to Order, asked if it was in accordance with the usual practice of the House for a right hon. Gentleman to apply to remarks made by another right hon. Gentleman such words as "rubbish, stuff? "

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, perhaps he might be allowed to ask, as a private conversation had been overheard and attention had been called to it, if it was in Order for a right hon. Gentleman to say, in the presence of the Solioitor General, that no one could answer a legal point but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General?

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that what he had stated was that no one could answer the Amendment he was about to propose except the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He heard the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman could offer no better argument than was conveyed in such words he had better hold his peace. "With regard to this Amendment, which was, to a certain extent, consequential upon one which was not moved last night owing to exceptional circumstances, he had to say that it enabled him to call the Attorney General's attention to a very important matter; and he was now anxious to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would not, on Report, consent to introduce words which would carry out the principle which he had ventured to adopt in his Amendment? It would be observed that at the present moment the election agent of a candidate was the only person who could, by himself or by his sub-agent, hire a committee room; the clause, in fact, ran thus— The election agent of a candidate by himself or by his sub-agent shall appoint every polling agent, clerk, and messenger employed for payment on behalf of the candidate at an election, and hire every committee room hired on behalf of the candidate. They knew very well that there was a long discussion yesterday upon the question as to whether or not a committee room could be engaged in a certain place; and he was not going for one moment to revive that discussion, or refer to any of the reasons which were given for pressing the question upon the attention of the Government. As the Attorney General, however, had shown himself very conciliatory in conducting this Bill through Committee, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) desired to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would undertake hereafter, if he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) withdrew the Amendment which now stood in his name, to vest power in the Returning Officer to allow committee rooms in public-houses under certain circumstances? That was the sole question he now wished to place before the hon. and learned Gentleman; because, having had a long experience himself in electioneering matters, not only in boroughs, but in counties, it seemed to him desirable, not only in the interest of the candidates, but in the interest of the cheapness of elections, that there might be power vested in the highest authority—namely, the Returning Officer—to say what rooms in some of the prohibited places might, under proper supervision, and under circumstances which, by no rea- sonable man, would be considered objectionable, might be used as committee rooms? He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not intend to carry his Amendment to a Division; indeed, after the Attorney General had given his reply, he should ask leave to withdraw it. He would now, however, formally move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 2S, after the word "election," to insert the words "the choice and hiring of committee rooms shall rest with or require the approval of the Returning Officer, the only premises legally disqualified being those specified in Section forty-six."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would not think it disrespectful to him if he (the Solicitor General) answered the question. He (Sir Farrer Herschell) and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had consulted about this clause, and, therefore, he was quite prepared to deal with the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would remember that this question was somewhat dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) last night on the point, for he referred to the possibility of no other rooms, except those in public-houses, being available for committee rooms; and the Government then stated that they would consider whether it was possible to invest power in some responsible person. It was pointed out that the Returning Officer was an objectionable person to leave such a matter to, because he was sometimes a partizan. ["Oh!"] At all events, objection was taken to the Returning Officer dealing with such matters, as he could not always be regarded as an impartial person. The Returning Officer might be suspected of partiality, and that was the reason why they could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. He (Sir Farrer Herschell) was afraid that the proper person to entrust with such power had not yet been suggested; at all events, he thought the right hon. Gentleman himself would, on reflection, conclude that the Returning Officer could not have such power placed in his hand.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he hoped the Government would give their best consideration to this subject, because obviously there were many points which might be settled if an impartial person could only be found to deal with them. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) dared say the Government were right in thinking that the Mayor of the borough was not the proper person; because, as the Solicitor General had just pointed out, a Mayor frequently was a partizan. If an impartial person could only be found it would be of the greatest possible advantage.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he understood the Solicitor General to say that the principle of the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper was under the consideration of the Government. He had previously understood the Government to say that, although the Returning Officer was not a suitable person in their opinion, if an authority in whom to invest the proposed power was not found, they would consider whether they could not find some authority, or some person, whose functions might not expose him to objection.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, what he had stated was, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would endeavour to find such a person, and make the proposal with regard to the matter when they came to a subsequent part of the Bill, the Government would be very pleased to consider it.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that, as far as at present advised, the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to oppose such a proposal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that when they knew what the proposal was, of course they would consider it. They could not oppose it until they knew what it was.

Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say he would oppose the application of any room in a public-house or hotel for the purposes of the committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said that he would see if he could not find some suitable person in whom the authority could be placed; and he (the Attorney General), on behalf of the Government, had promised to consider the subject when it was re-introduced. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would allow him to wait until the proposition was made in a proper form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that, in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he would move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 9, line 31, after the first "or," to leave out "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of." [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) nodded assent.] He inferred from the action of the Attorney General that he meant to accept the Amendment; and, therefore, he would not trouble the Committee with any further remarks.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 31, after the first "or," to leave out "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he accepted the Amendment; in fact, it was necessary, in consequence of previous Amendments. Indeed, he wished to go further—namely, to strike out the words "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of."

MR. MACFARLANE

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 31, after the first "or," to leave out "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 (Payment of expenses through election agent).

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that this Amendment was consequential upon an Amendment he previously moved. The object of that Amendment really was to see what could be done for those persons who were outside the constituency. He moved that Amendment formally when they were discussing an earlier clause on the 2nd of this month. He would now move his Amendment formally, with the object of ascertaining what proposition the Government had upon the point. The Government had said that upon Clause 22 they would bring up words to meet the view he had taken.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 41, after "candidate," insert "or any other person."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman moved upon a previous occasion was to meet the practice of sending down to boroughs irresponsible persons for the sole purpose of corrupting the constituencies. He (the Attorney General) entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's views. On the 2nd of July he (the Attorney General) said he would see what could be done to meet the right hon. Gentleman's views to the extent he had placed them before the Committee. After having considered the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to find better words to carry the right hon. Gentleman's object into effect than the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself. They might by simple means accomplish a great object; and, although those words were short and simple, he (the Attorney General) really could find no better words to express the meaning intended. They would bring within the net—within which they wished to bring any of those irresponsible persons sent down with the sole object of corrupting constituencies—they would bring such persons within the operation of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

reverted to the Amendment which, though standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). The same words occurred in page 10, lines 1 and 2. He (the Attorney General) presumed they must follow the same words. He had, therefore, to move to strike out, in lines 1 and 2, "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct and management of."

Amendment proposed, In page 10, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "in connection with or incidental to," and insert the words "in respect of the conduct and management of."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MACFARLANE

pointed out that the same words occurred in line 8.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 8, to leave out the words "in connection with or incidental to," and insert the words "in respect of the conduct and management of."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

called the attention of the Committee, and especially the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), to a consequential Amendment which was necessary upon the insertion of the words, "or any other person," because those words would include the Returning Officer. It appeared, therefore, to him (the Attorney General) that they ought in line 11 to say— Provided that this section shall not he deemed to apply to any payment made by the Returning Officer or to any.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 11, after the word "apply," insert "to any payment made by the Returning Officer or."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, there was just one other point he wished to bring under the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General); but it was an important point. Assuming that an outside Association had certain persons in its employ to whom it paid a salary, say, of £100 or £200 a-year, those were the people who might be sent down to corrupt constitu- encies. Here was payment made to them on account of the election; because, whatever they might do at an election, though it might be illegal, they would be compensated in the ordinary salary they got as the agents of an Association elsewhere. Although he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was satisfied that the words he had proposed would meet the case of a person who was specially sent down to an election, and specially paid for any service he rendered at the election, he was not at all clear that they would meet the case he now instanced. If the Attorney General desired it, however, he was quite content to leave the matter for further consideration.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think that the words previously adopted would meet such a case now cited by the right hon. Gentleman; and in his (the Attorney General's) opinion it would be difficult to find words to cover such a case. If, however, a man, no matter from wherever he came from, committed an illegal practice, they must deal with him as they found him. The thing seemed a difficulty of substance more than of drafting. He should be pleased to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in any way he chose.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would bring up a new clause on the subject.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had guarded against a collusive intrusion from outside; but let them take the case, for instance, of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman was an avowed opponent of Women's Suffrage. Supposing he stood for Taunton again, and a candidate stood against him who was a supporter of Women's Suffrage, the maximum amount which his hon. and learned Friend could spend was specified in the Bill. The maximum amount that his opponent could spend was also specified in the Bill; but there was nothing whatever to prevent the Women's Suffrage Committee sending down a person which should hold meetings and should placard the town, advising the people to vote for Brown, Jones, or Robinson, as against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Now, under such circumstances as those, it was perfectly certain that the Attorney General would suffer great damage, most improperly and most unfairly, whilst his opponent would have the unlimited resources of the Society for the support of Women's Suffrage, and he would also be allowed to spend the maximum allowed under the Bill. That appeared to him (Mr. W. H. Smith) a course which ought not to be adopted under the Bill; but, so far as he could see, it was perfectly open for anybody to take that course. He ventured to say, on a former occasion, that there would be sent down to constituencies, in times of an election, the representatives of any number of Associations and Societies to promote their own particular objects; and, unless a candidate could accept them all, and swallow them all, he would be in great danger of being opposed by them—opposed by a candidate who would have the support of the Associations and Societies in question. He thought the Attorney General himself ought to find some means of dealing with cases of that kind.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the very pleasing reference he had made to him. If he could deal with the case as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, he should be glad to do so. In his election, in 1873, all that the right hon. Gentleman had described really occurred. The Women's Suffrage Committee opposed him in every way they could; but he thought that the consequence of their act ought not to fall upon his opponent. ["Oh, oh!"] In his opinion, it would be very hard that all the money the Women's Suffrage Committee spent should be treated as part of the candidate's expenditure. Personally, he (the Attorney General) was treated as a very objectionable person by the ladies composing the Committee; and he had no doubt that they would try to keep him out of Parliament for any constituency whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had, however, not contemplated such a case as that. He had dealt with the case of men who received a stated salary from Associations, and who got no actual money for any particular services rendered at an election. He should like, if he could, to stop all that expenditure going into election warfare, from whatever direction it came; but he doubted very much whether such an object could be accomplished.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the more the subject was discussed the more necessary it was that the matter should be met. The Amendment which he had put down on the Paper to this clause, and which had been accepted, was to the effect that any person employed by or in receipt of a salary from a political or other Association outside a consti-tuency in which the election took place, should be considered as engaged or employed for payment if he acted under such employment for the purpose of promoting, or procuring, or opposing the election of a particular candidate. He was not prepared to say whether the payment should be considered as payment by the candidate, because it would be difficult to trace it to the candidate; but it ought to be an illegal practice, no matter by whom the payment was made. They were hampering the hands of a candidate in every way, and prohibiting him expending beyond a certain sum of money. What a candidate had only to do if he wished to evade the section was to write up to some Association and get that Association to work his election. It would thus be seen that they were handicapping an honest candidate to an extent of which they had no conception. It must be remembered that they were not passing a law for good men, but for bad men; and the moment that Act became law, it would be taken up by some people in the country to see how they could get out of it. The first thing they would do would be to see how a candidate should spend nothing, and how some Association in Birmingham, or London, or Manchester, could go down, spend money, and work the election for them. That was really the thing they had to meet. It was a matter of vital importance to the Bill; and although he thought the words which the Attorney General had accepted met the case to a certain extent, so far as direct payment went, they would not meet the case of people who were not directly paid. He should, therefore, raise the question by a new clause. He hoped the Attorney General realized the force of the observations he had made, and that when the Committee came to consider the new clauses they would be fully prepared to deal with this matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he fully saw the importance of the matter. They, however, could not help people who took an interest in national questions raising their voices in any particular constituency. As the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring up the question in the form of a new clause, would it not be well to have only one discussion upon it?

MR. ONSLOW

said, this was a serious matter, and the Attorney General had given them no definite promise that he would bring up a clause himself on the subject. He (Mr. Onslow) did not think the question ought to be slighted in this way. There was an Association which many Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House thought ought not to be formed. He believed many hon. Gentlemen opposite had nothing to do with the Association, and certainly they on the Opposition side of the House had the greatest repugnance to it—he meant the Birmingham Caucus. Now, the Birmingham Caucus was a rich Association, and it might send clown its representatives to any borough at the time of an election and simply flood it with money. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL dissented.] The Solicitor General shook his head; but not a penny of the money sent down by the Caucus would be included in the expenses of the candidate—it would not be paid by himself or by his agent, but by the Central Association. He (Mr. Onslow) would take another case. He himself would, no doubt, be opposed strongly at the next Election by the Anti-Liquor Association, and that Association was, as everyone knew, exceedingly rich; there were thousands and thousands of pounds coming into the coffers of that Association, and he believed it would be considered worth while to send to every constituency gentlemen to speak on public platforms against any particular individual who held views different to theirs. No doubt, in support of a candidate who approved of its views, the Association would send down their men and their money; and, unless there was some safeguard to prevent such a thing being done, there would be an enormous amount of money spent by particular individuals of whom the Associations, Liberal or Conservative, in the constituency knew nothing. A constituency would be flooded with money, and therefore there would be any amount of bribery committed by the Association, and yet there would be no means of preventing it. It seemed ludicrous that such a state of things should be allowed. The Attorney General had said—"I will see if I can bring up another clause." They must press this matter on the Attorney General, because they did not intend to be flooded by Birmingham Caucuses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said he would bring forward some clause to that effect. Let them see what this clause was. ["Hear, hear!"] It was all very well for the Attorney General to say "Hear, hear!" but the Committee ought, on this occasion, to insist upon the Attorney General meeting them fairly upon this point. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the Committee a more definite promise than he had done that he would bring up a clause.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he was afraid that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was not aware of the alteration which had been made in the clause by the acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The clause would now meet all cases, whether connected with the Birmingham Caucus or anything else; but the case which the hon. Gentleman desired to meet was that of salaried officers, for whom no payment was made in respect of an election, and who made no payments themselves, being sent into the constituencies by the Caucus or other Associations. That was a much more limited question, and the last objection was already met by the Amendment which had been accepted.

MR. ONSLOW

remarked, that the practice now was to send down a man two or three days before the election, who went Heaven knew where and committed all sorts of illegal practices.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he thought it was not necessary to prolong the discussion of the clause by raising questions with regard to the Birmingham Caucus. He would, however, take advantage of the discussion to draw the attention of his hon. and learned Friend to another point. There were a great many persons who had a close connection with the Press of the Metropolis, and of the different centres of England. It was quite possible for certain statements to be made by means of the Press which caluminated and misrepresented the acts of a candidate, and such statements would go through the whole of the borough. It was altogether impossible for the candidate to contradict such statements, unless he used placards, or took some course of a similar nature. The candidate would desire that the true state of the facts should be placed before the electors; but it might be reported to him by his agent that he was not able to spend any money in sending out placards or handbills without exceeding the maximum expenditure specified in the Schedule.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that was a question which would not come under this provision at all. The present clause provided only that all payments should be made through the election agent.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked, that what the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) had said was pure nonsense, and the hon. Member could not have been attending to the debates which had taken place. The Committee would remember that when they were discussing the 7th clause he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had submitted an Amendment which he withdrew at the time, for the express purpose of raising it again on the 22nd clause. An Amendment on the 14th clause was also withdrawn on the same understanding; and now, when they had reached Clause 22, to say that the Committee must not discuss it was a proposition he, for one, would not stand, and he would not permit such a statement as that which the hon. Member for Gateshead had made to go forth without resenting it.

MR. WARTON

said, he was of opinion that if the Committee wished to get through this Bill in reasonable time it was not desirable that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) should convert himself into a sort of censor, and dictate how many times every hon. Member was to speak. He (Mr. Warton) should certainly express his opinions without any regard to the feeling of the hon. Member for Gateshead, or anybody else. The question now before the Committee was a very important one, and it was closely connected with another important matter to which, in all proba- bility, the Government proposed by-and-bye to give the go bye—namely, the Amendment which appeared on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) to try all those illegal practices on the spot. If they really desired to put a stop to illegal practices on the part of agents, they could only do it by inflicting severe punishment then and there. These two questions were of great importance; and if the Government wished to be practical, and were sincere in their desire to put down bribery and corruption, the only way to do it was to have a tribunal on the spot, which should punish at once all persons who could be proved to have engaged in acts of corruption. He felt deeply the able manner in which the Attorney General had conducted the consideration of the Bill; but he thought that those who aspired to be statesmen should have adequate means of carrying out what they desired to enact. It was a somewhat undignified position for the hon. and learned Gentleman to be compelled to get up day after day and say that there were provisions which he would like to pass, but he was utterly unable to know how to pass them. It was the duty of the hon. and learned Gentleman to find out a way, and the first thing he ought to do was to constitute a tribunal which would have power to prevent this kind of action, and to punish all illegal practices on the spot. In his (Mr. Warton's) opinion, one of the great evils of the present day was the existence of any political Associations at all. There were Associations established in connection with every possible "fad" or fancy; and the object of all the little bands of fanatics which existed throughout the Kingdom, whether women or temperance people, was to obtain for their opinions unfair weight. They tried unjustly to turn the scale, and to make their petty "fads" and fancies rule the election. That was their object, and in endeavouring to carry it out they stuck at nothing. They sent out hired agitation all over the country to misrepresent their opponents; and his own opinion was that any person who was not a candidate, or an elector, or an agent, ought not to be permitted to take part in an election at all. It was these outsiders who came into a constituency and put tyrannical pressure upon the candidate. When he (Mr. Warton) was a candidate he received all kinds of letters to know whether he would vote for this object or the other, but he thought it due to the respect he owed towards himself not to answer any one of them. He treated all of them with the contempt they deserved, and he regretted that so many bon. Members were weak-minded enough to pay attention to them. He thought that strangers ought not to be allowed to interfere with the progress of any election, and he should like to see these hireling lecturers sent to prison as misdemeanants.

MR. BIGGAR

asked if a candidate could be his own agent for election expenses, or if it was absolutely necessary that payment should be made through a third person?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Committee had already inserted an Amendment in Clause 17, which allowed every candidate to be his own agent for the election expenses.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that was what he understood; but he wanted to make the matter perfectly sure.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Period for sending in claims and making payments for election expenses).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was prepared to accept an Amendment in line 21 of this clause—namely, to leave out the words "in connection with or incidental to an election," in order to substitute the words "in respect of the conduct or the management of an election."

Question, "That the words, 'in connection with or incidental to' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived."

Question "That the words 'in respect of the conduct or management of' be inserted after the word 'or,'" put, and agreed to.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) he would move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his hon. Friend's name, the object of which was to omit from the clause the words "except when less than twenty shillings." It was impossible during the hurry of an election to get a bill or receipt made out for accounts of less than 20s.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out "except when less than twenty shillings."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Amendment was part of a series of Amendments, and these words would have to go out of the clause if the Attorney General accepted the Amendment as a whole.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he fully understood the object of the Amendment; but he thought the Committee might be embarrassed by accepting it now. He was willing to accept an Amendment to the 1st sub-section, which would have the effect of raising the amount required to be vouched in respect of any expense incurred by an election agent from 20s. to 40s.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, in that case, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn."

MR. BIGGAR

asked what position a candidate would be in who received a cheque? Would he have to go to the party who sent the cheque and get a receipt; and if a Post Office order was sent instead of a cheque, how would the candidate be situated?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not quite understand the point raised by the hon. Member. The receipt attached to Post Office orders would be the voucher. Anything that showed that the money had been paid would be sufficient, and if a receipt was not forthcoming the Judge would receive evidence that the money had been paid. He did not think that any practical danger was to be apprehended.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the difficulty arose in this way. Persons might be employed to make payments, and hon. Members knew very well that all sorts of people put in claims on the pretence that they had made payments. And then, again, it was possible that persons would receive money and give no receipt of any sort in the expectation of extorting more money out of the candidate. He thought these were matters which the Bill ought to remedy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in line 22, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "forty."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had next to propose, in lines 25 and 26, to strike out the words "in connection with or incidental to," in order to insert the words "in respect of the conduct or management of."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that before that Amendment was put, he wished to object to Sub-section 2 altogether. What occurred to him was that this was one of those enactments which might be easily evaded. The subsection said— Every claim against a candidate at an election or his election agent in respect of any expenses incurred on account of or in connection with or incidental to such election which is not sent in to the election agent within the time limited by this Act shall be barred and shall not be paid, and an election agent who pays a claim in contravention of this enactment shall be guilty of an illegal practice. He did not see much use in putting those words into an Act of Parliament, because the candidate would have to make a declaration at the end which ought to cover all these things. If a man sought to evade the Act, of course he would not be debarred by the declaration. What, then, was the use of putting in a clause of that kind, when it was impossible to detect whether there had been payments made after the proper time or not? Such claims would afterwards be settled in a way that no person could possibly detect. It also struck him that the sub-section might work somewhat unjustly, because there might be cases in which ignorant people would be put to a great disadvantage if the Act said their claims should be barred and should not be paid, or that if they were paid the candidate or election agent, who paid them in contravention of the Act, should be guilty of an illegal practice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not quite understand the objection of the noble Lord to the claim being barred and the debt not being paid. The object of the sub-section was to prevent claims from coming in after the election. It was constantly found that applications for services rendered during an election contest were sent in long after the election was over; and it was just as well to enable the candidate or his agent to reply to such claims—"I cannot pay them because they are barred." The noble Lord said that might be an injustice. He (the Attorney General) quite admitted that there might be cases where there would be a bonâ fide claim, and he had drawn Sub-section 9 of the clause in order to meet such cases. That sub-section was as follows:— On cause shown to the satisfaction of the High Court, such Court, on application by the claimant or by the candidate or his election agent, may by order give leave for the payment of the said sum, or the issue of the said execution, and further may by order give leave for the payment by a candidate or his election agent of a disputed claim, or of a claim for any such expenses as aforesaid, although sent in after the time in this section mentioned for sending in claims, or although the same was sent in to the candidate and not to the election agent.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that a creditor whose account was only 5s. might not think it worth while to send it in within the time specified by the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it would make people more careful to send in their claims within a reasonable time. If they did not choose to do so, then they must put up with the consequences. If the sum was small the loss would be small, and would not be worth fighting for.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

asked if the clause meant something stronger than the present Statute of Limitations? Would a man who felt that a claim was just and due, and considered himself bound to pay it, come within the operation of the clause? He remembered cases in which claims were barred by law; but, notwithstanding, they were paid because they were considered to be just. If a candidate considered he was under a moral obligation to satisfy a claim, was he to be prevented by this clause from paying such claim?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if a candidate was of opinion that he was under a moral obligation to pay a claim, all he had to do under Sub-section 9 was to make an application to the High Court; and on cause being shown to the satisfaction of the High Court, on application by the claimant, or by the candidate, or his election agent, an order might be given for leave to satisfy the claim.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the Committee that there is no Question before the House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "in connection with or incidental to," in order to insert the words "in respect of the conduct or management of."

Amendment agreed to.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he had an Amendment upon the Paper, which he thought would come next. He proposed, in line 29, to leave out the words "be guilty of an illegal practice," in order to insert the words "on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds." He presumed that that was an Amendment which the Attorney General would accept, because there was an obvious oversight in the clause. It was enacted that— Every claim against a candidate at an election or his election agent in respect of any expenses incurred on account of or in connection with or incidental to such election, which is not sent in to the election agent within the time limited by this Act, shall be barred and shall not be paid, and an election agent who pays a claim in contravention of this enactment shall be guilty of an illegal practice. What would be the result if a candidate had a difference with the election agent, and the two came to loggerheads? All the agent would have to do would be to spend a little more money after the time fixed by the Act, and then the candidate might be unseated. It could not possibly be the intention of the Government that such a penalty should be embodied in an Act of Parliament, and therefore he proposed to leave out the words "be guilty of an illegal practice," and to simply render the agent subject to the penalty which ran all through the Bill—namely, that on summary conviction he should pay a fine not exceeding £100.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 29, leave out from "be," to end of sub-section, and insert "on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."—(Lord George Hamilton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought he had already met the proposal of the noble Lord by providing in Clause 9 what the punishment should be on a conviction for an illegal practice. He thought he had mot every suggestion the noble Lord made in regard to the clause. He had also dealt with it in Clauses 26 and 27, which were intended to meet this very case. In Sub-section 5 of Clause 26, it was provided— If, without such authorised excuse as in this Act mentioned, a candidate or an election agent fail to comply with the requirements of this section, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice. Provided that such failure on the part of the election agent without the knowledge and consent of the candidate shall not render the candidate liable to any greater incapacity than that to which he is liable for an illegal practice committed by his agent without his knowledge and consent. He had further provided in Sub-section 6— That a false declaration by the election agent, without the knowledge and consent of the candidate, shall not render the candidate liable to any other incapacity than that of his election being void. Still further, in Clause 27, there was this provision— If the candidate applies to the High Court, and shows that the failure to transmit such return and declarations, or any of them, or any part thereof, or any error therein, has arisen by reason of his illness, or of the absence, death, illness, or misconduct of his election agent, or sub-agent, or of any clerk or officer of such agent, or by reason of inadvertence or of any reasonable cause of a like nature, and not by reason of any want of good faith on the part of the applicant, &c. He thought that these two clauses, taken together, would give sufficient protection to the candidate. If he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord, the election agent might set the whole of the law at defiance, and might break it with the deliberate intention of breaking it. If they made the election agent a person who was to be selected by the candidate himself, of course he was under the immediate command of the candidate, who was bound to exercise proper discretion in the selection he made; but, having made a selection, he must see that the law was carried out, and must be answerable for the due performance of all his duties by his agent. If the Amendment were adopted the position would be this. If the election agent spent £5,000, instead of £500, there would be a means of evading the law by holding over the payment until after the date fixed in the Act; and by the Amendment they would be simply giving a licence to the election agent to exceed the legitimate expenditure. For this reason he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord; but be would put it to the Committee whether it was not a sufficient remedy to provide that if the candidate was able to show that there had been misconduct upon the part of the agent, the penalty should not rest upon him, nor would the penalty attach to him for the acts of a traitor?

MR. GORST

understood the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) to object to the last words of the section, which made the agent who paid a claim in contravention of the Act guilty of an illegal practice. He further understood the noble Lord to wish to substitute a fine of £100. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON said that was so.] He desired to point out to the noble Lord that an Amendment of that nature was scarcely necessary. No doubt, the proposal contained in it was a very proper one; but it had already been provided, by Clause 9, that a person guilty of an illegal practice should be liable to a fine on summary conviction not exceeding £100.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he proposed to strike out the words "an illegal practice."

MR. GORST

said, he was perfectly aware of that; but the noble Lord practically left the clause one to provide that the agent paying any claim that was barred should be guilty of an illegal practice; and if he looked back to Clause 9, he would see that everybody who was guilty of an illegal practice was liable to pay a fine of £100. Clause 22 said that if an election agent paid a claim in contravention of the Act he was guilty of an illegal practice, and Clause 9 provided that every person who was guilty of an illegal practice should be liable to a fine not exceeding £100.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Amendment proposed to strike out the words "an illegal practice."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

suggested that words might be inserted in the Bill to determine that after the time fixed for the payment of claims the services of the election agent should cease. That would at once keep the matter distinct, because the person who paid the claim would have ceased to be the agent for the election, and if he was no longer the election agent his acts could not affect the candidate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the important point in the Amendment of the noble Lord was that it would leave this loop-hole open—that an agent guilty of an illegal practice would have nothing to do but to pay a fine of £100.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the clause, as it stood, placed it in the power of an election agent to present a Petition against the candi date.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the noble Lord would see that it was in the power of every agent to present a Petition.

MR. GIBSON

said, that although he was inclined, on the whole, to be satisfied with the explanation of the Attorney General as to the object of the Amendment, he thought the proposal of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) a reasonable one. What was the Amendment of his noble Friend, which was presented very concisely to the Committee? It applied to the election agent who paid a claim in contravention of the Act—that was outside the time required, but it might be within the limit allowed for the payment of election expenses, and therefore the agent would simply commit a technical error, because he would still be making a payment within the legal limit of the election expenses allowed by the Act—if the agent did that outside the time fixed by this clause, not only would he incur punishment upon himself, but the act he had done might affect the seat, and subject the candidate to serious cones- quences on account of the illegal act of the agent. Surely that would be a monstrous injustice, and he trusted that the question would be fully discussed, so that the Committee might understand it thoroughly before they passed from it. He would not take the conduct of an election agent, done in a hurry, or in consequence of a slip, or some other inadvertence, nor would he take the case of an election agent who acted through treachery. He would pass by all those points, and apply himself to the case of an election agent who, knowing what the section was, deliberately violated a statutory enactment, but did so in a way which would probably happen in many cases—namely, that although it was wrong undoubtedly to violate an Act of Parliament, still the act of violation brought about no corruption. The election agent would not have paid any corrupt charge, or any charge in excess of the maximum expenditure fixed by the Schedule of the Bill, but he would have been paying a perfectly fair charge, which he knew to be a fair charge, and he would probably know equally well that he was paying it after the time fixed in the Act, and subject his principal to the full penalty of having committed an illegal practice, not by himself, but by his agent. If that consequence could be worked out—and he saw no escape from it—the Attorney General was not in a position to point to chapter and verse, in any of the clauses of the Act, which would enable a tribunal to free the candidate from this monstrous injustice. He (Mr. Gibson) could not imagine any topic more deserving of the close and careful consideration of the Committee. He had carefully examined all the clauses of the Bill, and he had gone through more than those which the Attorney General had referred to, giving power to the tribunal to recognize excuses, and also giving power to the High Court, in Clause 17, as well as to the Election Court, to except certain innocent acts from being an illegal practice. But he saw nothing in Clause 17 which covered in the slightest degree, or gave any power whatever to the Court to deal with, the case they were now considering, and it was a case that might happen frequently—namely, that of an agent who knowingly paid a claim after the proper time. By Sub-section (b) of Clause 17, it was necessary for the Court to determine— That an act or omission arose from inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and in any case did not arise from any want of good faith. He was admitting that in the case they were now dealing with there could be neither inadvertence nor accidental miscalculation. Therefore, that clause could not be referred to as supplying a mode by which the Court could prevent this extreme consequence from falling upon the candidate. The next section referred to by the Attorney General was Section 36, and he (Mr. Gibson) certainly failed to see the relevancy of that clause. No one had a higher respect for his hon. and learned Friend than he had. His hon. and learned Friend had conducted the consideration of this Bill in a spirit of perfect fairness towards the Committee, and he had stated his views with logical precision. But he (Mr. Gibson) had read and re-read Subsection 5 of Clause 26, and he could not see that it had the faintest reference to the point now under discussion. He would read it to the Committee, in order to show that he was not doing an injustice to his hon. and learned Friend. This was the sub-section referred to by the Attorney General as one which enabled the Court to modify the unjust stringency of the clause now sought to be amended by his noble Friend— If, without such authorised excuse as in this Act mentioned, a candidate or an election agent fails to comply with the requirements of this section, he shall he guilty of an illegal practice. Looking further at the clause, he found this marginal note attached to it—"Return and declaration respecting election expenses," which had nothing whatever to do with the topic now under consideration; and there was a Proviso which entirely prevented the application of the clause to the remedy of the evil referred to— Provided that such failure on the part of the election agent, without the knowledge and consent of the candidate, shall not render the candidate liable to any greater incapacity than that to which he is liable for an illegal practice committed by his agent without his knowledge and consent. That was the very point the noble Lord was anxious to get rid of. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dis- sented.] He saw that the Attorney General did not assent to his inference; and he hoped the noble Lord would look at the section again, because it was overwhelmingly plain to his mind. The noble Lord sought to get rid of the provision that if the principal were made guilty of an illegal practice committed by his agent, such consequences should not follow; and it was no answer to refer the noble Lord to this Proviso, which said that the principal should not be liable to any greater incapacity than that which he was liable to for an illegal practice committed by his agent without his knowledge and consent, and which, in point of fact, gave no redress at all. The only other clause referred to as affording matter for relief was Clause 27; and the marginal note attached to that clause was— Authorised excuse for non-compliance with provisions as to return and declaration respecting election expenses. He had read the clause carefully, and, without desiring to weary the Committee by reading it to them, he would ask them to accept from him the statement that there was not one solitary syllable in the clause which would enable the Court, no matter how well disposed it might be, to relieve the candidate from the penalty attached to the wilful payment of a proper charge if it were paid after the proper time. That was the point to which he wished to confine his arguments at the present moment, although there were other points that would require careful consideration. He had taken one of the strongest cases, and one which would occur most frequently, and his view was this—that if the Attorney General would not accept the Amendment, which he (Mr. Gibson) regarded as of great importance, or if he would not undertake, expressly and in terms, when they came to the next clause granting exceptions, to deal with this point in the way indicated by the Amendment, he should unquestionably divide in favour of the Amendment of his noble Friend, and he should support it in the strongest way he could.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done that already. He had said all that could be said in favour of the Amendment. The question, however, was one upon which the experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was somewhat limited. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as the Representative of a University, had always sailed upon very smooth water. [Mr. GIBSON said, he confessed that.] His right hon. and learned Friend probably did not know that payments sometimes had to be made which had not been provided for. If he (the Attorney General) thought the infliction of the penalty proposed by the noble Lord would meet the case, he would have gladly accepted the Amendment; but the position of the election agent was a peculiar one, and he thought it was not asking too much from him that he should comply with the requirements of the Act. Let the Committee consider what the position of the election agent was. He ought to know what the law was. They told him he had a certain duty to perform, and he could not be led into anything accidentally, or that he could not comprehend. He would do everything with premeditation, because, in this case, he would have to pay a certain sum in a certain given time. The Legislature told him he must not do it after a certain time, but that, if there was a claim which was sent in after the proper time, and the agent thought he ought morally to pay it, then he had only to take the trouble to make an application to the Court for leave to pay it. The noble Lord said that the agent would be of opinion that the Legislature ought not to impose this obligation upon him, and, therefore, he would not comply with it, but would set the intentions of the Legislature at defiance. Then, why was such a breach of the law by the agent to be treated as being of less importance than any of those other things which, if the agent did them during the conduct of an election, would render the seat void?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

remarked, that the election would be over at the time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the election agent did an act of this kind after he had ceased to be an election agent, he would not bring any consequences upon the candidate. The candidate would have the means of putting an end to the agency by an advertisement or otherwise. It was said that the agent would be willing to pay the penalty, and would run the risk of being fined £100, rather than ask the leave of the Court to pay these claims. If that were so, did not the Committee think that he would have some object—that there was something in connection with the payment which he was anxious should not be mentioned in the High Court? The claim might only be for £2 or £3; and would the agent incur a fine of £100 unless he had something in substance to conceal? The payments, in fact, were the sequence of the debt. His own opinion was that they would be opening the door to illegal practices to the fullest extent if they allowed payments of this kind to be made contrary to the law. A payment made in the hurry of the moment, or under accidental circumstances, would not come under this provision, which only dealt with premeditated breaches of the law—cases in which the agent was ready to set the law at defiance rather than do his duty. If there was any further protection he could give to the candidate he would gladly give it; and he had endeavoured to meet any case of inadvertence or mistake by accepting the new clause suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), but which he (the Attorney General) intended to bring up. That clause provided that when the Election Court reported that the agent had been guilty of treating, or undue influence, or illegal practices; and the Election Court further reported that the candidate and his election agent had taken all reasonable means to prevent the commission of corrupt and illegal practices; that they had been trivial and unimportant, and limited in character, and were not committed with the knowledge and consent of the candidate, the election should not be void, nor should the candidate be subjected to any incapacity under the Act. His right hon. and learned Friend said that these cases might often occur. They ought not to occur often, because the election agent would know very well that they were against the Act of Parliament. He was afraid that, notwithstanding what his right hon. and learned Friend had said, he could not yield to his views, and he hoped the Committee would fully consider the effect which the adoption of the Amendment would have. It would be most unwise not to enforce this provision. Having passed an Act they ought to see that all its provisions were obeyed by all persons concerned.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished to point out that the punishment given under the Amendment of the noble Lord would not be so inadequate as the Attorney General seemed to imagine. What was proposed was that an agent guilty of an offence should be punished by a fine of £100; but if the clause were passed as it stood, the agent might expose himself not to a single fine of £100, but to one for each separate offence. The agent would, therefore, always have before his mind that in violating the law he would be subjecting himself to a heavy penalty.

MR. GORST

said, the promise just made by the Attorney General very much altered the matter. He understood that the pledge given was to provide in the Bill some means, in addition to those already provided, for relieving the principal from the acts of his election agent as soon as the eletion was over. He confessed that when a man had paid all his election expenses and made his declaration, that that ought of itself to be a termination of the election agency. It appeared now that that was to be made quite clear, and that when the election was over and the accounts paid, and all the provisions of the Act complied with, the agency should cease, and if anything was then done by the election agent it would be done at his own peril. If that were made perfectly clear, he thought it would meet all the objections which had been raised; because he thought that as long as the election was going on, and until the accounts were paid and the whole affair was closed, it was only right that a payment of this kind by the election agent should have all the consequences which any other illegal acts by the election agent would have. If a line were drawn beyond which the agency should not exist, that would, in his opinion, be quite sufficient.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was unable to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. He agreed with the Attorney General that if the election agent did not fulfil the requirements of the Statute he ought to be subjected to more severe punishment than a fine of £100. Indeed, he thought the election agent, under such circumstances, should be somewhat severely punished, because he might otherwise, to a great extent, defeat the intentions of the Bill. At the same time, he was inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in punishing the agent they should look with jealousy upon the consequences which any specific act of the agent might bring to bear upon the candidate. For instance, he himself had no desire to be punished because his agent had rendered him liable to be prosecuted. The agent ought to know what the law was, and ought to refuse to pay any claims after the date fixed for their payment. He would be glad if the Attorney General could see his way to the modification of the clause, so far as its effect upon the candidate would be, without waiting until the new clause which he intended to bring up at the instance of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler) could be discussed. It was quite evident, on the face of the matter, that the candidate could have little or no control over the agent; and it would be rather hard that he should be held liable, and subjected to very serious consequences, because the agent, by the payment of a sum which would have been perfectly legitimate if paid at the proper time, could expose him to the danger of a Petition. It would frequently happen that Petitions would be presented against the candidate on very trifling grounds; but if the agent broke the law, that would certainly justify the Petitioner in presenting a Petition, and would put the candidate to very serious expense. He therefore thought, in regard to this particular clause, that where a fault might arise without any corrupt motive there ought to be some words inserted to protect the candidate.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he quite agreed with the principle of the clause, and he considered that it would be very necessary to place a limit upon the time when the accounts should be sent in, and that such limit should be rigidly enforced; but he disputed the justice of the treatment of the candidate. He admitted that the conduct of the agent would be essentially wrong if, having made a mistake, he did not take advantage of that provision of the Bill which allowed him to apply to the High Court of Justice to enable him to pay a claim which might not have been sent in at the proper time, but which he considered was a legitimate one, and one that ought to be paid. On the other hand, it would be excessively unjust if, because an agent had been guilty of such laches, the innocent candidate was to be punished in the strong manner provided by the clause and held to be guilty of an illegal practice. He therefore trusted that the Attorney General would do something to protect the candidate from the severity of the clause.

MR. CALLAN

said, he hoped the Attorney General would in no way modify the clause. It was about the most efficient measure of justice which could fall upon any candidate, and it would render him very careful about the acts of his election agent. He (Mr. Callan) knew a case in point in his own district where, 12 months after the election, upwards of £500 were paid for expenses incurred in treating by the election agent, and the candidate. If a fine of £100, or oven a fine of £1,000, were imposed, it would not have the slightest effect in detering the agent if he had some wealthy man behind him. If they were to impose a penalty on the election agent, he hoped it would be imprisonment with hard labour. If the Attorney General intended to modify the clause in any respect, he (Mr. Callan) would certainly prefer that the punishment should be enhanced, and he was able to speak from experience. Not only should the candidate be deemed guilty of an illegal practice, but the election agent should receive penal servitude for five years, because it was a corrupt practice deliberately entered into during an election contest. It was an act that could not be unintentionally committed, but it must be deliberately committed with malice prepense, in order to render void the salutary provisions of the clause. If it were found necessary to relieve the candidate, he certainly hoped they would increase the penalty upon the election agent, and, in addition to a fine, imprison him for two years with hard labour. What would the election agent care for a fine of £100 or £500 if he had a wealthy Baronet or a noble Lord at his back? He would only laugh at it. He knew an election agent who had only a simple barrister at his back who had to pay £500 within the borough he (Mr. Callan) had formerly represented for corrupt practices committed three years ago. Therefore, the only way to make a candidate really responsible was to give him or his agent penal servitude.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the Committee should take into consideration the position of the unhappy candidate whoso agent had simply paid a lawful claim within the maximum amount of the election expenses, perhaps only a day after the period for payment had expired. There was positively no protection whatever for the candidate in any clause passed or coming. That was a monstrous injustice, and so long as the Bill bristled with such things he should object to and dislike it. He thought it was a matter of complaint that the hon. and learned Attorney General should have read out the second paragraph of Clause 6, for it had really nothing to do with the point now raised.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, that, as he understood the Attorney General had suggested the insertion of a clause which would enable a candidate to declare, in some way or other, that his agent had ceased to be his election agent, he thought that would be a sufficient protection to the candidate; but he thought that would, whilst relieving the candidate from responsibility, enable the agent, after the determination of his authority, to make illegal payments on his own responsibility, and trust to the candidate for reimbursement at some future period. A candidate might issue a notice to that effect, and then, by another agreement, come to a secret understanding with the agent. He would suggest that the penalty should be an absolute penalty of £100 in every case, for he believed that would be much more effective than any future clause that could be drawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and promised, if that were done, to consider whether there could not be some distinction made between a contract made within the maximum, and payments made outside the limit of time for such payments. The question of payments outside the maximum stood upon a different footing.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, for the Attorney General had hitherto kept his promises with such good faith that he could fully trust him to do his best to meet this difficulty. He thought the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) a very valuable one, because if it could be guarded, as the noble Lord had suggested, by terminating connection with an agent at a certain period, the candidate would be protected, not only against this particular illegal practice, but against other illegal practices. But the difficulty which occurred to him, and which he thought the Attorney General would realize, was that there were here three periods of time. The expenses must be returned to the Returning Officer within 40 days; claims must be sent in within 20 days, and payment must be made within 30 days. Therefore, in one case there were 30 days, and in another 20 days; and he did not conceive that in any case a candidate could terminate his connection with an agent under 40 days. That was a point which he had no doubt the Attorney General would carefully consider; and, as he had given an assurance that he would do his best to meet this as well as other difficulties, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, he hoped the Attorney General would not go far back from the pledge given to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He did not think the observations of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) touched the principle advocated by the noble Lord. No one wanted a candidate to terminate his connection with his agent until the election was practically over—that was until 40 days had expired, or until a declaration of the returns had been made to the House, and all the expenses had been closed up and settled. It appeared to him just and equitable that the Member returned should be allowed to terminate altogether the relations of election agency, for there would then be nothing left for the agent to do. One part of the operation would be to withdraw from the control of the election agent all sums of money; and he did not see why an agent should be wicked and foolish enough, after the connection was terminated, to spend his own money.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 32, after "twenty," to insert "one."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he hoped the Attorney General would agree to put in 28 days, as he thought both 20 and 21 were too short a period for all the accounts to come in.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this was another of those numerous details which the Committee had to consider; and they had already fixed the limits of time. First, there was the sending of the accounts to the Returning Officer; then the payment, and then the return, within 40 days. During all that time a constituency might be wrongly represented, and it would be a serious matter to displace a Member who had got accustomed to his seat for two months. He objected to any further extension of time.

MR. GORST

pointed out that there was great danger in this matter. At present a Petition might be presented against the return of a Member as soon as he was returned; but, under this clause, the time was extremely long. It was rarely the case that a Petition was presented until the Member had sent in his accounts, because Petitioners would naturally wait until that had been done, in order to see the vouchers. In a Court of Law a Petition might be presented earlier, but he did not think anyone would do that; and if the time was made too long, that would enable a Member corruptly returned to sit too long in that House. Such a Member ought to be quickly sent about his business. Again, by giving too long a time they would enable corrupt bargains to be made for squaring a Petition. He thought it was important for the character of the House, that the period within which the return of expenses should be made should be as short as possible. In the Bill it was made 40 days; and in order to make the period short, it would be necessary to make the time for sending in claims short also. Twenty-one days were quite long enough for that purpose. Contracts were only to be made by agents or sub-agents, and there could not be a vast number of people making contracts; and those making contracts would be able to send in their claims in 21 days. He was not advocating the shortening of time; but they should be very careful how they lengthened it.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

said, he had an Amendment to make the time 40 days, in order that claims might be quickly settled and got out of the way as soon as possible in the interests of candidates and election agents. The time proposed by the Bill was too short for settling a largo number of small claims which would continue to be sent in. He was strongly in favour of limiting the period, because it gave time for an agent to reduce exaggerated claims to proper proportions; but, in fixing the period, they must consider the consequences, and he feared the proposal of the Bill would lead to accounts being disputed which would otherwise be settled.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he could not agree that the period should be made as short as possible, for everyone who had dealt with these matters knew how difficult it was to get the accounts in. He hoped the Attorney General would consent to 42 days.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought a candidate could not have these matters off his mind too soon. He thought one week was ample time. A longer period was all very well in the times when there was enormous expenditure over elections, and candidates spent £30,000 or £40,000; but were the Committee aware that under this Bill not more than £2,000 could be spent even in the largest constituency? Did anybody mean to say that seven days were not ample for settling all claims up to that amount, all having been incurred with one man? If a longer time were allowed, a candidate would not be able to get from his agent the amount he had let him in for. The agent would say there was plenty of time, and so the candidate would not be able to ascertain what he was liable for. Lengthened periods for payment of claims only meant further expense, and led to the parties meeting and squaring matters, and to corrupt bargains. As the Bill stood, 10 days were allowed between the claim and the payment, and then another 10 days for the agent to make his return. All these periods were preposterous, and not based on logic at all. It would be 50 times better for everybody that the claims should be settled in a week, and that could be done without any difficulty.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought the period should be reduced from 21 days to 14 days. Seven days would be preferable to either; but errors might be made in the excitement of an election, and therefore he would suggest 14 days. During nearly 20 years' experience he had acted frequently for others, and had wealthy candidates behind him; but he had changed corrupt elections to pure elections. When he took up his own county (Louth), he found that the elections had generally cost £5,000; but he and Mr. Chichester Fortescue had reduced that to £2,000. The longer the time given for payment, the greater was the inducement to people to make exorbitant charges, and to fabricate claims under various pretences, which it would be to the interest of the candidate not to meet in a very hostile manner. He thought 14 days ample; but the period given to a candidate to investigate claims ought to be more than 10 days, for he might have 100 bills to investigate. He had never paid a bill until he had been down to the place and inquired into it. He should be afraid to pay a claim until he had satisfied himself that there was not the slightest tinge of illegality surrounding the claim; and, in view of the fearful penalties incurred by a candidate for an inadvertent act, he ought to have at least 21 days to investigate the claims. He should not press this but that he had had an extensive experience of these matters, and he knew where the difficulty lay.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), for he was anxious that a candidate should get rid of these matters as quickly as possible. During a long period undesirable occurrences might happen, and there was no reason under this maximum scale why 14 days should not be ample. He believed the general feeling was that 14 days would also be sufficient for payment. If the hon. Member for Wolverhamton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would withdraw his Amendment, he would propose 14 days.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had had a great number of communications on this subject from almost every election agent in the country, and the almost unanimous view was that bills should be got in in the shortest possible time, but that considerable time should be given for examining them. North Lancashire was 60 miles long, and a candidate might have to send agents all over the Division. He would suggest 10 days for claims to be made, and an extended time for examination.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment he would not oppose the insertion of 14 days. That would be shortening the period as much as he thought safe.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 32, to leave out "twenty," and insert "fourteen."—(Mr. Rylands.)

Question, "That 'twenty' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That 'fourteen' be there inserted."

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, for he thought seven days would be long enough.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to move an Amendment for providing that claims made were at a reasonable rate. By this sub-section heavy penalties were to be imposed upon a candidate who did not get all his accounts paid within a reasonable time; but he had found in practice that charges were often unreasonable, and it was impossible to bring the people making claims up within a reasonable time. In a subsequent part of the Bill there was a provision that application might be made to extend the time for payment, and this sub-section was more or less in contradiction with that, and it would be liable to a different construction by different Judges, with the result that the candidate might have to pay these heavy penalties. That was what he wished to avoid. Of course, a candidate could make a return of the claims against him; but, at the same time, he ought not to have to run the risk of incurring penalties in cases where he was able to show that a claim was either illegal or in excess of what was reasonable for the services rendered.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 34, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "if legal, and if amount demanded is at a reasonable rate."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that no expenses need be paid which were not legal.

MR. BIGGAR

urged that it was intolerable that a candidate should be forced into litigation with parties upon claims, when they might have an opportunity of settling the matter by a little negotiation.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide upon the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 35, to leave out "in connection with," and insert "or incidental to."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

said, he wished to move to extend the period for examining accounts from 30 to 40 days.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 12, to leave out "thirty," and insert "forty."—(Mr. Arthur Peel.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he should prefer to make the period 21 days. He thought there was no reason why many of the claims should not be sent in during the election, and paid at once. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said he had consulted election agents; but they were the worst authorities that could be consulted. They were the persons from whom candidates wished to protect themselves, and to compel to send in these claims without loss of time. As to large constituencies, he thought the post would overcome any difficulty on that account. He would urge the Attorney General to yield to the pressure from both sides of the House, because he was certain it was to the interest of candidates to make the period as short as possible, and so also to limit the time for Election Petitions being presented.

MR ECROYD

said, he was anxious to see these periods made as short as possible, and he was glad the Attorney General had accepted 14 days for claims to be sent in; but he was quite certain that in such a division as North-East Lancashire, which he had the hononr of contesting in 1880, it would be impossible for a candidate to examine all his accounts in seven days.

MR. GORST

said, the experience of hon. Members was based on the existing law, under which claims could be made under all varieties of circumstances and expenses incurred, and time was required for examining the accounts; but under this Bill the claims would be of an extremely simple character, because nobody would be able to give a legal order incurring expenses but the agent or sub-agent. Seven days would not be required to enable the agent or sub-agent to make up his mind whether he had given any particular order upon which a claim was made. Under the present law anyone might give orders, and the candidate could not know from whom the orders emanated, and inquiry had to be made; but under this Bill there would be no such requirement. The election agent would know whether he had given an order, and could make up his mind in five minutes whether he disputed the claim or not; and in a county he could inquire of his sub-agents by post or telegraph whether certain orders had been given or not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not accept the Amendment. If they allowed each creditor 14 days, surely it was putting too much pressure on the agent to give him a less period. He might have to make several journeys to different districts; and although the expenses would now be less, still there might be over-charges made. That would apply to the large constituencies; and even in a borough the agent might have to travel from place to place. He thought 30 days would be a safer period, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

agreed with the noble Lord that the period should be as short as possible.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought that after 14 days had elapsed the candi- date should pay the accounts as rapidly as possible, so as to send in his return as early as possible. He hoped the Attorney General would accept the compromise of 28 days. He strongly supported the noble Lord.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that if the Attorney General accepted 14 days he should vote against the noble Lord; otherwise he should vote with the noble Lord.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would not discuss the difference between 28 and 30 days. He would accept 28 days, and then they could substitute 35 for 40 as the time for accounts to be sent in to the Returning Officer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, page 10, line 41, to leave out "thirty," and insert "twenty-eight."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 5, to leave out "A disputed claim may be referred in a summary manner to the High Court or."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GORST moved, in page 11, line 11, to leave out the words "the High," and insert the word "such." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he should have thought that the Judges of the County Court or any tribunal would have been quite enough to decide as to the payment after 21 days, because there was no dispute as to liability. Let them take the case of an election in Newcastle and the expenses sent in before the 21 days. Suppose there was an amount of 10s. for the hire of a horse, which was not put into the election account because the person charged denied that the horse was supplied, an action could be brought in the County Court and a judgment obtained for the payment, and under that judgment the debt would have to be paid. In the present instance, however, the debt was not to be paid, but the case was to be taken to London, a London agent was to be employed, and they were to go before the High Court and get the leave of a Judge, who knew nothing about the circumstances, before a just claim could be obtained. This might happen in regard to a claim which the candidate would have been glad to have paid long before the expiration of the 21 days if he had thought it a just claim, and in respect of which, in the other alternative, he desired the Court to make an order so that he might have it settled.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 11, to leave out the words "the High," and insert the word "such."—(Mr. Gorst.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this was a very small matter. The Judge of the County Court was not always accessible, as was the Judge in the High Court. Therefore, it would be desirable to retain the provision in its present form.

MR. GREGORY

considered that it would save time and expense if cases of this kind were confined to the jurisdiction of the High Court, for the reason that the Attorney General bad pointed out—namely, that the Judge of the County Court was not always accessible. It would be better to have the High Court, or, at any rate, to give right of application to that Court concurrently with a right of application to the County Court, if such right were given.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that it would save time and expense if they had to go to the High Court. It seemed to him that the Committee had been going on far too quickly with these Amendments; and if they had not proceeded with such indecent haste they would have seen that some consequential matters already bound them to give jurisdiction to the County Court. If they would refer to the Bill they would find that Sub-section 9 of the present clause said— On cause shown to the satisfaction of the High Court, such Court on application by the claimant or by the candidate or his election agent may by order give leave for the payment of the said sum, or the issue of the said execution, and further may by order give leave for the payment by a candidate or his election agent of a disputed claim, or a claim for any such expense as aforesaid, although sent in after the time in this section mentioned for sending in claims, or although the same was sent in to the candidate and not to the election agent. It seemed to him that it would be highly improper to leave to other than the High Court the determination of such serious questions as these. He earnestly urged the Attorney General not to give way with reference to the next sub-section, and on the Report repair the errors they had committed by acting with such injudicious haste, particularly exemplified in their leaving in the words in the last sub-section "any competent Court."

MR. GORST

said, he would not take up any further time of the Committee. He would be satisfied if the Attorney General, before the Report, would consider whether it was not possible to adopt some simpler process by which a claim sent in within the 21 days for a sum within the maximum, the only reason for the non-payment of which was a dispute between the election agent and the creditor as to whether the full amount was duo or not, could be obtained. If the Attorney General would agree to this, he should be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the next Amendment was in his name. It went in much the same lines as the preceding proposal; and, although he should postpone it, he thought the system of postponing Amendments was not a very satisfactory one. To his mind, these matters should be argued out in Committee, and they should not leave so many matters to be settled at the next stage of the Bill. The postponement of these questions would lead to inevitable discussion at the next stage; and if all these questions were settled on their merits in Committee, the necessity of having subsequent discussions would be obviated. His proposal was to insert after the word "Court," in line 11, the words "if beyond the jurisdiction of the County Court." It seemed to him to be thoroughly intolerable, in regard to a trumpery claim of £5, that, first of all, the plaintiff should apply to the Superior Court and maintain an action in that Court. What were the fees in the High Court, he would ask, supposing a person applied there to the Judge with the usual attendance of attorney and counsel? Unless the Government could give some better explanation than he had heard, so far, he should be obliged to divide upon this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 11, after the word "Court," to insert the words "if beyond the jurisdiction of the County Court."—(Mr. Bigyar.)

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

MR. WARTON

said, that they had not yet determined the previous question, as to whether the word "such" should be inserted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Amendment in that case had been withdrawn.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had not properly observed the effect of this Amendment; because, if he had, he would find that it would not carry out the object he had in view; in fact, it would have no effect.

MR. WARTON

said, it was rather a strange thing that the principle of this Amendment was the same as the principle of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), by an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, and by himself (Mr. Warton). The Government, so far, had not given the slightest reason why they should not at once agree to the proposition. Of course, he should have an opportunity, on the next stage of the Bill, of raising the question again, and he should take precious good care to do it. It seemed to him outrageous that litigants should be obliged to go to the High Court when they could settle these matters in the County Court. It was only to put money into the pockets of a certain class of attorneys, no doubt respectable enough in their way, that this application to the High Court was insisted upon.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn the Committee should know whether, under the clause as it stood, it was impossible to bring an action before the County Court, that being regarded as an "incompetent" Court.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the Government, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), had promised to consider the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Personal expenses of candidate and small expenses of committee room).

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had an Amendment also, which he believed came before that of the noble Lord.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, his Amendment was on the Notice Paper.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

remarked, that the Chairman had his Amendment in his hand, the effect of which was to leave out from the words "the candidate," in line 25, down to the end of line 29.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 25, to leave out Sub-section 1.—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

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

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the Attorney General would know that he disapproved of this Bill altogether, believing that it would do very little good. He certainly thought it would be very advantageous if the hon. and learned Gentleman were to strike out all this ridiculous nonsense about a candidate's personal expenses being paid by him to the extent of not more than £50. This provision was revived from the original Act of 1854, and from the Act of 1868; and he would venture to point out that every Member of experience must see that, for all practical purposes, this provision must be quite nugatory. Candidates were not now equal, as it were, before the law, inasmuch as a vast number of gentlemen practically never paid any personal expenses at all, or, at any rate, if they did, they were of a trifling character. Candidates of this class might be opposed, perhaps, by gentlemen who had to maintain themselves at hotels, and had to incur large expenses in connection with their canvass and their election; in fact, to use the expression of the Attorney General, they were placed in a humiliating position, because they had to lay before the public all that they had been doing during the period of the election. If anybody, certainly hon. Members on the other side ought to support the principle involved in this Amendment, and take care that candidates were not exposed to these indignities. It appeared to him that under the principle of the original Act the penalty was an accumulating one of £5 a-day. They were now narrowing the limits within which a candidate might travel; and it was highly important, therefore, that there should be some definition of what personal expenses were. He saw that a noble Friend of his (Lord George Hamilton) had an Amendment down to this clause; and it seemed to him that if they omitted to deal with the matter they would be making a small absurdity a still greater one. He believed that the best course the Government could adopt would be to accept his proposal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would state briefly why he wanted the words to remain in the clause. The Committee would understand that it was the present law that a candidate might spend as much as he liked, and might send in an account of his expenses to his election agent. That was his duty. Well, in this clause the law was maintained that he might spend as much as he liked, personal expense not being in the maximum expenditure scheduled. One man's expenses might be different to those of another man. One might be, for instance, a married man possessing a family, and he might desire to take them down to the district in which the election was to take place. His expenses, of course, would be very different to those of a candidate who had only himself to look after. Then, again, another man might be an invalid, and might be put to extra expense in consequence. There was, in fact, no limit upon what might be spent in this way; but it should be borne in mind that they had it in evidence that in one case no less than £600 was spent in personal expenses during a short election. The proposal made in the clause was that the candidate should be allowed to spend £50 with his own hand. He did not think that £600 would ever have been paid for personal expenses if the election agent had been cognizant of the recipients and objects of the expenditure. He trusted that the Committee would allow this sub-section to remain, as it would really be a protection and an assistance to the candidate instead of anything else. "With regard to Subsection 3, which said— A statement of the particulars of payments made under this section by the candidate for his personal expenses, or by any person so authorized as above in this section mentioned, shall he sent to the election agent within the time limited by this Act for the sending in of claims, and such payment if made by a person so authorized shall also be vouched for a bill containing the receipt of that person, he would propose to modify it by striking out, in lines 35 and 36, the words "under this section by the candidate for his personal expenses, or." This would obviate the necessity of the candidate sending in a statement as to items of his personal expenditure. It would render it unnecessary for him, for instance, to specify the family expenses, charges for maid servants, and so on, which might not be necessary to put before the public. There would be sufficient remedy for every evil in the clause as it would then stand. Whilst he adhered to the clause, he was willing to strike out the particulars of the statement; and this, he trusted, would meet the views of the right hon. and learned Member.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

considered the statement of the Attorney General was a most conciliatory one, although it did not meet the objection of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to this clause. What was desired was some definition of what these personal expenses were. A look of despair came over the face of the Attorney General whenever he was asked for a definition; but he (Lord George Hamilton) would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a definition was strongly desirable, considering that in this case things might occur for which a candidate might be sent to prison. No doubt, the expenditure of such a sum as £600 for personal expenses during an election was corrupt, and ought to be stopped. But did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by the personal expenses the expenses of a candidate who was resident in the district in which the election took place in connection with his household? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No.] Supposing the candidate was non-resident, and stopped at an hotel, would his expenditure on board and lodgings have to be put into the expenses?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)

said, that that was required at the present time by statute.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, if that were so, the position of the candidate who was resident, and who could entertain his friends, would be different, for his expenditure would not have to be published to the world. Take the case of the Prime Minister, who, during his Mid Lothian campaign, was entertained by a leading Member of the Liberal Party, who took down to his residence an enormous number of friends, who invited the whole county, who employed special trains, and who engaged the whole of an hotel in Edinburgh. Was that what the Attorney General would call legitimate expenditure? If that was a legitimate expenditure, would not the Prime Minister stand in an unfairly advantageous position as contrasted with a candidate who wont down to contest the seat, and who had not a friend to receive him into his house, and no one to pay all his expenses in the matter of hotels, cabs, and so on? Would this person who paid his own expenses have to make them known; if not, nothing would ever be heard about them, as in the case of the expenses of the Prime Minister? The whole thing seemed to him (Lord George Hamilton) perfectly absurd. Wherever they went they must all incur personal expenditure.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had defined personal expenditure. He hoped the noble Lord would excuse him for interrupting; but he wished to point out that the words were defined by the Act of 19 & 20 Vict. Personal expenses were there defined asreasonable travelling expenses, and such travelling expenses and reasonable expenses of his living at hotels for the purpose of his election. That definition had been in operation for 25 years without the slightest difficulty having arisen with regard to it. The noble Lord wished him now to go further in the definition; but he was unable to accede to the request.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman's words were the strongest possible argument against the limit of £50.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sure the noble Lord was labouring under a mistake. A candidate might have unlimited expenditure; but it was only £50 which could go through his own hand, the other personal expenditure having to go through his agent.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

considered that the clause placed a nonresident candidate in a very invidious position. It seemed to him that there were many personal expenses which always attended a candidate, or any gentleman in the position of a candidate, which ought not to be included in the £50. If the Attorney General would define anything like pocket-money, or anything of the kind, he would agree, perhaps, that the sum of £50 ought not to be exceeded. But to ask the Committee to assent to this clause, which meant nothing more or less than the placing of non-resident candidates in a false position as compared with the resident candidate, was to ask too much in the absence of some explanation.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there was some misconception as to the meaning of this clause, and he thought they ought to understand what it was before they criticized it. He understood that all the personal expenses of a candidate, no matter by whomsoever paid, were in no way included in the maximum. [Mr. WARTON: We know that.] He did not think a good many hon. Gentlemen did know it. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the candidate might spend what he liked on his own personal expenses totally apart from the maximum. At present, the law provided that the personal expenses should be published. The hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that that publication should continue, but that a new obligation should be added to it—namely, that the sum to be spent on personal expenses should be divided into two sums; that the £50 limit was simply to supply the payments personally made by the candidate himself; and that beyond the £50 was to be paid by the election agent. The noble Lord who had just sat down had said that such a provision put the non-resident candidate to great disadvantages; but he (Mr. Fowler) did not agree with the noble Lord. He (Mr. Fowler), as a resident candidate at the last General Election, paid every sixpence through his election agent. He did that for his own protection, because he believed it to be the best mode of conducting an election—every personal expense, from the issuing of the Writ, he paid through his own election agent. His household bills were in no way involved in the matter; and, indeed, no part of them could, under any conceivable construction, be called personal expenses. The noble Lord asked why the accounts should be published? Simply to prevent gross bribery, such as took place at Sandwich. In that case, when one of the candidates was asked why his personal expenses were so heavy, he told the Commissioners that they were clearly ignorant of the habits of gentlemen, or they would not have expressed surprise that a gentleman should require to spend £600 on personal expenses in a fortnight. He (Mr. Fowler) could not see what objection there was to this clause, modified as the Attorney General proposed. He wished, however, the Attorney General would make the £50 £100.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he intended, at a later stage of the discussion, to move to substitute £150 for the £50. He would not do this now, because it would be irregular. He would put it, however, to the Attorney General whether it was not a fact that every new provision, and every new complexity, introduced in the Bill, was not an evil? Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would not pretend to say that anything was to be gained by this clause. A man might spend as much money as he liked, and he was not bound, even under the Amendment the Attorney General was going to propose, to say how he spent it. All he must do was to spend it through the election agent. Now, was there anything to be gained by putting that new trammel on a candidate? They had to trust a candidate to speak the truth, and if they meant to trust a candidate in such a matter, why not trust him altogether? Why introduce this provision about the election agents? Would it not be much better for the Government to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and simplify the Bill by leaving out the section, which could lead to no possible good?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the whole question at issue was, whether beyond £50 a candidate's personal expenses should be paid through the election agent; firstly, to stop dishonest expenditure, such as they had in the case of Sandwich; and, secondly, to protect the honest candidates. Those were the two objects of the clause.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the Attorney General had said the words were defined by the 19 & 20 Vict. The words "personal expense" were intended by that Act to include reasonable travelling expenses, and the reasonable expenses of living at an hotel. It was, therefore, perfectly plain that the £50 would go in a candidate's hotel expenses. A non-resident candidate could only spend £50 in personal expenses. ["No!"] He could only spend £50 himself, and anything else he had to pay must be paid through his election agent. It was plain that the non-resident candidate was really at a great disadvantage, because a resident candidate, who need not live at an hotel, might spend the £50 in cigars, while the nonresident candidate was paying it in hotel expenses. He thought it would be far wiser to let a candidate return his own expenses, and if his expenses were very high, a Judge would inquire as to how he spend the money.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he could not see the advantage of the clause. It appeared to him that although the election agent was to make all the payments for personal expenses beyond the £50, he had no power to refuse a candidate's demands. Why not make a candidate make a statutory declaration as to how much he had spent? They would prevent, in this way, the objectionable proceedings of a man having to go to his own agent to get his own money.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

reminded the Committee that it would be quite invidious for a candidate to tax his own bills; while the agent, as his man of business, would be able to protect him against extortionate demands. He would repeat that he did not think it was a very broad subject for discussion, and that it would be well for the Committee to express its opinion at once.

MR. WARTON

once more protested against the impatience of the Attorney General. They had got through to-day a great number of clauses, and they had got rid of many matters which would have to be reconsidered very carefully on Report. It was all very well that the Bill should be loaded as it was with absurd and unnecessary clauses, and then that the Committee should be asked to hurry them through, on the ground—as the Attorney General said—that they did not involve matters of general principle. The clause now under consideration was most absurd and unnecessary. The Attorney General had told them that he had incorporated in the Bill the definition of personal expenses in the 19 & 20 Vict. After the extraordinary statement the hon. and learned Gentleman had made with regard to the effect of certain clauses, he (Mr. Warton) took the pro-caution to refer to the Schedule; and, as far as he could make out, he could not find the definition in the 19 & 20 Vict. incorporated in the Bill. It was, therefore, very necessary to listen to the statements made in the Committee; indeed, he had no doubt that one reason for hurrying through the Bill was that statements made might not be investigated. With regard to this absurd clause, he asked to be allowed to say what it was based upon. The only argument advanced in its favour was that no one election candidate spent more than he had a right to spend. A man who had a great deal of money spent his money freely; and that was the sole reason why this clause was proposed. As a matter of fact, in one case £50 might be ample for personal expenses, while in another case it might be much too little. There was one element in the case he would particularly like to bring under the notice of the hon. and learned Attorney General. Supposing a candidate adopted the plan of letting an hotel bill run, and he incurred a liability of more than £50, would he be bound to pay the £50 allowed him to spend, and then go to his election agent and ask for a £5 or £10 note? What was the real meaning of this? When they had these unseen provisions brought into the Bill they ought to have them explained. ["Divide, divide!"] All those hon. Gentlemen who shouted "Divide, divide!" had not one idea in their heads as to the meaning of this clause, and he should continue his opposition to the clause until he got a satisfactory answer from the Government. He wanted to know the real meaning of the clause. Was a candidate at liberty to incur debt for hotel expenses, or was he bound, by this sumptuary clause, to pay for everything day by day and hour by hour, until the £50 became exhausted, and when the £50 became exhausted was he to go to the agent and ask for more? In his opinion, this was nothing more or less than childish legislation.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

regarded the matter as one of considerable importance, and thought the law ought to be made clear. The mere fact of £600 being spent by a candidate in Sandwich on personal expenses was nothing to do with the question. They might just as well say that, because one lawyer had turned out a rogue, all other lawyers were rogues. It was certainly his intention to take a Division.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, if the Attorney General would distinctly say that he would increase the sum allowed to the candidates from £50 to £100, it might obviate a Division. He (Mr. Cowen) thought it was obvious that the amount should either be altered, or the clause should be omitted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the Committee wished to increase the amount he would have no objection whatever.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 87: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 165.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, there was just time to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 27, to leave out "50," and insert "100,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '50' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not see the object of the Amendment.

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.