COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th July.] [FIFTEENTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 05 July 1883 vol 281 cc481-551

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Election Expenses.

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

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

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

MR. MONK

said, he earnestly hoped that the Committee would not assent to this Amendment, for one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen expenses, and the proposal to substitute £100 for £50 was merely calling upon the candidate to increase the expenditure. Of course, the candidate could spend £50 or £100 if necessary; but after the amount was expended it was necessary that it should be returned by the election agent, so that the precise sum should be generally known. In 19 out of 20 cases, £50 would be amply sufficient for the candidate's personal expenses, and if there was any further expenditure it was only right that it should be made under the authority and name of the election agent. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this was a very small matter, which had been amply discussed before. Of course, if the candidate was honest, it was of no use telling him that he might expend £50 or £100 in personal expenses.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it was in the interest of the honest candidate that he wished to have the sum fixed—a sum that would be sufficient for the purpose. The proposal of the Bill was absolutely inadequate, and he maintained that even £100 would be insufficient.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the candidate might spend as much as he liked; the only point was in whose hands it should be.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the matter was fully discussed yesterday. The candidate might want to take his wife and daughters with him, and might not want all that expense to be set down in the account. But to sot down a large amount for personal expenses seemed to be holding out a temptation to the candidate to spend that amount on what might not really be personal expenses at all.

MR. WARTON

said, that the last time this matter was discussed the Attorney General favoured them with a quotation from a previous Act of Parliament, which he declared was incorporated in the present Bill. He (Mr. Warton) ventured to ask where it was so incorporated, because under the several Acts that were incorporated he could not find that one. There might be some inadvertence somewhere; but he confessed he had not been able to find the place where that Act was incorporated. He wished to know whether the personal expenses were to include travelling and hotel expenses only, because there might be other personal expenses besides those. If the definition was narrowed to travelling and hotel expenses it would leave those other expenses out of view.

MR. E. STANHOPE

asked whether it would not be worth while to insert a Schedule of personal expenses on the Report?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

explained, in reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the Statute which he had meant to describe as incorporated was the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 182, which set forth reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the Attorney General was always telling them that these were very small matters. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not agree with him, for he thought they were large matters, having regard to the stringency of the measure, and to the many dangers which surrounded the candidate and made the affair a very serious thing indeed for him. He appealed to the Attorney General to say whether it would not be much better to get rid of all this? The definition of personal expenses which was proposed was altogether insufficient. The definition of "reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses" was most difficult, for, as had been suggested by a well-known authority, the candidate might give a dinner to five persons, and that might be held to be reasonable; but if five were to be considered reasonable, were six, seven, or eight to be considered unreasonable? In other words, where was the line to be drawn? A sum of £50 or £100 could be got rid of by the candidate very easily; and he would ask the Committee, before changing the sum from £50 to £100, to consider whether it would not be better to get rid of the provision altogether? He should like to have some definition as to what were reasonable expenses before changing the figure. Very few Members of the House would ever return their personal expenses.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was under an entire misapprehension. The amount did not at all affect the candidate's personal expenses—he might spend as much or as little as he chose. He might spend privately £50 or £100; but anything above that would have to be put down among the election agent's expenses.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he quite understood what was the effect of the clause, but wished to have some definition of what were reasonable personal expenses.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That '100' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 35, leave out Sub-seotion (3.)—(Mr. Salt.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the object of the sub-section was to provide that where minor payments were made by persons authorized they should be returned. It was necessary that the payments under Sub-section 2 should be returned; but he was willing to strike out the words "by the candidate for his personal expenses." That would leave only the return under Sub-section 2; but it was absolutely necessary that that return should be made.

MR. SALT

remarked, that he had said nothing about the clause the other day, because he quite understood that they were to leave out the whole of Subsection 3. His objection to the Subsection was, that it conflicted with the first part of the clause, which left liberty to make certain payments more or less large, while the sub-section declared that particulars must be returned. That surely was a contradiction, and he understood that they had agreed to strike it out.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the payments might be made; but it was necessary that the particulars of the items should be given.

MR. SALT

said, that with regard to the effect which Sub-section 3 had upon Sub-section 1 he and the Attorney General were agreed. It was agreed on both sides that Sub-section 3 should be struck out so far as it affected Sub-section 1, and the only point necessary to be considered was its effect upon Subsection 2. He had great doubts as to whether that sub-section was necessary at all. He would have raised an objection to Sub-section 2 at the proper time, only he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee. What was its operation? The candidate himself, or his clerk or other persons in charge of the committee room, were authorized to spend £10 on his account. That was what he (Mr. Salt) understood it to mean. If more was spent, then that surplus above £10 must be spent directly by the agent himself. Then Sub-section 3 stepped in and declared that, although the £10 might be expended upon the authority of the agent given to the clerk in charge of the committee room, a bill must be sent in containing all the details. What was the use of that? If a bill was to go in, what was the use of putting in Sub-section 2 at all? It merely made complications.

THE CHAIRMAN

Sub-section 2 is already part of the Bill. It is not in Order to refer to it, except as affecting the hon. Member's argument on the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

It was not put from the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; but we are now on an Amendment to Sub-section 3.

MR. SALT

begged pardon, if he bad transgressed, and apologized; but be was obliged to explain Sub-section 2 in order to show his objection to Sub-section 3. He still thought they would be better without it. The agent might say to some clerk—"I give you authority to spend £5 in pens, ink, and stationery"—it could only be a small sum. Why not leave it so, and not complicate the Bill with details which could only-lead to confusion, and in the end lead to corruption?

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the confusion arose from what had been put into the clause since the Bill was originally framed. He thought it would be very much better if the sub-section could be left out altogether. They were agreed that these expenses should be limited to petty expenses, and be could not imagine why this statement should go in, as it would only deal with small fixed sums.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would give way if he did not think the sub-section essential. It was essential to check the power of spending, and all that was asked was that the man who spent the money should make a return to the election agent showing how he had spent it, so as to prevent the possibility of the money being spent wrongfully.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought the Attorney General was right, as Sub-section 3 was only a corollary to Subsection 2.

MR. A. J. BALEORE

said, he thought that much of the difficulty which had arisen was due to the fact that the Government had not taken the trouble to put down upon the Paper the Amendments which they proposed. That was a most unfortunate plan, which raised a great deal of unnecessary argument. If they made the Returning Officers give all the figures of personal expenditure it was intelligible that there should be some check provided; but the Committee had seen grave objections to that, and, therefore, he could see no use in complicating the clause unnecessarily. He thought the Attorney General would do well if he would tell them at once that he would drop the whole of the clause.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was utterly at a loss to understand what the complications were. If they were going to entrust the practical carrying on of the expenditure of the election to a petty cashier, and to allow him to expend a certain sum of money, the election agent must have an account of how the money was spent, and the account should be sent in; and if they admitted that bribery had been carried on under the guise of personal expenditure, they must have the amount of personal expenditure returned. But really the difference in the matter of drafting, as to the mode in which they were to frame this 3rd sub-section, was "the difference betwixt tweedledum and tweedledee," and he was not surprised at the Attorney General growing impatient.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 35, to omit the words "under this section by the candidate for his personal expenses, or."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

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

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, nothing could be more humiliating for a candidate than to be compelled to set forth the particulars of his personal expenses, either for living at an hotel or entertaining his personal friends. The hon. Member opposite had introduced as an argument in favour of the clause that, under certain circumstances, there might be committed, under the guise of personal expenses, very gross bribery; and he mentioned the case of the Sandwich Election, and what had taken place there as an instance. But a long time bad elapsed since then, and it was not unreasonable to suppose that bribery, in the shape of personal expenses, was the exception to the rule. It was necessary to watch very closely what would be the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind. So far as the position of the candidate was concerned, it could not be denied that, under this clause, he might be put to the greatest possible inconvenience if, as might very well happen, be could not state the exact particulars and figures of these personal expenses. Were hon. Gentlemen prepared to say that no personal expenses should be paid by the candidate except hotel expenses? Were they as sensitive about the payment of a cab fare as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who, in his anxiety to keep to the letter of the law at the election, paid a cab fare out of his own pocket, and accounted for it to the Returning Officer? It was desirable that the Committee should know whether the personal expenses were to be limited to the particular items mentioned, or whether other expenses would have to be returned; and they were, moreover, entitled to information on the point, not only for the reasons he had given, but for those advanced by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). Finally, he regarded the clause as wholly unnecessary, while, at the same time, it would inflict great hardship and injustice upon honest men; and for those reasons he should, to the full extent of his ability, resist it at a future stage.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that a man under the old law was able to practise a good deal of bribery under the head of personal expenses, and, at the same time, to avoid the penalties attaching thereto. It was to remedy that state of things that the clause was necessary in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. LEWIS

said, if there was any waste of time on this part of the Bill the responsibility rested on those who liked fiddle-faddle instead of legislation. The 2nd sub-section of the clause, if it had any meaning, meant that a statement of the particulars of every telegram—that was to say, its cost and the name of the person to whom it went—would have to be sent in. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members opposite dissented from that, but it was nevertheless true; it was the particulars that had to be given, not a summary in the form of, say, "Telegrams £3." This was a part of that system of vexation and harassment which seemed to have delighted the framers of the Bill. He thought it reasonable that £40, or thereabouts, should be put as the limit of expenditure under this sub-section without details being required; he trusted they would not be deliberately compelled to furnish in detail all these little matters. Personally, he felt no anxiety about any such expenses, because he doubted that any Act of Parliament would get him either to keep or furnish an account of the kind. To compel a man to keep an account, perhaps for a month, of all that went out of his pocket, was a sort of tyranny that was hardly to be agreed to. And when they came to the Report it would be found that the settlement of those matters in the way provided by the clause would occupy a considerable time, because his hon. Friends and he had no intention of allowing them to pass without first doing all they could to get rid of them.

MR. WARTON

said, that each clause of this wretched Bill brought together the most incongruous subjects. That was more strongly shown in the next clause, where two absolutely distinct subjects were brought together. The absurdity of the provision as to personal expenses contained in the 1st sub-section had been so completely demonstrated by his hon. Friend below him that he should spend no more time in considering it. He thought, however, that, owing to the many little provisions with which the Bill was encumbered, the 2nd sub-section had not received at the hands of the Committee the amount of attention it deserved.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce so much detail into the Bill. It seemed to him that this clause was superfluous, because it seemed to be nothing else than a repetition of what was to be found in the Schedule. One criticism he made with regard to the Bill was that many of its details were totally unnecessary. If they were to have an enactment against corruption, bribery, and illegal payments, with a maximum expenditure set forth in it, it seemed to him totally unnecessary to go into the way the money was to be spent. The effect of that must be to increase the difficulty of honest men in their endeavours to conduct their elections upon pure principles. Moreover, the introduction of so much detail added largely to the bulk of a measure, which otherwise might have passed in a shorter time, and which would recommend itself to the House more than a measure which really alarmed men by its size. For these reasons he trusted that the Attorney General would, on reconsideration, perceive that many of the small provisions in this and the subsequent part of the Bill might be dispensed with.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not think the Government could be blamed for wanting to reduce the expenses of a candidate; but this clause was perfectly absurd. Why should not the personal expenses of a candidate not be part of the general expenses of the election, and come within the amount set forth in the Schedule? As in the case of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), it would be impossible for him to give an account of his personal expenses. He had never kept an account of them in his life. He believed the Attorney General had stated that, when a candidate went down to a constituency with his wife and family, the hotel expenses of his wife and family would be part of the personal expenses. That, he thought, was perfectly absurd. He thought the personal expenses should be the candidate's own expenses alone. Some years ago a candidate for an Irish constituency came over from London, and brought some actresses with him; and on the principle laid down by the Attorney General the expenses of those artistes might be considered as personal expenses. The clause in all its details was so absurd that he would recommend the Government to abandon it, because, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had judiciously warned them, if the clause were retained a discussion would be raised at the nest stage that would considerably delay the further progress of the Bill.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he was reluctant to join in any Division against the provisions of the Bill when the Attorney General thought they were of use. But he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the present clause was so unreasonable, that it could serve no useful purpose to retain it. Sub-section 2 provided that, if an election agent authorized a person to spend £5 in stationery, a return should be made of the particular items on which the money was spent. He did not exactly suppose the person who spent the money should return the number of telegrams or sheets of paper; but it might mean something quite as unreasonable if an account was required of every shilling spent. Then, again, the 1st sub-section seemed to be absurd. The constituencies were so different, and the dura- tion of the several elections varied so much, that it was unreasonable to apply any hard-and-fast time, because, for instance, the expenses of a candidate travelling about a county would be enormously different from the expenses of a candidate standing for and living at a small place. Reluctant as he was to take objection to what was seriously regarded by the Attorney General as an improvement on the existing law, he certainly could not support the clause.

MR. CALLAN

said, he believed it impossible for any candidate, unless of a very economic turn of mind, to escape a Petition under the clause. He supposed if a man gave a shilling to a beggar, it would be part of his personal expenses.

MR. CATENDISH BENTINCK

said, he wished simply to point out that if the discussion of the clause were prolonged, it would be entirely the fault of the Government, who would go into details so childish, as to be altogether unworthy of a place in an Act of Parliament.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, that, while he agreed with the observation of the hon. Member opposite that the clause was unnecessary, and likely to become the cause of annoyance, he thought, as the Government were determined to insist on its retention, there would be no wisdom in prolonging the discussion.

MR. WHITLEY

said, that the £100 for personal expenses provided for under the 1st sub-section of the clause would probably be insufficient in the case of a county, and a great deal too much in the case of a small borough election, where £5 or £10 would be enough. He wished to know whether a candidate would have to render an account of the items of expenditure, or simply make a declaration that he had spent the £100?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would not go into the general details of the question; but a candidate would not have to say—"I spent £1 here, and £1 there." He would simply have to return himself as having spent so-and-so on his personal expenses, and in that respect the present law would not be altered.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to point out that the 2nd sub-section was not part of the present law. He was particularly desirous of knowing whether or not the penalty of £5 a-day was still to be preserved. He imagined it would be if the 17 & 18 Vict. remained unrepealed.

MR. CALLAN

said, that if they did not ask for the details of the personal expenses, what was the use of limiting those expenses to £100? If a candidate said he spent £100, and gave no details, how could they prove he spent only £100? A candidate might spend £200, and yet return his expenses at £100. He did not suppose that any Member of the House would make an incorrect return; but certainly they would have no means of arriving at the truth, unless the details of the expenses were required from the candidate. The moment they did not insist upon a detailed statement of a candidate's expenses, the whole efficacy of the clause was gone. In its present shape, the effect of the clause would only be irritating and annoying.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 22: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 168.)

Clause 25 (Remuneration of election agent and Returning Officer's expenses).

MR. WARTON

rose to order. The clause related to two perfectly distinct matters, and, therefore, he thought it would be well if it were divided into two clauses. With that object, he would move that the figure "1" be omitted.

THE CHAIRMAN

Figure "1" really indicates a portion of the clause, and does not form any part of the Bill. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will be in Order in making a Motion of this kind.

MR. WARTON

asked if there was no way by which the clause could be divided into two parts?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport would necessitate a renumbering; if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished it, however, he would, at a later stage, undertake to divide the section.

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

Clause 26 (Return and declaration respecting election expenses).

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 15, to leave out "forty" and insert "thirty-five."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

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

MR. LEWIS

said, he was not present yesterday, and he did not desire to go back. He could not help saying, however, that no attention seemed to have been paid to the difficulty of dealing with an impecunious candidate. He did not know whether the Government proposed to make any provision in the case of a bonâ fide temporally inability to pay his debts on the part of the candidate, or whether the inevitable result must be that if the debts were not paid within 28 days, the debts unpaid must take their rank amongst disputed claims, and never could be paid except with the permission of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if debts were not paid, they, of course, became disputed claims. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) would look at Clause 23, he would find that the time limited by the Act for the payment of expenses should be 30 days after the day on which the candidate returned was declared elected. The 30 days, however, had by the Committee been reduced to 28. If debts were not paid by that time, an action must be brought to recover them.

MR. LEWIS

said, he had known many cases in which candidates were for the time being unable to pay their election expenses. They could even conceive cases under that Bill where the expenses would amount to £2,000 or £3,000. Was it suggested that, even under the present Bill, it would not be an exceedingly common occurrence that candidates would not be able to meet their election expenses, and might desire a deferment of payment for a few weeks? The only result of such a proceeding as that would be, that a candidate would be unable to pay one penny unless an action was brought against him. He did not know there was any provision in the present law compelling payment within a limited period. Every Member of the House was not a man of fortune; indeed, there were many Members who had not paid their election expenses for the last election yet. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was nevertheless a fact. He regretted that he was deprived of the opportunity of being present yesterday, because he should then have called attention to this subject. When he came to ascertain what was done by the Committee, it struck him they had omitted to consider that which was one of the ordinary incidents in political life. They were prescribing that a man should pay his election expenses by a certain day, though pressure might be put upon him temporarily by which the money he had put aside for these expenses would be devoted to other things. It was quite possible that there might be bonâ fide impecuniosity. Many Members of the House of Commons were in such a position at an election time. There had been no attempt to provide for a bonâ fide case of that kind, and he thought it was very necessary the Committee should have some understanding on the matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was not present yesterday, when they discussed the matter at some length. It was then proposed to lessen the time in which payment of expenses should be made. He was sorry to hear that many Members had entered into contracts which they could not fulfil. Personally, he did not see why these should not be ready money transactions. If a man undertook to pay a sum of money in a month, and then could not do so, it was only right and proper that an action should be brought against him.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he raised to some extent the same question yesterday. He did not wish to allege, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry had alleged, that there was a scarcity of money on the part of Members of Parliament; but he desired to point out that what really occurred was this this. It very often happened that candidates were subject to very unreasonable claims, and a large amount of correspondence was necessitated. A candidate who paid through an agent, and paid in a liberal manner, very often was required to pay considerably more than was fair. The intention of the Bill was good enough; but, at the same time, there was no proper provision to enable candidates to carry out the intentions of the Bill in a judicious and reasonable manner. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry was a very important one, and deserved the serious attention of the Government. Yesterday the question was raised whether or not the lawsuits involved in the non-payment of election expenses could not be brought in a County Court. The decision of the Government was, that nothing less than an action in the Supreme Court could settle a claim after 28 days. The Government were certainly in this matter acting in a contradictory manner. In the first place, they limited the expenses to a very small sum, and then they made it impossible in some cases to recover the expenses without going to the Superior Court. He (Mr. Biggar) was not at all certain that all his election expenses in 1880 were paid yet, not because he objected to pay his fair expenses, but simply because he refused to meet fraudulent and unreasonable claims made upon him. There were a certain number of people in every constituency who, at an election time, made up their mind to plunder the candidate; and unless there was some protection in the Bill dealing with such people, the candidate might possibly be very hardly done by. In the majority of cases candidates were innocent persons, while there was a certain section of the community always ready to endeavour to seduce the candidates into some illegal action. Personally, he was of opinion that, instead of meting such formidable punishment out to the candidate, there ought to be very severe punishment inflicted upon anyone who attempted to encourage a candidate to commit an illegal act.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he thought the argument employed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) defeated its own object. If a claim was not met before the expiration of 28 days after the return of a candidate had been declared, it would, in all probability, be an extortionate claim. The claimant would have to go to the trouble and expense of going to the Superior Court; and if it was found that he had made an extortionate claim, the case would, in all probability, go against him, and he would be mulcted in costs. He (Mr. Macfarlane) thought the provision was rather in favour of the candidate than otherwise.

MR. LEWIS

said, the point he had raised had nothing whatever to do with extortionate claims. He assumed the election bills were perfectly fair, and he had put a case which frequently rose in ordinary life—namely, a case in which a gentleman might find himself in the throes of a severe contest in which he was entitled to spend possibly £2,000. Before the time came for payment it might happen that one of those demands which frequently were made upon people would require him to use all his ready money. What would be the consequence? If there were 50 or 60 bills unpaid, there would necessarily have to be 50 or 60 actions. The Attorney General had said that if a debt was unpaid at the end of 28 days it passed into the category of disputed claims; and if it got there, it could not be paid except by the order of a Judge made in the Supreme Court. There was nothing at all in the Bill to deal with the state of circumstances which he (Mr. Lewis) had instanced. In addition to all the other harassments of the Bill, they placed a person who happened to be a candidate under the liability of having a number of actions brought against him if he was temporarily short of money.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not see why a candidate should not have an action brought against him, if he was not capable of paying his debts. As he had previously said, in his opinion it would be very much better if election payments were ready money payments.

MR. LEWIS

said, he must contend that he was perfectly, consistent in his objection. At the present time there was no such fetter as was now proposed placed upon the candidate. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to dispute that statement. This was not a question as to what contract a candidate might make with his creditor, because the Act would not allow him to make a reasonable contract with a man. An election bill must be sent in within 14 or 20 days; he forgot which—and the time was fixed when a candidate must pay, whether he would or not. That was a monstrously unworkable arrangement, and it was perfectly nonsensical.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the chief difficulty seemed to him to be that of forcing people to bring an action—namely, forcing, for instance, a party making fraudulent claims to take proceedings. No opportunity was afforded of a claimant coming to terms with a candidate without going into Court. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) said that if a fraudulent claim was made and was not met, the claimant would be forced to go to law; if the Court found that the claim was fraudulent, a man would not get his costs. But if a decision went in favour of the defendant, it might possibly happen that he would have to pay his own costs. He (Mr. Biggar) could conceive the legal costs under this section being very excessive, and therefore he could not understand the utility of the clause.

MR. GREGORY

said, that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) pointed out was, that if a candidate disputed to pay a debt, the debt then became a disputed claim, and it could only be paid with the leave of the Court. He (Mr. Gregory) considered that this was a matter worthy of consideration, for it was a matter not affecting the creditor so much as the candidate.

MR. LEWIS

said, he would not press his objection further, although it would involve his attacking the whole matter on Report if this impracticable method of dealing with matters of this sort were persisted in.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'thirty-five 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the construction of the clause; and he wished to propose, after line 20, to insert Sub-section (c) in place of Subsection (a)—he wanted Sub-section (c) to stand first. The Bill was a very badly drawn one, and if the Attorney General would look at the clause carefully, he would see that the different items of expenditure were arranged in an order altogether different from that in which they were put in the 2nd Schedule. If they would look at the 2nd Schedule they would find, on page 47— Paid to E.F. the returning officer for the said county [or borough] for his charges at the said election. And then they would find the next item to be— Personal expenses of the said C.D. paid by himself. Well, in the clause, Part A of Subsection 1 referred to the payments made by the election agent, which item corresponded with item S in the Schedule, Part 0 of the sub-section corresponding with the first item in the Schedule. He was not quarrelling with the Schedule at all; but it appeared to him to be highly desirable to pay due regard to symmetry in preparing the clauses of that Bill. There should be either a re-arrangement of the clauses, or a rearrangement of the Bill, he did not care which. He should rather prefer the order of the Schedule.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 20, after the word "candidate," insert—(c.) A statement of the sums paid to the returning officer for his charges, or, if the amount is in dispute, of the sum claimed and the amount disputed."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was afraid he could not encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman by allowing him to divide the clause in this manner. The question was a trivial matter of detail. He could not be answerable for the symmetry of the clause, the substance being that with which he had most concern. He must adhere to the clause as it stood.

MR. WARTON

said, he would not insist upon the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 12, line 38, by leaving out the words "in connection with or as incidental to," and inserting the words "in respect to the conduct or management of."

MR. SALT

said, that before the subsection passed, the Committee should give it very careful consideration, as it was a very strong one. If it had been duly considered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would not say anything more about it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was, no doubt, a very important sub-section.

MR. SALT

No doubt; but it is a very strong one.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the matter had been carefully considered.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the last sub-section— (g.) A statement of the amount of the fee paid to the election agent for his own personal services. It appeared to him absolutely necessary that these words should be added to the section. He was afraid that if they did not insist upon this, the election agent might get more than he ought to.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 40, after "received," insert—"(g.) A statement of the amount of the fee paid to the election agent for his own personal expenses."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the evil the right hon. Baronet had in his mind would be met by provisions in the latter part of the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, that, although this matter might be dealt with in some other part of the Bill, it ought to be dealt with here as well. They repeated other matters twice over, and he did not see why, on this point, they should be content merely with a statement in the Schedule. He thought that, at the commencement, it would have been well to have put all these things in the Schedule only; but now, seeing that they had started, they should go on to the end, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet if he went to a Division.

MR. CALLAN

said, that if they looked at the Amendment they would see that it was necessary to insert it here. The right hon. Baronet had given Notice to move, immediately after the present Amendment, the following:—Clause 26, page 13, line 5, after "expenses," insert— The said return shall also include a declaration that the fee paid to the election agent is in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it has been applied to any other purpose. There was no such declaration or restriction in the Schedule. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would persevere with this Amendment, and also with the consequential Amendment on the next page. It seemed to him that they should have a declaration from the election agent that the fee paid to him was in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it had been applied to any other purpose.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Committee could discuss the two Amendments separately. It seemed to him that it would be an invidious thing to make a declaration of the amount paid to the agent; and he would, therefore, urge the right hon. Baronet not to press this proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

intimated that he did not propose to move the next Amendment, which was a consequential one.

MR. CALLAN

said, that if the right hon. Baronet would not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice in line 5, he (Mr. Callan) would move it himself. Election agents were not persons of such sensitive character, and of such delicate sensibility, that they would feel it a slur upon them to be called upon to make a declaration that a certain amount of money was for their personal expenses. He did not believe it would be easy to get a perfect election agent under this Bill; and when they had got an agent he did not think there would be any objection on his part to make the declaration.

Amendment proposed, In page 13, line 5, after "expenses," insert "the said return shall also include a declaration that the fee paid to the election agent is in remuneration for his own porsonal services solely, and that no part of it has been applied to any other purpose."—(Mr. Callan.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, as it would be altogether without effect. Supposing £50 were paid to an election agent, after he had put it in his pocket he might spend it how he liked—he could say he had received so much for his own expenses, and although the sum might be returned as a payment to him, nobody might know what he had done with it, as it would he impossible to trace sovereigns and notes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEWIS

said, he had an Amendment to propose pro formâ, in order to draw attention, in the first instance, to the vast change now, for the first time, made in the law—requiring a candidate to make a declaration which was equivalent to an oath as to the expenditure he had sanctioned. He wished particularly to refer to the words "at the same time," for they required a candidate to remain on the spot for 35 days. After all the accounts were dealt with he had to send in a declaration "at the same time." What he was driving at, and what he should ask the Committee to assent to by his Amendment, was this—that provided the candidate made a declaration prior to taking his seat in the House that should be sufficient. Members might naturally desire to go abroad after an election; but under this clause they would have to remain on the scene for 35 days, simply for the purpose of making a declaration. That was a tax upon an elected candidate; and this was a matter which Members should thoroughly understand. What he wished to suggest was that, in carrying out this serious alteration of the law, they should endeavour to make it fit in with the exigencies of business or habits of life, and not to keep a Member on the scene in that way. At the time of the last General Election he had a business engagement calling him 3,000 miles away; two days after the election he went away, and did not return for two months; but under this clause he would have had to give up that engagement, and also to remain more than a month on the spot. That was an illustration of what might occur to many Members; and that would be a serious inconvenience. The Government could have no object in creating this inconvenience; and he thought that it would be sufficient to require a Member, before taking his seat, to make a declaration that he had not spent more than his agent's accounts, and would not spend any more on the election.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, to omit Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was willing to agree to the principle of the hon. Member's Amendment, and to make the clause as elastic as possible; and if the Amendment were withdrawn he would make such an alteration in the subsection as would give the candidate a reasonable time to make his declaration. As the hon. Member had said, urgent matters might take a Member away immediately after an election.

MR. LEWIS

said, he cordially assented to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he had always considered that the proposed change in the law would be the most effective part of the Bill, because it would bind the candidate and his agent to a statement of the actual amount of the election expenses. That had in times past been plainly evaded. He was afraid that if the statement was only to be made by a formal declaration made to the Returning Officer it would soon become a mere matter of routine, and that due sense of responsibility and weight would not be attached to the declaration which he wished should be made at the Table of the House. He was afraid that in that way the value of the declaration would degenerate; but if it were solemnly made at the Table of the House, that would add to the value of the declaration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SALT

said, he had proposed to reduce £100 in the clause to £5; but as the Attorney General and the Committee favoured the higher penalty he would not now take up time by pressing his Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

proposed, in page 13, to omit the section— 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. He did not wish an agent to escape punishment; but, as the section stood, a Member being elected would come at once to the House; exciting topics might arise within the 35 days, and yet the Member was to be forced to apply all his ingenuity and time to take care that the election agent sent in his Return, or, failing that, he should lose his seat. He thought that proposition had only to be stated to confute the whole cause. By the Procedure Clause it was provided that bills must be sent in in 14 days, and settled in 14 days more. It was then simply a question of getting the return sent in within a certain time, and it was pushing things too far to punish the candidate in the way proposed. If a candidate and his agent fell out the agent might keep back the Return, and the candidate might be unseated. In Clause 27 there was a rule for an application to the High Court; but he did not think a candidate ought to be subjected to a groundless Petition simply because an agent had not sent in the return. That was putting too much on the candidate when his mind was occupied with other things, although he thought it was necessary to make the agent send in the return. He would give the Court some power to enforce the provision he proposed.

Amendment proposed, In page 13, to omit—"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 be guilty of an illegal practice,"—(Sir S. Assheton Cross,)

—instead thereof.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had the strongest wish that the penalty should fall on the right person. He thought he might accept a provision to the effect that if an agent, in defiance of the candidate, would not perform his duty, a penalty should fall upon him. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words to stand he would undertake to provide that non-performance or non-compliance on the part of an agent should not be an illegal practice as to the candidate, but that the penalty should fall on the agent. He would endeavour to carry that out on Report.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought that the punishment ought to be strong. In Irish constituencies he found that Members were great sinners in regard to their Returns at the last General Election. In an Ulster county two supporters of the Government and two opponents made no returns; in a Southern borough a Liberal and a Conservative made no return. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) made no Return, and his Colleague made no Return. In a well- known Munster county one Liberal and one Conservative made no Returns, and in the most distinguished County of Dublin two Liberals and one Conservative made no Returns. An hon. Gentleman opposite had the distinguished advantage of being returned for 10s., for he returned the entire amount of his costs, including the Returning Officer's charge, at 10s. Neither the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), nor his Colleague, nor his opponent made any Return. A Member of the Government made no Return; but as he was not opposed it might be supposed that he was returned without cost. For wilful neglect a candidate ought to be held responsible.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had made no Returns, because such Returns were a complete farce. He did not believe there was any truthfulness in any Return by an election agent for any Member of the House. He did not suggest that any Member would not make an excellent and accurate Return; but these Returns were regarded as shams. He thought the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had not made quite a correct statement, because he found that a Return had been sent in for the County of Tyrone Election. There were a number of English as well as Irish constituencies for which no Return had been made; and he asked whether the Executive had taken any steps with regard to them? Had the House taken any notice of the misconduct of Members in not making those Returns? Had the Attorney General done so? Of course, in such places as Taunton and Gloucester it would have been dangerous not to make Returns. In his own case the Judge did not censure him for not making a return; but said that perhaps it was just as well that he had not made one.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, with regard to his own election, he found the Return of the Returning Officer was perfectly accurate. He would also say that those Returns, whether accurate or not, showed a good deal. In 1874 he lost his seat, and the two hon. Gentlemen who unseated him advertised very candidly that they had spent £497 in a few days' contest in messengers and butchers.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member was wandering from the subject before the Committee.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he believed they were on the subject of the Election Returns. Reference had been made to the Returns of the last General Election; but if the Chairman's ruling was that reference should not be made to any other Election Returns, he would, of course, not press the matter.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), which would have accomplished all that the Amendment of the Attorney General suggested, and which, in the hon. Member's absence, he had intended to move. But he understood the Attorney General to say that the candidate was to be liable for the penalties, if he committed the offence without excuse, and that he was not to be liable if it were done by the agent. If the hon. and learned Gentleman brought up a clause on Report embodying that principle, he thought it would be satisfactory.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would undertake to provide that the penalty for the illegal practice referred to in Sub-section 5 should not fall on the candidate except for his own act, and also that there should be no voidance of the seat on account of a false declaration by an agent without the consent of the candidate. The candidate should only be liable for his own wilful act.

MR. GIBSON

said, it would be reasonable for the hon. and learned Attorney General to consider, in drafting the clause, two things which the Bill left very obscure. It would appear on the drafting of Sub-section 5 that if no Return were made by the candidate without the authorized excuse, he might be guilty of an illegal practice without any trial or award of any Court. Was it intended that a man should be deemed guilty ipso facto? For his own part, he thought there should be a decision by a Court of Justice before the great penalties prescribed by the Bill were incurred. These penalties fell not only on the candidate, but on the constituency, and, to a certain extent, affected the House itself; and he said it was not right that the House should be deprived of one of its Members, and the constituency of its Representative, and subjected to all the turmoil of a fresh election, simply because there had been a slip or a piece of bad judgment on the part of the candi- date or his agent. Therefore, he trusted that, on reconsideration of the clause, the Attorney General would take care to put in words which would provide that the candidate should be "adjudged guilty" of the offence imputed to him. The second suggestion he had to make was that there should be some power given to the Court of exercising a judicial discretion; the Court, in his opinion, should be empowered either to say that the candidate was guilty of an illegal practice, and that, therefore, his seat should be voided, or else that he should be punished by a fine of £100.

MR. GORST

thought his right hon. and learned Friend hardly recollected that the election would be declared void by the decision of the Court, and after a Report made to Mr. Speaker. That being the case, the seat was not voided ipso facto.

MR. GIBSON

said, it appeared to him that the effect of the sub-section might be that, if a candidate were guilty of a corrupt practice, his seat would be vacated and void. There was no magic in the words of the clause. The seat might ipso facto be voided; and he considered it very undesirable that the clause should remain unaltered, and in doubt.

MR. GORST

said, he did not want to carry on a controversy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject; still, he thought he would see, on examination of Sub-section 10, that an illegal practice did not ipso facto make void a seat. That only took place after the Report had been made to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had been reading over the list of Members who had not made any Election Returns. As something might attach to Members for not making Returns, he wished to show how the Government treated the matter. One Member in Ireland who made no Return had since been made a Judge. Then, in the case of the Radnor Boroughs, Sir Richard Green Price had made no Return, nor had the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his noble Friend was not elected in the ordinary way. He issued no addresses; the electors of the Radnor Boroughs returned him spontaneously, and, he would under- take to say, without one farthing of expense.

MR. CALLAN

said, there must always be some expense connected with an election. He had merely alluded to these matters because his own case had been singled out. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had referred to him as not having made a Return, in reply to which he asked what steps the Government had taken in the case of other persons in the same position; and he had shown that they made one Member a Judge, another a Baronet, and the third a Member of the Cabinet.

MR. BIGGAR

said, according to the principle acted upon by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, nothing would be easier than for a candidate to say he had not paid anything, while he left someone else to meet all the obligations.

MR. CALLAN

said, at the Monaghan Election last week the candidate paid nothing, and would not be asked for a penny. Did a candidate, under such circumstances, violate the law in not making a Return?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his noble Friend took no part in the election. He issued no addresses.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was then in the same position as the noble Lord, because he had issued no addresses.

MR. BIGGAR

said, any candidate might, in like manner, issue no address and take no part in the election, leaving the working of it to others.

MR. R. T. REID

rose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in the remarks he was now making?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the observations of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) appeared to him to be entirely beyond the Question before the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

said, he proposed to move a modification of the clause, so as to make a broad distinction between the person guilty of making the false declaration referred to in Sub-section 6 and the person only indirectly concerned in the act. He wished to amend the subsection by making the act of the candidate alone a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act. This point re- quired some examination. He agreed that if a candidate made the declaration falsely he should be guilty of an offence, and that, on conviction on indictment, he should be subject to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury. Nor did he question that in the case of a person guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury power should be given to make him void his seat in that House. But surely it was not reasonable to say that the act of the agent who made the false declaration should be a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act, because the effect of that would be to punish a perfectly innocent person. He should be satisfied if the Attorney General would say that when he considered the drafting of Sub-section 5 he would also consider the drafting of Sub-section 6, so as to make a distinction in the case of an innocent person, and prevent him suffering from the act of an agent guilty of falsehood in making the declaration. If the Attorney General did not see his way to deal with this matter on Report, he would ask the Committee to give power to the Court that tried the individual to consider the facts of the case, and in their discretion to say whether, besides being liable to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury, the accused should also be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice under the Act, and that the Court should have power to say that the case was met by the prosecution for wilful and corrupt perjury. He wanted to make the clause elastic by giving the Court power to say that the corrupt act of the agent should not tell against the candidate and the constituency. He would leave to the Court power to make the act a corrupt practice; but he would take away the absolute necessity for doing so. But, as he had before intimated, he would be satisfied not to proceed further with his proposal if the Attorney General would give the undertaking he asked; otherwise he should have to take the opinion of the Committee upon the question.

MR. GORST

said, he had understood the Attorney General to say that he would alter the sub-section in precisely the sense the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had already stated, with reference to this section, that the candidate should not suffer for the act of the agent committed without his knowledge or consent. He was willing to say that the corrupt perjury of the agent should not void the seat of the candidate.

On the Motion of Mr. E. STANHOPE, Amendment made, in page 13, line 35, by leaving out all the words from the word "provided," inclusive, to the end of the sub-section.

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

Clause 27(Authorized excuse for noncompliance with provisions as to return and declaration respecting election expenses).

MR. GIBSON

said, he had several Amendments on the Paper to this clause relating to the discretion to be given to the Court; and he would be glad to have an intimation from the Attorney General as to the first of these, because it would be a guide to him in determining whether to proceed or not with the rest. He had gone through the section with a great deal of care, and he had some little doubt as to whether, by the words "or any error therein … ormisconduct of his election agent, &c," the Attorney General might not have intended to give the relief which he himself sought by the introduction into the third line of the section of the words "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement." The clause ran as follows:— Where the return and declarations respecting election expenses of a candidate at an election had not been transmitted as required by this Act, and so on. He (Mr. Gibson) asked to amend that by introducing the words after "transmit," "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement." He was not quite clear whether those words were not intended under the word "error," because it was quite plain that Sub-section (a) contemplated that the Return might contain some statement that was not correct. But whether the word "error" was intended to mean an intentional error, or an error which was not intended, was open to some question. He would like to have this made perfectly clear, because he wanted to deal with one class of cases—namely, cases in which candidates or their agents, while keeping perfectly within the limits of purity—not spending anything more than was provided by the Act—yet make false statements in certain particulars—statements which to their own knowledge were false, but which did not in the slightest degree affect the purity of the election, and did not sin at all in the direction of increased expenditure. What he wanted really to do was, to enable the tribunal, when it considered such a matter, to deal as it thought fit with a statement which was false to a certain extent. If the Attorney General could see his way to accept his (Mr. Gibson's) Amendment, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would do that which would really prevent serious injustice and great hardships in many cases. He only desired to give the Court power to accept, if it chose, a candidate's excuse or explanation of a false statement. He desired to give the Court power to say that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, they were satisfied as to the purity of the election, and that they thought the election ought to stand.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 21, after "transmitted," insert, "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson); but he would suggest that the words should be inserted after the word "Act."

MR. GIBSON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 22, after the word "Act," insert "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 25, after "error," by inserting "or any false statement."

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 25, after "therein," insert "or any payment made after the proper time."—(Mr. Gibson.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) not to press this Amendment, as it contained very different subject-matter from the Amendments already accepted, and as the matter had been already discussed.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had just one word of explanation. It was true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said, that the matter had been previously discussed; but, if his memory served him correctly, the Attorney General, when they were discussing the subject on a former occasion, mentioned, as an excuse for the non-acceptance of an Amendment similar to this, the weighty powers and discretion which were given to the Election Court to deal with such matters. He (Mr. Gibson), unquestionably, thought it was very desirable to enable the Election Court to say that the election had been a perfectly pure one, and that the limit of expenditure had not been exceeded. If a payment had simply been made after the proper time, surely no man of common sense would say this was a matter which should prevent the Court making an order. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated, that this Amendment contained very different subject-matter from the two just accepted; but he, nevertheless, ventured to press it upon the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Gibson) only intended to prevent a man's election being upset, because a perfectly bonâ fide payment was made after the statutory time.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that when the matter was discussed on a former occasion, the Government promised to provide that if payments were made after the time allowed, and they did not infringe the law as to the maximum, the candidate should not be affected thereby.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was perfectly satisfied with that statement, and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 34, after "error," by inserting "or any false statement."

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 5, after "transmit," insert "or for transmitting."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman required some more words; he would require after the word "declaration," "or for a false statement in such return and declaration."

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 15, line 6, after "declaration," by inserting "or for a false statement in such return and declaration."

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

Clause 28 (Publication of summary of return of election expenses).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed, in page 15, line 21, after "in," insert "the 'Gazette' and in." The object of the Amendment was that the Return of the election expenses should not only be published in the local newspapers, but also in The Gazette, and he thought that if that were done it would be of great convenience.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, after "in," insert "the 'Gazette' and in."—(Mr. S. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought that the publication of the Return of the election expenses in one local newspaper and The Gazette might be very well; but to insert it in two local newspapers and The Gazette was rather too much of a good thing.

MR. E. STANHOPE

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not agree to the Amendment, because it would lead to unnecessary expense. He could understand the publication of the Return in two local newspapers, because it might be desirable to have it pulished in one Liberal and one Conservative newspaper.

THE ATTRENEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) had just anticipated what he was going to say. He (the Attorney General) considered The Gazette an expensive luxury. He had provided for the insertion of the Return in two local newspapers, because he thought it would then meet the eye of all classes of readers. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Disqualification of Electors.

Clause 29 (Prohibition of persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, &c. from voting) agreed to.

Clause 30 (Prohibition of interested or qualified persons from voting).

MR. LEWIS

proposed the omission of Sub-section 1, which ran as follows:— Any person who is beneficially interested (otherwise than as member of the company or society) in the proceeds of the letting of a committee room for the purposes of an election, is prohibited from voting at an election. He could not conceive for a moment why the prohibition to vote should proceed to such an extent. A stationer who provided goods was not disqualified, neither were any other tradesmen who might supply election furniture. Why need they descend to such particulars as these? Let them take the case of a house that was in trust for six or seven people. Were they going to disqualify six or seven people, because £5 or £10 was paid for a room—in which they were interested—to be used as a committee room? Why on earth, if there was to be any disqualification at all under such circumstances, was it not carried through the whole class of tradesmen concerned? The provision was most obnoxious, for it seemed to go on the assumption that there must be some corruption or improper motive in engaging a room for the use of a committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. Lewis.)

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

MR. GURST

said, that if a candidate desired to corrupt a constituency by hiring rooms, he could hire any number of rooms so long as they were not committee rooms, and the people who let them would not be prohibited from voting. As the section now stood, it would be possible for some some people to be disenfranchised against their will. Supposing a man of strong Conservative proclivities had the management of a Trust on behalf of persons who were known Liberals. If part of the Trust consisted of a room which could be let for a committee room, the Trustee had nothing to do, if he wished to disenfranchise a number of excellent Liberals against their will, but to go to a Conservative candidate and let him the room in question as a committee room. By the letting of the room the people in question would be beneficially interested, and consequently they would be prohibited from voting. Surely, this could never be intended.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had seriously asked himself where a person was to find a committee room. The committee had already decided that public-houses were not to be used as committee rooms, and coffee-houses and other such places were included in the same prohibition. In a great many districts they would probably only find one room reasonably large enough for a committee room, and it might happen that that room belonged to the most important person in the district. If the man let the room was he to be disqualified from voting? He (Mr. Labou-chere) could not see why a man should be disqualified, because he let his room for a fair price, any more than the man should be disqualified who supplied stationery to the candidate or his agent. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that this section ought to be struck out.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Clause 31 (Hearing a person before he is reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice, &c.; and incapacity of person reported guilty).

MR. GEEGORY

said, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause, which was of some importance to the persons who came under its operation. The clause provided that certain persons might be reported guilty of corrupt practices, and that certain penalties should attach to their being so reported. In addition to the disabilities which the Bill provided in such cases, it was no pleasant thing to be reported guilty of corrupt practices. Of course, a person was not liable to imprisonment unless he was convicted by the Court subsequently to being reported; but to a professional man or to a person in a respectable situation of life it might involve very serious consequences, if his name appeared in the report of an Election Judge as having been guilty of corrupt practices, no matter whether he was subsequently prosecuted or not. Now, this clause provided that notice should be given to the person so reported "where practicable." What the words "where practicable" meant he did not know; but he, at all events, considered that the person who was reported as guilty of corrupt practices should have notice given him of the charge brought against him, and therefore he now had to propose to omit the words "where practicable." He noticed that an Amendment upon this subject stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). That Amendment was to the effect that notice should be given to such person, "or left at his last known place of abode." That Amendment he (Mr. Gregory) would be very glad to adopt subsequent to the omission of the words "where practicable."

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 29, leave out "where practicable."—(Mr. Gregory.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there was just the fear that if a notice was to be left at the last known place of abode of a person reported guilty of corrupt practices, and the person had left that abode, he would escape all the consequences of his acts. He had endeavoured to meet this in Clause 59, page 36, for in that clause it was provided that— Such summons, notice, or document, may be served either by delivering the same to such person, or by leaving the same at, or sending the same by post by a registered letter to, his last known place of abode. These words, he believed, would meet the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He had, however, no objection to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GORST

supposed that the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that the notice should be left at the man's last known place of abode—was not necessary, and he should not therefore proceed with it.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was also of opinion that a man should have an opportunity of making a statement before he was reported of being guilty of corrupt practices. Under the clause a man would be called into Court and asked, "what have you to say to this?" And he had no opportunity of any legal assistance or of calling witnesses. He (Mr. Gregory) thought that was a proper construction to put upon the clause as it was now framed. He thought that a person who was liable to the serious consequences of being reported guilty of corrupt practices—liable to certain civil disabilities which would mean absolute ruin to a professional man—should have the opportunity of making a defence to the charge brought against him. What he (Mr. Gregory) therefore proposed to do was to strike out the words "making a statement to show why he should not be so reported," and insert "being heard by himself, or counsel, or solicitor, and of calling evidence in his defence." If the Attorney General objected to the words "counsel or solicitor," and was willing to sacrifice his branch of the Profession, he (Mr. Gregory) was ready to meet him for the sake of the main point, and to omit the words "counsel or solicitor" altogether. That would leave the Amendment very general—namely, "being heard by himself and of calling evidence in his defence." At present, he had better, perhaps, propose to omit the words "making a statement."

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 31, leave out "making a statement to show why he should not be so re- ported," and insert "being heard by himself, or counsel, or solicitor, and of calling evidence in his defence."—(Mr. Gregory.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was almost inclined to make a bargain with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to the effect that if he (the Attorney General) was willing to give up his branch of the Profession, he (Mr. Gregory) would give up his. He (the Attorney General) thought that if they allowed counsel or solicitors to appear in every case, the expenses of Petitions would be such that they could not possibly be borne by any candidate, and that the Election Petition Judges would be employed in trying the Petitions for an inordinately long time. Such an enormous waste of time, both to the Election Judges and to the Petitioners would ensue, that the obvious result would be that Petitions would never be lodged. His hon. Friend would see at once the objection to calling counsel or solicitors, by calling to mind the case of the Macclesfield Petition, in which 4,000 persons were reported guilty of corrupt practices. What would have been the consequence if each of those persons had called counsel on their own behalf? He certainly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that men ought to have a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and therefore he would agree to the persons reported having the right to be heard by themselves, and of calling evidence in their own defence. If that were permitted, justice, he thought, would be done.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, at the first blush he was inclined to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. If, however, the Attorney General would look at Subsection 2 of this clause, he would find that the position of a reported person was very much more serious than was generally supposed. By the 2nd subsection— Every person who after the commencement of this Act is reported by any election court or election commissioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, shall, whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity or not, be subject to the some incapacity as he would under this Act be subject to if he had at the date of the report keen convicted of the offence of which he is reported to have been guilty; consequently, he was in exactly the same position as if he had been tried and been convicted. No doubt, if in the Macclesfield case each of the 4,000 persons reported guilty of corrupt practices had called counsel great inconvenience would have been caused; yet it did seem hard that persons should be subjected to exactly the same penalties as if there had been a trial, when they knew that those persons had not had the opportunity of obtaining the assistance of anyone to defend them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grantham) was labouring under a slight misapprehension.

MR. GORST

said, that what they urged upon the Attorney General was what they had recommended at first—namely, that some tribunal should be provided for the speedy summary decision of these cases. They wanted the Election Court now to do two things, and it would be able to do neither well. First, it would have to hear the Election Petition, and that was a kind of collateral thing that would go on all the time, and, besides that, it would have to try all persons guilty of corrupt practices. He hoped it was not too late to ask the Attorney General to reconsider this matter. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) proposed, before the Bill left the Committee, to make some proposal with the view of appointing some tribunal to sit for the purpose of the speedy summary trial of persons offending against the Election Law. If the Government could see their way to the establishment of a tribunal of that kind many of these unsatisfactory clauses would be removed from the Bill, because the moment the Judge found from the evidence under the Petition there was ground to believe that a particular person had been guilty of corrupt practices, all he would have to do would be to get the Public Prosecutor to appear before him and order that the person be tried, and the trial could take place at once without delay, with counsel, witnesses, prosecutor, Judge, and all in attendance. It was very important to introduce a modification to this part of the Bill; but he trusted that before the Report this matter would be considered, as he was con- vinced that that which was suggested was the only way out of the difficulty.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the clause contemplated two Courts. If it only included the Election Court, presided over by the Judges of the land, he was satisfied that great care would be taken to see justice done, and men against whom charges were made would have an opportunity of being heard; but the clause went a great deal further than that, and contained the words "or Election Commissioners." He did not think the conduct of the Election Commissioners had given great satisfaction throughout the country—he believed the manner in which Petitions were conducted in 1880 was not such as to reflect credit upon the administration of justice in this country. He did not wish to pursue this matter further; but certainly must express a hope that his hon. Friend would go to a Division if the clause was to continue that power to the Commissioners. It did not seem to him to be right to give these gentlemen the opportunity of inflicting the heavy punishments contained in the Bill upon a person without giving that person the bare opportunities for his defence that any defendant would have, in however small a case, before the magistrates.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think that to send down a Summary Court to try these cases, whilst an election was going on, would tend on the whole to the best results. They must look to both sides of the question. He was willing to agree to an Amendment which should secure that substantial justice should be done in these cases; but, on the other hand, care should be taken that the inquiry should not be prolonged to an indefinite extent. It would be impossible for 4,000 issues to be tried, as would have been necessary in the case of the Macclesfield Election, whilst the Petition was going on. Counsel would have to speak in defence of the person against whom the charge was brought, and he supposed the prosecuting counsel would have to reply in each case; trials in that way might be prolonged to any extent, and the expense would fall, not upon the right persons, but upon the locality.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he thought that power should be given in cases of this kind to employ solicitors or counsel, if the persons employing them paid for them themselves.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was desirous that there should he no mistake about this matter. He would propose that the words "being heard" and "calling evidence" should be retained, and that the words "by himself, or counsel, or solicitor" should be left out. In that way opportunities would be given for calling evidence if it were thought necessary. He did not suppose a person would require it, or ought to require it; still it would be well to give a man the power of obtaining it if he so desired. His reason for moving this Amendment he would briefly state. There were penalties of a novel description contemplated under this Bill in addition to the incapacities to which he had adverted. In Sub-sections 4 and 5 of this clause they found that the Public Prosecutor, where a barrister or solicitor was proved in evidence before the Election Commissioners to have been guilty of, or privy to, any corrupt practice in reference to any election, whether such person had obtained a certificate of indemnity or not, had to bring the matter before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his Profession; and such Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal might deal with such person as if the corrupt practice of which he had been guilty were a misconduct in his Profession. Furthermore, the Commissioners would have to report the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. No doubt, these provisions were with the view to the finding a professional person disqualified from practice; therefore, he was not far wrong in saying that the clause might lead to the ruin of these persons. In the case of barristers, solicitors, Justices of the Peace, and persons of that character, they would be exposed to professional disqualification; and it was on that ground, therefore, that he pressed his Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was afraid that if the words "being heard" were inserted, they might be taken to confer the right to appear by counsel or by a solicitor. That would not be giving up a right; and if a person had a right to be heard, he had a right to call evidence, and have his case conducted by counsel or solicitor. When the hon. Member gave as a reason why the Amendment should be inserted, that the person against whom the charge was brought should be, if he chose, represented by counsel or solicitor, he would point out that the sub-section referred to a person who was a barrister or solicitor, or who belonged to a profession the admission to which was regulated by law; and when it was provided that the person accused should appear personally, looking to the nature of the profession, it was hardly necessary that provision should be made for others to appear for him. A barrister or solicitor could appear before the Election Court and state his own case in such capacity. [Mr. GREGORY: No.] He (the Attorney General) was willing to agree that such a person should have an opportunity of being heard or calling evidence. Would his hon. Friend accept words which would give the person an opportunity of calling evidence and making a statement to show cause why he should not be reported? If such an Amendment were agreed to, he would be able to appear in person, and it would obviate the necessity of allowing him to employ a barrister or solicitor. It would, therefore, be seen that he (the Attorney General) met the hon. Member in all but the matter of allowing a barrister or solicitor to appear. The person charged would have an opportunity of calling evidence, and, no doubt, substantial justice would be done.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider some other classes besides barristers and solicitors. These were not the only persons affected by the clause; surely the 4,000 cases which it was said would have had to have been heard in Macclesfield were not all barristers and solicitors? [An hon. MEMBER: None of them.] Exactly. If the Attorney General had his way, what would happen? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had stated that he had only confidence in one of the tribunals. Well, if this sort of preliminary inquiry took place before the Judges, they would see that justice was done; but there was no security whatever that, if a trial had to take place before a Court of Commissioners, that Court would do what the Judges would do—namely, see that justice was done. Let them observe how unequal the provision was with regard to the different classes of offenders. No doubt, the barristers and solicitors, for whose good fame his hon. Friend seemed to be so solicitous, would be able to protect their own interests. In the case of some ignorant man, however, who knew nothing about Courts of Law, or trials, or equity, or anything of that kind, if a charge were brought against him, how was he to cross-examine those who brought an accusation against him? Were they not going to allow such a person as that to avail himself of the services of a barrister or solicitor; but would he have to make his own statement, cross-examine his own witnesses, and so on, before the tribunal? Before his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) accepted any compromise such as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, something of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) ought to be done. That was to say, they should take care that the tribunal was of such a kind that a poor and ignorant defendant should not suffer from being precluded from availing himself of the assistance of a barrister or a solicitor.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he wished to call attention to one point—namely, that it seemed to him that the present Amendment would not satisfy all that was required. If cases were only to come before the Election Judges there would be no reason to fear anything; but, according to the clause, these cases were to be allowed to come before the Election Commissioners in addition to Election Judges. He must protest against the conduct of the Home Secretary, who seemed to be engaging his Colleague in conversation whilst he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was addressing them and the Committee on the subject of this clause. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) attended to this Bill quite as much as the Home Secretary, and surely he might be permitted to make his suggestion without having the attention of those before whom he was putting it diverted in this way by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His suggestion was that the Committee could not be perfectly satisfied with the decisions that were likely to be arrived at by the Election Commissioners, and, that that being so, there ought to be some provision in the Bill for an appeal to be allowed in these cases. The Attorney General said there would be thousands of cases to hear at some elections, and had drawn attention to the case of Macclesfield. Well, although there might be a great number of cases where illegal acts were committed, it was perfectly clear that, with the great mass of these cases, there would be no difficulty whatever. In most of these cases the evidence would be plain and incontrovertible, and it would not be necessary to have intricate trials; but, on the other hand, in some exceptional cases, injustice might be done unless there was a careful trial; therefore, it would only be reasonable to give an appeal to some tribunal which would command the confidence of the country.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down with regard to the Commissioners. He did not believe they commanded the confidence of the country; and the Committee generally, he was sure, could not help thinking that it was a very serious responsibility indeed which would be incurred by the unfortunate people who would be called up before the Commissioners, as they might be unable to defend themselves properly, and might, through an imperfect defence, subject themselves to most severe penalties. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was the last man in the world to wish such a thing as that. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see that some men could not make a fair statement of their own case. He knew that men of his own Profession would, in all probability, be able to defend themselves very well; but there were an immense number of people, whose conduct might be made the subject of inquiry during or after an election, who would not have the faculty of defending themselves, and it was for them he was now pleading. He could hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to confining the power of hearing these cases to the Election Judges. To confer upon the Election Commissioners the power of inflicting the severe penalties in this clause would be a very serious matter, and he did not think it was one of the things which the Committee should allow. He therefore hoped and trusted that the Attorney General would agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), or adopt the modifying suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he could assure the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that it was not out of any disrespect to him that the Home Secretary, himself (the Solicitor General), and some other Colleagues were conversing together just now. It was clear that sometimes they must discuss points amongst themselves to see what course could be adopted, or what suggestion could be made; otherwise they would never be able to get on. Well, an operation of that kind was going on when the hon. Member had complained of a want of attention of the Attorney General and the Homo Secretary. The provision to which reference had been made would not, he thought, be attended with the serious consequences that some hon. Members anticipated. The question was one of incapacity, and not of serious disabilities, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that if his suggestion could be carried out—that was to say, if it were perfectly practicable—it would be a good thing to adopt it. No doubt, in 99 cases out of every 100 there would be little question as to the guilt of the person accused of the offence, and if there could be some kind of appeal provided where persons insisted that they had not committed the offence, all difficulty would be removed. But where the difficulty lay in the present case was in the discovery of a proper tribunal to which those persons could appeal. He believed that to allow counsel in all cases would be likely to lead to great abuse. If that were permitted, they might have cases where persons would endeavour to cause delay and expense—they might so draw out the proceedings as to render them altogether abortive; for instance, they might have someone appointing counsel to make a separate speech upon every case of illegal practices complained of; they could conceive relays of counsel taking up the cases and endeavouring in that way to delay the proceedings. That would be a very serious difficulty; at the same time, if an efficient Court of Appeal could be suggested, the idea of appointing it would be one well worthy of consideration.

MR. RAIKES

said, he was encouraged to hope, by what had just been said, that the Government had really opened their minds to the desirability of giving some kind of appeal; at any rate, if they did not give some assurance to that effect, he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) would press his Amendment. The Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had justly appreciated the serious consequences which were to follow, under the 2nd sub-section, on the offence indicated in the 1st sub-section. He did not know whether the Committee had grasped the fact that the Government were asking them to establish a new principle in law—namely, that a man was to be deprived, it might be for life, of his political status—of not being able to exorcise the franchise in the constituency—and subjected, if he were a professional man, to a great number of disabilities on the mere ipse dixit of, it might be, three briefless barristers. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General serious in asking them to give a power to these gentlemen—the esercise of which would be frequently meritorious in the eyes of a particular Party—of pronouncing a sentence of exclusion from all political rights for the future, without giving the persons so sentenced the privilege that the commonest applicant enjoyed of being able to employ counsel and to call witnesses in his defence? There were Commissioners and Commissioners. No doubt there were some gentlemen who had done their duty extremely well, and had shown the highest capacity; but, on the other hand, there had been some gentlemen who had not equally well shone in the capacity of Election Judges. He saw the difficulty admitted by the Law Officers as to the protracted proceedings that might take place; but that difficulty would be met if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire were adopted—which suggestion, it seemed to him, the Solicitor General was inclined to adopt if the Attorney General would allow him to do so. Some appeal should be allowed from the decision of these Commissioners. Take the decisions of the Election Judges—and he did not want to regard this in the same light as the decisions of Election Commissioners—the question before them was as to the validity of the return, and the finding of a person guilty of a corrupt practice was merely an incident in these proceedings. It was not the main point to which their attention was directed, and though the candidate might be found guilty of corrupt practices, they might also, in the course of their report, find various other persons guilty of corrupt practices. They did that as the result of their inquiry. Well, he should regard with horror such power being given to Election Commissioners without an appeal—he should even regard with grave doubt the justice of giving Election Judges the power of pronouncing political ostracism in these cases when the proceedings they had had to consider had been the election at large, and not the cases of these persons incidentally found guilty of corrupt practices. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would frame some provision to meet the difficulties suggested.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this discussion, which had been a most interesting one, had not been without profit. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not insist upon the services of a solicitor or counsel being allowed to a candidate. The hon. Member had distinctly offered to sacrifice them, and he (the Attorney General) hoped he was going to do so, and would point out that if the words "being heard" were retained he would not make the sacrifice. As to the Court of Appeal, the Solicitor General and himself had discussed the question, and his impression was in favour of such an arrangement if it could be provided for. It would, indeed, assist them in the disfranchisement of persons who were reported. If such persons were given a chance of appeal it would be assumed that the report against them was justified; and, therefore, in that direction an appeal would be useful. He should be ready to confer with hon. Members who took an interest in this matter to see if they could not hit upon a Court of Appeal which would be satisfactory—probably they might be able to do so upon the Assize which would next take place. At any rate, he would do his best to meet his hon. Friends; and on that undertaking he hoped they would allow him to proceed with the clause.

MR. GIBSON

said, that nothing could be fairer than this statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The matter was of great importance, and particu- larly to professional persons would be one of very great importance. It was all very well to say the question was one of incapacity, but to his mind it meant absolute ruin to large classes of people. It might lead to absolute ruin in the case of men holding public or judicial offices, or gentlemen professionally employed. In these cases the effect of the clause might be called incapacity if they liked, but it was incapacity that amounted to absolute ruin. If they gave a man, accused of some petty offence in a police court, power to defend himself by solicitor or counsel, surely they should give the same power to a professional man charged with an offence, the establishment of which might lead to his ruin. They might have either of two alternatives in this case, and he should be satisfied with one or the other, though he thought he should prefer the appeal. It was just that a man should have all the professional assistance he could get; but it might be very inconvenient to have a number of people taking advantage of that. Another argument was that it would be unfair to a candidate, who would have to bear all the expense; but that could be met by providing that a portion of the expenses should be borne by the candidate, and the remainder by the locality or the public. If the Attorney General pressed the argument of inconvenience, he was bound to undertake to find a proper appeal; and he should prefer to move that there should be an appeal against the report of Election Commissioners in the manner to be prescribed, and then the Attorney General could apply himself to finding a tribunal for appeal. It might be another Election Court, or it might be some of the Judges on the rota. He did not ask for any hasty decision tonight on the question of what was to be the appeal tribunal; but he thought there should be some such words as these added to the sub-section— When any person is reported by the election commissioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, he shall have the right of appeal against such report in the manner hereinafter prescribed. That would not bind the Attorney General to anything whatever except that ha would provide in a subsequent part of the Bill what was to be the prescribed Court of Appeal. He threw this suggestion out for the Attorney General to consider before the sub-section was finally disposed of.

MR. GORST

wished to say a word in protection of the Government from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Government should find a Court of Appeal; but he would remind the Committee that some years ago, when the late Government were in Office, a Committee of the House sat upon the subject of Election Petitions and made a Report strongly advocating a Court of Appeal. He believed that the Conservative Government, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished Member, found it so absolutely impossible, with the whole Session before them and abundant leisure, to frame a satisfactory Court of Appeal, that they gave the matter up in despair and established a Court of two Judges to try Election Petitions. Although he was always glad to see the Government persecuted and harassed as much as was reasonable and fair, he thought it was rather hard to call upon them in July to intent a Court of Appeal which the late Government was unable to obtain in a Session of many months.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought the memory of the hon. and learned Gentleman Was rather deceived upon this matter. As far as he recollected the Report of that Committee was not on the subject of appeal at all, but was a Report in favour of trial by two Judges, and the hon. and learned Member was wholly wrong in his enthusiastic desire to, on all occasions, involve himself in a controversy with the Front Opposition Bench. He himself intended to move either the entire or the partial omission of Sub-section 2, for it was open to the gravest objections. If this matter went to a Division, he should vote with the hon. Member, simply because he thought it was absolutely necessary to do so in the interests of justice; but he was opposed to the section altogether.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, the objection made to the Commissioners would apply with still stronger force to Subsection 6, and he should prefer to strike out the sub-section altogether.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked how the hon. Member proposed to move the Amendments?

MR. GREGORY

said, he proposed to move "leave to be heard and to call evidence." He did not think it fair to leave a man in any position in life without assistance, and he should not care to be his own advocate. He felt considerable difficulty with reference to this Amendment, for while he was desirous to meet the views of the Committee as far as possible, he had some difficulty in gathering what those views were. Some Members were for a Court of Appeal; but he did not see that any such Court could be instituted which would meet the case, and he was afraid he had no alternative but to stand or fall by the Amendment.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he agreed with the Attorney General as to the extreme difficulty of Commissioners having to go through a series of trials with counsel and solicitors; but it was obvious that the Committee were desirous of meeting the difficulty in one way or the other, and so they had to choose between the practical difficulty of administering the law by the Commissioners, and some Court of Appeal. He did not see any difficulty in arranging for an appeal. The appeal which it was, in the case mentioned, found difficult to make provision for was an appeal from the judgment of the Election Judges on the validity of an election; but he did not see the difficulty of making arrangements for an appeal in the few cases in which there would be an appeal, because, as the Solicitor General had said, in 99 cases out of 100 there was no doubt about the matter, and the person admitted his offence. He hoped the Attorney General would endeavour to frame some kind of appeal to meet the difficulty, and then he should not support the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

suggested that the words "solicitor or counsel" should be omitted, and then the Amendment might read—"heard by himself and of calling evidence in his defence." He hoped that would meet the view of the hon. Member. He would do his best to find some Court of Appeal; and if he failed, then he would sooner give up the subsection than come into conflict with the Committee.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had met the case, and he would accept the suggestion.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. E. STANHOPE

proposed to leave out "whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity," and to substitute "unless he obtained a certificate." The object of this Amendment, he explained, was this. A certificate of indemnity would protect the person from ulterior consequences under this clause. Hon. Members did not seem to know what a certificate of indemnity was. Where a man was compelled by the Court to give answers which would incriminate himself, and the Court was satisfied that he had answered truly, it gave him a certificate to protect him from the consequences of his having incriminated himself. At present, a man would be subject to penalties, and to incapacity, whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity or not; but he thought it was hard upon a man that, having been compelled to answer questions, he should be subject to incapacity, and suffer the penalties imposed by the various subsections of this clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 36, to leave out "whether he obtained," and insert "unless he obtained."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had given way as far as he possibly could; but he could not do so upon this point. At present persons who were guilty of corrupt practices obtained certificates of indemnity on giving evidence, and he could name cases in which men who had declared that there had been no bribery had, when a Commission was issued, admitted bribery and betrayed the persons they had bribed, and yet, obtaining a certificate of indemnity, they walked away free from all punishment. A certificate of indemnity protected a man from criminal proceedings; but surely, because a man went into the witness-box and admitted having bribed, he should not escape all consequences. If he was protected from criminal punishment he ought not still to have the power of voting. A magistrate who had been guilty of bribery was struck off the Commission of the Peace; and all that this clause did was to call the attention of the Law Society to the circumstances, and they would do what they thought proper. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought it was quite right that any persons who had committed bribery should not be allowed to administer justice; but that was a different thing from inflicting incapacity to vote on people who were not magistrates, and he hoped the hon. Member would proceed to a Division.

MR. MELLOR

said, he was glad that the Attorney General intended to stand by the clause, because this was a very serious matter. It seemed to him that the object of these inquiries was to ascertain the truth; and he thought it would be a great misfortune if any man should be able to refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate himself. He hoped the giving of certificates of indemnity would not be carried further than was absolutely necessary. A man who required a certificate before he answered questions in a Court of Justice ought never to be allowed to administer justice, or to remain a member of an honourable Profession; and, so far as he was concerned, he hoped the Government would be firm upon this clause. In his experience he had found that the Commissioners discharged their duties fairly and carefully, and he thought there could be no objection to allowing them to compel a man to answer questions and then give him a certificate of indemnity; but if he got that certificate it ought not to protect him beyond criminal punishment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

thought the clause would rather tend to defeat the object of ascertaining the truth, because witnesses would come forward and give evidence if they knew they would get certificates protecting them from any penalty or punishment. He would, however, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 17 line 3, to leave out from "appear" to "appears by evidence," and insert "is reported by."—(Mr. Gorst.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

thought that if this tribunal did report, they ought not go behind that, and therefore he would accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'is reported by' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. GORST, Amendment made, in page 17, line 5, by inserting the words "or privy to."

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he proposed to move the Amendment next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt). The reason why he desired to move the omission of the sub-section to which that Amendment referred was because it proposed to add additional punishment to the severe penalties provided by the Bill in the case of members of particular professions. If the clause were allowed to stand in the present form, a barrister would not only be liable as a criminal for the offence committed by him, but the Director of Public Prosecutions was to lay a sort of acte d'accusation against him before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his Profession, who were empowered to inflict upon him a punishment which amounted to the absolute ruin of his prospects in life. He submitted that at present there was no case whatever made out for these extraordinary penalties, and for putting the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in operation in this way, and therefore he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 4.

Amendment proposed, to leave out sub-section 4.—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)

Question proposed, That the words 'where a person who is a barrister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law' stand part of the Clause.

MR. SALT

said, he thought the Bill already contained sufficient penalties against persons who committed offences under the Act without going beyond them, and attacking a man in his profession, to the destruction of his professional prospects.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his object in framing this clause was to deal with those who had special facilities for committing these offences. Why had the Committee dealt in a special manner with publicans? It was because they had special facilities for committing corrupt practices. And if a publican were to say to him—"Why do you deal specially with the class to which I belong?" He would answer—"Because you have special facilities for committing offences under the Act." And similarly in regard to the present case, if the publican asked if he would apply the same law to his own profession, he could not look him in the face and say "No." He could give an instance of a solicitor who, having managed an election, had corrupted the whole borough, and whose punishment, notwithstanding, was nothing at all. He was found to have marked off 950 voters, whom he took care should be paid; and that man practised his profession at that moment, and no punishment could be inflicted on him. He did not wish to mention any names, but hon. Members would know to whom he referred; there was no case throughout the whole inquiry which took place of such gross misconduct, but the solicitor in question had obtained a certificate of indemnity, and received no punishment whatever. Why should not the tribunals referred to in the sub-section deal with professional men guilty of corrupt practices at elections in the same way as they dealt with every other person over whom they had jurisdiction, who had committed a criminal offence? If a solicitor committed a crime so small as to subject him to a day's imprisonment, he would be struck off the Rolls, and there would be no appeal. But, under the present Amendment, hon. Members would not allow him to be so dealt with if he committed an offence which rendered him liable to nine months' imprisonment. He asked his hon. Friends not to shrink from passing this subsection, which was intended to reach men who, having been guilty of corrupt practices, if they liked to betray their fellows would, by obtaining a certificate of indemnity, altogether escape punishment. Finally, he pointed out to the Committee that the sub-section only provided that attention should be called to the fact that an offence had been committed. If the heads of the Profession said they would take no notice of it, so let it be—the responsibility would rest with them; while those who made it possible for them to deal with corrupt practice in the same way as they dealt with professional misconduct, would have the consciousness of having done their duty.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he had no doubt the Committee had been much impressed by the speech of the Attorney General, and particularly with that part of it in which he held certain members of his own Profession up to condemnation. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, no doubt, right in dealing in the manner proposed with barristers and solicitors; but why did he bring in members of other professions? Why should a doctor be shown up to the Royal College of Surgeons, or the College of Physicians; or a clergyman, a military man, or a Secretary of State, be shown up to those bodies who took cognizance of their several professions; while a private gentleman remained quite unscathed from the operation of the clause. He was willing that barristers or solicitors should be cognizable by the Law Institution, the Inns of Court, or by any other competent authority; but he was quite unable to conceive why persons belonging to other professions, which the clause did not specify should be brought under these special penalties. It was an absurdity in the case of the other professions he had referred to, to tell the Governing Bodies to take cognizance of offences under this Act. While he agreed that the authorities specified in the clause should have control over the members of the Legal Profession, he thought it would be wise to leave out the words "or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law."

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had not the least doubt that it was a wrong thing for a barrister or a solicitor to bribe; but because the Attorney General had found out some bad cases, that was no reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should brand an honourable Profession. But he contended that the sub-section was wholly unnecessary, because, if a barrister or a solicitor were guilty, the heads of their Professions could deal with them without the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If that were so, and he believed the Solicitor General was not in a position to dispute the proposition, he thought they should proceed to a Division on the Amendment before the Committee which he should feel it his duty to support.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, it was difficult to speak against anything in the Bill which was held to be necessary by the Attorney General; but he thought in the present case, under the influence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, they were about to commit a grave error in principle—that was to say, they were going to inflict an exceptional punishment. The rule for centuries had been that there should be the same law for the rich as for the poor; but they were now about to reverse that policy by making a severe and exceptional law for the rich which they did not make for the poor. They were about to punish by a fine of £100 and imprisonment, either with or without hard labour, during the space of a year, certain offences under this Act; whereas they had seen of late the most grievous and horrible offences ever committed in the country punished by a year's imprisonment only. But, besides this—and in a manner quite unknown to the Criminal Law up to this time—it was now proposed that an illegal act committed, perhaps by a young man under the influence of excitement, should be reported to the Inns of Court, or to the High Court, the consequence of which might be that the young man's professional career would be at an end. The House was asked to empower a Court which had not heard the case to initiate proceedings anew after the charge had been heard and disposed of. He believed that provision would be productive of a great amount of harm, that it was cruel, and that it would be better to run the risk of some electoral impurities which must occasionally exist, than to make an enactment of this kind. He thought that, in calmer moments, hon. Members on that side of the House would perceive some wisdom in the words he was using in advising them not to follow the course marked out by the Attorney General on that occasion.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he could assure his hon. Friend who had just spoken that, although he was in the calmest frame of mind, it was his intention to support the sub-section which the Amendment proposed to strike out. His hon. Friend contended that an act of corruption committed by a man in a moment of excitement was excusable, and that the individual who committed it ought not to be liable to the consequences of having his conduct taken cognizance of by the heads of the Profession to which he belonged. But did his hon. Friend mean to suggest that barristers would be such harsh judges of barristers, that they would cut short the career of a number of their Profession without the most grave reason for so doing? Precisely the same argument applied to the case of solicitors. The sub-section did no more than provide that the heads of the Profession should have the conduct of the barrister or solicitor brought before them. The existing law with regard to the conduct of a solicitor was that if he committed a felony, his offence entailed upon him the penalty of being struck off the Rolls, in addition to the punishment inflicted for the crime itself. They consented to that law because solicitors were intrusted with particular privileges which had not been conferred upon others, and because they had opportunities of occasioning mischief which did not fall to men who had not the same powers conferred upon them. It would rest with the tribunals specified in the sub-section to say whether the case of an individual was one which called for no punishment, some punishment, or severe punishment, and he believed his hon. Friend would see that, under those circumstances, no injustice was involved in the proposal.

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not think that the canon laid down by the Attorney General was borne out by the sub-section. The objection of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was that the proposal of the Government was unequal and unjust to men of a particular class. The early clauses of the Bill set forth the social and official disqualifications, as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution which attached to persons guilty of corrupt practices; but it was not until this sub-section was reached that they found a provision to punish persons with absolute ruin and loss of bread. What, he asked, was the reason for singling out the two branches of the Legal Profession for special punishment? The Attorney General said he had picked out those two classes for special treatment, because they had special facilities for the commission of corrupt practices. But, what special facilities had barristers in that direction? He was not aware of their being possessed of a single facility of the kind, and the Attorney General had only been able to illustrate his argument by a reference to two cases of corruption on the part of solicitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a single instance in point in which barristers were concerned. The Solicitor General said the clause dealt with classes who had not only special facilities for the commission of corrupt acts at elections, but upon whom special privileges had been conferred. Well, he asked what those privileges were?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

I did not say special privileges in regard to corruption, but that special privileges were conferred upon barristers and solicitors by law.

MR. GIBSON

There were no cases or examples given where members of the Bar had especially come forward and particularly challenged criticism. There might have been cases; but none, however, had been cited. It therefore came to this—why was it necessary to single out for special mention two branches of the Legal Profession, and hold them up to this particular obloquy? Was it fair to single them out in that way, and to say that, in addition to subjecting them to criminal proceedings and to civil incapacities, they should also be subjected to the possibility of being deprived by other Governing Bodies of the opportunity of earning their bread? A point had also been made as to the abuse of the certificate of indemnity. Owing to the course the Attorney General had pursued, a person in future could not rely upon a certificate of indemnity. He (Mr. Gibson) was of opinion that this clause should either not be in the Bill at all, or else it should be drafted in a general way which would grasp all classes of trades and professions. It was not fair to single out the Legal Profession. The Legal Profession they treated invidiously, while they had general words for other professions. Why were they not satisfied with the general words to cover the Legal Profession, if they intended other professions to be equally covered? He, of course, accepted the statement of the Government that they did intend to cover all professions; but he doubted very much whether any person reading the clause for the first time would interpret it as covering all professions. The clause ought not to be in the Bill at all, or it should be a great deal wider and more grasping; it should have a general reference to all professions to which admission was obtained by law; it should have reference to all professions which were controlled by law, by licence, or otherwise. He challenged the sub-section as being exceptional, as containing an unworthy and exceptional stigma; and therefore, in the absence of any statement from the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in support of it, as it was at present submitted to the judgment of the Committee, he had no option but to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth.

Mr. MELLOR

said, he was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) did not mean to suggest that a barrister who committed a corrupt practice was fit to continue in his Profession. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had spoken of the privileges intrusted to the Bar, and the privileges intrusted to the solicitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, for instance, shown that a barrister had great power intrusted to him in the way of free speech in a Court of Justice, that he had great confidence reposed in him, and that he discharged most important functions, especially in a Criminal Court. He (Mr. Mellor) considered that a man who had to discharge such important duties ought to be extremely particular as to his conduct; and he could not see why if a barrister committed a corrupt practice, his conduct should not be brought to the notice of the Governing Body of his Profession. There was not the slightest danger of this clause being unfairly worked. It was proposed to bring a barrister's conduct before the Benchers of his Inn. The Benchers had never shown themselves to be an unfair tribunal; but, apart from that fact, a barrister who was charged with being guilty of a corrupt practice had got an additional safeguard, because from the Benchers he could appeal to the Judges, and if the Benchers had committed any error, the Judges had ample power to rectify it, and re-instate the gentleman in his old position. The punishment of the solicitors, too, was in the hands of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, and they could deal with it exactly as they pleased. It was a jurisdiction which was exercised before the whole world, and he (Mr. Mellor) had never heard any complaint of the way in which that jurisdiction was administered. He hoped this sub-section would be passed, because he considered it was very important, particularly in the interest of his own Profession, which was so much concerned in elections, that the public should be satisfied that the Legal Profession wished to put a stop to electoral corruption quite as much as any other class of the community.

MR. LEAMY

maintained that a barrister ought not to be punished twice for an offence for which they punished other men once. It was said that a barrister who committed a corrupt practice ought not to be allowed to continue any longer at the Bar. If this was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen, why had not such a practice been put in force before now? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had said that barristers had exceptional privileges—that they had exceptional privileges at the Criminal Court; but the Committee were not dealing with barristers acting in Criminal Courts, they were dealing with barristers and solicitors acting at an election just as other people did. If a barrister was guilty of a corrupt practice, he could be sent to gaol for 12 months, deprived of the franchise, and subjected to other civil disabilities. He (Mr. Leamy) submitted it was invidious to impose a double penalty on these men because they happened to belong to the law. He desired fair and equal justice; and if a man was found guilty of a crime, subject him to a certain punishment, but do not increase it because he happened to be of one particular profession. It might be said that this clause not only referred to solicitors and barristers, but to many other professions, because the words of the clause were— Any person who is a banister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law. He supposed that the words would include the case of a doctor. He, however, strongly objected to the invidious mention of barristers and solicitors, and on that ground he intended to oppose the clause. ["Divide, divide!"] He did not know why hon. Members should display such impatience. He had only spoken three times upon this Bill, but certainly he intended to-morrow to take other opportunities of interfering in the discussion.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had stated that this clause proposed to inflict a certain stigma upon the Legal Profession. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) did not hesitate to say that this stigma should be inflicted. He wished to regard the clause simply as one relating to barristers and solicitors; and having regard to the facts and circumstances of both English and Irish elections, he considered that barristers and solicitors who were guilty of offences specified in this section ought to be exceptionally punished. It was on the distinct ground that this was an exceptional punishment, and a severe punishment, that he, as a member of the Legal Profession, intended to vote for this clause. They knew very well from the revelations of Election Commissioners that where corrupt practices had prevailed, the instruments of these practices had, in many cases, been connected with the Legal Profession. He was sorry to have to say it, but it was no use hiding the truth on this question; and it would be a piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Legal Profession if they objected to put this mark on the members of the Legal Profession who did wrong. An educated barrister, or an educated solicitor, knew perfectly well when he was doing wrong; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was of opinion, having regard to the special trust which the law imposed upon the Legal Profession, that if any member of that Profession conducted himself improperly at an election he deserved the exceptional punishment of being brought before the heads of his own Profession, so that they might deal with him as they thought proper, and decide whether he was fit to continue, either temporarilyor permanently, in the discharge of his professional duties. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) hoped the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would not consent to any relaxation of this clause.

MR. WARTON

said, his first objection to this sub-section was that it was totally unnecessary, and encumbered the Bill. Although there was a great difference in the style of the two Law Officers of the Crown, there was a great similarity in their arguments. Speaking of solicitors, the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) mentioned two cases of solicitors who misconducted themselves, and the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) dwelt upon the peculiar privileges of legal gentlemen. Now, if solicitors were as bad as it was endeavoured to paint them, why should all the Professions, the admission to which was regulated by law, be grouped together? What was the real object of this section? It was to preserve that cruel severity which prevailed all through the Bill. Would doctors, and dentists, and veterinary surgeons, come under the operation of this clause? Or was it the object of the Attorney General to provide that many men should be debarred? This was a perfectly scandalous clause, and it seemed to him that there was no ground whatever for its appearance in the Bill. He could not conceive for a moment why all professional men should be subjected to this cruel punishment, because on two occasions solicitors had misconducted themselves. He objected to the clause on the ground of common humanity.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought there was great misconception in reference to the origin of this clause. They must all admit there had been a few solicitors who had subjected themselves to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; and the object of the clause was to enable the Courts to deal with the cases of solicitors who misconducted themselves in the manner described by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It must be remembered, however, that the two solicitors whose cases the Attorney General had cited werea cting as quasi-solicitots. If this clause had merely been formed for the purpose of enabling the Court to deal with men who, acting as quasi-solicitors, had acted in an improper way, he did not think anyone would have raised the slightest objection. He objected personally to the roundabout way in which it was proposed to arrive at the result desired. Why should it be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to bring these matters before the Court? If they turned to Clause 36, they would find it was the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend there himself, or by his assistant, at all election trials; and in another clause they found that where the trial was before Election Commissioners, the Election Commissioners were, first of all, to communicate with the Public Prosecutor as to whether misconduct had been proved against those gentlemen, and then the Director of Public Prosecutions was to communicate with the tribunal. All that would be necessary, in his (Mr. Grantham's) opinion, instead of inserting this long sub-section, would be to give the tribunal power to take cognizance of misconduct, notwithstanding the fact that a certificate of indemnity might have been given. He hoped the Attorney General would deal with the matter in a more satisfactory way than was now-proposed. He had great objection to the clause because by it it was proposed to deal with barristers and solicitors who were not acting at all in their professional capacity.

MR. CALLAN

said, that no one who heard the remarkable speech of the Attorney General would be in any doubt as to the insufficiency of the punishment which at present could be imposed upon members of the Legal Profession who misconducted themselves. He considered the punishment provided was not severe enough.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

desired to say a few words to the Committee before they went to a Division; and he meant to take a Division as a protest against this outrageous clause. The speech the Attorney General made was chiefly based on a single instance, with regard to which he was justly indignant; and he showed the Committee how, in one case where a professional man had been the instrument of very much bribery, he remained without any punishment at all. The Committee had provided that a certificate of indemnity should leave a person open to all the disqualifications and incapacities, and should only protect him from actual criminal prosecution. He could not help thinking that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had misled those who had not read the clause. They had said that the facts of the case were to be brought to the knowledge of the Profession. Now, the last words of the sub-section were these— It shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosections to bring the matter before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his profession; and such Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal may deal with such person in like manner as if such corrupt practice were misconduct by such person in his profession. It was not misconduct by such person in his profession, and therefore they were passing an Act of Parliament to give the Benchers of an Inn of Court power to deal with a member of that Inn for misconduct outside of his profession. This was a monstrous proposition, and he made that assertion as a Bencher of one of the Inns of Court. There was no excuse for casting that stigma upon the Profession, and he hoped to find some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite join him in protesting against this most unjustifiable proposition.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he approached the consideration of this clause with a mind perfectly free from bias, because he did not happen to be included in any of the Professions which were subject to the pains and penalties set forth in this clause. He, however, opposed the clause as one of the most illogical, unjudicial, and preposterous interferences with natural justice and equity that could possibly be imagined. The clause was extremely vague, and slovenly drawn in its wording— Where a person who is a barrister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law, is to suffer so-and-so. What on earth was the meaning of the phrase "belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law?" They ought certainly to have from the Government a Schedule of the Professions the admission to which was regulated by law. Last year a proposition was brought in the House, after which, he believed, the authors were still hankering—a proposition for making a provision that schoolmasters, for instance, should be dependent upon a system of registration. If this proposition were carried, schoolmasters, under this vague clause, would be liable to all the pains and penalties provided by the Bill. As a matter of fact, the clause actually set a premium upon professions that were unregulated by any tribunal, and it would be a positive advantage to belong to such professions. Was there any special reason in the past history of the Legal Profession for the introduction of penalties of this description? If there was any special reason, and if the Legal Profession had been adorned by too many members who were unworthy to belong to it; if the traditions of the Profession in election matters were corrupt and disgraceful—and that was the innuendo contained in the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and accepted by the ex-Member for the virtuous borough of Oxford—he considered it an extraordinary thing that they should calmly propose for the future to bring accused members of the Legal Profession before a tribunal of hardened sinners. They were told that down to the present day the Legal Profession was stained through and through with corruption; and, forsooth, it was before the senior members of this stained Profession—successful candidates, though no longer Members of Parliament—who had gained their seats by all kinds of corrupt practices and had escaped detection—it was before the tribunal of Benchers, composed of men who had gone through all the gross experiences that were to be forbidden for the future, that the erring members of the Profession were to go in the future to be tried! Just imagine what a scandal that would be. Suppose some member of the Legal Profession in the future was accused by the Public Prosecutor of having committed some corrupt practice, and his name was mentioned to the Benchers, and supposing it became known that amongst those who inflicted punishment upon him were lawyers who had been notorious and scandalous offenders in the past; in such a case the punishment would be an infinitely greater injury to public justice and respect for the law than any amount of continued indulgence towards offenders belonging to the Legal Profession. And when they were asked in this way to hand over a large class of Her Majesty's subjects to this tribunal of Benchers of the Inns of Court and so forth, they were entitled to ask what guarantee had they that this tribunal, of which, down to the present they had had no official cognizance, of which they had had no legal knowledge, would act with justice and propriety? They were entitled to ask what was there in the constitution of this tribunal which was to be set up for the future, to lead that House to grant this unlimited power with regard to a portion of Her Majesty's subjects who happened to belong to the Legal Profession? Were they not aware that some of the most scandalous offences against public morality were committed by persons in that Profession, such as taking fees and doing no work for them; and were they not aware that conduct of that kind was winked at by the infallible tribunal of Benchers that were to be armed with the powers of this Act? He contended that they knew nothing in the history of the Inns of Court which should lead them implicitly to trust to them in this matter. He contended that when, under this clause, a man was brought under an Inn of Court, it would depend very much upon his social relation to his Judges—that was to say, upon the amount of his private acquaintance and friendship with them, and the amount of influence he could bring to bear upon them—whether or not he should be made subject to the heavy punishments of the Bill. As was generally the case with exceptionally coercive legislation, this would be calculated to create a prejudice that would defeat the object with which it was proposed. Let the Committee imagine the position of two persons implicated in Election Petitions before the Election Judges; one a member of the general public, and the other—if hon. Gentlemen opposite would adjourn to the Smoking Room or some more congenial place than the House he might be able to finish his observations.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address his observations to the Chair.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, it was through the Chairman, then, that he would make that observation. He had been prevented from addressing the Chair by a continued buzz of conversation; and it was in order to prevent that that he had made the remark. What he had been saying was this—what would be the position of two persons against whom charges were brought in regard to an election contest, one of them being an ordinary member of the public, and the other a gentleman who would be subject to these exceptional penalties because of his connection with the Legal Profession? Would it not be a fruitful theme for appeals to the Court that one man more than another was subject to exceptional treatment? For the very reason that a man was liable to exceptional treatment a strong appeal for clemency would be made. If a lawyer and a non-lawyer were accused, in the very interests of equity the Judges dealing with these two cases would be led to give the man who was liable to a double penalty every possible benefit of every loophole, and every chance of escape; and in that way the very provisions introduced into this Bill for the purpose of doubling the penalty against the lawyer would always lead to their being treated with exceptional leniency, because, from the fact that if they were found guilty they would be treated with exceptional severity. That was a course of policy which could be illustrated to any extent in general history. He thought the best Her Majesty's Government could do would be—[Interruption.] He had called the attention of the Chairman—or, at any rate, had endeavoured to call the attention of the Chairman—to a buzz of conversation on the opposite side; and he was sorry to say that it had not been rebuked, and that it was even now continuing without rebuke on the Chairman's part. This deliberate disturbance—which, to his mind, was contrary to the Rules and Orders of the House—rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard; therefore he was obliged to sit down; but, in doing so, he would move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. CALLAN

said, he would ask the hon. Member not to persevere with his Motion, but would direct the attention of the Chairman and the Commitee to the fact that when the hon. Member who had just sat down had addressed himself to those who were interrupting him, he was met with a rebuke at the hands of the Chairman. The hon. Member continued his speech; but the interruptions became so loud as to drown his voice and prevent the reporters in the Gallery from hearing him. But, notwithstanding that this noise continued, he (Sir Arthur Otway), acting as Chairman, did not rebuke the misconduct—or, rather, the not creditable conduct—of the Radicals sitting below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The Chairman stated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Nine Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he believed he had only spoken two or three times during the progress of this Bill—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but the conduct of hon. Members opposite convinced him that they disapproved of his reticence; and he therefore trusted that they would not have reason to complain of his want of appreciation of his public duty for the future. This clause was not sufficiently definite, and it was only due to the members of that Profession, the admission to which was regulated by law, that it should be made so. What was the provision according to the view of the Government? He had heard it stated that a barrister was nothing more than a trades unionist. Well, he wanted to know, under the clause, whether it would be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring the conduct, during an election, of every member of a trade society under the notice of the council of that society, and to give them power to impose special penalties upon him, irrespective of the penalties laid down by the law of the land? He should like very much to know what, in the eye of the law, or, rather, in the eye of the Attorney General, was the difference between a corporation of solicitors or a society of barristers, and a corporation or society of stone masons and slaters? Unless the Attorney General introduced words defining what he meant by a Profession, he wanted to know what there was more legal in the Profession of solicitor than in the Profession of stone mason or slater? It was all very well for the Government to affect an air of extreme purity, and draw up a number of clauses in the most ambiguous form; but, before they passed the Bill, they ought to arrive at some distinct understanding as to what was meant by these provisions. Before they passed laws exposing members of Professions to definite penalties they should know what was meant by "Profession." To his mind, the words of the clause expressly included ordinary trades unions, because these words were— Or tribunal may deal with such person in like manner as if such corrupt practice were misconduct by such person in his Profession. There were hundreds of Professions throughout the Kingdom governed by tribunals regularly in the habit of imposing penalties for what was considered to be unprofessional conduct; and he wished to know—was every trades union throughout the Kingdom which happened to have a council to be able to impose penalties on its members for improper practices at elections, in addition to the penalties which were imposed by the law of the land?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 67: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 169.)

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he really thought they might now ask the hon. and learned Attorney Genoral to agree to report Progress. It was now nearly a quarter-past 1, Members had been in the House during the whole of the day, and they bad to be in attendance again at 2 o'clock to-morrow. He, therefore, thought it most reasonable to propose that they should now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were only two formal Amendments to this clause, both of which he was ready to accept; and ho, therefore, thought the Committee might be allowed to conclude the section before reporting Progress. He would not ask them to go further than this clause, which had been under discussion now for nearly three hours. He trusted the hon. and gallant Baronet would not press his proposal.

MR. LALOR

begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of a very important Bill which the Government had decided upon bringing forward that night—namely, the Poor Belief (Ireland) Bill. That was a measure upon which a long discussion was very likely to arise; therefore he thought it would be well for them to at once report Progress.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that if they acceded to the Attorney General's request, and passed these two Amendments, they should allow hon. Members to go home. They would be utterly unfit to go on with the discussion of the Bill which the Government had expressed themselves determined to proceed with that night. He would suggest that the hon. and gallant Baronet should withdraw his Motion, and that they should go on with the Bill, provided that the Irish Poor Belief Bill was not continued at this late hour. Irish Members were the same as English Members. ["No, no!"] Well, for his part, he should be very sorry to be like any of the Radicals opposite; but what he meant was that Irish Members, like English Representatives, required rest. He should certainly give every support in his power to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet, unless the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) would assure them that now that the House was thoroughly exhausted, at a quarter-past 1 o'clock, he would not go on with the Irish Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, it was impossible to leave the Committee in the dark as to what were the intentions of the Government, for Members might say there had been a breach of faith. On Monday evening the Government forbore to press this most essential, but, at the same time, extremely minute Bill, on the understanding that it was to be proceeded with to-night. He would not insist on the word "understanding," however, because he was not certain that an assurance was given by hon. Members on the matter; but it must have been distinctly understood that the Government would press the Bill tonight. It would be impossible to carry on the Business of the House, and to make any progress with the large number of Irish Bills before the House, unless a stage were taken nearly every night on a Bill.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, there was no understanding, and the assurance was on the part of the Government, who asked the House to discuss at this time of night a Bill of the utmost importance. If it was to be a Draconian rule that the Government must make progress with every Bill, he would suggest that some other Government Bill should be proceeded with.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had referred to Irish Bills.

MR. O'DONNELL

thought Ireland must be very much obliged; but he did not think that at this hour of the night Irish Members were much disposed to enter into the large question raised by this Bill, and into all the new matter which was to be opened up by the pending international questions between the United States and England under the Bill. He should offer every opposition to such an important Bill being taken at such an untimely moment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Chief Secretary seemed very much disposed to follow in the footsteps of his Predecessor; and, if so, he would prophesy that the end of his career would be of a similar nature. The right hon. Gentleman had broken the distinct promise he had given with regard to this Bill, and now he said there had been an understanding. There was no understanding that this Bill was to be discussed at such an untimely hour. The Leader of the Irish Party was absent, and there were other Irish Members absent who would wish to discuss this question, and who were more competent to do so than the Members who were present.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, that, speaking merely for himself, he was willing to go into the Bill, if there was any chance of getting something substantial for the Irish poor out of the Bill; but the hour was late to begin what he was afraid would take a long time.

MR. WARTON

pointed out that, although there were at present only two verbal Amendments to this sub-section, he had to move another Amendment of importance. He hoped the Attorney General would consent to report Progress.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Amendment made, in page 17, line 17, by leaving out from "appears" to "before," and by inserting "is reported by."

On the Motion of Mr. GORST, Amendment made, in page 17, line 18, by leaving out "or privy to."

MR. WARTON moved to omit the sub-section. It was bad enough, he said, that professional gentlemen should be brought by the Public Prosecutor to the notice of the High Court, or this un-described tribunal; but it was far worse to prevent people ascertaining from professional men what they were to do. He protested most strongly against this, in the interests of the Profession, and also in other interests. It was casting a stigma and a slur on the Courts to require them to go through the farce of assuming that a man had been guilty of misconduct who had not been guilty. As to the drafting of the clause, it would end very well with the word "profession" in line 23, and then these independent bodies could act in the matter if they thought fit, and not be directed to do so by a falsehood or a Jesuitical approach to a falsehood. They could take care of their own honour; but they would be humiliated by this unjust clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 23, to leave out all the words after "profession."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. GORST

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persist with this Amendment, although he was of his way of thinking. He voted against the whole clause, and he should have been glad if the Attorney General had struck out the sub-section; but the Committee had decided, by a considerable majority, against his view, and in favour of the sub-section. If it was to be maintained, these words were absolutely necessary, because it was no use calling the attention of a tribunal to the conduct of a professional man, unless it was to be allowed to deal with the question of corrupt practice as if it had been misconduct in the Profession. Although he should be glad to see the whole sub-section struck out, it was no use making nonsense of it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Committee had discussed this question throughout the evening and taken a Division upon it, and it was not reasonable that they should be now asked to discuss it a second time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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