HC Deb 10 July 1883 vol 281 cc967-1020

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Miscellaneous.

Clause 61 (General interpretation of terms).

MR. WARTON

said, he proposed to move an Amendment confining the meaning of the expression "entertainment" to "food, drink, and lodging." Although that had been the old meaning of the word which had been so used in all early Acts of Parliament for hundreds of years, he feared that, under the present Bill, unless the Amendment were accepted, it might have a larger scope, and be made to include entertainments of a spectacular or dramatic kind, as well as concerts, operas, and oratorios. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had retained the word in the Bill, he wished to restrict it to its proper meaning, and to exclude the idea that Judges might attribute to it that any sort of entertainment of the kind he had described was intended by the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 36, line 38, after the word "requires," to insert the words "the expression 'entertainment' means food, drink, and lodging."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. GORST

said, the Committee had, on many occasions, reason to complain that Amendments of this kind were not put on the Paper. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) must have had this Amendment in his mind, because he told the Committee yesterday that there were many additions necessary to this clause; and therefore he (Mr. Gorst) thought, out of courtesy to the Committee, that he might have given Notice of the Amendment he had just moved. It was impossible to deal without Notice with matters which involved purely verbal and technical distinctions; and therefore he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not entertain the hon. and learned Member's proposal without full consideration. He (Mr. Gorst) believed the meaning of the word "entertainment" had been settled by legal decisions; and anything in the nature of a definition being now introduced into the Act would primâ facie raise the probability that the legal definition was to be altered, that the present reading was obsolete, and that some new meaning was to be attached to the term. Of course, in a matter of this kind, the Committee must trust entirely to the hon. and learned Attorney General, who was alone competent to decide upon it.

MR. WARTON

said, he could assure the Committee there was no want of courtesy on his part in not placing the Amendment on the Notice Paper. It was only natural that, after having hurried through the Bill at an unusual rate, some verbal Amendments should be found to be necessary in Clause 61. If his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Gorst) would supply any other definition, which would confine the term to its actual meaning, he (Mr. Warton) should be willing to accept it; but his fear was, that when the word once changed its moaning, its scope had a tendency to become enlarged. The word "entertainment," however, was not a legal term; it was an old English term, which meant food, drink, or lodging; but it was now understood by many to be some kind of amusement. He was certain that, 100 years ago, no one would have understood the meaning of "entertainment" in that sense, because that was quite a new application of the word. ["Divide, divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now interrupted him with cries of "Divide!" might one day have their elections declared void, because some Judge interpreted the word in a sense different from that in which it was now understood, and because the framers of the Bill had not been careful enough to guard against a change of meaning. For his own part, he should be very much amused if some hon. Members found that this undefined term worked against them, because they withheld the small amount of care and attention which would have saved them from the consequences he had described.

MR. BIGGAR

said, there was a great deal in what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had stated with regard to the use of the word "entertainment." Everyone acquainted with Irish villages, must have seen upon the sign-boards of certain small houses the expression, "Entertainment and lodging." The use of these words was exceedingly common in Ireland; and they conveyed, in a great measure, the meaning put upon the word "entertainment" by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. Therefore, he (Mr. Biggar) thought that, if the hon. and learned Member would use the two first words of his Amendment, without the word "lodging," he would give a thoroughly correct definition of the term. There was no doubt that the word "entertainment" might be made to apply to places of amusement; but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would say that a theatrical entertainment would be an illegal practice under the Act. In the form he (Mr. Biggar) had suggested, he should be willing to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport.

MR. HICKS

said, before they went to a Division he thought it desirable the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should state to the Committee exactly what was his opinion as to the meaning of the word "entertainment." It would be in the recollection of the Committee that this point had been raised at an earlier part of the Bill, when the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless he (Mr. Hicks) had misunderstood him, stated that, in his opinion, the word "entertainment" was to bear its own meaning of "food and lodging." He (Mr. Hicks) thought the meaning attached to the term by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be clearly expressed in the Bill; on the other hand, if he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it was the intention of the Government that the word should bear a larger meaning than it had 200 years ago, then that should likewise be made clear on the face of the Bill. In either case, the pitfalls which lined the path of hon. Members should be removed.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that the word "entertainment" did not always mean food and lodging in Ireland; where there was no food, the phrase over the houses was generally "Dry lodging."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18, Noes 135: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 190.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 62 (Short title); Clause 63 (Repeal of Acts); and Clause 64 (Commencement of Act), severally agreed to.

Application of Act to Scotland.

Clause 65 (Application of Act to Scotland) agreed to.

Application of Act to Ireland.

Clause 66 (Application of Act to Ireland).

MR. BIGGAR

said, that he proposed to leave out the words at the commencement of the clause which made the Bill apply to Ireland. He did not regard this question from any partizan point of view, nor did he trouble himself much about the Act; because, while he expected from it no particular inconvenience, he felt sure that it would neither add to, nor diminish, his election expenses. Over the greater part of Ireland the expenses were always much less than the maximum scale annexed to the Bill, and, therefore, he did not think the Irish people were much interested in that part of the subject. There was, however, a good deal of bribery still existing in the North, although, substantially, it did not affect the balance of Parties. It was the custom in some of the counties in the most Northern parts of Ireland, to throw away money at elections in the most extravagant manner; but with that matter, also, the people of Ireland had very little concern, because, if gentlemen would throw away their money foolishly and incur the heavy penalties which the Bill imposed upon them, they must be allowed to do so. But the great objection he and his hon. Friends had to this Bill was the great number of difficulties which it created, and the risk there might be of a Member being unseated for some trivial act which was not worthy of the name of bribery or corruption. For that reason he thought still that the Bill should not apply to Ireland at all, although he knew it was much needed in England; and it was, no doubt, well that it should also be applied to Scotland.

Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 18, to leave out the words "This Act shall apply to Ireland."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would point out to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that his Amendment would effect the very opposite result to that which he intended. The clause was for the purpose of showing the modifications with which the Act should apply to Ireland. The hon. Member had always supported the view that there should be equality of legislation in matters of this kind with reference to the Three Kingdoms, and he (the Attorney General) trusted he would stand by that view now. That principle had been affirmed by a large majority, and therefore he could not accent the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would assist his fellow Law Officers of the Crown in settling what would be the corresponding Court in Dublin to the Central Criminal Court, London, so that it might appear on the face of the Bill. The question was raised on the 47th clause; and it was mentioned at the time, that there should be some provision made, so far as Ireland was concerned, with regard to cases of certiorari. He hoped, before the Bill was passed, the hon. and learned Attorney General would condescend to answer questions from that side of the House, and indicate what was the corresponding Court.

MR. BIGGAR

said, after the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring to what had taken place with regard to the Bill on those Benches, was in error in saying that he (Mr. Biggar) and his hon. Friends had made wholesale charges against the Bill. He had certainly confined his criticism to one or two points in it; his description of the Bill having been that it was not intended to check corruption so much as to reduce expenditure. He had never said that the Bill was an exceedingly bad one, although he had stated that it would create litigation, and make plenty of work for the lawyers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had distinctly stated that there should be some provision made in reference to cases in certiorari in the Irish Courts. ["Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Warton) thought it due to a Member of that House, that when a point was taken, with a view to assist the Bill in its progress through Committee, it should be met by some better argument than a howl from hon. Members opposite. He felt confident that hon. Members on the opposite Benches would, some day, regret having passed this Bill without giving it the amount of attention it required.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), when they were on the 47th clause, had suggested that this point should be considered when the Irish clause was reached. The Committee would see that, if he (the Attorney General) had substituted any words, without giving Notice and without drawing the attention of Irish Members to it, they would have had the right to complain. Therefore, he proposed to give Notice of the words to be substituted, and to bring them forward on Report.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to impress on the Committee, that when hon. Members on those Benches made a point in good faith for the assistance of the Committee, it was only right that they should receive a reply from the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was quite clear to him that the later clauses of the Bill had been run through too rapidly.

MR. BIGGAR

asked, whether the registration of the Bill, if it passed into law this Session, would influence in any degree the question of registration dealt with in Sub-section 3?

MR. LEAMY

said, he also wished to know, if, when the Registration Act became law, it would be necessary to make any change in the 3rd sub-section? He had already opposed the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and he should do so again, because he had heard nothing since it was introduced to make him alter his opinion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was understood to say that no alteration would be made in the clause in consequence of the passing of the Registration Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 6: Majority 179.—(Div. List, No. 191.)

Continuance.

Clause 67 (Continuance of Acts).

MR. ERNEST NOEL

said, he did not know whether there was any occult reason why the period of 1888 should not be put into the Bill. It seemed to many hon. Members—who obviously esteemed this measure more highly than did Her Majesty's Government—that, having spent so many weeks over the Bill, they ought to allow it to continue in force at least over one General Election. Of course, he knew, very well, it could be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; but, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could show them that it was necessary that it should be so treated, and that it should not be continued longer than a year, he would ask the Committee to express an opinion upon the circumstances. If the hon. and learned Attorney General could show there was some real reason for the period fixed in the Bill, he (Mr. Ernest Noel) should be happy to withdraw his Amendment; otherwise he should insist on his proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 42, line 21, leave out "84," and insert "88."—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was not at all surprised at his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) having brought forward this Amendment. He (the Attorney General) had explained the matter to many hon. Gentlemen in private; and he readily admitted that it required some explanation, as it looked somewhat like an absurdity that, after all the expenditure of time and trouble which had taken place upon the Bill, they should only leave it in operation for 12 months; but, as the hon. Gentleman had suggested, an occult reason for the limitation adopted in the Bill really did exist, and that reason he would explain to the Committee, if he could. For some cause or other, all the Corrupt Practices Acts had been made of a temporary character—he would not say all, however, because there might be Acts to which his attention had not been called, with which a different course had been pursued. The Act of William III., and others dealing with this subject, had been of a temporary character. They had been generally passed for a period of three years, at the expiration of which period they became Bills requiring to be renewed from year to year. There was the Election Petition Act—the Act of 1868—under which, as the Committee would recollect, jurisdiction was taken from the Committees of the House in the matter of Election Petitions, and conferred upon certain of the Judges. In that Act there was no clause providing for the continuance of the measure for any considerable period—the duration of the Act was limited to three years. That Act, together with the Act of 1854, was, on the expiration of the three years, inserted in a Continuance Act, for the reason that, in a matter relating to its own affairs, the House wished to keep to itself an opportunity of recalling its jurisdiction. He did not say whether or not that was a wise system. It might be a wise rule for the House of Commons to stand upon what was its Constitutional right, and give only a temporary jurisdiction to the Judges in matters which intimately affected its health. Whether or no, such had been the practice of the House in the past, and such was the practice now; and he, of course, had to deal with things as he found them. If the Committee would turn to the Bill they would find that a great many past Acts were incorporated in this measure. In Section 10 matters were dealt with which brought into play the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and dealt with the Election Court existing under that Statute. The Bill, therefore, had incorporated in it a general Act, which would expire, according to the existing practice, on the 31st December, 1884; and if he were to allow this Bill to become a permanent Act, what would become of it in 1884, when the Act which it incorporated expired? If this Bill did not repeal an existing Act, but incorporated its provisions, and that Act were allowed to expire, surely this measure would become a chaos, and only half workable. The result, therefore, was that it was impossible for him to go beyond the period during which the previous Acts were continued—it was on that period that this measure depended. He could not carry his Bill beyond the Continuation Act; and, therefore, for that reason, and that reason only, the date the 31st December, 1884, had been inserted. The measure was, as all Corrupt Practices Acts which had been passed had been intended to be, part of the permanent law of the land. The Act of 1868, which they renewed every year, was part of the permanent law. He might suggest to the Committee that the time had almost come when the House might take the view that they need not be very jealous of losing their privileges, and, for that reason, continuing these Acts from year to year. Might it not be well for them ere long to consider whether all these Acts, including the Act of 1868, could not be extended over a long instead of a short period—in fact, could not be rendered permanent?

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, they ought to be very much obliged to the hon. and learned Attorney General for the clear manner in which he had explained this matter, because there could be no doubt that the public at large, at all events, knew nothing about it. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the time had come when they need not be so particular about guarding their privileges by only continuing these Acts from year to year. They could not render the Acts permanent this year; but it might be a matter for consideration another year whether it would not be necessary to render all Acts relating to Parliamentary Elections permanent.

MR. CALLAN

said, that it was important that the Act had been limited by the Government to 1884, because it was not judicious to pass an Act which would bind future Parliaments. No doubt, in due deference to public opinion out-of-doors, it was only right to apply an Act dealing with the corruption of candidates and Members of Parliament to those persons who were at the present moment interested. In 1884 they would see the end of the present Parliament—a consummation most devoutly to be wished—and, under the provisions of this Bill, they were not likely to see very many of the present Liberal Members—certainly not many of those below the Gangway—returned to this so much desired haven. It was not necessary to continue this Act, as the next Parliament would be so pure that it would be wholly unnecessary to have such a measure in the future, cleared, as the House would be, of all Scotch philanthropists and Radical purists.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

said, he would ask whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) would withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow the Committee to take a Division upon another Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Francis Buxton's) name? As the hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out, this measure incorporated several Acts dealing with corrupt practices, all of which had been continued from year to year. But because a wrong had been done in the past, he failed to see why it should be perpetuated in the future. He could not but hope that, if the Bill were made perpetual, by the leaving out of the clause dealing with continuance, the Renewing Bill, to be passed at the end of the Session, would deal with all further matters which required renewal. If the clause were left in, and the Bill were only to continue to the end of the next year, to be continued from year to year, what might happen in the next Parliament? Why, they might have the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) Attorney General, and he would, naturally, at once drop this measure altogether. The method of dealing with corrupt practices at elections bad been looked upon as an open question; and the fact of the Bill being renewed from year to year was the reason why pub- lic opinion had been somewhat doubtful upon it. It seemed to him that it would be better for the sense of the Committee to be taken upon his (Mr. Francis Buxton's) Amendment—to leave the clause out altogether—than upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel). Before sitting down, he would call attention to the fact that the words "Fourth Schedule to this Act" should be "Third Schedule to this Act."

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he considered it very inconvenient and objectionable to pass Acts of this kind for so short a period; that inconvenience having been illustrated in the case of the Ballot Act. Whenever it had been thought necessary to render that measure permanent, it had been blocked in this House; and if this Bill were put into a Continuance Bill, no doubt it would be blocked in the same way, or by a pressure of other Business. The sooner they broke through the present practice the better. He was inclined to think that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Ernest Noel) was a good one, as it would save them from the necessity of renewing the Bill from year to year.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was happy to find that there was at least one clause in this Bill to which he could give a cordial assent, and that was the present clause, which limited the operation of the measure to 12 months. He did not know that there was any way out of the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had explained to the Committee; at any rate, he sincerely hoped there was not. It would be desirable, in the interests of the purity of elections, that there should be an opportunity of trying back, supposing they found this instrument did not act quite so cleanly and fairly as some hon. Members expected. For his own part, he delighted in the idea that they were not going to inflict this enormity on candidates and agents for more than 12 months without an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. He should certainly vote for the clause as it stood.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, that, after the very clear explanation they had had from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, there could be no doubt that this clause must stand part of the Bill. In a matter of this kind, by which so many alterations were effected in the law, and with regard to which so many difficulties might arise in the future in carrying out the Act, it was only right that they should have an opportunity of seeing how it worked before they rendered it permanent. If there was to be a General Election shortly—and upon that point right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench would know more than anybody else—hon. Members would have an opportunity of finding out how the measure worked. He was convinced there was not one man in the House who, if the Act did not work as they expected it would, would not be glad that they had made the Bill temporary, instead of permanent. If the Act was found to work unsatisfactorily, they would be in a much better position by its being temporary than they would be if it were permanent.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, at an earlier stage, he had moved an Amendment for the purpose of giving an unseated candidate an appeal. He had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was not opposed to the principle of the Amendment, and that he would himself bring forward a proposal on the subject. Well, he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not find that the hon. and learned Gentleman had put down any clause on the Paper on the subject; and he would, therefore ask him if he intended to make any arrangement in the nature of an appeal in the case of an unseated candidate?

MR. MONK

said, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was so clear, that there could be no doubt it was desirable that this Bill should, in the future, be put in the Schedule of the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last but one (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and who had just left the House, was in error when he said that, inasmuch as the measure was to be placed in a Continuance Bill, it could be amended from year to year. It was clear, that when a Bill of this nature was placed in a Continuance Bill, it could not be amended when it was renewed from year to year. There was nothing in the shape of difficulty in connection with the Continuation Bill. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should insert the Acts which were renewed in the Continuance Bill, from year to year, in the Schedule of the present Bill.

MR. ERNEST NOEL

said, that, no doubt, the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was very clear; but it was clear in this sense, that he could, if he had chosen, have granted the request made in this Amendment, because he had given several instances where analogous Acts had been passed primarily for three years. What he (Mr. Ernest Noel) had asked was that the Bill should be passed for five years, so as to carry them over the next General Election. If his proposal had been adopted, before the expiration of the measure—that was to say, before 1888—they could put into the Schedule those Acts which were continued from year to year, and which were incorporated in the Bill. It appeared to him that the feeling of the Committee was against his proposal; and as he did not wish unnecessarily to put them to the trouble of a Division, although he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the proposal, he should ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 42, line 24, to leave out the word "Fourth," and insert the word "Third."—(The Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had given Notice of opposition to the clause, and must confess it seemed rather illogical that a measure which had occupied so much time in passing should only come into operation for a year. The explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General very much influenced his opinion, however, as to whether it was desirable to continue it in force for a longer period; but it would be absurd to an outsider, who did not understand the details of Parliamentary work, that the measure should only continue for 12 months. He was not at all certain that, from the point of view of the Government, they were quite right in insisting that it should only last for that period, even after the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was quite possible that, at the end of 1884, or the beginning of 1885, a new Parliament might be in existence, and perhaps a new Government, and that that Government should think it undesirable to renew the Bill, and should simply let the whole matter drop, and let things stand where they were. Then, if the hon. and learned Gentleman once more came into power, he might think it desirable that the measure should be re-introduced, and, in 1886 or 1887, they might have to go through all the labour and occupy all the time which they had been doing lately upon this matter. He really did think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should invent some plan by which they could get out of this difficulty, which he had raised for himself by proposing that the Bill should not be of a permanent character. It was a very awkward plan to have a great number of Acts of Parliament on the same subject, and it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that it would be requisite before long for some Minister to bring in a Consolidating Bill, dealing with all measures relating to corrupt practices at elections. That should be done, so as to enable candidates to know really what the law was, or, at any rate, to enable them to make a guess at it. A candidate, or his agent, should be able to find out what was the law by referring to one Act, without being put to the necessity of going over a large number of Statutes, which it would now be necessary for him to do, in order to form his opinion as to what was a corrupt practice. The present system of having a large number of Acts of Parliament dealing with one subject was a most unsatisfactory method of proceeding, and it was especially so with regard to Parliamentary candidates, seeing that these gentlemen would, in a great many cases, have to be their own judges as to what their conduct ought to be. A candidate would not always have a lawyer within call to give an opinion as to the legal bearings of a matter of this sort; besides, even attorneys and barristers would not know exactly what was forbidden by the Bill, and he must say it seemed to him preposterous that these Acts should be in existence, making it difficult even for a lawyer to find out what the law was.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he now had to move the first new clause which he proposed to add to those already accepted in the Bill. It might save the time of the Committee if he stated the nature of the circumstances under which he had decided upon submitting this new clause to their consideration.

MR. NEWDEGATE

here rose.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he wished to ask the Chairman a question. Without at all desiring to deprive the hon. and learned Attorney General of his privilege, he wished to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman was making an addition which was to be inserted in the Bill after Clause 16; and, as he (Mr. Newdegate) had to propose a new clause after Clause 2, he should like to know whether, by now accepting the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, he would not be precluded from moving his clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is in charge of the Bill, and he, therefore, takes precedence in the matter of bringing forward new clauses.

MR. NEWDEGATE

It will not preclude me from moving my clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was about to represent to the Committee, when interrupted, that when, some time ago, they were discussing Clause 4, which dealt with a voidance of the seat in consequence of a corrupt practice on the part of an agent, there was some debate, and many hon. Members expressed the view that it would be a great hardship to inflict upon candidates the consequence of being deprived of their seats for some trifling corrupt practice on the part of another person. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) bad desired the insertion of an Equity Clause, dealing with bribery, treating, and undue influence. It was thought that a middle course might be taken, by agreement, to exonerate candidates, in certain cases, of corrupt practices by agents, leaving out all allusion to bribery. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton made a proposition; and afterwards, by the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), supplemented by a statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, it had occurred to some of them that this middle course might be taken, and that whilst they could not sanction any relief in the case of bribery, it was possible to give it in the case of treating and undue influence. When they got into detail in this debate, he should be again prepared to state the reasons why they made this distinction; but that suggestion having come from hon. Members who had taken a conspicuous and responsible part in the passing of this Bill, he had at once felt that there was good reason why their view should be accepted. After their view had been accepted, there were still those who wished to extend this elastic clause to cases of bribery, and he had thought at the time that there had been a little misapprehension as to the source from which the suggestion had come; it had been within the right of every Member of the Committee to divide on the question, whether bribery should be included or not. Votes had been secured for the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, by the knowledge that the Government would introduce an elastic clause. The principle having been accepted, he had to accept the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and endeavour to carry out his views with regard to treating and undue influence. It would be remembered that, at the time, he had objected to the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as he thought they required some alteration, and, also, that they did not quite carry out the hon. Member's object. He had taken the words of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and, having amended them, had put them into a clause which he thought would carry out the view of the Committee. The words he had decided upon were these— Where, upon the trial of an election petition respecting an election for a county or borough, the election court report that a candidate at such election has been guilty by his agents of the offences of treating and undue influence, and illegal practice, or of any such offence, in reference to such election, and the election court further report that the candidate has proved to the court—(a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was committed at such election by or with the knowledge and consent of such candidate or his election agent; and (b.) That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such election; and (c.) That the offences mentioned in the said further report were committed contrary to the orders and without the sanction or connivance of the candidate or his election agent; and (d.) That the offences mentioned in the said further report were of a trivial, unimportant, and limited character; and (e.) That in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of such candidate and of his agents; then the election of such candidate shall not, by reason of the offences mentioned in such further report, be void, nor shall the candidate be subject to any incapacity under this Act. He did not know whether there would be any exception taken to the wording of the clause; but he thought it carried out the views of hon. Gentlemen in giving some safeguard in the direction they desired: indeed, he thought it went further than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He saw two Amendments on the Paper; one in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), whose endeavour it seemed to be to reverse the recent decision of the Committee, and to make this elastic clause apply to bribery—to include bribery as well as treating and undue influence. When the Committee voted upon this question it had arrived at a decision with regard to it. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no.] He was in the recollection of the Committee upon the matter. A Division had taken place on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and, without discussing the words of that proposal, in substance it was the same as the present clause, only it applied to bribery as well as undue influence. After two discussions, that Amendment was refused by the Committee. Now, having carried out the whole of that Amendment and more, with the exception of the word "bribery," the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) sought to insert the word "bribery;" therefore accepting, in its entirety, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, which had been negatived by the Committee. Now, he made no complaint against the course hon. Members proposed to take. If they chose to express a second time their opinion, it would not be becoming for him to raise a question about it; but he had to ask at least that those who agreed with him on the first occasion would see a still stronger reason for doing so now, after what had occurred. He hoped they would accept the clause as he proposed it, and would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He could give stronger reasons than he had given before why they should not include bribery; but he would only say that there was no subject in this Bill upon which he had received so many communications as he had every day received upon this matter. Persons experienced in election affairs expressed the strongest hope that there would be no case in which bribery would be looked upon as trivial in this Bill. There was one other view that he wished to refer to. These words had been framed for the purpose of dealing with cases of treating, undue influence, and illegal practices. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) took the clause as to treating and undue influence, and crudely introduced into it the word "bribery." Well, he asked every Member of the Committee, who was a supporter of the Bill, whether to a greater or a lesser degree, not to accept that Amendment. It would be a backward movement which had never been acknowledged before, and would, he was sure, be most injurious to the interests they had mainly to consider—namely, the interests of the constituents. On the other hand, he had to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who desired to amend the clause by striking out the word "not," and to insert after the word "void" the words "but the candidate shall not be subject to any incapacity under this Act." The effect of that would be that a candidate could be unseated for a trivial case of treating or undue influence on the part of an agent, but would not be incapacitated from becoming a candidate in the future. What would happen if that were agreed to? Why, a candidate, after being unseated for some trivial act, would have the sympathy of the constituency, and, after being unseated, he would offer himself for election again, and would be elected, simply in consequence of that trivial act of treating or undue influence. The Amendment, in fact, asked him (the Attorney General) to depart from the undertaking he had given, not only to introduce this clause, but to provide that the seat should not be voided in consequence of some trivial act of treating or undue influence. He should, therefore, be breaking his word if he were to acquiesce in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He adhered to his clause in both its aspects. He could not carry it further, because he believed it would be injurious to do so; and, on the other hand, he could not fall back from his position. Whilst he did not run away from anything he had said on the main question, if this matter was to be gone over again, he must reserve to himself the right of saying what he might believe to be necessary in the future. He merely contented himself now with calling attention to what had taken place on a former occasion, and begged to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice.

New Clause (Report exonerating candidate in certain cases of corrupt or illegal practice by agents,)—(Mr. Attorney General,)—brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. CALLAN

said, he did not wish to raise a discussion upon the principle of the clause on the Question that it be now read a second time, if the Committee were adverse to that course; but, to his mind, it was preferable to raise the discussion on its principle on second reading, and then afterwards to go into details; still, in this matter, he was in the hands of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not care for "Hear, hears!" from hon. Members opposite. If the hon. and learned Attorney General thought it better to take the discussion after the second reading, he should wait until the clause had been read a second time.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that, before going into any discussion upon the matter, he wished to state to the Committee that he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words "bribery or," in the third line, before the words "treating and undue influence." For the purpose of simplifying the matter, however, instead of moving that Amendment, he would move to leave out the words "treating and undue influence, and illegal practice," and insert the words "corrupt practices."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that would include personation.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, his object was to include personation. The hon. and learned Attorney General had told the Committee that he (Mr. Labouchere) was asking to reverse its decision. Technically, it was true that he was doing that; but, in point of fact, he was not doing that. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that a good many had voted with him, or rather against the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because they were anxious to see the clause the Government would bring up. As he distinctly understood, from what fell from the hon. and learned Attorney General, there was a feeling in the Committee that, as a clause was to be brought up dealing with this special matter, hon. Members, on this question, should reserve their judgments. He (Mr. Labouchere) was rather sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had taken a Division on the occasion referred to, because he had thought at the time it might prejudice the case; at any rate, he thought any hon. Member was perfectly free to vote on the matter as he thought right. The hon. and learned Attorney General said he had received communications from various parts of the country requesting him not to yield on this matter. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere), on the other hand, could say that he had received communications from his constituents on the subject. It had been said that his constituents would at once misunderstand them. His constituents had held a meeting, and what was the resolution that they passed on this question? Why, it was this—"Keep your eye on the Attorney General." They said—"Particularly oppose this and every other clause which you regard as dangerous to a free, pure, and independent constituency. He was, therefore, so far as he was concerned, strictly within his duty in keeping his eye on the hon. and learned Attorney General, and in moving this Amendment against the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause. What really did happen on the last occasion? [Cries of "Agreed!"] He understood the anxiety of the Committee to get to the end of this matter; but the question was so important that he really thought they ought to look into it, and look into it most seriously. What took place on the last occasion? As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, they had a very large preliminary discussion upon the definition of the word "agency." The hon. and learned Attorney General told them that he could not, although a lawyer, define what an agent was. The reason of that was, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) could understand it, not being a lawyer, that whereas, in other matters, an "agent" was a person employed or acting for another person; in electoral matters, an agent was a person who was an actor in a common cause with a candidate for a specific end. Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared to give them any species of limitation to his agency. So far as he (Mr. Labouchere) understood it, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared, that when an Association took an active part in an election, every single member of it became an agent of the candidate, and that if any member of such an Association engaged in a corrupt practice the candidate was responsible for it. They had had decisions in different ways. Lord Bramwell had distinctly stated that he had been obliged to do an injustice to candidates because he had no Equity Clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General himself would, no doubt, remember the Taunton case, in which a Conservative candidate, or rather Member, had been held to be liable for what a political Association had done. But a remarkable circumstance was, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had interfered, and had said that the Judges already had this equity jurisdiction. According to the right hon. Gentleman, this jurisdiction, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said would open the door to bribery, was already possessed by the Judges. Well, after the clause was adopted, that equity jurisdiction would not in any case be possessed by the Judges, because this clause placed those who thought the Judges ought to have that jurisdiction in a much worse position than they were in now. It laid down specifically that Judges might have an equity power henceforth in matters of treating, undue influence, and illegal practices; but by leaving out bribery and personation, or by not substituting for the limited words in the clause the general term corrupt practices, it directly told the Judges that they had no equity jurisdiction in regard to bribery, and in regard to personation. Well, he asked the Committee whether they were in favour of that—whether they thought it was desirable or not? The hon. and learned Attorney General told them he had taken a middle course—those, he thought, were the words the hon. and learned Gentleman had used. But he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had not knocked the bottom out of his now tub by yielding in the matter of treating? Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell him any distinction which existed between giving a man the money to pay for a glass of beer, or any food, and giving him the actual beer and the actual food? He remembered that the hon. and learned Attorney General had endeavoured to draw a distinction. He said—"When you treat, you do it generally openly; but when you give money, you do it secretly." He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know what that distinction had to do with the present case. He denied that there was such a distinction. What happened in the matter of treating? Why, at an election, beer was apt to flow in all public-houses. If there was a brewer in the place, he would be on one side or the other, and his beer was used largely, and he would not collect his accounts until the end of the week, so that it was a much easier thing to treat secretly than to give money; and that, it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere), was a much more prevalent corrupt practice at the present time than the other. The effect of the ballot had not been to change human nature; people were just as ready to take money now as they always were. All the ballot had done, if it had done anything in this matter, had been to cheapen the votes. There were a large number of persons in that residuum, of which they had so often heard, who belonged neither to one Party or the other, and who had been, in past times, ready to accept 10s. or 5s. for a vote; but who were now ready to accept not only 10s. or 5s., but even a pot of beer. There should be no distinction between treating and bribery; if they were to say there was to be no equity in the one, they should say there should be no equity in the other. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General told them himself that it was absolutely necessary, in order to prevent injustice being done, that the Judges should have an equity power, that statement was equally applicable to small cases of bribery as to small cases of treating. He could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Attorney General did not quite understand these large popular constituencies. These places were perfectly pure; but, at an election time, there was a very great deal of excitement. At such a time as that a man might be so utterly carried away by his feelings that he might, in his excitement, give away 2s. 6d. or 5s. to some other person to go somewhere with, without any intention of wrong doing, and that would be bribery. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Hear, hear!] At any rate, a man by doing such an act as that might think he was doing wrong, but he might be carried away by his feelings. The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" It was perfectly horrible that such an act should be visited with all the consequences of bribery. No doubt, it was right that the man who was guilty of such an error of judgment, or such misconduct, should be punished; but what he (Mr. Labouchere) objected to was that the candidate should be punished also. Let them take the case of Northampton, where there was a large Liberal Association and a large Conservative Association. He believed that the Liberal Association numbered about 1,000 individuals, and it undertook everything in connection with an election. The members of the Association took an active part in the election, as agents in every sense of the word. Suppose some member of the Association said—"Smith won't vote;" whereupon another member went to the man, urged him to vote, and slipped half-a-crown in his hand. Was that to be held to be bribery, which would affect the position of the candidate? He (Mr. Labouchere) was of opinion that the man ought to be punished for bribery; but he could not understand why the candidate should be punished on account of an individual act like the one he had cited. Let them suppose there was a traitor in the camp, either on the Liberal or Conservative side, and that he said—"I have got a particular dislike to the individual who is coming forward; I belong to an Association; I will give a voter half-a-crown; I will then let it be known in some sort of way, and the candidate will not only lose his seat, but be prevented from sitting for the constituency for the next seven years." Why should such a power as that be placed in the hands of any individual? He (Mr. Labouchere) could not understand why, for the act of a traitor or a fool, they should accept the consequence themselves, and not only lose their seats, but be prevented from sitting for a constituency for seven years. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that a constituency would not suffer in any sort of way. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that. When a constituency had had a contested election, it did not want another in two or three months Generally, working men, to vote, had to give up a portion of their time, and they objected to do that very often. If, because of the individual act of one black sheep, an act which did not in the slightest degree affect the election, and of which the candidate or the Association might know nothing, a constituency was to be forced to waste a considerable amount of time in conducting another election, he considered a punishment was inflicted on the constituency; and he confessed he was a little surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the constituency would not be punished. He (Mr. Labouchere) maintained, too, it was a punishment upon the Member. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Oh, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Oh, no!" but it was quite possible that a Member could not get a seat anywhere else. He (Mr. Labouchere) doubted very much whether a man could get another seat under such circumstances. Let them take the case of a man who had never been in Parliament before. Possibly, he was not a well-known man; he succeeded at his election, but was immediately turned out, because some member of an Association, who was acting for him, had bribed in a trivial manner. Did the Committee suppose that any other constituency would have him? Another constituency would say to him—"There are just as good fish in the sea as you; there are others who want to stand here; you are, no doubt, a victim of circumstances, but we do not want such a man." Take the case of Leeds, for instance. Did not the hon. and learned Attorney General remember that at Leeds, at the last General Election, an Association, numbering 900 persons, brought forward the Prime Minister, and undertook the whole business of the election. The Prime Minister had nothing to do at all with the election; yet if one of the members of the Association had been a fool, or a traitor, and had given improperly half-a-crown, what would have happened to the Prime Minister? He would have lost his seat, and he would have been tainted with the stigma, and would not have been allowed to sit for Leeds for a certain given time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have alluded to such a state of things with very great pleasure; and after a while, when people had forgotten the details, they would say—"Talk about Gladstone being a high minded man; he is not even allowed to sit for Leeds!" What would happen in the case of the majority of hon. Members? This clause would do them—very humble individuals as they were—the very greatest injury and the very greatest wrong. His main object in opposing the clause was not the wrong which might be done to a candidate, was not the time occupied in a second election; but it was that in striving to do one thing they did a worse thing. It used to be the habit that a small clique, composed of one or two agents, had the whole election in their hands. A better system now prevailed, for candidates were anxious that the people themselves should take an active part in the election. Now, he asked, if this clause—if this pitfall for every hon. Member—were passed, would it be possible for a Member to encourage the electors to take an active part in the election? A man would be afraid to do that, and therefore he would have to fall back upon the old system of two or three agents, or a small committee managing the election. Such a thing would be most undesirable. Personally, he considered that Conservative and Liberal electors should take an active part in an election—as active a part as possible—and that they should be, in every sense of the word, partners and agents of the candidate; and it was for that reason mainly—though he considered the other reasons he had assigned would have been quite sufficient—that, as far as he was concerned, he should oppose this clause to the bitter end, unless the hon. and learned Attorney General was willing to accept the Amendment which he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, in line 3 of now clause, to leave out "treating and undue influence," and insert "corrupt practices."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that if the Amendment were carried out, he did not see any great good the Bill would be for the prevention of bribery and other corrupt practices at elections. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had given a history of the clause; but the Committee must remember that when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was put down, there were several Amendments upon the Paper having the same object in view. There was that, for instance, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), which he (Mr. Jesse Collings) thought was far more potent to secure the object in view, and, at the same time, to prevent the abuse of that object, than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. There was also an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); but, for some reason or other, all the Amendments were passed over except the one of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, upon which a Division was taken. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in obedience, he (Mr. Jesse Collings) granted, to the wish of the Committee, that the candidate should be protected, but not in obedience to the wish of the Committee, that the constituency also should be protected, agreed to bring up some clause to deal with the matter. But he (Mr. Jesse Collings) ventured to say that, in this clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not kept within the bounds of safety, having regard to the object of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made the clause elastic for treating and undue influence. Why should the Bill be so elastic for treating and undue influence? The experience which led to the passing of the Ballot Act was, that a great instrument of corruption in the larger boroughs was treating and undue influence. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) could not agree with the hon. and learned Attorney General in his estimate of the small amount of treating and undue influence which took place, or as to its comparative unimportance as compared with bribery; though he admitted that treating and undue influence were carried on in a less dangerous manner, perhaps, than bribery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a middle course, and he had landed in a difficulty which all middle courses lead to—namely, the difficulty of defining the difference between bribery and treating. It was impossible for them to have one law for bribery and one for treating. To his mind, treating was a most dangerous form of corruption. It was the most dangerous form of corruption, because it assailed a class of voters who were more open to temptation than any other class, on account of their poverty, or on account, oftentimes, of their habits. What did the clause really provide? Under Section "A" it was provided— That no corrupt or illegal practice was committed at such election by or with the knowledge and consent of such candidate or his election agent. Now, that was totally worthless, because no corrupt practice was ever committed within the knowledge and consent of any candidate. Then, again, Section "B" was to the effect— That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such elections. Every candidate and his agent always had done that, and always would, so far as any assertion of that view on their part was concerned. Then came, perhaps, the worst and most demoralizing provision of all—namely— That the offences mentioned in the said further Report were committed contrary to the orders and without the sanction or connivance of the candidate or his election agent. Now, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was introduced, they would admit that there could be such a thing as trivial and unimportant bribery. They might as well say that there could be trivial and unimportant forgery. They might as well make a law to the effect that forgery ought to be an offence of no importance when small sums such as £5 or £10 were involved, and that it only became a serious crime when large sums were at stake. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had trotted out the one black sheep. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) did not believe in the one black sheep theory, because one black sheep was always an indication that there were other black sheep; and, although the presence of one black sheep might be sufficient for the purposes of the Judge, generally speaking they might conclude there were many other black sheep. The action, however, of one black sheep could be dealt with by a Judge under the present law. A Judge might decide in the direction of preventing any injury being done by that one unfortunate or foolish man; and if a Judge could not be depended upon, either on account of his partizanship, or for some other reason, the real way to get over such a difficulty would be to have two or three Judges instead of one, because it was not very likely that two or three Judges would be swayed by partizanship, or by any particular motive, or by any objectionable motive. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) should, of course, vote for the Amendment, because it would lessen the evil of the clause as it stood; but, after that, if the Amendment were defeated, adopting the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), he Mr. (Jesse Collings) should move the Amendment which stood in his name, because he felt sure that it would give all necessary protection to a candidate without relinquishing the protection to the constituency.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he wished to make a few remarks before they proceeded to a Division, on account of the remarkable speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). He (Mr. Edward Clarke) would not address the Committee at any length, because he considered that the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had treated them with perfect frankness and fairness in this matter. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) cordially appreciated the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had kept the promise he made to the Committee. It was perfectly clear that there were some hon. Members of the House, who accepted their law from the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), and had accepted from the right hon. Gentleman that for law which was not law at all. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Jesse Collings) appeared to have been impressed with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) made, to the effect that the Judges had at present this equitable authority. When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to put it in the Bill, he turned round, and with great emphasis, said it was impossible to put common sense in the Bill; and it appeared to be thought in some quarters of the House that the right hon. Gentleman know the law, and was stating the law. The one instance of the one black sheep would undoubtedly unseat a candidate, and the reason that this discussion had been important was that the Judges themselves had complained of the hardships upon them in having to unseat a candidate for a single act. The bitterest complaint on this matter was made by Lord Bramwell in the case of Mr. Robinson at Bristol. The facts of the case were, no doubt, familiar to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich. There was no charge of bribery at the election itself; but it was shown in evidence that, at the test ballot to decide who should be the candidate, the small bribe—he believed of two or three shillings—was given to a man to vote at the test ballot for Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson was elected Member for Bristol; but Lord Bramwell felt bound, on account of the one act of bribery in the case of the test ballot, to unseat the Member, and they had never seen that Gentleman, who was the victim of that unfortunate occurrence, in the House of Commons since. Lord Bramwell complained that he was bound by law to unseat Mr. Robinson for that one individual act. If the clause now proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General were accepted, and put in the Bill, and if, three months hence, a precisely similar case of hardship to that of Mr. Robinson's came before a Judge, that Judge would have no option whatever but to unseat the Member. A Judge had no equity power whatever, and whe- ther a fool or a traitor gave a half-a-crown or five shillings, in a case, perhaps, where the majority was numbered by hundreds, and where the act of bribery could not possibly have affected the election, a Judge would be obliged to unseat. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) thought it was doing the work of this Bill imperfectly to leave this obvious and confessed mischief unredressed. He was glad to find the principle of an Equity Clause admitted; and although he should be obliged to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, at the same time he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had treated the Committee very fairly.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would like to explain the position in which he stood in reference to this matter. Some days ago, he moved an Amendment, which covered the cases now contemplated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He still held the opinions he expressed during the debate on his Amendment, and he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) that a most cruel injustice had been committed. In the course of that debate, a distinct offer was made to him (Mr. H. H. Fowler), to the effect that the hon. and learned Attorney General was prepared to draw a distinction between bribing, treating, and undue influence; and, exercising his own discretion, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) accepted the compromise of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The Committee did not see fit to grant leave to withdraw it, but compelled a Division to be taken. He considered that the hon. and learned Gentleman had wholly fulfilled his pledge to introduce an Equity Clause, referring to treating and undue influence; and, therefore, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) considered that he must honourably adhere to his compromise with the hon. and learned Gentleman as regarded it.

MR. RAIKES

said, he hoped they would hear something with regard to the merits of this precise Amendment, because it really raised a question itself, and not the larger question which had been dealt with by more than one speaker. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) proposed that this equitable jurisdiction, which was to be given to the Judges who tried Election Petitions, was not to be confined to cases merely of treating and undue influence, but should extend to all corrupt practices. He (Mr. Raikes) was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had made out an unanswerable case in favour of his contention. For his own part, he did not wish, on this Amendment, to discuss the morality or expediency of the clause as a whole; but it did seem to him that it would be extremely unjust if they were to allow a candidate to escape in a case of treating or undue influence, but left him to suffer for bribery or personation, to which, it was clear, neither he nor his agent had been parties. He (Mr. Raikes) was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had moved his Amendment in the present form; because it struck him that it would be extremely hard if, for a single case of personation, an election should be set aside. He (Mr. Raikes) could not believe that a candidate ought to be deprived of his seat if one of his supporters had attempted to vote twice in the same election. It very frequently occurred that there were isolated cases of personation; it was extremely easy for a traitor, for instance, to get up a little conspiracy to indulge in personation, and thus defeat the election of a candidate; and, therefore, he was very glad that the Amendment was so framed as to include personation as well as bribery and undue influence and treating. He offered no opinion as to what would be the general result of the working of this Bill with this clause in it. He wished now to confine himself to the precise Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton; and he (Mr. Raikes) would only venture to suggest that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was in search of equity in this clause, he did not quite know where he was seeking for it. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be ready to accept the Amendment.

MR. LEA

said, he had seen many unjust cases under the law as it now stood; and, after every Petition, the Press of the country were unanimous in calling upon Parliament to alter the law. Mr. Charles Harrison was elected for Bewdley, and he was notoriously scrupulous. His expenses did not amount to more than £250; but a Petition was successful in his ease, simply because a bailiff of his had lent one of the tenants a farm drill. A good deal had been said about the loss of a candidate's seat; but there was one point which had not at all been noticed. This Bill was supposed to enable comparatively poor men to become Members of Parliament; but it might mean to poor men simply ruin. He (Mr. Lea) supported an Election Petition once, because he believed that if the individual elected were allowed to sit he would be a disgrace to the House of Commons. The Petition resulted in his (Mr. Lea's) favour, and the costs were given also in his favour, and yet he had to pay out of his own pocket £5,000. Had he lost the Petition, he would have been compelled to pay as much as £12,000 or £15,000. He asked the Committee if they were prepared to consider that a just law and a just state of things? A man might become a candidate for a borough or a county; he might be elected; but through the indiscretion of someone over whom he had no control he might lose his seat, and be mulcted in costs amounting to several thousand pounds. The law at present was unjust, and called urgently for alteration. All that was asked was, that there should be purity of election accompanied with justice. He (Mr. Lea) believed if the clause were passed as proposed to be amended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) it would provide for just and pure elections.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not at present in his place, because he (Mr. Stanhope) wished particularly to address his observations to him. The object with which he rose was chiefly to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he would not move his Amendment in the form in which it originally stood—namely, to insert "bribery or" and not "corrupt practices?" He (Mr. Stanhope) quite admitted the strength of the reasons assigned by the hon. Member for the alteration he had made in his Amendment, and he also admitted that the matter was one of considerable doubt and difficulty. At the same time, he did feel very strongly that there was a great difference between the offence of personation and the offence of bribery; and he was inclined to think that, in the case of bribery, they might perfectly well extend to the candidate and his agent the same indemnity that was extended by the clause of the hon. and learned Attorney General to treating and undue influence. He thought they were going too far in stretching the clause so as to include such offences as personation. He (Mr. Stanhope) appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether it would not be better, and attain the object a great many of them had in view, if they were to take a Division upon the proposal to insert "bribery," so that personation would not be included?

MR. R. T. REID

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would adhere to the clause as it stood. It ought to be remembered that this Equity Clause was the result of a compromise and a concession made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in order to disarm criticism in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Complaint was made that a man might be unseated for a single act, and, of course, it would be a hardship for a man to suffer for some isolated act; but they must remember that, whether they were dealing with the Law of Agency, as applied to Parliamentary elections, or dealing with any other branch of life, there were many cases in which men had to suffer severely for the acts of their agents. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) did not think, however, that any lawyer would say for a moment that, because an Association was working for a candidate, it followed that every member of that Association was the candidate's agent at law.

MR. EVANS WILLIAMS

said, that when the Amendment was put, he should refrain from voting, not because he was not very much opposed to the Amendment, but because he considered that the whole clause was so intrinsically bad, and would so weaken the Bill, if added to it, that they had better make it as bad as possible, rather than set up a distinction between bribery and other corrupt practices; for he thought treating was, if anything, worse than bribery. He (Mr. Evans Wil- liams) believed that the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) himself was very unwilling to introduce this clause; and he thought it would have been far better, when pressure was put upon him to introduce an Equity Clause of this sort by Gentlemen who were not in favour of the general principle of the Bill, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had said he would withdraw the Bill, because advantage was taken of its progress to weaken the present law, rather than weaken it by the insertion of such a clause as that. The present Amendment endeavoured, not only to relax the severity of the Bill, but to relax the law, even as it at present existed. He had had some experience in electioneering, and he certainly would prefer to contest a constituency under the present law than under the Bill, if the clause now under consideration were added to it. He was satisfied that the result of adding that clause to the Bill would be that a candidate would be able to get some "man in the moon" to come down and corrupt all round, and that the candidate would afterwards be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Election Judges that he was quite innocent in the matter. If they were to have a clause of that kind, let them be consistent, and have all corrupt practices included. He believed it was possible for personation to be practised with the sole purpose of spiting a candidate. Therefore, he considered that personation ought to be included in the operation of the clause. At any rate, he trusted that a protest—and he hoped a successful protest—would be made against this fatal clause.

MR. BRYCE

said, as the Representative of a large constituency, he desired to say that he supposed that at the next election he would have some thousands of agents. He believed that, under the existing law, if a Judge had no common sense, he could unseat every Member in the House. He (Mr. Bryce) was not at all, in the least, afraid of the Bill, because he believed Judges had common sense, and that the people in constituencies had common sense. He believed, also, that where it was known that an election was substantially pure, there would be no intention of presenting Petitions. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would not accept any Amendment to this clause. They ought not to take the starch out of the Bill. He submitted there was a clear distinction between bribery and treating. Treating was a thing which necessarily involved a great number of people; it was not a thing worth doing on a small scale; it was not a thing which could be done secretly to any appreciable extent; and, therefore, it was far more important that they should apply a strict rule with regard to bribery than to treating.

MR. WARTON

said, he was glad the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had recognized the principle of common equity and justice. He did not, however, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in making a distinction between bribery and illegal practices, for the sole reason that the limitations in the clause were so strong. Now, paragraph "b" ran as follows:— That such candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at such election. Now, corrupt practices included bribery, and although a candidate and his election agent might take all possible means of preventing bribery, if an isolated act of bribery were committed, a candidate would, under this clause, lose his seat. The clause ought certainly to extend to bribery.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that perhaps he might be allowed, in the presence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), to repeat his suggestion. There were some Members of the Committee who found a considerable difficulty in including personation in the clause, while they thought bribery might be justly included. What he (Mr. Stanhope) had to suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton was, that they should be allowed to express their opinion in a Division upon the question of the insertion of the word "bribery" instead of "corrupt practices."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was quite willing to agree to the wishes of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope); and, in order to do that, he would now ask leave to withdraw the present Amendment.

MR. RAIKES

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would do nothing of the sort. He (Mr. Raikes) could not understand why, in the case of personation, a Judge should not have the same equitable power as in the case of bribery or undue influence. He thought it was very likely that personation, in many cases, would be practised by some treacherous person.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) must lead some hon. Members astray. One of their most distinguished Judges—Lord Bramwell—had, in the presence of a Committee of the House of Commons, pointed out how cruel the law was at present, and how necessary it was, in the interests of justice, that some such alteration as this should be made. He (Mr. Lewis) could not see the least logical distinction between the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and that of the hon. and learned Attorney General. These were all, more or less, corrupt practices, and capable of being committed by persons who assumed the character of agents, without any knowledge on the part of the candidate; but, because of some refined distinction which the hon. and learned Attorney General saw between these two things, he asked the Committee to draw a line, tight and irretrievable, on the subject of bribery and undue influence. He (Mr. Lewis) should be far more inclined to restrict undue influence than treating; but he thought they might thank the hon. and learned Attorney General for having gone as far as he had with a view to getting a good Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think he was going further than he had promised; but he (Mr. Lewis) understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that when he brought forward this moderate clause he would include illegal practices in it. He (Mr. Lewis) had an Amendment with reference to giving a dispensing clause; but he had not moved it, because he had in his mind the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. J. R. YORKE

, in reference to a statement made in the course of the debate that the Judges now had a kind of equitable jurisdiction, said, he thought it would be better to give them a jurisdiction which was strictly defined. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had said there was no such thing as equitable jurisdiction, and that common sense was entirely excluded from the Act. His (Mr. J. R. Yorke's) vote would depend, to some extent, upon the explanation he got upon this point from the hon. and learned Attorney General.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought the Amendment might be withdrawn, and the word "bribery" substituted. He had refrained from entering into this question, because he had given his reasons on a previous occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in new Clause, line 3, after the word "of," to insert the words "bribery or."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 175: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 192.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General)

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

in opposing the addition of the new clause, said, that a great deal had been heard of the possibility of unseating a largo number of Members by this Bill; but he ventured to say that if the Bill became law as the hon. and learned Attorney General had drawn it, there would be very few Petitions presented against any Members after a General Election; while, if this clause was adopted and added to it, there would be a considerable number presented, because, although he would not say it would open the door to bribery and treating, it would make a great hole in the Bill. He knew a borough—and it did not stand alone—in which a candidate was the owner of a large number of public-houses; and it was known that, although there were only trivial cases to prove it, there had been considerable drinking going on. As this clause stood, there would be no interest in a candidate to personally attempt to stop that practice; but, without the clause, there would be a common interest in all parties—candidate, agents, and electors—to prevent everything in the form of drinking or any corrupt practice. Therefore, even in the interest of the candidate, it would be better not to have this clause than to adopt it unamended. The object of the Bill was, or should be, to make corrupt practices as serious an offence as felony, or any other offence against which society warred; but, by the clause, half the inducement to a candidate to prevent bribery was taken away. There was a danger on the other side that the candidate might suffer; but that was a danger of the smallest kind, for no Petition would be presented against a candidate who had been doing his best to prevent corrupt practices. Therefore, in the interest of the candidate, as well as for the prevention of treating, it was better that this clause should not be agreed to, unless it was amended.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had now to deal with an entirely different subject—namely, the prohibition of the employment of hackney carriages. He need not, he thought, remind the Committee how this new clause which he now proposed came into existence; for the Committee had already discussed the question whether the conveyance of voters should be allowed or not. Originally, the conveyance of voters was illegal in boroughs. It occurred to him that a mere prohibition should not be allowed to continue, and in the closing days of the discussion in 1880 the question was discussed, and it was decided that the localities should allow conveyance of voters; and so boroughs and counties were placed in the same position. That was a much better position to occupy than the prohibition of conveyances; but it was thought afterwards that all conveyances should be made illegal. That view had been carried out in this Bill, and there had been a strong concurrence of opinion in favour of prohibition altogether. A large number of voters, who took an interest in the Bill, had expressed an opinion in favour of prohibition with all its inconvenient consequences; but the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and some other hon. Members had opposed mere prohibition. They wished to go further. They said the power of carrying voters was being handed over to those who had private carriages, and they asked that there should be a prohibition against the voluntary lending of carriages. That view was urged very strongly, and seve- ral hon. Members wished to insert a Proviso that no person should be allowed to convey a friend or neighbour to the poll. That was a view which, he thought, the majority would not have agreed to; but while the discussion was going on, it was pointed out, with great force, that there would be hired carriages, for which, if there was no payment at the time, there would be some return. Under these circumstances, he proposed this new clause.

New Clause:—

(Employment of hackney carriages, or of carriages and horses kept for hire.)

"A person shall not let, lend, or employ for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any public stage or hackney carriage, or any horse or other animal kept or used for drawing the same, or any carriage, horse, or other animal which he keeps or uses for the purpose of letting out for hire, and if he lets, lends, or employs such carriage, horse, or other animal, knowing that it is intended to be used for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

"A person shall not hire, borrow, or use for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll any carriage, horse, or other animal which he knows the owner thereof is prohibited by this section to let, lend, or employ for that purpose, and, if he does so, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

"Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to or hired or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll,"—(Mr. Attorney General.)

brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. WHITLEY

said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General not to press this clause; because he (Mr. Whitley) could not help thinking that it would bear very injuriously on the working classes. If the Amendment he had moved upon the matter had been accepted, he should have been quite content; but this clause would operate very hardly on many voters, by practically precluding them from voting at all. He had received several telegrams stating that, by such a clause, the working men in Liverpool would be disfranchised, because they would not be able to vote during the polling period. In counties the farmers generally had some means of conveyance, and so had the tradesmen in small constituencies; but in densely-populated places there were no conveyances that could be used; and therefore large constituencies would be placed at a great disadvantage by this clause. The practice hitherto had been for these voters to be taken to the poll in parties of 40 or 50 at a time; and what would there be to prevent 40 or 50 such electors clubbing together and chartering an onmibus, paying, say, 3d. a-piece to be taken to the poll? It would be impossible to find out what any one man contributed to the cost. One might pay £1 and another 1d., and they would all say they were going to vote. He thought a clause which was likely to be broken was not wise. Believing that the clause would bear harshly on the working classes, he should oppose its insertion in the Bill.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he would suggest that the words, "or by several electors at their joint cost, for the purpose of being conveyed," should be inserted.

MR. GORST

said, he objected to the clause on principle, and he hoped the Committee would not assent to it. It was a shameful inequality. In all legislation, and particularly in election legislation, it was most important that all men should be treated alike, and that no special favour should be shown to the richer classes. He did not think anybody but a Whig Attorney General, or a Whig Government, could ever have devised a proposal which put rich and poor men on so absolute an inequality as this clause proposed; and he was certain that, if the hon. and learned Attorney General had been inspired by the Liberal and Radical feelings which were represented in the Cabinet, that would have preserved him from the error of proposing such a clause. If this clause were passed, what would be the state of affairs? A wealthy nobleman, possessing a number of carriages, would be allowed to use them to increase his political influence. He might lend his horses and carriages, and employ the whole of his stud, and the whole strength of his stables, to drive electors to the poll; but a more humble elector, who happened to be a livery-stable keeper, or a cab proprietor, and who was a citizen just as much as the nobleman, and had just as much right to use his position and property for the advancement of his political principles, would be placed under a peculiar and special disability. He was not to be allowed to make use of his own property, at his own expense, to increase his political influence, and make himself of weight in a contested election. That was giving influence to a Whig nobleman, and denying it to a Conservative livery-stable keeper. Against such a principle he must enter his earnest protest. But the case was worse than that. The humbler individual was not only not allowed to lend his carriages or cabs, but he was not to be allowed to employ them himself; so that there might be the spectacle of a Whig nobleman riding in his own carriage, and driving electors to the poll; while the livery-stable keeper, or the man who possessed a cart which he was accustomed to let out for hire, was not allowed to indulge in that luxury. This was not a question of Party or of politics. It was a question whether one man was to be as good as his neighbour or not. At election times, at all events, one man was as good as another; and he must protest against so gross and shameful a piece of class legislation as this clause.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, the clause was the outcome of an Amendment he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had moved at an earlier stage. He had moved, and the Committee decided, in accordance with the decision of the Government, that all conveyances should be forbidden. His proposition had not been entirely adopted, and the result was a compromise, which was fairly open to the criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst). But the hon. and learned Attorney General had only fulfilled his pledge. He believed the clause would be inoperative. It was not likely that a job-master would lend his carriages; if be did he would be paid for them at some future time; but, so far as the hon. and learned Attorney General was concerned, he bad simply fulfilled his promise.

MR. LEWIS

said, he knew that his views were unpopular; but, while he sat on the Conservative side, and cried out for liberty, hon. Members on the other side would tie up electors and put them in manacles. What was the principle of this Bill? The principle was to encourage voluntary effort; but, directly that became disagreeable or unmanageable, the hon. and learned Attorney General said that was not the principle of the Bill, and that, at all events, they must control and limit voluntary effort. In this clause, and in many other clauses, there was no principle, except tyranny. That, he believed, was the main principle of the Bill. A strong picture had been drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but it was not over-coloured. The liberty of the subject was to be confined in one class; but it was to be unrestricted in another. It was not necessary to go into the wording of the clause to show the effect of it; but, before it was parted with, he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Williamson), who bad suggested a practical Amendment, would adhere to it. In regard to persons clubbing together to hire vehicles, if the hon. Member would move the Amendment he had suggested, he (Mr. Lewis) thought he would meet with considerable support from both sides of the House. In point of fact, it was only a commonsense Amendment, and the Committee would be disposed to look at it from a logical point of view. He believed the Government bad taken up an illogical position, and that they were placing a restriction upon liberty which was altogether unjust.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it would be better to divide on the second reading of the clause, which raised the principle of the clause itself; and if the second reading were assented to, they could then discuss the details in Committee. So far as the words "a person" were concerned, in legal construction they included the plural. Therefore, the words "any person" being already in the Bill, there would be no object gained by accepting the Amendment suggested. He would not at present discuss the question raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The point would be, whether a person was simply carrying on his trade. It might be very easy for a job-master or a person engaged in the business of letting public carriages to supply vehicles for the polling day on the principle that "one good turn deserves another," and that the good turn would come very soon after the election was over. If there were any doubt as to the legal construction of the words "a person," be would gladly accept the Amendment which had been suggested; but he did not think there was.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

thought the clause was objectionable in principle, and said be intended to vote against its being read a second time. Indeed, be thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General was hardly satisfied with it himself; and, having regard to the cool manner in which it had been received by hon. Members below the Gangway, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the clause, and would not divide the Committee upon it. The hon. and learned Gentleman was always conjuring up phantoms; and, in reply to some of the objections which had been made, the hon. and learned Gentleman said there would always be some job-master in the neighbourhood who would allow his horses and carriages to be used, with the certainty that he would afterwards be paid. He did not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had any foundation for that assertion, or that, in any of the numerous cases which had taken place in regard to the use of conveyances, any instance of this kind had been proved to have occurred. The hon. and learned Attorney General had accepted the suggestion thrown out to him; but at the bottom of the compromise there was the principle of disfranchising voters throughout the country. The clause would positively disfranchise a considerable number of men all over the country; and the spirit which pervaded it was that certain persons should be prevented at an election from making use of their votes. He wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the second branch of the clause, which, in his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) opinion, was most objectionable. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to provide that— A person shall not hire, borrow, or use for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any carriage, horse, or other animal which he knows the owner thereof is prohibited by this section to let, lend, or employ for that purpose, and, if he does so, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice. He would take this case. Supposing one of the rich noblemen who had been referred to, or some other person in the possession of carriages, wished to invite a party of friends to his house, who he thought were not very well off in the world, and that, in order to save job hire, he sent carriages to convey them to his house to dinner, and to take them back afterwards. Would he not, by that process, put a certain sum of money into their pockets? Of course, he did not actually give them money; but he saved them the expenditure of money, and the same principle which was considered to stand good in a small instance must hold good also in a larger and more important one. As the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had pointed out, they were establishing an inequality between the man who had carriages at his disposal and the man who had not. He trusted that the Committee would negative the clause, which he really did not think the hon. and learned Attorney General himself in his heart approved.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he entirely approved of the clause, because it was simply to make general that which was the law now in the boroughs of Scotland. Hon. Members would remember that when the Act of 1880 passed, the House exempted Scotland and Ireland from the provisions of that Act; and he wished now to point out that the evils which had been indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) were simply theoretical. They were not at all real, and they were not practical, because, if they were, they would have existed in Scotland, and must inevitably have cropped up in that country ever since the Act was passed. That had not been the fact; and he was satisfied that nothing of the kind would occur in England if this clause were passed. Hon. Members might depend upon it that the clause would not produce the effect anticipated from it, but that it would be advantageous to insert it in the Bill.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should vote against the clause, because he did not think it could possibly be made to work. He would take the last part of it, which, in particular, was thoroughly impracticable. It said— Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll. The English of the clause was somewhat peculiar. They would, most undoubtedly, have people who would hire carriages for themselves in order to go to the poll; and, that being so, were they going to make it illegal if, while the carriage was going along the road, the voter saw two or three friends walking along the same road, to pick them up and take them along with him to the poll? A man might hire a carriage who had lent his own carriage for the work of the election. He would have a perfect right to drive himself to the poll; but if he hired a carriage and picked up another voter on the way to the poll it would be held that he was guilty of an illegal practice. Such a provision would be entirely impracticable, and would, undoubtedly, be evaded. Therefore, as it was only calculated to bring about litigation, and probably void the election, he, for one, would vote against it.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether it was wise to press this absurd and ridiculous clause. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] He saw that the hon. and learned Attorney General shook his head. They were absolutely going to provide that a job-master was not to let out a carriage or a horse if he knew that it was going to be used in an election. There were dozens of job-masters in London who sent down horses to all parts of the country at election times. Were they going to propose that, whenever an election took place, no man should hire out a horse to a person of strong political feeling, because he might be likely to use it in an election? He undertook to say that if a General Election took place in November next he could point out one man in London who would send down at least 100 horses to the country, to be used by various gentlemen in different parts of the country for bringing up voters to the poll. Were they to allow that to be done? ["No, no!"] They would either make it penal, or they would not. If they made it penal, all he could say was that they would be using the clause in order to deprive a very valuable class of men of the liberty, to which they were fairly entitled, of carrying on a legitimate business. But there was another point he also wished to call attention to. They said they would not allow a man who had hired a vehicle, and who had, perhaps, driven it for a distance of five miles, to give a poor neighbour a lift on the way. The hon. and learned Attorney General asked them to read the clause a second time, and then promised to tell the Committee what he proposed to do with it. But he (Mr. Brodrick) thought it would be perfectly ridiculous to accept the clause at all. If four or five men banded themselves together to hire a vehicle to carry themselves to the poll, were Parliament going to assert that each individual ought to pay his share, and then to provide that, if another voter was subsequently taken in, it would be an illegal practice? What it might come to was this—that they might have one rich man paying 19s. 10d., and four poor men being conveyed with him who were only required to pay a farthing each. The principle of the clause was not to allow men with strong political feelings to assist by money, in any way, the power of the electors in getting to the poll. On the same principle, they ought to deny to any person who owned a large house the power of asking a number of people to stay with him on the day of an election, in order that they might have facilities for recording their votes. On the same principle, they ought also to refuse to permit a man to give a dinner or a luncheon to any person who might happen to be an elector on the day of election. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, then, if that were so, let the Government put it in the Bill, so that the Committee might know what they were doing. He thought it was an absurd thing to make a point of a small matter of this kind. In Scotland it would be absolutely necessary, in the case of a large number of poor voters, if they were to go to the poll at all, that they should be conveyed there; and he altogether disputed the necessity, under the pretence of putting down illegal practices, of inserting such a provision as this in the Bill.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the clause was the logical consequence of two propositions which had been very strongly resisted by the other side of the House. The first was, that the conveyance of voters to the poll should be allowed to go on as it had done. He knew there was a strong objection entertained to that practice on both sides of the House, and a considerable number of county Members had voted with the Government, insisting upon the Government doing away, in every shape, with the expense of conveying voters to the poll. That principle having been adopted, a large majority on that (the Liberal) side of the House, asked for equality, and called upon the Government to prohibit the hiring and lending of conveyances also. "No!" said hon. Members on the other side of the House, "that would put us to a disadvantage; we claim the right of running our carriages, our breaks, our drags, and our waggonettes. We claim the legitimate influence of wealth." He thought the general opinion of the Press in all parts of the country had already been expressed in favour of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) declaring, on the principle of common justice, that the hiring and lending of conveyances should be prohibited. The Committee had positively prohibited the hiring of carriages, and now they were asked to prohibit the lending of them by private individuals. That was how the question stood at that moment. The hon. and learned Attorney General had gone a step further. A possible injustice was presented to his mind, and he desired to prevent collusive arrangements between a job-master and a candidate for the use of horses and carriages. It was possible that an arrangement might be made with a large job-master or omnibus proprietor to this effect—"Of course, we cannot pay for the use of your carriages, and we do not propose to hire them; but, if your cabs and omnibuses are placed at the disposal of the Committee, there will be a reciprocity of patronage in due course of time, which will compensate you for whatever loss you may sustain on the day of election." Now, he ventured to say that if this clause were not inserted in the Bill, there would not be a horse nor a carriage which would not be used at an election time, and it would be far better to allow the legitimate conveyance of voters to the poll. The Conservative Party opposite concurred in the desirability of doing away with the payment of the carriage of voters to the poll; and hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House were of opinion that they ought to carry the provision still further, and not leave the law in a position which would be favourable to the upper-class candidate and against the working-class candidate. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Brodrick) put the question in the same category as giving a breakfast, or a luncheon, or a dinner, and objected to the clause, because it aimed a blow at what he considered to be a legitimate mode of spending money and exercising wealth. That was what the clause was intended to prevent. The only legitimate way of dealing with the question was to prohibit the use of carriages altogether in any shape or form; and as the Bill did not go quite as far as that, he should certainly support the clause.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had forgotten one proposition which had been put before the Committee—namely, that if it was necessary to do anything at all, it was necessary to guard against the evasion of the law. That was the foundation of the clause; but the hon. Gentleman had entirely forgotten to answer it. Indeed, no one could answer it. It was assented to by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that any number of people could club together to hire a cab; and if so, the Act, if necessary, might be easily evaded by one elector paying a sovereign, and having a number of gentlemen conveyed with him at the cost of one halfpenny per head.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government had not yet accepted an Amendment to that effect.

SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause itself made that provision, when it said that— Nothing in this section should prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired or used by, an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll. He presumed, if one elector could hire a carriage, two electors could hire it; and then they came to this absurdity—that if one elector hired a carriage and two went by it, without both of them contributing to the expense, it became an illegal practice. Three or four electors could hire a carriage, and arrange among themselves how the expense was to be paid. On the day of an election, they might find an omnibus full of electors going along the road to the poll. Someone might say—"There is an illegal practice going on;" but the answer would be—"We have hired the 'bus;" but if another omnibus came along containing the same number of men, of whom one might, have been picked up without paying his share, then that was held to be an illegal practice. He contended that they were opening the door to fraud and evasion by the manner in which the clause was drawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought there would be no difficulty in dealing with such cases as had been suggested by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Any Judge who tried such a case would pronounce the transaction illusory, and an evasive hiring as far as the Act was concerned. If one man paid 2s. and another man 2s. 6d., there would be a joint hiring; but if one man paid a sovereign, and another only a halfpenny, the Judge, as a matter common sense, would decide that there had been an evasion of the Act.

MR. ECROYD

said, that either the Bill would entirely prevent a large number of the working classes from recording their votes at all, where the place at which they worked was distant from the place of polling, or it would be evaded by wholesale. In his own district, it was no exaggeration to say that on the polling day every available carriage would be hired by working men, and upon what terms? Did any hon. Member suppose they could get behind the terms upon which 20 or 100 men hired conveyances? He would engage to say that it was impossible to get behind those terms, and this provision would be evaded by wholesale, without any possibility of getting at the facts. He therefore thought it was undesirable for the House to pass a measure which would either be entirely impracticable, or would prevent the working classes from recording their votes.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

thought it was the best point in regard to the clause that it would be evaded. The practice of carrying people to the poll, somehow or other, would go on just the same as before, except to this extent—that the candidate might probably not be mulcted to the same amount. If the election was likely to be a close one, they would not find people left behind, because there were no conveyances to take them to the poll. There were certain persons whom they must of necessity convey to the poll—people who were ill, or too old, or too infirm to walk; and this sort of squeamish morality would never persuade the ordinary Englishman that he ought not to provide the means of conveying voters, under such circumstances, to the poll. Somehow or other, the friends of the candidate, or some members of his party—not the agents, for they would take care to keep their hands clear of anything of the kind; but independent electors, sufficiently well off, would provide these things. It might be illegal; but as long as it did not vitiate the seat, nobody would take the trouble to interfere with it when it was done, for the object of the Bill was not to send men to prison for misdemeanour. It had long been provided by law that the agents of a candidate should not vote at an election; but, as a matter of fact, the paid agents did vote in every borough that he had been connected with. There might be exceptions; but, as a rule, they voted. So far as he was personally concerned, he objected to agents altogether, and he had never had an agent in any election he had contested. He believed an election agent to be a mischievous institution. Whether they inserted the clause or not, if it were necessary to convey voters to the poll who wished to vote, no Act of Parliament would be allowed to stand in the way of their exercise of the franchise. It was all very well to frame Acts of Parliament in these days; but only very recently they had been told, in "another place," that if people wilfully disobeyed an Act of Parliament they would do nothing morally wrong, and that all their illegitimate bastards ought to be made legitimate by Act of Parliament. When the people were openly taught such a lesson, could they be persuaded that there was anything wrong in a matter of this kind? Somehow or other, voters would be conveyed to the poll, and the passing of this Act would not make a shade of difference whether the practice was rendered legal or illegal. He should vote against the clause; but, at the same time, he did not care one fig whether it was inserted in the Bill or not.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there was one case he should like to put to the hon. and learned Attorney General. If the Amendment proposed on the other side of the House were carried, he wished to know if it would be legal for a coach proprietor or a hackney-carriage proprietor to bring into a district a certain number of such hackney carriages, and undertake to carry voters to the poll for one penny a-head? If that were done, would it not be a joint hiring of vehicles from such a proprietor, who could put on omnibuses or carriages for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll for a nominal sum? Would not that be a joint hiring, and perfectly legal, under the clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to insert in the Bill?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that it would not be legal, because it would be an evasion of the Act.

MR. WARTON

said, there was a serious omission in the clause. As it was at present drawn, it referred only to conveyance by land, and left out altogether conveyance by water. It appeared to be forgotten that there were constituencies placed on the banks of rivers, and on certain arms of the sea; and he wanted to know why it should not be illegal for a boatman to let out a boat in order to convey voters so circumstanced to the poll? There was another suggestion he wished to make. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General was acquainted with the law in regard to stage carriages or not; but an interesting question arose upon that point. The law in regard to stage coaches was that any person had a right to book a place; and there was nothing to prevent a man going the day before an election and booking a place. They were told that no such conveyance was to be driven to and from the poll; but, in the case of an omnibus, might it not stop 100 or 200 yards from the polling booth? He saw no provision that would deal with a case of that kind. Then there was another remarkable omission. An elector was allowed to hire a carriage, or a horse, or other animal to take himself to the poll; but there was nothing said of bringing him back again. He threw out these suggestions for the consideration of the hon. and learned Attorney General. He wanted to know if it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow a voter to hire a carriage to convey himself to the poll, and not to allow him to be driven back again in the same carriage? He thought it would be the most prudent course for the hon. and learned Attorney General to stay his hand, and not go a step further. There were other parts of the clause which deserved attention; but he would not weary the Committee by raising further objections.

MR. GIBSON

said, he really hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would reconsider the clause before it was finally incorporated in the Bill. He presumed that the Committee would divide upon the second reading of the clause now, and that the subsequent stage would be taken later, probably tomorrow. He sincerely hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the ridiculous and absurd consequences in which the Committee would be allowed to involve itself if it placed upon the Statute Book nonsense like this. A clause more abounding in absurdities and nonsense he had never seen. They were asked to hamper a man engaged in a lawful occupation in such a manner as not to be able to pursue that occupation, and in the third paragraph of the clause the hon. and learned Attorney General tried to free the Statute Book from the absurdities involved in the two previous paragraphs. The third paragraph certainly made the two preceding paragraphs almost illusory. If they intended to provide that a party of electors might club together and hire a hackney carriage, nothing would be more easy than to evade the requirements of the first part of the clause. It would be quite competent, if the clause passed in its present shape, for a crowd of electors, for their own purposes, to employ hackney carriages to convey themselves to and from the poll, and it would be impossible to ascertain upon what terms the arrangement was made.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the question put to him had reference to the payment of a nominal sum by some of the persons conveyed; and he had declared that that would be an evident evasion of the Act.

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not see why it could not be done; and although the hon. and learned Attorney General had used the words "nominal sum," the question put was, whether a crowd of electors would not be able to pay a small sum among them? They all knew that the principle of small profits and quick returns was often acted upon as a very proper mode of dealing with ordinary business transactions; and, unquestionably, if this clause passed, they would find men who, at an election time, would let out hackney carriages, cabs, and omnibuses to groups of electors for very small sums. The transaction would be a perfectly bonâ fide one, and he did not see what was to prevent it. After the Division which he imagined would now be taken, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider in his own mind whether he had not sufficiently redeemed the pledge he was under of bringing forward this clause. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with having occupied a couple of hours that evening in the discussion of the question, and that before to-morrow he would consider it right to allow the clause to follow Clauses 38 and 40, and to be relegated to some indefinite place from which it was never likely to emerge.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he represented a larger number of working men than many hon. Members of that House; and he had received representations from his constituents that the effect of this clause would be to disfranchise one-half of the men who held small freeholds. Now, he was of opinion that a man who held a small freehold—he did not mean a freehold purchased for the purpose of conferring a vote, but a small inherited freehold, was as much entitled to a vote as any man could be. That class of men performed legitimate functions between the middle and the working classes; and in his constituency, although there were many railway stations, these men would, notwithstanding, find themselves at considerable distances from their polling places, and they could not avail themselves of the power of evasion, which was suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General. They could not, by any legitimate process, club together in order to hire a conveyance to take them to the polling place, and they would be practically disfranchised. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.

MR. LEWIS

said, that it had been more than once stated, in the course of the debate, that many Conservative county Members had voted in favour of prohibiting the conveyance of voters to the poll. He had been somewhat startled at that statement; and on referring to the pages of Hansard he found that there had not been a Division on the abstract question of the convey- ance of voters at all. The only substantial Division was one which took place on an Amendment moved by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), which was restricted to the boroughs. In that Division 19 Conservative Members voted against the noble Lord, of whom only 9 were county Members.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 89: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.