COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th July.] [TWENTIETH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 12 July 1883 vol 281 cc1279-334

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

New Clause:—

(When petition presented Commissioners to be sent down.)

"When any petition against the return of any member shall have been duly presented, the election judges shall, before trying the same, forthwith appoint two barristers, of not less than seven years' standing, as Commissioners; and such Commissioners shall forthwith proceed to the county or borough to which such petition shall relate, for the purpose of inquiry, and report as hereinafter provided, "—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, the clauses he proposed to add to the Bill were the result of practical experience, and were drawn up with the object of making Election Petitions of a more practical character than they were at the present time. If the Committee were anxious to make Election Petitions so that they would work, they could have no difficulty in adopting these clauses, at any rate in a modified form. The first was with regard to the time at which an Election Petition should commence after the security was lodged. His object in bringing forward this clause was, in the first place, to put a stop to the enormous expense incurred by both the petitioner and the respondent; and, in the second place, to stop the utter hindrance to carrying on any business in the borough or place in which a Petition was pending, and also to stop the ill-feeling which always existed whilst it was on the tapis. In his own case—and he believed he was the only Member of the House who had won his seat on a Petition—his Petition was lodged in the month of July, but it did not come on for hearing until December; the consequence being that during the whole of the interval both parties had kept the borough in a state of perpetual excitement. Directly one man had given his evidence he was watched by both sides. He was watched by one side to see that he was not got at by the other side, and he was watched by the other side to see if they could get at him. The state of feeling in the borough was such that, practically, all business was suspended. Without taking up any more time he would simply move the first paragraph of his clause.

New Clause:—

(Trial of election petitions.)

"The trial of an election petition shall commence within one month of the day on which security is lodged, provided the Election Judges are not engaged on another petition, in which case it shall commence as soon as such petition, or any other that has precedence, is finished,"—(My. Dixon-Hartland,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he only now moved the first paragraph of the clause. The second paragraph provided for the continuation of every Election Petition de die in diem from the time of its commencement on every lawful day until its conclusion, and the third paragraph had reference to the place of trial.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was impossible to make it obligatory upon those engaged in Petitions to commence within a month of the day on which security was lodged. The security had to be inquired into, and very often it took a long time to do that and to deliver particulars. It was impossible to say that, under all circumstances, a Petition could be lodged within the time specified in the clause.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was glad his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had brought this matter before the Committee, because undoubtedly sometimes there had been very considerable delay in commencing the proceedings in the case of Election Petitions. No one could doubt that if there was a considerable delay after a Petition was presented there was great risk of certain operations being carried on which not only tended to the want of success of the Petition, but led to a great deal of corruption taking place in the borough. If they could adopt means to ensure a Petition being heard at the earliest possible period it would be well, and it seemed to him, therefore, that this clause was worthy of the utmost consideration.

MR. WARTON

considered the real evil they had to deal with was the insufficiency of the Judges appointed to try these cases. There was an admirable rota of three Election Judges; but when a General Election came, and there was a good crop of Petitions, it was found that the Judges were too few, and that was the real secret of the delay which, in matters of this kind, ought not to be allowed to take place. It was not correct, as the Attorney General suggested, that the delay was owing to the necessity for instituting inquiries with regard to the security. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, or some Member of the Government, would use his influence one of these days with his Colleagues in order to get more Judges appointed for work of this kind, he would be doing very valuable service. Chancery at this moment was in a disgraceful state of block. The Judges cost very little considering their value; and, looking at the fact that when a General Election came it might be necessary to have double or even treble the number of Election Judges that at present could be supplied, he thought his suggestion ought to receive the very best attention of the Government. He ventured to predict that after the next General Election there would be an immense crop of Petitions owing to the action of this measure.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the substance of the clause, whatever exception might be taken to the way in which it was worked out, was to require the parties engaged in an Election Petition to proceed with due speed with the case. To the best of his belief in every action in a Court of Justice it was necessary that each stage should be taken within a certain period. If the Attorney General thought the mode proposed was too summary, and that the period of time was not sufficient to allow an Election Petition to mature, he would suggest that some negotiation or arrangement should be entered into between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) before the Report stage, to see whether some scheme could not be devised for effecting the object they had in view. Such matters as these ought not to be left in an indefinite state and allowed to linger on, and it was essential, in the interest of justice, that Petitions should be heard with all speed; and they ought to insist upon regular progress. If this clause were not now accepted, it should only be refused on the understanding that the question would be dealt with later on.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

asked whether the Attorney General would accept two months as the period at which the Election Petition should com- mence after the lodging of the security?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not even accept that, seeing that inquiry had to be made as to security and into the allegations of the Petitioners.

Clause negatived.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, the next clause he had to move was as to the continuance of the trial, and, to his mind, it was even a more important one than the last clause he had moved. He had in his eye the case of the Worcester Petition, which had been heard in the Court for nine days, when the Court rose to proceed somewhere else for the purpose of hearing another Petition. The Court rose for two months and a-half; and what was the result? Why, the result was this—that witnesses—he would not say on which side—were unfairly got at during the interval; and when the Judges came back, and the Petition came on again, it bore an entirely different character to that which it had assumed before. He now proposed that the trial of every Petition should from the time of its commencement be continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion. He also thought that the rota Judges, should their authority expire before the close of a trial, should have their powers prolonged, so as to enable them to hear a Petition to its conclusion.

New Clause— The trial of every election petition shall from the time of its commencement be continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion, and in case the rota of judges for the year shall expire before the conclusion of the trial, the authority of the judges shall continue for the purpose of such petition until its conclusion."—(Mr. Dixon-Bar-Hand.)

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, to the best of his belief, the only one which had occurred. He did not wish to express an opinion upon that, lest it should be thought that his opinion was that the Judges had not acted properly. He quite agreed that no lengthened postponement should take place if it could be prevented; but that which had taken place at Worcester was a thing which had never occurred before, and which, in all likelihood, would never take place again. Therefore, it seemed to him that in adopting a clause of this kind they would be going further than there was any call upon them to go. The clause said— The trial of every election petition shall from the time of its commencement he continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion. Well, it might be impossible to obey that provision, for the reason that an adjournment might sometimes be necessary for the production of a witness, or on account of the illness of the Judges, or of some sudden calamity. He appreciated the spirit of the proposal; and as there was only one case in which a difficulty had arisen—a case over which the late Lord Justice Lush had presided—he would ask the hon. Member whether he really thought it necessary to press the clause, which would impose great restrictions upon the discretion of the Judges, and which could not in all cases be carried into practical effect?

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was glad to hear what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the desirability of having Election Petitions tried without delay. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman did not desire to express an opinion with regard to the postponement of the Worcester case, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was not at all reluctant to do so. To his mind, that postponement was one of the greatest scandals which had ever occurred in connection with a like matter. If he had had an opportunity, which, unfortunately, he had not, he should certainly have brought the matter under the notice of the House; because he considered they ought to mark in some special manner their sense of what had taken place on that occasion. He did not desire to go into that questiod now, however, No doubt, the reasons which had moved Her Majesty's Judges were good and sound to their minds; but the effect had been most injurious; and if this sort of thing happened in the future, the effect of this Bill in putting an end to corrupt practices would be entirely defeated. He believed the hon. Member was perfectly justified in bringing this clause before the Committee; and, if he (Mr. E. Stanhope) might make a suggestion, he would propose to insert in the section some words to this effect—"as far as practicable," so as to meet a difficulty which might arise in the course of the hearing of an Election Petition by a Judge being taken ill, or an adjournment being necessary for the production of a witness. At any rate, they ought to take some means to declare in that House their opinion in favour of Election Petitions being carried on without delay.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) with regard to the rota Judges was a very good one, because it would lead to great inconvenience if the authority of a Judge expired in the middle of a trial. He had a strong recollection of a difficulty having occurred in regard to this matter—he forgot exactly what it was; but he believed it was some thing like the Petitioner having lost his costs.

MR. LEWIS

remarked, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was right in his supposition that there had been a difficulty in regard to this matter. What had happened was this—that on the very day before the judgment was delivered the rota expired, and the Judge, being pressed by counsel who were likely to be defeated in the judgment, considered that he had a right to discharge himself in that case, and give judgment, as the case had been fully heard. As to the substance of the proposed clause, it appeared to him (Mr. Lewis) the fact that only one case of the kind had occurred was not an argument against the proposal, but rather an argument in favour of it. If the Legislature refrained from marking its sense of disapprobation of things of this kind, they would be very likely to have them repeated in the future. The rule as to delivering to respondents the particulars of cases against them was that they should be given in three or five days after having lodged security—in fact, he had known them delivered as late as five days. The theory was that they should not allow the respondent to know the names of the persons who were alleged to have been bribed any sooner than could be avoided, to prevent possibility of their being got at. Let them consider how this would work out in a case like Worcester. Suppose a respondent knew five or six days before the case came on the individuals who were to be charged with bribery, he would have those five or six days, plus two or three months, before most of these people were examined, in order to get at them. The object of the new clause was one which it would be difficult to get over by argument, and it did not appear to him that it would be any stigma upon the Judges if they inserted it in the Bill. He would suggest, however, that, in order to leave some discretion with the Judges, it would be well, after the word "commencement," to insert the words "except for some special reason." That would obviate any interference with the discretion of the Judges. He would, therefore, move the insertion of these words, either after the word "commencement" or after the word "conclusion "— Except for some special reason sufficient in the opinion of the learned Judge.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

suggested that, after the word "shall," they should insert— So far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was afraid that the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would just let in the very case of the adjournment in the Worcester Petition. The ground for that adjournment was that the Judges wanted to go and try some other case, and they might, under these words, have adjourned on the plea that they were doing so "in the interest of justice."

MR. GIBSON

said, the difficulty now pointed out by the hon. Member for Londonderry had suggested itself to his mind at the same moment. He thought they should adopt some words which would prevent anything like a repetition of the Worcester case. It would be better to provide for another Judge than to allow a second Worcester case to occur.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, there would be no difficulty, if his clause were adopted, in adjourning to procure a witness. That had been done in one case within his knowledge. In a case where a notorious witness from Birmingham was required, the Judge hearing the Petition adjourned the proceedings for his production.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that the clause expressly stated that a Petition should go on do die in diem.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

remarked, that if the clause remained unamended that difficulty could be got over, because it would be very easy to meet in the morning, and immediately adjourn.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, they might say that a Petition should be heard, as far as was practicable, de die in diem. That would allow an adjournment for the production of a witness.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he should be glad to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in connection with that of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought that, under the present system, the Judges were rather under the control of the Lord Chief Justice, who seemed to send them anywhere he liked. He (Sir E. Assheton Cross) certainly thought that while Judges were trying an Election Petition there should be no power to call them away to the Old Bailey, or anywhere else, to try criminal or Nisi Prius cases. That was what it was now sought to prevent by this clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken—no such cases had ever occurred. Election Judges on the rota had all fulfilled their Election duties before they came back for ordinary judicial work. The only one case in which a Petition had been postponed for any time was that of Worcester, where the Judges left one Petition to hear another Petition. He thought it would be easy later on to frame words to meet the difficulty in question.

MR. WARTON

suggested that they might get over the difficulty by accepting words to this effect— So far as was practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of the case under investigation.

Clause read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should be willing to accept the clause if, after the word "shall," they would permit him to insert the words— So far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of such case.

MR. LEWIS

said, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to correct his memory in one particular. The late Lord Justice Lush had taken the course he did for the reason that they had got through the case, and had only to deliver judgment. If they had been in the middle of the examination of a witness or an incomplete case, it would not have been done.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "shall," insert "so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of such case."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Amendment agreed to.

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

MR. MONK

asked whether it was intended to leave in the latter part of the clause with regard to the rota Judges?

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, that was part of the clause which they had just read a second time.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he now begged to move the third part of his proposal—namely, that— Every Election Petition shall be tried within the limits of the constituency. In his own case, the Judges had decided that, as there was not a house in which they could reside in the borough, they would go to a neighbouring city. The result was that the witnesses and persons concerned in the trial had to go from Evesham to Worcester, a distance of some 15 miles, every day; and the consequence of this was that the parties were put to enormous expense. On one side alone the cost was £2,500, which, when brought before the Taxing Master subsequently, was reduced to £213. It seemed to him to be a public scandal that, for the sake of suiting the convenience of the Judges, a Petitioner should be obliged to pay such an enormous sum as that. What ought to be done was this. If it were impracticable for the Judges to reside in the borough in which the Petition was to be heard, the Judges should be conveyed from their lodgings to the place where the Court was being held by special train, instead of the whole paraphernalia of the Petition being carried to the Judges. The parties had done their best to curtail the number of witnesses, and the consequence was that very often they had, at the request of the Judges, to send off special carriages to bring down witnesses who had never been before, or to fetch back those who had already been in attendance. To his mind it seemed most important that the trial should take place within the limits of the constituency.

Motion made, to insert the following Clause:— Every Election Petition shall be tried within the limits of the constituency."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not agree with this proposal. The law at present was that the trial should take place in the county or borough to which the Petition related, unless in the opinion of the Court—namely, the Court of Common Pleas Division—special circumstances existed that rendered it desirable that the trial should take place elsewhere, in which event the Court might appoint some other place for the trial. According to the hon. Gentlemen's proposal, whatever the special circumstances might be, it should be positively necessary for the trial to take place within the limits of the constituency. The Committee could well understand that there might be cases in which it would be positively dangerous to insist on the trial taking place within the limits of the constituency. There might be cases in which there was no Court-house, and no facilities for hearing a Petition, or there might be the probability of intimidation or rioting in a place in which Party feeling ran very high. In fact, there might be a combination of circumstances of this kind, which would render it highly undesirable that the trial should take place in the immediate locality, and yet the hon. Gentleman wished them to say that the Court should have no power whatever to remove from the limits of the constituency. At present they could not remove to another place without special permission from the Court of Common Pleas; and he certainly did not think that it would be advisable to deprive that Court of the power of exercising their discretion.

MR. LEWIS

expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) would not tell them anything more of his Worcester experience, or they would be led to believe that they were very unruly people in that part of the country, and were absolutely unable to do anything regularly or properly. He would propose that as they had now done away with the use of public-houses for committee rooms, and put a stop to all corrupt practices in those places, they might now very well be used for the hearing of Election Petitions. It seemed to him that the grievance of his hon. Friend was a very serious one, and one which ought to be remedied by the Committee. It should be made more clear in the Bill that the candidates, with their witnesses and counsel, were not to be taken away miles and miles from the locality in which the questionable practices had occurred, without some very special cause—they should not be removed for the mere reason that it would be more convenient for the Judges to sit in a large city.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

wanted to know why the case referred to was not tried in Evesham. Was it owing to the absence of a Court-house? There were many boroughs in England where, although they had a Court-house accommodation, there were no Judges' lodgings; and he should very much like to know from the Law Officers of the Crown whether the fact that there were no Judges' lodgings in a certain district was a reason why an inquiry should not be held there? If there were no Judges' lodgings, then came the question as to whether the Judges should or should not have allotted to them for their occupation premises which were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors? Why should not the Judges stay in one of the hotels or taverns in the constituency? This was a most important point—at any rate, it was very important to the parties who took part in proceedings connected with Election Petitions. He certainly thought that the Judges should be moved to the constituency, and not the constituency moved to the Judges.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, he thought that words could easily be put into the clause to meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Many persons would be prevented from petitioning when they knew that the case would not be tried in their own borough. Would it not be possible to insert words to the effect that the Petition should be tried within the limits of the constituency, unless rioting, disturbances, or something of that kind was likely to happen?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it seemed to him that they could not do more than let the words of the Statute to which he had referred remain in force. It was necessary, in order to justify a removal, that the circumstances should be special circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court of Common Pleas. No doubt the Court, in ordering the change of venue, had had regard to the special circumstances of the case.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was sorry to hear that, because it seemed to him in the instance which had been referred to the Judges had made an ill-advised change of venue. It appeared that they had gone to Worcester instead of remaining at Evesham because they had not had sufficient accommodation. The question of accommodation for the Judges in that case had put the parties to a cost of some £6,000 for the conveyance of their witnesses and counsel to and from Evesham and Worcester. Such an evil as that ought to be met; although, no doubt, on public grounds there should be a power left to the Court of changing the venue under certain circumstances. The latter point, however, had nothing to do with the case they wanted to meet, and it certainly seemed to him that because the Judges wanted to live in better rooms than they could get in one borough was no reason why the venue should be changed, as it had been in the case of Worcester.

MR. GORST

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General of a maxim which was always observed in practice at the Bar—namely, that they should not act too hastily upon ex parte statements. In this case they ought to hear what the Judges had to say before they passed a vote of censure upon the Court of Common Pleas for what they had done in the Worcester case. For his own part, he should be most reluctant to believe that the Court of Common Pleas really transferred the venue from Evesham to Worcester, merely because there was not a place for them to live in the former borough. he did not think, unless they really felt that the Court of Common Pleas, or the Lord Chief Justice, could not be trusted with discretion, they could better the words of the present Statute to which the Attorney General had referred. Under this Statute the Court of Common Pleas had power to remove the venue under certain circumstances. Somebody must be trusted with a discretion in the matter, and if they could not trust the Court of Common Pleas, who were they to trust?

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he could not help thinking that if the decision of the Court of Common Pleas was subject to any appeal, it was not necessary that any alteration should be made in the law. Some discretion must be left with the Judges.

MR. WARTON

said, he believed the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas was transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. He thought there had been an appeal from their decision; but he fancied there was none now.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, that unless some clause of this kind was adopted, it would go forth to England that certain constituencies would not be able to have a Petition at all—constituencies, for example, where there were no Court-houses, or where there were no Judges' lodgings large enough to satisfy the Judges. He would agree with anything the Attorney General liked to insert in the clause; but he certainly thought that something should be done to ensure Petitions, where possible, being tried within the limits of the constituency.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he hoped the clause would be withdrawn, and the matter would be left with the Judges. He should not think the Judges would arrive at conclusions which were disastrous to the parties; and if anything of the kind had been done in the past, it must have been with, very great reluctance on the part of the Judges. He was acquainted with the Judges who had sat upon the Petition in question. It would be impossible for the Committee to ask for more than they already possessed in the Act of Parliament to which reference had been made.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, the next clause he had to propose was with regard to scrutiny, and ran as follows:— When a person who has been a candidate petitions against the election and claims the seat, the election judges may declare the petitioner to have been duly elected without requiring a scrutiny if the return shows that the rotes recorded in favour of such petitioner amounted to not less than two-thirds of those obtained by the candidate who was returned at the election. In his own case, he had been able to upset 45 votes on a scrutiny. He proposed that the Petitioner should be declared duly elected only where he had obtained a substantial number of votes. If the Attorney General could not accept his proposal exactly as it stood, he, at any rate, trusted that he would accept it in principle, and amend it as he thought desirable.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he did not understand the reasons of his hon. Friend for proposing this clause. He did not understand why, supposing he polled 9,000 votes, and the opposition candidate polled 6,000, and it was proved that someone in his name, but without his knowledge, had committed some illegal act which rendered his election void, his opponent should obtain the seat. It seemed to him impossible to accept this proposal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had anticipated not only his objection to the clause, but also the very figures he had been about to suggest. He could not accept the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, he wished to propose the following Clauses in page 28, after Clause 36:—

(Appointment of Election Commissioners in every case of successful petition.—Amendment of 15 and 16 Vic. c. 57.)

"(1.) (a.) In every case of a petition trial in which the respondent is unseated for corrupt or illegal practices committed by himself or through his agents, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General, at the earliest convenient day, to lay upon the Table of the House of Commons the names of three barristers [status, &c, in accordance with the Act fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven, section one, as amended by thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty five] as Royal Commissioners, to be appointed to inquire into the corrupt and illegal practices which prevailed at the late election, or any previous election.

"(b.) If the names be not challenged within one month, the Attorney General shall appoint these persons as Election Commissioners. If the names be challenged, the Attorney Genera shall, within a period of one month, move that these, or such other persons as he names, shall be appointed as Election Commissioners; and the House shall thereupon appoint these persons, or some other three persons possessing the required qualification, as Royal Commissioners."

(Report of Special Commissioner, if adverse, to he followed by Royal Commission.)"

(2.) If a Special Commissioner t, section forty) reports that, to the best of his knowledge, corrupt and illegal practices 'extensively prevailed,' it shall be the duty of the Attorney General (acting in accordance with the instructions contained in the Act of the fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven, as amended by the thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-five) to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter."

(Suspension of writ.)

"(3.) The writ shall in every case be suspended until after the Election Commission shall have reported."

(Prosecution of guilty persons.)

"(4.) (a.) If there is evidence sufficient (contained in the Report of the Royal Commissioners or elsewhere) to justify and support a prosecution against any persons reported as guilty of corrupt or illegal practices by the Election Court, the Election Commissioners, or the Special Commission, the writ shall be further suspended until after the prosecutions have taken place.

"(b.) It shall he the duty of the Attorney General to introduce such prosecutions at that earliest convenient date."

(Issue of new writ in every case.)

"(5.) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General, at the earliest convenient opportunity after the Election Commissioners have reported, or, where prosecutions are instituted, after they have been decided, to move in every case the issue of a new writ [the persons scheduled by the Election Commission being, under sections thirty-one and thirty-two, incapacitated from taking part in the subsequent election]."

(Instructions to the Election Commissioners.—Amendment of section 6 of 15 and 16 Vic. c. 57.)

"(6.) The instructions given to the Election Commissioners shall run as follows:—

"Such Commissioners shall, by all such lawful means as to them appear best, with a view to the discovery of the truth and to the subsequent punishment of the guilty, inquire into the manner in which the election …… has been conducted; and whether any corrupt or illegal practices have been committed at such election …… and if in the course of their inquiries it appears to them that any of the candidates, agents, or chief workers at the election were guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, they shall fake especial care not to call and indemnify all or any of these persons. And, generally, they are to call and indemnify as few of the bribers as possible consistently with a substantial revelation of the corrupt or illegal practices which prevailed …… they shall report to Her Majesty the evidence taken by them, and what they find concerning the premises, and especially such Commissioners shall report, with respect to each election, the names of the persons whom they find to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices …… and all other things whereby, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the truth may be known, and the guilty punished."

This proposal might seem somewhat startling, because it practically involved the total abolition of the disfranchisement of peccant boroughs; but he thought he could show that it was not so devoid of common sense as it might appear on the face of it. He presumed it was the endeavour of the Committee, in passing a Bill of this kind, to obtain the exposure of crime and the punishment of the guilty; and the only possible means by which it could be obtained in this Bill, more especially as the 40th clause had been withdrawn, was by removing all stumbling blocks out of the way of bonâ fide Petitioners. Well, it seemed to him that the existence of the punishment of disfranchisement did throw an enormous stumbling block in the way of bonâ fide Petitions. It could easily be understood that no one would care about petitioning, if he were certain that instead of obtaining what he desired—namely, the unseating of a candidate—it would be shown that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, and the borough would be disfranchised, thus punishing the innocent as well as the guilty, and involving them both in one common ruin. The law, as it stood, was no more likely to encourage Petitioners than they would be likely to encourage prosecutions by enacting that a prosecutor on proving a prisoner guilty should receive the same punishment as that imposed upon the guilty person, and no benefit at all. It was notorious that very frequently before a Petition was actually brought, at the last moment, a great deal of influence was brought to bear upon the parties intending to petition to induce them to refrain for fear of the disfranchisement which would follow. He believed that in the case of the Sandwich Election Petition one side, if not both sides, had offered to pay the whole of the election expenses of Sir Julian Goldsmid—that was to say, the costs to which he had been put—if he would withdraw the Petition, so that there might be no exposure, and so that Sandwich might continue in its iniquity. He thought in the same way the fear of bringing about disfranchisement deterred witnesses in many cases from giving evidence. In the case of Gloucester, it would be remembered the Election Judges reported that they had discovered a few cases of bribery; but they were unable to say whether corrupt practices had extensively prevailed or not. The House actually divided upon the question as to whether a Royal Commission should be appointed. That Royal Commission having been appointed, nearly 2,000 persons were, in the result, scheduled for bribery committed at that election. That was sufficient to show that Election Petitions were sometimes hushed up in a most scandalous manner. After a Petition had been presented, it was very often the desire of the parties to minimize the guilt of those who had committed corrupt practices, in order to reduce the chance of disfranchisement following. As many as 8,000 people had been scheduled for bribery by the late Royal Commissions, and in only 12 cases had certificates of indemnity been refused. The punishment of disfranchisement was one of the worst possible punishments. It was rarely enforced, as it was much too heavy a punishment to be lightly inflicted; and it was not inflicted at the time of the commission of the offence, and, therefore, had no deterrent effect upon those who were guilty of the iniquities. During the excitement of election no one thought of disfranchisement, or if they did, perhaps, they would bribe even more for the sake of preventing the presentation of a Petition. It seemed to him that if the punishment of disfranchisement were got rid of, they would get rid of all sympathy for a peccant borough, and it would be the desire of all people to obtain the exposure of guilt; and they would be much more likely to arrive at the result at which they were all aiming—namely, to obtain the detection of real crime, and the punishment of the guilty.

New Clauses brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clauses be read a second time"

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, these clauses were open to very grave objections. The hon. Member proposed that in every case of a Petition there should be a Commission, even if there were only one case of bribery. Then it was proposed that the Attorney General should, at the earliest convenient opportunity, move the issue of a new Writ in every case—that was to say, if five-sixths of the constituency were proved to have been corrupt. It was true that the clause said "after all the prosecutions had been decided;" but that did not make the proposal any the less objectionable. Under the circumstances, he was unable to consent to the introduction of the clauses.

Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANTON

said, it was, in his opinion, desirable that the person petitioned against should be able to give retaliatory evidence, and the clause which he asked to be read a second time would allow the Court to call for evidence of other persons than the person petitioned against having committed illegal or corrupt practices, if the Court thought fit to do so. It seemed to him a clear injustice that the Petitioner who himself had been guilty of corrupt practice should be enabled to attack and unseat a successful candidate, and that the successful candidate should not be allowed, in any way whatsoever, to challenge the conduct of his opponent. The principle he contended for was recognized in some Courts of Law and Justice, where the plaintiff could not obtain a verdict unless he came into Court, so to speak, with clean hands; and he therefore trusted the Attorney General would have no difficulty in agreeing to the introduction of the clause. He believed its adoption would, in many cases, prevent the presentation of vexatious Petitions, and remove a clear injustice. As the Bill stood, if the successful candidate had been guilty of corrupt practice his seat could be successfully petitioned against; while his opponent, also, perhaps, guilty of the same offence, quietly walked over the course. His own borough offered an illustration of this; and he was certain that, in that case, if it had been in the power of the successful candidate to produce evidence of the kind described in the clause there would have been no Petition at all. He begged to move the following Clause, on page 25, after Clause 37:—

(Evidence of corrupt practices at trial of election petitions.)

"At the trial of an election petition the Court may call for evidence of any person having committed an illegal or corrupt practice, although that person be not named in the petition; and the person or persons petitioned against may produce and give evidence of corrupt and illegal practices by the petitioners or their agents, or by any candidate or his agents at the election before the Court; and the Court shall deal with such evidence and such persons in the same manner as they would deal with evidence or persons brought before it by the petitioners."—(Mr. Stanton.)

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he regretted his inability to accept this clause. It would be impossible that the parties to the Petition could have notice of the evidence to be given against them under this clause, as was the case with the parties against whom the Petition was presented. The proposal of the hon. Member would add very much to the cost of Petitions, which was already very great.

MR. GORST

said, he thought that all the practical effect which the hon. Member for Stroud had in view might be obtained by the clause providing for the intervention of the Public Prosecutor.

MR. STANTON

said, he did not think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would quite meet the object lie had in view. The best persons to find out corrupt practices on the part of the Petitioner were the parties who were themselves attacked. The knowledge necessarily acquired by a successful candidate in defending his own position gave him opportunities of finding out, better than anyone else could, the delinquencies of his opponents. With regard to the argument of the Attorney General that the clause would lead to great expense, surely it would be far less expensive to have the inquiry he advocated than the cost of a second Petition presented against the Petitioner who was successful on the first Petition. Although the Attorney General had not seen his way to adopt the clause, he was satisfied that the more the hon. and learned Gentleman reflected upon it the more its equity would appear, and the more chance there would be of its subsequent adoption.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn,

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, it sometimes occurred that a gentleman went down to a constituency and nursed it for three or four years; that he was then elected; and that a Petition being afterwards lodged against his return he was unseated. Further, when the new candidate came forward he assisted him in his canvass and introduced him to the constituency, and as the result of the bribery he had previously practised he got the new candidate elected without difficulty. This had happened in a case with which he was acquainted. It was found impossible to prove that the new candidate had employed the unseated Member, who swore in the witness-box that he had not been so employed; but who, nevertheless, when the trial was over, actually brought an action against the man whom he had assisted, and claimed from him £1,000 for services rendered. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) contended that it was most unjust to allow a man turned out of a constituency to make use of the bribery already practised by him for the purpose of securing the return of another candidate; and he therefore begged to move the following Clause on page 25, after Clause 37:—

(Employment of unseated candidate.)

"No person who has been unseated on petition, or who has been scheduled by the judges on such petition as guilty of a corrupt practice, shall take any part in an election for the purpose of supplying the vacancy just caused, and any act done in contravention of this provision shall be an illegal practice, and if done with the knowledge or connivance of the candidate or his election agent shall render the election void."——(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

Now Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that the effect of this clause would be that a person unseated on account of an act of bribery committed by his agent was to be treated as a pariah, and not allowed to take any part in an election. In the course of these discussions he had heard a good deal of the penalties proposed in the Bill; but it went beyond anything of the kind that he was acquainted with—that a man, for the act of his agent, should lose his civil right of walking through the streets of the borough when an election was taking place. he was prepared to do everything that was right and proper in order to put down corrupt and illegal practices at elections; but he was not prepared to go the length proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham.

MR. LEWIS

said, although he had no right to call upon his hon. Friend to pursue any particular course with regard to the Bill, yet it did appear to him that, in framing this Amendment, he had taken a leaf out of the Attorney General's book. It was pleasant to hear that hon. and learned Gentleman expressing his views of the Amendment in the words they had just listened to; because it would seem that hon. Members on those Benches had at last inoculated him with a little leniency. Under the circumstances, he would appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.

MR. WARTON

said, it was very amusing to hear the Attorney General speaking so strongly against a person losing his civil rights, seeing that he had already provided in the 4th clause of the Bill that a candidate guilty of a corrupt act should be precluded from sitting-in that House for seven years. The Attorney General had only put the case of a Member unseated by the act of his agent; but he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was right that an unseated candidate should go about the constituency and procure for a new candidate the benefit of the bribery he had himself committed?

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

asked if the Attorney General would accept the clause with the words "personal bribery" added?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he had no wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, and he should therefore simply move the clause standing in his name, the object of which was to reduce the cost of Election Petitions. He proposed to insert, on page 25, after Clause 37, the following Clause:—

(On hearing of election petition counsel may not appear.)

"On the hearing of any election petition no person, whether petitioner or respondent, shall appear by counsel, but each party shall be entitled to appear and he heard by one solicitor."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not agree to the clause, the effect of which would be to substitute the cost of solicitors for that of counsel.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the conveyance of voters to the poll having been prohibited, fears were entertained that unless some provision were made for an increased number of polling places a large number of voters would be disfranchised. They had provided that there should be a polling place within three miles of every elector; and he now proposed that in boroughs there should be a polling place at a distance not exceeding one mile from the voter's residence. He trusted the Attorney General would see his way to adopt the clause; and he would not occupy the time of the Committee further then to say that there was a feeling in the country that increased facilities ought to be given for the polling of the working classes. He proposed to add, on page 30, after Clause 44—

(Polling places.)

"Where a borough has been divided into polling districts, every elector resident within the borough shall have a polling station within a distance not exceeding one mile from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling place need not be provided for less than one hundred electors. This section shall not apply to the boroughs mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. H. S. Fowler.)

New Clause, brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought this would be found to be a very difficult question to solve. Although he had looked into the matter, he was not at present in possession of sufficient information to enable him to deal with it. Some of the boroughs which were not populous covered districts of a considerable area—that was to say, of three miles in diameter or 18 miles in circumference—and if they said that every voter should have a polling place within one mile of his residence, they would run the risk of multiplying the polling places, which were already very numerous, and unduly increasing the expense. It was no question of the number of polling places, but of the expense that would be incurred in providing them. The question was entirely a practical one, and he did not think that abstract speaking on the matter would solve the difficulty they had to deal with. His view was that polling places should be provided for not less than every 200 electors, and not for every 100, as the hon. Member proposed. He suggested that this would be a safer limit; and if the hon. Member was willing to insert "two hundred," he would assent to the second reading of the clause, but on the understanding that it should be subject to further inquiry and consideration on Report. He would, however, prefer the withdrawal of the clause, so that information might be taken from the borough Members.

MR. C. H. JAMES

said, he did not think it would be possible always to get 100 voters in an area where the polling place should be not more than a mile distant from the residence of every voter. It was most necessary to proceed carefully in this matter, and he trusted his hon. Friend would follow the suggestion of the Attorney General.

MR. LEWIS

said, as the proposal was of an abstract character, its discussion might lead to embarrassment. As the conditions varied, he thought the matter required further investigation before the clause was agreed to; and therefore' he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw the clause, as suggested by the Attorney General.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

denied that this was an abstract proposition—it was a practical proposal; and he felt so strongly with regard to it that, although he was ready to follow the suggestion of the Attorney General, he should certainly raise the question again. He was willing to withdraw the clause in order to give an opportunity of obtaining further information, and upon the understanding that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring up a clause on Report. If it was the intention of the Attorney General to consult the local authorities, he would say at once that he did not attach great importance to their opinion, because they would always recommend the establishment of the smallest number of polling places. He was willing to accept the "two hundred" limit. He maintained that where there were 200 electors in an area they required a polling place near their residence, and that they ought to have it. With regard to the expense, he thought the arguments founded upon that were being carried a little too far. Candidates had been relieved from all the expenses of conveying voters to the poll, and he thought they were in a position to afford the cost of the additional polling places that were actually necessary.

MR. BROGDEN

said, he hoped the Attorney General would take into consideration the desirability of enabling voters by some convenient means to register their votes near the places where they worked. Many members of the working classes had to walk a considerable distance from home to the place where they were employed; and unless the facility he asked for was accorded them it would be impossible for those persons to vote at all, seeing that conveyance to the poll had been prohibited.

MR. WHITLEY

said, his views of this matter were the same as that of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden). There were 120 polling places in Liverpool, which were sufficient for all but those who had to go miles from home to their business. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet the view of the hon. Member opposite, he would confer a great benefit on the working class, and remove a difficulty that he was convinced could not be obviated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had, on a former occasion, drawn the attention of the noble Lord the Member for North Nottingham (Viscount Galway) to the fact that an Amendment dealing with voting papers could not be moved, because it proposed in part to deal with the Ballot Act, to do which the Committee had received no Instruction. Having looked into the present Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, he confessed that he was not able to understand its precise bearing. If he were given to understand that the clause was in any way in contravention of the Ballot, he should rule it out of Order.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, his intention was to prevent personation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

rose to Order. As the clause provided that the voter should sign the voting paper and forward it, the Presiding Officer must have a knowledge of how the voter had voted. He submitted that that was a violation of the secrecy of the Ballot.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, his clause would in no way interfere with the Ballot Act. He wished to prevent the disfranchisement of electors who, as in the case of many he was acquainted with, possessed small freeholds, and had gone to reside 20 or 30 miles from the property. He should be glad if the Committee would allow the clause to be read a second time; the provisions which it contained would completely guard against any advantage being taken of the voting papers.

MR. GREGORY

pointed out that the 1st section of the clause provided for absolute secrecy as to the way the elector voted. The voter was bound to place some cover over the signature, which was a complete guarantee of sercecy. Nothing would be known except that the voter had received a voting paper; there would not be the slightest indication of the person for whom he voted.

MR. GRANTHAM

agreed that the clause as it stood did affect the Ballot Act, because it was the object of that Act to prevent any name being on the voting paper. He hoped, however, the clause would not be ruled out of Order on account of one line in it which might be easily altered. There was simply an inaccuracy of statement on the part of the noble Viscount, and he suggested that the omission of a few words would carry out the object in view.

MR. GORST

said, he had never heard that it was out of Order to move an Amendment to any Bill, because by implication it would repeal or modify an Act of Parliament. It appeared to him to be no reason why the clause of the noble Viscount should not be moved, to say that its effect would be to modify or repeal the Ballot Act.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, there would be no difficulty in seeing how a man voted under the proposal of the noble Viscount, because everyone knew the order in which the candidates' names followed each other, and the gumming and folding would be no protection in this matter.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that, although the noble Viscount had stated that the signature on the paper was intended to avoid personation, it appeared to him that the secrecy of the Ballot Act would be thereby entirely destroyed. It would be for him to hear what proposition the noble Viscount made with regard to the clause before he decided the question as to whether it could be moved. The noble Viscount was not bound to move the clause as it was on the Paper.

MR. GORST

rose to Order. Was it the ruling of the Chair that no Member of the Committee might move an Amendment to a Bill, which Amendment altered or affected an existing law?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was unnecessary to go into so large a subject. The Committee, having received no Instruction to deal with the important Act of Parliament referred to, would not be justified in considering the Amendment in its Present form.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he wished to ask the Chairman what was the difference between an important and an unimportant Act of Parliament?

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, the question which he desired to bring before the Committee was the practical disfranchisement of a large number of persons which would result from the passing of the Bill in its present form. There were in his own constituency a considerable number of freeholders who had left their property and gone to reside in some of the towns whose railway fares, to and from the polling places, it was under the existing law competent to the candidate to pay. The Committee had decided that the conveyance of voters should be abolished, with a view to the saving of expense. Whatever its effect in that respect would be, he contended that the provision ought not to be used for the purpose of disfranchisement, nor did he think that disfranchisement should form any part of the scheme of hon. Members opposite. He was not proposing anything on behalf of faggot-voters; his clause had reference only to bonâ fide freeholders who had an interest in the country, and who, unless it were adopted, would be precluded from recording their votes. He felt very strongly on this subject, because it was opposed to one's sense of justice that a provision which was intended merely to save expense should be made the means of disfranchising a great number of voters. It was only right that the case of the persons he had in view should be fairly met; and his desire was simply that those voters who resided at a distance from the polling place, and who would suffer a considerable pecuniary loss if they went there at their own cost to record their votes, should be enabled to vote in the manner described in the clause. With regard to its supposed interference with the Ballot Act, he had endeavoured to make it so that the vote should be given without the knowledge of the Justice of the Peace. Before receiving the voting paper the elector would have to make a declaration of his identity, and no one but the Justice of the Peace would see him sign the paper. He believed the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), who was so strong an advocate of the Ballot, would see that, so far from interfering with its provisions, he was endeavouring to carry out the Act.

MR. LABOUCHERE

rose to Order. Was the noble Viscount in Order in making a speech, on an Amendment which was not before the Committee?

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, his object being to prevent personation, he would add to the 1st paragraph of the clause the words— Before marking such voting paper the voter shall sign a declaration of his identity, and then move that the clause be read a second time.

New Clause, page 30, after Clause 44—

(Voting papers for out-voters.)

"Any elector residing more than live miles from the nearest polling station shall be entitled to vote by voting paper, in the following manner:— The voter shall, in the presence of a justice of the peace, place a cross or mark in the figure or square printed on such voting paper opposite the name of the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, and shall fold over the names of the candidates, and fasten with gum or other adhesive substance, a portion of the ballot paper, so as to conceal the names of the candidates; The voter shall subscribe such voting paper with his own name, and such signature shall be attested by a justice of the peace; The voter having thus marked on the voting-paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, shall return it in a registered letter to the returning officer, who shall, previous to the election, appoint at what polling booth such papers shall be received; The expenses for sending out such voting-papers, and for the registration and postage of such letters, may be legally borne by the candidate, in addition to the maximum amount of expenses allowed by the Act,"—(Viscount Galway,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could not conceive that the majority of the Committee could possibly accept this clause. The proposal amounted to this—that a person sitting in his own house, without receiving any official paper, taking up any paper he found before him, in the presence of anyone, or at the dictation of anyone, might put his name, or even his cross, opposite the name of any candidate, and when he had done that in the presence of anyone who might be looking on during the operation, he was to gum a piece of paper over the names of the candidates, sign the paper, and send it to the Returning Officer. Under those circumstances, the Presiding Officer would only have to look at the signature or cross in order to see for whom the person voted. But the declaration proposed by the noble Viscount was more remarkable still. What was to prove the identity of the voter? Would the Presiding Officer know his handwriting? He could not perceive how the identification was to be effected. The Chairman had, in his opinion, pointed out a most serious objection to the clause, because they were not dealing with the Ballot Act, but with corrupt practices at elections. The Ballot Act said that a man should vote with secrecy; but by means of the clause and declaration of the noble Viscount, the voter would tell the Presiding Officer how he voted, and the Presiding Officer might tell anyone else what had occurred. But if the Presiding Officer alone were told, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would be entirely gone. That Act was intended to prevent undue influence; but with this provision of the noble Viscount in existence, a landlord might go to a voter and say—"Sign your voting paper here, but do not let me see how you vote;" and that would be a perfectly good vote. This question was an old one, and it had been mooted over and over again—in 1867 and previously—and decided against; and he said that what was regarded as objectionable then was no less objectionable now. The noble Viscount said the clause did not apply to faggot-voters; but he had not excluded them from its operation, and his proposal meant that a rich man could sit in his own drawing room and vote for many constituencies. That was a principle which the Government could not import into a Bill for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices at elections, one form of those practices being undue influence.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed not to have understood the point of his noble Friend that there would be absolute secrecy in the mode of voting which he proposed. His noble Friend desired that a voter who resided at a certain distance from the polling booth, if he could not get to the polling place, should be allowed to go before a Justice of the Peace, or some officer provided for the purpose, and obtain there a voting paper to be filled up in the manner described. Everyone knew that before this voting paper could be obtained the elector would have to put down his name and address; and his noble Friend said that before he got hold of the voting paper the individual should make a declaration that he was Mr. So-and-so. His noble Friend wanted the same evidence of identity as was required by the Presiding Officer when he asked the voter's name and address, and then turned out his number in the book. The Attorney General said the moment a man made a declaration of identity, the Justice of the Peace, or anyone before whom he appeared, would know for whom he was going to vote. But that was not so, be-cause, after the declaration of identity was made, the voter would get his paper, and, after signing it, he would fold and gum it over the names and send it to the Presiding Officer; and, under those circumstances, no one in the world could know how that man voted. Therefore, he said that the objection raised to the clause on the ground that it would violate the secrecy of the ballot did not lie.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that although the object of the noble Viscount was to provide for non-resident voters, yet the effect of the clause would be to preserve and perpetuate the class called faggot-voters by means inconsistent with the Ballot Act. Under those circumstances, he could not support the clause. He thought it would be better if the Attorney General would advise the withdrawal of the clause, and the Committee could then proceed to discuss, on the next Amendment, the position of a class of persons who ought not to be deprived of the right of voting.

MR. RAIKES

said, he thought the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) could not have read the clause of the noble Viscount, or he would not have described it as one for the perpetuation of faggot-voters. The next Amendment referred to county electors only; whereas the Amendment of his noble Friend referred to any elector resident five miles from the nearest polling station. He pointed out that an enormous number of borough voters would on any particular day be residing more than five miles from the nearest voting place, and that in London there were many who lived at a much greater distance. Nor did the clause refer to those alone who resided at a distance permanently, because they would have to include persons who went to work at a distance from the constituency for which they were entitled to vote. If the Committee rejected the clause they would disfranchise almost every workman who happened at the time of the election to be at a distance from the constituency in which he had an interest. In deciding this question they must have a clear issue before them. The clause had been drawn with a great deal of care, in order not to infringe on the Ballot Act. It was aimed entirely at preserving secrecy of voting by nonresident or absent electors; and it was not a question between secret and open voting, but whether Members were prepared to say that there should be an absolute disqualification for temporary absence from a constituency. That was the issue before the Committee, and those Members who voted against the clause would have to accept the responsibility of deliberately determining to disfranchise a considerable number of electors who happened to be away for the time from the place where they ought to vote. The Bill prevented the payment of travelling expenses, and imposed increased penalties in the case of those employers who might be disposed to give their workmen a holiday. That would, therefore, attach to the exercise of the franchise very great difficulties and great embarrassment, thanks to the Party who had in old times been most studiously desirous of extending the franchise. This was the Party which at this moment desired to go to the country, with every confidence, upon the strength of their desire to enfranchise those who had not now got votes, but who, he thought, would not be able to put forward that desire with great sincerity if they passed a Bill which would disfranchise 10 per cent of those who now enjoyed the franchise in boroughs.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was not surprised that hon. Gentlemen made a strong point of this matter, or that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) said it did not infringe on the Ballot Act. In 1867 there was a lengthy debate on this subject, when the Conservative Party were very strong in favour of voting papers. Lord Salisbury, who was then a Member of this House, with that candour which always distinguished him, fairly and fully explained to the House the grounds on which he thought it desirable, from the Conservative point of view, to pass that proposal; and he used a phrase which caused a great noise at the time—namely, "that voting papers would convert every magistrate's parlour into a polling booth." It was very well to say John Jones would turn down the paper; but he would be afraid of the magistrate, and there was no doubt that the strongest influence would be applied to induce men to vote as the magistrate or landlord desired. That Parliament was, perhaps, not so Liberal as the present, and the proposal was voted down by a very large majority.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, there was a good deal of frankness in the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and through that he thought the real objection to this proposal could be seen. The hon. Member and those who sat near him were very likely of opinion that it was right to confine every elector to the constituency in which he resided; but the Bill was not intended to deal with such questions now. That subject must be put on one side, and the discussion confined to the clause upon its merits. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had shown very shortly what the real object was. By the Bill travelling expenses were forbidden; and so, while rich men who were at a considerable distance from the constituency in which they had votes might bear the inconvenience, poor men were likely to be disfranchised. The Bill was said to be for the purpose of preventing corruption; but here was a proposal which was meant to avoid disfranchisement, and to provide an escape from any charge of inducing anything like undue influence. Reference had been made to the discussions on the last Reform Bill in 1867, which, of course, they all remembered. He was a Member of the Government which introduced that Bill; and it was perfectly true that when a similar clause was under discussion objection was taken to it, that it would give a Justice of the Peace before whom a vote might be registered an opportunity of exercising some undue influence on the voter; and, as elections were taken at that time, it could not well have been otherwise, because all voting was then open, and when an elector went to a polling booth to vote he did so openly, as he would anywhere else. That would give an opportunity for the exercise of undue influence, and no doubt that fact prevailed in inducing the House to reject the clause; but now the case was quite different. Now, votes were given by the secret Ballot, and if secrecy could be secured in the polling booth or anywhere else, the danger of undue influence was got rid of. The noble Viscount had drawn this clause with great care, in order to avoid undue influence. If hon. Members thought he had not succeeded in doing that, they might amend the clause; but the noble Viscount contended, and he thought everybody would agree with him, that the clause would protect voters from any undue influence if fairly worked the question now was, whether that clause was worthy of consideration? He thought they were over scrupulous in some of the provisions respecting conveyance; but if they thought it necessary to make those provisions to prevent undue influence, they were at least bound to correct the injustice of disfranchisement which was threatened. He thought the arguments were. entirely in the noble Viscount's favour, because there were only two objections advanced—one, that the clause would allow undue influence, because it did not provide secrecy; but, in principle, at all events, it did provide secrecy; and, if it did not, it could be amended. The other objection was one which had nothing whatever to do with this Bill; but an effort was being made to introduce, by a side-wind, a principle which the Government did not dare to announce openly—namely, the disfranchisement of non-resident electors.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, it did not seem to him that the question of voting papers had anything to do with the consideration of a Bill for preventing corrupt practices. As to whether this clause would interfere with the secrecy of the Ballot, he thought he could show that it could not possibly be worked without interfering with that secrecy. In the first place, the elector would have to go and be shut up with a Justice of the Peace, in whose hands he was to place Ms voting paper, after marking it. He had the greatest respect for Justices of the Peace; but some were not as intelligent as others, and there was nothing to prevent their looking over the shoulders of voters while they were marking their papers. There was, under this clause, none of the machinery which was provided at polling booths, where it was impossible for anyone to know how an elector voted. But there was a much more serious objection to the proposal. The right hon. Member (Sir R. Assheton Cross) suggested that, in order to his being identified, a voter should sign a declaration; but such a declaration would show the Presiding Officer how the person voted. How was a Justice of the Peace to identify a man who asked to be allowed to vote? When a voter presented himself at a booth the officer could identify him by means of the Register; but was every Justice of the Peace to have a Register? Identification could only be obtained in that way, and in no case could secrecy be secured.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought secrecy might be secured by adopting the present method, by which voters were identified, on applying for voting papers, by numbers. What was there to prevent a voter, living five miles away, applying to the Sheriff beforehand for a voting paper, and, having obtained it by means of his number, take it to a magistrate, and make a declaration that he was the person to whom it had been sent? That would, he believed, get over the difficulty; and if that were done there would be no difficulty in carrying out this clause. Although he did not think it would be wise to pass this clause, still he thought it could be carried out in principle; and he should vote for it with the view of its being amended. As to this question of voting papers having nothing to do with the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch was rather straining a point, because the clause was proposed in order to get over the difficulties with regard to voting which were now, for the first time, introduced.

MR. GREGORY

pointed out that the Committee were only dealing with a question arising out of a clause which had already been passed. The question was, whether out-voters were to be disfranchised, or some means should be found for enabling them to exercise their franchise, as this clause proposed. These out-voters were generally people of independent means, and not likely to be intimidated by employers or magistrates. The idea of their being influenced was a chimera, and he should support the proposal.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, no one had ventured to answer the observation he had made as to this clause being meant to provide for secrecy, whether it really did so or not. Judging from the debate, a great many Members appeared to desire to disfranchise the out-voters; and they attempted to do that by pulling to pieces the proposal for enabling these electors to vote, by showing its defects in detail; but they did not discuss its defects in principle; and, therefore, he was justified in saying that the object of the Government and of many hon. Members was to disfranchise these out-voters. The principle was that they should be enabled to record their votes without incurring any unnecessary expenditure. That might be dealt with by saying the voters should send to the Revising Barrister the names of the places where they wished to vote. It might be provided that voting papers should be sent to the towns in which the votes were claimed, so as to prevent the voters incurring railway fares and expenses; and the question of identity might be met by requiring them to prove their identity before a Justice of the Peace.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he hoped the Committee would not be forced to a Division upon this clause, which really put him and his hon. Friends in a difficulty. A good many of them could not vote for a clause drawn in this way, and it was open to everything the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey) had said. He could not say he had much sympathy with the question of out-voters; for he thought that out-voters were an expensive luxury, and not of very much use to either Party. With regard to voting papers, he did not believe they could ever be made secret; but he was distinctly in favour of them, because he had always been in favour of open voting. He quite recognized the irreconcilability of voting papers with secret voting; but if they were not not reconcilable this clause was impossible as it stood.

An hon. MEMBER

said, be had voted against the conveyance of voters to the poll; but be thought something ought to be done which would allow the out-voters to record their votes. The Attorney General had objected to the clause on the ground that it would perpetuate faggot-voting; but, surely, if faggot votes were illegal votes, the proper way to deal with them was to abolish them altogether. So long as they were legal they ought to be allowed to be duly recorded. He certainly could not see why these out-voters should not be allowed to record their votes. Another objection which had been urged against the clause by the Attorney General was, that it would destroy the secrecy of the Ballot Act. But it was not true that there was perfect secrecy under that Act at present, because one of the clauses of the Act provided that in certain cases where a man was blind, or otherwise incapacitated, he should be allowed to mention, in the presence of the Returning Officer and of the agents on each side, the name of the person for whom he was going to vote; and if the out-voter were permitted, under this clause, to send his vote to the Returning Officer, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would not be any more impaired than it was at present. On the other hand, a very large number of persons would be enabled to register their votes, who could not do so under the Bill as it stood. He could not see why the Government should oppose the clause, for he regarded it as a very salutary provision, although it might be possible that some of the Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman might meet the case better the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had objected to these out-voters, on the ground that they were very expensive luxuries; but, surely, the object in view was to do away with the expense which might otherwise be involved.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion; but he wished the Attorney General to define what he meant by "faggot voting." That was a term which was very much misused by the Prime Minister during his tour in Mid Lothian, where he made use of many expressions which he afterwards had to withdraw. A faggot voter was not a legitimate voter; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would venture to define what he was. He was a voter who was put, on the Register without possessing a bonâ fide qualification, or a voter, in fact, who had never paid or given any real consideration for the qualification under which he claimed. But a bonâ fide owner of a freehold was not a faggot voter. Would the Attorney General venture to say that he was? Any bonâ fide owner of a 40s. freehold was not a faggot voter, but was as much a legal voter as the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member in the House who possessed a large freehold property. This clause ought to be inserted in the Bill, unless the Government meant to do away with small freeholders altogether—those who happened to be small freeholders, yet who did not reside on their freehold. That was a distinct and intelligible proposition. So long as there were these bonâ fide small freeholds an opportunity ought to be given to the owners to record their votes.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, that anyone reading the first line of the clause would fancy that it was meant for voters in a mountainous district far away from a polling place. But the fact was it was very badly drawn, and really applied to any persons living outside the constituency. He could show many ways in which, as the clause was drawn, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would probably be violated; and he maintained that it was impossible, under any system of voting papers, to have that secrecy properly preserved. As had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), when the Ballot Act was passed no attempt was made to extend it to the Universities, because the House knew that a system of voting papers and secrecy were incompatible. Possibly some day some system might be devised by which voting papers could be used and secrecy still preserved; but that could not be done as they went along. And it should be remembered that not only would the secrecy of the Ballot be violated, but the door would be opened for fraud upon the Returning Officer, upon the Justice of Peace, upon the whole world, for any man could write to the Returning Officer and say he was a particular voter; and the only check which the Returning Officer would have would be to consult the list, and he would not be able to tell whether the man applying was the particular man or not, and he would be obliged to send that man a voting paper. If the clause proposed by the noble Viscount should be agreed to, something would be done which would be of far more importance than the whole Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) hoped the clause would not be accepted, because if it were it would certainly upset the Ballot Act.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

wished, before they proceeded to the Division which he hoped would be taken upon the clause, to ask the Attorney General to take the idea of the clause into his consideration. It would not, he thought, be very difficult so to frame the clause as to make it perfectly compatible with the secrecy of the Ballot. Several hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House had objected to the wording of the clause as proposed by his noble Friend; but if those hon. and learned Members had instead exercised their ingenuity with the view of so framing the clause as to make it insure the secrecy required under the Ballot, no doubt they would have succeeded in doing so. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had declared it impossible so to frame a clause as to provide secrecy under such a system of voting; but he (Viscount Folkestone) should be sorry to think the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity was so small as to be unequal to such a task. The reason why he asked the Attorney General to take this matter into his serious' consideration was that in such constituencies as that which he (Viscount Folkestone) had the honour to represent (South Wilts) more than half the voters would be disfranchised without some such provision as this; and the hon. Member for North Wilts (Mr. Long), who sat near him, was in a similar position, having many constituents who resided quite five miles from the polling station; and it would be quite impossible for a great number of them to find time to go and leave their work in order to record their votes at the polling station. The consequence would be that quite half of his (Viscount Folkestone's) constituents, and more than half of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for North Wilts, would be entirely disfranchised, unless something was done in the direction proposed by this clause. They should also remember that there was an intention in the mind of Her Majesty's Government to further lower the franchise in counties and assimilate it to the borough franchise. But if, with the present county constituencies, one-half of the voters already in existence would be prevented by the provisions of this Bill from recording their votes, of what use would it be to extend the borough franchise into the counties? That was an argument which ought to go homo to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because if the constituencies as they now stood were, to a great extent, to be disfranchised by this Bill, it would be of no earthly use proceeding to lower the franchise in future.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that if the constituents of the noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) who resided five miles from a polling place were to be disfranchised because of their want of inclination to vote for their favourite candidate, they would deserve their fate. He hoped there would be no yielding on the part of the Government with regard to this clause. The clauses which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) were much preferable to this one, and it would save the time of the Committee if they were to divide at once. He hoped the clause would be effectually squelched, because it was a bad one; and the clause of the hon. Member for. East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was even still worse, for it gave the voter power, in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, to place a cross upon the voting paper, and thus was an absolute repeal of the secrecy of the Ballot Act. If the proposal were introduced upon the Ballot Act itself, there might be some excuse for it; but he appealed to the Chair to know whether such an Amendment came within the scope of a Bill for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices? He hoped that in the Division they would, by an emphatic and large majority, utterly rout those parties who were encumbering the Paper with Amendments, and really endeavouring to defeat the Bill by obstruction and procrastination.

MR. STANTON

said, he thought the discussion had been a very interesting one; but while he entirely sympathized with the intention of the noble Viscount who proposed the clause, he did not think the clause itself was calculated to carry that intention out. He had clauses of his own to propose later on, to the drafting of which he had given great pains; and he thought they would much more nearly, if not entirely, meet the case, by allowing the out-voter to vote without violating the secrecy of the Ballot.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 163: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 197.)

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

proposed the addition of the following new Clause after Clause 44:—

(Conveyance of poll to voters in certain cases.)

"Where a local authority, having power to divide a county into polling districts, is of opinion that there is a portion of the county containing less than one hundred electors, which it is inexpedient to form into a separate polling district, but that, owing to the nature of such portion, the electors resident therein will be unable by reason of having to cross the sea, or a branch or arm thereof, or a mountainous district, to reach, their polling places without a large and disproportionate expenditure, such authority may resolve that further provision ought to he made for taking the votes of such electors at some convenient time within the hours fixed by Law for taking the poll, and in accordance with 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' and this Act, either by conveying a presiding officer and ballot box to the said portion, or otherwise, so that the secrecy required by 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' be duly preserved.

"The local authority may also, by resolution, fix the maximum charges to be made by the returning officer for making such provision.

"The local authority shall cause notice of every such resolution to be forthwith given to the returning officer, and the returning officer at every election held more than two months after the date of such resolution shall make the provision required by the said resolution, and shall give notice thereof in the public notice he is required to publish relating to polling stations; and may charge for such provision, in addition to the sums allowed by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' any sums allowed by the said resolution of the local authority.

"The local authority may from time to time revoke and vary any resolution under this section, and pass a fresh resolution."

The right hon. Gentleman observed that this clause was of quite a different character from the one just disposed of. As Clause 45 stood originally, it contained a provision for carrying voters across an arm of the sea by steamer; but the Committee rejected that clause. He was quite sure, however, that the Government would agree with him in thinking that some provision should be made for voters who were placed in such a position, and who would practically be disfranchised, unless some provision was made for them. In such a case as the Orkneys, for instance, it was quite necessary that some such provision should be made to allow the electors to give their votes, for they were a poor people, and it would be perfectly impossible for them to go to the poll unless some arrangement was made. The Government had shown, by the clause which they originally placed in the Bill, that they had no intention of practically disfranchising such voters; and as their clause had been thrown out, it was quite clear that some other provision ought to be made for securing the votes. As it had been determined that the voter should not be taken to the poll, he thought it would be well to provide that the Returning Officer and his assistants should be allowed to take the poll to the voter, and the clause had been so drawn as fully to preserve the secrecy required by the Ballot Act. The clause would provide that, in certain cases where the local authorities thought it necessary, the Returning Officer should go round the Islands in a steamer with the ballot box and collect the votes. It would not be necessary in these cases that the poll should be kept open for the whole time, but only for a convenient time. As he had drawn the clause, it also included the case of those mountainous districts in England in which it was very difficult for voters to get to the poll. If hon. Members would look not simply at this Amendment, but at another Amendment of which he had given Notice, to come in after Clause 65, and which specially related to the case of mountainous districts in Scotland, he was quite sure they would see a great difference between the two cases. If the poll was taken to the voter, they might have absolute secrecy preserved, and that could easily be done where the ballot box was kept on board a steamer going round to the various Islands; but it was not quite so clear that could be as easily done in the case of mountainous districts, where the same facilities would not be afforded. His object, however, had been to meet the special case of the Scottish voters; and if the Government could see their way to accept the clause so far as Scotland was concerned, leaving out the mountainous districts of England, he should be content. Although his clause had been very carefully drawn, he did not presume to say that its wording would exactly meet every case that ought to be met; and if the Government wished to alter the wording, so as to meet the case of the Scotch voters, and would either accept the clause now, or bring the subject up again on the Report, he should be content. But he felt bound to propose the clause as it stood, so as to bring the matter before the Government, and to press it upon the Committee, or otherwise great injustice would be done. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer, and therefore he would move that the clause be inserted.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think it was wise to leave to a local authority power of legislation, because, by this Amendment, a local authority would virtually have power to enfranchise some men and disfranchise others; and they might exercise their own views in relation to the way in which the secrecy of the ballot was to be maintained. Having regard to the provisions of the 45th clause, he could not see how it was possible to accept this Amendment; and, although he was anxious to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he must ask him to withdraw this clause. If, however, a mode could be discovered of meeting the difficulty, he should be very glad to adopt it.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

asked if the Government would be good enough to consult the feelings of Scotch Members from that part of Scotland which this clause would affect? There was ample time, between now and Report, to consult Members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter. He did not want to delay the course of the Bill; therefore, if the Government would give him the assurance that before the Report stage they would consult hon. Gentlemen from Scotland, and, if needs be, bring up a clause of their own on Report, he would be willing to withdraw his clause, and support any clause the Government might bring up to grapple with the evil.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had consulted Scotch Members, and Clause 45 was the result of that consultation. They now told him that Clause 45 was what they adhered to. If he could receive any other suggestion that he thought better than Clause 45, of course he would listen to it, and see if it could be dealt with. He would, however, again consult Scotch Members, and see what could be done in the matter.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, there was no doubt that many of the Scotch electors would be disfranchised. On Clause 45, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar), and fault was found with that Amendment by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. As a matter of fact, when they came to vote on Clause 45, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) voted against it himself, and now he said he had heard a good deal on the subject since that time. The other night, in a few remarks the right hon. Gentleman made on the subject, he entreated the Attorney General to make up his mind as to the course he would take respecting conveyances. It certainly appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was suffering from somewhat similar vacillation, because now, having voted against Clause 45 the other night, he came with a proposal of a similar character, and claimed the support of the hon. Member for the Haddington Burghs.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was entirely in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment; and he thought Members representing Scotch constituencies ought to be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he understood the Attorney General, he accepted the principle of the Amendment, but not its details. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No!] He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the principle of the Amendment; at all events, he promised to consider the matter; and he (Sir George Campbell) hoped, on consideration, that he would accept the principle. So far as he understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), it seemed to him to be the best that could be proposed, for it was that there should be a kind of peripatetic polling booth going about to the different parts of the country.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

asked if the Committee was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had no intention of dealing with the mountainous districts of England? If they took one step in accepting this Amendment, there was no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would urge them to take a subsequent step. It must be remembered that the Returning Officer's expenses were really defrayed by the candidate, and that, in reality, what was now proposed was only an indirect way of creeping into the candidates' pockets.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He believed that the mountainous districts of England would suffer; but there were many difficulties in regard to those districts which it would be hard to over come. He was satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General that, so far as Scotch Members were concerned, he would do all be could to deal with this matter on Report.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ANDERSON moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 46:—

(Election Commissioners not to inquire into elections before the passing of this Act.)

"Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. cap. 57, or any amendment thereof, in any case where, after the passing of this Act, any Commissioners have been appointed, on a joint address of both Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt or illegal practices in any election, the said Commissioners shall not make inquiries concerning any election that shall have taken place prior to the passing of this Act, and no witness called before such Commissioners, or at any election petition after the passing of this Act, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question relating to any corrupt or illegal practice prior to the passing of this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect any proceedings that shall be pending at the time of such passing."

He did not know what views the Committee were inclined to take with regard to this clause; but it was a clause of considerable importance as regarded the future working of the Act. It took for granted that there would be in future greater purity in consequence of the passing of the Bill, and that, partly in consequence of other events that had taken place within the last year or two, a very considerable change of public opinion had arisen as to the question of corrupt practices. It had been too much the practice hitherto to consider everything fair that took place before an election; but he thought such events as the recent imprisoning of certain gentlemen, as well as the passing of this Bill, would create a new public opinion in the matter of corrupt practices. Well, that being so, it might conduce to the working of this Bill if they were to make up their minds that on the passing of the Act there should be a clean bill of health for what had gone before; that bygones should be bygones; and that the new public opinion should have a fair chance of working out a better state of things in the future. In a great many constituencies which had been hitherto very corrupt indeed, there might be, after this Bill passed, a genuine desire to stop all corrupt practices. When it came to a question of a Petition arising under this Act, without such a clause as this, both sides would say to themselves—"If we petition, undoubtedly the Judges must go back and inquire into previous elections, into the circumstances of elections in the old and evil days; and, therefore, a great many of our practices at that time, and of which we are thoroughly ashamed now, will be exposed." The effect of that would be that both sides would agree that they would not petition; and in that way, if there were malpractices under the new Act, they would not be exposed, and would not be punished; therefore the new Act, to a large extent, would be as inoperative as the old Act. It was with the view of endeavouring to avoid such a state of things, and to make the old constituencies purer and better in the future, that he had put down this clause. He hoped the Government would look upon it with some favour.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this was a very important clause, and he thought every Member of the Committee ought to bear the responsibility of determining how it should be dealt with. For his part, he thought it would be an advantageous clause, and that they ought to have the moral courage to accept it. His reason for thinking that this clause ought to be passed was not so much to give an armistice to those who had been guilty of corrupt practices, as because he thought that bygones should be bygones. It was a practical question. Once let corruption exist in a constituency to a large extent, by saying it had existed either on the one side or the other, or on both, no Party would dare to petition, and the result was that an impure Party had its opponent at its mercy. If it was said—"Your Party bribed in past times; you have influential men who dare not stand exposure; they will stop a Petition, and the consequence is that we will bribe as we like, because we know that you dare not petition;" if this clause were passed no such argument would hold good. Those in a constituency who were pure would know that they had nothing to fear; and they would know that their opponents, if they indulged in corrupt practices, would be at their mercy; and an impure portion of a constituency dare not indulge in corrupt and illegal practices, because they would know they could be fought with a weapon that was at least certain. There might be some persons who would say that the Members of this Committee were taking this course for the protection of themselves. He had no such fear; he should support this clause simply on the ground that it would enable the pure portion of a constituency to say—"We have no one to save; we have nothing in the past to protect; now we will be pure and attack those who are corrupt." In short, he considered that this clause would be a valuable addition to the Bill.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he was very glad, indeed, to find the Attorney General prepared to accept the principle of this clause, because he believed the clause would be as valuable as any part of the Bill in restoring purity of election to a good many boroughs in the country. There were certain boroughs in which corruption had become traditional, and it was very difficult to get rid of that tradition. He only rose, however, to ask the Attorney General's consideration to the structure of the clause now under consideration. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) had proposed a clause having a like object; but which, in some respects, was substantially different to the present clause. The clause now proposed provided that— No witness called before such Commissioners, or at any election petition after the passing of this Act, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question relating to any corrupt or illegal practice prior to the passing of this Act. He confessed that seemed rather an unfortunate provision, because he thought a witness ought to be liable to be asked such questions as far as they affected his own credibility, although the Judges should not have power of inquiring into the circumstances of past elections. He did not know which form of clause the Government would be most willing to adopt; but he should be very glad to see either form take its place on the Statute Book.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) would stand in the way of getting witnesses, or probable witnesses, to agree to allowing any Petition at all; and, therefore, it would not quite meet the case so much as his (Mr. Anderson's) clause. He (Mr. Anderson) was glad to have got so much support from the Government, and he would be quite willing to put the clause in their hands, so that they might deal with it as they thought proper. He had been told that some Members would have great difficulty in proposing an Amendment of this kind; but as Scotch constituencies had such a well-known character for purity he, as a Scotch Member, had ventured to propose a clause of this kind without any hesitation whatever.

Clause agreed to.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

proposed to insert the following Clause after Clause 49:—

(Any person other than an elector may not interfere in case of a petition.)

"Any person other than an elector of any county or division of a county, or of any borough or university, in respect of the election of any Member of Parliament of which a petition is being or has been presented, who shall, directly or indirectly, and whether by himself, or in conjunction with others, advance money or incur any liability in reference thereto, and any person giving or receiving any money, meat, drink, entertainment, provision, advancement, or promise of advancement, in respect of such petition, except the actual expenses of attendance at the trial as a witness on the trial of such petition, or in payment of such sums as the taxing-master shall allow in respect of such petition, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice in reference to the said election, and shall be liable to the penalties incident thereto."

He said the object of this clause was to throw round the unfortunate respondent—for he was an unfortunate person always—some sort of protection. This Bill was, as everybody knew, very severe in its provisions; and, in all probability, it would give rise to a great many Election Petitions. The battle of constituencies would probably be fought quite as much, in some instances, in the Election Courts as in the elections themselves; therefore it was necessary to guard the persons petitioned against from any unfair practice. The object of his clause was, in the first place, to prevent any outside interference. As hon. Gentlemen know full well, while it was necessary at present to deposit a certain sum of money, if that deposit were limited to be made by some elector, or by some person who took an interest in the district, that might be all very well; but if the money was to be provided principally by some outside organization, or by some person utterly unacquainted with the character of the borough, the unfortunate respondent might be placed in an unfair position; and, more than that, the constituency itself might even be prevented from having as its Representative the person of its choice. It was impossible to disguise from themselves the fact that the expenses of Petitions were so enormous that few people would be able to incur them; and, therefore, the choice of constituencies would naturally be limited. A person would not venture to come forward and contest a constituency if there was a great possibility of being petitioned against by large and influential bodies unconnected with the district. He need not say this Bill was a very severe one, because it was probably the first instance in the legislation of this country where, in respect of a Criminal Act, they had been obliged to import into it an Equity Clause. He did not know what their ancestors would have thought if they had been told that in this age it would be necessary to import an Equity Clause into the criminal jurisprudence of the country. As he had already said, the first part of the clause related to outside interference; but, beyond that, there was also a chance—and a very great chance—of corruption in the borough or county itself with regard to an Election Petition. Those hon. Gentlemen who had been unfortunate enough to go through an Election Petition knew very well what a hot-bed of corruption was disturbed the moment an Election Petition was thought of. Evidence was collected in a very strange manner; witnesses were got out of the way; evidence was almost advertised for; and a respondent had to contend against the greatest difficulties. If a respondent were contending against these difficulties in the presence of a jury, he did not think there would be any necessity for this clause, because a jury would be perfectly conversant with the character of almost all the witnesses called before it; but when they left the consideration of these matters to a Judge, the whole circumstances took quite an altered complexion. A Judge was a stranger to the district; he came down knowing nothing of the people; the evidence brought before him was of a character quite new; the respondent would be allowed to make no inquiries into the character of the persons giving evidence; and, indeed, there would be quite a different state of things to what there would be if the Petition were tried before a jury. It was necessary, therefore, to provide that any persons playing an improper part in relation to an Election Petition should be liable to punishment. That was all he suggested in this clause; he desired to provide for the proper protection of the respondent. He certainly looked forward to the time when the House of Commons would again have recourse to its own Members to decide Election Petitions; because he knew no tribunal so equitable, or so much to be depended upon, as one composed of Members of the House of Commons. The time, however, had not arrived for taking such a step; and, therefore, as elections had to be tried by a Judge, it was necessary they should provide punishment for any individual who influenced witnesses in an improper manner. There was another passage at the conclusion of the clause to winch he wished to call attention—namely, that relating to the enormous expenses incurred upon Election Petitions. He did not suppose that he spoke to a very sympathetic audience when he said that some limitation should be placed on the expenses incurred in retaining counsel to conduct Election Petitions. That expense was now very large, and he put it frankly to the Members of the Legal Profession in the House whether they ought not to be content with less fees than they asked now; whether they ought not to be content, for instance, with the costs which the law of the land allowed? He could see no reason whatever for going beyond the scale of charges allowed by law. At that hour of the night he would not trespass on the Committee longer. He hoped, however, that the Attorney General would be disposed to look upon his clause in a favourable light.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

opposed the clause, and pointed out that it would result in preventing a man presenting a Petition; because, for instance, he would not be allowed to even borrow money from his own brother.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. S. SMITH (for Mr. CARBUTT) moved the following Clauses:—

(Closing of public houses during elections.)

"All the provisions of any Act now in force whereby the sale or exposing for sale of intoxicating liquors, or the opening or keeping open of any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors, is prohibited during any hours or times are hereby extended to the hours of polling on the day of election of any knight or knights of the shire, or burgess or burgesses, to serve in Parliament shall take place, to the extent following (that is to say):— Where such election shall be in respect of a burgess or burgesses to represent any parliamentary borough, such provisions shall be in force with respect to such borough.

(Penalties.) "

"All penalties now in force under the provisions of any Act for selling, or exposing for sale, or purchasing, or opening, or keeping open any premises for the sale of any intoxicating liquors during any hours or times, and all provisions of any Acts now in force in reference to such penalties, are hereby extended to any violation of the provisions of this section."

He said, he would not at that hour enter into any lengthy arguments in favour of these clauses. They all knew, of course, that one great source of corruption at the time of an election was the use of public-houses. In many parts of America, and in some of their own Colonies, it was the practice to close public-houses on an election day; and he thought it would be a very welcome provision to compel their closing in this country.

New Clauses brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clauses be read a second time."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government had a great deal of sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend. There was a great deal to be said on moral and social grounds in favour of clauses of this kind; but considering the large amount of interference with personal liberty, and the real personal hardship which the clauses would entail, they could not bring themselves to support them. They hoped, however, the subject would be retained for future consideration, because it appeared to be a subject which might be very properly discussed in connection with the question of closing public-houses on other occasions. The Government thought that the severity of such an enactment as this would be too extreme. For instance, it would prohibit people from getting refreshment when they came from a considerable distance; they could not even bait their horses, because they could not leave the stable open and shut the house. The individual inconvenience would be so great, and the interference with liberty so extended, that they were not able to accept these clauses, though they would not say they did not form matter for future discussion.

Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.

BARON DE FERRIERES moved the following Clause:—

(Disqualification of brewers.)

"No brewer or wine and spirit merchant, owning public or beerhouses, shall be eligible to represent a borough in which his licensed houses are situated, and, if elected, his election shall be null and void."

He said he had no doubt this clause would appear to the Committee a very extraordinary one, and that it was presumptuous on his part to move it. H, however, thought that when the Committee considered the very severe restrictions placed on candidates who were not in the brewing trade, they would come to the conclusion that justice required that some restrictions should be placed on the owners of public-houses in boroughs especially. Under this Bill, it would be utterly impossible for a candidate to give refreshment of that kind which had hitherto been allowed, and which all the people who worked for a candidate had always considered their due. A brewer who happened to have a large brewery in a borough would, in all probability, also hold the greater part of the public-houses in the place, and he would be able to carry on a system of treating all the year round, and in a way which would give him an unfair advantage over any other candidate A great deal of corruption in boroughs was practised at municipal elections. These elections took place every year, and there was a constant system going on of treating electors, not merely with the view of promoting the return of Town Councillors of a certain political Party, but with the view of influencing matters at a Parliamentary election. Hence, in boroughs, the holder of a large number of public-houses possessed advantages over men not so similarly situated; and he wished simply to put brewers who might stand for a constituency on an equal footing with other candidates. In the interest of fair play, he trusted this clause would commend itself to the Committee.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

opposed the clause, and said, it was patent that if a constituency wished to be represented by a brewer they had every right to be so represented.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he could not help thinking that personal motives had led to the introduction of this clause. The late Representative of the borough of Cheltenham, who sat for some time in the House, and who, he (Mr. Edward Clarke) believed, was an intended candidate at the next election, would, if this clause were accepted, be struck out of the list of candidates. One could thus appreciate the purity of motive which dictated this proposal. The introduction of this clause might have been gracefully left to one not so similarly situated as the hon. Gentleman (Baron De Fernères).

Clause negatived.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Mr. GIBSON) moved the following new Clause:—

(Deliberate false charges.)

"Any person who before, during, or after an election, by poster, placard, cartoon, caricature, or other publication, knowingly publishes any false charge of or against a candidate, or any false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate in order to influence such election, shall be guilty of an illegal practice."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not think it would be desirable to accept the whole of the clause; but he would be prepared to accept it, provided the words "cartoon and caricature" were omitted.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he thought it ought to be made an illegal practice, in some form or other, for persons to post placards containing false statements calculated to damage an opponent.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the offer of the Attorney General, because he was confident that great damage might be done to a candidate by means of cartoons and caricatures, because by these things falsity was really implied.

MR. E. N. FOWLER

said, he hoped the Attorney General would take this matter into serious consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect the case of the Mid Kent Election. In 1865, the right hon. Gentleman who now represented that constituency (Sir William Hart Dyke) was a candidate, and a false report was sent the night before the poll all over England that he had retired. Such a report could only be calculated to damage the right hon. Gentleman's prospects, and he was put to great expense in telegraphing to contradict the misstatement.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, the time had now arrived when instinct told them they ought to go to bed; and he, therefore, proposed that the Chairman should now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "No, no;" but he knew they were quite as anxious to go to bed as he was, but they dared not say so.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was aware that the Government owed a great deal to the Committee for the consideration it had shown with regard to the progress of this Bill. He had, however, to ask one more favour of the Committee, and that was that to-night they might be allowed to proceed a little later. He did hope they would be allowed to finish the new clauses to-night; and that tomorrow, when he hoped to proceed with the Bill at the Evening Sitting as well as the Morning, that they might conclude the Bill.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had a most important Amendment to propose. His Amendment was far too important to discuss at that hour of the night; and, therefore, he certainly hoped the Motion would be pressed, unless the Government would accept his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 105: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 198.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the Government would not expect them to go further with the Bill tonight. He himself had been engaged ever since half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday morning, and he was really very tired.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman put the matter in that way he would not ask the Committee to go further.

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