HC Deb 13 July 1883 vol 281 cc1365-99

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. FINDLATER

said, he rose to propose the second reading of a clause, the object of which was to provide for a prompt and inexpensive manner of settling disputed accounts relating to elections without proceedings in a Court of Law. It was customary in Ireland for the Courts of Law to refer matters of this kind to the Masters, who adjudicated upon the case in Chambers with the parties before them. It might be urged that it would be impossible for the Master or any other official to settle disputed rates of charge; but no difficulty arose in practice. For instance, with respect to printing and newspaper accounts, both the Landed Estates Court and the Bankruptcy Court settled scales of charge which were acquiesced in by newspaper proprietors and printers through-out Ireland and acted on; and a provision was made in the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 that the fees of all brokers, agents, and such persons, should be taxed and ascertained by taxing officers. He believed he had made it clear that the difficulty of carrying out his proposal would not be very great, and that the system which he advocated had worked well, and proved conclusively that the amounts due to persons in respect of election accounts could be ascertained in a satisfactory manner by the same means. He thought it a hardship that a candidate who found himself charged with items that he believed to be unfair, and not in accordance with custom, should only be able to find out the truth of the matter by means of trying out an action at law; besides, if he made a mistake in his calculations, and lodged in Court even 30s. less than the amount awarded by the jury, he would find himself saddled with all the costs of the action. He, therefore, proposed that as soon as the account which the candidate believed to contain exorbitant items was furnished, a notice should be served on the claimant requiring him to submit the account to a Master of one of the Courts of Common Law for the purpose of ascertaining the correct amount payable to him. Immediately on receipt of the notice either party might proceed before the Master; and no other proceedings were to be taken before he had adjudicated upon the account, and no further sum than that ascertained by him could be recovered. He thought, now that a maximum amount had been fixed for the expenses of a candidate's election, that it was most desirable that the candidate should get the best value for his money, and that one creditor should not be allowed to exhaust the greater part of that maximum by charging exorbitant fees. He would not detain the Committee further than to express a hope that the Committee would see the desirability of candidates knowing the amounts they had to pay, without being obliged to involve themselves in expensive litigation. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.

New Clause:—

(Taxation of accounts claimed from

candidates.) That in case the items, or any of them, of any account furnished to the election agent shall be disputed by or on behalf of the candidate as exorbitant or unfair, and not in accordance with the ordinary rates of charge for the matters comprised in such account, it shall be lawful for the candidate to require the person claiming to be paid the amount of such account by notice in writing delivered to him personally, or left at his last known place of abode, to submit the same for taxation or ascertainment to the Master of any of the superior Courts of Common Law, and immediately after the service or receipt of such notice it shall be lawful for either the candidate or person claiming such account to take out a summons before said Master to tax and ascertain the fair and just amount which should be paid in respect of the charges contained in such account, and on the hearing of said summons the said Master shall tax and ascertain the proper sum payable on foot of such account, and the decision of the said Master shall be binding and conclusive on the parties, and no sum shall be payable in respect of the charges contained in said account beyond the amount so ascertained: Provided always, That after the service of the notice, and until the ascertainment of the amount of said account in manner aforesaid, no action shall be brought on foot thereof,"—(Mr. Findlater,)

—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 Committee had already determined this matter in Clause 23, Sub-section 7, and, under the circumstances, he must adhere to the decision arrived at.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was sorry the Attorney General did not see his way to consider the clause of the hon. Member for Monaghan. He did not see any analogy between what had been done in the earlier part of the Bill referred to by the Attorney General and the proposal of the hon. Member. Clause 23 merely said that certain things should constitute a separate claim, and be treated accordingly. But the hon. Member opposite wished to deal with cases where the agent, the candidate, or other persons might have no dispute whatever as to the work done—cases, for instance, in which the candidate would say, "I admit your retainer, and I admit the work was done; I only dispute your price." The hon. Gentleman asked that in cases of that kind the candidate might have a summary remedy, by bringing the matter cheaply and expeditiously before a Master of one of the Superior Courts, who would settle it in about 10 minutes. Everyone knew that there was a special tariff at election times as against the candidate, and he said that if the Committee shut their eyes to that fact they would pass by a most fruitful source of extravagance. The clause of the hon. Member provided a summary means of adjudicating upon and fixing election charges; and that clause, as it appeared to him, was refused without any reason whatever. Under those circumstances, it was, of course, idle for the hon. Member to go to a Division. He would have been glad if the Attorney General had seen his way to agree to the second reading of the clause; and, in that case, he would himself have suggested some verbal changes which he believed would have made it less open to criticism. They should bear in mind that there were two rates of charges at election times, and that the very minute a man became a candidate he had to pay 20s. for what at other times he would only pay 10s. He thought it would be a wise thing, under the circumstances, for his hon. Friend to consider whether he could not re-draft the clause, after referring to the debate that occurred on Clause 23, and bring it up again on Report in a form that might commend itself to the judgment of the Attorney General.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that in the discussion on Clause 23 it was said that if the tribunal named in the clause was to determine the matter in dispute at the option of the creditor or the debtor, the other party would have to go to the English or the Irish Metropolis.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he had mentioned already that in the Landed Estates Court only a certain price was allowed for work done; for instance, a price was fixed for a certain number of words in a line of print, and advertisements were taken by all the newspapers in Ireland at this rate of charge. The question of disputed liability on contract did not arise on his clause; that could be tried in the ordinary way in a Court of Law.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, the proposal to fix the charges was totally unworkable. How, for instance, could they fix in the Schedule the charge to be made for an advertisement in The Times? The advertisement would probably not be accepted at the price.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he agreed with what the Attorney General had said as to the difficulty of making the parties take their case before the Taxing Master in Dublin or London; nevertheless, he considered there was great weight in the proposal of the hon. Member for Monoghan (Mr. Findlater). He suggested that the Registrars of the County Courts in England and Ireland would constitute good tribunals for settling those disputed accounts. These Registrars were in the habit of hearing the value of different articles supplied in their districts, and settling the amount of costs arising out of questions of this kind. Another reason in favour of this suggestion was that it would obviate the difficulty pointed out by the Attorney General, that the parties would have to go before a Master either in London or Dublin. He believed the Amendment of the hon. Member, if it were altered in the manner he suggested, would afford a means of deciding the charges in question in a satisfactory manner.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he held in his hand a Schedule in use in the Landed Estates Court, which set out the prices of the different kinds of work done.

SIR THOMAS M'CLURE

said, it was desirable that there should be some easy way of settling these charges. He trusted the Attorney General would reconsider the clause, with a view to putting the settlement of disputed charges on a simple basis.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Findlater) would introduce a clause that would fix the maximum charge for printing, because within his own experience the cost of that work had gone up three-fold of late years. He did not know whether hon. Members opposite, whilst cutting down all other expenses, wished to continue the system of blandishment by means of the newspapers; he certainly did not concur in such a policy, although, of course, it was necessary that there should be an insertion in the newspapers that such a man was a candidate for election. But while the cost of business advertisements was perfectly well understood, that was not the case with electioneering advertisements, which, in the matter of price, were open to abuse. He did not, of course, complain of reasonable charges on the part of newspaper proprietors, who ran great risks, and must indemnify themselves proportionately; but his wish was to limit the total charge for advertisements, in connection with elections, to a moderate amount. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to give some assurance that he would, in this matter, endeavour to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Monaghan.

MR. FINDLATER

said, after the discussion which had taken place, he would ask leave to withdraw the clause for the purpose of bringing it forward again on Report.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had to propose a very important clause. They had been occupied for a long time in regulating the expenses at elections, and he thought they had, in some cases, succeeded in reducing them to a very low point. Hon. Members were aware that the costs in connection with Election Petitions were in a much more unsatisfactory state than the costs of elections, notwithstanding the proposals that had been made to regulate them. Now, he thought it would be following the principle of the Bill if a maximum were established for Petition costs; and, accordingly, he proposed that the costs given against the sitting Member, or against the Petitioner in any Election Petition, should not exceed twice the maximum of the election expenses allowed under the Bill. He believed that if the Committee saw fit to adopt that proposal, it would effect a very considerable reduction of the cost of Election Petitions. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.

New Clause:—

(Maximum of costs in petitions.) The costs given against the sitting Member or against the petitioner in any election petition shall in no case exceed twice the maximum allowed under this Act as the maximum for the election expenses of the constituency to which the petition relates,"—(Colonel Nolan,)

—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, that the trial of an Election Petition, as a rule, lasted many days, during which time counsel would have to be paid for every day. Under those circumstances it would be impossible to keep the costs down, and the effect of the clause would be that the balance over the amount allowed would have to be paid by the candidate himself. It was impossible to apply the arbitrary rule proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, because there was no connection between the costs of an Election Petition and the expenses of an election. Under the circumstances, he could not accept the clause.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he would suggest that the difficulty would be met by omitting the words "or against the petitioner," which would simply limit the costs against the sitting Member.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he thought it was a pity not to accept this clause. The Attorney General said, if counsel were present every day, the expense of thousands of pounds could not be avoided. The object of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was not to fix an amount for the costs of a Petition, but to fix a maximum beyond which they could not go.

MR. DALY

said, the clause had this advantage, that it would enable a man to petition against an election at a reasonable expense. If the clause were not adopted, the sitting Member might be able to prevent his opponent obtaining his right. He thought it a most valuable proposal on the part of the hon. and gallant Member.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the Attorney General stated that a man must engage the best counsel to defend his honour.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I said you may engage any counsel you like, but that if you engage him, you must pay him.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, that was sufficiently near for his argument. If a man engaged the best counsel, he understood the Attorney General to say that his honour would be pretty safe; but that otherwise it would not be so. He (Colonel Nolan) thought that the purse of the candidate was much more in danger than his honour. But the effect of a maximum would be that the Judges would make the Petitions cheap.

MR. MONTAGU SCOTT

said, he had little doubt that every Member returned to the next Parliament would have to defend himself against a Petition. He had no doubt the Attorney General desired to make elections cheaper; and, therefore, he presumed he would be willing to say that a candidate should be able to take his seat in that House without being ruined. A Friend of his at present in the House, who was a Petitioner, gained the suit, the costs, £18,000, were given in his favour, yet he was £4,000 out of pocket. Now, if there were a maximum beyond which the parties could not go they would have to minimize their expenses; they would say to themselves—"We will get the best counsel we can, but only call those witnessed who are important." It was perfectly monstrous that a man should be liable to be mulcted in these enormous sums of money. If there was a maximum, that maximum would not be exceeded, because the parties to a Petition would call all their best and important witnesses, and not put the frivolous witnesses in the box. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) would go to a Division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 150: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 199.)

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he rose to move the following new Clause:—

(Churches not to he used for election purposes.) The use, for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate in any election, of any church or of any chapel certified as a place of meeting for religious worship in England or Ireland, shall be an illegal practice under this Act.

He brought up this clause at the request of the Attorney General. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] Perhaps he should say he had postponed dividing upon the point in Committee at the Attorney General's request; and he hoped it would receive not only the approval of Her Majesty's Government, but the general approval of the Committee. He need hardly say that he moved the clause in the interest of all the religious denominations in England; and he hoped that when he had advanced his arguments his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) would be one of his most strenuous supporters. The object of the clause was to protect the sacred buildings of England from the impropriety and irreverence, he might almost say the immorality, which was unhappily almost always associated with electioneering. Not long ago a candidate addressed from the pulpit of one of these sacred buildings a large audience in a very racy speech, and immediately afterwards he, in the pulpit, lighted his cigar, and his electioneering congregation followed suit. Amidst the fumes of tobacco, a number of very highly-coloured, violent, and strongly-flavoured speeches were delivered. Within a few hours that same building was used for the most sacred offices of religion. ["Where?"] He maintained that this was a scandal. ["Where?"] Oh, he was not going to bring any personal or local matter into the consideration of this question. It was far too grave and serious. To save our religious buildings from such desecrations, he moved this clause. At election times even the best of them were a little uncharitable. If they must speak evil of their neighbours, would it not be better to avoid doing so in buildings dedicated to good will and kindliness towards men? In this Bill they had attempted to strike a blow at spiritual influence; and he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, if they opened the doors of churches and chapels for electioneering meetings, and for use as committee rooms, they would not be, at the same time, opening the door for the exercising of spiritual influence in its very worst form? This clause covered the case not only of the consecrated buildings of the Church of England, but it covered the case of established places of public worship belonging to other denominations. He used the word "established," because the buildings to which his clause related were those which were certified and registered by the State. The certification and registration brought with them great privileges, exemptions, and protection. It took them out of the category of private buildings. These buildings had been privileged in consideration of one thing, and that was that they should be used for religious worship, and for that alone. For instance, by the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 30, it was provided that a meeting house used for the purpose of religious worship should be exempted from the payment of rates. That meant that every ratepayer in the district paid so much more money in order that these buildings might be free. Thus they were supported, to a certain extent, out of the public funds. They were supported in this way for one reason, and that was that they should be retained exclusively for public worship. If the Committee refused to pass this clause, they would allow the buildings to be used for purposes wholly alien to the purpose for which they were originally built, and for purposes which must be objectionable to a great number of persons. Then, again, the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 81, provided— Whereas it is expedient that all Places of Religious Worship, not being Churches or Chapels of the Established Church, should, if the congregation should desire, but not otherwise, be certified to the said Registrar General.

Those buildings had been willingly placed by the congregations under the yoke of the State. They had been placed under State protection; and, what was more, the actual ownership in them, in almost every case, was vested in the official trustee of charity lands—that was to say, in a State-paid officer. Surely buildings of that class ought not to be used in a way which must be alien and objectionable to one or other of the Parties in the State. The registration and certification brought with them other great privileges—for instance, by the 10th section of 17 Vict., the places in question were exempted from the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act. They were made by the certification and registration places for the solemnization of marriages; they were used for the purpose of exhibiting public notices, and registers of births, deaths, and marriages at those places were kept at Somerset House by the State. The Acts of Parliament he had cited placed the buildings he referred to in a very different category from those buildings which were used only for private religious worship; and therefore it would be quite inapplicable, in their case, to maintain the doubtful doctrine that a man might do what he liked with his own. This clause would not extend to Scotland. The Scotch had peculiar ideas; and, therefore, he had thought it better not to include Scotland in the provisions of his clause. He asked the Attorney General to assent to his clause on three grounds—the first was the protection of places for religious worship from irreverence; the next was to carry out the principle of controlling and preventing and extinguishing spiritual influence; and the third was that the places which were certified by the State for one purpose, and which were exempted from rates on condition that they were used for that purpose, should not be used for a totally different purpose.

New Clause (Churches not to be used for election purposes,)—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,) brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would remind the Committee that they had had the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) once before, as he had used the self-same arguments on the clauses referring to committee rooms. The hon. Gentleman had said he had taken that course at his (the Attorney General's) request; but there could not possibly be a greater mistake.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, what he had stated was that he hoped to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's approval.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had also stated that he did not mean to include Scotland in the provisions of the clause. He (the Attorney General) presumed that that was in obedience to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), who, rising from his (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) side of the House, had said he could not see the slightest harm in meetings being held in places of worship as was the case in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the Scotch had no other places of meeting, and it was found that there was not the slightest injury done by their assembling in such places. He (the Attorney General) could not see why, if it was not a desecration in Scotland, it should be a desecration in England. [An hon. MEMBER: Or in Wales.] It was impossible for the Committee to tell a clergyman what he should say to his congregation. For instance, hon. Members opposite would not for a moment contend that a clergyman at Northampton should be prevented from denouncing, if he chose, Mr. Bradlaugh. He did not consider that they ought to interfere with the right of religious bodies to conduct their places of worship as they thought fit; and, considering that they had discussed the matter before, and that they had a very hard day's work before them, he respectfully asked the Committee to come to a speedy determination upon this point.

MR. RAIKES

said, he did not intend to speak at any length upon the question; but, as he did not take part in the discussion on a somewhat similar Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had moved some days ago, he might be permitted to make a few remarks. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered one point that had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire—namely, that the buildings referred to were relieved from the payment of rates on the ground that they were to be exclusively used for religious purposes. He should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would hold that an election meeting was so exclusively a religious purpose as to entitle the place in question to exemption from public rates? He should be glad to know whether, in the event of any overseer attempting to rate a Dissenting chapel used for the purpose of a political meeting, it would be held by any legal authority that a political meeting was a religious meeting? A meeting might have been held in a chapel at Northampton for the promotion of the election of Mr. Bradlaugh. Would that be held to be so exclusively a religious purpose as to exempt the building from any contribution to the public burdens? Reference had been made to the case of Wales. Now, he and the Attorney General might be allowed to differ on the question as to the use of chapels in Wales for political purposes. As a matter of fact, the chapels of Wales were so used for the exclusive purposes of one political Party. Some little time ago a Dissenting chapel was built on land immediately adjoining some property of his (Mr. Raikes') own; and he was asked whether he would lease to the trustees an adjoining piece of land, on which to build a Sunday school and mission room in connection with the chapel? He said at once that he should be extremely happy to let them have the land at almost absolutely no rent—at a peppercorn rent—if they would undertake that they would not use the room for political purposes; and the negotiation immediately fell through. This was only another illustration of the use which so-called places of reli- gious worship were put to in Wales. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would take the sense of the Committee on the matter; because, at the present time, there was certainly a strong feeling which prevented members of the Church of England from devoting their churches to political purposes. [Mr. DODDS: Oh, oh!] He did not believe that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) would find any clergyman of the Church of England in his own borough ready to open his church for any political meeting. The feeling of the members of the Church of England was very strongly opposed to the use of their churches for such purposes; and he had very great doubt as to whether it would be a legal use so to appropriate those churches. It was, therefore, extremely unfair that other religious bodies should be allowed exclusively, as they pleased, to turn their buildings, which enjoyed exemptions on account of their religious character, into committee rooms or meeting houses in support of any particular candidate. This clause would certainly tend to remedy what was an admitted injustice, and to promote considerably the freedom of elections from undue influence.

MR. WARTON

said, they were all very much obliged to the Attorney General for the lead he had given them in going through the clauses of that Bill. He did not think, however, that they were equally obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he spoke of the hard day's work that was in front of them, and hinted to the obedient majority behind him that discussion on this subject was to be suppressed. There was good reason why the Liberal Party should want to suppress certain subjects in that discussion. There was a great difference between the Liberal Party and the Tory Party on that question. The Tory Party preferred religion to politics, and to reverence its houses of God; but the Liberal Party preferred politics to religion, and to desecrate its religious places. Every church in Wales was turned into an election meeting house. The Church of England, on the contrary, held aloof from all political Parties. It did not attach itself to one Party or the other. On the other hand, the Liberal Party always boasted that the Nonconformists were its backbone; and no doubt it was on that account that the Government looked with favour upon the use of Dissenting chapels in Wales for political purposes. As a matter of fact, in Wales a spiritual despotism prevailed to an extent that was utterly unknown in the Church of England, or even in the Church of Home. He knew that men had actually withdrawn their names from a committee because they had been threatened with damnation by the wretched Welsh ministers if they allowed their names to remain on the committee list. He (Mr. Warton) hoped the point so ably stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) would be taken advantage of some time or other. He hoped that the Excise would awake to the importance of settling this great question in Wales, and that the so-called places of religious worship in the Principality would be rated as they deserved. The Welsh people had little regard for the sacredness of their chapels, and he was inclined to remind them of what the highest authority had said— My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

MR. RICHARD

said, he differed entirely from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport who had just addressed the Committee. He considered that politics were not so impure and unclean as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine; indeed, he (Mr. Richard) thought it would be better for many of them if they made politics a part of their religion. He did not consider that to hold political meetings in a place dedicated to public worship was any desecration of such a building at all. Some hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had been kind enough to take the chapels of Wales under their guardianship; but if Wales had not sent to the House of Commons such a large preponderance of Liberal Members they would not have heard so much of this question. He doubted whether hon. Gentlemen who railed so much against the state of things in Wales had ever attended a Welsh chapel on the occasion of the holding of a political meeting, because it was evident they did not understand the manner in which meetings in these places were conducted. He (Mr. Richard) had attended many of these meetings, and, even in the midst of the excitement of a contested election, he had never seen anything that was not perfectly orderly and discreet, or anything that would throw discredit upon any place. He hoped the Government would not listen to this proposal.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 155: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 200.)

MR. GIBSON

said, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) he would move the clause which stood in his right hon. Friend's name—namely—

(Charges of returning officers.)

"The maximum charge to he made by the returning officer for constructing a polling station, with its fittings and compartments, in England shall be five guineas, in the place of seven guineas named in 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' Schedule 1, Part 1 and Part 2."

This was a very short clause, and hon. Members would see at a glance what it meant. It was obvious that it was very desirable to diminish Returning Officers' expenses, if it could be fairly done. The expenses of constructing polling stations were found in every election; and, therefore, it was proper to examine the matter with some care. The subject was discussed by a Committee in 1875, and the greater part of the evidence was to the effect that five guineas was an ample sum to give to a Returning Officer for the construction of a polling station, and it was only on the casting vote of the Chairman that the sum was enlarged to seven guineas. He (Mr. Gibson) was informed that subsequent experience and examination had gone to show that five guineas would be ample to give to a Returning Officer.

New Clause (Charge of returning officers,)—(Mr. Gibson,)—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 shared in the views of his right hon. and learned Friend, and was anxious to do everything he could to lessen the election expenses; but he was afraid that it was absolutely impossible to make the reduction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. All Returning Officers agreed that it was exceedingly difficult to carry out the present scale, which was quite low enough; and he would mention an instance in which the expenses incurred by the Returning Officer had been considerably more, and were afterwards paid by the candidates.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was sorry that the Attorney General could not accept this Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he had had communication with the Returning Officers, who said that the limit was not too high; but his (Mr. Rylands's) experience led him to the belief that if they put a lower limit the work would be still done. Unfortunately, the candidates were not able to check the matter themselves when the time came for paying the expenses of the Returning Officer. The Attorney General would be aware that candidates were often embarrassed by various considerations, and that they were unable to take measures for the protection of their own interests. They found themselves bound to submit. Personally, he had had two distinct experiences. His first experience of the Returning Officers' charges was in the borough of Warrington, and was of such an extraordinary character that his hon. Opponent (Sir Gilbert Greenall) and himself were driven to take the unusual course of saying that they would strike £100 off the bill, and they succeeded in getting it reduced by that sum. But in the borough of Burnley, which he now represented, the Returning Officer's charges were of a most moderate description. Everything was managed, not only in an economical, but in a most efficient manner. It would thus be seen that there was a very great difference in the way in which Returning Officers acted in regard to election expenses. It was a sort of local expenditure, which did not come out of the pocket of the Returning Officer; and, therefore, some gentlemen were very careless indeed as to the arrangements they made for taking the poll, and in providing the other requirements connected with an election. He had no doubt that if the expenditure was charged upon the rates, instead of being borne by the candidates, the cost of the polling stations and the other arrangements would be very much less; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to a Division he should certainly support him. He was of opinion that great advantage would result from limiting the expenditure. The Returning Officers would then cut their coats according to their cloth, and would have very little difficulty in keeping the expenditure within the limit specified in the Act.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he very much doubted whether, if these expenses were charged upon the rates, the Returning Officer would cut them down, because the Returning Officer would be in no degree responsible to the ratepayers, and when authorities were not responsible to the ratepayers he suspected they would be quite as ready to make the ratepayers pay as anybody else. What he would venture to suggest was this. The Attorney General said that the present maximum of 7 guineas was by no means too high in some cases; but there were cases in which the polling station was held in a schoolroom, where a sum of 7 guineas would, by no means, be required. Might not the hon. and learned Gentleman meet the matter by enacting the maximum average charge should be 5 guineas, so that if there were 10 polling stations a total sum should be allowed of 50 guineas. But when the amount came to be paid it would be found that while one polling station cost 5 guineas others would cost less.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he knew a great deal about this subject, and had received many communications in regard to it. No Returning Officer was allowed to charge more than the actual expenditure. This maximum was for the construction of a polling station. If a schoolroom was used it would be right to say to the Returning Officer—" You have only spent £2 in fitting up the schoolroom, and you shall not have anything beyond that sum." But if he contracted to build a polling station such as the old-fashioned polling-booth, then the work could not be done for less than 7 guineas. There were many items in the Schedule which he was afraid would be considered too low, and in regard to this particular item, he did not think he could with safety allow their Returning Officers to charge a less sum. On the occasion which he had mentioned the ratepayers had to pay for the work done. It was done as economically as possible, but it cost £300 more than the sum allowed. He had received hundreds of letters upon the subject, and he could not consent to any further reduction.

MR. GIBSON

said, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was the author of the Amendment, he thought the best course he could take was to withdraw the Amendment, so that his right hon. Friend might bring it up again on Re-port, if he considered it desirable that the modification suggested by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be adopted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he begged to move the following Clause:—

(Summary jurisdiction during the election.)

"Any person found guilty of a corrupt practice under the provisions of this Act shall, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to the payment of a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. In any borough or district in which a stipendiary magistrate has been appointed, such case may be heard before such stipendiary magistrate between the issuing of the writ for an election and the close of the poll. In any borough or district in which no stipendiary magistrate has been appointed, and in every county or division of a county, the Lord Chancellor shall appoint a barrister of seven years' standing to act as the magistrate to hear and determine any complaint preferred under this Act, between the issuing of the writ and the closing of the poll, at any election for such county or borough, and such barrister shall have, for the purposes of such hearing and determination, all the powers of a petty sessional court."

The object of the clause had been on more than one occasion discussed during the proceedings of the Committee, and during the discussion it had met with something like general approval from all parts of the House. He, therefore, appealed to the Committee with some confidence, although he was aware, at the same time, that there were very great difficulties connected with the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General a short time ago mentioned that, with respect to Election Petitions, he regarded the expenditure which they involved as of an enormous and ruinous character. The scheme which he (Sir William Hart Dyke) proposed was, to a certain extent, in competition with the Bill. He believed that he did offer adequate protection to the candidate who wished to fight a fair election, and who was unwilling to incur a vast and ruinous expenditure in a Petition. He did not think he could better show the meaning and object of the clause than by quoting a case. He would assume that an election was proceeding in a borough, and that a local candidate, who was well known in the borough, and was deservedly popular, and who had the good graces of the electors and every prospect of success, was standing against an opponent who was a rich man, who had only lately settled in the borough, and was, therefore, not as well known as himself. On the day of election, towards 12 or 1 o'clock, it would be found that a certain class of electors were going somewhat wrong, and it would be discovered that many voters who had promised to support the local candidate were voting for the other side. What course was the local candidate to pursue Tinder these circumstances? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said he would have the protection of the vast penalties imposed by the Bill; but he did not think the local candidate would approve of a protection which involved him in the grievous expense and responsibility of presenting a Petition. The penalties under the Bill were very severe indeed, and very properly so; but if the object was to give immediate relief to the candidate he found himself placed in a difficult and dangerous position. They all knew the pressure that was put upon a candidate under such circumstances. His friends came to him and said—"You are quite safe from a Petition, because the other side have not got their hands clean, and they dare not petition against you. Therefore, you must allow your supporters to go and do likewise. This scheme would, he thought, prevent what must happen in the future as it had often happened in the past—namely, a system of squaring Petitions. He believed that under so severe an enactment as this Bill corrupt practices would even be more frequently resorted to in the future than they had been in the past, because people would be disinclined, as far as possible, to bring those severe penalties to bear. It was acknowledged on all hands that the great difficulty in regard to the clause was the tribunal by which it was proposed to carry it out. His position had been by no means an easy one in regard to the tribunal; but he had been challenged to frame the best tribunal he could, and whether he had succeeded or not he had done his best. He had endeavoured, at all events, to frame a simple tribunal. The tribunal which he proposed to hear cases of this kind was either the stipendiary magistrate, where such existed, or, if they had no stipendiary magistrate, a barrister of seven years' standing, which he believed to be the same qualification as that for a stipendiary magistrate. He did not know whether that tribunal would meet with the approval of the Attorney General; but he believed that it grappled with many objections which had previously been urged against his proposal. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had criticized it in a friendly but rather a severe spirit, and had said that it meant that both sides were to commence an election by taking each other into custody. He believed that people who were earnestly engaged in fighting their own battles at a contested election would have too much to do to raise frivolous objections, and his object had been to obtain a non-political tribunal. It had seemed to him that the objections raised to a tribunal constituted of the Justices of the Peace was a valid one—namely, that they would be political partizans, and he had done the best he could to meet that difficulty. As the question had been discussed on several occasions, he would not weary the Committee by recapitulating the advantages of this proposal and the objections to it; but he would leave it to the tender mercies of the Committee. He had had some experience in electioneering matters, and he believed that the clause would work very well in regard to the objects they had in view. It would afford ample protection to the candidate who wished to fight fairly and honestly; and as the Bill was full of pitfalls, he commended the proposal on account of its simplicity. It simply affected the corruptor who at the moment was caught red-handed, and who would be liable to be taken before a tribunal at once and punished on the spot. He made the proposition in perfect good faith, and he submitted it now for the consideration of the Committee.

New Clause (Summary jurisdiction during the election,)—(Sir William Hart Dyke,)—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 was sure that the proposal was brought forward in good faith, and the only question in his mind was whether it afforded a sufficient remedy. When the matter was discussed before the difficulty pointed out was a difficulty of finding the proper tribunal. He was afraid, if the Committee accepted this clause, that they would find that the tribunal was not a very satisfactory one. It would be necessary to employ about 400 of these gentlemen, and every time a General Election took place the Lord Chancellor would have to select 400 barristers of seven years' standing to do the work. What the Lord Chancellor would say to that he did not know; but he very much doubted, if his noble and learned Friend were to ask all those barristers who were willing to give up their proper and usual functions, that he would be able to find barristers fit to perform judicial duties, or that 400 barristers of seven years' standing would be always forthcoming. But suppose that they were. Probably the average time between the issue of the Writ and the election would be about 10 days. Then, what was to happen? Let him take his right hon. Friend in his own constituency, that of Mid Kent. If a barrister of seven years' standing was sent down there, where was he to go to? He must go to some place or other, and there he would have to wait. What was he to do? Was he to walk about the streets? If so, he thought he would have very little chance of finding out what was going on. Moreover, as far as he (the Attorney General) could judge, the adoption of this clause would entail upon the candidates an expenditure of £40,000, and a good deal of it would be expended for the purpose of sending persons into perfectly pure constituencies where there had never been any corrupt practices resorted to. Let them take the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Where was the barrister to go to? Was he to go down somewhere to remain until he was telegraphed to go somewhere else where he might be wanted. Dealing with the matter practically, he did not believe that they would often be able to catch a briber red-handed. If that were possible they could always arrest them and take them before a magistrate, and prefer a charge of bribery against them; but he had never heard of such a thing taking place. If they caught the bribers at all they did not catch them red-handed, and nobody had ever yet thought of taking a person before a magistrate and charging him with bribery. Then, again, according to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, the moment the poll was closed these barristers of seven years' standing were to go back again; and, therefore, they would be away just at the time when, if any information was to be obtained at all, it would most probably ooze out. Now, before they were asked to pay men to go down to pure constituencies for this purpose, he thought they ought to show that they would get their money's worth for the services rendered. While he regretted that they had not yet been able to find a satisfactory tribunal, and although he knew that his right hon. Friend was actuated by the very best intentions, the tribunal he had proposed was certainly not a satisfactory one. It would be unnecessary in pure constituencies to have such a tribunal, and it would be ineffective in corrupt constituencies, because bribers were not so easily detected as the right hon. Baronet imagined.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY

said, there was great force in what the Attorney General had stated as to the expense and the difficulty of carrying the proposal out in its entirety; but he thought they ought to endeavour to create a tribunal of some sort or other to deter persons from committing these illegal practices, and to impose an adequate punishment for the offence when it was brought home to the briber. He thought that, at all events, the matter was well worth consideration; and if the Attorney General did not see his way at the present time to appoint Justices of the Peace where there were no stipendiary magistrates, at all events let him give the power now asked for in places where there were stipendiary magistrates, and where flagrant cases occurred at the time of a General Election. It would have this great advantage—that it would enable them to deal with those carpet baggers, who were always found at election times, who went down from nobody knew where, and who disappeared immediately the election was over. It was most desirable that they should catch such men while they were engaged in their nefarious practices, and not wait until an indictment could be preferred. He thought, if the Attorney General could see his way, it would not be difficult to insert a clause in the Bill to provide that where stipendiary magistrates existed, and where the district comprised a population of not less than 10,000, the stipendiary magistrate should have the power of checking bribery on the spot, and of dealing with persons who were engaged at an election time for no other purpose than that of committing illegal practices—those "men in the moon" of whom so much had been heard.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the clause certainly recommended itself to his mind, although he thought that the criticism of the Attorney General with regard to barristers of seven years' standing was quite warranted. He would, however, like to know if it were not possible to give the power to the County Court Judges? There were County Court Judges all over the country, and if it were possible to snap up these persons, take them before the County Court Judges, and secure their summary punishment, it would be beneficial to the community generally.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, that the Attorney General's criticism of the details of the clause had not produced in his mind the impression that during the 12 months the Government had had for considering what the tribunal ought to be that they had devoted any serious consideration to the question. Why should it be assumed that it was necessary in all these cases that the tribunal should be brought to the offender—why not bring the offender to the tribunal? Surely a tribunal might be created for a large area surrounding a borough. Why should it be necessary to adhere verbally to the terms of the clause, that no case should be determined, except it happened to be a complaint arising out of acts committed between the issuing of the Writ and the closing of the poll? In a borough with a stipendiary magistrate, there would be no ground for anything of the kind. He wished that more attention had been paid by the Government to the very valuable suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) when the clause was last discussed by the Committee—namely, that the magistrates of a county should appoint to act on such a tribunal a certain number of persons by rota who should be disqualified from taking part in the election.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him that this proposal was intimately connected with Section 40 of the Bill, which made provision for a Special Commissioner to go down to a borough and try persons charged with corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring, within six months after the election occurred. He thought the two cases were intimately connected. The Attorney General had given overwhelming reasons why it would be absurd to send down 400 barristers of seven years' standing to the pure constituencies in the Kingdom. It would be most absurd to send down such a person to watch his (Sir George Campbell's) constituency; because he felt quite certain that he would not find out anybody breaking the law. The principle of the provision contained in Section 40 was that when the Public Prosecutor had reason to suppose that any corruption or malpractices had been going on, he should have power to send down a Special Commissioner to try summarily any offence of that kind. He hoped the Attorney General had not altogether thrown out of consideration the possibility of restoring Section 40 in some form or other, and that there would be some tribunal provided by the Bill by which offences of this kind would be tried in a summary way, instead of by the presentation of a formal Election Petition. He thought that in that way the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman of finding 400 capable barristers would be got over; because, except in special cases, it would be found that the Special Commissioner would be quite sufficient.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he regretted the change of tone in the Attorney General's statement from that which he had adopted when the subject was before the Committee on a previous occasion. He understood then that his hon. and learned Friend entirely approved of the proposal, and that the only difference had reference to the nature of the tribunal. If the Committee would read the clause a second time, it would then be in their power to discuss the details, and especially to see whether it would be necessary to have these 400 barristers. It might be possible to confine the clause to the polling day, and to provide that it should not have effect except upon the requisition of the Returning Officer, who might have good reason to suppose that corrupt acts were likely to take place on a polling day, and that the presence of some authority with power to deal with such cases might be necessary. All these suggestions might enable the Committee to cut down the wide nature of the proposal as it now stood, and they might amend the clause after it was read a second time. But as to the nature of the thing, he did not think there could be two opinions that it was desirable to have some ready mode of putting down corruption at the moment it was taking place. He did not agree with the Attorney General that corruption of this kind did not take place on the polling day; on the contrary, he was of opinion that it was most frequently resorted to on the day of election.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Nobody ever said that it did not take place on the polling day. What I said was, that it was never found out.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, that experience taught them that in a borough where serious corruption prevailed, there was a "man in the moon" whom nobody knew personally in attendance. It was known very well where his head-quarters were; and although it was known very well that bribery was going on, there was no power to check it except by the cumbrous form of laying information before the magistrates and an indictment. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) desired something to be done at once, in order to put an end to this practice—something that should be done then and there. He thought that under such a clause as this, not only would they put a stop to the proceedings of such persons, but that they imposed such a check on the corruption going on as would be most valuable to the candidate who was anxious to conduct the election upon pure principles. So far as the expense of the tribunal was concerned, he thought it would be quite worth while to consider whether it might not be added to the expense of the Returning Officer rather than such a power should not be exercised at all. He believed that if a clause were inserted in the Bill to carry out this object, an effort would be made on both sides to put an end to these corrupt practices. It was continually urged that the other side was doing so and so, and that unless they consented to do the same thing their election would be gone. That was the sort of fulcrum on which many had been hoisted; and he thought a provision of this nature would not only check corruption, if it happened to be going on, but in many cases would prevent it from being resorted to. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the clause, although he admitted that it might require amendment in some of its details subsequently.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, he wished to join in the appeal to the Attorney General to allow the clause to be read a second time. He should be very sorry if the Bill were to pass without any provision of this kind. He thought that one or two cases of summary punishment under the clause would have far more effect in deterring persons from resorting to corrupt practices than the somewhat remote terrors they were endeavouring to hold out in order to bring persons engaged in conducting an election into something like a sensible frame of mind. He would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if he thought he could not deal with the question at the present moment, to bear in mind that there was another stage in which the subject might be brought up, and his hon. and learned Friend might promise to give it his serious consideration. He thought the Attorney General had hardly done so at the present moment. He did not think the mind of his hon. and learned Friend appeared to have matured much in regard to the only serious difficulty in the matter—namely, the tribunal. Therefore, the matter might be deferred until the Report, in order to see if it were not possible to get rid of this difficulty.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) that he and others, who had accused the Attorney General and himself of not giving the matter their serious consideration, were doing them a very great injustice. He could not tell the number of times his hon. and learned Friend and himself, since the subject was first raised, had discussed the matter, and tried to see if they could not make some suggestion to meet the difficulties which had been pointed out. It would appear, however, that he and his hon. and learned Friend seemed to be credited with some superhuman powers, which, he confessed, they did not possess. This matter had now been before the Committee for a month or more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had promised to do his best to put before the Committee a practicable and working scheme, and they had promised most carefully to consider any scheme which the right hon. Gentleman might suggest; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman had given up the matter in despair. Every hon. Member who had spoken upon the clause, including his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), had admitted that the scheme proposed by it, as it now stood, would not work. Then, if the whole of the talent on the opposite side of the House, anxious as hon. Members were to find a scheme that would really work satisfactorily, had been unable to do so, surely it might be suggested that it was feasible that the task was too difficult altogether and almost insuperable. He was afraid that that really was the case. The right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) suggested that barristers of seven years' standing should be sent down; and, as far as he could see from the proposal made, they were to go down gratis, for he did not perceive that any provision was made for remunerating them.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, that no one but the Government themselves could provide for a question of remuneration.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

remarked, that that, nevertheless, was the clause they were asked to read a second time, and it was not usual to read a clause providing for the appointment of an official without something being said as to his remuneration. He did not think the House had ever yet been asked to appoint an official, and expect him to work gratis. One suggestion had been made which was the one that was most likely to be practicable—namely, that the County Court Judges should be entrusted with the duty. He did not know how far that suggestion would be acceptable to the Committee. It was the first time it had ever been proposed that they should be invested with criminal jurisdiction. No doubt, it was a proposal worthy of consideration. The only difficulty in the matter was that they were limited in number, and that they had to go through more counties than one. Some of the County Court Judges had to discharge duties in three or four counties, and had to traverse districts in which there were a good many boroughs. He could assure the Committee that he and his hon. and learned Friend had done the best they could to solve the difficulty, and that they had not altogether abandoned the matter. If any scheme could be suggested which would prove practicable, they were quite open to give their best consideration to it.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he bogged to thank his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) for having devoted his attention to the subject. They had now a declaration both from the Attorney General and the Solicitor General that the subject was one which demanded the attention of Parliament. He could not help thinking—perhaps it might be an old-fashioned notion—that his right hon. Friend might have made the proposal rather more simple than he had, if he had confined himself to proposing the first paragraph of his clause—namely, that— Any person found guilty of a corrupt practice under the provisions of this Act shall, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to the payment of a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. It might then have been left to the ordinary tribunals of the country to dispose of the matter on summary conviction. It was said that they could not give to the Justices of the Peace this kind of jurisdiction. But the great majority of cases would arise in the boroughs, and perhaps those who would not trust the County Justices might have no objection to the borough magistrates. And it must be borne in mind that they were in the habit of placing the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects in the hands of the Justices both of counties and boroughs. He had had considerable experience, both as a county magistrate and as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions; and the result of his experience taught him that on the Judicial Bench the County Justices were elaborately impartial, and that they would rather decide against their own friends than for them. Of course, his experience might have been more fortunate than that of other people; but he certainly saw no reason why persons charged with these offences should not be brought before the county magistrates or stipendiary magistrates, who were dairy entrusted with the responsible duty of disposing of the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects. It did appear to him that they were straining at a gnat if they could not entrust the magistrates with the simple duty of deciding cases, where charges were preferred of corrupt practices at an election. His opinion certainly was that the ordinary tribunals of the country were those to which this delicate work should be entrusted. He would, therefore, ask the Committee to read the first paragraph of the clause a second time; and between the present time and the Report let the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, and the other authorities of the House see whether they could not make some provision for utilizing the ordinary tribunals of the country. At any rate, let them put it on record that they had taken a step which, to his mind, would go further than any other step they could take to check corruption, and to show the country that they were in earnest, leaving the details to be worked out hereafter.

MR. DODDS

said, that several hon. Members were of opinion that the stipendiary magistrates would form a proper and suitable tribunal for the purposes of the clause. But the question was, could stipendiary magistrates be found? In his own part—namely, the county of Durham, he believed there was only one stipendiary magistrate, and he was stationed in South Shields, a very remote part of the county.

MR. STEVENSON

He has been done away with.

MR. DODDS

said, he believed that that was the fact; but he was not made aware of it until a very short time ago. The circumstance, however, made his case still stronger, for it would be seen that in the county of Durham, with its seven boroughs and its two large divisions—each division large enough for a separate county—there was not a single stipendiary magistrate. In the North Riding of Yorkshire there was only one stipendiary magistrate, and he was stationed in the borough of Middlesbrough. Then, in regard to the County Court Judge, that officer in his own district acted as Judge in an exceedingly wide locality, including Whitby, Scarborough, Stockton, and Darlington; and he did not see how the learned Judge could be in each of those boroughs at the same time while an election contest was going on. He had only risen to explain what the facts were in his own locality, both with regard to the stipendiary magistrate and the County Court Judge; and he imagined that the circumstances of the country generally were somewhat similar. He certainly regarded the suggestion which had been made for constituting either the stipendiary magistrate or the County Court Judge the tribunal to carry out the provisions of the clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) as altogether impracticable.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should have brought up a new clause himself if his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent had not shown him the clause he had drawn up, and which he regarded as a workable clause which was not open to objection. If the Government said they could not find a way to accomplish this object at all that was a different matter; but if the Committee made up their minds that the object was a good thing to be done they would find the means of doing it. The Solicitor General had said that they could not send a barrister down, because no salary had been provided. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent, however, had no right to put down any salary. That was a matter which must be left to the proper officers of Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, it was idle to say that the clause was to be thrown aside because no salary had been suggested. What very often happened was that Parliament said a certain thing was to be done, and then the Executive, who were the only persons who could find the money, made provision for it. That was the proper thing to do in this case. There were very few stipendiary magistrates, no doubt; but there were a good many County Court Judges; and when County Court Judges and stipendiary magistrates were not available, he did not see any objection to the employment either of barristers of seven years' standing or of unpaid magistrates. If the Government declared that they did not want the thing done that was another matter altogether. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would carry the clause to a Division, because he thought that if it were adopted it would do more to put a stop to bribery than anything else which they could do.

MR. FIRTH

said, he thought the principle of the clause should be approved. He would be perfectly willing that Justices of the Peace, who had a legal training, and who were barristers of seven years' standing, should have this jurisdiction given them. There would then be a tribunal on the spot. The clause might be amended so as to confer the power upon any stipendiary magistrate, or any County Court Judge, or any Justice of the Peace who was a barrister of seven years' standing, and in that way the difficulty might be got rid of with respect to the carrying out of the main objects of the clause. No doubt there were very strong objections to the clause as it stood.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he thought the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) must have spent all his time in University elections, or he would hardly have suggested that borough Justices should be called upon to try cases of this kind. He (Mr. T. Collins) believed that if they turned to the Blue Books containing the evidence upon corrupt practices at election, they would have found that Alderman this, and Mayor that, had constantly been among the number of persons incriminated and convicted by juries of their own countrymen. Mayors and ex-Mayors were borough Justices, and he strongly objected to persons who were not infrequently guilty of corrupt practices themselves being made the tribunal to try such charges. He certainly did not think that men in that position, who were among the most influential men in the borough, would be proper persons to decide upon a charge of corrupt practices preferred against a person to whom they were opposed in politics. Nor did he think it was desirable to decide such cases without the benefit of a jury. It must be remembered that the cases themselves would occur at a time of great political excitement, and that the persons charged were liable to be convicted and sent to prison for an offence of this kind. Although he deprecated corrupt practices as strongly as any man, he thought it would be wrong to entrust such a power either in the hands of the stipendiary magistrate or the borough Justices. If there was any reasonable mode of licking this clause into shape he would not object to it; but as it had already been before the Committee for a month or two he thought it was only trifling with the Committee to endeavour at this stage of the proceedings to impose it upon the Committee.

MR. WARTON

remarked, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that he and his Colleague had had several private conversations together with a view of dealing with this question since it was started. Now, considering that the subject was started last year by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he should like to know how many consultations had taken place between the Law Officers of the Crown upon the matter. The Government had brought forward this Bill, and it was for them to consider what was the best way to put down corrupt practices. They had also an immense advantage in the fact that they could not only make provision for the prevention of corrupt practices, but they could make provision also for the expense. He thought they would have done a very good day's work if they could provide some scheme, on the lines of the proposition now before the Committee, for practically putting down corrupt practices. He made an appeal to the other side of the House not to be actuated too much by the difficulties ingeniously raised by the Law Officers of the Crown. The object was to put down corruption at the time it was being committed. The Attorney General had said he knew of no case which had been found out during an election. His (Mr. Warton's) expe- rience was different from that of his hon. and learned Friend. He knew of many cases in which particular individuals were known to have been bribed on the day of election by a certain man. It often happened that a mysterious stranger came into the borough, probably from Birmingham, to bribe the voters in the Liberal interest; but he invariably found in the discussion of this Bill that Her Majesty's Government carefully excluded anything that was calculated to interfere with the action of the Birmingham Caucus. The Law Officers of the Crown had been guided by a fixed determination to draw the Bill in a way that would suit the purpose of their own Party, and if it had been promoted in the interest of the Birmingham Caucus alone they could not have drawn up a better Bill. The object of the Bill was to put down bribery and corruption, and he was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to be sufficiently alive to the purposes of the measure. He did not think the Committee ought to allow themselves to be blindfolded, and to take the frantic professions which were made by the opposite side in regard to purity of election, when they found a rigid determination to object to every practical means of putting down corruption. He was perfectly certain that whatever tribunal was suggested the Attorney General would object to it, and, unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a majority behind him to support his objections. Why not assert the principle involved in the matter, and then discuss the details? The principle was to put down corruption at the moment, and to catch the offender, wherever it was possible, red-handed. He believed that he could be so caught, and why should he not be hauled up before the magistrates at once and made to give an account of himself? The Attorney General talked about 400 constituencies. Of course, they knew there were 400 constituencies, but they also knew that in a great number of them bribery had never been heard of. For instance, in regard to the counties, there were never Petitions for corrupt practices. At the last General Election there were only two Petitions against counties. Therefore, they might omit counties altogether from the operation of the clause. Why should not a Schedule be made out of all the boroughs where there had been Petitions during the last 50 years—since the Reform Bill—and a barrister be sent there at election time at the expense of the borough? Let it be known that wherever there had once been corruption there would be an officer in future on the spot. Such a provision would make elections generally cheaper, and, in many instances, would prevent the expense of an Election Petition. He regarded that as an object much more valuable than mere talk about purity of election.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 168: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 201.)

MR. MACFARLANE

said, the subject of the clause he was about to move had been before the Committee on more than one occasion. In the early stage of the Committee he moved an Amendment to the same effect, and he understood then that the Attorney General did not object to the principle of the proposal, but only to its inopportune-ness. At that time a large number of Members were in favour of the principle. He had limited the appeal to undue influence, not because he thought an appeal would be objectionable in other cases, but because he thought it essential to so limit it, as bribery, treating, and corruption of other kinds were questions of fact, and provable; but undue influence was almost entirely a matter of opinion. The object of the clause was perfectly obvious, and did not require to be developed. He would therefore content himself with simply moving it.

New Clause:—

(Right of appeal in certain cases.)

"Any candidate whose election is declared void on the ground of undue influence shall have the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in England, Ireland, or Scotland, as the case may be,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENBY JAMES)

said, that what he had stated was that it was worthy of consideration whether there should be one Judge with an appeal, or two Judges without.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was in favour of two Judges rather than one; but he wished to know whether an appeal would be given in a case of agency? It was desirable to make the Law of Agency as universal as possible; but it was worth considering whether an appeal should not be given on the facts.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that great difficulty existed in the way of a partial appeal under certain circumstances; and he was afraid that he could not do more than say he would consider the subject.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment rather than remit it to the limbo of Report.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was entirely in favour of two Judges. There were many cases of great hardship in regard to agency, and he certainly thought that when they were taking away the character of, perhaps, an honest and respectable man there should be some appeal, and he hoped the Attorney General would provide that in certain cases there should be an appeal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Farrer Herschell), the following New Clause was inserted after Clause 12:—

(Corrupt withdrawal from a candidature.)

"Any person who induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, shall he guilty of an illegal payment, and any person withdrawing, in pursuance of such inducement or procurement, shall also be guilty of an illegal payment."