PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.

§ MR. F. W. BUXTON
, in moving to insert, in page 1, after "candidates," in line 7, the words "at Parliamentary elections," said, the clause would then run— Whereas, under section four of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, persons other than candidates at Parliamentary elections are not liable to any punishment for treating," &c. It seemed to him that, if the words he proposed were inserted, the clause would be more in accordance with the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. The addition of the words would also make the intention of the 1st clause of the Bill clearer; and, therefore, if his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General could see his way to accept the Amendment he should be glad.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after "candidates," insert "at Parliamentary elections." — (Mr. F. W. Buxton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the Amendment was a purely verbal one, and he would accept it.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it seemed to him the clause was better as it stood. They had constantly had it put before them that it was a very common thing to corrupt constituencies at municipal elections, with the indirect object of getting 387 support at Parliamentary elections. It seemed to him that that Bill, if it was to be effectual at all, should apply, not only to direct corruption, but also to in- direct corruption, and that it should be made an offence of quite as grievous a nature to bribe at a municipal election as at a Parliamentary election. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would allow the clause to remain as it now stood.
Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ MR. F. W. BUXTON
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "corruptly," said, that the clause was one which dealt with the subject of treating; and it appeared to him that, in the original Bill, the 1st clause read in a clearer manner than the 1st clause did in this Bill. The Bill brought in last year by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) did not contain the word "corruptly;" but the word was inserted after a very short debate, and without a division, and, if his (Mr. Buxton's) memory served him right, at a time when the House contained very few Members. The object of the clause was that any person— Who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays, wholly or in part, the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person … shall be guilty of treating. He was not competent to speak as a lawyer; but it appeared to him the clause would be simpler, clearer, and more direct in its object, if the word "corruptly" were omitted, so that the clause would read— That any person who by himself, or by any other person, supplies meat, drink, or entertainment, for the purpose of influencing votes shall be held guilty of treating. Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "corruptly."—(Mr. F. W. Buxton.)
Question proposed, "that the word corruptly' stand part of the Clause."

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not consent to the proposed alteration. Last year the word 388 "corruptly" was inserted in the clause after a very full debate; and it was the general opinion that the insertion of the word tended materially to improve the clause.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he could confirm the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The matter was carefully considered last year, and he (Mr. Rylands) was happy to perceive that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, in presenting the Bill to the House this year, had taken advantage of the suggestions which were made, and the Amendments which were accepted last year. His hon. Friend (Mr. F. W. Buxton) seemed inclined to go over all the points which were discussed fully last year, and to dwell at length upon all the Amendments which the Committee succeeded in inducing the hon. and learned Attorney General to accept. He (Mr. Rylands) did not think such a course would facilitate the proceedings of the Committee.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he took it to be the general wish of the Committee that the word "corruptly" should remain in the clause. The word was inserted in the previous Bill, and he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. F. W. Buxton) would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. F. W. BUXTON
said, he was not present last year when the matter was debated; but he had heard, on good authority, that it was not debated at any length. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in. his name, and which had reference to the time during which treating was to render a person liable to serious consequences. He did not know whether the' hon. and learned Attorney General was disposed to accept his Amendment or not. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to accept it at once, he (Mr. Raikes) would not be required to inflict any remarks upon the Committee. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] As he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman was not willing to accept his Amendment, he would point out that the effect 389 of the clause was to render persons who were found guilty of corrupt practices liable to extremely serious consequences, if the clause remained unaltered. The clause said— Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly does so-and-so. "Either before, during, after an election" covered, as was said in the debate last year, not only all time, but all eternity; and when the Bill was in Committee last year, he (Mr. Raikes) proposed to the hon. and learned Gentleman—and he thought he nearly obtained his assent—to leave out the words altogether; because if a person was by any act, at any time, to render himself amenable to this section, it was quite unnecessary to retain the words "before, during, or after" an election, inasmuch as corrupt practices must be resorted to during one of those periods. It was only proper that they should fix some definite time during which the offence should not be committed; for he could not conceive that any treating, however corrupt, could have the effect of influencing any man at a distance of more than three months from the time the treating took place. He did not suppose that if a man was invited to dine with the Lord Mayor, three months before any election took place, it would have the effect of influencing him in giving his vote. That being so, and he being anxious to see the clause put in a shape in which it might be well worked, he had thought well to suggest the insertion of words which might guide the Judge, who would have to try any Petition, as to the period during which treating might be held to be corrupt. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "either before, during, or," and insert the words "at any time within three months before, or during, or at any time within three months."—(Mr. Raikes.) Question proposed, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he thought the Committee would understand what the effect of the Amendment would be. The words "either before, during, or after" an election occurred in the Act of 1854, 390 and that Act had not been found to work any particular inconvenience. The only effect of this clause was an alteration of the law, so as to make other people guilty of treating besides the candidate. Let the Committee examine what the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment amounted to. It was assumed that what the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with was a corrupt act; and it was assumed that it was done for the purpose of corrupting constituents, and influencing voters at elections. If it did not influence a man in giving his vote, it was not an offence at all; and, assuming that the act done was done for the purpose of influencing an elector, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it might be done legitimately, if it was done more than three months before an election. Therefore, affirmatively, the Amendment was this—that it should be lawful to influence a voter, if it was done three months before an election. All Parliament had been striving to do was to strike a blow at all kinds of corruption; and ho could not see his way to accept the Amendment proposed, which, plainly, would legalize corruption at a given time.

§ MR. WARTON
said, it was all very well for the hon. and learned Attorney General to tell the Committee that the Bill was falling in the lines of the Act of 1854. Last year he told them the same thing; but he omitted to say that the word "corruptly" was in the Act of 1854. It was true the words were, to some extent, in the Act of 1854; but he (Mr. Warton) hoped the Committee would exercise its common sense, and see what the question really was. The question was that there should be some limited time fixed, and within that time the candidate should not fall into the additional traps laid for him in this Bill. There were already traps enough for him to fall into; but, under the Bill, he would be able to fall into traps laid by other people. People might be innocent in their motives; but, whether they were innocent or not, it was desirable some time should be fixed. Really, he did not think the hon. and learned Attorney General knew anything about the habits of his fellow-creatures. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had ever seen two honest working men in a pot-house. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had ever 391 seen one fellow pay for a pot of beer in a manly spirit. Englishmen were good-natured fellows, and were fond of their beer; and it was very easy to imagine that if two men got together in a public-house, one might say to the other—"I wish you would vote for that excellent man, the Attorney General; why don't you vote for him?" And if the other man said—"Well, I think I will; "and if he was influenced by reasonable argument, advanced over the drinking of a pint of beer, the hon. and learned Attorney General might find himself condemned to another place—he might find himself subjected to the penalties provided by the Bill, because one man had treated a fellow-elector to a pot of beer. He (Mr. Warton) felt much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) for having taken the matter up, and put the Amendment in a more readable form than the one he (Mr. Warton) had himself placed upon the Paper, which went in the same direction as the Amendment they were now considering. Let them, on the very threshold of a patient and very long investigation, fix upon a few guiding principles, which might shorten their deliberation; let them do something which would decrease the difficulties of an election, instead of increasing them. If there was no limit of time, directly one election was over, and when, possibly, political feeling was running high, people might talk about the next election; and if one man treated another to a glass of beer it might be held to be corruption under this Bill. It appeared to him that three months was almost an extravagant limit of time; but, notwithstanding this, he hoped his right hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a Division. He should certainly support his Amendment, in the interest of common sense, and with a common regard for the welfare of his fellow-creatures.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that, with great respect to his hon. Friends who bad moved and supported this Amendment, he (Mr. Gregory) could not altogether join in the opinions they expressed; in fact, it appeared to him that the Amendment would operate prejudicially to candidates. Let them see what the clause was. The clause provided that if a candidate, by himself, or by any other person, treated an elector, "for the pur- 392 pose of corruptly influencing that person," he should be guilty of the offence of treating. His hon. Friends would see that very great importance attached to the words "corruptly influencing," and that these words governed the clause. Now, with respect to the proposed limitation of time, it appeared to him that it would have the effect of putting a construction on those words, and that many acts, innocent in themselves, would be held to be corrupt, because they were done within the period limited; whilst many others, which were absolutely corrupt in themselves, would escape, because they were not done within the time named. It appeared to him, therefore, that the proposed Amendment might, in many cases, be prejudicial to a candidate, and in others lead to an evasion of the law.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, he presumed the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was to prevent a candidate nursing a borough. There were, however, two ways of nursing supporters. There was a new-fashioned mode, and it was a mode of a very reprehensible character. How far the Act operated upon Caucuses, or upon political organizations in boroughs, he could not yet say. Organizations might be legitimate, and even desirable; many political organizations existed with the ostensible object of educating the population; but it was well known that some organizations existed which did really a great deal more than educate the people—they intimidated them. They got up cheap trips, feasts, and tea-parties, and other social entertainments, and the members of the Caucus were attracted to those entertainments. The candidate did not do this, but his friends did it. He submitted that, under the operation of this clause, the hon. and learned Attorney General might be made amenable for the acts of the Caucus which possibly existed in Taunton. In the interests of candidates, he advised the hon. and learned Gentleman to carefully re-examine the clause. He thought they ought to have a clear understanding as to what was the kind of Parliamentary treating that this Bill would prevent.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he should have preferred the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for the 393 University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes); because he considered that 28 days before or after an election was quite a long enough period during which treating could not take place. As, however, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport deserted his Amendment in favour of the one now under consideration, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) would go to a Division. As he had previously said, this Bill "bristled with penalties." He thought the law was quite severe enough as it now stood; and, so far as he could understand the present law, if it was strictly carried out, there was not an hon. Gentleman in the House who would retain his seat—certainly, there was not one hon. Gentleman who took part in a contested election who would now be sitting in the House if the law were strictly carried out. Was there any hon. Gentleman who could rise in his place and take an oath that no man gave three-halfpenny worth of ale to another man to vote for that hon. Member? He did not believe that any hon. Gentleman in the House could take such an oath. [" Oh, oh "] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to doubt it; but he would be a bold man who would rise and maintain that no one did give a glass of ale to one or other of their friends, as a means of persuading him to vote in a particular way. Under the circumstances, he considered the law was very severe as it stood, and the object of the Bill was to make the law stricter.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was right in the assertion that this clause would make the law stricter. As far as the candidate was concerned, this was simply a re-enactment of the existing clause. All that was now being done was to extend the existing clause to other persons. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought there was great force in what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). They must take care that they did not, by accepting such an Amendment as the present one, make the law really absurd. It was quite true that it might be very likely, if such an Amendment as the one now before them was accepted, that an innocent act done within three months would practically become a guilty act. He did not see his 394 way to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes); but when they came to a later part of the Bill—Clause 7—where, for the first time, there was any mention of the maximum expenditure, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would find that he would he confronted by a very great difficulty.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was that the clause introduced a new state of law in reference to treating; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had contended that there was no change whatever in the law. As a matter of fact, it was a law which had existed in the country for the last 30 years. If reference were made to the Act of 1854, it would be found that the offence of treating was defined as follows:— Every candidate who, either before, during, or after any election, directly or indirectly, gives or provides refreshment, &c., &c., shall be guilty of treating. Therefore, the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) now proposed would make a change in the law; so that it was not correct to say that the existing Bill made a change in the law. He hoped the Committee would not do anything which would tend to perpetuate the system of nursing boroughs by way of treating. The nursing system was one of the most ingenious and one of the most successful means of corrupting boroughs; and he hoped the Committee would show that they were not desirous of relaxing the existing law in favour of this objectionable practice.

§ MR. ONSLOW
said, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill was intended to extend the Act of 1854. The words of the clause were "any person who corruptly, by himself, or by any other person." Now, suppose a gentleman went down to a constituency at the last moment, knowing, possibly, little about the place. He appointed So-and-so as his agent, and that agent might appoint someone else as sub-agent, and that sub-agent, only a very short time before, might have done something which brought him under this Bill. The 395 candidate would know nothing whatever about his agent or sub-agent; but, after it was found out that some time before the election agent or sub-agent had treated a man to a glass of beer, or had given, possibly, to a working man's daughter a dress, which was just as much treating as giving to the man himself a glass of beer, a Petition would be filed, and the candidate would be ousted from his position, and pains and penalties would accrue, although he himself had not been guilty of the slightest digression. It was strictly unfair that a candidate, under such circumstances, should be held liable.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that if that Amendment were carried, it would, to a great extent, destroy the efficiency of the Bill. What was the effect of the Amendment? It was clearly that, three months before any election, a man might treat any number of electors, and do it with the avowed purpose of influencing their votes. There would be, as a matter of fact, a great inducement, and encouragement to any candidate to indulge in treating. It was well known to many hon. Gentlemen that it was not an infrequent thing for candidates to entertain the whole body of their supporters. In fact, it was on record that, on one occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) represented Chester, he took a large body of his supporters to Rhyl—["No, no!"]—at all events, a large number were taken to Rhyl; they enjoyed themselves very much; and whether the right hon. Gentleman or his Committee paid the expenses he (Mr. Rylands) knew not. It was quite clear that any operation of that kind, promoted by a candidate, must have a tendency to corruptly influence the electors and secure their votes for him. He thought the Committee ought to resist any term of this kind, which might very seriously affect the efficiency of the Act.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, there was nothing in the severity of the clause that would induce him to vote for the Amendment; but there were other reasons that would induce him to do so. If there were no fear of corrupt purpose and intent being attributed to persons who had no such intentions, there would be no need of limiting the clause in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gen- 396 tleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). The clause said— Any person who corruptly, by himself, or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person," &. How could they be sure that things of that kind, innocently done many years before an election, would not, after the election, be alleged to have been done for the purpose of corruptly influencing electors, although they had nothing whatever to do with the election? Take the case of a rich man, who had done some acts of kindness and liberality in a borough, in the neighbourhood of which he had, perhaps, resided for many years without the slightest intention of standing as a candidate for the constituency. Suppose that something occurred which changed his mind, and that he became a candidate; under the clause, as it stood, he would be liable to have a charge brought against him of corruptly influencing the electors. He thought that some protection should be afforded to a person so placed; and unless the Government made provision for that purpose he should vote for the limitation of the clause.

§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY
said, he believed that, in practice, the Judges would only interpret as corrupt acts which occurred within a short time of the election. It was suggested that the Amendment would legalize nursing; but, unfortunately, some of the worst kinds of nursing had been held not to be treating.

§ MR. WARTON
said, the Bill did not, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), merely express the law as it already existed. The law did not make these simple acts illegal; it was the Bill that sought to do that; and, therefore, he begged to correct the hon. Member upon a subject that Gentlemen who supported the Amendment on that side of the House were perfectly well acquainted with. The Bill was one which many people hugged to their hearts, because they thought it would diminish the expenses at elections; but there could be no doubt that, if the clause were passed without being amended in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman 397 the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes), it would materially increase the expenses on Petitions, because there would be no limit to the opportunities and endeavours of persons who wished to unseat the successful candidate. The Bill would not have the economizing effect that was expected from it by many, and that very clause would increase immensely the expenses on Election Petitions, because hundreds of small things would have to be gone into that were now passed over. They had been told that the Judges henceforth would not hear just enough evidence to make out a case, but that the whole matter would be investigated. This would necessarily increase the expenses on Petitions.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he knew it had become a habit to nurse constituencies of late. There was the hon. Member who claimed Northampton nursing that borough all round the country; another Gentleman was at that moment nursing North Warwickshire. Rethought the present period of nursing was very likely to be fraught with corrupt practices, especially treating. He suggested to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), and to the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether they might not agree to use the words, "especially within three months before, or three months after, the day of au election? "His own experience went to show that, although corrupt practices might extend over a long period, most acts of the kind were committed within three months before or after the day of election.

§ MR. MARUM
said, he did not see any ground for changing the present law. If the Amendment were agreed to, they would, by implication, permit voters to be corruptly influenced anterior to a period of three months before an election, or when three months after the election had expired, so that the morality of their legislation would depend solely on a period of time. He thought no reason had been shown for altering the existing law.

§ SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE
said, he regretted that he was unable to support the Amendment. His chief objection to it was that it emphasized by a date—a certain period before and after an election—in which a man might do the acts contemplated by the clause, and yet be perfectly secure from the penal- 398 ties imposed. The discussion upon the Amendment had shown that the Bill did not deal with the vicious system of nursing, as it might have done. Did the Bill, in its present form, prevent a man becoming indispensable for the good of a particular borough? Because, if it did not do that, it would not prevent nursing. A man might promise improvements in a borough, and carry them out; he might, in that way, gain the confidence of the electors, and, at a certain date, come before them as a candidate for the representation of a constituency. If the Bill did not deal with such cases it was not satisfactory. There was a certain amount of vagueness in the wording of the clause. For instance, what was the meaning of "during an election?" When did an election begin? Although he could not support the Amendment proposed, he thought it only fair to indicate to Her Majesty's Government that, when Clause 7 was reached, he and his hon. Friends would expect from them something clearer than the word "during;" because they felt sure that, unless the intention of Parliament were more precisely expressed, the Bill would be so oppressive in its character, and so productive of absurdity, that it would defeat the object they had in view.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he was much indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House for what had been said in the course of the discussion; and, although he had not found everyone in favour of his Amendment, it had, at least, elicited the fact that a good deal of dissatisfaction and doubt existed as to the operation of the clause. The Amendment was not, in the slightest degree, proposed in the interest of any candidate. But the effect of the clause, as it stood, was to create a new crime, which was dealt with, under Clause 5, in these words— A person who commits any corrupt practice other than personation, or aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the offence of personation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one year, and to be fined any sum not exceeding two hundred pounds." The object of that was to bring all persons, other than Parliamentary candidates, within the purview of the provisions of the clause. The constituency 399 which he (Mr. Raikes) had the honour to represent was one in which, happily, this contingency was not likely to arise; but there were Gentlemen who, although they were not themselves concerned in the operation of the clause, were yet very much interested in it on behalf of their friends and the public generally. If they said that a person should be liable to be tried at any time in his life, because, years before, ho had given a man a glass of beer, with the alleged intention of influencing an election, and, if convicted, that he should be imprisoned for one year, and fined not exceeding £200—if they were going to create a new crime and punish it with such a penalty as that—they ought, at least, to define it with regard to time, so that the Judges might have it before them that it must have been committed either immediately before or after the election. As to the effect of what was called "corrupt treating," he must, with all respect to those hon. Gentlemen who had used that argument, say that he believed it would have no effect whatever. He did not believe that, even among the humblest class of electors, the fact of giving a glass of wine or beer six months before or after a contest would secure a single vote, or in any way influence an election. He was sorry his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) did not see his way to support the proposed Amendment; and he would remind him that, however the word "during" might be defined, it would not define a period either before or after the election. His (Mr. Raikes's) object in proposing three months was merely to have some period fixed; and if the hon. and learned Attorney General could see his way to meet him he should be glad. On behalf of those persons who might, when engaged in electoral contests, bring themselves, although perfectly innocent, within the range of the present clause, he felt bound to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.

§ MR. WIGGIN
said, he should like a somewhat clearer definition than was contained in the clause. Without that, he should be almost afraid of entertaining his friends for fear of breaking the law. He asked whether the clause would deprive candidates of the right of entertaining their friends in a social manner? Because he feared that would be its effect upon timid and nervous per- 400 sons like himself. If that were so, he should be unable to give it his support.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he could assure the hon. Member that, if the clause were agreed to in its present form, he would not be prevented from continuing a course of moderate social hospitality.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, he could have wished the time specified in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was not so short; it was a pity he had not made it six months before and after an election. On the other hand, he (Mr. Leamy) was inclined to support the Amendment; because ho thought it was unfair to hold a candidate guilty of corrupt practices committed by his agent. They had, after all, to depend on the view which the Judges might take of the meaning of the word "corrupt," to decide whether a candidate was responsible for the act of his agent; but, supposing that a treat, no matter how small it might be, were given by the agent of the candidate for the purpose mentioned in the clause, it would be a corrupt act, and one for which the candidate would be responsible and liable. For that reason, although he considered that the time fixed by the right hon. Gentleman was rather too short, he should support the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. O'KELLY
asked if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would undertake to define the term "moderate hospitality," which he had used in reply to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wiggin)? The whole question turned on that point, because different men had different ideas as to that which constituted liberality in matters of this kind. If the Judge who tried a case under the clause happened to have some personal or political reason for using the law against the candidate accused, his idea of moderate hospitality might not be quite in accordance with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In view of the punishments to which persons convicted under the Bill were liable, he thought they should have some definition of what "moderate hospitality" might consist in, otherwise no one connected with Parliamentary elections would be safe—neither the candidate, nor his agent, nor his friends. There was, moreover, no limit as to the time when this responsibility would 401 begin or when it would end. The Bill placed persons connected with Parliamentary elections in this country completely at the mercy of any malicious individual they might come in contact with; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the present Amendment (Mr. Raikes) ought to persist in taking the opinion of the Committee upon it.

MR. DAVENPORT
said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) to say that a person would be liable at any time in his life to prosecution for the acts specified in the clause. But he (Mr. Davenport) thought that was not the case. The 14th section of the Bill provided that a prosecution for any offence under the Act should be commenced within two years from the date of its commission. If he read the section aright, a man would be perfectly safe from punishment for corrupt practices after two years.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, it appeared, as the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Davenport) had stated, that there was a distinct limitation of two years with regard to prosecutions under the Act. The question was, whether that limitation was sufficient? He would suggest that the clause should run thus—" Any person who within two years before or after an election," &.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 256; Noes 60: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 132.)

§ MR. WARTON
said, he did not propose to move any Amendment until after the word "or," in line 12, when he proposed to insert "within twenty-eight days." No one could say that treating took place after an election with a view of influencing the votes to be given at the election. All the evils of treating were seen when treating was resorted to to induce people to give their votes. It was perfectly conceivable that, after a candidate had been elected, some of his supporters might imperil the election by treating people who had voted; but if, as ho (Mr. Warton) should propose, only treating during the 28 days subsequent to the election were rendered illegal, the probabilities of corrupt influences would be more than met. When 402 the Bill was passed, people would be anxious for the 28 days to go by, in order that they might know whether any Petition was to be presented against the return of a Member. That 28 days was the period allowed for the presentation of a Petition; and if, during that period, the condition of things was un-impeached—that was to say, if everything was perfectly fair, and there was no treating, and it was decided that a Member was returned by the free and independent votes of the electors, it would be extremely hard, subsequently, on account of some paltry act of this kind, to invalidate the election. Did the hon. and learned Attorney General mean that, because some little act of treating took place, it might be months or years after a Member's return that his election was to be rendered invalid? Let them take the case of a General Election. It might turn out that some supporter of a borough Member had given a bottle of beer to an elector, saying—" I will stand you this because you voted for my man at the election," and that might be held to invalidate the election. Surely, the candidate would have misery enough cast upon him by other sections of the Bill, without being held responsible for a small act of that kind any period after the election. He was speaking, of course, of people who wished to treat in a free and kindly English manner—people who wished to have a little jollification after an election, to show their delight at the success of their candidate, or to console the defeated candidate's supporters for their want of success. Surely, treating under these circumstances could not be regarded as treating for a wrong purpose. Surely, the question of treating before an election was a very different one to that of treating 28 days after it had taken place; and whilst, in the Bill, there was interference in the first case, it would be perfectly safe to refrain from all interference in the other case. He would move the Amendment that stood in his name on the Paper.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he must apologize 403 to the Committee for taking up its time on a subject of this kind. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), however, that the effect of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be simply to prevent a candidate from treating for a certain period, but would give him full liberty to treat as much as he liked after the expiration of that period. All the candidate would have to do would be to wait until the ordinary period for presenting a Petition had expired, and then he might spend any amount of money he chose upon the electors. The Amendment would enable candidates to resort to wholesale treating.

§ MR. WARTON
repudiated the allegation that he wanted to enable candidates to treat wholesale. This Amendment had nothing whatever to do with candidates.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
Indeed, it has.

§ MR. WARTON
said, the hon. and learned Member would find in the 1st paragraph of the 1st section "persons other than candidates." Candidates were lot liable to any punishment for treating under this section; the governing words of the clause were "persons other than candidates;" and it seemed to him that whenever the hon. and learned Attorney General was in a hurry he gave a very queer interpretation of the law. Whenever the hon. and learned Member endeavoured to get rid of a question in that manner, and indulged in an exhibition of impatience, he (Mr. Warton) should always take the liberty of correcting him, in the interests of truth and justice, when he found him giving a wrong impression as to the effect of suggested words. The hon. and learned Member had been through many elections, and he knew very well that it was a perfectly natural thing that, after a contest of this kind, a little drink should flow; and surely it must to him appear absurd that, because a little jollification in a thoroughly English fashion took place after an election—it might be months or years after an election—the candidate was to suffer. ["Divide!"] As hon. Members seemed to be very impatient and very anxious for a Division, he would give them an opportunity of dividing.
Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had now to call the attention of the Committee to a very different species of Amendment, and one which did not involve any ideas of corruption at all; he wished to leave out, in page 1, line 12, the words "directly or indirectly." He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General for his construction upon these words—namely, "Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person," did so-and-so, "directly or indirectly." He wished to have some explanation of the construction to be placed on this section, which applied, not only to candidates, but to hundreds of persons who might do any of the little things that would come under the section; he wished to know whether, by the words "any other person, directly or indirectly" referred to, in a case where any other person, indirectly through another person, was guilty of a breach of the section, that other person, who represented the other person who represented the candidate, was to be held responsible? It appeared to him that these words were not wanted at all, because they had already provided for the person himself. They had provided for the other person, and surely it was unnecessary to provide for that other person doing something "directly or indirectly." The provision seemed to him to be a most absurd one; and it was nothing to him that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) said the House had passed it in 1854. In reply to that argument, it might be said that the matter was insufficiently considered in 1854, or that it was unnoticed. He would point out that the words must have one of two meanings—that was to say, they either directly referred to the person himself, and indirectly to the other person; and, if so, it was not wanted at all, because they had got the person himself and the other person; and if it did not refer to the person himself, and indirectly to the other person, it must refer to the other person, and indirectly to another person. He was anxious that they should not have more complication than there was absolute necessity for in this matter; and, therefore, he thought the best way to proceed would be to ask the Committee to strike out the words that appeared to be unnecessary.
405 Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "directly or indirectly."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Warton's) desire was evidently not to amend the clause, but to delay the Bill. The hon. and learned Member might contend that it was no argument to say that they were simply maintaining the law as it stood previously; but, according to him (the Attorney General), it appeared to be a very strong argument. The Judges had been accustomed to give their decisions in accordance with Statutes which had been construed in a certain way; and it was of great advantage to a suitor to know that, in commencing a case, he had not to go through a now litigation in order to secure a proper interpretation of the law. Therefore, if there was a good case for putting forward the law as it existed, and if the existing law could be maintained without inconvenience, it was right and proper that they should maintain it. He hoped the Committee would retain the words in the Bill, as their omission would lead to fresh litigation, as the leaving of them out might be said to indicate an intention of altering the existing law as to what constituted a corrupt practice. The words "directly or indirectly" might refer to a publican, who was an agent for a candidate, treating, not by himself supplying drink, but handing money over to another person to pay for it. He (the Attorney General) really trusted that the law would not be unsettled by the acceptance of this Amendment, which was perfectly uncalled for.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he rose for the purpose of asking a question at this point. He entirely agreed that it was wise to keep the law in the words in which it at present stood, unless there was some very substantial reason to the contrary. It was for that reason that the word "corrupt" had been retained; but there were, no doubt, a certain number of people in the House who did feel that the law as it existed was unduly severe as it was at present understood; and there could be no doubt that Judges had often given 406 decisions unseating Members, notwithstanding that those Members had done all that they could to keep their elections as pure as possible, and notwithstanding that the agents also had used their best endeavours to secure a fair and legitimate return. He referred to cases where, owing to the stray action of one or two enthusiastic persons, who had been employed by the candidate or the agent, great and grievous hardship had been done to the candidate. He had in his mind, when he said this, the case to which Lord Bram well had referred the other day. The question he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose to ask—although he did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would be able to give him an answer—was, whether, when they came to Clause 4, dealing with corrupt practices, he would look favourably upon the Amendments placed upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), giving Election Courts a sort of equitable jurisdiction in these extremely hard cases, as far as corrupt practices were concerned? If the hon. and learned Member answered in the affirmative, it would be a great relief to many persons who took an interest in this measure; and, moreover, he believed, if a satisfactory answer could be returned, it would very considerably ease the discussion on this clause.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he hoped the Committee would not anticipate the discussion on Clause 4; and if he were to give his view on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) he would be improperly interfering with the course of Business in Committee. He would just say that these words "directly or indirectly" did not constitute agency.

§ MR. ECROYD
said, he was not able to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton); but he was anxious to know—the language of this clause, as it now stood, being very comprehensive—what would he its effect in regard to the action of Clubs? He would instance a case which was not at all unlikely to occur. Let them suppose that in one of the manufacturing districts of the North there were two Clubs—a Conservative and a 407 Liberal Club—in the same village. These Clubs would be engaged in a strenuous competition for Members; and funds would be contributed for the purpose of taking a number of the electors an excursion, perhaps, to Windermere or North Wales. Everybody knew that pleasure excursions of that kind, when given to members of political Clubs, were a distinct means of corruptly influencing votes; and what he wanted to know was, whether the clause, as it now stood, would be applicable to those who subscribed to a fund for that purpose? If it were not, the clause would entirely fail to effect its purpose, because he believed that they had far more to apprehend from practices of that kind than from private endeavours to corrupt voters.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that cases of that kind would, of course, stand on their own particular merits; if subscriptions of that kind were found to take place, with the object of influencing votes, whether it was subscribed by one person or by many persons in combination, the Judge would have to consider whether it was legitimate or not. It would be for the Judge to say whether money subscribed in that way was, or was not, subscribed for the purpose of influencing votes.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) could show a single Judgment in which these words "directly or indirectly" had been shown to be essential, he would at once withdraw his opposition to the clause. As yet, however, the hon. arid learned Member had not quoted a single case in which these words had had any effect. It was said that the Law of Agency was not involved in this matter; but, although that was the case, the persons who would come under it would be mostly of the humbler classes, and, in the words of the clause, they might be very easily "found guilty." "Found guilty!" Offences under this clause were made crimes, to be punished with a year's imprisonment, or a fine of £100, and the deprivation of civil privileges for a long time. That penalty was to be inflicted upon a poor man who, "directly or indirectly," on behalf of somebody else, committed some little act which, in the opinion of 408 the gentlemen who inquired into the circumstances, might be contrary to this provision.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 21: Majority 214.—(Div. List, No. 133.)

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would propose, in page 1, line 14, to omit the word "entertainment." He did justice to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that words which had received established sanction should be maintained; but words sometimes changed their significance, and there had been a great change in the meaning of the word "entertainment." In olden times the word probably meant meat, drink, and refreshment; but now it had lost that meaning, and meant some sort of theatrical or musical entertainment, or, perhaps, a lecture. It had lost its old meaning, and it might be interpreted by some young Judge who did not know its old meaning as including a theatrical or musical entertainment, or anything of that sort. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General wished to prevent such entertainments, or a lecture, say, on political economy; but he supposed everything might be allowed which was not meat or drink. If the word was taken in its old sense it meant food and drink, but not in its new sense.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the word "entertainment."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, this word appeared in the Act of William III. and in the Act of 1854; and he supposed it was intended to include not only meat and drink, but anything in the shape of entertainment or hospitality that should corruptly influence a vote. He thought the Amendment was not necessary.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, the point was raised last year; and the hon. and learned Attorney General then gave, as he had given now, an unsatisfactory answer. [Laughter.] This was 409 not a matter to be laughed at or laughed away. Last year the hon. and learned Attorney General said that entertainment was something in the shape of meat or drink; but in electioneering proceedings nowadays the subject of entertainment had changed very much. In his younger days the word always meant meat or drink, and so forth; but now inducements were held out to voters to vote for particular candidates by various methods. In the town of Derby, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Home Secretary represented, there had been, he was informed, very lavish expenditure. Incalculable sums, almost worthy of the Marquess of Carabas, had been spent. Recreation grounds bad been provided, and free libraries and baths and wash-houses—which, no doubt, many people regarded as very delightful. It was very desirable to have au explanation of whether this word "entertainment" was to be confined to meat and drink; and he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General should assent to the Amendment, which would be the shortest way of settling the point, or say what the word was intended to cover.
Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that, as it appeared to be the decision of the Committee to retain the words of the Act of 1854, he would not move the other two Amendments standing in his name.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST
moved an Amendment with the object of providing that the clause should apply to both the person treating and the person treated.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "treating," to insert the words "and the vote of such person, if an elector, shall be void."—(Mr. Gorst.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he would accept the Amendment, for he thought it a very proper one; but the words would come in better later on, at the end of the clause.

MR. GORST
said, in that case, he would withdraw it for the present, and re-introduce it later on.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he wished to understand how the machinery of the ballot would be affected by this Amendment? The feeling of the House when the Ballot Act of 1872 was debated was that no voter's vote should be looked at by anyone; but if a vote was to be made void by this Amendment the papers would have to be looked at. The hon. and learned Attorney General might be able to quote decisions against that view; but he (Colonel Nolan) believed the point had not at that moment been decided, and, certainly, the Legislature had never sanctioned voting papers being looked at. If there was a charge made against a voter, his vote was looked at; but that was not the same thing. A man who personated a voter was not entitled to protection; but the whole theory of the Ballot Act was that the voting papers should never be looked at. This Amendment was entirely against the original theory of the Act.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) did not know the Ballot Act better, seeing that he had taken a very active part in the discussions upon that measure, and had rendered great service. The hon. and gallant Member had overlooked the fact that, under the Ballet Act, votes, which were previously declared bad by a Court of Law, could be followed, and scrutiny had taken place in the case of such votes. There was no danger of inquiry into votes generally, because votes could only be followed after a decision. Only votes previously declared corrupt could be followed. If the hon. and gallant Member were right, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would ask, what was the use of all the machinery of the Ballot Act with regard to counterfoils?

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he should like some explanation as to the effect of the 2nd paragraph, because that would influence him in regard to his vote upon this Amendment. The 2nd paragraph said— Every person … who corruptly accepts … and the vote of such person, if an elector, shall be void. Suppose an agent went down to a borough surreptitiously, and invited 20 corrupt electors to two or three days' jollification, and they promised to vote for anyone he recommended, but when 411 they came to their sober senses voted independently, would their votes be void?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
, in reply, said, that when once a voter was proved to have been corrupt, he ceased to have the power of voting, and his vote was lost to the person for whom it was given.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the Committee must now feel the inconvenience of proceeding with this Bill before they had decided on the details of the Ballot Act Amendment Bill. It seemed to him that they were proceeding in the dark; and he was not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) did not clearly understand the intentions of the Government, which were involved in that Bill, but which had not yet been declared to the House.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
There is no question of the intentions of the Government. I was speaking entirely of the existing law.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he believed there would be no provision in the Ballot Act Amendment Bill to prevent a man's vote being looked at. It was obvious that the Amendment would greatly extend the scope of the Bill, and a great many more votes would be looked at. Was there any provision in the Ballot Act that a vote should be void?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Undoubtedly there is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he thought that, under the old Act, a candidate was punished too severely. This Bill, up to this clause, extended—and he thought quite properly—the punishment from the candidate to the agent. They were now also going to punish an elector. Under the old Act, a county elector might have food at the expense of the candidate; but a great many town electors, at any rate in Ireland, were under the impression that they could get food in the same way.
It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.
The House suspended its Sitting.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]