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

HC Deb 14 June 1883 vol 280 cc566-650

(Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Bake, Mr. Solicitor General.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th June.]

[THIRD NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Corrupt Practices.

Clause 1 (What is treating).

COLONEL NOLAN

, in rising to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from "And every," to "treating," said, he had no wish to detain the Committee long on this point; all he desired to show was what would be the consequences if the Bill were passed in its present form. Clause 1 enacted that treating was a corrupt practice; Clause 2 enacted that corrupt practices were to be punished; and Clause 36 enacted that anyone guilty of a corrupt practice was liable to six months' imprisonment. If the Bill were passed as it now stood, any elector who took a glass of beer, or anything else on the day of election, would be subject to six months' imprisonment. If he could receive an assurance that Clause 36 would be so far modified that treating would not render an elector liable to more than a week's imprisonment, he would be inclined to withdraw his opposition. He really considered that six months' imprisonment was too severe a punishment for the mere acceptance of a glass of beer on the day of election, and he hoped the Committee would take the same view.

Amendment proposed in page 1, line 20, to leave out from, "And every," to "treating."—Colonel Nolan.)

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

THE, ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, they were not now discussing what punishment should follow upon a particular offence; but whether treating was, or was not, to be considered a corrupt practice. It was admitted on all hands that treating had, of late years, been indulged in very largely; and, in his opinion, it would be very undesirable if the Committee were to say that they would not allow treating to be considered a corrupt practice. If it were the wish of the Committee he would be disposed to modify the sub-section in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—namely, by excluding non-electors from the operation of the clause.

MR. WARTON

said, he put down an Amendment upon this point days before the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He was entitled to a little consideration in the matter; and, therefore, when the proper time arrived to put the Question that "and other" stand part of the clause, he should move his Amendment. His Amendment, too, would make better sense.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the proposition just made by the Attorney General was a very reasonable one. It would have been severe in the extreme if persons, not being electors, were to be rendered liable to punishment under the Act.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he considered the Attorney General had very wisely determined to exclude non-electors from the operation of the provision. They ought to go upon the lines that if a man did a corrupt act tending to interfere with the proper conduct of an election he should not be screened from punishment, but that, on the contrary, he should be duly punished. A provision, however, which fastened upon a man the responsibility of somebody else's act must be regarded with the greatest possible suspicion. What the Committee ought to do was to make the Bill very severe against the actual culprit; but not to make a man who might be innocent liable to punishment for what somebody else did.

MR. E. STANHOPE

pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted, either in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), or in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), it would be open for a candidate to treat the wives of electors to any extent he chose.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked if the Committee would like the wives to be punished?

MR. ONSLOW

said, there was a good deal of force in what his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) had just said. It would be a very common thing for bribery in future to be done through the wife. There was an idea in the minds of certain Members of the Committee that people could only bribe with something to eat or drink. The wives and daughters of electors wanted a new bonnet or a new dress; and ho believed that had been one of the common forms of bribery in some places. If the words were struck out he had no hesitation in saying that bribery would be done through the wife.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

No; not bribery.

MR. ONSLOW

said, it would, at any rate, amount to treating. The elector would know it was going on, and therefore treating would take place through the wife. He believed it was a common thing for a bottle of wine to be got from the grocer's shop and given to the wife. The elector was not supposed to know anything about it; but he did know all. If the words in question were struck out there would be an enormous amount of indirect treating, and it would be difficult to prove that the elector knew anything about it. If anyone was to be punished it ought to be both the man and the woman. If the wife or the daughter accepted a new bonnet or dress for a corrupt purpose she ought to be punished, just as much as the man who accepted a bribe.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

pointed out that they were dealing with treating and not with bribery.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was, unfortunately, not able to be present on Tuesday last; and, therefore, he wished now to have some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of the word "entertainment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

rose to Order. The word "entertainment" was passed last Tuesday.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was speaking upon the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), which included the word "entertainment." Surely the Attorney General did not wish to stop discussion. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to omit the words— And every person, whether an elector or not, who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment, or provision shall also be guilty of treating. Under such circumstances the Attorney General said he was not entitled to refer to the word "entertainment." They would get to the end of the clause all the sooner if the Attorney General did not attempt to shut him up. He intended to pay some attention to the Bill; and though the Attorney General objected, he contended, in the presence of the Committee, that for the sake of justice it was absolutely necessary they should understand what the meaning of the word "entertainment" was. He would give the Committee an illustration of what his objection to the word was founded upon. A gentleman, not now a Member of the House, was a great traveller; ho travelled nearly all over the world during the time he was a Member of the House; and when he came back he was in the habit of showing to his constituents some very handsome photographs of the chief places of interest he had visited—in other words, he gave his constituents an entertainment in the shape of an exhibition of the photographs he had collected. Now, he (Mr. Lewis) wanted to know whether such an entertainment was a corrupt practice? It certainly would be if there was any meaning at all in the word "entertainment." He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not withdraw his Amendment. He (Mr. Lewis) objected very strongly to having such dubious words introduced into this penal Act of Parliament without some explanation being offered by the Government. The Attorney General had not properly explained the meaning of the word "entertainment." It seemed to him, too, to be a matter of the gravest possible importance that before they parted with the clause, they should endeavour to understand what was meant by the Government in attempting to cast so great a punishment upon anyone guilty of treating; and, inasmuch as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not yet withdrawn his Amendment, he (Mr. Lewis) submitted that he was entitled to refer to one of the words which formed the subject-matter of the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

protested against the Committee being asked to discuss the word "entertainment" a second time. The question was raised on line 14 in the absence of the hon. Member. They discussed it at length, and they determined to retain the word in the clause. He asked the Committee if it was right that, in consequence of the absence of one Member on Tuesday last, they should now repeat the whole of the discussion which took place on that day, and that he (the Attorney General) should be called upon to give the explanation of the word ho gave on that occasion? The word "entertainment" occurred in an Act passed in the time of William III., and in the 6 & 7 Vict. and 18 Vict. Having once convinced the Committee that the word must remain, he respectfully asked them to relieve him from the necessity of a second explanation.

MR. WARTON

said, it was perfectly true, as the Attorney General said, that upon an Amendment of his (Mr. Warton's) they did on Tuesday enter upon the question of "entertainment." With all submission to the Attorney General, however, he would again point out that the word "entertainment" might be regarded in a very different sense by the person entertaining and by the person entertained.

BARON DE FERRIERES

was of opinion that the very stringency of the Bill would defeat its object. A person who accepted a glass of beer or a meal would necessarily be held guilty under the Act of a misdemeanour. Under the existing law, anyone who treated was liable to a penalty of £50; by this Act, treating was made a misdemeanour, for the commission of which a man would be liable to 12 months' imprisonment and £200 fine. It would rest with the Judges who had to try any Petitions arising under the Act to determine what constituted "treating." "Treating" was an illegal practice now; yet they knew very well it had been the custom of the Judges only to punish when treating was carried on to such an extent as really to demoralize a constituency, or carried on for the purpose of obtaining votes. It was a great mistake to inflict such severe penalties as to ensure their not being enforced.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) was again absent from the Committee; and it was, therefore, possible they would have to discuss "entertainment" even a third time upon his return. Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place, ho (Sir Henry Holland) wanted to point out to him that there was no danger if the friend of his gave his entertainment honestly. Hon. Members overlooked the word "corruptly," and the words "for the purpose of corruptly influencing." To be discussing again what "entertainment" was, without any reference to the question of the circumstances in which the entertainment was given, was really a waste of time.

MR. HICKS

said, that, as there appeared to be great doubt as to the meaning of the word "entertainment," he would suggest to the Attorney General that all the difficulty might be removed by the introduction of some words which would refer the readers of the Act to the Statute of William III in which the word occurred. It would then be seen that the word was intended to have the same meaning in this Act as it had in former Statutes.

MR. F. W. BUXTON

said, ho was glad the Attorney General left it to the Committee to decide whether the words "whether an elector or not" should be omitted or not. The question whether wives and children who accepted a bribe, or were treated "corruptly," should be punished, might well be also left to the decision of the Committee. The clause had been much modified since it was brought in last year by the insertion of "corruptly" and other words. He hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposed omission.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he had not overlooked the word "corruptly," as the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) suggested some Members had. As the clause now stood, it was possible that because a man had come to his house, Heaven only knew how long before or after his election, he might be unseated.

MR. O'KELLY

objected very strongly to the clause. The time was so indefinite that it would be simply impossible for any man to eat or drink on the day of election in the presence of an elector without being brought within the operation of the clause. How was a man to guard himself from being charged at some time or other with having treated corruptly, if he should at any period in- vite one of the electors to dine with him or to drink with him? Whenever a candidate so invited a friend it must either be "before, during, or after an election." There was nothing in the world to prevent any act of hospitality being made to tell against a man.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he thought the progress of the Bill would be greatly facilitated if the Government would define in the Bill the word "corruptly." If the word remained as it was, what would be the result? Why, there were numerous attempts to prove that the giving of some refreshment—in however innocent and harmless a way it might have been given—was virtually a corrupt giving; and it would be when a certain number of Petitions had been tried that the Judges would give their decision as to what corrupt giving was, and what it was not. If the Government would only state what they intended by "corruptly" the whole matter would assume a very different complexion. The clause, as now drawn, was of enormous width; there was no limit as to the person or date; indeed, the only limit to the clause was the word "corruptly," the meaning of which was not thoroughly understood. As matters at present stood, corrupt giving would be entirely a matter for future decision.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

expressed the hope that the Attorney General would not be disposed to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Paget). It was absolutely impossible to define accurately the word "corruptly." If they attempted to define the word it would certainly happen that innocent persons would suffer, and persons who ought to be punished would escape. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Paget) would only try his own band at a definition of the word ho would soon find the difficulty which surrounded him. While he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was upon his feet, he could not help expressing his regret that the Attorney General had yielded to the Amendment which had been proposed. He was sorry, for this reason — that treating in its very nature was a corrupt act; and he thought that the treater and the treated were both parties to a corrupt practice, and ought to be held so by the Judge. It was a serious thing to alter the Bill so as to enable the Judge to come to the conclusion that the treater was corrupt, and that the treated was not. A weak Judge might very possibly say—"Well, so far as the treated is concerned, I cannot say they really are corrupt; but, so far as the treater is concerned, I cannot have any doubt." He did not think a Judge ought to have such liberty allowed him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he only wished to meet the views of the Committee in the matter. What the hon. and learned Gentleman had just said would be a lesson to him never to give way in future upon any matter upon which he had formed a decided opinion.

MR. BIGGAR

said, if he wished to fight an election successfully, he would, if possible, get all his active supporters to be teetotallers from the commencement to the end of the election. He did not think anything could be more disadvantageous to a candidate than that his supporters should get drunk.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked in what way the Chairman intended to put the Question, because he would like to know in what way he could move an Amendment, so as to test the feeling of the Committee as to whether a non-elector who received refreshment was to be held guilty of an offence?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment next in order is that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).

MR. WARTON

moved to leave out, in page 1, line 20, the words "person, whether an." The effect of that would be to exclude from the operation of the clause persons who were not electors.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "person, whether an."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. ONSLOW

said, he hoped the Attorney General would vouchsafe some remarks upon the Amendment. It was all very well to scoff at the idea of wives and daughters being treated; but it appeared to him (Mr. Onslow) that the clause, as it stood, would lead to no end of corruption.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 182: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 135.)

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "or not."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. LEA

said, ho was aware that this was a consequential Amendment; but he regretted that the Committee had accepted the last Amendment, and he hoped the Government would change their minds and adhere to the wording of their own Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had an Amendment to move, upon which he need not advance any arguments. It was to leave out "corruptly accepts or."

MR. MONK

rose to Order, and said, this Amendment would make nonsense of the clause, unless the hon. and gallant Member was prepared to insert some words in their place.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he had always understood that a Member proposing an Amendment was not bound to consider its effect on the sense of the clause, because it was easy for someone else to supply words to make sense. He had known hundreds of eases in which words had been struck out with the result of making nonsense of the clause unless someone had substituted other words.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he is prepared to supply words in the clause in place of these?

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he was prepared to do so; but it was quite new to have to do so at once upon moving an Amendment. Ho could easily put in words which would do no harm, though he did not know that they would do any good.

THE CHAIRMAN

It seems to me a needless taking up of the time of the Committee by moving an Amendment of this kind, which would only make nonsense of the clause.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked how he could put an Amendment upon this point? He had proposed his Amendment, as he understood, according to the usual practice. Of course, he bowed to the Chairman's decision; but he had known the Chairman suggest another form in such a case in which a division could be taken. He wished to do so now, if the Chairman would show him the way, though he believed that his way was really the simplest and best mode, and most in consonance with the traditions of the House. He would take a division upon his Amendment to leave out "corruptly accepts or."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is not out of Order.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "corruptly accepts or."—(Colonel Nolan.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 248: Noes 17: Majority 231. — (Div. List, No. 136.)

COLONEL NOLAN

proposed next to omit the word "treating," and substitute the words "illegal practice." Treating, he said, would, according to the clause, be subject in future to 12 months' imprisonment; but if his Amendment were accepted the offence, "illegal practice," would carry a much less heavy punishment. How could a person who was treated be guilty of treating? As it stood, the provision was not only very severe, but was contrary to common sense or English. The words "illegal practice" were used in several other parts of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the word "treating," in order to insert the words "illegal practice."—(Colonel Nolan.)

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

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, that, as he understood, at the present moment no treating whatever was allowed, either corruptly or incorruptly. If treating was henceforth to be permitted, provided only that no corrupt motive could be proved, it might become very difficult to draw the line fairly, and the door might be open for all the evils of former times, and an unwise discretion be reposed in the Judges. The sound principle was, during an election, to stop all treating, and to impose punishment in proportion to the character and enormity of the offence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should prefer to retain the word proposed to be left out, because it would be rather absurd to make the same offence in one part of the Bill a corrupt practice, and not in another part. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be satisfied to leave the clause as it was.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, he hoped that, in the interests of the Bill itself, the Amendment would be accepted, for he thought it was quite certain that public opinion would not submit for a moment to a man being imprisoned merely for the new offence of having accepted an offer of treating of some kind from a candidate; and that, if the clause was passed as it stood, it would be simply a dead letter. If, however, the Amendment were accepted, there would be some chance of men being punished; and he was convinced that smaller punishments would be more deterrent than heavy punishments in preventing such minor offences as the one under discussion, because convictions would more easily be obtained than if the punishment imposed was so severe as to shock the sense of fairness of jurymen.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought the object of the hon. and gallant Member would be better carried out by opposing the clause, which he was prepared to do. It was impossible to look at this clause apart from the punishment which the Bill proposed to inflict, as ho should endeavour to point out. He did not think the Committee had any appreciation of the great difficulties created by this clause and others in regard to treating.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 18: Majority 156.—(Div. List, No. 137.)

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he believed that his Amendment came next—namely, in line 22, to leave out the words—"And the vote of such person, if an elector, shall be void."

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. Ho had an Amendment upon the Paper which, if this Amendment were agreed to, he would be prevented from moving. It was a consequential Amendment to omit the words—"And the vote of such."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the words "and the vote of such."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. WARTON

said, he believed the Attorney General intended to accept the Amendment, and therefore it was not necessary to say anything to explain its meaning.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

assented to the Amendment, but thought the proper time for discussing the question would be when they reached Clause 29 of the Bill.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

would not oppose, as it was a mere matter of form.

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he proposed now to omit all the rest of the words to the end of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the words "If an elector, shall be void."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

Words struck out.

MR. WARTON

said, the Amendment he now proposed to move was one which provided some kind of limit. Ho moved the insertion, at the end of the clause, of the words— Provided always, That such meat, drink entertainment, or provisions shall exceed in value the sum of one shilling. He thought that, on the principle de minimis non curat lex, they should not legislate with regard to what a high authority had called "trivial expenditure," and that the giving to a voter of a small quantity of meat or bread not exceeding in value 1s., should not subject persons to severe pains and penalties. Ho hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had very kindly accepted other Amendments, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would continue the same conciliatory course. He understood that the regular Birmingham breakfast provided for the electors of the borough cost 1s. 6d. a head. He did not wish to be so corrupt as they were in Birmingham; but he thought there could be no harm in providing refreshments which should not cost more than 1s. He knew the price of beer, and they could get tolerable beer for 8d. or 10d. a pot.

MR. ONSLOW

And for half that price.

MR. WARTON

said, he saw no reason why a drink of beer and a crust of bread, which cost less than 1s., should be regarded as a corrupt expenditure. He hoped the Committee would not deem it desirable to increase the expenditure of Election Petitions by trying every case in which a man had received less than 1s. worth of refreshment.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, page 23, at end, to add "Provided always, That such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall exceed in value the sum of one shilling."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which would simply have the effect of legalizing an improper expenditure for drink and. treating, providing that the treating did not exceed the value of 1s. He could not think the Committee would feel inclined to accept such an Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he really could not support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. He wished, however, to impress upon the Committee that they had serious work on hand, and that the sooner they set about it the better, and come to the consideration of important Amendments.

MR. LEWIS

said, he always paid great attention to the recommendations which came from the Front Benches; but so long as the Attorney General remained obdurate in regard to the main lines of the Bill it would be necessary to discuss every part of it in detail. The essence of the measure was how it would deal with the question of treating, and whether it would bring about any serious and grave alteration of the law. His own opinion was that every line of the Bill was important, and ought to be watched at every turn in the interests of every class of the community, and especially in the interests of unfortunate candidates who were not lawyers. All he had to say for himself was that he should spare no time or trouble in order to secure that every word and letter in this Bill should not be passed into law without being thoroughly understood.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but his remarks apply to the Bill, and not to the Amendment.

MR. DAWSON

said, that if the Attorney General were induced to forget the severity of the provisions of the Bill, the measure itself would be of very little use in Ireland. He hoped that, so far as Ireland was concerned, the clauses relating to treating would not be dealt with as a trivial matter. Unless some indication to that effect were given, it would be regarded by the authorities in Ireland as a very grave matter; and, therefore, he thought there ought to be a clear expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he was not in the habit of construing an Act of Parliament by what was said by the Ministers of the Crown. And he was afraid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) had misunderstood what the Attorney General had said. No Judge would construe an Act of Parliament in the way he had suggested. He did not think it was worth while to spend any time in gravely discussing whether a person was to indulge in corrupt practices provided such practices did not entail an expenditure of more than 1 s.

MR. MARUM

wished to ask what was to be the limit? The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) permitted treating where it did not exceed the value of 1s.; but if there were a large number of persons to be supplied with refreshments the sum might amount to £50 or more, and it might raise a serious question which would enable persons to wriggle out of the Bill. He took it that the Bill was intended to put down corruption, and if it was not intended to do that, the Government might as well drop the Bill at once. Ho did not think there could be any doubt as to the course which should be pursued in reference to the Amendment; but he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to state what was the nature of the interpretation he was inclined to put upon it—not only the logical, but the moral interpretation? He thought that some definite line ought to be laid down.

MR. WARTON

said, he was quite ready to explain, at the invitation of the hon. Member, what his interpretation was. What he meant was that every person—meaning every elector—might be supplied with 1s. worth of refreshment. Ho thought there ought to be a limit of some sort, and he did not think that a small expenditure of that kind would have any moral effect upon the election.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to divide upon the Amendment; but whether the amount was 1s. or £1,000—and if the constituency was a very large one, it might be brought up to that sum—it would be a very serious thing to legalize treating. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlew (Mr. Dawson) that it was very desirable the Judges should know what in the view of the Ministers in charge of the Bill the law was. He recollected that when the Land Act was under discussion, the present Lord Chancellor gave an explanation of the meaning of a certain part of it which related to improvements; but, nevertheless, the decision of the Land Court in Ireland had not been governed at all by the opinion of the Lord Chanceller as to what was in his mind at the time the Bill passed into law. The view of the Judges was governed by what was contained in the Act itself.

MR. WARTON

said, ho would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

moved to add the following words at the end of the clause:— Any person who corruptly by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly subscribes to, or otherwise pecuniarily assists, any society, club, or other association, whether public or private, and whatever the object of the said society, club, or other association may be, for the purpose of corruptly influencing any Member or Members thereof or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at the election, or on account of such person or any other person having voted, or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting at such election, shall be guilty of corrupt practice. The hon. Baronet said, he thought the Committee and his hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill would be of opinion that the question raised by the Amendment was one which deserved to be seriously considered. It appeared to him—although he knew, from what his hon. and learned Friend had said, how earnest his desire was to produce a measure which should radically and completely deal with corrupt practices—that, in a great measure, the Bill let out the large fish and only kept in the small. Ho would take, as an example, the question of treating. He had formerly taken great interest in the game of cricket, and he had the honour of being President of a Cricket Club in the county he represented (Mid Surrey), and of a club near where he lived. When these two clubs were playing a match, he might be debarred from giving them luncheon; but, at the same time, there was nothing to prevent him from putting his hand deeper into his pocket and providing them with a cricket field. It was perfectly well known that many people gave money in a variety of ways without a corrupt intention; but it was also well known that the money would not be given if the donors were not connected with the constituency. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) would probably have had no corrupt intention when he put up a Clock on Bournmouth Pier, and another hon. Member might have had no corrupt intention in providing a clock with musical chimes at Brighton; but would any hon. Member say that in either of these cases the expenditure would have been incurred if the hon. Members in question had not been connected with those constituencies? The money was given for objects which, no doubt, the hon. Members sympathized with; but it was not given in the neighbourhood in which they lived, but in that which they represented. He did not mean to say that it was given for objects that were in any degree blameworthy; but in regard to the way in which donations might exercise very corrupt influences, he would read to the Committee some extracts from a letter he had received during the last General Election. It was from a Nonconformist minister of his constituency, who was anxious to secure a subscription to his chapel. The writer said— Among the people worshipping with us are Churchmen, Congregationalists, and Wesleyans. Some of them profess Conservative principles, and will vote accordingly. But by far the largest portion of them reason in this way We don't take any interest in politics. It seems to us that there is not much difference between Conservatives and Liberals. But we do take a deep interest in our place of worship, and we are anxious to get it out of debt—so that our consciences may not trouble us when we worship God, at the remembrance that we worship Him in a house that is burdened with debt. Those who help us most in our struggle to meet our liabilities are our best friends, and will get our votes, be they Liberal or Conservative.' The letter then went on to say— It depends entirely upon you and Sir Henry"—that was Sir Henry Peek, his Colleague—"upon which side our influence goes together with our 200 votes. As the matter stands at present, you and Sir Henry contribute about a fifth of what the Liberals contribute towards our debt extinction fund; I have not yet told our people what your contributions are, nor what the other candidates have contributed. Nor have I written to them as I have written to you. I simply sent to all the candidates circulars asking for contributions, and have to lay before our Committee the results next Wednesday, when our friends will decide on which side they will cast their influence. And, of course, unless you and Sir Henry largely increase your contributions it will be against you. But you will have yourselves to blame. [Cries of "Name!"] He was unable to give the name, because the letter was marked "private and confidential." In regard to charitable and religious institutions, hon. Members would sympathize with most of them, and would not think that in giving money to them they were guilty of any corrupt practice; but, at the same time, it was impossible to avoid feeling that these contributions were made, to a certain extent, for w corrupt object. He would appeal to the experience of any hon. Member, who had gone through a contested election, whether any contribution was made to institutions of this nature without laying the person who contributed open to the charge of being influenced by corrupt motives? He should be sorry that hon. Members should be restricted by the Bill, or by any Amendment he proposed, from contributing towards objects in which they sympathized. Among his own constituents the Sunday school children had an annual holiday treat, in many eases the only holiday they had in the year, and he should be sorry to be prevented from contributing towards the cost. Ho did the same things at home where he lived as he did in his own constituency, and he hoped he would not be charged with a corrupt motive. The subject, however, which he brought before the Committee was one for the consideration of the Attorney General; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to make the Bill a complete measure it certainly ought to receive full attention.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, at end, to add—"Any person who corruptly by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly subscribes to, or otherwise pecuniarily assists, any society, club, or other association, whether public or private, and whatever the object of the said society, club, or other association may be, for the purpose of corruptly influencing any Member or Members thereof or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at the election, or on account of such person or any other person having voted, or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting at such election, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he could assure the hon. Baronet that he would give the Amendment every consideration, because the object of the Bill was to make the House accessible to those who were not necessarily possessed of great wealth. He knew that wealth might have its influence during a contested election; and, therefore, everything that could be done to prevent the influence of that wealth by indirect means would be a valuable contribution to the Bill. He might say that as soon as he had charge of the Bill he received many communications directed to these very points, stating that something ought to be done to prevent lavish expenditure at elections. The Amendment, however, was not placed upon the Paper until that morning, and he had been prevented, by his time having been otherwise occupied, from studying it. Ho was certainly much struck by the suggestion of the hon. Baronet; but he would say at once that ho should like to have a further opportunity of judging and giving the suggestion a fuller consideration, if possible. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Baronet not to propose the Amendment as an addition to the pro-sent clause, but to bring it up as a now clause. Ho thanked the hon. Baronet for having put the Amendment upon Paper, and could assure him that he would consider it in a favourable spirit; but he could not give any further promise.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he was glad that the hon. and learned Attorney General was inclined to consider the proposition of the hon. Baronet in a favourable spirit, and quite agreed with the hon. Member that it would be necessary to exercise great care in framing a clause of this kind. There were certain gentlemen who went into a locality for the sole purpose of getting a seat, and who, in order to show the deep interest they took in the locality, spent their money lavishly. There were other men who naturally took a deep interest in the locality they represented. He would take his own case and that of the noble Lord who represented Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). As regarded his own case, he should be very sorry to be precluded from subscribing, perhaps somewhat liberally, to charitable objects connected with Guildford, in order to show that the interest of his family in the borough which he represented had not been diminished; and he had no doubt that the Landsdowne family took the same interest in Calne.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he did not agree with the principle of the clause. It raised a very grave question, which required very serious consideration. He agreed with the Attorney General in his desire to check lavish expenditure; but, at the same time, he thought that perfectly legitimate expenditure ought to be allowed. He had full sympathy in the object of his hon. Friend (Sir Trevor Lawrence); but he thought it was of great importance that the clause should be postponed, so as to give time for full consideration.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet; but he thought the matter had been met by the Attorney General fairly and reasonably. He had no doubt that many persons, when they became candidates for a particular constituency, were subjected to a species of persecution in the shape of levying black mail for objects either religions, charitable, or political. He thought it was reasonable that a candidate should know what he might do and what he might not do. Ho knew an hon. Member who represented an agricultural constituency who subscribed to 23 Cricket Clubs, 15 Chapels, 17 or 18 different Churches, and School Associations, and who had altogether contributed to 150 different institutions in the course of six or eight months. That hon. Member in question stated publicly that he was quite willing to continue his contributions so long as they were for institutions connected with his own county; but he found that demands were constantly being made upon him to subscribe to institutions altogether outside his own county, and that, he thought, was somewhat too much. He believed the Amendment to be a very fair one, and he hoped it would be accepted later on.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he thought the Attorney General was very much mistaken if he believed that the effect of the Bill would be to decrease the expenditure upon elections. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), on the contrary, thought that it would increase it very much. What was put into the right hand pocket of the candidate he would have to pay out of the left. There was a large class of electors who would not vote for anybody at all unless they received certain inducements. Take the borough which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself represented (Taunton). He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) represented that borough for six years, and he know something about the action taken in it. He had never spent anything at an election from corrupt motives; but at election times there was always plenty of money spent in Taunton, and there was no place which was so expensive in the matter of charities. He knew it was a saying of the late Colenel Sibthorpe that he never spent money in bribery; but who was to deny his right to expend money in Christian charity? They knew what had been done for hospitals and for charitable works by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). Would anyone say that if it had not been for that expenditure the hon. and learned Member would have been returned? He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thought not. Then, again, in regard to the Members for Chelsea. He happened to know something of the four Radical Clubs in Chelsea. He frequently attended their meetings, and knew what went on there, and they were most liberally supported by the present Members for the borough. He was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Trevor Lawrence) had brought the question forward. It was a matter that ought to be discussed, not only in regard to Clubs, but also in connection with particular Trade Associations, from whose action he was a sufferer to some extent; and, therefore, he thought they ought not to escape the attention of the Attorney General. He hoped that his hon. Friend would propose his Amendment while the clauses in the Bill were under discussion, and would not let himself be shunted over until they reached the end of the Bill. If his hon. Friend fell into that trap he was quite sure ho would find himself in the wrong box at the end. Ho trusted that his hon. Friend would exercise his ingenuity and find some place where the Amendment could be discussed, instead of bringing it up as a new clause.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a distinct charge against the Members for Chelsea.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had made no charge at all.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that, at any rate, he did not recognize it as in any way affecting himself, and he entirely repudiated it.

M. LEWIS

said, he thought the clause was so loosely drawn that hardly any man would escape its influence, and the result would be that a candidate would come within its provisions if he subscribed to a Registration Society in his own district. There could be no doubt that if a candidate subscribed to a Registration Society it would be held that the subscription was given for the purpose of influencing elections and obtaining votes. [Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE: Not corruptly.] His hon. Friend said "not corruptly;" but those words were a perfect snare if they were to take into consideration the definition given by Justices Blackburn and Willes. If he (Mr. Lewis) gave a subscription to a Registration Society it would be held that he did it with his eyes open, thoroughly understanding what he was about, and that he did it for the purpose of influencing the electors. He gave his hon. Friend full credit for his good intentions and the purity of his motives; but he thought the Amendment would only add to the number of evils which haunted a candidate. Many men contributed towards churches and chapels and charitable institutions without being, in the slightest degree, influenced by corrupt motives, and if the Amendment were passed it would open out a wide pitfall for candidates. What was really intended by corrupt practices they could all understand. For instance, they had heard of an Indian Nabob (Mr. Dyce Sombre) coming home with cart-loads of money, going down to a small borough and buying the whole place, not only in regard to its private but its public relations. That could be well understood; but it was very different in the case of a casual subscription to a Cricket Club. It was a common practice in the North of Ireland for persons to spend their money upon drum and fife bands; and if he were asked to contribute 10s. or £1 towards the expenses of a body of young men in that way, so as to keep them out of the public-houses, he thought the money would be well laid out. Was it to be considered that money so contributed was spent for corrupt motives? He deprecated the attempt now being made to convert the House into a set of purists. Let them put down extravagant expenditure if they liked; but they ought not to say that a man should not have a rosette, or subscribe to a band. Why should he not? For his own part, he hoped the Attorney General would not be taken in by the sort of concord which scorned to spring up the moment the proposal was made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would take a week to consider the matter, he believed he would find difficulties at every turn; and he thought the Bill would be much more likely to pass if it were more general and its provisions confined within a limited compass, instead of being made to bristle with these elaborate traps and pitfalls. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be content with saying—"You must not do this, and you must not do that, which is manifestly corrupt." But it was quite another thing to say that the elector must not have a bit of ribbon or a cockade, or that the candidate should not subscribe to a band or to a piece of harmless amusement. Much as he respected the hon. Member behind him (Sir Trevor Lawrence), and much as he would value any real clause that had for its object the prohibition of lavish expenditure, he thought this clause, as it was now framed, entirely missed that. He appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. There were quite sufficient provisions contained in the Bill already to require some weeks' consideration at the hands of Parliament; and if the Attorney General would allow him to give him a word of advice, ho thought his hon. and learned Friend ought to negative this clause at once, if he was not prepared to accept it.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

regretted that his hon. and learned Friend should have entertained this clause for one moment. Members of Parliament did not want to be under trammels of this kind. Some of them in London had subscribed to Churches, Bands of Hope, and Sunday Schools, because they desired, apart from being Members of Parliament, to promote such objects. Were Members of Parliament to be prevented from exercising any kind of benevolence? Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that benevolence was a fundamental principle of the human mind, and would come out whether they wished or not. He knew an hon. Gentleman who sat upon those Benches who was a Dissenter, and who gave not only to his own borough, but to all people, and to all places, and to all Churches. [cries of "Name!"] Well, he meant the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Samuel Morley), who gave an enormous sum of money, and not to ono class of persons only. The hon. Gentleman was a truly benevolent and kind man, who did good by stealth, and who would, no doubt, blush very much to find it fame. He had no doubt that there were other hon. Members in the same position, and they did not wish to be bound down by a clause like this. For his own part, he would rather cease to be a Member of Parliament altogether. He had no desire to be prevented from contributing towards charitable objects. The clause was altogether impracticable, and he hoped it would be rejected.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, ho thought it would expedite the proceedings if the Amendment were withdrawn and brought up as a new clause, and if that course were taken it was hardly worth while to discuss it now. Personally, he doubted whether the Amendment would add any- thing to the law as it now stood; but if the hon. Baronet was satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General, it would promote the Business of the Committee to accept the Attorney General's proposal, and bring the clause up at the end of the Bill.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

said, he readily accepted the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill; but if the Agricultural Holdings Bill was to have preference over the Parliamentary Elections Corrupt and Illegal Practices Bill, he was afraid it might retard the consideration of the new clause to so very remote a period that many of them might not be living, and the progress of the measure would not be very rapid. In regard to remarks which had fallen from several hon. Members who had spoken in the course of the discussion, that the clause would prohibit all charitable subscriptions, he wished to say that if it did so, it would be entirely contrary to his intention. Ho did not think his Amendment would have any such effect, and he should be sorry to be deprived himself of all opportunity of subscribing towards religious, charitable, and other institutions, to many of which he now subscribed with great satisfaction and pleasure to himself. His only object was to check subscriptions which wore given by a candidate in view of an election, and which were clearly for a corrupt object.

MR. T. COLLINS

said, he thought that the object of the Amendment was good, but that the Amendment itself was utterly impracticable. It would destroy the chance of every local candidate, because he would be obliged before an election to drop every subscription he had ever given. [Cries of "No!"] It was all very well to say "No!" but if a man gave five or ten guineas to a National or Wesleyan school, and doubled his subscription when he became a Member, he would run the risk of a Judge saying—"Before you represented the borough you only gave five guineas; you are now giving more, and you are subscribing now to the Odd Fellows, and the Druids, and other societies, and it is palpable that your object was a corrupt one." Every candidate would have the possibility of such a thing hanging over his head. Utterly irrespective of clubs, he had all his life subscribed to charities in his own neigh- bourhood, and if there happened to be an election in the very place in which he was living, and he thought of becoming a candidate, it would be necessary for him to withdraw every subscription he had ever given, and the people of the borough would lose the money he was in the habit of giving from year to year. They would, therefore, naturally think that it would be better for them to return a stranger, so that he (Mr. Collins) might be able to continue his subscription. So much with regard to a local candidate. If instead of being a local candidate he was returned for some place outside, were they to say that he was not to take a kindly interest in that place? If it was thought necessary to pull down Peterborough Cathedral, for instance, was he to be debared from subscribing towards its reconstruction, because it might be said that he was actuated by a corrupt motive? It was quite clear that such a course would not be taken unless a man was connected with the place. He did not think that a connection with a city or county ought to deprive the Representative of the power of subscribing to the charities of the district. Of course, he knew that county Members were frequently pestered in regard to local subscriptions. If a dog fight, or a flower show, or any other spectacle took place, a county Member was called upon to subscribe towards it; and if anything could be done to ease the burden which fell in this way upon a county Member, he should be glad to see it done. Ho was of opinion, however, that the clause, as it stood, was utterly impracticable, and lie was glad to hear that the lion. Baronet intended to bring it up as a new clause, if, on reconsideration, he found there was any use in doing so. In that case the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing it on a subsequent occasion. Whatever good object it was calculated to accomplish, it would prove utterly impracticable as it now stood.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

understood that his offer to give a kindly consideration to the clause met with the approbation of the great majority of the Committee. He therefore hoped that the Committee would not refuse to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. It was only usual to negative a clause when the Committee were hostile to it, which was not the case in the present instance. If the Government, however, were to accept it, it would be supposed that they accepted the clause as it stood. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to be withdrawn, in order that the question might be considered hereafter.

MR. E. STANHOPE

admitted that the House would be placed in a false position if the Committee refused to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would not oppose the withdrawal.

MR. MARUM

said, he was an admirer of the national pastime of cricket, and he would do everything to promote it, although lawn tennis seemed now to be superseding it. But he thought the proposed clause would strike a heavy blow against cricket, and all games of that kind. He did not wish to examine the clause too critically; but, looking at it as it stood, it appeared to him to be a trap of a most extraordinary kind. He believed it would be impossible for any draughtsman to frame the clause in a satisfactory manner. But it would amount to a sort of Conspiracy Law, from which it would be utterly impossible for any candidate to escape. While he would go as far as anybody in doing away with corruption, he would be very chary, at the same time, in supporting anything which would place candidates in an unfavourable position. He thought the clause ought to be withdrawn absolutely, without any pledge that it would be considered on its re-introduction at the end of the Bill. If it was to be withdrawn only on a promise that it would be considered again, he should certainly oppose it.

MR. WARTON

appealed to the Chairman, whether the paragraph which the Amendment proposed to add to the clause had really anything to do with the clause at all?

THE CHAIRMAN

In answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may say that I have considered that point, and that I have come to the conclusion that it is germane to the objects of the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that no understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Trevor Lawrence) could be binding on the Committee. He thoroughly concurred in the object of the hon. Baronet, and he thought he had acted properly in consenting to withdraw the Amendment, with the view of its being introduced as a new clause at the end of the Bill, instead of insisting that it should be embodied in the present clause. Ho hoped the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would forgive him if he told him that, inasmuch as a Ballot Bill had been read a second time, and they had decided that electoral proceedings should be conducted in secret, they must support this Curfew legislation.

MR. CALLAN

said, ho was not entirely satisfied with the clause as it stood. He wished to make it apply to any person who did any act by himself or other person for the purpose of corruptly influencing any person to give, or refrain from giving, his vote at an election. It had gone the round of the newspapers, that a Member of that House had obtained his seat not by subscribing to the local charities, but by leading the electors to believe that he was about to do so. He was not aware whether those promises had been fulfilled or not; but, in order to meet cases of the kind in future, he should move to add to the proposed Amendment the words "or promises to subscribe." He would also suggest the addition of the words "or otherwise pecuniarily assists," in order to make it more complete. He thought the Committee should refuse permission to withdraw the Amendment, and that they should pass it in the amended form which ho proposed.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert in line 2, after the word "subscribes," the words "or promises to subscribe."—(Mr. Callan.)

Question proposed, "That these words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. LEWIS

said, if they were to be told that the Government intended to carry on the discussion by saying that they would vote for a clause of which they practically disapproved, he should certainly not assent to the withdrawal of the Amendment. Although the Chairman had ruled that, technically, the Amendment was germane to the clause, it must be obvious to hon. Members that giving money to a club was not "treating," to define the meaning of which was the object of this section of the Bill; if it was anything, it must be bribery. It was clear that if the clause were added to the Bill, that a person subscribing money in the most legitimate way would come within its scope. If the Government proceeded in this way, they would, no doubt, make the Bill into a nice little piece of Mosaic work. The Attorney General knew well that the Government had quite enough to do in carrying through the clauses already in the Bill, without adding to them; and it was not at all likely to facilitate matters to increase the number of acts to be made into offences by the measure. However, he was not by any means terrified by this proposal of the Government. They were bound to have a Bill that they believed they could legitimately work; and as they desired to have the clause added, although it would only have the effect of adding to their difficulties, he should oppose its withdrawal.

MR. S. SMITH

said, he thought that this clause would be an intolerable burden to anyone accustomed to subscribe to public objects. Again, unless the clause were much more carefully worded than it was at present, it would throw far too much responsibility upon the Judges, whose province it would be to look into the motives for these acts, and upon whose ruling the whole matter depended. He thought they should not make the machinery of the Act of such a kind that it would be very difficult for an innocent man to escape, and that, in his opinion, would be the effect of the clause in its present shape.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it appeared to him that the course recommended by the Government would be the most convenient one for the Committee to follow. The Government were desirous that the clause should not be pressed on the Committee, because they considered that it required great consideration, and it was for that reason that they suggested it should be withdrawn. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) objected to that course, and because the Government had adopted the only alternative, by proposing to accept the clause, he made an attack on the Attorney General. He agreed with the spirit of the proposal in its entirety, and if a division were taken upon it he should certainly support the clause. The Chairman had ruled that, techni- tally, the proposal was within the scope of the section of the Bill then before the Committee; but, both on the ground of convenience and in view of the importance of the subject, he thought the proper course would be to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it was not very usual to refuse leave to a Member to withdraw an Amendment proposed to a Bill in Committee; and he trusted that in the present instance the almost invariable rule would not be departed from.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, although hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House were in favour of the principle, there were many of them who said it was impossible to incorporate it in the proposed clause. The Government, although they said they objected to the wording of the clause, were, nevertheless, willing to use the whole of their force to get the principle it involved incorporated in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) said that what the clause contained was already the law, and that he should vote for it for that reason; but he (Mr. Stanley Leighton) regarded as the very worst class of obstructive legislation that which was carried out by re-duplicating Acts of Parliament, If, then, the proposed clause contained only a re-statement of the existing law, he failed to see the necessity for introducing it. He should like to have a definition of the term "corruptly" from the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), who had been alluded to in the course of the discussion. For his own part, he was certain that if the proposal were to become law, a large number of hon. Members would, within a week, find themselves within its operation.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, he would ask the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to consider the difficult position in which the Committee would be placed by his insisting upon the Amendment going to a division. He appealed to him as to whether it would not be better to allow the clause to be postponed for consideration?

MR. BOURKE

said, he would also appeal to his hon. Friend not to persist in his opposition to the withdrawal of the clause. He begged him to recollect that, although some expressions made use of recently wore not conciliatory, the clause had been met originally in a very conciliatory spirit.

MR. CALLAN

said, he would remind the Committee that the question before them was not that the Amendment should be withdrawn, but that a proposed addition should be made to it. As it was not his intention to withdraw his proposal, he apprehended that it would have to be decided upon before the question as to the withdrawal of the clause.

MR. LEWIS

said, after the appeal of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke), ho would not stand in the way of the withdrawal of the clause. The clause was to have been slurred over; but the object he had in view in drawing the attention of the Committee to its scope and meaning had now been attained. He was satisfied the Committee would perceive that the clause could not be added to the Bill without serious discussion.

MR. CALLAN

said, if the words of his Amendment were added to the clause, he should be in the hands of the Committee as to its withdrawal.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he hoped the postponement of the clause would not debar Members from moving an Amendment to cover the most dangerous part of the malpractices that were growing up, and which it ought to be the object of everyone to prevent. In order to save time in pointing out his view of the subject, ho would merely state generally the purport of the Amendment he would suggest. He would extend the penalties for corrupt practices to any person who should accept nomination or adoption by any Society, Club or Association, whether public or private, for the furtherance of political purposes. It appeared to him that, unless a clause of that kind were inserted, the extinction of the influence of corrupt Caucuses would utterly fail to be achieved. The Government said openly that the reason why they did not object to the Amendment was because, practically, it only stated the existing law; but under the existing law it was possible in any town to establish a Club or Caucus, to make membership almost obligatory on electors, and to constitute it a permanent institution of corruption and undue influence. That corruption and undue influence might go on for two or three years without the candidate having any connection whatever with the Club or Caucus.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he would remind the hon. Member that there was before the Committee a proposal of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) to amend the clause, and until that had been disposed of it was not competent to him to propose another Amendment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, as lie understood the whole clause would be withdrawn, he should not offer any objection to the Amendment before the Committee; but he wished it to be understood that he did not in any way agree to the principle which it contained.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, it was well known that in Scotland elections were conducted with absolute purity—no such thing as electoral corruption existed there. He believed that in no single instance had the purity of Scotch elections been questioned. There were, however, many forms of subscription in Scotland, to Churches and Cricket Clubs for instance; but the particular form of Club development was to be found in the Ornithological Societies which existed there. He believed that everyone, whether Conservative or Liberal, was expected to contribute to these Societies; and as he could see no reason why Gentlemen should not do so, he should vote against the clause when it came to a division.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Original Amendment again proposed.

MR. T. COLLINS

said, he thought the acts specified in the clause would fall more within the category -of some other corrupt practices which the House desired to put an end to; and he was therefore not in favour of its being incorporated in the section of the Bill before the Committee. It would be better if it were brought up on a future occasion.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee. He thought that the clause would come in more appropriately at another part of the Bill. He thought there was also a good deal of force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) with reference to the particular form of corruption he had alluded to. On the whole, he had no doubt that the Amendment would be much more conveniently introduced in the form of a new clause.

MR. WARTON

regretted that no lawyer was at that moment on the Treasury Bench; but he would call the attention of the only Minister present to the fact that the corrupt practices enumerated in the other clauses of the Bill included nothing in the nature of treating. There were in Clause 61 plenty of definitions, but not one of "treating;" that was only to be found in the 1st clause, which was then before the Committee. If, therefore, they added the proposed Amendment to the 1st clause, they would be introducing into a clause which dealt solely with treating something which was not treating at all.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, they were all agreed that, although the Amendment was, technically, in Order, it would be better that it should be brought forward as a new clause.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, if the Amendment he desired to move could be introduced easily in a more convenient place, he was, of course, not inclined to press it on the present occasion. It seemed to him that it would come appropriately under the 1st clause of the Bill, inasmuch as it was directed against a very dangerous form of treating. Let the Committee suppose that in any borough there was a local political Club, and in order to make the enormity of the thing more keenly felt by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, let it be supposed to be a Conservative Club. A Conservative Club, then, was in existence in a borough, and that Club during the interval between election and election devoted itself to giving entertainments, party excursions, amusements, and refreshments to the persons described from time to time in the Bill—instances of this very kind had presented themselves occasionally in their electoral history. Well, this practice had gone on, say, for three or four years, and during that time the candidate for the forthcoming election had not been before the borough; but on the eve of the election he was adopted by the Club, which had been exercising such powerful influence in the borough. He (Mr. O'Donnell) wished to know whether that candidate, Liberal or Conservative, would be able to put forward any safe defence against a charge of corruption, on the ground that the corruption took place long before he appeared in the borough, and that he simply inherited the electoral benefits accruing to the candidate from the operations of the Club? In the way ho had described, the Committee would perceive that a permanent centre of corruption might exist. Year after year, the permanent centre in election matters might be exercising a corrupting influence. The future candidate of the Party would come down with a recommendation from the Reform Club, or the Carlton; ho would be taken up by the local Club, and would obtain a great many advantages through its very powerful corrupting and intimidating influences. He (Mr. O'Donnell) maintained that when a man inherited the benefits of a corrupting and intimidating influence of this kind, he ought also to inherit its consequences. This evil was growing from year to year, the whole tendency of recent times being to become corrupt through the agency of associations, as distinguished from that of individuals. In the old times, a man, sometimes known as "the Man in the Moon," went down to a constituency and corrupted it personally; but now the danger was that when an individual was selected to become a candidate, and went down to a constituency, he would find it already corrupted by the influence of the Party.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, this subject was one which would be often discussed in Committee before the Bill was disposed of. That would be the best time for the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to raise the question, which, undoubtedly, was a very important one. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not strictly in Order in making this observation; but he did so, as the hon. Member who preceded him had referred to the subject. The special instance which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had mentioned was a case in which, under the existing law, a Member would be unseated. The Windsor case showed that this was so. In that case there was a large expenditure on public-houses before the candidate came before the constituency at all, and the candidate was made responsible for the agency by which it was believed to exist.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it seemed to him that this Amendment might very easily come in the 2nd clause, the object of which was to define corrupt practices. It would be very easy to set forth these things specified in the Amendment in the 2nd clause, if they were corrupt practices.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the objection he had to the clause was simply on account of the word "corruptly" having been placed in it. He thought the clause would do very well without that word, and that it would be well to have an absolute prohibition—that was to say, that after striking out that word the clause should be left upon its present footing. He believed that what the Amendment would do was already the Common Law of the land. They were simply proposing to place in the hands of the Judge power to seat any candidate ho liked, or to put out whoever he pleased.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. LEWIS

said, he had on one or two occasions ventured to describe this measure as a very severe one, and he thought it would be found, on looking at it, that it answered this description in all its parts. With reference to the subject-matter of the clause, which was simply treating, he was well aware that, as regarded a candidate, they could not judge of the severity of the Bill until they came to deal with the 2nd clause, which treated of the punishment to be assigned for an offence if committed by the candidate; but as regarded the electors or other persons, this clause was far more severe than the present law. As they knew, at the present time treating on the day of the election was a specific offence, which, if committed by any person other than the candidate, was punished by a small fine. It was of importance, with reference to non-candidates, to look at this section in regard to the consequences, which made criminal results of a very serious character follow from the commission of a very small act on the part of a person not a candidate, and, in point of fact, not even an elector. One naturally asked what was there in the history of Parliamentary Election Inquiries during the last 10 or 20 years which had shown that there was any grave evil with reference to treating in existence which necessarily called for severe remedies? He was perfectly aware that many elections had been upset in consequence of specific acts of treating; but if they came to the aggregation of these offences, he was justified, he thought, in stating that they would not be able to find evidence of any vast amount of treating as an electoral offence in any part of the United Kingdom. No doubt, there might be shown a tendency to looseness of habit and of conduct on this subject at certain elections; but, looking at the thing as a general evil, he ventured to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not produced, and could not produce, evidence to show that treating was a very serious matter, which needed to be dealt with by very severe penalties. He (Mr. Lewis) was not entitled, on this clause, to do anything more than refer to what the consequences hypothetically would be if the Committee passed this clause in its present form in regard to non-candidates. What, he asked, was this? What justification had they for now making, for the first time, this offence of treating on the part of non.electors so serious as it would be, and needed to be, on the part of candidates? It was intended that if a person was found guilty of treating—though now he could only be fined 40s.—he should be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour, and to a fine not exceeding £200. Now, he submitted that there had been no case made out, and that a case ought to be made out by the hon. and learned Attorney General if this very penal alteration in the law with regard to treating by those who were non-candidates at an election was to be accepted by the House. Of course, they could well understand that treating by candidates, primâ facie, led to the suspicion that there was some corrupt intention on their part; but he knew that there were many acts that a Judge might reasonably look upon as treating, and not only as treating, but as treating with a corrupt intent to evade or break the law, which were not of moral obliquity. They had no right to ask the people to bear a greater burden in this respect than the circumstances required. It was a truism to say that if the Bill passed into an Act of Parliament in such a condition as to be unduly severe, it would overleap itself and be worthless for the purpose for which it was intended; and he asked hon. Members whether they did not think if an unfortunate man who had been—he was going to say unknowingly—committing an act of treating, or a course of treating, during an election by imprudence or improvidence—if he should be made subject to an indictment before a jury, what probability would there be of a conviction if the jury knew that for some small acts, or probably an act of this character, the man would be liable to imprisonment for one year, with or without hard labour, and to a fine of £200? He had looked through the Reports of the learned Judges who had had to decide election inquiries under the Act of 1868, without finding any testimony on their part to the existence of any grave evil in the matter of treating in the constituencies whose conduct they had had to consider. If that was so, where, he would ask, was the necessity for the making of these stringent provisions which they found in the Bill? He must confess that, on looking at the cases of treating, he had been startled at the ridiculous length to which these clauses had been carried. For the benefit of hon. Members who had not been accustomed to investigate these cases of treating at elections, he would point out that in the celebrated case of North Norfolk, in 1869, in order, if possible, to substantiate a charge of treating, the parties actually called the Member's butcher to find out how many pounds of beef had been supplied during two or three days, or the whole week of the election. Then the Member's servants were called for the purpose of showing into what room the cold meat had been taken and placed on the table, and how much of it had been cooked. He thought that an inquiry as to whether a cold collation, given in the billiard room of a country gentleman's house on the day of the poll, or day of nomination, was treating within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, merely brought the law into contempt. If a country gentleman was not to be allowed, in his billiard room, to have some cold boiled beef and some roast beef on the table, for fear his election might be imperilled, it was absurd in the highest degree. The case in question was seriously discussed by Lord Blackburn, who entered into a calculation as to the number of people who could have been entertained to the collation. It did not appear how many people did partake of the collation; but it was held that as many as 100 might have done so if they had wished. There were all these ridiculous inquiries made in the case, so as to ascertain whether the case came to corrupt treating within the meaning of the Statute. He contended the severity of the Bill would be the means of defeating its object, because it frequently happened in this country juries, in the case of the stringent law, returned a verdict of "Not Guilty;" whereas they would return a verdict of "Guilty" if there were a reasonable law to vindicate. He supposed they would hear from the Government what public cases they had in their minds which made it necessary to call for this very severe law as regarded non-candidates. When they came to the clause with reference to punishment, it would be the duty of those who had, like himself, strong views on the subject, to severely criticize it. There was practically a new offence—a new criminal offence—created, as regarded non-candidates. The clause was ridiculously severe, because in the last paragraph it was provided— And every person whether an elector or not who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat drink or entertainment or provision shall also be guilty of treating. No one would ever convince any number of men, poor or rich, that, whether it be polling day or nomination day, if an unfortunate man was asked to take a pint of beer, or a crust of bread and cheese, he ought to be held liable to the penalties under this Bill—that he should be liable to suffer by being sent to prison, with or without hard labour. He ventured to say that no case had been made out by the supporters of the Bill, calling for any increase of severity of the law in reference to treating by persons not in the position of the candidates. The Attorney General seemed to think that he escaped all difficulty with respect to the net-work of this clause, when he said the words would be found in other Acts of Parliament. They were told that if they went back 200 or 300 years they would find the word "entertainment" in an Act passed at that time; and that that was a sufficient reason why it should be retained in this Bill. There appeared to him to be every reason to call for an explanation from the Government, why that which had hitherto not been a criminal offence was now to be turned into a grave criminal offence? He thought there was every reason to ask the Government to endeavour to hedge it round with such conditions as should not render it too perilous, hazardous, or severe. Ho maintained that the expression "entertainment" was one that, however it might be sanctioned by antiquity, its existence in the present Bill was certainly a matter which required a distinct explanation from the Government. He should have no hesitation in voting in favour of the omission of this clause, because it was one of a series of severe, indiscriminate, and unreasonable provisions in the name of purity of elections.

MR. WARTON

said, he should support the hon. Member for Londonderry in objecting to the clause, because he felt, with the hon. Gentleman, that the clause was unnecessarily severe. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General, in bringing forward this new clause, might have given them at least one case, not to say more, of some serious evil that had resulted by persons, who were not candidates, treating electors at election times. No such case was brought forward. This clause had been brought forward more in the abstract love of purity than for the purpose of remedying any admitted evil. The Attorney General had made a great mistake, when framing this clause, to follow so slavishly the Act of 1854, which related to the conduct of candidates. It seemed an almost unreasonable idea that to find out this new crime they were to follow so slavishly the words of an Act of Parliament which related to treating by candidates only. Again, he asserted there were not a sufficient number of definitions in the Bill, and he intreated the Law Officers of the Crown to look at the Interpretation Clause again, and put in, at this point, an interpretation of treating; and also to consider whether—although they did follow the language of the Act of Parliament of 1854—it would not be wise to omit the word "entertainment," which in the last 200 years had changed materially in its significance? The Attorney General must make up his mind whether he intended or not to prevent persons in indulging in innocent amusement? In the whole scope of this section he found nothing but a spirit of Puritanism. They were cutting off all the enjoyments of life, as fast as they could, by means of Acts of Parliament. He did not see why Parliament should prevent the amusement of poor people, either before, or during, or after an election. It seemed to him that the Government went upon the principle of making their Bills entirely wrong, and of introducing provisions which were not at all wanted. That was one of the worst clauses which could be imagined, and he maintained that public opinion was not ripe for any such clause; indeed, in his opinion, public feeling was hardly ripe for the law as it now existed.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that as the Attorney General had not thought proper to reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), and as the hon. Member had asked a question, ho (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would, on behalf of the Attorney General, be obliged to answer the question. His hon. Friend wanted to know what necessity there was for the Bill, and he asked if there had been any grave cases of treating to justify this clause? He asked why had the Bill been brought in? Ho (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was surprised that his hon. Friend's natural acumen did not tell him that the Bill had been brought in as a matter of political expediency. They were told years ago that if they only lowered the suffrage, if they only supplemented it by vote by ballot, purity at elections would be realized beyond the expectations of the most sanguine. It was needless to inform his hon. Friend that at the last election that expectation was totally falsified. It was then that bribery was riper than it had ever been before in the history of this country, and it was then that electoral expenditure increased alarmingly—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Question now before the Committee is that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he was quite aware that that was the Question before the Committee; but if the Chairman did not think his observations pertinent to the Question, he would not repeat them. He thought, however, he was justified in showing that the cause of this Bill was the failure of the ballot, and the increased bribery which took place in consequence of the lowering of the suffrage. He firmly believed that the result of this Bill would be to increase bribery, and what they would take out of the right hand pocket they would put into the left. There was another matter on which he wished to enter his strong protest, and that was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), a Gentleman of great legal experience, whose observations naturally always attracted attention in that House. The same arguments used by the hon. Gentleman in favour of the clause were used the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). It amounted to this—that the clause was nothing more or less than a re-enactment of the old law that up to the present moment a candidate had been liable for treating, and that all they were going to do was to make other persons who were not candidates also liable. It appeared to him that, notwithstanding the legal acumen of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, the hon. Gentleman did not see the difficulties in which he was embarking. So long as they had a candidate before them, they had a clearly marked person. Ho was a candidate for either a county or a borough seat—it was possible to follow all his acts; but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) submitted, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolhampton said, that they could not follow the acts of all the world. It was a totally different thing to deal with a candidate, and to deal with all his supporters. No doubt, when the candidate was there, he was responsible for his actions; a candidate had got something he wished to obtain, and, if he acted improperly, he had nobody but himself to thank for any consequences that followed; but when they dealt with a large body of persons, they ought not to strain legislation in the way contemplated. Let him, for a moment, ask the Com- mittee, and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, to direct their attention for a moment to the very weighty terms of the clause— And every person whether an elector or not who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment, or provision shall also be guilty of treating. Then they were told by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that on some day or other he was going to cut that down. They were going to have this provision safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) then said—"Oh, don't argue that now, wait until we come to another clause; then I think we shall be able to cut it down in such a way that this will probably, in the end, come out with advantage." That was one of the very propositions to which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) objected, especially now that the present Government were in Office, because they never knew their own minds, as they had witnessed to-night in the case of two of the earlier Amendments; for two days together they had opposed them, but when he left the House tonight he found that the Attorney General was going to accept one Amendment. ["No, no!"] He begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon; but he certainly left the House under the impression that if the Amendment then under discussion were withdrawn, it would afterwards be incorporated in the Bill. Speaking on behalf of the public in general, what he objected to altogether was that they should run the risk of the penalties provided by the Bill without any safeguards. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad that that observation commended itself to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Now, the danger he feared was that they would never get these safeguards, or that, perhaps, in "another place," or that on Report of the Bill, they would find all the safeguards that might be introduced swept away. His opinion was this—that if they left the field as wide as it was at present left in the clause there was no telling what numbers of innocent persons might have to suffer very considerably. Months, or even years, before a contest a man might say, in a most innocent way, to some of his friends—"You voted on the other side last time; I am glad that you are with me now; let us come and have a glass of beer." If this was said—and he was sure it would be said in many cases—who was to say that the Judge would not hold that this was a corrupt practice? Who was to predict, who was to prophecy, what the opinion of the Judge would be? Only the other day he was speaking to a very eminent practitioner at the Bar, and during the conversation his friend said to him "Do you suppose it is law which a Judge delivers in a Court? Oh no, it is not law; but their decisions depend very much upon what they have had for breakfast." It was impossible for any man to foretell how a Judge would interpret the expression "corruptly." His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) rose in his place and implored the Attorney General not to attempt to define the word "corruptly;" and the reason he gave was this—that the word "corruptly" was so wide a term that no lawyer had ever attempted yet to define it. His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) great objection to the clause was inasmuch as they had no guarantee whatever against the time being limited within which men could be charged with this offence, and inasmuch as there was no definition whatever of the word "corruptly." Many vexatious cases would arise when they came to couple this fact with the penal consequences under the Bill. He maintained that no free man in a free country ought to vote for such a law. Let the Attorney General remember this—that these questions, after all—["Divide, divide!"] He knew that hon. Members did not like to hear what he was saying. There was nothing so disagreeable to them as the strict truth. Let them examine what this particular offence was; and let him ask hon. Members if they considered it worse to give a man 5s. for his vote than to give it to him for any other purpose? What was the extraordinary crime in doing that particular thing? They knew that fees to their servants were prohibited by Railway Companies; but he would like the Attorney General to rise in his place and say that he had never feed a railway servant. All bribery, no doubt, was objectionable; all bribery, if they pleased to say so, was wicked; but how could they distinguish between one sort of bribery and another? Ever since this country had been a Constitutional one, electors had been in the habit of looking, at election times, for something or other, which the late Mr. Bernal Osborne so well called not a privilege, but a perquisite. For no reason whatever, as he had said before, but because all the attempts to increase the suffrage and to establish vote by ballot had resulted in such bad consequences they were attempting now to pass these penal clauses. He had no hesitation in affirming that it was the duty of every free man of this country to reject this measure.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had asked whether there was any more harm in giving a bribe to an elector than in giving a fee to a railway porter? He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to differ from him slightly upon that point. The speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just delivered reminded him of the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made 11 years ago, in opposition to the Ballot Bill. He regretted to find that after such a long time as 11 years the right hon. and learned Gentleman had lost none of his facile energy in sustaining, he could not say argument, but sustaining statement. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), he (the Attorney General) felt that he ought, in deference to the hon. Gentleman's practical knowledge and power of statements, to make some reply. If the hon. Gentleman would allow him, he could not help saying that he recognized a fair amount of moderate criticism in his statements in regard to this clause; and though he had declared himself a strong opponent of the Bill, he was sure the hon. Gentleman would bring nothing but fair criticism to bear upon it, in which case he (the Attorney General) should be most happy to listen to all he had to say. He was sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to say that the corrupt practices of treating ought not to be dealt with. No doubt, in consequence of the extension of the franchise, there was a great increase of what the hon. Gentleman termed small bribery. Was there any Gentleman in that House who wished to see a con- tinuance of the system of treating? Ought they not to do something to stop it? As the law stood at present, only the candidate was responsible for the offence. By a strange anomaly, ho was liable for the acts of his agents; but if any person, if he was the agent managing the election, were to bribe any portion of the constituency, he was liable to no penalty at all. Was that a satisfactory state of law? Treating was held to invalidate an election; but it imposed no penalty upon the person other than the candidate, who lost his seat; but no penalty attached to any other person. This clause only carried out the principle that all those who were parties to treating should be held responsible for it; and, therefore, he trusted that the Committee would pass the clause.

MR. BIGGAR

said, ho was very much in favour of the clause, because it conveyed the idea that the elector was not under any personal obligation to the candidate, and that the candidate was under no personal obligation to the elector. But what occurred with regard to these promises was a great deal of running after the candidate and his friends on the part of the electors. He thought that in most cases the elector was guilty in treating rather than the candidate and his friends; and he believed that, as a rule, the latter would be much gratified by having an opportunity of putting a stop to the practice. In the last Parliament there was a Member of the House, not a very brilliant character, who represented a Scotch constituency; and upon one occasion he (Mr. Biggar) asked one of the Gentleman's constituents how it was that he had been returned as their Member? He replied that the secret was that the Gentleman in question was a member of the Town Council, and that the Committee were in the habit of holding their meetings at his house, where a quantity of whiskey and water was consumed, the consequence being that he was pushed forward as Member of Parliament. That Gentleman, if this Bill had been passed into law at the time he was referring to, would have fallen under the provisions of the present clause. Although, as ho had already stated, he was in favour of the clause, yet, when they came to that portion of the Bill which imposed penalties for the acts specified, it seemed to him that it would have to be very much amended, because those penalties were undoubtedly excessive in view of the acts mentioned.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 12: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 138.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (What is corrupt practice).

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he proposed to move an Amendment for the purpose of including in the definition of corrupt practices subscriptions of money for the purpose of paying any candidate's election expenses by subscribers who were neither residents nor electors in the constituency. Ho believed he should be able to show that this form of bribery and corruption surpassed, in its magnitude and its evil consequences, every other kind of bribery and corruption penalized in this Bill. The Amendment he proposed struck at the wholesale bribery of certain Societies. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that everything which tended to corruption should be put down. That being so, ho hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept his Amendment. He would now pass from generals to particulars. His object was to deal with the accumulated funds known generally under these four heads — the Reform Club Fund, the Carlton Club Fund, the Birmingham Caucus Fund, and the Dublin Nationalists' Fund. He believed there were other similar funds that were raised by social and religious bodies throughout the Kingdom, which might possibly, also, come under the clause. These accumulated funds were the main sewers of corruption at a General Election; it was then that the floodgates were opened, and a stream poured over the country which tainted the political atmosphere. These Societies were secret. Their accounts were not published, and he supposed that no one in that House knew accurately how the funds were dispensed. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in considering this matter, of the old legal axiom that "secrecy is the badge of fraud." Now, the persons really responsible for these iniquities were the Leaders of Parties, in whose interest the money was paid. He would appeal to the Prime Minister, who stood before the country as a perfect example of purity, to support him in trying to put down the evils which existed under this secret system. With the permission of the Committee, he would describe the method of operation, which was this—A constituency, for instance, had not within itself any candidate willing to come forward; the constituency was unwilling to find the money necessary to contest an election—would, in fact, prefer that there should be no contest; it was then that the managers of these secret funds intervened and decided upon a candidate, gave him money, and sent him down—in most cases a perfect stranger—fully equipped for the contest. It was only a few days ago that he had observed this statement in a newspaper with regard to the representation of Leicestershire—"The Leaders of the Party in London thought that there ought to be a contest." The constituency, it appeared, did not want it; but the Leaders of the Party in London decided that there should be a contest in Leicestershire. At a General Election the Leaders of the Party decided upon contests in a great many constituencies. Then, as to the question whence the money was derived? It came from the funds which he, in general words, had described as the Club Funds. He was quite aware that the clubs per se had nothing to do with the matter; and he only intended to describe what was a general fund of the managers of the Parties. The candidate, haying received money under such circumstances, was in honour bound to vote for his Party, even against the wishes of his constituency, against the interests of his country, and against the dictates of his conscience. He was in honour bound to vote for those who had given him the money—that was to say, to vote for the Party per fas et nefas. What was the effect of this upon the government of the country? It was that the government was taken out of the hands of the constituency—out of the hands of the people as a whole—and placed in the hands of a small portion of the people—which represented not the nation as a body, but that part of it which was, for political purposes, able to spend most money in corrupting the constituencies. He had no hesitation in saying that this was the position of the Government of the county at the present time. Would anyone in that House venture to deny the existence of these funds? Would anyone deny that there were the funds which he had called the Reform Club Fund, the Carlton Fund, the Birmingham Caucus Fund, and the Dublin Nationalists' Fund? He would like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, with his legal acumen, or anyone else of common sense, to say whether the operations of such Societies tended to the purity of elections? With the permission of the Committee, he would ask their attention to one or two Reports which had been made by the Commissioners appointed by that House; but, in doing so, he did not intend to bring into discussion any personal or local matter, nor did he intend to mention any particular constituency or individual. Amongst other things the Commissioners said, in speaking of one of those funds, that it was administered by a number of gentlemen during the General Election; that it was of enormous magnitude; and that Party organizations for the collection and distribution of such funds were an unqualified evil. They went on to say that they were informed that a similar fund existed on both sides; that they were not created in the constituency, but outside it, and held in the hands of the Party managers; that in ono case £3,000 had boon advanced out of the fund for the purposes of an election; and that it was customary to recruit the fund in prospect of a General Election. With regard to ono election, Mr. Justice Hawkins said— I cannot understand how, in a place like this, it can be necessary for the conduct of a fair election to employ foreign solicitors, strange clerks, strange agents, and strange assistants. These were some of the fruits of a system which the Government had not attempted to touch. In this Bill, in which they professed a desire to put down bribery, they had not attempted to put down that flagrant form of it, which their own Commissioners, as well as the Judges of the land, had condemned. How were these funds supported? They were supported by subscriptions, and sometimes a rich man of a Party would think it meritorious to subscribe £20,000 in aid of them. How were the persons who paid these large sums of money rewarded? They got Lord Lieu- tenancies, Baronetcies, Peerages, and almost any amount of smaller patronage. He understood, in some cases, that candidates were so sensitive on the point of honour that they did not like to take money from individuals, but had no objection at all to taking it from the Societies in question. It was in this way that rich men put a whole Party under an obligation; and the Committee would perceive that this was a much safer investment than placing a single individual under an obligation. As for the candidate himself, he was under a distinct obligation to his Party; he was bound to vote for it; so this sort of vicarious bribery answered in both ways—it was beneficial to the rich subscribers and to the political Party. It was only ruinous to the independence of the candidate and of the constituency. Ho would now proceed to suggest what, to his mind, was a possibility of the gravest character, and to this he hoped the Committee would pay the fullest attention. As he was not in possession of actual proof, ho would confine himself to saying that it was possible that these funds were in some cases supported by foreign subscriptions. It had appeared in the newspapers—and he believed there was a very general consensus of opinion—that a large amount of the Dublin Nationalists' Fund came from foreigners on the other side of the water who were unfriendly to England. As that fund was used for purposes which both English Parties in the House were opposed to, he felt sure both Parties would be willing to condemn it. But he would mention an uglier possibility. The foreign policy of this country often depended upon a General Election; and it was probable that at such periods the funds in question were sometimes recruited by money from foreign sources. It was sometimes worth the while of a Foreign Government to do all they could to change an existing English Ministry. It was of the most vital importance to Russia that the "bag-and-baggage" policy, the "hands off" policy, the "insult to Austria" policy, should become the policy of the English Cabinet. The existence of these funds gave the Government of Russia an easy method of influencing English elections.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it seemed to him that the hon. Member was travelling very wide of the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that being the opinion of the Chair, he would pass away from this point, and address himself to another part of the subject. Those secret Societies—for they were nothing better — had originated since the first Reform Bill. Before that Bill was passed they knew who those who nominated Members were; they were nominated by particular "borough mongers;" but the system which the present Government wore willing to allow was all the more dangerous because it was secret. The general public could not tell, and could only suspect, who had been nominated by the Party organizations in London or Birmingham, and who had received money. He would suggest that those waiters on the Government should wear badges or rosettes, so that they might be known, just as he had seen waiters at a public dinner marked, in order to distinguish them from the guests. He was told that there wore no less than 200 Members who were now supporting the Government who ought to be decorated in this manner. What was the result of' this abominable system? Why, Members of the House of Commons wore treated, not as independent gentlemen, but as though they were menials. He sometimes heard—and he regretted it very much, but he could not close his oars—language used to hon. Members at the door of the House which shocked him exceedingly. These things were done in camera. But the noble Lord the principal "Whip" made no secret of the matter, but went down to public dinners in the country and told the whole of the people of England what his duty was; and what did they suppose it to be? The noble Lord said—"My duty is this—to tell Members when they are not to speak." So this system had produced this result—that the business of the Patronage Secretary was not only to direct men how to vote, but also when and how to speak. It would be more becoming if such hon. Members were allowed to vote by proxy. In this way local representation and the free choice of constituencies were absolutely crushed out and destroyed. There was not a great difference between the incoming Member receiving money and the sitting Member receiving it, yet there were few Members of the House who would think it right that those secret Societies should keep in their pay Members who were sitting in the House. He wished to point out that his Amendment did not strike at local funds; it only struck at those outside organizations, which, as he contended, were intended to destroy the character and independence of the constituencies. He did not see any special harm in impecunious Members being supported by the constituencies. There were frequently collections among the constituencies for election expenses, and there were also collections made for the support of Members in the House of Commons by their constituents; and that, he thought, was legitimate. But, in the other case, the Members would not only be serving their constituencies, but these secret Societies as well; and his contention was that no man could serve two masters. He did not see how the Government could logically condemn any class of corruption if they maintained this wholesale system of bribery them selves.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 25, after "namely," to insert—"Subscribing money towards any general fund for the purpose of paying candidates' expenses in constituencies in which the subscribers are neither residents nor electors."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, no one sympathized more than ho did with a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He agreed with the hon. Member's description of the funds raised out of the constituencies as amounting to an evil; and it was because the Government wished to put a stop to such things that they had introduced this Bill. His (the Attorney General's) contention was that the best way to prevent the collection of such money was to obviate the necessity for such money being required; and he hoped he would have the support of the hon. Member in his attempt to put a stop to such subscriptions by destroying the causes which brought them about. The hon. Gentleman had said, truly enough, that secrecy was the badge of the Clubs, and that was so; but they had framed Section (f) of Clause 26 with the object of requiring contributions, from whatever source they came, to be made public. The section said— A statement of all money, securities, and equivalent of money received by the election agent from the candidate or any other person for the purpose of expenses incurred or to be incurred on account of, or in connection with or as incidental to the election, with a statement of the name of every person from whom the same may have been received. It was with the very object, as the hon. Member had stated, of requiring all subscriptions to be made public that that section had been inserted, in order that if £3,000, as had been suggested, were contributed for the payment of a candidate's expenses, the fact would have to be made known. He hoped the hon. Member would see that, though there might not be complete publicity, the point he had raised had been kept in view to a very great extent. He could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member seemed to object to a candidate receiving money collected amongst persons non-resident within the borough, whether or not they lived in places adjoining; but this, it should be remembered, would prevent a certain class of people, who might be spread over a large area, from subscribing to an election fund of a candidate who might represent their interests, and whom they were very anxious to see elected. In the case of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), for instance, would they say to the miners of Durham and the coal districts—"You must not subscribe to a fund for the purpose of securing the return of this Representative; the money must come from persons living within the borough of Morpeth, and not from anyone outside." It might be that the interests of many electors of Morpeth might not be so much that of the miners living outside the borough.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he had referred to a general fund; but a fund which would be subscribed by miners for a particular election would be a particular fund.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

failed to see what the hon. Member meant by "a general fund." He took it that if subscriptions were allowed in the case of miners who wished to see the hon. Member for Morpeth returned, they would be equally allowable in the case of residents in India who, on account of' services rendered them by the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), might be anxious to testify their appreciation of him by con- tributing to a fund for the purpose of securing his return to Parliament.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had no doubt the Amendment had been framed with the very best intention; but whether that intention was carried out in the proposal was another matter. He could not help thinking it matter for regret that hon. Members proposed Amendments of this character without due consideration. The question they were discussing was one which involved a year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour, if a person committed an offence against the clause. This penalty was a very severe one, and was a penalty to which no man should be lightly subjected; and he ventured to think that the Amendment under discussion, as well as that which they had already considered, would seriously imperil the seat of any candidate who contested an election. The clause, if the Amendment were agreed to, would read thus— The expression 'corrupt practice' as used in this Act means any of the following offences—namely, subscribing money towards any general fund for the purpose of paying candidates' expenses in constituencies in which the subscribers are neither residents nor electors; treating, as defined by this Act, and bribery, undue influence, and personation, and aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring the commission of the offence of personation—as such offences are defined by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts as amended by this Act," &c. Under this Amendment, although money might be subscribed to a general fund for a purpose perfectly legitimate under the Act, the person so subscribing might be liable to a year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour. ["No, no!"] He said, "Yes." Suppose he wished to subscribe to a general fund to pay the election expenses of a friend who, he conscientiously believed, would be an acquisition to the House, and would render great services to his country, he should be liable to a year's imprisonment if he subscribed a £5 note for such a purpose. Surely the Committee would never agree to such a proposal as that. With all respect to his hon. Friend, he would say that before such Amendments as this were proposed, the operation of the law as it at present existed, and the extent to which the now law would be carried, should be fully and carefully considered, and regard should be had to the pitfalls and dangers to which persons conducting elections with every de- sire to obey the law might be exposed.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper something in the sense of that proposed by his hon. Friend now before the House; but having had a very long experience of election matters, and that in very troubled times, he would venture to express a hope that the hon. Member would not divide the Committee. If the hon. Member did divide, he (Mr. Newdegate) should feel it his duty to vote against him, and for this reason—that a great outcry had been raised in the country—it was raised in Birmingham last night—to the effect that men of talent, but of small means, could not obtain access to Parliament. Without funds of the kind which this Amendment would render illegal it would be impossible for such men to enter the House. The application of these funds would afford a test of the ability of those in whose support they were applied; and he did not think it possible for the electoral system to work without such funds. Well, his Amendment was directed against the abuse of these funds; and he, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend, who, as it was obvious from what he had said about local funds, was anxious to prevent the abuse and not the use of these general funds—would withdraw his own Amendment and support his (Mr. Newdegate's), which was directed specifically against the abuse of these funds, and which supplied certain omissions of the clause, which did nothing to prohibit intimidation and other offences which it was well known were not comprehended within the law.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he should withdraw his Amendment. It had so far served his purpose, as the discussion on it had served to show the utter insincerity of the Government, who, while professing a desire to put down corruption, would maintain it wholesale.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, he proposed to move an Amendment before that which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), with a view of limiting, to some extent, the definition of undue influence contained in the Bill, and making more definite what were the offences which were generally held, ac- cording to interpretations of the law which had been given to them by Judges, to constitute undue influence. Undue influence was defined by the Act of 1854 as follows: Every person who shall directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make use of or threaten to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflict, or threaten the infliction, by himself or by or through any other person of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner practise intimidation upon or against any other person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or who shall, by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of any elector, or shall thereby compel, induce, or prevail upon any elector either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall he guilty of undue influence. Under this Act of 1854 undue influence was made, of course, a corrupt practice, and would, if practised by an agent of a candidate, void the election of such candidate, being held to have been committed by the candidate himself indirectly. By the judgments which had been given from time to time in Ireland, that a speech delivered at a meeting on behalf of a candidate was held to constitute the speaker an agent of that candidate, consequently any word which might be used in such speech, which might be held by the Judge, under the 17 & 18 Vict., to come within the words "or in any other manner"—that was to say, which might be constituted by those words a corrupt practice—might lead to the disqualification of the candidate, to his practically remaining out of political life for 10 years, and to preventing him from representing his own constituency for life. Now, they knew that under the Prevention of Crime Act intimidation was a different statutable offence in Ireland from what it was in England, and that it would be so for two years to come. It had been defined under the Prevention of Crime Act, and that definition was found to be very different from any definition which had over been given in England; consequently, if he was correctly informed, the Judges would hold and put in force in Ireland the interpretation of intimidation given by the Prevention of Crime Act in the trial of Election Petitions. This, however, was but a small point in his case. This question of undue in- fluence had always been held to be a grievance by popular candidates in Ireland. As he had said, the candidate was held responsible for the speeches of everybody at his meetings, no matter whether the candidate was present during their delivery or not, no matter whether he was 20 miles away from the place, and no matter whether it had been perfectly impossible for him to control those speeches. Through such an act on the part of a constructive agent it would be in the power of the Judge to unseat the candidate, and inflict upon him all the other great penalties which had been referred to. If this were to be the law, a person might maliciously use words in a speech which would bring the candidate under the penalties of the Act, the Judge taking the view that the words constituted undue influence within the meaning of the section. The necessity for these definitions of undue influence had very much passed away since the old times, when undue influence was undoubtedly exercised probably on the one side and the other, when the landlord used it on the one hand, and when clerical influence was brought to bear upon the elector on the other. Practically speaking, however, although there might be attempts made to exercise undue influence, and though there might be an appearance of undue influence in speeches delivered during election contests in Ireland, there was no such thing exercised on the minds of the electors. It had no result so far as a practical effect upon the minds of the electors was concerned, since the passing of the Ballot Act. The passing of that Act enabled an elector to give his vote absolutely free from undue influence of any kind whatever, from all undue influence, whether spiritual or physical. There was no reason, so far as Ireland was concerned, and, so far as he knew, so far as England also was concerned, why this provision against undue influence should be inserted in the Bill, or should be made for the future a permanent part of the Election Law of the land. The Amendment he had drafted, and which, he regretted to say, was not on the Paper, run thus—To leave out in line 26 the words— And bribery, undue influence," in order to insert "using any violence or threatening any damage, or resorting to any fraudulent contrivance to restrain the liberty of a voter, so as to compel him or frighten him into voting, or abstaining from voting otherwise than he freely wills, and also bribery. He brought in bribery at the end for motives of convenience. The Committee would observe that he omitted the phrase "undue influence" altogether, and adopted in its stead the definition of Mr. Justice Willes in the Lichfield case as one which, having regard to all the circumstances, was sufficient for preserving freedom of elections in England and Ireland, so far as undue influence was concerned. Ho wished to point out that if the Committee accepted his Amendment, it would have the effect of superseding the definition of undue influence in the Act of 1854. Some of the definitions of undue influence and intimidation in that Act were very objectionable, and the words "or in any other manner practise intimidation" were especially objectionable. Ho considered the phrase a great deal too wide, as it left it open to the Judge to say that almost anything that the candidate or his constructive agents might do or say was intimidation. the Irish Members believed that so long as the law was allowed to stand as defined by the Act of 1854, combined with the adoption of the greatly increased penalties for corrupt practices contained in this Bill, the rights of candidates and constituencies in Ireland would be very gravely menaced, owing to the construction which might from time to time be put on that section of the Act of 1854 by the Election Judges. He need not remind the Committee of the famous Judgments which had been delivered in Ireland. They had, for instance, the Judgment of Judge Keogh in the Galway case, and they had the Judgment of Judge Lawson in the case of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) when he was returned for the City of Galway. It would appear that the undue influence clause was originally inserted in the Election Law in order to prevent overt intimidation, such as threatening to withdraw custom, eviction, and threats of eviction by landlords, &c. It was now impossible to intimidate any elector by speeches in Ireland; and the practice of intimidating by physical means, by riotous and tumultuous assemblies, and so forth, had entirely ceased. The day of an Irish election contest was the greatest day in the year. No crowds ever assembled in the streets, and it was the consequence of the Ballot Act that in Ireland all excitement had passed away from the day of polling, and that electors going to the poll were not interfered with from any source whatever. They were allowed to come and go freely; and if anyone wished to prejudice the chances of a candidate, he could only attempt to do so by interfering with an elector on the way to giving his vote, or during registration. There was nothing that an Irish elector resented so much as being interfered with or talked to when on his way to perform the duty which the Constitution imposed upon him, to register his vote secretly; and he defied anyone to find out from a voter what candidate ho had or had not voted for. The secrecy of the Ballot in Ireland was practically unassailable. This stringent clause upon undue influence was no longer necessary; and he would ask the Committee to agree, at all events, to some modification, such as the definition which he proposed, which would be more than amply sufficient to prevent undue influence in Ireland, or in any other part of the United Kingdom, while it would secure the operation of the Act from the probability of the very grave abuses which they feared would result from this clause. The interpretation and the definition which he asked the Committee to agree to was a definition which had been given by a most eminent English Judge; and if it had been sufficient at the time of the Lichfield decision it ought to be sufficient now, when, practically speaking, undue influence was a thing of the past, and the only abuses to be feared and guarded against were bribery and treating, and such other grosser forms of action which interfered with freedom of election.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "and bribery, undue influence," in order to insert "using any violence, or threatening any damage, or resorting to any fraudulent contrivance to restrain the liberty of a voter, so as to compel him or frighten him into voting, or abstaining from voting otherwise than as he freely wills, and also bribery."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he very much regretted that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment; and he thought that when hon. Members saw the effect of it they would be disposed to refuse to accept it. This Bill proposed no alteration in the definition of "undue influence." This definition was to be found in the 5th section of the Act of 1854, and the definition in that Act was incorporated even literally in this Bill. The hon. Member for the City of Cork said they must alter the definition, and gave as his reason that no candidate would be liable to the penalties imposed by this Bill except for intimidation. The candidate must have been guilty of undue influence himself. Under the former law he would have been liable to two years' imprisonment; he would now be liable to one year's imprisonment; and, therefore, the penalty was less severe. But it was not a question of increased penalties, but simply of definition. What was the suggestion in favour of this alteration and disturbance of the law? He thought the hon. Member had not correctly apprehended the Judgment of Mr. Justice Willes. If he recollected rightly, Mr. Justice Willes said the offence of undue influence meant so and so; but that was found in the Act, and he was, therefore, only reading the Statute. Ho was not giving a definition. If, instead of giving that short summary of the law, Mr. Justice Willes had simply taken the Act of 1854, ho would have had exactly the definition of what undue influence meant, and that was all that he said. Ho (the Attorney General) accepted Mr. Justice Willes's definition of the law, when he said the law was to be found in the 5th section of the Act of 1854, and that meant so and so. Was the hon. Member willing to accept it? Mr. Justice Willes was simply an exponent of the Act. As he understood the hon. Member, he did not wish to alter the definition of the Act of 1854 with respect to violence; but he would now strike out the words "injury, harm, or loss," and also "any other manner practises any intimidation." He had taken Mr. Justice Willes's short summary of the Act, and had copied not what was a Judgment from the Bench, but a short summary of the Act of 1854, and thought that the Judge intended to make the law something different from the Statute. The Judge had only to administer the Statute Law, and say the Statute meant so and so; and he could not be a better exponent than the law itself; but the hon. Member had simply copied these words, and rather wrongly read the Statute of 1854. By taking the proposed words, and leaving out "injury, harm, or loss" and "any other manner practises any intimidation," ho confined the absolute damage to the individual. What would that mean? It would give entire licence to all spiritual intimidation. That would, he believed, be the result; and did the Committee wish, after all the decisions that had been given by learned and able Judges, that that which would not be held to be damage under the law should be struck out of the definition of undue influence? That was a change that had not been asked for. Where was the evil? Only in the Galway case, and one other case, had the Judges expounded the law in Ireland in respect to undue influence. Did the hon. Member say that this should be changed on account of a miscarriage of justice? He had never heard that mooted. So far as the definition was concerned, this Bill sought to maintain the law, and said they must strike at the worst form of intimidation; but the Amendment would allow free licence. It was doubtful whether, under that Amendment, if a landlord gave notice to a tenant to quit, that would not come under the Bill. [Mr. PARNELL: That would not be intimidation.] He very much doubted that, for if a landlord gave notice and threatened a tenant with the loss of his holding there might be held to have been intimidation. Because a landlord gave notice to his tenant to quit he would simply say "go," and that would be intimidation. But that did not come within this definition at all. [Mr. PARNELL: There would be threatened damage.] Where was the threat? The hon. Member had fallen into a mistake, for Mr. Justice Willes was speaking of a particular case then before him, and was only carrying out the law. He thought he could give a good many instances, if it were necessary, to show that undue influence was exercised. Although the hon. Member said this provision was not wanted in Ireland, he knew that Irish electors had gone through a great deal in the way of a far more serious intimidation. This was the first time that a complaint had been made of the interpretation of undue influence, or of Judges having caused injury to electors or candidates; and he, therefore, could not assent to the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, ho was rather surprised at some of the Attorney General's observations. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that because this was the first time that a complaint had been made no attention was to be paid to it. Of course, there must be a first time; and when the Treasury Bench complained of Obstruction they should recollect that a great deal of that Obstruction arose from their insisting on matters being raised, not only once, but 50 times, before redress was granted. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there need be no alteration in the definition of undue influence, because that definition was contained in the Act of 1854; but since that time the Ballot Act had been passed. That Act was specifically passed to enable voters to vote without the risk of being unduly influenced. Therefore, primâ facie, it seemed to him that as that Act had been passed, and as other means had been provided to prevent undue influence, the definition of undue influence ought to be limited as far as possible. What did the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) propose? He proposed to adopt the words of Mr. Justice Willes, and to that the Attorney General replied that Mr. Justice Willes had merely said that under the Act undue influence meant so-and-so. The hon. Member wanted this definition, because he was not quite sure that the Irish Judges would take the same view as Mr. Justice Willes. He (Mr. Labouchere) wished to speak with the greatest respect of the Irish Judges; but they were not precisely chosen from the National Party in Ireland. Politics ran exceedingly high in Ireland; and, therefore, a great deal more might be left to English Judges, in the way of definition and interpretation, than to Irish Judges. That, he thought, was a fair reason for this Amendment. Any speaker for a candidate became his agent, as the hon. Member opposite had pointed out.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Every speaker speaks for his candidate.

MR. PARNELL

Irish Judges have always held them to be agents.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, Irish Judges had always held that to be so, and that showed the necessity of restraining them. He had looked in vain in divers Acts for a definition of the word "agent." He heard a great deal about agents, and he gathered that if an agent did this or that the candidate would be held responsible; but there was no definition of "agent" to be found; and before Members or candidates made themselves liable for agents he should like the Attorney General to say what "agent" meant. It would be most monstrous that an election should be voided because a speaker at a meeting was held to be an agent; and yet Gentlemen from Ireland said this was done in Ireland to this very day. He did not refer to any particular case. [Mr. O'DONNELL: The two Galway cases.] Irish Gentlemen could give any number of cases; and, that being so, he thought it was most desirable that the Attorney General should make this concession. Ireland was not England; but the Bill proposed to apply to Ireland this severe provision. This might be a small matter, so far as the law was concerned; but it was a most important matter, so far as elections were concerned; and when Irish Gentlemen, representing Irish feeling, asked that this concession should be made, he must say that if ho were an Irish Member he should make a great fight before he submitted to the Bill as it now stood.

MR. MARUM

said, all that his hon. Friend proposed was to substitute a clear definition for the naked words "undue influence" in the Bill; but it was not so much the duty of the hon. Member to propose that definition as for the Attorney General to formulate a definition in a Bill of this kind. What the hon. Member proposed was to limit and cut down the discretion of the Judges; and ho wished to introduce a definition by which any candidate would be enabled to forward any matters of fact, and to limit the discretion of the Judges, so that they should not, in their Judgments, mix up facts and law together. The hon. Member did not propose to alter the law as to undue influence; and if the Attorney General objected to this definition, the hon. Member would be very happy to receive any suggestion from the Attorney General that would practically meet his view. That was what had been put forward, and he thought it was the duty of the Attorney General to propose some definition of his own if he objected to the Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, ho must object entirely to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to the Ballot Act. If the offence of undue influence was not to be checked by this Bill, they had better throw the Bill out altogether. He thought the error into which the hon. Member for the City of Cork had fallen was this—as he understood, the Government only sought to perpetuate the definition of undue influence which had been found to work well ever since the Act of 1854. No evil had resulted from that Act, and no cases had been brought forward in which that Act had caused wrong or injury; but the hon. Member for the City of Cork wished to sweep away that definition, and substitute the statement of a Judge in a particular case, in which he had to apply the law as it was in the Act of 1854 to particular facts. That, surely, would be the wrong course to take. What fell from Mr. Justice Willes might have been right as to the particular facts before him; but if they were to destroy the definition in the Statute, and take words which a Judge had applied to one set of facts, and apply them to another set of facts, what would become of the Act of 1854? Now, the hon. Member had said that politics ran very high in Ireland, and that Judges could not be trusted. The hon. Member wanted to alter the definition of undue influence; but it was questionable whether he could improve upon the definition found in the Act of 1854. There was one matter which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) with which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) sympathized—namely, the matter of agency. That question would more properly arise on Clause 4, and when they arrived at that clause he hoped there would take place an extremely careful discussion; because agency was really one of the most vital matters with which they had to deal. He entirely agreed that the Law of Agency, at the present moment, was very unsatisfactory, and that it would take a great deal of care and consideration to see whether they could not make some definition of agency which would be much more satisfactory than the result of the decisions of Judges, which had been so much at variance with each other, and which had been so stretched from time to time that a candidate really did not know when he was safe. That, however, was nothing to do with the question now before them. Ho hoped the Committee would allow the existing definition of undue influence to remain as it was found in the Act of 1854. No instances had been adduced to the Committee in which this definition had worked anything like injustice; and until it was found that injustice was done he thought it well to stand by the present definition.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it had been stated by some hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—and it had not been contradicted—that the definition of undue influence by Irish Judges was different to that of English Judges. Now, it was perfectly notorious that there were a considerable number of people in Ireland who exercised undue influence. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wrote a letter to a constituency, or went down to that constituency and made a speech in favour of a political candidate, it would be open—as he (Mr. Macfarlane) understood it—for an Irish Judge to declare that undue influence had been used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork in the election, and that, therefore, the candidate in whose favour the hon. Gentleman had intervened must be unseated. It was quite possible, too, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork might become liable himself. If it pleased an Irish Judge so to read the Act, he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not see that there was any appeal from his Judgment. A Judge's decision in that matter was final; and, therefore, without any appeal, it was possible for the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork to be excluded from the House of Commons for 10 years. It was perfectly notorious in this country and in the House that a Judgment which would exclude the hon. Gentleman would meet with general approval; indeed, it was quite possible that a Judge who would lend himself to such a proceeding would be rewarded with a Peerage, and possibly with a pension for two lives, or a lump sum, which was more or less fashionable just now. Ho was sure there was no one in the House who wished to perpetuate undue influence; all they wanted to do was to provide against undue influence being strained for political purposes. Undue influence was an elastic term; but the Committee had been told that the law was administered in precisely the same fashion in Ireland as in England. They had, however, every reason to believe that the contrary was the case. As he understood the Bill, it was open to a Judge to turn out, upon any opinion he might choose to form as to what constituted undue influence, any candidate he chose. He (Mr. Macfarlane) should propose, if no one else did, that in case a candidate was unseated for undue influence, and not for corrupt practices, there should be an appeal to the whole Bench of Judges.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he thought the House showed a considerable amount of cowardice in not making very clear definitions of the laws they passed. The Attorney General had said that the crime of undue influence was clearly laid down in the Act of 1854. But a great deal had happened since 1854, and they had now to look at the circumstances of 1883 instead of 1854. However moderate a man's opinions might be, however right-minded a view he might take of affairs in Ireland, there was no doubt that the Judges in Ireland, high and low, took a very different view of matters to that taken by English Judges. There had been an example of that very recently. He had had the opportunity, over and over again, of discussing the question, which created a good deal of interest lately in Ireland, with some very eminent members of the English Bar; and every one had declared that the decision under which the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) was sent to gaol would not have been possible in this country. Now the Attorney General just now said that it would be impossible that a speaker in favour of a candidate could, ipso facto, be considered an agent. He was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that; because in the case connected with a borough which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself knew best (Taunton) he found that Mr. Justice Blackburn said that if a person was in any way allowed by a candidate to try to secure his election and to act for him, there was some evidence to show that ho was an agent. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Gentleman naturally cheered that; but he (Mr. O'Shea) thought there wore many Judges who might take that as a precedent for saying that a man, who, with the consent of a candidate, tried to carry on the election, who acted and spoke for him, might be considered an agent. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to say that they could look into the question of agency when they got to the 4th clause. The matter was too important to be thrown over to another clause; they ought to look at the Bill as it stood, and not to be satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire that they would be able to limit the 4th clause.

DR. COMMINS

said, he thought the Amendment was a very necessary one, and that it corrected what was a very great flaw in the definition introduced in the Act of 1854. In the Act of 1854 the Attorney General told them that the words were— Whoever shall threaten or make use of, or threaten to make use of, any force, violence, or restraint, or inflict or threaten the infliction, by himself or through any other person, of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner practise intimidation. Now, the introduction of the words, "or in any other manner practises intimidation," was the reason why he (Dr. Commins) and his hon. Friends wished the Attorney General to tell them what intimidation was. The section did not tell them what intimidation was. The English Judges had interpreted the Act in one way, because they had all followed, without a single exception, the interpretation of undue influence given by Mr. Justice Willes in the Lichfield case. Intimidation, according to the English Judges, could only be practised upon a man through his person, property, and character, and in no other sense whatever. But the Irish Judges had invented a kind of intimidation which they brought within this section, which kind of intimidation was never contemplated by the section, which kind of intimidation no English Judge had ever recognized, and this the Irish Judges called "spiritual intimidation." Now, spiritual intimidation was appealing to a man's superstition; and, therefore, it was necessary that there should be a definition of the word "superstition." He would like to know what two Judges would agree on the interpretation of this word? Mr. Justice Willes, at Lichfield, defined what was undue influence; and the words which he used were the words which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would substitute for the vague words which left the whole matter in doubt. Mr. Justice Wines said— It is the using of any violence, or threatening any damage, or resorting to any fraudulent contrivance to restrain the liberty of the voter, so as to compel him or frighten him into voting, or abstaining from voting, otherwise than as ho freely wills. That was not an interpretation of the law as applied to a particular state of facts then before the Judge, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would have them believe; but it was, as Mr. Justice Willes himself said, a proper definition of undue influence dealt with in the 5th section. The Committee would bear in mind that not long since an attempt was made to extract from the Government a definition of intimidation. They refused to give it; and they did not now give it. They left the matter completely in a state of vagueness, and the Judges would have it completely in their power to say what undue influence was. What was wanted was, that the hands of the Government should be tied, to have the meaning of the words "undue influence" laid down by the Judges in an intelligible way, in such a way as was laid down by Mr. Justice Willes. He and his hon. Friends were willing to accept the definition given by Mr. Justice Willes, because they wished to prevent the possibility of a man being liable for the penalties provided by this Act for the use of legitimate influence.

MR.O' DONNELL

confessed he was surprised to hear the Attorney General doubt whether priests, who supported a candidate in Ireland, would be held to be his agents. Ho could not look for or desire a more remarkable example of the want of knowledge on Irish affairs than was comprised in the drafting of this Bill, and the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I did not say a word about it.

MR. O'DONNELL

certainly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he referred to persons who spoke on behalf of candidates.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, in that very useful little work—Martin's Law of Elections—it was clearly laid down that a congregation of persons might, by their combinative force, constitute agency, though no one alone might be an agent. The examples given of what might constitute agency wore being a member of the Committee; canvassing alone, with or without a canvassing book; canvassing in company; attending meetings, and speaking on behalf of a candidate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the hon. Gentleman to read the remainder of the sentence. He thought it would be found that it was laid down that those cases might be received as evidence.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the whole question of agency was very much one of evidence. It was further laid down that a candidate was responsible generally for the deeds of those who, to his knowledge, for the purpose of promoting his election, canvassed or did such other acts as might tend to promote his election, provided that the candidate, or his authorized agents, had responsible knowledge that those persons were so acting with that object. That was laid down in the Wakefield case, and approved by Judge Lawson in the Galway cage. Furthermore, they were told that no one could lay down a precise rule as to what would constitute evidence of being an agent. That being the state of the case with regard to agents in general, what must he the case in regard to alleged agency in a matter of alleged undue influence? The position of a candidate under the added penalties of the Government Bill was anything but desirable. It was not enough, in the section of the Act of 1854, according to the Attorney General, to say that— Every person who shall directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make use of, or threaten to make use of, any force, violence, or restraint, or inflict, or threaten the infliction, by himself or through any other person of any inquiry, damage, harm, or loss. All that was not sufficient enumeration of the things to be prohibited; but the Attorney General must insist upon the retention of the words which made a person guilty who "in any other manner practises intimidation." The simple matter of fact was that the safety of the candidates, under such a combination of dangers, naturally depended upon the Judge who had to try his case. And in Ireland it depended very much upon the political complexion of the Judge. It was contended that these words should be retained in order to cover spiritual intimidation. Now punishment for spiritual intimidation, or alleged spiritual intimidation, down to the present time, had been simply an exhibition of sectarian prejudice enlisted in the service of political predisposition. It was notorious that at elections the clergymen of the Established Church of England used their spiritual privileges to advance the interests of their own particular candidate. It was also notorious that the Dissenting clergymen in Scotland and Wales, and elsewhere, certainly used their spiritual privileges with very great vehemence at times of elections; and he was sure that a very considerable amount of practical excommunication was enforced in a good many quarters of the country outside of the Roman Catholic Church. He took exception to the statement that there was any necessity in Ireland for restraining, by a legal tribunal, alleged exercise of spiritual intimidation by the Roman Catholic clergy. There was only one—and it was a very safe and sure one—there was only one real check upon the exercise of spiritual intimidation by the Catholic clergy, and that was the sound sense and the knowledge of their religion possessed by the Roman Catholic laity. The laity knew exactly when a clergyman was stepping beyond the lines of his religious powers. In Ireland the charge of undue influence, based upon the participation of clergymen in elections, had simply been used in the landlord interest, by landlord Judges, and had been approved, down to the present time, by landlord partizans in that House. Here was undue influence on the part of a Catholic clergyman. He must not hold out hopes of reward here or hereafter, nor must he expose the party to any religious disability, or denounce his vote for any particular candidate as a sin. That was the law of the land, and that was "undue influence." Why, it entirely depended upon whom the political candidate might be, whether or not it was a sin to vote for him, just as in the same way it depended upon whom the political candidate might be, whether or not it was loyal or disloyal to vote for him. The matter lay not in the opinion of the minister of religion, but in the character of the candidate. Take, for example, a candidate in favour of a Compulsory Atheistic Education Code. Unquestionably, it would be the duty of the religious authorities in a constituency to state the law of the Church with regard to any man who voted for a supporter of compulsory Atheistic education; and all the laws in Christendom and out of it could not alter that fact. If this provision as to undue influence, to this undefined extent, were perpetuated, they would have more liberal scandals in the county of Galway, where not only priests and Bishops were alleged to have been agents of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the county, but his hon. Friend was disqualified on the ground of the agency of these reverend and right reverend gentlemen. In the borough of Galway clergymen who had supported him (Mr. O'Donnell), in the exercise of their Constitutional rights, were not only held to be his agents, but some of them were subjected to special disabilities by the decision of a Judge, who had happened to accept bouquets and other presents from the family of the opposing candidate. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated to the Committee that this was the first time at which a complaint had been made in the House of the manner in which the term "undue influence" had been understood by the Irish Judges, and that it was the first time that a complaint had been made in the House of the manner in which clerical supporters of candidates had been unduly condemned by the Irish Judges. But the political memory of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be as short as his legal memory appeared to be a few moments ago, on the subject of what constituted agency. It was only as far back as the Parliaments of 1878 and 1862 that the late Leader of the Irish Party, the lamented Mr. Butt, expressly brought forward in that House a complaint as to the conduct of Mr. Justice Keogh, and showed the way in which he had indulged his political feelings against the clerical supporters of the Party, and the influence which that gentleman exerted against those who were opposed to the terrorism of the confederate landlords of the county of Galway. Again, in the case of the borough of Galway, complaints had been repeatedly made in that House as to the conduct of Mr. Justice Lawson; and yet they were told that this was the first time that any such complaint had been made. It was a singular fact that one of the greatest and most notorious grievances of Irish candidates which had been rung into the oars of the House for the last 20 years should now be represented by the Minister in charge of the Bill as perfectly now. But was not that statement of the Attorney General an admission that all their complaints against the improper interpretation of the term "undue influence" had hitherto passed unheeded; and was it not a warning to the Irish Members that they should not be satisfied with mere complaints in the present case, but insist, to the utmost of their ability, upon a substantial emendation of the law? The Attorney General had a legal mind. He was only able to see what was written in an Act of Parliament. It was, therefore, evident that they should introduce this definition into the Bill, in order that it might appear on the Statute Book. The questions, protests, and debates that had taken place in the House against the use made by the Irish Judges of undue influence had been clearly thrown away; and ho called upon his hon. Friends to fight this portion of the Bill, because upon the right interpretation of the law depended the return of, perhaps, the most important Members of the Irish Party at the next General Election. A Judge capable of inventing a meeting, and of inventing the presence of a candidate at the invented meeting—Judge Lawson, for instance—would be capable of using the powers conferred upon him by the clause relating to undue influence against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), or any other Member of the popular Party in Ireland against whom the political prejudices of the learned Judge were stronger than a common-sense balance of judicial impartiality should permit. He should be glad to furnish the Attorney General with proofs as to the charge in the case of Judge Lawson from the evidence published in the Blue Books if the hon. and learned Gentleman were unable to grasp a confirmation of it in the statements which had been made. It was impossible that the Government could be asked to concede a special day for the purpose of considering the bona fides and the substantiality of the charges brought against each Irish Judge; but he asked them to take into consideration the fact that these charges were made by the body of popular Irish Members in the full hearing of the Committee, and with the support of the entire body of the Irish people. If that were not considered good evidence in the House of Commons, it was perilously strong evidence for anybody that wished to govern Ireland successfully.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he rose to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork. It seemed to him that the reasons alleged by the Attorney General for refusing to accept that Amendment were such as hardly to meet with the approval of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the definition proposed by his hon. Friend, and, having referred to the terms of the Act of 1854, refused to accept it, apparently on no other ground than that it was the definition of Mr. Justice Willes. But if the hon. Member for the City of Cork had, without consulting that definition, himself drawn up the definition which he proposed to the Committee, he failed to see whore would be the argument of the Attorney General, or the argument of the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). But to strengthen the case of his hon. Friends against the Bill, which gave such absolute and unlimited powers into the hands of partizan Judges in Ireland, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had taken the definition of undue influence from an eminent legal authority in England—a definition of long standing, and one which had not been contested to any extent, at least in this country. The importance of the Amendment before the Committee, as regarded freedom of election in Ireland, could not be overrated. In England the law was justly and fairly administered, because it was in the hands of Judges who respected their position, and who would not condescend to make political partizans of themselves in interpreting provisions of this kind. But the contrary was the case in Ireland, and the constitution of the Irish Bench was the very point which strengthened Irish opposition to the Bill in the form in which it then stood. Instead of the Irish Judges standing between political candidates at the different elections they were amongst the strongest political partizans in the country; and if they saw a reason for putting that political partizanship into force against the popular candidates in Ireland, they were under a strong temptation to do so, for they knew that the National Party in Ireland had been the means of depriving them of the position which they once occupied, and that the action which they proposed to themselves had been lessened by the efforts of the popular Party, who would be able, through their Representatives, to strike a further blow at it. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) had referred to a decision in a case in which he (Mr. Harrington) was interested. He had no wish to dwell on the matter at length, and should certainly not have alluded to it at all, were it not that it had a considerable bearing on the question before the Committee. The Judge who presided at the trial—a gentleman of prominent position in his way, a County Court Judge of four Irish counties, and who had described himself as ruling over a dominion extending from the Irish Sea to the Shannon—gave a definition of agitation; and to strengthen the case in favour of his decision he further defined it to be crime, murder, and outrage. When it was pointed out to him that the speech for which he was sending him (Mr. Harrington) to gaol was delivered in support of a resolution condemning crime and outrage, the Judge, taking up one sentence in the speech, went on to say that his having called upon the farmers not to be apathetic was in itself intimidation. If those words had been applied to a small section of the farming community present at the meeting, and the Judge had held that it was intimidation in respect of them, there might have been some excuse for his decision; but, as it was, he held that intimidation had been used towards the farmers of the whole county of Westmeath. Not one vote had been influenced by the observations he made use of, which were intended to consolidate a union between the farmers and labourers of the county; but in the face of that the Judge endeavoured to make it appear that he was sowing dissension. He would remind the Committee that the Bill aimed at injuring the position of independent Members in that House. It provided a very elaborate machinery against intimidation; but he did Hot see anything in it to prevent bribery on the part of the two great political Parties, who from time to time held the Government of this country, which could not be easily broken. To illustrate the position which some of the Irish Judges held, he would remind the Committee of a fact which was well known to most hon. Members present, that so great was the scandal of bribery in Ireland that one of the Divisions of the Courts of Justice in Dublin was known as the Mallow Division. Those were the men whose power they wished to limit by some such Amendment as that proposed by his hon. Friend. If the Irish Judges were to be allowed to interpret the law as laid down in the Act of 1854, which certainly might now well be altered, considering the altered circumstances of the times, and the immense changes effected in the country by the operation of the Ballot Act—if they were to have that absolute power in the administration of the law which this Bill proposed to confer upon them, he said that the House of Commons would have again and again to refer to the law which they were now passing; and that, instead of several years elapsing without grievances being brought forward, fresh grievances would be laid before the House of Commons every year in connection with the administration of the law in Ireland. The Irish Judges could not but be partizans, because they were promoted for political services. It was only recently that an instance had occurred of one of the Judges in Ireland—a supporter of the Liberal Ministry—being transferred from a subordinate to a more exalted position on the Bench; and it was unreasonable to expect that men having such influence in the administration of the law could exercise fairly and justly the terrible power which this Act would confer upon them if passed in its present form.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished to eliminate the words "undue influence" from the clause. But the term "undue influence," which was, after the most careful thought, introduced into the Act of 1854, during the 29 years which had elapsed since that Act was passed, had been criticized wholly in the sense of approval by the acute minds which had been brought to bear upon it. It was undoubtedly difficult to give a definition of undue influence; the forms of it were too numerous to admit of that, and it was to be met with in the affairs of life, as well as in Parliamentary matters. It had always been understood by the Judges that nothing was more difficult of definition, and they had refrained from defining it, because it was felt that so great was the ingenuity of men inclined to fraud that it would be prejudicial to do so. But, while the wording of the Act of 1854 had stood the test of time and criticism, that which it was proposed to substitute for it was never intended for a definition, and was obviously no definition at all. If the definition proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork were substituted, many forms of undue influence would absolutely elude it. The hon. Member mentioned as a fact that, in some instances, there had been cases of undue clerical influence in Ireland; and he would point out that cases of that kind could not be met by this so-called definition. Further, in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Willes, in which he used the sentence relied upon by the hon. Member as being a definition, he used words which showed that no definition was intended, and that it was merely a judicial observation on the facts of the case before him. It was plain, then, that the definition which the hon. Member sought to introduce was no definition at all. Now, with reference to the views of the law that would be laid down by the Irish Judges, he begged to give the statements that had been made on that subject an unqualified denial. Of course, there might be differences of opinion formed on the facts in particular cases; but the law itself was, and always had been, expounded in the same way in the two countries. He would remind hon. Members that if there were cases whore elections had been set aside on the ground of undue clerical influence, there had been far more where that ground had been strongly pressed, and where the Judges had declined to hold that it amounted to an illegal practice. They had a series of decisions applicable alike to both countries, bound up in volumes and referred to as authorities; and for that they were asked to substitute what was no definition, and which would leave them very much worse than they were before. An observation had been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchore) in consequence of an interjectional remark from an hon. Member on the other side of the House, to the effect that it was the fact of a man's speaking at a candidate's meeting which constituted him an agent. That statement he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had challenged at the time, and that challenge he now repeated. It had been held that, in deciding what was agency, the Judge could not exclude from his mind the fact of a person speaking at a meeting in the presence of the candidate; but as for the delivery of a speech at a candidate's meeting constituting agency, there was no decision to that effect in Ireland, and he was tolerably acquainted with Election Law in England, but knew of no such decision here. It was absurd to say that the fact of a man speaking at a candidate's meeting should be left out of sight when they were considering whether or not he was a candidate's agent. Whilst, of course, the difficulty of defining undue influence was one of the matters which must make them cautious in the definition of agency, yet the definition of agency was one of those matters which must be disposed of by itself. As to the Amendment, it was ono which should not be adopted, because it would commit the Committee to that which was no definition, and which was never intended as one.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the Attorney General for Ireland, in showing that the Amendment did not cover all the cases of intimidation which might arise, had not answered the gist of the objection of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which was that, under the existing definition of undue influence, certain acts which, in this country, would not be regarded as undue influence, would, under the circumstances of Ireland, be so regarded. the Committee ought to look at this matter judicially; and hon. Members on both sides of the House should endeavour to put themselves in the position of the Irish Representatives, and try to feel as those Gentlemen felt in this matter. It was perfectly hollow for anyone to attempt to argue that the condition of England and Ireland was identical in these matters. The conditions of political and religious life in England and Ireland were totally separate and distinct. He was not going to attack the Irish Judges; in fact, he looked on this matter quite as though it were a mathematical problem; but, in considering and deciding these cases, feelings and arguments which would have no place or existence in this country were—he would not say whether rightly or wrongly—all-powerful in Ireland. They could not shut their eyes to the strong religious difficulties which at present ran through, and had run through, all Irish questions for centuries. They had the decision which had been quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Mr. Commins), in which an attempt was made to define an appeal to a man's superstition. Now, just let them consider what that definition amounted to. A Protestant Judge from the North of Ireland might have to go amongst the Catholics in the South, and vice versâ, and give a decision upon some point of superstition; and in conjunction with that they had to take into consideration the present excited condition of Irish political life. It was idle for the House of Commons to shut their eyes to the fact that the majority of the Irish people sympathized with the aims and views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and that a minority totally disagreed with them. This conflict ran through every section of Irish life. Then they must also recognize the political antagonism which existed in the House between the Gentlemen who represented Ireland—or certainly parts of Ireland—and those Gentlemen who, in the ordinary course of affairs, were promoted to the Irish Bench. The state of feeling was such as did not exist between the English Members, on whatever side they sat, and the heads of the Legal Profession in England. Whether rightly or wrongly, however, that feeling did exist in Ireland. The Irish Members said that, looking at all these facts—looking at their strong religious differences, at their strong political differences, and at the unquestioned antagonism which existed between the two political Parties—was it just, right, or fair, that the seat of an Irish Member of Parliament should be left absolutely in the discretion of a partizan Judge, who might, on some ground of undue influence, declare an election to be void? Such an act on the part of such a Judge might be a fair one; but what would be its effect on the minds of the Irish people? What did Irish Members ask them to do? They did not ask the Committee to strike undue influence or intimidation out of the Bill, and not to deal with the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Attorney General, which cases, with due deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it might be pointed out had been amply dealt with in the Ballot Act. But they did ask the Committee to listen to their case. They had had announcements as to the doctrine of agency from the hon. and learned Gentleman the head of the English Bar, and from the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the head of the Irish Bar. They had heard it stated by these Gentlemen that every person who went down to a constituency and worked for a candidate and spoke fur him was an agent. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No, no !] Ho was glad to find that speaking for a candidate did not make the speaker the agent of the candidate. He was in the recollection of the Committee whether the Attorney General did not say that speaking for the candidate rendered the speaker his agent. [Mr. WARTON: Clearly.] He did not wish to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way. He had always understood—and he was glad to find that he was wrong—that taking so prominent a part in an election as to speak for a candidate rendered the speaker that candidate's agent, and that if the speaker subsequently gave an elector a glass of wine that would constitute treating. When they came to deal with the definition of agency, and how far it should go, would be the proper time to discuss that question however. What ho wished to know—whether the doctrine of agency was carried to the extraordinary extent to which the English Judges had carried it, or whether it were wisely and properly limited as the Attorney General would limit it—was whether in Ireland a candidate would be held responsible for what an excited and foolish and injudicious man might say at one of his meetings? He agreed with hon. Gentlemen that the definition was not exhaustive and not sufficient, and did not cover the whole of the ground. Why could not the Government and the Committee say—"We will try and meet you by putting in words that will prevent the possibility of such a contention before an Election Judge as that we are now dealing with. We do not want to put you at the mercy of a construction of an Act of Parliament, which may be an injustice to you, and may produce in the minds of the Irish people the feeling that an injustice has been committed." Let them say "We will put in this Act such words as will exclude from the definition of undue influence legitimate agitation." If the Government would do this, they would satisfy the feelings and meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and would be rendering some small justice to Ireland. If they were to say non possums to everything the Irish Members asked, and to say the conditions of Irish and English life were precisely the same, they would only be rendering the Irish problem more difficult of solution, causing for themselves more trouble, and hurrying on what many Members on the Ministerial side of the blouse, ho was sure, did not wish to see.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Member had advanced the simple proposition that a man speaking at a meeting for a candidate became that candidate's agent. From that proposition he (the Attorney General) entirely dissented. The hon. Member had accredited him with having said that a person who was sent down to a constituency to work for a candidate and speak for him was not an agent; but he had never made any such statement. He had never said anything about a person being sent down and working for a candidate. Why did not the hon. Member note the words which had been said; and would he bear in mind the words which he (the Attorney General) really had said on the future stages of the Bill?

MR. GIBSON

said, he always listened with attention and interest to whatever fell from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The hon. Member's manner was agreeable, his utterance was extremely clear, and the general conclusions to which he asked them to arrive were often persuasive; but, notwithstanding these very great advantages which the hon. Member had in addressing them, he (Mr. Gibson) was unable to arrive at a clear understanding as to what was the advice which the hon. Member gave thorn with reference to the particular Amendment before them. The hon. Member admitted that it was inadequate, and, therefore, not to be accepted; and one would think that the natural consequence of that view would be that he would not now be prepared to support the Amendment, whatever he might do on a subsequent stage of the Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) looked on the question as being one which really lay within a very narrow compass. They were dealing not with a new, but with an old law, which had been in force since 1854, and which, considering the intricacy of the subject, had not been found to work with any great difficulty. Now, was it to be suggested as a thing which was desirable, or was it not to be suggested as a thing essentially undesirable, that there should be a difference in this respect between the law of the two countries? Did the hon. Member for Wolverhampton suggest, as a reasonable Member of the House, that ho would retain the Act of 1854, with its definition of undue influence for England and Scotland, and manufacture some new law for Ireland? [Mr. H.H. FOELER: No.] The hon. Member, then, agreed with the proposition which underlay the present structure of the Bill, that there was to be the same Electoral Law for the three countries. The Bill proposed to give that by retaining the existing Electoral Law; and it, therefore, had to be pointed out why this law, which had been in operation so long, and had been administered by the Judges of England and Ireland without ever having called for or required amendment, should be altered because Irish Members took some objection to it. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, who was a man of great ingenuity, had framed and presented a definition which he must feel could not be introduced into an Act of Parliament. It had been pointed out from the Treasury Bench, and admitted in the fullest terms by the hon. Member for Wolver- hampton, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, with his study of this question and his interest in presenting a good definition to the Committee, had failed to present one which he (Mr. Gibson) would venture to say found acceptance even in the hon. Member's own mind, or in the minds of those on the other side of the House. who would like to agree with him if they could. They all knew that it was practically impossible to suggest to the House any exhaustive terms which could be regarded as a definition of this subject of undue influence. Ho (Mr. Gibson) did not think it would be desirable to depart from the existing law, which had not been found to work in an unsatisfactory manner. They must trust the Judges; it was absolutely impossible to escape from facing that proposition. They might carp at them, and suggest that they would prefer one Judge to another to try particular cases; but whether they gave them the existing definition, or sought to manufacture a new one, they must always, in the last resort, trust the Judiciary to decide whether or not a person was guilty of undue influence. For himself, he was not satisfied that it was desirable to make any change in the existing law; therefore, he should vote for the Bill standing in this particular as it was at present. As to the doctrine of agency, he should approach the clause dealing with it with an earnest and anxious desire to consider whether more strictness could not be introduced with reference to this most difficult and intricate subject. He did not say, dogmatically, that he should be able to present to the House words which would readily commend themselves to the acceptance of legal minds in definition of this very difficult subject, which must always be left, to a certain extent, to be acted upon by the particular facts of each case; but none the less should lre approach it with an earnest desire to endeavour to prevent some of the consequences which had been found to attach to certain acts in some election cases.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down professed to be puzzled as to the nature of the advice given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He (Mr. Sexton), however, had to thank that hon. Member for his speech, which displayed a rare largeness of political perception, and summed up briefly and clearly the main facts of the political situation in Ireland. The bon. Member had offered some suggestions to the Committee which, if the Committee were wise enough to accept them, would have a good effect, not only in facilitating the progress of the Bill, but upon the general state of feeling between the Members of the House and the different parts of the Kingdom. He could not help thinking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had been easily puzzled as to the meaning of the advice of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The hon. Member recommended that the Committee, instead of accepting the slothful counsel of lawyers to abandon the effort to make a definition should continuo that effort. Lawyers sometimes spoke in a very cloudy manner; but whenever they came to the subject of definitions they always spoke clearly. They seemed to object to defining anything—they wished to leave everything to the Common Law. They expected to mount the Bench some day, and the absence of definitions was agreeable to them, as it left it open to them to decide cases on their private judgment, without coming into contact with public opinion or Parliament. He maintained, however, that the function and desire of that Assembly ought to be exactly contrary to that. It ought to set itself to endeavour to produce such a definition as would place every candidate, every elector, and every person in the country hereafter outside the whim of any Judge. There was nothing impossible in completing a definition. For two years the House professed to be greatly puzzled as to the definition of intimidation in land movements in Ireland. It was said to be impossible to define intimidation; yet the House passed, in the Prevention of Crime Act, an elaborate clause dealing with it, and that clause was now said by the lawyers of Ireland to have answered its purpose. If it was possible to exhaustively and satisfactorily define that offence, it was equally possible to define the offence of undue influence; and it should be done, unless the lawyers wished to reserve au opportunity to play tricks with the liberty of the public. It had been very interesting to listen to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) had been pleased to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in his opinion, a person who spoke for a candidate was not an agent. The matter had been somewhat brought into the fog by the verbal legerdemain of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken at the Table (the Attorney General). It was difficult to gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's two speeches whether, in his view, a man who spoke for a candidate at a meeting was an agent or not; but, however this was, the Judges would not be likely to accept the dicta of the hon. and learned Gentleman at the Table of that House. The statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, interesting as it was, was no assurance to him (Mr. Sexton) that the Judges would accept it hereafter. As for the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), he had said, first, that the offence could not be defined; then, that the definition of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was unsatisfactory, and that the definition in the Act should be retained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been obliged to admit the authority of the words the hon. Member for the City of Cork had adopted as the terms of his Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had taken the words from the statement of a learned Judge as eminent as any who had graced the English Bench during the course of the last century—namely, Mr. Justice Willes. The suggestion of the lion. Member for Wolverhampton should be adopted by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, so as to include "corrupt promises or inducements." He (Mr. Sexton) would close by moving that Progress be reported, as it would be impossible for the hon. Member for the City of Cork to act in the spirit of the recommendation of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton without time for consideration. If Progress were reported, the hon. Member for the City of Cork might be able by to-morrow to bring forward a proposal which would settle this matter. Many hon. Members had been in the House since 12 o'clock to-day, having been in attendance on the Grand Committee. They would have to be down again at 12 o'clock to-morrow; and unless the laws of that House were to supersede the laws of Nature his proposal should be adopted.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

urged the Committee to deal with the Amendment before them before reporting Progress. Last year, when the Bill was before the House, they had not heard one word about the definition of undue influence, oven from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and nothing had occurred since last year to raise the question. They had now discussed the matter for upwards of two hours, and he would therefore ask that they should be allowed to divide.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the Attorney General had referred a little too often to the fact that this Bill was before the House last year. Of course, in a sense it was before the House; but everyone knew it was not seriously before the House. It did not receive the attention last Session which it was likely to receive this. The Attorney General said the question had been debated by the House for two years, and, therefore, they ought to come to a decision on it; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) would point out that this question of undue influence had been, or ought to have been, under the notice of the Advisers of the Crown since 1854, although they did not seem to have arrived at much conclusion on the subject. The views of the Government had developed with remarkable slowness. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated reasons of the strongest kind—which ought to be accepted by the Committee—for giving further time for the consideration of this important Amendment. Haste, under the circumstances, would be scandalous, and would be irritating in the highest degree to the Irish people; and it was quite evident that some of the English Members, as devoted to Liberal principles as the Government, would consider it disgraceful. He hoped the Government would not endeavour to exercise undue influence upon their supporters, but would consent to have this ques- tion carefully considered at a becoming time, and when so many Members were not absent, and when Members would be in a better spirit for considering it. He also hoped that the Attorney General, having had his attention called to the complaints of the Irish people, would, between now and to-morrow, provide some suggestion which would meet with the exigencies of the case. If the hon. and learned Member brought in anything like a tolerable amendment to the law, he could assure him that the Irish Members would not treat it in an attitude of cold indifference, or in any captious spirit, such as had been manifested by the Treasury Bench that evening.

MR. THOMASSON

suggested to hon. Members opposite that they would not get a better division than they could have now, and said the question was merely whether any definition of undue influence was necessary? He thought the Committee might very well adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member, and report Progress, and then the Attorney General could consider what further Amendment was necessary.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

pointed out that the leading Members from Ireland were not present.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought it unreasonable to expect hon. Members who had been engaged in the House for more than 12 hours, as ho and the Attorney General had been, to proceed further now.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he thought there was some force in the appeal of hon. Members opposite. He should regret any decision at that moment, because if that decision was adverse it would be against the appeal of the Irish Members on behalf of the great majority of the Irish people. The proposition of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was apparently made in a fair spirit; and if the Committee would, in an equally candid spirit, undertake to examine the proposal to-morrow, he was satisfied that the progress of the Bill would not be in the slightest degree retarded. He considered this question as one of primary importance to Ireland; and as Ireland was more affected than any other part of the Kingdom he thought the Committee should adjourn.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that as hon. Members did not seem disposed to go on to a decision, as ho had hoped they would, it was better not to waste any further time.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was very glad that the noble Marquess had. agreed to report Progress, because he hoped to arrive at some compromise which might take a practical shape. The Attorney General objected to his definition of undue influence, on the ground that it was too limited. He, however, objected to the definition in the Act of 1854, on the ground that it was too wide. To-morrow they might examine the definition in the Act of 1854, and see how much they could give up. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman had not set his face against yielding any portion of that definition, which was passed before the Ballet Act under very different circumstances to those now existing, and which was certainly not needed now. He must either yield. something in regard to the proposed definition, repeal the old definition, and grant a new definition, or else make undue influence an illegal instead of a corrupt practice. Either of those courses would meet the case.

Motion agreed to.

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