COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 July 1885)

§ MR. HEALY
said, the Bill was read a second time without a single word of explanation. He had not had time to read the Bill, and therefore he asked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. H. Paget) to state what the Bill proposed.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, this was a Bill of one clause to remove the ambiguity which existed in the law as it at present stood. It provided that a person might absent himself from his employment on the day of poll to record his vote without any deduction being made from his salary or wages. It was an unopposed Bill; it was brought before the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) of the late Government, and it had the approval of the present Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster). On the back of it was the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), and he (Mr. E. H. Paget) had not heard a single word of opposition raised to its principle. It 237 contained provisions to prevent any possible misuse of the permission to be given by an employer to his servant to attend at the polling booth to give his vote. The permission must be granted to everyone in a man's employ; indeed, the measure, as it stood, was entirely free from any Party politics. It had been virtually assented to by the late Attorney General, and he (Mr. B. H. Paget) hoped that, under the circumstances, the House would permit the Speaker to leave the Chair.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the hon. Member had stated that the Bill was assented to by the late Attorney General. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman within the last day or two; but his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) impression was that his right hon. and learned Friend had some doubt about the Bill. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was favourable to the Bill, and he should offer no opposition to it to-night; but he would like to ask, on behalf of his right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General, that the clauses should not be considered in Committee until Monday, in order to give the late Attorney General time to put down what Amendments he might think necessary.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he thought the Bill would need careful consideration, in order that care was had that all servants should be treated equally. There was just the danger of a person giving leave to a servant to claim his wages in a way that the servant might not be able to take advantage of it. Unless they were careful, the leave might take the form of a bribe.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it had hitherto been the custom to make Corrupt Practices Acts annual Acts, and to put them in the Continuance Bill. He would ask the Members of the Government to consider what was the good of putting Bills in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill when, in point of fact, they could not be amended Would it not be well to codify the law relating to corrupt practices, and to make the Acts permanent?

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, there was, perhaps, something in the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). He did not wish to dispute that the Bill might be improved; indeed, if the Bill could be improved in a way to prevent the possibility of the danger which the hon. Gentleman contemplated, he (Mr. E. H. Paget) would be only too happy to propose the necessary Amendments. As he was unable to answer the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) before this, he must inform him that he had not had any communication with the late Attorney General within the last few days; and, therefore, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had altered his opinion respecting the Bill, he (Mr. E. H. Paget) was not aware of it. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee further, and therefore would agree to the suggestion to report Progress.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
suggested to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that he should put down a Motion to carry out the view he had expressed.