Sitting of 15 May 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Public Accounts, nominated; Printing, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 12] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings)* [162]; Arrears of Rent (Ireland) [163].
Second Reading—Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers [153]; County Courts Act (1867) Amendment [146], debate adjourned.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Public Offices Site [111].
Referred to Select Committee—Artillery Ranges [125].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [21]—R.P.; County Courts (Ireland) [18]—R.P.
Third Reading—Inclosure (Arkleside) Provisional Order* [128]; Inclosure (Bettws Disserth) Provisional Order* [127]; Inclosure (Cefn Drawen) Provisional Order* [126]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order* [138]; Gas Provisional Orders* [136]; Water Provisional Orders* [135].

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCE AT KILLARNEY.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Daily News" of May 3rd:—
  "A very curious and high-handed proceeding is reported from Killarney. It is stated that while the people were expressing their joy at the release of Mr. Parnell, the police, acting on the authority of Captain Plunkett, R.M. dispersed them with their batons, and destroyed the big drum of the local band, which was playing at the time;"
  and, whether he has taken any steps to prevent any such interference with the people in the future?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, on the night of the 2nd instant a riotous and disorderly mob, accompanied by two bands, paraded the streets of Killarney, and a hostile feeling was exhibited towards the persons who did not illuminate their houses on the occasion. The magistrate responsible for the preservation of the peace of the town ordered the police to call upon the bands to retire and the mob to disperse. One of the bands very properly did retire quietly; but the other band rushed forward, and the police were pelted with stones, and in quelling the disturbance and clearing the streets the drum was broken. The lawful playing of bands is not to be interfered with; but, under the circumstances of this case, the Government do not propose to take any further steps in the matter. It is the duty of all magistrates to keep the peace of the town, and, of course, the law must be obeyed.
  MR. REDMOND: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if any of the people were seriously injured by the police using their batons upon them?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have no information as to that; but I

  659
  am informed the police were pelted with stones by the people.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. E. J. HOARE.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. E. J. Hoare, at present a suspect in Kilkenny Gaol, was during his former imprisonment in Naas Gaol occupied upon literary work; whether, on his release from Naas, his private papers, manuscripts, and various documents were detained by the authorities; and, whether he will order these papers to be at once restored to him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, when Mr. Hoare was about to be discharged from Naas Prison, the Governor found upon him a few scraps of paper containing memoranda relative to the Land League. The Governor objected to Mr. Hoare taking away the papers, and Mr. Hoare thought so little about them that he told the Governor to burn them.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Postmaster General, Whether the concession to the Sub-Marine Telegraph Company for laying cables between England and France would bar the Post Office from assenting (with or without the concert of the French Government) to the laying of cables between the English Coast and the Varne Lightship, and the Lighthouse on Cape Grinez, for the special purposes of enabling shore warnings in cases of ships seen to be in distress in the Channel; and, whether, if private persons are ready, at their own cost, to lay any such cables, he would give consent accordingly?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the concession held by the Sub-Marine Telegraph Company does bar the Post Office from assenting to the laying of such cables as those referred to in my hon. Friend's Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE DISTURBANCES AT BALLINA.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will explain to the House the circum-
  660
  stances attending the recent affray between the people and the police at Ballina, county Mayo, in which several young children were dangerously wounded while forming part of a children's band engaged in playing through the streets; and, whether, having in view the previous imprudent conduct of Sub-Inspector Ball in making a needless search for arms in the houses of several of the most respectable and peaceable inhabitants of Ballina, together with his recent conduct in directing the police to fire upon the children's band of that town, the Government will now consider the advisability of ordering his removal from a district remarkable for the usual good order and tranquillity of its inhabitants?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am informed that Sub-Inspector Ball has been relieved from duty for the present, and has been granted leave of absence; and, under the circumstances, I must request the House and the hon. and learned Member for Mayo to permit me, in the public interest, to decline, at the present moment, giving any further answer to the Question.

  IRELAND—PROSELYTISM AT THE COUNTY INFIRMARY, KILKENNY.
  MR. M'COAN (for Mr. MARUM)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to attempts at proselytism, upon Roman Catholic patients, at the public institution of the County Infirmary of Kilkenny, which is mainly supported by public rates, to the extent of £700 per annum, levied upon the occupiers of land, and, whereas 95 per cent of the population is Roman Catholic, yet such taxation is disbursed as aforesaid by grand jury panels; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, now paying a supplemental grant of £89 per annum towards salaries of officers of this Infirmary, will institute an official inquiry into the sectarian appointments and management of this public institution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, a sum of £89 1s. 10 d. per annum is paid by Government to the Kilkenny County Infirmary, in common with some other infirmaries in Ireland, under 14 & 15 Vict., c. 68, so long as the medical officers holding office at the time of the

  661
  passing of that Act continue in office. No representations relative to sectarian appointments of officers or to the management of this institution have been made to the Government.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME—RETIRED CLERKS—THE OUTDOOR DEPARTMENT.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can now inform the House what progress has been made in providing for the case of those clerks and officers in Her Majesty's Customs who are affected by the reorganization now being carried out in that Department; whether, terms of retirement having been offered to and accepted by most of the older members of the Clerical Staff, it is intended to offer similar terms to members of the Outdoor Department; and, whether, as it is reported that the high posts have been offered to redundant clerks in such a way as to place them over the heads of members of the Outdoor Staff senior in standing, some assurance can be given that the rights to promotion of the Outdoor Staff will not be prejudiced by the changes now in progress?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the arrangements for providing for the displaced clerks are now nearly complete, and the new system will be introduced on June 1. There is no intention of offering special terms of retirement to the Outdoor Department, as no reason exists for so doing. The prospect of members of the Outdoor Department have certainly not been injured by the change, as the places to which they can be promoted have been increased in the same proportion, roughly speaking, as the class from which they are promoted.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS' COURT, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that several tenants on the Blackall Estate, in Longford County, applied on the 11th of last November to the Land Court to have their rents fixed, having previously offered to settle out of Court, and whether, although Land Courts have sat in Granard at least twice since then, those applications have not
  662
  yet been ever "listed;" and, whether the Government can take any steps to protect those tenants from eviction during the long interval that seems likely to elapse before their applications come to be dealt with by the Land Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, ten of Major Blackall's tenants in the Poor Law Union of Granard have applied to the Land Court to have fair rents fixed. Their cases will be "listed" for the next sittings at Granard, the prior applications having been nearly all disposed of.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked if the tenants had not served the originating notices on November 11 last?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there were 352 cases from the district lodged prior to these cases, and, of course, they would be heard before them.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the decision given by the Land Commission in the case of the Keel Mountain tenants in Longford County; whether the ruling of the majority of the Commissioners affirmed that in cases in which the landlord borrowed money from the Board of Works to be expended in drainage, and charged the tenants 6½ per cent for the money, which amount was paid by them for 17 years, the improvement is wholly the property of the landlord, and is not to be taken into account in fixing the judicial rent which the tenants are to pay for the future; and, whether he will recommend such an amendment of the Land Act as will secure tenants against loss of this character?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, there is no record in the Land Commission, so far as I can ascertain, of the decision stated in the Question. The Schedule to the Orders of the Longford Sub-Commission, in the case of the Keel Mountain tenants, states that certain drainage improvements belonged to the landlord. Beyond that, I can give no information; but, of course, if that Order is erroneous, it should be reviewed on appeal.

  ROADS AND STREETS (METROPOLIS).
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the President of the Local Government Board,

  663
  Whether, having regard to the unsatisfactory condition of many of the streets and roads of the Metropolis, Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of appointing a General Inspector of Roads, with assistants, for the Metropolitan districts, whose duty it should be to see that the construction and repairs of the streets and roads of the Metropolis, except those under the control of the Chief Commissioner of Works, and of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are efficiently carried out; or whether they will adopt other measures for that purpose?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that the appointment of a General Inspector to overlook the roads of the Metropolis did not appear to him to be a matter which should be undertaken by the central Government. Probably the wishes of the hon. Member would be fulfilled when all the highways of the Metropolis should be controlled by the same authority. In that case, their management would become uniform, without the necessity of any special provision for an exceptional appointment.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, NOTICES OF REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the honourable Member for the Falkirk Burghs, Whether he will remove the notice of opposition against the Agricultural Holdings, Notices of Removal (Scotland) Bill, going into Committee after half-past Twelve, which he has placed on the Notice Paper for Thursday next?
  MR. RAMSAY, in reply, said, he could only say that, in his opinion, the Bill referred to left the existing law as to removals in force; and as it was understood that the Government intended, as soon as practicable, to introduce a measure regarding land in Scotland, he did not feel that the existing relations of owners and occupiers should be annually changed; and he could not, in the meantime, see his way to withdraw the Notice of Motion which stood in his name.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE INTERNATIONAL SAILING CODE—THE "CITY OF MECCA."
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  664
  If it be the fact that a judgment of the Portuguese Courts has been given in direct violation of one of the rules of the International Sailing Code, to the serious injury of British subjects; and if it is true that Her Majesty's Government has demanded an International Arbitration, and that it has been refused; and, if he can yet say what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to vindicate the Code, and obtain reparation for the injury done; and, if that is not yet decided, if in the meantime he will lay the Papers upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the judgment of the Portuguese Courts in the case of the City of Mecca is not in harmony with the International Sailing Rules. It is true that the Portuguese Government have refused to submit the case to arbitration, as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The Papers will be laid before the House as soon as they can conveniently be given; but the future action of the Government is a matter I cannot yet state to the House, because the reply lately received from the Portuguese Government has first to be considered in communication with the Law Officers of the Crown.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CAPTAIN DUGMORE.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Captain Dugmore, late of the 64th Regiment, is now confined in Tullamore Gaol for not giving securities for good behaviour; whether he is still in the receipt of half-pay; and, whether, having regard to Captain Dugmore's recent conduct, he intends to recommend Her Majesty to have his name removed from the Army? The hon. and gallant Baronet also asked, Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, reported in the "Times" on Saturday, when refusing to grant a writ of certiorari, applied for in order that the indictment against Captain Dugmore for inciting the people not to pay rent might be quashed?
  MR. HEALY: Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would like to ask him whether he has heard that the reason of Captain Dug-

  665
  more's refusal to give security in this case is, that it would amount to an admission that he had cemmitted some crime?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I can give no information as to the Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). As to the other Question, it is true that Captain Dugmore is now confined in Tullamore Gaol. He is not in receipt of half pay, having retired from the Army in July last; but he has been since that date in receipt of retired pay as a retired officer. This, however, has now been suspended; and I am at present in communication with the Irish Government as to the proper course to be pursued towards him. Until I received the hon. and gallant Baronet's letter yesterday, I had not read the statement in The Times newspaper on which the hon. and gallant Baronet founds the latter part of his Question. Of course, the Government would not act on newspaper reports, but on official information.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EXKING OF ZULULAND—FUTURE POSITION AND VISIT TO ENGLAND.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any determination has been come to affecting the future position of Cetewayo; and, whether he is shortly to visit this country?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir Henry Bulwer having informed Her Majesty's Government that the report of Cetewayo's intended visit to this country has been used for purposes of intrigue and agitation in Zululand, and that his visit at the present time would interfere with the consideration of the future policy to be pursued in that country, Her Majesty's Government have felt themselves compelled to postpone it. With reference to the other part of the Question, no decision has been come to as to any change in his position.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether arrangements have now been made for taking Navy Estimates; and, whether the Government is prepared to set apart an early day for their discussion?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, he regretted to find, on in-
  666
  quiry, that it was impossible to fix a date for taking the Navy Estimates.
  MR. PULESTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to state a day?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am unable to give any answer to the Question at present.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that sixty-one prisoners are now confined in Cork Gaol without bail, because the Crown was not ready to try them at the last assizes; whether during the month of January these prisoners only got one hour's exercise out of the twenty-four; whether since then, while they have nominally got two hours, this period has very frequently been shortened by fifteen or twenty minutes; whether these two hours are badly apportioned, the first hour on week days being from half-past six to half-past seven a.m., and the second from two to three p.m., and on the Sundays from seven to eight and ten to eleven a.m., when the prisoners are locked up until Monday morning; whether he will ascertain if it is the fact that this confinement and want of exercise tells so much upon the prisoners that some of them would be glad to go upon the treadmill for exercise sake; whether, during the past month, the heating apparatus has been stopped; whether any of the men have been put upon bread and water, and placed in dark cells; and, if so, on what grounds, and how many of them have been so treated; whether it is the fact that, some days ago, the dinner supplied them by the Ladies' Land League was stopped because it was a few minutes late, and the men had to take gaol food; whether, until the last fortnight, the gaol authorities paid postage on the letters the prisoners wished to write to their families; whether this has now been stopped; and, if so, why the expense of postage was originally defrayed; whether it is the fact that, owing to the great number of these prisoners confined without bail, they have Very little room to walk in the exercise yard; whether one of these yards is occasionally covered with mud; whether in both yards there

  667
  are closets without any sewers, of which, the prisoners complain; and, whether the Government can do anything to remedy this state of affairs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the hon. Member asks me 14 Questions at once. In answer to the first paragraph, I have to say that 64 prisoners are now confined in Cork Gaol without bail. Of those, 45, I believe, were committed for treason-felony and crimes of violence and outrage, and are generally known as the "Moonlighters" from the Mill Street district. In reply to the second and third paragraphs, all these prisoners have had two hours' daily exercise since the 1st of last January, and that period has not been shortened—in fact, the two hours is exclusive of the time occupied in going to and returning from the exercise yard. In reply to the fourth paragraph, the exercise hours on week days are from 6.15 to 7.15 a.m., and from 4 to 5 p.m., and on Sundays from 7 to 8 a.m., and from 12 to 1 p.m. In reply to the fifth paragraph, the prisoners have not complained of insufficient exercise, and the medical officer has not found their health suffer. In reply to the sixth paragraph, the heating apparatus is discontinued in April each year, subject to the advice of the medical officer. In reply to the seventh paragraph, seven of these prisoners have been punished for repeated disobedience of the rules, in spite of cautions. In reply to the eighth paragraph, these, on one occasion, received prison food at dinner. The food sent to them did not arrive for nearly half-an-hour after dinner-time; but it was served out to them as a supper meal afterwards. In reply to the ninth and tenth paragraphs, the Governor is permitted to stamp letters for destitute prisoners only, and I am informed that that permission has been liberally used. In reply to the eleventh paragraph, I am informed, also, that there is ample room for the prisoners at exercise. In reply to the twelfth paragraph, it is not the fact that one of the exercise yards is occasionally covered with mud; and with respect to the rest of the Question, I am informed that the closets are all connected with pipe-laid sewers, and are constantly flushed and cleansed inside with gas-tar. I am told no complaints have been made by the prisoners, and I do not think there is
  668
  anything calling for the interference of Government.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MARTIN MULLEAGUE.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Martin Mulleague, arrested on the 2nd July, and released on medical recommendation from Galway Gaol, was re-arrested on November 8th, and is still confined in Kilmainham; whether, during the whole of his incarceration, he has been under medical treatment; and, whether, as his district, Castlerea, county Roscommon, has been perfectly free from crime, his release can now be ordered?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, it was a fact that a man of the name of Martin Mulleague was still in Kilmainham; but his case, as well as that of every person detained under the Protection Act, would be considered, and very probably at the present moment was under the consideration of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. It was also a fact that during his detention he made complaints of ailments, which were found not to be serious.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of affairs in Egypt; and when it will be in the power of the Government to explain the policy which they are pursuing in that country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, I have to remind the House that, in January last, an Identic Instruction proposed by France was addressed to the English and French Agents in Egypt. It was to the effect that they should simultaneously make an identic declaration that the English and French Governments considered the maintenance of Tewfik Pasha on the Throne, on the terms laid down by the Sultan's Firmans, as the only certain means of guaranteeing in Egypt the good order and prosperity in which England and France

  669
  were equally interested. The declaration proceeded to state that the two Governments, being closely associated in the resolve to guard, by their united efforts, against all cause of complication which might menace the order of things established in Egypt, did not doubt that the assurance publicly given of their formal intention in this respect would tend to avert the dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be exposed, and which would certainly find England and France united to oppose them. On January 30, Her Majesty's Government fully stated, their views as to the future to the Government of the French Republic in a most important despatch, which will ultimately be laid before Parliament, although it cannot be given at present. On February 6, Her Majesty's Government proposed that the English and French Governments should communicate with the other Powers their views as to the best means of maintaining the status quo; and on February 11 a Circular to that effect was sent to the various capitals. In March certain differences manifested themselves in the views of the English and French Governments; but the divergences which then existed are wholly at an end. During the present month the unconstitutional steps taken by the Ministers of the Khedive resulted in a most critical situation. This became the subject of an active interchange of views between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the French Republic, with the happy result that the two Powers are now in absolute accord as to the steps to be taken in view of future eventualities which it is now hoped may not arise. The two Governments feel confident that the course agreed upon will meet with the assent of all the other Great Powers and of the Porte.
  MR. BOURKE: Are no further Papers to be laid upon the Table at present?
  SIR. CHARLES W. DILKE: No; not at present.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to protect the lives and property of British subjects in Egypt during the present crisis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the English and French Fleets have
  670
  gone to Suda Bay, on their way to Alexandria. Orders have already been sent to Suda Bay that they are at once to proceed to Alexandria.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Baronet state, whether the assent of the Porte has been obtained to the course it is proposed to carry out?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, he had already stated that the English and French Governments were confident in the opinion that the course agreed upon would meet with the assent of the Turkish Government.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But you have not yet received it?
  MR. O'DONNELL: Can the hon. Baronet state, whether, for the repression of disturbance in the interior of Egypt, the plan sketched out of a joint Anglo-French military expedition, or of a Turkish expedition, has been approved of, and forms one of the bases of the perfect accord between England and France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must, Sir, with the permission of the House, decline to answer that Question.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsubsequently asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the assent of the four other Powers had been obtained to the proposed political intervention in Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, he had spoken of the other four Great Powers in his reply to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and he could make no further allusion to the subject.

  LAW AND POLICE—MR. R. PENNINGTON—OUTRAGEOUS LANGUAGE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a speech at Bolton, reported in the "Manchester Examiner" of 10th instant, by Mr. R. Pennington, who said, in moving a vote of confidence in the Conservative leaders:
  "If Joe Chamberlain had been stabbed in the Park he would have met with his just deserts. (Applause.) It was no use being mealy-mouthed about the matter;"
  and, if he proposes taking any action in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, my attention has been called to this matter by the Question of the hon.

  671
  Member opposite (Mr. Healy.) All I can say is, that if language of this kind has been employed, nothing could be more detestable, nothing could deserve greater condemnation, and, if possible, punishment. As to the latter part of the Question, the difficulty I am under at present is, that I have no authentic report of such a statement, and I am not aware that the person supposed to have used this language is a justice of the Peace. If he should be so, the Lord Chancellor's attention will be instantly called to his conduct, if it proves to be well founded.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. REDMONDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Military Committee will report as to the means of destroying or defending the proposed Channel Tunnel; and, whether the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire, Secretary to the Treasury, has given evidence before that Committee in favour of making the tunnel project, of which he is chairman?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have been requested by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The Committee now inquiring into the scientific questions in connection with the proposed Channel Tunnel is not a purely Military Committee. They will report, as I have fully explained to the House, as to the means of destroying the Tunnel and rendering it useless to an enemy; but after they have reported the purely military questions will be referred to the Military Advisers of the Government; but their inquiry is not yet complete. The noble Lord to whom the second part of the Question refers has given evidence before the Scientific Committee.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL, 1882—PATENT MIXTURES OF COFFEE AND VEGETABLE MATTER.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether section six of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, 1882," is intended to annul Letters Patent under and pursuant to which mixtures of coffee and vegetable matter are prepared and sold as such mixtures?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I am not aware, Sir, and the Revenue Department are not aware, of the existence of any patent rights such as are referred to in this Question; and I believe entirely that if such rights do exist they will come within the scope of the law. But I would recommend that, if there be such rights, their particular character should be brought under our notice, and an opportunity given of examining them.

  IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS.
  MR. PULESTON (for Mr. LEWIS)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will now produce the documentary evidence of the intentions of the recently-imprisoned Members of this House with reference to their conduct if released from custody; which evidence the First Lord of the Treasury stated had reached him through the late Chief Secretary?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the documentary evidence referred to in this Question consists of certain letters between Members of this House. Their production would not come under any usual Rule that I am aware of, and there is no reason at present why they should be produced; in fact, I think it would be open to objection as tending to diminish the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. PARNELL: Perhaps it may be better if I am permitted to read the letter in question—the letter which, as I understand, forms the documentary evidence alluded to in the Question. I will read it to the House. It consists of a letter from myself to the hon. Member for the County of Clare (Mr. O'Shea). It is headed "Private and Confidential." It is dated from Kilmainham, April 28th, 1882, and it is in the following terms:—
  "I was very sorry that you had left Albert Mansions before I reached London from Eltham, as I had wished to tell you that, after our conversation, I had made up my mind that it would be proper for me to put Mr. M'Carthy in possession of the views which I had previously communicated to you. I desire to impress upon you the absolute necessity of a settlement of the arrears question, which will leave no recurring sore connected with it behind, and which will enable us to show the smaller tenantry that they have been treated with justice and some

  673
  generosity. The proposal you have described to me, as suggested in some quarters, of making a loan over however many years the payment might be spread, should be absolutely rejected, for reasons which I have already fully explained to you. If the arrears question be settled upon the lines indicated by us, I have every confidence—a confidence shared by my Colleagues—that the exertions which we should be able to make, strenuously and unremittingly, would be effective in stopping outrages and intimidation of all kinds. As regards permanent legislation of an ameliorating character, I may say that the views which you always shared with me, as to the admission of leaseholders to the fair-rent clauses of the Act, are more confirmed than ever. So long as the flower of the Irish peasantry are kept outside the Act there cannot be the permanent settlement of the Land Act which we all so much desire. I should also strongly hope that some compromise might be arrived at this Session with regard to the amendment of the tenure clauses of the Land Act. It is unnecessary for me to dwell upon the enormous advantage to be derived from the full extension of the purchase clauses, which now seem practically to have been adopted by all parties. The accomplishment of the programme I have sketched out to you would, in my judgment, be regarded by the country as a practical settlement of the Land Question, and I believe that the Government at the end of this Session would, from the state of the country, feel themselves thoroughly justified in dispensing with further coercive measures.—Yours, very truly—"
  Then follows my signature.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, whether the letter which we have just heard read by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is the only letter which constituted the documentary evidence referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Londonderry?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, might I be allowed to ask the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did he read the whole of the letter?
  MR. PARNELL: I did not keep a copy of the letter in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) has furnished me with a copy, and it may be possible that one paragraph has been omitted; but, speaking for myself, I have no objection to the hon. Member, if he desires it, communicating the whole of the letter as I wrote it to the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: When I spoke in answer to the former Question, I spoke in the plural number; therefore, it would be obvious that I had some information over and above what was con-
  674
  tained in that letter; nothing, however, I am bound to say, in the slightest degree qualifying or contradicting it.
  MR. WARTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the second letter was one from the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) expressing his opinion?
  MR. O'SHEA: I think the best plan would be that I should take the earliest opportunity of explaining every detail in connection with this matter. [Cries of "Read, read!"] I have not the document with me, and am, therefore, unable to read it. [A document was here handed to the hon. Member, who had resumed his seat, by Mr. W. E. FORSTER.]
  MR. O'SHEA, again rising: A copy of the letter in question has been put in my hands. [Cries of "Read!"] I do not think it is fair——
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Read the last paragraph.
  MR. O'SHEA: Very well; I will read the whole letter. [The hon. Member then read the same letter as that read to the House by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the concluding paragraph of which was, however, in the following terms]:—
  "The accomplishment of the programme I have sketched out to you would, in my judgment, be regarded by the country as a practical settlement of the Land Question, and would, I feel sure, enable us to co-operate cordially for the future with the Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles; and I believe that the Government at the end of the Session would, from the state of the country, feel themselves thoroughly justified in dispensing with future coercive measures."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he obtained the copy of the letter of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) as a Member of the Cabinet of which he was recently a Member?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERnot rising,
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the Question for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman. [The hon. Member repeated the Question.]
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member for Clare——[Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is not entitled to ask that Question, because it

  675
  does not relate to any Bill or Motion before the House.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask a Question, Sir, with reference to this letter, which has been written by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen that letter before he informed the House that no understanding whatever had arisen between himself and the hon. Member for the City of Cork prior to the liberation of the "suspects" from Kilmainham?
  Mr. DILLWYN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whether any other correspondence passed between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for the City of Cork?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think if the hon. Member refers to the answer which I have just given to the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), he will see that I stated that that was not the only letter which has been brought to my knowledge. With regard to the Question just put to me by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Onslow), I had seen that letter. I did say, and I repeat now, that there never was the slightest understanding of any kind between the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the Government. The hon. Member for the City of Cork asked nothing from us, and he got nothing from us. On our side, we asked nothing, and got nothing from him.
  MR. RITCHIE: Do the "some quarters" referred to in the letter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, from whence the proposition with reference to the arrears came, mean that it was from Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No.

  IRISH CHANCERY LEASES—DEPRIVATION OF COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that in all Chancery leases, in. the case of Chancery lettings, since the Land Act of 1870, a Clause has been inserted depriving tenants of all compensation for improvements; and, whether it has been practically decided that such tenants have no redress under the Land Act of 1881?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER) (for Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, that the
  676
  present form of Chancery leases did not contain any such provision as that alluded to by the hon. Member.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME—PROMOTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, under the new re-organization of the Customs, it is the case that Clerks now receiving £120 and £130 per annum, with seven years' service, are to be promoted to be First-Class Examining Officers at £230 per annum, over the heads of officials now serving as Examining Officers at £140 to £200 per annum, with from 18 to 30 years' service; also, Whether it is the fact that a Second-Class Examining Officer of the Customs, from an out port, has been promoted to be a First-Class Examining Officer in London over the heads of several Second-Class Examining Officers, now on the London establishment, who took higher places in the competitive examination at the time of their original appointments; and, if so, for what reason these officers have been passed over?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the facts stated in the former part of the Question are substantially accurate. The clerks referred to are appointed to newly-created posts, and for the good of the Public Service. The increase of salaries they will receive partly represents increased hours of work. No injury is inflicted by their appointments on the present second-class examining officers. As regards the second part, it is true that certain second-class examining officers at the out ports have, in the interest of the Public Service, been promoted to the first class in London. This has been done, because those officers have proved themselves better fitted for promotion than others, some of whom may have passed a better competitive examination on entering the Service.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL TRAIN FROM BASINGSTOKE TO EXETER.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Postmaster General, If, after consideration of the many memorials presented to him on the subject, he is able to give a favorable reply to the request for the establishment of a Mail Train by the London and South Western Railway from Basingstoke to Exeter?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in answer to the hon. Member, I beg to state that the matter referred to in his Question is receiving careful consideration; but that the inquiries which are being made on the subject cannot be completed for some little time. I can assure him that no unnecessary delay will be allowed to occur in arriving at a decision upon it.

  IRELAND—REMOVAL OF PLACARDS AT PALLAS GREEN.
  MR. DILLONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, on Tuesday, at Doon, Pallas Green, county Limerick, the police tore down the placards containing Address, signed by Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and Davit, condemning the assassination, and calling on the people to aid in bringing murderers to justice; whether the police, on being questioned, said they acted under orders; and, whether Pallas Green is Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the Constabulary removed some of the placards referred to in this Question; but, on its coming to the notice of the authorities, the police were directed not to interfere with them; and I do not propose to take any further steps in the matter. I believe that, as a matter of fact, Pallas Green is in Mr. Lloyd's district.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Wylie, Chairman of the Sub-Commission now sitting in Tyrone to adjudicate upon rents, is a practicing barrister on the Circuit of which Tyrone forms part; and, whether Mr. Cunninghame, another member of that Sub-Commission, is a manure and flour merchant (in Londonderry) having business connections with the tannery of the county, whose rents he is appointed to judicially fix?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, my friend Mr. Wylie, on acceptance of office as a legal Assistant Commissioner, ceased to practice as a barrister. Mr. Cunninghame is partner in a Derry firm of corn merchants, who also deal in flour; but, as a matter of course, since
  678
  his appointment under the Land Commission, he has not taken any part in the management of the business of the firm. He states that he has no business connection whatever with the tannery of Tyrone.

  ARMY (INDIA)—SECOND LIEUTENANT COLONELS IN INDIA.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that Second Lieutenant Colonels of British regiments in India only receive Major's pay; if so, from what date this has been the practice; and, whether the reduction of their pay is to be temporary or permanent.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the noble Lord has been entirely misinformed. There has been no reduction in the pay of second lieutenant colonels. Second lieutenant Colonels serving in India receive the same pay, and always have received the same pay, as first lieutenant colonels.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; at what time he proposes to bring in the Arrears Bill? I also think it would be for the convenience of the House if he could give us some information as to the probable course of Business, and likewise as to the probable time of adjourning for the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with reference to the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays, it is not unreasonable that a Question should be put at this time on such a subject; but in view of the urgency of Irish Business at this moment, on which the House is likely to be engaged, I should like, with the permission of the House, to have a few days more before making an announcement on that matter. With regard to the two subjects—one very important, and the other part of the necessary Business of the year—I wish to say, as to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, that I believe it is not necessary, and I do not propose to take any steps with that Bill before Whitsuntide. It will suffice if we go on with it after the Recess. With respect to the important question of Procedure, although there might be

  679
  the power of applying small intervals of time to the discussion of that question, I do not think that would be a convenient mode of proceeding; and on that account, and on that account only, I think it would be advantageous and more convenient to the House if we at once consider it as settled that no steps shall be taken on that matter until after Whitsuntide. As to the question of Arrears, I will proceed on the assumption that it is the desire of the House generally to know, with some exactness, what Her Majesty's Government intends to propose. But it is not a subject requiring any lengthened statement; consequently, I shall propose, at half-past 11, to ask the House to desist from the Business then in progress in order to allow that statement to be made.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked when Members might expect to have copies of the Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he was told that there were a considerable number of copies in the Vote Office, and that they would be supplied that evening. He was bound to say, on behalf of the draftsmen, that they had worked day and night to get the Bill ready.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere) whether, under the circumstances, he would proceed to-morrow with his Motion for the abolition of the House of Lords?
  MR. LABOUCHERE, in reply, said, that if the Motion were merely one of a theoretical character, he should not proceed with it to-morrow; but as, considering the circumstances, he thought it was an exceedingly practical Motion he proposed to go on with it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, if it was intended to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that was the intention of the Government. The Business taken at the Morning Sitting would be the Orders that were to be preceded with that evening.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for the Committee on the Ballot Act Continuance Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to Arrears of Rent in Ireland.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 21.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 21.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.]
    [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Corrupt Practices.
    Clause 1 (What is treating).
    MR. WARTONproposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "such persons," and insert the words "the agents of candidates." It appeared to him that the clause as it stood went too far. It declared that—
    "Whereas under section four of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, persons other than candidates are not liable to any punishment for treating, and it is expedient to make such persons liable."
    The following portion of the section, from lines 11 to 21 inclusive, were very large and wide. They made it possible that any person, utterly unconnected with the candidate in any way whatever, who might ask another person, who might ask somebody else, and so on ad infinitum, to supply or give food or refreshment or do something else—they made it possible to punish such persons for treating, and to render the vote of the elector who accepted refreshment void. It seemed to him that the real origin of corruption must be in the candidate himself; and his object in moving this Amendment was to punish the agents of candidates for treating; but not to make any person liable who was only a partizan without having the least connection with the candidate. Under the stringent meaning of this section every such person would be liable. The hon. and learned Attorney General knew perfectly well that the doctrine of agency in election matters had been extended far beyond what was ever known before. A man was an agent for the candidate whether he liked it or not—an involuntary agent, so to speak. There were numerous cases in which a man having been seen speaking to another man was immediately converted into an agent. At present the doctrine of agency had

    681
    been pushed so far that it was most undesirable to extend it further. In point of fact, a very trifling act rendered a man guilty of treating as the law now stood. Not only was a candidate, and every agent he might directly appoint, liable, but every person whom they were seen speaking to for a single moment. If the Committee really wished to strike at corruption they should strike at it by means of the candidates themselves, and those who acted as their agents. They all knew what Party feeling was at an election time; that there were men who honorably devoted themselves to the interests of the Party; and it would be a very hard thing if a person in that position, talking with a friend about the election, or treating a friend at election time, having no connection whatever with the candidate, and no interest in the election beyond the success of his own political opinions, should be held, under the stringent provisions of this section, to have rendered himself liable to punishment for treating. If they drew the line so tight they would defeat the object they had in view. It was an overstrained piece of legislation, which sought to make people too virtuous. He was satisfied that any attempt to make the people too moral would entirely fail. He looked upon such stringent legislation as ridiculous and absurd, and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "such persons," and insert the words "the agents of candidates."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that the first Amendment proposed was one that he could not accept; but he was sure the Committee would see that it was impossible he could accept the present one. The question of treating at elections was becoming every day a more serious question; and it was extending not only to Parliamentary, but to municipal elections. Municipal elections and Parliamentary elections were made to depend on each other; and if they stopped bribery, as he hoped they would succeed in doing by this Bill, care must
    682
    be taken lest those who were restrained from bribing should be driven into employing a minor method of influencing the vote, by treating. Let the Committee see what it was that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend proposed. At present no person was held to be guilty of treating or corrupt practices except the candidate or his agents. Was it not necessary to guard against persons, who might not be proved to be agents, corrupting the constituency by opening the public-houses and treating indiscriminately? His hon. and learned Friend was wrong in the interpretation he had placed upon the clause. Before it could be constituted into an offence, it was necessary that proof should be given that the treating took place for the purpose of influencing an elector to give, or to refrain from giving, his vote; and, therefore, the act of any person in paying for drink or refreshment for a friend, or influences altogether apart from the election, would not be held to be treating at all. The drink or refreshments must have been given for the purpose of influencing the vote. His hon. and learned Friend asked the Committee by legislation to declare that a man who could not be proved to be an agent might treat as much as he liked; that he might open every public-house, and corrupt the voters as much as he could; and that unless it could be shown that he was an agent his acts should not be punishable. The clause proposed to punish persons other than the candidates and agents who were guilty of treating. The treating was equally dangerous, whether the person doing it could be proved to be an agent or not. Substantially, the clause kept the law as it was; and all the Committee was asked to do was to extend the law to the acts of other persons besides the candidate and his agents.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that upon this particular point he was unable to agree with his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Warton). He thought it was quite necessary that other persons besides the candidate and his agents should be punished if they were guilty of treating for the purpose of influencing the election. He should be much more with his hon. and learned Friend when the Committee came to deal with another part of the Bill, as to the way in which it was proposed to

    683
    affect the candidate himself. There were various parts of the Bill that he entertained strong objections to; but he certainly could not support the present Amendment.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney General had forgotten to read the latter part of the clause, because it went a great deal beyond influence. It applied not only to undue influence in regard to the elector, but to the
    "Influencing of any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote, 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, or otherwise, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election."
    He thought that the clause was either great nonsense, or else it was one of the most stringent and tyrannical provisions he had ever read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was the old law.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid he would come to that point by-and-bye. He wanted to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the word "influence," because it was possible to influence a man in many ways besides giving him money? They might influence a person in standing as a candidate by offering him entertainment and provisions. No definition whatever was given in the Bill of what "entertainment or provision" was. By-and-bye he should have occasion to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to some questions in regard to "entertainment and provision" in regard to electioneering matters before an election, which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would find it difficult to answer. He only wished now to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this clause, strong as the language was in which it was drawn, referred to matters before the election just as much as to those which occurred during the election. It was impossible to say whether a candidate who was asked to come down and stay at the house of a friend during the election, in order to avoid the inconvenience and expense of putting up at a hotel, might not have been participating in treating and corrupt practices. If that were not so let the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what it was that was really meant. He
    684
    would take the case of a gentleman who desired to stand as a candidate, and a friend, who was an elector, said to him—"You cannot afford the expense of living at a public hotel during the time of the election; come and stay with me." If the candidate agreed to stay with his friend, it certainly might have an influence in the election; and if an Election Petition were presented against the return, both the candidate and his friends might be found guilty of corrupt practices. He did not at all mean to say that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) would be altogether right in confining the question of treating simply to the candidate and his agents; but it was quite clear that the clause, as it was drawn, was far too wide in its terms. The net of the hon. and learned Attorney General was, however, much too widely spread; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) took a division upon the subject, he (Mr. C. Bentinck) should vote with him, because he thought the Committee were invited to tread on very dangerous ground.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the remarks of the light hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last were not confined to the Amendment now before the Committee. The simple question before the Committee was, whether treating should be applied to the candidate and his agents only, or to all persons? Upon that point he did not think there could be much difference of opinion; and he was unable to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).
    MR. WARTONintimated that he would not press the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) if he proposed to move the next Amendment in line 11, to leave out "any person," and insert "the agent of any candidate?"
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Amendment had reference to the same point, and he would not waste the time of the Committee by moving it.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved, in page 1, line 11, after the word "who," to insert "corruptly." The Act of 1854 confined the punishment for treating to the candidates and their agents. The present clause proposed to extend the liability

    685
    for treating to persons other than candidates, and it further proposed to make treating, what in point of fact it was not at present—namely, a criminal offence, and to visit it with severe and unexampled penalties. In altering the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854 for this purpose, a word of essential importance was left out, which was inserted in the Act of 1854. In the Act of 1854 treating was defined in this way—any candidate who shall "corruptly" be guilty of treating; and it had been held again and again that the word "corruptly" influenced the whole construction of the sentence. It was provided by the present clause that any person who by himself or any other person, either before, during, or after an election, was directly or indirectly guilty of treating, in order to induce a voter to give or to refrain from giving his vote, he should render himself liable to certain penalties. But the word "corruptly," which appeared in the Act of 1854, was of great importance. He would read a sentence from a judgment by Lord Blackburn, in which that noble and learned Lord said—
    "As to this word 'corruption' it is used in connection with, treating. It does not necessarily mean wickedly, or immorally, or dishonestly, but with the object and intent of doing that which the Legislature plainly means to forbid. In fact, giving meat and drink is treating, when the person who gives it gives it with the intention of influencing the vote, and not otherwise; and in all cases where it is attempted to show that meat and drink have been given it becomes a question of fact for the Judge to find out whether the intention with which it was given is made out, and in each individual case that must stand upon its own grounds."
    If the word "corruptly" were not inserted the construction of the clause would amount to this—post hoc propter hoc. Wherever refreshment was given, however innocently, the heavy penalties which this section proposed to inflict for treating would be imposed. For instance, if a person met a friend on the way to the poll and said, "Come and have some lunch with me," if the invitation were accepted, notwithstanding that both might have made up their minds how they were to vote, if they did vote at the election, both of them, in consequence of this innocent act of hospitality, might be treated as felons and subjected to disqualification and severe penalties. He was sure that his hon.
    686
    and learned Friend the Attorney General could not mean to carry the clause to such an extreme length; and he would therefore ask him to insert the word "corruptly," so as to make the clause correspond with the Act of 1854.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after "who," insert "corruptly."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'corruptly' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in his view that treating was now for the first time made a criminal offence. That was not so. It was at present a criminal offence on the part of the candidate. The whole question of the legal effect of the word "corruptly" was discussed in the case of "Cooper v. Slade," which arose out of the Cambridge Election. In that case Sir Frederick Slade, innocently, and without the slightest intention of breaking the law, allowed money to be paid for the expenses of a voter at an election, and the matter was considered on an appeal to the House of Lords, and the late Lord Cranworth held that "corruptly" meant nothing, unless it meant for the purpose of procuring the vote. In that case, treating with such an object would be corrupt; but the word "corrupt" did not define the offence. It had no strict legal meaning; but it might mislead the unwary. A person could not be found guilty unless he was proved to have given drink or other entertainment for the purpose of influencing the vote. The Judges also said that the insertion of the word did no harm. Under the circumstances, he (the Attorney General) had to consider what course he ought to take. He was anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee. If the word were inserted he did not think it would do any harm, because the Judges had already held that it had, in relation to the briber, no legal effect. He would, therefore, give way if the Committee preferred that the clause should be made to agree with the Act of 1854, rather than prolong the discussion, because there was so very much more in the Bill that deserved consideration. To save time, if the Amendment were pressed, he would accept it; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that it was altogether unnecessary.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that, although it was true some Judges were agreed that the word "corruptly" did no harm, others might say, finding the word in the Act of 1854, and expressly left out in the Act of 1882, that there must have been some intention on the part of the Legislature in omitting it, and that, therefore, they would give effect to the omission. He, therefore, thought it would be much better to restore the word.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had two Amendments to propose in the clause to provide that the guilt of treating should be confined to persons duly appointed agents, and before, during, or within 28 days after the election.
    MR. ONSLOWobserved that before the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend came in he had an Amendment to propose. He wished, in the first place, to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General what he meant by the word "before?" The clause said—
    "Any person who corruptly by himself, or by any other person, either before during, or after an election," &c.
    He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should lay down how long before an election took place corrupt practices could be supposed to have prevailed. The words as they stood were very wide, and might mean from the time of the last previous election up to the time of the next election. It might be construed to mean that if a person went down to a constituency with the desire of becoming a future candidate, when there was no election pending, and paid something for an entertainment of a very harmless character it was an illegitimate attempt to influence the constituency. There were many instances, he believed, in which candidates and the agents of candidates subscribed something towards a particular entertainment. How long before an election was that to be considered corrupt practice? Without some distinct definition the most innocent acts might be set down as connected with the election, and so falling under the head of corrupt practices. He fully admitted that certain acts, which were innocent when no election was in prospect, would become corrupt practices after a vacancy had been declared, or when a General Election had become imminent.
    688
    He, therefore, thought it was advisable that the Committee should have an explanation from the hon. and learned Attorney General as to what was exactly meant by the word "before." In order to bring the matter regularly before the Committee, he would move the omission of the word "before."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "before."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'before' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the word had the same meaning as it had in the Act of 1854. Section 4 of that Act contained the same word, and whatever was meant then was meant now, as the present clause was a copy of that section. He could not give a definition of the word "before." If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, the consequence would be that months and months before an election there would be open houses. The entertainments referred to by the hon. Member, when there was no election in prospect, had never been held to void an election or to affect the return. The only corrupt practices which affected the return were acts which were committed for purposes of bribery and treating. It was much better to leave every case to be dealt with according to its own circumstances. If treating took place for the purpose of obtaining votes the Judge, on the trial of the Petition, would unseat the Member. Otherwise he would not. That had been the doctrine expounded by the learned Judges on every occasion, and there had never been a complaint that any Member had been improperly unseated for treating. Each case stood by itself; and if the hon. Member insisted on the Amendment he should be compelled to oppose it. They had done very well for 28 years without any definition, and if a definition were attempted difficulties would arise.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he knew there were very great difficulties in the way of defining the extent of the word; and he felt with the hon. and learned Attorney General that it was almost impossible to alter the clause, or to attempt a definition. The difficulty, however, was a minor one in this instance, where the difficulty really arose

    689
    was later on, when they came to deal with the maximum expenses. The difficulty would then become a very serious one.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he believed that the clause created a new offence altogether. The candidate himself, if he sanctioned treating, or was guilty of it himself, was, undoubtedly, liable to the penalties of the Act; but, in this case, the Committee was enlarging the penalty, and was making the candidate responsible for the act of any person who chose to treat a voter six months before the election. Therefore, he was inclined to think that the clause should be qualified in some way. As they were extending the Act of 1854, and making the candidate responsible for the acts of other persons, he thought this ought not to be permitted without a strict limitation of the responsibility.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he wished to put one point to the hon. and learned Attorney General. In all boroughs and counties they had committees for election purposes, and each of the committeemen was supposed to be an agent of the candidate—in fact, as the Attorney General knew, the Judges had always ruled so. Was he to understand that if it could be proved that any committeeman who was supposed to be an agent had spent a sovereign or two in treating, although the Member for the time being, or the candidate, might know nothing about it, the act of the committeeman might be brought up afterwards against the candidate, and the candidate, or it might be the Member, would be liable to suffer the penalties imposed by the Bill? If they made the Bill more severe than the present law, they might depend upon it that there would be many more Petitions than there were now. He was satisfied that the insertion of this little word "before" would give rise hereafter to considerable difficulty; and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General, with the great legal acumen he possessed, with the assistance of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, would be able to define what the word was to mean. If not, he was afraid that great difficulty and scandal would arise.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the present clause should be read in conjunction with the corresponding clause of the Act of 1854, The clause of that
    690
    Act provided that any person, who should corruptly do such and such acts before the election, should be liable to certain penalties. The present Bill extended the penalty, and made it a criminal offence; but it seemed to him that the two clauses, with the Amendment already accepted by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, might be made the same, with the same penalty and the same definition attached to the offence as that which was contained in the Act of 1854.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that as they were extending the penalty they ought in some way to qualify the responsibility. Every candidate would know when he became a candidate, and would know very well whether, if he was guilty of treating, he did so with a corrupt motive. But it would be very different if he were to be rendered responsible for the acts of every zealous partisan, even before he really became a candidate, and even although the treating was done in the most innocent manner possible. The question was by no means as simple as his hon. and learned Friend seemed to suppose. Everything depended upon the person by whom the offence was committed. What he meant was this. When a man started as a candidate he knew the precise moment at which he did start, and it might be a reason why he should abstain from giving or contributing towards any public entertainment, or from giving drink to people; but a middleman, who was only a friend of the candidate, with the most innocent intentions, might very easily be caught by the stringent provisions of this section, if the Government persisted in retaining the word "before," which made it apply to acts committed long before the election. The hon. and learned Attorney General told the Committee that the clause was a copy of the section of the Act of 1854. Now, he (Mr. Warton) had the section of the Act of 1854 before him; and, without quibbling at minor alterations of small importance, he was prepared to contend that there was a very great difference indeed, especially when he came to the later part of the section. At any rate, the section of the present Bill was by no means an exact copy of the section of the Act of 1854; and he thought the Committee ought to

    691
    be exceedingly careful, when the penalty was made to involve such serious consequences, how they extended the law. Under all the circumstances, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow).
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to point out to his hon. and taught Friend the Attorney General that this section differed very materially from the corresponding section of the Act of 1854. The word "before," in the Act of 1854 was limited by these words—"every candidate who at an election shall before." That showed that the word "before" could only apply to the time of election, when the candidate was fairly in the field. But the present clause provided that "any person who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election," and, consequently, a far more extended meaning was given to the clause.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he would like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General if the clause was to extend to acts of private hospitality? In the North of England they were a very hospitable people; and it had been his good fortune, during the time of election, to be entertained by a personal friend. He wished to know whether, if the same thing occurred hereafter, a similar act of hospitality would render his friend liable to a penalty for treating? He believed that the object of the hospitality thus extended to him was the promotion of his election, which seemed to bring it within the words of the Bill, and made those who offered and those who shared it guilty of a "corrupt practice."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he could sympathize with the desire of his hon. Friends on that side of the House to obtain from the Government, if possible, a definition of the time at which an election was to be considered to have commenced; but it would be impossible to give such a definition, and the ultimate determination of the point would in every case have to be left to a legal tribunal, and the Judge would have to say at what precise date the election contest began. He confessed that he was unable to see any real hardship in the provision contained in the section, either to the person accused of corrupt practices or to the candidate. Of course, any person who committed the corrupt practice of treat-
    692
    ing would know very well whether he did it for the purpose of influencing votes at the election, if there was an election actually taking place or in prospect; and if it could be shown that he was not acting with a view to an immediate election, then the Judge would acquit him of any corrupt practice. In point of fact, what the candidate or any other person had been doing either before, during, or after an election would be for the Court to determine; and it would be necessary to determine each case by the particular circumstances attending it. Then in regard to the candidate himself He would not be held liable for the acts of any person until such person became his agent. He would know when the election commenced, so far as he himself was personally concerned, and whether any persons, either directly or indirectly, had been clothed by him with the character of election agents; and until the time arrived at which the contest really began, and certain persons were placed in the position of agents, he would not be liable for their acts.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Committee ought to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon this point. He would assume that some person had been guilty of treating before the election; that, knowing an election was likely to take place within the year some person living in the borough did treat, by asking electors to entertainments within his own house, with the intention thereby of influencing the next election. This would be done at a time when there was no election but by-and-bye an election took place, and the candidate, on going down to the borough, appointed this gentleman his election agent. The candidate might know nothing about him, or what had taken place previously, and, being in complete ignorance, he appointed him to act as his agent. Under such circumstances, was the candidate to be held responsible for acts committed by the agent years before he became a candidate?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he was clearly of opinion that, under such circumstances, the candidate would not be held responsible. He believed it never had been so held against the candidate. The liability of the candidate would always be con-

    693
    fined to the acts of those whom he directly constituted his agents, or those whom he recognized as his agents, after he became a candidate. So far as he was aware, there had been no case in which a candidate had been held responsible for acts committed by any person before he became a candidate. In answer to the question of his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), he trusted—indeed, there was every reason to believe—that when his hon. Friend was entertained it was with no corrupt intention; and, therefore, it would clearly not come within the conditions of the section.
    MR. CALLANsaid he believed that Members of Parliament were supposed to be candidates for the next election, so long as they continued to represent a constituency. Personally, he had not issued any address or solicited any support in his county (Louth); but he certainly intended to be a candidate again, and he might, therefore, be regarded as a candidate in expectation. Now that the Irish Members had been gratified by the removal from Office of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, he certainly proposed to go over to Ireland and visit his constituents. In all probability, he should dine every day with persons invited to meet him for the purpose of hearing his views on political matters; and he wished to know whether that would be deemed treating and a corrupt practice within the meaning of the present section? [An hon. MEMBER: Not unless the motive was a corrupt one.] Was he to understand that the word "corruptly" had been inserted in the clause?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes.
    MR. CALLANsaid he had not been aware of that fact. Of course, it completely changed the aspect of affairs.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid he desired to point out that the whole of this section did not bear upon any specific candidate, as the corresponding section of the Act of 1854 did, but applied to treating by any candidate or other person in his behalf before, during, or after the election. In point of fact, it struck at all political entertainments which might be given at any time in any borough or county; and he was afraid that it might affect any meeting of
    694
    a Liberal or Conservative Association given for the promotion of the objects of their respective Parties. Indeed, it might put a candidate to the trouble and expense of defending himself from charges in connection with a political entertainment given some four or five years before. For instance, it might be contended three or four years hence that the banquet recently given at Liverpool, at which the Marquess of Salisbury was present, came within the scope of the clause. The section, therefore, would require a good deal of guarding in order to prevent abuse. At the proper time he intended, himself, to propose the omission of the words "or otherwise for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election." In the meantime, he would support the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) if he pressed the Amendment, unless the Government consented to some modification of the clause, so as to make it clearly applicable to a particular election.
    MR. HOPWOODheld that any further limitation of the clause would be detrimental, and hoped that the Government would stand firmly by the section as it stood. If they adopted the Amendment the effect would be to give the briber or treater a starting point, and show him how far he might safely go in the direction of corrupt practices without voiding the election. It seemed to him that the clause was already fairly limited by the proviso that the corrupt practices must have been done for the purpose of influencing the person to whom the drink or entertainment was given. It must have been done with a corrupt motive. He admitted that there was similar looseness in defining many misdemeanors and crimes, and that many persons might, by possibility, be brought within the range of the law; but, as a matter of fact, it was not found that they were unfairly brought within it. People were very slow to commence a malicious prosecution unless there were good grounds for proceeding with it; and if any man was guilty of a corrupt practice for the purpose of influencing an election, no one would dispute that he ought to come within the four corners of the definition contained in the clause. Any further limitation, therefore, would have a disastrous effect upon the good working of the clause.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would not give way upon this point. If treating were to be made more safe it would be better to strike out the clause altogether. It would only make treating the more sure to define the times and occasions on which it might safely be resorted to. They had already inserted a safeguard in the section by providing that the treating should have been given for the purpose of corruptly influencing the vote, and that was the full extent to which they ought to be called upon to guard it.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had left the House, as he confessed that he did not understand the answer his hon. and learned Friend had given to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), because it appeared to be absolutely in conflict with the decision in a case with which the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would be quite familiar. It was alleged that the acts of a person before the election would be a corrupt practice, and must be dealt with by the Election Judge, on evidence, in the same way as any other corrupt practice. The case to which he referred was one which was actually adjudicated upon. The allegation was that the candidate had accepted the services of a particular Association without the least knowledge that corrupt practices had been committed by the Association before the election; but, nevertheless, on account of an offence committed by the Association prior to their services being accepted by the candidate, the candidate was unseated. [An hon. MEMBER: Where was it?] It was at Taunton, and the candidate was Mr. Serjeant Cox, who accepted the services of the Conservative Association of the borough, after, he regretted to say, they had been guilty of a corrupt practice. It appeared that the Association had been in the habit of paying voters, not for any real loss of time, but 5s. a head for attending the Registration Court. The Judge very justly held that that was obviously bribery and a corrupt practice; but, nevertheless, the act was committed some months before the election, and without the knowledge of the candidate himself. But the fact that it had
    696
    been done by persons whoso services the candidate afterwards accepted as his agents was sufficient, in the opinion of the Judge who tried the case, to unseat Mr. Serjeant Cox. Therefore, it was evident that the decision of the Judge was entirely at variance with the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor General.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had no wish to refer especially to the circumstances of the Taunton Election alluded to by his hon. and learned Friend. He knew perfectly well that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was unseated took no part in the corrupt practice for which he was unseated. No doubt, the Conservative Association of Taunton had been dealing with matters connected with the registration before the month of September; but the payments themselves were made within one week of the polling day, and they were made by the committee who were acting as agents for the purpose of conducting the election. Further, they were payments made to voters who were not required to appear, and had not appeared, in the Revising Barrister's Court at all; but each of whom received 5s. for his supposed attendance. He had said the payments were made within a week of the polling day; but he believed that, at any rate, they were made within 14 days; and the learned Judge who tried the case held that, on proof of the agency of the Association being brought home, the payment was a corrupt payment. The case put to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was a very different one. If a person, at a time when no election was imminent, and when no candidate had been in any way recognized, committed an act which might be construed into treating, the candidate, if without adopting such acts, simply employed such person as his agent, he would not be, as far as he (the Attorney General) knew, liable for the acts of the agent before the election commenced. But the case referred to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was entirely different, and the acts then done were entirely within the scope and period of "election agency." With regard to the Amendment, he must ask the Committee to adhere to the clause as it stood. It was

    697
    entirely in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1854, and he could not accept any modification of the clause which would not stand the test of examination. In this case he feared that the Amendment would not stand such a test, because he believed that the omission of the word "before" would only open the door to corrupt practices before the election, which might have a material effect upon the result of the subsequent contest.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was of opinion that the clause should not be altered, that the words which occurred after the word "before" really governed the whole matter, and the clause would be as much effective if they left out the whole of those words, and made it read—
    "Any person who by himself or by any other person, either directly or indirectly, gives, or provides, or pays wholly or in part;"
    and so forth. The same result would be arrived at as by retaining the three specifications inserted in the clause "before, during, or after an election." If they left out those words, and substituted words showing that the act done had reference to the election, they would operate both before, during, and after an election, and would have special reference to the act done. He certainly felt that if they retained the clause as it stood there would be very great danger in regard to the political banquets already spoken of, and a candidate might place himself in a position in which he had not hitherto been placed. It was hardly possible, he thought, to prevent those without checking the expression of public opinion either on one side or the other. He believed that most Members of the House had attended a political banquet at one time or another. He thought the Committee were fighting with a shadow in arguing about these particular words, because, after what the hon. and learned Attorney General had said, they might leave out all these words and insert something to indicate that the clause had some bearing on the election which would make it operative as to corrupt practices, and not leave the matter open to all sorts of difficulties. It might be found, if they retained the clause in its present form, that they had caught persons they had no desire to catch.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLasked if the Committee were to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) in the sense attributed to his words by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General—namely, that where a person had been guilty of a corrupt practice, and he was appointed by the candidate as an agent, such candidate would not be liable for any of the practices he might previously have been guilty of?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that an appointment made under such circumstances would not render the candidate responsible for the acts of the agent. It would be necessary to bring home to the candidate a knowledge of the agent's previous acts of corruption before he could be disqualified. But he could not be made responsible for acts of which he had never heard.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the Committee ought to consider carefully the operation of the clause. It clearly had the objection that it enormously enlarged the scope of the present Act; and it had already been pointed out that the clause differed very materially from the corresponding clause of the Act of 1854, and would in no way confine the corrupt acts to the pending election. It had been suggested that some words might be introduced which would have that effect; and he would submit for the consideration of the hon. and learned Attorney General that after the word "election," in line 12, the words "in connection with or in reference to such election," might be inserted. It seemed to him that these words would have the effect of providing that the practices dealt with in the clause were connected with the election. It would be just as well to omit the words "before, during, or after" and let the clause read—
    "Any person who corruptly by himself or by any other person in connection with or in reference to an election"
    should commit corrupt practices.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept the words suggested. It was, however, distinctly provided that the treating must have been for the purpose of influencing the vote of the elector.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he wished to point out another thing that was very likely to happen. Had his hon. and learned Friend considered the case of bribery at a municipal election? The candidate might innocently employ some agent in a Parliamentary election who had been guilty of corrupt practices at a municipal election; and, as the Bill now stood, the candidate would be disqualified by reason of such practices, although he might have been in total ignorance of them. By Clause 4, the candidate was to be punished for any corrupt practices committed by his election agents; and if the corrupt practices were to be any corrupt practices committed "before" an election they might have been confined entirely to a municipal contest. Consequently, if a man committed any of these offences during a municipal election, and was afterwards appointed the agent of a candidate at a Parliamentary election, the Member returned might lose his seat for what occurred at a municipal election of which he knew nothing whatever. His hon. and learned Friend would be aware that it was a common practice to employ the same agents at a Parliamentary election as those who had been employed in a municipal election. Therefore, under this Bill, it would become necessary for the candidate to know everything that went on at a municipal election. It was monstrous to retain the words "before, during, or after," because they could not be interpreted to include everything that was done at municipal elections. No one cared much what was done at municipal elections, still less did anyone care to petition; but when, by this Bill, they made what was done in the way of treating at municipal elections a corrupt practice, they might depend upon it that many a man would lose his seat in the House of Commons.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the clause was being argued on fallacious grounds. The clause applied to candidates, and others as well as agents. It proposed to put down corrupt practices by persons other than the agent. It was impossible to define the meaning of the word "before." He wished it could be defined, because he admitted that the case was open to considerable hardship. At the same time, the word could not be omitted, because, if it were, the door
    700
    would be opened to all kinds of corrupt practices.
    MR. WARTONsaid, hitherto candidates at elections had had very respectable agents. He doubted whether, after the passing of this Act, any respectable agents would be found.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the discussion on the clause had chiefly turned up to this upon the actions of the agents of candidates. He wished to point out that candidates would have to study their own actions a great deal more than hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine. It was a well-known fact that a very large proportion of hon. Members were very naturally the candidates at the next election. In every one of the large boroughs hon. Members were called upon frequently to subscribe to charity dinners. It could not be said that hon. Gentlemen would subscribe as munificently as they now did if they were not the Representatives of the boroughs in which the dinners were given. Who was to say that the subscriptions were not given, in great part, because the giver hoped to sit again? Was that corruptly giving "drink, entertainment, and provision" in the hope of being re-elected the Representative of the constituency, or not?
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked what would be the effect if a candidate subscribed towards the incidental expenses of a political banquet? Very often there were musical entertainments at political banquets, or political discussions, interspersed with song; and towards the incidental expenses of these gatherings the borough Members themselves were very frequently invited to subscribe. What would be the effect if a candidate subscribed a guinea, or a couple of guineas, towards these expenses? The reason why he asked the question was that they were dealing with motives. That was a very difficult subject to enter into; and he would like to know what the effect would be in the case he had described?
    MR. GORSTsaid, he rose for the purpose of giving to the Committee what he thought was a simple, but a very practical reason for leaving the words unchanged, and that was that precisely the same words occurred in the statutory definition of bribery, and in the statutory definition of undue influence. It would be a misfortune if the definition of cor-

    701
    rupt practices were different as to the time during which it occurred from the definition of bribery and undue influence. The words "before, during, or after an election" appeared in the clause defining other election offences; and he thought that was a very good reason why the words should not be altered.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not think the reason given by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) at all a good one. It was absolutely necessary that hon. Gentlemen should put their heads together, and try to come to some intelligent definition of the particular words under consideration. He maintained that provision for a person might mean accommodation in a hospital. There were large subscriptions given by hon. Members of the House, which would not be given at all only they happened to be the Members for the particular borough in which the subscriptions were raised. They never could conceal those facts, especially with regard to charities. He remembered the late Colonel Sibthorpe said that bribery was far from him, and he would never stoop to the suggestion; but who would deny him the right to exercise Christian charity? And he did exercise his Christian charity very considerably. For aught they knew, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might exercise Christian charity in the borough of Taunton; and was it to be said that, because he did exercise Christian charity, and because he relieved the suffering poor, or contributed to an hospital, he should be unseated? He and his friends felt very considerable alarm at the clause as it now stood. Political clubs were now to be found in every constituency. They were not confined to any particular Party, and large subscriptions were given towards their maintenance. Everybody knew full well that those clubs were established for influencing voters. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General attended a meeting at Burton-on-Trent at the commencement of the year; and very remarkable speeches were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by the Home Secretary. What did they hear at that time? Why, that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) had subscribed £35,000 for the purpose of establishing a Liberal Club with all modern appliances; and the Home Secretary spoke of it as
    702
    the munificent benefaction of the hon. Member for Derby to the town. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had not read the last sentence of the first paragraph, or he would see that the clause went a great deal further than mere influencing, for it was said—
    "Or otherwise for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election."
    Was not the club at Derby founded and fitted up with all modern appliances, and comforts, and luxuries, for the purpose of influencing voters and procuring votes? Hon. Members opposite, including one of the great stars of the Birmingham Caucus—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—who were so indignant when anything was said about influencing voters, said nothing about this great Liberal Club at Burton-on-Trent, the opening of which was attended by one of the Chief Law Officers of the Crown. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would take the opinion of the Committee upon this question; and he hoped that before the discussion was finished they would hear some more satisfactory explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown than had hitherto been vouchsafed to them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he referred to subscriptions, that he was his (the Attorney General's) Predecessor in the representation of Taunton, and when he (the Attorney General) went there he found the subscriptions to charitable institutions at a very low ebb. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken about the opening of a Liberal Club at Derby. Unfortunately for him, it was not opened at Derby at all; and there was not a Member for Burton-on-Trent.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he ought to have said the club was opened in Burton-on-Trent. Both the Liberal Members for East Staffordshire were present, and Burton-on-Trent was a considerable place in East Staffordshire.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked the Committee to consider the Question before them. It was really whether the word "before"

    703
    should stand or not. He admitted the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) were well-founded—that they were proposing, no doubt, a penalty in respect to the clause which did not exist before; and, so far as unseating a Member, the word "before" had always existed, and it had always received a proper construction from the learned Judges before whom Election Petitions had been heard. An act of corruption must have a direct bearing on the election, and it must be the act of the candidate himself, unless agency existed at the time the act was done. He could not consent to the omission of the word "before."
    MR. WALPOLEsaid, if the word "corruptly" had not been introduced in the clause, there would have been great force in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). He was a Member of the Select Committee by whom the matter was very carefully considered. The word "corruptly" governed the whole clause. If a person was guilty of what would be called treating, but did not do it corruptly, whether it was before or after, or during an election, an offence would not have been committed. If they omitted the word "before," what would happen? Why, that any person might treat any number of electors just before an election; might influence their votes by doing that; and the consequence would be that, because they had not got the word "before" in the clause, there would be no offence committed, and the very corruption they wished to guard against would immediately take place. He would submit to his hon. Friends around him that as long as they had secured the insertion of the word "corruptly," they would do wisely not to press the Amendment.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsuggested that lines 19 and 20 should be left out, namely—
    "Or otherwise for tie purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election."
    If the hon. and learned Attorney General would leave out those words he would then confine the treating to inducing men to refrain from voting, and then there would be great force in retaining the word "before."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, when they got to
    704
    those words he would state his views upon them.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry to say his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was absent. His hon. and learned Friend was not satisfied with the assurance they had received from the Law Officers of the Crown that candidates would not suffer from the act of their agents before an election. All he wished to ask was whether, on further consideration, they could show there was a real danger of candidates suffering from the acts of their agents, the hon. and learned Attorney General would, on Report, consent to insert words to guard against the danger?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider any suggestion; but he could not at present hold out any promise as to what he would do.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, he was President of two cricket clubs, one in his constituency, and one near where he lived, who recently played against each other, and he entertained them at lunch. Many of the players might be voters. He would like to know whether that would be considered corruption?
    MR. GREGORYagreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that they would open the door to every sort of corruption if they struck out the word "before." He could not help thinking that the insertion of the word "corruptly" provided all the protection needed.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, because as it stood at present it was not likely to receive any serious support. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment he (Mr. Paget) would have an opportunity of proposing the addition of the words he had. suggested.
    MR. RAIKESalso suggested to his hon. Friend the wisdom of withdrawing the Amendment. If he would do that he (Mr. Raikes) would be prepared to move to leave out the words "before, during, or after an election," and then they would be able to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. Paget). They would get rid of the words "before, during, or after an election," and they would stand exactly where they did now; but it would

    705
    give an opportunity for an Amendment to be moved which was regarded with considerable favour by many Members of the Committee.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, when he moved to omit the word, he saw the difficulty at once. They had had a very interesting discussion, and the suggestion of his hon. Friends was one which he could safely adopt. He begged, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wanted to know exactly where they were. If the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment, would the Chairman rule that the word "either" stood part of the clause? If he did so, they would not be able to introduce the words suggested by the hon. Members for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget) and Preston (Mr. Raikes). Personally, he would like to see some such words as "in respect of any election" inserted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee unanimously agree that the Amendment may be withdrawn, then the word "either" still stands. At the present moment the question is on the word "before."
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was still a little misconception. The point was, whether the word "either," which came immediately before the word "before," necessarily remained part of the clause, or whether it would be competent for any hon. Member to move the omission of the word "either."
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is withdrawn by the consent of the Committee, then we are at the last decision, which is the word "corruptly."
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WARTONmoved, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days," so that the clause would then read—
    "Any person, who by himself or any other person, either before, during, or within twenty-eight days after an election," &c.
    That seemed a reasonable addition, yet he could hardly imagine that treating would go on 28 days after an election. Something of the kind should be inserted, and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would assent to his suggestion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if they accepted the Amendment, treating on the 29th
    706
    day after an election would be made legal. He trusted the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the first "or," insert "within twenty-eight days."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had quite misunderstood the Amendment, which was intended to make treating up to the 29th day after an election illegal. It showed the importance of considering these matters at length, when one so learned as the Attorney General so completely misunderstood them.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. R. H. PAGETmoved to insert, after the word "election," in line 12, the words "in connection with or with reference to such election." The hon. and learned Attorney General had already pointed out that the words "for the purpose of influencing" did give the matter a certain connection with the election; but he (Mr. R. H. Paget) wished to insure that the connection should be more clear, more distinct, and that it should be placed beyond all dispute that the transaction must be "in connection with or with reference to such election." The end of the clause, which subjected any person, whether an elector or not, to the most severe penalties if he took "any such meat, drink, entertainment, or provision," did render it very necessary that there should be some kind of limitation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, after "election," to insert "in connection with or with reference to such election."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the words if he could. He believed it would be dangerous to insert the proposed words.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the clause as it stood was penal, inasmuch as it provided a penalty for a particular offence, and that was an offence which candidates had not been tried for hitherto. The Judges would have no difficulty in deal-

    707
    with the clause, having regard to its penal character.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that before they proceeded further it would be well if the hon. and learned Attorney General would tell them what was meant by the words "meat, drink, entertainment, or provision?"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, entertainment might mean meat, or drink, or provisions.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it would be desirable to strike out the words, if the Attorney General could not explain their meaning. He would now move the omission of the word "provision."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "provision."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, the word "entertainment" seemed to be changing its meaning. Formerly it was used to mean food, drink, and forage for man and beast; but now it was employed in connection with musical parties.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WARTONmoved to omit the word "entertainment," in page 1, line 14.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WARTONmoved, in page 1, line 15, before "influencing," to insert "corruptly."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)assented to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERmoved, in page 1, line 15, after "influencing," to insert "thereby."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had no objection to the insertion of the word; but he could not see that it would at all alter the meaning.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. RAIKESmoved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "or any other person." He proposed the Amendment for the purpose of putting two questions to the hon. and learned Attorney General. It
    708
    seemed to him that as the clause now stood they would be prohibited from giving any refreshment to committee clerks. If that was not intended, it would be necessary to put in some words to protect them. The clause said—
    "Any person, who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for any person, for the purpose of influencing that person or any other person," &c.
    He presumed that if they provided refreshment for their committee clerks, they did not do it for any other purpose than to influence their election. He confessed the subject was one of importance, and he should like to have an answer from the hon. and learned Attorney General. He should also like to know if every person, whether an elector or not, who received provision or entertainment for the purpose of influencing an election was to be liable to two years' imprisonment?
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "or any other person."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension with regard to committee clerks. Of course, if committee clerks were given proper refreshments there could be no objection whatever. The words were those of the old Act, and they were necessary, because they must not treat A, B, and C, in order to get the vote of D.
    MR. RAIKESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsuggested that after the word "election," in page 1, line 16, it would be well to insert the words "for any particular candidate or candidates." It appeared to him that the clause as it stood was rather vague. They were about to punish people for inducing other people to give their votes. No one would care to induce people to give their votes merely for the sake of voting in the abstract, but in order to secure the return of some particular

    709
    candidate. By inserting the words he suggested, they would show the people clearly what the offence was.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to insert the words "for any particular candidate or candidates."—(Mr. H. Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought nothing could be more calculated to lead to wholesale corruption than such a Proviso, because it would enable a man to take up his position in front of a polling booth and promise a pint of beer to every man who would come and vote, and he would bring all sorts of people to vote from other than patriotic motives.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, that he did not see the force of the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as, under the existing system at the present time, people were brought up and given pints of beer; but as it did not seem to find much favour with the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONmoved, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "or otherwise;" and asked what was meant by "or other wise?" A gesture or a look might be included in these words. Every turn of the body or glance of the eyes might be considered corruption. The words seemed to him unnecessary, and he thought they might be left out of the paragraph.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that these words were intended to apply to general treating rather than to particular treating. At the same time, he thought the word "corruptly" might be inserted in this part of the clause; and he would be willing to propose, in order to show that he wished to provide every safeguard, to introduce the word "corruptly," after the word "otherwise," if there was any objection to that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 19, after the words "or otherwise," to insert the word "corruptly."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'corruptly' be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought this was a very wide extension of the Act of 1854, in which there were no words to this effect. At the commencement of this evening's discussion, the hon. and learned Attorney General stated that the word "corruptly" was of no value whatever, although he consented to its insertion, and the Act would be judged of without respect to that word. That was a very wide clause, and the Committee had now extended it to the period before, during, and after an election; and that meant that every private entertainment which a gentleman might give to his political friends, would render him liable to come within the purview of the section. They had had no case submitted of any evil arising from the absence of such a provision. That was a new law, and, although they might modify the enormous penalties attached to an offence under this Act, they could not lose sight of the fact that the hon. and learned Attorney General was dealing with the matter now in the severest form; and he would ask the Committee to leave out the words—
    "Or otherwise, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at such election."
    The Committee had dealt with the treating of voters to induce them to vote. If that was not far enough, it was a very serious matter to extend the clause to every act which a man in a political position might do, and to bring him within the meshes of this clause.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSrose to a point of Order, and asked whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee that the hon. and learned Attorney General should withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Committee might first decide upon the larger proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word "election" to the word "shall," in line 20.—(Mr. Henry S. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSpointed out that all the other parts of the clause dealt only with electors who had votes; but if these words were left out, anyone who was bribing or treating a none-lector, in order that he might influence an elector, would not be brought within the Act.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would like some further information as to these words. There had been no suggestion of anything that was not met by the Act of 1854; and they were now embarking on a serious proposal, and they ought to be very careful in doing so. He was very much afraid of these words as they stood, and until they had more information he should be disposed to vote against the provision.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that as there was on the Whole some doubt upon this point, he would ask leave to postpone the question till Report. If a discussion was entered into now, a great deal could be said which he did not think would be conclusive. He thought the clause met all that was required, and he would ask his hon. Friend to give way upon this point.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid he should be very sorry to see any words left in this Bill which destroyed its probable effect hereafter. The ways of bribing and treating were so multifarious and so nefarious that it was impossible to anticipate, them all; and to call upon the hon. and learned Attorney General to say what might be foreshadowed or aimed at by particular words, was giving him a task to which he ought not to be subjected. It was the part of the Committee here to provide that everything of a corrupt character should be dealt with. That was done by the suggested words, and he thought that the interest of any person who came before the Judges would be thoroughly guarded.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, while he agreed with his hon. Friend that they
    712
    ought to deal with cases of corrupt practices, he thought they ought to be careful not to create pitfalls, in which, men might find themselves, in consequence of the words of the Bill being so wide as to include instances that were not at all contemplated at the present moment. He was glad to see that his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) was willing to give up these words, because he did not think they were necessary.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, these words would not depend on the substance of them. He could understand that hon. Members were not desirous of creating pitfalls; he sympathized with them in that respect. He supposed that everybody would agree that treating people in a public-house was a corrupt practice for the purpose of influencing an election; but it might be difficult to prove that those persons who went into a public-house and obtained beer for a nominal sum, or for nothing at all, were voters, and that it was intended to corruptly influence. He thought the words might be judiciously modified; and he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General, when he re-considered this question and brought the clause up again on Report, would retain the substance of it. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he did not think there was any real fear of a Judge holding that such hospitality as had been alluded to come within the clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General had proposed to insert the word "corruptly" before "promoting;" but he should have thought that without the word "corruptly" there would be no danger of such hospitality being brought within the Act. He did not think that any Judge would say that an entertainment of friends was intended to corruptly influence them.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not wish to embarrass the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; but he would suggest the question whether it would not be possible to omit these words?
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) seemed to be under the impression that it was necessary to show that there were voters in a public-house; but that was a mis-

    713
    take. Treating was entirely different from giving a man food and drink.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONproposed to leave out the words "person whether, an." He said, these words were inconsistent with the Act of 1854, and the clause must be made consistent by saying "and every elector who accepts." He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to consider whether the omission of these words was not essential to the grammatical construction of the clause?
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21,to leave out "person whether an."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed "That those words stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment. It had been made an offence to treat a person other than a voter, because he might obtain the vote of another person who was an elector. Therefore, so long as it was an offence to give a voter beer, it should be equally an offence in the case of a non-voter. There were, however, some Amendments he should be willing to make. He would propose to insert the word "corruptly" before the word "accepts."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22,after the word "who," to insert the word "corruptly."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsuggested the substitution of the word "person" for "elector."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, after the word "person," to insert "if an elector."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (What is corrupt practice).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved, in page 2, line 1, after "Parliament," to insert "or laying any wager or bet on the result of any election." The hon. Gentleman said the practice had sprung up
    714
    of, instead of bribing a man, making a bet against the side of the man laying the wager. That was another mode of bribing; and it had been held that where it could be shown that a bet had been made to induce a man to give his vote, that was a corrupt practice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 1, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "or laying any wager or bet on the result of any election."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the hon. Member did not quite see the effect of this Amendment; for the effect of it would be, that if any person, anywhere, made a bet on any election with which he had no connection whatever, he would be guilty of a corrupt practice, and would be liable to imprisonment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Punishment of candidate guilty personally of corrupt practices 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125).
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had an Amendment to move in line 7, with reference to corrupt practices. It seemed to him a most unmerciful proposal that the terrible punishment named in the clause should be inflicted upon a candidate for the commission of a single corrupt practice, and therefore he wished some words to be introduced which would restrict the application of the penalty to cases in which corrupt practices had been committed to a considerable extent. He did not feel bound to the precise wording of the Amendment; all he desired was that it should be made clear that the penalty did not apply to one act only. A man might commit an act of the kind when in a state of drink, or appearances only might be against him; nevertheless, as the clause stood, he would be disqualified for 10 years for sitting in the House of Commons. In deciding whether this most severe punishment should be inflicted for the commission of a single corrupt act—and he contended that it should not—hon. Members would do well to bear in mind the sacred words, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." As he had said, he was willing that the

    715
    wording of the Amendment should be changed, if necessary; and perhaps "corrupt practices to some extent" might be acceptable to the hon. and learned Attorney General. In the meantime, he begged to move the words he had offered to the Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 7, to leave out "any corrupt practice has," in order to insert "corrupt practices to a considerable extent have."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would agree to an Amendment which would carry out the object of the hon. and learned Member, even if his proposal were not accepted in its present form. For his own part, he thought the best words for the purpose would be "where corrupt practices have been proved." It certainly did seem hard that for one act of this kind alone the enormous penalties of the clause should fall upon a candidate. If what had been done during the Birmingham Elections—namely, giving breakfasts to persons who worked on the elections—had taken place under this Bill, they would not have had the two right hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the Government in the House at the present time. It seemed absurd that, because a particular individual gave a glass of beer to another, or treated him in any way, these severe penalties were to fall upon him. Moreover, one was equally liable whether a foolish thing of the kind were done by an agent, or any other person constituted his agent by becoming a member of an election committee in reference to the election, and that, in his opinion, constituted an additional reason why the clause should be modified.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken was quite mistaken as to what had occurred at Birmingham. There had been no case whatever in which any candidate, or any agent of any candidate, or any person or association on behalf of a candidate, had given any breakfasts after the election.
    MR. WARTONthanked the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) for the suggestion of words that much im-
    716
    proved his Amendment, and which he thought should be substituted for the words moved.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said it would, perhaps, be more courteous to the Committee to state at once that he was quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed. It was only right that, to some extent, persons should be protected against the acts of their agents; but it must be borne in mind that the clause applied only to an act done with the knowledge and consent of the candidate.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERagreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that the clause should be made stringent with reference to corrupt practices. He had already expressed that opinion. But he objected to the last three lines of the clause, which provided, after the infliction on the candidate of the penalty of being incapable of sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years from the date of the Report, that he was also to be
    "Subject to the same incapacities as if, at the said date, he had been convicted on indictment of a corrupt practice."
    The candidate would not have been convicted by a jury; and, although it was intrusted to the Judges to determine whether the seat should be vacant, he did not think that a man ought to be subject to these penalties without conviction on trial. He begged to move the omission of the lines in question, and trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would be able to agree to his proposal.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "void" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that candidates were only incapacitated for having been guilty, knowingly, of a corrupt practice. The question was this—If a candidate had been disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years, ought he to be allowed to vote during that period? He said no. It appeared to him wrong that a candidate

    717
    guilty of corrupt practice should be allowed to vote, while a person in a more humble position was disqualified. Again, there would be no doubt that substantial justice would be done, because the candidate would always have an opportunity of being heard; and no Judge would be likely to inflict these penalties unless the candidate had knowingly committed the acts contemplated by the clause.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not object to the incapacities at all; he claimed for the candidate that he should be tried. Let him be tried and convicted, if guilty, and he had no objection whatever to the penalties following; but if there was no trial and conviction, he certainly objected to the penalties.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 54: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 81.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Punishment of candidate guilty by agents of corrupt practices).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "whether," leave out "a candidate," and insert "any of the candidates."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SALTsaid, the object of the Amendment standing in his name was obvious. The penalties in the clause to which candidates might become liable, owing to the action of other persons, were so great that, in his opinion, it was exceedingly important that it should be made, beyond all doubt, clear that the act had been committed under the authority of the person liable to them. Having another Amendment to the clause on the Paper, he took the opportunity of saying that he considered that the penalties in the Bill were too great; and the effect of it, if passed in its present form, would be one of two things—either the best men in the country would be deterred from becoming candidates at all, or the Bill would defeat its own object, for everyone would be afraid to carry out its provisions. He would not go into any arguments in support of that view, but would simply move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, leave out "his agents," and insert
    718
    "any agent (authorised in writing by himself to act on his behalf.)"—(Mr. Salt.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'his agents' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not all indisposed to accede, in one sense, to the view taken by the hon. Member opposite with regard to the penalty in this clause. But, so far as the written authority to agents was concerned, he must point out that if candidates were protected in the manner proposed in the Amendment, they would only have to put pen and paper out of the way, and then there would be an end of their liability. Of course, he must not anticipate the next Amendment which the hon. Member proposed to move; but he might say that he was perfectly willing to give way to the feeling of the Committee on the subject of the period of disqualification. He had proceeded on the principle that the greater contained the less, and he was ready to agree to a limit of seven years if the Committee wished it. He trusted that this modification of the punishment would meet the hon. Member's Amendment, which he should be unable to agree to in the form in which it stood upon the Paper. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he trusted the hon. Member would consent to its withdrawal, inasmuch as, for the reasons advanced, it was quite impossible for him to agree to it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he agreed in the view of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that if it were required that agents should be nominated in writing, no agents would be nominated at all. For that reason he was unable to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. At the same time, he was bound to say that with the spirit of the Amendment, and the arguments by which it had been supported, he entirely concurred. The Bill, if passed in its present form, would probably frighten the best men from becoming candidates; and he doubted whether, when the election was over, it would be put in force, because the tendency was to administer the Criminal Law in a lenient rather than in an inexorable spirit. He was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Attorney General was

    719
    willing to agree to a reduction of the term of disqualification to seven years. Nevertheless, he was of opinion that the existing law went far enough, and when the time came he should certainly feel it his duty to press that view upon the Committee.
    MR. GREGORYwas understood to say that he should have been glad if something in the direction of the Amendment of his hon. Friend could have been adopted. Unfortunately, in election cases the Law of Agency had been abrogated or reversed. The principle of the Law of Agency was that a man should only be liable for acts which were within the scope of the authority which he had delegated to another, much less for those which were of an illegal character; but a candidate at an election was not only made responsible for illegal acts and those which he had not authorized, but for acts of this kind committed by sub-agents whom he might have never seen, and to whom he personally might not have given any authority whatever. Before the Bill was passed, he hoped that some rule would be devised for regulating the appointment and nomination of agents, and which would limit the liability of candidates.
    MR. RATHBONEobjected to the principle that candidates should be liable only for the acts of agents directly appointed by them. His opinion was that under such an arrangement any amount of corruption might exist, and the candidate would be subject to no penalty at all. Still, he thought the provision in the clause ought to be used with great care and discretion.
    MR. ONSLOWdrew the attention of the Committee to the words "his agents" in line 21 of the clause. By Section 1, an agent might be some person who had committed a foolish act at a municipal election; so that a candidate might go down to a borough or county and appoint a man who had been an agent at an election in a municipality, where he had committed bribery, but of which the candidate knew nothing whatever. He put it to the Committee whether a person ought to be liable for such acts, of which he knew nothing? And, further, he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he could define the term "agent," because it was difficult for any Gentleman seeking the honour of a seat in that House to know what an
    720
    agent was, or to know what foolish thing he might have committed? In many towns there were both Liberal and Conservative Associations, as well as annual municipal elections, and members of these Associations might have committed acts of treating in connection with those elections, and be subsequently placed on Parliamentary Committees. Nevertheless, the severe penalties of the Bill might fall upon the candidate for acts of which he knew nothing, because it was provided in Clause 1, that—
    "Any person, who by himself or by any other person, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, &c……shall be guilty of treating."
    He thought it was really necessary that gentlemen who might become candidates for a seat in the House of Commons, under such circumstances, should know who were and who were not their agents.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, it appeared to him that if the clause passed, no one would ever stand for an election with another candidate, because if the latter were supported by any Association, committee, or agent, the former would be liable for their acts. An hon. Member near him said that was the case now; but that, under present circumstances, made the case rather worse. They might make the penalties as severe as they liked on those who performed corrupt acts at elections; but why make the unfortunate candidate, who knew nothing of them, liable for heavy penalties? He could not support the Amendment before the Committee, because to call a man an agent only when he was appointed in writing would, in his opinion, be absurd; still, he thought the agent ought to be appointed by the candidate, and not be agent of any Association.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he believed it would be difficult for anyone accurately to define the term "agents," so that, on the one hand, candidates should not be improperly subject to the consequences of their acts, and, on the other, that they should not be able to free themselves from the legitimate consequences of the acts of their agents. Still, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would devote his mind to the matter with a view to attaining the real object in view. He believed if the Bill had been in force in its present

    721
    shape, and the same practices had occurred as had occurred during the last General Election, scarcely a Member of the House would not be liable to disqualification and heavy penalties. An incident had occurred in the course of this discussion to which he would for a moment ask the attention of the Committee. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), in support of his argument, had stated that breakfasts had been given in Birmingham at the last Elections; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had risen, and, in perfect good faith, denied that that was the fact. But, curiously enough, the document which he held in his hand contained an account of the cost of the breakfasts to which the hon. Member for Guildford had alluded. A friend of his had gone to the office of the Town Clerk, at Birmingham, for the purpose of examining some documents, and there he met with the accounts of the election expenses of Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Muntz. In those accounts there were charges for a number of breakfasts, as well as several other curious items; for instance—
    "T. W. Wilson, £5 for creating a disturbance on the 27th of March." "All Saints' Ward, Breakfasts, £12." "St. George's Ward, Breakfasts for 166 men; 676 Sandwiches." "St. Stephen's Ward, 116 Sandwiches and 106 Cups of Coffee, 52 Breakfasts;"
    and so on. There had clearly been many breakfasts; far more than were necessary. Another item was—
    "Cooking for election day, and taking four rounds of beef to the Free Christian Chapel."
    These accounts were illustrations of acts that a candidate might become liable for through his agents; and he certainly did not wish to use them for the purpose of making any Party attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) or the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He simply pointed out that, if the Bill had been in operation at the time those breakfasts were given, they would have been liable to be for ever disqualified from sitting for the town of Birmingham in that House.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): I rise for the pur-
    722
    pose of saying that I understood the allegation to be that these breakfasts were after the election.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that was not so. He had distinctly stated that the breakfasts were given by the candidates' supporters during the elections to persons who worked on the elections. He merely wished to point out, without making any observations in a Party spirit, that the practice which had existed in Birmingham would have disqualified under the present Bill everyone of the Members for Birmingham—a circumstance which showed how perfectly innocent persons would be punished; and, therefore, he trusted the Law Officers of the Crown would give their minds to the question before the Bill left the House, with a view to defining, as exactly as possible, what constituted "an agent" within the meaning of the Bill. He was quite aware of the difficulty of definition; but surely, under a Bill like this, bristling with such heavy penalties, some attempt ought to be made by the Law Advisers to define the extent of agency.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would be very desirable, indeed, if the term "agent" could be defined, as, no doubt, agents had often caused grievous wrong to individuals. But to ask for a definition was to ask for an impossibility. A definition had been promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when the Ballot Bill was going through the House; but the right hon. Gentleman afterwards found that he had promised what it was utterly impossible for him to give. He (the Attorney General) could give no definition of the term "agent;" but he was quite willing to put the question to the test by asking any Member of the Committee to furnish him with a definition upon paper. If any hon. Member would be good enough to do that, he promised that the definition should have the fullest chance of adoption. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say one word with regard to the Birmingham Elections on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He was quite sure that the observations of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had not been made in a personal sense; but he was bound to say that his recollection of the statement of the hon. Member for

    723
    Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was that it was after the election that certain persons had received breakfasts.
    MR. ONSLOWexplained that what he had said was, that it was during the election, and for the purposes of the election, that the breakfasts were given. His remarks had reference to the second line of Clause 1, which made treating a corrupt practice "before, during, or after an election;" so that, according to the wording, it was quite immaterial when the breakfasts were given.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, in that case, he was sure, although he quite accepted the statement of the hon. Member, that his right hon. Friend had misunderstood the allegation. No doubt, coffee and beef during election-day were a fair refreshment that any candidate had a right to give to his clerks. He did trust that now the Committee would be allowed to proceed to a division.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he recognized the difficulty in which the hon. and learned Attorney General was placed; but, at the same time, he fully felt the force of some of the observations which had fallen from other hon. Members. They were bound to define who was an "agent." This was one of the difficulties arising out of the system of secret voting. The evil was felt in the United States; but the remedy there was the enormous size of the constituencies. In the United States they had manhood suffrage, and it was, of course, impossible to bribe the whole of the constituencies. That was how they escaped in America; but he fully appreciated the difficulty there was in escaping the evil in a small constituency, and had done so ever since he had visited America for the purpose of seeing the Ballot in operation there. He had the same feeling about it that Lord Palmerston had, and that feeling he should continue to entertain. If the Government would prevent corruption in limited constituencies, retaining the Ballot, they were bound to define "agency," and who an "agent" was. It was absolutely necessary that this should be defined if justice was to be done; and when the hon. and learned Attorney General spoke of its being impossible, his reply was—"Then, if it is so, you are to blame; you have defined the crime and the criminal; you have undertaken to punish someone whose action and re-
    724
    sponsibilities you have not defined and have not the means of ascertaining." He foresaw that immense injustice would be done in limited constituencies, unless the meaning of "agents" was defined.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the Committee; but he did think that the hon. and learned Attorney General should endeavour to make some little concession on this clause. At present, the provision was excessively stringent and severe. The matter was not of such interest to him (Sir Andrew Lusk) as it was to hon. Members who had small constituencies, because in a large constituency like his there was no bribery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put a case to them, and had said he should like anyone to define what "agency" was. Well, those Members of the House who had to sit on the Magisterial Bench had every day to decide what agency was. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members demurred to that statement; but he maintained that such was the case. Day by day they had to decide whether certain individuals were agents or servants—there was no mistake about it. They had to do it. The hon. and learned Attorney General had framed the clause in such a way that he did not believe any hon. Member in the House could go through the purest contested election without there being a possibility of bringing him in—through his "agents"—guilty of bribery and corruption. He did not think it was possible to save a candidate from these dreadful penalties; he had looked carefully through the Bill, and that was the conclusion to which he had arrived. The Committee ought to look into the matter with the very greatest care. "Shall not be capable of ever being elected again," was a frightful thing to say; and he would put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General whether it would not be advisable to make the clause a little less stringent.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he appreciated the difficulty of defining "agent;" but he quite felt that unless some definition of "agency" were arrived at, every Member of the House would be in the greatest peril. In the constituency he represented (Liverpool) there were 66,000 voters and 123 or 126 polling districts; and he apprehended that in every one of these polling districts every poll clerk

    725
    would be, in some sense or other, an "agent." But this was not the worst. Besides these poll clerks there were other clerks and messengers employed; and he feared that, under the Bill as it at present stood, he would have to be responsible for the acts of all such people engaged on his own side. He certainly thought that if they were to maintain the tone and character of the House of Commons, it must be done by maintaining the honour of men who were anxious to do their duty faithfully, and to put down bribery as far as possible. Whet would be the consequence if Parliament made them responsible for the acts of men over whom they had no control, and whom they had charged in every possible way to be guilty of no act of bribery and corruption—if Parliament exposed candidates to the penalties of this legislation for the wrong acts of such people? Why, there would hardly be a Member whom it would not be possible to unseat. There should be a clause inserted in the Bill to the effect that if it could be proved that an agent had committed a wrong act without the consent or against the express orders of the candidate, the candidate should be absolved from the consequences of that wrong act. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would put every Member and every candidate in peril. It was a dangerous thing to throw on a large number of men the power of turning out a candidate at any time. The hon. and learned Attorney General had told them of the difficulties of the situation; but he was increasing those difficulties by increasing the responsibilities of a candidate—by making the candidate responsible for the acts of so many people in such things as treating.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no alteration whatever in the law in that respect. According to the present law, treating by an agent would unseat a man. He made no alteration in this respect, or in this clause, except as to the term during which a candidate was disqualified.
    MR. WHITLEY: But you are increasing very much the responsibility of the candidate.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No, no.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that according to his reading of the existing law and
    726
    the present Bill, the new proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would very much extend the responsibility of a candidate for the acts of his agents.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that with the exception of the term during which a candidate could be disqualified from sitting in the House—upon which he should be willing to meet the Committee—there was no alteration of the present law in the clause.
    MR. WHITLEY: By this clause a candidate would be disqualified from sitting for life.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The clause is going to be modified in that respect.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that, because, at present, it was a most serious thing; but he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General ought to go farther than that, and make some attempt in some way or other to define "agency."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I wish you could do it.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that to leave the word undefined would be a most perilous thing. No one would go to a greater length in the punishment of bribery than himself. He had no sympathy whatever with those who bribed or treated; but still the Bill would throw on a candidate an enormous responsibility for a thing he might have done everything in his power to prevent, and the matter was a serious one that every Member of the Committee ought most carefully to consider. The question was not one to be discussed from any Party point of view. The integrity of the House was dear to every Member of the House, and he should, therefore, regret exceedingly to see any division on the Bill taken on Party grounds. He did not believe the hon. and learned Attorney General had brought forward the Bill in any Party spirit, and he should be exceedingly sorry if his Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House dealt with it as a Party measure. Let it be their earnest desire on all sides to make the Bill a practical measure that would punish, and severely punish, the briber and the man who treated and corrupted a constituency; and he would ask the Committee to consider very carefully indeed whether they should go farther than that, and, in punishing the candi-

    727
    date for the act of his "agents," punish one who was entirely innocent, and had done all he could to discourage bribery.
    MR. GORSTsaid, everyone would agree that it would be a very good thing if they could define "agency" in the Bill; but he thought almost everybody must be convinced of another thing—namely, that such a definition was impossible. He did not see that any Member of the House had succeeded in putting on the Paper an adequate definition of "agency." He himself had attempted to define it, but had not been successful in his endeavour. It seemed, therefore, inevitable that the question who was, or who was not, an agent, would have to be left to be dealt with by the Election Court—just as the worthy Alderman who had just spoken (Sir Andrew Lusk) dealt with it in his Court—according to the facts of each particular case. With regard to the responsibility which was imposed on a candidate for the acts of his agents, everyone had always felt that there was something very hard in making a candidate at an election liable for what was done by persons whom he had not appointed, whom he could not control, and of whose conduct he was, to some extent, ignorant. No doubt, they were obliged to make the candidate responsible so far as the validity of the election was concerned, because, if they did not, people would bribe and treat right and left, avoiding direct connection with the candidate. In this respect the clause did not make a candidate one bit more responsible for the acts of his agents than he had been for the last 20 years. The law as to the responsibility of a candidate for the acts of his agents—in fact, in this Clause 4—was exactly the same as that which had prevailed for the past 20 years, the only difference being that it made the consequences to the candidate of the illegal acts of his agents far more serious than they had hitherto been. The hon. and learned Attorney General was willing to discuss with the Committee the desirability of modifying the provision affecting these consequences; therefore, it did not seem to him (Mr. Gorst) that there was any reason why they should any longer delay the progress of the Bill by discussing the question of agency, which no one was in a position to solve. He might, however, say that when the proper time came, he should propose
    728
    some words in the clause to mitigate still further the consequences which the illegal act of an agent had on the validity of an election; because it had always seemed to him, and he thought it seemed also to other people, unreasonable that an election which had been fairly conducted in other respects, and in which every possible precaution had been taken by a candidate and those who managed affairs for him to keep it pure, should be voided, and the constituency put to the trouble and expense of a fresh election by one or two isolated acts of corruption. The Election Judges, when unseating a Member, had been known to state that they regretted very much being obliged to do that when they knew very well the man had won his election very fairly. Therefore, when the proper time came, he should bring forward a proposal to the effect that, though primâ facie a corrupt act by an agent should void an election, if the candidate could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had exercised every care in the appointment of his agents and the condnct of the election, and if the Court was satisfied that the corrupt acts proved had not affected the result of the election, the Member should still retain his seat.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the difficulty arose not so much from the difficulty of defining what an election agent was, but from the fact that the agent who at Common Law could only make his principal liable when he acted within the scope of his authority, in election matters could make him responsible even where he acted in the teeth of the directions he had received. The reason why candidates were made responsible for the acts of their agents in this way was this, that the relations between the two parties in election matters were not the same as the relations between them for the ordinary purpose of contracts only. An election was a matter concerning the public interest, not an affair between the candidate, a party to a contract, with someone on the other side. It was a contract, if at all, between the candidate and the public, an undertaking by him to the public that the election should be conducted in a pure manner, according to law; and if that contract or undertaking was violated, the law, upon public grounds, held the candidate liable for the acts of

    729
    his agent. This was very hard indeed on the candidate, and sometimes on the constituency also, who might have set their minds on a particular candidate—a large majority of whom might have properly returned him—while its will had been defeated by the acts of a few corrupt persons. [An hon. MEMBER: It might be only one act.] That was so. It might be only one act committed by one corrupt person. He thought they might do this—they might mitigate the severity of the law as it affected not only the candidate, but the constituency. He was sorry the hon. and learned Attorney General was leaving the House, for he had had a conversation with him on this matter. He forgot whether he had discussed the question with the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but he had talked over the term during which a candidate should be disqualified with the Attorney General, and his hon. and learned Friend had agreed to limit the period to 10 years. [An hon. MEMBER: Seven years.] Well, seven years; he hoped the period would be limited still further. He would suggest that later on they should add the Proviso at the end of the clause, which was embodied in the words the hon. and learned Solicitor General proposed before the Select Committee of 1875, of which both he and his hon. and learned Friend were Members—namely,
    "That if, on the whole of the evidence, the Judge is satisfied and is able affirmatively to find that the election was a pure one, and that the instances of bribery and corruption have been exceptional only, and have not been such as would have affected at all the result of the election, the Judge shall not unseat the Member."
    He was sorry he had not been able to give the hon. and learned Attorney General Notice of this, which had not struck him until this afternoon; but the idea was not new, at least to one of the Law Officers of the Crown, as he had intimated. He did not know whether his hon. and learned Friend had altered his views; but he intended to make this proposal, and he would now only say, with regard to the term of disqualification, that he was glad the Attorney General intended to save him the necessity of proposing his Amendment, of which he had given Notice, by accepting his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) proposal in even a more lenient form.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, the Committee were obliged to the hon. and learned
    730
    Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) for having brought to their notice the hon. and learned Solicitor General's opinion. If the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury had not drawn attention to this opinion, however, he (Mr. Grantham) had intended to do it. It was impossible to define "agency." Before the last General Election, Members had been unseated for the smallest acts of treating, although those acts had been in contravention of the orders of the candidate; and it was very hard that when a candidate had done all he could to make an election pure, he should not only lose it through the act of an agent, but be held responsible for the consequences of the thoughtlessness of that person. He had intended himself to bring forward some such proposal as that which had passed through the mind of the hon. and learned Solicitor General some years ago. Where they were obliged to leave it to a Judge to determine whether a man was an agent or not, they ought also to leave it to the Judge to say what should be the effect of his act. If they left it with the tribunal to judge in the one matter, they should leave it also with the tribunal to judge in the other. The Judge should be called upon to say, first, whether corrupt practices had been proved or not; and, if they had, then what was the heinousness of the offence. Where the door was so wide, the Judge should have some discretionary power to say whether the whole penalty, or only a portion of it, should be inflicted. He hoped the Law Officers of the Crown would take this matter into their consideration again. He fully agreed with hon. Members as to the difficulty of defining the word "agent;" but he certainly thought they should leave it to the Judge to say whether the effect of conduct that was proved against an appointed agent ought to bring on the candidate the heavy penalty it was proposed to inflict.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had informed the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) that they had followed the Act of 1854; but if they had followed that Act, they would not now have found themselves in this difficulty. In the Act of 1854 the word "agent" was in the singular. It said no candidate should be guilty of corrupt practices "by himself or agent directly or indirectly." It

    731
    was an easy thing to prove whether or not a person was "the" agent or not. The present Bill contained the words "any candidate and his agents by him appointed." Therefore, in saying he had followed the Act of 1854, the hon. and learned Gentleman was going a little beyond the mark, having put "agent" in the plural. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the word being used in the singular, the difficulty would be got over. When the time came, he (Captain Aylmer) would move the omission of the letter "s" from the word "agents."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that would be no use, as there was an Act in force which would put in all the "s's," unless it was shown that they were not consistent with the context.
    MR. SALTsaid, that, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had declared his intention of making some important alterations in the measure, and as they would come under consideration almost directly, he proposed to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, an Amendment of his was next in order, after the word "agents" in line 21. The House, he thought, had not taken notice of the case where a candidate was entirely in the hands of his agent, and where the agent went in an entirely opposite direction to all the candidate's instructions, wishes, and principles.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he thought the hon. Member was referring to an Amendment which came after one he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had on the Paper.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that was not the case. There was a case actually within his own knowledge where an agent, for his own purposes, had actually disguised what he was going to do that was improper, and went against the orders and wishes of his principals. It seemed very hard that a Member should be unseated through the act of such a person as that. Therefore, he proposed to insert, after the word "agents," the words "with his knowledge or sanction."
    Amendment proposed, in line 21, to insert, after the word "agents," the
    732
    words "with his knowledge or sanction."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would clearly limit the provision to cases in which the candidate was guilty of bribery and corruption himself. By adopting the words "with his knowledge and sanction," the offence would become personal, and the candidate's agents would be perfectly at liberty to bribe, treat, or do anything they thought proper, if the candidate shut his eyes to it. No evil consequences to the candidate would follow. In fact, if this proposal were adopted, it would render the whole Bill nugatory.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. WARTONasked whether they were still at the word "agents?"
    THE CHAIRMANreplied, that it was competent for an hon. Member to propose an Amendment after the word "agents."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, in that case, he proposed to insert, after the word "agents," the words "by him appointed," although he supposed it would be negatived, in consequence of the Amendment which had been withdrawn. When they considered the stringent manner in which the clause was drawn, and that if a single improper act was proved—such as giving a single glass of beer worth 2d. to a person who was not a voter—the Member would be unseated, such an Amendment as this should find favour with hon. Members. As he said, the giving away of a single 2d. glass of beer by an agent could be made into a charge of corrupt practice. By such a trivial act as this, the whole machinery of the Act would be evoked; an Election Court would sit, and that Court would decide whether the glass of beer had been given away corruptly or not. He was obliged to put the case in this way. It sounded rather ridiculous, he admitted; but the fault was not his. A Report with reference to this glass of beer would have to be made to Mr. Speaker; also as to whether the candidate or his agents were guilty. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to despair of being able to give

    733
    a definition of an agent. He could give him one—namely, "any man who did anything illegal at an election, and said he did it in the interests of the candidate." That also, perhaps, sounded ridiculous; but such, practically, would be the definition if the Bill was passed in its entirety. If the hon. and learned Attorney General, the highest legal authority in the House, was unable to give them any better definition of agency, he (Mr. Warton) would urge him to accept the Amendment he had just moved—namely, in line 21, after the word "agents," to insert "by him appointed." The hon. and learned Gentleman would find that in the 31st section of the Act of 1854. He would call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the Schedule he had referred to there was only one agent whom the candidate could pay. Well, this agent, it seemed to him, should be appointed in writing. If the candidate could only pay one person, was it right that he should be liable for the acts of a great many other people who might choose to appoint themselves his agents?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Committee that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has given Notice of an Amendment for this stage. I do not know whether he intends to move it.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that, after the remarks that had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General—as he felt the difficulty there was in defining "agency"—he did not intend to move his Amendment. When they came to illegal practices, which were an entirely new offence, and for which there was an entirely new penalty, he should certainly press every Amendment he could for the purpose of defining "agency," and restricting the new offence which the hon. and learned Member created.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, after "agents," to insert "by him appointed."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. They had all paid attention to the difficulty of putting any definition on the word "agent." It was perfectly true that it could not be done. They might say that the agency should be
    734
    the Common Law agency. He was not going to suggest that; but, at the same time, that agency was perfectly understood. The difficulty, however, would be, that directly they started that, people would go beyond it, and they would get the most corrupt elections imaginable. He thought they had much better leave the question of agency exactly where it was.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not answered the question he had put to him some time ago. He must press for an answer. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to include any person who might have been guilty of a corrupt practice at a municipal election? The words were "himself or any other person." That "other person" might be the recognized agent of a candidate at a Parliamentary election, a person living in the county. Was the person who stood as a candidate in a county or a borough—because there were many parts of England where municipalities were included in a division of the county—to be included? He would illustrate what he meant by stating what might occur in his own county—which he knew, perhaps, better than any other—although the practical result had nothing to do with that part of the county he represented. The borough of Godalming was a municipality in the Western Division of Surrey. Were they to suppose that to employ at a Parliamentary election any person who had committed an illegal act during a municipal election in Godalming would render the candidate responsible for that illegal act? The person who did the illegal act might be a working man, and he might be employed by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey—or, perhaps, by some Liberal candidate—and his hon. Friend, or this Liberal candidate, would be responsible in the county for what someone who might afterwards become his agent had foolishly done in the borough? This man might be on one of their committees during an election—he would come under the category of "any other person." The candidate might know nothing against him; and the other side, knowing something, might retain what they knew, refraining from raising any objection at the municipal election, and husbanding their knowledge for the Parliamentary election. At that time, a

    735
    disclosure of some foolish act, of which this person might have been guilty at a municipal election, would bring the candidate under the penalties of this clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No; that is not so.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General a question. When the Bill was being discussed on the second reading, there were some suggestions made as to the Schedule——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! There is an Amendment before the Committee. Does the hon. Member wish to speak on that?
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend whether it was his intention, on any portion of this clause, to make a statement as to the Amendments he proposed to introduce into the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That point cannot be raised on this part of the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the word "any," in place of the word "a," in line 23. It was a purely consequential Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, leave out "a," and insert "any."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he wished to amend the clause, in line 23, by inserting, after the word "has," the words "through negligence, or want of due care in the appointment or control of his agents." It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Attorney General might mitigate the severity of the clause. He did not wish to repeat the arguments, so elaborately gone into, as to agency; but he would say this—that when they considered that this Law of Agency was a special law, not only different from the ordinary Common Law of Agency, but directly opposed to it, and that they were making a man liable, not for acts he had authorized, but for acts which he had forbidden, and done his best to prevent, they could not be too careful in the safeguards they adopted. The Committee ought to protect the persons who might be responsible for the acts of others by such
    736
    words as those he proposed. Of course, a candidate at an election knew who his agent was, for he would have the appointing of him; but he would not appoint all those whom the law would recognize as his agents, and for whose acts he would be held responsible. When all the provisions of the Bill were considered, it did seem to him that there ought to be some protection given, not only to the candidate, but to the constituency, whose interests were concerned in the purity of the election. When a candidate went down to a county or a borough, he had a person introduced to him as the regular agent of the place—a gentleman of integrity, ability, and character—and he accepted him as his agent, for the most part, on the recommendation of the friends who had introduced him to the constituency. He could do no less than accept this gentleman; but, in the course of the election, other persons stepped in, whom the law recognized as agents, but whom he had no control over, and of whom he knew nothing whatever. Yet, under this clause, he was to be made liable in the future for that for which he was not liable now. He might by these people be, in a manner, discredited, disgraced, and deprived of all those honours and privileges of civil life in which society was interested, and the duties of which it was important that men of character should be ready to fill. He therefore proposed these words, to provide that a candidate should not be liable for the acts of those persons belonging to the class to which he had referred. At the same time, a candidate must not be allowed to go down to a place and act with indifference and without regard to what was right and proper in the conduct of an election. If a candidate went down to a constituency, and engaged as his agent a man who was notorious for bribery and corrupt practices—a man who, it was well known, would do wrong—then, of course, he ought to be liable for the acts of his agent. When, however, he had made due inquiries, and had done all in his power to secure a person who would conduct the election honestly and purely, it was very hard to make him liable. A candidate ought to control the conduct of an election, and to have information as to how an election was going on; and a Judge, when he came to administer this clause, would inquire

    737
    whether the candidate had been really careful in the appointment, and in controllng the agent's actions, in order to prevent undue practices?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 23, after "has," insert "through negligence or want of due care in the appointment or control of his agents."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not know whether the Committee, at the present moment, could realize the scope of that Amendment; but, if accepted, it would be the most serious thing in support of corrupt practices that could be devised. He would rather abandon the Bill than adopt the proposal. By the clause it was determined for what causes an election should be declared void; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) proposed that an election should not be void unless the candidate had himself been guilty of negligence in appointing agents, or had not exercised proper control; and he had supported that Amendment by appealing to the Committee upon the hardships of candidates being held liable for the actions of their agents. That was not a question for the candidate alone; it was a question for the constituency. There were pure and impure men in elections. It was admitted that a pure man ought to be free, and the impure man ought to be held guilty; yet the hon. and learned Member proposed that while the pure man might be rejected, the impure man might be admitted, unless he had been guilty of negligence. Suppose a candidate was abroad. In his case there would be no want of control while abroad, or negligence; and yet if it was proved that 1,000 voters had voted, and 800 of them had been bribed by agents, the election would be a perfectly good election. Was that fair to the constituency? Then, in the case of a large constituency, what personal control could a candidate have over his agents? Candidates might have some control over agents appointed for election purposes, but not over voluntary agents; and yet, unless it was shown that the candidate personally had been guilty of neglect, through this Amendment bribery would take place. He
    738
    must ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthought this discussion on the law of agency showed how much they all felt the difficulty they were in, and that it was only because of the necessities of the case that they consented to be so checked. In an election the great object was to gain a seat; and, for that purpose, people of all Parties were willing to incur penalties which they otherwise would not. He should vote against the Amendment, because, in his opinion, it would defeat the whole object of the Bill; and the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite right in saying that the Bill had better go than have that provision inserted in it. At the same time, when the latter part of the clause was reached, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would reconsider the question of the penalty.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to propose, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "that" to "borough" in line 26, being the portion of the clause containing the new penalty to be inflicted on a candidate for the action of his agent. He did not propose to leave out the whole of the provision, but only the disqualification. The penalty as proposed in the clause would disqualify a man for ever from sitting for a county or other constituency, and that for an act of a man who it was said to be impossible to define. He proposed to provide that a man should not be so disqualified by the action of his agent. All were agreed that it was difficult to restrict the meaning of "agency" as at present defined. Under the late law the election would merely be void.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that, under the present law, a candidate who had been unseated could, not be re-elected during the then existing Parliament; but the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) would enable such a candidate to return to the constituency and be re-elected immediately.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he would not move his intended Amendment if it was understood that the law was not to be carried further than it stood at present.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to move an Amendment with the object of

    739
    leaving the law as it now stood. He thought it was agreed that the House should do nothing in the shape of a punishment of a Member of Parliament or a candidate for acts not done by his direction or orders; and that the only reason why the present disability existed was that otherwise the moment a man was unseated for corrupt practices the constituency could return him again. He believed that was the reason why it was found necessary to impose on a candidate a disability from sitting again in the present Parliament. He could quite understand the reason for the present law, and he believed that its abrogation would have a bad effect, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had said. It seemed to him that the law at present was sufficiently severe, and that it was enough to say that when a candidate had been unseated for corrupt practices by his agent, he should be unable to sit in the present Parliament. The burden of proof was with those who differed from him.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, after "not," to insert "during the then existing Parliament."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was rather inclined to accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); and he would assume that a man who, by his agent, had been guilty of any corrupt practices, could not be re-elected for the same Parliament. But then, how long was the Parliament to last? If only for six months, was that a sufficient corrective against the corrupt influences he had extended over the borough. If the hon. and learned Member would go as far as to say that six months was not long enough, would he say a year or two years? If so, he (Mr. Hopwood) believed he could get the hon. and learned Member to seven years, because that was the legal life of a Parliament, and that might be adopted as a safe test by which it could be made dangerous for a candidate so to butter, or water, or manure a constituency, that, if he was unseated, he could, in a short time at all events, reap the benefit of his beneficence through his agent. The constituencies had no one in the House to represent them in that argument; and he was anxious to spread among the
    740
    constituencies—at least, those who were sincere in the matter—that whatever an agent should do corruptly, he would do it at the peril of hurting the man in whose interest they said or pretended they were acting; so that friends who were injudicious would be curbed in their want of judgment by finding that they were likely to defeat their own object. That was the principle upon which Parliament should proceed in order to put down corruption in Parliamentary elections.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, very often a constituency set their minds upon some particular man whom they wished to represent them; but some indiscreet person, over whom he had no control, might make the election void. That was perfectly right; but the unfortunate candidate should not be prevented in such a case from election when another election took place. It might be argued that a man would be content to be unseated at once, in order that he might gain the effect of his previous bribery; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could imagine that being the case; but he did not think that a man who had had enormous election expenses would be willing to undergo such a punishment. On the other hand, the Committee must consider whether they were not really going too far. Had they been able to show one case in which the existing law was not quite sufficient? He defied anyone to show a single case; and, at all events, they ought to have strong proof before they went beyond the existing law, which, he thought, was sufficient. Unless it could be shown that, under the existing law, cases had happened in which people had deliberately bribed at one election, and gone to all the expense of securing the next election, the present law should not be altered. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would give way upon the point.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were many views to be taken of this matter. In the first place, he had abandoned his own view, and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) having suggested 10 years, he had abandoned his support of that proposal. The hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), had proposed seven years; and the Committee would prac-

    741
    tically have to decide between that and the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). There was much to be said on each side, and the Committee would have to consider how they could best meet the necessities of the case. He did not consider the candidate so much as the constituency; and he wanted the pure element in a constituency to defeat the impure element, and to enable the element which was not wealthy to contend successfully against that which was wealthy. What was the position of a person disqualified by the action of his agents? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had rightly pointed to a case in which there might be an isolated instance, or a very small amount of corruption; but those were not cases to be considered, because Members were seldom unseated for them; and the Bill dealt with cases of a large amount of corruption. As had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), it was only provided that an unseated candidate should not sit in the then-existing Parliament. A candidate who had spent large sums of money on one election might, in some cases, in a comparatively short time claim his own amongst those who had been previously corrupted; and they, in grateful recollection, would at once accept him as against a pure candidate. The advantage of seven years over 10 was that an unseated Member was prevented from reaping the benefit of what he had sown for a period during which the constituency would have time to reflect upon their conduct, and in which a new candidate could seize hold of the constituency by placing himself before it. It seemed to him that they would be taking a middle course by accepting the suggestion of seven years; and so would, to a great extent, protect the pure against the impure in an election.
    MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to assume the case of a candidate who had corrupted a constituency in a wholesale way; but he (Mr. Donaldson-Hudson) should like to point out that this Clause 4 did not contemplate the case of any candidate who had wilfully corrupted a borough or county. Cases in which corruption had been effected with the knowledge of the candidate were amply met by the 3rd clause,
    742
    which distinctly stated that where corrupt practices had been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of a candidate, then severe penalties should follow—and those penalties he by no means considered too severe in such cases. But Clause 4 only dealt with cases in which the candidate was innocent; and knew nothing about what might be isolated instances of corruption. Therefore, they would be committing grievous injustice upon such a candidate if they made the penalties more severe than they were at present; and he thought there was everything to be said in favour of not increasing the penalties, and that it would be an anomaly that a candidate should not be able to sit again during the existing Parliament.
    COLONEL NOLANobserved, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had omitted to point out the great changes of principle involved in this Bill. The first point was this—under the old law, no penalty beyond disability during the existing Parliament could be imposed on any candidate unless he was found guilty by a jury, and then he could be excluded for seven years. That principle was, however, removed; and they must now trust to the word of the Judge. He had also told them that the candidate was to be held responsible for the wholesale corruption which might be committed in his behalf. He was to be responsible for the acts of all of his agents, and it was impossible to say in what case he was not to be considered guilty. He (Colonel Nolan) had no desire to press his own opinion; but he had consulted persons who might be said to approach in eminence and legal knowledge on this subject even the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he was informed that if a candidate canvassed a man in the presence of another person, that other person became an agent merely in consequence of that fact. The candidate would never know when he was not making an agent. He might easily know when he was doing so, but he would never know when he was not, so long as he happened to be speaking to two men; and very heavy penalties were to be inflicted on him, not only for canvassing personally, but for connecting himself with any individual who might prove to be an imprudent person. The moment the Bill was introduced, not

    743
    this year, but shortly after the present Parliament first met, he (Colonel Nolan) raised a strong objection to it when he saw the stringent provisions of the Bill, and especially this terrible clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General assumed that the Judge would be perfectly pure and free from political bias; but he (Colonel Nolan) did not assume anything of the kind, as a matter of course. He believed that in many cases the constituency would be much purer than the Judge; and one objection he entertained to the Bill was that in such cases it enormously increased the power of the Judge. In fact, the Bill shifted, as it were, the centre of gravity from the Representatives of the people to the Crown, as represented by the Judges. It was acknowledged that, on the whole, during the last 20 years the Election Judges had acted fairly, but there had been numerous objections to their decisions; and by this Bill he contended that the Government were weakening the power of the people. It was not a move in a popular direction, but was one altogether in the direction of strengthening the power of the Crown. Nothing would keep the Judges in the right path better than to allow the constituencies to say whether they were right or wrong; and the only way in which they could express that opinion was by permitting the candidate to come forward again for election. He knew that it was quite possible for a man to spend a large sum of money in bribing a constituency; but he believed that this clause would be used by a Judge who had a dislike to a man's politics, or to a man himself, for the purpose of permanently disqualifying him. The whole of the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General, when he said that this was a clause in favour of the poor man, was wrong. It was a clause entirely in favour of the rich candidate, who, by means of his wealth, would be able to work much more subtilely than the poor man. He could make his wealth felt, and insure the opening out of a future market; whereas the poor man, if he came in contact with an impetuous, an ignorant, and occasionally a treacherous agent, would invariably be petitioned against and unseated. And the poor man was much more likely to have a treacherous agent than the rich man, who only worked by indirect
    744
    means, and knew very well the proper man to go to. Instead of guaranteeing freedom of election, the clause would have an entirely contrary effect, and would be entirely in favour of the man with corrupt motives. He, therefore, trusted that the Committee would refuse to pass it in its present form.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to answer the illustration which had been given by the hon. and learned Attorney General. His hon. and learned Friend spoke of a wealthy man spending a large sum of money in his election; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend must have forgotten the subsequent clauses of the Bill, because any candidate who expended more than a certain scheduled sum in an election would be held to be guilty of an illegal practice, and if convicted of an illegal practice would be debarred, not for seven years, but for ever, from representing the constituency with which the illegal practice had been associated. Now, he (Mr. Gorst) did not in the least object to a penalty which should debar a person from sitting for seven years, or even for ever, if he had himself been guilty of a corrupt practice; but he contended that under this Bill the illustration of his hon. and learned Friend would fail, because it would be impossible for any person to spend a lavish sum of money without rendering himself liable to a conviction for having committed an illegal expenditure. His hon. and learned Friend told the Committee that he pressed this clause in the interests of the constituencies themselves. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that in pressing his Amendment he was doing so in the interests of the constituencies. He thought the constituencies ought to be limited as little as possible in the choice of Representatives; and why should a constituency be unable to select a particular gentleman to represent them in Parliament because some agent, without his knowledge and consent, and contrary to his orders, had been guilty of corrupt practices? It seemed to him to be as much in the interests of the constituency as of the candidate that Parliament should make the penalty in this particular instance as light as possible, if it was to produce any beneficial effect.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, it appeared to him that the period of disqualification was placed at too high a

    745
    figure. What they wished to provide was, that the candidate who had been guilty of a lavish expenditure, and who had brought about his return, not on account of his political opinions being shared by the constituency, but because he had produced a considerable amount of corruption among the electors, should not, at the succeeding election, be able to obtain the benefit of that corrupt expenditure. That was what he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) intended to prevent by his Amendment. He (Mr. Hinde Palmer) thought that a period of seven years would about cover a period sufficient to prevent that. Personally, he should have been satisfied with an Amendment something like this: To provide that the candidate who had obtained his election through illegal practices should be disqualified from again appearing as a candidate during the then existing Parliament and the succeeding election. But in order to make the matter definite and regular, it would, perhaps, be better to adopt the period of seven years. He thought the period of disqualification specified in the clause was much too strong; and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), which provided that—
    "For ten years next after the date of the Report and his election, if he has been elected within such ten years, shall be void,"
    was also too strong. The middle course of adopting seven years would really accomplish all that was desired—namely, that the candidate whose election had been procured by means of illegal and corrupt practices should not reap the fruits of his lavish expenditure at one election by standing as a candidate at the next. He should, therefore, not vote for the provision that a person should be disqualified for ever; but he would support the proposition that he should be disqualified from becoming a candidate for a period of seven years, believing that such a penalty would produce all the effect desired.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had also placed an Amendment upon the Paper to provide that the disqualification should extend "during the continuance of that Parliament." He understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to leave it to the Committee to decide whether the period should be seven years or ten. He hoped the Committee
    746
    would remember the difference between Clauses 3 and 4. Anything in the way of extensive corruption of the constituency would certainly bring punishment upon the candidate, and disqualify him under Clause 3; and he thought it was impossible to believe that the agent would find a way to corrupt a constituency largely without the candidate knowing it; and, if it could be brought home to him, he would be dealt with by Clause 3. But in Clause 4 the Committee were dealing with comparatively small matters. The corrupt practices committed by the agent would only be in some isolated cases—some small cases, just sufficient, perhaps, to disqualify the candidate, but clearly of a very trifling character. He thought the Committee should remember the disqualification created by Clause 3. They had disqualified any candidate from sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years, if he were found guilty, directly or indirectly, of the slightest knowledge of corrupt practices during the election. Under those circumstances, he thought they might safely accept the limitation in this clause which he had suggested by his Amendment.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERremarked that two classes of constituencies had to be considered, and he thought the Committee would make a great mistake to deal with only one class. There was a class of small constituencies, consisting of from 1,000 to 2,000 electors, which could be nursed and so managed as to be subjected to a good deal of the influences to which the hon. and learned Attorney General had alluded. But there were also a number of constituencies consisting of a large number of electors to which the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend were totally inapplicable; and if ever this clause were brought in force against them, it would only be in consequence of the conduct of some ignorant and stupid agent who did something of which the candidate entirely disapproved. Of course, it would be a great mistake to make the Act affect the small boroughs, and shut out the large constituencies of the Kingdom. He could only re-echo what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) who preceded him. The hon. and gallant Member had pointed out the difference between Clauses 3 and 4, and reminded

    747
    the Committee that in Clause 4 they were not dealing with a guilty but an innocent candidate. They had dealt with the guilty candidate with great severity by Clause 3, and the hon. and learned Attorney General was bound to give them some illustration from the Election Petitions to justify the present clause. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was able to cite one case showing the injustice of the present law. It was a case in which an honoured Member, respected on both sides of the House, was unseated because an ignorant agent paid 10 s. wages to a man who had recorded his vote. Although the money was paid without the knowledge or sanction of the candidate, he was, nevertheless, unseated, and would have been incapable, according to the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, of sitting for the constituency for a period of 10 years. Happily, the existing law was in force, and the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred regained the seat, and had continued to fill it with great advantage to the constituency. He thought that very good reasons should be given before the Committee consented to increase the penalty, which was, in his opinion, sufficiently severe at present. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper had been referred to; and it was, therefore, only right that he should explain the reason which had induced him to put it down. He had done so in order to provide a middle course between the extreme penalty inserted in the Bill as originally drawn and the course now proposed to be taken. He entirely dissented from the principle of visiting with an extreme penalty a person who was entirely innocent, a consideration which ought never to be lost sight of. It must also be borne in mind that they could not punish the candidate without punishing the constituency. He spoke entirely in the interests of the constituencies, and he repeated that they could not punish the candidate without punishing the constituency. At the same time they might deter honourable and high-minded men from coming forward as candidates, which would be doing more harm to the constituencies than to the candidates. It would only
    748
    be men of great wealth, who were anxious, from personal objects, to get into the House of Commons, and who were ready to spend any amount of money in corrupting a constituency—it was only such persons who would be induced to come forward if these severe penalties were enacted. Therefore, when he proposed a period of 10 years, he simply did so as a compromise. He had no idea at the time he placed his Amendment on the Paper that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be willing to accept a lesser period. As the matter now stood, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 114: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the best course to take now would be to omit the word "ever" from the clause.
    Question, "That the word 'ever' in page 2, line 25, be left out," put, and agreed to.
    MR. SALTsaid, he believed that his Amendment came next—namely, after the word "borough," to insert "for seven years."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2 line 26, after "borough" insert "for seven years."—(Mr. Salt.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the Amendment would require one or two additional words. He had intended to propose "for 10 years next after the date of the Report," and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would require the addition of similar words, making it—
    "Seven years next after the date of the Report and his election, if he shall have been elected within such seven years, shall be void."
    If this alteration were not made it would be impossible to know for what period the seven years were to be computed. It would be necessary to strike out the words from "borough" to the end of the clause, and to substitute these words.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment at present before the Committee

    749
    was, after the word "borough" to insert the words "for seven years."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would propose to amend the Amendment by substituting for the word "seven" the word "five." He had already stated the view he took. He looked upon this clause as it now stood in the Bill as a thoroughly bad clause, and he wished to do everything in his power to lessen the evil and badness of the measure. He thought that five years would be a much better period of disqualification than seven years. One argument adduced by the hon. and learned Attorney General was that it was necessary to introduce safeguards for the next Parliament after a judgment had been delivered, declaring that corrupt practices had been committed. But the average length of Parliament was not more than five years, and the average length of the present Parliament was certainly not likely to be more than five years. Of course, it was possible that there might be a bye-election; but he thought the object of the hon. and learned Attorney General would be entirely gained by making the period five years. Disqualification for that period would be an ample punishment. At present the disqualification was only for one Parliament, and that was not more than three or four years on the average. Five years would, therefore, be greatly increasing the penalty. He wished, however, to call attention again to the fact that it was not a question between the rich man and the poor man; and he was glad to see in the Lobby, in the division which had just taken place, an hon. Member who was popularly supposed to represent the working men of England. He believed that a penal clause of this kind would operate just as much against the poor candidate as against a wealthy one, because an expenditure of 5s. worth of beer would entail just as heavy consequences as the lavish expenditure of a rich man; a trifling expenditure of that nature would be sufficient to unseat the candidate, and the penal consequences would be just the same. If they were to have such a very bad clause at all, and were to place themselves so completely under the Election Judges, they ought to minimize the penalties imposed by the Bill as much as possible; and if he received any support at all he would certainly divide the Committee upon
    750
    the period of five years as against seven.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "five,"—(Colonel Nolan,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would have been very glad indeed if this part of the Bill had been treated in a more scientific manner. They all saw there was a danger, and that through agents there might be considerable corruption, which ought to be severely dealt with by Judges. On the other hand, a very small amount of corruption might have the effect of exposing a candidate to very severe penalties; and what struck him as being unscientific was this—that a hard-and-fast line was laid down for everybody. No distinction was made between the cases in which the Judges found there had been a very large amount of treating by the connivance of agents and candidates and those cases in which there might be one or two small and trumpery cases of treating by agents, in which cases the penalty was to be visited upon the candidates. He had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend had in his mind the case of a candidate who, by means of his agent, had indulged in a large amount of treating. There could be no doubt that in recent cases treating had been more serious to deal with than bribery, because, while there had been little bribery, there had been a great deal of treating, and, in some cases, that treating had been done by the agents of the candidates. The candidate, under those circumstances, ought to submit to the penalty which was due to the offence; but, having now given to treating the character of a corrupt practice, the Committee were afraid lest some trifling matters might be made into very serious crimes, and that the candidate whose agent had been guilty of some small indiscretions might be exposed to serious penalties. That was the unscientific part of the clause to which he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and he believed if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult with his hon. And

    751
    learned Friend the Solicitor General, he would find that the Solicitor General had, in a public manner, expressed an opinion very much in accordance with the view he (Mr. Rylands) was now submitting to the Committee. If the clause was to remain without any definition, he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Attorney General could have suggested some words which could have given the Judge some power to distinguish between different degrees of treating.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment to that effect. The Amendment at present before the Committee is whether "five" shall be substituted for "seven."
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that as the matter now stood, if his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) went to a division, he should certainly vote with him, because he thought that five years was certainly a sufficient penalty under the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)opposed the Amendment. He believed that if the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member were adopted it might possibly happen that the period of disqualification would be less than at present, because both of the last Parliaments had lasted more than five years.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was anxious to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he would alter his Amendment to "five years, or the existence of the present Parliament."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would support the clause as it originally stood if the hon. and learned Attorney General would give them some definition of "agency." To show them how important it was, he would recommend hon. Members to read the opinion of Mr. Baron Dowse. In one of his Judgments Mr. Baron Dowse said—
    "We came to the conclusion that every kind of treating given is corrupt. There is not a single Petition in England, Ireland, or Scotland, where the Member should not be unseated; indeed, I have often thought if there was a Petition in every case, and everybody knew what happened in every case, we would have no House of Commons at all."
    That showed the importance of viewing these matters carefully.
    THE CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member was absent a long discussion took place about the definition of
    752
    "agency;" and the Question now before the Committee is that the word "seven" stand part of the clause.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was showing how reasonable it was they should lessen the punishment for the act of an agent. Mr. Baron Dowse continued—
    "If we were satisfied that any one agent gave a single man a treat for the purpose of influencing his vote, I would not have the slightest hesitation in saying I would be bound to unseat the Member."
    As the agency question was not settled, they should minimize the punishment as much as possible. This was not a Bill to make pure elections; it was a Bill to cheapen elections. It was evidently a Bill for the purpose of placing men who had to employ agents at a disadvantage to those who belonged to the popular organizations which were known as the Caucus; and he certainly did think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had a right to complain, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself might be for ever disqualified from sitting, not for Galway, but for any other constituency. If his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division he should follow him into the Lobby.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 77: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, in page 2, line 26, to insert after "years," "next after the date of the Report."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had tried, but he was utterly unable to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman was proposing.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he agreed to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wanted to propose an addition of some words to the clause. He did not desire to press the words upon the Government at the present moment; but he merely threw that out for the consideration of the Committee, and if the Committee was favourable to the words, and if they were received with favour by Her Majesty's Government, he should have no objection to withdraw them for the present, upon the Government promising that

    753
    the matter should receive favourable consideration on Report. He was most anxious that some words should be put in the clause to protect the innocent Member of Parliament. If there should be such a thing as a really innocent Member of Parliament, a Member who had done his utmost to secure a pure election, who had so far succeeded that his election had been in the main a pure one, he (Mr. Gorst) wanted to prevent him being unseated for the act of one man. The Judges had often expressed regret at the rigidity of the present law, and at the necessity which devolved upon them to unseat a man on account of one or two isolated acts which he had been unable to control, and which were done contrary to his express orders. He wanted to induce the Committee to accept something like this—that if it was true that corrupt practices had been committed by a man's agent, his election should be primâ facie void; but it should be open to him to put himself in the witness-box before the Election Court, and prove affirmatively that he had done everything in his power, by care in the appointment of his election agent, and by his management of the election, to secure a pure election; and that if the Election Court was satisfied on those two points, as well as upon the insignificance of the corrupt practices, the election should, instead of being void, be held valid. The words, which he understood had received the support of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he proposed to add to the clause were—
    "Unless such candidate can prove to the satisfaction of the Election Court that he exercised due care in the appointment and control of his agent, and in the general conduct of the election, and that the corrupt practices proved have not affected, the result of the election."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee would notice that there were to the Amendment two distinct objections. The first was that the candidate should keep his seat; and the second was that the corrupt portion of the constituency should prevail over the pure portion of the constituency. [Mr. GORST: Just the contrary.] He repeated his assertion. The candidate should not lose his seat. What did that mean? That the corrupt portion of the constituency who had voted for him would keep their Member. ["No!"]
    754
    They were now saying that the candidate should not lose his seat; therefore, that the constituency should be in the position of being represented by a person who might have a majority of votes obtained by corrupt means. ["No, no!"] That was the view the proposal presented. The proposed addition provided that the election should not be void if the candidate could prove that he had exercised due care in the selection of his agent and in the management of the election. He perfectly appreciated such a provision. The proof that the candidate had exercised due care in the appointment and control of his agent meant nothing at all, because he might actually appoint an agent to get rid of the liability. A man would always say there was no want of care in the appointment of his agent, and that he did all he could to procure a pure election, so that that part of the Amendment would be no safeguard at all. Then, as to the second point, that the election should be held valid if the Court was satisfied, amongst other things, that the corrupt practices had not altered the result of the election, why, when they were dealing with corruption, the greater the corruption the less possibility there was of proving that it had had any influence in the election. In the case of the Sandwich Petition, they knew that 1,400 in a constituency of 2,000 had received bribes; but they never proved a single case. The agent came up and swore he had not bribed anyone, and the men said they had never received a farthing; but afterwards they admitted they had committed perjury. In a severe contest before an Election Judge, and when it was known the seat was at stake, men would not confess to corrupt practices; and the consequence would be that the Judge would not be able to say that corrupt practices had prevailed to such an extent as to influence the result. The practical issue would be that all Election Petitions would be of no avail. Under such an arrangement every voter would be more careful to keep back information, and power would be given to the corrupt element instead of the pure element of the constituency. This question had come before a Select Committee of the House in 1875, and the proposition now before the Committee was negatived, although at the time it was deemed worthy of consideration. He was desirous to assist

    755
    candidates who were innocent of the acts of their agents, if it were possible to do so; but the Government had to consider also the interest of the constituents. Although he could make no promise that the clause would be altered in the direction indicated, the matter should be considered before Report; and, with that assurance, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would consent to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one that might be accepted, and that upon it the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham might be withdrawn. It was a matter for regret that the question of limiting the period of disqualification under the clause to seven years had been voted upon in the last division by a number of Gentlemen who had not heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he stated, in reference to the term of disqualification, that he was willing to consult the feeling of the Committee. There had clearly been a miscarriage of the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and, therefore, he thought the question ought in fairness to be raised again.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONwas understood to say that the words which, in his opinion, would best meet the case were those which he had moved at an earlier period of the discussion on this clause.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was willing, as he had before stated, to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the Government would consider the point. He should be quite willing to accept another wording as long as it embodied the principle he had in view. They ought to throw upon the sitting Member all the responsibility of proving affirmatively that he had taken due care in the appointment and control of his agents, and. that the election was a pure one.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought the objections put forward by the hon. and learned Attorney General would be obviated by the following words being added at the end of the clause:—
    "Unless the Election Court shall certify that they do not think the candidates ought to be considered responsible for such corrupt practices, and that such corrupt practices have not affected the result of the election."
    COLONEL NOLANremarked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had mixed together the offences of bribery, treating, and the exercise of undue influence, all of which had been carefully separated in former Acts. He thought the argument as to the 1,400 voters used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not applicable to the case put forward by hon. Members who were contending that a candidate ought not to be unseated for a trivial act. He thought that, before the clause was allowed to pass, some intimation should be given to hon. Members of what the alteration would be.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Punishment of person convicted on indictment of corrupt practices).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, by this Bill treating was made a corrupt practice, and punished criminally. Under the old law, treating never rendered a man liable to criminal punishment. He wished the Committee to consider carefully the penalty to which a man rendered himself liable for paying for a glass of beer for another man. He was to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction on indictment, he was liable to be imprisoned for two years, with or without hard labour, and to be fined any sum not exceeding £500. He was convinced that any legislation which created sympathy with the offender was retrogressive; and he knew no more dangerous support of electoral corruption than that which was afforded by undue punishment. He did not propose to ask the Committee to exempt treating altogether, for hon. Members would observe on the next page of the Amendment Paper that he proposed to make it an offence punishable, on summary conviction, by three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, and a fine of £5 for each act of treating. That, he thought, would prevent the offence to a very great extent; but the proposal that it should be punished by imprisonment with hard labour for two years, and a fine of £500, he believed, the Committee would not agree to; and, therefore, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 28, after "practice," insert "other than treating, as defined in this Act."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, in his view, punishment should be speedy and complete. But he objected to undue severity, and considered that small punishments on summary conviction were better than heavy ones on indictment, his reason being that people, when the election was over, did not, as a rule, want to prosecute. He could not help thinking that the smaller punishment of two years' imprisonment summarily inflicted was preferable to its infliction on indictment together with a heavy fine.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the question raised by the Amendment was not as to the severity of the punishment to be inflicted, the desirability of retaining which, as expressed in the clause, the Committee would have an opportunity of considering later on. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton made two suggestions, the first being that they should declare treating to be a venial practice as compared with bribery, and that a distinction should in consequence be made between the two offences. The second suggestion was that they should take away from the accused person the protection of trial by jury, and allow him to be summarily dealt with by a tribunal composed of the local Justices. He would willingly see the matter dealt with summarily by the local Justices if it were practicable. But did the Committee think that cases of the kind ought to be submitted to a tribunal composed of men who had themselves taken part in the election, and were either on one side of politics or another? It certainly appeared to him that such a tribunal was not fitted calmly and judicially to decide the guilt or innocence of those who, with respect to some of them, would necessarily be their political opponents. He was convinced that the accused person would not wish to come before such a tribunal, and he was equally sure that no such tribunal would wish to exercise the power proposed to be vested in it. The accused person, under the clause, would
    758
    have the protection afforded by a jury, who would have to be convinced that he had acted corruptly; and he could not but regard this as better than that the local Justices should deal summarily with the case. With regard to the view that treating was to be regarded by the Legislature as a venial offence in connection with Parliamentary elections, the Judges might, of course, be of opinion that such acts had not affected the result of a particular election; but he felt sure the Committee would admit that treating was a growing evil, more especially from the increased importance given to it in connection with municipal elections. It was proposed to deal with corrupt practices at municipal elections after they had disposed of the present measure. If, therefore, the legislation with regard to municipalities was to be founded upon this Bill, he asked, would it not be unwise for Parliament to admit that treating was but a venial offence? Knowing what he did of the growth of treating in the country, he should fear the consequences of a legislative declaration that it should not be dealt with in the same manner as bribery. Were they to say that treating should not be visited with the same moral comdemnation, they would, so far from doing all in their power to put an end to it, be, in his opinion, lending encouragement to this growing evil. The Committee would have an opportunity, when the next Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was reached, of saying whether in their view it should be visited with a lesser punishment. But, in the meantime, he prayed the Committee to consider whether they could at this time declare with safety that treating at Parliamentary elections was an act which would bear the light of day. On the grounds he had stated he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. GORSTsaid, with respect to the hon. and learned Attorney General there was only one issue before the Committee, and that was whether treating ought to be placed in a different category from bribery and other corrupt practices. For his own part, he thought it would be a great mistake if they were to deal with treating by a rule different to that which they applied to other corrupt practices, because he could imagine cases of wholesale treating which would

    759
    be quite as bad in themselves as bribery. With, regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, on the subject of dealing with corrupt practices generally by summary jurisdiction, he hoped that whatever vote hon. Members felt fit to give on this Amendment, they would not be understood to prejudge that question. The most important point was to secure the speedy and certain punishment of the offence, and that he did not think a very heavy penalty was calculated to effect. He believed that this would be most easily secured by having a scale of punishment which might be inflicted immediately on the offender by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In that way no person need be deprived of the protection afforded, by having his case decided upon by a jury, because if a person preferred to be tried by a jury he could always claim to be so tried under the Act passed in 1879. It was only necessary to make the penalty imprisonment, say, for four months, and then the offender, when charged before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, could claim to be tried by a jury, whereupon the proceedings would be suspended, and an indictment preferred against him at the next Sessions or Assizes. However, his principal object in rising was to press upon the Committee that in deciding this particular Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, they were not prejudging the question as to whether corrupt practices ought not to be dealt with summarily.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the effect of his hon. and learned Friend's suggestion would be to put treating and bribery on the same level. It meant simply the bringing back of bribery from its position as an indictable offence to that of an offence punishable by four months' imprisonment before a magistrate. That he thought the Committee would never submit to. He should, therefore, vote for the clause as it stood. Everyone knew that treating was just as influential a corrupt practice as bribery, which might be the giving of the most trumpery thing in the world; and he submitted that the two offences ought to be classed, as they were in this Bill, in the same category.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was willing to leave these offences to be dealt with by a Judge and jury, and in that respect
    760
    he confidently accepted the clause as it stood at present. It had been his intention to move the omission of the whole of the monetary penalty; but, on further consideration, he thought the clause had better remain as it was. He did not think that any Judge would wantonly imprison a man for two years; but he certainly objected to the Judge having the power of disqualifying him for 10 years, and, therefore, he should use his best endeavours to amend the Bill on that point.
    MR. WARTONagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there was only one point before the Committee. That point was, as to whether there was any difference between bribery and treating, and here he disagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There had always been a distinction between these two offences, and even the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had been obliged to put it in this way—that wholesale treating was as bad as bribery. No one would say that treating in the shape of giving food or drink was so serious, or could be so degrading to the giver or the recipient, as the giving and receiving of money. It was mere hypocrisy to say that treating was as bad as the payment of money when they knew that it was not. He hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would press to a division this most important Amendment, which made a distinction between the two offences of bribery and treating.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDcontended that the penalty of imprisonment was sufficiently severe without hard labour, and, therefore, moved that the words which provided for the infliction of hard labour be omitted from the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "with or."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words "with or" stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was compelled, to oppose the Amendment. It was not proposed to make bribery a felony; but, at the same time, if it was the intention to take a step in advance in the direction of putting it down, he did not know of any better mode of dealing with it

    761
    than by legislation declaring it to be a misdemeanour punishable with hard labour. His opinion was very strong that, if they were to deal effectively with this evil, offenders must be brought down to the level of the ordinary law.
    MR. WARTONargued that men could not be made criminal merely by having that epithet applied to them. Should the Amendment be rejected, the public would be horrified and disgusted at the severity of the punishment to which bribers would be liable. The Attorney General ought to remember the anger of the people at the shameful sentences recently passed upon respectable solicitors and others, when there were men on the Ministerial side of the House who escaped punishment altogether, though steeped to the lips in bribery.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): If the hon. and learned Member's statement that there are many Members of this House steeped in bribery is correct, the sooner we make the offence punishable with hard labour the better.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the tribunal could inflict one day's imprisonment, or a £500 fine. He did not object to a small money fine, because it might be put as a nominal penalty; but he did object to a large one, and to a Judge having power to inflict a £500 fine or imprisonment. To the rich man, to whom imprisonment would be everything, a £500 fine would be nothing, and he would have no difficulty in paying it. The poor man, however, would be utterly unable to pay it, and would of necessity have to undergo imprisonment.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed the severity of the punishment under this clause would have an effect exactly contrary to that anticipated by the hon. and learned Attorney General; therefore, he should support the Amendment to mitigate the penalty, which was believed throughout the country to be excessive.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that, having regard to the hon. and learned Attorney General's indignant tone in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should like the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain to the House, if he was able to do it, the peculiar modes whereby
    762
    the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had won his seat for Scarborough.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Attorney General wished to maintain the extreme penalties, for the reasons he had already stated. He could not help thinking that this should press upon the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman—that when there was a Petition presented, and the Judge reported bribery, and a Commission was held, a few persons might be scheduled and imprisoned, and a large number equally guilty, perhaps, on the other side, might get off. If, however, summary proceedings were taken, and substantial penalties inflicted, there would be a great chance of obtaining a much larger number of convictions, and of stopping the whole thing. He should have liked to see a provision in the Bill for the appointment of an officer to attend every election on the part of the Public Prosecutor, and deal summarily with offenders against whom bribery could be proved. In this way they would be able to stop corrupt practices. He was very much afraid, however, that the severity of the punishment in the Bill would defeat the object the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should be very glad to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's views if he could. He had already, to some extent, carried them out by giving the Judge summary powers in certain cases. How could they appoint an officer under the Public Prosecutor to attend every election? It would necessitate the appointment of, at least, 400 barristers at a General Election to go down to the various constituencies for the purpose of preventing or punishing corrupt practices.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 132: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 84.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, they were closely approaching the time at which it was understood that Progress should be reported; and he therefore hoped the Committee would let him now make a statement which he thought would carry them a step further. Clause 5 imposed

    763
    a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding £500. He thought he understood it to be the feeling of the Committee that although the crime should be regarded as one of a grave nature, at the same time the punishment should not be too severe. He quite agreed that they would be more likely to obtain convictions if they deprived counsel for the defence of the weapon of being able to say to the tribunal—"You are about to send that man, who has hitherto held a good position and been considered a respectable man, to a long term of imprisonment." The Government thought they should take the opportunity of limiting the term, therefore they were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and reduce the two years to one year. As to the money penalty, it was necessary that the Court should have the power of inflicting a severe one; otherwise, in grave offences, it would not have recourse to a fine, but would consider itself bound to inflict imprisonment. Of course, it would not be necessary, if the maximum fine was heavy, to inflict it in any case upon a poor man. He had thought it better, considering all the circumstances of the case, to give the Court an opportunity of imposing a large fine. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham sought to reduce the sum to £100; but he (the Attorney General) could not consent to that. He would agree to reduce the £500 to £200. The Committee, however, bearing this statement in mind, would settle the points itself—whether the two years should be reduced to one year, and the £500 fine reduced to a £200 fine.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "two years," and insert "one year."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTventured to say that even one year was a most frightful punishment to impose in a case of this kind. Without making a speech on the question—for they had
    764
    heard quite enough speeches on it—he should move that the term be reduced to three months, which would have a sufficiently deterrent effect. He was satisfied that if they were to have a punishment of this kind it should be a lenient one, rather than almost as severe a one as it was possible to inflict.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, hon. Members must bear in mind that the period of imprisonment decided upon need not be inflicted in every case. It would be the maximum. He could not think how the Committee could say that, however gross was the corruption, it should not be within the discretion of the Judge to inflict a severe penalty. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Attorney General had gone as far as he could go in the way of mitigation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that one year be there inserted.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: No; I have moved to reduce it to three months.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee do not insert the one year, the term can be reduced to three months.
    MR. WARTON: I rise to Order. We have decided that "two years" shall not remain in the Bill—nothing else. The hon. and learned Attorney General has not moved that "one year" be inserted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question I put was, "That two years be there inserted." That was negatived, and then I moved, "That one year be there inserted."
    MR. WARTON: Is it open to the Chairman to move "one year?" Taking it from you, Sir, that two years has been negatived, and that the hon. and learned Attorney General has not moved the insertion of one year, I would submit that it is perfectly competent for the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to move "that three months be inserted."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The two years having been struck out, I moved the remainder of the Amendment, "That one year be inserted." If that is not passed, the hon. and gallant Baronet can move the insertion of three months. The former Question, however, must be decided first. The Question is, "That one year be there inserted."
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the Committee was not going to accede to

    765
    the proposition to insert in the Bill this enormous penalty of one year's imprisonment with hard labour. They who had to deal with prosecutions in the country knew that in cases of house-breaking, aggravated assaults, and so on, one year's imprisonment with hard labour was one of the most severe penalties imposed. If the term of one year were inserted in the Bill, it would entirely defeat its own object. He ventured to say that those who would have to administer the Bill would be able to do so with far greater effect if a reasonable and moderate penalty were adopted. A penalty of one year's imprisonment would, under no circumstances, be justified or justifiable. Its magnitude and excessive nature would defeat its own object, and would be fatal to the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, this was a very important point; but as they were fast nearing the time at which the Prime Minister had promised to proceed with other important Business, he thought it would be as well to defer the settlement of the matter in dispute. He could not have agreed to the term of three months; but thought that six months might meet the case. However, as this was to be such a severe penalty for what might be such a trifling offence, he would put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he could not, between this and to-morrow morning, make up his mind to insert a smaller penalty than one year. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would allow them to determine this one question. The term to be inserted would be the maximum penalty. They had heard of cases where adventurers had utterly corrupted constituencies; where they had gone round in a most reckless manner bribing everyone they could bribe, and had utterly destroyed the effect of an election. This clause would give a learned Judge discretionary power to mete out adequate punishment for such a gross case as that. He hoped they would now be allowed to come to a division.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not go to a division on his Motion to report Progress, as he thought it was better to get through the Bill as soon as possible. As the Chairman had declared that the Question before him was that the words "one year" be inserted, he thought the most advantageous course for those who thought one year a severe penalty would be to take a division upon that, because then it would be possible to propose six months instead of three. For his own part, he thought three months would not be adequate to meet the public sentiment with regard to these offences. At the same time, there was a great deal to be said for those who thought a year a great deal too much; and he was certain that a great many who remembered the feeling almost of horror which went through the country in regard to the sentences passed last year would understand that there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment. If the proposal should be successfully resisted, he should give his cordial support to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), or any other hon. Member who proposed six months as the limit. In the meantime, he hoped the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, in order that this question might be decided.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought hon. Members opposite must have forgotten the discussion which took place before dinner, as to candidates being made responsible for their agents. He thought the only effective plan to prevent corrupt practices was to impose a sufficient imprisonment on those who committed these practices; and unless such penalties were inserted as would deter agents, for which the candidates might be made responsible, he did not see what safeguard there would be. If the maximum was one year, no Judge would be likely to impose the maximum; and he hoped the Committee would support the hon. and learned Attorney General.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 79: Majority 196.—(Div. list, No. 85.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he hoped Progress would now be reported, because he bad another Amendment to propose.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    MOTION FOR LEAVE.

      IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS.
      MR. GLADSTONE: As the House is aware, Sir, the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment embraces three important principal subjects. One of these is the government of Ireland, including the particular question which has been made known to the House with regard to the release of such of those suspected persons now in confinement as are not believed to be, or suspected of being, implicated in crime; the second relates to the Bill for the Prevention of Crime, which, is already before the House; and the third relates to the mode of dealing with, arrears of rent in Ireland, with respect to which we have given pledges, and which I now rise to redeem. I may as well say, before touching the subject directly, inasmuch as the proposal we have to make imposes a new duty on the Land Commission—I may, perhaps, say a few words to show that the Land Commission is in a condition likely to be able to cope with that duty. It has been reinforced, as the House is aware, by the appointment of a considerable number of Sub-Commissioners; and the Courts, of which there are now 16, are in full operation, and the progress they make is large, and, I think, satisfactory. The total number of cases of which they have now disposed, although small with reference to the applications that have been lodged, yet is large with reference to the figures that have been reported at former dates. It amounts, down, I think, to April 15th—therefore now it will be much larger—to 12,402, that
      768
      number embracing the numbers dealt with by being struck out or withdrawn, and the numbers settled by voluntary agreement, the appeals are also proceeding with considerable rapidity, the number of those that have been dealt with up to May 10th being 359, and it is believed rapid progress will be made, as they now form, more or less, into various classes, and they are now disposed of with greater facility. The rate at which the cases of judicial rent are decided somewhat exceeds 900 per week, that including what are dealt with by Sub-Commissioners; what are dealt with by County Court Judges; and likewise the voluntary agreements which are made between landlord and tenant, and which are registered in the Land Courts. The House, if it applies that number which I have last given—of over 900—to the operations of the entire year, will perceive that the progress is now very rapid; and it may be said that the Commission, and the Subaltern Courts, are in a condition to meet with and dispose of the great mass of business that has been brought before them. Now, Sir, with regard to the subject that is before us, there is one other preliminary observation I have to make. I propose to ask the House, in this Bill, to legislate upon arrears alone, and not to touch any other subject whatever connected with the Land Act, or with the amendment of that Act. On a former occasion, in adverting to the particulars of the Bill introduced by several hon. Gentlemen opposite, I admitted that there were certain points—and I named two of them—on which a very strong argument might be made in favour of the amendment of the Act—of such amendment of the Act as can be fairly conceived to be amendment in furtherance of the Act, and for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions which it contains. But it is, I think, inevitable that if any question were to be raised on these points, it would have the effect of inducing hon. Members to raise other questions, and to load the Bill for Arrears with possibly a variety of subjects, which we think it best to hold entirely apart from it, because I have a hope—it is a hope that may be disappointed, like many others, but I own I do not despair of seeing it realized—that this subject, with which, I believe, there is a general disposition to deal, and see settled, may be easily dealt

      769
      with; and if the plan we propose, to which the House is, I think, certainly prepared to give a general acceptance, is agreed to, we may be able to secure for it the advantage of a rapid and easy passage through the House, and for that considerable portion of the people of Ireland interested in the adoption of a good plan on this subject the great benefit of reaping an early access to the operation of these provisions. Therefore, that observation I make, not in a spirit of controversy, but rather in a spirit of appeal to all those who wish to see this question settled; and I think they will be disposed to recognize with me that, without in any manner prejudging any other question relating to the amendment of the Land Act, we shall do wisely to keep the question of the Land Act separate from any other subject. Again, let me say that the plan which we lay before the House is, I hope, conceived in a spirit which on a former occasion I endeavoured to describe. We look at it as a matter which it is equally in the interests of all parties to settle by equitable arrangement. No doubt, if an extreme view be taken of the subject, either from the position of the landlord or that of the tenant, objections maybe made, because the principle upon which we proceed is one of composition. We ask each person to make some effort, or some sacrifice, in order to bring them together to the common point at which, and at which alone, it is possible to effect a general and complete settlement. I will state very briefly the particulars of the plan. It is not difficult to do so, because, in truth, it is not a new creation, but it grows out of other legislation, actual or proposed, which is now before the House. The House will bear in mind that the Act already contains a clause, and an important clause, on the subject of arrears; and many of the particulars embodied in that clause are perfectly available for the plan which we now propose. They have been adopted from that clause standing in the Act. They have been incorporated into the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) and other hon. Members sitting near him and sympathizing with him upon this subject. The real question that the House has to decide is which plan you will adopt of two bases of proceeding. Will you attempt
      770
      to proceed by the method of loan and purely voluntary arrangement; or will you attempt to proceed by the method of compulsion, which evidently involves the necessity of something in the shape of a gift? We have endeavoured to consider that subject with all the advantages of the light we could obtain. We made an effort to proceed by loan last year, and the experience obtained by that effort has not encouraged us to make a further effort in the same direction. It has not been entirely devoid of good fruit; but still the good fruit it has produced has been so limited that it has left the bulk of the question of arrears of rent in Ireland untouched by its operation. Several Gentlemen of great weight and authority in this House have advised that we should still make another effort of the same kind, but more liberal in its character, involving, I am bound to say, if it is to be more liberal, something of the principle of a gift. But, in our view, if we are to introduce the principle of a gift into the measure, it is much better to go one step further, and to combine with the principle of gift the principle of compulsion, so as to have the prospect of obtaining something like completeness and efficacy in the measure we desire to apply. I had an opportunity, some weeks ago, of speaking upon this subject, and I then submitted to the House that if we were to proceed upon the principle of gift, combined with compulsion, instead of the principle of loan, combined with purely voluntary arrangement, we should recognize, on the whole, the clause embodied in the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) as a clause carefully devised in a spirit not inequitable to any of the parties concerned. I need hardly remind the House that these compulsory methods of procedure in cases of property are not infrequent in grave and difficult circumstances. It was upon this principle that the House dealt with the Emancipation of the Negroes in 1833, offering a partial compensation, but requiring—and it was perfectly fair, under the circumstances, to require—a considerable sacrifice from those who had previously been by law entitled to their labour. It was on the same principle that at the time the House made a provision to re-imburse, up to a certain point, the tithe-owners of Ireland in respect of the

      771
      tithes, which at that period had been generally and universally withheld, the State took over the claim, of the tithe-owner to the tithe, and compensated him, not entirely, but up to a certain point. On the same principle, when the State proceeded to the commutation of tithes in Ireland, it made a reduction of 25 per cent in the gross amount of the tithe, and enforced that measure, with that deduction, upon every tithe-owner in the country. Again, once more, when the State proceeded to deal with the commutation of tithes under the much milder circumstances of England, it took away, on the principle of general policy, for the ultimate benefit of all parties, from the English tithe-owner his undoubted legal right to his whole increment of the soil and tithes, leaving his income varied according to the variations of price that might prevail at subsequent times. I only advert to these matters to show that, in coming forward with the principle of compulsory compensation, there is nothing novel in our proposition, nor anything that ought to startle or repel, provided only that the plan be a plan formed in the spirit of general equity as between the parties among themselves, and as between the State and those parties separately. Now, Sir, I will go over the particulars of the plan, which very nearly corresponds in many points, if not in the main principle, with the clause in the Act of last year, and both in the main principle and in most of the details with the clause in the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). I take first, Sir, this point, that in the section of the Act of 1881, the application is a joint application of landlord and tenant. In the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross it is an application by the tenant only. In the Bill that we propose it is an application either by the tenant or by the landlord. We think it equitable, in introducing this principle of compulsion, to make it a principle which shall be applicable to be brought into operation on the demand of either party. The limit of valuation, above which the measure shall not operate, was taken by the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross from the Act of last year, and we still propose to adhere to it. It is the limit of Griffith's valuation—£30. That stands in our present Bill as it stands in the Act of 1881. Well then, Sir, we come to another pro-
      772
      vision, which is also common to the three schemes, and that is the requiring of the tenant the payment of a year's rent. The hon. Member for New Ross very justly and properly requires that the tenant should pay a year's rent, or whatever the landlord may be content to accept as a year's rent, in respect of the year from November, 1880, to November, 1881, and there we adhere to the principle which he has adopted, that principle being the same as that of the Act of 1881. The next principle is one that is not found in the Act of 1881, but it is one that has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman and his Coadjutors in the framing of their Bill, and, as we think, with great propriety. It is the requiring that the tenant shall give proof before a competent tribunal of his inability to pay before he shall come forward with a demand, on the one hand, upon the funds of the State—that is to say, upon the public funds—or, on the other hand, upon his landlord. We make, however, this difference—I do not know whether it is more a difference of detail than of principle—but we make a certain difference in that provision which has not been introduced into the Bill now before the House. The plan must be worked through the medium of the Land Commission. The payments must be worked through their medium. But, of course, it is not possible that the Land Commission themselves—namely, the Chief Commissioners, could be the proper or convenient recipients of the proof of the inability of the tenant to pay. Naturally, they look first of all to their own Sub-Commissioners—but we propose, also, that they shall be permitted to delegate that duty to the County Court Judges, so that the proof of the inability of the tenant to pay, which is to be essentially the condition of this title to profit by the Bill, may be made either before the Sub-Commissioners or before the County Court Judges. That is a provision which extends and widens the operation of the plan by giving increased facility to go before the Commission. Then the former plan—that of 1881—was a plan of advance, with a provision for repayments by instalments, extending over 15 years. This is now to be converted into a plan of pure gift, so far as the contribution of the State is concerned. The limitation of the amount is the same as that which was con-

      773
      tained in the Act of 1881. It was there applied to the loan; it is here to be applied to the gift or contribution of the State towards the liquidation of arrears—that is to say, it is to be an amount of payment which is not to exceed either one year's rent, or one-half of the total arrears which are to be dealt with. The House will understand that when we speak of arrears in the sense of this Bill, we do not include anything that refers to the payment between November, 1880, and November, 1881; but a year means what is anterior to those dates. Then, of course, it is a condition in this case that when the tenant shall have paid, or got quit of, by arrangement with the landlord, the year's rent from November, 1880, to November, 1881, and when the State shall have made its contribution, which cannot exceed one year's rent, nor can it exceed one-half of the total arrears that may be due, the whole of the rest of the arrears shall be cancelled and released altogether. That is the basis of the plan in its main particulars. There are some other points, however, that ought to be mentioned. We adopt a provision from the Act of 1881, under which it was provided that the parties might assign to the year 1881 any moneys paid by the tenant within 12 months before the passing of the Act. But the word "parties" there we modify, and we carry over the power to the Court. The parties were the proper persons to act under the Act of 1881, where the arrangement was entirely of a voluntary character; but here it is evidently the public authority that ought to decide whether the payment the tenant ought to make within a given time before the passing of the Act ought to be set down to the credit of the year 1880–1 or not. Some provision of this kind is quite necessary for the purposes of the Act. The case of estates in Ireland, it appears to me, so far as I can learn, is exceedingly different from the case of estates in England. In England, I apprehend, there are few estates that have not more or less of arrears draggling in their account; but for the most part they are very slight, and commonly very small, fragments of rent in arrear; so that while there are, perhaps, comparatively few estates absolutely and entirely without them, yet they are insignificant. In Ireland, on the contrary, it appears that
      774
      there are a large number of estates with no arrears whatever; but, on the other hand, there are a considerable number of estates which have what may be called inveterate arrears, many of them hopeless arrears—arrears that are traditional—which pass from father to son, and which are carried on in a sluggish and inert state; and payments received from the tenant, although made out of the proceeds of a particular year, are not set down to the credit of that year, but are set down and carried backwards to the credit of some former years in which the rent was not paid at all and with which these payments have nothing whatever to do. I do not discuss that system as a system now; but it is quite evident that it would be absurd, in view of that system, not to make some provision in an Act of this kind, under which sums that were really obtained by means of the crop and the industry of the year 1880–1 may be put down to the credit of that year. Well, Sir, there is a clause to this effect—it need not be dwelt upon; but it has reference to the circumstance, especially in Ireland, that there is a rateable distribution where the rent is due to any person other than the landlord. That is a sub-clause, which was in the Act of 1881 adopted by the hon. Gentleman, and which we also adopt from that 'Act. There was a clause in the Act of last year to provide that tenants evicted since a certain date should not be excluded from the benefit of the Act, and that provision we adopt and incorporate into the Bill that we shall lay upon the Table. Then I come to the time during which applications may be made under this plan, and the date that we propose to fix is the date of the 30th of June, 1883. That, of course, would not mean that all applications must have been disposed of at that date, but that all applications must have been regularly lodged. I think it will be felt that we have given a very ample time for making these applications. It is not desirable that it should be a very long one, and I think the period allowed is a very liberal period, and I know not whether a shorter one would be sufficient. At any rate, I think it is ample for its purpose. Then, as to the source from which the public contributions is to be derived, we follow the rule of the Act of 1881. We propose to take it, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for New

      775
      Ross (Mr. Redmond) proposed to take it, and as the Act of 1881 proposed to take it, from the Surplus of the Irish Church Temporalities; and should that prove insufficient, in so far as it may prove insufficient we propose to provide it from the Consolidated Fund. I ought, perhaps, here to say, as a matter of form, that I have not asked the House to go preliminarily into Committee, which, of course, would be required before any clause could be inserted in a Bill which touched the Consolidated Fund; but I should ask the House to go into Committee on that clause before we go into Committee on the Bill, and in that way the Forms of the House would be complied with. It would not have been a convenient opportunity for explaining the details of the Bill, and on that account we have postponed the time for asking the formal sanction of the House. Then there is a provision of the Act of 1881 which has the effect of applying the peculiar Irish law known as equity of redemption, giving six months for redemption to the evicted tenant, to this Bill, and to say that a person having the benefit of this six months equity of redemption may be entitled to come under this Bill, and obtain the relief which it gives him in respect of arrears. I believe I have now gone over all the points that I need mention to the House. But, with respect to the amounts, I ought, perhaps, to give the House as much information as I can. It will be naturally inquired what is the probable amount of the demand that may be made for the liquidation of these arrears, in order to give effect to the Bill as a whole, and how much of that amount we expect to be able to draw from the Church Surplus. In submitting any estimate on a subject of this kind to the House, I do it with a fair warning that it is impossible to ascertain with any approach to strict accuracy the particulars I am going to mention. We have in Ireland very able officers, who have given their minds to this subject, and I speak with some degree of confidence; but the House will observe that, in regard to such a question as to the total amount of arrears of rent outstanding in a country, the very nature of the subject shows that, as these arrears are in no way within the cognizance of any ordinary public authority, any estimate which may be made of
      776
      them must be received with indulgence. As regards the value of the Church Surplus, after it has satisfied the claims already established against it, I can speak with a nearer approach to appreciation; and what I should say is this—that the value of the Church Surplus not already pledged for the purposes for which it has been already used will not be more than £1,500,000; and I have no reason to believe that the claims which, under this Bill, would be made on the public funds for the liquidation of arrears would exceed, if they reach, the sum of £2,000,000. I do not think it would be prudent to state them at an amount lower than that; but I am bound to say, in regard to a question of this kind, that I think it is a very serious responsibility to deal with it at all. It is a subject of the utmost difficulty; and the precedent it establishes is of so grave a character, that nothing but a very strong sense of public necessity ought to induce us to meddle with it. But if you do undertake to meddle with it, in my opinion, it is better that the plan should satisfy, not only the condition of being generally equitable as between the parties affected, but likewise the condition of being effectual. I entirely concur with those who think that if we are to grant the public money for a purpose of this kind—and it is quite clear to me that no method except that of compulsion, combined with granting, will attain the object we have in view—if we are to do that in regard to so great an object as the contentment and tranquillity of a country, it is not a matter in which we ought too nicely and too narrowly to reckon the precise amount which we may be called upon to give. I believe these are all the particulars that have to be mentioned to the House. With regard to the measure itself, I may be asked how do I propose to proceed with it. Well, Sir, the facilities we may have in proceeding with this measure must depend, in the first place, upon the reception which the measure meets with from, the House, and the favour which is accorded it; and, in the second place, on the progress which we may make with another measure of importance already before the House. We cannot displace—we should not feel ourselves justified in displacing—the Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland from the place it occu-

      777
      pies as first in its demands on the time of the House. But that is a Bill involving a considerable number of particulars, and one which it is obvious has some demand, though I hope not a very great demand, on the time of the House. With regard to the plan I now submit, the case, I think, is different. I do not think it is possible there can be a great deal of room for criticism of details It may in the main be a question, "Ought we to deal with the subject of Arrears of Rent in Ireland?" If we ought, then I feel that it would be inexpedient and futile to enter into minute details upon secondary points, and that by far the best course the House can take, if they entertain the question at all, is to view these details with some degree of indulgence, and to keep in view as a desirable object the rapid and easy passing of a measure for the benefit of the people of Ireland. Having said what I have frankly with respect to the measure for the prevention of crime, I shall, notwithstanding, be very glad to look for any intervals or interstices of time in which this measure, if it prove generally acceptable, may be put forward. That is the statement which I have to make to the House; and I very sincerely hope, for the sake of all persons concerned in the settlement of the Land Question in Ireland, that the House may be disposed to take a favourable view of the scheme, and to allow it rapidly to take its place upon the Statute Book.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Kent in Ireland."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, it is generally a wise rule, I think, to abstain from offering any criticism upon an important Bill introduced by the Government at the first moment the statement is made with respect to it. Generally speaking, we are wise in waiting until we see on paper the provisions of the measure submitted to us; and even in the present case, I am not disposed widely to depart from that principle, though, I admit, there is a distinction between the present case and those we ordinarily have before us—for, although this is a measure for the first time brought before us by the Government, we can hardly regard it as an entirely new one. The speech of the right hon.
      778
      Gentleman leads me to suppose that he must be prepared to ask the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) to put his name on the back of the Bill. A portion of the measure is founded on the Bill which was before us a fortnight ago on the Motion of the hon. Member for New Ross, with this difference, however, that the hon. Member for New Ross brought in a Bill which was intended to deal with all the points which he thought had yet to be dealt with in respect to the Land Law Amendment Bill, whereas the Government measure is confined to a single one of those points. The hon. Member for New Rosa, undoubtedly, did propose a scheme for dealing with the Arrears Question; but he also proposed to deal with the Purchase Clauses and other matters. The Government propose to deal with arrears alone; and, inasmuch as in the proposal that they make they tell us that they intend to absorb the whole of the Church Surplus, and, something more, they utterly destroy the possibility of dealing with many of the other questions which arise, and in reference to which the Church Surplus might, perhaps, have been called into play. If we had been discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross, we might have considered how far it was right to apply the Church Surplus to one purpose or the other. If we apply the whole of the Church Surplus to the purpose of arrears, nothing will be left to apply either to the development of the Purchase Clauses, or to the development of what, I think, is very important—the Emigration Clauses. That being so, we have to consider this Bill upon its own merits; and I think that what has been said is sufficient to give us great matter for reflection. Evidently, it is in the contemplation of the Government that a contribution should be made, not only from a purely Irish fund—the Surplus of the Church Temporalities—but also from the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose which is stated—the purpose of extinguishing the claims of the landlords for the arrears of rent; and that claim is to be extinguished upon the principle of compulsion and upon the principle of gift. I do not, at this moment, attempt to discuss that question. It is a proposal that was made by the hon. Member for New Ross; it is a proposal that was contained in that remarkable letter which

      779
      we heard read earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Of course, I understand there was no bargain in the matter; but, somehow or other, the views that were put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork have been accepted by the Government, and they are those which are to be proposed to us. That is a step which is taken by the Government entirely irrespective of any bargain. I can only hope that the view of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that it will be in the power of himself and his Friends hereafter to support the Liberal Party in the promotion of Liberal principles, will have effect given to it without any reference to any bargain whatever. Well, we shall have to deal with this question upon its own merits; and I will say a more difficult question, or one that requires to be approached more entirely from the point of the responsibility of the Government, without reference to the opinion of this or that section, but with reference to their own opinion as to the true merits of the question, I have never known. What have you to do? You have a case in which there are large sums due from tenants to landlords in respect of rent in arrear. A considerable proportion, at all events, of the sums so due are due from persons who could pay, but who have declined to pay. They have declined to pay, not upon their own suggestion, but upon the suggestion of an organization with which we have had to deal, and which is a difficult element in the government of Ireland. You are going to say to these persons—"If you cannot pay, your liabilities are going to be discharged, at the expense, partly of a great Irish fund which is available for the whole country, and partly at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer." What are you going to do with regard to persons who have paid their rent up to the present—have paid not only at considerable sacrifices to themselves, but, I think, under circumstances which, no doubt, made it very inconvenient, and also under circumstances of considerable danger; because not only have they undergone considerable privations in order to make up the money necessary to discharge the claims of their landlords, but they have had to run the risk of being "Boycotted," and having their houses burned, or of being mutilated, or perhaps
      780
      actually murdered—and the only complaint against them was that they had paid their rent? Are you going to consider the cases of all those persons, so that you may do equal justice? Will it be possible for you to find out that the persons who are to be relieved in the way proposed are really persons who could not pay? And there is another question I might ask—Are you going, when you make this provision for meeting the case of those who are behind in their rents, to do anything for those persons who, we have reason to believe, are indebted to their tradesmen or their bankers? Are you satisfied that you will meet the whole case of those who have grievances in Ireland by such a measure as this, or are you not? I do not wish, at the present moment, to pronounce any opinion upon these questions, for they are questions which require very careful consideration. I do not, of course, object to the introduction of the Bill. We shall see what the Bill is like when it is placed on the Table. I only make these observations in order to point out the extreme difficulty of the matter; and I think we ought to have had some further argument than that which has been presented to us why this advance should be made by way of gift rather than of loan. I believe that any gentleman well acquainted with the state of Ireland would have rather recommended that loans on a different principle should be made, and that repayment should be asked for from those who have been assisted in this way. Everyone must feel the desirability, however, of settling this question, if it can be settled. My own belief is that it could be settled by way of loan; but I do not wish to pronounce any final opinion. I think it is well we ought to know what are the opinions of the hon. Members for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) and the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and also of Gentlemen in other parts of the House well acquainted with the condition of Ireland. I must say that I look at this proposal with anything but complete satisfaction; and though I am ready to assent to the introduction of the Bill, I think we ought to have full and fair time for the discussion of the measure, and for the consideration of its principles.
      MR. SHAWrose to express his gratification that the Government had decided to deal at once with this question. He

      781
      did not, however, hesitate to say he did not approve of the principle on which the Government proposed to proceed. He was strongly in favour of the matter being dealt with by way of loan, and not by way of gift; but he was so alive to the importance of settling the question, which he considered was so much at the foundation of much of the evil that existed in Ireland, that he would not for a moment think of putting forward his views in any way that would embarrass the Government, or prevent them in settling the matter in the way they had decided upon. There were, perhaps, one or two things that probably the Government might re-consider before the second reading of the Bill. The limit of £30 was one which need not be adhered to. It might very advantageously be raised to £100; because if they left a margin of dissatisfaction and unrest of that kind they would fail to settle the question. It appeared that the Government intended some time this year to deal with the question of purchase. He hoped they would do so as soon as possible, because one of the greatest difficulties they had in Ireland was the unsettledness of the Purchase Question. It would be much better to at once grapple with the whole question and settle it, so that the mind of the people could be at rest. The people would know then what they had to expect; they would know they need not agitate their minds looking for impossibilities, but that they had better set to work on some real and substantial basis. He hoped the Government would see their way to give an early day for the consideration of the question. He assumed they considered the Bill they had brought in for the Prevention of Crime of great importance, and he would not in any way interfere with their views on that question; but he was convinced of this, that the measure introduced tonight would have more effect than anything else in pacifying the country, and he trusted that, even at the risk of interfering with other Business, the Government would not hesitate to give an early day for the consideration of the Bill.
      MR. O'SHEAsaid, he would not intrude on the House at that hour (12.40), if it were not that he felt that unless he made an explanation with regard to what took place earlier in the evening, a very grave injustice would be done to the Go-
      782
      vernment, to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to himself. He would be as brief as possible; but, in order to put the matter clearly before the House, he hoped the House would grant him its patience. It had been his intention to visit Ireland during the Easter Recess, but he was prevented by illness. About that time he received, many communications, verbal and written, respecting eviction on the one hand, and demoralization on the other. He had many cases placed before him, in which it was clear the end of forbearance was at hand, and those cases were not all cases in which the landlord was the creditor; many of them were cases in which the landlord was the debtor. The appeals of "suspects" for his good offices were multiplied. He had received visits from four representative tenant farmers from the counties of Clare and Limerick; he had before him evidence to show that the action and manner of some of the superior Resident Magistrates was driving the ordinary Resident Magistrates into a state which was nothing better than a veiled mutiny; he had received anonymous letters—evidently from members of the Constabulary—including an early copy of that Circular issued by County Inspector Smith, the reading of the withdrawal of which was the last important Parliamentary utterance of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as Chief Secretary; clergymen, tenants, landlords alike, were impressing upon him the immense dangers arising out of the burning question of arrears. But throughout all he observed there was a general sense of weariness—a state most conducive to the proposal of a truce and to the ultimate hope of a permanent peace. In England, too, people were comparing notes as to the statements made by the right hon. Member for Bradford during the debates of last year, and the right hon. Member had been reduced at least to the rank of a minor prophet in his own country. Under these circumstances, on the 8th of April, he (Mr. O'Shea) wrote to the Prime Minister, determined, in case the right hon. Gentleman's reply should admit of it, to take the liberty of submitting to him a statement on Irish affairs as they presented themselves to his poor judgment. Three days afterwards, quite unexpectedly, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Par-

      783
      nell) called on him. Many things had happened since he had seen the hon. Member last. The last interview he had with him was in Dublin, two or three days before his arrest, when he ventured to offer him some admirable advice, to which he must do him the justice to say the hon. Member did not pay the slightest attention. On the 11th of April—that was the day on which he saw his hon. Friend in London, the day on which he was on his way to Paris on parole—his hon. Friend told, him that his wish was to abstain from any course which might be construed into hostile political action; that he was extremely anxious to avoid all demonstrations. Their conversation, indeed, was merely that of personal friends, and certainly not of political allies, which the House was aware they had never been held to exactly be. Although he made no remark at the time, he observed, with surprise, there was a total absence in the hon. Member of rancour or ill-feeling. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman told him of the kindness and consideration he had received in Kilmainham, and asked him to bring forward another Irish grievance in Committee of Supply, and that was, that prison officials in Ireland were very much worse paid than the prison officials of England. When he (Mr. O'Shea) expressed his opinion that the continued imprisonment of the "suspects" was exercising a most pernicious effect in Ireland, and his hope that the Government would make his release permanent, the hon. Member replied—and he afterwards took a note of what the hon. Gentleman had said—"Never mind the 'suspects;' we can well afford to see the Coercion Act out. If you have any influence, do not fritter it away upon us; use it to get the arrears practically adjusted. Impress on everyone your own opinion as to the necessity of making the contribution from the State a gift, and not a loan; and, further, the equal necessity of absolute compulsion. The great object of my life," added the hon. Member, "is to settle the Land Question. Now that the Tories have adopted my view as to peasant proprietary, the ex-tension of the Purchase Clauses is safe. You have always supported the leaseholders as strongly as myself; but the great object now is to stay eviction by the introduction of an Arrears Bill."
      784
      He (Mr. O'Shea) proceeded then to speak of the demoralization of the country, of the "no-rent" manifesto, of "Captain Moonlight," and of other intimidators. The hon. Gentleman replied—"Let eviction cease, and terrorism will cease. The 'Moonlighters' are sons of small tenants threatened with eviction, who believe the only escape for themselves and families is by preventing their more solvent neighbours paying their rent." He (Mr. O'Shea) remarked that he doubted very much whether the Government would do anything in the direction the hon. Member had indicated with regard to arrears. He then, indeed, feared the Chancellor of the Exchequer took far too paternal an interest in the Public Purse ever to do anything of the kind. "But," said he (Mr. O'Shea), "suppose that, foreseeing the dreadful state of Ireland, which must be consequent upon the eviction of scores of thousands of families, the Government should rise to the situation, and that a satisfactory settlement of the Arrears Question should be made, should you not consider it your duty to use your immense personal influence for the purpose of assisting in the preservation of law and order in Ireland?" The hon. Gentleman replied, "Most undoubtedly." He (Mr. O'Shea) immediately dropped the conversation, and the hon. Gentleman shortly afterwards left for Paris. The next day he had a note from the Prime Minister, and on the 13th he sent the right hon. Gentleman the statement on Irish affairs of which he had just spoken, which statement the hon. Member for the City of Cork had never seen to the present day. He thought it right to mention in his statement to the Prime Minister that he had seen the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but that he was ignorant of any intention on his (Mr. O'Shea's) part to write. On the 15th of April he received the following letter from the Prime Minister:—
      "Dear Sir,—I have this day received your letter of the 13th, and I will communicate with Mr. Forster on the important and varied matter which it contains. I will not now enter upon any portion of that matter, but will simply say that no apology can be required either for the length or freedom of your letter. On the contrary, both demand my acknowledgment. I am very sensible of the spirit in which you write. I think you assume the existence of a spirit on my part, with which you can sympathize. Whether there can be any agreement upon the

      785
      means or not, the end in view is of vast moment, and assuredly no resentment, or personal prejudice, or false shame, or other impediment extraneous to the matter will prevent the Government from treading whatever path may most safely and shortly lead to the pacification of Ireland."
      He thought the great majority in the House, and the great majority of the people, would consider that those were noble words. Two policies seemed to be propounded by public speakers and public writers—the one, a total disregard of every opinion outside a limited circle; the other, an impartial examination of broader views, and their adoption, if they proved to be sound. The one might be "the blind leading the blind;" the other might result in the advantages which the prudent general sought on the line of march by the interrogation of the intelligent native. He also wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, inclosing a copy of his letter to the Prime Minister. He received from the right hon. Gentleman an answer which contained food for reflection on both sides of the Channel. The right hon. Gentleman wrote—
      "My Dear Sir,—I am really very much obliged to you for your letter, and especially for the copy of your important and interesting communication to Mr. Gladstone. I am not in a position, as you well understand, to write you fully on the subject, but I think I may say that there appears to me nothing in your proposals which does not deserve consideration. I entirely concur in your view, that it is the duty of the Government to lose no opportunity to acquaint themselves with representative opinion in Ireland, and for that purpose that we ought to welcome suggestion and criticism from what ever quarter, and all sections and classes of Irishmen, provided they are animated by a desire for good government, and not by a blind hatred of all government whatever. There is one thing you must bear in mind, that if the Government and the Liberal Party generally are bound to show greater consideration than they have hitherto done for Irish opinion, on the other hand, the leaders of the Irish Party must pay some attention to public opinion in England and Scotland. Since the present Government have been in Office, they have not had the slightest assistance in this direction. On the contrary, some Irish Members have acted as if their object were to embitter and prejudice all English opinion. The result is that nothing would be easier than at the present moment to get up, in every large town, an anti-Irish agitation, almost as formidable as the anti-Jewish agitation in Russia. I fail to see how Irishmen or Ireland can profit by such a policy, and I shall rejoice whenever the time comes that a more conciliatory spirit is manifested on both sides.—Believe me, yours very truly, J. CHAMBERLAIN."
      786
      Thus inspired with confidence, he (Mr. O'Shea) had many conversations with Members of the Government, including several with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in which, while all compromise or bargain was effectually excluded, he endeavoured, and he was proud to say he endeavoured successfully, to remove many prejudices and misunderstandings. Of course, ulterior events proved to him that he was mistaken with regard to the right hon. Member for Bradford; but really, at one time, in fact, nearly up to the end, he had very good reasons on which to build the hope that he had made some impression upon the right hon. Member for Bradford. He had opportunities of more ample communication with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) on his return from Paris on his way to Kilmainham. The general effect of what had occurred was apparent in the debate of last Wednesday fortnight, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were dismayed by the intrusion of unexpected and unwelcome courtesies. He wrote to the hon. Member for Cork City his impressions of that debate, and in reply his hon. Friend wrote him the letter which was read to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Bradford very kindly gave him leave to correspond privately with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and it was the right hon. Member, of course, who gave him a pass into Kilmainham; and if there was any secrecy about the thing, it was conceived and contrived by the right hon. Member himself. When he went to Kilmainham, he had nothing whatever to say to the hon. Member for the City of Cork with regard to his release. He knew nothing about it, and he supposed no one knew anything about it until the beginning of the next week. His conversation with the hon. Member was long and general; but he had no hesitation in saying to the House that he took a very great interest in the matter, and went very largely into the necessity of the withdrawal of the "no rent" manifesto. He was glad to ascertain in Kilmainham from the hon. Member that it had already been withdrawn.
      MR. PARNELL: The words were "ceased to circulate it."
      MR. O'SHEAknew that they were tantamount to its withdrawal. The impression clearly meant to be left in his mind

      787
      was, that it was withdrawn. As to the omission of the sentence from the letter which had been read early in the evening, what occurred was this. He was, as he had just said, in constant communication with the right hon. Member for Bradford, and on Sunday morning, the 30th of April, he handed to the right hon. Gentleman the letter in question. He believed that the hon. Member for the City of Cork considered that he ought not to have handed the letter to the right hon. Gentleman individually; but as he knew that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had already told the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and himself (Mr. O'Shea) that there was no secrecy whatever about his opinions, he used his discretion, or his indiscretion, as the case might be. But he (Mr. O'Shea) was as strongly opposed to the idea of any bargain as any Member of the Government; and it struck him in the course of that same afternoon that one phrase might be misunderstood by the only persons who he could have ever supposed would see it—namely, the Members of the Cabinet. The next morning he saw a Cabinet Minister, and he said to him that he considered his authority extended to the use of his own judgment in such a matter; and, in order that no Member of the Cabinet should suppose that there was any bid for release, he begged that the sentence in question should be expunged. He had no reason to doubt that the passage had in consequence been expunged. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had kept no copy of the letter, and he believed it was on Friday last that he asked him for one. He then wrote out what he believed to be a true copy of the letter. One thing, however, he wished the House to understand, and that was, that if any blame attached to this matter, it was altogether his own; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would acquit the hon. Member for Cork City of having any idea that there was an omission when he read the letter that afternoon. He wished the right hon. Member for Bradford would be a little more tolerant. There were, he fancied, very few politicians who had joined in agitations and political struggles who had not, at some time or another, used words which they afterwards wished they could recall, and it might even be that such a Purist as the
      788
      right hon. Gentleman had occasionally spoken a little more strongly than was necessary, or, for aught he knew, joined in movements which at the present day he did not approve. Much as he differed from the right hon. Member during his tenure of Office, he had never persecuted him, and on that he founded his appeal. He acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman had been very cruelly baited while he was Chief Secretary for Ireland. But the "Bear" was now loose. He had no doubt that it was very soothing to the right hon. Gentleman's feelings to aggravate the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but it was not for the public benefit that any obstacle should be thrown in the way of that hon. Member's intended action, as expressed in the letter of to-day, and, therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accommodate himself to the situation, and turn his eyes from the exaggerations of the past to the possibilities of the future.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am sorry that, in the consideration of this very important question of the arrears, it should be necessary to allude to this special and personal matter; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Clare, it is incumbent on me to do so. I am afraid, from what he said, that I must state all that I know about this matter. To a great extent I agree with the hon. Member that the circumstance arose out of a letter from the hon. Member for Clare to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend knows very well that he sent me that letter, and that when I sent it back to him, I took precisely the same view as that which I stated I had taken a few days ago in the House when explaining my motives for resignation. However, the negotiations or correspondence went on. The hon. Member says he was in constant communication with me. I certainly did see him a few times; but his communication was to a great extent in respect of letters to the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The time came when it appeared to be desirable to the hon. Member for Clare and others, that he (Mr. O'Shea) should see the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at Kilmainham. There was a Question by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) on the Friday,

      789
      I believe, as to what would be done with regard to the Members of Parliament who were under arrest. It was a Question addressed to me. I happened to see the hon. Member for Clare, and I told him the answer that I thought should be given. The Question was as to whether the Government would release those Members or not, and my reply was exactly in the same direction as that which the House knows to be my opinion. I told him I thought we could release them whenever Ireland became quiet; or when the Government got a fresh Bill passed; or obtained from them without any conditions whatever an assurance that they would not break the law. I was not very exigient. I did not ask them to assist in keeping the law, but simply not to break it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not approve of my giving that answer; and the consequence was that the Question was not answered by me, but by him. The hon. Member for Clare then went to Kilmainham, and I certainly facilitated his seeing the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I did that on precisely the same ground on which I had facilitated many visits to persons detained under the Protection Act. Whenever I had reason to hope, or believe, or had any sort of expectation, that the result of the visits would be such a promise of good behaviour as would enable me with safety to recommend the release of persons detained, I was very glad to promote such visits. I cannot say I was very sanguine as to the result of the visit of the hon. Member for Clare. However, the hon. Member went to Kilmainham, and when he returned he came to see me on Sunday morning. I am afraid I must really state the impression which his conversation on his return gave me. I took a memorandum of that conversation at the time, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will correct me if I have made any mistake. This was the memorandum which I sent to the Prime Minister and circulated amongst my Colleagues—
      "After telling me that he had been from 11 to 5 yesterday with Parnell, O'Shea gave me his letter to him, saying that he hoped it would be a satisfactory expression of union with the Liberal Party. After carefully reading it, I said to him, 'Is that all, do you think, that Parnell would be inclined to say?' He said, 'What more do you want? Doubtless I could supple-
      790
      ment.' I said, 'It comes to this—that upon our doing certain things he will help us to prevent outrages'—or words to that effect. He again said, 'How can I supplement it?'—referring, I imagine, to different measures. I did not feel justified in giving him my own opinion, which might be interpreted to be that of the Cabinet, so I said I had better show the letter to Mr. Gladstone and one or two others. He said, 'Well, there may be fault in expression, but the thing is done; if these words will not do, I must get others, but what is obtained is' (and here he used most remarkable words) 'that the conspiracy which has been used to get up boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them down."
      MR. O'SHEA: As the right hon. gentleman asked me to confirm the words of his memorandum, I must say I cannot confirm that expression at all. I did not use the word "conspiracy;" "organization" is, I believe, the word I used.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I took it down shortly afterwards. However, I do not see much difference between the words. The memorandum proceeds—
      "And that there will be a union in the Liberal Party. And as an illustration of how the first of these results was to be obtained, he said that Parnell hoped to make use of a certain person, and get him back from abroad, as he would be able to help him to put down conspiracy or agitation—I am not sure which word was used—as he knew all its details in the West."
      I added, for the information of my Colleagues—
      "This last statement is quite true—this man"—
      I will give his name if required. [Cries of "Name!"] It is Sheridan—
      "Is a released 'suspect,' against whom we have for some time had a fresh warrant, and who, under disguises, has hitherto eluded the police, coming backwards and forwards from Egan to the outragemongers in the West. I did not feel myself sufficiently master of the situation to let him see what I thought of this confidence; but I again told him that I could not do more at present than tell others what he had told me."
      That was the information which the hon. Member gave, and which strongly influenced my action. The hon. Gentleman says I ought to accommodate myself to the situation. What was the situation? It was this. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, some other Members, and many persons, had been imprisoned because we had reason to believe and suspect—we had strong reason to believe—that they were engaged in a course of lawless intimidation. There

      791
      had been no apology for that conduct, and there had been no statement made that it would be given up. The hon. Member alludes to some words which, I suppose, are those quoted by me from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) at Ennis. They were only illustrative of the whole course of the agitation and the whole conduct of the movement, in order to stop which it had been necessary to imprison the persons in question. Now, the situation is this. I was informed that if certain things were done, if a Bill were brought forward, on the merits of which I do not wish to speak now—there is a very great deal to be said in favour of it—that if that were brought forward, then the hon. Member would cease from his illegal course, and would strive to help the law. And the illustration that was given was one that perfectly surprised me. It gave me a sort of insight into what had been happening which I did not possess before—that a man whom I knew, so far as I had any possibility of knowing, was engaged in these outrages, was so far under the influence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork that, upon his release, he would get the assistance of that man to put down the very state of things which he had been promoting. Sir, I came away from that interview with this feeling—that I was very sorry I had had anything whatever to do with the negotiation, although all I had to do with it was to try to get from the hon. Member for the City of Cork a promise not to break the law. I felt I would have nothing more to do with it, because, if it was possible to injure the power of the Government in Ireland, and to make it more difficult to preserve order, it was by entering into any arrangements with a Gentleman who said—"If I can get certain things done, then I will no longer instigate a breach of the law; I will try to help you to keep it, and I will even make use of agents who have been used for the purpose of outrages to put them down." Sir, I have done.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he was glad that the Government had announced their intention of dealing with the question of arrears, because he believed by a settlement on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the pacification of Ireland would be better secured than by any number
      792
      of Coercion Bills such as that which was introduced the other evening. He wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for the county of Clare (Mr. O'Shea) for the very able and clear statement he had made of what had passed between himself and that hon. Member. The letter which he wrote to the hon. Member was marked "private and confidential." On his hon. Friend's visit to him in Kilmainham, he asked for and obtained his permission to show it to one other person. He did not wish to find fault with him for having handed it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, although, certainly, he had no intention that it should have fallen into his hands; but, as he had said, he did not wish to find fault with his hon. Friend for the responsibility he had taken upon himself in this matter. He had felt, with reference to the question of arrears in Ireland, as relating to the situation of the smaller tenants, the very gravest anxiety and responsibility for many months; and he was rejoiced that the hon. Member had found some way of placing the views of himself and those with him before the Government. They had been aware, from what they had seen in the newspapers, and from the information of prisoners who came in from time to time, and who received letters from different parts of the country, that evictions in large and very much greater numbers than had occurred up to the present, were imminent, unless some such proposal as the Prime Minister had announced were made in regard to arrears. They had anticipated that there would be three times as many evictions in the present quarter of the year as there were in the first quarter, when 7,000 persons were turned out of their homes. They had also every reason to believe that, owing to the fact that the smaller tenantry in Mayo, Galway, Sligo, and parts of Roscommon, Donegal, Leitrim, and Kerry, were sunk in arrears to the extent of three or four years—in many cases four or five or six years, and in some cases 10 or 12 years—the year's or half-year's rent, by the payment of which the tenants had obtained a temporary respite from eviction, would be but a temporary respite, and that the coming winter would see evictions resumed against the smaller tenants to an extent never witnessed in the country

      793
      since 1848. They feared, also, that the outrages, which had been so numerous during the last six months, would increase as the winter came on; and that a state of affairs in Ireland would follow, owing to the non-settlement of this question, the end of which they could not possibly foresee. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary had given his account of the conversation which he held with the hon. Member for the county of Clare, in which a certain statement was made as to what he (Mr. Parnell) would do in the event of the Arrears Question being settled. He thought the expression was used, that the same organization which had been used to promote outrages would be used to put them down. [Mr. O'SHEA dissented.] His hon. Friend shook his head at that, and he was glad to see that he did so, because if his hon. Friend had been under the impression that he had used any expression of the kind, or that he had conveyed to him any such impression in any conversation with him, he was entirely mistaken. What he had attempted to convey to him was, that, in his belief, the persons who were taking part in these "Moonlight" outrages, which he could assure the House he had heard condemned in Kilmainham in the strongest terms, and which were exceedingly repugnant to their feelings—[Opposition laughter]—he was, perhaps, much better able to speak of the actual feelings of his fellow-prisoners than those who laughed—were the smaller tenantry on the estates who were unable to pay their rent, and who were attempting to intimidate or coerce the larger tenantry who were able to pay, in order that they might not be evicted after the landlords had obtained the bulk of their rents from the larger tenants. He believed that these smaller tenants felt that their only protection was to keep the larger tenantry from paying their rents, so that the landlords, after the deprivation of their rents, might be compelled to come to terms, and allow the smaller tenantry not to pay anything. That was the origin of the movement, which was directed against a class who could pay, and its object was to prevent them paying, in order that the smaller tenantry should be saved from eviction and allowed to remain on the estate. That was the reason why he had been so anxious to press for a settlement of
      794
      the question of arrears; and it might, perhaps, be in the recollection of the House that last year, when the question as to the tenants who could pay and those who could not pay was raised, he had publicly offered to advise those who could pay to do so, if those who could not were saved from eviction. The Prime Minister at the time appeared to be very much impressed with that statement; but, unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain the introduction of a practical method of settling the arrears into the Bill of last year. Those arrears were, in consequence, still outstanding, and the state of affairs which existed then existed to-day; the only way in which the smaller tenantry could protect themselves being to get the larger tenantry to refuse to pay rent until fair terms were extended to the former class. He had no hesitation in saying that, in the face of such a measure as the Prime Minister had proposed, this state of affairs entirely ceased. It came to an end, because the smaller tenantry would be efficiently protected by the measure of the right hon. Gentleman; and there would be no longer an excuse, he would not say for the commission of "Moonlight" outrages, but for getting the larger tenantry to refuse to pay their rent, in order to protect the smaller tenantry. Now, with regard to Mr. Sheridan's name, which had been introduced into this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said he had information with regard to Mr. Sheridan. He knew nothing of that. But, certainly, his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea) must have entirely misunderstood what, he believed, he had conveyed to him with regard to Mr. Sheridan's return to Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) had asked that Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Egan might be permitted to come back, in the event of this question being settled. He also mentioned Mr. Davitt's name, saying that it was of great importance that Mr. Davitt should be released. Mr. Sheridan was—and he had so told his hon. Friend—one of the chief organizers of the Land League in Connaught. He had told his hon. Friend that if Mr. Sheridan were permitted to return to Ireland, he believed he would be able to use his influence to discourage the commission of outrages, and to induce the tenantry to accept this settlement of the Arrears Question. This influence, however, was one solely arising

      795
      from a knowledge which he understood Mr. Sheridan to have obtained during the time he was acting as an organizer of the Land League. As to the information which the late Chief Secretary now gave the House, it had come upon him entirely by surprise; and he could not understand how it was that the right hon. Gentleman had been able, in the statement he had just made to the House, to represent the hon. Gentleman as having stated that he (Mr. Parnell) was in any way aware of that information.
      MR. O'SHEAsaid, he wished to say, by way of a personal explanation, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork was absolutely correct. The hon. Member had told him nothing, and he (Mr. O'Shea) knew nothing, as to Mr. Sheridan having been suspected of having been engaged in the commission of crime.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he knew Mr. Sheridan; he had seen him on several occasions, and he had had no reason to believe that he had ever incited to the commission of any crime. He believed so still; and, certainly, the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made had come upon him entirely by surprise. He had believed that it would have been well to have permitted Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Egan to have returned to Ireland, and he believed so still. As to Mr. Davitt, he was the only person whose release he had spoken of. He knew that this gentleman had used the most strenuous exertions to prevent the commission of crime and outrage in Ireland, and that those exertions had, on many occasions, been successful. If Mr. Davitt had been released, he believed he would have been of great assistance in discovering the perpetrators of crime, just as he believed that Mr. Sheridan would have been of most important assistance in preventing crime in Ireland.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought that whatever was said about these matter, hon. Gentlemen would still be disposed to form their own conclusions. Discussion upon this subject would not in the slightest degree assist the House in determining the value of the Prime Minister's statement upon the subject of arrears. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) would extend a very simple invitation to those who were interested in the Treaty of Kilmainham, which was to forget all about it as soon as possible,
      796
      and to seize this opportunity of making a new treaty, not with the representatives of any political organization in Ireland, but with the landlords and tenants, who represented the whole body of that country. The proposal of the Prime Minister was one that he knew would be of enormous advantage to the poor tenants in Ireland, who did not belong to the class of whom it had been said, "They can afford to, but they will not, pay;" but who belonged to the class who could not possibly pay, unless they were aided by some such measure as this. Representing, as he did, a large number of small tenant farmers, who had not been brought under the influence of the "no rent" manifesto, and who were anxious to honestly discharge their obligations, he heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of the measure. He joined with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in saying that it would do more for the pacification of Ireland than the most stringent Coercion Bill Her Majesty's Government could possibly pass. He hoped, therefore, the Prime Minister would not fail in his promise to avail himself of every interval of time, no matter how small that interval might be, to make progress with this measure and pass it through the House. He was sure the measure was one which would be availed of by both landlords and tenants; and as it could be availed of by either party on strictly equitable grounds, he did not see that it could produce any evil effects whatever in its operation. The House was always ready to listen with more than respect—with profound respect—to any remarks which the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) made, especially on a financial question; and he was sure that when they got a further opportunity of discussing these financial proposals, they would pay the greatest attention to the right hon. Gentleman's views. But the right hon. Gentleman asked, "If the tenants who have not paid their rent are, under the provisions of this Bill, to be relieved, what are you to do with the tenants who have already paid?" He (Mr. O'Connor Power) would answer the question in a very simple way. The tenants who had paid already, under trying circumstances, would, in his judgment, make very good material from which to

      797
      commence the creation of that peasant proprietary which the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) was so anxious to create in Ireland. Let those solvent tenants who, under very difficult circumstances, had paid their rents, be converted as speedily as possible into tenant proprietors. There was no reason, however, why they should multiply difficulties. If tenants had paid their rents, then there was an end of the matter, so far as those tenants were concerned. If Parliament could devise some system of judicial rent, which would prevent the tenants from having to pay exorbitant rents in future, they would, no doubt, bring about a good result; but there could be no profit in going back to the consideration of liabilities that had been discharged. He hoped, therefore, the House would give a favourable reception to this measure, which was one of a constructive character. They would show a better sense of the requirements of society in Ireland, by giving a favourable reception to this measure, than they would by indulging in barren personal discussions, which were of no practical value whatever.
      DR. LYONSsaid, he desired to say a few words on this question, because he might justly describe himself as the original patentee of this scheme, as he was the first person, two years ago, to bring it before the notice of the House, when he brought forward, on August 6, 1880, a proposal for an Address to the Crown for an advance, by way of loan, of £2,000,000 out of the Church Surplus, with a view of assisting distressed tenants who were unable to meet their engagements in the shape of rent. He had not, however, the good fortune to secure sufficiently the attention of the House or of the Government to the proposal. He had then endeavoured to describe what they had to anticipate if the leading creditor of the tenant—namely, the landlord, were to press him for the payment of rent, and he was justified in saying that had the proposal then been entertained they would have been saved much of the horror they had passed through during the last two years. He had then stated in The Times—
      "Of the gravity of the situation in Ireland no doubt can be entertained; and should the broken season we are passing through falsify the hopes of an abundant harvest, the situation of that part of the Empire must be such as has not been realized since the Famine of 1847. The
      798
      expectations raised by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—the wisdom or unwisdom of which I do not stop to inquire into—have received a rude and stunning shock by the result of the division in 'another place;' and the two great classes of the country, landlords and tenants, stand in opposing ranks, as, in too many instances, needy creditors, and still needier debtors, while credit is unfortunately, and, as I hold, needlessly, suspended to a large extent for both by monetary panic and a general distrust, based on misapprehension of the conditions of the social and material problems involved. Each day brings us fresh evidence that the relations of the two great classes are becoming more strained; and I think that those who heard the statement of the Chief Secretary to-day, that Her Majesty's troops were being stationed in detachments throughout various parts of the West of Ireland, cannot but realize that a crisis has been arrived at which it would be an object worthy of the highest efforts of statesmanship to in any manner alleviate, and to, if possible, wholly avert."
      Looking back upon the statements at that time made both in the Press and in the House, he thought he was fully borne out in his expectations and forecast in this regard. But it was not for the purpose of taking to himself this small credit, but in order to appeal to the Prime Minister, as he had now taken up the matter upon so large a scale, to make it fully commensurate with the actual wants of society in Ireland. He was quite prepared to admit that the tenants of holdings under £30 valuation were, in the vast majority of instances, those who most required assistance towards liquidating their debts; but he could assure the Prime Minister, from a practical acquaintance with the subject, and also from the numerous inquiries he had made during the past two years—because, from the time he first made his proposal, the subject had never passed from his mind, and he took every opportunity of ascertaining the actual state of the tenantry in that country—that there were a very large number of tenants of above £30 valuation who would be, if possible, in a still worse position than those who had a low valuation. The measure would fall very short indeed of the complete success that would otherwise be secured if they allowed themselves to be limited to the hard-and-fast line of a £30 valuation. In many respects the tenants who were valued at above £30 and who appeared to have got into difficulties, were those who found it almost impossible to work themselves out of the position into which

      799
      they had fallen, and for the reason that their debts were immensely greater to them, in proportion, than were the small debts of the smaller tenants. In very many instances the position of these tenants was simply this, that, but for the toleration extended to them by the landlords where they owed two or three years' rent—and there were very many oases of this kind within his own cognizance—they would have been cast out on the road side. There was also this to be borne in mind, that the sums these tenants owed, being considerable, were a great drain on the landlords to whom they were due. In a large number of cases the landlords were so drained of resources that they were not able to employ labour in anything like the proportion that was required in the country in order to give the labouring poor a reasonable amount of occupation during the winter. This would be seen when he mentioned the single instance of a nobleman who had informed him that for years it had been customary with him to give employment to 400 people in the winter, but that now, owing to the fact that £10,000 was due to him as arrears of rent, he was unable to employ more than 10 or 12 men. He would, therefore, appeal to the Prime Minister—and he was glad he was backed up by the practical experience of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—to allow the limit to be raised to at least a £50 valuation. As that hon. Member had said, there could be no practical objection to raising the limit to £100; but, at all events, he would urgently press on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of raising the limit to £50. It would be safe, in his humble judgment, to have no limit at all, but to leave it open to the Commissioners to deal with each individual case on its merits, the Commissioners having full and ample power to reject or consent to any application made to them. This was really the vital point—the hinge upon which the whole thing turned—and he would press it as strongly as he could on the attention of the Prime Minister. In doing so, he was quite prepared to fall back on his own proposal of "loan" for the higher class of tenants, while that of gift might, as proposed by the Government, be restricted to the lower valuation.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, it would be an invidious thing if those tenants who
      800
      had had additions made to their rents were to go on paying those additions, whilst they saw that those who had held out a few months longer were getting reductions. There were a few mountainous districts, such as Connemara and parts of Kerry, where 1,000 or 2,000 tenants would, under the very generous scheme of the Prime Minister, have their cases met. He was not speaking for the whole of his own constituents, but of a few mountainous districts where he had witnessed evictions. But then there was the question of costs, which, though a small matter, would have to be considered so far as certain districts were concerned. The Commissioners, or someone else, should be empowered to settle the question of costs.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure that I gathered very clearly the nature of the question—considered as a practical matter—addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down; but if he will put it in writing I shall be very happy to consider it. He refers to a case where a number of tenants have suffered under the provisions of the Act of last year, and wishes to know, I think, whether we are to expect them to pay the debts they have contracted. I apprehend that if they arrived at a settlement under the Act of last year, it was because they found it to their advantage so to settle, and without finding it advisable to give, before a tribunal, proof of their inability to pay their rents. I do not see how it will be possible to bring them in the category of those who must give proof of their inability to pay their rents before they can have the benefit of the Act. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) is under a misapprehension with regard to the letter he addressed to me on the 13th of April. I think it would, or might, have been gathered by those who heard the speech of the hon. Member, that in that letter he professed to make known to me the sentiments of the Members of Parliament who were in Kilmainham Prison.
      MR. O'SHEA: I said in my letter to the right hon. Gentleman, that, though I had seen the hon. Member for Cork City, I had not mentioned to him that I was going to write to the Prime Minister.
      MR. GLADSTONE: That letter I took to represent the sentiments of the hon. Member himself, and not those of

      801
      any other hon. Member. He stated that he did not represent the sentiments of any other hon. Member.
      MR. O'SHEA: Certainly.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the debate on the introduction of the Bill gave place to a series of personal explanations; and only one hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side had spoken on the Bill during the whole time. There was one thing the right hon. Gentleman had said which would give satisfaction to Members on that side of the House. He had said something about compensation, recognizing the fact that compensation should be given to embarrassed landlords. Another thing he had said which had caused great surprise on that side of the House—namely, that not only was £2,000,000 to be paid for the tenants, but that £2,000,000 was to be found by the tenants themselves—by the people who could not pay their arrears. He, for one, should offer the strongest opposition in his power to this measure, and would give the right hon. Gentleman Notice of his intention to put the following Resolution on the Paper:—
      "That, while the House is willing to vote money for the relief of distress in Ireland, and the development of the resources of that country, it is of opinion that a grant of public money for the payment of arrears of rent will not effect either of those objects, and is opposed to every principle of political economy."
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Rent in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875," relating to the Borough of Nottingham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
    Select Committee on Public Accounts nominated:—Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. LEONARD
    802
    COURTNEY, Mr. GORST, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. LAING, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SEELY, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. SHAW.

    PRINTING.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House:—
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. LEONARD COURTNEY, Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. ROWLAND WINN, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. PARNELL, and Colonel TOTTENHAM.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Leonard Courtney.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.— [BILL 111.]
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.— [BILL 111.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, there was a general wish that the measure should pass that stage; therefore, he hoped they would be allowed to take the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  ARTILLERY RANGES BILL.— [BILL 125.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  ARTILLERY RANGES BILL.— [BILL 125.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved—
    "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."
    He might be allowed to say that the object of this was that certain clauses might be considered and inserted for the purpose of safeguarding the inte-

    803
    rests of persons who had proprietorial rights.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order for Committee discharged.
    Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.— [BILL 153.]
  (Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.— [BILL 153.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he did not wish to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but desired that the Committee stage should be put down for such a date as to allow the school boards of Scotland time to consider it.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I did not say anything in moving the second reading, because the Bill has been discussed already. It was thoroughly discussed on the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), and the clauses contained in this Bill were agreed to by all the Scotch Members who addressed the House on that occasion. I will fix the next stage for a convenient day.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  COUNTY COURTS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Monk, Mr. Reid.)
  COUNTY COURTS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 146.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the object of the measure was simply to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, which was optional up to £50, and make it compulsory up to that sum. The Bill was in the form that had been recommended by Select Committees of the House. Measures had been introduced to carry out a similar reform. It was a Bill of only one clause, extending the jurisdiction of County Courts from £20 to £50.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the second reading of the Bill, as its effect would be to throw a greater amount of work upon the County Court Judges. He knew something of County Court Judges, having practised before three of them, and he must say the result of his experience was that these gentlemen were most unfit to try cases. He would not go into individual cases; but, with very few exceptions, the County Court Judges were found to be very bad lawyers. He earnestly hoped the hon. Member, for whose opinions he had the greatest respect, would postpone the measure for further consideration. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the County Courts Act of 1867 took away a great deal of work from the Bar, and this measure would take away still more. There was another point, with regard to which his hon. Friend over the way might be inclined to agree with him. He had always felt it to be a defect in the law that in every case the round sum given in a judgment should of necessity carry costs. The juries were bound to give a verdict for an amount "not exceeding" a certain sum—should a verdict for the sum not to be exceeded always carry costs?
    MR. DODDSpointed out that the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was one for consideration in Committee, and he hoped the House would be free to read the Bill a second time.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not know much about this Bill; but it purported to deal with County Court jurisdiction in England, which was a subject of immense importance. He would, therefore, like to know whether the measure had the support of the Government, for the House was entitled to know whether those who were responsible for the legal administration of the country had considered the Bill and approved of it. He thought it only reasonable that the second reading should be postponed until the House could be informed upon that point.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped the measure would not be pressed to a second reading.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not wish to press the matter beyond the wish of the House; but he thought this discussion should take place on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. The principle of the Bill had been approved again and again, both by the Government and by hon. Members who were supporters of the late Government. The Bill would not destroy the right to have cases tried in a Superior Court; but it provided that where a certain case was taken into a Superior Court the plaintiff should not obtain his costs. He knew the difficulty of making progress with Bills of this kind at this season of the year: and, therefore, if hon. Members would allow the second reading to be taken, he would undertake that there should be ample opportunity for discussion, if discussion was required.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was most unwilling not to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member; but he must say he thought that, under the circumstances, the House should adjourn the consideration of the subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Henry Fletcher.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there should be an understanding that there should be no block put against the Bill.
    Motion, agreed to.
    Debate adjourned, till Thursday.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Givan, Mr. Patrick Smyth, Mr. Thomas Dickson.)
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 18.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the extension of the Equity jurisdiction of the Courts.—(Mr. Findlater.)
    Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Petty Sessions (Ireland)* (89); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* (78).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*.
Committee—Militia Storehouses* (86); Commonable Rights* (73).

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question, of which I gave private Notice on Friday, relative to the affairs of Egypt, Whether the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can give your Lordships any information upon the subject; and also whether he can state anything in regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wished to give an answer to the Question of the noble Earl, and that wish could only be strengthened by the Notice of Question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who has a right to ask with authority for information. Your Lordships may or may not remember that, on the first day of the Session, I described the objects and policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt. They were the maintenance of the Sovereign rights of the Sultan, of the position of the Khedive, and of the liberties of the Egyptian people under the Firmans of the Porte, the prudent development of their institutions, and the fulfilment of all international engagements, either on the
  648
  part of England, or England and other Powers. Soon after this the Governments of England and of France described their policy in a formal document to the Powers, which will be presented in due time, in almost exactly the same words. This policy was also described in a despatch to Sir Edward Malet in November last, and in the dual Note addressed by the French and English Governments which has been presented to Parliament. My Lords, all the Powers unanimously agreed to adhere to this policy; and Turkey has, on more than one occasion, declared it to be her policy also—that the status quo should be maintained. The other Powers of Europe have admitted the preponderance of England and of France in Egypt. They look to these two Powers to take the initiative; but, on the other hand, they claim that any change in the present state of things is a matter which concerns all Europe, and that Europe cannot be excluded from the consideration of such changes. This claim has never been denied, and, indeed, has been cheerfully admitted by England and France. Some weeks ago the English and French Governments came to an agreement as to the mode of guarding against any infringement of the international engagements of Egypt in the course of the Constitutional changes which are being discussed. We communicated our conclusions to the Powers, who unanimously approved them. They would have been communicated at once to the Egyptian Government; but it was thought better to delay a little in consequence of the unstable position of Egyptian Ministers. Since then, on all points dealing with the present, the ultimate agreement between the two Powers has been complete. I may here be permitted by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) to answer by anticipation the Question of which he has given Notice, with regard to the report of a speech made by M. de Freycinet the other day. Though I think it is only natural that the noble Lord should put the Question, I must, in the first place, say that I find it quite sufficient to explain what I myself write or say, and that I must decline to explain the speeches of Ministers addressing their own Parliaments in foreign countries. But it happens that during a two hours' conversation with the French

  649
  Ambassador on Friday evening, I mentioned the Notice which the noble Lord had given. M. Tissot at once said that he was perfectly certain that M. de Freycinet had not claimed for France an isolated predominance in Egypt to the disparagement of the position of England. He has since been good enough to send me a letter, the translation of which I will venture to read to the House—
  "May 13.
  "My dear Count,—I informed M. de Freycinet yesterday of the sensation caused here by a certain sentence in his speech, and of the question which is to be addressed to you on Monday by Lord Lamington.
  "M. de Freycinet requests me to assure you that he never intended to separate the preponderance of Trance in Egypt from that of England. Another passage of his speech explicitly recognizes this community of influence, and the speech itself, taken as a whole, attributes to the two Powers so equal a share, that no one could misunderstand it. 'Nobody,' adds M. de Freycinet, 'has misunderstood it here.'
  "M. de Freycinet hopes that this frank explanation—which I gave you reason yesterday to anticipate—will enable you to reply to Lord Lamington without difficulty.
  "Believe me, &c.,
  "CH. TISSOT."
  I think that explanation will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I may say that the only chance of any definite and beneficial result arising from the joint action of England and France in Egypt depends entirely upon the loyalty of the respective Governments and their agents. During the last two years I have been in communication with four French Administrations and three French Foreign Secretaries on Egyptian matters. I am happy to acknowledge the perfect loyalty with which they have all three acted on Egyptian questions. I believe they would say the same of Her Majesty's Government. We have naturally had differences of opinion on subjects so difficult and so complicated; but instead of these differences being increased by frank intercommunications, they have been remarkably minimized. My Lords, some weeks ago we came to an agreement with France as to the course which we thought best to adopt to safeguard such international agreement from changes which were being made in the Constitution of Egypt. We communicated to the Powers, and they unani-
  650
  mously agreed to what we proposed. My Lords, since that time we have been constantly sending instructions to our agents in the same sense; our instructions to our agents have been all along in the same sense. During the last fortnight we have almost daily sent identical instructions to our Representatives. At this moment the position is much clearer than it has been, notwithstanding the great difficulties which still surround it. Tewfik Pasha was considered almost a model Prince up to the time of the first military demonstrations. Since then his course has been fraught with difficulty, opposed as he has been by the only armed force in the country, and what complicated matters was that for a time the action of the Army was represented as one of a national character. It was supported by the Notables. The Khedive, notwithstanding these difficulties, has lately shown great decision and energy in dealing with the situation, and the result of all the information got is that the country is now with him, and that the Notables, unless they get awed by physical force, wish to support him. In these circumstances, England and France have agreed to send orders to three British men-of-war at Corfu, and three French men-of-war in the Piræus, to rendezvous at Suda Bay, in order to proceed to Alexandria, where they will find that orders have preceded them. We have informed all the Powers and Turkey of this measure in support of the policy already agreed upon. England and France are agreed as to the steps necessary to mark our determination to maintain the principles of the policy which I have already described; and, further than this, there is a perfect understanding between the two Governments as to what is to be done in the case of certain possible contingencies, which I hope may not arise. Your Lordships will agree that it is obviously impossible for me, at the present moment, to give any indication of what that understanding may be. But I entertain the hope, and even more than a hope, that such contingencies will not occur, and that peace, order, and prosperity may be restored to Egypt without the employment of force.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think there is nothing in the statement of the noble Earl to which I can take exception. Undoubtedly, the

  651
  affairs of Egypt are in a very critical condition, and it is very desirable that the principles by which Her Majesty's Government are to be guided should be clearly laid down, and consistently followed. There are two main points, as it appears to me, which the Government is bound to keep in mind; and the first has reference to our position as regards France. I quite concur with the noble Earl that all hopes of beneficial action depend upon the cordial co-operation of the Governments and the agents of the two countries; for that cordial co-operation it is necessary that no misunderstanding as to the relative position of the two Powers should exist; and I hope that M. de Freycinet is as fully convinced as we are that England cannot admit that any other Power has a superior interest to our own in the position and the government of Egypt. With respect to Egypt itself, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government, both by the engagements which they themselves have entered into, and by the engagements which they have necessarily inherited from their Predecessors, are bound to give their support to the present Viceroy of Egypt, so long as his government is in accordance with the principles which they approve. They are bound to give him that support, not merely as a matter of sentiment, not merely in words or in notes, but in something stronger if the need should arise. We know there are important authorities in this country who hold by the modern theory that force is no remedy. I believe that in this country that doctrine is less popular than it was; at all events, I presume England will not be inclined to erect it into a maxim in the conduct of foreign affairs. Whatever measures Her Majesty's Government may be inclined to adopt, whatever policy they may pursue, whatever language they may hold, these things will have no effect whatever upon the population of Egypt or upon the intriguing men who have laid hold of supreme power in that country, unless it is well known that, behind all these words, there is the possibility, nay, the certainty, of deeds. I earnestly trust with the noble Earl that no occasion may arise for solving the Egyptian difficulty by the sword; but we can hope to avert that dread necessity only by its being well understood that the sword is there,
  652
  and what sword it will be. Of course, that is a matter which Her Majesty's Government has considered, and in respect to which I trust they have come to a right conclusion. I do not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by my criticism; but I hold that the affairs of Egypt are of such supreme importance to this country that a man would be a bad patriot and a bad citizen who allowed any Party feeling to influence the discussion of them. In my judgment—and I have not concealed it—if the sword must be used, it should be the sword of Turkey; that is the best arrangement that could be adopted. The worst arrangement that could be adopted would be to use the sword of France; and any Ministry would be deserving of serious condemnation who gave permission for that alternative, without taking the most stringent material guarantees for the interests of this country. In saying that, I do not intend to insinuate that I suspect the noble Earl of consenting to any such arrangement. I am happy to believe that the noble Earl follows the Palmerstonian, and not the Gladstonian tradition; and I look forward without any apprehension to the decision to which in the case of the contingency we all deprecate he will think it his duty to come. I will only say, in conclusion, I believe that in the case of any difficulty arising, he may count upon the assistance and support of all Parties in this country, so long as he maintains as his cardinal principle of action that the authority of England in the affairs of Egypt is to be not less than that of any other Power whatever.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had practically answered the Question of which he had given Notice. He contended that France had not that paramount interest in Egypt as compared with other Powers which had been claimed by implication by the French Prime Minister. He believed there were more Italians than Frenchmen in Egypt, while 79 out of every 100 vessels that passed through the Suez Canal carried the English flag. Although he agreed in the policy of acting in conformity and union with France, still, at the same time, he was of opinion, looking to India and the Australian Colonies, that in this crisis Her Majesty's Government must

  653
  be prepared to take a very decided course of action.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that after the statement that had been made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he did not think it necessary to proceed with the Notice which stood in his name on the Paper.

COUNTY BOUNDARIES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of adjusting the boundaries of counties in England and Wales,"
  said, that, in his opinion, the counties, as they at present existed, formed the best area for local administration, although their boundaries, in some instances, required re-adjustment. If those boundaries were re-adjusted in a common-sense way a very large step would have been taken towards the improvement of the present administration of local affairs. In many counties of England detached portions were situate which belonged to otter counties. The county of Worcester suffered in a remarkable degree in this respect. Altogether in England there were 44 detached parts of counties wholly surrounded by other counties than those to which they belonged. Again, many counties had large promontories, as he would call them, running out into other counties. Another source of confusion arose from the fact that many parishes were in two counties. Great inconvenience and harm were caused by this state of things. He thought their Lordships would agree that the inconvenience of a parish being in two counties was one which should no longer be allowed to exist. It was true that some provisions were made in the Highway Acts to obviate these inconveniences; but they were inadequate for the purpose. Certain Acts having reference to the county of Worcester had been passed with the same end in view. But all these measures were insufficient to meet all the evils arising from the present confusion of boundaries. In Devonshire, for instance, he found that 15 out of 20 parishes were in more than one county, and a like complication existed in many other counties.
  654
  If a new measure of local government in counties was to be introduced, it was especially important that the areas of parishes should be so arranged as to facilitate and not to impede local government. The noble Earl concluded by proposing the Motion which stood in his name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of adjusting the boundaries of counties in England and Wales,"—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that, although Her Majesty's Government were unable to agree to the Motion of the noble Earl, they were under considerable obligation to him for bringing forward this most important subject. It was one which had long occupied the attention of Parliament. In 1834 detached portions of parishes situate in counties to which they did not belong were attached to those counties. In 1844 they were given over for all county purposes, and a total of 146,000 acres and a population of 54,000, as it were, changed hands. By Acts passed in 1854 and 1861, the Local Government Board could annex parishes overlapping counties—which did not exceed 100—to adjoining parishes, or could constitute them separate parishes, and were now engaged in doing so. As regarded Unions, they might dissolve them, or add or take away parishes at pleasure. In 1873 a Select Committee was appointed to take evidence on this subject. A great deal of evidence was given with regard to bringing Unions into the county; but they made no recommendation. In 1880 a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice and others for the purpose of appointing a Commission for the rearrangement of boundaries, so that no Union should be without the county boundary. That Bill was withdrawn; but during the present year another Bill had been brought in requiring the Local Government Board to submit schemes for this purpose to Parliament. The Local Government Board now had in their possession all information about divided parishes, and how far it was practicable to bring Unions into county boundaries. In fact, they had every information that could possibly be wanted. He asked, therefore, what benefit would then be gained if the Motion of the

  655
  noble Earl were agreed to? His speech itself, with all its detail, all its figures, and all its facts, was conclusive evidence that no more information was wanted. An inquiry of that kind would be a lengthy and costly one, and no real good could be done by appointing a Commission to collect information which was already in the possession of the Government. Was it likely that they would arrive at any new conclusion? And, as these recommendations would not have that weight which would attach to a scheme prepared by a well-constituted county authority like a County Board, the best course was to wait till such an authority was constituted, which would be able, with the central authority, not only to inquire into, but to deal effectually with, the whole subject. Under these circumstances, he earnestly trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he hoped the Motion of the noble Earl would not be agreed to. He did not think that any good would come of the inquiry. He had been for many years Chairman of a Board of Guardians, the parishes composing which were situated in three counties; but the Board never experienced the slightest inconvenience therefrom. There might be some small matters of detail in which a rectification of the boundaries might be desirable; but they were not sufficient to justify the issue of a Royal Commission. Moreover, a large number of persons would strongly object to having their counties changed. People often took a pride in belonging to this or that county, and would not like to be transferred to another county against their will.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that although he thought the subject a very important one, he wished to ask his noble Friend not to give the House the trouble of dividing. He believed, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Earl who spoke last, that great inconvenience did arise from the present system; and thus far he was quite ready to agree with his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp). The noble Lord opposite who represented the Government on that occasion (Lord Carrington) had given as a reason for not assenting to the Royal Commission that the Local Government
  656
  Board had every information they could possibly want. That appeared to him (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) to be just the reason why the Motion should be assented to. But he thought that, considering that a measure was actually under the consideration of the other House—the Bill having been read a first time—which dealt with the subject, there would be no necessity, at this particular time, for the Commission for which the noble Earl had moved. He believed that it was unwise to resort to the course of appointing Royal Commissions more than was absolutely necessary; and he trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would be satisfied with the very lucid statement he had made being put before the country, showing, as it did, the great inconveniences which attached to the present system.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he wished to be allowed to join the noble Duke in asking his noble Friend not to press his Motion to a division. He did not think there was any serious difference of opinion between them on the subject. He apprehended that the noble Earl at the Table was an exception in that respect. A re-adjustment of boundaries was, no doubt, very desirable; but the Motion then before them was one, not for a Commission to make changes in boundaries, but to inquire into the best means of doing so. But they had been inquiring for a considerable time. There were, in fact, few subjects with which those who took an interest in those matters were more familiar, or of which the details were more accurately known. But what they wanted now was some action in the matter. He could only say, on behalf of the Government, that they had hoped before this to deal with the question, along with the larger one of county government; but that hope had been frustrated. They trusted, however, before another year elapsed, to be able to deal with the subject. He was quite certain that the subject of boundaries must be dealt with with the more important one of county government, and that was the direction in which the Government wished, as soon as possible, to move. He hoped his noble Friend would allow the Motion to be withdrawn.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUNDAY OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT, who had given Notice that he would move for any information which might have reached Her Majesty's Government as to any desire on the part of the inhabitants of any district that such Government Institutions as were now opened on Sunday should be closed on that day, said, he wished to know if any feeling had been publicly expressed, on the part of the working classes, against the opening of such Government Institutions as were now open on Sunday, as the Picture Galleries at Hampton Court and the Botanical Gardens at Kew? In the case of the Dublin National Gallery, he noticed that the statistics of attendance showed that nearly as many people went there on Sundays as on the whole of the other days of the week put together. As, however, the matter would be brought before the other House shortly, it was not his intention to discuss it on the present occasion; but he should content himself with calling attention to the Resolution which stood in his name.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, there was no information in the hands of Her Majesty's Government on the subject to which the noble Viscount referred.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.