Sitting of 11 July 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills (Nos. 1, 4, and 5), Mr. Whitley nominated Member.
Committee— Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Nineteenth Night]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Copyright* [141].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. WHITLEYwished to ask if it was true that Sir John Coode had been authorized, as Engineer, to draw up and examine the plans for the Mersey Conservancy Board, and under what circumstances, as Admiral Spratt was the Acting Conservator of the Mersey?
    MR. DODDSwas understood to say that Sir John Coode had been so authorized.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that, in that case, he must ask that the Consideration of the Bill be deferred until to-morrow, as there was no one present to give the information he desired.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, that Sir John Coode had been asked to examine the plans; but he was not aware that that was a sufficient ground for asking that the Consideration of the Bill should be deferred. It would be a very unusual and a very strong step, because the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr.
    1088
    Whitley) desired this information, to take the Bill out of the ordinary routine. The result would be to cause great inconvenience to the parties interested.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that it would serve every purpose if the hon. Member would ask the question on the third reading.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that, in justice to the parties locally interested, he felt bound to press for the delay of the Bill until to-morrow.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (DISTRICT RAILWAY) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked for a little more time for the consideration of the Bill. Seeing that the Bill only came into the possession of hon. Members yesterday, it was quite impossible that they could give to it the consideration it required. The Bill involved very serious questions affecting the Metropolis, and to-morrow was too early a day to take the Amendments which had been introduced into it into consideration.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he would fix the Consideration for to-morrow, with the understanding that it should be put off again until Monday.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should certainly have felt bound to oppose the Consideration of the Bill to-morrow.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it would not be taken until Monday.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has received a communication from a number of shipowners connected with the London Chamber of Shipping embodying their views relative to the future government, tonnage charges, and pilotage arrangements of the Suez Canal; and, whether he will be good enough to inform the House, how the bases of arrangements

  1089
  proposed by M. De Lesseps for the future management of the existing or any new Canal which may be constructed by his Company, include the objects desired by the shipowners?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have received such a communication as is described in the first paragraph of this Question, and I believe it has also been made public, so that the world is cognizant of its contents. With respect to the relation between the bases of arrangements in connection with the proposals made by M. de Lesseps for the future management of the new Canal, and with respect to the Correspondence between such bases and the Memorial on that subject, I think I had better leave it to my hon. Friend and the House themselves to make a comparison than attempt to do it in an imperfect manner, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared at once to make a statement of the substance of the views we entertain, and will also be able to lay it on the Table of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in accordance with the Notice I gave yesterday afternoon, I will now communicate to the House the heads of the provisional Agreement made with M. de Lesseps for the construction, by the Suez Canal Company, of a second Canal. I should not have made this communication under ordinary circumstances on a Wednesday; but for more reasons than one I think it most important that no delay should take place in making known arrangements of a financial character, such as those I am about to state. The negotiations have been for some time in progress at Paris, and have reached their present stage after personal interviews between Members of Her Majesty's Government and M. de Lesseps and M. Charles de Lesseps in London. I will now state to the House the provisional arrangement which was settled yesterday evening—

  COPY of HEADS of AGREEMENT between the REPRESENTATIVES of HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMEN and the PRESIDENT of the SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.
  1. THE Company to construct a second Canal, as far as possible parallel to the present Canal, of width and depth sufficient to meet the re-
  1090
  quirements of maritime construction, settled in agreement with the English Directors.
  2. The second Canal to be completed, if possible, by the end of 1888.
  The next paragraph relates to the rates and dues and the dividends of the Company; and in explanation I may say that the dividend for last year was above 16 per cent. and that for this year is expected to approach 19 per cent. The present tonnage rate is 10 francs 50 cents, falling to 10 francs next year. The pilotage rate averages about 75 cents per ton, and the tonnage rate on ships in ballast is 10 francs.
  3. The Company to reduce the dues and tolls as follows:—
  From the 1st January 1884, ships in ballast to pay 2½ francs per ton less than ships with cargoes.
  After the profits (interest and dividend) have been distributed, at the rate of 21 per cent., half the pilotage dues to be remitted from the following 1st January.
  After the profits, as above, are 23 per cent., the rest of the pilotage dues to be similarly remitted.
  After the profits, as above, are 25 per cent., the transit dues of 10 francs per ton to be reduced by 50 centimes, to 9 francs 50 centimes.
  After the profits, as above, are 27½ per cent., a further 50 centimes to be taken off.
  After the profits, as above, are 30 per cent., a further 50 centimes to be taken off.
  For every additional 3 per cent. of distributed profits, 50 centimes to be taken off, to a minimum of five francs per ton.
  4. No two reductions of pilotage or transit dues to take place in the same year.
  5. If the distributed profits should fall off, an increase of transit dues to take place according to the some scale, but no two increases to take place in one year.
  I now come to the arrangements for increasing the English share in the management of the Canal.
  6. On the first occasion of a vacancy one of the English Directors to be nominated by the President for election as Vice-President, and thereafter one of the English Directors to be always a Vice-President.
  7. The English Director now acting as Honorary Member of the Comité de Direction, to become a regular Member when vacancies permit, and thereafter one of the English Directors to be always a Member of the Comité.
  8. Two of the English Directors to be always Members of the Finance Commission.
  9. An English Officer, selected by Her Majesty's Government, to be appointed by the Board "Inspecteur de la Navigation." His functions to be determined in agreement with the English Directors.
  10. The Company to engage, in future, a fair proportion of English Pilots.
  I now come to the advantages to be secured by the English Government for the Company.
  11. Her Majesty's Government to use their good offices to obtain the necessary concession—

  (a.) For the land required for the new Canal and its approaches.

  (b.) For the Sweet Water Canal between Ismailia and Port Said, on the basis already accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

  (c.) For the extension of the term of the original concession for so many years as will make a new term of 99 years from the date of the completion of the Second Canal. In consideration of such extension the Company to pay annually from the commencement of the now term of 99 years, to the Egyptian Treasury, 1 per cent. of the total net profits, after the statutory reserve.

  12. Her Majesty's Government to lend to the Company, by instalments, as required for the construction of the works, including the Sweet Water Canal, not more than 8,000,000 l. at 3¼ per cent. interest, with a sinking fund, calculated to repay the capital in 50 years, such sinking fund not to commence until after the completion of the works.
  13. These Heads of Agreement to be at once communicated to the House of Commons. They will be developed in full detail in a resolution of the Council of Administration of the Company, the terms of which will have been settled in accord with Her Majesty's Government. That resolution will be communicated to Her Majesty's Government for formal acceptance. The agreement, however, and the acceptance of the Resolution, will have no effect until the necessary authority has been obtained from Parliament.

  (Signed)

  Pour le President,

  C. RIVERS WILSON.

  CH. A. DE LESSEPS.

  J. STOKES.

  London, 10 July 1883.

  I shall lay this Paper on the Table to-day, and in a few days my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will lay on the Table a Report by the English Directors of the Suez Canal, explanatory of the Agreement.
  MR. BOURKE: Of course, Sir, it would be impossible for me to enter upon any discussion with respect to the very interesting and important statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the House will allow me to make one remark, and it is this. I am quite sure that any proposition which comes from Her Majesty's Government which is calculated to de-
  1092
  velop the policy of Lord Beaconsfield with regard to the Suez Canal will be received with satisfaction by this side of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is at present no Question before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to ask any Question he can do so.
  MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir; that is the only remark I wish to make. I think I shall be perfectly in Order in asking a few Questions of the Government which it is impossible to consider they are not at the present moment quite in a position to answer. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the English Government is to use its influence to obtain a concession. I should like to know with whom the British Government is going to use its influence? I found this Question chiefly on the despatch of Lord Granville written some nine years ago, which contains this paragraph—
  "The Company is, as Her Majesty's Government consider, an Egyptian Company, and the rights over it of the Porte are undoubted."
  Therefore, I wish to know whether the negotiations which Her Majesty's Government are going to enter upon for a new concession are to be negotiations between the Porte and Her Majesty's Government? That is the first Question. The second Question I wish to ask is, what security has been taken against any Foreign Power or Powers stopping our communications with India, China, and the East viâ the Suez Canal? The third Question is, will it be within our rights of peace to take military measures for the protection of the Canal? I wish also to know whether the new Canal is to be the property of the old Company, and if the seat of the Company is still to be in Paris; whether the French and Egyptian Courts are to have jurisdiction over the Canal, which is about to be constructed substantially with British capital? Then, are both Canals to revert to the Egyptian Government at the end of the concession which was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the original concession being for 89 years? Will the arrangements that have been entered into between Her Majesty's Government and M. de Lesseps preclude any other Company of English capitalists or others from obtaining, or

  1093
  endeavouring to obtain, a concession of another Canal? Lastly, after all the sacrifices made by England, are we to understand that the relations of the Canal Company to Great Britain will remain substantially the same as those which have hitherto governed it, and that British capital is to be raised for making a new Canal on foreign soil without the security of Sovereign rights for the protection of the Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly suppose that these Questions, relating to matters of the gravest importance, and announced viva voce across the Table, can be answered specifically at the present moment. As far as I could gather the purport of them, three of them related to matters that are germane to the Agreement which has been provisionally formed, and three of them relate to questions of high policy connected with the general position of the Canal. As regards these questions of high policy, it is quite obvious, I think, that we should have communication with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary of State before attempting to answer them. As far as regards the questions relating to the position of the Canal, I believe I may say this, that the reversion of the Canal to the Egyptian Government will remain unchanged, as under the present Agreement, and that the domicile of the Canal Company will continue to be in Paris, as it is at the present time, although with enlarged arrangements with regard to the introduction of the British element into the management of the Canal. With regard to the question whether another Canal could be formed, that, of course, is a question of high policy; but there is nothing in the arrangement with M. de Lesseps which in any manner bears upon that subject. I speak now, of course, of another Canal under separate management, and representing separate interests of a totally distinct character—because it is well understood that the construction, at the earliest possible moment, of a second Canal for the purpose of forwarding the traffic is, in truth, the basis and foundation of the arrangement now made. Perhaps, with regard to these Questions, this answer may be sufficient; but, if not, I should ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to give Notice.
  MR. BOURKE: I will put the Questions on the Paper, and I will consult the convenience of the Government as to when they would like to answer them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When do the Government propose to submit these arrangements for the ratification of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I shall lay this Paper on the Table to-day, as I said before; and I shall lay on the Table a more extensive Report by the British Directors in a day or two. The form in which the House will be asked to express its approval will be on the appropriation of a sum not exceeding £8,000,000, and then the whole question can be raised.
  SIR STAEFORD NORTHCOTE: Is it to be a Vote of Parliament for the £8,000,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, certainly; the sum must be voted by Parliament.
  MR. NORWOOD: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether I am correct in understanding that the Agreement does not provide for any increase of the English Directors upon the Directorate of the Suez Canal? I understood that the Vice President of the Directorate would be an Englishman; but I did not understand that the number of our Directors, which is only three in a body of 24, was to be increased.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether it is not intended to increase the voting power of the English Directors of the Canal; and whether you are actually restricting the number of English Directors of the Canal to the number fixed by Lord Beaconsfield's Government—namely, three? I also wish to ask as to the manner in which this money is to be raised—whether it is to be added to the National Debt of this country by a loan, and then to be lent to the Suez Canal Company, or whether you have any other means of obtaining the money without adding to the National Debt; also, whether there is anything in the shape of a guarantee to be given; whether, if you do not lend the money actually, you are supposed to guarantee the loan? If you guarantee the loan, if not raised in this country, you can do that without applying to Parliament. And that, I think, would be

  1095
  most objectionable. The English Government guaranteed the loan raised by the Danubian Commission for works on the Danube without coming before Parliament. The sum was certainly small; but the principle was established that the Government could guarantee a loan without coming to Parliament.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): On the financial question, I may say that the money will be obtained very similarly to the way in which it was obtained for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. There will be no addition to taxation; but a loan will be raised as on the former occasion. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drumrnond Wolff), that we could avoid coming to Parliament by guaranteeing a loan—in the first place, I doubt the fact; and, in the second place, I greatly doubt the policy, because we certainly could not obtain the money at anything like so good a percentage of interest if we guaranteed it, instead of raising it. As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Norwood), we carefully considered the point about adding to the number of Directors, and it was, in our opinion, of no material advantage to this country to add to the number of our Directors unless we had insisted, which would not have been reasonable, on obtaining an absolute majority of the whole Directors. We thought that the present arrangement, under which we have a limited number of Directors, with the enlarged function proposed to be given to them, was very much better for this country than a large body of English Directors. Of course, when we come to the full enjoyment of our Shares in the year 1894, the whole question of representation of this country will be different; but I adhere to the opinion which I have already expressed, that it would be impolitic to insist on any large number of Directors.
  MR. CHARLES PALMEE: Is it intended to administer all the affairs of this Company in Paris, or will there be a Board of Directors appointed to sit in London, so that any grievances of English shipowners may be laid before them in this country, instead of in France?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No; we have
  1096
  no intention of proposing any alteration of the domicile of the Directorate. In our opinion, it would be extremely inconvenient, and not of the least advantage.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Did I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the new Canal would be the same depth as the existing Canal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; my words were—
  "Of width and depth sufficient to meet the requirements of maritime construction, settled in agreement with the English Directors."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFE: With respect to the voting power, we own, I think, one-half of the Shares of the Canal, and have only 10 votes at a general meeting. I wish to ask whether, considering that we have half of the Canal Shares, and are to advance the whole capital for the new Canal, the Government do not think that we are entitled to a larger voting power?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): That will not be possible, because our Shares do not bear coupons. We do not propose to change the terms of the present concession; but, of course, in 1894 we shall enter upon the full rejouissance of our Shares.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, no Shareholder, whatever the number of Shares he held, could have more than 10 votes, and asked whether the Government were not to have more than 10 votes—a larger voting power at general meetings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said at the outset I would not introduce any matter of argument, and I think the Question of the hon. Member is an arguable one. When the proper time comes all these questions can be fully discussed. Meanwhile, I merely state that we do not propose to alter the present arrangements in this respect.
  MR. MONK: I wish to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the present Directors have no voting power whatever in respect to one-half of the capital which has no coupons, but that a certain number of Shares had to be purchased before the Directors exercised the right of voting?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Speaking from memory, I think that is so.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: How many Members will be upon the Finance Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Two English Members will be upon the Finance Committee; but the total number I cannot at this moment distinctly state.
  MR. MAGNIAC: Will the British Government have power to interfere with respect to the construction of the Canal—to see, in the interests of this country, that the money is properly spent?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have stated that the new construction will be settled in agreement with the British Directors. One of these is a very distinguished engineer, and I think that the hon. Member will feel satisfied that he will take all the necessary precautions.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the House to understand that this large sum of money is to be handed over en bloc to the Company, whether it is all required or not for the purposes of constructing the new Canal?
  THE CHANCELLOR Of THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid that the hon. Member did not follow the words of the Agreement as I read them, which are—
  "The Government to lend to the Company by instalments, as required, for the construction of the works,"
  a sum not exceeding £8,000,000. Of course, the money will only be advanced from time to time on the report of the responsible authority that it is required for the purpose.

  MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH—EXPULSION OF THE BRITISH CONSUL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice. A report has reached me of some serious occurrence in Madagascar. I do not wish, in the present state of my information, to put the Question in any form that would give colour to it; and, therefore, I will simply ask the Government, Whether they have any information on the subject which they can communicate to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have received, within the last 24 hours, a tele-
  1098
  graphic communication from Zanzibar and Madagascar with regard to the occurrences in Madagascar, which is not complete, but of which I will endeavour to lay the substance before the House. This House is aware—I believe it has been made aware by my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—that Tamatave was occupied by the French on the 14th of June, and that a state of siege was proclaimed there. The British Consul was, unhappily, at the time very ill, and the information that we have received is to the effect that his illness was seriously aggravated by the political crisis. One incident of that crisis was that his Secretary was arrested in his presence. In these circumstances, he received an order from the French Admiral to quit the place within 24 hours. Before the expiration of that 24 hours—seven hours before that time had expired—he died. The French Admiral subsequently invited the British to attend the funeral. They did attend in considerable numbers. The British officers and men of Her Majesty's Ship Dryad and several of the French officers likewise attended the funeral. The French Admiral stopped communications between the British man-of-war and the shore. The captain was allowed, but only verbally, to protest against the proceedings, and the flags of all foreign Consuls, as we have understood, have been hauled down in Tamatave. Besides that, there is a portion of the telegram affecting another person. It says that in addition to the Secretary to the Consul one British subject, a Mr. Shaw, who, I believe, is a Missionary of the London Missionary Society, was arrested on the 16th, and remains in prison. The charge against him has not been made public; but it is surmised or presumed to be for correspondence with the enemy—using what I believe would be the French phrase under the circumstances. Inquiry has been made, but the only answer received is that the law must take its course. In announcing this grave and painful occurrence I have only now to say that we wait for further information as to the facts, and we wait also for those communications from the Government of France which the case may require, which we have intimated to the French Government that we anticipate, and which it would have been our duty to make to any

  1099
  Foreign Government under similar circumstances.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether the nationality of the Secretary who was arrested was known?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a native name; but that is a mere surmise, and we have no information in the telegram on the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired whether there was any truth in the rumour that a British subject had been arrested in Tunis and had not been given up to the British Consul?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have received no information on the subject.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in conformity with the statement which I made on Monday last, I beg to move that, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority this day, and each succeeding Wednesday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority this day, and on each succeeding Wednesday."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, he hoped that, as the Government were about to take the whole of the time of the House, they would give some facility for further proceeding with the Durham Sunday Closing Bill. Her Majesty's Government knew that at the last General Election they had had no stronger body of supporters than those who advocated temperance principles; and if another Session were allowed to pass without any temperance measure being passed, he was afraid that the consequences at the next General Election would be very disastrous to the prospects of the Liberal Party.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that in consequence of an uncertainty as to the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject which prevailed in the public mind, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government
  1100
  to take any further action with reference to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of which had not been discharged, but had been postponed until the 23rd of July? Every Irish Member had received a large number of telegrams upon the subject, and it would relieve them from a great deal of anxiety if the Prime Minister would state that the Government would endeavour to ascertain the general feeling of Irish Members in reference to this measure before they took any further action upon this important Bill.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to repeat the Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago—namely, Whether the Government would give facilities for the discussion of the following very important questions:—Our position with regard to India, where Lord Ripon's innovations were convulsing the whole country; the effect of the action of France in different parts of the world upon British commerce, and especially in Madagascar and Annam; the danger of a war between France and China; and the great question of South Africa? There were also two matters relating to home affairs which urgently required discussion—namely, that which related to the housings of the poor and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERobserved, that it was important that the House should understand the exact position in which it stood. He had understood the other day that the Government, in asking for the remaining time of private Members, did so under exceptional circumstances and for specific objects. The exceptional circumstances were that the Government desired to proceed with Government Bills, which, speaking generally, were of a non-political and non-contentious character. It had further been understood that this proposal for the appropriation of the time of private Members by the Government was not to be carried into effect without the general consent of hon. Members. In his opinion that was a very fair proposition, and the Prime Minister appeared to be desirous of abiding loyally by it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was now being pressed from various quarters by hon. Members to afford facilities for the passing of particular measures which had been introduced by private Members,

  1101
  In these circumstances, he thought that the House should have a distinct understanding that this surrender of the remainder of the Session was for the purpose of proceeding with Government measures alone. He also wished to refer to another point. With regard to the date of the Prorogation he did not wish to commit the Prime Minister to any actual date; but he thought that it was generally understood that if the House gave up the time at its disposal for the prosecution of Public Business the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication as to how long their labours were likely to be protracted. He wished, further, to ask whether any representations had been made to Her Majesty's Government by any Foreign Powers with regard to the alleged laxity of British regulations respecting quarantine and other precautions against the importation of Asiatic cholera into Europe? He bad noticed from the ordinary channels of information that considerable alarm prevailed in this respect. It was not for him to inquire the grounds for that alarm. It might be that the action of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the protection of man and beast from disease had not tended to re-assure foreign countries as to our treatment of a subject of this kind. If such alarm prevailed, he asked if Her Majesty's Government would take care that not only were proper precautions adopted to prevent the spread of the disease, but that their being adopted was sufficiently made known?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that the private Members would not begrudge the time which the Government now asked for, if they felt that proper use had been made of the time of Parliament previously; but the fact was that the time of the House up to this point had been very largely wasted. Why had there been so many "Counts-out" this Session? The reason was because there were no means by which important Motions could be brought on, to the exclusion of trumpery ones. The Prime Minister had said there were two methods of dealing with the time of the House, so far as disposable for private Members. The one might be called the method of chance, and the other the method of choice. He submitted that the method of chance had broken down; and he would, therefore, urge upon the House
  1102
  and upon the Government the great importance of considering, before next Session, whether some means might not be adopted whereby the time of the House might be applied, especially on Tuesdays and Fridays, to really useful discussions, and to the advancement of Motions in which a considerable number of Members took an interest.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEremarked, that he was not going to oppose the Motion of the Prime Minister; but, at the same time, he thought that he had a right to make one or two observations in reference to it before this surrender of the rest of the time of the Session was made to Her Majesty's Government. He wished to make an urgent appeal to Her Majesty's Government that measures of such importance as the National Debt Bill should not be passed through the House in the month of August, when they could not be properly discussed. The Session had been a very arduous one, and he must say that the Motion appeared somewhat of a sarcasm upon the time and trouble taken last autumn in passing the Rules of Procedure. What hon. Members had a right now to demand was that the Government should give a stronger guarantee than they had yet afforded to the House that in the hot weather, when everybody was exhausted, important Bills should not be proceeded with. He wished to point out that the "Counts-out" which had occurred this Session had proved most disastrous to Supply, the progress of which ought to be the first object of any Government. It was known that the first day when Supply could be taken after the Easter Recess afforded a splendid opportunity for getting Supply; but this Session the Government had allowed the House to be counted out on that day. When the House was called upon to make these sacrifices of time to Government Business it had a right to demand in return that the Government would, next Session, endeavour to get Votes in Supply at an earlier period, and would take precautions against the House being counted out so frequently.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to put in a plea on behalf of the long-suffering person the private Member, and to make a suggestion respecting him. He did not rise to oppose the Motion, as he thought it

  1103
  not only a necessary, but an inevitable one. There was some work they must do, and some that it was desirable to do before the House separated. The credit of Parliament, as much as the credit of the Government, was involved in their doing it. It was unreasonable to ask Members to sit into September to consider Bills that could not pass, or to debate Resolutions that resulted in nothing. An unnecessary speech made then or any other time would only result in keeping them longer in London than they wanted to stop, and would not, he was sure, be popular with anyone. He could not join in the condemnation of the Government that had been uttered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought that whatever might be said of their proceedings in other Sessions, they could not complain this year. The Prime Minister had never brought the power of his majority to bear upon them in matters of Business. They had never heard that hateful word "Urgency." Indeed, the Head of the Government had shown a greater concern for the liberties of private Members than the private Members had very often shown themselves. But when all this was said, the fact remained that this Motion was a curtailment of private Members' privileges. Motions like that were accustomed to be made at the end of the Session; but they used to be made at the beginning of August. They were so made in last Parliament. Then they were advanced from the first week of August to the last week of July. One Session it was the 30th of July; another, the 27th; then the 14th; then the 16th; then the 13th; until it had become, this Session, on the 1st of July. [An hon. MEMBER: Not the 1st, but the 11th.] Well, it was true that this was the 11th; but the Government had had control of all the time of the House since the 1st. The broad fact was this—that, year by year, the Government had infringed upon the time of private Members, sometimes taking a day or two, sometimes a week more than had been taken in the year previous. The result was that there was a month's less time at the disposal of independent Members than there was seven or eight years ago. The encroachment was so steady, and apparently so slight, that it was imperceptible. But if anyone referred to the records of the House he would find that in 10 years a
  1104
  very great change had taken place. Formerly private Members had by far the larger share of the time of the House, and so recently as 1872 the time was about equally divided. Now the Government had more than two-thirds, and sometimes three-fourths of it. During the three last Sessions the House sat 3,500 hours, and private Members had only 1,000 of these hours in which they could initiate Business, while the Government had upwards of 2,500 hours. Hon. Members were probably not aware of it, but that was the fact. It was quite true that private Members took a larger part in the consideration of Government Business than they formerly did; but they certainly had far less time for the discussion of their own special topics than they once had. His hon. Friend the Member for Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had said they neglected the opportunities they possessed, and he complained of the number of "Counts-out" there had been this Session. There was a good deal of misapprehension on that head. Private Members had been accused of a remissness they were not guilty of. These were the facts. There had been 13 "Counts-out." One of them was on a Wednesday, and it took place under rather singular circumstances. It was accidental. Another took place half-an-hour after midnight, and could not be fairly called a "Count-out." That left 11. Four of these "Counts-out" had taken place after the House had been sitting very late the previous day, or, rather, the same day. The Sittings on the occasions he referred to had been continued until half-past 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Some Members were required to be again at Westminster at noon to take part in the Grand Committees. The House itself re-assembled at 2 for a Morning Sitting, and went on until 7. It was unreasonable to expect that Members could sit until half-past 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, and then meet—many of them at noon, and all of them at 2—sitting until 7, and be ready for a resumption of duty at 9. In condemning Members for not attending, these circumstances should be taken into account. But three "Counts-out" had taken place on Friday nights, when the Government were as much interested in the Business as private Members

  1105
  were. Now, there was every reason to believe that these "Counts" had occurred with the connivance or approval of the Government. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The Prime Minister did not appear to be of that opinion; but he would recollect that they had both been present more than once when the House was counted out, and when everyone could see there was no great alacrity shown by the supporters of the Ministry to keep the Business going. They all knew the occasions he referred to. The Government did not want discussions about the county franchise or about re-afforest-ring Ireland, and there were many ways of preventing them without appearing to do so. They all knew that on those occasions a "Count" was in the air. When they talked of "Counts-out," the reasons for them should be recollected. The chief cause was not attributable to any want of interest on the part of private Members; but it sprang from the way in which Business was arranged. There was great competition for private Members' nights—sometimes as many as 20, 30, or 40 Gentlemen balloting for places. Local, personal, and comparatively unimportant subjects just stood as good a chance of getting a first place as very important questions did. When they considered the stress there was upon Members, they could not be surprised that there was no great disposition to make a House at an Evening Sitting for the discussion of insignificant questions. He would say, in passing, that one of the Rules laid down by the Speaker was not complied with in the balloting. It was understood that men ought not to ballot in groups for their Bills and Resolutions, and yet they did so. A number of Gentlemen interested in a question all balloted for it at the same time. The result was that they got more than their share of nights, and they had a great advantage over an individual Member, who observed not only the letter, but the spirit of the Rule. What he wanted the Government to do was to devise some means by which the House would have an opportunity of selecting its Business. They had no control over it as it stood now. There were many ways in which this could be done, and he supposed every Member who had thought upon it would have a plan. The present was not the time to discuss such plans; but he might say that it was unreasonable
  1106
  for the same subject to be submitted and talked about Session after Session. He held that when a matter had been fairly brought before the House one year, it should not be in the power of Members to bring it forward next year to the exclusion of other proposals of equal interest. It was in that direction—limiting the number of times that a subject could be debated—that relief might be found. They ought to reckon, not by the Session, but the Parliament. There was no matter that more required the attention of the House than this—the apportionment of the time of Members in the way that a majority of the Members desired. But the Government were not guiltless themselves of misappropriating the time of the House. The Session commenced with a long array of Bills in the Queen's Speech. Twenty or 25 were set down on the programme. Some of them were read a first time, some a second, and some got into Committee. A good deal of time was spent in pushing them forward to this stage, and. then they were abandoned. Nearly 20 Bills during the present Session had been dropped in this way, and the time occupied with them—equal, at least, to a Parliamentary week—had been really thrown away. When they were introduced again, all the work would have to be done afresh. They would have to go through the same form as they had already gone through. He called that bad economy. The Government, instead of providing 25 Bills, should have produced only a sufficient number to keep the House working. They should go on with them day by day until they were passed; and then, if time permitted, they could submit another half-dozen, and deal with them in the same way. If this method were adopted, they would never have such a block as had recently taken place. Throwing such a number of Bills into the legislative mill only produced confusion. There, as elsewhere, it was "more haste, less speed." He thought that that was a matter the Government might with advantage consider before next year. It was said this Session had been exceptional. All Sessions were exceptional. It would be an exception if the Session was not exceptional. It was certainly an exception to see three of the main Bills of the year supported by all Parties in the House; and yet that

  1107
  was the case. The Bankruptcy Bill, the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and the Corrupt Practices Bill were supported by men of every shade of politics. They might differ in detail, but they agreed in principle. It had been customary for hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him to indulge in a lot of meaningless accusations against groups of Members in that House about obstructing the Business. Again and again Gentlemen in that part of the House, as well as on the opposite side, had been charged with Obstructive practices. He hoped those who made such charges would bear in mind what was taking place that day. They were really giving to the Government—a month before the usual date—all the time of the House; and there was and had been no resistance, except in detail, to the leading measures of the Session. There had not been Obstruction; and if any delay had arisen it had been in consequence of the manner in which the work had been arranged, or in consequence of the very unusual pressure that Members had had to labour under.
  SIR STAFFORD NOETHCOTE: It does seem to me, Sir, that the discussions which, from time to time, take place in the House with regard to the cause of the delay in the conduct of Business, are not very edifying to the outside world. They are, perhaps, rather calculated to diminish the respect with which the House is held when we spend so very large a portion of our time in wrangling amongst ourselves. As to the causes which retard the progress of Business, there has been in the past a very simple formula, which has explained everything. It has always been Obstruction; and by Obstruction was meant the conduct of Gentlemen on this side of the House. But whenever we have come really to grapple with this question we have discovered many other causes at work, some of which were not preventible, and others which were. No doubt there are faults which belong to us all. But we ought not to let a discussion like this close without considering how much is owing to the mismanagement of the Business by those charged with the conduct of it. There is no doubt that every year the difficulty of conducting the Business is greater and greater; and allowance must be made for this. But it is the business of
  1108
  the Government to manage the affairs of the House so as to reduce the difficulty to a minimum; and I venture to say the Government fails signally in that duty. Take, as an instance, the application to get the time of the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There have been no fewer than three discussions on this subject of the time of the House being given to the Government, when it might all have been concentrated and dealt with in one day. If the Government had only made up their minds sooner what measures they were to give up and what not, and held out a fair prospect of the time at which the Session would close, they might have had this extra time given them at an earlier period. Even now we cannot feel that the statement of the Prime Minister the other day was a final statement. It is impossible to believe the Government can accomplish the whole of the programme which was then announced. It is all very well to say we do not want to sacrifice our measures too early; but keeping them on the Paper leads only to wasting time, and the Goverment ought to make up their minds without the necessity of any discussion of this kind. I hope what has been said will lead to our giving up the pleasurable excitement of attacking one another all round, and endeavour to set ourselves to the task of getting through the necessary Business of the House in a proper manner, and within a reasonable time. I am quite sure if this is done the Government will receive the co-operation of the House; but if they endeavour to keep measures before us which they know must be abandoned they will keep up a state of irritation which is not good for the progress of Business or the character of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman commenced his remarks by saying that wrangles amongst ourselves were far from edifying, and led to discouraging observations by the public at large, I thought the preaching of the right hon. Gentleman excellent; but the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to repeat these wrangles, and to dwell upon them at as great length as anyone. The other observations, made at greater length, were not of a wrangling description at all. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport is so habitually accustomed to

  1109
  interfere with the course of Business in this House that I am not surprised at his interruption. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks the manner in which the Government have proceeded with regard to their request of the time of the House illustrates their want of ability in the management of the Business of the House, which he looks upon as the main cause of the evils under which we live. The right hon. Gentleman says the practice of the Government is to say Obstruction is the great cause of the difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of attending to anything that falls from me, he would know that I always said that the main, the great cause of our difficulty, and that which gives power to Obstruction and makes Obstruction worth pursuing, is the great increase in the Business of the House, which goes on increasing year by year. I do not agree at all with the right hon. Gentleman as to what he has said in regard to the particular instance he has mentioned. What we felt was, that we were making an appeal to the House at an unusual time and under exceptional circumstances, and that we should not attempt to take the House by surprise; because, if we had attempted to do so by proceeding in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman recommends—namely, that at once we should have made that demand—I believe we should probably have spent the whole night discussing, in a temper not favourable to the progress of Business, the unreasonable conduct of the Government. The great matter on these occasions is to proceed with the general concurrence of the House, when an extraordinary demand is made on it for its time. That is the object we have in view; and I am happy to say, notwithstanding what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that we have had the general concurrence of the House, and that the House has admitted the fairness and equity of the spirit in which we have proceeded. The only other person, besides the right hon. Gentleman, who has introduced invidious remarks, is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), and he, too, is very learned on this subject, and has given an instance of the gross mismanagement of the Government. He says the first day after the Easter Recess is a splendid day for obtaining Votes in Supply; but, instead of
  1110
  that, the Government allowed the House to be counted out. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, and does not know the most elementary facts of the case. The House met on Thursday after the Easter Recess; and the House wont into Committee of Supply, and continued in Supply until 1 o'clock in the morning, and obtained a number of Votes.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I alluded to Friday night as the first Supply night after the Recess.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then what does the right hon. Gentleman mean? He says he alluded to Friday night, but Friday was not the first night after the Easter Recess. Thursday was the first night.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I mean the first Supply night, not the first Government Business night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from an authority as to the importance of the first night. There was a Motion down as to Parliamentary Representation on Friday, and the question was whether the House would be occupied all night with that Motion. It was not whether they should go into Supply or not; and, if the Motion had come on, the right hon. Gentleman, little as he knows of these matters, must have known that it would take a long time. To part from these subjects, which I am very sorry to have been obliged to allude to, and turn to other matters which are not controversial, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) has made a speech on subjects of great interest and importance, to which the Government will give their best consideration. We could not arrive at any decision now, and an academic discussion would not be of any great practical advantage. One point I will mention. The hon. Gentleman has referred to what we undoubtedly very much lament—namely, that on several Fridays this year the House has been counted out. The practice of late has been to lay the whole responsibility of keeping a House on Fridays on the Government. Undoubtedly it is the duty of the Government to use every effort to make and keep a House on Fridays. I was present on one or two occasions on Friday night when the House was counted out, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to tax his memory as to what was the proportion of Members on the two

  1111
  sides of the House, and he would agree with me that the Opposition, who at any rate constitute two-fifths of the House, made a contribution of not more than one or two Members towards making up 40. I only refer to that because I do not think it possible for the Secretary to the Treasury to secure—for he cannot command—the attendance of Members except of those who are in Office; and I believe he has usually had 15 to 20 Members who are in Office on the Treasury Bench on these occasions. But the matter must rest on the judgment of the House, and if the Opposition did not attend at that time, I do not blame them. The reason is the extreme severity of the labours of the House. That is the real reason; and for the Government's sake, instead of finding fault with one another, let us recognize this fact. No addition is made to human strength, and no addition is made to human time. The Business of the country most rapidly increases, and together with the necessary Business of the country, the disposition on the part of the House, and the spirit in which the Government is conducted, leads to a great enlargement of its functions and to the intervention of private Members. There is one subject I would venture to point out, because I think I can do it without reproach. We have now got to pay the price for the manner in which our time was disposed of before Easter. There was a full month which, so far as the general Business of the House is concerned, was entirely lost—one fortnight on the debate on the Affirmation Bill, and another fortnight on the Address. With regard to the debate on the Affirmation Bill, the blame of that is laid by the Opposition upon us, and it is laid by us on the Opposition. We say they created the difficulty which we then endeavoured to enable them to escape from, and they say we made a most improper attempt to alter the fundamental principles of the Constitution. I am only referring to that now as a misfortune. With regard to the causes we are not agreed; but we have got to pay the price, undoubtedly, of that expenditure of time, whoever be responsible for it. But the other subject is one of importance, and stands in a totally different category, and I do put it to the House, without reproach to anybody or anything, that there cannot be a practice more inconvenient with regard to Public Business
  1112
  than if that innovation which has lately crept in of indefinite discussion upon the Address were to harden into habit. That fortnight in February will, infallibly, have to be paid for by a fortnight in August or September, and I hope hon. Members will, with reference to the opening of the next Session, bear this subject in mind. They do not then see I the consequences of that expenditure of time. If we are in earnest in the endeavour to save time, I am sure there is one way in which that anxiety can best of all be exemplified, and that is by recurring to the practice which prevailed through times of the greatest political excitement—namely, the practice of disposing of the Address on the day on which the House met. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has made the speech of a Leader of the Opposition, and he seems to be in some kind of competition with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is quite evident that the Session, according to the view and appetite of the hon. Member, who is young in point of Parliamentary experience, ought to last all the year round, in order to enable him to do what he seems inclined to do—namely, to take the whole management of the Executive Business of the country into his own hands. I am able to comfort the hon. Gentleman in regard to two of his subjects in this way. He complains that the Government have taken the whole time of the House, and that there will be no time to discuss either the question of Indian affairs or the conduct of France, I believe, with regard to Madagascar; but on Friday the 3rd of August, the hon. Gentleman has the most demonstrative proof that we have not taken the whole time of the House, because he has himself put down a Notice for the discussion on that day of Indian affairs. I presume he will then enter upon that discussion, and should he be moderate in the time he occupies, there is another hon. Member sitting on this side of the House who comes behind with a Question with regard to the affairs of Madagascar; so that, in those circumstances, there will be some comfort for the hon. Gentleman. I must not be drawn by the speech of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) into the rash attempt to name at this moment a date for the Prorogation. Until we are clear of the main and greatest subjects before us, it would

  1113
  be vain to do anything of the kind. With regard to the progress of the Corrupt Practics Bill in Committee, or the progress of the Agricultural Bills, nothing can be more rash than to say how long they are likely to take. When we have got rid of these questions, then, perhaps, we may become a little bolder in our calculations. With respect to Government Bills, I do not think we have been very indefinite, because we have sacrificed eight Bills of great importance; and with regard to three other Bills of importance we have also stated that we hold thorn to be disposed of entirely according to time and convenience, and these are really the majority of what I may call the disputable or controvertible Bills in the hands of the Government. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) says as to our position with regard to legislation in the hands of private Members, that so far as regards the time of the House we have taken we are not at liberty to dispose of it for the furtherance of private legislation. I do not mean to say that the hopes of private legislation are extinguished for the year. Members are at liberty, if they think fit, to keep their Bills on the Paper, and to avail themselves of such opportunities as the closing days of the Session may afford. Indeed, there are usually a few days towards the end of the Session when private Members have a very good chance of passing some of their Bills. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) referred to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the mode of proceeding that had been adopted. With regard to that Bill, and also to the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, I was precluded by the Forms of the House from at once moving the discharge of the Orders, because I believe the proper course is to keep those Bills on the Paper until the Bill for their continuance had been introduced. Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman may take advantage of that circumstance in any way he likes; but the course of the Government has been distinctly defined. I do not think I can give any further declaration with respect to the Bills of the Government on the present occasion.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I also asked about precautions against cholera.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question was two fold—first of all, Had we re-
  1114
  ceived any remonstrance from Foreign Governments with regard to what had been done or not done in Egypt? There are no such remonstrances of any kind whatever. Then with regard to precautions, if the right hon. Gentleman refers to the instituting of quarantine in this country with reference to cholera, I believe I am accurate in stating that no quarantine has even been established in this country for the purpose of excluding cholera since 1832, and the reason why it has not been done since is because on that occasion it was found to be an entire failure. I do not know that it is necessary for me to detain the House any longer.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Prime Minister had spoken of the accumulation of Business; but he begged to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that accumulation was quite artificial, and was due to two causes. It used to be the habit of the House to require a statement on every Bill proposed to be introduced before the House admitted it to the Notice Paper. The omission of that practice had been very injurious, and had led to the gross accumulation of measures with which the House knew it could not deal. Hon. Members indulged themselves in promises to their constituents to introduce Bills when they ought to know that they had not the slightest chance of passing them. That was a fictitious practice, and highly derogatory to the House of Commons. In this respect even the Prime Minister could not be held to be guiltless, because previous to his accepting Office he put forth a programme which he had been unable to fulfil. It appeared to him that the House was wanting to itself, and that independent Members did not consider the duties of their positions, otherwise they should claim that before Easter, and again before Whitsuntide the Order Book should be examined, if not by the Government, at all events by a Standing Committee of that House, which should undertake the task of reporting to the House the measures which it deemed to be pressing, and with which the House could properly deal within the time allowed to its deliberation.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that the public were getting disgusted at the waste of time in these discussions about the transaction of Business. Under Party Government, Conservatives na-

  1115
  turally thought Liberal legislation mischievous, and Liberals thought the same of Conservative legislation. Hence, the method adopted was a premium on delay. A large amount of work was proposed to be done which there was no chance of carrying through, because it was perfectly well understood that the House would rise by a certain date. The true remedy was, that at the beginning of the Session, the Government, to whatever Party it belonged, should put down an amount of work which could not take up too much of the time of the House, and that work should be considered before the Session closed. That would be a self-acting closure, and everybody would be interested in getting through the work.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether it had occurred to the hon. Member who had informed the House that the public were getting sick of the waste of time in the House, that he had himself not long ago contributed very much to that waste of time of which he complained? He rose, however, now, not for the purpose of opposing the proposition which had been made, but to enter his protest against the Government taking so much of the time which should be at the disposal of private Members. With reference to the Resolution which had been passed last night on the subject of the importation of foreign cattle, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it would be impossible to carry it without further legislation. He had accordingly given Notice that morning that on Monday next he would ask the Prime Minister in what way the Government intended to give effect to the Resolution; because, as the House had passed it by a majority, he presumed that the Government would take stops to give effect to it. He expected, therefore, that the Government would introduce some Bill for that purpose, and in these circumstances their plans might have to undergo some modifications. He would not now move the adjournment of the debate; but he hoped the Prime Minister would consider the question, and give some further information on Monday.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, he rose to express his dissatisfaction that the Government were making no provision for the promotion of temperance legislation, which would inflict the greatest
  1116
  disappointment on the promoters of the Temperance Cause, who were the most loyal supporters of Her Majesty's Government. It made very little difference to private Members whether their time was taken up by the Government or not, because the present state of matters was a continual triumph for the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, who had no following whatever in the country. He sometimes thought that the friends of Temperance on this side of the House would fare better if they were in Opposition, for they were hindered by their unwillingness to hamper a Government which they were proud to support. There ought to be some process of selection by which the time at the disposal of private Members might be given to Bills which were considered of importance, instead of being sacrificed to Bills of not the slightest consequence. A Member ought to be entitled to give Notice that his Bill should have precedence, and the question ought to be decided at once by a Vote of the House. The Bill for Sunday Closing in the county of Durham had passed a second reading, and if a Saturday were given to it, its passing would be secured. He hoped even yet that before the Session closed something would be done to meet the views of the great Temperance Party. If nothing were done, it would cause great disappointment in the country, and would do serious damage to the Government.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to ask the Prime Minister if he still intended to carry out the suggestion he threw out a few nights ago, to take the Navy Estimates on Monday and the Agricultural Holdings Bill on Tuesday, in the event of the Corrupt Practices Bill being finished on Friday? The Prime Minister also threw out the suggestion that there would be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday; and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to have one?
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to Scottish Business, which he was sure it would be recognized was considerably in arrear. The matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Prime Minister was the new Local Government Board for Scotland. He was not now going to discuss the value of that measure; but he had

  1117
  received several communications on the subject, and believed that it would greatly expedite the consideration of the measure if, instead of taking up the time of the House in discussing it during the remainder of this Session, the Bill itself were submitted to the Conveners of counties in Scotland, so that they should have a general opinion derived from Scotland with reference to the value of the measure. By that arrangement, the measure, if it was to become law, would do so with more general assent than if it were passed through the House without the opinion of Scotland having been taken in the matter. With regard to the Business of the House, he believed the real cause of all the delay was the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule. He said that on the authority of the evidence which the Speaker had given before the Parliamentary Committee on that point; and so long as the Half-past 12 Rule was continued so long should they have a block of Business, and the real cause of that block ought to be known to the country.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, he hoped that some effort would be made by the Government to carry the Bill relating to the condition of the Irish labourers. In his opinion, in view of the previous failures of the Government to deal with the question satisfactorily, they ought to give the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) facilities to carry the Bill introduced by him—namely, the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Prime Minister whether he would fix a day for bringing forward the proposals regarding the Suez Canal?
  MR. MOOREsaid, he would endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart). He hoped the Government would give the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) facilities to carry his Bill dealing with the question of labourers' dwellings in Ireland, as that Bill was certainly a step in the right direction.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that as to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, the expression of opinion from Irish Members on Monday night only feebly represented the feeling of the country on the question. Since he entered the House that day a bundle of telegrams on the
  1118
  subject reached him from Ireland; but he would only trouble the House with one of them, which was as follows:—
  "The surrender of the Sunday Closing Bill unfortunate for the Government. Will Chief Secretary not redeem his pledge? Strong feeling here. Press hard. Thanks for help."
  MR. CALLAN: Will the hon. Member state who is that telegram from?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he preferred not to give the hon. Member for Louth the information; and very probably, under similar circumstances, the hon. Member would not be very ready to give him information.
  MR. CALLAN: I would certainly give the hon. Member the information.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he would rather not state who the telegram came from; but the hon. Member was perfectly at liberty to have the telegram in his hand afterwards if he desired to see it. The reason he read the telegram was to express his belief that, in his opinion, the Irish Government was as anxious as he was that this Bill should be carried. The Irish Sunday Closers absolved the Chief Secretary from all responsibility in the matter, and he felt that measure was dropped because of the natural competition which took place at that period of the Session between the Bills the Government desired to pass. The Irish Sunday Closing Bill did not receive that consideration from the English portion of the Government which the Irish portion of the Government bestowed upon it. This valuable Bill was sacrified to meet the exigencies of English measures. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. CALLANremarked that he really had no desire to see the telegram read by the hon. Member for Armagh. He knew very well the source from which it came. It came, of course, from the Irish Sunday Closing Association.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSON: I rise to Order. It did nothing of the kind.
  MR. CALLAN: Well, at all events, the publication of the telegram was rather extensive, because the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) showed him (Mr. Callan) a telegram which was precisely in the same terms, and which undoubtedly came from the Irish Sunday Closing Society in Dublin. The executive of this Society had been compared to the three tailors of Tooley Street. It consisted of three Scotchmen—Mr. Henry

  1119
  Wigham, Mr. David Drummond, and of Mr. Russell—who came over to Dublin to endeavour to introduce their Scotch habits. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the merits of the Sunday Closing Bill, when——
  MR. SPEAKERrose and said, the hon. Member was not in Order in debating the Bill.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would not pursue the matter further; but he should have a full opportunity of doing so when the Bill was brought forward in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and he only trespassed on the time of the House now because the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson) talked about the unanimity of the feeling in Ireland in favour of the Bill. Now, in his opinion, the unanimity was ail the other way.
  MR. EWARTsaid, he held that public opinion in Ireland, with a very small exception, was quite in favour of the measure, and he believed that the announcement of the Prime Minister that he intended to drop it had caused a great deal of disappointment throughout the country, as the Government had pledged themselves to pass it. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the Government would reconsider its decision of abandoning the measure for the Session.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was not quite accurate in his representation of what took place. He had never spoken of an expectation that the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill would last till Friday, for he hoped the discussion would close to-morrow. He could not make any definite arrangement about Tuesday. An arrangement had already been made that the Navy Estimates should be taken on Monday; but it was impossible to state on what day the Suez Canal discussion would be reached until they had closed the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill, and were near the close of the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill. The Government would then make the best arrangements they could, and also inform the House whether they saw any prospect of going forward with the three important Bills which were at present held in reserve. It would be a violation of the understanding between the House and the Government if any exception were to be made in favour of
  1120
  legislation in the interests of Irish labourers this Session.
  MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, he regretted the fate of the English Sunday Closing Bills; and also that all hopes of further temperance legislation were at an end for this Session. He would, however, warn the Government that it would not be to their advantage to alienate the sympathies of the Temperance Party, which was one of the strongest supporters of the Ministry. He appealed to the Government to promise to help forward temperance legislation next Session, so as to allay the rapidly increasing discontent in the country.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad to find the Prime Minister prepared to stand by his pledge, and he charged with immorality those who had urged him to depart from it. He hoped that if the Prime Minister should have Saturday Sittings at any time he would reserve them exclusively for the transaction of Government Business.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, he believed the Temperance Movement had been greatly prejudiced by the course adopted this Session of bringing in a number of Bills relating to separate counties. He hoped that next year the Temperance Party would concentrate their efforts on the passing of a single measure for the whole country; and he, for one, should be disposed to give it a frank and fair consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority this day, and on each succeeding Wednesday.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th July.] [NINETEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    New Clause:—
    (Employment of hackney carriages, or of carriages and horses kept for hire.)
    "A person shall not let, lend, or employ for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any public stage or hackney carriage, or any horse or other animal kept or used for drawing the same, or any carriage, horse, or other animal which he keeps or uses for the purpose of letting out for hire, and if he lets, lends, or employs such carriage, horse, or other animal, knowing that it is intended to he used for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, he shall he guilty of an illegal practice.
    "A person shall not hire, borrow, or use for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll any carriage, horse, or other animal which he knows the owner thereof is prohibited by this section to let, lend, or employ for that purpose, and, if he does so, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to or hired or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved to leave out in the new clause the word "let" in line 1. The clause would then read—
    "A person shall not lend or employ for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any public stage or hackney carriage."
    The clause was aimed against the practice of lending carriages by job-masters on the day of the poll. There would be great difficulty in framing a clause—the present words would not do—so as not to interfere with the legitimate rights of a carriage proprietor to use his cabs and omnibuses on the day of an election. People must be entitled to ride in cabs and omnibuses; and what he wanted to submit to the consideration of the Attorney General was, whether this clause could not be confined simply and solely to lending, not touching the question of letting, assuming that that had been dealt with by the 6th clause? For the purpose of raising the question, and in order to clearly understand what the Attorney General proposed to do, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) formally moved to omit the word "let" in line 1.
    Amendment proposed to proposed New Clause, to omit "let" in line 1.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'let' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he stood between two fires in regard to this matter; because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "lend or employ." He (the Attorney General) should certainly prefer to allow the word "let" to remain in the clause.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsuggested that they should put in the word "or" after "let," and strike out the words "or employ." Such an Amendment, he believed, would answer the purpose of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). A man would then be enabled to employ omnibuses and other carriages on the day of election in the ordinary course of business.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his Amendment stood next on the Paper; but he would move it in a different form from that in which it appeared. "To lend" and "to employ" were two totally different things. Lending in this case meant lending for the use of a candidate; but employing meant that a man in the course of his business employed a carriage. Now, in the North of England there were a great many Carriage Companies, and there was no doubt whatever that during elections there would be a great number of men going about; and the Companies would, in the ordinary course of their business, let out their carriages to people at a certain price. There was not the smallest doubt that where there was a demand there would be a supply. Surely, they did not intend to prevent a Tram Car or Carriage Company using its own carriages for its own purposes? Such people ought to be allowed to employ their carriages, because it could not form a means of corruption in any way. He should like to alter his Amendment. As it appeared upon the Paper, his Amendment was, to leave out "lend or employ;" he would, however, move to insert after the word "let," "or." He would afterwards move, in the event of this being carried, to strike out the words "or employ."
    Amendment proposed to proposed New Clause, to insert after "let," the word "or."—(Sir It. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accede to the right hon. Gentleman's wishes. He (the Attorney General) really believed that all the right hon. Gentleman wished was provided for in the Proviso—namely—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll."
    What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire wanted would be carried into effect—namely—that if any person wished to go to the poll in an omnibus he would be allowed to do so. If the Committee consented to strike out the words "or employ," they would be departing from what they carried yesterday.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think he had made himself quite clear. He did not, by this Amendment, wish to disturb the vote of yesterday. Hon. Members who were acquainted with Lancashire, especially the South-Eastern Division, would know that there was a large Company in Manchester called the Manchester Carriage Company, and another in Bolton called the Bolton Carriage Company. It might happen that many voters in and about Manchester might be, on the day of election, at work in Bolton, or in other towns, and vice versâ; there would, therefore, be great traffic from town to town. Probably the tramway cars running from place to place would be quite full, and the Carriage Company would think it right to put on an additional number of omnibuses, for precisely the same purpose as the ordinary running tramway car and omnibus. Now, that would be the employment of carriages for the purpose of carrying voters to the poll. He did not see that such a state of things ought to be prevented, and it was to carry out this view that he had moved the Amendment. Perhaps, however, it would be wise to put the word "employ" in the Proviso; and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving to strike out the word "lend," admitted
    1124
    that the Amendment was distinctly contrary to the vote they came to the other day. In this clause they were striking at one set of persons, and leaving another set completely untouched. He could not understand what danger there would be in allowing persons to lend their own carriages and horses. Any brewer might lend all his carriages and his horses; but if the clause was kept unaltered, a man whose trade it was to let vehicles would not be able to carry on his business on an election day. He considered they were putting an invidious distinction upon a job-master. He moved to leave out the word "lend."
    Amendment proposed to proposed New Clause, to leave out, in line 1, the word "lend."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'lend' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was quite right when he said that this Amendment would reverse, if accepted, the vote of yesterday afternoon. Letting or hiring would be covered, to a great extent, by Clause 6. He (the Attorney General) quite agreed that the brewer might send out his carriages; so might a private gentleman. They, however, were not persons who let carriages for hire. The evil they wished to meet was letting for hire. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were making an invidious distinction of job-masters; but it was patent that if they meant to strike a blow at corrupt practices they must aim at particular individuals. They had already prevented the hiring of committee rooms in public-houses. Why had they done that? Because in public-houses there were greater opportunities of treating than in any other place. They had also sacrificed the Legal Profession, to which many of them belonged; and now they proposed to reach hackney carriage proprietors, because they had the greatest opportunities of letting carriages for hire. He did not think that this clause was invidious in the sense of attacking the job-master; certainly, no hardship was intended to accrue to him.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would point out that this matter was not dealt with in precisely the same way as other matters had been dealt with in the Bill.

    1125
    Let them take, for instance, the case of payment for the exposure of bills and placards. He understood that, as the Bill now stood, it would be an illegal practice to hire houses for the purpose of exhibiting candidate's bills, and that it was intended to prohibit that, because the hiring of houses for such purpose was considered a very insidious system of bribery. But they allowed the proprietor of a house to exhibit a candidate's bill, provided he did not take payment. Why was not the same argument applicable to the one case as to the other? It was said that the lending of carriages might be turned into a mode of bribery, because the candidate would give or promise, or hold out hopes of a quid pro quo afterwards, although he might not give it at the time. Why was not the same argument applicable to the exposure of bills? They allowed a proprietor of a house to exhibit bills; but they did not allow him to receive payment. Might it not happen, however, that there would be an understanding that, if the exhibition of bills was not paid for in malt, it would be paid for afterwards in meal? In this clause they were prohibiting a person, whose business it was to do so, to lend vehicles in any shape or form. They made an exception in the case of the exhibition of bills by those whose business it was to exhibit bills. People whose business it was to lend vehicles were debarred from lending them. He could not for the life of him see what possible distinction could be made between the two cases. There might be bribery and corruption in the one case just as much as in the other.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a candidate borrowing or engaging every carriage and vehicle in a borough, provided he did not convey voters to the poll in them. A candidate might pay £5 or £10 a-day for each carriage. That would be done with a corrupt object, yet there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him doing it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the Maximum Schedule would stop anything of that kind.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would forgive him if he said that he seemed to treat the Committee to alternative arguments, utterly
    1126
    regardless of what had gone before. There was a sublime disregard for consistency about the hon. and learned Gentleman which was rather misleading. If the Attorney General was very desirous of stopping every kind of improper use of carriages on the day of an election, there was another contingency he had to provide for; and that was the hiring or getting possession of, as a loan under this clause, by a candidate of a number of carriages, not for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the poll, but simply for the purpose of retaining possession of them and preventing his opponents getting them. After this clause had been passed it would be quite possible for one candidate to obtain the loan—at no expense whatever—of every carriage a job-master possessed. In that ease the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would be completely defeated. He (Mr. Warton) wanted to know whether the Attorney General would consider that state of things? Of course, he knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman would treat the matter with the same disregard of argument that he did all matters. It was not for him (Mr. Warton) to teach the hon. and learned Gentleman his business; but the time would come when, seeing that clause in operation, he would find the mistake he was now making. They might put as many restrictions in the clause as they liked. The ingenuity of man would easily evade them, and elections would become, in fact, a battle between people who would really have to carry them out—a battle not always conducted in a fair spirit. He trusted the Attorney General would see the force of his observations—namely, that there were no words in the clause to prevent a candidate getting possession of carriages, provided he did not use them for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) went to a Division he should divide with him. The more he (Mr. Whitley) looked at this clause, the more he was convinced that it would be thoroughly unworkable. It must have occurred to every Member of the Committee that the clause could be in many ways evaded. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)

    1127
    had cited one way in which the clause could he easily evaded. He (Mr. Whitley) did not think the clause would carry out the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General himself; and he (Mr. Whitley) was of opinion that the Committee would do well to reject the clause altogether. He could not conceive the use of passing a clause which was really unworkable.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was afraid he must divide the Committee on his Amendment. His action would, of course, depend upon the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would now give him. As the clause was drawn, the letting or hiring of vehicles for the conveyance of voters to the poll was made an illegal practice; and, therefore, if it was done by anyone who could be construed into an agent it would go hard with the candidate. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General either accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or consent to put in "employment or hiring? "
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that was very reasonable, and would consent to the insertion of the words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made, in line 7 of the proposed New Clause, by leaving out the word "practice," and inserting "employment or hiring;" in line 11, by leaving out the word "practice," and inserting "employment or hiring;" and in line 11, by inserting after "hired," the word "employed."
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, supposing a person hired a carriage to take himself up to the poll, and he met a friend who was also a voter, would the man who had hired the carriage be permitted to give his friend a lift? Really, according to this section, that would be an illegal practice.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, certainly not. He could not find any reason why it should be so.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General accepted
    1128
    the principle of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson); but there was one point to which he (Mr. Tatton Egerton) must call attention. If an elector arrived at a station, having ordered his conveyance to meet him, he would be precluded, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews were accepted, from inviting a friend he had met on the platform, who was also a voter, to drive up with him to the poll. He had, therefore, to ask the Attorney General to accept his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, to leave out, in line 13, "an elector," and insert "one or more electors."—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)
    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 he could not accept the Amendment, though he intended to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson). If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tatton Egerton) were accepted one elector might hire as many vehicles as he liked for all the other electors in the constituency. [An hon. MEMBER: A carriage.] Of course, a carriage meant any number of carriages. Where they had the singular, they had the plural.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITLEY (for Mr. WILLIAMSON)MR. WHITLEY (for Mr. WILLIAMSON) moved, in line 13, after "elector," to insert "or by several electors at their joint cost."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he assented to the Amendment.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONasked whether the clause, as now proposed to be amended, would preclude an elector going in a carriage inviting a friend to drive to the poll with him?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the elector had hired a carriage for the purpose of conveying another elector, of course it would be an offence under the Act; but

    1129
    if he simply invited a brother elector to drive up to the poll with him for the purpose of giving a friendly lift, he should say that the gentleman would not be guilty of an offence.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WHITLEY (for Mr. WILLIAMSON)MR. WHITLEY (for Mr. WILLIAMSON) moved to leave out, in line 14, "conveying himself to," and insert "being conveyed to and from." The hon. Gentleman explained that this was merely consequential upon the foregoing.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONproposed to leave out in the Amendment just accepted the word "and," and insert "or."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)assented.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the clause, as amended, no doubt provided for joint hiring; and he understood the Attorney General to assent to the proposition that it would not be illegal for a person whose ordinary trade it was to run omnibuses or other conveyances for payment, to put on extra conveyances for the purpose of taking voters to the poll. He thought it would be advisable to make this clear by adding these words, "or plying for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to or from the poll." The clause would then run—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll, or plying for hire, for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the poll."
    Amendment proposed, at end of the proposed New Clause, to add these words "or plying for hire, for the purpose of carrying voters to or from the poll."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if they accepted this Amendment they would undo everything they had done. If they allowed a carriage to ply for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to the poll, a man would let out every carriage he had. If an individual, being a voter, wanted to go to the poll in an omnibus,
    1130
    there was nothing now in the clause to prevent him from doing so.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General thoroughly appreciated the Amendment. What his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) meant to provide was, that a person who owned conveyances might send an additional number out on the polling day if he thought proper.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that was just what he wanted, and he could not understand why his words met with objection. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say that it would be perfectly legal for an omnibus proprietor to send out his conveyances to be hired by persons, provided they paid for the hiring themselves. That was all his Amendment proposed to do. He understood the object of the Attorney General was that voters should not be conveyed to the poll without payment on their part. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted an Amendment which would permit a certain number of voters to club together for the purpose of hiring a conveyance to carry them to the poll. He (Mr. Ritchie) could not see any difference between doing that and allowing a proprietor of omnibuses to put on, in any districts, a number of omnibuses, where such conveyances were required, for the purpose of taking up voters to the poll for payment on their part for the conveyance. He should certainly adhere to his words and divide the Committee.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he did not understand the objection to these words. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General looked at the clause as it stood, he would find there was substantial reason for asking for the insertion of some such words as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) now proposed. The words of the clause were—
    "A person shall not let, lend, or employ for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any public stage, or hackney carriage,"
    and so on. These words were obviously aimed at the employment of carriages for the services of one particular Party, and that might be quite legiti-

    1131
    mate. It was admitted, however, that in outlying districts there might be a number of voters who could only vote during the dinner hour, and that, therefore; it was, obvious that some means should be provided for conveying such voters to the poll, not at the expense of the candidate, but at their own expense. If a person who owned omnibuses and hackney carriages put on the road on an election day a number of omnibuses for the purpose of taking people to and from the poll, he would come within the meaning of the words in the first part of the clause—namely, he would be held to be a person who employed a public stage and hackney carnage for the purpose of conveying voters to and from the poll. It was because men were voters that they wanted to be carried, and it was because they wanted to be carried that the proprietors put the omnibuses on the road. The proposed words were only intended to protect the proprietors of carriages in such a case; and, in his (Mr. E. Clarke's) opinion, the words really came within the meaning of the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was quite right in saying that they had accepted an Amendment which would allow for a joint hiring; but this Amendment went further than that, for it gave the right to a man to convey not the public, but individual electors.
    MR. RITCHIEbegged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that that was so. The words were, "plying for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to or from the poll." Under these words a man might go to a carriage proprietor and say—"Here, take So-and-so to the poll." The Committee would clearly see that the Amendment went considerably further than the Proviso.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought they were all agreed upon the principle, and that the only thing on which they were at variance was the words. The Proviso laid down that any number of electors might hire. That seemed to him a distinct hiring; but that was not exactly what they wanted. What they wanted was to protect the omnibuses which regularly plied for
    1132
    hire in the streets; and he hardly thought that the Proviso covered their employment, because in their case there was a distinct hiring by an elector.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had just anticipated what he was about to say. They were all agreed upon the principle. He (the Solicitor General) thought the words suggested went beyond what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) himself meant. If the hon. Gentleman would leave the matter as it now stood, he (the Solicitor General) would confer with him as to whether, on Report, some words which would meet the object in view could not be inserted.
    MR. ONSLOWasked the Attorney General whether a person would not be guilty of an illegal practice if, on the day of an election, he hired a waggonette for the purpose of bringing up electors to the poll at a charge of 6d. or 1s. each?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if this were a colourable charge the man would clearly be guilty of an illegal practice. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said, they were really agreed upon the principle in this matter, and he appealed to the Committee to come to a Division.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was sure his object and the Attorney General's were identical in this matter. It would be easy, later on, to arrange words to carry out what they were both agreed upon; therefore, he would withdraw his proposal.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped that an Amendment would be proposed by the Attorney General on Report, or, better than that, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would seriously consider between this and Report whether it was worth while to leave the clause in at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsidered the matter, and bore in mind that the clause was not to affect the candidate or the seat, and saw the way in which it would be worked, he would agree, no doubt, that it was no use leaving the section in. It, obviously, would be inoperative, and when the words were considered, it

    1133
    would be seen that it was not worth while retaining it.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that as the clause now stood, a person who happened to be a cab proprietor or an owner of carriages, and who might have an aged father whom he wished to take to the poll, and who, under ordinary circumstances, he would drive in one of his own conveyances to the poll, would be prevented from doing such a thing. The clause was so stringent, that a man of that sort who drove his aged father to the poll would be guilty of an illegal hiring. The man might see his neighbouring brewer, who had carriages at his command, going into the street and picking up voters to take to the poll, and doing it with impunity; whilst he himself would be unable to drive his own aged father to the poll.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the case the hon. and learned Member referred to would come within the category of domestic use. At any time, and in connection with anything, it was always possible to give extreme and ridiculous eases.
    Amendment, by lea
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the Committee a clause of which I have given Notice; because, although the Head of Her Majesty's Government has announced that the Bill by which he proposes to make the Ballot perpetual will be deferred to another Session, we are still under the operation of the Ballot; and it seems that what is called the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot. I think that I shall be able to show, notwithstanding this adjournment of the perpetuation of the Ballot, that the Legislature of the United States have found it necessary to adopt provisions, some of which do not exist in the laws of the United Kingdom—as they formerly did not exist among those of the United States. Precautions against conspiracy in electoral matters be scattered in that vast folio, our Statute Book, and are comparatively unknown. I may say that the experience of the United States of the Ballot extends from 1777, but that the system became more general in 1800. I am speaking after having discussed the matter with American friends, and after having been in
    1134
    the United States, and after having read some recent works on the Ballot and on the operation of the Caucus published in the United States. The history of the Ballot in America proves that the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot. I will not go into details; but if any hon. Gentleman is inclined to dispute my assertions, I have here my authorities. I have some American books; but I have here two works, Forty Years of American Life, by Nicholls (Longmans), and United States Constitutional History, by Sterne, an American barrister, which latter book seems to me very valuable; these are recent works published, the latter by Cassell, so lately as 1882. In these works proof is to be found of the fact that the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot, and was one of the elements of disturbance that caused the American Civil War. Now, this Bill, according to the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, is not against corruption, but against expensive agency—it does not contemplate the Caucus. The hon. and learned Gentleman, on Monday, 4th June, said, with regard to this Bill—
    "For his part he should take the side of the candidate as against that of the agent. … It was to protect themselves from this foolish and unnecessary expenditure that this Bill was introduced; it was introduced to guard themselves not only against absolute corruption, but against the fact that candidates were being constantly preyed upon by a class of men who delighted in elections on account of the money they obtained from the candidates."—(3 Hansard, [279] 1701–2.)
    There cannot be a more terse or distinct statement of the objects of the Bill; but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems totally to have neglected the fact that a Member of the present Cabinet—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—is not only a Member of the Cabinet, but is Chief of the Caucus, which has its head-quarters at Birmingham. I will read a letter published by the right hon. Gentleman, descriptive of the operation of this organization, which is by no means confined to Birmingham, but which, he states, has its ramifications in nearly 80 constituencies of this country, and the House will observe that he boasts of the success of the organization. The evil of its effects have been proved in the United States. I am persuaded that it will have similarly cor-

    1135
    rupting effects in this country, unless something is done to check them. This Caucus system seems to prevail in the Liberal Party, and my American friends assure me that, unless its corruption he stayed, it will he positively impossible for their opponents of that Party to avoid adopting it. This I should sincerely lament. It was out of this system that grievous evil grew in the United States, until it culminated in and during the Civil War, and continued until the American Legislature adopted repressive measures, of the substance of which my Amendment is the embodiment. I would not venture to trouble the Committee on this subject if I were not speaking from more than ordinary information, from knowledge obtained by having visited America, and by having kept up American friendships, and from having received up to yesterday information on this subject from the other side of the Atlantic. One American gentleman was sitting with me the other day, and I showed him this Bill and told him of the operation of the Ballot, to correct some of the effects of which the measure before the House has nominally been introduced. I acquainted him also with the existence of the Caucus system in this country. I was asking him as to the remedies for the evils of the Caucus system adopted in the United States, when he observed—"Why, you have put on our old clothes, and now ask us to teach you how to darn them." I will now, Sir, read the letter of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). This letter is dated April 10, 1880, immediately before or immediately after the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to a seat in the Cabinet. I need not say that in North Warwickshire we read this communication with some surprise, and have by no means forgotten the substance of it. On the 13th of April, 1880—during the formation of the present Government—this letter of the right hon. Gentleman appeared as addressed to the editor of The Times, headed "The Caucus"—
    "Sir,—A few days after the Dissolution of Parliament it was said by a writer in the Press that the elections would test the efficiency of the new Democratic machinery, of which Birmingham is the capital. It may interest your readers to learn the result of the experiment. Popular representative organizations on the Birmingham model, sometimes called the
    1136
    'Caucus' by those who have not taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the details of the Birmingham system, exist in 67 of the Parliamentary boroughs, in which contests have just taken place. In 60 of these, Liberal seats were gained or retained. In seven only the Liberals were defeated; but in three, at least, of these cases a Petition will be presented against the Return on the ground of bribery.
    "This remarkable success is a proof that the new organization has succeeded in uniting all sections of the Party, and it is a conclusive answer to the fears which some timid Liberals entertained that the system would be manipulated in the interest of particular crotchets. It has, on the contrary, deepened and extended the interest felt in the contest, it has fastened a sense of personal responsibility on the electors, and it has secured the active support, for the most part voluntary and unpaid, of thousands and tens of thousands of voters, who have been willing to work hard for the candidates in whoso selection they have for the first time had an influential voice.
    "Among other results may be noticed the fact that the gentlemen who have commended themselves to these popular and somewhat Democratic committees have been, on the whole, more decided in their Liberalism than was usually the case with the nominees of the small cliques of local politicians whom the new organization has superseded. A long purse has not been an all-sufficient passport, and the candidates who are so thundering eminent for being never heard of,' have been passed over and over again in favour of others, who have won their spurs in political conflicts, and have given proof of steadfastness to their principles, and of ability in maintaining them.
    "The restricted franchise in the counties, and the large area of these constituencies, have hitherto prevented any considerable extension of the plan outside the boroughs. One of these difficulties will now shortly be removed; the other may be overcome, and I expect that, at no distant date, the electors will universally demand a preliminary voice in the selection of candidates.
    "Meanwhile, in ten county constituencies in which the Caucus has, in spite of all obstacles, been already established, and where contests have taken place, the Liberals have won seats in all; and it may he affirmed that in most of these cases there would have been no contest but for the energy and determination of the new element imported into the councils of the Party.
    "Altogether, for good or for evil, the organization has now taken firm root in this country, and politicians will do well to give it in future a less prejudiced attention.
    "I am, Sir, yours obediently,-
    "J. CHAMBERLAIN.
    "Birmingham, April 10th."
    I am, in fact, the senior Member for Birmingham, which is included in North Warwickshire; and I have made it my business, without intruding upon the privacy—I should say the secrecy—of the Caucus, to ascertain, as far as I could,

    1137
    its organization. I find that in England the system is precisely the same as in America. Not in essentials dissimilar from that of the "Tammany Ring" in New York. There are about 10 "leaders"—as they call them in the United States—and one chief, or autocrat, whom the Americans surname "the Boss." A Cabinet Minister is "the Boss" of the English Caucus. I observe the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has returned to the House, and would inform him that I have just read his letter addressed to The Times on 10th April, 1880, in which he described the Caucus, which has its centre in Birmingham, and has extended its ramifications to nearly 80 constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, excuse me for not reading that letter again, lest I should weary the House, and because it has attracted a considerable amount of attention in the Midland Counties. What, Sir, is the agency established by this Caucus? In Birmingham it is commonly believed—and commonly reported—to consist of 800 persons. The Attorney General, in the Bill before the House, appears to contemplate no such agency as this, and yet these agents are acting under the right hon. Gentleman as their Chief, according to a rule of implicit obedience. What consideration, if any, they receive—for in his letter the right hon. Gentleman admits that some are paid, although, for the most part, their services are voluntary and unpaid—yet some—I know not how many—are paid. The right hon. Gentleman is here, however, to describe the organization, and, perhaps, he will give us some more exact description of its rules—if it possesses any detailed rules, which I very much doubt—seeing that the organization is in this country, just as much as in America, that of a virtual autocracy. This I have ascertained. Well, Sir, as I have said, the clause which I propose contains the substance of the provisions; it is the embodiment of the Statutes adopted in America since the Civil War for the purpose of restraining the action of Caucuses. I will presently read an extract from the Report of the Legislature of New York—which was transmitted to the American Congress—on the subject of the New York Election Frauds, in order to show the state of disorder and corruption in electoral
    1138
    matters, which the existence of the Caucus and of the "Tammany Ring" produced in the Empire State, the necessity of restraining which the American Congress has acknowledged by legislative action. I will now read the clause which I propose to insert in the Bill, which has been drawn by an English barrister under American advice. I propose, after Clause 2, to insert a clause against corrupt practices by persons combined for the purpose—
    "If any persons are combined for the purpose of promising, and shall promise, directly or indirectly, any personal or pecuniary advantage to any elector or electors on account of his or their voting, or abstaining from voting, for any designated candidate or candidates; or if any persons are combined to cause any elector or electors reasonably to expect that he or they will avoid any personal disadvantage on account of his or their voting or abstaining from voting for any designated candidate or candidates, such persons so combined and so acting for the said purpose or purposes shall individually be guilty of a corrupt practice, and shall be subject to all penalties relating to such an offence."
    I will not detain the Committee by reading the American Statutes directed against the Caucus, which they treat as a conspiracy; but I give the Committee this assurance—that the clause I propose is the embodiment of these laws directed against electoral conspiracy, under which term the United States Government has learnt to class the Caucus, which system has lately been, and for the first time, imported into the United Kingdom. I may, for the purpose of proving to the Committee that I do not misrepresent American Statutes, read the heading of some of the provisions which have been adopted at Washington since 1870 to restrict the operations of the Caucus. When the American Legislature at last became aware that this, which was at first a small system of interference, chiefly with municipal government and affairs, had, since the commencement of the present century, grown into a conspiracy, which took a large share in producing the disorganization which caused the Civil War, for this conspiracy had so corrupted that it threatened to break up the whole electoral system of the United States. We find the following headings attached to certain of the Revised Statutes of the United States, one dated 31st May, 1870—"Intimidating voters by bribery or threats;" another of the 20th of

    1139
    April, 1871—"Conspiring to prevent, accepting, or holding office under the United States," &c.; another of the same date—" Conspiracy to prevent the support of any candidate. "I will not detain the Committee by reading more of these headings; but will merely assure the Committee that my clause embodies, not the penalties, which are much more severe in the United States, but the purport of the American Statutes, by which Congress has found it necessary to restrain the operations of the Caucus. I trust that the Committee will forgive my being unwilling to bring any accusation against a Member for Birmingham, whether he be the right hon. Gentleman or another, unless I have sufficient grounds for doing so; and I am prepared to prove the accusation I bring, either in this House or in any Court of Law. I turn again to the Attorney General, and I appeal to him whether the provisions of his Bill are such as are calculated to control an organization commanding 800 agents—for they are nothing but agents—in Birmingham alone? I appeal to him whether he has considered the effect of the extension of this Caucus system to 80 other constituencies? I should be very loth to see my hon. Friends on this side of the House forced to adopt any analogous system. I am the senior ex-Whipper-in of this House. I know the organization of the Carlton Club, and I believe I understand the organization of the Reform Club; and I know that they are totally different from, totally unlike, the organization of the Caucus. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade boasts of this Caucus system as a new organization in this country. It is not new elsewhere; for the Congress of the United States, the Legislature of that great Republic have proved, by their legislation, what bitter experience they have had of the operation of the Caucus system. Thirty years ago this system was growing in the United States. I will give to the Committee from Crockett's Tour, published about that time, page 206, a passage, illustrative of the circumstances which marked that period of the growth of the Caucus. This is the description, supposed to be spoken by a man who has joined a Caucus:—
    "I'll be a voter, and this is a big character, able to shoulder a steamboat, and carry any
    1140
    candidate" that the Caucus at Baltimore may set up against the people. What's the people to a Caucus? Nothing but a dead ague to an earthquake."
    Well, that is plain speaking; but the evidence given before Congress is equally plain; the Committee will find that it is no imposture, no sham. This Caucus organization has proved that it acquires the power of controlling elections, of carrying its candidates in defiance of the real inclination or opinion of the majority of the constituency attacked. It is the deepest system of electoral corruption—nay, of fraud—that ever was set up; it is more arbitrary and more vicious, and in the United States, where thoroughly known, it became thoroughly detested. It has been proved in America that the undue influence of the Caucus is worse and more powerful than any influence that can be exercised by large employers of labour, or by the landowners—nay, than by any money-lender. Mr. Sterne writes that this dominating conspiracy has been proved in the United States to be capable of becoming most arbitrary and most effectual, and that in many cases it has forced upon the constituencies representation which the majority have thoroughly disliked. The Congress of the United States have dealt with this system, as I have shown, because it was proved to demonstration that it is fraught, not only with corruption, but also with intimidation; in short, with every means that can be used to produce misrepresentation of the people. And now, with the permission of the Committee, I will read an extract from a Report upon the New York Election Frauds received in the third Session of the fortieth Congress of the United States. This Report shows what the work of the Caucus has been in the States, but more particularly in the City of New York; this finally drew the attention of the Congress of the United States to the subject, and produced the enactment of the stringent clauses against conspiracy, aimed at effecting misrepresentation of the real will of the people. The Report says—
    "The State of New York has been prolific in election frauds at various times; while Louisiana, Maryland, and other States have presented many phases of the same evils. But, appalling and startling as these have been in our past history, they are all surpassed in some respects by those perpetrated in the General Election,

    1141
    in the State, and especially in the City of New York, on the 3rd of November, 1868. These frauds were the result of a systematic plan of gigantic proportions, stealthily pre-arranged and boldly executed, not merely by bands of degraded desperadoes, but with the direct sanction, approval, or aid of many prominent officials and citizens of New York, with the shrewdly-concealed connivance of others, and almost without an effort to discourage or prevent them by any of those in whose interest and political Party Associations they were successfully executed, who could not fail to have cognizance of them, and whose duty it was to expose, defeat, and punish them. They were aided by an immense corrupt and corrupting official patronage and power, which not only encouraged, but shielded and protected the guilty principals and their aiders and abettors. These frauds are so varied in character, that they comprehended every known crime against the elective franchise. They corrupted the administration of justice, degraded the judiciary, defeated the execution of the laws, subverted, for the time being, in New York State, the essential principles of popular Government; robbed the people of the great State of their rightful choice of electors of President and Vice President, of a Governor and other officers; disgraced the most populous city of the Union, encouraged the enemies of Republican Government here and everywhere to deride our institutions as a failure, and endangered the peace of the Republic by an attempt to defeat the will of the people in the choice of their rulers."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have been very unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has read very copious extracts relating to American affairs; and I wish to call his attention to the fact that, looking at the time he has been occupied in reading extracts alone, so far as I can make a calculation it would take three whole working days to dispose of the Amendments on the Paper at a similar rate of progress.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I thank you, Sir Arthur Otway; I am always grateful for advice from the Chair, as I hope every Member of the House is. I think I have said enough to show what the Caucus system has become in the United States before it was restrained by law. I could show the Committee by reference to history how it began, by action upon the municipal organization of the large cities and States, how it extended its evil influence to the electors of the Legislature, and at last extended to the highest officials. I do not wish to exaggerate this comparison. I admit that the Constitution of the United States was more open to this conspiracy than is that of the United Kingdom. The authors to whom I have referred admit this, as do the American friends with
    1142
    whom I have conversed upon this subject. They all said that since this system has obtained an extensive hold, already in this country, if it remains unchecked, it must entail the necessity upon those assailed—who, in this case, are the Conservative Party—the necessity of adopting some similar organization to counteract the operation of the system of conspiracy, which has its centre at present in Birmingham. They further assert that between the two organizations we shall have the worst features of electoral corruption very soon exhibited, and among these that crushing of the independent choice of Representatives which has been experienced in the United States, unless we, in some degree, by our legislation adopt the precautions against this system of conspiracy in electoral affairs, which the Congress of the United States has found absolutely necessary in order to save the representative system of the United States. I thank the Committee for having allowed me to bring these American experiences before them. I have done so, because I wish to impress upon them the force of the observation of my friend, that as you have put on the old clothes of the United States you must learn how to darn them. If you will adopt the Ballot and will not restrain the Caucus, it seems to me and to the American friends whom I have consulted inevitable that in great measure the corrupting influence of this system which has been experienced across the Atlantic must extend to this country, and we shall thus, in all probability, sacrifice that free representation of the people which, thank God, has for centuries existed in the United Kingdom.
    New Clause:—
    (Corrupt practices by persons combined for that purpose.)
    "If any persons are combined for the purpose of promising, and shall promise, directly or indirectly, any personal or pecuniary advantage to any elector or electors on account of his or their voting or abstaining from voting for any designated candidate or candidates; or if any persons are combined to cause any elector or electors reasonably to expect that he or they will avoid any personal disadvantage on account of his or their voting or abstaining from voting for any designated candidate or candidates, such persons so combined and so acting for the said purpose or purposes shall individually be guilty of a corrupt practice, and shall be subject to all penalties relating to such an offence,"—(Mr. Newdegatet,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the hon. Gentleman would allow him, he would at once deal with his proposal. There were 66 new clauses now on the Paper before the Committee. Therefore, if he dealt with each as it arose, shortly, he hoped hon. Members proposing them would not think that he was treating them or their views with discourtesy; but would take it that he only desired to save time. He would adopt that system with regard to the clause just proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate). He would ask the Committee not to assent to the second reading, for the reason that, so far as he could judge, there was nothing in the clause which was not already the law of the land, and they would enact over again what was already on the Statute Book. The hon. Member told them that his Amendment had been drawn by American draftsmen.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: No; I am aware some provisions analogous in purport to that of the clause I propose exist in the Statute Book; but these provisions are scattered and incomplete; they are deficient, and are not generally understood. This clause has been drawn by an English draftsman from the American text; its purport is complete and intelligible.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, then the English draftsmen had not had regard, in drawing up the clause, to what was already the law of England. Under the circumstances, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should be satisfied with the interesting discussion which had taken place, and which had occupied the Committee for nearly 50 minutes, and would not press his Amendment.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman was not satisfied that the terms of the clause were necessary, in order to deal with the offence of corrupt practices by persons acting in combination, and that there already existed some Statute which touched the subject, and which explained to the public what they had to avoid, he would withdraw the clause, and endeavour to meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSON MR. H. B. SAMUELSON moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:—
    (Soliciting electors to give written promises of support to be illegal practice.)
    "No person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, solicit or induce any elector to write or sign any paper or document, directly or indirectly, announcing his intention to vote for any candidate, or pledging him to vote for any candidate, or to refrain from voting. Any person soliciting or inducing any elector to sign any such paper or document shall he guilty of an illegal practice."
    The hon. Member said that certain Amendments had been proposed, during the discussion of the Bill, with the object of putting a stop to a practice strongly objected to by a number of electoral reformers—namely, the custom of canvassing; but it was found to be impossible to prevent anything like verbal canvassing. His Amendment was directed against what he ventured to say was the worst form of canvassing—namely, against asking the voter to commit himself by signing and delivering a promise under an implied, if not a direct, threat of incurring consequences in the event of his refusal. In the case of canvassing by word of mouth, if the elector wished to avail himself of the protection afforded to him by the Ballot Act, there were many ways open to him. It was always possible for him to return an evasive answer, such as—"We would not be found far wrong when the day of the election came, or that "It is all right," or some other answer to the same effect. But when he was asked to sign a direct pledge to vote for a particular candidate, he was canvassed in the same manner that a highwayman used to canvass his victim—namely, by holding a pistol to his head. In the one case the man was asked to give his money or his life; and, in the other, the voter was called upon to give his vote or take the consequences; and he understood the request in that sense. He believed that this was constantly done on both sides; and, therefore, it was not necessary to place before the Committee the special cases which had been brought under his notice. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) asked a question in regard to a particular case which had occurred at an election not long ago, and it was stated, in the short discussion which ensued, that

    1145
    the practice of sending round circulars to be returned signed, conveying a pledge or promise of support to a particular candidate, had been put in force by both sides. The Attorney General said it was doubtful whether the practice might not be construed into the exercise of undue influence. At all events, it was against the spirit of the Ballot Act, because it compelled a man to say how he was going to vote instead of allowing him to record his vote in secret. He (Mr. Samuelson) thought it was most undesirable that the practice should be allowed to continue, because it was not only a costly practice, but a very-useless one. Hitherto, both parties had been in the habit of sowing these notices broadcast through the constituency; and if neither was allowed to do so in future each would be in the same position, and they would only be deprived of that which very often was a misleading piece of information. Another point to which the Amendment was directed was the unfairness which was now practised. It was manifest that it was unfair to write to a voter, and ask him to sign his name, and give a written promise to support a particular candidate at an election, when it was quite possible that in the course of a few days a very much more desirable candidate might be brought out on the same side. But if that were to happen, and these circulars had been sent out and signed, it would be impossible for any side to give a solid vote for a candidate whom they might really prefer as more thoroughly representing their opinions. Then, again, the issuing of these circulars afforded a ready means of employing undue influence, even where it was not intended. They were generally issued by a central committee. When a voter received a circular, he would scan the list of the names of the committee, and he would often find upon it the names of persons to whom he was bound by ties of self-interest, such as the employers of labour, landlords, influential customers, or others who would have an indirect influence over him. He knew very well that a list of the circulars sent out was kept, and that it was narrowly scrutinized; and he knew also that if he did not sign the circular presented for his signature, his not signing it would be taken as equivalent to a declaration of his intention to oppose the candidate on
    1146
    whose behalf the circulars had been sent out. Consequently, he was placed in this position:—Even if he agreed with the circular, he violated the spirit of the Ballot Act, because he declared in what way he was going to vote, when the intention of the Legislature was that the vote should be given in secret. Then, if the voter happened to be a person of a corrupt disposition, he was pledging himself as one of those who were ready for their quid pro quo. Then, again, if he disagreed with the circular, and, nevertheless, found it necessary to sign it, he would feel compelled to vote against his conscience, and in that way would frustrate the intention of the Ballot Act and the object of the election, because the election was intended to ascertain the real feeling of the people, and coercion of this kind prevented the real feeling of the constituency from being ascertained. Then, again, if his political feelings were stronger than his honesty, the voter would be driven into the position of having signed a pledge, and then of breaking his word and telling a lie. Having promised to vote for one candidate, he would go to the poll and vote for another. If the Amendment were passed, he did not think it would affect the possibility of ascertaining the opinion of the constituency as to the prospects of any given candidate, because that could always be done by the only legitimate method—namely, holding a public meeting, at which the qualification of every candidate might be discussed, and at which a deputation might be appointed to wait upon the candidate who appeared to be the choice of the constituency as represented in such county meeting. Very often a requisition was sent to induce a candidate to stand. But a requisition of that kind proved nothing. Many hon. Gentlemen, who had been induced to stand on the promise of support contained in a requisition, found that they were only leading a forlorn hope, and that after all they were defeated. He thought the prospects of a candidate could be just as well ascertained at a public meeting; and every voter would have the opportunity of reading the addresses of the candidates, which would either appear in the public prints, or be posted in various places, or be circulated amongst the voters. For these reasons, and because he thought it was unnecessary

    1147
    that these requisitions should be sent out, and because he further thought that canvassing of this kind tended to defeat the spirit of the Ballot Act under which elections were now carried on, and because it had a demoralizing tendency, he begged to move the clause of which he had given Notice.
    New Clause:—
    (Soliciting electors to give written promises of support to be illegal practice.)
    "No person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, solicit or induce any elector to write or sign any paper or document directly or indirectly announcing his intention to vote for any candidate, or pledging him to vote for any candidate, or to refrain from voting. Any person soliciting or inducing any elector to sign any such paper or document shall he guilty of an illegal practice,"—(Mr. H. B. Samuelson,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONwished that he could impress upon the Committee the value which such a clause as this would have been to an individual like himself at the last General Election, and, he believed, generally to candidates who contested county constituencies in the Liberal interest. He said the Liberal interest, because it was well known that the influence which greatly preponderated in the counties was that of the Party whose opinions were influenced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, what was it that happened in the election which he was fortunate enough to win? Cards were sent round to nearly every elector to this effect:—"If you intend to vote for Mr. Murray Stewart be good enough to sign the enclosed card and return to me." Those circulars were sent, in some cases, by the law agent of the Conservative candidate, and in others by his political agent. What was the consequence? The tenant farmer who held his farm under a Conservative, or, for that matter, under a Liberal, because the effect would be the same by whichever Party the practice was adopted—the tenant farmer who did not wish to declare his politics, but desired to keep his political opinions secret, and to go to the poll unbiassed by anything that might be brought to bear upon him, found himself placed in a difficult posi-
    1148
    tion; because what would the effect be if he signed the card? In some instances he would have to tell a falsehood if be intended to go to the poll and vote according to his political views. But what was the effect if he did not sign the card? The effect in that case was that he became a marked man. He was immediately known to all the agents, whether Liberal or Conservative, who attempted to use this evil influence, as being a man likely to entertain opinions that were not in consonance with theirs. What was the other alternative? If he did not sign the card and stayed away from the poll altogether he affected the fortunes of his own Party. At the last election in the county which he had the hon. our to represent, it was quite certain that more than 200 tenant farmers abstained from going to the poll, because they would not vote against their consciences, and they would not sign a card calling on them to vote against their principles. Nevertheless, by the course they pursued, they made it patent to the world what their opinions were. He knew that there were Associations in the counties which were supposed to look after the interests of the electors; but what was the use of an Association in a county like his, where four-fifths of the land belonged to the Conservatives? He hoped the Committee would seriously consider the Amendment; and he wished to impress upon the Attorney General this fact—that a Member like himself (Captain Maxwell-Heron), who had fought the battle against very long odds in a county constituency, ought to be secured by every means which could be devised for guarding his interests and those of the constituency. He was afraid, if this Amendment were not passed, it was very possible that more than one hon. Member who now represented a Scotch county would not be seen in that House again after the next General Election.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was much inclined to accept the last argument of the hon. Member as conclusive. The practice of sending out circulars, asking persons to vote for a particular candidate, was undoubtedly very objectionable, because it was contrary to the spirit of the Ballot Act, and resulted, in many eases, in the violation of expressed promises. Nor was the question one which affected one Party more than another. It was a

    1149
    practice which was resorted to by both Parties, in many instances, either for the purpose of sending out passes on the railway or for other purposes. But the clause, as it stood at present, would have the effect of causing a candidate, whose agent committed an offence against it, to lose his seat. He sympathized with the object of the hon. Member; but he feared that the Amendment would not be effectual in causing a discontinuance of this objectionable practice, and he should be very unwilling to extend the list of the penalties under the Act, except in cases where it was absolutely necessary. His hon. Friend would see that the clause, as it was now drawn, imposed a heavy penalty. It provided that—
    "No person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, solicit or induce any elector to write or sign any paper or document directly or indirectly announcing his intention to vote for any candidate, or pledging him to vote for any candidate, or to refrain from voting. Any person soliciting or inducing any elector to sign any such paper or document shall he guilty of an illegal practice."
    Under the clause, if the chairman of an election committee or the law agent of the candidate endeavoured to ascertain from a voter how he was going to vote, the candidate might lose his seat. No doubt, that difficulty might be avoided by altering the wording of the clause, and he should be very glad to assist his hon. Friend if he could see that any good result was likely to be obtained by passing the clause; but the whole matter was one of considerable difficulty. Under the clause, if an agent went round from door to door and said to a voter—"How are you going to vote? Let me put your statement down in my book;" and if he wrote down how the voter intended to vote, the clause would not touch the act of that person; and an agent might go round from door to door and take the promise from the voter's lips as to the manner in which he was going to vote, and communicate that promise to a committee or anybody else. He entirely sympathized with the spirit of the clause, and he thought the practice ought to be discontinued, and he should like to see that object effected; but the question altogether was one of great difficulty, and he did not see how it was to be dealt with effectually by the present clause. He was sorry, in one
    1150
    sense, that he could not accept the clause; but, certainly, as it stood, it went much too far, and it was so framed that if any person at an election were to write to another, saying—"Let me know how you are going to vote," that simple act might cause a candidate to lose his seat.
    MR. E. T. REIDsaid, the objections raised to the clause by the Attorney General were of a two-fold character. The first was, that the act of the agent would unseat the candidate. He thought that difficulty would be obviated if his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) inserted words at the end of the clause to provide that the offence should not be an illegal practice, but an offence against the Ballot Act. That would get rid of one difficulty suggested by the Attorney General. The second objection raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was one partly of drafting, and one partly inherent in the clause—namely, that in the wording of the clause, as drafted, any one person asking another person in the most bonâ fide manner how he was going to vote would be guilty of an offence. Now, he (Mr. Reid) thought it was impossible, by any mode they could adopt in the drafting of the clause, to meet that difficulty in any way. It would be impossible to draw the clause in such a way as to be effectual, and, at the same time, not to be open to that objection; but he would suggest to the Attorney General that if a fine were imposed—say a penalty of £50—a person could be prosecuted under the clause, and if it was proved to be a minor offence the small amount of the fine imposed, as the Attorney General had pointed out in another case a short time ago, the imposition of a fine of a farthing for instance, would not injure the man either in the eyes of the constituency or in the eyes of the world.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would stand firm in the resolution he had come to with regard to this clause, which, upon examination, he (Mr. E. Clarke) considered to be the climax of absurdity. He did not see how it would be possible, by the imposition of a small fine, to remove the hardship, because it was not the smallness of the fine which inflicted the hardship, but the absurdity of imposing any penalty at all. He asked the At-

    1151
    torney General to examine the clause and see what it suggested. If the clause were carried, it would be illegal to get up a Petition asking any man to stand for a constituency. They could not ask a person to sign an invitation to a man to stand for a constituency because they would be thereby, either directly or indirectly, promising their votes. Then, again, if a man wrote to a friend in a particular constituency, and said—"In the event of my standing for your borough, will you support me and give me your influence?" he would render himself liable to prosecution. The only meaning or object of the clause was to preserve that precious liberty of lying which appeared to be the great merit of the Ballot Act. They had now a Member of Parliament standing up in the House to propose this clause, and, at the same time, describing what an elector might do in the way of promising a vote and then evading the performance of his promise.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSON: Not what a voter might do, but what a voter actually does now.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the hon. Member suggested that an evasive answer would be given. "Oh!" said the voter, "I shall not be found far off; you will find me all right; "the meaning being, at that very time, that he did not intend to keep the promise he was pretending to give. It was in order to secure to the elector the enjoyment of such a right that the Committee were asked to insert this clause in an Act of Parliament. The Attorney General said that he sympathized with the spirit of the Amendment, and that he would be glad to do something to prevent the practice complained of. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had already done something, and the Bill would do a great deal to prevent the practice of sending out these circulars. The limitation of the election expenses in the Bill would check the expenditure of money upon many things that were of doubtful value. His own belief was that these circulars were of very doubtful value indeed; and an experienced election agent, when he found that he was limited to the expenditure of a particular sum of money, would feel himself bound to employ that sum in the best way possible for the purposes of the election, and he would be unwilling to lay it out in the issue of circulars of this description.
    1152
    But to make an ordinary, proper, and natural incident of an election—namely, the writing to a man for his support, an offence or an illegal practice was approaching as nearly as possible to the region of absurdity. He presumed that in future ideal elections there would be a time when it would be a criminal offence to speak of politics at all. The moment an election was announced, a candidate would be entitled to put up his name and to spend a particular sum of money; but neither he nor his friends must do anything to gain the support of anybody else.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not concur in the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The object of the clause was to protect the voter who desired, under the Ballot Act, to record his vote in secret. He did not, however, approve of the wording of the Amendment, and he thought it might be considerably modified. Certainly the words "write or" ought to be omitted from the clause, because it would cover a letter that might be sent from one friend to another in ordinary correspondence asking for information with regard to the election. The principal evil, however, against which the clause was directed, was the sending out of circulars to every elector enclosing a stamped envelope for a reply, and calling upon them to state whether they would or would not vote for So-and-so. He himself had votes in more than one constituency, and at the last election he received a considerable number of these circulars. Now, he did not put the circulars he received into the waste-paper basket; but he always sent them back again with nothing in them. The evil involved in this practice was the evil of intimidation. A list was made of tenants or other persons likely to be influenced, and to those persons these circulars were sent, and as the replies came back, the answers were recorded against the respective names. If there was no reply, the voter was treated as being adverse, and was dealt with accordingly, and they had received the testimony of a gentleman of considerable experience in a constituency where this system was brought into play as to how it worked at the last General Election. Practically, the result of the system was this—If a man was to tell the truth, they deprived him of the pro-

    1153
    tection of the Ballot, and if a man was to have the protection of the Ballot, then they compelled him to tell a falsehood. He thought the House ought not to be deterred from grappling with what was an acknowledged evil, and an evil affecting both sides. He trusted the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) would go to a Division and test whether the Committee was genuinely determined to support the Ballot Act or not. If they divided upon the second reading of the clause, they would not be committed to its wording, and it would be open for them to amend it when it came to be considered in Committee. For instance, he thought it would be necessary to impose a different penalty, and not to make the offence an illegal practice.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he entirely differed from hon. Members on the other side of the House who talked about the spirit of the Ballot Act. He was a Member of the House when the Ballot Act was passed under the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and it was intended to give those who desired to vote secretly the protection of the Ballot. But it was never intended that those who desired to vote openly should not be able to go up to the poll with their orange or blue rosettes, freely displaying their colours, and declaring the way in which they intended to vote. Whenever he (Mr. T. Collins) went to the polling booth to vote, he invariably said—"Give me a paper. I want to vote for So-and-so." He recollected on one occasion, when he did so, at the Castle of Leicester, that a policeman told him it was illegal; but his reply was—"I have a perfect right to say how I intend to vote, but you have no right to toll anybody." If he desired to vote for Mr. Holden and Sir Matthew Wilson in his own county, was he, as an independent Englishman, to be told that he should not go to the poll and show his colours, and declare how he was going to vote? The Ballot was meant to protect those who wished to give their votes in secret, and not the ordinary Englishman who desired to vote openly. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said that whenever he received a circular asking how he was going to vote, he sent it back without a reply. Now,
    1154
    he (Mr. T. Collins) did not follow the plan of the hon. Gentleman; but he invariably gave all the information he could. His vote was solicited on behalf of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the county of York, and he at once filled up the card and returned it with an intimation that he certainly did not intend to vote for him. He did not see why the hon. Member should have been deprived of that information, and he certainly should not have thought of sending back the card in a rude and insolent way, without even the courtesy of enclosing it in a stamped envelope. If hon. Members opposite thought that that was the best way of treating the people whom they met on equal terms in social life he (Mr. T. Collins) did not, and he always gave information freely both to his opponents and his friends. At the same time, he did not think it was of much value. He did not think the card was worth the frank; but he presumed the practice was followed with the view of gaining general information. It was an entire mistake to suppose that these cards were sent out with the view of marking the list of voters, and of intimidating A, B, or C. Hon. Members knew that the wage class were quite as independent as their masters, and the tenant farmers were even more independent of their landlords in these days of depressed agriculture than the landlords were of them. The landlords were only too glad to get their tenants to stay upon the land; and, therefore, it was idle to talk about the spirit of the Ballot Act and to pass a stringent law of this kind, which would even go the length, as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out, of preventing a man from signing a requisition to a candidate to stand for a constituency, because, by so doing, he would be violating the spirit of the Ballot Act in declaring beforehand that he intended to vote for a particular candidate. It was simply ridiculous and unwarrantable to say that an independent man should not sign a requisition intimating that he would do his best to return a particular person; and he was satisfied that it would be utterly impossible to gag Englishmen by a clause of this kind.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that his own recollections of the Election of 1880 would probably have

    1155
    led him at first sight to feel rather inclined to look with favour upon any proposal which would put a stop to a practice which in his own county virtually led to a contest, and which required him to incur a considerable expenditure. His opponents sent out cards to various electors asking whether So-and-so ought to stand in opposition to himself and his Colleague for a seat which had never been contested before, and such a large number of persons signed the requisition to the gentleman in question that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had the pleasure of a contest, and his opponent was very much astonished to find afterwards that not nearly so large a number of people supported his candidature as those who had asked him to stand. After what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General he hardly thought they ought to go on discussing the clause. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that with all his sympathy for the object which the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) had in view, he was unable to find the means of carrying it out. Under those circumstances, after a statement of that sort had been made by the Attorney General, the Committee, at all events, ought to go to a Division upon the matter, instead of discussing a proposition which the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill would not take upon himself the responsibility of supporting.
    MR. LABOUOHEREsaid, he was just as strongly opposed to these circulars as the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson). At the last General Election he received a circular asking him to vote for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). It enclosed a stamped envelope, and requested him to send a reply back. Well, he sent back no answer at all; but he simply impounded the stamp, and so made a penny by the transaction. The Committee had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the clause was unworkable as it stood. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that they ought not to pass the second reading of a clause which was unworkable, merely on the chance of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) being able to convert it into a workable clause, and it was
    1156
    better to look at the clause as it stood, and as it was submitted by his hon. Friend who moved it. It was admitted to be unworkable. [Mr. H. B. SAMUELSON: No.] At all events, it was so admitted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and he had not heard anybody deny it except the Proposer of the clause, who contended that it was workable. With all his anxiety to get rid of this practice of sending out circulars, he found himself unable, on this occasion, to support the proposal of his hon. Friend.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not see why the discussion ought to be cut short. If it was undesirable, it was one which had emanated from an hon. Member below the Gangway, who had now, for the second time, raised this point; and if the Attorney General felt inclined to complain, he could only cry out—"Save me from my friends!" Personally, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinek) was not at all sorry to see the question started again, because it showed what was the animus of the false Liberals of the House. They were all in favour of these restrictions upon liberty, and it was upon that ground that the hon. Member had brought forward a clause which was so objectionable in every point of view. He was quite able to confirm the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) with regard to the Ballot Act. No such principle was pronounced on the Treasury Bench at the time the Ballot Act was before the House, as that it was once and for ever to prohibit a man for stating what his political opinions were, either at the polling booth or anywhere else. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite were sometimes said to belong to the Whig Party. He did not know whether that was so or not, or whether there was any Whig Party at all; but if they wished to ascertain the views of that Party, they ought to consult the opinion of Lord Russell, who, upon the occasion of the passing of the Ballot Act, maintained in "another place" that the Ballot was only intended to give security to the voter, and to do away with the possibility of intimidating him without depriving him of his liberty. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said this clause would be valuable in relieving the voter from intimidation; but

    1157
    he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had never heard of any case of intimidation at all. He concurred with hon. Members on that side of the House that the Bill was full of ridiculously small things, and that it constituted traps and pitfalls for honest men. If the theory of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) were carried into effect, what would be the state of things established? Nothing else than a second Spanish Inquisition affecting the hon. Member's own denomination, and, perhaps, converting the hon. Member himself into another "Torquemada." The idea was to prevent a person from giving free expression to his opinions. If that principle was to be adopted, what would become of the great Birmingham Caucus and its proceedings? He had read in the newspapers that, at the time of the last Election, circulars were sent round to all the voters directing each individual how he was to vote, in order to get rid of the minority representation. In point of fact, the Leaders of the Caucus put their heads together, and devised a plan how every elector was to vote, and then sent out circulars saying—"The Caucus don't know how you are going to vote; but you must vote as you are told." Therefore, Birmingham might be another instance, and the junior Member for that borough might be made a second "Torquemada." They had heard a great deal about balloting in the Reform Club. In that great Institution did the Liberal Party practise what they preached now? Did they never announce how they were going to vote, or canvass for votes? If so-called Liberals had any regard for liberty, they ought to vote against the clause, and denounce altogether the doctrine advanced by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson).
    MR. LEWISsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—that, according to the terms of the clause as it stood, a request to an elector to sign a nomination paper might actually be an illegal practice. People talked about the spirit of the Ballot Act as if the Ballot Act was to put an extinguisher upon every elector, and not allow him to be seen or heard at an election. He wanted to know whether, if he, at the next Election, were to write to 10 chosen friends asking them to honour him by proposing and supporting his nomination—and, probably, he
    1158
    should select some of his most valued friends and leading supporters—would he fall under the tender mercies of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuel-son), and be guilty of an illegal practice? If so, he presumed that hard labour would scarcely be a sufficient punishment for the offence. This extraordinary clause only foreshadowed the eagerness with which hon. Members opposite were pursuing a phantom. They did not perceive the consequences which might even accrue to themselves; but, hand over hand, they went to show their desire for purity of election. They stopped at nothing, and they were ready to carry out their extraordinary ideas, even to the extent of preventing a candidate from being nominated at all. Now, he was not one of that foolish class who desired to prevent himself from being nominated; and he could not agree with the course recommended by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that, disagreeing with the penalty, and also with the sense of the clause, they ought, nevertheless, to pass the second reading of it, with a hope of modifying it afterwards. He did not think the Committee ought to go through the form of stultifying themselves by even giving the clause a second reading. He should like to learn from the Attorney General whether, in his view, the signing of a nomination paper would, under the clause, be an illegal practice?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSbegged to inform the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) what, no doubt, the hon. Member very well knew himself—that the nomination paper contained no promise to vote whatever. Yet that was the only important objection which had been advanced against the clause. The nomination paper simply nominated a person as candidate; and the clause dealt with a written promise to vote for a candidate after he had become a candidate. It had nothing whatever to do with the nomination of a candidate. He trusted that the Attorney General would accept the clause, which could be amended in Committee, as far as the punishment of illegal practices, and so forth, were concerned. The Bill scarcely contained any better provision in the direction of checking undue influence, which was a much more potent illegal practice by means of these cards and circulars than

    1159
    hon. Members had any idea of. Many of the poorer class of voters, when they had signed these cards, really thought they had as good as voted, and never went back from the promise they had given. No subsequent argument could be brought to bear upon them. He had known such instances himself; and he had been told more than once by an elector—"I have already promised, and I have, therefore, as good as voted." Consequently, this was a case of undue pressure and undue influence brought to bear upon the voter, which practically defeated the intention of the Ballot Act; and he therefore trusted that the Attorney General would accept the clause.
    MR. WALTEEsaid, he was one of those who felt strongly about the issue of the cards which formed the subject of the Amendment; but he thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) went somewhat too far. The cases stated by the hon. Member were eases which really went against canvassing altogether—there could be no question about that. The Attorney General, and all others who had had much to do with elections, knew very well that it was perfectly easy for the election agents, or the friends of a candidate, to go about talking to the people and saying—"Will you allow me to put your name down on my list as a person who is likely to vote for my candidate?" Well, he did not see how they were to prevent that. The Amendment of the hon. Member would not do it. He thought there was a great deal to be said against all forms of canvassing. Canvassing was unquestionably contrary to the strict spirit of the Ballot Act if they construed it literally, and ever since the Ballot Act was passed he had never asked a poor man to vote for him. In point of fact, he had made it a rule to refrain from doing so. Whenever he had to deal with an elector whom he thought he could not entirely depend upon, he had refrained from asking the man directly for his vote. He did not like to ask a man to make a promise which he might be exposed to the temptation of not performing. At the same time, he did think that the Committee should make the offence a penal one, and punish it as an illegal practice. He was certainly not prepared to go that length.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he thought that the Committee ought to be obliged
    1160
    to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings) for candidly supplying them with information as to the nature of the political morality of the Birmingham Caucus. It now appeared that there was nothing to bind a man who signed his name to a nomination paper to vote for the person nominated. No doubt, the signing of the nomination paper was not an actual promise to vote; but nobody would for a moment imagine that the man who signed a nomination paper was not morally bound to vote for the candidate on whose behalf he did so. So far as a promise could be given, it was certainty given in such a case. But this clause went much further, and if a candidate were to write to a gentleman, and ask him to be one of his committee, and if the gentleman answered the letter, thereby putting his name to a piece of paper, promising to support a particular candidate, he would incur a penalty. He thought that would be carrying legislation to an absurdity; and he was quite sure the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson), if he considered the true meaning and result of the clause, would not take the trouble of asking the Committee to discuss it, much less of calling upon them to divide upon it.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONremarked, that anything that had been said on the other side of the House did not lead him to suppose that he ought not to divide upon the clause, because, especially after what his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated, he was of opinion that the clause was susceptible of improvement. No doubt, the same remark applied to the Bill itself, and especially to the condition in which it was first presented to the Committee. If they were never to vote for a clause because it was capable of amendment, then it would be almost impossible to vote for any Bill that was introduced, and especially for the present Bill, which was full of clauses that had been altered. Therefore, on that ground, it was not desirable that he should refrain from pressing the second reading of the clause; but, if it were read a second time, he would willingly accept an Amendment rendering the offender liable only to a small fine instead of being punishable for committing an illegal practice. Many of the points which had been raised in opposition to the clause would

    1161
    not come under the clause at all. The only thing which would he made an offence was the offence of sending out circulars to he returned signed, containing a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Of course, if a requisition were lying at a particular place for signature, any voter might go there and sign it, and would not render himself liable to punishment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 230: Majority 183.—(Div. List, No. 195.)
    MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, as he understood it, the object of this Bill was to promote, first of all, economy, and, secondly, to prevent undue influence; but he did not find in the Bill any power of restricting the particular matter with which the Amendment he was about to propose dealt. It was quite within the power of any friend of a candidate to expend money in advertising and placarding walls, and there was nothing in the Bill to touch that. He therefore begged to move the new clause which stood in his name.
    New Clause—
    (Restriction on publications during time of elections.)
    "If any person who between the issue of the writ and the close of the poll shall print, publish, issue, post up, or exhibit, in any newspaper, pamphlet, or letter, or in or upon any building, or on any wail, hoarding, vacant space, or public place, any bill, poster, caricature, or print, having reference to the candidate or the election, other than the address of the candidate, list of committee, or advertisement of the place and date of meetings, shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
    "This Clause shall be read and construed with the forty-fourth and forty-fifth Victoria, chapter sixty, section two,"—(Mr. Tatton Egerton,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the effect of this provision would he that if any editor of a newspaper wrote a leading article in favour of a candidate he would come within the Act.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONpointed out that it was provided that—
    "This Clause shall be read and con strued with the forty-fourth and forty-fifth Victoria, chapter sixty, section two,"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied, that that was the Libel Act. Under this clause reporting a candidate's speech might be held to be an illegal practice. As to the question of caricatures, there was an Amendment on the Paper by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had to propose a new clause which he believed would meet with universal assent. Hon. Members knew that there were some people with tyrannical instincts who came forward merely to advertise themselves, and without the slightest intention of standing. They came forward, and then said if the other candidate would pay their expenses they would retire, and having spent, perhaps, £20, they seemed to think they had spent £200. Candidates were frequently blackmailed in that way. He had gathered from the Attorney General that he would accept the principle of this clause, but would make some alteration in it. He did not care about the wording, but he wished to prevent this practice.
    New Clause—
    (Corrupt withdrawal from a candidature.)
    "Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from a candidature for any election in consideration of any payment, or promise to pay any sum of money, or for any other corrupt consideration, or is so induced or procured as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an illegal practice; and any person or persons who aid, abet, or counsel such act, shall also be guilty of an illegal practice,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member that something of this kind was necessary. He did not approve of the exact words of the clause; but they might, perhaps, be reconsidered, and the Government might bring up a new clause. He thought it was doubtful whether this should be made an illegal practice affecting the candidate's seat, but should rather be an illegal payment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he quite took

    1163
    the view of the hon. and right hon. Members; but this could only be an illegal payment if done by the election agent. He had a clause drafted to carry out this idea, which he would move if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    New Clause—
    "Any person who induces or procures by any other person the withdrawal of a candidate at an election in consideration of a payment or a promise of payment shall be guilty of an illegal payment; and any person employed in pursuance of such procuring shall be guilty of an illegal payment,"—(The Solicitor General,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether any awkwardness would arise in a case in which two persons were of the same politics and there was no corrupt action? He did not say that rewards were actually offered by the Leaders of Parties to induce one candidate to withdraw; but he could conceive circumstances under which such a withdrawal might come within this clause.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought there was something in that view. Very often gentlemen who had been candidates, and had been induced to withdraw, got some reward afterwards. There were cases in which gentlemen had been created Baronets; and such cases would come under this clause, because there would have been some inducement held out in the shape of some reward.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that it would be well to defer this clause in order that it might be seen in print.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had no objection to bring it up later—on the Report.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he objected to the matter being deferred to the Report. This was a matter with which many Members were practically acquainted, and he thought it would be much better to deal with it at once, although he agreed that it would be much more convenient to have the proposed words in print. The question mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had come within his own personal knowledge. On one occasion he was called upon to endeavour to settle certain differences which had arisen between two rival candidates pro-
    1164
    fessing the same politics. He suggested that, as they had entered into the candidature in good faith, they should appoint certain gentlemen to go through the canvass books, and that their decision should be conformed to by both the candidates, and that the candidate who withdrew should have all his lonâ fide expenses defrayed by the other candidate who, in the opinion of the arbitrator, had the greatest number of promises. That was a perfectly bonâ fide arrangement, which he felt he was quite justified in suggesting, although it was not carried out, and the arbitrament of the poll was resorted to; but so far as the suggested words of the Attorney General were capable of being judged at a moment's notice, it would almost appear as if such a legitimate proceeding as that just described would be deemed an illegal or corrupt practice. He thought that, perhaps, the words "corruptly paid" might be introduced; but he hoped the Government would endeavour to deal with the matter in some reasonable and practical way if it was deferred.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the instance given by the right hon. Gentleman would not come under the clause. He would make a proposal on the Report.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked whether a payment of money to meet the expenses of a candidate up to the moment of withdrawal would come under the maximum scale?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought a candidate should not be allowed to buy out a rival by paying his expenses.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid the Committee would remember that the question of providing an appeal from the finding of Election Commissioners had been discussed, and he should not revive the question; but he wished to know whether the Government would deal with that subject in this Bill? He quite admitted that the terms of the clause he should propose might not be complete; but he had put the Motion down in general terms, in order that the Government might say whether they would put something of the sort into the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Right of appeal from Election Commissioners.)
    "Every person who, after the commencement of this Act, is reported by any Election Com-

    1165
    missioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practices, shall have the right of appeal to the High Court of Justice, and every such appeal shall he tried by two of the Judges on the rota of Election Judges,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was desirous of having some sort of appeal; and he would consider whether the Judges would not form the best Court of Appeal. They could not expect Royal Commissioners to submit to a minor Court. Before speaking definitely on this matter, he wished to confer with the Lord Chancellor; and if the Motion were withdrawn, he should hope to be able to do something in the matter.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he had a clause to propose with reference to the proposal to send Commissioners down before the actual trial of an Election Petition to inquire into all the circumstances of the election which was challenged. His view was that corrupt practices must be prevented, not by imposing extreme penalties, but rather by making discovery almost certain. At present, the procedure of an Election Petition was certainly not in favour of discovery. The candidate seeking to oust the Member was anxious to put forward just so much as was necessary for his case, and no more; and it was the object of both parties to keep out of view, as much as possible, the corrupt practices which had occurred, and which might lead to a Commission being issued. The Judges were perfectly helpless, for they had no means of exercising an independent authority, or making independent inquiries. They could simply act on the information given by the two parties, and that was, generally, as scanty as possible, in order just to serve the purpose of the Petition. He believed that was a great hindrance to detection and punishment of corrupt practices. The Committee had done something to deal with the cost of Petitions by a new clause, which they had adopted, providing that such costs should be taxed; but it was difficult to see what the exact effect of that would be. It might only make the institution of a
    1166
    Petition so expensive a matter that Petitioners would be discouraged; but the real fact with regard to the detection of corrupt practices was that if immediately after an election one or two trustworthy men went down to the place, with authority to call witnesses, and examine them as to the conduct of the election, they would find out, in a few hours, with sufficient certainty, whether the election had been pure or not. It fell to his lot to be a counsel in the Macclesfield Election trial, at which the Liberal Members were unseated without his having to call a single witness. They were unseated by the sudden calling into the witness-box of the man who printed the bills and circulars for the election, and who was the secretary of one of the local or district Associations. Before he left the witness-box the seats were gone. Immediately after the election two barristers went down, armed with authority to make inquiries. They sent for the managing agent of each party, and asked him questions as to the amount of money spent, and so on. In the same way, under this clause, gentlemen would be able quickly to decide the question of a Petition. Of course, their decision ought not to be final; but they would report to the Judges whether they found that the allegations of the Petition were sustained or not. In addition to a Report, he proposed that they should send in the evidence they had taken; and, also, they should send a copy of the evidence to the Petitioner and. the Respondent. Then the Judges should have power, if they found from the Report that bribery had been committed by the agent of the man elected, to make a conditional judgment, that the seat was void and the election bad. That step, however, should not be final, and he had provided that within 14 days of that conditional judgment either party might appeal against it, and after that the Judges might go down and try the case in the ordinary way. He believed that this method would lead to the immediate detection of corrupt practices, and that with an effectual promptitude which had never been and never could be found under the existing system. In the next place, it would relieve the Member from a very great hardship. At present a candidate was elected by a constituency, and an Election Petition was presented against him. It might be

    1167
    that some person who would be held to be his agent, had been guilty of some act of bribery or other corrupt practice which would affect the seat. The Member knew this; he knew what was going to happen; and, consequently, those who went down to defend the election knew that if the facts had only been found out, and witnesses been forthcoming, the seat could not be defended. In that case the Member would be able to surrender the seat under a conditional judgment; but he would not be exposed to the enormous cost of an Election Petition. Justice would be done; corrupt practices would receive their proper punishment; and there would be relief from enormous expense. If these results were arrived at, a great deal would have been done to assist in the work which all had at heart in this matter. In the framing of the clauses he had had the help of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), and he hoped the Attorney General would see his way to inserting what he believed would substantially help forward the object of the Bill.
    New Clauses—
    (When petition presented Commissioners to be sent down.)
    "When any petition against the return of any member shall have been duly presented, the election judges shall, before trying the same, forthwith appoint two barristers, of not less than seven years' standing, as Commissioners; and such Commissioners shall forthwith proceed to the county or borough to which such petition shall relate, for the purpose of inquiry, and report as hereinafter provided.
    (Powers of Commissioners.)
    "The said Commissioners shall call before them and examine on oath such persons as they shall think fit, for the purpose of ascertaining if the said petition was well founded, and shall have all the powers as to examination of witnesses, the granting of certificates, and the discovery and production of documents, as belong to the Commissioners appointed under the Act fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven. All persons who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, truthfully answer the questions put to them, shall be entitled to, and the said Commissioners shall grant them, a certificate which shall be in the terms and shall have the effect and operation of a certificate given by Commissioners appointed under the said Act.
    (Commissioners to inquire and report.)
    "The said Commissioners shall by all such lawful means as to them appear best, with a view to the discovery of the truth, inquire into the matters alleged in the petition, and shall report to the Election Judges the evidence taken by them and what they find concerning the premises, and especially shall report the names of all persons whom they find to have
    1168
    been guilty of illegal or corrupt practices at the election, with respect to which such petition shall have been presented.
    (Statement of countercharges.)
    "When the respondent to a petition complaining of an undue return, and claiming the seat for some person, alleges that the election of such person was undue, he shall, within fourteen days after the presentation of such petition, deliver to the master, and also at the address, if any, given by the petitioner, a statement of the grounds of such allegation, and such statement shall be referred to the Commissioners appointed under this Act, and they shall inquire and report upon the matters alleged in such statement in the same manner in all respects as if the same were an original petition.
    (Petitions as to conduct of the inquiry.)
    "Any elector of the said county or borough, or any candidate at the election, may in writing petition the Election Judges either during or after the sittings of the said Commissioners, and prefer any complaint or suggestion in regard to the method, duration, or character of the inquiry or the propriety of other evidence being taken, or in regard to any other matter relating to such inquiry, and any one of the said judges may make such order therein as shall seem to him just, and the said Commissioners shall obey such order.
    (Power to Election Judges to pronounce conditional judgment.)
    "As soon as practicable after the said Commissioners have reported, the Election Judges shall consider such report, and the evidence appended thereto, and shall pronounce conditional judgment thereupon.
    (Power to demand trial of election petition.)
    "The petitioners and respondents shall be furnished by the Commissioners with copies of their report, and of the evidence taken before them, at the same time as they furnish the same to the Election Judges, or as soon after as possible, and any such respondent may, within fourteen days of such conditional judgment, or such extended time, as the court may for cause shown permit, demand that the said petition shall be tried, and thereupon the same shall be tried in the method heretofore in use before the Judges, and on such trial the Judges may confirm, reverse, vary, or alter such conditional judgment, but upon such trial the Judges shall not inquire into any matter other than those alleged in the petition, unless a demand shall be made as in the next section mentioned.
    (Public Prosecutor to intervene in conduct of trial.)
    "In the event of a trial being demanded the report and evidence shall forthwith be laid before the Public Prosecutor, who shall appear by himself, or some other counsel, in support of the petition or the countercharges in respect of which such trial shall have been demanded, and the Solicitor to the Treasury shall in all respects assist the Public Prosecutor therein as if the same were a criminal trial undertaken by the Treasury.
    (Trial of countercharges.)
    "Any person for whom a seat has been claimed in the petition, and against whom

    1169
    countercharges have been made, may demand a trial as if he were a respondent to an original petition, but only in respect of such countercharges.
    (Effects of conditional judgment.)
    "If no demand of trial shall he made, as in the preceding sections mentioned, the said conditional judgment shall thereupon become, to all intents and purposes, a final judgment upon the petition and the countercharges, if any, and shall have the same consequences and effects as a final judgment by the judges upon a trial of such petition and countercharges.
    (Election Judges may make order as to costs in conditional judgment.)
    "The Election Judges may in their conditional judgment make such order as they shall think fit as to the payment by the petitioners or respondents of the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the inquiry by the Commissioners, and if no such order he made with respect to the costs of the inquiry, such costs shall be homo and paid as if such Commissioners had been appointed under the Act fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven.
    (Provisions of Acts 15 and 16 Vic. c. 57, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 125, to apply.)
    "The provisions of the fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven, and of the Act thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-five, and the rules made under the latter Act, shall, so far as the same are applicable to the proceedings by this Act provided, apply as if this Act were incorporated with the said Acts,"—(Mr. E. Clarice,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clauses be now read a second time."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he thought it was necessary, not only in the interest of the candidate, but also of the constituency, that the conduct of an Election Inquiry should no longer be a matter as between party and party, but as far as possible should be conducted in the same manner as a Coroner's Inquest. Great complaints had been made of the cost of Election Petition trials; but that could be avoided if there were some inquiry made at the places by impartial persons, on whose reports he believed nine cases out of ten would be determined. This scheme would be for the convenience of a constituency, and in the interests of purity, because it would no longer be possible for litigants in matters of this kind to prevent the real truth being ascertained, as they could when there were counsel on each side who called or did not call witnesses, as they thought proper. The framing of these clauses might be open to objection
    1170
    by the Attorney General; but he understood that his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly willing to withdraw if the Attorney General would bring forward some scheme embodying similar principles.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned Member had certainly taken great care in drawing up this plan; but he did not see how he could accept it, and he did not think the Committee would consider that it should be accepted. As he understood the proposal, there were to be two Commissioners to make this inquiry; but the Petitioner and the Respondent were not to be present. The inquiry would be perfectly useless if no witnesses were to be called; and he did not think it possible that either of the parties would be satisfied. If he could see his way to accepting the scheme with any advantage, he should be disposed to do so; but he thought it would defeat the object in view, and there would practically be three inquiries—the preliminary inquiry, the Election Petition trial, and the Royal Commission.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the scheme would be open to the objection that the inquiry would be more or less a double trial of the same event. It could hardly be supposed that either party would be satisfied, and a new inquiry would be required. If the inquiry was to be real, the parties who were to be reported on ought to be heard; but if they were not to be heard, the inquiry would be worthless, and, in that case, would operate unfairly, because it might lead to the reporting of corrupt practices without the parties being heard, and they ought not to be exposed to that. He hoped the scheme would not be accepted.
    MR. LEWISsaid, this was, no doubt, a well-intentioned proposal; but he thought it was open to all the objections raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory). He could not see that it would produce any beneficial results.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought he should not have very much difficulty in defending these clauses against criticism if that were desirable at this moment. As to any objection on the ground that these gentlemen would be unable to find out anything, that was answered by the fact that the Royal Commissioners, when they went down to a town, went with their secretary,

    1171
    and made inquiries of the same character as was suggested here. Of course, they would not go unless a Petition was presented alleging corrupt practices. He felt that, at this stage of the Bill, it was impossible to urge on the Government the acceptance of these clauses unless the Attorney General had come to the conclusion that he ought to incorporate them in the Bill, and take the responsibility of them. Therefore, though with much regret, he should accept the Attorney General's decision at once, and withdraw the proposal. He was sure they were not at the end of legislation upon corrupt practices; and, therefore, he had desired to submit a substantial proposal for an effectual remedy.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the Motion being withdrawn. In his opinion, it ought to be negatived to show the opinion of the Committee upon the bringing forward of such proposals. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. Clarke), who had had a large experience of election trials, should have devoted so much time to formulating such clauses; and the only way in which they should be met was by an emphatic opinion being pronounced upon them by the Committee.
    And it being a quarter before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.