Sitting of 13 July 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Harbour Accommodation [No. 255].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 12] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Heading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) * [249]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11)* [250].
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7–265] [Twenty--first Night]; Statute of Frauds Amendment [204].
Report—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [217]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) * [218].
Third Reading—Prison Service (Ireland) * [248], and passed.
Withdrawn—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [159]; Public Health Acts Amendment * [161].

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— VACCINATION IN WORKHOUSES— ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Walter Dunlop, Medical Officer of Saint Pancras Workhouse, that—
  1350
  "The inmates numbered about 2,000. He had to see every person on admission and visit about 1,000 of them daily; "
  whether this gentleman is the same who asserted that he had vaccinated about 1,500 mothers within a few hours after their delivery; whether such numerous and responsible duties can be performed with sufficient care by one man; and, whether he has yet expressed, or intends to express, his sanction of the vaccination of women in workhouses within a few hours after their delivery?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board have communicated with Mr. Dunlop, the Medical Officer of the St. Pancras Workhouse, and he has informed them that at a recent inquest he stated that sometimes in winter the inmates of the workhouse numbered nearly 2,000; that he had to see every person admitted into the receiving wards, and that he was medically responsible for about 1,000 inmates—namely, those in the sick, infirm, insane, lying-in, and nursery wards; which wards, with the exception of the lying-in ward, were visited by him daily. Mr. Dunlop stated that he had vaccinated 1,500 mothers at early periods after confinement. He informs the Board that the usual time within which vaccination was performed was from the 7th to the 14th day after confinement. With regard to the duties of Mr. Dunlop, it is to be observed that the severer cases of sickness are not relieved in the workhouse, but are received into the infirmary belonging to the parish at Highgate, where there is accommodation for more than 500 cases. Although there may be 1,000 inmates in the workhouse wards, which are visited by Mr. Dunlop, it is comparatively only a small proportion of this number that requires to be seen by him each day. The duties of the Medical Officer of the workhouse are, no doubt, arduous; but, having regard to the number and character of the cases visited by him, the Board at present possess no evidence that those duties are not performed with sufficient care. With respect to the Question as to whether the Board approve the vaccination of women within a few hours after delivery, a similar Question was answered on the 11th of last month, and the Board informed Mr. Dunlop of the effect of the reply given to that Question.
  MR. HOPWOOD: What was the answer given?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: My impression is, that the effect of the answer was that the Local Government Board would be glad to see the risk of vaccination dissociated, as far as possible, from the necessary risk of confinement.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) —SALARIES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he intends to bring in his promised Bill on the subject of the Salaries of the Irish National Teachers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I must say that the Irish Government have carefully considered the question, and have come to a conclusion as to what should be done. As far as I can gather, however, the opinion of hon. Members, the Bill which the Government proposed would not pass without opposition, which would effectually prevent its becoming law this Session. Having regard to this, and to the fact that the Government engage to meet the wishes of the House with regard to a measure of compulsory education in Ireland, which would naturally and properly be included in the same Bill as their proposals relating to schoolmasters, there is no choice but to postpone dealing with the matter this Session.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he intends to pursue in order to bring the question of the new provisional arrangement under the consideration of the House; and, whether he can say when it will be brought forward?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Mr. Speaker, the course I propose to pursue is that which is usual in such cases—namely, to obtain authority in Committee of the Whole House for charging on the Consolidated Fund a sum not exceeding the advance we have provisionally agreed to make to the Company. On that Vote the whole question must come before the House. As to the second part of the Question, I can say nothing until we approach the conclusion of the Committee stage on the two Agricultural Holdings Bills.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will give the reference to the instruments under which it is held that the Suez Canal Company has an exclusive right to cut through the Isthmus?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, the Instruments are the concessions of the Viceroy of Egypt, dated at Cario, the 30th November, 1854, and the 5th of January, 1856; the Convention of the 22nd of February, 1866, reciting them, and confirming them with certain amendments which do not touch this point; and the Firman of the Sultan of the 19th of March, 1866, ratifying that Convention. They are to be found at pages 1, 4, 34, and 44 of Parliamentary Paper, Egypt, No. 6, c. 1,416, of 1876.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to give Notice that it is my intention, when the proposition is made by the right hon. Gentleman, to divide and take the sense of the House against the proposals of the Government. I give this Notice subject in all humility to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). I do not think the time mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking the Vote—namely, after the Committee on the two Agricultural Holdings Bills—will be very convenient, and I hope an earlier time will be given. As the matter is one of the greatest importance, and ought not to be left till the end of the Session, I shall renew the Question as to the time on Monday.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the expediency of printing and circulating the documents relating to this question in a separate form?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): These documents are very lengthy. They are in the Library at the disposal of hon. Members. However, I will consider whether they are worth reprinting.
  MR. BOURKE: May I ask a Question of the Prime Minister, arising out of the answer given yesterday on the subject of the concession? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he said yesterday that it was not certain that the land which M. de Lesseps possesses is sufficient to enable him to make this second Canal; and that being so, and the land being the property of the

  1353
  Egyptian Government, it would be necessary for him not to acquire a new political concession—that is the point—but to acquire land from the Egyptian Government for the purpose. That, the right hon. Gentleman said, would be a proper and primary subject of any negotiation which would be necessary for the construction of a second Canal. In the preliminary arrangement which was communicated to the House the day before yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as having been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Canal Company, I find it is stated that Her Majesty's Government are to use their good offices to obtain the necessary concessions for the land required for the new Canal and its approaches, for the Sweetwater Canal between Ismailia and Port Said, and for the extension of the term of the original concession for so many years as will make a term of 99 years from the date of the completion of the second Canal. I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government are still of opinion that no political concession is necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday, or whether it is the fact that this new Canal can be made and new rights be given over it without any political concession?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it appears to me to be rather a question of words than anything else. My impression yesterday was that the public believed, or a portion of the public believed, that any demands now to be made upon the Egyptian Government with regard to the privileges for the Canal Company would be analogous in their nature to the original demand, and my object was to dissipate that belief, which I think is erroneous. No doubt the word "concession" has been used in the written document, and I am not aware that I disavowed it yesterday; but I distinguish, or I meant to distinguish, between a concession, such as the original concession, and one like the present. The sale of more land to the Company might be called a concession; the extension of the term of years might, perhaps, still more properly be called a concession, the other being a transaction in the nature of business; but it was distinctly different in our opinion from the nature of the concession originally asked, which involved political questions of high order and importance.
  MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that the concession which Her Majesty's Government has bound itself to use their good offices to obtain is to be confined entirely to the question of land, and that they contend that the new Canal may be used, and dues levied upon the Canal, without any further concession either from the Porte or the Khedive?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As far as we are acquainted with the matter I am not certain that the legal details have been thoroughly investigated. My belief is certainly to the effect the right hon. Gentleman has supposed, that no new concession will be required to levy dues on the new Canal; but that is a mere impression, by which I do not undertake to be absolutely bound. Undoubtedly, I apprehend that the extension of the term would be a political act, and there can be no right to levy dues beyond the term when the Canal will revert absolutely to the Egyptian Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us whether it is contemplated that the new Canal should have a separate entrance and a separate exit from the pro-sent Canal, or whether it will be in the nature of a loop-line with the same entrance and exit, but giving an additional line?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Whether there will be one or two entrances will be a question which will be discussed by the engineers, who are about to consider the whole of the professional questions involved. The works ultimately decided upon will require to be approved by our Directors.
  MR. BOURKE: Has any arrangement been made for a new pier at Port Said, if there is to be a new entrance?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, I think not; but that is an engineering question, which will have to be discussed carefully by the engineers.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The question of a separate entrance is not an engineering question merely, it is to a certain extent a political question. There is considerable difference between allowing a divergence from the Canal in the nature of a loop line, and a new

  1355
  departure altogether from a new point of entrance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The intention is that the new Canal shall be as far as possible parallel to the present one.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: But how, if the engineers had not been consulted as to these matters, have the Government been able to fix upon the estimate of £8,000,000, as being the cost of the Canal? It must have been necessary to consult engineers as to the estimate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): That really is a Question which hardly requires an answer. In all great works a provisional estimate has to be made. In this case we have provided that the sum to be lent shall not exceed £8,000,000. When we come to details, it may cost considerably less. [An Hon. MEMBER: Or more.] It is impossible to go into these details now.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I hope I may be allowed to add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend, that the documents to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred may be printed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have already promised to look into the matter.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVER: I wish to ask whether at the meeting held yesterday of the Directors of the Suez Canal Company the proposals of the Government were accepted; and whether, that being so, the contract is not now complete?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have no information on the subject of the meeting of the Company; but, even if that had been so, if my hon. Friend will refer to the Papers I have laid on the Table he would see that that does not complete the contract, because the details have to be settled in concert with Her Majesty's Government, and the approval of Parliament will be necessary.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether M. do Lesseps has contracted to finish the new Canal for £8,000,000; and whether, supposing £8,000,000 is not sufficient, Her Majesty's Government would be liable to
  1356
  be called upon for any further contribution to complete it, or would the Canal remain unfinished?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid the hon. Member has not read the Papers, or he would have seen that it was expressly provided that Her Majesty's Government should not be called upon to contribute more than £8,000,000, and that after that the Canal would have to be completed by the Company with money raised in another way.
  MR. W. FOWLER: I wish to give Notice that on the Motion for a grant of money to carry out the provisional Agreement with the Suez Canal Company, I shall move that no arrangement for the grant of public money for the purpose of assisting the existing Suez Canal Company to complete a second Canal will be satisfactory to this House, unless due provision is thereby made for the protection of British shipping from excessive charges, and for a due representation of British interests on the governing body of the Canal Company.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will inform the House, as to the Suez Canal, what are the total number of directors, and the number of English directors under the proposed arrangement; what are the total number of members on the Comité de Direction, and the number of English members; and what are the total number of members on the Finance Commission, and the number of English members?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The total number of Directors is 24, of whom three are English. No change is proposed under the new arrangement. The Comité de Direction is at present composed of five members, and three extra members (membres adjoints), one of whom is English. Eventually this English Director is to fill a vacancy. There are nine members on the Finance Commission, and one extra member; one of the members is Sir John Stokes, and the extra member is Sir R. Rivers Wilson. Under the proposed Agreement the English extra member is to become a member on the first vacancy.

  MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH—EXPULSION OF THE BRITISH CONSUL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will communicate to the House the full text of the Despatch from Zanzibar which described the death of Her Majesty's Consul and the insult to the British flag at Tamatave; and, whether it is intended to send more ships of war to defend British interests at Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No such despatch as that described by the hon. Member has been received. The information, as stated by the Prime Minister, was contained in a telegram from Colonel Miles, Acting Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar. It would be altogether premature to present Correspondence now in regard to an affair of so delicate a character while still pending. It is not the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to send more ships to Madagascar.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the despatch or telegram by which the information was conveyed was not originally sent from the commander of Her Majesty's Ship Dryad, and whether there was any other ship of war at present on the Madagascar coast besides the Dryad?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I gave full information to the House the other day as to the ships in these waters. They are the Dragon, the Dryad, and a third ship, which was sent there by the Admiralty. Whether these ships are actually at Tamatave I cannot say; but I believe the Dragon and the Dryad are both off there at this moment.

  JAMAICA—THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the case that there is at the present moment no proper Governor of Jamaica, nor any Legislative Council, and that the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Chief Justice are all absent from the island on leave; and, if so, who is left to carry on the affairs of that colony? In putting the Question, he wished to state that it had just come to his knowledge that the
  1358
  Chief Justice had died since he left the Island.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: General Gamble, the officer in command of the troops, has, since the recent departure of Sir Anthony Musgrave, administered the government of Jamaica. The Assistant Colonial Secretary, Mr. Walker, who is one of the most competent officers in the Colonial Service, has been acting as Colonial Secretary. The Attorney General is on his way back after leave of absence, and will almost immediately be at his post again; but meanwhile his place has been occupied by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Constantine Burke. I regret exceedingly to have to say that the Chief Justice died a few days ago while in England on sick leave; but during his absence there are competent Judges in the Island. There is, therefore, full and efficient provision for the carrying on of the affairs of the Colony, and it is not quite correct to say that there is no Legislative Council. After the resignation of the unofficial Members upon the Florence Vote, and pending the Report of the Royal Commission on the Finances of Jamaica, it was thought inexpedient to reconstitute it. But in the persons of the official Members there is a Council capable of acting if necessary, though it is not proposed to bring before it any business that is not urgent until its re-constitution has been considered. The Council at present consists of eight persons—namely, the acting Governor, the acting Colonial Secretary, the Surveyor General, the acting Attorney General, the Collector General, the Chief Medical Officer, the Protector of Immigrants, and the Inspector of Schools.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked whether any part of the expenses of the late Commission of Inquiry in Jamaica would be included in the Estimates; and whether Mr. Constantine Burke, who recently resigned his position on the Council, was the same that had been re-appointed, and was now acting Attorney General?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, that no Vote for the expenses of the Inquiry at Jamaica would be taken in that House, as the charges of that Inquiry would be borne by the Colony. Mr. Constantine Burke, who had been appointed Crown Solicitor, was the same gentleman who had recently resigned his seat in the Legislative Council.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA— AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the further consideration which the Government propose to give to our policy in regard to New Guinea, full weight will be given to the danger which would arise from the state of feeling in our Australian Colonies in the event of occurrences in Australasia of the nature of those which have been reported from Madagascar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure that I quite understand the particular meaning which my hon. Friend attaches to this Question; but I shall answer it affirmatively, because, undoubtedly, it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government, if any further questions should arise as to New Guinea, which is possible, to take into view before arriving at a decision all contingencies, whether political or economical, which would be likely to arise in consequence of any decision they might take. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is quite correct in speaking of "the further consideration which the Government propose to give." I am not aware that we have made any announcement corresponding to that; but still, if communications should be received from the Colonies, they would receive careful attention.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked when Papers would be presented on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that a series of Papers was in course of consideration; but if it was desired to have the New Guinea despatch alone, he presumed there would be no difficulty in laying it on the Table.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYexplained that the reason why the Papers had not yet been presented was because it was desired to include certain telegrams which had only just arrived in order to make the Papers complete.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, that as he had no desire to in any way impede Government Business, and as he wished to prevent the waste of time which would
  1360
  arise from the discussion of the Motion which stood first on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he would not proceed with his Motion referring to Zululand; but, at the same time, he would express the hope that the Prime Minister would be able to give facilities for discussing the question in Committee of Supply on the Vote for the Zulu Resident.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would join in the request of his hon. Friend to the Prime Minister. The matter was one of considerable importance, and an opportunity should be given for the discussion of the question, He therefore hoped the Government would take the Vote for the Zulu Resident in time for a proper discussion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that under the circumstances, in order to facilitate the Corrupt Practices Bill, he begged to give Notice also that he would withdraw his Motion for that night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I certainly think, Sir, the demand for a discussion on the affairs of Zululand is a reasonable one; but hon. Gentlemen know the decision that we have announced, and I believe the main desire of the House is to dispose of the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill in Committee. When we see our way at all, we will at once endeavour to make the best arrangements we can for the despatch of Business, and announce them to the House. Unquestionably it would be right that we should, to the best of our ability, make arrangements for a discussion on the affairs of Zululand, on the Vote for the salary of the Resident. With regard to the postponement by the hon. Members for Northampton and North Yorkshire, whose Motions are on the Paper for tonight, it is quite plain that either of them must have occupied the available hours; but those two Gentleman have, for the advantage of the general Business, consented to waive their positions. I hope I may appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who had a subordinate or posterior position, if I may so call it, not to prevent the House, by raising discussions on the subsequent Motions in their names, with respect to Jamaica and Stellaland, from doing

  1361
  what is evidently the universal desire—namely, to dedicate the whole of to-day, if necessary, to closing the proceedings on the Corrupt Practices Bill.
  CAPTAIN PRICEwished to say that his position was altogether a different one from that of the hon. Member for North Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay), as the affairs of Jamaica were in an awkward position, and he would have no other opportunity of saying anything on the subject during the present Session. At all events, he hoped the House would allow him to occupy a short time—say up to the time when the House became full, about 10 o'clock.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTbegged to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, by the withdrawal of the two other Motions, his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) position was no longer a posterior one, but an anterior one. The question he had put upon the Paper was of very great importance. It referred to the insults to British subjects, which had been so often repeated under the present Administration, that he did not feel justified in withdrawing it altogether. He would, however, promise the Prime Minister that he would not speak more than 15 minutes; and, as the Under Secretary for the Colonies had often told the House he knew nothing about the subject, the discussion would probably not take long.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am bound to say, Sir, that, under those circumstances, it is quite impossible to hold the other two hon. Members, who have given way, to the pledges they have given. That would be a most ungenerous act on my part. I do not think that the hon. Members opposite should take advantage of the sacrifice which other hon. Members have made, in order to bring forward Motions which, in my opinion, are not of the least urgency, and which would not have had the slightest chance of being reached if it had not been for the sacrifices to which I have alluded. As for numerous insults to British subjects, I am amazed at the forbearance of the hon. Member for Eye, who undertakes to expose the whole of them in a speech of 15 minutes. As to Jamaica, I may inform the hon. Member that as a Commission has been appointed to inquire into the state of things in that Colony, Her Majesty's Government could
  1362
  not be parties to discussing the subject until the Commission has made its Report.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister whether it was not a fact that Mr. Honey was foully murdered five months ago on the borders of the Transvaal by Boers? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising debatable matter.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was asking for information.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he only agreed to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that all the posterior Gentlemen would also withdraw; and he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would exercise his influence to induce his followers to withdraw.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he was quite willing to make the same sacrifice as his hon. Friend (Mr. Guy Dawnay). He would withdraw if the Prime Minister would give him another opportunity of bringing forward the subject.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would strongly appeal to the hon. Members to withdraw their Motions.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Prime Minister whether, if the hon. Members would not give way, he would not feel it necessary to have a Sitting on Saturday? [Loud cries of "No, no!"]
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would join in the appeal to his hon. Friends to withdraw, and not to put themselves in the position of fighting against the general wish of the House, which was that every effort might be made to finish the Corrupt Practices Bill that night.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that, after the appeal from the Leader of the Opposition, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, in deference to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition, though with great reluctance, he would also withdraw his Motion.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister to afford him some more convenient opportunity than upon the Irish Tramways Bill to bring forward his Motion as to a scheme for assisted emigration from Ireland to Canada.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that he did not think he was in a position to

  1363
  enter upon this question now, but would communicate with the right hon Gentleman. He might add, assuming that the Corrupt Practices Bill was disposed of that night, the Tenants' Compensation Bill would be the First Order of the Day on Tuesday.
  MR. WARTONwished to call attention to the fact that certain new Rules made by the Judges, now on the Table, contained very important alterations in the law of pleading practice. These Rules would come into force on the 24th October, unless the House annulled them. He wished to ask the Prime Minister whether these very important Rules were to be allowed to become law without the opportunity being given to the House to pass an opinion on them?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid he could not answer the Question without communication with the Attorney General. No Notice was given of the Question. He quite agreed that it was a Question that ought to be answered.

EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated yesterday that I hoped to be able to-day to inform the House of the name of the gentleman whom it was proposed to despatch to Egypt in connection with the outbreak of cholera there. I am glad to be able to redeem that promise. Her Majesty's Government having obtained the valuable advice of Sir Joseph Fayrer, has offered the post which I described yesterday to Surgeon General William Hunter, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Honorary Surgeon to Her Majesty. He is a gentleman of the greatest Indian experience, and formerly served in the Bombay Presidency in the service of that Government, from which, however, he has now retired. I am quite sure that the House will feel that Her Majesty's Government have been fortunate in being able to secure the advice and assistance of a gentleman of his knowledge and experience. As I am speaking on this subject, I will ask the permission of the House to read the last telegram that has been received with regard to the number of deaths from cholera. It is dated the 12th of July, and is sent by Mr. Cookson from Alexandria. It states that the number
  1364
  of deaths at Damietta was 40, at Mansourah 73, at Samannoud 11, and at Tantah three. There has been no return of any deaths at the other places, and that is decidedly favourable. I also wish to read two telegrams from Sir Edward Malet to Earl Granville, in order to remove a painful impression which has prevailed in consequence of some information which appeared a few days ago in certain telegrams in the daily Press. The first impression which I wish to remove is as to the accusation which appeared in the daily Press, not of this country, but of foreign countries, that the outbreak was caused distinctly by infection through the arrival at Damietta of a person from British India, who had been allowed to enter in consequence of the mistaken views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of quarantine. Sir Edward Malet telegraphed on the 11th of July in these terms—
  "Cairo, July 11,1883, 11.25 a.m.—Following from Main, Consular Agent, Damietta, with reference to alleged importation of cholera from Bombay by Muhammed Halifa:—'Muhammed Halifa, for some years inhabitant Port Said, shipped as fireman on board steamer Timor; made voyage to Bombay, returning 18th ult., all on board in perfect health. Obtained discharge at Port Said, and commenced course of drunkenness and excess. This continued four days, when he was imprisoned by Governor of Port Said, and finally exiled by that official on 23rd ult., and arrived at Damietta on 24th, when he recommenced same course of excess, and was imprisoned on 25th. He is now at liberty, and apparently in perfect health."
  Sir Edward Malet goes on to say—
  "This disposes of theory, as epidemic broke out at Damietta on the 22nd."
  That statement may be taken as conclusive on the point. The next telegram from Sir Edward Malet to Earl Granville relates to the condition of things at Mansourah, and says—
  "With reference to affairs at Mansourah, President of the Board of Health informs me that the Governor of that place has not resigned; that he declares there to be sufficient food; and that he had punished vendors who had taken advantages of circumstances to sell food at an advanced rate. Orders had been given by the Minister of the Interior and General Baker to those under them to facilitate the passage of doctors, provisions, and medicines to all places attacked. The President adds that, when passenger traffic was interrupted with infected places, a special service was organized by the Railway Administration for Government use."

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF AHMED BEY KHANDEEL.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any information of a protest made by the counsel of Khandeel against the sentence which had been inflicted upon him by Court Martial at Alexandria, and whether the Government would endeavour to restrain the departure of Khandeel until the matter had been considered?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated yesterday, in reply to a very similar Question, that the Report of Major Macdonald had not been received; but I read a telegram from him to the effect that the trial, and, he believed, the sentence were perfectly fair, and, under these circumstances, it was not the intention of the Government to interfere.

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 12th July.] [TWENTY-FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he rose to propose the second reading of a clause, the object of which was to provide for a prompt and inexpensive manner of settling disputed accounts relating to elections without proceedings in a Court of Law. It was customary in Ireland for the Courts of Law to refer matters of this kind to the Masters, who adjudicated upon the case in Chambers with the parties before them. It might be urged that it would be impossible for the Master or any other official to settle disputed rates of charge; but no difficulty arose in practice. For instance, with respect to printing and newspaper accounts, both the Landed Estates Court and the Bankruptcy Court settled scales of charge which were acquiesced in by newspaper proprietors and printers through-out
    1366
    Ireland and acted on; and a provision was made in the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 that the fees of all brokers, agents, and such persons, should be taxed and ascertained by taxing officers. He believed he had made it clear that the difficulty of carrying out his proposal would not be very great, and that the system which he advocated had worked well, and proved conclusively that the amounts due to persons in respect of election accounts could be ascertained in a satisfactory manner by the same means. He thought it a hardship that a candidate who found himself charged with items that he believed to be unfair, and not in accordance with custom, should only be able to find out the truth of the matter by means of trying out an action at law; besides, if he made a mistake in his calculations, and lodged in Court even 30s. less than the amount awarded by the jury, he would find himself saddled with all the costs of the action. He, therefore, proposed that as soon as the account which the candidate believed to contain exorbitant items was furnished, a notice should be served on the claimant requiring him to submit the account to a Master of one of the Courts of Common Law for the purpose of ascertaining the correct amount payable to him. Immediately on receipt of the notice either party might proceed before the Master; and no other proceedings were to be taken before he had adjudicated upon the account, and no further sum than that ascertained by him could be recovered. He thought, now that a maximum amount had been fixed for the expenses of a candidate's election, that it was most desirable that the candidate should get the best value for his money, and that one creditor should not be allowed to exhaust the greater part of that maximum by charging exorbitant fees. He would not detain the Committee further than to express a hope that the Committee would see the desirability of candidates knowing the amounts they had to pay, without being obliged to involve themselves in expensive litigation. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
    New Clause:—
    (Taxation of accounts claimed from candidates.)
    "That in case the items, or any of them, of any account furnished to the election agent

    1367
    shall be disputed by or on behalf of the candidate as exorbitant or unfair, and not in accordance with the ordinary rates of charge for the matters comprised in such account, it shall be lawful for the candidate to require the person claiming to be paid the amount of such account by notice in writing delivered to him personally, or left at his last known place of abode, to submit the same for taxation or ascertainment to the Master of any of the superior Courts of Common Law, and immediately after the service or receipt of such notice it shall be lawful for either the candidate or person claiming such account to take out a summons before said Master to tax and ascertain the fair and just amount which should be paid in respect of the charges contained in such account, and on the hearing of said summons the said Master shall tax and ascertain the proper sum payable on foot of such account, and the decision of the said Master shall be binding and conclusive on the parties, and no sum shall be payable in respect of the charges contained in said account beyond the amount so ascertained: Provided always, That after the service of the notice, and until the ascertainment of the amount of said account in manner aforesaid, no action shall be brought on foot thereof,"—(Mr. Findlater,)
    —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 Committee had already determined this matter in Clause 23, Sub-section 7, and, under the circumstances, he must adhere to the decision arrived at.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was sorry the Attorney General did not see his way to consider the clause of the hon. Member for Monaghan. He did not see any analogy between what had been done in the earlier part of the Bill referred to by the Attorney General and the proposal of the hon. Member. Clause 23 merely said that certain things should constitute a separate claim, and be treated accordingly. But the hon. Member opposite wished to deal with cases where the agent, the candidate, or other persons might have no dispute whatever as to the work done—cases, for instance, in which the candidate would say, "I admit your retainer, and I admit the work was done; I only dispute your price." The hon. Gentleman asked that in cases of that kind the candidate might have a summary remedy, by bringing the matter cheaply and expeditiously before a Master of one of the Superior Courts, who would settle it in about 10 minutes. Everyone knew that there was a special tariff at election times as
    1368
    against the candidate, and he said that if the Committee shut their eyes to that fact they would pass by a most fruitful source of extravagance. The clause of the hon. Member provided a summary means of adjudicating upon and fixing election charges; and that clause, as it appeared to him, was refused without any reason whatever. Under those circumstances, it was, of course, idle for the hon. Member to go to a Division. He would have been glad if the Attorney General had seen his way to agree to the second reading of the clause; and, in that case, he would himself have suggested some verbal changes which he believed would have made it less open to criticism. They should bear in mind that there were two rates of charges at election times, and that the very minute a man became a candidate he had to pay 20 s. for what at other times he would only pay 10 s. He thought it would be a wise thing, under the circumstances, for his hon. Friend to consider whether he could not re-draft the clause, after referring to the debate that occurred on Clause 23, and bring it up again on Report in a form that might commend itself to the judgment of the Attorney General.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that in the discussion on Clause 23 it was said that if the tribunal named in the clause was to determine the matter in dispute at the option of the creditor or the debtor, the other party would have to go to the English or the Irish Metropolis.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he had mentioned already that in the Landed Estates Court only a certain price was allowed for work done; for instance, a price was fixed for a certain number of words in a line of print, and advertisements were taken by all the newspapers in Ireland at this rate of charge. The question of disputed liability on contract did not arise on his clause; that could be tried in the ordinary way in a Court of Law.
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, the proposal to fix the charges was totally unworkable. How, for instance, could they fix in the Schedule the charge to be made for an advertisement in The Times? The advertisement would probably not be accepted at the price.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he agreed with what the Attorney General had said as to the difficulty of making the parties

    1369
    take their case before the Taxing Master in Dublin or London; nevertheless, he considered there was great weight in the proposal of the hon. Member for Monoghan (Mr. Findlater). He suggested that the Registrars of the County Courts in England and Ireland would constitute good tribunals for settling those disputed accounts. These Registrars were in the habit of hearing the value of different articles supplied in their districts, and settling the amount of costs arising out of questions of this kind. Another reason in favour of this suggestion was that it would obviate the difficulty pointed out by the Attorney General, that the parties would have to go before a Master either in London or Dublin. He believed the Amendment of the hon. Member, if it were altered in the manner he suggested, would afford a means of deciding the charges in question in a satisfactory manner.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he held in his hand a Schedule in use in the Landed Estates Court, which set out the prices of the different kinds of work done.
    SIR THOMAS M'CLUREsaid, it was desirable that there should be some easy way of settling these charges. He trusted the Attorney General would reconsider the clause, with a view to putting the settlement of disputed charges on a simple basis.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Findlater) would introduce a clause that would fix the maximum charge for printing, because within his own experience the cost of that work had gone up three-fold of late years. He did not know whether hon. Members opposite, whilst cutting down all other expenses, wished to continue the system of blandishment by means of the newspapers; he certainly did not concur in such a policy, although, of course, it was necessary that there should be an insertion in the newspapers that such a man was a candidate for election. But while the cost of business advertisements was perfectly well understood, that was not the case with electioneering advertisements, which, in the matter of price, were open to abuse. He did not, of course, complain of reasonable charges on the part of newspaper proprietors, who ran great risks, and must indemnify themselves proportionately; but his wish was to limit the total charge for advertisements, in connection with elections,
    1370
    to a moderate amount. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to give some assurance that he would, in this matter, endeavour to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Monaghan.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, after the discussion which had taken place, he would ask leave to withdraw the clause for the purpose of bringing it forward again on Report.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had to propose a very important clause. They had been occupied for a long time in regulating the expenses at elections, and he thought they had, in some cases, succeeded in reducing them to a very low point. Hon. Members were aware that the costs in connection with Election Petitions were in a much more unsatisfactory state than the costs of elections, notwithstanding the proposals that had been made to regulate them. Now, he thought it would be following the principle of the Bill if a maximum were established for Petition costs; and, accordingly, he proposed that the costs given against the sitting Member, or against the Petitioner in any Election Petition, should not exceed twice the maximum of the election expenses allowed under the Bill. He believed that if the Committee saw fit to adopt that proposal, it would effect a very considerable reduction of the cost of Election Petitions. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
    New Clause:—
    (Maximum of costs in petitions.)
    "The costs given against the sitting Member or against the petitioner in any election petition shall in no case exceed twice the maximum allowed under this Act as the maximum for the election expenses of the constituency to which the petition relates,"—(Colonel Nolan,)
    —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, that the trial of an Election Petition, as a rule, lasted many days, during which time counsel would have to be paid for every day. Under those circumstances it would be impossible to keep the costs down, and the effect of the clause would be that the balance over the amount allowed would have to be paid by the candidate himself. It was impossible to apply the

    1371
    arbitrary rule proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, because there was no connection between the costs of an Election Petition and the expenses of an election. Under the circumstances, he could not accept the clause.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would suggest that the difficulty would be met by omitting the words "or against the petitioner," which would simply limit the costs against the sitting Member.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought it was a pity not to accept this clause. The Attorney General said, if counsel were present every day, the expense of thousands of pounds could not be avoided. The object of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was not to fix an amount for the costs of a Petition, but to fix a maximum beyond which they could not go.
    MR. DALYsaid, the clause had this advantage, that it would enable a man to petition against an election at a reasonable expense. If the clause were not adopted, the sitting Member might be able to prevent his opponent obtaining his right. He thought it a most valuable proposal on the part of the hon. and gallant Member.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Attorney General stated that a man must engage the best counsel to defend his honour.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I said you may engage any counsel you like, but that if you engage him, you must pay him.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that was sufficiently near for his argument. If a man engaged the best counsel, he understood the Attorney General to say that his honour would be pretty safe; but that otherwise it would not be so. He (Colonel Nolan) thought that the purse of the candidate was much more in danger than his honour. But the effect of a maximum would be that the Judges would make the Petitions cheap.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, he had little doubt that every Member returned to the next Parliament would have to defend himself against a Petition. He had no doubt the Attorney General desired to make elections cheaper; and, therefore, he presumed he would be willing to say that a candidate should be able to take his seat in that House without being ruined. A Friend of his at present in the House, who was a Petitioner, gained the suit, the costs, £18,000,
    1372
    were given in his favour, yet he was £4,000 out of pocket. Now, if there were a maximum beyond which the parties could not go they would have to minimize their expenses; they would say to themselves—"We will get the best counsel we can, but only call those witnessed who are important." It was perfectly monstrous that a man should be liable to be mulcted in these enormous sums of money. If there was a maximum, that maximum would not be exceeded, because the parties to a Petition would call all their best and important witnesses, and not put the frivolous witnesses in the box. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) would go to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 150: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 199.)
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he rose to move the following new Clause:—
    (Churches not to he used for election purposes.)
    "The use, for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate in any election, of any church or of any chapel certified as a place of meeting for religious worship in England or Ireland, shall be an illegal practice under this Act."
    He brought up this clause at the request of the Attorney General. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] Perhaps he should say he had postponed dividing upon the point in Committee at the Attorney General's request; and he hoped it would receive not only the approval of Her Majesty's Government, but the general approval of the Committee. He need hardly say that he moved the clause in the interest of all the religious denominations in England; and he hoped that when he had advanced his arguments his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) would be one of his most strenuous supporters. The object of the clause was to protect the sacred buildings of England from the impropriety and irreverence, he might almost say the immorality, which was unhappily almost always associated with electioneering. Not long ago a candidate addressed from the pulpit of one of these sacred buildings a large audience in a very racy speech, and immediately afterwards he, in the pulpit, lighted his

    1373
    cigar, and his electioneering congregation followed suit. Amidst the fumes of tobacco, a number of very highly-coloured, violent, and strongly-flavoured speeches were delivered. Within a few hours that same building was used for the most sacred offices of religion. ["Where?"] He maintained that this was a scandal. ["Where?"] Oh, he was not going to bring any personal or local matter into the consideration of this question. It was far too grave and serious. To save our religious buildings from such desecrations, he moved this clause. At election times even the best of them were a little uncharitable. If they must speak evil of their neighbours, would it not be better to avoid doing so in buildings dedicated to good will and kindliness towards men? In this Bill they had attempted to strike a blow at spiritual influence; and he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, if they opened the doors of churches and chapels for electioneering meetings, and for use as committee rooms, they would not be, at the same time, opening the door for the exercising of spiritual influence in its very worst form? This clause covered the case not only of the consecrated buildings of the Church of England, but it covered the case of established places of public worship belonging to other denominations. He used the word "established," because the buildings to which his clause related were those which were certified and registered by the State. The certification and registration brought with them great privileges, exemptions, and protection. It took them out of the category of private buildings. These buildings had been privileged in consideration of one thing, and that was that they should be used for religious worship, and for that alone. For instance, by the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 30, it was provided that a meeting house used for the purpose of religious worship should be exempted from the payment of rates. That meant that every ratepayer in the district paid so much more money in order that these buildings might be free. Thus they were supported, to a certain extent, out of the public funds. They were supported in this way for one reason, and that was that they should be retained exclusively for public worship. If the Committee refused to pass this clause, they would allow the buildings to be
    1374
    used for purposes wholly alien to the purpose for which they were originally built, and for purposes which must be objectionable to a great number of persons. Then, again, the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 81, provided—
    "Whereas it is expedient that all Places of Religious Worship, not being Churches or Chapels of the Established Church, should, if the congregation should desire, but not otherwise, be certified to the said Registrar General."
    Those buildings had been willingly placed by the congregations under the yoke of the State. They had been placed under State protection; and, what was more, the actual ownership in them, in almost every case, was vested in the official trustee of charity lands—that was to say, in a State-paid officer. Surely buildings of that class ought not to be used in a way which must be alien and objectionable to one or other of the Parties in the State. The registration and certification brought with them other great privileges—for instance, by the 10th section of 17 Vict., the places in question were exempted from the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act. They were made by the certification and registration places for the solemnization of marriages; they were used for the purpose of exhibiting public notices, and registers of births, deaths, and marriages at those places were kept at Somerset House by the State. The Acts of Parliament he had cited placed the buildings he referred to in a very different category from those buildings which were used only for private religious worship; and therefore it would be quite inapplicable, in their case, to maintain the doubtful doctrine that a man might do what he liked with his own. This clause would not extend to Scotland. The Scotch had peculiar ideas; and, therefore, he had thought it better not to include Scotland in the provisions of his clause. He asked the Attorney General to assent to his clause on three grounds—the first was the protection of places for religious worship from irreverence; the next was to carry out the principle of controlling and preventing and extinguishing spiritual influence; and the third was that the places which were certified by the State for one purpose, and which were exempted from rates on condition that they were used for that purpose, should not be used for a totally different purpose.
    New Clause (Churches not to be used for election purposes,)—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,) 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, he would remind the Committee that they had had the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) once before, as he had used the self-same arguments on the clauses referring to committee rooms. The hon. Gentleman had said he had taken that course at his (the Attorney General's) request; but there could not possibly be a greater mistake.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, what he had stated was that he hoped to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's approval.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had also stated that he did not mean to include Scotland in the provisions of the clause. He (the Attorney General) presumed that that was in obedience to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), who, rising from his (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) side of the House, had said he could not see the slightest harm in meetings being held in places of worship as was the case in Scotland. As a matter of fact, the Scotch had no other places of meeting, and it was found that there was not the slightest injury done by their assembling in such places. He (the Attorney General) could not see why, if it was not a desecration in Scotland, it should be a desecration in England. [An hon. MEMBER: Or in Wales.] It was impossible for the Committee to tell a clergyman what he should say to his congregation. For instance, hon. Members opposite would not for a moment contend that a clergyman at Northampton should be prevented from denouncing, if he chose, Mr. Bradlaugh. He did not consider that they ought to interfere with the right of religious bodies to conduct their places of worship as they thought fit; and, considering that they had discussed the matter before, and that they had a very hard day's work before them, he respectfully asked
    1376
    the Committee to come to a speedy determination upon this point.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not intend to speak at any length upon the question; but, as he did not take part in the discussion on a somewhat similar Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had moved some days ago, he might be permitted to make a few remarks. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered one point that had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Shropshire—namely, that the buildings referred to were relieved from the payment of rates on the ground that they were to be exclusively used for religious purposes. He should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would hold that an election meeting was so exclusively a religious purpose as to entitle the place in question to exemption from public rates? He should be glad to know whether, in the event of any overseer attempting to rate a Dissenting chapel used for the purpose of a political meeting, it would be held by any legal authority that a political meeting was a religious meeting? A meeting might have been held in a chapel at Northampton for the promotion of the election of Mr. Bradlaugh. Would that be held to be so exclusively a religious purpose as to exempt the building from any contribution to the public burdens? Reference had been made to the case of Wales. Now, he and the Attorney General might be allowed to differ on the question as to the use of chapels in Wales for political purposes. As a matter of fact, the chapels of Wales were so used for the exclusive purposes of one political Party. Some little time ago a Dissenting chapel was built on land immediately adjoining some property of his (Mr. Raikes') own; and he was asked whether he would lease to the trustees an adjoining piece of land, on which to build a Sunday school and mission room in connection with the chapel? He said at once that he should be extremely happy to let them have the land at almost absolutely no rent—at a peppercorn rent—if they would undertake that they would not use the room for political purposes; and the negotiation immediately fell through. This was only another illustration of the use which so-called places of reli-

    1377
    gious worship were put to in Wales. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would take the sense of the Committee on the matter; because, at the present time, there was certainly a strong feeling which prevented members of the Church of England from devoting their churches to political purposes. [Mr. DODDS: Oh, oh!] He did not believe that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) would find any clergyman of the Church of England in his own borough ready to open his church for any political meeting. The feeling of the members of the Church of England was very strongly opposed to the use of their churches for such purposes; and he had very great doubt as to whether it would be a legal use so to appropriate those churches. It was, therefore, extremely unfair that other religious bodies should be allowed exclusively, as they pleased, to turn their buildings, which enjoyed exemptions on account of their religious character, into committee rooms or meeting houses in support of any particular candidate. This clause would certainly tend to remedy what was an admitted injustice, and to promote considerably the freedom of elections from undue influence.
    MR. WARTONsaid, they were all very much obliged to the Attorney General for the lead he had given them in going through the clauses of that Bill. He did not think, however, that they were equally obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he spoke of the hard day's work that was in front of them, and hinted to the obedient majority behind him that discussion on this subject was to be suppressed. There was good reason why the Liberal Party should want to suppress certain subjects in that discussion. There was a great difference between the Liberal Party and the Tory Party on that question. The Tory Party preferred religion to politics, and to reverence its houses of God; but the Liberal Party preferred politics to religion, and to desecrate its religious places. Every church in Wales was turned into an election meeting house. The Church of England, on the contrary, held aloof from all political Parties. It did not attach itself to one Party or the other. On the other hand, the Liberal Party always boasted that the Nonconformists were its backbone; and no doubt it was on that account
    1378
    that the Government looked with favour upon the use of Dissenting chapels in Wales for political purposes. As a matter of fact, in Wales a spiritual despotism prevailed to an extent that was utterly unknown in the Church of England, or even in the Church of Home. He knew that men had actually withdrawn their names from a committee because they had been threatened with damnation by the wretched Welsh ministers if they allowed their names to remain on the committee list. He (Mr. Warton) hoped the point so ably stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) would be taken advantage of some time or other. He hoped that the Excise would awake to the importance of settling this great question in Wales, and that the so-called places of religious worship in the Principality would be rated as they deserved. The Welsh people had little regard for the sacredness of their chapels, and he was inclined to remind them of what the highest authority had said—
    "My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
    MR. RICHARDsaid, he differed entirely from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport who had just addressed the Committee. He considered that politics were not so impure and unclean as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine; indeed, he (Mr. Richard) thought it would be better for many of them if they made politics a part of their religion. He did not consider that to hold political meetings in a place dedicated to public worship was any desecration of such a building at all. Some hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had been kind enough to take the chapels of Wales under their guardianship; but if Wales had not sent to the House of Commons such a large preponderance of Liberal Members they would not have heard so much of this question. He doubted whether hon. Gentlemen who railed so much against the state of things in Wales had ever attended a Welsh chapel on the occasion of the holding of a political meeting, because it was evident they did not understand the manner in which meetings in these places were conducted. He (Mr. Richard) had attended many of these meetings,

    1379
    and, even in the midst of the excitement of a contested election, he had never seen anything that was not perfectly orderly and discreet, or anything that would throw discredit upon any place. He hoped the Government would not listen to this proposal.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 155: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) he would move the clause which stood in his right hon. Friend's name—namely—
    (Charges of returning officers.)
    "The maximum charge to he made by the returning officer for constructing a polling station, with its fittings and compartments, in England shall be five guineas, in the place of seven guineas named in 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' Schedule 1, Part 1 and Part 2."
    This was a very short clause, and hon. Members would see at a glance what it meant. It was obvious that it was very desirable to diminish Returning Officers' expenses, if it could be fairly done. The expenses of constructing polling stations were found in every election; and, therefore, it was proper to examine the matter with some care. The subject was discussed by a Committee in 1875, and the greater part of the evidence was to the effect that five guineas was an ample sum to give to a Returning Officer for the construction of a polling station, and it was only on the casting vote of the Chairman that the sum was enlarged to seven guineas. He (Mr. Gibson) was informed that subsequent experience and examination had gone to show that five guineas would be ample to give to a Returning Officer.
    New Clause (Charge of returning officers,)—(Mr. Gibson,)—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 shared in the views of his right hon. and learned Friend, and was anxious to do everything he could to lessen the election expenses;
    1380
    but he was afraid that it was absolutely impossible to make the reduction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. All Returning Officers agreed that it was exceedingly difficult to carry out the present scale, which was quite low enough; and he would mention an instance in which the expenses incurred by the Returning Officer had been considerably more, and were afterwards paid by the candidates.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was sorry that the Attorney General could not accept this Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he had had communication with the Returning Officers, who said that the limit was not too high; but his (Mr. Rylands's) experience led him to the belief that if they put a lower limit the work would be still done. Unfortunately, the candidates were not able to check the matter themselves when the time came for paying the expenses of the Returning Officer. The Attorney General would be aware that candidates were often embarrassed by various considerations, and that they were unable to take measures for the protection of their own interests. They found themselves bound to submit. Personally, he had had two distinct experiences. His first experience of the Returning Officers' charges was in the borough of Warrington, and was of such an extraordinary character that his hon. Opponent (Sir Gilbert Greenall) and himself were driven to take the unusual course of saying that they would strike £100 off the bill, and they succeeded in getting it reduced by that sum. But in the borough of Burnley, which he now represented, the Returning Officer's charges were of a most moderate description. Everything was managed, not only in an economical, but in a most efficient manner. It would thus be seen that there was a very great difference in the way in which Returning Officers acted in regard to election expenses. It was a sort of local expenditure, which did not come out of the pocket of the Returning Officer; and, therefore, some gentlemen were very careless indeed as to the arrangements they made for taking the poll, and in providing the other requirements connected with an election. He had no doubt that if the expenditure was charged upon the rates, instead of being

    1381
    borne by the candidates, the cost of the polling stations and the other arrangements would be very much less; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to a Division he should certainly support him. He was of opinion that great advantage would result from limiting the expenditure. The Returning Officers would then cut their coats according to their cloth, and would have very little difficulty in keeping the expenditure within the limit specified in the Act.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he very much doubted whether, if these expenses were charged upon the rates, the Returning Officer would cut them down, because the Returning Officer would be in no degree responsible to the ratepayers, and when authorities were not responsible to the ratepayers he suspected they would be quite as ready to make the ratepayers pay as anybody else. What he would venture to suggest was this. The Attorney General said that the present maximum of 7 guineas was by no means too high in some cases; but there were cases in which the polling station was held in a schoolroom, where a sum of 7 guineas would, by no means, be required. Might not the hon. and learned Gentleman meet the matter by enacting the maximum average charge should be 5 guineas, so that if there were 10 polling stations a total sum should be allowed of 50 guineas. But when the amount came to be paid it would be found that while one polling station cost 5 guineas others would cost less.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he knew a great deal about this subject, and had received many communications in regard to it. No Returning Officer was allowed to charge more than the actual expenditure. This maximum was for the construction of a polling station. If a schoolroom was used it would be right to say to the Returning Officer—" You have only spent £2 in fitting up the schoolroom, and you shall not have anything beyond that sum." But if he contracted to build a polling station such as the old-fashioned polling-booth, then the work could not be done for less than 7 guineas. There were many items in the Schedule which he was afraid would be considered too low, and in regard to this particular item, he did not think he
    1382
    could with safety allow their Returning Officers to charge a less sum. On the occasion which he had mentioned the ratepayers had to pay for the work done. It was done as economically as possible, but it cost £300 more than the sum allowed. He had received hundreds of letters upon the subject, and he could not consent to any further reduction.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was the author of the Amendment, he thought the best course he could take was to withdraw the Amendment, so that his right hon. Friend might bring it up again on Re-port, if he considered it desirable that the modification suggested by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be adopted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he begged to move the following Clause:—
    (Summary jurisdiction during the election.)
    "Any person found guilty of a corrupt practice under the provisions of this Act shall, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to the payment of a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. In any borough or district in which a stipendiary magistrate has been appointed, such case may be heard before such stipendiary magistrate between the issuing of the writ for an election and the close of the poll. In any borough or district in which no stipendiary magistrate has been appointed, and in every county or division of a county, the Lord Chancellor shall appoint a barrister of seven years' standing to act as the magistrate to hear and determine any complaint preferred under this Act, between the issuing of the writ and the closing of the poll, at any election for such county or borough, and such barrister shall have, for the purposes of such hearing and determination, all the powers of a petty sessional court."
    The object of the clause had been on more than one occasion discussed during the proceedings of the Committee, and during the discussion it had met with something like general approval from all parts of the House. He, therefore, appealed to the Committee with some confidence, although he was aware, at the same time, that there were very great difficulties connected with the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General a short time ago mentioned that, with respect to Election Petitions, he regarded the expenditure which they involved as of an

    1383
    enormous and ruinous character. The scheme which he (Sir William Hart Dyke) proposed was, to a certain extent, in competition with the Bill. He believed that he did offer adequate protection to the candidate who wished to fight a fair election, and who was unwilling to incur a vast and ruinous expenditure in a Petition. He did not think he could better show the meaning and object of the clause than by quoting a case. He would assume that an election was proceeding in a borough, and that a local candidate, who was well known in the borough, and was deservedly popular, and who had the good graces of the electors and every prospect of success, was standing against an opponent who was a rich man, who had only lately settled in the borough, and was, therefore, not as well known as himself. On the day of election, towards 12 or 1 o'clock, it would be found that a certain class of electors were going somewhat wrong, and it would be discovered that many voters who had promised to support the local candidate were voting for the other side. What course was the local candidate to pursue Tinder these circumstances? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said he would have the protection of the vast penalties imposed by the Bill; but he did not think the local candidate would approve of a protection which involved him in the grievous expense and responsibility of presenting a Petition. The penalties under the Bill were very severe indeed, and very properly so; but if the object was to give immediate relief to the candidate he found himself placed in a difficult and dangerous position. They all knew the pressure that was put upon a candidate under such circumstances. His friends came to him and said—"You are quite safe from a Petition, because the other side have not got their hands clean, and they dare not petition against you. Therefore, you must allow your supporters to go and do likewise. This scheme would, he thought, prevent what must happen in the future as it had often happened in the past—namely, a system of squaring Petitions. He believed that under so severe an enactment as this Bill corrupt practices would even be more frequently resorted to in the future than they had been in the past, because people would be disinclined, as far as
    1384
    possible, to bring those severe penalties to bear. It was acknowledged on all hands that the great difficulty in regard to the clause was the tribunal by which it was proposed to carry it out. His position had been by no means an easy one in regard to the tribunal; but he had been challenged to frame the best tribunal he could, and whether he had succeeded or not he had done his best. He had endeavoured, at all events, to frame a simple tribunal. The tribunal which he proposed to hear cases of this kind was either the stipendiary magistrate, where such existed, or, if they had no stipendiary magistrate, a barrister of seven years' standing, which he believed to be the same qualification as that for a stipendiary magistrate. He did not know whether that tribunal would meet with the approval of the Attorney General; but he believed that it grappled with many objections which had previously been urged against his proposal. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had criticized it in a friendly but rather a severe spirit, and had said that it meant that both sides were to commence an election by taking each other into custody. He believed that people who were earnestly engaged in fighting their own battles at a contested election would have too much to do to raise frivolous objections, and his object had been to obtain a non-political tribunal. It had seemed to him that the objections raised to a tribunal constituted of the Justices of the Peace was a valid one—namely, that they would be political partizans, and he had done the best he could to meet that difficulty. As the question had been discussed on several occasions, he would not weary the Committee by recapitulating the advantages of this proposal and the objections to it; but he would leave it to the tender mercies of the Committee. He had had some experience in electioneering matters, and he believed that the clause would work very well in regard to the objects they had in view. It would afford ample protection to the candidate who wished to fight fairly and honestly; and as the Bill was full of pitfalls, he commended the proposal on account of its simplicity. It simply affected the corruptor who at the moment was caught red-handed, and who would be liable to be taken before a tribunal at once and punished on the

    1385
    spot. He made the proposition in perfect good faith, and he submitted it now for the consideration of the Committee.
    New Clause (Summary jurisdiction during the election,)—(Sir William Hart Dyke,)—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 sure that the proposal was brought forward in good faith, and the only question in his mind was whether it afforded a sufficient remedy. When the matter was discussed before the difficulty pointed out was a difficulty of finding the proper tribunal. He was afraid, if the Committee accepted this clause, that they would find that the tribunal was not a very satisfactory one. It would be necessary to employ about 400 of these gentlemen, and every time a General Election took place the Lord Chancellor would have to select 400 barristers of seven years' standing to do the work. What the Lord Chancellor would say to that he did not know; but he very much doubted, if his noble and learned Friend were to ask all those barristers who were willing to give up their proper and usual functions, that he would be able to find barristers fit to perform judicial duties, or that 400 barristers of seven years' standing would be always forthcoming. But suppose that they were. Probably the average time between the issue of the Writ and the election would be about 10 days. Then, what was to happen? Let him take his right hon. Friend in his own constituency, that of Mid Kent. If a barrister of seven years' standing was sent down there, where was he to go to? He must go to some place or other, and there he would have to wait. What was he to do? Was he to walk about the streets? If so, he thought he would have very little chance of finding out what was going on. Moreover, as far as he (the Attorney General) could judge, the adoption of this clause would entail upon the candidates an expenditure of £40,000, and a good deal of it would be expended for the purpose of sending persons into perfectly pure constituencies where there had never been any corrupt practices resorted to. Let them take the case of the West
    1386
    Riding of Yorkshire. Where was the barrister to go to? Was he to go down somewhere to remain until he was telegraphed to go somewhere else where he might be wanted. Dealing with the matter practically, he did not believe that they would often be able to catch a briber red-handed. If that were possible they could always arrest them and take them before a magistrate, and prefer a charge of bribery against them; but he had never heard of such a thing taking place. If they caught the bribers at all they did not catch them red-handed, and nobody had ever yet thought of taking a person before a magistrate and charging him with bribery. Then, again, according to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, the moment the poll was closed these barristers of seven years' standing were to go back again; and, therefore, they would be away just at the time when, if any information was to be obtained at all, it would most probably ooze out. Now, before they were asked to pay men to go down to pure constituencies for this purpose, he thought they ought to show that they would get their money's worth for the services rendered. While he regretted that they had not yet been able to find a satisfactory tribunal, and although he knew that his right hon. Friend was actuated by the very best intentions, the tribunal he had proposed was certainly not a satisfactory one. It would be unnecessary in pure constituencies to have such a tribunal, and it would be ineffective in corrupt constituencies, because bribers were not so easily detected as the right hon. Baronet imagined.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, there was great force in what the Attorney General had stated as to the expense and the difficulty of carrying the proposal out in its entirety; but he thought they ought to endeavour to create a tribunal of some sort or other to deter persons from committing these illegal practices, and to impose an adequate punishment for the offence when it was brought home to the briber. He thought that, at all events, the matter was well worth consideration; and if the Attorney General did not see his way at the present time to appoint Justices of the Peace where there were no stipendiary magistrates, at all events let him give the power now asked for in places where there were

    1387
    stipendiary magistrates, and where flagrant cases occurred at the time of a General Election. It would have this great advantage—that it would enable them to deal with those carpet baggers, who were always found at election times, who went down from nobody knew where, and who disappeared immediately the election was over. It was most desirable that they should catch such men while they were engaged in their nefarious practices, and not wait until an indictment could be preferred. He thought, if the Attorney General could see his way, it would not be difficult to insert a clause in the Bill to provide that where stipendiary magistrates existed, and where the district comprised a population of not less than 10,000, the stipendiary magistrate should have the power of checking bribery on the spot, and of dealing with persons who were engaged at an election time for no other purpose than that of committing illegal practices—those "men in the moon" of whom so much had been heard.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the clause certainly recommended itself to his mind, although he thought that the criticism of the Attorney General with regard to barristers of seven years' standing was quite warranted. He would, however, like to know if it were not possible to give the power to the County Court Judges? There were County Court Judges all over the country, and if it were possible to snap up these persons, take them before the County Court Judges, and secure their summary punishment, it would be beneficial to the community generally.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that the Attorney General's criticism of the details of the clause had not produced in his mind the impression that during the 12 months the Government had had for considering what the tribunal ought to be that they had devoted any serious consideration to the question. Why should it be assumed that it was necessary in all these cases that the tribunal should be brought to the offender—why not bring the offender to the tribunal? Surely a tribunal might be created for a large area surrounding a borough. Why should it be necessary to adhere verbally to the terms of the clause, that no case should be determined, except it happened to be a complaint arising out of acts committed between the issuing of the Writ
    1388
    and the closing of the poll? In a borough with a stipendiary magistrate, there would be no ground for anything of the kind. He wished that more attention had been paid by the Government to the very valuable suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) when the clause was last discussed by the Committee—namely, that the magistrates of a county should appoint to act on such a tribunal a certain number of persons by rota who should be disqualified from taking part in the election.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that this proposal was intimately connected with Section 40 of the Bill, which made provision for a Special Commissioner to go down to a borough and try persons charged with corrupt or illegal practices, or illegal payment, employment, or hiring, within six months after the election occurred. He thought the two cases were intimately connected. The Attorney General had given overwhelming reasons why it would be absurd to send down 400 barristers of seven years' standing to the pure constituencies in the Kingdom. It would be most absurd to send down such a person to watch his (Sir George Campbell's) constituency; because he felt quite certain that he would not find out anybody breaking the law. The principle of the provision contained in Section 40 was that when the Public Prosecutor had reason to suppose that any corruption or malpractices had been going on, he should have power to send down a Special Commissioner to try summarily any offence of that kind. He hoped the Attorney General had not altogether thrown out of consideration the possibility of restoring Section 40 in some form or other, and that there would be some tribunal provided by the Bill by which offences of this kind would be tried in a summary way, instead of by the presentation of a formal Election Petition. He thought that in that way the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman of finding 400 capable barristers would be got over; because, except in special cases, it would be found that the Special Commissioner would be quite sufficient.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he regretted the change of tone in the Attorney General's statement from that which he had adopted when the subject was before the Committee on a previous

    1389
    occasion. He understood then that his hon. and learned Friend entirely approved of the proposal, and that the only difference had reference to the nature of the tribunal. If the Committee would read the clause a second time, it would then be in their power to discuss the details, and especially to see whether it would be necessary to have these 400 barristers. It might be possible to confine the clause to the polling day, and to provide that it should not have effect except upon the requisition of the Returning Officer, who might have good reason to suppose that corrupt acts were likely to take place on a polling day, and that the presence of some authority with power to deal with such cases might be necessary. All these suggestions might enable the Committee to cut down the wide nature of the proposal as it now stood, and they might amend the clause after it was read a second time. But as to the nature of the thing, he did not think there could be two opinions that it was desirable to have some ready mode of putting down corruption at the moment it was taking place. He did not agree with the Attorney General that corruption of this kind did not take place on the polling day; on the contrary, he was of opinion that it was most frequently resorted to on the day of election.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Nobody ever said that it did not take place on the polling day. What I said was, that it was never found out.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that experience taught them that in a borough where serious corruption prevailed, there was a "man in the moon" whom nobody knew personally in attendance. It was known very well where his head-quarters were; and although it was known very well that bribery was going on, there was no power to check it except by the cumbrous form of laying information before the magistrates and an indictment. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) desired something to be done at once, in order to put an end to this practice—something that should be done then and there. He thought that under such a clause as this, not only would they put a stop to the proceedings of such persons, but that they imposed such a check on the corruption going on as would be most valuable to the candidate who was
    1390
    anxious to conduct the election upon pure principles. So far as the expense of the tribunal was concerned, he thought it would be quite worth while to consider whether it might not be added to the expense of the Returning Officer rather than such a power should not be exercised at all. He believed that if a clause were inserted in the Bill to carry out this object, an effort would be made on both sides to put an end to these corrupt practices. It was continually urged that the other side was doing so and so, and that unless they consented to do the same thing their election would be gone. That was the sort of fulcrum on which many had been hoisted; and he thought a provision of this nature would not only check corruption, if it happened to be going on, but in many cases would prevent it from being resorted to. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the clause, although he admitted that it might require amendment in some of its details subsequently.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he wished to join in the appeal to the Attorney General to allow the clause to be read a second time. He should be very sorry if the Bill were to pass without any provision of this kind. He thought that one or two cases of summary punishment under the clause would have far more effect in deterring persons from resorting to corrupt practices than the somewhat remote terrors they were endeavouring to hold out in order to bring persons engaged in conducting an election into something like a sensible frame of mind. He would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if he thought he could not deal with the question at the present moment, to bear in mind that there was another stage in which the subject might be brought up, and his hon. and learned Friend might promise to give it his serious consideration. He thought the Attorney General had hardly done so at the present moment. He did not think the mind of his hon. and learned Friend appeared to have matured much in regard to the only serious difficulty in the matter—namely, the tribunal. Therefore, the matter might be deferred until the Report, in order to see if it were not possible to get rid of this difficulty.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could assure

    1391
    his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) that he and others, who had accused the Attorney General and himself of not giving the matter their serious consideration, were doing them a very great injustice. He could not tell the number of times his hon. and learned Friend and himself, since the subject was first raised, had discussed the matter, and tried to see if they could not make some suggestion to meet the difficulties which had been pointed out. It would appear, however, that he and his hon. and learned Friend seemed to be credited with some superhuman powers, which, he confessed, they did not possess. This matter had now been before the Committee for a month or more. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had promised to do his best to put before the Committee a practicable and working scheme, and they had promised most carefully to consider any scheme which the right hon. Gentleman might suggest; but he believed the right hon. Gentleman had given up the matter in despair. Every hon. Member who had spoken upon the clause, including his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), had admitted that the scheme proposed by it, as it now stood, would not work. Then, if the whole of the talent on the opposite side of the House, anxious as hon. Members were to find a scheme that would really work satisfactorily, had been unable to do so, surely it might be suggested that it was feasible that the task was too difficult altogether and almost insuperable. He was afraid that that really was the case. The right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) suggested that barristers of seven years' standing should be sent down; and, as far as he could see from the proposal made, they were to go down gratis, for he did not perceive that any provision was made for remunerating them.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, that no one but the Government themselves could provide for a question of remuneration.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)remarked, that that, nevertheless, was the clause they were asked to read a second time, and it was not usual to read a clause providing for the appointment of an official without
    1392
    something being said as to his remuneration. He did not think the House had ever yet been asked to appoint an official, and expect him to work gratis. One suggestion had been made which was the one that was most likely to be practicable—namely, that the County Court Judges should be entrusted with the duty. He did not know how far that suggestion would be acceptable to the Committee. It was the first time it had ever been proposed that they should be invested with criminal jurisdiction. No doubt, it was a proposal worthy of consideration. The only difficulty in the matter was that they were limited in number, and that they had to go through more counties than one. Some of the County Court Judges had to discharge duties in three or four counties, and had to traverse districts in which there were a good many boroughs. He could assure the Committee that he and his hon. and learned Friend had done the best they could to solve the difficulty, and that they had not altogether abandoned the matter. If any scheme could be suggested which would prove practicable, they were quite open to give their best consideration to it.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he bogged to thank his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) for having devoted his attention to the subject. They had now a declaration both from the Attorney General and the Solicitor General that the subject was one which demanded the attention of Parliament. He could not help thinking—perhaps it might be an old-fashioned notion—that his right hon. Friend might have made the proposal rather more simple than he had, if he had confined himself to proposing the first paragraph of his clause—namely, that—
    "Any person found guilty of a corrupt practice under the provisions of this Act shall, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to the payment of a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
    It might then have been left to the ordinary tribunals of the country to dispose of the matter on summary conviction. It was said that they could not give to the Justices of the Peace this kind of jurisdiction. But the great majority of cases would arise in the boroughs, and perhaps those who would not trust the

    1393
    County Justices might have no objection to the borough magistrates. And it must be borne in mind that they were in the habit of placing the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects in the hands of the Justices both of counties and boroughs. He had had considerable experience, both as a county magistrate and as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions; and the result of his experience taught him that on the Judicial Bench the County Justices were elaborately impartial, and that they would rather decide against their own friends than for them. Of course, his experience might have been more fortunate than that of other people; but he certainly saw no reason why persons charged with these offences should not be brought before the county magistrates or stipendiary magistrates, who were dairy entrusted with the responsible duty of disposing of the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects. It did appear to him that they were straining at a gnat if they could not entrust the magistrates with the simple duty of deciding cases, where charges were preferred of corrupt practices at an election. His opinion certainly was that the ordinary tribunals of the country were those to which this delicate work should be entrusted. He would, therefore, ask the Committee to read the first paragraph of the clause a second time; and between the present time and the Report let the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, and the other authorities of the House see whether they could not make some provision for utilizing the ordinary tribunals of the country. At any rate, let them put it on record that they had taken a step which, to his mind, would go further than any other step they could take to check corruption, and to show the country that they were in earnest, leaving the details to be worked out hereafter.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that several hon. Members were of opinion that the stipendiary magistrates would form a proper and suitable tribunal for the purposes of the clause. But the question was, could stipendiary magistrates be found? In his own part—namely, the county of Durham, he believed there was only one stipendiary magistrate, and he was stationed in South Shields, a very remote part of the county.
    MR. STEVENSON: He has been done away with.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he believed that that was the fact; but he was not made aware of it until a very short time ago. The circumstance, however, made his case still stronger, for it would be seen that in the county of Durham, with its seven boroughs and its two large divisions—each division large enough for a separate county—there was not a single stipendiary magistrate. In the North Riding of Yorkshire there was only one stipendiary magistrate, and he was stationed in the borough of Middlesbrough. Then, in regard to the County Court Judge, that officer in his own district acted as Judge in an exceedingly wide locality, including Whitby, Scarborough, Stockton, and Darlington; and he did not see how the learned Judge could be in each of those boroughs at the same time while an election contest was going on. He had only risen to explain what the facts were in his own locality, both with regard to the stipendiary magistrate and the County Court Judge; and he imagined that the circumstances of the country generally were somewhat similar. He certainly regarded the suggestion which had been made for constituting either the stipendiary magistrate or the County Court Judge the tribunal to carry out the provisions of the clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) as altogether impracticable.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should have brought up a new clause himself if his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent had not shown him the clause he had drawn up, and which he regarded as a workable clause which was not open to objection. If the Government said they could not find a way to accomplish this object at all that was a different matter; but if the Committee made up their minds that the object was a good thing to be done they would find the means of doing it. The Solicitor General had said that they could not send a barrister down, because no salary had been provided. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent, however, had no right to put down any salary. That was a matter which must be left to the proper officers of Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, it was idle to say that the clause was to be thrown aside because no salary had been suggested. What very often happened was that Parliament said a certain

    1395
    thing was to be done, and then the Executive, who were the only persons who could find the money, made provision for it. That was the proper thing to do in this case. There were very few stipendiary magistrates, no doubt; but there were a good many County Court Judges; and when County Court Judges and stipendiary magistrates were not available, he did not see any objection to the employment either of barristers of seven years' standing or of unpaid magistrates. If the Government declared that they did not want the thing done that was another matter altogether. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would carry the clause to a Division, because he thought that if it were adopted it would do more to put a stop to bribery than anything else which they could do.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought the principle of the clause should be approved. He would be perfectly willing that Justices of the Peace, who had a legal training, and who were barristers of seven years' standing, should have this jurisdiction given them. There would then be a tribunal on the spot. The clause might be amended so as to confer the power upon any stipendiary magistrate, or any County Court Judge, or any Justice of the Peace who was a barrister of seven years' standing, and in that way the difficulty might be got rid of with respect to the carrying out of the main objects of the clause. No doubt there were very strong objections to the clause as it stood.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he thought the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) must have spent all his time in University elections, or he would hardly have suggested that borough Justices should be called upon to try cases of this kind. He (Mr. T. Collins) believed that if they turned to the Blue Books containing the evidence upon corrupt practices at election, they would have found that Alderman this, and Mayor that, had constantly been among the number of persons incriminated and convicted by juries of their own countrymen. Mayors and ex-Mayors were borough Justices, and he strongly objected to persons who were not infrequently guilty of corrupt practices themselves being made the tribunal to try such charges. He certainly did not think that men in that
    1396
    position, who were among the most influential men in the borough, would be proper persons to decide upon a charge of corrupt practices preferred against a person to whom they were opposed in politics. Nor did he think it was desirable to decide such cases without the benefit of a jury. It must be remembered that the cases themselves would occur at a time of great political excitement, and that the persons charged were liable to be convicted and sent to prison for an offence of this kind. Although he deprecated corrupt practices as strongly as any man, he thought it would be wrong to entrust such a power either in the hands of the stipendiary magistrate or the borough Justices. If there was any reasonable mode of licking this clause into shape he would not object to it; but as it had already been before the Committee for a month or two he thought it was only trifling with the Committee to endeavour at this stage of the proceedings to impose it upon the Committee.
    MR. WARTONremarked, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that he and his Colleague had had several private conversations together with a view of dealing with this question since it was started. Now, considering that the subject was started last year by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he should like to know how many consultations had taken place between the Law Officers of the Crown upon the matter. The Government had brought forward this Bill, and it was for them to consider what was the best way to put down corrupt practices. They had also an immense advantage in the fact that they could not only make provision for the prevention of corrupt practices, but they could make provision also for the expense. He thought they would have done a very good day's work if they could provide some scheme, on the lines of the proposition now before the Committee, for practically putting down corrupt practices. He made an appeal to the other side of the House not to be actuated too much by the difficulties ingeniously raised by the Law Officers of the Crown. The object was to put down corruption at the time it was being committed. The Attorney General had said he knew of no case which had been found out during an election. His (Mr. Warton's) expe-

    1397
    rience was different from that of his hon. and learned Friend. He knew of many cases in which particular individuals were known to have been bribed on the day of election by a certain man. It often happened that a mysterious stranger came into the borough, probably from Birmingham, to bribe the voters in the Liberal interest; but he invariably found in the discussion of this Bill that Her Majesty's Government carefully excluded anything that was calculated to interfere with the action of the Birmingham Caucus. The Law Officers of the Crown had been guided by a fixed determination to draw the Bill in a way that would suit the purpose of their own Party, and if it had been promoted in the interest of the Birmingham Caucus alone they could not have drawn up a better Bill. The object of the Bill was to put down bribery and corruption, and he was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to be sufficiently alive to the purposes of the measure. He did not think the Committee ought to allow themselves to be blindfolded, and to take the frantic professions which were made by the opposite side in regard to purity of election, when they found a rigid determination to object to every practical means of putting down corruption. He was perfectly certain that whatever tribunal was suggested the Attorney General would object to it, and, unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a majority behind him to support his objections. Why not assert the principle involved in the matter, and then discuss the details? The principle was to put down corruption at the moment, and to catch the offender, wherever it was possible, red-handed. He believed that he could be so caught, and why should he not be hauled up before the magistrates at once and made to give an account of himself? The Attorney General talked about 400 constituencies. Of course, they knew there were 400 constituencies, but they also knew that in a great number of them bribery had never been heard of. For instance, in regard to the counties, there were never Petitions for corrupt practices. At the last General Election there were only two Petitions against counties. Therefore, they might omit counties altogether from the operation of the clause. Why should not a Schedule be made out of all the boroughs
    1398
    where there had been Petitions during the last 50 years—since the Reform Bill—and a barrister be sent there at election time at the expense of the borough? Let it be known that wherever there had once been corruption there would be an officer in future on the spot. Such a provision would make elections generally cheaper, and, in many instances, would prevent the expense of an Election Petition. He regarded that as an object much more valuable than mere talk about purity of election.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 168: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 201.)
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the subject of the clause he was about to move had been before the Committee on more than one occasion. In the early stage of the Committee he moved an Amendment to the same effect, and he understood then that the Attorney General did not object to the principle of the proposal, but only to its inopportune-ness. At that time a large number of Members were in favour of the principle. He had limited the appeal to undue influence, not because he thought an appeal would be objectionable in other cases, but because he thought it essential to so limit it, as bribery, treating, and corruption of other kinds were questions of fact, and provable; but undue influence was almost entirely a matter of opinion. The object of the clause was perfectly obvious, and did not require to be developed. He would therefore content himself with simply moving it.
    New Clause:—
    (Right of appeal in certain cases.)
    "Any candidate whose election is declared void on the ground of undue influence shall have the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in England, Ireland, or Scotland, as the case may be,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "'That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENBY JAMES)said, that what he had stated was that it was worthy of consideration whether there should be one Judge with an appeal, or two Judges without.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was in favour of two Judges rather than one; but he wished to know whether an appeal would be given in a case of agency? It was desirable to make the Law of Agency as universal as possible; but it was worth considering whether an appeal should not be given on the facts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that great difficulty existed in the way of a partial appeal under certain circumstances; and he was afraid that he could not do more than say he would consider the subject.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment rather than remit it to the limbo of Report.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was entirely in favour of two Judges. There were many cases of great hardship in regard to agency, and he certainly thought that when they were taking away the character of, perhaps, an honest and respectable man there should be some appeal, and he hoped the Attorney General would provide that in certain cases there should be an appeal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Farrer Herschell), the following New Clause was inserted after Clause 12:—
    (Corrupt withdrawal from a candidature.)
    "Any person who induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, shall he guilty of an illegal payment, and any person withdrawing, in pursuance of such inducement or procurement, shall also be guilty of an illegal payment."

FIRST SCHEDULE.
  PART I.

    PERSONS LEGALLY EMPLOYED FOR PAYMENT.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether it was necessary to be so particular in regard to all the details which this Schedule contained? There was a maximum of expenditure, and the real question for the Committee was whether, if that were limited to £500, it would be necessary to state exactly how it should be spent. The first paragraph stated that there should be one election agent in a borough, whilst in counties
    1400
    there might be several agents and polling stations; and that there should be only one clerk and one messenger for each polling place. He was quite of opinion that there should not be any colourable employment; but he thought this Schedule went too much into detail, and would very much hamper candidates. Suppose a candidate started upon an election contest, and wished to issue his address to every elector. That was necessary; and for the purpose of doing that he would require to employ a considerable number of persons in order to get the address out at once. That would require more people than would be needed at any other period of the election; but by this Schedule the candidate would be limited as to the number of clerks. He could not bring all the clerks from the various polling stations to one particular place to get out the address, because the expense would be very large, and the clerks would be wanted elsewhere. It seemed to him that, even if the maximum was limited, it was not necessary to tie the candidate down to details of this kind. The Attorney General, in the course of the debate, had said that some of these matters might be dealt with by contract. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he might go to a printer in any constituency and contract with him to publish an address and circulate it amongst the electors; and whether, if he entered into such a contract, he would not be exceeding the number of persons which the Bill would allow him to employ? The printers would certainly be employed by him; and, therefore, he would be paying a certain number of persons who were practically in his employment, although nominally in the employment of Mr. Willing, or some other person. Simply to raise this question, he would move to strike out the first words in the Schedule.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, leave out "one election agent and no more."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out were a proof of the necessity which existed in relation to all these

    1401
    details. Suppose a candidate was allowed to have as many agents as he liked, he could spend his money all in one direction, so long as he kept within the maximum; but he wanted to protect a candidate from being compelled to take people into his service during an election. If the candidate was able to say that he could not employ more than a limited number, that would get rid of many of the instances of bribery in a modified form by the employment of messengers and clerks and the relatives of voters. As to whether a candidate could go to a law stationer and contract for the issue of circulars, that did not come within the limit.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, as he understood the measure, each candidate might appoint an election agent provided he kept within the maximum scale. Each candidate might appoint his own agent or agents, or the two candidates might agree in the selection of one election agent and apply their funds to his remuneration. He believed that was the scope of the Bill; but he should like to have an explanation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied, that each candidate might appoint a separate agent.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought it was very necessary to have words clearly showing the position of a candidate if he employed a law stationer or other person to carry out duties which had hitherto been discharged by clerks.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he believed a clerk in each case would be sufficient; but in times of emergency a candidate might resort to a law stationer.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the practice was to get three or four persons into one room in order to get through the work quickly. It was said that there was to be great security against bribery by the employment of a number of people; but he failed to see that the real security against corruption was a limitation of the charge and the fear of penalties which would be present in the minds of the agent of a candidate.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, unless a distinct rule was laid down limiting the number of persons to be employed, he thought it was very likely, as the Attorney General had said, that there would be a considerable amount of corruption through the employment of a large number of
    1402
    people. There could be no question whatever that under this Bill a candidate would have, at least, the protection of being able to say that he was restricted to the number of persons he could employ for remuneration. By this Bill an experiment was about to be tried. Matters would have to settle themselves down on an entirely different basis from that formerly existing, and he believed that political Parties would depend upon voluntary agency to a large extent. If a spirit of self-sacrifice could be introduced into this country, as well as a sense of public spirit, the political life of the country would be purified. He hoped that that would be the effect of this Bill, and that while they were limiting the number of paid officials there would be no difficulty in getting voluntary assistance.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he could not understand the position in which the Committee were placed by the objections to the Amendment. Surely, if a law stationer were employed to send out all the addresses and polling cards he would be a person employed for payment, and would be placed in the same position as any other person in the service of a candidate for the time being, and it was quite possible that he might employ only those persons holding the same views as himself. The objection he had to the Amendment was that control over the persons employed upon this kind of work would be loosened, and he had no doubt that half the polling cards would come back without having ever been delivered. But if the election agent, who knew whom he was employing as his clerks, undertook this work there would no risk, and the candidate would know that he got value for his money. Then there was another objection. The Amendment was wholly unnecessary if inserted to prevent bribery and the employment of a great number of persons colourably, because, as the amount was limited, it was clear that there would be no money to spend in colourably employing a single clerk who was not absolutely employed. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the candidate was being needlessly hampered in the management of his election.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he desired to amend this Schedule, in order to reduce the vast army of paid agents. He calculated that in a constituency of

    1403
    60,000 electors there would be 240 paid clerks, messengers, and polling agents. Such a number was a great deal too many, and so long as this system of paid agents was maintained candidates would not get the help of people who would otherwise be willing to come forward and take part in the election, and would do away with a great part of this vast army. There being a Maximum Schedule, the payment of such people would have to be reduced in order to bring them within the Schedule. In a polling place for, say, 1,000 electors, there would be one election agent and a deputy agent, and in counties there would be one polling agent and one deputy polling agent for each station. A polling agent, in addition to the clerks and messengers, would not be wanted, and he thought it most desirable to reduce the number of these people to reasonable proportions. Then they would get men who took a real interest in politics to do the work voluntarily.
    MR. SALTsaid, he had an Amendment which he was afraid would rather tend to increase than decrease this vast army of paid officials. He quite felt that it was desirable to reduce the pressure on candidates to put numbers of friends on the list of persons employed, and for that purpose it was necessary to fix a limit to the number of paid officials; but that principle might be carried too far. "Why did they have paid persons at all? The services paid for, and the services rendered voluntarily, were of a totally different character. There was a large number of persons who took an interest in political matters, or who wished to serve a friend who was a candidate, and were ready to undertake such voluntary work as canvassing and looking after the voters; but there was a vast amount of actual business—and very unpleasant business—to be carried on during an election, especially in a large constituency. There must be at each polling station two or three representatives of each candidate to watch voting throughout the whole day. That was work which was tedious and uninteresting, and the people who did it were the people who ought to be paid. Looking at this clause, he arrived at rather a different conclusion from that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), because, although he was just as anxious as the hon. Member
    1404
    to keep down unnecessary expense, he was afraid that if they did not allow a sufficient expense to carry on the business of an election this clause would be evaded just as every enactment which was not reasonable in itself was evaded. With regard to election agents, he had great doubt whether a large constituency could be really worked by one election agent. There were two kinds of duties which an election agent had to perform. One was, to carry on the administrative business of the election, and that was one of the highest and most difficult duties; but there was also the financial part of the business to be looked after. He had found it extremely convenient to have one agent to look after the accounts, and another to advise upon the policy of the canvass, and to be responsible for anything outside finance. He quite believed that in a large constituency those two officials were wanted.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Salt) contended, first, that there ought to be a possibility of having more paid persons than the Schedule contemplated, because several persons were needed at each polling place. By the 3rd sub-section of this Schedule one representative was allowed in each station. With regard to the necessity of having one general election agent and another financial agent, he would give the hon. Member a little personal advice. He had never got his financial business so well done as when it was done by voluntary assistance.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he thought it was desirable to have only one election agent, and that the number of sub-agents should be specified. He did not, however, agree in the view that the work at the head office could be carried on by one clerk, and that the arrangement contemplated in this Schedule would be impracticable. One sub-agent and one sub-cleric in each sub-district might suffice for the work; but at the head office the head agent must have a sufficient number of clerks to work with him. If the Committee adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and allowed the work to be done by a law stationer or some publisher, how far would that carry them? If a law stationer was so employed,

    1405
    would he not also have to receive the answers to circulars and to register them; and, if so, did he not then become practically an election agent, together with several men in his office, by working for the purposes of the candidate?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LABOUCHEREproposed that Sub-section 3 should be left out of the Schedule. Personation agents were simply men employed to watch anybody who was suspected; but he had seen these men in very many cases absolutely doing nothing, and he found that the sole reason why they were placed at the polling booths was that they were the relatives of some electors. So long as power was given to employ a large number of these agents, electors would almost force candidates to employ then. His contention was that two clerks and two messengers in each polling station would be quite a sufficient staff, without having personation agents besides.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, to leave out Sub-section (3.)—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, only one man was to be in each place to prevent personation. This sub-section did not require a candidate to have any personation agents at all. The maximum scale would prevent an excessive number being employed.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, as there was no absolute question of principle involved; but he hoped the Attorney General would allow something in the direction of the Amendment, in order to reduce this vast number of employed people; otherwise constant pressure would be put upon candidates to employ relatives of electors.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought that if there were to be these booths in polling districts, it would be found impossible to work them, except with two messengers to each booth. He had a lively recollection of elections in which there was an enormous number of surplus messengers forced on the candidate; but he
    1406
    thought the Government were going rather too far in restricting the number to one. There might be a large constituency with 3,000 voters to bring to the poll and pass through the booths in a day. There might be 10 stations, but, with only 10 messengers, a candidate would be absolutely helpless. He hoped the Attorney General would accept his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 10, leave out "one messenger," and insert "two messengers."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he also proposed to substitute two messengers for one messenger. As the Schedule stood, there was to be only one messenger for every complete 500 people, and unless there was a complete 500, there would be no messenger. He should be glad to learn from the Attorney General how the election of the incomplete 500 would be worked?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if there were 2,100 electors, there would be four messengers. Then there would be the odd 100 to be dealt with. He was willing to provide that any such odd number should have a messenger. He wanted to keep one clerk and one messenger to each 500 people, and to avoid having a great number of these messengers, who were a perfect pest. He would, therefore, propose to omit the word "complete."
    Question put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 43, line 7, after "borough," by inserting—
    "And if there is a number of electors over and above a complete 500, then one clerk and one messenger may be employed for such number, although not amounting to a complete 500."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to move an Amendment with the object of limiting the number of clerks. He had put down the number at 10; but that might be considered too few. In a large constituency there would be an enormous number of these people, and he hoped the Attorney General would consent to some limitation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in Order in moving that Amendment.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was easy in a borough where there were 10 clerks and messengers to use them in any part of the constituency; but that was not the case in counties. A messenger in a county could not be brought up suddenly to the central office; and he wished to know whether a distinction could not be drawn between the head office and a district office in a county? In a district office, one messenger and one clerk were ample; but in a county that number would not be sufficient.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that one messenger was allowed to each polling district, and he should not suppose that the messengers would be required to go from one district to another.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the object of the clause he wished to move was to place certain boroughs in the position of counties. These were boroughs which contained very large and dense populations, and were not in the strict sense boroughs. The borough which he represented measured 13 miles east and west, and about eight miles north and south. It contained two considerable towns—one with nearly 20,000 inhabitants, and another with between 4,000 and 5,000 inhabitants—in addition to 10 villages, some of which had large and mixed populations, and some had sparse populations. If the test as to whether boroughs were to be included in counties was to be the density or the sparseness of the population, he thought he was entitled, on either of those grounds, to ask that his Amendment should be accepted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 34, after the words "Much Wenlock," to insert the word "Christchurch."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Christ-church' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this question bad been dealt with when the case of the borough of Leominster was discussed. He did not think it desirable to re-open the question.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
    And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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 12th July.] [TWENTY-FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, the Amendment which he had to move was one in the opposite direction of that which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). The hon. and learned Member had moved to include Christ-church among the boroughs which were to be put in the position of counties; and his object was to exclude district boroughs within the meaning of the Ballot Act from having the provisions of each part of this Schedule applied to them as if such boroughs were in reality counties. He was quite sure that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would accept the Amendment, because all those who were interested in the matter were consenting parties to it. Those who were connected with district boroughs considered that they were quite as able to conduct their elections as any other borough; and, therefore, they did not wish to have any unnecessary privilege. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 24, leave out after "Aylesbury" to "1872," in line 25.—(Mr. Ernest Noel.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this Amendment

    1409
    raised the question whether certain boroughs in Wales and Scotland should be treated as counties, or as boroughs. As far as he could learn, both from the Welsh and Scotch Members, they wished to place these boroughs upon the lower scale of election expenses, and they ought to be at liberty to do so. Other boroughs, such as Christchurch and Leominster, desired to increase the expenditure by being treated as counties; but he found, from communications which had made to him in regard to the Welsh and Scotch boroughs, that they wished to be treated as if they were English boroughs, and not to be inserted in this Schedule. He could not see why they should not have their desire carried out.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the speech they had just heard from the Attorney General was very different from the one they had heard from him in the Morning Sitting. They were told in the morning that the boroughs treated as counties were historical boroughs.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked that in that case the expenditure was increased.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Attorney General had told them that the list ought not to be changed under any circumstances; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was bound to say that if he consented to the omission of these words, he would not preserve the historical list which he had been so desirous of maintaining in the case of Christ-church and Leominster. Hon. Members on that side of the House had thought that the Attorney General meant to abide by the list; but if once he opened the flood-gates upon this particular question, he would warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would be overwhelmed with applications on the Report from all boroughs who thought they ought to come in on the other side.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): But they do not wish to come in.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would find not only Christchureh and Leominster, but many other boroughs, claiming to be included in the list, and that he would have a large number of applications pressed upon him when they came to the Report. In
    1410
    the morning the Attorney General had taken a clear and definite ground, and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had felt inclined to support him—namely, that they ought not to change the historical list of boroughs, which had always been treated in old Acts of Parliament as counties. He regretted to see that they were now departing from that arrangement.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Not in the slightest degree.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should say he was not departing from that arrangement. He was going to strike out one of the historical list. It made no difference whether the result would be to increase or decrease the expenditure. It was, at any rate, a borough which was included in the list, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had distinctly declared that he would not disturb that old list, which had been handed down from Act of Parliament to Act of Parliament. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did, he gave him fair warning that every one of these boroughs who thought they ought to be regarded as counties would press its claim upon him.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had afforded him very generous support during the time the Bill had been in Committee—a support which he should never forget—but he thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the object of this Amendment. There were certain boroughs which asked for an increased scale, and preferred to be regarded as counties. That was the historical list he had referred to; but, on the other hand, there were certain district boroughs which asked to be treated as boroughs, and not as counties. Those district boroughs did not want to incur increased expenditure, and why should the Committee compel them to expend more money than they wished? He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not properly appreciate the question. These boroughs were on a different principle altogether.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the real question was, whether or not elections could be properly conducted in certain

    1411
    groups of boroughs upon the scale of borough elections, or whether they ought not to be regarded as counties?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): They have all agreed to be included in the lower scale.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, his evidence was exactly to the contrary effect. He had made inquiries, and he understood these district boroughs were anxious to be placed on the higher
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had communicated with the Representatives of these boroughs, and they were all of them desirous of being included in the lower.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was afraid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman hastily accepted this Amendment he might find himself involved in some difficulty, and that he would run a risk of establishing a bad precedent hereafter. As far as he (Mr. E. Stanhope) had evidence before him, he believed that many of those boroughs desired to be included in the same scale as counties, and not in that which applied to boroughs. He would not profess, however, to put his opinion against that of the Attorney General.
    MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to say a word in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope). He had taken the trouble, before bringing forward his Amendment, to make inquiries of all the Members who sat for district boroughs; and, surely, they ought to understand their own interests, and how they could best conduct their own elections, better than the hon. Member, who had never had anything to do with any one of these boroughs. Hon. Members who were really interested in the question had fully studied it, and they knew what they required, and they had come to the unanimous conclusion that they could conduct their elections on the lower scale of expenditure. He believed there was only one solitary Member who thought the larger scale might, perhaps, be better; but even that hon. Member allowed that it would be perfectly easy to conduct the elections on the lower scale of expenditure. If that were the case, it seemed to him to be somewhat strange that those who knew nothing about the question, and had no interest
    1412
    in the mutter, should decide that the boroughs which were concerned should be subjected to exceptional legislation.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He found that he had been labouring under a misapprehension. He had been under the impression that the Amendment was to strike out the borough of Aylesbury.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that the Amendment simply struck out the words from "Aylesbury," so as to exclude district boroughs.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it was not desirable to carry the objection further; but if the facts had been as he supposed his objection would have had great force. He had no desire that either Aylesbury or any other borough should incur more expense than was necessary; but he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that the evidence they had was to the contrary. He would not, however, put his opinion against that of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and, under the circumstances, he would not further oppose the Amendment.
    MR. LEWIS FRYwished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), when they were discussing the question of sub-agents, had expressed a desire to treat Woodstock as a county, and not as a borough. By this Amendment, Woodstock would continue to be treated as a borough. Was he to understand that the Amendment referred to the question of sub-agents?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No.
    MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he had gathered that it was only in respect of the sub-agents that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had desired the borough of Woodstock to be treated as a county.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was well acquainted with the Principality of Wales, and he was glad to hear that the Members for district boroughs in the Principality were of opinion that they would be able to conduct the elections within a smaller scale than that scheduled in the Bill, because he believed that if they referred to the Returns of the election

    1413
    expenses connected with the last General Election they would find a marked discrepancy, as far as some of the Welsh boroughs were concerned, between the scale fixed in the Schedule and the amounts actually expended. As far as he remembered, speaking from memory, at the last contested Election for the Flint Boroughs, the hon. Member who represented that district spent four or five times the amount of money the Schedule would allow him to spend; and although he could well understand that there would be a desire upon the part of the hon. Member under these circumstances to curtail his expenditure, he was very much inclined to think that the facts of the case were against the Schedule. He thought the Committee ought to look at the circumstances of the case, and not merely to the wishes of the Scotch and Welsh Members, who were obviously and naturally anxious—as, indeed, every Member of Parliament was—to spend as little as possible upon his election. He had the honour of being a voter in a district borough which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) knew very well, and in which the contributory towns were at a considerable distance from each other. Probably there would be a distance of 30 miles from one place to another. The central agent could only reside in one borough, and it was necessary, therefore, to have sub-agents of considerable responsibility in various other districts. He, therefore, thought the amounts allowed on the lower scale would not be sufficient to cover the expense of elections in such districts. It was altogether impossible, in a constituency numbering 2,000 or 3,000 voters, spread over a considerable distance, to conduct the election with the small machinery and expense as if the borough was all together. Anybody who had had anything to do with such districts must be aware that the candidates had to expend money at the same rate as if they were conducting a county election, owing to the remoteness of one polling station from the other. Quite apart from any Party question in the matter, he was afraid that the Attorney General would find that he had made a mistake in accepting this Amendment, and that it would not, in every case, be either possible or practicable to conduct an election in district boroughs on the same
    1414
    terms and at the same expense as in an ordinary borough election.
    MR. WARTONsaid, they were promised a new Reform Bill soon, and he presumed that when they came to deal with that new plan of representation two or three boroughs were likely to be grouped together. He, therefore, warned the Committee against the danger of adopting this Amendment in hot haste, without due reflection or consideration. It might be found, after the new Reform Bill had been passed, that some of these grouped boroughs would be oven larger than the district boroughs which now existed.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he rose not to prolong the discussion, but to express a hope that the Committee would not divide. It was obvious that it would be quite useless to take up the time of the Committee by dividing upon this Amendment; but, at the same time, he was anxious to warn the Attorney General that, although he had no doubt the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) had acted in perfectly good faith in the matter, there was no evidence from either side of the House that the facts were as they had been stated. As far as he had been able to gather, the opinion generally was in opposition to that which had been put forward by the Attorney General. He would not, however, oppose the omission of these words; but he was afraid that it might be necessary to raise the question again.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had a verbal Amendment to move to the Schedule. He desired, in line 5 of Schedule I., to leave out "each part," and insert "Parts II., III, and IV."
    Question, "That the words 'each part' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'Parts II, III., and IV.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that before they left this part of the Schedule altogether, he wished to put a question in regard to the action of the election agent. He dared say the Attorney General would know that there were a great many counties in which the practice

    1415
    was for the election agent not to take charge of any polling district; but there was no provision of that kind in the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to move any Amendment?
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would propose an Amendment for the purpose of raising the question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I may point out to the hon. Member that some time ago he raised a discussion upon a particular point without proposing an Amendment, and considerable confusion was created in consequence. For that reason I wish to know if the hon. Member proposes to move an Amendment now?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) to raise the question he desired to call attention to on Report.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would do so.

PART II.

  LEGAL EXPENSES IN ADDITION TO EXPENSES UNDER PART I.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, after "charges," to insert—
  "Within the limits of the Parliamentary Election Returning Officers' Act, 38 & 39 Victoria, chapter 84."
  The object of the Amendment was this—the Returning Officer was a very powerful gentleman, and he occasionally charged a good deal above the Schedule. He desired by this Amendment to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence, and in the hope that the Attorney General would accept it he would move it without further comment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 43, line 29, after the word "charges," insert "within the limits of the Parliamentary Election Returning Officers' Act, 38 & 39 Victoria, chapter 84."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the effect of this would be that if any election agent, being told by the Returning Officer that he had paid out of his own pocket more than the expenses allowed by the Statute, repaid such excess to the Returning Officer, the candidate would lose his seat. He (the Attorney General)
  1416
  had had no Notice of this Amendment; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in it now, he must oppose it. It would be well, perhaps, if the matter were left for consideration on Report.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there were some cases where it would be impossible for the Returning Officer to bring his charges within the Parliamentary limits. He had been told by a Sheriff of a county that his necessary expenses amounted to nearly twice the sum he could legally charge the candidates, and that he was really dependent upon the goodwill of the candidates as to whether he was recouped for the payments he had to make over and above those allowed by law. The Committee ought to know in what position a Sheriff would stand under such circumstances. Could he legally obtain payment from the candidate, or would the candidate be liable to penalties if he paid the Returning Officer a sum beyond that allowed?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he knew that in some cases a Returning Officer charged a good deal more than he ought to do; and on Report he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) meant to bring up a clause to prevent such a state of things. Of course, it was necessary that the candidate should pay the Returning Officer's expenses; but he did not think he ought to be required to pay in so substantial a way as he was now required to do. A great many things might be done more cheaply, and he thought that if the charges were defrayed out of the rates, the ratepayers would take care that they were very much less than at present. If the Attorney General would say that on Report he would look into the matter, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be quite content to leave it as at present.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), or the Attorney General, would bring up an Amendment on Report he would withdraw this Amendment. His sole object in moving it had been to prevent collusive arrangements being made between Returning Officers and candidates.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he knew nothing about Returning Officers, for he never spoke to one in his life. He was, however, certain that Returning Officers did impose more expenses on candidates than they ought to do.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he did not know whether the Attorney General had read the account of the expenses of the Returning Officer at the Liverpool Election; but certainly it was most interesting reading. He was glad the Attorney General had rejected this clause, and would remind him of what occurred at the Liverpool Election. The Returning Officer there found he was absolutely obliged to enter expenses beyond the amount allowed by law; and, therefore, part of his expenses were thrown on the borough. It was very difficult to get his polling stations at the price allowed. On the other hand, however, there were a great many places which could be obtained for a nominal sum; but the Returning Officer was not allowed to lump them together. He (Mr. Warton) was certainly of opinion that, supposing one station to cost ten guineas, and another two, and another one guinea, and so forth, it would be better to lump them all together. The candidates at Liverpool had to pay a large sum of money, amounting to hundreds of pounds; but even this did not satisfy the Returning Officer, who had a very just grievance in respect of the charges he was allowed to make for polling stations. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General brought up a fresh clause on Report, he (Mr. Warton) hoped he would take this matter into consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made, in line 32, after the word "publishing," by inserting "issuing and distributing."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Amendment he had now to propose was a consequential one. The Committee would remember that there was a great deal of discussion as to the number of committee rooms that should be allowed, and they passed a clause in which it was held that it was an illegal or corrupt practice—he forgot which—to engage a greater number of committee rooms than stated in the Bill. At that time the Attorney General told them that they had better take the discussion upon this sub-section. Therefore, without making a long discussion of it, he would explain, in one or two words, what the object of his Amendment was. According to the statement of the At-
  1418
  torney General, there should be a committee room for every complete 500 electors. Now, in some boroughs persons resided in houses outside the borough, and in such cases it was very necessary to have a committee room for even fewer than 500 electors. What was wanted was to bring the electors together, and the committee room was a central point for which they made, and from which it was customary for them to go to the poll in a body. By this clause they allowed a vast number of committee rooms in large places, such as Liverpool. He believed that in Liverpool there could be as many as 130 committee rooms. The Attorney General had said that it was not likely that the different parties in Liverpool would incur the expense of having the maximum number of committee rooms. But the Attorney General ought to bear in mind that there was always a tendency to have a committee room at every point, and that there would always be some persons urging a candidate to have a committee room hero and a committee room there. He had no doubt that men would be found engaging more committee rooms than were necessary. In his original Bill last year the Attorney General divided all the expenditure under various heads—under printing, stationery, and the like. This was the last relic, and he did not think it was necessary it should remain in the Bill. It would be necessary on Report to strike out the clause specifying the number of committee rooms which might be engaged; but that, however, was an exceedingly easy matter. He now begged to move that the words "in a borough" be struck out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 35, leave out "in a borough."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had admitted the words in the first part of the Schedule itself; and, therefore, they ought to reject the proposed Amendment. It was very necessary that they must lay down a limit to committee rooms in some way or form.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would be quite easy to strike out the form of words on Report, and he would engage

  1419
  to make a Motion to that effect if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would support him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think such a Motion would be in Order now. The Report stage was the proper time at which an Amendment of this kind, which necessitated an alteration in a portion of the Schedule already passed, should be brought up.
  MR. DODDS: Hear, hear!
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was always very ready to cry "Hear, hear!" Whenever a Minister rose and talked sense or nonsense, "Hear, hear!" came from the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would very soon get his reward. The Attorney General had told him (Mr. Labouchere) that he was not in Order. The Chairman, however, thought he was in Order; therefore, let them have a Division on this matter at once.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not quite understand in what position this Amendment would leave the matter. He did not think that the experience of most Members of the House would lead them to coincide with the view of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). His (Mr. Tomlinson's) idea of the proper number of committee rooms was one for each polling place, and that was rather a different quota to what was suggested in this clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. RAIKESproposed to leave out from "committee room," in line 36, to the end of Sub-section (6), and insert "for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room." The sub-section would then read—
  "In a borough the expenses of the number of committee rooms for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room."
  It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had conceived rather a mistaken idea as to the most convenient unit with regard to fixing the number of committee rooms. All hon. Members who had practical acquaintance with such matters know that boroughs were mapped out for the purposes of elections. He was not now speaking of boroughs of under 15,000 inhabitants, but of the larger
  1420
  boroughs of the country. These boroughs were mapped out into a certain number of polling districts, and the contending parties had their machinery for each of the polling districts. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had only represented a small borough; but it had been his (Mr. Raikes's) lot to be associated with large constituencies; he, therefore, might lay claim to know more about this matter than the hon. and learned Gentleman. Certainly, he had always found what he now stated to be the case. He believed that if they were going to have an arbitrary unit, such as that of 500 electors, they would have nothing but confusion. A polling district in one of the Northern towns would probably contain as many electors as some of the Somerset boroughs. In Oldham, the borough represented by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert), there were several thousand electors in a polling district; but it might happen that one district was so peculiarly situated that a committee room would be required for even less than 500 electors. He certainly was of opinion that they ought to have a committee room in each polling district, and he trusted that the Attorney General would assent to his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 43, line 36, leave out from "committee room" to end of Sub-section (6), and insert "for every polling district in the borough, and one central committee room."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) was entirely under a misapprehension. His (the Attorney General's) experience was, as a matter of fact, quite as extended as that to which the right hon. Gentleman had laid claim. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that many large boroughs had no polling districts at all; indeed, it was at the option of the local authority whether or not a borough was divided into polling districts. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had just told him that in his constituency (Durham) there was a population

  1421
  of 18,000, yet there was no polling district. He (the Attorney General) believed that Oxford had no polling district; indeed, it would be found that half the boroughs of England had no polling districts at all. It would thus be seen that in such boroughs more committee rooms would be allowed under this Schedule, as it now stood, than would be allowed if it were amended as was now suggested.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL, in moving to insert after "every," line 36, "polling district or for," said, that this Amendment was simply consequential on the concession which the Attorney General had been good enough to make.
  Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 36, after "every," insert "polling district or for."—(Mr. Arthur Peel.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he was in the unfortunate position of having 999 electors; and, therefore, he should prefer the Committee to adopt at the end of the section the words agreed to by the Government in the previous case—namely, that if there were a number of electors over and above any complete 500, a committee room should be allowed for such number of them not amounting to a complete 500.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 39, after "borough," insert, "and if there is a number of electors over and above any complete 500 then one committee room for such number of them not amounting to a complete 500 shall be allowed."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSproposed to insert, after the word "expenses," in line 1, page 44, the words "of one central committee room, and in addition." The object of the Amendment was not to add to the committee rooms, but simply in counties to allow a central committee room, which the Committee must see it was very necessary to have.
  Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 1, after "expenses," insert "of one central committee room, and in addition,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SALTproposed to add the following sub-section to Part IL, page 44:—
  "(8.) A sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in counties, or two hundred pounds in boroughs, under the head of special expenditure arising from unforeseen circumstances, and not in respect of any matter constituting an offence under this Act."
  He reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the Committee that the expenditure was restricted to the very smallest limit. Probably most hon. Members who had taken an interest in the Bill had calculated for themselves how far they could safely and properly keep their own expenditure within the limits provided by the Bill. He certainly had made his own calculations. He had always been very careful with regard to election expenses, and he was able to give the Bill the credit of saying he believed he could work his election comfortably enough within the limits of expenditure prescribed. But, at the same time, in order to do that, in order to keep within the limits that the Bill laid down in this Schedule, it would be absolutely necessary for any candidate to bring his expenses very considerably within the limits of the Bill. In the midst of the excitement and turmoil of an election it was very difficult to keep a hold upon everybody and upon every expense; and it was only reasonable to calculate that every expense in an election, however legitimate it might be—every expense for printing, advertising, messengers, and all other such matters—must of necessity exceed the estimate formed at the beginning of the election. They, therefore, could not start to contest an election without making their calculations, so as to bring their expenses considerably within the amount laid down by this hard-and-fast line. Something perfectly unforeseen might happen to make it necessary, quite suddenly, to send throughout a county or a borough a large number of circulars at a very great cost. It was quite possible, and not improbable, that an opponent might issue some circular which, of necessity, must be contradicted at once by means of a circular or placard. Such a thing would be quite unexpected, but no one would dispute that such cases had happened; the contradiction of

  1423
  some foul aspersion or false rumour might very possibly carry the total expenditure for the election very considerably beyond the amount named. Now, under those circumstances, the proposal which he had to make was that, beyond the expenditure laid down in the Schedule of the Bill, there should be allowed a special sum for special expenditure; but that sum should be limited to £500 in counties, and £200 in boroughs. Of course, he suggested that any expenditure of this kind should be confined to circumstances that were not opposed to the principle and object of the Bill. He could not help thinking that, on the whole, that was a reasonable proposal. They wanted to limit expenditure in elections as much as possible; but, if this Act was to have the effect it was supposed it would have, it was absolutely necessary that it should be dealt with in a businesslike and reasonable manner. To his mind the provisions were much too stringent. He believed the Bill would really lose its force by the absurdly stringent character of its penalties and restrictions. If they were to put all these various rigid rules into an Act of Parliament they should allow some safety-valve by which hon. Members—and he had no doubt all hon. Members would wish to do so—who wished to keep within the lines of the Bill might do so with some possibility of carrying on their business in a convenient manner. With these words, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the sub-section would not come in at this point.
  MR. SALTsaid, he should be very sorry if he had spoken all this to no purpose.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the hon. Member was quite right in moving the sub-section here.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 44, add the following sub-section:—" (8.) A sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in counties, or two hundred pounds in boroughs, under the head of special expenditure arising from unforeseen circumstances, and not in respect of any matter constituting an offence under this Act."—(Mr. Salt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept
  1424
  the Amendment, as it would put an end to the Maximum Schedule. The hon. Member could hardly expect him to accept it; but as he was anxious to meet the hon. Member's views he would agree to strike out the words—
  "Not exceeding the maximum amount of ten pounds for every one thousand electors in the county or borough, and not exceeding in the whole the maximum amount of one hundred pounds."
  That would leave at large the amount which might be spent upon miscellaneous matters, so long as the maximum was not exceeded. If these words were left out, a candidate would not be confined to £10 or £100, and his agent would have to consider what miscellaneous matters were most urgent. By the Amendment he proposed, he (the Attorney General) should be meeting the hon. Member more than half way.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the question was a difficult one, and he rather agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with regard to it. The hon. and learned Member said he would leave out the words imposing a limit. Well, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not in favour of that, because the expenditure might then be of any amount for these miscellaneous subjects.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No. The maximum of total expenditure cannot be exceeded.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was aware of that; but it would be difficult to restrain and keep within bounds this miscellaneous expenditure if no limit were fixed. The sum of £200 should be the limit for both counties and boroughs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that limit they would have a specified sum beyond which they would not be able to go. That would be far better than the hon. and learned Member's proposal.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he considered it would be a most dangerous thing to throw out the limit of £100 and £10 for every 1,000 electors, as there would then be a tendency for the amount to increase, and it might be from £100 to £620 in his case. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] That was so, for whenever they had a general maximum the tendency was to work up to it. Their endeavour ought to be rather to keep down the maximum than

  1425
  to increase it. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment admitted he could comfortably manage his election within the limits of the Bill; but that was his experience of the past, and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House thought that his experience in the future ought to be a great deal better. They wished him to manage his election in the future more economically than he had done in the past; and, with that view, they considered the maximum in the Bill was already too high, and ought to be lowered. He objected to any extension of the maximum.
  MR. SALTsaid, he would adopt the hon. and gallant Baronet's (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) suggestion, and propose that the maximum should be £200 both for the counties and boroughs. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would accept that. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, no!] He (Mr. Salt) wished to point out that, however anxious a candidate might be to keep within the maximum expenditure, he might find it impossible to do so, owing to suddenly arising and unexpected circumstances. This might not be the case in more than one election out of 50; but, certainly, here and there, it might be found impossible to avoid exceeding the maximum in consequence of unforeseen difficulties. It was only reasonable that there should be some way of meeting difficulties of this kind; and he would, therefore, suggest that the limit in counties and boroughs should be fixed at £200.
  Question put, and negatived.

PART III.
Maximum for Miscellaneous Matters.
On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James), Amendment made, in page 44, line 10, after "in," by inserting "Part I. and."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he would now propose to leave out after the word "Schedule," in line 10, the words—
"Not exceeding the maximum amount of ten pounds for every one thousand electors in the county or borough, and not exceeding in the whole the maximum amount of one hundred pounds."
This would leave out all reference to amount; but, of course, the maximum
1426
of election expenses would remain the same. There might be matters, not specified in Part II, on which it might be necessary for the candidate to spend more than was allowed by the present maximum in Part III. relating to miscellaneous expenses. By the adoption of this Amendment the general maximum would remain unaltered, and the candidate would be able to spend a little more under Part III., and a little less under Part II.
Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 10, leave out all the words after the word "Schedule," down to "pounds," inclusive, in line 13.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. RAIKESsaid, he desired that words would not be put into the clause which would have the effect of preventing him from moving to alter £100 to £200. The Chairman could easily put the Question so as to leave him an opportunity of bringing forward his proposal—by putting the Question that the words down to the word "borough" stand part of the Bill, for instance.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) that the question could be so modified so as not to interfere with his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 10, leave out all the words after the word "Schedule," down to the word "of," in line 13."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was sure it would be quite safe to adopt his Amendment? If they left out all limit they did a great deal towards putting an end to the effect of Part I. of the Schedule. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No, no!] It was only right that there should be some limit to expenditure in this matter. They might fairly leave out the words "not exceeding the maximum amount of ten pounds for every one thousand electors in the

1427
county or borough," and insert "two hundred pounds," in place of "one hundred pounds," in the lines following. It seemed to him that, for the sake of the candidates themselves, it was necessary to have a limit.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if they stopped at the word "borough," and someone moved to substitute £200 for £100, they could take a Division, and a saving of time would be effected. The matter had been sufficiently discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Farrer Herschell), Amendment made, in page 44, line 10, by leaving out all the words after the word "Schedule" down to the word "not," in line 12.
On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made, in page 44, line 13, by leaving out the word "one" and inserting the word "two."

PART IV.
Maximum Scale.
MR. RAIKESsaid, they had now reached a point upon which there would be little difference of opinion, as to which there would be a general desire to curtail expenses so far as they could reasonably be curtailed. He rather differed from the Attorney General as to the precise estimate which should be agreed to as to the proper amount of the expenses, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would forgive him. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that where the number of electors on the register did not exceed 2,000, the maximum expenditure should be £350, and where the number of electors exceeded 2,000, the maximum should be £380, and an additional £30 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000. Well, he (Mr. Raikes) proposed that if the number of electors on the register did not exceed 1,000 the maximum should be £300, and where it exceeded £2,000 it should be £500. His proposal he would rather contrast with that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The hon. Member was not in his place to-night, he was sorry to say; but there was very little difference between their two schemes. His (Mr. Raikes's) proposal did not descend to such close
1428
particulars as the hon. and learned Member's, his wish being merely to fix an initial limit in the first instance. The Attorney General was prepared to allow £350 to be spent in a constituency which did not number more than 1,000; but, to his (Mr. Raikes's) mind, it would be possible in very small constituencies of less than 1,000 electsrs—of which there were still some in the country—to conduct an election for less than £350; and he, therefore, proposed that they should start with a constituency of less than 1,000 electors, and there fix the maximum expenditure at £300. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry was prepared to put the maximum of £350 for such constituency. The hon. Member proposed that where the number of electors did not exceed 500, the maximum should be £200; where it did not exceed 1,000, £350; 1,500, £400; 2,000, £500; and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000. They had to consider this matter not in connection with small constituencies only, but as being the initial figure in all constituencies. They must be careful that they did not fix such a sum that, even with the accumulating amount for each increasing 1,000 electors, they might have too little for the proper conduct of an election in a large constituency. He (Mr. Raikes), in his proposal, rather proposed to reduce the expenditure where the number of electors was less than 1,000, and to increase it where the constituency ranged from 1,000 to 2,000. He did not believe that a sum of £380, where the number of electors did not exceed 2,000, with an additional £30 for every 1,000 electors, above 2,000 was an adequate amount. He had had rather a wide experience of constituencies and of elections, and he should not be following a right course if he did not endeavour to turn to some account such experience as he had gained on this particular question. He had had the honour to be four times a candidate for the City of Chester, which was a borough containing about 6,000 electors, and on each occasion the amount of the expenses had been different. The cheapest election of which he had had experience was that in which the expenses of both candidates amounted to about £8,500, and that election only lasted five days. So far as he was concerned, it was an exceptionally economical election, for his prin-

1429
cipal agent declined to receive a fee for his services, and besides that the election was as economically carried on as any election could be. Whereas, on other occasions, his principal agent had taken £200 for his services, on the occasion he was referring to nothing was taken. He had no reason to think that his opponents spent money improperly, and he did not think the total was an unreasonable expenditure in a constituency of 6,000 electors. The Bill, as it at present stood, would give £380 for 2,000 electors, and £120 for the additional 4,000 electors, which would be £500 altogether. He was bound to say that, with all their wish to see elections conducted as economically as possible, he very much doubted whether it would be possible to conduct one in such a constituency as that for £500. Let them take the case of a larger constituency with which he was familiar—one containing 13,000 electors. He found that the expenditure that they would be allowed to incur there would be £380 for 2,000, and an addition of £830, representing £30 per 1,000, above 2,000. That would entitle them to spend in that borough over £700 during an election. Well, he was inclined to think it would not be practicable to conduct an election in a borough of that size for the sum of £700, if it extended beyond a day or two. He did not himself see how it would be possible. He wished to put it to the Committee, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General—and he did not wish to see a single shilling more than was necessary taken from the pockets of the candidates—that there would be a danger of falsification of accounts, if they were going to put on election agents a rule which was not to be exceeded, and were going to say that a man who represented 13,000 electors was not, under any circumstances, to spend more than £700. Although the Attorney General had acceded to an Amendment permitting a larger expenditure under the head of Part III., miscellaneous expenditure was included in the maximum scale of Part IV. He did not make any objection to that; but he did not want the Committee to run away with the idea that the sum to be spent under Part III. was to be in excess of the amount to be spent under Part IV. Whatever unforeseen emergency might arise, the total expenditure
1430
in a constituency of 13,000 would be limited to £700. If the Committee in its wisdom thought it right to impose such a limitation, he had no doubt the candidates, and, he hoped, the election agents, would be as careful as possible to observe it; but he felt they must not shut their eyes to the very great temptation which would be afforded to persons connected with electioneering to cook the accounts, so as to bring the total expenditure within these limits. If they set a man to do a task which he believed to be practically impossible, they would expose all persons connected with the accounts to the temptation of breaking the law. He was afraid there was a good deal of account-cooking at the present time under the existing system. The matter was one well deserving the attention of Parliament. He remembered being engaged in an election, some time ago, in which there was a good deal of advertising done—in which advertising was largely resorted to by both sides. The other side, he thought, had advertised rather more than the side upon which he was engaged. Well, the whole expenses on the other side were returned at a less sum than, he believed, the advertising alone could possibly have been done for, leaving an absolute "nil" to represent the whole of the other expenses of the election. He should be sorry to believe that either the candidates or the persons directly connected with the management of the election were parties to any misrepresentation of the facts. He should be the last person to insinuate such a thing; but he was sure that, though the accounts might have been made up on some principles that commended themselves to some of the persons engaged in the making up, they were not principles which would pass muster in an ordinary commercial audit. If they were going to draw an extremely tight line, they would be exposing persons engaged in elections to the temptation to take special and peculiar views as to the figures they had to submit when they published election accounts. He did not at all wish to detain the Committee with any unnecessary observations on the subject; and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would acquit him of a desire to unreasonably extend election expenses. In the scale he had submitted he had endeavoured

1431
to approximate to the absolute necessities of the case; and he thought that if they adopted a scale at variance with the facts and experience of most hon. Members in the House, they would be likely to open the door to fresh and aggravated evils much in excess of the scandalous corruption which disgraced the last General Election. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 26, leave out "2,000—£350," and insert "1,000—£300; 2,000—£500."—(Mr. Raikes.)
Question proposed, "That 2,000 stand part of the Schedule."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he believed that more than half the quarrels which took place in the world, in other matters besides politics, arose from the fact that people did not understand one another—did not thoroughly understand the words they discussed. He had risen to, if possible, make it clear what it was they were talking about. He agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said as to the figures in the Schedule; but he wished there to be a definite understanding as to what those figures meant. "Was it meant that the figure for a single or bye-election was to be the same for a double or General Election? When there were only two candidates standing against each other there might be no difficulty at all; but when they were discussing this maximum expenditure in the Schedule, let them understand what it meant. If the cost to each candidate at an election was to be allowed to be £350 for 2,000 electors, two candidates on the same side might spend £700. If an election could be conducted properly for £350, it was clear they could not conduct it properly if they were to spend £700; and, on the other hand, if only £350 were to be spent on two candidates on the same side at a General Election, at a bye-election, if the single candidate was only allowed to spend half that sum, he would not have enough for his constituency. What was it they meant, when they put such a sum as this down? He had considered the matter very carefully, and had only been able to arrive at a rough calculation; but as the result of that calculation he would suggest that whatever sum they put down
1432
in the Schedule, either for counties or boroughs, should be the sum which a single candidate should spend at a single election. When they came to a double election, it was clear that two candidates joining together would not require to spend double the amount allowed to a single candidate, because there would be a number of expenses that could be curtailed or cut off; but, at the same time, the two candidates would require to spend more than one candidate. He would propose, therefore, that at a double election two candidates together should be able to spend half as much again as a single candidate. Let them find out what was to be the starting point, or initial expense, for an election in a constituency where, for instance, there was only one Member to be elected. Having fixed that sum, let them provide that two candidates putting up together in a constituency returning two Members could spend half as much again as the one candidate. If they agreed upon that they would know where they were. Let them now discuss what a single candidate might spend, and then, when they came to candidatures, they could put in another figure.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) for drawing attention to this matter, and to ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments whilst he made a statement as to these expenses, which might travel a little beyond the Amendment which had been moved. He wished to make the statement now, as it might affect some other Amendments. They had now come to a part of the Bill where they were no longer dealing with penalties and controversial matters—they had come to a part in which they could all use their best endeavours to economize expenditure. As far as he could discover, the cost of the last General Election amounted to £2,500,000, and he believed that to be a low estimate, for allowance must be made for a considerable sum for expenses which were never intended to be returned for the cases in which no return had been made. His view was that a very large proportion of that sum went into the pockets of very undeserving people; and it was to be sincerely hoped it went out of the pockets of very deserving people. If they accepted the maximum as it was now framed in the

1433
Bill for boroughs, and that for counties with a slight extension, they would reduce the expenditure from £2,500,000 to £800,000, or one-third. He was certain, from the experience they had of the Returns, that a General Election in the future could be conducted for that sum. He could give instance after instance of elections which had been conducted at a cost much below the maximum contained in the Bill. In the case of Peterborough, where a maximum of £410 would be allowed under the Bill, only £332 had, at the election held a few weeks ago, been expended. He could also give instances where, in county elections, less had been spent than would be allowed under the Bill, and his opinion was that what could be done in one constituency could be done in another. Certainly, £800,000 was sufficient to be spent on electioneering at a General Election. The expenses returned relating to English county elections—entirely irrespective of Returning Officers' expenses, and of some counties where there was no Return made, and of all the expenditure beyond that returned—amounted to £615,800. Under the Bill, that amount would be reduced to £200,000 or one-third. He hoped, in this respect, the Bill would be regarded as a relief to the agricultural interest. As to English boroughs, the expenditure returned at the last General Election amounted to £595,424; but under the Bill it would only be £209,000 or, again, one-third. He would point out that, although the general reduction would be two-thirds, in individual cases it would be very unequal. In the county of Durham, the expenditure returned had amounted to £46,000; but under the Bill it would be £6,500. In Lancashire, it had amounted to £76,600; but under the Bill the amount would only be £23,000. He could not leave Wales entirely without a word. The election expenses in one county of that Principality—as to the purity of which so much had been said—had amounted to £20,100, although the number of electors was only 5,200. He had much pleasure in stating—and he was sure the Representative of the county would share that pleasure—that under the Bill in future the expenditure would not be more than £1,700. He could give instances where the expenditure would full below what he was
1434
about to propose; and he asked the indulgence of the Chairman and the Committee whilst, in dealing with this Amendment, he referred to both counties and boroughs. He had dealt with boroughs with more confidence than with counties, because he had more knowledge and experience of them. In dealing with boroughs he had calculated and put down in the Bill what he thought would be sufficient for a single election. The maximum he had adopted had been calculated for a single election—that was to say, where two candidates fought one against the other. He had adopted the figure after careful consideration, and after taking the best advice on the matter. He had looked at the Returns of many boroughs of different sizes; and he felt confident that, by striking off the use of conveyances and by the non-employment of paid assistants, the amount mentioned for boroughs was amply sufficient. The arguments brought to bear in the matter would have to be strong before he should be convinced that additional expenditure would be required in boroughs. As regarded counties, however, he had always to consult county Members. He had nothing to guide him in respect to counties as he had in respect to boroughs; therefore, he had consulted county Members on both sides of the House, who, he was certain, desired to have no unnecessary expenditure. He believed that the maximum in the Bill in regard to counties might be safely increased; and he was inclined to think that if the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) were adopted, the expenditure in counties would still be an economical one. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the amount allowed for counties should be £60 instead of £40 per 1,000 electors. He (the Attorney General) wished to adhere to the maximum expenditure, as stated in the Bill, in respect to borough elections—which amount was sufficient for a single contest—and he wished, also, if the Committee would allow him to do so, to meet the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in respect to the scale for counties. In this matter they had some difficulty to face, particularly in regard to joint candidatures; and he had waited to see if any solution would be proposed. Well, a solution had been

1435
proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Gross) and by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) in a direction which, after full consideration, he was inclined to agree to. If they had sought in any way to increase the expenditure, he should have very much objected to it; but they had sought to diminish it. He was perfectly willing to diminish it, and to say that where there were two candidates who wished to have joint committee rooms, and to contest the election together in all respects, they should have the amount they were allowed to spend increased by one-half above the amount a single candidate would be allowed to spend. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that where there was a joint candidature they should take off a quarter of the expenditure allowed to each, which was a quarter of the gross expenditure. The result of this would be, if they would allow him to give an instance, that if the expenditure allowed in the case of a single candidate was £500, they might take a quarter off, if the candidates united, leaving the gross amount £750 for a joint candidature. That was the suggestion which came from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman opposite. He had considered this matter very fully, with the assistance of others; and the result was that he was diminishing the expenditure in regard to joint candidature in boroughs—he would ask hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway to remember that—and he had accepted the increased expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman as he had suggested it, and, practically, as it was suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He did hope this would be considered a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. He had endeavoured to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to economize as much as possible. He had reduced the borough expenditure by a quarter wherever there was a double candidature; and although there was an increase in respect of single candidatures in counties, yet the increase of expenditure there was counterbalanced by the reduction which would take place when there were two candidates, as he had mentioned, when a reduction of one-fourth would be made. In cases where there were three candidates he thought
1436
there should be a still further reduction, and he proposed to take off one-third instead of one-fourth from the amount they would otherwise be legally entitled to spend. If they were entitled to spend £500 each—that was, £1,500 between them—the three would be allowed to spend two-thirds of that amount, or £1,000. That was the scale he now presented to the Committee, after listening to what had been said, and obtaining what information he could from various sources. He believed this proposal would bring the working of their electoral machinery into perfect order, and would save no less a sum than £1,700,000 in a General Election. There had been two or three matters to provide for under the circumstances of accepting this joint candidature. It was not at all an easy matter to deal with, because they had to determine what a joint candidature was. He had done his best to frame a definition, and that definition they would have to put in the Bill. There were two or throe copies of this definition in print. He would not ask them to consider the clause at present; but it would be introduced into the Bill and brought up on Report. The clause would be an elastic one; and it seemed to him he had done all he could to meet this expenditure of joint candidates. He would not discuss the provision he proposed; and, apologizing for having wandered away from the Question before the Committee, he would ask them to go back to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes).
MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not but think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had met the case of the counties very fairly, and had very properly modified the scale in the case of joint candidates; for doing which, it seemed to him, there had been very substantial ground. Joint candidatures generally took place at the time of a General Election. A bye-election was an isolated case, and a candidate found little difficulty in obtaining what assistance he required. At a General Election, on the other hand, the services of agents, managers, and so on, were not so easily procured; and there was, therefore, ground for increasing the maximum. He was happy the hon. and

1437
learned Gentleman had made a concession in this respect. As to the clause the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to bring up on Report dealing with joint candidatures, he hoped that where candidates had separate agents, but joint committee rooms, they might be looked upon as joint candidates.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he knew more about boroughs than counties; and on behalf of those he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for the concession he had made. The scale the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed was quite satisfactory; and he (Mr. Anderson) hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) would not now press his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, omitted, in the details of his speech, to say that the sum in the Schedule did not include the Returning Officer's expenses. Those were all additional, and, in reality, those expenses in a borough ought to be the principal part of the cost of an election. They were expenses which a candidate could not control. It was in the power of a candidate to control, more or less, all other expenses; and he ought to be able to control them and easily keep them within the scale of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of advertising as being a great source of expenditure. It was carried on to excess everywhere; let them cut it down, and they would get rid of a great part of the expense. Advertising was simply a mode of bribing the Press, and was one of the most nefarious expenses connected with elections. If they could cut it down it would be bettor for everybody, and elections would be much more pure. One thing he did not understand—namely, that nothing was said in the Schedule as to cases where no contest at all took place; and it was quite certain that an electorate might be considerably corrupted by gross and excessive expenditure in cases where contests did not take place. In the very last Return presented to the House there were some glaring cases of gross expenditure at elections of this kind. He would rather not name the instances, although he could do so if necessary.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he merely rose at this moment on a point of convenience. This Part IV. was divided into two sub-sections—No. 1
1438
applying to boroughs; and No. 2 to counties. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it would not be more convenient to discuss the case of the boroughs first, and that of the counties afterwards? If they did this, the proposal affecting counties would remain over for future consideration.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Committee would confine itself now to the case of the boroughs.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he had said about the counties. The course the Government intended to take was a wise and proper one; but the question of the counties was not now before the Committee; therefore he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would not go into it. As to the boroughs, for the life of him he could not see where there was anything in the Bill to intimate that the maximum was not intended to apply to each candidate—quite the reverse. As the Bill was drawn, it was clear each candidate could spend the amount put down for the election; and that where there was a double election, and two Members to be elected, the two might spend double the amount of one; and that where there were three Members to be elected—as in Glasgow and Birmingham—they might spend three times the amount. If the Amendment—with which he entirely agreed—were to be proposed, and if it was clear that two candidates putting up together would not want to spend as much as two candidates who put up independently, it was equally clear that the amount in the Schedule for both boroughs and counties would have to be increased for single elections. There could be no doubt that, as the Bill was presented, the maximum was intended to be the sum that each candidate might spend in both counties and boroughs; and that was why he had said they should not allow themselves to get into a difficulty as to the meaning of words. As the Bill stood, each candidate might spend exactly what was in the Schedule; and now that they were going to say that if two candidates stood together they need not spend so much as double the amount, it was clear it was an open question whether the amount in the Schedule ought not to be increased for single candidates.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the calculation in regard to boroughs was made with reference to single elections; and it would be far too much simply to double that for joint candidates. Whilst he admitted the incongruity to which attention had been drawn, he would point out that candidates need not unite unless they liked. If they chose they could remain separate, then each would have the benefit of the sum in the Schedule. Because they increased the amount in counties, in order to arrive at a right sum for single candidates, that was no reason why they should increase the amount allowed in the case of boroughs, if sufficient was allowed under existing circumstances. This was a matter for calculation. They had different circumstances to deal with in counties from what they had to deal with in boroughs. He had yielded to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to counties; but he could not yield to him "in regard to boroughs unless he showed that the amount allowed was not sufficient. The borough Members had not shown that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman should be adopted.
MR. WHITLEYsaid, he had been very much surprised indeed to see the change of front on the part of the hon. and learned Member to-night. Up to the present moment they had all believed that the amount in the Bill applied both to joint and several candidates. What had struck him (Mr. Whitley), and what, he thought, must have struck every Member of the Committee, was this—that by the change they had made they had raised great difficulty in the way of the proper carrying out of the Bill. Why should they expose candidates to additional penalties to those they had already placed on them? Why should they put before them the danger of being guilty of illegal practices? As had been said, it would be difficult to find conveyances in the case of one candidate; but in the case of two joint candidates that difficulty would be greatly enhanced. Each candidate would have his own agent, and each agent would have different sub-agents, for whose action both the candidates would be held responsible. It would be seen, therefore, that they were not only increasing the expenditure, but adding to the dangers and difficulties of a contest, by the arrangements they
1440
were now making without adequate reason. He was never more surprised in his life than he was to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman turn round and say that he had yielded to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. It was totally the reverse. The hon. and learned Gentleman had changed his ground for the first time, and had said the reason for it was that he understood he was acting in accordance with the views of Members on the Opposition Benches. He (Mr. Whitley) repudiated ever entertaining such a view. He had believed, and had been willing all along, that the maximum in the Schedule should apply not only to general, but to individual contests; and now the hon. and learned Gentleman turned round and accused him of having altered his views. The fact was, there had been a change of opinion on the part of the Government at the last moment, and it was highly unfair to bring this charge against Members of the Opposition. For his own part, he was satisfied that the change in the views of the Attorney General would cause very great consternation throughout the country; and he believed that they were so framing this Bill that it would be next to impossible to work elections under it. It was easy to say joint candidates might appoint different agents if they liked; but it would be easy for an agent or sub-agent employed by one candidate to invalidate the election of the other by doing work for him. Such a thing might be shown to be an illegal practice. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman told them they might have separate committee rooms; but let them take a case like his (Mr. Whitley's) own constituency—namely, Liverpool. He had an enormous number of committee rooms, and was that enormous number to be doubled? He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider that he had yielded anything in this matter. He had yielded to himself, and hon. Members only wished him to carry out that which he had himself intended up to the present. The change which had taken place in the views of the hon. and learned Member at this moment was most inconvenient, and he (Mr. Whitley) should oppose it to the best of his ability.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was perfectly understood that this Bill was not framed on the ideas of advanced

1441
Radicals, nor would this maximum ever for a moment satisfy them. The Bill, it was well known, was brought in to please Conservatives and Liberals. Whenever a complaint had been made as to there being too many clerks employed at elections, and too many committee rooms used, the hon. and learned Gentleman had always drawn attention to the fixed maximum contained in the Bill, beyond which, he said, no one could go—he had said that if they spent more in one direction they would have to spend less in another. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given a pledge to the Committee—by which means he had very materially reduced the length of the debate—and it was to the effect that in no case would he increase the maximum scale without the universal consent of everyone in the House. Owing to this, so far as he understood it, they had not discussed many matters which otherwise might have been discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had explained that in one particular case—in the case of counties—he had, to a certain extent, agreed with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite by raising the maximum in the Schedule; but, against that, he had, to a certain extent, reduced the maximum in the case of two candidates who stood together. It might, therefore, be said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stood to his guns. He (Mr. Labouchere) had put down an Amendment for the purpose of reducing the maximum, for the reason that hon. Members on the other side had put down Amendments with the object of increasing it—he had thought his Amendment would pair off against the Amendments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that it would keep the Attorney General steady to find that, if he yielded to the other side, he would have opposition to face on this side. The Amendment he (Mr. Labouchere) had put down, he was glad to say had had its effect, and the Schedule practically remained as it was. He himself was hardly satisfied yet, because he should like to see the maximum reduced by some 70 per cent. so as to put poor men in the same position as rich men in regard to elections, and in that manner to give constituencies a larger choice of Representatives. That, however, they could not obtain; therefore, they had to be content with what
1442
they could get for the present. Before sitting down, he wished to make a remark as to the singular ingratitude of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) displayed in his references to these Schedules. Under the Bill, the hon. Gentleman would have an immense amount to spend at an election. He (Mr. Labouchere) had been reckoning him up, and he found that he had a constituency of 60,000. [An hon. MEMBER: 63,000.] Well, 63,000; that only strengthened his argument. The hon. Member would be allowed, as a single candidate, to spend £2,120 on an election, and yet he came here asking for more. He could spend more than almost any hon. Member in the House, and yet he was the one who came here and complained that candidates would not be allowed to spend sufficient under the Bill. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not intend to move the Amendment standing in his name; and he hoped that, as the Attorney General had acted so fairly between both sides as to stand to his Schedules, there would not be a long discussion on this matter.
MR. ONSLOWsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) went to a Division on this question, he should not vote with him. He agreed with the Attorney General, so far as his own experience went, as to boroughs; but he should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman one or two questions. Supposing there was no contest in a borough where there was only one, or where there were two Members to be elected. According to the Schedule, these gentlemen could spend up to the maximum, and, no doubt, they would, in order that they might have an advantage at the next election. Would that be right? It did appear to him to be absurd to say that if there was no contest the candidate should be allowed to spend exactly the same amount as if there was a contest. He would call attention to this further matter. Supposing there were four candidates at an election, two on each side, and that they started two joint candidatures. All might go well for a time, but a disagreement might take place during the contest, and the candidates might desire to work independently. How were they to break their joint candidature? The Committee were under great inconvenience in not having the proposed new clauses before

1443
them. This was one of the most vital points of the whole Bill, this question of expenditure; yet they had not got before them the clauses proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) had said he did not think the expenditure sufficient, and proposed to raise it; but, according to his (Mr. Onslow's) experience, when once they did away with conveyances, and with the heavy expenditure on printing, which all knew was a scandal, £350 would be quite enough to pay for the candidature of any gentleman who stood for a constituency below 2,000. He would also call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to this—that if they did not look out they would be, by the proposed clause, leaving a loop-hole for what he might call dishonest practices, for everyone would want to spend as much as he could. Candidates, although they might know they were fighting exactly the same cause, would not join—they would not let people know they were joint candidates, in order that they might spend a little more. In conclusion, he would again press on the attention of the Committee that if there were to be no contest at all, by this Schedule they would allow each candidate to spend quite as much as if there was a contest. It seemed to him that, under such circumstances, any amount of corrupt practices would be committed.
MR. WARTONremarked, that he did not wish to say a word about the amount of the expenditure, but wished to point out that what had appeared to be a concession a short time ago—the substitution of £200 for £100—was really no concession at all. They had, in Part I., a certain number of persons to be employed, in Part II. certain legal expenses, and in Part III. provision for miscellaneous matters. All these expenses would have to be incurred, and there would be nothing for suddenly arising emergencies under the 3rd Part of the Schedule. The object of the 3rd Part was to make provision for any unforeseen contingency, and to permit any extra expense which might be found to be necessary. He wished to press on the hon. and learned Gentleman that, a priori, before they went into the matter of the amount of the maximum they ought to consider whether Part III. ought to be included
1444
or not. If there was £350 allowed for a borough election, and if, owing to some informality, or some unforeseen emergency, £200 of this had to be expended under Part III., it would leave only £150 for all the expenses under Parts I. and II. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman, before the Report, consider this important point? He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to strike out Part III. altogether—it could be easily done if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see that considerable change had been introduced into this question by the statement he had just made. With regard to boroughs, the hon. and learned Gentleman said he had not only considered the matter very carefully himself in the light of considerable experience, but had referred it to those on whose opinion he most relied, and they had reported in favour of the scale in the Bill. But now a considerable change had been introduced, for the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that where two candidates stood jointly a quarter of the expense was to be taken off. He must say that gave Members on the Opposition side of the House a right to ask for some little time to consider whether or not the original scale ought not to be altered. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman now before the Committee was not only to increase the scale, but, in one particular case, it was to reduce the amount in the case of a small constituency. Where there were more than 1,000 electors he proposed to increase it. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) did not say the scale of his right hon. Friend was a perfect one; but he maintained that they had a perfect right, after the change which had been introduced, to take time to consider whether or not the original scale ought not to be altered. That being so, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would desire to divide on the Amendment. He rather hoped he would do so to express his sense of the position in which the Committee was placed by the change which had taken place. But if he did not do so—or even if he did do so—he (Mr. E. Stanhope) claimed a right for hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House to consider the matter carefully,

1445
and have brought up before them on Report any proposal which might be thought necessary for dealing with the question.
MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the request made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). He did not think it would serve a good purpose to withdraw the Amendment, in order to give an opportunity for re-opening the question on Part III. He regretted he should not have the support of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) on this occasion, and he regretted still more that he did not share the hon. Member's experience as to the economy with which an election could be conducted. No doubt, some hon. Members were more fortunate than others in the constituencies they had the honour to represent; and he did not think the experience of the hon. Member for Guildford was that which was general throughout the country. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), he (Mr. Raikes) certainly should be one of the last persons to keep up the enormous and, he thought, extremely cruel charges for advertising. If this Bill had the effect of knocking on the head the system of enormous advertising, that, at all events, would be one good result derived from it. He hoped he had not given anyone to understand that he desired to keep up these charges. It had been pointed out that the effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the scale in very small boroughs. Well, he proposed to draw the line at 1,000 constituents, and to reduce the amount which might be actually expended within the limits of such a borough. His proposal seemed to him to be more comprehensive and elastic than that of the Government. He did not wish to trouble the Committee by recapitulating the particulars and instances he had referred to when he brought forward his Amendment; and he would only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had offered no arguments or facts in opposition to them. The sole fact the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to rely upon was that his scale would have the effect of causing the borough elections in the country for the future to cost one-third the amount they cost at the last General Election. That, he thought, was a result devoutly to be
1446
wished. With regard to candidates, he would merely say that it appeared to him it would have been more simple and more fair in the case of a single candidate standing against two candidates to have allowed him to spend as much as his opponents. Whether the amount each candidate who stood jointly might pay was 75 per cent. or any other proportion of the amount he would pay if he were alone, if a candidate opposed two gentlemen together singly, he should be allowed to spend as much as though he stood with another person. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to the fact that there was nothing in the Schedule to deal with the City of London, where there were four Members. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh! Yes.] No; the hon. and learned Attorney General had made provision for three candidates, but not for four. He thought it was the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board who said there were cases where four candidates could have joined in the City of London.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There have been; but the occasion does not exist now.
MR. RAIKESsaid, it might not be long before they saw four candidates standing in the same interest—in Birmingham, Glasgow, or the City of London, for instance. He would ask the Committee to divide on his Amendment, as he thought it desirable to make a protest against the scale of expenditure it was proposed to put in the Bill, which, if adopted, would only lead to an enormous aggravation of the evil of false accounts, which he believed to have been the most corrupt practice during the last General Election.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they ought to come to some understanding upon this matter. The Attorney General must remember that this Bill had been sent down to every constituency in England, and every constituency, both county and borough, had argued the same way, and had read the Bill in the same light. The constituencies had understood that Schedule to prescribe the amount that each candidate might spend in his election. Now, if the Attorney General would consent to raise the sum of £30 to £40—["No, no!"] He heard hon. Gentlemen say "No, no!" but the

1447
Committee wanted to come to the end of the Bill; and he was afraid that unless they could arrive at some satisfactory arrangement on this matter, the debate might be prolonged for some nights. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had understood that if a candidate in a county were allowed to spend £1,000, two candidates would be allowed to spend £2,000. He had no desire to exceed the Attorney General's maximum of £2,000 in the case of a joint candidature; but what he did want was where there was a single candidate standing, he should be able to spend more than £1,000 if necessary. He had put upon the Paper a new clause, which, however, he meant to withdraw. Its object was that in boroughs two candidates standing together ought to be able to spend one-fourth less than they would if standing separately. What he now proposed was that, in the case of boroughs, they should alter the allowance of £30 for every 1,000 electors to £40; and he asked hon. Gentlemen to look at the practical result of the Schedule. If a candidate stood singly, he would be able to spend £1,000; but, in conjunction with another candidate, he would only be able to spend £1,500. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) dissented from that view; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he himself did not believe that when this Bill went down to the country, everyone thought that the £350 put down in the Schedule to be spent in a constituency where there were less than 2,000 electors was the sum which each candidate might spend? There was not the slightest doubt that the Schedule had been understood in this way. The suggestion he now made he made in good humour, and apart from any desire to allow the expenditure of one farthing more than the maximum. If they took off one-fourth in the case of a joint candidature, and substituted £40 for £30, they would find a candidate was not allowed to spend one single farthing more than anyone thought he would be able to spend. Such was the principle he wanted to carry out, and he was persuaded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could not find any fault with it. If they were to have joint candidatures, they must be on the same ground in counties as in boroughs; other-
1448
wise they must stick to the Bill as originally drawn.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had now departed from the course he had taken up throughout all this debate. He (the Attorney General) had given way to the right hon. Gentleman in almost every particular, and yet they were now told by him that they would have to continue the discussion for many nights more, unless he yielded on this point too. Now, he (the Attorney General) must ask the Committee—for he had to appeal still to their indulgence—to consider the position in which they were placed. Respecting the maximum allowed under the Bill, it had been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that joint candidates would have a great advantage over a single candidate, and he (the Attorney General) at the time stated he would endeavour to meet the case. How had he endeavoured to meet it? There was now an Amendment on the Paper in these words—
"In the case of two candidates standing jointly, the expenditure authorized as a maximum expenditure allowable under this Schedule shall, for both candidates together, be only one-half greater than the amount stated as allowable to a candidate standing singly."
Now, that was precisely his suggestion; yet that Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). That was applicable to counties and to boroughs, and he had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in its very terms, and yet the right hon. Gentleman now came down to the House and said that if the Government persisted in taking such a course they would be required to spend many more nights in the discussion of the subject. He (the Attorney General) had raised the rate with regard to counties, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) wished it; but he did not hesitate to say that in a Division, five out of every six borough Members would vote in favour of the rate of maximum for boroughs now proposed. Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask him to alter the rate for counties? Because he had altered it in regard to

1449
counties which required the alteration? No; he simply asked him to add an unnecessary Amendment, and an Amendment which was not required or wanted in respect to every single candidature, because they were going to take off elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly said that, irrespective of the assumption whether £350 was a right sum to allow or not, they ought to increase it because in the case of double candidatures they decreased the expenditure allowed. There was certainly some rule of conduct in Parliamentary life, and he could not purchase immunity for the present protraction of the debate by any further concession to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross).
MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who really had borne a great many of their criticisms and comments with such good temper, should now, when they were approaching the end of their labours, introduce anything like heat into the discussion. There was really no occasion for it at all. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman had misapprehended the point he had endeavoured to state. Without the smallest degree of heat, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) would put the Committee in possession of the difficulty which suggested itself to his (Mr. E. Stanhope's) and his hon. Friend's minds. A surprise had been sprung on the borough Members. Every borough Member, almost without exception, sitting on the Conservative side of the House, accepted a certain scale of expenditure imposed in the Bill. They had come down to the House to-night to be told that an Amendment was going to be proposed on Report, to the effect that in cases of joint candidature the expenditure was to be decreased by one-fourth. He was not surprised, under such circumstances, that many borough Members looked at this matter from a very different point of view, and insisted that the original scale should be revived.
MR. GRANTHAMsaid, they must remember that some hon. Gentlemen had lived in the constituencies which they represented for a considerable portion of their lives. That was so in the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), and the consequence was that he was so much re-
1450
spected in the town that it was not necessary for him to spend any great amount of money on his candidature. Parliament, however, could not legislate for one class of people alone. In many constituencies a man was put up who was a total stranger, and, therefore, he had not the same advantages as a local candidate would have. All along they had been discussing this Bill upon the assumption that they would be entitled to spend, if there were two candidates standing together, twice the amount prescribed by the Bill. It was, therefore, very hard that now, at the last moment, they should be told that, in the case of a joint candidature, they would be allowed to spend one-fourth less than two candidates acting singly would be permitted to spend. Personally, he considered that the same measure of justice should be meted out to boroughs as to counties. He was prepared to accept willingly and with satisfaction the concession which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General made respecting counties, but he could not think that boroughs had been treated as fairly as counties.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that, as the Representative of a somewhat large borough, he should vote with his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) if he went to a Division. It so happened that those Members who had expressed approval of this scale represented comparatively small boroughs. He, however, considered that £30 for every additional 1,000 electors was a very small addition upon the initial sum. The additional amount suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would probably be necessary for the proper management of a borough election.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the alteration, which they understood from the Attorney General was to be made in the Bill with reference to the Schedule, was most important. He (Lord George Hamilton) did not now speak in the interest of county Members, because he thought the concession which the Attorney General had made, so far as counties were concerned, was a a very important one. He had had the advantage of hearing the earlier part of the discussion of this Amendment, and he had taken the trouble to work out

1451
the result of his right hon. Friend's Amendment with reference to counties, and he hoped the Committee would bear in mind the facts he would now lay before them. The suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire increased the expenditure both of single as well as of double candidatures in counties—it considerably raised the amount which any candidate, standing alone, could spend, and it slightly increased the amount which two candidates, standing together, could spend. The Attorney General had adopted a certain portion of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend in regard to counties; but he had diminished the amount which could be spent by two candidates standing together in a borough. In point of fact, the Government had raised the expenditure in counties above the amount they had first considered necessary; but they had reduced the expenditure which, in their Schedule, they had considered necessary in boroughs. He on treated the Attorney General to consider whether he could not treat boroughs somewhat in the same way in which his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) proposed to treat counties. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No.] No! Why not? [Hon. MEMBERS: We do not want it.] Why not? He was not so sure on that point. Certainly, there were many Members who, representing very large towns, were afraid that if the expenditure of a joint candidature were lessened by one-fourth, it would not be possible to conduct their election properly without exceeding the scale laid down in the Schedule. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, oh!] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General exclaimed "Oh, oh!" but the hon. and learned Gentleman only represented a small borough. Those who represented large boroughs—and there were a good many sitting on the Opposition side of the House—were of opinion that if the Government cut off one-fourth of the expenditure which, in the Bill as originally drawn, they were allowed to incur, they would not have sufficient means of conducting their election. He (Lord George Hamilton) should, therefore, support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). Whether they were successful or not in carrying the Amendment, he earnestly hoped that the At-
1452
torney General would listen to the appeal now made to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, as had been frequently admitted, shown singular tact and good temper in meeting the various criticisms which naturally must be showered on anyone who had the management of a Bill which peculiarly affected every individual Member of the House, and all they now asked was that he would exercise a little more of his ingenuity and ability in order to apply the same system to borough as well as to county Members. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could do this, he (Lord George Hamilton) was perfectly certain he would find that any appeal to the Opposition would meet with a most favourable reception.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he considered that, as a Representative of a very large borough constituency, he was entitled to make a few observations upon this matter. The main principle which had guided the Government all through this Bill was that expenditure at elections should, as far as possible, be diminished. He could not, however, conceive how it could be considered that this object would be attained by the proposed alteration, because if they diminished the expenditure of two candidates standing jointly, they must inevitably produce the result that two candidates standing on the same side would stand separately with a view of preventing their expenditure being decreased. He certainly could not understand the logic of the proposed alteration; and objecting, as he did, to candidates being left to the discretion of the Judge in this matter, he should oppose the amended clause.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the appeal he had made to the Attorney General was very simple. He would undertake to say there was not a single constituency from one end of England to the other that did not believe, until half-an-hour ago, that each candidate, whether standing jointly or separately, might spend the maximum allowed by the Schedule. ["Divide, divide!"] He supposed he might be allowed to express his views upon this matter; but if hon. Members would not listen to an appeal, or to any argument at all, of course he would have no other course open to him but to move to report Progress at once. He re-asserted that there

1453
was not a single Member, or a single borough constituency in England, Wales, and Scotland, that did not believe, when the Bill was sent down to them, that each candidate in a constituency, in which there were not more than 2,000 electors, might spend £350, if he liked. And all the recommendations that had come up to Members had been on the supposition that if two candidates stood together they might spend £700. Now they were told, for the first time, that in regard to boroughs the Schedule was to have a different meaning from what it had in respect to counties. He thought the Attorney General had met the case of counties very fairly, but that he had not acted with equal justice in the case of boroughs. In the case of boroughs, the Schedule allowed that for every additional 1,000 electors, a candidate might incur an additional expenditure of £30. Now, if the Attorney General would change that £30 into £40, the result would be that if two candidates stood together they would only spend the precise amount every elector in every constituency of the country had believed they would be allowed to spend. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not wish to increase the expenditure by one farthing; but he did not think it fair that, at the last moment, this proposition should be started upon the Committee.
MR. INCEsaid, the Government had in this Bill specified the sums which they thought fit and proper to be expended in elections. It was manifest that if £350 was a sufficient and proper sum to be expended when there was only one candidate in the field, twice the amount ought not to be permitted when two candidates were standing together. Only the same printing would be required for two candidates acting jointly as for one standing singly. Only the same number of committee rooms would be required; and, indeed, hon. Members who had had a larger experience than he had must know that the cost of a joint candidature would very slightly exceed that of a single candidature. He was inclined to think that if the Attorney General had made an error at all, it had been in not making a larger reduction in the case of a joint candidature.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, they had understood up to this that the proposition with regard to maximum expen-
1454
diture was final. He had been puzzled to know how, under the Schedule, he could conduct his election; but now he found that even the very moderate amount allowed by the Schedule was to be decreased. Personally, he did not fear the result if a Dissolution were announced next week, because he would simply have to go to his constituents, and, in order to secure his return, announce his determination to oppose Her Majesty's Government. Let them take, however, the case of an ordinary election, where there was a good deal to be said on each side. In such a case, he was particularly desirous of knowing how it was possible, in view of the great expenditure which had to be incurred in committee rooms in the City of London, and "Westminster, and other parts of the Metropolis, and in view of the great expense of advertising in the daily papers, to conduct an election even on the original terms proposed? He hoped his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) would go to a Division, because it was their duty to protest most strongly against this alteration being sprung on the Committee.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he must deny that this proposal had been sprung on the Committee, and to support his views he need only remind the Committee of what really had occurred. When this matter came before the House on the second reading of the Bill, it was pointed out that the amounts fixed in the Schedule were for single candidatures, and it was said that, if that were so, they were allowing too much in the case of a joint candidature. That was really pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and by several other hon. Members. No complaints were made that the maximum was too little for a single candidature; but complaints certainly were made that it was too large in the case of two candidates standing together. He (the Solicitor General) could not understand the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say he was perfectly content the maximum should be a great deal too low in the case of a single candidature, but that he was not content

1455
it should be proportionately increased if two or three candidates stood together at a General Election? The hon. Member moved no Amendment to the Schedule, and had given no Notice of any Amendment. As a matter of fact, the two last elections at Liverpool had been single elections, so that it was evident the hon. Gentleman was quite content that in the case of single elections the maximum should be fixed at an amount at which, in his opinion, it was impossible to fight an election. Surely that was a logical conclusion to draw from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. It must be remembered that this Schedule applied to a vast number of cases where there could not be joint candidatures; indeed, one-half of the constituencies in England only returned one Member. In the case of those boroughs, no objection had been raised that the maximum was too small, and no one had proposed to raise it. It had, however, been said that it was a blot upon the Bill that too much was allowed for two candidates who were fighting together, in comparison with what was allowed for a single candidate. The Government had said they would try to remedy that state of things, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put an Amendment on the Paper with the view of meeting that blot, and to provide that in the case of boroughs, and counties as well, where there was a joint candidature, there should be a reduction in the expenditure, in order to put things on a proper basis. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, moved some increase on the county expenditure, but did not move that increase in respect of boroughs. It, therefore, could not be said that the Government had taken the Committtee by surprise, because, as a matter of fact, they had only, in this matter, endeavoured to meet objections raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) himself would admit that the clause he had put down on the Paper needed a great deal of qualification. They could not incorporate it in the Bill as it appeared on the Paper, and, therefore, they must bring up a new clause. They were prepared to accept what was suggested by the other side, and proposed to carry it out by a new clause on Report. What
1456
he submitted to hon. Gentlemen now was that, inasmuch as this matter could not be finally dealt with until the Report, they should now be allowed to proceed with the Bill. It was unfortunate that, in his anxiety to meet the views of hon. Members opposite, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should have told them beforehand which of the Amendments he would accept. If he had not done that, probably by this time the Committee would have got through the Bill. What had happened would certainly be a lesson to the Government in the future.
MR. WARTONsaid, he protested against the statement just made by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that no one on the Opposition side of the House had objected to the scale for boroughs. He (Mr. Warton) distinctly objected to this clause when he moved the rejection of the Second Reading of the Bill. On that occasion he pointed out that, under this ridiculously low scale, there was not even enough to pay an agent. He had stated, on a previous occasion, that the maximum of expenses was absurdly low, and, therefore, it was not the case that no such objection was made. As the matter stood, it seemed to him to have been very carefully contrived for the purpose of catching Conservative candidates, because it had this effect, that if a joint address were issued, or a joint committee room engaged, or anything whatever done conjointly, they became at once joint candidates; and they knew perfectly well that in counties nearly all the candidates would be joint candidates. There were many boroughs which had only a single Representative; but in all the counties, with the exception of a very few which were triangular, there was a double election. It was, therefore, quite clear what was the object of the Government; it was to catch the Conservative candidates.
Motion made, and Question proposed, Schedule 1, page 44, line 26, leave out "2,000 .. £350," and insert "1,000 . . £300," "2,000 . . £500."—(Mr. Raikes.)
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 67: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the hon. Member for Londonderry

1457
was not now in his place, he rose to move the Amendment standing in that hon. Gentleman's name. Nobody wished to prolong this Committee beyond to-night; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was bound to say that the constituencies would be very much shocked if they found that they were to be cut off suddenly, quite against their expectations, by the provision in the Schedule which he confessed he had never thought would cut them off. He thought that both sides were quite agreed about the counties—there was no difficulty about them at all—because they had all come to the conclusion that by increasing the initial sum and cutting off one-fourth they would arrive at the same result as was contained in the Schedule. However, the Attorney General had promised to deal with that afterwards; but in the case of the boroughs it was different. No doubt, the Government would be able to find out the whole state of the case before the Report; and he suggested that the whole thing had better stand over until the Report in order that they might then deal with it completely. He made this suggestion in the interests of the Bill; and he understood, from the speech of the Solicitor General, that the Government would not be unwilling to consider the whole question. He quite admitted that these were matters which could not be decided straight off; for, with regard to boroughs, they would have to provide for the case of single-Member constituencies, which would not be met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry. As a matter of form he would move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
Amendment proposed, in page 44, Part IV., leave outlines 26 to 29, and insert—

"If the number of electors on the register

The maximum amount shall be

Does not exceed

500

£200

Does not exceed

1,000

£350

Does not exceed

1,500

£400

Does not exceed

2,000

£500, and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000

Provided that such maximum shall in no ease exceed £2,000."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was quite willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and leave the whole matter to be considered on Report.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, in that case, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General intended to keep to the arrangement proposed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Oh, certainly.
MR. GRANTHAM: Because some of us may not be here then.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I certainly shall keep to the arrangement.
MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved the insertion, in page 44, line 29, of these words—
"The person returned as election agent shall be paid for his services by salary in addition to the maximum expenses."
He said he regarded this proposal as one of considerable importance, because where the maximum was fixed at so low a sum it would be impossible to engage respectable agents if their emoluments were to be included in the maximum. A great deal had been said about voluntary efforts, and no doubt it might be found in many constituencies that men would come forward and work for nothing; but they ought not to expect that as a principle. The labourer was worthy of his hire, and if they wanted to have a respectable labourer they must pay him a decent wage. Such men expected to be engaged, and they expected to be well paid when they were engaged. They were worth being well paid, for they worked well, and they ought to be amply remunnerated. In a borough where £350 was the maximum, there was not enough to pay a respectable solicitor for becoming an agent, A respectable solicitor ought to be properly paid, and a large part of the £350 was not too much to give him. He hoped the Attorney General would give his serious attention to this proposal. It was a most important point, because if respectable agents were not appointed it would be impossible to conduct the elections properly, and all sorts of illegal and corrupt practices would creep in. Such men as were to be found in the

1459
ranks of the Legal Profession ought to be well paid.
Amendment proposed,
In page 44, line 29, insert—"The person returned as election agent shall he paid for his services by salary in addition to the maximum expenses."—(Mr. Warton)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James), Amendment made, in page 45, line 5, by leaving out "each part," and inserting "Parts II., III., and IV.; "in page 45, line 6, after "county," by inserting—
"And in a district borough not divided into polling districts, each contributory place shall be deemed, for the purposes of the said parts of this Schedule, to be a polling district."
Schedule, as amended, agreed, to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
  PART I.

    FORM OF DECLARATION AS TO EXPENSES.
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 45, line 15, after "agent," insert "[or if the candidate is his own election agent 'by me'];" page 45, line 23, leave out "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of;" page 45, line 25, after "agent," insert "[if the candidate is also his own election agent leave out ' to my election agent'];" page 45, line 29, after "agent," insert "[or if the candidate is his own election agent' myself'];" page 45, line 31, leave out "in connection with or incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of;" page 46, line 23, leave out "in connection with or as incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of;" page 46, line 32, leave out "in connection with or as incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of; "
    Page 47, line 5, at end, insert "[or where the candidate has named himself as election agent, 'I, C.D., candidate at the election for the county [or borough] of on the day of, acting as my own election agent, make the following return respecting my election expenses at the said election'];"
    page 47, line 7, after "candidate," insert "[or where the candidate is his own election agent 'paid by me'];" page 47, line 20, after "himself," insert "[or if the candidate is his own election agent ' paid by me as candidate '];" page 47, line 21, after "me," insert "[or if the candidate is his own election agent add 'acting as election agent'];" page 47, line 23, after "election," insert "[or if the candidate is his own election agent leave out this item]."
    On the Motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, Amendment made, in page 47, line 39, after "printing," by inserting—
    "To M.N. (advertising) … £."
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 48, line 26, after "C.D.," by inserting "[or if the candidate is his own election agent leave out 'as election agent for C.D.']."

  PART II.

    FORM OF DECLARATION AS TO EXPENSES.
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment were agreed to:—In page 49, line 15, leave out "in connection with or as incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of; "page 49, line 21, leave out "in connection with or as incidental to," and insert "in respect of the conduct or management of;" page 49, lines 25 and 26, leave out "in connection with or as incidental to," and insert "in respect of the con duct or management of.
    "Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (PREVENTION ACTS).
  On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 50, line 16, in third column, leave out "section twenty-four," and insert "Part III.;" page 50, line 27, at end, add—
  44 and 45 Vict. c. 45.
  The Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881.
  Sub-section seventeen of section two.
  In page 50, line 28, at end of Schedule, add,—
  Part Three.
  Enactments defining the offences of bribery and personation.
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, 17 and 18 Vic. c. 102, ss. 2, 3,
  (Bribery defined.)
  "2. The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable ad-cordingly:—

  (1.) Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give or lend, or shall offer, promise, or promise to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money, or valuable consideration, to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce any voter to vote, or refrain from voting, or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

  (2.) Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, give or procure, or agree to give or procure, or offer, promise, or promise to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place, or employment to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce such voter to vote, or refrain from voting, or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid, on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;

  (3.) Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid, to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure, or endeavour to procure, the return of any person to serve in Parliament, or the vote of any voter at any election;

  (4.) Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement, procure or engage, promise, or endeavour to procure the return of any person to serve in Parliament, or the vote of any voter at an election;

  (5.) Every person who shall advance or pay, or cause to be paid, any money to or to the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who shall knowingly pay or cause to be paid any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election,"

  (Bribery further defined.)
  "3. The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly:—

  (1.) Every voter who shall, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receive, agree, or contract for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place, or employment, for himself or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote, or for refraining
  1462
  or agreeing to refrain from voting at any election;

  (2.) Every person who shall, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receive any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election."

  The Representation of the People Act, 1867, 30 and 31 Vic. c. 102, s. 49.
  (Corrupt payment of rates to be punishable as bribery.)
  "Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any rate on behalf of any ratepayer for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punishable accordingly; and any person on whose behalf and with whose privity any such payment as in this section is mentioned is made, shall also be guilty of bribery, and punishable accordingly."
  The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, 31 and 32 Vic. c. 48, s. 49.
  (Corrupt payment of rates to be punishable as bribery.)
  "Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any rate on behalf of any ratepayer for the purpose of enabling him to be registered as a voter, thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote or refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and be punishable accordingly; and any person on whoso behalf and with whose privity any such payment as in this section mentioned is made, shall also be guilty of bribery, and punishable accordingly."
  The Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881, 44 and 45 Vic. c. 43, s. 2.
  (Corrupt payment of registration fee to be punishable as bribery.)
  "(17.) Any person, either directly or indirectly, corruptly paying any fee for the purpose of enabling any person to be registered as a member of the general council, and thereby to influence his vote at any future election, and any candidate or other person, either directly or indirectly, paying such fee on behalf of any person for the purpose of inducing him to vote or to refrain from voting, shall be guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly; and any person on whose behalf and with whose privity any such payment as in this section mentioned is made, shall also be guilty of bribery, and punishable accordingly."
  The Ballot Act, 1872, 35 and 36 Vic. c. 33, s. 24. (Personation defined.)
  "A person shall for all purposes of the Laws relating to parliamentary and municipal elections

  1463
  be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who, at an election for a county or borough, or at a municipal election, applies for a ballot paper in the name of some other person, whether that name be that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious person, or who, having voted once at any such election, applies at the same election for a ballot paper in his own name."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  SHORT TITLES.
  Schedule agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.
  On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, after line 10, insert—
  1 and 2 Geo. 4, c. 58.
  An Act to regulate the expenses of elections of Members to serve in Parliament for Ireland.
  The whole Act except sections two and three.
  Page 51, line 20, in third column, leave out from "from," to "section," in line 23, both inclusive; page 52, line 14, in third column, leave out from "candidate," to end of line 16; line 29, in third column, after "twenty-four," insert "the offence of personation, or of aiding," to "hard labour, and;" and in line 36, in first column, leave out "and 44."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Attorney General had promised to consider certain Amendments on the Report. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would undertake that the Amendments he proposed to move should be drafted some days before the House was asked to discuss them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Oh, certainly. I will give as long Notice as I can of any Amendments that I have to propose.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 23rd July, and to he, printed. [Bill 265.]

STATUTE OF FRAUDS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 204.]
(Mr. Reid, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
STATUTE OF FRAUDS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 204.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. TOMLINSON MR. TOMLINSON moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "and what were the terms thereof." What he wanted to secure by this Amendment was that where a person sought to establish an agreement against another person, he should be prepared to put its terms into writing, and should not be enabled to spell out what the agreement was from the oath of the other party.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "and what were the terms thereof."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the reason for the retention of the words was that, unless they were left in, this might happen—that where an action was brought by the executors of a deceased person, they might put the defendant on oath and make him show what the contract with the deceased person was. No action could be brought under the Bill upon any contract except against a man who admitted that the contract was made.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought it was a very doubtful policy to allow agreements to be proved in that way, where no actual writing existed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 4: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 203.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Sherborne, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Report—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order * (72); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (74); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (102).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (110), and passed.
Withdrawn—Railways (Continuous Brakes) (135); Representative Peers (Scotland) Election Procedure * (6).

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— HYDE PARK CORNER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY, in rising to ask a Question as to the alterations at Hyde Park Corner, said, that, as far as he could judge, those improvements, as some people might call them, had but little effect upon the block which was of daily occurrence between Hyde Park Corner and Hamilton Place. There were one or two causes which, in his opinion, had led to this conspicuous failure. The primary cause was that the new road which started from Grosvenor Crescent terminated too abruptly at Hamilton Place, so that the enormous traffic from the North of London and from the East and West through Piccadilly was but little relieved. The open space had been left too small, and was too much cut up by roads. The only good that seemed to have arisen out of the alterations was that they had opened out Decimus Barton's Arch, probably the best work executed by that artist, and which made an admirable entrance from Piccadilly into Hyde Park. The plan he would suggest would be, perhaps, rather expensive; but, as their

  1341
  Lordships were aware, they had nothing whatever to do with money in that House. The noble Lord then proceeded to sketch his plan, which was to the effect that the present new road should be taken further down, so as to commence at Halkin Street, with a branch to Grosvenor Crescent, and should terminate in Piccadilly, somewhat beyond Hyde Park Lane. To effect that, about 40 yards of the brick wall to the northwest of Buckingham Palace Gardens would have to come down, and about one-tenth of an acre would have to be taken from the Gardens. He would also take some 15 feet from the Green Park to add to the roadway in Piccadilly for some distance eastward. The Arch that was now being re-erected was placed in a most unfortunate position, for it would stand askew to all the other buildings in its neighbourhood. Its proper site would be pushed further back at right angles to Constitution Hill and directly opposite Hamilton Place. By the plan he proposed the open space would be more than double its present size; and he would like to see the space thus secured, not given up to fancy gardening, but treated architecturally in a fitting manner, so that it might be something like the Place de la Concorde at Paris. He understood that there was some intention of making a road from Curzon Street into Piccadilly, and if this were carried out it would give great facilities to the traffic. The important question, however, had to be considered—What was to become of the Duke of Wellington's Statue? He would suggest that the best thing that could be done with it would be to melt it, and from the metal some fitting monument might be made, which he would place on the new mound formed from the débris in the Green Park and facing Apsley House. He hoped the plan he had suggested or some alternative scheme would receive careful consideration from the Government.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he considered the alteration at Hyde Park Corner a very great improvement; but he thought it would be a great mistake to move the Duke of Wellington's Statue from this site to that suggested near the Horse Guards.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he was of opinion that a very appreciable improvement had been effected at Hyde Park
  1342
  Corner. That improvement, however, would be rendered greater if 18 feet or 20 feet, commencing gradually from about opposite the end of Park Lane, were added to the width of Piccadilly, to relieve the traffic coming down Hamilton Place. This would allow two continuous streams of traffic from west to east and from east to west to pass unaffected by the influx there, almost the whole of which, going, as it did, westward and southward, would be able, from the 20 or 25 feet of passage on the North thus left free for it, to diffuse itself gradually in those two directions, when it came to the wide space already provided by the recent improvement.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the question raised by the noble Lord was one that had been before their Lordships on two or three previous occasions, and he feared that he could add little to what had already been said on the subject. The noble Lord, who was a great authority on all matters of taste, agreed, he thought, that the alteration made had been, at any rate, an improvement, and that it had tended to do away with the block which existed for so many years. The noble Lord appeared, however, to think that those improvements might with advantage have been carried out on a larger scale, and criticized with some severity the plan which had been adopted. There was no doubt that, as London increased in size, the growth of the traffic would be proportionately great. When the arrangements were entered into for carrying out the alterations that point was very carefully considered, and the First Commissioner came to the conclusion that there would be ample space for any increase of traffic for a very considerable period. Hyde Park Corner had been a bugbear and a stumbling-block to a good many First Commissioners. Plan after plan had been rejected, owing to the enormous difficulties they entailed and the wide diversity of opinion which was manifested. By the adoption of the present plan all danger to life, limb, and vehicles had been removed. The noble Lord thought that a much larger piece of the Park should have been cut off and thrown into the place, and that the line from Hamilton Place to Halkin Street should have been concave instead of convex; also that the triangles which had been made should have been differently

  1343
  arranged, and that the Arch ought to have been placed in another position. The noble Lord thought that if that had been done, the block which now existed at Halkin Street would have been obviated. With regard to making the place larger, he had to say that to have done so would have entailed the sacrifice of a larger portion of the Park, and unless a great necessity should arise London could ill spare its trees and green corners. At Hamilton Place Corner there was no doubt a certain block; but it could not for a moment be compared with the block which used to exist at Hyde Park Corner, though, of course, it would be a benefit if it could be removed. The traffic appeared to have increased since the Arch was removed. That was believed to be due, to some extent, to that route being regarded as a short cut to Belgravia. The noble Lord thought, with many others, that if Piccadilly were widened this block would cease; but, in the opinion of the First Commissioner, and of the highest authorities, this was not so. The traffic from the east passed away to the west without any block, but the western line was and must be always, to a certain extent, blocked by the northern, and the Office of Works was convinced that the widening of Piccadilly would not prevent that. It was quite possible that if it could be arranged that the south traffic should go up Park Lane and the north traffic go down by Hamilton Place much trouble might be avoided; but that was a matter of police arrangements, and, unfortunately, the power of the police over vehicular traffic was taken from them in the year 1870. With reference to the triangles, he might state that they were placed in their present position after much careful consideration; and experiments had proved that for places of refuge they could not be better situated. At present they were in a very unfinished condition, and some further expenditure upon them was necessary. In Provincial towns patriotic and munificent citizens not unfrequently dealt with matters of this sort. It was hoped that a similar movement might be made in the present instance by some public benefactors coming forward prepared to expend such a sum upon the site as would render it worthy of London. There was no doubt much could be done to beautify it and to render it a striking ornament
  1344
  to the capital, though it would be impossible for much more public money to be spent upon it. The question of having a tunnel to carry the northern and southern traffic under Piccadilly had been advocated at various times; but the Office of Works, after going carefully into the matter some time ago, found that the levels would necessitate the entrance to the tunnel being very nearly at the top of Hamilton Place and the outlet very low down in Grosvenor Place, so that the project was far from easy to carry out. In any case it could only be effected by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would not come under the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner. The noble Lord had further asked what was to be done with the Wellington Statue. He could only repeat what he stated on behalf of the Government three weeks ago—that a very responsible Committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter had recommended that the Statue should be placed opposite the Horse Guards. It had, therefore, been determined to test the suitability of that site by first erecting a wooden profile there. This having been done, the Committee would again meet, and be asked for their final opinion. Until then no action would be taken. Generally speaking, he might say that some time must elapse before the value of these great alterations at Hyde Park Corner could be fairly estimated. The First Commissioner had taken enormous interest and trouble in the matter, and was carefully watching the result of the change, and would see what further improvements could be made. In conclusion, he could only assure the noble Lord that the remarks and suggestions which he had made would be taken into the very careful consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that there had been a strong expression of opinion, both in this House and in the other, in favour of retaining the Statue of the Duke of Wellington on its present site. The opinion of the public was also in favour of the Statue remaining in a great centre of traffic where it could be seen by everybody. For one person who would see the Statue opposite the Horse Guards he supposed that 100 would see it where it stood at present.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)suggested that the appearance of the Statue might he improved by washing, which it sadly needed.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNwished to know whether the triangular pieces of ground were to remain in their present state unless some benevolent person came forward to pay the expenses of improvement?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, in reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), that the bronze of the Statue was found to be much corroded, and it was doubtful whether it could be improved by being coloured; and, in reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), that it was intended to make the triangular spaces as far as possible ornamental.

RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 135.)
(The Earl He La Warr.)
RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.—(No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, that the question of railway brakes had been several times before the House, and the details were given in the Returns of the Board of Trade, which were in their Lordships' hands. He would, therefore, only give a brief summary of those Returns, and point out the chief provisions of the Bill. He wished, however, first to say that he would gladly leave the question to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, if any assurance could be given that it would receive the attention that it urgently required. It was now 25 years since the Board of Trade issued a Circular calling the attention of Railway Companies to the inadequate amount of brake power in use; and again in 1877 another Circular was issued, in which it was stated—
  "That from a careful examination of the circumstances attending all the accidents which had been investigated by the officers of the Board of Trade for the last few years, the Board are led to conclude that three-fourths of the accidents might probably have been avoided, or their results materially mitigated if the passenger trains concerned had been provided with continuous brakes;"
  and there was a statement to the same effect in the Report of Colonel Yolland
  1346
  upon the accident at Grimsby in May last. He said—
  "In all probability the collision would not have occurred if the continuous brake on the Midland train had been available for arresting its progress."
  He did not believe there was anyone connected with, and understanding the working of, railways who would dispute these and other similar statements. But what did they find had been done in the 25 years during which the question had been under consideration? From the official Returns it appeared that out of the total stock of engines and carriages fitted at the present time with brakes about one-third only complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade, about another third complied only partially, and the remaining third ignored them altogether. From these facts he thought the conclusion might fairly be drawn, that much as it might be desired to avoid the interposition of Parliament, it could hardly be argued that it was better to leave the matter to the Railway Companies to deal with themselves. He thought it evident, from what had occurred in the past, that there was no prospect of their arriving at any satisfactory result. Uniformity of brakes was a most important and essential element when we considered the frequent instances of running powers which were given. Take, for example, the Midland, the Great Northern, and the North-Western, all fitted with different brakes, and at the same time running over the Caledonian, the North-Eastern, the North British, the Highland, and other lines—how was any brake at all to be worked? There were scarcely two railways which had brakes that would work together. This, then, as regarded uniformity, was the result of leaving it to Railway Companies themselves. It was to remedy these crying evils that he had ventured to submit the Bill. It did not propose to enforce the use of any one particular brake, but only that the brake should comply with certain conditions which, after careful consideration, the Board of Trade thought essential for safety. They were as follows:—
  "It must be efficient in stopping the train, instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers and guards; in case of accident it must be instantaneously self-acting; it must be capable of being easily put on and taken off the engine and

  1347
  every vehicle of the train. Its materials must he of a durable character, so as to he easily maintained and kept in order."
  These were the provisions of the 1st clause of the Bill, and embodied the principle of it. The object of Clause 2 was to produce uniformity as far as possible. Clause 8 gave a power of exemption where it might be desirable. These were the principal clauses of the Bill. The object had been kept in view of leaving as much discretion as possible to Railway Companies; but when it was remembered that almost the whole traffic of the country had been placed by Parliament in the hands of Boards of Directors, who were responsible to shareholders, there did not seem to be any just cause of complaint if Parliament interposed when it was a question of the public safety. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that he had submitted the Bill to a practical and experienced railway man, who told him there was not a brake in existence which complied with the conditions laid down. Some complied with one or two, but not one complied with all. The Railway Companies were gradually improving brakes by the experience they acquired; they had made improvements during the last two or three years; but if the Bill were passed and enforced they would be prevented making further improvements; the Board of Trade would have to select one brake out of a considerable number, and for the future the liability would be taken off the shoulders of the Railway Companies and would be thrown upon a practically irresponsible body, who could not be omnipresent. The probability was that if the Government spent millions in supplying a brake they would have to retrace their steps next year. He hoped the Government would give no countenance to this Bill, which did not seem to be very well constructed.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that the Westinghouse brake complied with the conditions laid down.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that by some Companies that brake was reported to have failed altogether.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that, as there was no prospect whatever at this period of the Session of passing the Bill through
  1348
  Parliament, he ventured to express a hope that the noble Lord would not proceed further with it this year. As he stated the other day, the Board of Trade undertook to introduce a measure dealing with this subject next year; and although they could not pledge themselves to the details of the present Bill, they endorsed its general principle so far as it carried out the views expressed in their Circular to the Railway Companies.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that after the statement of the noble Lord, and on the understanding that the Government would introduce a measure on the same principle next year, he would ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not understand the answer of the noble Lord opposite at all in the same manner as his noble Friend behind him. What he understood was that the Board of Trade disapproved of many of the details in the measure, and undertook to consider the whole subject and see what could be done during another Session of Parliament. His noble Friend, however, seemed to think that the Government undertook to introduce another Bill on the same principle. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) thought that that principle was a very wrong one, and that the Board of Trade should not undertake a responsibility which properly rested with the Railway Companies. He could not understand his noble Friend's remarks as to uniformity of brakes, because, while his noble Friend said it was impossible for trains with certain brakes to run on the lines of Companies which did not use them, yet the plan had been practised for many years, and therefore could not be impossible.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, the Board of Trade agreed with the principle of the Bill so far as it carried out the requirements of the Board; but, in the remarks he had made, he did not mean to imply that the Government Bill would be framed on the lines of the Bill of the noble Earl.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— DR. JORISSEN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the answer to the Question of which he had given Notice had been, to some ex-

1349
tent, anticipated by the public Press; but, as it was possible there might be further information, he would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the information contained in the telegrams of yesterday, as to Dr. Jorrissen's dismissal from the post of Attorney General to the Transvaal Government was true, or whether Her Majesty's Government had any information or notification on this subject?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should be happy to give the noble Earl and your Lordships all the information in my power; but, as a matter of fact, I know nothing on the subject of Mr. Jorrissen except what I see in Reuter's telegrams.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.