Sitting of 25 June 1883

MINUTES.
NEE MEMBER SWORN—Sydney Charles Buxton, esquire, for City of Peterborough.
PUBLIC BALLS — Second Reading — Companies (Colonial Registers)* [185].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Ninth Night]—R.P.; Sea Fisheries (Ireland) * [31]—R.P.
Committee — Report— Turnpike Acts Continuance* [231].
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures—Bankruptcy * [No. 224].
Third Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [220]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) * [200], and passed.

PARLIAMENT—BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Bill reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures;
Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 224.]

QUESTIONS.

  THE IRISH BUTTER TRADE—CORK BUTTER MARKET.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of Government has been called to the severe strictures of the Richmond Commission upon the constitution and management of Cork Butter Market; whether his attention has been more particularly directed to the evidence given with regard to the system of inspection, under which the broker, who employs and pays the inspector, is permitted to stand at his elbow during the inspection and endeavour to influence his judgment; whether, as a matter of fact, such scandals do exist; and, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, and considering the importance of this market, and the fact that its quotations govern the price of butter throughout the whole of Ireland, Government will consider the advisability of legislating to remove such abuses?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Report of the Richmond Commission and the notes of the evidence affecting the Cork Butter Market were brought before me in Ireland in October last. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that it would not be expedient—perhaps not possible—for the Irish Government to

  1407
  interfere by legislation in the matter. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that much litigation has from time to time taken place to decide the rights of the brokers and the public as to the market; and, further, that the Richmond Commission to which he refers makes no recommendation or suggestion as to how the alleged abuses in the market can be abated. The importance of the market is not overstated by the hon. Member; but, notwithstanding this, it seems to involve questions of private rights, rather than rights with which the Government can interfere.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY (IRELAND)—DR. DUNNE.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Dr. Dunne, one of the Secretaries of the Royal University in Ireland, is ono of the paid staff of a public journal as special correspondent and an editorial writer, and in that capacity freely discusses the internal and external affairs of the Royal University, and Irish political questions generally; and, whether, in view of the course taken by the Government in the case of the late Solicitor of the Land Commission, such contributions to the Press are compatible with the rules of the Civil Service?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a letter from Dr. Dunne, in which he states—
  "I am not on the staff of any newspaper I have no engagement with any newspaper; I receive no salary from any newspaper. As to the Royal University, it is not the case that I have freely discussed its internal and external affairs. I have never held any communications about it with persons not officially connected with it, except upon matters publicly known; and I have never given one particle of information concerning it which was of a private character."

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—THE VARNA RAILWAY.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the fact that Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin refers mainly to a 'payment of money justly due to the Bondholders of the Varna Railway, Her Majesty's Government will state why the claim of those bendholders should be made the subject of arbitration; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the case
  1408
  for arbitration so framed as to place Bulgaria, irrespective of any change of Ministry in that country, on the same footing as Turkey, in respect to the fulfilment of her Treaty obligations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the claim of the Varna Railway Company was made the subject of arbitration at their own suggestion in consequence of the failure of their negotiations for its settlement, and of the Bulgarian Government disagreeing with them as to the extent of their obligations under Article X. of the Treaty. As regards the second Question, it is proposed in the draft Agreement of Reference to settle all differences arising under Article X.; and the award will be equally binding on Turkey and Bulgaria as regards their respective obligations under it, when they are ascertained.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: Am I to understand that the Varna bendholders suggested an arbitration themselves?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; there was a suggestion after the failure of the negotiations specified in Article X. That Article suggests or proposes an agreement by the parties with the Bulgarian Government; and it was when these negotiations failed that an arbitration was suggested.

  COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE—BROKERAGE ON SHIPPING.
  MR. CHARLES PALMER, asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress is being made in the negotiations with the French Government on the question of the brokerage on shipping?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the French Government on this subject; and if my hon. Friend will repeat his Question on this day week, I hope to be able to enter into full details.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A HORSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Kentish Express" of the 9th inst. of a prosecution at Wingham Petty Sessions against the Rev. Wm. Delmar, of Elmstone, and his

  1409
  coachman, for gross cruelty to a horse; and, whether he is aware that, although the cruelty was fully proved against both defendents, the bench of magistrates dismissed both cases; and, if so, whether there are any means by which such failures of justice can be remedied?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had received a letter from the magistrates on this case, in which they said that, after full consideration, they decided that the charge had not been proved against the clergyman, and accordingly they dismissed it. The summons against the coachman was withdrawn by the prosecuting parties. Looking at the circumstances, he could not see any proof that there had been a failure of justice.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE LATE CALAMITY AT SUNDERLAND.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many policemen were told off on Saturday last to keep order at the performance at Sunderland where so many lives were lost? The hon. Member said, that the following words had apparently been left out of his Question by the printer—namely, Whether on the same day a number of policemen were set apart to keep order at a pigeon-shooting match, and whether the Homo Secretary did not consider that the exhibition at Sunderland was an occasion to which the attention of the police ought to have been directed rather than to a pigeon match?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this is a matter, as the House knows, that I can give no information upon. I have said over and over again that I have no control or authority over local police. As to the number of police that were on duty at the performance at Sunderland, that, no doubt, will be brought out in the course of the investigation which is to take place.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — BOARD SCHOOL IN COBORN STREET, BOW.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Education Department have given their consent to the London School Board to erect a school in Coborn Street, Bow, notwithstanding the remonstrances which have been made by large numbers of
  1410
  the inhabitants; whether he is aware that the districts consists almost entirely of private houses inhabited by people in a good position of life, and of such a class as is likely to be seriously depreciated in value by the erection of the proposed school; whether the statistics that have been furnished to the Education Department show any want of school accommodation in the district; and, whether, assuming a deficiency to exist, it is not possible to obtain a site in the neighbourhood which will not be open to the objections raised against the one chosen?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Education Department has consented to the erection of a School in Cobern Street, Bow. The site was scheduled in a Provisional Order, which passed through Parliament last year without opposition. Remonstrances were addressed to the Department by some of the inhabitants, who complained that Coborn Street was inhabited by persons not likely to use an elementary school, and that it would depreciate the value of their property; but both to the east and west of Cobera Street there are large populations of the elementary school class. Statistics were furnished to the Department showing a want of school accommodation in the district, and before the Provisional Order was authorized an inquiry under the Statute was held by the Inspector, who supported the proposal of the Board. In order to meet, if possible, the objections of the inhabitants of Coborn Street, the Department required the School Board, before issuing notices, to endeavour to obtain some other site. The School Board, accordingly, last autumn, scheduled two other sites; but the local objections to both were as strong as those against Coborn Street, and on the same ground. After consultation with Her Majesty's Inspector and the School Board, we allowed the erection of the school in Coborn Street.

  ARMY HOSPITAL SERVICES INQUIRY—APPENDIX No. 33.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to Appendix No. 33, in the Army Hospital Services Inquiry Blue Book, Whether the list of medical comforts there given, as received at Ismailia, and used on beard H.M.S. "Malabar" during the voyage to Portsmouth, re-

  1411
  presents the total amount consumed by the troops on beard that vessel, or whether such list was supplemented, or could have been supplemented, from the ship's stores; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that all such medical comforts were finished by the time the "Malabar" reached Portsmouth, with the exception of a few ounces of brandy, it is considered that five bottles of brandy and the diminutive amount of other articles given in the aforesaid list constitute a proper and sufficient store of medical comforts for the use of over 200 sick and convalescent soldiers during a three weeks' voyage?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the form of the Return in Appendix 33 is somewhat misleading. It does not represent the provision of medical comforts made at Ismailia for the voyage, but is the medical officer's account of the actual issues made to patients out of the medical comforts drawn by him from the saloon mess of the Malabar. Such medical comforts could have been supplemented from the same source to any extent the medical officer might have required. The medical comforts shown in Appendix 33 are all which were consumed during the voyage. Although the amount may appear small, the medical officer shows in his evidence, Q. 10,133 and 10,134, that they were sufficient for the invalids under his charge, who were, for the most part, convalescents on fresh meat rations, and of whom 56 were disembarked at Malta.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SPECIAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will now introduce and have printed the Bill dealing with the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary and abolishing the Special Resident Magistrates, so that the House may have an opportunity of studying the details of that important measure before the concluding days at the end of the Session?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, when I see any fair hope of getting time for the discussion of this measure I will lay it on the Table of the House. On that occasion I will make a statement on the subject, and I will see that the House
  1412
  shall have full time for maturely considering the measure before the second reading is taken.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT—CHARGE AGAINST OFFICERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that inspectors and collectors of the Inland Revenue Department, when holding investigations into charges brought against officers, take evidence against them in their absence, so as to deprive them of the right of cross-examination or contradiction; whether evidence so obtained is made the ground for punishment by censure or removal at the expense of the officers; whether censure so passed is made to stand against the officer for a period of ten years, and when any subsequent report or complaint, however trifling, is made, such censure is treated as of record, and used against him; whether a representation made by an officer that he has been unjustly treated in this way is deemed an act of insubordination; whether a superior officer under this system cannot with comparative impunity bring false charges against a subordinate; and, whether he has any reason to believe that officers suffering under such injustice are constrained to submit from fear of becoming "marked men?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that, if statements affecting an Inland Revenue officer are made in his absence, he is always given an opportunity of contradicting or explaining them, either verbally or in writing. If, after such opportunity has been given, a charge is fully substantiated against an Inland Revenue officer, censure or other punishment would naturally follow. The answer to the third Question is "No." Censure stands against an officer for ono or two years only. The answer to the fourth Question is "No." I do not consider that the system, as I have described it, facilitates false charges against subordinates; nor have I reason to believe that officers are intimidated in the manner suggested in the last Question.
  MR. ARTHURO'CONNOR asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that, in the case of proved injustice done under the existing

  1413
  system to any officer, that officer would be saved from any consequence not fairly due to his conduct?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that in the case of proved injustice it would, of course, be his duty to endeavour to have right done.

  NAVY—WRECK OF H.M.S. "LIVELY."
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the rock on which H.M.S. "Lively" was wrecked is visible at all states of the tide; or, if not, whether it is marked or buoyed?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer this Question, because it concerns the administration of Trinity House. The Hen and Chickens rocks, on which Her Majesty's ship Lively was wrecked, are visible at all states of the tide, except near high water at ordinary spring tides, when, according to the most recent Admiralty survey, there is about half-afoot of water over them. The rocks are not buoyed because the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, when consulted in 1869, were of opinion that a good clearing-mark for the rocks is given in the Admiralty sailing directions for the Hebrides, and since 1869 no further representations have been made on the subject.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—TENANTRY NEAR GWEEDORE.
  MR. JUSTIN M`CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether legal proceedings for the recovery of rent just accrued due are being taken against the tenantry of Capt. A. B. Hill, and of Mr. Wybrant Olpherts, near Gweedore; and, whether it is a fact that these tenants paid a year's rent last winter to qualify under the Arrears Act, and have since been dependent principally upon charity for their support?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that legal proceedings have been taken against some tenants by Mr. Olpherts and Captain Hill to recover rent due. Some of the tenants concerned paid a year's rent last winter to qualify under the Arrears Act. They have not been since principally dependent on charity, but some of them got seed, Potatoes, and oats.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is one of these gentlemen (Captain Hill) a member of the Gweedore Board of Guardians?
  MR. O'BRIEN: The Chairman. [No reply.]

  INDIA (PALCONDA).
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Government have recently received any representations on behalf of the ex-Zemindar of Palconda; on what charge a child of eleven years, the present ex-Zemindar of Palconda, was condemned, in 1832, by the British authorities in India to imprisonment for life; if it is true that the prisoner was only released in 1869, after suffering an imprisonment of thirty-seven years; if any investigation or inquiry into the justice of such an imprisonment took place at any time during the thirty-seven years; if any appeal to any court of justice was open to the prisoner during this period; what compensation, if any, has been paid by the Indian Government to the released prisoner; and, whether natives of India, without distinction, sex, or age, can be imprisoned at the pleasure of the authorities for an indefinite period, and how many such prisoners are now in the custody of Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, firstly, Viziaram, half-brother of the last Zemindar of Palconda, has submitted to the Secretary of State two Petitions for the restoration of the estate forfeited for rebellion by the last Zemindar in 1832; secondly, Viziaram, with other members of his family, was ordered, under Regulation 11 of 1819, to reside at the Fort of Vellore, because it was deemed necessary for the peace of the country to remove the family from the neighbeurhood of the Zemindary of Palconda; thirdly, he was permitted to leave Velloro in 1869; fourthly, the then Governor of Madras, Sir Frederick Adam, reviewed the case in 1839; fifthly, the High Court of Madras, on a suit brought by Viziaram in 1879 to recover the estate, decided that his detention at Vellore did not deprive him of his power to institute proceedings; sixthly, no compensation is due to Viziaram, who receives a pension of 250 rupees a-month; seventhly, I must refer the hon. Member for Dunearvan to a Return presented and

  1415
  printed on the 26th of April last, which shows that there are 47 State prisoners in India, and which also gives the authority for the confinement of each.

  POST OFFICE—OVERHEAT) TELEGRAPH WIRES.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact that overhead telegraph and telephone wires are in some cases stretched across streets, not only by Her Majesty's Post Office, but also by persons not empowered to do so, either by Act of Parliament or by licence from the public bodies in whom is vested the soil of the street across which such wires are stretched; whether there exist any means of ascertaining the number of overhead wires in the Metropolis which belong to private owners or companies which have ceased to use them, or for other reasons have teasel to keep them in repair; and, whether it may not be the case that there is an increasing number of overhead wires, of which the owners cannot be identified, which are practically abandoned, and which are daily falling more and more out of repair, and becoming more dangerous to the public?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that the first and third branches of the Question referred rather to the general question than to that relating to the Metropolis. The second part referred to the Metropolis alone. He had received a deputation to-day on the subject with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the two Departments concerned. The matter had also been referred by the Home Office to the Metropolitan Vestries for information. As to the first of the hon. Member's Questions, his answer would be in the affirmative, though some of the Vestries seemed to dispute the extent of their powers. In reply to the second Question, many of the Vestries which had been communicated with stated that there were many such lines in the district, others said there were none; but the greater portion had replied that they were without information. In the City and certain parts of Westminster, no doubt there were a certain number of abandoned lines. The Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, stated that if any such existed in their district they would immediately take steps for their
  1416
  removal; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should like to read to the House some extracts from the letter from the Vestry of St. Giles's, because that seemed to show that ample powers already existed. The letter stated—
  "Overhead telegraph and telephone wires had been stretched across the streets by persons not empowered to do so; but in all such cases where the owners had been found the Board. had taken steps to obtain the removal of such wires, or had permitted. them to remain under proper conditions and supervision. Where private wires had ceased to be used or to he kept in repair, the owners had been ascertained by the Board's inspector. The increase in overhead wires is constantly watched and dealt with."
  In other portions of the Metropolis he believed the erection of overhead wires was disregarded. The whole of the legal points at issue were about to be raised in actions to be brought by the Local Board of Wandsworth.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether the Local Boards dispute their liability to any person injured by the fall of such a wire into the street?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is a wholly different Question; but I may say the liability is on the person who erected the wires. Of course, if there was no owner to be found that would be another matter; that is a question, however, which has not up the present time been raised.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there is any such liability?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I have already stated, one of the Vestries say they have power to take their wires down. It will be bettor to have this point cleared up by a legal decision before any other matter is entered upon.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—PETITION PROCESSES IN COURT OF SESSION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, "Whether ins attention has been called to the state of confusion into which the curatory, factory, and entail petition processes in the Court of Session have fallen; whether representations have been made to Government of the inconvenience and risk involved in the present state of things, and of the urgent necessity for the re-arrangement and re-indexing of the whole petition processes, and for their safe custody; and,

  1417
  whether there is any prospect of such a re-arrangement of the office entrusted with their charge as will enable the re-indexing to be overtaken, and the delays and inconveniences complained of to be avoided?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I believe, Sir, that some difficulty in the arrangement of the papers referred to exists, owing to the unequal distribution of the work of the clerks of Court, which, unfortunately, can only be fully remedied by Act of Parliament. Some time ago, a temporary assistant was appointed to the clerks of the Office of the Junior Lord Ordinary, before whom these processes come, and I shall endeavour to get such further temporary arrangement made as may remedy the inconvenience.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 — PROVISIONS AS TO LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are taking any steps for enforcing the orders of the Land Commissioners for the building of labourers' cottages in cases where such orders have not been complied with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Act of Parliament does not give the Government any authority to take steps for enforcing the orders of the Land Commissioners for the building of labourers' cottages. I am afraid we cannot undertake to bring in an amending Act. A Bill is now before the House dealing with this question on a larger scale.
  MR. KENNYasked how many of these houses were erected under the Laud Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot say from memory, but I stated the number in answer to a Question the other day. It is something very small.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked whether the Land Act could not be amended in this respect?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I daresay the hon. Member feels very strongly on this matter, and in that case, perhaps, he would bring in a clause himself.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF WIDOW DRISCOLL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1418
  Whether, and for what reason, the police have prevented Widow Driscoll, an evicted tenant, from taking possession of a wooden hut provided for the shelter of herself and her family at Keelkemane, near Skull; and, whether two of Widow Driscoll's grandchildren have died from exposure owing to the miserable condition of the hut in which they were obliged to take shelter after eviction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mrs. Driscoll was evicted in April last, owing four years' rent, which it is believed she could have paid if she wished. It was proposed to erect a hut for her on a passage leading from the high road to the evicted house and farm. The object was believed to be intimidation, and informations were sworn to that effect. It was for this reason that the persons concerned were warned to desist. It is the case that two of Mrs. Driscoll's grandchildren died soon after the eviction. I am informed that the family are quite as well sheltered in the outhouse to which they removed after the eviction as they would have been in the wooden hut, and that the children had been dead more than a month before the erection of the latter was proposed.

  LUNACY COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS FOR 1882.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, England, for the year ended 31st December 1882 will be laid upon the Table, and also the Report of the Scotch Commissioners for the same period?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Report is in typo, and will soon be presented to the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether under an Act of Parliament these Papers ought not to be laid on the Table within three weeks of the meeting of Parliament; and whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not previously promised, in reply to a Question of his own, that there should be no unnecessary delay?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot answer that Question off-hand.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics, Ireland, for 1882 will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is expected that the Report will be laid on the Table in the course of this week.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER—LANDS ACT, 1855—FORESHORES—THE CORPORATION OF SOUTHPORT.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he is now in a position to state what has been the result of the employment of his good offices between the Corporation of Southport and the riparian proprietors in the matter of the Southport foreshore?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, he had been, and was, in communication with the Corporation and the riparian proprietors with a view to bringing about an amicable arrangement. The Correspondence would be laid on the Table tomorrow, or the next day.

  NAVY—OFFICERS OF THE STEAM RESERVE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can state how many Officers of the Steam Reserve are on service at the different Naval Stations, and for how many at each station respectively sleeping accommodation is provided?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, this number varies in accordance with the number of officers borne for disposal and service in the reserve ships. At present, there are 401 such officers. I cannot say how many of that number, by the Rules of the Service, are entitled to cabins, but at this moment there are 3 at Sheerness, 52 at Chatham, 11 at Portsmouth, and 33 at Devonport provided with cabin accommodation. Those who are not accommodated afloat draw 1s. 6d. a-day in lieu of provisions, and this arrangement, I believe, is satisfactory to those concerned. As I said the other day, I am not aware that any officer desirous of being accommodated on beard has been refused.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if sleeping accommodation was provided?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir.

  NAVY—DOCKYARD ARTIFICERS AND LABOURERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he
  1420
  can state whether persons employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards are paid for public holidays; and, whether one class of artizans receive payment on such occasions, while others do not; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons for which one class is treated less favourably than the other in this respect?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the Dockyard Regulations lay down that workpeople shall be paid their full wages for the established public holidays, an exception being made in the case of "hired labourers engaged for short periods by the storekeeper, and hired persons employed in the works department." As the former class are not continuously employed, their exception from this privilege seems reasonable. The hired men in the works department have been treated on the footing of men employed by contractors, whose place they fill, and have thus been considered as not entitled to the ordinary advantages of the Dockyards. This is, however, a matter which is to be looked into in the course of the investigation now being conducted into various Dockyard questions.

  NAVY—THE "DOTTREL" EXPLOSION.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Papers referred to by his predecessor in office respecting the "Doterel" explosion are yet completed; and, if so, when they will be laid upon the Table of the House along with the decision of the Admiralty on the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the Papers on this subject have been prepared for presentation to Parliament; but some delay has occurred owing to the necessity of lithographing certain illustrative plates. I hope soon to be able to lay them on the Table.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Reports of the Debate in the Indian Legislative Council on Mr. Ilbert's Native Judicature Bill, which he promised on 12th May, will be in the hands of honourable Members in time to permit an opportunity for their consideration during the current Session?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Baronet's Question, I can only say that I am not aware that these Reports were promised on the 12th of May; they were placed in the hands of the printer on the 28th of that month, as I then stated, and they will be delivered to hon. Members in the course of a few days.

  THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Captain Shaw's Reports on the various theatres contained recommendations that in certain cases the licences should not be regranted before certain alterations were made; and, whether, in view of the recent calamity in a Sunderland theatre, any such theatres have had their licences regranted without such alterations, as recommended by Captain Shaw; and, if so, which?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the first part of this Question should be put to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with which body the responsibility rests. With reference to the second part of the Question I can only repeat what I stated the other day, that the lamentable calamity at Sunderland has no bearing, so far as I can see, on the question of the provision of exits. All the evidence points to the fact that there was a sufficiency of exit accommodation, had the doors only been opened.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware of the contents of Captain Shaw's Reports. I shall repeat the Question this day week.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS (PORTSMOUTH).
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement, in several newspapers, to the following effect:—
  "Last week a large transport entered Portsmouth Harbour with time-expired men from India. On the same day several diseased women left the Portsmouth Hospital, presumably with the intention of meeting that transport, and there was no Law to prevent it;"
  and, whether there is any foundation for the statement?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, as soon as the paragraph in question appeared in a London daily newspaper the Visiting Surgeon under the Contagious Diseases Acts at Portsmouth wrote to the Admiralty, under which Department he acts, saying there was no foundation whatever for the statement contained in it. This was stated in the House of Lords by Lord Northbrook on the 14th instant.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1881—DISTRICT REGISTRARS.
  MR. MARUMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as compensation has been calculated in the usual manner in regard to the loss sustained under the provisions of the Customs Act of 1881 by certain district registrars, who yet have been retained in their offices for public duty instead of being superannuated on retiring salaries, and that, moreover, the effect of the Act has been to develop and increase materially the taking out of probate grants in oases limited by the Act to the extent of 35 per cent entailing additional trouble and expenditure with the retention of the same staffs of office, Whether features of an exceptional character do not exist sufficient to take these cases out of the usual course; and, whether he will reconsider the scale of compensation proposed to be applied?
  MR. COURTNEY: If experience shall show that the effect of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1881 is to increase seriously the work in any District Registry in excess of the powers of the existing staff, the Treasury will be ready to consider whether the circumstances are such as would justify the grant of further clerical assistance. But no such prospective increase of work can afford grounds for altering the compensation granted for loss of emoluments actually received before the Act of 1881 came into operation.

  PARLIAMENT—PROPOSED ALTERATION OF THE SITTINGS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the desirability of dividing the Session into two sittings, commencing the first week in March and the third week in October respectively; and, whe-

  1423
  ther, if he has any doubt as to the advisability of advising this change, he will take steps to ascertain the general opinion of the House on the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, although the form of this Question is somewhat novel, I understand it to be, in substance, whether it is deemed expedient that we should revert to the old practice which prevailed at the beginning of the present century and some time afterwards—that is to say, when Parliament used to assemble late in the autumn and take a considerable Vacation at Christmas, and the Prorogation was usually arranged to come about the middle of June. Well, Sir, that is a question of considerable interest and importance, especially to Members of this House; to Members of the House of Lords it is of secondary importance. It has been a good deal discussed in private, but not very much in the House, at least, not, I think, very recently. I think, however, it is plainly a question for the Members of the House themselves in the main, and especially for the Members of this House, and it will probably be the duty of the Government to consider any definite indication of their opinion on the subject, but not to raise the question themselves unless they feel satisfied that the desire of the House is in favour of the change.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What significance is to be attached to the following words which fell from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the 16th instant, in his reply to the address of congratulation from the Town Commissioners of Cavan:—
  ''The Government feel the importance of promptly bringing forward measures necessary for developing the prosperity of Ireland, and will not fail to consider where Parliamentary legislation is needed to effect this object;"
  and, whether he is now in a position to give a final reply to the memorial of the Irish Liberal Members respecting industrial works, which he promised to refer for consideration and report to the Irish Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have communicated with my noble Friend the Viceroy of Ireland, and even independently of his reply to me I was perfectly prepared to explain the words he used. They were intended to signify
  1424
  that Her Majesty's Government, when they received a communication some months ago from several of the Irish Members, gave that communication, not merely a formal reception, but a serious practical consideration. That practical consideration is still going on, and although I am not at the present moment prepared to state the result in definite terms, yet I think that before the middle of July, or by the middle of July, I shall be able to give an answer of a definite nature to the Question of my hon. Friend.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any obstacle has arisen to account for the delay in introducing the Bill providing for the rearrangement of Government business in Scotland; whether objection is offered to the new arrangements contemplated by the Law Officers for Scotland; and, whether he will undertake to introduce the Bill before proceeding with the Scotch Votes?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When it is proposed to introduce a Bill for the rearrangement or creation of a Scottish Department?
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, inasmuch as he stated, August 16th 1881, at the time when "additional assistance in the Home Office" was obtained by the appointment of the Earl of Rosebery, that there was "no formal change, and still loss nothing that would tend to lower the office of the Lord Advocate," What circumstances have arisen since that time which have made new arrangements necessary for the management of Scotch business; and, whether there is any reason for abandoning the custom which had grown up through many years of leaving to the Lord Advocate not only the legal but also the lay or general business of Scotland, subject to the control of the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the only specific observation I have to make in answering the first Question is that the second clause of that Question evidently rests upon an entire misapprehension. There has been no such objection or impediment offered by the Law Officers for Scotland; and, in truth, the Law Officers

  1425
  for Scotland—and especially the Lord Advocate—have been engaged in considering the arrangements to be proposed. Apart from that, I think it will be enough to say in answer to the third Question that there has been no cause of delay except that which is a cause of universal delay—namely, the crowded state of Public Business. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will move on Thursday for leave to bring in a Bill which will contain the proposals of the Government on this subject.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that he had not received an answer to his Question from the Prime Minister.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought, Sir, I had answered the Question of the hon. Gentleman when I said there had been no cause of delay excepting the pressure of Business. The word she has quoted of mine had reference to the immediate intentions of the Government, and had no reference to their permanent intention. They were used in answer to an inquiry as to whether any further change was about to be made at once, and were intended to mean that no further change was contemplated at once.
  MR. DALRYMPLE: I quoted the words for the purpose of leading up to the Question on the Paper, and there was no reference whatever in my Question to delay.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I see also the hon. Member asked what will be the functions and arrangements under the new plan—
  "And whether there is any reason for abandoning the custom which had grown up through many years of leaving to the Lord Advocate not only the legal but also the lay or general business of Scotland?"
  The hon. Gentleman assumes that is to be done, and asks me the reasons for it. That evidently is a matter that will form the substance of the statement which my right hon. Friend will be ready to make when he submits his proposal to the House on Thursday, and I thought the hon. Gentleman would have fully understood that from the answer I made.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: May I ask whether, considering the curiosity that exists in the minds of people North of the Tweed as to the Business which will be done by the new Scotch Department, a statement will be made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the
  1426
  Home Secretary on the Motion for the introduction of the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; my right hon. and learned Friend will make such a statement as will, I hope, convey such a preliminary knowledge to Members of Parliament in general.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Before the Army Estimates or afterwards?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no; after the Army Estimates.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give us the promised information respecting the Special Commissioner to the Transvaal, and state whether the instructions to the Special Commissioner and the despatch with respect to Basutoland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, when this subject was last mentioned, I stated that since Her Majesty's Government had adopted the decision to advise the despatch of a Commissioner to South Africa, a circumstance had occurred, the nature of which I would explain to-day. It is this. It was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as the right hon. Baronet rightly supposes, to despatch a Special Commissioner to South Africa, and his instructions would have been produced. But almost before I spoke last in this House upon the subject, the Government received a telegram from South Africa, which met or anticipated our proposal, I cannot say which. Whether this message was despatched before any news of our proposal, or intimation of it, had gone out to South Africa or not I cannot say. But it contained a proposal on the part of the Transvaal Government to send representatives here—and probably either the President or Vice President of the Transvaal Government—for the purpose of considering this very same subject. Her Majesty's Government, on reviewing the whole matter, were inclined to think that, in view of all the interests concerned, this, probably, would be the more suitable and the more convenient mode of handling the question. They, therefore, have signified, by recent telegram from the Secretary of State to the officer administering the government of the Cape, that he may inform the Transvaal Government—I am giving the substance and not

  1427
  the precise words of the message—that Her Majesty's Government will be quite satisfied to inquire into the working of the Convention as it has been tested by experience, and to receive a deputation from the Transvaal Government, including the President or the Vice President, in London, at a convenient time for that purpose. I think that is, perhaps, all the information I have now to give the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, no question of instructions arises under these circumstances, it being in the recollection of the House that when the Convention was framed the Government said that, in their opinion, it would require to have a term of working in order to ascertain how far it was satisfactory, and they were now perfectly prepared without any foregone conclusion to consider the various provisions of the Convention in the light of the experience which has been afforded.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether the despatch relating to Basutoland will be produced; but with reference to what he has now said, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the deputation is expected to arrive, and whether he will give the precise terms of the telegram received from the Transvaal Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not understand the Basutoland despatch to be included in the Question. There was a previous answer given on that subject, which was, I think, that we were not prepared to produce the despatch at the present time, considering that it involved matters of communication with others who were largely independent of us, and there were matters to be considered in the interest of this country, and we did not think the position of this country would be strengthened by producing that despatch at longth at this moment. I am not aware of any reason at the present moment why the telegram containing the proposal of the Transvaal Government should not be laid on the Table, and—unless I find that there is any reason, which I do not at present anticipate, why it should not be produced—I will produce it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: When is the deputation expected?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say, at the present time, when the deputation will arrive. We have telegraphed out
  1428
  to South Africa, accepting the proposal, and we shall propose that it be arranged with all possible despatch. We shall be desirous of getting the Commissioners here—not only before the present Session is terminated, but while it is still in full vigour. We shall do our best to that effect, but I cannot say precisely; and indeed I ought to state that, unfortunately, there will be a delay of a few days, owing to some accident to the cable which causes an interruption to the communication with the Cape. It is hoped, however, that this delay will not be more than three days, but we cannot say very positively.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I may state, Sir, with reference to the Business of the House, that it is proposed to take the Army Estimates on Thursday next; and I am in a condition to say, as I have ascertained from the authorities, that the Business of the House now permits us to commence, as usual about this time of the year, our regular and principal duties at a quarter-past, instead of half-past 4 o'clock. It will be requisite on Thursday next also to take certain Votes in Supply to put the Admiralty Department in funds; and we propose on that evening to take the Non-Effective Votes. We shall propose an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and I shall probably be able to name the day by next Thursday.
    MR. FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War what Votes would be taken on the Army Estimates on Thursday, and whether the Medical and Non-Effective Votes would be taken?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he found that the Votes that stood next on the Estimates were Votes that would probably cause a considerable amount of discussion, though they were for a comparatively small amount of money. Should the discussion be prolonged, he feared they would scarcely have sufficient funds for the Public Service; therefore he thought the most convenient course on Thursday would be to ask the Committee to proceed to the Commissariat Estimates, and from that point to go through as much of the remaining Estimates as they were able

    1429
    to discuss. He should not propose to take the Medical Vote on Thursday, and the other Votes he should endeavour to obtain at as early a day as possible. The Non-Effective Votes would be taken as they reached them.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the noble Lord had stated that he intended to put off the first few Votes of the Army Estimates because they were likely to invite discussion. He wished, therefore, to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering the very serious condition of the Army at the present time, he would name a day on which the House might have a discussion on the Vote for the Reserve?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have said that we shall name as early a day as possible for the discussion of the remaining Votes. I think, however, the hon. and gallant Member must have forgotten that we have already had a discussion of very considerable longth with respect to recruiting in the Army, and that the intentions of the Government have been announced. I do not think it would be for the convenience of the Public Service that there should be any further discussion. I quite admit, however, that a convenient opportunity should be afforded for the Medical and Reserve Votes.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had asked the noble Lord privately when this Vote would come on, and he told him distinctly it would come on on Thursday. I t was a matter of very great moment to this country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to care an atom what became of the Army. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that he was not at liberty to debate the subject.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he must press the Prime Minister for an answer as to whether they could not have some assurance that the discussion should take place within a reasonable time?
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he begged to remind the noble Marquess that in the answer he gave to the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) on the 1st of June, he distinctly stated that upon the next oc-
    1430
    casion when the Army Estimates were under discussion an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the Reserve Vote.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War had already indicated that an early day would be afforded for the discussion.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that on Thursday he would make an. announcement as to the day on which the Naval Estimates would be taken, and he would also like to ask him if He would, at the same time, be able to say when he would take the Vote for the Irish Land Commission, on which there would probably be considerable discussion?
    MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that on Thursday or Friday he hoped to be able to fix a day for the Naval Estimates. With regard to the Vote for the Land Commission, they should have regard to the possibility of discussion upon it; but he did not think he should be able to fix the date so soon as Thursday or Friday.
    MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he would undertake that the Vote for the Transvaal Commissioner would not be brought forward until he had announced the intention of the Government on the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the best answer he could give at the present stage of affairs would be to say they would consult the general convenience of the House with regard to taking this Vote. He thought they ought first to endeavour to obtain information as to the period of the arrival of the Transvaal Commissioners in this country.

    THE SUEZ CANAL—A PARALLEL CANAL.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have authorised any person or persons to propose any, and, if any, what arrangement to the Suez Canal Company, or to any person or persons representing, or purporting to represent, that Company with reference to meeting the complaints of the British shipowners, as expressed to Her Majesty's Government at their interview with Lord Granville last month?
    MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement reported to have been made by M. do Lesseps is correct, that perfect harmony exists between the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government and the Suez Canal Company for the erection of a new parallel Company?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Government, Sir, through their representative Commissioners, the members of the Board of the Suez Canal Company, have entered pretty largely into what I may call a comparison of views with regard to all the questions which this important subject embraces. That, of course, has gone on at Paris with M. de Lesseps and the other Directors of the Company. There is a great harmony of view on particular points that have been opened; but there are other points of great importance also, especially concerning the amount and time for reduction of rates in the Canal, with regard to which unity of view has not yet been arrived at. It would not be expedient, in our opinion, that we should make any public statement at the present time. The state of affairs we have reached does not permit it. The House will remember that on a former occasion I expressed a great desire on the part of the Government to have the assistance which could be rendered to us by the information and experience of the commercial community before we arrived at any binding agreement on the subject; and I am able to say that, before we do arrive at any such agreement, we shall be prepared to make a full public announcement of our views to Parliament.

    LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS' COMMITTEE— SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it be true that, at the suggestion of Sir James Douglass, one of the competing exhibitors before the Lighthouse Committee, Mr. Wigham, another exhibitor, has been restrained from using more than two tiers of super posed lenses; whether the reason alleged for this was that the present experiments are tentative; whether the Board of Trade has not provided the money for final and not tentative experiments; and, whether, before the close of the experi-
    1432
    meats, a trial will be allowed to each of the competing exhibitors?
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed, Sir, by the Secretary to the Lighthouse Illuminants' Committee that it is not true that such a suggestion as the hon. Member refers to was made by Sir James Douglass. The Question is altogether founded on a misapprehension of facts. What has been under the consideration of the Committee is the order in which the experiments should be made, and the Committee have decided that they would commence by comparative tests with two centres of light, going on afterwards, if necessary, to similar tests with three or more tiers of light.

    POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. M'COANasked, Whether the Government would facilitate the progress of the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, which, with an Amendment on Clause 4, had received general acceptance, although it had been blocked by the hon. Members for Bridport and Roscommon?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government would place the Amendment on the Paper, so that it might be printed in Thursday's Papers. As to the progress of the Bill, he only saw ono block—that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The Government were anxious to facilitate the progress of the Bill, but preference must be given to the Irish Labourers' Bill.

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.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd June.]
  [NINTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Corrupt Pracices.
  Clause 5 (Punishment of person convicted on indictment of corrupt practices.)
  MR. BIGGARmoved to insert, in page 2, line 31, before the word "per-

  1433
  sonation," the words "undue influence or." It seemed to him that the great evil which ran all through the Bill, so far as he could see, was the very slight distinction which was drawn between very great offences and very venial ones. Undue influence and treating seemed to be regarded by the Bill in very much the same light as personation and bribery.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. LEWISwished to draw the attention of the Committee, in a very few words, to the very great alteration which was made by this clause. At the present time, if a man was guilty of bribery he was subject to one punishment; if guilty of treating, to another; and if guilty of the exercise of undue influence to another. The difference between the three was considerable. But now it was proposed, by this clause, to put all three offences into the same scale; and, although his own Amendment was not now before the Committee, he just wished, by way of illustration, to point out the very great alteration that was made in this section with reference to treating. At the present time, treating, when done by strangers, and not by the candidate, was a very small offence, and was punishable only with a fine; but it was now proposed to include it in the wide definition of corrupt practices, all of which practices were to be subjected to one maximum of punishment. He would not now refer to the very heavy character of that punishment, as he should have a few words to offer on the subject when they came to deal with the question of hard labour; but what he wanted to draw attention to was the importance of keeping a distinction between things that were essentially different, such as treating, undue influence, and bribery. He would not now say what lie should have to say when his own Amendment came to be discussed; but he was speaking in the sense of his own Amendment. It was important to follow out what the Attorney General had already done in previous matters, so as to recognize the distinction that existed between the several classes of corrupt practices.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend, believing that the adoption of such a principle
  1434
  would only weaken the hands of a candidate who was anxious to put a stop to these practices. The effect of arming the law with a severe punishment for such offences would, he hoped, tend to make men more careful as to how they indulged in such practices; and that would strengthen the hands of candidates who really desired to carry on elections in a pure and satisfactory manner.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought a distinction ought to be made in the case of treating; but he was glad to see a levelling up of the punishment for bribery, as one year's imprisonment for wholesale bribery was a great deal too little.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was anxious to add a word, as the Attorney General was going to resist this Amendment. He quite sympathized with the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). The Attorney General had, unfortunately, in spite of the very strong protests of the Irish Members, still left spiritual influence as one of the matters which would invalidate an election; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been rather astonished to find that some of the most pronounced Ministerial journals in the country had taken up the view advocated by the Irish Members, and had opposed the view maintained by the Government. However, the point for which the Irish Members contended would be much better raised upon a subsequent Amendment; and he would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan not to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the present proposal.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)wished to point out that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that the two offences dealt with would go without any punishment at all. He did not think that two such corrupt practices should be loft out of the category altogether.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that in response to the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) he would not take a division upon the Amendment; but he still felt strongly, in spite of the observations of the Attorney General, that these four separate offences should not be included in the same category. The Amendment might,

  1435
  however, be raised in another form at a subsequent point. A speech of an ambiguous character might be held to be undue influence, and the person who made it might become liable to a very severe punishment. However, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEWISmoved the omission of the words "with or" in page 2, line 34, his object being to take away the power of inflicting hard labour as a part of the punishment. He was not prepared to carry that to an extreme, or to say that it should not be in the power of the Judge to give hard labour in a case of bribery; but he should like to see a distinction made between the greater and the lesser offences. He thought they were going rather far in regard to the question of treating. By the Act of 1854, which was, among other things, to remove doubts as to whether the giving of refreshment to a voter was or was not according to law, it was declared to be an illegal act, and it was provided that any person offending should forfeit the sum of 40s. to any person who should sue for the same, together with the costs of the suit. That was the penalty in 1854, and it was now proposed to make the punishment a year's hard labour, with a fine of £200. He was not prepared to say that the former punishment was sufficiently severe—he did not think it was; but this was going to the very extreme at the other end of the pole, and there was no reasonable ground for suggesting that there should not be a distinction between cases of treating and cases of bribery. It was an enormous punishment to hang over the head of any unfortunate person who might be beguiled unwittingly into an act of a doubtful character; and it was perfectly obvious that, under the terrors of such a provision, many jurors would refuse to convict, because they believed the punishment to be too severe. He did not wish to take up any time upon this point; but he asked the Committee to make a distinction between bribery and treating, and not to leave it in the power of any Judge to inflict hard labour for treating.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 34, leave out "with or."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  1436
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)wished to know whether the hon. Member proposed to retain the punishment of hard labour for bribery?
  MR. LEWISsaid, he would not interfere with it in cases of bribery.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the clause was necessary as it stood if the House was to deal effectually with the offence of treating, or otherwise a constituency might be corrupted almost with impunity under the present law. He knew of one important case where a person threw the public-houses open from an early hour of the morning at the time of an election, and the election became an impure one from that hour. There were people who wished to punish that person who had so acted, but they had not the slightest power to do it. The man simply laughed at them, and the result was that the constituency was demoralized by the action of that one man. There was going to be some alteration in the law, and inasmuch as treating always was a corrupt practice, why should it be dealt with otherwise than any other corrupt practice? The punishment was, no doubt, a severe one; but only in very grave cases would it be inforced, and nobody who was guilty of treating by an agent could be tried under this clause. He could not recollect any prosecutions for corrupt practices in other than very serious cases on the Report of Commissioners. Parliament desired to deal with treating, supporting the law as it now was, as a serious corrupt practice; but how could it do so otherwise than by making the punishment severe? It would have a tendency to encourage a certain class of offences if distinctions were drawn between these various corrupt practices, and it was laid down that treating was more venial, and therefore required less punishment. He had said over and over again that he could make no such distinction, and that treating was even more dangerous than bribery; there ought, indeed, to be no difference in degree between these four corrupt practices. Another thing he wished to point out was this. No doubt the punishment was

  1437
  severe; but it would be in the discretion of the Judge, and not of one Judge alone, for these cases would be upon information, and would be heard by three Judges sitting to apportion the sentence. There would, therefore, be sufficient precaution taken to guard the infliction of the maximum punishment. Hon. Members might rely upon it that the power to inflict the maximum punishment would never be used except in extreme cases. Even then a man would have to be found guilty by a jury, and it would be in the discretion of the Judge to apply what sentence he thought fit.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Attorney General had informed them that nobody who was guilty of treating by an agent could be tried under this clause. He should like to understand how that was, in view of the wording of the clause in line 11?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause dealt with "any person who commits any corrupt practice." That was clearly not by his agent.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the Government were themselves to blame for the position in which things had now got. They might have taken either one of two courses. They might have declined to classify corrupt practices at all, and made the punishment uniform, trusting to the Judge to discriminate; or they might have adopted a reasonable classification. But, as a matter of fact, they did neither the one thing nor the other. They did make a distinction, because they gave a separate punishment for personation. If they had done so in that case, why should they not do it also in the case of treating or undue influence? He thought the Government would much improve the clause if they would do ono of two things. They should either give ono uniform punishment for all corrupt practices, trusting to the Court which decided the case to discriminate between one and another; or they should have a proper classification and a schedule of punishments, with a different maximum for treating, for bribery, and for undue influence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that when the Ballot Act was being passed in 1872, it was found that very great evils might arise through the amount of personation,
  1438
  especially as there was great difficulty in tracing out the fraud. The Government, therefore, had to safeguard against personation, and he thought it right that that should be done. The Act of 1872 imposed the penalty, and it would hardly be right to go back upon that.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the candidate ought to be protected, and therefore he was willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the Judge. There was an Amendment of some importance a little further on—that "and" should be left out, and "or" substituted. He could imagine a very bad case of treating or bribery, for which the Judge ought to give a very severe punishment; but he did not mean to say that every case should be treated with equal severity.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he was very glad that the Attorney General was determined to stand by the clause. They knew very well that the offence of treating existed long before the corrupt practice of bribery: It was in 1696 that the first Act of Parliament was passed to repress treating, which was then very prevalent; and in every Act since they found the offence of treating recognized and laid down as a corrupt practice. Not only that, but the Courts of Law had held from time to time that it was a misdemeanour at Common Law. Parliament could make it a Statutable misdemeanour, but it could not alter it as an offence at Common Law. Whatever might be now done would make no difference with regard to the law against treating, which would continue to be a misdemeanour at Common Law punishable with fine and imprisonment.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he quite appreciated the difficulty which the Attorney General had in dealing with this matter, and understood his objection to establish a complete classification; because, no doubt, wholesale treating was much worse than isolated bribery. At the same time, he would like the Committee to consider whether the enforcement of this clause, as it stood, was the proper way of attaining the object in view, and whether jurors were likely to convict when they knew that the Judge might impose such a serious punishment as hard labour. He had heard a good deal of ono of the celebrated trials of last year, when certain agents at Macclesfield were found guilty, and he remem-

  1439
  bered that the feeling in the Assize town where they were being tried was rather one of commiseration for them than of any great indignation for their guilt. Indeed, if it had been known that such a sentence as that pronounced by Mr. Justice Denman would have been passed, he was convinced that neither of the men would have been convicted. That being so, he was inclined to fear whether, if the clause was passed as it stood, its effect might not be to prevent people from being convicted. He was anxious that serious offenders should be convicted; but, having regard to the great chance of failure in such cases, he should be very glad if the Attorney General could see his way, before the discussion closed, to lesson the stringency of the clause in some way.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, that hitherto offences of electoral corruption had been dealt with very tenderly indeed. There had been a very tender feeling about them generally, and he maintained that such offences would never be eradicated until the offenders were treated as what they really were—serious criminals, and not as merely venial offenders. Holding that view, he should support the retention of the words in the clause. At the same time, he had an Amendment to propose further on which would prevent those who really were only venial offenders from being too severely punished.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LEWISmoved, in page 2, line 35, to omit the word "and," in order to insert the word "or." He explained that the object of this proposal was to give an option to the Judge to fine simply, if he thought the case was one which would be met by a fine. No ono would dispute that where the offence was really trivial a fine ought to be sufficient, and if a discretion was to be given to the Judge at all—and this was done in almost every clause—why should lie not have it in trivial cases which were really not large enough for imprisonment, and in which justice would be amply satisfied by the substitution of a fine? Surely, the Attorney General would allow such an alternative where the class of cases really admitted of it. It would be a waste of time to say more in support of such an obvious proposal.
  1440
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "and," and insert "or."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that substantially the word "and" in this line really meant "or," inasmuch as the Judge could, if he thought fit, order one day's imprisonment, which, commencing with the opening of the Assizes, was no imprisonment at all. The Judge, therefore, could always if he liked substitute a fine for the imprisonment, or, if he chose to give the maximum punishment, it was open for him to do so. The question, therefore, was not really worth discussing, and there was no need to make any alteration in the clause.
  MR. H.B. SAMUELSONsaid, that that was the very thing he wanted to prevent. He wanted to insure that the same punishment should be meted out to the rich man as to the poor man; but if they allowed a fine to be substituted for imprisonment, the rich man might be fined a large sum, which would really amount to nothing to him, while the poor man would have to go to prison. It was not a good thing to allow the rich man to escape by the payment of a fine, while the poor man, who had not a penny to pay with, had to go to prison.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSGHELL)said, he quite agreed with the principle that the rich man should not be let off with a fine; but he was quite sure that the Judges would deal with the matter properly. They would say—"The fact that this man is rich is the very reason why a fine would be no punishment to him at all." He was ready to accept the Amendment proposed.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that if a discretion was to be given to the Judge it should be given as it stood in the clause, under which the Judge could. either fine or imprison, or fine and imprison.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to know whether imprisonment was to be done away with?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): Oh, no.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the Committee would support the Govern-

  1441
  ment in this matter, as they had expressed their willingness to accept the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr.Lewis). The only object of the Amendment was to introduce greater clearness into the clause.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to point out that one of the candidates at an election might be the popular candidate, who might win by a large majority—a majority, say, of 1,000 votes or more. But the rich and unpopular candidate who was being defeated might go and get up a corrupt practice with anybody who chose to undertake it, and that might void the election. The guilty party might get off with a fine or a slight imprisonment, and there would be no redress for the other candidate whose election would be upset.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'or' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEmoved to add to Sub-section 1 of the clause the following words:—
  "Or on summary conviction shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four calendar months, and to be fined any sum not exceeding fifty pounds."
  He said He proposed this Amendment in all earnestness, and with no notion whatever of injuring the Bill in any degree. He proposed it when the Bill was in Committee last Session, and the proposal was spoken of in terms of approval by at least one Member of Her Majesty's Government. His object in moving the Amendment was to give to any candidate who was earnestly determined, by himself or his agents, to fight a pure contest, the opportunity of immediate protection on the spot against any corrupt practice. He might be asked why he was setting up an Amendment which was rather contrary to the scope of the Bill. If he were asked, with regard to the constituencies of the country at this moment, whether they were corrupt or not, he thought he should be right in replying that a large number of them were pure. He moved this Amendment with some little sense of responsibility, because He was intimately concerned with the General Elections of 1874 and 1880, and he was
  1442
  also engaged in other contests at bye-elections for 12 years; and his experience had led him to the conviction that the constituencies which were pure in 1874 were not so pure in 1880. They had, therefore, to deal with an evil which was not stationary, but with ono which was steadily, gradually, and surely increasing in all constituencies. There would be very little use in passing a measure which did not provide an adequate and simple machinery whereby a candidate, if he found he was not getting fair play, might have power to summon the delinquents before some tribunal sitting on the spot. What were the advantages that might fairly be urged in reference to such a course? As the Bill stood at present, action under it was only to be taken after Petition; but, by this Amendment, action could be taken so immediately that the delinquent could be caught at once and taken red-handed before the Justices and adequately punished at once. He could not help thinking, however, that when they considered the grave circumstances that might be involved there should be power to appeal. There was another thing he wished to urge in reference to this point. Hon. Members know that Petitions were often checked in this way—the mischief commenced during the election, and the temptation pressed very hard on the other side, although the candidate upon that side might have been endeavouring to fight a pure election. The consequence was that the same corrupt practices were resorted to on both sides; and it was not unfrequently the case that a Petition was avoided, neither side having clean hands, and a constituency became gradually corrupted by those very means. The temptation came so very strongly forced upon the agents, and upon others who were interested in a particular candidate, when they found that their voters were being taken away from them by the exercise of corrupt means, and when they found themselves unable to resist it, that there was a general resort to corrupt practices. There was another point in reference to this Bill, and the Petitions likely to be presented under it, which he desired to urge. He was convinced that the penalties under the Bill were so severe that any person would be cautious indeed before he incurred the great responsibility and the certain unpopularity of presenting a Petition. They were told

  1443
  that tricks would be played, that evidence would be got up, and, as Party feeling would run high, there was a risk of justice not being done. He had not much to say upon that point; but his own knowledge of the way in which Petitions had been got up assured him that spite and malice generally prevailed for some time after an election was over. He had never known an instance in which one side or the other, when it had suffered defeat, did not arrive at the conclusion that the result had been brought about by the malpractices of their opponents. The consequence was that a Petition was hastily presented complaining of the prevalence of corrupt practices at the election; and when the whole matter was brought to a test it ended in a great deal of wrangling and hard swearing, with very little good result. He, therefore, thought it would be advantageous to provide sonic simple machinery by which a delinquent might be brought up and tried at once while the election was taking place. He had nothing to add, except in regard to the tribunal before which such cases would be tried. For his own part, he would be satisfied with a tribunal composed of two Justices sitting in Petty Sessions; but if the Committee considered the Amendment worthy of discussion or consideration, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in devising an adequate tribunal. He placed the Amendment before the Committee in perfect good faith; and he believed that the adoption of some such proposal would do a great deal towards getting rid of bribery, and keeping a constituency pure during an election contest. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 36, after the word "pounds," insert "or on summary conviction shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four calendar months, and to be fined any sum not exceeding fifty pounds."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment; but there were very strong reasons in his mind against it. The proposition was that the trial of a man for corrupt practices should take place before the local
  1444
  Justices, and that it should be conducted, according to the argument of his right hon. Friend, in the warmth and heat of the election, and before the very persons who, in nine cases out of ten, would have been active political partizans supporting the candidature of one person against the other. He was of opinion that proceedings before such a tribunal were most inexpedient, and would tend to bring justice into perfect contempt. It would not improbably happen that these very Justices, on the eve or morning of the election, would be, by virtue of their position in the locality, acting either as chairmen or members of committees, canvassing with the candidate, or making violent harangues in his behalf, and in other ways taking an interest in the election. Yet it was proposed that gentlemen in that position should be asked at once to re-assume their judicial temper and action. He thought if they were endeavouring to find a really bad tribunal in the country, it would be perfectly impossible to find one that would be worse for dealing with such cases than the summary and local tribunal now suggested by his right hon. Friend. The Government had been reproached for imposing penalties that were too harsh and severe; but, in imposing thorn, they were of opinion that they ought only to be inflicted after a fair and impartial trial, and by a tribunal which could not possibly be charged with partizanship. They had taken care in the Bill that no man was convicted of corrupt practices except by the verdict of a jury. By the 36th section of the Bill it was required that the Director of Public Prosecutions should, by himself or by his representative, attend the trial of Election Petitions and prosecute offenders; and there was power to the Court to hear the case, if the offence was punishable on summary conviction, or to committee offender for trial. But, although they gave the Judge the power of imprisoning a man for six months, the Court was relieved from all suspicion of local influence, and the accused person had the option of claiming the right of being tried by a jury. He contended that they ought to take very great care to protect a man against the possibility of being tried by a partial Court in the heat of an election contest. No doubt, by the 40th clause, on an application made six months after

  1445
  an election, if there was reasonable cause to believe that corrupt or illegal practices had been committed, or illegal payments made, a Commissioner might be appointed to hold a Court for the trial of persons charged with such illegal practices or illegal payments. But even in that case, although the Court had power to imprison an offender for three months, or to order him to pay a fine not exceeding £100, it was necessary, before proceeding to try summarily, to give a person charged with having committed any corrupt or illegal practice the option of being tried by jury. If persons were to be liable to be sent to prison for four months, it was clear that they ought to have an impartial trial. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he admitted that the objections taken by the Attorney General to the particular tribunal proposed by the Amendment were very cogent; but he was quite sure that his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) was more anxious about the principle of the Amendment than he was about the particular machinery he proposed to provide for carrying it out. The Attorney General had not, he thought, dealt with the one most important point in the conduct of elections; and he would appeal to the experience of his hon. and learned Friend. There had been various enactments which made certain acts on the part of the voters a misdemeanour; but he would ask his hon. and learned Friend, if in his experience, he had ever known anybody prosecuted for those offences? He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) certainly never had; and yet it constantly cropped up on the trial of Election Petitions that such offences had been committed. Witness after witness got into the box and unblushingly confessed that during the election he had committed offences which were prohibited by Act of Parliament. Everybody who knew anything about the election knew and admitted that such offences were going on on both sides; and yet no power interfered to put a stop to them, because nobody would take the trouble to set the law in motion. As a matter of fact, it was nobody's business to do so; and when an election was over everyone wanted to be as good-humoured as possible, and these matters escaped investigation. But
  1446
  when an Election Petition was presented, the commission of these illegal acts cropped up accidentally, and it was then admitted that multitudes of persons had systematically disobeyed the law. His own opinion was that the adoption, at any rate, of the principle of the Amendment would go far to secure a pure election. He fully admitted the difficulty about the tribunal; but, at the same time, he thought it was a difficulty that might be got over. The Attorney General was himself, in a great measure, responsible for the introduction of a system by which a sort of Commission was sent round the country to try offences committed at municipal elections. Where corrupt practices were alleged to have taken place at a municipal election a barrister was appointed to act as Judge pro hâc vice. That system might be extended to Parliamentary elections, and it would not be difficult to have persons elected for that purpose all over the Kingdom. That would get rid of the local element, and he did not see why they should not have a tribunal sitting locally on the spot without incurring very great expense.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the tribunal in the case of municipal elections was a special Commission.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that, no doubt, it was a special Commission after the offence had been committed. What was wanted in this ease was to have someone on the spot, so that an offender might be handed over and tried at once. It was most important that they should have a tribunal which, by its instant interference, could stop the corrupt practices which everybody must know were being carried at an election. What happened now was that when the election was over, the whole thing was passed by; and what his right hon. Friend wanted to secure was the instant trial of the offender then and there. Although he fully admitted all that the Attorney General had said against permitting a trial of this sort by a local tribunal, in the heat of an election, He was of opinion that a satisfactory tribunal might be found for dealing with the matter.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that, after hearing the way in which the Amendment had been met by the Attorney General, he could not believe that Her Majesty's Go-

  1447
  vernment were really in earnest in endeavouring to put down bribery. He entirely omitted the Attorney General personally. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would be glad to concede the Amendment if he could; but it would appear that He had had orders from his official superiors that the Amendment was to be resisted to the last; and if that was so, and if the Government did not accept an Amendment of this character, he, for one, said—and he said it advisedly—that he did not believe they were sincere in their desire to put down corrupt practices. What was the history of the past? This was not a new law which they were placing upon the Statute Book for the first time; but it had been there since 1859, and the offence of bribery had been punishable with imprisonment since the year 1851. But had they had any convictions? Had they stopped the offence of bribery? His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) said, on the contrary, that it was on the increase. Why was that? It was because experience proved that the offence could be committed with impunity; and nobody knew better than the Attorney General why it could be committed with impunity. It was because procedure by indictment was so cumbrous, costly, and uncertain, that no one dreamt of sending a man for trial to the Assizes. Unless Her Majesty's Government would substitute for this uncertain, loose, and costly procedure some sure, sharp, quick, and certain mode of punishing the offence of bribery, they might depend upon it the law would never be a terror to the people. In this instance, he would ask the Committee to look at the question of expense. Who was to pay the expense of an indictment for bribery? It was not one of the expenses for which the prosecutor was reimbursed out of the Consolidated Fund. If a man wished to prosecute another for bribery, he must be prepared to bear the whole expense of the indictment, to pay counsels' fees, and the expenses of witnesses. He knew that occasionally two or three persons out of many thousands were prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor at the public expense; but that was a very rare and exceptional thing, and when it did take place, only two or three individuals were prosecuted out of some 10,000 or 20,000 offenders. Then, again, look at the do-
  1448
  lay that occurred. The offence was triable only at the Assizes, and the prosecutor must wait until the next Assizes before he could bring the case under the consideration of the Court. In the next place, the offence was triable by a jury; and, the sympathies of juries being almost invariably with the briber, the case was one in which it was extremely difficult to obtain a conviction. The Government last year prosecuted a number of cases; but how many convictions did they get? He would like the Solicitor General to tell the Committee if he did not know personally of many cases in which the offence was quite as general as in those in which there had been convictions, but in regard to which juries declined to convict. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had drawn a picture of local Justices who had taken an active part in an election having the indecency to sit afterwards on a tribunal to try an election offence. He (Mr. Gorst) did not think the Justices of this country were so entirely lost to all sense of decency, that they would take a prominent part in sitting upon a tribunal and adjudicating upon an election offence in which they had themselves been concerned. He was quite certain that if a power of this kind were given to a local Court, that local Court would be formed for the purpose out of borough or county Justices, whose motives would be above suspicion. In every borough they would be able to find two or three sensible and discerning men who took very little part in election matters, and who preferred to remain aloof from the turmoil of a contested election. It was such men who ought to sit on a tribunal of this nature; and he believed that, by the universal consent of both sides, they would be asked to sit in order to try an election offence. So far as the county Justices were concerned, there was an abundance of men in every part of every county who did not take an active part in election contests. The Attorney General, with extraordinary inconsistency, although he would not entrust this Court with the power of inflicting a fine or three months' imprisonment for corrupt practices, would entrust it with the power of inflicting a fine for illegal practices. If it was improper for such a tribunal to try a case of treating, or a trumpery case of bribery, it was equally improper for it to try a case in which an illegal

  1449
  practice, such as the employment of a band, or the use of colours, had been committed. Then, again, the Attorney General contended that in every case in which a man was brought before a local tribunal he would refuse to be tried by it, and would insist on being tried by a jury under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] He presumed that the Attorney General, by shaking his head, was not acquainted with the provisions of that Act. The 17th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 gave a right to any person sentenced to four months' imprisonment to claim to be tried by a jury; and he imagined that the term of four months had been purposely selected by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) in order to give an accused person, if he liked, the option of going before a jury. The Summary Jurisdiction Act provided that any person charged with an offence for which he was liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment exceeding four months, and not being an assault, might, on appearing before the Court, and before the charge was gone into, but not afterwards, claim to be tried by a jury. Then, what came of the Attorney General's objection to this Court, seeing that it was a Court in which any person, if he thought fit, could refuse to be tried, and could claim to be tried by a jury? Moreover, it was a Court from which there was a right of appeal, if the person convicted felt grieved by the decision of the local tribunal. Consequently, if anyone thought that the Court was partial, and had given an unfair decision, he would have the right to appeal to the Quarter Sessions, where the case would be reheard, with every element of publicity and perfect security for the proper administration of justice. In this case only the Attorney General proposed to give jurisdiction to the local Justices, and there would be no appeal, because it was not a case of imprisonment, but simply one of fine, although the man might be sent to prison in default of payment of the fine. His hon. and learned Friend did not scruple to give a local tribunal the power of imprison· ment in default of the payment of a fine, although he pretended that he dare not entrust the same tribunal with the trial of a corrupt practice, for which there
  1450
  was to be a power of refusal to be tried by the Court, and, in the event of a conviction, an appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions. He thought the only objection which could be made to this Amendment was that this principle was too favourable to the defendant; and it was conceivable that there might be cases in which it would open the door to collusion. For instance, the defendant who had been guilty of gross corrupt practices might be summoned before the Bench of Magistrates, in order that he might be acquitted, convicted, or dealt with in some way, so as to avert the chance of being taken up upon a more serious charge, and committed for trial to the Assizes. No doubt, there would be a danger of such a thing happening; but he did not think it was a serious one. In the first place, they would have the security of the tribunal itself; and if they had a Public Prosecutor who was worth anything he would see that justice was not defeated in that way, but that the case would be taken up by the Prosecutor himself, and properly proceeded with. He believed that the Amendment submitted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) was a most important one; and he thought it should be pressed by the Committee upon the attention of the Government, until the Government were induced to give way. He unhesitatingly asserted that if they relied upon the cumbrous process of indictment at the Assizes as the only means by which corrupt practices were to be dealt with, they would not succeed in putting down those practices at all.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not dispute the statement that this was an important Amendment; but he regretted the charge which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made against the Attorney General, of having obviously received orders from higher authorities to oppose the Amendment. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] All he could say was that he regretted to hear the cheer of those who cheered that statement; and he should not say a word in answer to it. He thought the Government had endeavoured fairly, in the conduct of the Bill, to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. They had endeavoured to meet those views

  1451
  by arguments as well as they could. Their arguments, he dared say, were not always, to the mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite, conclusive; neither were the arguments of hon. Members opposite always conclusive to Her Majesty's Government. But hon. Members opposite expected, if the Government thought there was danger in an Amendment, that they should give way to it because the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) thought they could not be in earnest if they did not. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that they would consider every argument he used with the attention which an expression of opinion coming from him deserved. The hon. and learned Member said that this was an important Amendment; and he (the Solicitor General) did not for a moment dispute the assertion. He quite agreed that if they could get a tribunal to which they could safely entrust the matter such a course would be extremely desirable. At any rate, they had shown that they considered it a desirable course, because they had gone in the same direction in two other eases; in the first place, wherever the offence was brought out in the trial of an Election Petition, and, in the next, in regard to illegal practices. If, in the hearing of an Election Petition, evidence was given to show that there had been bribery and corrupt practices, they had provided machinery for the summary trial of such offences before the Judges who heard the Election Petition. That provision was adopted on the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1875. They had, however, gone beyond that; and if there was reason to believe, on the representation of 10 electors or the Director of Public Prosecutions, within six months after an election, that a considerable number of the electors had been guilty of some corrupt or illegal practice, a special tribunal was to be created, under Clause 40, to go down to the county or borough and try such cases summarily. The Government had, therefore, shown that they were sensible of the importance of a summary trial. What they were not prepared to do was to remit the questions involved in the Amendment to local Justices. It was said that the magistrates they could not trust would never sit on the Bench for the purpose of adjudicating upon questions of this nature; but he knew of cir-
  1452
  cumstances which occurred in two cases which had come under his own knowledge personally, which induced him to say that he could not trust the local magistrates, because in those two cases, when the charges came on for hearing, it was found that the Bench of Justices was constituted as it had never been constituted before. Persons appeared upon the Bench and sat to adjudicate upon those cases who had rarely sat upon the Bench of Justice before, and the cases were dealt with in an entirely exceptional way. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham said, that there could be an appeal by the accused if he liked; but did not the hon. and learned Gentleman see what would be the course that would be invariably pursued? The political views of the Justices who sat on the Bench would be very well known. Almost all of them would be active politicians; and what would happen? A man was taken before a tribunal thus constituted. He would look at its composition, and He would say to himself" I like the complexion of it, and I will be tried by it by all means." If, on the other hand, after looking at the tribunal he did not like the complexion of it, he would say that he preferred to be tried by a jury. Therefore, such a tribunal would not, by any means, secure a greater certainty of justice, because, if the accused did not like the look of the tribunal, he would go to a jury; whereas, if he did like the look of it, he would elect to be tried by it, and a conviction would probably not be secured, although the evidence might be very strong. If anything could be done to extend the provisions of Clauses 36 and 40 the Government would gladly do it. Their desire was quite in harmony with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, to secure, as far as possible, the aid of local tribunals in cases where they could safely do so. Therefore, they would be prepared, if expedient, to amend Sections 36 and 40; but they did not feel that they could adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, or that they would obtain by it a more certain administration of justice.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the question was really one of very considerable importance. What they desired to do was to put down bribery, treating, and corruption of all kinds; and he

  1453
  could not help thinking that the most effectual way of doing that would be the knowledge in the county or borough that if bribery was going on it must be put a stop to there and then, and the men taken up. He could not help thinking that if one or two men were taken up there and then it would have more effect than anything that could happen six months afterwards. The Solicitor General appeared to have arrived at the same opinion, that it was important to do this, if it could be done. If they really meant to put down bribery and corruption—and this would be an effectual way of doing it—by all means let them do it, if they could see their way to it. It was only a question of the balance of evil, and he was honestly of opinion that the taking up of one man and sending him to prison for four months during the course of an election would have a greater effect than sending him to 10 months' or a year's imprisonment six months afterwards. What usually happened was this. In the middle of an election somebody came down to a borough whom nobody knew, and they heard tell of sovereigns and half-sovereigns being mysteriously distributed. That was what they wanted to stop. If they could take up that man at once—he did not care whether they could establish agency or not—they would go far towards chocking the evil. It was too often the case that public-houses were kept open during an election, and serious acts of bribery were committed in them. Let them take the men by whom they were committed before a tribunal then and there, and they might depend upon it that they would do more to stop corruption during that election than by any penal consequences they might inflict afterwards. It was only, as he had said, a balance of evil; and he now came to consider the question, could they find a tribunal, or could they not? The Attorney General had objected to the local magistrates; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was bound to say that he agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend near him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that there were great objections to local magistrates, and that if he were a local magistrate himself he should object to be placed in the position of trying these people; but he saw no reason why they should not extend the machinery because the
  1454
  expense of getting someone to sit with the Mayor for this purpose, as far as the case of the election committees was concerned, would be very trifling. If they placed it in the power of the Mayor to say that he would have some independent person sent down by the Public Prosecutor for the express purpose of trying these cases the responsibility would be very small, and they would at once have their tribunal, and a tribunal to which there could be no objection. If the Attorney General would only say that, looking at the serious questions involved, and how necessary it was to put a stop to bribery on the spot, He would consider what could be done in the matter, the Committee would, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) believed, have made a great advance. He was quite certain that if the provisions of the 36th and 40th sections were extended to this particular question, that would do more to put down bribery than any other means.
  Mr. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he entirely agreed that if they intended to put down bribery and corruption the best thing would be to let the constituency know that the process would be short, sharp, and certain. They were all agreed on that point; and the only difficulty was as to the tribunal. He thought that a tribunal ought to be found, and he did not see why they should not utilize the County Judges, or the stipendiary magistrates, where stipendiary magistrates existed. He did not entertain any regard or affection for the "Great Unpaid;" but he did think that on the Bench of Magistrates men could be found who were altogether free from political influences. He did not know whether the Attorney General could see his way to the adoption of this suggestion; but he thought it was practicable. At the present moment they selected a certain number of the Judges to try Election Petitions, and they set them aside for that special work. Was there any reason why, among the county and borough magistrates, a certain number of Justices should not be selected for the special purpose of trying election cases? [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but He asked them to consider the proposal fairly. He thought it was quite possible that in every county and borough they might find three or four men who could be set aside for that purpose; and the mere fact of the existence of such a

  1455
  tribunal would act as a terror and a restraint upon the constituency. Every man was not a Party politician, and they knew that there were many magistrates who took no active part in politics, What he would suggest was that they should select three or four of these men in advance of a General Election, and allow them to be regarded as the election' or petition magistrates. He thought that would be a cheap and easy way of meeting the difficulty; but he merely threw it out as a suggestion to the Government. Whatever proposal might be adopted, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was most important, and one well worthy of careful consideration. It was said that the Bench of Magistrates was objectionable, because they would take a political interest in election contests. It was not desirable that they should push that objection very far, because, at the present day, they had manufacturers acting as magistrates and adjudicating upon questions concerning the employment of labour; and he believed that game-preserving magistrates were not always unwilling to deal with poaching cases. But, be that as it might, he thought they could cheaply and easily find a tribunal to decide cases of this kind in a manner which should be sharp and decisive.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had complained of the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought the Committee would admit that the speech of his hon. and learned Friend had produced a marked change in the manner in which the Government were ready to deal with the question. When the Attorney General got up to reply to the speech of his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Sir William Hart Dyke), he held out no hope, and had nothing good to say for it. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, the hon. and learned Member regretted that he could not adopt it, and disapproved of the tribunal suggested by his right hon. Friend. If the Committee seemed generally disposed to think that the Bench of Magistrates was not a proper tribunal for dealing with the question, He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would not say more upon that point; but if the Government took up that lino they ought
  1456
  to alter the Bill, because, as it stood at present, it gave the magistrates power to inflict a fine of £100 and Parliamentary incapacity for five years, without any appeal on the part of the defendant. It was not consistent, then, for the Government to come down to the House and say it was right to give the magistrates power to inflict a fine of £100; but it was not right to give them the power asked for by his right hon. Friend, although, in the latter case, there was a right of appeal. It was impossible for hon. Members on that side to cross the House and select the tribunal. For his own part, he would be content if the Government would announce that they would take the question into their serious consideration, and either by utilizing some tribunal already in existence, or by some new contrivance, would do what they were now prepared to admit ought to be done—namely, give some power of dealing persons sent down by some central association to corrupt a boroughs and spend money freely in connection with particular candidates, knowing that at present they could do so with impunity, and with the full knowledge that they might hope to escape punishment, because they could only be reached by a very expensive process, which it was nobody's interest to set on foot. They knew further, that they need not anticipate that they would ever be tried, because they were aware, if they found a trial would be inconvenient, that there would be ample time to convey themselves to some safe place of refuge. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Government would hold out some hope that they would contrive some means or other for dealing with these cases summarily.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped that the Committee would dispose of the question without further debate. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had dealt with the matter as if it were a question of summary jurisdiction that could be placed in the hands of the magistrates only. Indeed, he (the Attorney General) knew of no other way in which summary jurisdiction could be exercised. Although his right hon. Friend had mentioned that another tribunal might be suggested, still his leading argument was that these were questions which must be dealt with by

  1457
  the local magistrates only. Of course, the great question was to provide the machinery, and his right hon. Friend had suggested that the Government should work it out for him. The right hon. Gentleman threw the whole burden upon them; but as to the local magistrates, he thought, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said, that the Committee generally would agree that it was not desirable to place the matter in their hands. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!] Of course, he could not expect the noble Lord to agree. The proposal was that during the time the election was going on, because in some other clauses they took power to take certain cases before the local magistrates after the election was over and when an Election Petition was being tried, they ought, therefore, to provide that electioneering cases arising during the election should also be heard by the local magistrates. He did not think there was any analogy between the two cases, and he certainly thought the system was not one which ought to be extended. The Government had provided that, whore isolated cases were brought to light in the trial of an Election Petition, a Commissioner, acting under the direction of the Public Prosecutor, should go down and try them. He did not see what more they could do. It might be suggested that they should send down a Commissioner to every constituency. He forgot what the exact number of the constituencies was; but he took it to be about 350. [An hon. MEMBER: 400.] If there were 400, they would have to send down a paid agent to every one of those constituencies. It was suggested that they should place the matter in the hands of the stipendiary magistrates; but stipendiary magistrates only existed in places where there was a very large constituency, and whore, as a rule, it would not be found that the corrupt practices which they wished to meet had any existence. All these were questions which would have to be discussed before they would be able to find the right tribunal. He, therefore, suggested that the Committee should discuss the question on Clauses 36 and 40 of the Bill; and if a tribunal could be found that was satisfactory, and that could be set to work at a reasonable expense, he would be perfectly willing
  1458
  to consider the matter. But it was not advisable to bring the question before the Committee in this small way as a matter of summary jurisdiction only, although, no doubt, the discussion which had taken place had not been without its use. At the same time, for the sake of economizing their time, he hoped the Committee would be allowed to defer the question until they came to either of the clauses which did, to a certain extent, raise the principle and carry out the idea aimed at in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he was perfectly aware that the question of the tribunal was the chief and almost the only difficulty; and he did not include the tribunal in his Amendment because he knew of that difficulty. There were several Members opposite who were of opinion that the Amendment ought to be amended; and he thought the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to defer the discussion until a later clause, so that some scheme might then be brought forward by the Government, was, on the whole, a fair one. When they reached the clauses referred to by his hon. and learned Friend, the nature of the tribunal might be fairly and practically discussed; and upon that understanding he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was afraid that his right hon. Friend was acting with a little precipitation in giving way to the Attorney General on this occasion, because the Attorney General had, at present, promised absolutely nothing. When the right hon. Gentleman first proposed the Amendment the Attorney General said the idea was a very bad one, and he would have nothing to do with it. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No !] The Attorney General did not make a very long speech. In point of fact, he only spoke for three or four minutes, and he certainly said that the idea was a very bad one, and he would have nothing to do with it. But now, so great had been the effect of the arguments which had been used upon the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he now told the Committee the idea was a very good one. There was a remarkable difference between the two statements; but the hon. and learned Gen-

  1459
  tleman added that if the Committee would be good enough to wait for three or four weeks, when they came to Clause 40, he would, perhaps, then be able to arrive at some conclusion upon the matter. Now, what was the use of putting off important principles in that way? In this case there was a most important principle raised. The Government could not say that in raising it hon. Members on the other side of the House were in favour of corrupt practices; but, on the contrary, hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported the Amendment were in favour of putting an instant stop to corrupt practices. Why they did this was that if they did not put an instant stop to corrupt practices the commission of them would void the election. He failed to see where the remedy was if it only came three or four months after the election. It was the election itself they wanted to preserve; and if ample notice were given during the election that any person who committed bribery or any other corrupt practice would be liable to be summoned before the magistrates, he believed it would have a most salutary effect. The persons they wanted to get hold of by this Bill were the Birmingham gang—Messrs. Nuttal & Co.—to whose credit was to be laid at least a dozen Election Petitions. The moment that such persons arrived in a town, let them be closely watched, and the instant the emissaries of the Caucus were detected in their nefarious practices, let them be sent to prison for four months. That was the way to put down bribery. But by holding a local inquiry that did not take place until four months after the election they would never be able to put it down. It seemed to be the desire uppermost in the mind of the Attorney General to have continual Petitions, and to have the election voided on every imaginable ground; but he took no precaution to insure purity of election at the moment the election was taking place. The Solicitor General, in solemn tones, told the Committee that he was personally acquainted with two very bad cases indeed. Where they had occurred, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not know. Perhaps it was in the county of Durham; but the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that what had occurred in these cases would utterly prevent lain from giving any summary power to local
  1460
  magistrates. Notwithstanding, under the clause which related to illegal practices, the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to give to the very magistrates He hold up in the House of Commons as utterly untrustworthy and as partial Judges, the power of sending a man to gaol for three months in default of paying a fine of £20. Where was the consistency of that course of conduct? The hon. and learned Gentleman would not give power to the local magistrates to put a stop to corrupt practices at once, as their action, under this Amendment, would enable them to do in nine cases out of 10; but he would give the same magistrates the power of sending a man to prison for three months for non-payment of a fine ranging from £20 up to £100; and he would also give them the power of preventing a man from voting for five years. They were even positively to allow these magistrates, whom the Solicitor General said were so iniquitous, to exercise the power, without appeal, of trying a case of illegal practice, and of sending a man to prison for throe months if he failed to pay a fine; whereas they would not give them the power, with an appeal, to try a case of bribery. The position of the Government was absolutely untenable. There was no sense or logic in it; but it was not the only ridiculous compromise they had proposed to make. A compromise quite as ridiculous was made the other day in regard to the power of the Judges. What they should endeavour to do was to put an end to bribery once for all, and if they did put au end to bribery, they would put an end to petitioning, which was fifty times worse than bribery. That would be far better than taking refuge in ridiculous compromises that were worth nothing at all. If they were anxious to put a stop to bribery, they would not put off the Amendment until they came to Clause 40, which they would reach goodness knew when, but they would dispose of it "Aye" or "No" at once.
  MR. STUART - WORTLEYsaid, the Government complained that the Amendment had been introduced in haste. That was not the fact, because a similar Amendment was on the Paper 12 months ago, and was taken into consideration at that time. The Government were themselves to blame for not having utilized the time which had since

  1461
  elapsed, and they had shown that they had been indolent in the matter. He doubted whether Clause 40 would afford an opportunity of dealing with the question which the Attorney General seemed to think it would. It was quite clear that the Government, if in earnest in the matter, ought to have devised Borne kind of tribunal. The Attorney General had given a somewhat ludicrous estimate of what would be the expense incurred by the appointment of a special Commission to every constituency; but he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) did not think that more than ono Judge would be necessary for each county. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, for instance, ono competent Judge would be quite sufficient.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that they had already in every Parliamentary borough exactly the machinery they wanted — namely, a Recorder. [Cries of "No!"] There was a Recorder in almost every Parliamentary borough, who was not connected in any way with the local magistrates; and the Recorder or a Deputy might be employed during an election and paid a fee of £10, or some similar small sum, to try these cases. They had, therefore, got precisely the machinery they wanted — namely, impartial machinery to try these electioneering cases instantly, at the time they were committed.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he regarded this as the most important, because the most practical, Amendment which had been put down upon the Paper; and He hoped it would not be disposed of too readily or too soon. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) would not yield too quickly to the kind of half-and-half promise which had been made by the Attorney General. He had no wish to throw any doubt upon the promises of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought the kind of promise which had been given was of very small value indeed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred the Committee to Clauses 36 and 40 of the Bill. Clause 36 related to what took place at the trial of Election Petitions, and that would be too late. Clause 40 related to what took place six months after the election, and that was still later. The first important point was to decide in favour of the Amendment, and the next important
  1462
  point was to decide as to the nature of the tribunal. For his own part, he believed the magistrates would form a fair tribunal; but, whether that was so or not, what lie wished to impress upon the Committee was that the question of instant jurisdiction was of the very utmost importance. He desired to make a practical suggestion to the Government, and it was this—that if they were convinced the Committee was of opinion that this was a sound principle, let them adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and in some further stage define the tribunal; but let them confirm the principle first. There was another important point with regard to testing the bona fides of the respective candidates. When a case of bribery happened at an election, what took place was this. They heard that the other side were bribing; they received information in regard to a particular case that So-and-so had got £5 or £10; and the moment that was discovered, the men on the other side wanted to bribe also. But if they wished to keep the election pure, the proper course would be to bring the persons who were committing the bribery instantly before a tribunal capable of dealing with them; and then the Election Judge, if a Petition followed, would at once say that Mr. So-and-so had shown his bona fides by endeavouring to put down bribery. These two great principles hung together, because the most important result of the Amendment, as far as the public were concerned, would be the putting down of bribery; and, as far as the candidate was concerned, it would give him a good locus standi when he came to be heard upon the Election Petition. His own opinion was that the best thing they could do was to punish the bribery on the spot. He felt deeply that this was one of the most important and one of the most practical Amendments that could be submitted; and he asked the Government to give their assent to the principle of it first, and then talk about the jurisdiction afterwards.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) to withdraw the Amendment, and to the right hon. Gentleman's Friends to permit it to be withdrawn. He did so on this simple ground—that, although He was one of those who approved of the

  1463
  principle of it, he certainly could not support it in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) and the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had both put before the Committee the difficulty that would be experienced in regard to the tribunal, and throughout the discussion that fact had become more and more prominent every moment. Several suggestions had been made, but they were not practical suggestions; therefore, if the Amendment were now withdrawn, it would be for the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General to consider whether, later on in the Bill, a clause could not be brought up embodying the principle and pointing out what the tribunal ought to be. It would be childish to vote for the principle without any tribunal for carrying it out. Everyone must admit that there was a difficulty in the Amendment; and, therefore, he appealed to the hon. Member, and to the hon. Member's Friends who sat around him, to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he felt sorry that his right hon. Friend below him (Sir William Hart Dyke) had accepted the proposition of the Attorney General to withdraw the Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: He has not done so.] His right hon. Friend had certainly done so, and he (Mr. Onslow) very much regretted it, for he really did not know what the proposition of the Attorney General was. When the hon. and learned Gentleman first got up he said he would have nothing to do with the Amendment. The Solicitor General then made some sort of wavering recognition of it, whereupon the Attorney General said he would consider the matter on Clauses 36 and 40; but he held out no promise that he would accept the Amendment. He (Mr. Onslow) did not think they wanted any Corrupt Practices Bill at all if the Amendment were carried. The germ of all corruption in a borough consisted in sending men down to the place to bribe the voters, and they were the men they wanted to catch red-handed. The Attorney General knew very well that there was an association which had sent men down from a particular locality to corrupt more than one borough he was conversant with. He would ask the Attorney General if per-
  1464
  sons sent down from Birmingham did not grossly corrupt the City of Oxford? Was it not mainly owing to Messrs. Schnadhorst and Nuttal that they had had gross corruption in Oxford? Those were the men they wanted to catch red-handed. Again, who was it who corrupted the borough of Evesham? It was Mr. Nuttal, sent down by the Birmingham League; and if they did not insert some clause to this effect in the present Bill, they would allow the Birmingham League to run rampant in every borough throughout the Kingdom. He quite agreed that this was really one of the most vital parts of the Bill. The Attorney General himself admitted that there was a great deal in it, and he had said that when they came to a certain clause he would consider it; but, notwithstanding, he held out no promises. He (Mr. Onslow) believed that there was a unanimity of feeling on both sides of the House that something must be done. When these people knew that they could be summarily convicted by a local tribunal for bribery and corrupt practices, those corrupt practices would be stopped to an extent which the Attorney General did not appreciate at the present moment. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had begged the Attorney General to take the matter into serious consideration. The hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colenel Kingscote) said he cordially agreed with the principle of the Amendment; but he thought they ought to leave the matter to future consideration, if the Attorney General promised that he would frame a clause in reference to the tribunal. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not promised to do anything of the kind. All that the hon. and anything Gentleman said was that he would consider the matter on Clause 36; but he had made no promise at all as to adopting the Amendment. He (Mr. Onslow) appealed to his right hon. Friends, all of them sitting in a row below him, not so readily to agree to any proposition which came from the Attorney General. They should recollect that there were others besides themselves who had taken a deep interest in the Bill, and who were desirous of making some comments upon its provisions. He appealed to his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) to withdraw

  1465
  his offer to withdraw the Amendment, until he received a satisfactory assurance from the Attorney General that he would bring up a clause dealing with the question.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought that the Attorney General had shown the greatest willingness to meet the views of the Committee as to the Amendment; but he pointed out the great difficulty which existed in regard to the tribunal. The way to get the principle of the Amendment carried into law was not to run off upon a discussion as to the operation of the Birmingham League, but to make practical suggestions. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would suggest to the Attorney General that in every borough and in every county, at every election, there was a perfectly impartial magistrate available at the present moment, and that was the Returning Officer. [Cries of "No!"] If any hon. Member would tell him of any case in which a Returning Officer had been charged with improper procedure, he would bow to his superior knowledge. The Mayor, moreover, was a magistrate during his year of office, and he did not take part in any election contest during his year of office. Therefore, as there was in every borough, and in every county, either a Mayor or a Sheriff who acted as Returning Officer, and as the whole of the country was mapped out under the jurisdiction of the County Court Judges, he thought there did exist tribunals which might readily be made available.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that sufficient weight had been given by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Onslow) to what had fallen from the Attorney General. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he was perfectly willing to consider the matter, and to frame a clause to carry out the wishes of the Committee. [Cries of "No!"] If he had misunderstood the words of the hon. Gentleman he was very sorry. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be positively certain now that the feeling of the Committee was that some tribunal of this kind must be found. That that was the opinion of the Committee was quite clear; and he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he would do his best to frame a clause to carry that view out. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would, therefore, move an Amend-
  1466
  ment to that Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), in order simply to confirm the principle, and leaving it to the Attorney General to carry out the principle. He would move, after the word "conviction," to insert the words "before the Court hereinafter to be described." The Amendment would then read—
  "Or on summary convictions before the Court hereinafter to be described shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four calendar months, and to be fined a sum not exceeding fifty pounds."
  Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "conviction," the words "before the Court hereinafter to be described."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, He must appeal to the Committee whether this was a proposal which the Government could possibly accept? He had said that he sympathized with the object his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) had in view, but that the difficulty He had in his mind was how to find a fitting tribunal. The right hon. Member who moved the Amendment had failed to suggest a satisfactory tribunal. [Lord Randolph Churchill: No!] The noble Lord might say "No;" but the Amendment suggested the magistrates, and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) entirely discarded that notion, and even the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) himself asked the Committee not to accept that proposition. Therefore, He (the Attorney General) was quite justified in saying that that was not a tribunal which could be taken. And now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South - West Lancashire, finding that nobody in the Committee had been able to suggest a satisfactory tribunal, said that it must be left to the Government to find one. Well, then, what was proposed? They had their hands fully tied up at the present moment. Various tribunals had been suggested. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) suggested the Mayor and the Returning Officer; but did that proposal meet with the views of the Committee? [Cries of

  1467
  "No!"] Then, although no one could find a tribunal, the Government were not to wait until they could find one; but the Committee were called upon, by affirming an abstract proposition, to say that a tribunal should be found; and it was not to be found by those who said it could be found, but by the Government, who believed it could not be found. Now, he contended that that was an unprecedented proposition to make to Parliament. These who said a tribunal ought to be found should themselves suggest it. They might ask the Government to do their best to find ono; but when they directed them to find one, whether they could or not, they were placing the Government in a position in which no Government ought to be placed; and, if the Government were to accept the proposition, they might be committing themselves to that which they might find to be an impossibility. In point of fact, the Committee were asked to anticipate the discussion of the tribunal by asserting that a tribunal must be established. He admitted that they could find a tribunal; but what they really wanted to find was a satisfactory tribunal. They did not want to find an unjust or an unworkable tribunal. He asked that the Government should receive fair treatment in respect of the Bill; and he complained that it was unreasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to put forward an Amendment of this kind, and then to shirk the responsibility of carrying it out. The right hon. Gentleman never would be able to carry out his own Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the Amendment, and bring forward the tribunal He was prepared to suggest, the Government would deal with it, whether it was a now tribunal, or ono that was already in existence.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was perfectly willing to find a tribunal; but he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was not what the right hon. Gentleman had previously stated. He was leaving to himself the fullest power of criticism and attack in regard to any tribunal that might be suggested by the Government; and he would probably be found saying—"This
  1468
  is not satisfactory, and that is not satisfactory." If a tribunal was to be found, and the Amendment was to be accepted, let the right hon. Gentleman say what the tribunal was, even now, or at some future time; but when a right hon. Member, occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman, said—"I will put in a clause to make a tribunal, whether it can be found or not, or whether it may be satisfactory or not, but I will bear no future responsibility," he would simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether lie himself considered that that was a fair mode of procedure? If the right hon. Gentleman could suggest a tribunal that would be satisfactory, let Min do so candidly, and at once. The Government could do no more then they had done. He had stated very distinctly that consideration would be given to the subject, and that they were ready to receive practical suggestions from every part of the House. The Committee might ask the Government to do something in the matter; but to ask them to define at once such a tribunal as was required in precise terms, whether it would be accepted by the House or not, was scarcely fair or right. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman, on the ground that it was an abstract declaration, that it was wanting in responsibility, and that the Committee ought not to throw the responsibility upon the Government.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that, as the Amendment was in the direction of lenity, he should be disposed to vote in favour of it; but he was bound to say, honestly, that he did not think it was a practical Amendment. As he understood, it was to be put into operation as early as possible on the morning of the polling day. Therefore, each party would begin arresting their opponents; each would endeavour to discover some person on the other side who had rendered himself liable to arrest, and they would take out a summons, or procure a warrant, to bring him before the local Bench of Magistrates. That would happen at about 11 o'clock in the morning, and, by half-past 12, the other party would follow suit; and they would have more persons taken before the local Bench to answer charges of bribery and corruption. Indeed, such cases had actually happened. He could mention a borough,

  1469
  not far from London, where this scheme for checking the operations of rival political Parties was followed by ono Party. But the other side soon followed suit; whereupon both Parties were glad to drop the proceeding. He thought that, so far from the Amendment being a practical check upon corruption on the polling day, it would tend to increase it. If the corruption was not to begin on the polling day, but some days before, all he could say was that the comedy would take a little time longer, and, instead of being a one act farce, it would be a five act drama; and the result would be even more ridiculous as regarded the law. He could not agree with these fanciful remedies in the name of purity of election, because they failed to meet the requirements of substantial justice. It was ludicrous to suppose either that the Mayor or the Returning Officer of the hen. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) would be a perfectly satisfactory tribunal. What would the hon. Member think if the Conservative Party were to find themselves in the hands of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)? He (Mr. Lewis) recollected when the hon. Member was the distinguished Mayor of the distinguished borough of Birmingham; and. he recollected, further, that there were some remarkable proceedings, in which the impartiality of the hon. Member was impeached, although, no doubt, improperly. Nevertheless, it was the fact; and he did not think that the Tories of Birmingham would be glad to appear even before so illustrious a magistrate as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) in a case concerning a Birmingham election proceeding. Other instances might be cited quite as strong; and he was surprised that a man like his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), with all the knowledge he possessed, should suggest that a Mayor or a Returning Officer would be a proper tribunal. It was a ten times worse tribunal than the Bench of Magistrates, because it would be undiluted Party spirit and unchecked Party spirit. They knew very well the course pursued in constituting a borough Bench of Magistrates. One Lord Chancellor appointed six magistrates to the Bench, and when he went out of Office the new Lord Chancellor appointed six
  1470
  others from the opposite side of politics; so that where one had put upon the Bench, say, six Liberals and two Conservatives, the next put on six Conservatives and two Liberals. He appealed to hon. Members whether it was not the case that under the present and previous Administrations they had had piteous appeals made to them as to the state of local Benches of Magistrates, and the condition of Party politics upon them in consequence. The only case in which they ever saw any sign of impartiality was the ease of some poor doctor who had been made a magistrate and did not want to commit himself, and who managed to keep both sides of his patients by voting first with one side and then with the other. He was the middle man, who, according to an American expression, had his feet on different sides of the rail. If he (Mr. Lewis) were, unfortunately, summoned before a Bench of local magistrates in the middle of an election contest, and he saw that the Bench was rightly composed, he would at once say—"Go on with the case; I shall get out of this with flying colours;" but if he did not like the look of the Bench he would, no doubt, say—"This won't do at all, and I should prefer to be tried by a jury of my countrymen." Much as he should like to see anything done that would pull down the atrocious severity of the Bill as to the punishment it inflicted, He could not vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, who, by the way, was a zealous supporter of the Bill. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which induced him (Mr. Lewis) to look on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman with suspicion. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had become so much in love with the Bill that he was continually opposing its author because the provisions of the measure did not go far enough. He believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not only sincere, but awfully sincere. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman had many good reasons for his sincerity. He (Mr. Lewis) thought he had found, in going through the Members of that House, the reason of the wonderful love they had for the measure. They thought it would diminish in future their election expenses. Not only was the cost most extravagant now, but

  1471
  there was very great danger, after a candidate had been returned, that he might lose his seat. He believed that the Attorney General was sincere. At all events, he (Mr. Lewis) was sincere in his opposition to the Bill. He preferred to try things that were practical, and not things that were simply shadowy and vapoury.
  MR. HICKSsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Attorney General had overlooked the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), which, to his mind, was of a very practical character. The suggestion that the matter should be left to the Returning Officer had not appeared to meet with general approval; and he quite thought that to leave the decision of such a question as that to any two magistrates who might by chance be at the Petty Sessional Division at the time of an election would not be to leave it to a tribunal which would commend itself to the country at large. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle was that two magistrates on the Bench should, at a Quarter Sessions, previous to the election, be selected and appointed for the express purpose of trying these cases. The Bench of Magistrates would only elect men of experience and of judicial mind, on whose integrity and honesty they could rely to discharge this duty. He was sure that if a small Bench of Magistrates were chosen in that way there was no borough or county in the country in which the magistrates so appointed would not do their utmost to discharge their functions in a judicial and impartial manner. He had himself some little knowledge of what the result was likely to be, because it would be in the recollection of a large number of Members that some years ago, under the Licensing Act, it was the duty of the magistrates at Quarter Sessions to appoint a Select Committee to sit in judgment upon the applications for licences granted under the Bill. There was, at the present time, no feeling whatever that the magistrates so appointed had exercised their functions in any other than a perfectly judicial and impartial manner, without any reference to Party purposes. They acted as Judges, and L· did what was right and proper under the circumstances, and in accordance with the spirit of the Act; and, therefore, he said that if they adopted the suggestion of the hon.
  1472
  Member for Newcastle they would have a tribunal, on which full reliance could be placed, always ready to deal with cases which might arise.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he entirely agreed with the object that the right hon. Gentleman had in view; and if it were possible to deal with the offences at the time, and if it were a matter of certainty that punishment would follow upon their commission, he thought that would do more to purify elections than any other means that could be adopted. But he thought the Attorney General had a fair ground of complaint, when he said that there was no chance of any assistance coming from the other side of the House in the form of a practical suggestion. He was bound to say that, although he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) with all the respect that was due to his authority in matters of this kind, yet he had not heard from him any suggestion which would afford a solution of this question; on the contrary, he gathered from his speech that there was considerable difficulty in settling the question with reference to the tribunal. He dismissed at once the proposal made by his hon. Friend opposite with regard to the local magistrates. From his knowledge of the magistrates he could not view the hon. Member's suggestion as in any way meeting the difficulty. On the whole, he thought it better that the Amendment should be withdrawn; and he trusted that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would consider, during the progress of the Bill, whether they could not adopt some means to meet the general desire of the Committee that some tribunal should be appointed for the purpose of dealing summarily with offenders.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), in suggesting a fair and impartial tribunal, had spoken only with reference to England and Wales. The lion. Member said that he excluded Ireland from his observations. But the Committee should bear in mind that this Act would apply to Ireland as well as to the rest of the Kingdom. For his own part, he did not agree that the magistrates would be impartial at elections in England and Wales; but what would be the case in Ireland? It would be

  1473
  something like that which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), when he said the local magistrates should have the power of dealing summarily with strangers who came down at the time of elections. He remarked that every Member in the course of this discussion had spoken of bribery and corruption; but no one had observed that the Amendment related also to undue influence and treating. Suppose the provision contained in the Amendment was the law in force in Ireland at the present moment; he believed that in 10 or 11 districts in the county of Mallow a corresponding number of persons would be charged with the offence of undue influence, and committed to prison. The magistrates would certainly have committed the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) — who had gone over to Ireland and used intimidating language at a recent election. It was impossible to constitute a Court that would act impartially in this matter; and, therefore, he said that the clause could not work. He was quite sure that neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General could hammer this Amendment into a practical shape; and he trusted they would not yield in their opposition to it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his desire was to save the time of the Committee. He did not want to have a pre-mature decision upon the matter now, because it might prejudice the question when it again came forward. If the Attorney General would frame some Amendment to carry out the proposal, he could assure him that it would receive most careful and impartial examination at their hands. But if He did not see his way to do that, lie would undertake to bring up an Amendment proposing a form of tribunal, although, in so far as money was involved in the proposition, it would be for the Government to take the initiative; because he did not wish to have any technical difficulty on that ground sprung upon him as a reason for not moving his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not for the Government, but for Parliament to provide the money which might be necessary for the purpose of establishing a tribunal. He would suggest that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) should en-
  1474
  deavour to place before the Committee, in connection with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, an Amendment which would meet the requirements of the ease. He had no doubt that a proposal coming in that manner would be a very valuable one. He had no objection that an attempt should be made to solve this question; and if hon. Members would put forward any practical proposal, he was quite sure the Government would most carefully consider it, although he wished it to be understood that He could assume no responsibility in this matter.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was not in favour of the course which had been suggested. In the first place, the promise of the Attorney General was absolutely illusory; because, when they reached the clause to which he had referred the Committee, the question could not be revived. If the suggestion of the Attorney General was carried out, he ventured to say that the Government would be sure to quarrel with every tribunal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire might propose; and, further, that they would not ask Parliament to grant any sum of money for the purpose of carrying out the object of the Amendment.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving—
  "That a person convicted on indictment of treating by corruptly
  accepting or taking meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, shall not be liable to more than three days' imprisonment without hard labour, nor to be fined more than ten shillings."
  He made this proposal in the most serious spirit; and he trusted that, although the question might have been regarded somewhat lightly, it would appear to be worthy of the attention of the Committee. The object of the clause was said to be to make treating and bribery dangerous to the candidate, and so take away from him the temptation to commit the offence; but it seemed to him that the way in which the Bill endeavoured to arrive at that result was not the right one. To punish a very poor person, who was tempted by those who ought to know a great deal bettor than to seek to obtain his vote by bribery and treating, seemed to him to be punishing the wrong man. The technical offence of treating, by accepting meat, drink, entertainment, and

  1475
  provision, so far as elections were concerned, was an entirely new one; it had not existed before, but had been created by this Bill; and he thought it would be found difficult to make an average Englishman of the poorer classes understand that He was committing a sin against the law when he accepted a glass of beer, or some other refreshment, from persons whom he would naturally consider to be in every way capable of giving him moral as well as material guidance. The Attorney General proposed to punish the recipient of treating. In Clause 1 it was provided that a man who received treating was, for the first time, to be considered guilty of corrupt practices, and liable to all the penalties described in this section. He pointed out that it was only in an infinitesimal number of cases that persons would lay themselves open to be prosecuted for the offence of receiving treating, or receiving entertainment, whatever that meant. As a general rule, it would be only the very poorest of the people who would place themselves in that position. The Amendment which he proposed dealt entirely with the passive aspect of the offence of treating, because it seemed to him that a person who was treated stood in quite a different position from him who actively committed the offence of treating others. He thought the clause, in its present form, would not commend itself to the country at large. They had heard what an outcry was raised about those corrupt bribers who were sent to gaol not long ago for corrupt practices in connection with a certain election; but would there not be au immensely greater outcry if poor persons were to be sent to prison for accepting a glass of beer from persons in a superior station, who ought to know better than to give it them? He was quite sure that if severe sentences were passed upon such persons it would be revolting to the common sense of the community. It might be objected to his proposal that there was a discretion given to the Judge. He was aware that it was proposed to give uniform discretion to the Judge; but He did not think that the exercise of that discretionary power would be at all uniform in cases of this kind. On the contrary, he believed that they would see one Judge punishing poor men very severely, and another Judge punishing them very lightly for the same offences—a result that could
  1476
  have no other effect than to bring the law into contempt. He held that his Amendment would prevent the commission of a gross injustice. But, in making this proposal to the Committee, he was not disposed to stand closely to the figures contained in it. If it was thought that the three days specified in his Amendment were insufficient, He was willing that the number should be extended to six; and, further, that if 103. was regarded as too small a fine, He was willing that the delinquent should be fined £1. In conclusion, he urged strongly on the Committee that, taking into consideration the relative positions of the persons concerned, the offence of receiving treating was not the same as that of giving it. He considered that by adopting his Amendment, or the modification of it which he had suggested, they would be punishing the poor man as severely as circumstances demanded; and. he trusted that the Committee would take that view of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 36, at the end, add—"Provided always, That a person convicted on indictment of treating by corruptly accepting or taking meat, drink, entertertainment, or provision, shall not be liable to more than three days' imprisonment without hard labour, nor to be fined more than ten shillings."—(Mr. H B. Samuelson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not assent to the Amendment, because it almost prohibited punishment in the case of the offence of treating. They had agreed that treating should. be an offence punishable under the Act; but this proposal of the hon. Member for Frome to inflict three days' imprisonment was equivalent to the infliction of no punishment at all. Moreover, he regarded the imposition of the fine of 10 s. as quite insufficient for the purpose. He could see no reason for making any distinction between the person who was treated and the person who treated with respect to the punishment. His hon. Friend said they ought not to inflict the same punishment in both cases. That might be so; but then this was a question which must be left to the Judges.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) had taken up a different attitude towards the penal portion of the Bill than he had hitherto assumed. On every occasion when there had been any suggestion of an alleviation of the punishments to be inflicted under the Act, he had been one of the loudest supporters of the Government in opposing such alleviation. On the last occasion, he said the proposed mitigation of punishment would, if adopted, be equivalent to making one law for the rich and another for the poor. But that was the very thing the hon. Member was now endeavouring to do by his Amendment; because he had himself informed the Committee, in the course of his speech, that the only persons who would be the recipients of treating were the very poorest class of the people. It was clear, therefore, that his proposal was to create one law for the rich and another for the poor. The hon. Member argued that the penalties of the clause ought to be reduced in the case of the man who was treated, because he was a passive party to the offence. But it appeared to him that the reverse was the case; because the man who received the glass of ale, sandwich, or whatever it might be, was the consumer of it; and how in any sense he could be called passive, under those circumstances, quite surpassed his comprehension. He was, however, obliged to the hon. Member for moving this Amendment, because it showed to what a ridiculous length the Bill went in matters of this kind. The hon. Member, who had been one of the most prominent supporters of the severity of the Bill, had shown that he knew very well that the Bill dealt with an act so trifling in its character, and imposed upon it a penalty, to his mind, so ridiculously disproportionate, that he considered the case would be met sufficiently by three clays' imprisonment, or a fine of 10s. He had no doubt that most hon. Members opposite had voted hitherto in favour of the penalties proposed by the Bill, on the same rules and lines as those which regulated the action of the hon. Member for Frome. After they had passed Clause 1, it was found necessary to say—"Oh; but some of these offences are looked upon as being really so trivial that they need only be visited with three days' imprisonment or a fine of 10 s." He
  1478
  had no doubt they would have many proposals, in the course of the proceedings, of a character similar to that of the present Amendment; and hon. Members would be able to go down to their constituencies, and say — "I was the friend of the poor man. Why should he not have a glass of ale when he goes thirsty to the poll? I stood up for the poor man; but I voted for putting the rich man under lock and key." The Amendment of the hon. Member for Frome was a deliberate attempt to make one law for the rich and another for the poor; and he was happy to see that it would not be successful.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he congratulated the Attorney General on having refused to adopt this claptrap Amendment. The proposal was most insidious, and he was glad that it had not escaped the keen eye of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Had it been accepted. it would have opened the door at once to wholesale treating; because to remove the severe penalty which the Bill proposed to inflict on the recipient of treating would be to remove the main instrument for dealing with that form of corruption. The adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Frome would have this effect—treating would no longer be done by the candidate or his supporters; but some worthless or paltry agent would be employed for the purpose who would be willing to run the risk of being discovered. Numbers of persons of this class would be willing to accept an appointment of the kind, and would forthwith begin a system of wholesale treating. Unless those who accepted the tempting offers were amenable to the same penalties as those who gave them, corruption would prevail as largely as ever. If this Amendment were passed, a candidate who did not treat would be accused of stinginess by those who wanted the gifts, and did not much care what happened to the donor. The punishment proposed by the hon. Member was altogether insufficient for the purpose of checking this form of bribery; and he believed the object of the Bill would be frustrated by its adoption.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONsaid, the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was based entirely on false premises, for he had not proposed one law for the rich and another for the

  1479
  poor, nor had he in any degree changed his attitude with regard to the necessity of eradicating the offences of bribery and treating by the infliction of really effective punishment. By his Amendment He drew a distinction between the offence of treating, which was usually practised by the well-to-do, and that of accepting treating, which was usually committed by the poor. These were different offences; but every man, under his Amendment, would receive precisely the same treatment for the same offence; all that he objected to was, making it an offence of equal magnitude as regarded the possibility of punishment for a poor man to receive a treat, as for the rich and powerful to offer it; but he held that the latter ought to be punished as the law provided; so that the hon. Member for Londonderry had put the shoe on the wrong foot. The remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) who had last spoken were entirely wide of the mark, the Amendment having nothing to do with the person who treated. But as the Amendment had not received much support he would withdraw it, although He had proposed it in all sincerity.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should very much like to take a Division on this Amendment, for he was very strongly in favour of it. It was quite right to punish a man for treating or receiving a bribe; but six or twelve months' imprisonment was altogether too severe. He objected, also, to the enormous powers to be given to the Judges. Under the Mutiny Act a court martial had enormous powers, and an officer might be shot or cashiered even for not sending in his report. That might be right in regard to courts martial, although he had always argued against it; but, certainly, such power ought not to be given in regard to electors. It was quite enough to have these very severe laws for the military, without applying them to civilians. He regarded the Amendment as a judicious one, and he thought they ought to begin gently with the new arrangements. He was afraid that in future, if one man offered another a drive during a county election and stood him a drink, they would be associated together, and might be made liable to 12 months' imprisonment. It would not be a matter of so much importance to punish them by a fine of 108. or a week's
  1480
  imprisonment, and that would not be worth the trouble of a Division; but, as the matter stood, he should challonge a Division, if he could find anyone else to say "No" with him, and to tell with him. He should be glad to see who were anxious to give electors six months' imprisonment, and who were not.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there had been a good deal of discussion on the subject of treating electors; but he wished to mention another form of treating which he had found infinitely more common and more disagreeable than that dealt with in this Bill. Any number of penalties were provided for candidates who treated voters; but there were no penalties for voters who treated candidates. That was what Irish Representatives suffered most from. The well-known hospitality of the Irish people was so great that every man upon whom a candidate called insisted upon treating him, and considered himself grossly insulted if the offer was refused. Would the Attorney General consider it worth while to introduce a clause to preserve candidates from being treated?
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LABOUCHEREproposed to move the following Amendment:—
  In page 2, line 40, after "1872," insert—"(3.) A Parliamentary candidate, who accepts a title within three years after his defeat, or a person who, being a Member of the House of Commons, accepts a title, or a person who, having been a Member of the House of Commons, accepts a title within three years after he has ceased to be one, except for eminent services rendered to Ms country, as distinguished from services rendered to a political Party, shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term of not less than one year, and to be fined any sum not less than one thousand pounds."
  He hoped the Attorney General would agree to this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but the Amendment does not appear to me at all to come within the clause.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to point out that his object was to punish any Member who, after having been elected, received what he must term a bribe.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am of opinion that the Amendment is not in Order.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether he could alter or amend the Proviso in any such way that it would be in Order?
  MR. LEWISrose to Order, and asked whether, if the hon. Member had proposed to enact that, certain things being done by a candidate, he should be held guilty of corrupt practices, it would not be in Order?
  MR. GLADSTONE, rising to Order, said, that the hon. Member was not speaking to the point of Order, or to the Amendment, but to some Amendment which was not before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton is not within the compass of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out "ten," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Kenny.)
  Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'seven' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  illegal Practices.
  Clause 6 (Certain expenditure to be illegal practice).
  MR. E. STANHOPE (for Mr. GORST)moved an Amendment to make it clear that the clause included the canvassing of voters. If that was not clear in the clause, he hoped the Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, after "made," to insert "on account of the canvassing of voters."—(Mr. E Stanhope.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought this question required some explanation. There was no prohibition of the spending of money in this clause; but substantially the Schedule dealt with that matter. But, if this Amendment was agreed to, it would not be possible for a candidate's agent to canvass, because he would require to have money in order to go about from place to place. He did not see how a candidate could be placed in such a position as that; but the Schedule virtually limited the power of canvassing. If they intended to prohibit canvassing altogether they must do it by express declaration; but his impression was that that could not be done.
  1482
  The object of the Amendment was affected by the Schedule; and, therefore, he hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he should not have moved this if he had intended to prohibit canvassing altogether, be-cause he thought that was not possible. If it was clear that the purpose of the Amendment was met by the Schedule he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought there was great doubt whether canvassing was or was not prohibited by the Bill; but it appeared to him that the insertion of these words would make it more distinct. This was, in principle, an illustration of many other difficulties. They were now going to allow canvassing to exist, and there was danger of all the evils which were complained of continuing to exist; and, therefore, to a large extent, he was disposed to take the view of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that the further they went the more difficulty he saw in dealing with the subject.
  COLONEL NOLANasked whether a candidate would be brought within the clause if he hired a carriage?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): NO.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he could not support the Amendment. By all these indirect words hon. Members were making coats of armour and chains of mail for themselves. Anything more inexpedient than this Amendment could not be conceived.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from "on" to "or," in line 21. This was a question of very grave difficulty, upon which he thought everybody would be slow to express a confident opinion; and while the Attorney General, and those who had prepared the Bill with him, had carefully considered their side of the question, he should like to bespeak the attention of the Committee while he put the other side. The question before the Committee was whether hired cabs or carriages, or other conveyances to take electors to the poll, should be or should not be legal. The history of this question was very singular, and very contradictory. For many years it was doubtful whether a payment for conveyances was legal. There had been

  1483
  a decision upon the question by the House of Lords, which, while it did not decide the main question, decided it upon a side issue, and threw such doubt upon the question that the Legislature interposed, and passed an Act by which any payment for the conveyance of voters was prohibited. No penalty, however, was attached to the offence, and the Act had been evaded for years. If the practice was to be prohibited, it should be prohibited in an effective manner by Parliament; and if it was to be allowed, then that should be open and above-board. The usual practice was for a convenient friend to pay for the cabs, and then the candidate paid him after the election. In 1880, an Act was passed legalizing such payments in England, if not in Ireland; and he was not sure whether it applied to Scotland or not. But these payments were objected to on two grounds—first, as an illegitimate mode of bribery; and, secondly, as an illegitimate cause of increasing the expenses of an election; but He thought there was no bribery involved in hiring carriages; on the contrary, there was great difficulty in getting cabs on the polling day, and the owners dictated their own terms. It was, no doubt, a serious item in regard to election expenses, and if he could see his way to vote for the abolition of this cost he should be very happy to do so; but if they were going to prohibit the hiring of cabs by men of moderate means, they must prohibit the lending of carriages by men of wealth. If the Attorney General would prohibit all round, he should not say another word; but he objected to men of the middle class being subjected to this great disadvantage. He did not know what clause the Attorney General would be prepared to consider later on in reference to increasing the polling districts; but, as a matter of fact, according to the present system of polling districts—putting several polling booths in one district, it was impossible to poll a constituency without the use of carriages, especially where the constituency consisted, to a large extent, of working men, because, otherwise, the men would have to ask them to sacrifice their breakfast or dinner-hour in order to walk to the poll. He did not wish to treat this matter in any Party spirit, but simply to do what was fair, and what was the
  1484
  best thing in order to do justice to candidates of all pecuniary capacities and all classes. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had, later on, a clause on the subject; and if the Attorney General would say he would accept the hon. Member's clause, he would withdraw his. There was a class of gentlemen of both political Parties who went into boroughs and could command the loan of almost unlimited carriages by which they could take voters to the poll; and if the Committee provided that other men should not have the opportunity of hiring carriages, they would be placed at a great disadvantage. If the clause were agreed to as it stood, it could be easily evaded by wealthy men, who would buy up all the cabs and carriages in a borough, and then sell them again after the election was over. He hoped the Committee would have a full discussion on this subject.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from "on" to "or," in line 21.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he did not believe that electors in counties wanted conveyances, for they were quite able to walk three miles to the polling place. He objected to the enormous powers which it was proposed to give the Judges; but this was a very sensible clause, except that it allowed a certain number of committee rooms. If conveyances were not wanted in Ireland, as they were not, why should they be wanted in England? Possibly, they might be required in some parts of Scotland; but He should heartily support the clause, which he considered the most valuable clause in the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the effect of this clause would be to disfranchise a great number of voters; and that seemed to be the general tendency of the Bill. It dealt in a factious spirit with a number of minor subjects; but it ignored a great question with which the United States had found it absolutely necessary to deal, and that was the question of conspiracy to corruption. That matter had hitherto been omitted, and when the time came he should be prepared to show an enormous contrast between the legislation of the United States and the legislation now proposed

  1485
  for the regulation of elections under the Ballet. He did not know whether the hon. Member intended to divide upon his Amendment; but the whole tendency of the Bill was to disfranchise voters, and disqualify candidates.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he liked this Bill very much, and he was anxious that the words proposed to be left out should be retained in the Bill. He know of a county in which the election at several boroughs was held on one day, and in others on another day; and the carriage proprietors in the borough in which the first election took place sent the carriages to the others on the next day, and put them up for auction between the two opposing parties, so that, literally, one side or the other had to purchase the carriages at most exorbitant prices. About £6 a-day for each carriage was paid in one borough; and He had no doubt that if these words were expunged from the Bill, candidates like himself would be put to enormous and exorbitant expense with regard to the hire of carriages. He did not see how, in connection with this Bill, the Government could deal with the matter of private carriages and conveyances. He knew not by what means it was possible to exclude persons who had private carriages or carts from making use of them during an election—nor was he very anxious about the matter, because he thought property of that sort was pretty equally divided; but if it were not, he did not think it would be possible for the Committee to interfere in a satisfactory manner in that respect. There could, however, he thought, be no doubt that if these words were omitted one of the most fertile sources of expense would be left open. In one borough with which he was acquainted the cost of carriages in 1880 amounted to £3,000; and from such expenses hon. Members on both sides of the House, he was sure, must desire to he relieved. He wished to point out that this clause, if passed as it stood, might be evaded by persons conveying voters not "to" the poll, but to within a short distance of the poll. He hoped the Amendment would not be adopted.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he considered the arguments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) as, in many respects, unreasonable. If they allowed a rich Man to
  1486
  collect the carriages of his friends to convey voters to the poll, they certainly ought to allow a comparatively poor candidate to hire conveyances; and he could not see any difference in principle between refusing to allow a candidate to pay railway fares, and then to allow him to borrow his friends' carriages. The real remedy for this difficulty was to do away with the necessity for carrying voters at all, by increasing the number of polling places.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, that he had had considerable experience in East Cumberland with regard to this subject; and he should think that out of £4,000 or £5,000 spent on an election £2,000 would be for carriage hire, while only about £300 would be for railway fares. Formerly the charge for the use of a two-horse carriage was £10; but at the last General Election the two sides agreed to pay only £7 108. and He was afraid that price could not be reduced. If the hiring of carriages could not be carried out without the prevention of carriages being borrowed He would go that length, for he found that by Clause 44 there was to be a polling place within three miles of every elector. He believed that was the distance within which schools were supposed to be of labourers' cottages, and if a child could walk three miles surely a voter could. He observed that Clause 45 made special provision for conveying voters by sea; and if it should be found in any county that there were voters living more than three miles from a polling place, the Sheriff should have power to send a carriage to a particular place for the use of both sides.
  MR. STANTONsaid, he thought that if the hiring of carriages was to be stopped, the borrowing of carriages ought to be also stopped; but that, he believed, was impossible. He also thought there was no reason to exclude railway fares, for in many cases it might be found more convenient to take voters to the polling places by railway than by carriages, and the principle seemed to him to be precisely the same. The object to be aimed at was to render it as easy as possible for every voter to go and give his vote. This matter raised a very large question; it opened up the whole question of the out-voters. If this clause was not carried, and no provision was made for paying the expenses

  1487
  of those voters, he should endeavour, by some clauses in the Ballot Bill which he hoped to get before the House this Session, to provide voting papers which might be filled up by the voters and sent to the Returning Officer. In the meantime, they must confine themselves to the question of how far it was desirable to pay for the expenses of voters going to the poll. He was bound to say that he thought there were certain objections to that; but, on the other hand, it had always been done. Although it was not legal, it had never been held sufficient to void a seat, and he did not see anything wrong in it. He should vote for the Amendment; but he should also propose to amend the Amendment by including railway fares, by inserting the words "or for railway fares." If the Amendment was not carried, probably some other Member's Amendment might effect the same object—namely, legalize the carrying of voters to the polling places. He could not see why a poor man should have to walk more than three miles. His own borough was 10 miles in one direction, and eight in another; and it was impossible for working men to walk that distance and record their votes during their dinner time or in the morning; and they could not afford to sacrifice half-a-day's work. In his borough it had been customary to have a half-holiday on the polling day; but it was at the sacrifice of half-a-day's work. To avoid that disadvantage, there ought to be some provision of this kind adopted.
  MR. CARPENTER GARNIERsaid, he had given this question great attention; but He was bound to say he could not agree with his hon. Friends. By this Bill, they were endeavouring to reduce the expense of elections; but if this source of expenditure was allowed their efforts would be futile. He should have thought that in most boroughs working men could walk to the polling places; but in the counties, it was said, a great many voters would be disfranchised. But the polling places, it must be remembered, would be, as a rule, within three miles. He did not think this lending of carriages was a question of the higher classes as against the lower classes, because carts and other conveyances in the counties could be lent. Therefore, he did not see that that question at all affected the case. In many
  1488
  cases there was great abuse with regard to hiring conveyances; one side would, perhaps, engage all the conveyances; and the other would bring conveyances from a great distance. In the case of Durham County, conveyances were brought all the way from Edinburgh; and it would be perfectly impossible to keep down the cost of elections if this great item was allowed to remain. As at present advised, he should vote for the clause as it stood.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was almost sorry the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had made this proposal to the Committee. In spite of the length of time they had been considering the subject, he failed to see that the proposal was one which deserved support. He remembered that, just before the last General Election, the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had been a Member, had passed a short Act to make it legal to employ cabs in borough elections; and he also remembered that amongst the great mass of the working classes of this country this was considered the most unpopular thing they had done for some time, as it was thought that it would make it easier for the rich man to win an election than the poor man. Whether that prediction was true or not the Election of 1880 would prove. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had asserted that it would be unfair, in the case of the poor candidate, to deny him the right of employing cabs, when the rich candidate would be able to avail himself of the private carriages of his wealthy friends. Yes; but his hon. Friend appeared to forgot that cabs were luxuries which poor men could not by any means indulge in. The charge for hired cabs on the day of the election amounted, if he were not mistaken, to a guinea each in most cases, and in some cases to a great deal more. He should like to know where the poor candidate was to be found who could indulge in the luxury of 600, or 700, or even 100 cabs at a guinea or two guineas a day? He ventured to say that if they moved at all in the matter of this clause, it should be rather in the way of amending it in the sense of prohibiting the conveyance of any electors to the poll either by cabs or by carriages. Some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side—the hon. Member for North Warwickshire

  1489
  (Mr. Newdegate) he thought—had said that unless the use of conveyances was permitted a great many electors would be disfranchised. He (Mr. Broadhurst) did not think they would be disfranchising many persons if they insisted that all those who recorded their votes should walk to the poll to record them. He did not believe it would disfranchise 1 per cent, or anything like it, of the voters throughout the whole of the country. Of course, there were always a number of people who were sick or lame, or otherwise incapacitated from walking to the poll when the election day arrived; but in those cases there would be every opportunity of adopting other means of getting them to the polling place. He had known enthusiastic voters and electors to carry their sick relatives to the polling booth on their hacks. That had been done in more eases than ono. During his own contest, in the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent which was a large borough like Stroud, being 12 or 15 miles in length, and five or six miles broad—at the General Election of 1880, it was necessary for him to tell the electors that he could not possibly provide cabs to take them to the poll, but that if there were any exceedingly anxious to vote for him and unable to walk, if they would provide a wheelbarrow, he would undertake, on his part, to wheel them to the poll to record their votes.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: A wheelbarrow would be illegal under this clause.
  MR. BROADHURST: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said the use of a wheelbarrow would be prevented under this clause. He should not object to its being prohibited, because he had not been anxious to wheel a dozen or so lame electors, particularly if they were well-conditioned, to the poll. His idea of the Amendment was that it would give every advantage to the wealthy candidates, and work, in a proportionate degree, to the disadvantage of poor candidates; and he, therefore, sincerely hoped that the Committee would not agree to the proposal. Hon. Members had said it was impossible for workmen to walk to the poll during the dinner hour, and that, therefore, unless candidates were allowed to convey them in carriages to the poll, they would be disfranchised; but it seemed to be for-
  1490
  gotten that they had a Bill actually in Committee which proposed to extend the hours of polling very considerably, and that, with extended hours of polling—which he sincerely hoped would be brought about—the very general complaints of inability to go to the poll without losing time would be considerably reduced. Then, as to the assertion that it was very hard indeed for electors to walk three or four miles to record their votes, he could assure the Committee that, by the great majority of working men electors, it was looked upon as a high privilege to vote; and the more they insisted upon enforcing that view of the case the better it would be for purity of election. They ought not to pander to the novel idea that the election day was a holiday or festive occasion, when men in the habit of toiling all the other days of their lives were to be conveyed up and down the borough behind a pair of horses in a carriage, the owner of which would not turn round to recognize them either the day before or the day after the election. It appeared to him, if he might use such a strong term without offence, nonsense to say that men could not be expected to walk two or three miles for the purpose of recording their votes. He himself had, at least three or four nights a week, to walk four miles in order that he might remain in the House after 12 o'clock at night to discharge his duty in recording votes; and if he, and probably other Members besides, were to be called on, six or eight months out of the twelve, to walk four miles after 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, in order to discharge a Parliamentary duty, surely hon. Members ought to be the last to hesitate to call upon electors to walk three or four miles, once in the course of four or five years, in order to record their votes for a Member of Parliament. He trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton would not go to a Division on this question, because He was certain the hon. Gentleman would himself see, on second thoughts—if He had not given second thoughts to it already—that the proposal was absolutely in favour of the rich, and to the disadvantage of the poor man.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken in trusting that this Amendment would not be pressed to a Division, as he was quite sure that the power of using carriages

  1491
  wholesale would result in great corruption. On this matter he (Mr. Gorst) was rather in the position of a person standing before them in a white sheet, because in the last Parliament he pressed on the Government the desirability of adopting one of two alternatives—either to make the hiring of carriages a corrupt practice which should void the election, or else to legalize it. The reason he did that was because the law, as it stood, down to the end of the last Parliament, was a dead letter. It was habitually evaded, which circumstance produced a very bad moral effect, and led to a great deal of corruption. The course taken by the Government, though it was taken with a good intent, led, he believed, at the last Election, to a large amount of corruption. He was very strongly of opinion that if they wished to have purity of election in boroughs they must certainly put down the practice of hiring cabs. In boroughs which were real boroughs there was no necessity for paying for the conveyance of voters to the poll; and he did not think that either in boroughs or in counties they should be without proper provision for enabling voters to record their votes without putting themselves to a great inconvenience. He did not see why the Returning Officer could not go to the house of a sick voter, or the house of a lame voter, and take his vote—they should not carry the elector to the poll, but the poll to the elector—and he failed to see what objection there was to that. The same thing might be done in sparsely populated districts. In these exceptional cases it would be far better to establish some system by which the poll could be taken to the elector than to run the great risk of producing corrupt practices by permitting the conveyance of the voter to the poll. While admitting there might be some cases where it was necessary to make some provision for taking the vote where the elector was either infirm or lame, or such a distance from the poll, or that it was impossible for him to walk or convey himself there at his own expense, he was sure that so sweeping an Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would open the door to a vast amount of corruption; and, for that reason, if the hon. Member went to a Division, he (Mr. Gorst) should have to vote against him.
  MR. MONKsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would take the advice offered to him, and not press his Amendment to a Division. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had alluded to a Bill, which was brought in during the latter days of the preceding Parliament, which legalized the conveyance of electors to the poll by means of carriages. Many hon. Members now sitting on that side of the House made earnest appeals to the Government not to press that part of the Bill; but, unfortunately, it was after the Dissolution had been announced, and few Members remained in their places except those who were obliged to be present to support the Government of the day. There were, however, a few Scotch Members who made so strong a protest against legalizing the conveyance of voters to the poll by means of hired vehicles, that the Government gave way in the matter with regard to Scotland. Surely, if they had made it illegal to convey voters to the poll in the Scotch boroughs, there was no reason—at all events as far as he could see—why it should not be illegal to convey voters to the poll in the English boroughs. The practice was quite unnecessary, because, with the exception of four or five large boroughs in England, which were, in fact, small counties, there were no polling places at a greater distance than half a mile from the residence of the voter; and it was, of course, easy enough for the voter to walk to the poll. But in the case of invalids he thought the suggestion a good one—that the Returning Officer, or one of his deputies, should be allowed to attend the house of a voter, on a sufficient medical certificate being produced, to take his vote. He trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to go to a Division on his Amendment.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he gathered that the practical effect of this Amendment, combined with subsequent Amendments, would be to legalize the conveyance of voters both in boroughs and in counties. He could not speak from any personal knowledge as to the necessity for the conveyance of voters in boroughs; but he was certain, with regard to counties, that the prohibition of the conveyance of voters to the poll would be equivalent to the disfranchise-

  1493
  ment of a large number of electors, who must necessarily belong to the very poorest class. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had informed the Committee that every night after the adjournment he was accustomed to walk home—a distance of four miles—and be concluded that, therefore, a working man would be able to walk the same distance in his dinner-hour for the purpose of recording his vote. But that reasoning He thought perfectly absurd. Again, he did not believe there was any proposal made in the Bill which so handicapped poor candidates as that of stopping the conveyance of voters to the poll. How were the Government going to deal with the acknowledged difficulty involved in this question? They proposed to bring the poll to the voter—that was to say, they intended to have more polling places; and he understood that in every county and borough there would be a polling place for every 500 voters. The effect of this would be that, as the number of voters would be greatly increased, so the expenses of the Returning Officer would be proportionately increased. But the expenses of the Returning Officer was compulsory on the candidate, whereas the expenses set forth in the Schedule to the Bill were optional. Thus they were going to relieve optional expenditure in order to increase compulsory expenditure. Therefore, he said that in proportion as they increased the expenses of the Returning Officer they would disqualify the poor candidate. That was a point which he believed had not yet been mentioned in the Committee by any hon. Member. The Bill was designed to produce purity of election; but did anyone say that the sanctioning of the conveyance of voters to the poll had in any way led to corruption? There was not a single allegation of the kind in the last Election Petitions; it was never hinted that the expenditure upon conveyance had, in the slightest degree, influenced the result of any election. He maintained that if the Bill passed in its present form, the Government were disfranchising a large number of persons belonging to the poorest class of the community. He had an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which, after listening to the various opinions which had been expressed on the subject, he intended, if the present Amendment were not carried, to lay before the Committee.
  1494
  the proposal was that the conveyance of voters should be allowed in counties, and not in boroughs. The Government had admitted that there were material obstacles in the way of a voter recording his vote, which would have to be overcome. It was agreed that when a voter lived in an island, the candidate might convey such voter across that part of the sea which separated him from the main land. In this case a material obstacle was offered to the voter's recording his vote by the sea; but the obstacle was just as great when a distance of three or four miles on land separated him from the polling place. If a man could be rapidly conveyed to the poll he could get through all the business of voting in his dinner-hour; but if he had to walk there it would take him more than an hour to record his vote. That being so, if an employer wanted to prevent his men voting he could easily do so; he would be enabled by the Bill to exercise a considerable amount of undue influence. Looking at the matter from a perfectly impartial point of view, he thought the best plan would be to allow the conveyance of voters in counties. The amount of expenditure could, of course, be limited; and, if that were done, it would protect candidates standing for counties from undue exaction for the hire of carriages; it would reduce the amount which the poor candidate had to pay to the Returning Officer, and generally, he believed, the plan would work well. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton went to a Division he should support him, because he was generally in favour of the conveyance of. voters to the poll. If the Amendment were lost, he hoped the Government would bear in mind the observations he had made. One thing was clear—they could not make conveyance of voters to the poll an illegal practice. It was all very well to say that a rich man should not be conveyed; but suppose a costermonger gave his friend a lift on the road to the poll, did the Government propose to make that an illegal practice? He thought the Amendment before the Committee was one which common sense and experience had shown to be worthy of attention.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not give way, because he was satisfied there was not a readier way of corrupting constituencies than the hiring of cabs at elections. In

  1495
  some constituencies there were a great number of voters who owned public carriages, and nothing would be easier than for a rich candidate to hire every cabdriver in the town, paying him considerably more than he could got for his day's work, and in that way corrupt a number of voters, sufficient, perhaps, to turn an election. He had a Return in his hand which related to the elections for the borough of Preston; and he found that on the occasion of one election £211 17 s. 6d. was spent in cab hire by the Conservative candidate, and £117 2s. 8d. by the Liberal candidate. On the second occasion, Mr. Simpson, the Liberal candidate, polled, without employing a single cab, almost within 100 votes of Mr. Thempson, who was better known in the district. He did not hesitate to say that this clause of the Bill was as necessary in counties as in boroughs; he believed that 99 out of every 100 electors walked to the poll, and that so long as the system of hiring vehicles for conveying them there lasted it would lead to the most extensive bribery.
  MR. HICKSsaid, there could be no doubt that this was a most important and difficult question. If they drew the line too strictly they would disfranchise a number of electors; on the other hand, if they relaxed the clause they might open the door to a great amount of bribery and corruption. But there appeared to him a way out of the difficulty. As far as boroughs were concerned, he thought it might be met by the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gorst), that in special cases the vote might be taken at the house of the elector; while He was of opinion—and he asked the attention of the Attorney General to this point—that in counties the same privileges might be allowed to electors who had votes in districts other than those in which they resided as were now enjoyed by electors who lived outside counties. At present, an elector living in Westminster, having property 20 miles from London in Surrey or Kent — might vote at the nearest polling station to the river-side; but if he had happened to live on the other side of the river, he would have been obliged to travel 20 miles in order to record his vote. That appeared to him an anomaly. He thought there would be no necessity for the conveyance of votes if they were
  1496
  allowed to vote in the district in which they resided. With regard to those voters who lived out of the county, he thought they might, with great advantage, adopt the practice of voting by papers, which was now in operation in the Universities. That system prevailed not only in the English, but in the Scotch Universities; and, as far as he was aware, there had never been any complaint that abuse or malpractice of any kind had resulted from it. Therefore, he thought Her Majesty's Government would do well to take into consideration the two small but important alterations he had suggested—namely, that every elector resident in counties should vote at the polling place nearest to his residence, and that the elector who lived outside should vote by papers. If these proposals were adopted, he thought the other Amendments on the Paper could be got rid of, and the sub-section they were engaged upon easily passed.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, his hon. Friend had stated that the employment of cabs was a source of corruption; they were, undoubtedly, a source of expense; but there was a difference between those two things. In some districts the mine owners had been known to utilize the pit ponies for the purpose of conveyance; and He said if a poor man were to be put in the position of not being allowed to hire conveyances, or to allow his friends to do so for him, and if the large employer was to be allowed to use the means of conveyance in his possession, then the poor man would be placed in an unfair position. He was disposed to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but, if that were not agreed to, this matter would have to be carried to its legitimate length. As the question now stood, he should vote for the Amendment, because he thought the Government position was at present inconsistent and inconsequent; and, as it had been justly said, it would. place the rich man at an advantage.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that he should be glad if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would accept the invitation from that side of the House to withdraw his Amendment. If the hon. Member went to a Division he was sorry to say he could not support him, because, in the first place, he was sure that legalizing the conveyance of voters to the

  1497
  poll in carriages hired by the candidate would seriously increase the cost of the election. It was quite true, as the noble Lord had said, that it was optional upon the candidate to spend money in this way or not; on the other hand, if it were not permitted to the candidate to convey voters to the poll, the expense of the Returning Officer would be increased, because the number of polling places would be increased. But he thought the voluntary hiring of carriages was practically compulsory, because, if the number of polling places were not sufficiently increased, it would be almost impossible, if one side hired all the carriages, for the other candidate to get voters to go to the poll. The borough which he had the honour to represent was one of those improperly so-called, for it was, in fact, a small county; in it the voters lived a considerable distance apart, and unless the number of voting places was increased, it was almost a necessity that the voters should be conveyed to the poll. The increase of the number of polling stations meant an increased expenditure; but that would be less than the present expenditure, which, although it was said to be voluntary, was, in fact, compulsory so far as the candidates were concerned. Not only did he think that to allow the candidate to incur expense for the conveyance of voters to the poll would lead to corruption, but he disliked a system which led the voter to suppose that it was the duty of the candidate to convey him to the poll; the idea ought not to be encouraged that it was any part of the candidate's duty to afford facilities for voting. He held that the more the electors were made to understand that they had to discharge a public duty in recording their votes, and that they were not to place themselves under any obligation to the candidate, the nearer would be the approach to purity of election. The system of allowing candidates to hire carriages for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll, even in the case of those who lived at a distance from the polling stations, would, in his opinion, be attended with bad effects, because if they allowed it in one case the electors would expect it to be done in another. It was practically the case now that they expected the candidate to take them to the poll, even though they could and ought to walk there. For these reasons, he could not vote for the
  1498
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. They must remember that, although people in the middle rank of life and the lower rank of life did not keep carriages or drags, a great many of them kept carts, which they were very ready to utilize on the day of an election in conveying voters to the poll if they knew they were to be paid. He was quite sure that if they legalized the hiring of carriages, persons who threw a cart into the work would expect to be paid for the loan; if they made it illegal to hire carriages, a great many of a candidate's supporters would voluntarily place their carriages and their vehicles at his disposal.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would stand firm, and refuse the Amendment of the lion. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The Committee would be extremely sorry to learn that there was no one in Wolverhampton who would lend his carriage to the hon. Member to carry voters to the poll, just as they would be extremely sorry to hear that the cab-drivers of Scarborough were open to corruption, as the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) had described them. This was a very important clause; and it was perfectly evident that in boroughs, especially largo boroughs, the employment of a great number of vehicles might not only be the cause of large expense, but of a very serious amount of corruption. He, however, should be disposed later on to support an Amendment which would justify the conveyance of voters residing beyond a certain distance. He considered that a distance of two or three miles warranted the conveyance of voters to the poll. The borough he had the honour to represent was, undoubtedly, the purest constituency in England. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] Corruption had never been known in the borough of Eye. He was sorry that the mention of the borough was received with a good deal of misplaced levity by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). Certainly, Eye had never returned such Members as the borough of Stoke was in the habit of returning. Reference was made by the hon. Member who had just sat down to the impossibility of preventing persons, whether they belonged to the wealthy or the poorer classes, offering to convey

  1499
  their friends to the poll. It was quite obvious that such a prohibition was quite impossible; indeed, as the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had put it, how could they prevent a costermonger carrying his friend in his cart to the poll? How could they in the country prevent a farmer carrying any of his brother electors to the poll? Anyone who knew country districts well knew the amount of good feeling and good fellowship which prevailed at election times; and when one man conveyed another in his cart to the poll it was certainly not for the purpose of influencing his vote. It would be impossible to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), supported as it was by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), to its extreme conclusion. In large boroughs it was unreasonable to prohibit the conveyance of electors. For instance, the borough of Eye covered 50 miles in circumference. It comprised 11 large-sized villages, and many of the inhabitants were over two miles from the polling-stations. Certainly, no one would say that such voters should not be conveyed to the poll; and he imagined that there would be no difficulty, ultimately, in accepting some of the Amendments which referred to this point. But, as a general principle, if the Government were in earnest in wishing to put down corruption, they ought, in this matter of hired conveyances, to stand firm.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there appeared to be some difference of opinion with regard to the conveyance of voters in counties. He listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) with regard to this matter, because a few years ago he had the honour of contesting Middlesex with the noble Lord, and he knew how expensive the carriage of voters was on that occasion. He believed between them they begged, borrowed, and hired every single carriage they possibly could in Middlesex. In looking over the Return, he found that it cost the noble Lord as much as £1,064 for the carriage of voters, and that did not include the whole number of carriages that were used, because he believed the noble Lord himself was very popular in Middlesex amongst the "gigocracy," and
  1500
  if he had not borrowed a large number of carriages he would have been required to spend considerably more. He quite admitted, with the noble Lord, that there was very great difficulty in having polling places so numerously situated as to bring them home to the door of every elector, and that it seemed hard upon a man if he had to walk four or five miles to a polling station, while someone else lived next door. He thought, however, it would be a still greater evil and objection to continue to permit this large expenditure of money in the counties upon the conveyance of voters. Many Gentlemen might be able to afford the expense; but when they had in one constituency au item of above £1,000 for the conveyance of electors simply, it was clear they limited the choice of electors. So far as He was concerned, he should be glad to see the polling places increased, and that not at the expense of the candidates, but of the community at largo. He would go even further than his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), because he admitted there were places in which the electors were so few that it was impossible to have a polling station. If electors were required to walk a long way He would do what was done in America. In America, if a man lived a long way from a polling station, his expenses were paid to the polling place. If that were done bore everyone would be put upon an equality. That, however, could not be provided by this Bill, because the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had declined to accept the view that the expense should be thrown on the constituency. They had actually to choose between two evils—namely, some sort of inequality on the one hand, and large expense to the candidate on the other hand. Personally, he held it was undesirable to allow the present largo expenditure for conveying voters to the poll to continue.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper providing that if a voter resided more than 15 miles from the nearest polling station he should be permitted to send in a voting paper stating which of the candidates he voted for. Of course, he did not tenaciously hold to the limit of 15 miles. If, however, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) went to a Division, he (Viscount Galway) would feel

  1501
  compelled to vote against him, on the ground that if the Bill was to be of any practical use it ought to put down the largo amount of unnecessary expense which was now incurred in conveying voters. He know something of election contests in counties, and it was quite true that it was necessary very often to bring a certain number of voters up to the poll. As the law now stood, electors seemed to think they had a right to be conveyed at the cost of the candidate. That was a notion that ought to be at once disabused. Certainly, he should strongly oppose the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that no one should be allowed to convey himself or a friend to the poll, because he regarded that as an unjustifiable interference with the liberty of the subject.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not understand the noble Lord's (Viscount Galway's) position. The noble Lord would be very willing to prohibit the very extravagant methods which were now adopted for bringing up people to the poll; but he desired to reserve to himself, and to Gentlemen situated like himself, the privilege of taking voters up to the poll in their own carriages. Did the noble Lord suppose that that was not a bribe? What had they been doing? The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had said they surely would not prevent a costermonger taking his friend up in his own cart. Yes; he (Mr. Rylands) would; he would prevent a costermonger giving a friend a shilling for his vote, just as he would prevent him giving him a lift to the poll. [Viscount FOLKESTONE: Oh!] Yes; the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone), with his carriage and pair, might very easily bribe—["Oh, oh!"] Yes; he might very easily bribe a farmer. The very fact—
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He wished to know if there was any Question before the Committee as to conveying voters to the poll except in carriages paid for?
  MR. RYLANDS, continuing, maintained that he was strictly in Order. He was remarking that it was necessary to stop the use of private carriages; and he was arguing, further, that the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone), if he chose to use his carriage and pair in bringing farmers and others up to the poll, he
  1502
  could, by so doing, exercise a considerable influence upon the voters. The very fact of riding in the noble Lord's carriage, or the noble Lord's friend's carriage, would, no doubt, have considerable effect on a voter's mind. He (Mr. Rylands) had experience on this matter, and he would give the Committee the benefit of it. In 1868—he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) looking very earnestly at him, and he could understand the reason, because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well what he was going to say—there was an Act passed which prohibited the use of conveyances in boroughs, and it was supposed by some very simple people that they must not infringe the law by taking anybody up to the poll. He (Mr. Rylands) was one of those simple people; and so anxious was he not to do any illegal act that he did not engage a single carriage. But what happened with his opponents? In Warrington, where the contest in which he was engaged took place, all the butchers, for some reason or other which he could not understand, were all Tories; and what with Cheshire squires with their yellow carriages, and butchers with their spring carts, the supporters of his opponent were brought up in such numbers that very early in the morning his committee began to think that He would be defeated. Two hon. Friends of his stood for Salford, and they determined not to use cabs. Their opponents did, and the result was that his Friends were defeated by a small majority; he had no doubt if his Friends had used cabs they would have been returned. They must either do one thing or the other. It was absurd to say it was not a bribe to bring a man up to the poll in their carriage. A Friend of his, Mr. Harrison, a man of the highest respectability and honour, was returned for Bewdley. One of his friends was in the habit of lending a threshing machine to his poor neighbours. The man was a Quaker, and he said to a voter when he agreed to lend him the machine—"I suppose thou wilt vote for our friend Harrison?" The result was that, because the man had said that when lending the threshing machine, Mr. Harrison was unseated; it was held to be a bribe. The Government were bound to say one thing or the other. Did they wish to prevent the conveyance

  1503
  of voters to the poll in private carriages? If they did, they must lay down a rule in such a form that it could not be evaded. He could buy a dozen carriages, and he supposed some hon. Gentlemen opposite would; if Gentlemen were allowed to take voters up to the poll in their own carriages, there was no difficulty whatever in their being well provided with vehicles. The noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone), there was no doubt, would be able to obtain the use of two or three dozen, or oven 100 carriages. He (Mr. Rylands) would put a stop to the conveyance of voters to the poll altogether. It was absolutely necessary they should do something, and if they did anything at all they ought to do it thoroughly.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the Government ought to say explicitly what they meant to do. The Bill as it stood was perfectly useless, and could be easily evaded. It would be very possible for a friend, before an election, to lend a carriage; he was aware that carriages would be wanted to convey voters to the poll, and He lent his carriage, the loan of which was to be repaid by another loan some time or other, after the election. That was the usual practice, and the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had put nothing in the Bill to prevent it. In rural districts the hiring of conveyances led to a great deal of corruption, because all publicans and hucksters kept a carriage, or cab, or wagonnette, or some sort of conveyance, and if a candidate would not hire a vehicle the owner would not vote for him. He defied any hon. Member who had any experience of rural elections to contradict that statement. The only way to grapple with the evil was to make the hiring of conveyances illegal, and then, by every means, multiplying the number of polling places. It was certainly hard for a man to have to be required to go a long way to a polling booth; but if the Government would consent to enlarge their Schedule of expenses so far as the provision for polling places was concerned, it would make very little difference in the expenses of the candidate, but would obviate the need of conveying voters.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he objected to the fixing of heavy pains
  1504
  and penalties upon what was no offence whatever; he could not conceive what possible corruption there was in conveying a man to the poll. It certainly was no inducement to a man to vote in any particular way, and it certainly was no pleasure for him to be jolted on a bad road for four or five miles for the sake of performing a duty the country expected of him. It often happened in counties that the electors were not in a position to walk four or five miles, and neither were they in a position to pay the expense of a conveyance. In Hampshire, his own county, there was a considerable number of very poor electors. Supposing one of these electors came to him, or to any other county Member, and said—"I have voted for you on many previous occasions, and I was anxious to do so again; but I am now so old and infirm that I was not able to walk to the polling station; I had no conveyance, and I therefore hired one which cost me 4s. or 5s. As I am a very poor man, it will be very inconvenient for me to pay that money, and I would be much obliged to you if you pay me a little towards it." He (Sir Rainald Knightley) could not conceive that he would be guilty of any great moral offence if he were to pay the cost of the conveyance; but, according to this Bill, he would be liable to a penalty of £100, and deprived of voting at any municipal or Parliamentary election. Nowadays they did not require a voter to be intelligent; but they did require him to be able to walk three or four miles. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) went to a Division he should support him.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, He approved of the course the Government had adopted in this matter. In some parts both of West Somerset and East Cornwall the number of electors was exceedingly small, and the polling districts were very large. He believed he was not wrong in saying that in the polling district of Exmoor the number of electors was not more than 90, and the district was not less than eight miles across. To put an increased number of polling places in these districts there would result in throwing an unreasonable expense on the candidates. He was certain there were several other constituencies in which the same kind of thing occurred. He did not know Yorkshire well; but

  1505
  there must be many parts of Yorkshire in which there must be a similar state of things. They were told that the voluntary conveyance of voters was a means of great corruption. He, however, believed that it was exactly the reverse. There was nothing more common than a combination of voters to provide for their own conveyance to the poll, and there was no reason in the world why electors should not be able to carry one another to the poll. He objected to anything like legalizing in counties or boroughs payment for conveyances; it was almost impossible that that should be done without corruption; and he sincerely trusted that the Government would not agree to any Amendment on the subject.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he considered the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Acland) had the very opposite effect to the one intended, because the hon. Gentleman had pointed out the great difficulty there was in large counties of voters exercising the franchise. The hon. Gentleman hinted at Yorkshire. Now, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could speak with some knowledge of the neighbouring county—Lancashire—in which the polling districts were very large. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) had said it was impossible that polling places could be provided in sufficient numbers to meet all cases. Now, the object of the Government in this Bill was two-fold—the one was to stop corruption, and the other to prevent extravagant expenditure at elections. Personally, he did not consider there was any corruption at all in hiring carriages. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that was his opinion. And, speaking from experience, he did not think that one single voter was influenced by being carried to the poll. When they came to the question of expenditure, he agreed that the conveyance of voters was a very serious matter; and he entirely agreed with what was evidently in the mind of the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) that if the expenditure now incurred in conveying voters to the poll was allowed to continue the Schedule of expenses would have no chance whatever of being carried in the form in which it existed. The question seemed to him to divide itself into two parts, one with regard to boroughs, and the other with regard to counties. Boroughs and counties stood
  1506
  on a totally different footing; and if hon. Members would recollect how this Bill came to be introduced they would see on what a very different footing counties and boroughs did stand. According to the old law, it was illegal in boroughs to hire cabs; but though it was illegal the result was that in some cases both parties entirely disregarded the law; in some boroughs the political Parties decided that neither would prosecute the other for that disregard of the law. It was under these circumstances that the late Attorney General (Sir John Holker) brought in a Bill, in 1880, to allow the use of conveyances at elections. It was impossible that the then state of things could be allowed to exist, and the Government were obliged to decide what they would do in the matter. They were required to decide what they would do, and the result was that they resolved to legalize the conveyance of voters in boroughs, and an Act was passed accordingly. The right hon. Gentlaman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made a remark which He (Sir B. Assheton Cross) thought was extremely sensible. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not the course he would have recommended, for he considered it would have been far better to have put a stop to the practice altogether; but he felt the late Government could not have carried a proposal to that effect, and, that being so, the Government were driven to do what they proposed, for nothing could be worse than to leave the country in its then state of uncertainty. He believed that in boroughs, if polling places were increased, people would be able to get to the poll without conveyances; but in counties the case was very different. If they were to say that the voters in the distant districts should not be convoyed to the poll they would be practically disfranchised, and thus a great hardship would be worked. He could not understand how there could be two opinions as to the right of a man to convey a voter to the poll in his own carriage. The question, however, was, how were they to vote in this matter? If the question only affected boroughs, he should not care two straws which way the vote of the Committee went, because he really did not think it made any difference. He confessed he should be rather glad to see the practice done away

  1507
  with in boroughs; but in counties the case stood on a totally different footing. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) proposed to strike out the words "on account of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll." He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would like to see those words struck out; and he would like to leave it to the Attorney General, if he wanted to confine the clause to boroughs, to introduce words to that effect. He should vote for the omission of the words.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was a question of great importance, upon which hon. Members might take a different view, and which he was happy to say had, from first to last, been discussed in a spirit which was likely to lead them to a right conclusion. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that because he was a county Member lie ought not to care what was done for boroughs.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he distinctly stated that he should be glad to see the practice of conveying voters to the poll in boroughs abolished.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was a question of degree, because, so far as the principle was concerned, if counties claimed exemption on account of distance, in boroughs there were infirm voters who could not vote, however near the polling place might be. The position of the question before 1880 was that the conveyance of voters in boroughs was au illegal payment, whilst in counties it was a legal payment. The late Government legalized payment for conveyance of voters both in boroughs and counties; but they had now their experience since 1880 to guide them. The result of that had been that, without doubt, the expense of elections had been vastly increased since that time; and, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said, one of the objects of the Bill was to prevent extravagant expenditure at elections, and the conveyance of voters was one of the items of expenditure that could be readily got rid of. It was proposed, both in respect of boroughs and counties, that it should be rendered illegal to expend money in the conveyance of voters. Now, the evil with regard to expenditure was far greater in counties than in boroughs, quite independent of corruption. The
  1508
  present large expenditure shut out all men of moderate means from the representation of counties; and as they increased the expenditure in counties they diminished the worth of their Representatives. The necessity of this Bill, therefore, was forced upon them. Let them take particular county Members opposite into council. What did they say? What was the view with respect to this question entertained by the bulk of county Members? Did they wish to maintain that great expenditure? Did they desire that their election should be carried at much expenditure? If they said they did, he almost thought they could approach the question from a Party point of view. He would accept their view; and He believed, if any question could affect his mind in relation to this Bill from a Party point of view, it would be the most satisfactory result to the Liberal Party of continuing the conveyance of voters in counties. He had received remonstrance after remonstrance that this Bill was detrimental to the Liberal Party. Liberals were constantly urging upon him that the hiring of conveyances should be permitted, because the vast majority of carriages that would be placed exclusively at the disposal of voters were those owned by Conservatives. It was quite plain that the Conservative Party, owing to their superior social position, had a far vaster number of carriages at their disposal than the Liberal Party; but it appeared to him that that was a consideration that ought not to weigh with them at all. They must take the good and the bad together; and if it was a right thing to do, they ought to do it. If hon. Members opposite would take that view, and say that the practice of employing carriages in counties should no longer prevail, he would undertake to say that those who were mostly interested in the Liberal Party in counties would agreeably accept the same view. They, however, ought not to look at this question from a Party standpoint; they ought not to be guided by any consideration as to which Party would gain or which would lose by the change. He hoped the Committee would understand the effect of the Amendment. He saw no way of effecting the principle of a Maximum Schedule if the Amendment was carried. If they were to say that this expenditure was to continue, they would have a rich candidate engaging

  1509
  carriages of every kind — a fact that would place him in a much superior position to a poor opponent. Were they going to suggest that they should have limited expenditure in counties in respect to conveyances? He asked the Committee to beware of accepting the Amendment, unless they were going to abandon the Maximum Schedule. What would become of the constituencies? He believed that they would be polled to a very great extent, and that everyone who wished to go to the poll would got there in some way or other. In olden times no elector was taken to vote. The freeholders of Buckinghamshire who supported John Hampden were not conveyed to the poll; the Yorkshire voters who supported Wilberforce in 1784 found their own way to the poll; and, to come down to recent years, the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) found his way into that House without hiring one single carriage. He had no hesitation in saying that, without conveyances, men who really desired to record their votes would find their way to the poll, just as they now found their way to the church or the market town. Those, then, who wished expenditure at elections to be reduced would do wisely if they accepted the Bill as it was now framed, and did not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made a great point about diminishing the expenditure in the counties. He wished to remind the Committee of this—that it might be true that isolated county elections were expensive; but that it was not, in the long run, an expensive matter to sit for a county. Often one election was very expensive and another was very cheap. If they looked at the county Members in that House they would find that some hon. Gentlemen had sat for counties for many years without a contest. In the case of North Wiltshire, the uncle of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who now represented that county, sat for 30 years without one. It frequently happened that when the strength of Parties in counties was once decided there was no election for 30 or 40 years; and the county Member who had fought his way into the House at considerable expense very often sat for the term of his natural life without having to go through any further election contest. He very much doubted whether the cutting clown of
  1510
  expenditure in county elections would be found to be a cheap thing, in the long run, for county Members. The question, however, now before them was that of the conveyance of voters; and they were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite—they were told by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that every gentleman ought to walk to the poll. As he understood his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands), if he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) rode to the poll on his horse he would commit an illegal act. The hon. Gentleman did not wish electors to drive in their own carriages or ride on their own horses, but to walk to the poll. That seemed to him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) to be a very novel principle to set up. It seemed to him that the Bill was intended to enable any man to got into the House of Commons without expense. They all wanted to see the amount of expenditure diminished; none of thorn wanted to spend more money than they need; but, at the same time, he did not think the course the Government were pursuing on the Bill was one that would raise the character of the Members in future returned to the House.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, He hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) would see his way clear to withdraw the Amendment. He was sure, in so doing, he would meet the wishes of the Committee. As far as boroughs were concerned, cabs were not wanted. Anyone who had seen a borough election would see that there was a cab given to each canvasser; in that cab possibly a voter was brought up who lived, perhaps, only 30 or 40 yards off, and as the day were on they found the cabs standing near the polling booths in large numbers absolutely doing nothing. Setting aside the question of corruption, the Government ought to stand by this proposition on the ground of expense, seeing that this was a Bill to reduce expenditure at elections. The only excuse for the use of cabs in boroughs was that named by the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton)—namely, that it very often happened that working men were at work some distance from the polling booth, and could only vote in their dinner hour; but the real remedy for that was to keep the poll open until 8 o'clock at night. He j believed that neither side wanted to be put to the expense of cabs; but if one side did it the other side did it. The

  1511
  remedy in counties would be found in the multiplication of polling booths. Although that might throw extra expense on the Returning Officers in some cases, there would be a distinct advantage gained. It was a positive disgrace to see the expense to which county Members were put with regard to the conveyance of voters. For instance, in the last election for East Cumberland £2,680 was spent in convoying voters to the poll; in North Durham, where there was a constituency of 13,000, £4,069 was spent in conveyances; in Bedfordshire, however, the successful candidates only paid something like £46 in conveyances; whilst in Montgomeryshire as much as £5,800 was expended in the conveyance of voters. He thought that the Committee ought to sympathize with the position in which county Members were placed against their will. It must be against their will, because, as long as the law allowed it, as long as there were the means to do these illegal things, they would be done; and no county candidate dared refuse expenditure when it was made for him. They seemed to have been mixing up two questions—namely, the hiring of conveyances and the loan of conveyances. The two things were not necessarily connected, and they had better dispose of the one, and secure the candidate from unnecessary expense, by rendering it illegal for him or his agent to hire a conveyance, and then turn to the consideration of the other question.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, that the question was one of considerable importance. He represented a largo city, and the majority of the electors there were of the working classes. A large number of them lived at least five miles from their places of business. Many hon. Members had suggested, as a remedy, an increase in the number of polling stations; but that would not meet the difficulty in such a city as Liverpool. The place at which a man was to vote was generally near his place of residence; and if a man had to go five miles to work, it would be utterly impossible for him, during his dinner hour, to record his vote, unless he could be conveyed to the booth. The abolition of the right of conveyance would mean the disfranchisement in Liverpool of at least 20,000 working men, unless they were prepared to sacrifice their day's labour. He would not be one who would in any way attempt to disfranchise the working classes of
  1512
  this country; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler). He regretted very much that he had not spoken before the Attorney General addressed the Committee, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded to this question, and He seemed to suppose that the extension of committee rooms would meet the difficulty. He (Mr. Whitley) wished to point out that the extension of committee rooms would not meet the difficulty, and that it was absolutely necessary that they should have some means by which these people could come to the poll—otherwise they would be practically disfranchised. The question was a difficult one, but it had to be faced; and he earnestly hoped the Government would give it their best consideration.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member appealed to the Government as to what plan they would propose to meet the case of the working men in Liverpool who would be disfranchised by the present proposal. In reply to the hon. Member, lie would point out that there was another Bill before the House—namely, the Ballot Bill—in which the Government had made a proposal which they thought would meet the point raised by the hon. Member. Did not Liverpool follow the practice adopted in the other large towns of Lancashire of giving a half-holiday to the working people on the day of election? [Mr. WHITLEY: No, no!] At any rate, that had always been the statement of Lancashire county Members. Those hon. Gentlemen had always opposed the proposal for extending the hours of polling, on the plea that it was the custom in Lancashire to give a half-holiday on the election day to enable the working men to record their votes. But if, as the hon. Member for Liverpool had said, this facility did not exist in Liverpool, then, as he had pointed out, the remedy for the evil would be found in the extension of the hours of polling, which would be given in the Ballot Bill.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that before the Committee wont to a Division on this point he wished to ask a question of the Government. For himself, he was opposed to the use of vehicles at elections; but there were many districts where voters were eight or nine miles from the polling place, and the hon. and learned

  1513
  Gentleman the Attorney General had not as yet said one word as to how he proposed to meet that difficulty. It was suggested that the difficulty might be got out of by enabling electors to vote by means of voting papers; but not one word had fallen from any Member of the Government with regard to that matter. There were also some other questions, such as that which had been mentioned by an hon. Member sitting below him—namely, the case of those who were not allowed by their employers, who differed from them in politics, to be absent on the polling day, except at the dinner hour, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt with. How did the hon. and learned Member propose to deal with the case of these electors? Then, also, there was the case of voters who were either too old or too infirm to walk to the polling place. were they to be disfranchised? The case of these three classes of men had been brought under the notice of the Attorney General, and yet, in his speech, he had not said one word about them. How were all these men to get to the poll? If they were to receive no facilities to enable them to got to the polling places, were voting papers to be allowed? This question should be answered by some hon. Member from the Front Ministerial Bench.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he wished to bring before the notice of the Committee a matter which was unique in county electioneering. They had heard a great deal about the expense of county contests; and He would, in this regard, tell the Committee what had occurred during the last two elections in South Northumberland. There was au election in consequence of Lord Eslington going to the other House. There had not been an election for a very long time, and, consequently, both Parties made up their minds to have a great fight over the seat. No less than £8,000 was spent on each side, and the result of the election was a tie. At the next election, in 1880, there was great enthusiasm about the fight; but there was a great difficulty as to the means of carrying it on. About £2,600, however, was subscribed and put into the bank; they determined to have only one agent; they did not employ any conveyances, and they returned their man at the head of the poll. When the accounts came to be made up, the solicitor who had charge
  1514
  of the financial arrangements had the pleasure of returning to the subscribers 50 per cent of their subscriptions. Out of the £2,600 only £1,300 was spent.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the very touching story they had just heard from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) was capable of a very simple explanation. The expenditure at the former election carried the candidate at the latter. Everyone who was familiar with election matters knew it was sometimes necessary to invest a large sum on one election in view of an election which was to follow. People were not so ungrateful as it was supposed. There was one class of electors who would be largely disfranchised by this provision—namely, men who held small properties, but who did not live in the county. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were constantly declaiming in favour of a division of property; and he would point out that as soon as property was divided amongst persons not blessed with other moans, and who, in all probability, would have to earn their living in the towns, they would be practically disfranchised. He admitted that wealthy men who bought small freeholds were able to convoy themselves to the polling places; but poor men who acquired small properties in the counties, very often their birthplace, who, he would venture to say, would be as valuable and independent a part of the constituency as any others, would be disfranchised by this Amendment.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was in this unfortunate position—that he cared a great deal for the boroughs and little for the counties. The Amendment had received support mainly from considerations drawn from the counties. With regard to the position of the boroughs, he did not think the Committee had fully considered the grievance under which they laboured, and to which he wished to draw the attention of the Government, for the purpose, if possible, of getting it remedied. The grievance of the boroughs was this—that it was not easy to poll the men under the existing law without means of conveyance—that they could not, between 8 and 9 in the morning, and 1 and 2 in the afternoon, walk from the places where they were working to the poll. It was said that they were going to extend the hours of polling; but, whatever might be the intention of the Government in that respect, that was not yet the law; and he

  1515
  was sorry to say that there was no provision in the Bill for increasing the number of polling places in boroughs—there was for counties, but not for boroughs. He presumed he should be defeated on this question; but if he were, he should certainly submit an Amendment in favour of providing accommodation in boroughs for additional places of polling. No one had contended that this employment of conveyances was a means of corruption. There might be places like Scarborough, for instance, and other seaside and pleasure resorts, where the employment of conveyances might be made a means of corruption, because, in these places, there were a large number of people who attached themselves to the business of hiring out vehicles; but it would be easy to cope with that difficulty, by prohibiting the person who hired out his conveyances exercising his vote. It would be fair and just to both Parties if, whilst they were preventing the hire of cabs and carriages in order to save their own pockets, they, at the same time, prevented wealthy persons from using their own or their neighbours' carriages. If they were going to save themselves expense in this matter of' hiring conveyances, they should be equally fair to the men who had not the long pockets which they possessed, and who might be able to pay something for the hire of conveyances, though he could not command the use of private carriages. If they were going to prohibit the hire of carriages, then, in justice, they should prohibit also the lending of carriages. He contended that for hon. Members to enact, for the purpose of saving their own pockets, that carriages should not be hired, and to decline to make a law against using private conveyances, they were making one law for the rich, and another for the poor. Perhaps it would meet the views of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) if he withdrew his Amendment in order to enable him (Lord George Hamilton) to bring his proposal forward free from any embarrassment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, said, his Amendment was to insert in line 20, page 3, after the word "poll," the words "in a borough." He had already stated his views, and it would be, therefore,
  1516
  unnecessary to go into the subject again. He was aware that the conveyance of voters had been the means of extortion, and that, in consequence having to hire vehicles, candidates had been put to great expense. Should the Government favourably entertain this Amendment, he did not see any objection to putting some limit to the expenditure that might be incurred for the conveyance of voters into the Bill. The expenses might be proportioned to the number of voters in the county and, on looking at the Schedule, his impression was that a very slight addition to the amount already allowed in counties would be sufficient to cover all the necessary expense of the conveyance of that small number of voters who would be unable to make their own way to the poll. He hoped the Attorney General would understand that if his Amendment were adopted, he did not believe it would add materially to the expenditure of county elections, and that, by a little alteration of the Schedule, they could make the amount a small one. He quite admitted that the present expenditure was extravagant, as it led to everyone expecting to be taken to the poll, and refusing to walk.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after the word "poll," to insert the words "in a borough."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the noble Lord was good enough to say that He would not repeat his argument; and, as he had kept his word, he (the Attorney General) would follow his example in the matter. He had stated his objections to the proposal in his observations in regard to the last Amendment. Therefore, he would not repeat his remarks. The noble Lord's Amendment would leave the expenditure in counties as it stood at the present moment—that was to say, it would leave the expenditure on conveyances unchecked. To that he (the Attorney General) had already stated his objection.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that the Metropolitan constituencies, such as he represented, which were partly borough and partly county constituencies, had not been properly considered in this matter. In the constitu-

  1517
  ency he represented there were a large number of out-voters. One gentleman had written to him from Toulouse to the effect that he should be glad to come to record his vote, if a first-class return ticket were sent out to him. In many constituencies there were people who were anxious to record their votes, but whose position was not such as to enable them to pay any considerable sum in railway fares. As to what had been said against the Amendment by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), he could not conceive any stronger argument for leaving the law as it stood at the present moment. It had been pointed out that it would be impossible to carry out elections without expenditure, and the arguments had gone against the course advocated. Those voters who, in order to record their votes, would have to travel a considerable distance should be supplied with some means for doing so; otherwise they would practically be disfranchised. It appeared to him that this clause would have the effect of disfranchising them.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that, if he understood the purport of the noble Lord's (Lord George Hamilton's) Amendment correctly, it was this—that in regard to county elections, eliminating from it the conveyance of electors at borough elections, the law should stand as at present. He thought that the expressions they had heard coming from persons in high position—persons, in fact, in the Government—at public meetings that there should be payment of Members for carrying out their duties to the State, justified the Committee in contending that the Amendment could not be reasonably refused—that if Members were paid for the trouble and inconvenience to which they put themselves, the expense, at least, of electors coming to the poll should be defrayed for them. There were a great number of people in this country who had small freeholds in the counties, and whose business lay in manufacturing centres in which they were obliged to spend their time. As had been pointed out, it was not right, especially whilst advocating payment to hon. Members, that they should put these small freehold owners to the double expense of losing a day's wages, and of paying the cost of conveyance to the poll. These expenses were expenses which should be entirely defrayed by the election agents. He was ac-
  1518
  quainted with a district in which many of the electors who possessed small freeholds had to attend to business in industrial centres, and he had always considered that this was a class who ought to be encouraged to come to the poll. It was very unfair to these people to say—"It is a corrupt practice to pay your expense to the polling place." It was in the highest degree unfair to say that they must themselves pay the cost of recording their votes, when they could not possibly be, for the time being, in the place where their votes had to be recorded.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that, before they went to a Division upon this matter, he wished to point out that to his mind they were somewhat in a difficulty on this question. First of all, if they allowed payment for the conveyance of electors to go to the poll, it would be impossible for them to keep within the bounds that were permitted by the fourth part of the 1st Schedule, referring to the maximum scale. The Schedule said that the expenses, exclusive of personal expenses and sums paid to the Returning Officer for his charges, should not exceed, in the whole, £350 where the number of electors on the Register did not exceed 2,000, and should not exceed £380 — an additional £30 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000—where the number of electors on the register exceeded 2,000. In counties these expenses were not to be more than £500 where the number of electors did not exceed 2,000, and where the number exceeded 2,000 they were not to be more than £540—an additional £10 for every 1,000 above 2,000. It did not seem to him very plain how, under these circumstances, a candidate at a borough election would be able to spend a very large sum for the conveyance of voters to the poll. It was suggested that the payment for conveyances should be allowed, and that, if it were not, candidates and their friends should not be allowed to use private carriages for this purpose. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had suggested that he (Viscount Folkestone) would be able to get an unlimited number of carriages in his constituency. He did not agree with the hon. Member; he should not be able to do that. He should not be able to buy them, for if he were an honest man—and he did not think that he had even yet been converted by Parliamentary

  1519
  contests into a dishonest man—he should consider himself rather a blackguard if He had returned his expenses as below the maximum, and had bought a number of carriages for the purpose of conveying the electors to the poll. If they were not to hire carriages or to have them lent by their friends, the result of that—in his constituency at any rate—would be that hardly any voters whatever would go to the poll. His was a large and scattered constituency, as hon. Members knew, part of it being Salisbury Plain, upon which the inhabitants were not very thickly located. Hon. Members on the other side of the House had been talking a great deal about the expenditure, as well as the extension of household suffrage to the counties; and he wished to put before the Committee these two points—that either they ought to be allowed to hire conveyances to take voters to the poll—which would defeat the object of the Bill, which was the lessening of the expense of elections—or else, in a short time, they would be extending household suffrage to the counties, and giving the greater part of the newly-appointed constituencies votes which they would not be able to exercise. So far as he was concerned, he should save himself the trouble of voting by walking out of the House, instead of remaining to take part in the Division.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he hoped that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), or in his own name, would be adopted in order to enable out-voters to send in voting papers. He would point out that though they took voters to the poll in hired carriages they did not always know how they were going to vote. In a neighbouring constituency to his, the minister of a Dissenting chapel at a recent election had begged all his parishioners to ride in the Tory carriages to the poll and then vote for the Liberals.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 200: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had an Amendment to submit to the Committee which He trusted would be accepted. He proposed to leave out the words "or railway fares," and he believed hon. Members would see that in making that
  1520
  proposal he was raising a question totally distinct from that which had occupied their attention for the last two hours. The Committee had been engaged in considering as to how far it was practicable to prevent any candidate from carrying a man to the poll in his own vehicle, or how far it was desirable to prevent him hiring a conveyance for the purpose in his own immediate neighbourhood. That was a question which he did not desire in any shape or form to re - open. He had voted with his noble Friend on the last occasion because he agreed with him in principle, although he was ready to admit that with regard to the question raised there was a good deal to be said on both sides. The Committee would be aware that there was a large number of voters having qualifications in the counties which did not involve residence, and who were, for the most part, owing to circumstances, resident outside the constituency. He asked whether they were to embark under a Liberal Government in a policy of disqualification and disfranchisement with regard to these voters? He was quite aware that many hon. Gentlemen opposite approached this question with considerable equanimity, because they were of opinion that the Register was far too full of the names of persons who represented the interests of property and proprietary rights in this country. He knew that many of those who in the loudest tones proclaimed their principles as to a peasant proprietary, and desired to carve out the land of the Kingdom into the smallest fragments, at the same time took care to prevent that property, when so carved out, possessing any weight in regard to elections to that House. The noble Viscount the Member for North Nottinghamshire (Viscount Galway)had an Amendment on the Paper, which would, no doubt, to a considerable extent, remedy the grievance to which he had called the attention of the Committee; and he must admit that if the Government would undertake to accept that Amendment, he should not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon his own proposal. But he thought the Committee would clearly perceive that they must do one of two things—the Government must, so to speak, allow the mountain to be brought to Mahomet, or Mahomet to be brought to the mountain. He asked the Attorney General to say which of these things

  1521
  he was prepared to do. Was he willing to adopt either of the Amendments referred to, or expose himself to the charge of having disfranchised a class of men who possessed the most ancient franchise in the Realm?
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 22, to leave out "or railway fares."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the Committee would see that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman could not be seriously entertained after the decision which the Committee had just arrived at. In his opinion, of all the objectionable payments at elections, the payment of railway fares was the most objectionable.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was, to some extent, open to the objection taken to it by the Attorney General, although, at the same time, lie was willing to admit that it raised a question of considerable importance. They would shortly have to consider the question as to how those voters who lived at a distance from the polling stations were to record their votes. This subject would be worthy of the consideration of the Committee, because the persons interested in the question were generally of the best class of the constituency; but He did not think that the question should be raised on the present clause, although he saw upon the Paper several Amendments proposing to deal with it. When the subject was handled it would require great consideration and elaboration of detail in order to arrive at a satisfactory result. His object in rising was simply to suggest that the question should be reserved for consideration at the proper time, when He trusted they might be able to provide fairly for the necessities of the case.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, He did not altogether agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) with regard to this question; because, as far as out-voters were concerned, he was bound to say that they were deserving of a certain amount of consideration at the hands of the House. They had before them a proposal of the Government, which was practically one
  1522
  of disfranchisement of out-voters. He was aware that the Attorney General was very much in favour of abolishing out-voters, and that he wished to see residential voters only recording their votes at elections. Therefore, he asked whether the clause was aimed at that result? because, if that were stated to be its object, they would know the position in which they stood. If that were not the object of the clause, He was bound to say that the subject was deserving of more consideration than it had received. They knew well that any voter living at a distance from the constituency who was not a man of means would not, if the clause were passed in its present form, have an opportunity of recording his vote; its effect would be entirely to shut out the poor man so situated. He thought the Government ought to meet that contention with something more effective by way of reply than the arguments they had addressed to the Committee; and it would certainly be necessary to consider further how it was possible to preserve to out-voters the franchise with which Parliament had entrusted them.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDmaintained that it was not the duty of the candidate to get electors to the poll. Whether resident or out-voters, the expense should fall upon the electors. But He took it that one of the main objects of the Bill was that the representation of great county constituencies should no longer be the heritage of rich men; and he should, therefore, support the proposal of the Government.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, as the point might, perhaps, be dealt with by the Committee in a more impartial spirit on the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for North Nottinghamshire (Viscount Galway), he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. FARQUHARSON, in moving, to insert in page 3, line 22, after "otherwise," the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, That in constituencies where the electors are widely scattered, and where it has been found impracticable or inexpedient to establish so many polling districts as to bring a polling station within reasonable distance of every elector, it shall be the duty of the returning officer, at his discretion, to provide conveyance for the use of electors whose residences are three miles or upwards from the nearest polling station, and to include

  1523
  the expense thereof among his other charges recoverable equally from both candidates,"
  said, the panacea of the Government for the relief of voters living at a distance from the polling places was to increase the number of polling stations in districts where a certain number of voters could be got together; but there were many parts of Scotland where the voters were so widely separated that it would be impracticable to establish polling places sufficiently near to enable them to record their votes. In no part of the Kingdom had the Bill been received with more enthusiasm than in Scotland; but it was feared that, by this clause, many people would be disfranchised. There were some parts where voters travelled 10 or 15 miles to the polling stations. To remedy that difficulty there ought to be more polling stations; but the drawback to that was the expense; and, secondly, there would be great inconvenience in regard to getting all the ballot boxes to the central station in sufficient time. In such cases as these, he thought some little driving might be allowed, because the expenses would then be very much less than if the stations were increased. The arrangement might be carried out by the Returning Officer, and the expenses should be equally divided between the candidates. A voter might be old, or poor, or unable to walk 15 miles, or the road might be bad, or the weather rough, or the conditions of work might be such that He might be unable to leave his work for a whole day. Under these circumstances, many worthy electors would be disfranchised by the operation of this clause. It must be remembered that they were legislating for the future. The franchise was being extended; and he, therefore, hoped the Attorney General would be able to give way in this respect, and to propose some machinery—perhaps better than he had suggested—by which these people might drive to the poll.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 22, after "otherwise," to insert—"Provided always, That in constituencies where the electors are widely scattered, and. where it has been found impracticable or inexpedient to establish so many polling districts as to bring a polling station within reasonable distance of every elector, it shall be the duty of the Returning Officer, at his discretion, to provide conveyance for the use of electors whose residences are three miles or upwards from the nearest polling station, and to include the expense thereof among his other charges
  1524
  recoverable equally from both candidates."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should be very glad to do something to meet this case if he could; but whenever hon. Members found themselves faced with a difficulty they said—"Oh, the Attorney General will provide the machinery." With regard to this proposal that the Returning Officer should, at his discretion, provide certain carriages, in the first place the Returning Officers were now hard-worked. They complained of the great difficulty they had in making all the required arrangements; and he was afraid that under this Bill more work would be required from them. Then he thought this power of discretion might, in some cases, be very much abused. Returning Officers were but human; and, in some instances, they might not be so zealous in finding carriages for one side as for the other. But, if that were not so, they might have great difficulty in finding carriages; and yet, if they did not, they would be liable to penalties for a misdemeanour. Then, where were the carriages to be sent, and how were the Returning Officers to know who were voters? The expense was to be equally recoverable from both candidates; but one might have no out-voters, and yet He would have to pay for the cost of conveying his opponent's electors. He had done—he would not say enough, but what he could in this matter. By Clause 44, he proposed to increase the number of polling districts, and to reduce the distance from every voter from four to three miles. Under the 45th section, provision was made for voters in the Highlands, where men could not possibly walk the distance. He had put himself in communication with many Members for Scotch counties, to which this question was more important than to England, and He did not find them in favour of expenditure in the direction suggested by the hon. Member; but if the hon. Member would raise the question on Clause 44, he would communicate again with hon. Members; and if a solution of the difficulty could be found, he should be very happy to help them to find one.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the difficulty of putting this

  1525
  extra duty on the Returning Officers; but he believed those who knew the North of Scotland would hope that some provision would be made by which scattered voters might be brought to the polling places. If that were not done, He was certain that in several Scotch counties 20 or oven 50 per cent of the voters would be practically disfranchised. In the county of Argyll there were 14 polling stations—one to 150 electors. In one of these polling districts—the one in which he voted—there were 219 voters; and it was no exaggeration to say that of those, there were not 15 who lived within five miles of the polling station. He himself lived 10 miles away, and He had to go eight of those 10 miles by sea, and then drive the rest of the way. But, as the Attorney General had said, Clause 45 met many of the difficulties connected with the Highland counties. It did not, however, meet them all; and, unless something further was done, many electors would be disqualified and disfranchised. He had an Amendment to propose to that clause, which he hoped the Committee would accept; and He believed he should be able to satisfy them that some such provision was absolutely necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment now; but would move it or a similar one upon Clause 45, or else support the Amendment he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) should propose; but if the hon. Member went to a Division he would support him.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he was glad the hon. Member (Mr. Craig-Sellar) had drawn attention to these remote districts where there were but sparse populations; for he feared the Bill would prove a disfranchising measure with regard to them. It was all very well to say that voters might be convoyed to the poll for corrupt purposes; but, unless there was some means of taking them to the poll, they would not be able to vote at all, and would be disfranchised. Clause 44 provided that there should be a polling station within three miles of every voter; but in some parts it might be impossible, even with a reduced franchise, to get together 100 voters, and, consequently, their case would not be met by anything in the Bill. He did not know whether the Government would attempt anything to meet the case of the scattered districts; but he thought there
  1526
  could be no greater evil than that people having votes should not be able to use them, through not having the means of going 10 or 15 miles to record them. He hoped, when Clause 44 was reached, something would be done to meet these cases. Additional polling stations would meet the difficulty to some extent; but if they were going to increase the polling stations indefinitely, how were the expenses to be reduced
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that, although he was not disposed to support the Amendment, He must support his hon. Friend in pointing out the necessity of making provision to meet the case of the Highland counties of Scotland. English Members did not generally realize how widely scattered population in these counties was. He found that in England there were about 16 county voters to the square mile; but in Scotland there were only three, taking the average of the whole country. In Argyllshire there was only one voter to the square mile; in Ross and Cromarty, somewhat more than half a voter to the square mile; in Inverness-shire, somewhat less than a-half; while in Sutherlandshire there was little more than one-fifth of a voter to the square mile. The distance of many voters from the polling stations was thus very great. In Inverness-shire, where he had himself a vote, there were only eight polling stations, having each an average of nearly 500 square miles connected with it. If the Bill passed in its present form, one-half, at least, of the voters in these Highland counties would be disfranchised. That was a state of matters for which some provision was required; but he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend contained a remedy almost worse than the evil it was designed to cure, so far as the candidates were concerned, as it would entail on them enormous expense. He hoped the Attorney General would consider whether some means might not be devised to meet the exceptional circumstances of these Highland counties.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he thought this was not a purely Scotch question. In the Northern parts of Yorkshire, there were instances in which it still took two days to get to Quarter Sessions; but the planting of polling places in remote villages, where only sheep were to be seen, would not meet

  1527
  the difficulty. The fatal objection to the Amendment was that the Returning Officer was to provide the carriages, and the candidates were to pay; but where one man found the carriage, and another man paid, there was not great economy. It would facilitate the discussion very much, and would have done so previously, if the Government would announce now whether they would give any support to a proposal of the nature suggested by the noble Lord the Member for North Nottinghamshire (Viscount Galway).
  MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would seriously consider the contention of the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Farquharson); for that was the direction in which some solution of the matter must be sought. There was an example of his proposal in the Irish system of peripatetic polling for the election of Guardians, by which the policemen took voting papers round to the voters' houses; but he did not suppose that system would be generally introduced into Parliamentary elections. No doubt, the proper course was to open polling stations, and make those who wished to vote go to them; but, in districts where there was a sparse population, it was impossible to provide sufficient polling stations to enable every elector to vote, and the proper course was to take the station to the voter in those cases. If the Government would consider that proposal a great many of the present difficulties would be met.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not break down the principle of not allowing, under any circumstances, travelling expenses to voters, if he meant to adopt that principle in the main. This was only a question of degree. There were many places in Cornwall, Northumberland, and Yorkshire, where the same difficulty existed as in Scotland. He voted in the last Division with the minority, and his view was that the Committee had gone wrong in its decision; but if the rule they had laid down was to be followed at all, it should be followed throughout. As there were questions of degree in Cornwall or Argyll, Inverness or Yorkshire, if they laid down a principle they must stick to it, and not make fish of the Scotch Liberal Members and flesh of the English county Members. He thought that a
  1528
  blot on the Bill was the inconsistency of the 45th clause, with the part now under consideration. Whether there was to be a movable polling - booth, and an ambulance corps going about to pick up the dead and wounded at an election as well as to take votes, he did not know; but if the Committee seriously intended to assist voters in going to the poll, let them be consistent, and not have one principle in one set of constituencies and a different principle in another set. He could not support the Amendment.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he thought there was no desire to disfranchise anybody; and if the Government would not allow any expenses for bringing voters to the poll, perhaps they would consider a method which he thought would meet the difficulty. At Swindon there were 7,000 or 8,000 men, of whom only half were residents. They could not afford to lose a day's work in order to vote; and if they were paid a day's wages in order that they might vote, that would come under this Bill. But there was no advantage in electors voting at the precise place where they had their qualification; and he would suggest that if a few days before an election a voter wrote to the Returning Officer that he was anxious to vote, the Officer might send a notice to that effect to the officer for the district in which the man was engaged, and the elector could then vote where he was—in the same county. There would be no difficulty in that, and no personation. He believed that method would provide a solution for the difficulty now discussed.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR. HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, the Amendment he had on the Paper differed, in some respects, from that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson); and he thought the Attorney General had hit the blot on the Amendment of the hon. Member when he pointed out that the payment of expenses for conveyances was left to the discretion of the Returning Officer. He thought that would be a most undesirable power to put in the hands of any public official, and in his Amendment that provision was altered. He proposed to add, after ''otherwise"—

  1529
  "Provided always, That it shall be the duty of the Returning Officer to authorize the conveyance of such electors as reside more than three miles from any polling station, and within the constituency, if they have signed and delivered a request for such conveyance, and include the expense thereof in those to be borne by the candidates equally.
  He thought that Proviso would meet several of the Attorney General's objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson). In the first place, it was only made incumbent on the Returning Officer to authorize the conveyance of voters resident within the constituency, but more than three miles from the polling place. Hon. Members acquainted with the greater part of Scotland must be aware that, short of peripatetic polling, such as had been suggested, it was impossible to give voters the means of voting, unless they were conveyed to the polling places; and if they were deprived of the franchise, that would mean the disfranchisement of the most thoughtful and most intelligent part of the constituencies. Representation would be thrown entirely into the hands of those who resided in small villages and populous places; and by this enactment a great injustice would be done to the people of Scotland. He hoped the Attorney General would see his way, if not upon this clause, at any rate upon Clause 44, to make some provision for these voters, who otherwise would be disfranchised.
  MR. MONKrose to Order. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) and the noble Lord the Member for North Nottinghamshire (Viscount Galway) had Amendments on the Paper which came in after the word "otherwise." Was it competent for any hon. Member who had not an Amendment on the Paper to propose one between the Amendments he had referred to?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have taken note of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; and as it relates to exactly the same subject as that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) it seems to me that it can very properly be put now.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 22, after "otherwise," insert" Provided always, That it shall be the duty of the Returning Officer to authorize the conveyance of such electors who reside more than three miles from any polling station, and within the
  1530
  constituency, and who shall sign and deliver a request for such conveyance, and to include the expenses thereof amongst the other charges recoverable in equal proportion from the candidates."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFappealed to the Government to report Progress at this point. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had promised to make a statement to-night in regard to the Contagious Diseases Bill. Surely they ought not to be asked to listen to a statement of such an important character at a very late hour of the night.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he understood that the statement with regard to the Contagious Diseases Bill would not be made that night. He would not ask the Committee to sit unduly late; but he trusted they would dispose of this question before they separated. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was, of course, substantially similar to the one which had just been withdrawn. The only difference was that it imposed upon the elector the duty of applying to the Returning Officer for a carriage to be sent to him on the day of the poll. His experience had led him to believe that it would be impossible to carry out a proposition in accordance with which any elector in any sparse district might write to the Returning Officer for a conveyance to take him to the poll. In the county of Inverness-shire many electors lived 30 miles from the nearest polling station; so that, if this Amendment were accepted, Scotch Members particularly would see that the Returning Officer would be bound to send many conveyances enormous distances.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The words are "to authorize the conveyance of such electors."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the same thing. Someone, at the request of the elector, would have to find the carriage. There was no doubt that, if the Amendment were accepted, every elector in a sparse district would want a conveyance sent for him. He appealed to the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) not to press his Amendment, and thus prolong the discussion upon the question. He had already said, in reply to the hon.

  1531
  Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), that if, in conference with hon. Gentlemen, he could find a solution of the matter, he would gladly lay it before the Committee on a subsequent clause.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was utterly ignorant of the mode in which Scotch elections were conducted. He despaired of convincing the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he, therefore, must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that before they proceeded to any new matter he begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lewis.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, of course, if it was the wish of the Committee to report Progress, he would offer no opposition; but he hoped that if they reported at this hour it would not be taken as a precedent.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, lie thought it would be advisable to settle this particular question to-night, if it were possible to do so.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he was quite prepared to proceed with his Amendment; but he would prefer to postpone it until the next Sitting.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consent to report Progress.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (122); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (123); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (124); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) * (125).
Second Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders * (110); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (111); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (104); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (102); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) * (103); New Forest Highways * (101); Forest of Dean (Highways) * (98).
Committee—Sea Fisheries * (83–127); Criminal Law Amendment (69–128).
Report — Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (56–129).
Third Reading—Lord Alcester's Grant * (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant * (96), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
(NO. 69.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Extent of Act).
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in moving the omission of the clause, which excluded Scotland from the operation of the Bill, said, that he did not admit that the high illegitimacy Returns furnished by that country were any proof of the exceptional immorality which was said to exist there; and, most certainly, they were not proof of the

1383
kind of immorality dealt with in the Bill. He thought, upon the whole, the Scottish people were very much like other people, and that the immorality of Scotland was about on a par with that of other parts of the United Kingdom. On that ground, he asked that Scotland should be included in the Bill. He was one of those who thought it very desirable that legislation of this kind should be made applicable, as far as possible, to the whole of the United Kingdom. If a Criminal Act of this kind were made applicable only on one side of the Border, all that those who wished to evade the law, and carry on the hideous traffic in young girls, would have to do, would be to go across to the other side, and carry on that business from that country with impunity. He would move the omission of the clause.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 2."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) had raised very interesting questions. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) did not feel it necessary to follow him in his speculations, but would confine himself to saying that the Government would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause left out accordingly.
Clause 3 (Procuring woman under age to be a common prostitute).
On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 10, after ("prostitute") insert—
("Or procures or endeavours to procure any woman to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of entering a brothel abroad, whether he shall or shall not inform the woman of such purpose.")
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would propose the insertion of an Amendment, which would have the effect of bringing under the penalties of the Act any person who endeavoured to induce any woman to lead au immoral life, although there might be no fraud.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, before it was accepted, he would point out that such a Proviso would be the cause of unlimited and unbounded extortion in every direction.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that he would, if it were now withdrawn, consider the subject before the Report; but he could not pledge himself to accept the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Procuring by fraud defilement of girl under age).
On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, Amendment made, in page 1, lines 16 and 17, by striking out the words ("under the age of twenty-one years").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Abusing woman under twelve years of age).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNmoved an Amendment, applying the penalties of the Bill to attempts to commit the offence specified, as well as to the actual commission of the offence, on the ground of the great difficulty in proving the completed offence.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23, after ("abuses") to insert ("or shall attempt to carnally know and abuse.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEopposed the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary. Attempts to commit the offence were already dealt with by law, and were punishable by two years' imprisonment, with hard labour.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, in moving an Amendment to empower the infliction of corporal punishment upon an offender, said, that their Lordships would be of one mind as to the undesirableness of unnecessarily augmenting corporal punishments, on account of its demoralizing effect; but, in this case, it was useless to consider that objection, for he thought all their Lordships would agree that it would be utterly impossible to further demoralize those who were sufficiently demoralized to be capable of committing a crime of this kind. They had simply to consider what punishment was most likely to doter those who might be disposed to commit

1385
the crime, or would be most painful and disagreeable to those who had committed if. These who were acquainted with the administration of the Criminal Law were of opinion that no punishment was more feared or disliked by criminals than corporal punishment. If that was so, it was the best possible reason for attaching this punishment to this most atrocious offence. At present, it might be inflicted for robbery from the person with violence, and it was credited with having diminished the crime of garotting some years ago. But the crime in question was one that far more deserved that punishment than knocking a man down and stealing his watch. Not long ago, in his diocese, a man attacked a little girl and flung her away in a state of insensibility; and, if that man was scourged to the bone, would it not servo him right? There was, unfortunately, among the lowest class, a superstition as to an advantage to be gained by committing this offence; and that superstition rendered it still more desirable to prevent the commission of the crime by corporal punishment. It was emphatically a poor man's question, as the children of the poor were most liable to become the victims of this crime. For these reasons, He proposed that the Court might adjudge an offender to be privately whipped, "and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence."
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 2, after ("hard labour") to insert ("and the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted may, in addition, adjudge such offender to be privately whipped, and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence.")—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he fully sympathized with the intentions of the right rev. Prelate; but he thought it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, seeing that, beyond importing what would be an entirely novel proposition as regarded the law into the clause, persons who were convicted under it would be, as the clause now stood, liable to a longthened term of imprisonment, or penal servitude for life. Nobody would dream of flogging a man first and hanging him afterwards, no matter what offence he
1386
might commit. Yet this Amendment was really a proposal of that nature, inasmuch as by it a man might first be flogged and then sent to penal servitude for life. Perhaps the Amendment might be more acceptable if it had some limits as to the ago of the prisoners to be so punished, and as to the number of strokes to He inflicted.
LORD DENMANsaid, that that very morning a case had been reported in the newspapers of a boy having been sentenced to six strokes from a birch rod for stealing young ducks; but if the punishment were authorized, it would be necessary to fix the number of lashes to prevent the power being abused. He would, therefore, suggest that the punishment should be limited to 25 lashes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. He should like to know the reason why? The offence was one of the most horrible that could be conceived, the most defenceless class of the community was especially exposed to it, and a widely-spread superstition made it far commoner than it would be. The men who committed it were unable to foresee what was involved in penal servitude for life; but they understood the pain arising from corporal punishment. If ever corporal punishment was a just instrument to be placed in the hands of a law-giver, for the purpose of repressing odious crimes, it was in the present case. Therefore, if the Amendment were pressed to a Division, He should vote for it.
EARL STANHOPEremarked, that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had said that—
"Perhaps the Amendment might be more acceptable if it had some limit of age of the prisoners to be so punished."
He thought that this qualification was most unreasonable; the punishment of flogging was inflicted on persons convicted of garotting, without any limit as to age; persons convicted of an unnatural crime were also punishable by flogging, without any such limitation. Here was a most horrible crime on a defenceless class, which should be punished by flogging; and he sincerely trusted that the right rev. Prelate would divide the Committee on his Amendment, and he, for one, would cordially support him by his vote.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he fully agreed in the Amendment; but he must object to the suggested limitation of age, because flogging was not only more deserved, but was more felt, by a hardened ruffian than by a boy.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he did not think the Amendment imported anything novel into the law, because the punishment of penal servitude for life and a flogging could already be inflicted for highway robbery with violence. If their Lordships only knew, as well as he (Lord Bramwell) did, who the persons were who committed these offences, they would find that, in all probability, the anticipation of a flogging would have a far greater deterring influence upon such persons than anything else; and particularly upon those who committed it on defenceless children under the influence of a detestable superstition.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he also believed that flogging would have a more deterrent effect than any other punishment. He once took the opportunity to put the question to a number of the criminal classes, and he found that they preferred months of imprisonment to one flogging.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that, seeing the great unanimity that prevailed among their Lordships, the Government were only too glad to be coerced in this matter, and would accept the Amendment.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, before the Amendment was agreed to, he must remind the Government and their Lordships of the difficulty which was experienced in "another place," with respect to flogging in the Army.
Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed, as an Amendment, to omit the last paragraph of the clause, which empowers the magistrates to exclude the public from the Court during the hearing of a charge.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, leave out from ("labour") to end of Clause.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD FITZGERALD, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed that publicity and the pressure of public opinion were necessary safeguards to the administration of the Criminal Law.
1388
Women and children could, of course, be excluded, and the Press would not report indecent details.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he freely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) that they ought to be extremely careful before they sacrificed the great benefits which arose from the publicity of our Courts. At the same time, this was a matter which had been very much considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and they came to the conclusion that, in these cases, the injury which would be caused to public morals by the publicity of the proceedings would be greater than any benefits which could be gained by such publicity. It appeared to him that nothing but evil could result from allowing a general concourse of men and women to be present in Court; and if the public were admitted, reports of the proceedings would be published that must be injurious to public morals. He regretted that there were newspapers which published cases that had better be left unreported.
LORD TRUROsaid, he fully agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns). He (Lord Truro) was of opinion that reports of indecent cases tended to suggest to the minds of uneducated people offences which they would otherwise never think of committing.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in supporting the Amendment, said, He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the deterrent effect that would be produced on many persons in a superior station in life, contemplating a crime of this kind, by the knowledge that there would be a public trial. It was not an uncommon thing for persons of the upper and middle classes to entreat a magistrate to hear their case in private, because they did not wish their names to be exposed. And the magistrate was often highly praised for refusing that request, on the ground that the dread of a public trial had the effect of seriously deterring a person who contemplated committing an offence. This consideration might be fairly set against the injury to public morals of which the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) had spoken.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it should be remembered that the Bill only empowered the Court, if it should think fit, to order the public

1389
to be excluded from the trial. Consequently, a person who committed an offence could not possibly know whether he would be tried in public or in private.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he most earnestly hoped the Government would persevere with the Bill as it at present stood. He doubted whether Courts had any legal rights, although they constantly exercised the power, without any objection being raised, to exclude women, children, and young people from trials for a particular class of offences. The only ground on which women and young men were excluded from such trials was public morality; and why should the Legislature hesitate to give to the Judges a legal power, similar to that which by general consent they constantly exercised, in cases of the kind to which he referred?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he fully agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Coleridge) that it was desirable that such a power should be conferred in certain classes of cases.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, He fully agreed with what had been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, as to the power of excluding certain portions of the public from hearing particular cases in open Court. On one occasion his learned Colleagues on the Bench and himself considered that very question, and came to the conclusion that they had no power to hear cases in private. He was sorry to differ from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) on this point; but He could not think that any good was done by hearing in public the class of cases which he had in his mind, of which the details were often of an inconceivably revolting character. He had often seen people in Court gloating over such cases, and he was sure such public trials did infinite harm. He had often charged Grand Juries to the effect that, if they had a doubt about a case of that kind, it was better in the public interest to throw out the bill. The persons who committed those offences were of a kind not to be much deterred by a public trial.
LORD DENMANsaid, he believed lie voted for the power to hear privately cases in the Divorce Courts. No doubt, the Judges were without that power; but boni judices est ampliare jurisdictionem.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he hoped that the clauses of the Bill would be clearly arranged, in order to avoid the confusion which often existed in Acts of Parliament when now clauses were introduced.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Defilement of girl between twelve and sixteen years of age).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he thought that the Government was going much too far, and was making that a crime which had hitherto been only considered a moral offence. That clause, moreover, might, and probably would, be made a means of wholesale extortion. Girls of bad character under 16, but looking much older, might inveigle men to accompany them to houses of ill-fame, who, by so doing, although having no intention to do an illegal act, would thereby be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to two years' hard labour, and have no means of escape unless they consented to pay black mail to the girls or their employers. He moved an Amendment limiting the offence to cases of seduction, and raising the age in such cases to 18.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen.")—(The Earl of Midtown.)
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsuggested that summary jurisdiction ought to be given to magistrates in such cases.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the age of consent was a question of degree. Sixteen was the age adopted by their Lordships' Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question was one of the balance of public convenience. The punishment named in the clause was the maximum that could be inflicted for the offence named; and, therefore, it would not be inflicted in cases where there were mitigating circumstances.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
LORD TRUROsaid, he maintained that, the law to protect girls under 12, as it then existed, having failed, it was useless to endeavour to protect girls up to the age of 16. He was convinced that they would never succeed in increasing the morality of the country by limitation of ago in the way proposed. He thought that they must look for improvement rather to more activity on the part of the police, and to more discreet and careful supervision by parents, than to any legislation of this character.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsupported the Amendment, as he thought that at the age of 17 girls were frequently as much in want of protection as at any other time.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that it was perfectly true, as the noble (Lord Truro) had said, that the present law with regard to the age of 12 had failed. For that reason, it was proposed to increase the age, and to make provisions of a different kind. In the Select Committee on this subject, the evidence given established a conclusive case of the necessity of raising the age. He (Earl Cairns), therefore, was in favour of making the age 17, though the majority of the Committee had decided against him, thinking that 16 was sufficient.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after reading the evidence on the subject, I confess that I cannot think it would be wise to recommend the House to extend the proposal of the Government in this matter. It is not abstractedly a question of what we should wish to accomplish, if it were in our power to determine absolutely what should pass and what should be enforced. In that case, there would be a great deal to be said for the ago of 17. But we should have to face a vast mass of silent, tenacious, immovable opinion. As it is, we have had many difficulties in framing a Bill of this kind, and it is certain that it will meet with very great difficulties in the House of Commons. The higher you raise the age, the greater the difficulties will be of enforcing the law, and the greater will be the dangers of extortion on which so much stress has been laid, and which, I think, would excite very considerable attention. But it is not the difficulties which would be raised in the House of Commons that we must alone consider. There would be much greater difficulties when the Bill
1392
came to be dealt with by magistrates and juries. If you go beyond what public opinion sanctions, and attempt to enforce provisions which nature does not seem to justify, there will be insuperable objections on the part of magistrates and juries to enforce the law. It would then fall into desuetude, and all the good you may effect by a more moderate proposal would fail to come about.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he trusted that his noble Friend (Lord Mount-Temple) would not press the Amendment. It was impossible for the Bill to go further than it (lid in respect of age; for, otherwise, the Government felt that public opinion would not support the measure. If the Bill went further than public opinion warranted, it would make things much worse than before.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, He thought that a vast change had occurred in public opinion with regard to this matter within the last few years, which made people realize their responsibility respecting it.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that a large number of persons had taken a deep and self-denying interest in this matter; and it would be a great disappointment to them if the higher age of 17 were not adopted in the place of 16.
LORD NORTONsaid, He also, from the evidence he heard on the Select Committee, supported the Amendment, being in favour of the age being raised from 13 to 17. The question was at what ago a girl should be considered capable of consenting to her ruin, so as to exonerate the man from the guilt of criminal injury in taking advantage of her ignorance. In other countries it was a much higher age than here.
On Question, "That the word ('Sixteen') stand part of the Clause?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 140; Not-Contents 23: Majority 117.
CONTENTS.

Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hertford, M.

Northampton, M.

Salisbury, M.

Grafton, D.

Northumberland, D.

Ashburnham, E.

Richmond, D.

Bradford, E.

Somerset, D.

Camperdown, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Cathcart, E.

Bath, M.

Cowper, E.

Bristol, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Exeter, M.

Dartrey, E.

Devon, E.

Congleton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Conyers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Crewe, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Crofton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Delamere, L.

Granville, E.

de Mauley, L.

Harewood, E.

Denman, L.

Ilchester, E.

Derwent, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Dinevor L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Jersey, E.

Ellen borough, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Fitzgerald, L.

Kimberley, E.

Forbes, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Lucan, E.

Greville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Haldon, L.

Milltown, E.

Hammond, L.

Minto, E.

Harlech, L.

Morley, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Hatherton, L.

Powis, E.

Hopetoun, L.(E. Hopetoun.)

Ravensworth, E.

Houghton, L.

Redesdale, E.

Howard de Walden, L

Saint Germans, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Keane, L.

Stanhope, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort)

Strafford, E.

Sydney, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

Cranbrook, V.

Lawrence, L.

Eversley, V.

Leconfield, L.

Halifax, V.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V.

Lyveden, L.

Hereford, V.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Melville, V.

Mostyn, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Sherbrooke, V.

Strathallan, V.

Ormathwaite, L.

Penryhn, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Poltimore, L.

Aberdare, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Abinger, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Reay, L.

Auckland, L.

Rodney, L.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Romilly, L.

Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

Rowton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Beaumont, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Bolton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Boston, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Brabourne, L.

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Bramwell, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Thurlow, L.

Braye, L.

Tollemache, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Trevor, L.

Carlingford, L.

Truro L.

Carrington, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Waveney, L.

Churchill, L.

Windsor, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

York, L. Archp.

Colchester, L.

Cairns, E.

Coleridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormer L.

Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Mount Temple, L. [Teller.]

Norton, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

London, L. Bp.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Oxford, L. Bp.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Rochester, L. Bp.

Tweedmouth, L.

Blantyre, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Consent no defence to charge of indecent assault on young person).
LORD TRUROmoved, as an Amendment, the addition of words providing that, where a solicitation to immorality could be proved against a girl, she should be required to enter into security for good behaviour, or be liable to fine or imprisonment. He observed that solicitation as often came from a girl as from a man, and said that it would not be just to punish a man with severity, and to allow girls who were equally guilty to go scot free.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 24, after ("indecency") insert ("and in cases where the solicitation to immorality can be proved against the girl she shall be required to enter into securities for good. behaviour or be liable to fine or imprisonment at the discretion of any court, justice or justices, or magistrate.")—(The Lord Truro.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid that the Amendment did not appear to him germane to the clause. He could not, therefore, accept it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEmoved, as an Amendment, after Clause 7, page 2, line 31, to insert:—
"Any person who, being the guardian of a girl under the age of eighteen years, or having the care and charge of her, or being her master in domestic service or other employment, or a manager, foreman, or lodger, or other person whose lawful commands in such service or employment she is bound to obey, unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to have unlawful and. carnal knowledge of, or indecently assaults such girl with or without her consent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted

1395
thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."
This was intended to prevent masters from using their power for the moral degradation and ruin of their dependents with impunity.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would accept the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the ago on the Notice Paper had been originally printed as sixteen, and now it was moved to make it eighteen. The proposal might be right; but it seemed a very strong measure to start suddenly on the House so large an alteration of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the age of sixteen had been put in by mistake, where eighteen was intended.
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, He would withdraw the clause, and bring it up again on the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8 (Householder, &c. permitting defilement of girl under sixteen on his premises guilty of misdemeanour).
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEmoved an Amendment, with the object of enabling other persons than Inspectors, Superintendents, or officers of police to initiate proceedings.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 6, after ("rank") insert ("or other person.")—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he thought it would be objectionable to give this power to the common informer.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that under the Act of George II. any two householders had it in their power to lay information, and thereupon the police constable was required to proceed with the case before the magistrate. But the clause, as it stood, proposed to repeal that portion of the Act of George II., and confined the power to the police alone. It was, in his opinion, of great importance that the power which the two householders had should be retained.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he differed from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough). He believed that the Act of George II. would still remain in force.
1396
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following new clause was agreed to, and inserted, to follow Clause 8:—
(Abduction of a girl under eighteen years of age.)
"Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl, being under the age of eighteen years, out of the possession or against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour."
Clause 9 (Summary proceedings against brothel keepers, &c.)
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid, that these clauses, taken together with the rest of the Bill, constituted an attempt to squeeze immorality out of existence. The only effect of thus shutting the safety-valve on a force which would find some exit would be to defeat the chief objects of the Bill. On the one hand, it would produce clandestine brothels, disguised as shops and places of business; on the other, it would drive vice into the streets, and defeat the provisions of the Bill against street vice. If they had to make a choice between brothels and street vice, there could be no doubt as to which should be chosen; for the one exposed the innocent to temptation, and the other did not. He was not, however, in favour of repealing the existing Acts against brothels, as such places would tend to become nuisances if the whip of the law were not suspended over them.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 9."—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the law, as it stood, was wholly inoperative to suppress houses of ill-fame. He was perfectly well aware that the clause gave large additional powers to the police; but it seemed impossible to enlarge their powers at all without going thus far. He did not suppose the police would endeavour to stamp out all brothels, which it was impossible to do; but they would, by this clause, be able to deal more efficiently with disorderly houses.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the comparative security of the houses was in itself as great a temptation as lads were exposed to in the streets; and, therefore, the argument for diminishing temptation in the streets might be applied to the suppression of the houses. A Bill of this kind had been forced on the Government, and its object was to improve morality as far as legislation could do it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his experience was that successful proceedings against houses, when they had been taken in that part of London in which he himself resided, had materially diminished the nuisance of street-walking; but the law, as it stood at present, was unique, and far too cumbersome and irksome to secure its uniform administration.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had stated was confirmed by what had been done in the City of Glasgow, where the suppression of the nuisance in one form was followed by its mitigation in the other form of street-walking.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsupported the Amendment, contending that the clause was utterly foreign to the object of the Bill. He thought that the testimony adduced showed that the law was sufficient if it were enforced.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the speeches against the clause amounted to this—that brothels were half desirable, and, therefore, they should not interfere with them too much; and half undesirable, and, therefore, they should preserve a law which did not interfere with them at all. ["No, no!"] Of course, authors did not like other people's abridgment of their works. But the argument involved the logical conclusion that in the interests of morality the houses ought to be licensed, and distinguished by some conspicuous sign. These who took practical pains in this matter knew that the existing law was utterly futile and insufficient to cope with the evil, and they ought either to repeal it, or else make its provisions efficient.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, He must be allowed to express some doubt as to whether the clause would have all the effect its authors imagined or desired it would have. The noble
1398
and learned Earl on the Woolsack had remarked that our position with regard to brothels was unique; but he seemed to forgot that, in almost every Continental country, they were not only restricted, but tolerated and licensed. Efforts made in other countries and in other times to suppress them had singularly failed. The only result of bringing the police into close administrative connection with these houses would be that a system of toleration and licence would spring up, which, while repressing the more open and disorderly brothels, would encourage clandestine ones. He was also afraid the power conferred by the clause was one which might be used for purposes of private malevolence or extortion. He did not, however, recommend his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Pembroke) to go to a Division.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Power to owner of promises to determine tenancy of occupier convicted of keeping brothel) agreed to.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 10, page 5, insert as a new clause—"Every lease or agreement for a tenancy of any premises shall be deemed to contain, if under seal, a covenant, and if in writing not under seal or by parol, an agreement, by the lessee or tenant for himself and his assigns with the lessor and his assigns, that the premises shall not, nor shall any part thereof during the term, be used as brothel or disorderly house; and any power of re-entry contained in such lease or agreement on breach of any covenant or agreement therein contained shall be deemed to apply to such covenant or agreement as aforesaid."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the clause lost sight of under-leases and mortgages.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as he understood the clause, it would be at the landlord's option whether the lease should be voided or not. But it was not clear whether it was the immediate or superior landlord who could exercise the power.
LORD BRAMWELLthought that, if Clause 11 were examined in connection with the section under discussion, it would be seen that the landlord had but little option in the matter.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, that, with regard to the criticism of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he would amend the clause, so as to make it

1399
applicable only to immediate lessor and lessee.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Coleridge) should withdraw the clause, and bring it up again, in an amended form, on the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 11 (Power to court on second conviction in respect of same premises to make owner give security) agreed to.
Clause 12 (Search warrant for detection of brothel).
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 12."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid, he thought that the clause was too wide in its scope, and could hardly pass through the other House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would point out that the clause was most objectionable, as it gave the police power which might be abused, and cause the most terrible injury and outrage to innocent persons, while it would prove useless against those whom it was intended to reach.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would consent to the omission of the clause.
Amendment agreed to; Clause left out accordingly.
Clause 13 (Amendment of 2 & 3 Viet. c. 47, s. 54, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28, as to prostitutes).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving an Amendment, with the object of rendering men as well as women liable to punishment for loitering for immoral purposes in any thoroughfare or public place within the limits of the Metropolitan Police District, said, that hundreds of thousands of poor girls who were employed in factories, and who were obliged to be out late, asked their Lordships for protection in this respect.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("common prostitute and night walker") and insert ("person.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He greatly sympathized with the object of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftes-bury); but he was afraid that the form of words proposed by the noble Earl
1400
was open to serious abuse, and that it would enable any woman of bad character to bring charges for the purpose of extortion against male passers-by of having importuned her for an immoral purpose. It would be better, perhaps, if the noble Earl would bring up, upon the Report, a fresh clause calculated to secure his object.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The Lord Archbishop of YORK, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("loiters and importunes passengers for the purpose of prostitution") and insert—
("Loiters for the purpose of prostitution or importunes or solicits passengers for the purpose of prostitution.")
On the Motion of The Lord COLERIDGE, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 33, after ("discretion") insert—
("Either sentence her to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding six months with or without hard labour, or may (if in the judgment of the court she is under the age of sixteen years) in addition to or in substitution for any such punishment.")
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERmoved, as an Amendment, that the age during which a girl might be retained in a reformatory or certified home should be raised from 16 to 18.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen.")—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would suggest to the right rev. Prelate that it would be more in order to deal with the point on Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 (Certified homes for girls under sixteen convicted of prostitution) agreed to.
Clause 15 (Prohibitions of exclusion from trial, &c., of persons interested).
LORD COLERIDGEin moving, as an Amendment, to provide that any girl or woman who might be concerned in any trial should be entitled to have present thereat any three persons she might

1401
name, and should be informed of this right, said, his belief was that, if tried in a Court without any of their own sex present, girls would often be at considerable disadvantage.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 29, after ("other proceeding") insert ("and any girl or woman who may be concerned as complainant, defendant, or otherwise, any such charge, trial, or other proceeding shall be entitled to have present thereat any three persons in attendance she may name, and shall be informed of this right.")—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, He must object to the provision. It could not be worked, and it was now in the discretion of the Court to allow any friends to be present.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 (Definitions), and Clause 17 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule), agreed to.
Schedule amended, and agreed to.
House resumed.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 112.)

  REPORT.
  (The Earl of Dalhousie)
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister not void or voidable).
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He would now move an Amendment, to give effect to what he considered to be the wish of the House, on the occasion when the Bill was up for second reading. He proposed, with that view, to omit the words "heretofore celebrated or contracted at any place whatsoever within the realm or without." The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Bill having any objectionable retrospective effect.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from ("sister") to ("which") in line 7.—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  1402
  Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, He should next propose an Amendment to meet the objections expressed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) at a former stage of the Bill. The effect of it, while excluding the Church of England from the scope of the Bill, was to legalize marriages performed in Roman Catholic or Dissenters' chapels, or before a Registrar.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, after ("Ireland") to insert ("or in any building registered for the solemnization of marriages at which the presence of a registrar is necessary by law"); and leave out from ("elsewhere") to ("shall") in line 13.—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted and left out accordingly.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, He proposed to add words to the Amendment which their Lordships had just assented to, the object of which was to give to these marriages, if celebrated in Roman Catholic chapels in Ireland, the same validity as when they took place in English Catholic chapels. He must explain to their Lordships that Irish Catholic chapels were not registered for marriages, and yet were not places where the presence of the Registrar was required.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, after ("Ireland") insert ("or which shall be celebrated in Ireland by any Roman Catholic priest.")—(The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, Amendment made, in page 1, line 14, by leaving out ("the") and inserting ("such").
  THE EARL Or DALHOUSIEsaid, that, in deference to the views expressed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack on the second reading of the Bill, he would now move an Amendment giving validity, from the date of the passing of the measure, to every marriage already contracted with a deceased wife's sister, and legitimatizing the children of such marriages already born. If any person in the past had contracted marriage in a manner which

  1403
  the Bill would legalize if it were contracted after the passing of the Act, such marriage should be lawful.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 18, leave out ("have been") and insert ("be"), and after ("celebrated") add ("and any such marriage heretofore celebrated or contracted, shall, from and after the passing of this Act, he and be deemed to be from thenceforth valid in the same manner as if it had been duly celebrated or contracted on the day of the passing of this Act according to the provisions thereof, and all children of any such marriages whether celebrated or contracted before or after the passing of this Act, shall, subject to the provisions herein-after contained, be held to be legitimate.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must protest against marriages solemnized in defiance of the law being given, on the day of the passing of the Act, exactly the same validity as the marriages of the parties who had conscientiously waited for the permission of the law would get when theirs were solemnized hereafter. To do that would be directly sanctioning wilful violation of the law. He agreed that innocent children should be treated as legitimate; but he did not see why the parents should not be compelled to be married again, and thought their disliking it no objection. With that object, He would move an Amendment to strike out all the words of the proposed Amendment down to "and all children," and leave that portion of it intact which legitimatized the children.
  Moved, to amend the said Amendment by striking out all the words down to the words ("and all children.")—(The Earl For fescue.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he looked at the question from the opposite point of view to that taken by the noble Earl who had just spoken (Earl For-tescue). In the Committee He had ventured to call the attention of the House to the dangerous principle of the Bill as it originally stood; and he thought that his objection in that respect had now been removed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie). He must confess that he could not see any difference between an Act which itself married people on the day when it was passed, and a measure which would say that the same people might go on that day to the Registrar's Office and get married. In either case the marriages were civil mar-
  1404
  riages, and no more. He, therefore, fully approved of the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie), as it would have the desired effect of taking away the retrospective character of the Bill.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to consider that the Bill favoured the right, and was not contrary to it.
  Amendment (The Earl Forteseue) negatived.
  Amendment (The Bart of Dalhousie) agreed to.
  Words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Excepted cases).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, add—
  ("Or where there has been a declaration of nullity of marriage by any court of competent jurisdiction whether before or after the passing of the Act of the fifth and sixth year of King William the Fourth, chapter fifty-four, or where proceedings are pending at the time of the passing of this Act for a declaration of nullity of any such marriage, or where the parties have been separated and are living apart at the time of the passing of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provision for saving rights).
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, Amendment made in page 2, line 13, at end of clause, by adding—
  ("Nor any legacy duty, succession duty, or other duty paid or payable to Her Majesty in consequence of the death of any person before the passing of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Proceedings against clerk not affected by this Act).
  EARL FORTESCUE, in moving the omission of the clause, in order to insert instead a provision taken from the Divorce Act, 1857, said, that his only object was, as learned men came to opposite conclusions with regard to the passages of Scripture bearing on this subject, to leave clergymen free to act according to their consciences, without imposing on them restrictions inconsistent with Christian liberty, which was not done by the clause as it stood. Surely those who made a marriage which many divines thought innocent, and

  1405
  most Christian Churches did not absolutely forbid, were entitled to as much consideration as those who had done what not only all Christian Churches, but the Jews and most enlightened heathens, considered unquestionably immoral.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out Clause 4, and insert as a new clause:—("No clergyman in holy orders ox other minister of religion shall be compelled to solemnize the marriage of any sister of a deceased wife, or shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solemnizing or refusing to solemnize the marriage of any such person.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he most earnestly hoped his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) would not press this Amendment. It was in direct antagonism to the spirit of the clause, which, as it stood, had been passed by a Committee of their Lordships' House, after full consideration; and, therefore, he (the Earl of Dalhousie), although he was in sympathy with the views of his noble Friend, could not possibly assent to it now.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following new clause was agreed to, and inserted, to follow Clause 5:—
  (Valid marriages not affected.)
  "(6.) Nothing in this Act shall affect any marriage which, by the law of England and Ireland, and of Scotland, respectively, was valid at the time of the passing of this Act."
  Bill to be read 3a upon Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he would give Notice that, upon the Order for the Third Reading of the Bill, he should move its rejection.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.