said this Bill was regarded in some respects as a dangerous Bill. He thought that it could not be doubted that the Bill contained a dangerous principle. It exposed a poor man to actions at law, and where a poor man opposed a rich man there would be a petition. With regard to the first clause, there was a provision as to a statement made before a Parliamentary Election. At any time before? Surely that would need Amendment. He had hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn. Then, again, "any person who makes or publishes any false statements;" but a man might make or publish a false statement without having the slightest intention of doing a candidate any injury.

said, that was provided for in the Bill.

thought the Bill was unnecessary, and that the existing law met offences covered by this Bill. He regarded the Bill as placing an additional obstacle in the way of the poor man.

regarded the opposition of the hon. Member as an absurd farce. The hon. Member had claimed that many Members with him objected to this Bill. He should like to see the number of Members who supported the hon. Member in opposing this Bill. Nothing would delight him more than to put that to the test of a division. The hon. Member wanted to know how long before an election the Bill would apply. That was a practical question. He assumed that the responsibility would commence when a candidate had issued his address. Charges were often made against many of them after their addresses were issued. He was one who had suffered very grievously, and many Members on both sides had suffered, and this was a practice which they ought to put a stop to. Let the hon. Member go into the Division Lobby, and then they should see the number of supporters he had got.

was sorry the hon. Member who had just spoken had mentioned anything like taking a Division, as the statement of the Leader of the House was that they should take only unopposed Bills. No Division which was now taken would be any real test of the opinion of the House with regard to this Bill. It was understood that the Bill would be considerably amended. What was the fear they entertained? It was that in the case, say, of a poor man who was contesting a seat against a rich man a foolish story might be circulated in the constituency during the progress of the election; and under this Bill it would be possible for a petition to be brought against the poor candidate, even as a matter of revenge, and thus he would be in the position of having the petition hanging over his head, with the consequent worry of having to contest it in an Election Court, which eventually might decide in his favour. Hon. Gentlemen would, no doubt, say that this position of affairs was not possible and that the election agent must be personally responsible for any statement made. But he pointed out that under the Bill as it stood if any money was paid for the publication of any particular statement the candidate was liable.

Only if paid by the candidate himself or the expense agent. The hon. Gentleman will find in the principal Act that the illegal practice, to sustain a petition, must be done by the candidate himself or by the principal agent.

said, that this particular clause did not apply to the special Act. If a sub-agent in the excitement of the election day, having a story brought to him which might be hostile to the candidate and which might prove to be untrue, took the responsibility of printing and circulating it, the candidate was responsible and liable for all the expenses. The Bill would have been much more acceptable if the responsible agent had been made liable with regard to the circulation of any particular statement. There was no definition of the words "any other agent." "Agent" was a term capable of wide interpretation indeed, and it might be held to include a private secretary or a chairman of Committee. He contended, therefore, that the definition was so wide that any person feeling aggrieved by a foolish statement would have reasonable ground for lodging an election petition. This was the only objection he offered to the Bill. They were all anxious that everything should be done to put an end to the circulation of slanderous statements, but, at the same time, they were also anxious that it should not be possible for a man, solely because he was defeated, to take the advantage which this Bill would give him, to bring forward an election petition and keep it hanging for months over the head of a candidate.

referred to the statement of the hon. Member that the First Lord of the Treasury had promised that no Bill would be taken if it was opposed. This was not the statement of his right hon. Friend. What the Government had said was that they would not take any Business that might fairly be called contentious. He thought, however, that this could not be called a contentious Bill, looking especially to the circumstances in which it had reached its present stage. Indeed, the hon. Member and his Friends said that they were burning with a desire that something should be done to prevent the circulation of the slanderous statements against which this Bill was directed. He did not accuse the hon. Member for Shipley of having any sympathy with the circulation of slanderous statements, but he maintained that it was the interest of both sides of the House that a practice already very common, and of late grown much more common, should be peremptorily put down. The hon. Member was afraid that something would happen if statements were made before an election. The contingency contemplated was not probable; but it was a common practice at election times to find that some statement detrimental and dishonourable to the candidate was brought forward on the eve of the election, and when the candidate might find himself in a position where it was impossible promptly to contradict it. He did not think that a more disgraceful practice could be conceived, and he was sure that the desire of the House would be to deal with such a scandal. He thought also that there was evidence even in the present election that the necessity of some such Bill as this was paramount. He would take his own case. He had that morning received nearly half-a-dozen letters calling his attention to statements made in newspapers, and also by candidates and their agents, to the effect that the vote he had given with reference to small arms ammunition was dictated by the fact that some of his relatives had a pecuniary interest in an undertaking which had received an order from the Government.

Does the Bill deal with that?

Yes, I think it would. In one of the cases brought before him it was said that his hands were tainted. He was not a lawyer, but he imagined that this statement was a libel. According to the opinion of his hon. Friend, however, his proper remedy was to proceed by action for damages for libel. But his hon. Friend knew that it was not a very plea- sant thing to appeal for damages, because in order to secure damages one must say that he had been specifically damaged by the statements. He had not been so damaged by this statement, and his opponents could make it until they were black in the face. [Laughter.] Under this Bill, however, if a statement of that kind were made by a candidate under all the conditions stated in the Bill without being able to show reasonable ground for believing it, he would be guilty of an illegal practice; and this would be a more deterrent remedy than a probable action for libel which he or any one else should be inclined to bring. In these circumstances he could not believe that the hon. Member who had expressed sympathy with the object of the Bill could persist in his opposition to its progress. The hon. Gentleman was afraid of some abuse arising under the operation of this Bill. That was not his fear. On the contrary, his fear was that the Bill did not go far enough. There was no doubt that it afforded all kinds of loopholes to the persons who were guilty of these acts; but, at any rate, he did not think that the hon. Member need have the slightest fear that any person not clearly guilty could come within its provisions. He trusted, therefore, that this useful Bill would be proceeded with.

showed that the Division which was taken after the Second Reading was whether the Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee or whether the Committee stage should be proceeded with in the House itself. For reference to the Grand Committee 254 voted, and 38 against; but the Division was taken in no sense against the Bill itself. The Bill was very carefully considered in the Committee, and his only difficulty as the Member in charge of it had been to prevent it from being made too drastic. Every Amendment was proposed with that object, and his anxiety had been to cast the Bill in such a form as not to raise any opposition to its further progress in the House. The illegal practice constituting the basis of a petition to unseat must be an illegal practice which the candidate or his principal agent had been a party to, and therefore the measure would only punish a Member who was directly implicated, and who deserved to lose his seat.

suggested that his hon. Friend should allow the Bill to go through the House. They were all agreed that the making of statements of this kind affecting the character of a candidate on the eve of and during an election was a most reprehensible practice. It was a policy which they ought to try to stamp out if possible, as it was certainly reprobated by every reputable politician. On the other hand, he must say that there was a growing tendency to be too thin-skinned in these matters. Most Members of Parliament had in their time been accused of a fair proportion of the crimes in the calendar. He had himself; but he had never looked with concern upon these accusations, which were not seriously meant, which were not believed, and which never influenced a vote on one side or the other. He was sure that the sensible practice would prevail in the future as it had done in the past; and this Bill would only be put in operation in cases where the statement was so clearly malicious, and its possibility of influencing votes was so dangerous, that it could not be treated with absolute indifference. As to the possibility of frivolous petitions, he thought that the safeguards in the fourth clause were adequate. No one would go to the length of presenting a petition unless he had an overwhelming case. He thought his hon. Friends would do well to allow the Bill to pass.

hoped that, in their own interest, hon. Gentlemen who had objected to the Bill would withdraw their objection. It was not necessary to present a petition in order to punish people who might be guilty of slandering a candidate. Such slander would be constituted an illegal practice, and would subject the guilty person to immediate prosecution.

said, that after the appeal of the right hon. Members for West Birmingham and East Fife it was clear that the sense of the House was in favour of passing the Bill. He should not object, therefore, but his own opinion was that the Bill would give rise to election petitions.

asked for an explanation of the Amendment.

said that it was to provide for the case of property which might be let, say, for 30s. a year, while a building on a part of it might have an annual value of £1,000 a year. Without this contribution such property would escape contribution to the local rates.

asked what course was to be taken with regard to the Amendments standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen to include police burghs in the clause.

said, that the Amendments must have been put down under a misapprehension. It would be impossible to carve a police burgh out of the county for the purposes of assessment, as it was not a separate unit of assessment. It was only a part of the county, and if separate principles of valuation were to be applied in the same area, there would be great injustice.

said, that he had read a petition from the burgh of Thurso on this subject. There were a number of Royal burghs in Scotland with less than 1,000 inhabitants, and police burghs with 40,000 to 60,000 inhabitants. In the Police Burgh Bill of 1892 the intention was to place all these burghs in the same position. The Law Officers agreed in Committee to all this, but it was found that, both as to registration and valuation and licences, the large police burghs had not the power the royal burghs had. It was the desire of the large police burghs to have those powers, and he thought they ought to have them.

said, that unless they were to go the length of making each police burgh a unit for the purpose of assessment, they could not carve it out of the county for the purposes of valuation. The counties would, probably, have something to say to such a proceeding. The question was a large one, but was not, however, raised in the Bill.

, in rising to move—

"That the contract dated the 24th day of May 1895, entered into with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the performance of the West India mail service be approved,"

said, he was sorry that, owing to delay at the printers, the papers containing this and the Holyhead and Kingstown contract and the Treasury Minutes upon them had not been circulated, as he hoped they would have been that morning. All the Standing Orders required was that the contracts and minutes should be laid on the Table, and that had been done, but he confessed that under ordinary circumstances he would have been inclined to propose to postpone the voting of the contracts. At present time pressed, and therefore he would give a somewhat full explanation of the terms of the contracts in the hope that that would satisfy the House. The first contract was with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and was signed on the 24th of May last. It covered the period from July 1, 1895, to June 30, 1900. The speed on the main line was to be 13 knots and the subsidy £80,000 a year. Under the former contract, which expired on June 30 last, the speed was the same, but the subsidy was £5,000 a year more. Tenders were called for in March last, but the only offers received were from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. Details of their tenders were given in the minute. After full consideration and communication with the Colonies concerned it was decided to accept the tender now embodied in the contract. The colonies contribute a certain share of the subsidy—in the present year £20,000—but the Treasury did not yet know exactly what the future contribution would be, as it depended partly on the amount of mail matter. He concluded by moving the Motion which stood in his name.

said, he would have been glad to have seen, if possible, a copy of the contract. The question dealt with was one of the greatest practical importance, not only to Ireland but to England, and it was inconvenient, as the right hon. Gentleman had confessed, that a Motion of this kind should be made without Members of the House being afforded the slightest opportunity of considering the terms of the arrangement. Although the letter of the statute had been technically complied with by laying the contract on the Table, he believed the contract had not been printed or circulated, so that the House was asked to affirm a public contract of great importance when it had not had an opportunity of examining its terms and conditions. That, no doubt, was due to the pressure of the time and to the extreme peculiarity of the Parliamentary situation. There were, however, one or two questions he would like answered either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the late Postmaster General, and he could not refrain from acknowledging the debt due from the public to the latter Gentleman for the energy and care which he had applied to the subject. He was glad to hear that the Department retained absolute powers to arrange the times of departure and arrival of the steamers, because future acceleration of the service would have to depend upon the times of arrival and departure, and if the times were now fixed permanently the greatest inconvenience might arise hereafter. He also thought the arrangement whereby the service after the term of 20 years might be brought to an end by one year's notice on either side was a reasonable and satisfactory one. The public in Ireland did hope for a more material acceleration. They believed that if the Department had exerted itself as much as it might have done an acceleration of nearer two hours than one might have been effected. He thought, however, a substantial improvement had been made, and that the arrangement might be regarded with general satisfaction. He desired to know what the estimate of cost of the new ships was, and what were to be the dimensions and powers of the new vessels. It might be more satisfactory if they were told how far the dimensions and powers of the new ships would exceed the dimensions and powers of the ships now in use. It was also well they should be informed what provision was made for such increased accommodation for the mails as the development of traffic in the next 20 years might render necessary.

was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he had said with regard to the manner in which the negotiations had been carried through. The contract provided for ample accommodation on board the mail boats, but as a matter of fact it was found that a great deal of the work which now had to be done on board the ships would be done in the train and the result would be that in the future less instead of greater accommodation on the mail steamers would be required. The specification for the new ships provided that the vessels should be larger than the Ireland, which was the largest of the ships now in use. They would be 371 feet long, of 2,676 tons burden having an indicated horse power of 2,850 horses and have a draught of 14 feet.

, who had an Amendment upon the Paper to leave out the clause, said that he did not intend to press the Amendment, but he should like to hear whether compensation for loss or damage would include compensation for loss of time through the detention of nets which were seized.

said, that the compensation referred to the nets taken. The clause did not raise the question of general damage.

seconded the Amendment because the Bill affected the fishermen at Hull, Grimsby, and various other places in England. The Scottish fishermen, while quite within their right in protecting their own fisheries, ought not to do so in a way which might seriously affect others without those likely to be injured having at least a right to be heard.

said, they did not object to the first part of the proposed Amendment. The language of the second part, however, was very wide. It was proposed that notice should be sent to all sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom; that might mean to Cornwall and other parts which had no interest in the matter. He could not imagine that that was intended. He suggested that for the word "all" in the Amendment the word "such" should be substituted, and that the wording should be—

"And notice of such inquiry shall be sent to such sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom as the Board of Trade shall by rule prescribe."

This, he thought, would meet the case, and he hoped this suggestion would be adopted.

said, there was not such a very large number of sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom, and perhaps some might take umbrage if they did not receive the same notice as the others. There seemed to be a slight objection to bringing the Board of Trade into the matter when the discretion rested entirely in this matter with the Fishery Board for Scotland. He thought the point of difference between the two sides on this matter was a very small one, and he hoped the hon. Member would be prepared to accept a compromise.

said, the matter was not of very great importance, but he did not think there was very much to be gained by sending the notice to other districts than those affected. He thought the number of Scotch fishermen who went down into these English districts was not large, and he did not think anything would be gained by applying the provision to such districts as Cornwall, or by sending notice of these matters to those who were not likely to be concerned. If the hon. Member thought that something would be gained by it they would not press their objection, but he thought that what his hon. Friend had offered was sufficient to meet the case. He thought he might safely say, as the President of the Board of Trade was not present, that the Board of Trade would have regard to any sea fishery interest that might be affected.

said the interests affected were daily increasing in extent, and the question had also to be considered from the point of view of the steam trawlers. These interests were very large, and the amount of capital invested in steam trawling was very great; he thought there could be no objection to the Amendment.

said he was much obliged to his right hon. Friends for the way in which they had received his suggestions. At the same time he thought that interests in Cornwall, which had been instanced, should be protected as much as other interests elsewhere; he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

said it was not a very large question, and possibly the sending of the notices in some cases superfluously would not do much harm. They would be prepared to accept the Amendment with the introduction of the word "Committees."

thought the wording of the third sub-section of Clause 10 was ambiguous, and suggested that it should be made negative instead of positive. The clause as it stood put the position of foreigners and British fishermen somewhat uncertainly. He thought it ought to be said that the exclusion might only take place where conventions had been entered into for placing foreigners under the same disability of fishing within the limit of 13 miles as British subjects. It would be monstrous if these districts should be closed to British fishermen while foreigners should be allowed to come within the area, and catch and sell the fish, and his object was to place foreigners and British fishermen on the same basis.

thought the object might be obtained by substituting the word "no" for "any" in line 16 of the third subsection, and "unless" for "if" inline 18.

said, he should be quite content with this.

then moved, in Subsection 3, line 18, to substitute the word "unless" for the word "if."

said, he would not press his Amendment to omit the clause, under the circumstances, feeling that it would be disastrous to the Bill, but he did not wish it to be supposed that he was at all satisfied with the clause.

said, he was glad that there had been no attempt to amend the Bill in such a way as to make it thoroughly acceptable, because any such effort would no doubt have prevented it from passing altogether. He was quite willing, therefore, to see the Bill pass; but it must be understood, at the same time, that the measure would not be accepted as a settlement of the question. During the last 10 years several attempts had been made to reconstruct the Fishery Board satisfactorily, but without success, and this Bill again failed in that important direction. Three years ago a Bill was introduced by the present Leader of the House which might have led to a settlement of the question if it had been passed, for that Bill contained a principle in regard to the election of the Fishery Board that might have proved satisfactory in working. The fishermen and their representatives in that House were not satisfied, and never would be satisfied, with the existing system of election of the Fishery Board by nomination. In short, the fishermen would never be content, and there would be no settlement of the question until their interests were protected on the Fishery Board by direct representation. Efforts had been made to secure this end in the Bill of 1892, but the present Bill went back to the old system and gave them only a Board of Nominees. The Bill of 1892, moreover, made it compulsory to have the fishery areas round the coast, but the present Bill made it simply permissive. Again, there was no provision for finance in the present Bill as there was in that of 1892. In those respects, therefore, they regarded this Bill as inadequate; but there was one clause in it that would prove beneficial, that which increased the penalties for illegal trawling, and for that clause alone the Bill was worth passing, but he repeated that it would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. In these circumstances he should not oppose the Third Reading.