said, he wished to point out that, in addition to the general maximum under the Bill, there was one special maximum, and that was a maximum for miscellaneous matters. He did not understand exactly what was meant by it; but possibly it was intended that the miscellaneous matters, although included in the general maximum, were not to exceed £100, the general maximum running to £350. He did not understand that there was any real necessity for such a limitation; and he should propose to substitute the word "the" for the word "any," so as to make it read "the maximum." He did not understand what was the object of the Attorney General in keeping in these precise words.

said, the matter was a mere question of drafting, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

said, he had no wish to waste time; but it still appeared to him to be somewhat inconsistent to have a maximum for miscellaneous matters, as well as the inclusive maximum for all matters. He wished to know whether the Attorney General insisted upon it that the miscellaneous matters, which comprehended all and sundry things, should be limited to £100; because that would carry to an extreme the fetters which were placed upon an election? And was the £100 to be included in the general maximum of £350?

pointed out that this question could be raised later on in the Bill; and if the Committee took the same view as the hon. Member for Londonderry, he should not object. But he hoped they would not discuss the point until they were fairly arrived at it.

said, he would not press it for the present; but he protested against the wording as it stood, and regarded the matter as one of no little importance.

said, he quite agreed that it was necessary to get rid of an outside expenditure; but he was afraid that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would carry them further than they ought to go. Another objection which he had to the Amendment was that Clause 7 dealt entirely with the agents of the candidate; and, besides that, the right hon. Gentleman would perceive that in Clause 22 the Bill did endeavour to deal with the point he had raised. Clause 22, which dealt with the outside expenditure, and not with the expenditure of the candidate or the election agent, would be a more convenient place than this in which to make the Amendment.

said, he was perfectly content with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he agreed with the view that this outside expenditure ought to be stopped. They ought to put some limit to it, because this was a matter of really vital importance. Under these circumstances, he would willingly withdraw the Amendment —he had no affection at all for its wording—and he would substitute something, with the assistance of the Attorney General, in Clause 22. There was a clause which came before that—Clause 14—on which he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had an Amendment, which would provide that any person employed by or in receipt of a salary from any political or other Association outside the constituency in which the election occurred should be considered as engaged or employed for payment if he acted under such employment for the purpose of promoting, or procuring, or opposing the election of a candidate at any such election. He thought they ought to agree in stopping this expenditure in some form or other. He was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment now, on the understanding that in the course of the Bill the Attorney General would give his attention to the point, for he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not think that the words of Clause 22 were strong enough as they stood.

said, he had a very strong feeling as to the maximum of expenditure, which was a most important point; but he was afraid that, unless they could devise great checks and safeguards, there would almost inevitably be a considerable amount of expenditure outside, which could not be controlled by the candidate or his agent. He could quite understand, with regard to out-voters, that there was a system under which the names of out-voters were recorded in the books of corresponding committees of political Associations in different parts of the country, so that a list of the voters of a particular constituency who had ceased to reside in the district could be obtained by a political Association elsewhere. It ought to be carefully considered how they were to prevent arrangements being made under which these out-voters might be sent, at the expense of the political Association, to vote in the constituency in which they formerly resided; and he did hope that the Attorney General would very carefully consider this point. His (Mr. Rylands's) desire was to support the hon. and learned Gentleman, in every way he could, in keeping the expenditure down; but, at the same time, he thought that in doing that they should, if possible, prevent themselves from being led into a trap, under which they would find themselves confronted by things which a not over-scrupulous candidate would do.

said, he had an Amendment which was directed to the same object, and perhaps he might save time by referring to it now. Both his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and himself had the same object in view—they deprecated the interference, under the guise of Associations, or even by individuals, with the particular constituency in which the candidate and the constituents wore placed face to face with each other. There could be no possible doubt that unless this sort of interference was prohibited under this Bill, that external interference would be powerful, and largely successful. There would be a Society for the prohibition of some object with which the candidate, on one side or the other, was more or less identified; and it would be the duty of that Society to send down lecturers to the constituency. There could be no doubt about that, for the thing had been done already, and it would be sure to be done again. The candidate was not to incur any expense beyond a certain figure, and at the last moment that Association would placard the whole constituency. What was to be done? Some other Society pledged to oppose the first one would go down to the same place and cover the placards of the opposing Society with their placards, denouncing the candidate on the other side and the whole system. It was quite clear that if they fixed the maximum to be spent by the candidate alone, that would be evaded, he would not say in the most disguised, but in the most open manner through the agency of these different Associations which would be created for the purpose. It was, therefore, absolutely imperative that external interference should be prohibited under penalties, and there should be no doubt about it that the candidate or his agent would be subject to these penalties if the expense was not included in the accounts. His own Amendment provided a penalty which did not exist in the Bill at the present moment. No doubt, the Attorney General might hold that Clauses 14 and 22 would have the desired effect; but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought they were not sufficiently punitive—they did not attach sufficient penalties to the offences which it was sought to prevent, and which the House of Commons desired to prevent.

said, he thought the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were most excellent, but they were founded on a misapprehension of the existing law. As the law stood at present, a person, even when he was not a candidate or agent, was just as guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, when he committed those offences, as if he were a candidate or agent. The punishment for such offences was not confined to candidates or agents, but applied to all persons who transgressed the law; and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was merely a declaration of the law as it existed in its present state, and as it would still remain after the passing of this Bill. It was, practically, no Amendment at all; and he (Mr. Gorst) apprehended that the object of this Bill would be to repress all illegalities, not only on the part of a candidate or his agent, but on the part of any outside Society which interfered in an election. He did not at all share the fears which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, that there would be any difficulty whatever in securing compliance with the law on the part of any outside Society, because the gentlemen who formed a political Society, in London or elsewhere, to influence an election would be well known, and they would take great care that they did not render themselves liable to punishment or penalties by doing any acts which would be an infringement of the law as it existed and as it would remain under the Bill. These Amendments, then, were not wanted; and he thought it would be better not to go on with this discussion, but to wait until the clause dealing with outside payments was reached.

said, he must congratulate himself on the discovery which had been made by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the Bill was not sufficiently punitive. This was the first time he had heard such an observation made in the course of these discussions. He felt, however, that these outside influences must be dealt with; but he thought it would be found that that was really done in Clause 22. When they came to that clause he should bear in mind what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and he would do his very best to see the extent to which they could safely go.

thought the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was in error in regard to one point. One thing which was most strongly objected to was that an outside Society should come in and do things which it would be perfectly legal for them as a Society to do, and by which they would not incur any penalty, but which would do an infinite amount of damage to the candidate, because he could not answer them or refute their libels, if that term might be fairly used. He (Sir E. Assheton Cross) accepted the Attorney General's assurance that on Clause 22 he would produce words which would attain the object that they all had in view.

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 10, after the word "Act," the insertion of those words—

"Provided, That an election for the purposes of this Clause shall he held to commence with the issue of the candidate's address, whether printed or addressed to a meeting of his supporters with a view to the coming election, the appointment of his election agent, or the issue of the writ, whichever may first happen,"

said, this proposal was somewhat on the lines of an Amendment which he had been about to propose himself. He wished to put a question on the subject to the Attorney General. Supposing a candidate was elected, and there was no other election likely to take place for six years. The elected candidate might go down to his borough every year and address his constituents. He might even address them in particular wards, and for each meeting in each ward he might have to pay a certain sum of money for hire of rooms. He (Mr. Onslow) would like to ask whether these payments would have to be included as for election purposes? Undoubtedly, the candidate would go down to address his constituents with a view to the next election, and it was desirable to know whether he would have to include in his election expenses the sums he had paid for the hire of rooms for his annual addresses? This was a matter of the very greatest importance, because if these sums were to be included it would make an enormous difference, as even for the comparatively small place (Guildford) which he (Mr. Onslow) had the honour to represent, £50 or £60 of his maximum might easily go in the hire of rooms before the next election took place, and in other and larger constituencies the candidate might have to pay a great deal more. The words which he (Mr. Onslow) had intended to propose would provide that no payment made after the election or before the receipt of the Writ for the next election should be included. Were they or were they not to include the sums they legitimately and legally spent in delivering addresses to their constituents? Because, if so, they would have for the future to go out to some open space and ask the electors to listen to them there. He would ask the Attorney General to consider the desirability of inserting some Proviso of this sort in order to protect the candidate in the matter of perfectly legitimate expenses which might exceed the maximum amount. A room for delivering an address was not to be got for nothing; they had to pay £10 or £20 for one, and if that was to be included in the maximum the amount would be swallowed up in no time.

said, that this question was quite an old friend, and he thought they had arrived at a satisfactory settlement of it before. He wished to point out that the words of the clause were "conduct or management" of an election, so as to make the clause strike at the election itself. The case put by the hon. Member for Guilford (Mr. Onslow) clearly did not come within the clause, and a Member who went to his constituents to give an account of his actions would not be affected. It was impossible to define a special time for the commencement of an election. The Amendment now before the Committee defined the commencement of the election as dating from the issue of the candidate's address. But the candidate might not issue an address, or he might issue it close upon the election itself, and have incurred a heavy expenditure before it, thereby evading the law; or he might not appoint an election agent until the very eve of the election, and a most extensive system of "nursing" might go on before that; or the Writ might issue four days before the election, after weeks and weeks of canvassing. Practically, there would be no difficulty in the matter; and if any error should be made, there was a new clause already upon the Paper to provide that anything done in good faith, through inadvertence, or unintentionally, should not void the election.

said, it was quite true that this point had been discussed at considerable length at the last sitting of the Committee; but he was bound to say that it had not been exhaustively discussed. There might be a prolonged Election Campaign, such as that which occurred in 1868, and the Attorney General met that case by saying that it was an undesirable state of things, and that it must not happen again. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) hoped it would not. But how could they control the mind of the Prime Minister? The same thing might happen again as happened in 1868, if the present Prime Minister was at the head of the Government. The last General Election, although a short one, took them all by surprise, and at the next Dissolution they might have precisely the same state of things as that which existed in 1868, presuming that the Prime Minister did not choose to announce when he intended to dissolve. The Attorney General had addressed himself to the case of the sitting Member, but he had not said a word about the candidate. A candidate might go into a constituency, and might be compelled to hire rooms and so forth, with a view of contesting the seat, long before the election actually took place; and he did not see that a word had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman which at all applied to that case, however directly it might apply to the case of the sitting Member. All the discussion pointed in the direction of the suggestion that there should be some limit fixed and a definite time stated as the time at which the election commenced. Although he did not agree with the particular period indicated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), he thought he could suggest a mode by which this object could be accomplished. He did not see why the Bill should not provide for a stated time, such as that fixed by an Order in Council, or by the Proclamation announcing the Dissolution of Parliament and the time for the assembling of the new Parliament. That date would depend entirely upon the Proclamation and its publication in The Gazette; and he did not see why something of the same sort might not be done in regard to the election expenses. If the Act did not contain a clause to this effect, he was satisfied it would be the cause of great hardship by-and-bye. It was no answer to say that the matter was one that could be left to the Judges. Judges were, like all other human beings, fallible mortals. Their Judgments conflicted every day; and if it were intended that the Bill should provide against the commission of corrupt and illegal practices, it should also provide against the occurrence of cases of hardship. He trusted that when the subject came up again it would be competent for the Attorney General, or for somebody else, to move a clause fixing a limit as to the period at which the election commenced.

wished to ask a question of the Attorney General. The clause contained the expression "before or after the election," and he wished to know whether the expenses incurred by a candidate in respect of registration before the election would come within the clause?

replied in the negative. The expenses connected with the registration generally would certainly not come within the words "conduct or management" of an election.

wished to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman which he thought would facilitate the disposal of the question—namely, that they ought to exclude from the cognizance of any Court which would have to adjudicate upon questions arising out of an election all matters relating to registration on either side. Unless there were specific words to exclude the legitimate action of the candidate in connection with the registration of voters, he was afraid that some difficulty might arise.

said, the clause related to the expenditure of candidates, and he should like to have some general idea as to where they were. In the last discussion upon the subject, nothing was said upon the question of the continuity of the election; but it was said that it ought to be left to the Judge who tried the Election Petition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had called attention to Clause 60 of the Bill. Now, Clause 60 was as clear as possible. It said—

"In the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, as amended by this Act, the expression 'candidate at an election' means, unless the context otherwise requires, any person elected to serve in Parliament at such election, and any person who has been nominated as a candidate at such election, or has been declared by himself or by others to be a candidate, on or after the day of the issue of the writ for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which such writ has been issued, and the expression 'candidate' shall be construed accordingly."

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) as to the propriety of defining in the Bill the time at which the election commenced. At present, it was not at all certain, especially when they remembered the remarks of the Attorney General, that the Bill would fix a limit in any way. To show how the matter would work if a definite limit were not fixed, he would call attention to the case of an hon. Gentleman who was in the last Parliament, but who was not a Member of the present one. It was a common report that that Gentleman, who for some time represented a large borough constituency, was in the habit of making all sorts of excuses for giving presents to his constituents. He gave them presents at Christmas; and whenever any member of his family was married, he gave a wedding present to every elector in the borough, and in that way he was able to "nurse" the borough in that most open manner. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that acts of that kind would be brought within the purview of the present Bill, because it would not be held that the hon. Gentleman was a candidate in any sense of the word, and there was no continuity between the presentation of wedding gifts and something that was to take place hereafter in connection with the representation of the borough. Therefore, he did not think the Bill would be of any practical use in such a case, because it could be evaded with the greatest ease. In 1868, he (Mr. Biggar) had something to do with the Election for Belfast, at which the hon. Baronet, now Member for Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) was one of the successful candidates. A practice which the present Bill declared to be illegal was at that time frequently resorted to. But the committee of the then candidate (Sir Thomas M'Clure) would not engage cars to take the voters to the poll, and the candidate himself declined to do it. But what occurred? A number of cardrivers, on the chance of getting paid in the end, supplied cars on the day of election, and he (Mr. Biggar) and others went round among the members of the Liberal Party to collect subscriptions to pay the car-drivers for the services they had rendered. The candidate spent money most lavishly in any way that he held to be legal; but he declined to spend money illegally. Nevertheless, the men were paid, and the law was evaded. He (Mr. Biggar) really did not see that anything would be practically gained by fixing a limit of time at which the election should be said to commence, because such a provision would be quite as easily evaded as any election payment which took place before the time named. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to give another illustration. It was the case of another candidate for Parliamentary honours who would not bribe the electors. His opponent, however, bribed, and succeeded in being returned. The noble Lord who was the unsuccessful candidate (Lord Cochrane), and who only obtained a small number of votes, then called together the men who had given him their support, and made a large and liberal present to each of them. What was the result? When the next vacancy occurred the noble Lord was again a candidate, and he got in with flying colours. But on that occasion he was by no means so liberal or friendly towards those who had placed him in a position of honour. He had succeeded in carrying his point, and was Member for the borough of Stafford for one Parliament; but the noble Lord declined, under any circumstances, to make a present to those who had voted for him on the second occasion, on the ground that it would be held to be bribery. He (Mr. Biggar) was of opinion that there was not a single provision in the Bill which could not be evaded with the greatest ease, and he believed that all the time which was being wasted in the discussion of the Bill might be much more profitably spent.

said, he would place himself entirely in the hands of the Committee. He should be very sorry to waste the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and therefore, if it was so desired, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he thought they ought all to be obliged to the hon. Member for his very moderate proposal. The only wonder was that the hon. Member stopped where he did. For his own part, he (Mr. Lewis) would not have felt surprised if the hon. Member had proposed to inflict capital punishment on Members guilty of offences against the Bill. There would have been just as much sense in the one proposal as in the other. Some hon. Members never seemed to be satisfied unless they were proposing the infliction of penal servitude upon their fellow-Members. Now, what was the proposal? A stupid agent or a foolish candidate exceeded the maximum scale of election expenses, and an hon. Member sitting for a miserably small borough, where there need be no election expenses at all, got up and said that if a man did that, he should be sent to prison for one year with hard labour. He should like to know in what school the hon. Gentleman had been trained, and what lawyer or philosopher he had sat at the feet of? He (Mr. Lewis) presumed that hon. Members were sent to that House to make laws that would carry with them the respect of the people, and not to introduce ruthless and reckless propositions which could only earn the contempt of the people. The hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to regard the proposal with as much horror as he (Mr. Lewis) did; but he thought it ought to be noticed generally by the public what punishment, in the opinion of an hon. Member, ought to be inflicted upon a candidate who exceeded the maximum expenditure allowed by law. He thought the Amendment was utterly unworthy of consideration.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment. The offence which he proposed to visit with a year's imprisonment was, after all, not so much a malum in se as a malum prohibitum. The offence would cause a candidate to lose his seat. If either he or the election agent knowingly exceeded the maximum of expenditure, that result would follow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that it was unreasonable to subject such an offence to the punishment described in the Bill for corrupt practices.

said, that after the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman he would not press the Amendment. Of course he knew that the candidate, under the clause as it stood, would lose his seat; but the agent would get off scotfree, and that was what he objected to. It might be said that an action could be brought against the agent after the election was over; but he was afraid that if a candidate took that extreme course he would never find another agent who would be willing to act for him. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he had placed upon the Paper the following new sub-section after Sub-section 2:—

"Any person who does any act which, if it were committed by a candidate or his agent, would be a corrupt practice, illegal practice, illegal payment, employment or hiring, shall he guilty of the same offences, and he liable to the same penalties, as if he were himself such candidate or agent; and any person not being an election agent who pays any money or incurs any expense (not included within the expenses returned by the candidate or his agent) in promoting the election of any candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice."

said, he thought that the sub-section as it stood would give rise to considerable difficulty. A claim might be made upon the candidate, and the agent would say—"I gave no such order; you have quite misunderstood me, and I do not owe you a penny." Then this section would come in, and the creditor would say that the agent had disregarded his claim altogether, and he would bring an action, and, as they all knew, there were plenty of people who were able to persuade juries that right was wrong, or something that seemed wrong. Witnesses sometimes overstepped the words of truth. He would assume that the candidate was beaten in the action, and that it was hold that according to law his agent had ordered the articles. Was the candidate in that case to lose his seat, and the agent by the result of that action to be liable to penalties? The right of the creditor was preserved, and if it was established ultimately, important consequences would follow. How could the Attorney General save the candidate or the agent?

said, he quite understood the objection that was raised to the subsection, and in the interests of the honest creditor he was not prepared to say that it was legally necessary at all. Nevertheless, as the matter was somewhat doubtful, he had considered it objectionable to leave the law in an uncertain state. He thought they ought to say what they meant, and if they were of opinion that a creditor should be entitled to recover a just claim, then he thought they ought to say so. They sanctioned by the Bill the employment of committee rooms. Suppose that a candidate was entitled to have five committee rooms, and an application was made to a person to supply a sixth. The person who lent the room might not know that it was a sixth committee room. Why, then, should he not, being a honest creditor, have the right to say—"I did not know that it was in excess of the number provided by law." In such a case, this sub-section entitled the creditor to be paid; and if they said that he should not be paid, they would afford an opportunity for a person to say—"We will spend as much as we like;" and then turn round and say—"We knowingly exceeded the maximum of expenditure, and therefore you cannot recover." He was of opinion that everything ought to be perfectly clear one way or the other, whether such a defence ought to exist or not. He thought they ought to get at the person who did wrong if they could; but the honest creditor would have done no wrong. What he did he would have done unintentionally, not knowing anything to the contrary; and they ought to protect him and enable him to recover his debt. He did not see, because the creditor recovered and showed that the sum was due, that the candidate was placed in any worse position. The effect upon him would always depend upon the fact that the amount was found to be due by the jury. The sub-section had been introduced into the Bill with the view of protecting the honest creditor, and of indicating to County Court Judges that Parliament did not intend that the honest creditor should not be paid by those who had chosen to disobey the law.

said, he did not think that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had quite understood the objection which had been taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The question which his hon. Friend put was this. Supposing the return of election expenses came up to the maximum scale, and then an honest creditor put in a claim for something additional, what would be the position of the candidate if he paid that claim? If he refused it, it would be submitted to the verdict of a jury, which would probably go against him. If he paid it, he would incur the penalty of having exceeded the maximum scale of expenditure allowed by law. He spoke feelingly on this point, because, after his election expenses were returned in 1868, a person at Deal brought an action against him to recover the cost of certain hired carriages. Now, certainly, he had never hired the carriages, nor had his agent hired them; but, notwithstanding, an intelligent jury decided that he ought to pay for them. The same case might occur again. At the time of which he spoke the candidate was not subjected to these terrible penal clauses. Under this clause, if he resisted the claim he was subjected to an action at law, and if he paid it he was liable to go to prison and lose his seat. He thought that was an unfortunate dilemma in which to place a candidate.

said, he had endeavoured to explain the position of the matter. Either the candidate would owe the money or he would not, and the finding of a jury would not put him in a worse position than by law he would be in Before the action was brought. The candidate would have a perfect right to say that he did not enter into a contract or incur the expenditure, and that he should not lose his seat; and if the Judge was of the same opinion, then, under Clause 17 of the Bill, it would be found that every protection was given which could be given to meet the very case that was referred to. If the candidate went before the Judge and said, "I know nothing at all about it," then the words of Clause 17 covered the case. If any further words were necessary to give full protection to the candidate, he would be glad to insert them.

said, he thought the Attorney General was quite right in the position he took. It would be a monstrous thing to say that because a candidate had exceeded the maximum expenditure allowed by law a creditor should be prevented from recovering an honest debt. He would, however, call the attention of the Attorney General to language used in the earlier part of the section which, in his opinion, made it necessary that this sub-section should be inserted. The clause said, in the second line—

"No sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate at an election or his election agent, whether before, during, or after an election, on account of or in respect of or incidental to such election, in excess of any maximum amount in that behalf specified in the first schedule to this Act."

said, there was one point to which he desired to call the attention of the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman must, as a lawyer, know perfectly well that there was no obligation on the part of the candidate to spend more than a certain amount of money; but the fact that more was expended could in no way affect the rights of the creditor. Therefore this section was clearly unnecessary, and he thought it was a very bad practice to load Bills with words which were not necessary, and which only led to discussion. Besides, the words, if unnecessary, were actually mischievous when they looked at the rest of the Bill. In Clause 6 they had provided that—

"No payment or contract for payment shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, be made (c) on account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the first schedule to this Act."

"That nothing shall affect the right of a creditor who when the expense was incurred was ignorant of the expense being incurred in contravention of the section."

asked the Attorney General how Section 7 would operate in such a case as this. Suppose the candidate had already expended the maximum amount allowed by the Act, and after the election was over a dishonest claim was made against him, would any expenditure he incurred in defending himself against such a claim be regarded as excessive expenditure over the maximum?

Certainly not.

said, that the fact that the clause was directed against a candidate making an illegal payment might suggest that the creditor was making a fraudulent claim, and was threatening proceedings against the candidate unless the claim was satisfied. They all knew that in election times, in every constituency, a certain number of persons turned up with the sole intention of preying upon the unfortunate candidate. In some places they were more plentiful than in others, but everywhere they existed to some extent, and he was afraid that the Attorney General was making express provisions in the interest of such individuals. If the case were one of a candidate or an agent inadvertently engaging a committee room, it would hardly be worth discussing; but what really would occur would be this—that some person would furnish an account for a committee room, which had probably never been hired at all, and then the candidate, by the threat of an action, would be induced to compromise what he believed to be a dishonest claim. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the section would produce a mischievous effect, and that it ought to be struck out.

said, that, in addition to the difficulty which had occurred to his mind a short time ago, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the retention of this sub-section was likely to increase fraudulent claims, struck him as having considerable force. He was also bound to say that the criticisms of his hon. and learned Friend in regard to the difference apparent between Clause 6 and Clause 7 was perfectly well-founded. It was obvious that a distinction was drawn in preserving the rights of creditors in Clause 7, and ignoring them in Clause 6; and as it was evident that the Attorney General was not very much in love with the section, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to meet it.

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would acquit him of any desire to prevent the Committee from coming to a decision upon the clause; but he could not help pointing out that this sub-section was in contradiction to the main principle and idea of the Bill. He understood that the object of the Bill was to prevent any expenses beyond reasonable expense being incurred, and thus of obviating any possibility of bribery. The point at which the Bill started was, that it was a great object for every member of a constituency to see what he could get out of the unfortunate candidate. There might be a good many dishonest creditors, and only one who was honest so far as bribery was concerned, and yet they provided nothing in the Bill to protect the right of the creditor who, when the expenditure was incurred, was ignorant that it was being incurred in violation of the Act. He thought that militated against the spirit which animated the whole of the Bill; and it would further the object of the Attorney General if he would strike out this section altogether, and place every member of every constituency in the same category of being unable to bribe anyhow.

said, that, what the Attorney General did was this. In a subsequent part of the Bill he provided that the candidate should supply a return of his election expenses; but he would not naturally supply a return of unsettled claims. These unsettled claims would not be settled for months, or perhaps for years, and until they were it would be impossible to test the question whether the payments by the candidate had been excessive or not. He presumed it was one of the principles of the law that every person was supposed to know what the law was, and he therefore did not see why they should insert a provision giving a special favour to a person who made a dishonest and illegal claim.

said, he should like to know from the Attorney General what was to be the position of a candidate in regard to a creditor who sent in a bill to him for, say, the hire of carriages. The candidate and his agent would say that they had given no such order at all. Was the person who sent in the claim entitled to recover from the candidate, he being the sitting Member at the time; and might the result of the success of the creditor's application be to deprive the sitting Member of his seat?

said, that he did not intend to be put down because hon. Members were impatient. He intended to be heard, and it was such conduct as this, on the Government side of the House, that had brought about the Monaghan defeat. [Cries of "Question!"] He wanted to know from the Attorney General whether the clause would apply to expenses that were incurred in consequence of the provisions of the Act?

said, the clause dealt only with expenditure that went beyond the maximum election expenses. Suppose a candidate had spent, say, a sum of £500 which he was entitled to spend, and he and the election agent knew that the maximum expenditure had been incurred, then, if he afterwards went and expended more, that would be illegal expenditure; and the question was whether the creditor would be entitled to recover it. Would it be honest to say that, because the candidate had already expended the £500 he was authorized to expend, the creditor should not recover what was a perfectly legal debt? He thought there was much force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and he would, therefore, consider whether a similar promise ought not to be added to Section 6 as that which was now proposed to be added to Section 7. It was quite evident that Clause 6 prohibited expenditure which would not be prohibited under the present clause, and therefore he would consider the matter, which was well worthy of attention.

said, he thought that what the Attorney General said would make matters worse rather than better. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to intimate that he would introduce a provision into a subsequent part of the Bill to make illegal and corrupt certain acts on the part of an elector which were previously not only unpunishable but regarded as perfectly proper.

said, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, in line 14, to leave out the words "was ignorant of the expense being," in order to insert the words "had no means of knowing that the expense was being." He was in hopes that it would not be necessary to take up the time of the Committee by formally moving this Amendment, because he thought the Attorney General might feel disposed, if he did not altogether accept the Amendment, to introduce words of his own in order to strengthen the clause, and protect a bonâ fide honest candidate. In order to afford him an opportunity of doing so he would move the Amendment.

said, the hon. Member seemed to be of opinion that under the clause it might be open to a creditor to say he did not know anything about what the law was, although he might know that he was doing an illegal act. He did not think that that was the construction that would be put upon the section; but he saw no objection to making it perfectly clear, and therefore he would insert the words "in fact."

:"In law or in fact?"

said, it would be only necessary to insert the words "in fact."

said, that before the Committee parted with the clause, he was anxious to draw attention to an observation which fell from the Attorney General in the early part of the discussion which he was afraid might be misunderstood. The Attorney General said he understood there was a general agreement that certain matters should be left for settlement until they reached the Schedules of the Bill; but, although the Attorney General said that a general agreement had been come to, he (Mr. Lewis) did not wish it to be supposed that he was an assenting party. On a former occasion, they had come to a decision that they could not define by legal words when an election might be said to commence, and that was the only agreement they came to on that point. When they came to deal with the Schedules, it would be necessary to provide for two or three separate things so far as the maximum of expenditure was concerned—namely, for the distinction between single and double seats, the difference between election contests which took place in double constituencies at a General Election and on the occasion of casual vacancies, and other distinctions. Then there would be a difference in the case of elections which occurred suddenly, and others which might last for four or five months. Until these various matters were settled it would be impossible to fix a maximum, and he therefore reserved everything he might have to say on that question until they came to the Schedules later on.

said, that nearly every mode of expenditure that was possible was mentioned in this clause, and the cost of the next General Election would be a very heavy one, because the Bill would be very little understood, and there would be numerous actions brought against outsiders immediately after the election. It would be absolutely necessary that on such occasions the candidate should be represented at the trial in order to see that he was not inculpated by the charges that were brought against other persons. That would entail a heavy expense, and it was most likely that actions would be brought in order to see whether anything might turn up which could possibly void the election. It would be just as well to know before the Bill passed, whether expenses incurred in that way would be included in the maximum authorized expenditure?

said, he had already stated that such expenditure would not be included.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the question in regard to another case altogether.

said, the clause stated that if any person induced or procured any person to vote at an election whom at the time he knew to be prohibited from voting, he should be guilty of an illegal practice. He wanted to know what the Attorney General meant by the use of the word "prohibited," because the register, of course, would have been made up, and that would give the names of the voters who were legally entitled to vote? In the Bill, as it was originally drawn, other words were used—namely, "whom at the time he knew to be disqualified;" and he noticed that in the marginal note attached to the clause the word was "unqualified," and not "prohibited." In order to prevent any confusion he wished to ask the Attorney General what was meant by the word "prohibited?" Was it intended that the register should not be conclusive? What was the meaning of the word "prohibited," and in what sense did it differ from the old word "disqualified," which appeared in the former Bill? In order to raise the question in a regular manner, he would move, as a matter of form, to insert, after the word "prohibited," the words "though on the register."

said, there were persons whose names appeared on the register who were not entitled to vote, such as policemen and others, who were prohibited from voting by Statute. The clause applied to any person who was not entitled to vote. The names of such persons were not struck off the register, but the persons themselves were prohibited by Statute from voting.

said, he was not quite sure whether he was right or not; but, speaking from recollection, he believed that a person who removed from a borough and lost his occupation franchise could vote, although prohibited.

said, that was a matter which applied only to the qualification. He would take care that the point which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) should be duly considered.

said, he thought it was rather a strong thing to say that a man who became a policeman, and whose name was on the register, was guilty of an illegal practice if he voted. He might have become a policeman since his name appeared on the register, and it was rather a strong thing indeed to put him under penalties for committing an illegal practice.

said, he had already promised to look carefully into the matter. His only desire was to see the law carried out as simply as possible.

said, he presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to take the case of a man who had had a qualification, and had parted with it. Such a man would have a right to vote, although his name might be struck out on a scrutiny. He would not press the Amendment further.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had announced that anybody who opposed the Amendment must be insincere. Therefore, as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) opposed the Amendment, he must unfortunately be insincere. At any rate, he was sincere in his insincerity, because, in his opinion, the Amendment would produce a disastrous effect. Certainly he could not be returned for Woodstock if his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were carried. In small boroughs—and until steps were taken to abolish them small boroughs must continue—it was absolutely necessary for the candidate to enter upon a house-to-house canvass. The electors knew that it was in the power of the candidate to call upon them, and they expected him to do so. His hon. and learned Friend said there was no time for entering into political arguments with a man in his own house. That might apply to a very large constituency; but he had often engaged in long political arguments with the electors of Woodstock, generally with the happiest results. On several occasions he had known an elector to say—and, no doubt, it had occurred to others—on asking him towards the end of the canvass whether he intended to vote for him—"I will vote for you now; but I would not have voted for you if you had not taken the trouble to come and ask me." He imagined that the same thing was very common in the country elections among the farmers. When he talked of house-to-house canvassing, his hon. and learned Friend must recollect that he was applying the clause to counties as well as to boroughs. In a large borough the candidate might have to go up one side of the street and down the other, and a house-to-house canvass would involve an enormous number of visits. But in a county election the only way in which a candidate could meet the farmers was to call upon them at their own houses. He might meet some of them sometimes at an "ordinary;" but, as a rule, the farmers did not attend public meetings, and if the county Member did not call upon them he would frequently find that he would lose their votes. Therefore, although the Amendment was good enough in theory, until the President of the Board of Trade's ideas had attained full development, and they had nothing but enormous constituencies with paid Members, and equal electoral districts, it would be ridiculous to accept an Amendment of this kind. It was impossible to define what house-to-house canvassing was; and if the principle were carried out in all its rigour, it would undoubtedly lead to a great many Members who, like himself, had the honour of sitting for a small borough, being placed in a false position.

said, he hoped the Committee would come to a decision on this point at once. He sympathized with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), but was unable to see how they could be carried into practical effect. The question of house-to-house canvassing had been discussed over and over again, and it had been proved to be a most pernicious practice. It did not exist to any great extent in large constituences, because there the candidates had not time for it; but, unfortunately, it existed largely in small constituencies, and had been shown to be very humiliating to the candidates, who would in many cases be very glad to avoid the process if they could. If it was allowed to continue, however, it would, of course, be used; and if it were prohibited, the prohibition could, as it seemed to him, be evaded in a variety of ways. For instance, it was only necessary to canvass the doubtful voters, of whom there might only be 10 out of 40, in a street; and what was to prevent those 10 being gathered together in one house where they could be met by the candidate?

remarked, that such a proceeding would constitute a public meeting.

was of opinion that those voters might be got together in such a way as not to constitute their assembling into a public meeting; and, even if it wore not so, what was to prevent the brother of a candidate from carrying on a house-to-house canvass on his behalf, or from asking doubtful voters to see him at his house or hotel with a view to their conversion? He could not see anything more dangerous than the Amendment which had been moved, and therefore he could not accept it, although he would gladly see the practice of canvassing done away with.

said, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was not able to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because he was sure that the system of canvassing now carried on in small boroughs was not only humiliating to the candidates, but objectionable to the the constituents. His view was that the only way in which a borough or county ought to be canvassed was by public meetings, where candidates could be questioned on all political subjects in which their constituents were interested.

said, that though the Attorney General had said/and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had confirmed his view, that house-to-house canvassing was humiliating, he could not hold that opinion. He had had a great deal of it in the course of his political life, and he hoped to have a great deal more of it. His constituents felt proud that he had done them and himself the honour of canvassing them. He was sorry that any Gentleman sitting on that side of the House and calling himself a Conservative should have brought forward an Amendment of this kind. He should not have been surprised if the Amendment had been proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he was certainly surprised that it should have come from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

said, his experience was entirely opposed to that of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). His opinion was that an overwhelming majority of voters in the various constituencies objected to being personally bored by either candidates or other persons who might wish to know how they were going to vote. His opinion was that there should be a complete and absolute prohibition of canvassing for votes, and therefore it was he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham did not go far enough. "What was wanted was that persons other than candidates should be prohibited from canvassing. In the larger constituencies it had became impossible for a man who sought a seat in Parliament to canvass the whole of the voters, and if he was a poor man he stood at a great disadvantage as compared with the rich man, who could afford to employ an army of paid canvassers to do the work for him.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Memeber for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had just sat down, in his objection to the employment of paid canvassers; but he could not see any reason why candidates should not be allowed to canvass personally. He had an experience of the kind in the borough of Preston, in the year 1857; and his opinion, based upon that experience was that a large number of the electors were delighted to see him, and to have from him vivâ voce an explanation of his political opinions with special reference to particular questions. The paid canvasser being a person of the past, the difficulty was to define what canvassing really was; and this difficulty was one which he thought was insuperable, without subjecting candidates to traps and pitfalls into which, without the least guilty intention, they must inevitably fall. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had shown clearly that it would not be possible to carry out the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham, and he hoped no Division would be taken upon it.

wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) that the condition of things, when the electors of Preston were delighted to be personally canvassed by him in 1857, was very different from that which existed at the present time. He did not think the condition of things at the present time would be met by the Amendment which had been proposed. It would not be possible, for instance, for any candidate to canvass a constituency as large as that which he had the honour to represent. But, at the same time, this canvassing business was at the root of electoral corruption; and as the Amendment which had been proposed would deal with it to some extent he should support it by his vote.

said, he believed the working classes in the constituencies were in favour of canvassing. He had the honour of sitting for a constituency largely composed of the wage-earning class, and he did not think his constituents regarded canvassing as being either pernicious or humiliating, as had been suggested by the Attorney General. He had sat for the borough of Taunton, now represented by the Attorney General, and he ventured to say that no one could sit for that constituency without canvassing. As far as the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was concerned, he denied that that Gentleman represented the working classes. That Gentleman represented a number of organizations which lived upon the working classes, and which, in the case of the hon. Member, as also in the case of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), took the place of canvassers, and were to be maintained; while canvassing, which they believed would tend to the success of Conservative candidates, was to be abolished.

said, he was of opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment could not have had any view other than a wish to test the sincerity of hon. Members sitting opposite, for it was not possible to imagine anything more inconsequential. House-to-house canvassing was precisely the same in one street as in another. Suppose there were 300 working men at a meeting. Was the candidate to go down and shake hands, without saying a word to them about the election about to take place? There were persons who, for 25 years, had been endeavouring to bring about that state of things; they wanted the candidate to do no more than stand on the platform, which was very disagreeable to some persons. He confessed that the canvassing he had had to do in the three contests in which he had been engaged was the best means by which he could obtain a personal knowledge of his constituents. So far from having found that at all humiliating, his experience was quite to the contrary. When he knew that a person was not in favour of his candidature he did not take the trouble to call on him; he went to persons who were favourably disposed towards him; and he thought it quite right to visit his constituents in that way, because it had often been said to him—"That which is not worth asking for is not worth having, and if you don't take the trouble to come to my door I shall not take the trouble to go to the poll." It seemed to him that the idea in the minds of some hon. Members was that election day should be kept as a day of mourning. He did not suppose anyone wished to go back to the old Carnival days; but he certainly hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass without some little liberty being allowed to the electors and the candidate. For his own part, he thought that to prevent the candidate seeing the voters, and the voters seeing the candidate, was simply absurd; and although a house-to-house canvass might be impossible in some constituencies, still, so long as it was possible in others, he regarded it as a proper practice, and one that ought to he continued.

said, if he could support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) he should feel it his duty to move to add, after the word "canvass," the words "or if a candidate visits his constituents during an election." But he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would set his face altogether against these little Amendments, and endeavour to pass the Bill with as little delay as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham said that canvassing led the electors to think they were conferring a favour on the candidate. He looked upon it as conferring a very high favour indeed; his recollection of one election was that it was a picnic from beginning to end. He could see nothing humiliating or degrading in canvassing, although he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) looked at it in that light.

said, that he did not think the Amendment was required, because in large constituencies it was certainly impossible for a candidate, without the assistance of volunteers, to canvass from house-to-house. Again, it would be impossible to canvass a county in this way; but in a small borough, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had pointed out, canvassing was one of the most certain ways of winning an election. There were, in every constituency, numbers of persons who would not take any trouble about the election; and his own custom was to call, not on the friendly electors alone, as the hon. Member for Londonderry did, but upon every elector, whether favourable or unfavourable; and it very often happened that he was able to convince an unfavourable elector and win him over to his own side. Looking at the maximum expense allowed in the Bill, it was absolutely impossible to have a personal canvass in large constituencies, and with regard to them the practice must entirely disappear.

said, he proposed to move an Amendment, making it an illegal practice for an agent or any other person, with the approval of the the candidate or his committee, or an Association taking part in the election to visit houses or send circulars with the view of asking persons how they intended to vote. He understood the Attorney General had, on the last Amendment, made a speech practically in favour of this proposal. He did not know whether he was going to accept it; but, if so, he would not say another word in support of it. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) signified dissent.] Then he must appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who was apparently leading the Conservative Party, to use his influence with the Attorney General. Members on those Benches had no influence with the hon. and learned Gentleman—he wished they had—but Gentlemen opposite had very great influence with him, and he wished they would, as arbiters of the destinies of the Members of that House, take this excellent Amendment into consideration, and ask the Attorney General to agree to it. The object of his Amendment was not to prevent A. and B. asking C. and D. how they were going to vote, but to put an end to the system of canvassing which now existed. The Committee had done away with paid canvassers; but there would be a whole herd of amateurs on both sides who would do the work. These people, under the present system, unless the practice was put an end to, would take each of them a certain number of streets, visit every house, and write down in their books how the electors were going to vote. He thought that a bad system, and he believed it was also a bad system in the opinion of the Attorney General.