in moving to amend the clause by adding the words—

"Provided always, That this section shall not apply to, or in any way affect, the foreshore, or any lands gained or reclaimed from the foreshore south-west of Crossens Channel, situate within the said township of North Meols."

said, the question he desired to raise formed the sequel to a matter which came before the House recently in reference to the sale of the foreshore of Southport to the riparian owners. If the clause inserted by the House of Lords were passed as it stood, it would, as far as Southport was concerned, bring the question to a fatal termination. He did not propose to touch upon the merits of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of South-port for several reasons. First, he held in his hand a letter from the Duchy of Lancaster, in which they said that they had had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the clause which had been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords; and, that being so, the Duchy was not prepared to take any part in the matter, either in favour or adversely. But he did not propose to introduce any question as between the Duchy and the Corporation of Southport for another and more important reason—namely, that the whole question as between the two bodies, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had promised, and was carrying out his promise, to use his good offices with a view of bringing the matter to a settlement. Therefore, while the matter was pending between the Corporation of Southport, the ri- parian owners, and the Duchy, and while it was possible that an arrangement might be arrived at which he hoped would lead to a settlement, he did not think it would be wise to introduce any contentious matter. He would only allude to certain simple facts to show the connection between the South-port foreshore and the Ribble Navigation Bill. As the House was probably aware, the amount of foreshore which, was going to be sold to the riparian owners amounted to 9,000 acres. This amount was divided into two portions by a stream of considerable extent called Crossens Channel. That on the North-East of the Channel was the largest part, containing upwards of 5,000 acres, and with that part the Amendment he proposed to insert did not interfere in any way. The important part was that on the South and West of Crossens Channel, which comprised the whole of the foreshore of Southport. In other words, the borough of Southport extended right up to the Crossens Channel, and the whole of the foreshore covered by that space was necessary to the inhabitants of Southport, in order to give them access to the sea. Indeed, the whole of those 4,000 acres, with the exception of about 600, were, at the present moment, included in the borough boundary, and the whole of it, including the 600 acres, was directly in front of the borough. Since the year 1880, the Corporation of Southport had been in communication with the Duchy for the sale of its rights over these 4,000 acres, and the negotiations were carried on up to the month of April last, when negotiations were entered into and a sale partly completed with the landowners. He had no intention of entering into any dispute as to the Duchy. The Duchy considered that the negotiations were at an end, as far as the Corporation of Southport were concerned; but the Corporation did not so consider them at an end. The Duchy considered the sale to have been practically completed; the Corporation submitted that as the Seal of the Duchy had not been affixed the sale was really not completed. But, be that as it might, it would be unwise and unnecessary to introduce any dispute of this kind into the matter now before the House, which was quite upon another point. There had been communications in which the Chancellor of the Duchy had offered his good offices—communications from the Duchy to the Corporation, offering his mediation and arbitration. That offer, on the basis laid down, for various reasons had been declined. He hold in his hand a letter from the Duchy, dated the 29th of June—quite recently—asking the Corporation of Southport to reconsider the question of arbitration, and to bring the matter before the Town Council. This letter had not yet been laid before the Southport Town Council; but it would be placed before them on Tuesday next. Then, on the other hand, there was a counter-offer from the Corporation to the landowners. The landowners gave £15,000 for the whole 9,000 acres, and the Corporation offered the whole of the purchase money—£15,000—for the smaller part—the 4,000 acres lying in front of their borough. To that offer there had been no official reply, so that the House would see there was an offer and a counter-offer still pending, and on that ground it would not be wise to drag the Duchy in any way into the discussion. But he would respectfully ask the House to consider what would hap-pen if this clause were passed. It would give an absolutely statutory title to the two landowners in question; and there-fore the good offices of the Duchy would be of no avail, because it would be impossible that they could exorcise any of the powers they had now, seeing that the foreshore would have gone absolutely into the ownership of the two riparian proprietors. This state of affairs had been brought about by what he would venture to term a side wind. It had been brought about by a clause introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords. This year the Kibble Navigation Company—which was really the Corporation of the borough of Preston—had introduced a Bill which, among other things, was to improve the navigation of the River Ribble. Southport was in the Estuary of the Ribble, and Preston was 14 miles off up the River. Among other things, it was proposed to build training walls and a large embankment in the Estuary, and the effect of these works would be to reclaim the foreshore for a considerable distance from these training walls, seeing that even at present the water was very shallow over a great stretch. In the House of Lords the representatives of Southport were not allowed to oppose the Bill on the ground that they had no locus standi, and he wished particularly to state that their locus standi was refused on this ground—that the works of the Ribble Navigation Company were not likely to affect the borough of Southport or the foreshore of Southport. This clause consequently had been introduced into the Bill without the Corporation having the right to be heard against it, although it would give all the foreshore when reclaimed to the riparian owners. Now, Southport had no objection to the operation of those works so far as the immense tract of foreshore on the North-Eastern side of Crossens Channel went; but they did object to have their own foreshore handed over in the manner contemplated by this clause. If it was the case, as the promoters of the Bill alleged, that Southport would not be affected by these Ribble Navigation Works, and that there would be no accretion or reclamation of their foreshore; if that really were so, then the Amendment would do no harm, and all those who were of that opinion ought to vote for it, because it had been very carefully drawn, and with studied moderation, only for the purpose of saving that part of the foreshore which was in front of Southport. But, unfortunately, nearly all the scientific witnesses and the best engineers declared that the accretions would go beyond Crossens Channel and affect the foreshore in front of South-port; and Sir Frederick Bramwoll went so far as to say that it would so reclaim the foreshore in front of South-port, as eventually to make Southport an inland town. Now, that was a very important consideration, seeing that the foreshore varied from one mile to two and a-half miles before it reached the Channel, and then beyond that were six miles of sand at low water. It was, therefore, very important that this should not happen, because Southport would have its whole character destroyed if what Sir Frederick Bramwell and other eminent engineers declared would happen should do so. But that was not all. In the clause inserted in the Lords, the two riparian landowners had not only got a statutory right given to them over all the accretions, which were the result of the works of the Ribble Navigation Company; but they positively had a right given to them to all reclamations by any other means, so that any reclamations which might take place from any cause whatsoever would belong to them. The only object of his Amendment was to save the foreshore of Southport, and to put it in precisely the same position it was in now. It did not confer any rights upon Southport; but it left the matter open, so that Southport might have the advantage of the good offices which the Chancellor of the Duchy was now exercising in the matter. Nor was it antagonistic to the interests of the town of Preston. No interference was asked for with that part of the foreshore on the North side of the Crossens Channel or otherwise outside their own limit, and all that immense tract would remain just as open to the operation of the Preston works as now. If the House would allow him, he thought he could not do better than read a letter just received from the Corporation of Southport on this important point and signed by the Town Clerk. The letter stated—

"A report is being industriously circulated to the effect that the Amendment contemplated to the Lords Amendments in this Bill is directed against the Corporation of Preston. Such a report is entirely contrary to the fact."

This was the important part of the letter—

"The promoters of this Navigation Bill have never pretended that it was necessary for them to acquire, reclaim, or in any way deal with any foreshore in front or comprised within the limits of our own borough. Had they done so, there is no doubt that we shall have to be allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords. On the contrary, the Lords Committee threw us out on the ground that we were not affected by the work. What we object to is the Corporation of Preston coming into the borough of Southport without notice and handing over to owners whose interests are opposed to those of the inhabitants a foreshore which, in the opinion of the Corporation of Southport, it is desirable should be in their hands, and which is not and cannot be contended is in any way necessary for the purpose of the promoters of the Bill."

That letter settled the question as to any injury done by the works contemplated by the borough of Preston. No doubt, Preston relied on the reclamation of land to recoup themselves, to a great extent, for the money they laid out; but, seeing that they would have the whole of the land on the North side of the Channel, which constituted by far the major part, and that they further contended that no land would be reclaimed in front of the Southport foreshore, he thought they had no reason to complain. A circular had been sent out by the representatives of the landowners. He was told that the landowners themselves did not wish to appear in the matter, but only through the name and medium of their agents; but, seeing the part they were taking in reference to the borough of Southport, he thought the responsibility should be thrown on Messrs. Hesketh and Scaris-brick for the hard manner in which they were dealing with the borough of South-port. The letter stated the facts; but, for the reason he had given, as affecting the Duchy, he did not propose to touch that part of the communication. The letter went on to say—

"The landowners have been in possession of this foreshore from time immemorial. That has not been disputed by the Duchy itself. It has been disputed by Southport, and disputed more strongly than by anyone else by the Corporation of Preston during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, and there is no doubt of this—that the borough of Southport was willing to buy the rights of the Duchy, subject to any lawsuit the landowners might think proper to bring forward. But if any proof were wanted as to that, it is given in the Report of the Proceedings in the House of Commons."

[Cries of "Divide!"] He would not keep the House long, but would confine his remarks within the simplest possible compass; and as the Bill affected the well-being, the prosperity, and the very life of a town of 40,000 or 50,000 people, he hardly thought the House would be of opinion that he was trespassing upon their indulgence. The counsel for the Preston Corporation stated in the Committee Room of the House of Commons that the Duchy had sold these rights to them; and there was no doubt that there was an arrangement in the House of Commons by which the rights of the Duchy of Lancaster were to be sold to the Corporation of Preston. That was afterwards altered, and the rights of the Duchy were sold to the riparian owners. There was another point also stated—namely, that the riparian owners were willing to sell the foreshore in front of the Promenade of Southport for a small consideration. Now, that statement was altogether evasive, because what the riparian owners really offered to sell was a small piece—less than 100 acres out of 4,000; and that 100 coupled with such conditions that no Corporation, having the interests of the borough at heart, could possibly agree to. He knew it would be con- tended by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that some time ago the Corporation of Southport admitted the rights of the riparian owners, by paying them for a small piece of land. That took place as long ago as 1876, when the Corporation bought a small piece of land, of 120 acres, from the Duchy for a sum of £340, whereupon the landowners put in a claim of £20,000 for their rights in connection with it, which they ultimately reduced to £7,000. If that argument was to be used, he would ask the House to consider the danger in which the Corporation of Southport was placed. If the landowners, for a small piece of land, 120 acres in extent, with their defective claim and disputed title, asked £20,000, although the Duchy were willing to sell it for £340, what would they not be likely to compel the Corporation of Southport to pay for 4,000 acres, if they had an undisputed title? He would not occupy the House longer; but he would simply point out that this was a national question, as well as a local one. It was a national question, because all the open spaces in the country, and particularly the foreshores—that was the part lying between high and low water mark—ought to be preserved for the people—he would not say without proper consideration for all existing rights—but preserved and placed in the hands of the boroughs for the benefit of the people who lived in front of the foreshores. It was a local question also, because Southport was one of the most growing towns in the North of England. It was the great health resort for a district which comprised 4,000,000 inhabitants, and it had been described as the sanito-rium of that part of the country. He was informed that no less than 20 municipal boroughs had passed resolutions—many of them boroughs in Lancashire—praying that Parliament would help South-port in this matter; and, besides these corporate bodies, there had been Petitions from no less than 40 local bodies, making altogether 60 representative bodies which had passed resolutions upon the question in favour of the action of Southport. Besides that, there had been a Memorial sent to the Prime Minister, signed by 62 Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, for the question was not looked upon as being in any respect a Party one. He believed—in fact, he might emphatically state—from what he had heard from hon. Members on both sides, that their sympathies were entirely in favour of the release of South-port from the false position in which it had been placed by the Amendment inserted by the House of Lords. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) was not in his place, because he had openly expressed strong sympathy with the Corporation in the position in which it stood. There was one other point he wished to refer to. A paper—which he held in his hand—had been circulated by the Ribble Navigation Commissioners, appealing to the House of Commons, on the ground that the clause had not yet been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and asking them to resist what they called "an insidious attempt" to upset the conclusion arrived at by a Committee of the House of Commons, as well as by a Committee of the House of Lords. Now, that was not a true statement of facts. This clause was introduced in the House of Lords. As the Bill left the House of Commons, it was in a different position altogether, the difference being that, when the measure left the Committee of the Commons, the whole of the foreshore was vested in the borough of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to any landowner who would have to prove his title; and the effect of the Amendment introduced by the Lords was, that two landowners were named by name, and an absolute title given to them. He was sure there would be no harm done to the borough of Preston, or to the Ribble Navigation Company, by the proposal which he made, because the Bill would simply go back to the House of Lords to have the clause amended, and the Corporation of Southport were advised that the Lords had introduced this Amendment under a misapprehension, and upon a statement that the rights of Southport would not be affected by it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he was quite sure that no public body in the country felt a stronger interest in the welfare of the great community of Southport, and in everything that would affect the well-being of the place as a health resort, than the Corporation and the inhabitants of the neighbouring town of Preston. It was, therefore, quite needless that he should disclaim on their behalf the slightest disposition to inflict, directly or indirectly, the smallest injury on Southport. The difficulty he found in replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Gollings), who had introduced the Amendment, was that his statements were almost entirely extraneous to the question before the House. In the first place, he proposed to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible by refraining from entering upon matters which were really not relevant to the point at issue. The first great point of the hon. Member's speech, as to whether it was desirable that Southport should acquire those rights in the foreshore which were legally vested in the lords of the manor, was a question on which the decision of the House this afternoon would have no influence whatever. Everybody would, no doubt, be very happy to see South-port in full possession of all rights to the foreshore, which in future might affect it as a place of health resort. But Southport must obtain them by legal methods; in fact, by the only method open to those who wished to obtain rights of more or less value which were vested in other people. The facts of the case at the present moment were that, by whatever process it might have been arrived at, the rights to the foreshore of the Estuary of the Ribble were vested in the lords of the manor. It would have been a very pleasant matter for the Corporation of Southport to find that they were possessed of the whole right to the foreshore; and, in the same way, it was desirable for them, if possible, to become possessors of those rights, and thus become the lords of the manor themselves. But such was not the case. His contention was that nothing contained in the Ribble Navigation Bill, or in the Amendments introduced into it by the House of Lords, did, in the smallest degree, affect the question of the rights of the ownership of the foreshore. As to the question of title, there was no doubt that there had been a dispute as to the ownership of the foreshore; but that dispute had not been between the Corporation of Preston and the Corporation of Southport on the one hand, and the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners on the other, but simply a dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners; and at no time, and under no circumstances, had the Corporation of South-port been able to assert the smallest claim to those rights. They had been passive spectators of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners, and the dispute had been ended by the sale of all the rights of the Duchy to the riparian owners, making them completely and conclusively the owners of the foreshore. They could not go behind that fact by any change which the Lords could make. In regard to the Amendment which had been introduced by the Lords, that Amendment did not, in the slightest degree, touch the rights of ownership. He should be unreasonable if he were to occupy the time of the House on an occasion of that kind by replying in detail to the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and reading aloud the clauses contained in Acts of times past affecting Preston and Southport; but in all of them, on every occasion, the Corporations of those towns had entirely disclaimed any right to the foreshore. Preston found itself at the present moment excluded from all right to the foreshore, not only by clauses in Acts of Parliament, but by clauses introduced into deeds for the purchase of small plots of land from the lords of the manor. The same thing had been done in the case of Southport for other purposes, and this fact utterly cut away all possibility on the part of that Corporation of establishing any claim whatever to the foreshore. The next point had reference to any possible damage to the interests of Southport by the execution of the works of the Ribble Navigation; and in regard to that matter he might say that the decision arrived at by the House that day would in no respect affect the carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation. If these terrible consequences to the well-being, prosperity, and actual life of this com- munity of 40,000 persons were to be brought about by the execution of the Ribble Navigation Works, these works would, nevertheless, be executed in precisely the same manner, whether the House accepted or rejected the Amendment, because the Amendment did not affect the works at all, but only dealt with a matter of trivial importance—namely, whether the owners of the manor and foreshore should pay some small pecuniary acknowledgment to the Corporation of Preston in respect of any incidental advantages that would accrue to them in the increased value of their land by the execution of these works. It would neither confirm nor shake the ownership of the foreshore, nor alter the time or manner of carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation, by anything that was done that day. When he said that he thought he had said enough to show that there was no real ground upon which the Corporation of Southport could ask the House to interfere in the matter in order to go behind the established rights of the lords of the manor as owners of the foreshore, and to enter upon ground in regard to which there had already been a distinct decision by a Committee of the House of Lords, that the Corporation of South-port had no locus standi whatever, because Southport possessed no possible rights. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would arrive at the conclusion that they ought to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and to reject that of the hon. Member for Ipswich.

said, he had listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) but he thought they were entirely beside the Amendment before the House. The Corporation of Preston, who were the promoters of this Bill, had got rid of the locus standi of the Corporation of South-port by denying that any land would be reclaimed in front of the borough of Southport, and then by stating that they did not propose to make a rent charge for any land reclaimed in front of that borough on the Corporation of Southport, but on the lords of the manor. They also opposed the locus standi of the Corporation of Southport by offering to make deviations in their own training walls, in order to avoid interfering with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. Now, in the reclamation of the land which was anticipated to arise from the execution of these works, and for which a rent charge was to be made, the outlet of the sewage of Southport must, undoubtedly, be interfered with. The reclamation itself was of an unknown and uncertain character, and it could not be said that the sewage of Southport was in no danger from it. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that Preston had a great interest in South-port; but Preston had a greater interest in itself, and, in all human affairs, the Corporation of Preston would take care of themselves first, and of their neighbour Southport afterwards. What did the Corporation of Southport want? They had no desire to destroy this Bill, or to prevent the improvement of the Ribble Navigation. They did not seek to claim rights over the foreshore. Those rights were truly said to be vested ma-norially in the lords of the manor, who had legal manorial rights, and the Corporation of Southport did not seek to interfere with those legal manorial rights. But they asked the House to avoid being betrayed into giving rights over the foreshore which did not now exist, by putting a clause into the Preston Act which would give statutory rights to the owners of the manorial rights—rights which were not enjoyed at the present moment, and which were entirely opposed to the interests of Southport. The Corporation of Southport were at this moment in friendly negotiation with the lords of the manor, under the auspices of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At present the lords of the manor, very naturally, stood upon their manorial rights; but why should Parliament give them stronger rights on which to stand during the pending negotiations by conferring upon them statutory rights? He humbly submitted that Parliament ought not to do so. It was said that the Corporation of Preston objected to give up the rent charge they would obtain from the land reclaimed by their operations—a certain rent which would be obtained from the land which might be reclaimed from the sea in the neighbourhood of Southport. Now, Southport had no interest in throwing up land between her own town and the sea; whereas Preston had thus an interest in creating as much land as possible between Southport and the sea. In considering the interests of Southport, the fact should not be overlooked that the inhabitants of Southport had converted barren sand hills into one of the most valuable properties in Lancashire; and that fact ought to overweigh the policy of preserving ancient manorial rights, and especially of extending them by a Bide 'wind, so as to infringe the growing rights of the inhabitants of Southport. He thought the argument ought not to be pressed that the Corporation of Southport had no interest in this land; but they ought to be, as they had made themselves in regard to these barren sand hills, the absolute dispensers of the future fortunes of the inhabitants of the borough of Southport. On this simple ground, and with no desire to make any assault on the rights of property, he and other hon. Members were there that day anxious to interpose between the inhabitants of Southport and a new claim, which would be, in the highest degree, detrimental to their interests. He willingly supported the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings).

said, he could not help thinking it was a great pity that the time of the House should be taken up in a discussion of this kind, under circumstances which rendered it quite impossible for hon. Members to come to a conclusion on the points which had been brought forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Before he said a few words in regard to the position of the Ribble Navigation Bill and the town of Preston, he wished to deal with a matter to which the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred. The first point brought forward by the hon. Member was that the Corporation of Southport, when the question of their locus standi was fought in the House of Lords, were deprived of that locus standi, because it was said that no land of theirs would be reclaimed. Now, that was an entire misapprehension. The reason why the Corporation of Southport were not allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords was that they could not show they had any interest in the foreshore of Southport. They were allowed a locus standi in the House of Commons, because, as the Bill stood when it was before that House, the scheme would to some extent have interfered with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. They also claimed to be heard on the ground of having some interest in the foreshore; but that claim was disallowed. The Bill was carried through a Committee of the House of Commons, and, in the end, a clause was introduced defining the rights of the Corporation of Preston, of the lords of the manor, and of the Duchy of Lancaster, in any lands that might be reclaimed by the works to be carried out by the Corporation of Preston. That clause was, however, so framed that the Corporation of Southport were entirely excluded from its operation. If, then, the Corporation of Southport claimed any interest in the foreshore, the proper time to assert that claim was when the Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons. That was their opportunity; but they had not availed themselves of it. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and the only change made there was a slight modification of the mode in which the rights of the Corporation of Preston and the lords of the manor were defined. The Corporation of Southport, therefore, were in as good a position for bringing forward a complaint that their rights had been disregarded by the House of Commons as to ask for a reconsideration of the treatment which their claims had met with in the House of Lords. It had been suggested that land in front of the borough of Southport might be reclaimed by carrying into effect the Ribble Navigation Scheme, and that the town might be injured by the use made of it. The answer to that was that, if it were the case, the people of South-port had the power of protecting themselves, because they had the option of purchasing the whole of the foreshore in front of the town at a nominal price from the lords of the manor, upon the sole condition that no buildings should be placed upon it. He did not think it would be right to weary the House by going into details which could not be understood; and he would, therefore, say no more, except to urge that the House would do well to assert the principle that when Corporations and Companies came before Parliament to obtain sanction for great schemes of public importance, and when they had carried their Bills through in a regular way, and had dealt with the claims of all persons whom the Standing Orders required that they should take notice of, the decision of the two Houses of Par- liament to which the Bill had been referred should be upheld. He trusted that the House would support the Standing Orders, which had hitherto worked beneficially in protecting the rights of private individuals, and that they would not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

said, he had no wish to enter into any question between the borough of Preston and the borough of Southport; but he desired to explain, in a few words, why, upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment. He thought that this question of foreshores was of great public interest; indeed, the interest the public had in the foreshores of the country was so great that proposals for dealing with them would be best brought forward, not in Private, but in Public Bills. He held that all the foreshores were public property, and that the commoners had a right of access to them. The manorial owners, and so forth, who held so many of the common rights of the people, should be prohibited from preventing the access of the public to all the foreshores round the coast. He, for one, always strongly objected to any measure that would interfere with the rights and interests of the people in the foreshores; and the House of Commons ought to be especially watchful to prevent the abrogation of the public right to common land. It had been said that in this case there was an indisputable right on the part of the lords of the manor to the ownership of the foreshore; but he had seen a good deal of correspondence on that subject, from which it appeared that there was anything but an indisputable right. Both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the lords of the manor claimed rights to the foreshore, and they seemed to have been disputed rights. It was now, however, proposed to insert this clause in a Private Bill in order to clear away this difficulty, and to give statutory rights to the lords of the manor which they did not now possess. Under these circumstances, and upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich.

said, that nothing could possibly be more unfortunate than the account of the Bill which had just been given by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). The Bill did not give anybody any right to any foreshore at all, and much less did it cut off the right of access of the commoners and the people to the sea shore. There was no provision of the hind contained in the Bill; but the clause which had been put in by the House of Lords was simply a clause giving the Corporation of Preston a claim to certain royalties from the people who owned the foreshore, in consequence of the improvement of their property likely to be effected by the works of the Corporation. It was a simple clause to oblige persons who received the benefit of the works to pay for that benefit in the shape of a royalty. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, on this particular part of the foreshore, the people who happened to own the foreshore would get the benefit of the works undertaken for the improvement of the navigation of the Ribble without paying for it. It would do no good whatever to the locality; it would only do good to the people who happened to own the foreshore on that part of the coast. The riparian owners would have the advantage of the execution of the works of the Preston Corporation without paying for it; and for that reason he should certainly vote against the Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to be of opinion that the Bill would give to the riparian owners absolute proprietary rights over this foreshore. That was a very serious matter. They had merely a manorial right at the present time—a right of an exceedingly shadowy character. He differed entirely from the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that this manorial right was equal to a proprietary right. It could not be a proprietary right of a very sufficient character, inasmuch as it had already been a subject of litigation and dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of Southport of a very complex nature. The whole foreshore question was open to legal argument; and a claim of proprietorship, based upon a lawsuit, appeared to him to be not of a very stable character. It was perfectly true that an ownership had been acknowledged to this extent—that, on the sale of some of the disputed property, payments had been made by the Corporation of Southport and others; but those payments had been made not as a necessary acknowledgment of proprietary rights, but, as in many other cases, as a sort of black mail for the purpose of avoiding litigation. What would this clause do? It would remove that claim out of the shadowy region of legal dispute into the solid form of a proprietary right. Like the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he was speaking entirely in the public interests; he had no personal interest in the question whatever, and he might say that his chief locus standi in the matter consisted in this—that his own Corporation of the borough of Manchester had petitioned the House of Commons against the clause on the ground that there were millions of working people in Lancashire who were interested in the question, seeing that Southport was a place of sanitary resort, and the favourite place at the seaside to which they could go and enjoy themselves. It was of the greatest consequence to those persons that the sea should be left open to them; and this clause, if passed, might place it in the power of certain landowners to build property, possibly to the extent of a new town, between the borough of Southport and the sea. He could not conceive a question of graver public importance. He was pleased to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) declare that, whatever course the House took in regard to this clause, it would make no difference whatever to the Corporation of Preston. He should be sorry, for one, to take any action that would militate against the interests of Preston; he was very much interested in the progress, advancement, and everything that tended to improve the position of Preston; but he was satisfied that if the House passed the Bill as it now stood, it would, without benefiting Preston, inflict a serious injury upon the town of Southport.

said, the House was anxious, naturally, to divide on the question, and he thought the main points had been already so clearly explained both by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) and by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he did not think it would be necessary to go back upon them or attempt to deal with them. He only rose now to point out that an expression which the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had made use of—namely, that certain payments had been levied as a sort of black mail upon the Corporation of Southport in other cases—was one that was not really borne out by the facts of the case. If they looked back to the Acts passed in former years, such as the Southport Improvement Act, which was the Act of 1871, they would find in Section 213 a declaration that nothing contained in the Act was in any manner to injure, prejudice, or in any other way affect the rights of property and so forth in respect of the shore or the bed of the sea, which were reported to belong to, or were exercised and enjoyed by, the Trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate. The Act of 1876 incorporated the same provision, and in 1878, in a conveyance to the Corporation of a portion of the land to the north of the town, there was a provision that nothing therein contained should be held to give to the Corporation or their assigns any right to, or interest in, the soil or bed of the foreshore of the sea. Then it was said that the lords of the manor desired to levy black mail, and to shut out from the people of Southport their enjoyment of the sea, which was the very life of the town. He believed he was justified in saying that the riparian owners had in all respects submitted themselves in the most entire and open way to the arbitration which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had proposed, and they were perfectly willing to give, at a merely nominal price, the whole extent of the foreshore in front of the town. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] That was what he was informed; but, of course, with the usual reservation that such land was not to be built upon. Therefore, as far as the sea was concerned, that question was completely answered. He did not rise so much for the purpose of going into these matters as to express a hope that the debate would not be allowed to conclude without a few words from the Chancellor of the Duchy to say how he viewed the question. Of course, he could understand that his right hon. Friend had a delicate duty to discharge in respect of the matter, seeing that he was holding out the prospect of arbitration with the lords of the manor on the one side and the Corporation of South- port on the other. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy would be able to tell the House that it was his intention to support the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, and to reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

said, his right hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down had appealed to him to express to the House his opinion in regard to the Amendment which had been moved to the clause inserted by the House of Lords in the Ribble Navigation Bill. Placed, as he was, in the position of having offered to mediate or bring about an arbitration between the two parties concerned—namely, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, he should not have wished to take any part that might seem to be adverse to one party or the other; but he would candidly express his opinion, as he was called upon to do so; and he thought he could do so in a manner that would not be adverse to one party or the other. Before he went on to state what his views were, he wished to correct an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg). The position was simply this. The title to this particular foreshore was in dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian proprietors, and the Duchy settled the question by selling their claim to the parties who claimed adversely to them. That, he thought, would be regarded by those who were disposed to take a dispassionate view of the question as a very reasonable way of settling the difficulty. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to think that it was, and most hon. Gentlemen would be glad to follow such an example, if they could do so, in any case in which they were personally concerned. But, then, his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) said, in effect—"You are thereby taking the foreshore away from the public, and placing it under private control." That was an absolute and entire mistake. The negotiations between the Duchy and the riparian owners did not affect one jot or tittle of the rights of the public over the foreshore. The law was strictly this—no owner, not even the Crown, whatever his title might be, could deal with the foreshore either to build upon it, enclose upon it, reclaim it, exclude the public from it, or exercise any new right over it, unless he obtained an Act of Parliament for that purpose. No transaction between the Duchy and the riparian proprietors conferred such a right upon the riparian proprietors; and this Ribble Navigation Bill conferred upon them no such power, or, indeed, any power whatever, in regard to this foreshore. The Bill provided for the contingency of reclamation arising from the navigation works which, under its authority, might hereafter be constructed by the Corporation of Preston; and it provided generally that such reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] As regarded the foreshore generally, it provided that any reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: NO!] He said "Yes!" but subject to certain paymonts to be made to the adjoining proprietors. In regard to this particular part of the foreshore—namely, that within the Manor of North Meols—which the House was now dealing with, the Bill provided conversely that any reclamations upon it should vest in the riparian proprietors, subject to certain payments to be made by them to the Corporation of Preston. How did that affect Southport, whichever way it was? In neither case would the reclamations on the foreshore be vested in the Corporation of Southport. In the one case it vested in the Corporation of Preston, subject to a payment to the owners; in the other case, it vested in the owners, subject to a payment to the Corporation of Preston. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich were carried it would vest the last-named reclamation in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption on the part of the riparian owners. He did not see how that could benefit the Corporation of Southport. And now let him say one word as to the clause in regard to the manner in which it affected the public, and its bearing upon the mediation or arbitration which he was endeavouring to bring about. The whole basis and raison d'être of the mediation he had offered, and the arbitration he had proposed, was that the riparian proprietors were the owners of the foreshore, within the limits of the manor; and his mediation or arbitration was offered as to the terms upon which the Corporation of Southport should be allowed to acquire that foreshore, or some part of it, from those who were the owners of it. Such being the case, his mediation or arbitration was not at all affected by the allegation that in consequence of this Bill the title of the owners of this foreshore was a little better or a little worse. The position of the Duchy was this. The riparian owners owned the foreshore, and were legally the rightful owners of it, subject to the rights of the public which had always existed over it; and it was on that basis exclusively that his mediation and arbitration was to take place. That being the case, he did not feel in any way called upon to do otherwise than support the Ribble Navigation Bill, as it had been approved by Parliament. In doing so, he was not of opinion that he would injure the position of the Corporation of Southport, nor would the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich improve it; nor would that Amendment at all influence the basis of the arbitration, which rested on the assumption that the riparian proprietors were the rightful owners of the foreshore.

said, he should not have supposed, at a time when they were told that Parliament was so un-precedently overtasked in the performance of its ordinary duties, that the House would have been invited to try a very difficult question of private title. He thought that considerable ingenuity had been exercised in finding a peg on which to hang a debate upon the question of the Southport foreshore; and, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, the House would perceive that the matter raised by the Amendment was entirely different from the questions which the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to mediate upon between the Town Council of Southport and the riparian owners. The question, as put by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), appeared to be simply this—whether the Amendment introduced in the Bill by the House of Lords, which vested a portion of the reclaimed land in the riparian owners, subject to the rights of the Corporation of Preston to receive certain payments, was to stand, or whether it was to revert, as far as the foreshore was concerned, back to the arrangement made when the Bill was in the House of Commons, by which the reclaimed land was to vest in the Corporation of Preston, subject to certain rights which might accrue to the riparian owners. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) disclaimed any wish to obtain any advantage for the town of Preston at the expense of the riparian owners; and the promoters of the Bill had acted loyally by the agreement entered into when the Bill was before a Committee of the House of Lords; but if the House were to pass the present Amendment, it seemed to him that they would be taking advantage of the fact of an alteration which was scarcely more than one of a verbal character which had been made in the House of Lords with the consent of the Committee of that House, and with that of the only parties who were qualified to appear before that Committee, in order to re-open a question which the Committee of the House of Commons was precluded, owing to the rules of locus standi, from entertaining when the Bill was before them. Now, was that a dignified mode of proceeding? He ventured to think that, if they were to re-try all these questions of great detail, they would be placed in a position of extreme difficulty, for this was a question which could hardly be made intelligible to any Member without a map. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, although he made a most elaborate speech, did not pretend to give more than the briefest outline of the case; and after the Bill had been carefully considered by Committees of both Houses, were they now to re-open it on the floor of the House of Commons, and to pronounce an opinion upon a matter in regard to which Committees of both Houses had arrived at a careful conclusion upon evidence and data which was accessible to them, but which was not accessible to Members of that House?

said, he rose to correct a mis-statement which had been made by the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), and which had been repeated by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), to the effect that an offer was made by the lords of the manor, at a nominal price, of the whole of the foreshore to the Corporation of Southport. Now, the offer made had reference only to a small portion of the foreshore immediately opposite the Promenade; but the borough of Southport extended in a north-easterly direction considerably beyond that point; and if the offer was to be of any use, it ought to cover the whole of the 4,000 acres in dispute. He spoke on this matter from an intimate personal knowledge of Southport; and his conviction was that the acquisition of this portion of the foreshore was of the most vital consequence to the borough. It was of the utmost importance that the borough should be in a position to develop freely and readily in 'a seaward direction, and it could alone do that by becoming the proprietor of this foreshore. It was said that there was little difference made in the position of Southport by the operation of this clause; but there was this difference—that the clause inserted in the Commons vested the reclaimed land in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to the owners of the ancient freeholds who could show a title to the foreshore. If Southport, therefore, through the good offices of the Chancellor of the Duchy, acquired that right, it would have obtained a right of pre-emption from the Corporation of Preston. Under the clause inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords that position was altogether reversed. The reclaimed land was vested in the lords of the manor, and to that extent the Bill gave a Parliamentary title, to the prejudice of the town of Southport. He believed that the position of South-port would be very seriously prejudiced if this clause were adopted, and the Corporation of Southport had to deal with the riparian owners instead of the Corporation of Preston.

rose to explain, as the statement he had made had been disputed.

ruled that the hon. Member, having already addressed the House, was out of Order.

said, he earnestly hoped that the Committee would not assent to this Amendment, for one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen expenses, and the proposal to substitute £100 for £50 was merely calling upon the candidate to increase the expenditure. Of course, the candidate could spend £50 or £100 if necessary; but after the amount was expended it was necessary that it should be returned by the election agent, so that the precise sum should be generally known. In 19 out of 20 cases, £50 would be amply sufficient for the candidate's personal expenses, and if there was any further expenditure it was only right that it should be made under the authority and name of the election agent. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

said, this was a very small matter, which had been amply discussed before. Of course, if the candidate was honest, it was of no use telling him that he might expend £50 or £100 in personal expenses.

said, it was in the interest of the honest candidate that he wished to have the sum fixed—a sum that would be sufficient for the purpose. The proposal of the Bill was absolutely inadequate, and he maintained that even £100 would be insufficient.

said, the candidate might spend as much as he liked; the only point was in whose hands it should be.

said, the matter was fully discussed yesterday. The candidate might want to take his wife and daughters with him, and might not want all that expense to be set down in the account. But to sot down a large amount for personal expenses seemed to be holding out a temptation to the candidate to spend that amount on what might not really be personal expenses at all.

said, that the last time this matter was discussed the Attorney General favoured them with a quotation from a previous Act of Parliament, which he declared was incorporated in the present Bill. He (Mr. Warton) ventured to ask where it was so incorporated, because under the several Acts that were incorporated he could not find that one. There might be some inadvertence somewhere; but he confessed he had not been able to find the place where that Act was incorporated. He wished to know whether the personal expenses were to include travelling and hotel expenses only, because there might be other personal expenses besides those. If the definition was narrowed to travelling and hotel expenses it would leave those other expenses out of view.

asked whether it would not be worth while to insert a Schedule of personal expenses on the Report?

explained, in reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the Statute which he had meant to describe as incorporated was the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 182, which set forth reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses.

said, the Attorney General was always telling them that these were very small matters. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not agree with him, for he thought they were large matters, having regard to the stringency of the measure, and to the many dangers which surrounded the candidate and made the affair a very serious thing indeed for him. He appealed to the Attorney General to say whether it would not be much better to get rid of all this? The definition of personal expenses which was proposed was altogether insufficient. The definition of "reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses" was most difficult, for, as had been suggested by a well-known authority, the candidate might give a dinner to five persons, and that might be held to be reasonable; but if five were to be considered reasonable, were six, seven, or eight to be considered unreasonable? In other words, where was the line to be drawn? A sum of £50 or £100 could be got rid of by the candidate very easily; and he would ask the Committee, before changing the sum from £50 to £100, to consider whether it would not be better to get rid of the provision altogether? He should like to have some definition as to what were reasonable expenses before changing the figure. Very few Members of the House would ever return their personal expenses.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was under an entire misapprehension. The amount did not at all affect the candidate's personal expenses—he might spend as much or as little as he chose. He might spend privately £50 or £100; but anything above that would have to be put down among the election agent's expenses.

said, he quite understood what was the effect of the clause, but wished to have some definition of what were reasonable personal expenses.

said, the object of the sub-section was to provide that where minor payments were made by persons authorized they should be returned. It was necessary that the payments under Sub-section 2 should be returned; but he was willing to strike out the words "by the candidate for his personal expenses." That would leave only the return under Sub-section 2; but it was absolutely necessary that that return should be made.

remarked, that he had said nothing about the clause the other day, because he quite understood that they were to leave out the whole of Subsection 3. His objection to the Subsection was, that it conflicted with the first part of the clause, which left liberty to make certain payments more or less large, while the sub-section declared that particulars must be returned. That surely was a contradiction, and he understood that they had agreed to strike it out.

said, the payments might be made; but it was necessary that the particulars of the items should be given.

said, that with regard to the effect which Sub-section 3 had upon Sub-section 1 he and the Attorney General were agreed. It was agreed on both sides that Sub-section 3 should be struck out so far as it affected Sub-section 1, and the only point necessary to be considered was its effect upon Subsection 2. He had great doubts as to whether that sub-section was necessary at all. He would have raised an objection to Sub-section 2 at the proper time, only he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee. What was its operation? The candidate himself, or his clerk or other persons in charge of the committee room, were authorized to spend £10 on his account. That was what he (Mr. Salt) understood it to mean. If more was spent, then that surplus above £10 must be spent directly by the agent himself. Then Sub-section 3 stepped in and declared that, although the £10 might be expended upon the authority of the agent given to the clerk in charge of the committee room, a bill must be sent in containing all the details. What was the use of that? If a bill was to go in, what was the use of putting in Sub-section 2 at all? It merely made complications.

Sub-section 2 is already part of the Bill. It is not in Order to refer to it, except as affecting the hon. Member's argument on the Amendment before the Committee.

It was not put from the Chair.

No; but we are now on an Amendment to Sub-section 3.

begged pardon, if he bad transgressed, and apologized; but be was obliged to explain Sub-section 2 in order to show his objection to Sub-section 3. He still thought they would be better without it. The agent might say to some clerk—"I give you authority to spend £5 in pens, ink, and stationery"—it could only be a small sum. Why not leave it so, and not complicate the Bill with details which could only-lead to confusion, and in the end lead to corruption?

said, the confusion arose from what had been put into the clause since the Bill was originally framed. He thought it would be very much better if the sub-section could be left out altogether. They were agreed that these expenses should be limited to petty expenses, and be could not imagine why this statement should go in, as it would only deal with small fixed sums.

said, he would give way if he did not think the sub-section essential. It was essential to check the power of spending, and all that was asked was that the man who spent the money should make a return to the election agent showing how he had spent it, so as to prevent the possibility of the money being spent wrongfully.

said, he thought the Attorney General was right, as Sub-section 3 was only a corollary to Subsection 2.

said, he thought that much of the difficulty which had arisen was due to the fact that the Government had not taken the trouble to put down upon the Paper the Amendments which they proposed. That was a most unfortunate plan, which raised a great deal of unnecessary argument. If they made the Returning Officers give all the figures of personal expenditure it was intelligible that there should be some check provided; but the Committee had seen grave objections to that, and, therefore, he could see no use in complicating the clause unnecessarily. He thought the Attorney General would do well if he would tell them at once that he would drop the whole of the clause.

said, he was utterly at a loss to understand what the complications were. If they were going to entrust the practical carrying on of the expenditure of the election to a petty cashier, and to allow him to expend a certain sum of money, the election agent must have an account of how the money was spent, and the account should be sent in; and if they admitted that bribery had been carried on under the guise of personal expenditure, they must have the amount of personal expenditure returned. But really the difference in the matter of drafting, as to the mode in which they were to frame this 3rd sub-section, was "the difference betwixt tweedledum and tweedledee," and he was not surprised at the Attorney General growing impatient.

said, nothing could be more humiliating for a candidate than to be compelled to set forth the particulars of his personal expenses, either for living at an hotel or entertaining his personal friends. The hon. Member opposite had introduced as an argument in favour of the clause that, under certain circumstances, there might be committed, under the guise of personal expenses, very gross bribery; and he mentioned the case of the Sandwich Election, and what had taken place there as an instance. But a long time bad elapsed since then, and it was not unreasonable to suppose that bribery, in the shape of personal expenses, was the exception to the rule. It was necessary to watch very closely what would be the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind. So far as the position of the candidate was concerned, it could not be denied that, under this clause, he might be put to the greatest possible inconvenience if, as might very well happen, be could not state the exact particulars and figures of these personal expenses. Were hon. Gentlemen prepared to say that no personal expenses should be paid by the candidate except hotel expenses? Were they as sensitive about the payment of a cab fare as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who, in his anxiety to keep to the letter of the law at the election, paid a cab fare out of his own pocket, and accounted for it to the Returning Officer? It was desirable that the Committee should know whether the personal expenses were to be limited to the particular items mentioned, or whether other expenses would have to be returned; and they were, moreover, entitled to information on the point, not only for the reasons he had given, but for those advanced by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). Finally, he regarded the clause as wholly unnecessary, while, at the same time, it would inflict great hardship and injustice upon honest men; and for those reasons he should, to the full extent of his ability, resist it at a future stage.

said, that a man under the old law was able to practise a good deal of bribery under the head of personal expenses, and, at the same time, to avoid the penalties attaching thereto. It was to remedy that state of things that the clause was necessary in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.

said, if there was any waste of time on this part of the Bill the responsibility rested on those who liked fiddle-faddle instead of legislation. The 2nd sub-section of the clause, if it had any meaning, meant that a statement of the particulars of every telegram—that was to say, its cost and the name of the person to whom it went—would have to be sent in. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members opposite dissented from that, but it was nevertheless true; it was the particulars that had to be given, not a summary in the form of, say, "Telegrams £3." This was a part of that system of vexation and harassment which seemed to have delighted the framers of the Bill. He thought it reasonable that £40, or thereabouts, should be put as the limit of expenditure under this sub-section without details being required; he trusted they would not be deliberately compelled to furnish in detail all these little matters. Personally, he felt no anxiety about any such expenses, because he doubted that any Act of Parliament would get him either to keep or furnish an account of the kind. To compel a man to keep an account, perhaps for a month, of all that went out of his pocket, was a sort of tyranny that was hardly to be agreed to. And when they came to the Report it would be found that the settlement of those matters in the way provided by the clause would occupy a considerable time, because his hon. Friends and he had no intention of allowing them to pass without first doing all they could to get rid of them.

said, that each clause of this wretched Bill brought together the most incongruous subjects. That was more strongly shown in the next clause, where two absolutely distinct subjects were brought together. The absurdity of the provision as to personal expenses contained in the 1st sub-section had been so completely demonstrated by his hon. Friend below him that he should spend no more time in considering it. He thought, however, that, owing to the many little provisions with which the Bill was encumbered, the 2nd sub-section had not received at the hands of the Committee the amount of attention it deserved.

said, he regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce so much detail into the Bill. It seemed to him that this clause was superfluous, because it seemed to be nothing else than a repetition of what was to be found in the Schedule. One criticism he made with regard to the Bill was that many of its details were totally unnecessary. If they were to have an enactment against corruption, bribery, and illegal payments, with a maximum expenditure set forth in it, it seemed to him totally unnecessary to go into the way the money was to be spent. The effect of that must be to increase the difficulty of honest men in their endeavours to conduct their elections upon pure principles. Moreover, the introduction of so much detail added largely to the bulk of a measure, which otherwise might have passed in a shorter time, and which would recommend itself to the House more than a measure which really alarmed men by its size. For these reasons he trusted that the Attorney General would, on reconsideration, perceive that many of the small provisions in this and the subsequent part of the Bill might be dispensed with.

said, he did not think the Government could be blamed for wanting to reduce the expenses of a candidate; but this clause was perfectly absurd. Why should not the personal expenses of a candidate not be part of the general expenses of the election, and come within the amount set forth in the Schedule? As in the case of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), it would be impossible for him to give an account of his personal expenses. He had never kept an account of them in his life. He believed the Attorney General had stated that, when a candidate went down to a constituency with his wife and family, the hotel expenses of his wife and family would be part of the personal expenses. That, he thought, was perfectly absurd. He thought the personal expenses should be the candidate's own expenses alone. Some years ago a candidate for an Irish constituency came over from London, and brought some actresses with him; and on the principle laid down by the Attorney General the expenses of those artistes might be considered as personal expenses. The clause in all its details was so absurd that he would recommend the Government to abandon it, because, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had judiciously warned them, if the clause were retained a discussion would be raised at the nest stage that would considerably delay the further progress of the Bill.

said, he was reluctant to join in any Division against the provisions of the Bill when the Attorney General thought they were of use. But he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the present clause was so unreasonable, that it could serve no useful purpose to retain it. Sub-section 2 provided that, if an election agent authorized a person to spend £5 in stationery, a return should be made of the particular items on which the money was spent. He did not exactly suppose the person who spent the money should return the number of telegrams or sheets of paper; but it might mean something quite as unreasonable if an account was required of every shilling spent. Then, again, the 1st sub-section seemed to be absurd. The constituencies were so different, and the dura- tion of the several elections varied so much, that it was unreasonable to apply any hard-and-fast time, because, for instance, the expenses of a candidate travelling about a county would be enormously different from the expenses of a candidate standing for and living at a small place. Reluctant as he was to take objection to what was seriously regarded by the Attorney General as an improvement on the existing law, he certainly could not support the clause.

said, he believed it impossible for any candidate, unless of a very economic turn of mind, to escape a Petition under the clause. He supposed if a man gave a shilling to a beggar, it would be part of his personal expenses.

said, he wished simply to point out that if the discussion of the clause were prolonged, it would be entirely the fault of the Government, who would go into details so childish, as to be altogether unworthy of a place in an Act of Parliament.

said, that, while he agreed with the observation of the hon. Member opposite that the clause was unnecessary, and likely to become the cause of annoyance, he thought, as the Government were determined to insist on its retention, there would be no wisdom in prolonging the discussion.

said, that the £100 for personal expenses provided for under the 1st sub-section of the clause would probably be insufficient in the case of a county, and a great deal too much in the case of a small borough election, where £5 or £10 would be enough. He wished to know whether a candidate would have to render an account of the items of expenditure, or simply make a declaration that he had spent the £100?

said, he would not go into the general details of the question; but a candidate would not have to say—"I spent £1 here, and £1 there." He would simply have to return himself as having spent so-and-so on his personal expenses, and in that respect the present law would not be altered.

said, he wished to point out that the 2nd sub-section was not part of the present law. He was particularly desirous of knowing whether or not the penalty of £5 a-day was still to be preserved. He imagined it would be if the 17 & 18 Vict. remained unrepealed.

said, that if they did not ask for the details of the personal expenses, what was the use of limiting those expenses to £100? If a candidate said he spent £100, and gave no details, how could they prove he spent only £100? A candidate might spend £200, and yet return his expenses at £100. He did not suppose that any Member of the House would make an incorrect return; but certainly they would have no means of arriving at the truth, unless the details of the expenses were required from the candidate. The moment they did not insist upon a detailed statement of a candidate's expenses, the whole efficacy of the clause was gone. In its present shape, the effect of the clause would only be irritating and annoying.

rose to order. The clause related to two perfectly distinct matters, and, therefore, he thought it would be well if it were divided into two clauses. With that object, he would move that the figure "1" be omitted.

Figure "1" really indicates a portion of the clause, and does not form any part of the Bill. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will be in Order in making a Motion of this kind.

asked if there was no way by which the clause could be divided into two parts?

said, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport would necessitate a renumbering; if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished it, however, he would, at a later stage, undertake to divide the section.

said, he was not present yesterday, and he did not desire to go back. He could not help saying, however, that no attention seemed to have been paid to the difficulty of dealing with an impecunious candidate. He did not know whether the Government proposed to make any provision in the case of a bonâ fide temporally inability to pay his debts on the part of the candidate, or whether the inevitable result must be that if the debts were not paid within 28 days, the debts unpaid must take their rank amongst disputed claims, and never could be paid except with the permission of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

said, that if debts were not paid, they, of course, became disputed claims. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) would look at Clause 23, he would find that the time limited by the Act for the payment of expenses should be 30 days after the day on which the candidate returned was declared elected. The 30 days, however, had by the Committee been reduced to 28. If debts were not paid by that time, an action must be brought to recover them.

said, he had known many cases in which candidates were for the time being unable to pay their election expenses. They could even conceive cases under that Bill where the expenses would amount to £2,000 or £3,000. Was it suggested that, even under the present Bill, it would not be an exceedingly common occurrence that candidates would not be able to meet their election expenses, and might desire a deferment of payment for a few weeks? The only result of such a proceeding as that would be, that a candidate would be unable to pay one penny unless an action was brought against him. He did not know there was any provision in the present law compelling payment within a limited period. Every Member of the House was not a man of fortune; indeed, there were many Members who had not paid their election expenses for the last election yet. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was nevertheless a fact. He regretted that he was deprived of the opportunity of being present yesterday, because he should then have called attention to this subject. When he came to ascertain what was done by the Committee, it struck him they had omitted to consider that which was one of the ordinary incidents in political life. They were prescribing that a man should pay his election expenses by a certain day, though pressure might be put upon him temporarily by which the money he had put aside for these expenses would be devoted to other things. It was quite possible that there might be bonâ fide impecuniosity. Many Members of the House of Commons were in such a position at an election time. There had been no attempt to provide for a bonâ fide case of that kind, and he thought it was very necessary the Committee should have some understanding on the matter.

said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was not present yesterday, when they discussed the matter at some length. It was then proposed to lessen the time in which payment of expenses should be made. He was sorry to hear that many Members had entered into contracts which they could not fulfil. Personally, he did not see why these should not be ready money transactions. If a man undertook to pay a sum of money in a month, and then could not do so, it was only right and proper that an action should be brought against him.

said, he raised to some extent the same question yesterday. He did not wish to allege, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry had alleged, that there was a scarcity of money on the part of Members of Parliament; but he desired to point out that what really occurred was this this. It very often happened that candidates were subject to very unreasonable claims, and a large amount of correspondence was necessitated. A candidate who paid through an agent, and paid in a liberal manner, very often was required to pay considerably more than was fair. The intention of the Bill was good enough; but, at the same time, there was no proper provision to enable candidates to carry out the intentions of the Bill in a judicious and reasonable manner. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry was a very important one, and deserved the serious attention of the Government. Yesterday the question was raised whether or not the lawsuits involved in the non-payment of election expenses could not be brought in a County Court. The decision of the Government was, that nothing less than an action in the Supreme Court could settle a claim after 28 days. The Government were certainly in this matter acting in a contradictory manner. In the first place, they limited the expenses to a very small sum, and then they made it impossible in some cases to recover the expenses without going to the Superior Court. He (Mr. Biggar) was not at all certain that all his election expenses in 1880 were paid yet, not because he objected to pay his fair expenses, but simply because he refused to meet fraudulent and unreasonable claims made upon him. There were a certain number of people in every constituency who, at an election time, made up their mind to plunder the candidate; and unless there was some protection in the Bill dealing with such people, the candidate might possibly be very hardly done by. In the majority of cases candidates were innocent persons, while there was a certain section of the community always ready to endeavour to seduce the candidates into some illegal action. Personally, he was of opinion that, instead of meting such formidable punishment out to the candidate, there ought to be very severe punishment inflicted upon anyone who attempted to encourage a candidate to commit an illegal act.

said, he thought the argument employed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) defeated its own object. If a claim was not met before the expiration of 28 days after the return of a candidate had been declared, it would, in all probability, be an extortionate claim. The claimant would have to go to the trouble and expense of going to the Superior Court; and if it was found that he had made an extortionate claim, the case would, in all probability, go against him, and he would be mulcted in costs. He (Mr. Macfarlane) thought the provision was rather in favour of the candidate than otherwise.

said, the point he had raised had nothing whatever to do with extortionate claims. He assumed the election bills were perfectly fair, and he had put a case which frequently rose in ordinary life—namely, a case in which a gentleman might find himself in the throes of a severe contest in which he was entitled to spend possibly £2,000. Before the time came for payment it might happen that one of those demands which frequently were made upon people would require him to use all his ready money. What would be the consequence? If there were 50 or 60 bills unpaid, there would necessarily have to be 50 or 60 actions. The Attorney General had said that if a debt was unpaid at the end of 28 days it passed into the category of disputed claims; and if it got there, it could not be paid except by the order of a Judge made in the Supreme Court. There was nothing at all in the Bill to deal with the state of circumstances which he (Mr. Lewis) had instanced. In addition to all the other harassments of the Bill, they placed a person who happened to be a candidate under the liability of having a number of actions brought against him if he was temporarily short of money.

said, he could not see why a candidate should not have an action brought against him, if he was not capable of paying his debts. As he had previously said, in his opinion it would be very much better if election payments were ready money payments.

said, he must contend that he was perfectly, consistent in his objection. At the present time there was no such fetter as was now proposed placed upon the candidate. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to dispute that statement. This was not a question as to what contract a candidate might make with his creditor, because the Act would not allow him to make a reasonable contract with a man. An election bill must be sent in within 14 or 20 days; he forgot which—and the time was fixed when a candidate must pay, whether he would or not. That was a monstrously unworkable arrangement, and it was perfectly nonsensical.

said, the chief difficulty seemed to him to be that of forcing people to bring an action—namely, forcing, for instance, a party making fraudulent claims to take proceedings. No opportunity was afforded of a claimant coming to terms with a candidate without going into Court. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) said that if a fraudulent claim was made and was not met, the claimant would be forced to go to law; if the Court found that the claim was fraudulent, a man would not get his costs. But if a decision went in favour of the defendant, it might possibly happen that he would have to pay his own costs. He (Mr. Biggar) could conceive the legal costs under this section being very excessive, and therefore he could not understand the utility of the clause.

said, that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) pointed out was, that if a candidate disputed to pay a debt, the debt then became a disputed claim, and it could only be paid with the leave of the Court. He (Mr. Gregory) considered that this was a matter worthy of consideration, for it was a matter not affecting the creditor so much as the candidate.

said, he would not press his objection further, although it would involve his attacking the whole matter on Report if this impracticable method of dealing with matters of this sort were persisted in.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the construction of the clause; and he wished to propose, after line 20, to insert Sub-section (c) in place of Subsection (a)—he wanted Sub-section (c) to stand first. The Bill was a very badly drawn one, and if the Attorney General would look at the clause carefully, he would see that the different items of expenditure were arranged in an order altogether different from that in which they were put in the 2nd Schedule. If they would look at the 2nd Schedule they would find, on page 47—

"Paid to E.F. the returning officer for the said county [or borough] for his charges at the said election."

And then they would find the next item to be—

"Personal expenses of the said C.D. paid by himself."

Well, in the clause, Part A of Subsection 1 referred to the payments made by the election agent, which item corresponded with item S in the Schedule, Part 0 of the sub-section corresponding with the first item in the Schedule. He was not quarrelling with the Schedule at all; but it appeared to him to be highly desirable to pay due regard to symmetry in preparing the clauses of that Bill. There should be either a re-arrangement of the clauses, or a rearrangement of the Bill, he did not care which. He should rather prefer the order of the Schedule.

said, he was afraid he could not encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman by allowing him to divide the clause in this manner. The question was a trivial matter of detail. He could not be answerable for the symmetry of the clause, the substance being that with which he had most concern. He must adhere to the clause as it stood.

said, he would not insist upon the Amendment.

said, that before the subsection passed, the Committee should give it very careful consideration, as it was a very strong one. If it had been duly considered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would not say anything more about it.

said, it was, no doubt, a very important sub-section.

No doubt; but it is a very strong one.

said, the matter had been carefully considered.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the last sub-section—

"(g.) A statement of the amount of the fee paid to the election agent for his own personal services."

It appeared to him absolutely necessary that these words should be added to the section. He was afraid that if they did not insist upon this, the election agent might get more than he ought to.

said, the evil the right hon. Baronet had in his mind would be met by provisions in the latter part of the Bill.

said, that, although this matter might be dealt with in some other part of the Bill, it ought to be dealt with here as well. They repeated other matters twice over, and he did not see why, on this point, they should be content merely with a statement in the Schedule. He thought that, at the commencement, it would have been well to have put all these things in the Schedule only; but now, seeing that they had started, they should go on to the end, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet if he went to a Division.

said, that if they looked at the Amendment they would see that it was necessary to insert it here. The right hon. Baronet had given Notice to move, immediately after the present Amendment, the following:—Clause 26, page 13, line 5, after "expenses," insert—

"The said return shall also include a declaration that the fee paid to the election agent is in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it has been applied to any other purpose."

There was no such declaration or restriction in the Schedule. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would persevere with this Amendment, and also with the consequential Amendment on the next page. It seemed to him that they should have a declaration from the election agent that the fee paid to him was in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it had been applied to any other purpose.

said, the Committee could discuss the two Amendments separately. It seemed to him that it would be an invidious thing to make a declaration of the amount paid to the agent; and he would, therefore, urge the right hon. Baronet not to press this proposal.

intimated that he did not propose to move the next Amendment, which was a consequential one.

said, that if the right hon. Baronet would not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice in line 5, he (Mr. Callan) would move it himself. Election agents were not persons of such sensitive character, and of such delicate sensibility, that they would feel it a slur upon them to be called upon to make a declaration that a certain amount of money was for their personal expenses. He did not believe it would be easy to get a perfect election agent under this Bill; and when they had got an agent he did not think there would be any objection on his part to make the declaration.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, as it would be altogether without effect. Supposing £50 were paid to an election agent, after he had put it in his pocket he might spend it how he liked—he could say he had received so much for his own expenses, and although the sum might be returned as a payment to him, nobody might know what he had done with it, as it would he impossible to trace sovereigns and notes.

said, he had an Amendment to propose pro formâ, in order to draw attention, in the first instance, to the vast change now, for the first time, made in the law—requiring a candidate to make a declaration which was equivalent to an oath as to the expenditure he had sanctioned. He wished particularly to refer to the words "at the same time," for they required a candidate to remain on the spot for 35 days. After all the accounts were dealt with he had to send in a declaration "at the same time." What he was driving at, and what he should ask the Committee to assent to by his Amendment, was this—that provided the candidate made a declaration prior to taking his seat in the House that should be sufficient. Members might naturally desire to go abroad after an election; but under this clause they would have to remain on the scene for 35 days, simply for the purpose of making a declaration. That was a tax upon an elected candidate; and this was a matter which Members should thoroughly understand. What he wished to suggest was that, in carrying out this serious alteration of the law, they should endeavour to make it fit in with the exigencies of business or habits of life, and not to keep a Member on the scene in that way. At the time of the last General Election he had a business engagement calling him 3,000 miles away; two days after the election he went away, and did not return for two months; but under this clause he would have had to give up that engagement, and also to remain more than a month on the spot. That was an illustration of what might occur to many Members; and that would be a serious inconvenience. The Government could have no object in creating this inconvenience; and he thought that it would be sufficient to require a Member, before taking his seat, to make a declaration that he had not spent more than his agent's accounts, and would not spend any more on the election.

said, he was willing to agree to the principle of the hon. Member's Amendment, and to make the clause as elastic as possible; and if the Amendment were withdrawn he would make such an alteration in the subsection as would give the candidate a reasonable time to make his declaration. As the hon. Member had said, urgent matters might take a Member away immediately after an election.

said, he cordially assented to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he had always considered that the proposed change in the law would be the most effective part of the Bill, because it would bind the candidate and his agent to a statement of the actual amount of the election expenses. That had in times past been plainly evaded. He was afraid that if the statement was only to be made by a formal declaration made to the Returning Officer it would soon become a mere matter of routine, and that due sense of responsibility and weight would not be attached to the declaration which he wished should be made at the Table of the House. He was afraid that in that way the value of the declaration would degenerate; but if it were solemnly made at the Table of the House, that would add to the value of the declaration.

said, he had proposed to reduce £100 in the clause to £5; but as the Attorney General and the Committee favoured the higher penalty he would not now take up time by pressing his Amendment.

proposed, in page 13, to omit the section—

"If without such authorised excuse as in this Act mentioned, a candidate or an election agent fails to comply with the requirements of this section he shall he guilty of an illegal practice."

He did not wish an agent to escape punishment; but, as the section stood, a Member being elected would come at once to the House; exciting topics might arise within the 35 days, and yet the Member was to be forced to apply all his ingenuity and time to take care that the election agent sent in his Return, or, failing that, he should lose his seat. He thought that proposition had only to be stated to confute the whole cause. By the Procedure Clause it was provided that bills must be sent in in 14 days, and settled in 14 days more. It was then simply a question of getting the return sent in within a certain time, and it was pushing things too far to punish the candidate in the way proposed. If a candidate and his agent fell out the agent might keep back the Return, and the candidate might be unseated. In Clause 27 there was a rule for an application to the High Court; but he did not think a candidate ought to be subjected to a groundless Petition simply because an agent had not sent in the return. That was putting too much on the candidate when his mind was occupied with other things, although he thought it was necessary to make the agent send in the return. He would give the Court some power to enforce the provision he proposed.

said, he had the strongest wish that the penalty should fall on the right person. He thought he might accept a provision to the effect that if an agent, in defiance of the candidate, would not perform his duty, a penalty should fall upon him. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words to stand he would undertake to provide that non-performance or non-compliance on the part of an agent should not be an illegal practice as to the candidate, but that the penalty should fall on the agent. He would endeavour to carry that out on Report.

said, he thought that the punishment ought to be strong. In Irish constituencies he found that Members were great sinners in regard to their Returns at the last General Election. In an Ulster county two supporters of the Government and two opponents made no returns; in a Southern borough a Liberal and a Conservative made no return. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) made no Return, and his Colleague made no Return. In a well- known Munster county one Liberal and one Conservative made no Returns, and in the most distinguished County of Dublin two Liberals and one Conservative made no Returns. An hon. Gentleman opposite had the distinguished advantage of being returned for 10s., for he returned the entire amount of his costs, including the Returning Officer's charge, at 10s. Neither the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), nor his Colleague, nor his opponent made any Return. A Member of the Government made no Return; but as he was not opposed it might be supposed that he was returned without cost. For wilful neglect a candidate ought to be held responsible.

said, he had made no Returns, because such Returns were a complete farce. He did not believe there was any truthfulness in any Return by an election agent for any Member of the House. He did not suggest that any Member would not make an excellent and accurate Return; but these Returns were regarded as shams. He thought the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had not made quite a correct statement, because he found that a Return had been sent in for the County of Tyrone Election. There were a number of English as well as Irish constituencies for which no Return had been made; and he asked whether the Executive had taken any steps with regard to them? Had the House taken any notice of the misconduct of Members in not making those Returns? Had the Attorney General done so? Of course, in such places as Taunton and Gloucester it would have been dangerous not to make Returns. In his own case the Judge did not censure him for not making a return; but said that perhaps it was just as well that he had not made one.

said, with regard to his own election, he found the Return of the Returning Officer was perfectly accurate. He would also say that those Returns, whether accurate or not, showed a good deal. In 1874 he lost his seat, and the two hon. Gentlemen who unseated him advertised very candidly that they had spent £497 in a few days' contest in messengers and butchers.

said, that the hon. Member was wandering from the subject before the Committee.

said, he believed they were on the subject of the Election Returns. Reference had been made to the Returns of the last General Election; but if the Chairman's ruling was that reference should not be made to any other Election Returns, he would, of course, not press the matter.

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), which would have accomplished all that the Amendment of the Attorney General suggested, and which, in the hon. Member's absence, he had intended to move. But he understood the Attorney General to say that the candidate was to be liable for the penalties, if he committed the offence without excuse, and that he was not to be liable if it were done by the agent. If the hon. and learned Gentleman brought up a clause on Report embodying that principle, he thought it would be satisfactory.

said, he would undertake to provide that the penalty for the illegal practice referred to in Sub-section 5 should not fall on the candidate except for his own act, and also that there should be no voidance of the seat on account of a false declaration by an agent without the consent of the candidate. The candidate should only be liable for his own wilful act.

said, it would be reasonable for the hon. and learned Attorney General to consider, in drafting the clause, two things which the Bill left very obscure. It would appear on the drafting of Sub-section 5 that if no Return were made by the candidate without the authorized excuse, he might be guilty of an illegal practice without any trial or award of any Court. Was it intended that a man should be deemed guilty ipso facto? For his own part, he thought there should be a decision by a Court of Justice before the great penalties prescribed by the Bill were incurred. These penalties fell not only on the candidate, but on the constituency, and, to a certain extent, affected the House itself; and he said it was not right that the House should be deprived of one of its Members, and the constituency of its Representative, and subjected to all the turmoil of a fresh election, simply because there had been a slip or a piece of bad judgment on the part of the candi- date or his agent. Therefore, he trusted that, on reconsideration of the clause, the Attorney General would take care to put in words which would provide that the candidate should be "adjudged guilty" of the offence imputed to him. The second suggestion he had to make was that there should be some power given to the Court of exercising a judicial discretion; the Court, in his opinion, should be empowered either to say that the candidate was guilty of an illegal practice, and that, therefore, his seat should be voided, or else that he should be punished by a fine of £100.

thought his right hon. and learned Friend hardly recollected that the election would be declared void by the decision of the Court, and after a Report made to Mr. Speaker. That being the case, the seat was not voided ipso facto.

said, it appeared to him that the effect of the sub-section might be that, if a candidate were guilty of a corrupt practice, his seat would be vacated and void. There was no magic in the words of the clause. The seat might ipso facto be voided; and he considered it very undesirable that the clause should remain unaltered, and in doubt.

said, he did not want to carry on a controversy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject; still, he thought he would see, on examination of Sub-section 10, that an illegal practice did not ipso facto make void a seat. That only took place after the Report had been made to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

said, he had been reading over the list of Members who had not made any Election Returns. As something might attach to Members for not making Returns, he wished to show how the Government treated the matter. One Member in Ireland who made no Return had since been made a Judge. Then, in the case of the Radnor Boroughs, Sir Richard Green Price had made no Return, nor had the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War.

said, his noble Friend was not elected in the ordinary way. He issued no addresses; the electors of the Radnor Boroughs returned him spontaneously, and, he would under- take to say, without one farthing of expense.

said, there must always be some expense connected with an election. He had merely alluded to these matters because his own case had been singled out. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had referred to him as not having made a Return, in reply to which he asked what steps the Government had taken in the case of other persons in the same position; and he had shown that they made one Member a Judge, another a Baronet, and the third a Member of the Cabinet.

said, according to the principle acted upon by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, nothing would be easier than for a candidate to say he had not paid anything, while he left someone else to meet all the obligations.

said, at the Monaghan Election last week the candidate paid nothing, and would not be asked for a penny. Did a candidate, under such circumstances, violate the law in not making a Return?