wished to ask if it was true that Sir John Coode had been authorized, as Engineer, to draw up and examine the plans for the Mersey Conservancy Board, and under what circumstances, as Admiral Spratt was the Acting Conservator of the Mersey?

was understood to say that Sir John Coode had been so authorized.

said, that, in that case, he must ask that the Consideration of the Bill be deferred until to-morrow, as there was no one present to give the information he desired.

said, that Sir John Coode had been asked to examine the plans; but he was not aware that that was a sufficient ground for asking that the Consideration of the Bill should be deferred. It would be a very unusual and a very strong step, because the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) desired this information, to take the Bill out of the ordinary routine. The result would be to cause great inconvenience to the parties interested.

said, that it would serve every purpose if the hon. Member would ask the question on the third reading.

said, that, in justice to the parties locally interested, he felt bound to press for the delay of the Bill until to-morrow.

asked for a little more time for the consideration of the Bill. Seeing that the Bill only came into the possession of hon. Members yesterday, it was quite impossible that they could give to it the consideration it required. The Bill involved very serious questions affecting the Metropolis, and to-morrow was too early a day to take the Amendments which had been introduced into it into consideration.

said, he would fix the Consideration for to-morrow, with the understanding that it should be put off again until Monday.

said, he should certainly have felt bound to oppose the Consideration of the Bill to-morrow.

said, it would not be taken until Monday.

said, that he stood between two fires in regard to this matter; because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "lend or employ." He (the Attorney General) should certainly prefer to allow the word "let" to remain in the clause.

suggested that they should put in the word "or" after "let," and strike out the words "or employ." Such an Amendment, he believed, would answer the purpose of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). A man would then be enabled to employ omnibuses and other carriages on the day of election in the ordinary course of business.

said, his Amendment stood next on the Paper; but he would move it in a different form from that in which it appeared. "To lend" and "to employ" were two totally different things. Lending in this case meant lending for the use of a candidate; but employing meant that a man in the course of his business employed a carriage. Now, in the North of England there were a great many Carriage Companies, and there was no doubt whatever that during elections there would be a great number of men going about; and the Companies would, in the ordinary course of their business, let out their carriages to people at a certain price. There was not the smallest doubt that where there was a demand there would be a supply. Surely, they did not intend to prevent a Tram Car or Carriage Company using its own carriages for its own purposes? Such people ought to be allowed to employ their carriages, because it could not form a means of corruption in any way. He should like to alter his Amendment. As it appeared upon the Paper, his Amendment was, to leave out "lend or employ;" he would, however, move to insert after the word "let," "or." He would afterwards move, in the event of this being carried, to strike out the words "or employ."

said, he could not accede to the right hon. Gentleman's wishes. He (the Attorney General) really believed that all the right hon. Gentleman wished was provided for in the Proviso—namely—

"Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll."

What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire wanted would be carried into effect—namely—that if any person wished to go to the poll in an omnibus he would be allowed to do so. If the Committee consented to strike out the words "or employ," they would be departing from what they carried yesterday.

said, he did not think he had made himself quite clear. He did not, by this Amendment, wish to disturb the vote of yesterday. Hon. Members who were acquainted with Lancashire, especially the South-Eastern Division, would know that there was a large Company in Manchester called the Manchester Carriage Company, and another in Bolton called the Bolton Carriage Company. It might happen that many voters in and about Manchester might be, on the day of election, at work in Bolton, or in other towns, and vice versâ; there would, therefore, be great traffic from town to town. Probably the tramway cars running from place to place would be quite full, and the Carriage Company would think it right to put on an additional number of omnibuses, for precisely the same purpose as the ordinary running tramway car and omnibus. Now, that would be the employment of carriages for the purpose of carrying voters to the poll. He did not see that such a state of things ought to be prevented, and it was to carry out this view that he had moved the Amendment. Perhaps, however, it would be wise to put the word "employ" in the Proviso; and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

in moving to strike out the word "lend," admitted that the Amendment was distinctly contrary to the vote they came to the other day. In this clause they were striking at one set of persons, and leaving another set completely untouched. He could not understand what danger there would be in allowing persons to lend their own carriages and horses. Any brewer might lend all his carriages and his horses; but if the clause was kept unaltered, a man whose trade it was to let vehicles would not be able to carry on his business on an election day. He considered they were putting an invidious distinction upon a job-master. He moved to leave out the word "lend."

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was quite right when he said that this Amendment would reverse, if accepted, the vote of yesterday afternoon. Letting or hiring would be covered, to a great extent, by Clause 6. He (the Attorney General) quite agreed that the brewer might send out his carriages; so might a private gentleman. They, however, were not persons who let carriages for hire. The evil they wished to meet was letting for hire. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were making an invidious distinction of job-masters; but it was patent that if they meant to strike a blow at corrupt practices they must aim at particular individuals. They had already prevented the hiring of committee rooms in public-houses. Why had they done that? Because in public-houses there were greater opportunities of treating than in any other place. They had also sacrificed the Legal Profession, to which many of them belonged; and now they proposed to reach hackney carriage proprietors, because they had the greatest opportunities of letting carriages for hire. He did not think that this clause was invidious in the sense of attacking the job-master; certainly, no hardship was intended to accrue to him.

said, he would point out that this matter was not dealt with in precisely the same way as other matters had been dealt with in the Bill. Let them take, for instance, the case of payment for the exposure of bills and placards. He understood that, as the Bill now stood, it would be an illegal practice to hire houses for the purpose of exhibiting candidate's bills, and that it was intended to prohibit that, because the hiring of houses for such purpose was considered a very insidious system of bribery. But they allowed the proprietor of a house to exhibit a candidate's bill, provided he did not take payment. Why was not the same argument applicable to the one case as to the other? It was said that the lending of carriages might be turned into a mode of bribery, because the candidate would give or promise, or hold out hopes of a quid pro quo afterwards, although he might not give it at the time. Why was not the same argument applicable to the exposure of bills? They allowed a proprietor of a house to exhibit bills; but they did not allow him to receive payment. Might it not happen, however, that there would be an understanding that, if the exhibition of bills was not paid for in malt, it would be paid for afterwards in meal? In this clause they were prohibiting a person, whose business it was to do so, to lend vehicles in any shape or form. They made an exception in the case of the exhibition of bills by those whose business it was to exhibit bills. People whose business it was to lend vehicles were debarred from lending them. He could not for the life of him see what possible distinction could be made between the two cases. There might be bribery and corruption in the one case just as much as in the other.

said, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a candidate borrowing or engaging every carriage and vehicle in a borough, provided he did not convey voters to the poll in them. A candidate might pay £5 or £10 a-day for each carriage. That would be done with a corrupt object, yet there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him doing it.

thought the Maximum Schedule would stop anything of that kind.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would forgive him if he said that he seemed to treat the Committee to alternative arguments, utterly regardless of what had gone before. There was a sublime disregard for consistency about the hon. and learned Gentleman which was rather misleading. If the Attorney General was very desirous of stopping every kind of improper use of carriages on the day of an election, there was another contingency he had to provide for; and that was the hiring or getting possession of, as a loan under this clause, by a candidate of a number of carriages, not for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the poll, but simply for the purpose of retaining possession of them and preventing his opponents getting them. After this clause had been passed it would be quite possible for one candidate to obtain the loan—at no expense whatever—of every carriage a job-master possessed. In that ease the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would be completely defeated. He (Mr. Warton) wanted to know whether the Attorney General would consider that state of things? Of course, he knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman would treat the matter with the same disregard of argument that he did all matters. It was not for him (Mr. Warton) to teach the hon. and learned Gentleman his business; but the time would come when, seeing that clause in operation, he would find the mistake he was now making. They might put as many restrictions in the clause as they liked. The ingenuity of man would easily evade them, and elections would become, in fact, a battle between people who would really have to carry them out—a battle not always conducted in a fair spirit. He trusted the Attorney General would see the force of his observations—namely, that there were no words in the clause to prevent a candidate getting possession of carriages, provided he did not use them for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) went to a Division he should divide with him. The more he (Mr. Whitley) looked at this clause, the more he was convinced that it would be thoroughly unworkable. It must have occurred to every Member of the Committee that the clause could be in many ways evaded. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had cited one way in which the clause could he easily evaded. He (Mr. Whitley) did not think the clause would carry out the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General himself; and he (Mr. Whitley) was of opinion that the Committee would do well to reject the clause altogether. He could not conceive the use of passing a clause which was really unworkable.

said, he was afraid he must divide the Committee on his Amendment. His action would, of course, depend upon the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would now give him. As the clause was drawn, the letting or hiring of vehicles for the conveyance of voters to the poll was made an illegal practice; and, therefore, if it was done by anyone who could be construed into an agent it would go hard with the candidate. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General either accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or consent to put in "employment or hiring? "

said, he thought that was very reasonable, and would consent to the insertion of the words.

said, supposing a person hired a carriage to take himself up to the poll, and he met a friend who was also a voter, would the man who had hired the carriage be permitted to give his friend a lift? Really, according to this section, that would be an illegal practice.

said, certainly not. He could not find any reason why it should be so.

said, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General accepted the principle of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson); but there was one point to which he (Mr. Tatton Egerton) must call attention. If an elector arrived at a station, having ordered his conveyance to meet him, he would be precluded, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews were accepted, from inviting a friend he had met on the platform, who was also a voter, to drive up with him to the poll. He had, therefore, to ask the Attorney General to accept his Amendment.

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, though he intended to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson). If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tatton Egerton) were accepted one elector might hire as many vehicles as he liked for all the other electors in the constituency. [An hon. MEMBER: A carriage.] Of course, a carriage meant any number of carriages. Where they had the singular, they had the plural.

said, he assented to the Amendment.

asked whether the clause, as now proposed to be amended, would preclude an elector going in a carriage inviting a friend to drive to the poll with him?

said, that if the elector had hired a carriage for the purpose of conveying another elector, of course it would be an offence under the Act; but if he simply invited a brother elector to drive up to the poll with him for the purpose of giving a friendly lift, he should say that the gentleman would not be guilty of an offence.

proposed to leave out in the Amendment just accepted the word "and," and insert "or."

assented.

said, that the clause, as amended, no doubt provided for joint hiring; and he understood the Attorney General to assent to the proposition that it would not be illegal for a person whose ordinary trade it was to run omnibuses or other conveyances for payment, to put on extra conveyances for the purpose of taking voters to the poll. He thought it would be advisable to make this clear by adding these words, "or plying for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to or from the poll." The clause would then run—

"Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a carriage, horse, or other animal being let to, or hired, or used by an elector for the purpose of conveying himself to the poll, or plying for hire, for the purpose of conveying voters to or from the poll."

said, that if they accepted this Amendment they would undo everything they had done. If they allowed a carriage to ply for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to the poll, a man would let out every carriage he had. If an individual, being a voter, wanted to go to the poll in an omnibus, there was nothing now in the clause to prevent him from doing so.

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General thoroughly appreciated the Amendment. What his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) meant to provide was, that a person who owned conveyances might send an additional number out on the polling day if he thought proper.

said, that that was just what he wanted, and he could not understand why his words met with objection. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say that it would be perfectly legal for an omnibus proprietor to send out his conveyances to be hired by persons, provided they paid for the hiring themselves. That was all his Amendment proposed to do. He understood the object of the Attorney General was that voters should not be conveyed to the poll without payment on their part. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted an Amendment which would permit a certain number of voters to club together for the purpose of hiring a conveyance to carry them to the poll. He (Mr. Ritchie) could not see any difference between doing that and allowing a proprietor of omnibuses to put on, in any districts, a number of omnibuses, where such conveyances were required, for the purpose of taking up voters to the poll for payment on their part for the conveyance. He should certainly adhere to his words and divide the Committee.

said, he did not understand the objection to these words. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General looked at the clause as it stood, he would find there was substantial reason for asking for the insertion of some such words as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) now proposed. The words of the clause were—

"A person shall not let, lend, or employ for the purpose of the conveyance of electors to or from the poll, any public stage, or hackney carriage,"

and so on. These words were obviously aimed at the employment of carriages for the services of one particular Party, and that might be quite legiti- mate. It was admitted, however, that in outlying districts there might be a number of voters who could only vote during the dinner hour, and that, therefore; it was, obvious that some means should be provided for conveying such voters to the poll, not at the expense of the candidate, but at their own expense. If a person who owned omnibuses and hackney carriages put on the road on an election day a number of omnibuses for the purpose of taking people to and from the poll, he would come within the meaning of the words in the first part of the clause—namely, he would be held to be a person who employed a public stage and hackney carnage for the purpose of conveying voters to and from the poll. It was because men were voters that they wanted to be carried, and it was because they wanted to be carried that the proprietors put the omnibuses on the road. The proposed words were only intended to protect the proprietors of carriages in such a case; and, in his (Mr. E. Clarke's) opinion, the words really came within the meaning of the clause.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was quite right in saying that they had accepted an Amendment which would allow for a joint hiring; but this Amendment went further than that, for it gave the right to a man to convey not the public, but individual electors.

begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon.

said, that that was so. The words were, "plying for hire for the purpose of carrying voters to or from the poll." Under these words a man might go to a carriage proprietor and say—"Here, take So-and-so to the poll." The Committee would clearly see that the Amendment went considerably further than the Proviso.

said, he thought they were all agreed upon the principle, and that the only thing on which they were at variance was the words. The Proviso laid down that any number of electors might hire. That seemed to him a distinct hiring; but that was not exactly what they wanted. What they wanted was to protect the omnibuses which regularly plied for hire in the streets; and he hardly thought that the Proviso covered their employment, because in their case there was a distinct hiring by an elector.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had just anticipated what he was about to say. They were all agreed upon the principle. He (the Solicitor General) thought the words suggested went beyond what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) himself meant. If the hon. Gentleman would leave the matter as it now stood, he (the Solicitor General) would confer with him as to whether, on Report, some words which would meet the object in view could not be inserted.

asked the Attorney General whether a person would not be guilty of an illegal practice if, on the day of an election, he hired a waggonette for the purpose of bringing up electors to the poll at a charge of 6d. or 1s. each?

said, that if this were a colourable charge the man would clearly be guilty of an illegal practice. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had said, they were really agreed upon the principle in this matter, and he appealed to the Committee to come to a Division.

said, he was sure his object and the Attorney General's were identical in this matter. It would be easy, later on, to arrange words to carry out what they were both agreed upon; therefore, he would withdraw his proposal.

said, he hoped that an Amendment would be proposed by the Attorney General on Report, or, better than that, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would seriously consider between this and Report whether it was worth while to leave the clause in at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsidered the matter, and bore in mind that the clause was not to affect the candidate or the seat, and saw the way in which it would be worked, he would agree, no doubt, that it was no use leaving the section in. It, obviously, would be inoperative, and when the words were considered, it would be seen that it was not worth while retaining it.

said, that as the clause now stood, a person who happened to be a cab proprietor or an owner of carriages, and who might have an aged father whom he wished to take to the poll, and who, under ordinary circumstances, he would drive in one of his own conveyances to the poll, would be prevented from doing such a thing. The clause was so stringent, that a man of that sort who drove his aged father to the poll would be guilty of an illegal hiring. The man might see his neighbouring brewer, who had carriages at his command, going into the street and picking up voters to take to the poll, and doing it with impunity; whilst he himself would be unable to drive his own aged father to the poll.

said, the case the hon. and learned Member referred to would come within the category of domestic use. At any time, and in connection with anything, it was always possible to give extreme and ridiculous eases.

Sir, I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the Committee a clause of which I have given Notice; because, although the Head of Her Majesty's Government has announced that the Bill by which he proposes to make the Ballot perpetual will be deferred to another Session, we are still under the operation of the Ballot; and it seems that what is called the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot. I think that I shall be able to show, notwithstanding this adjournment of the perpetuation of the Ballot, that the Legislature of the United States have found it necessary to adopt provisions, some of which do not exist in the laws of the United Kingdom—as they formerly did not exist among those of the United States. Precautions against conspiracy in electoral matters be scattered in that vast folio, our Statute Book, and are comparatively unknown. I may say that the experience of the United States of the Ballot extends from 1777, but that the system became more general in 1800. I am speaking after having discussed the matter with American friends, and after having been in the United States, and after having read some recent works on the Ballot and on the operation of the Caucus published in the United States. The history of the Ballot in America proves that the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot. I will not go into details; but if any hon. Gentleman is inclined to dispute my assertions, I have here my authorities. I have some American books; but I have here two works, Forty Years of American Life, by Nicholls (Longmans), and United States Constitutional History, by Sterne, an American barrister, which latter book seems to me very valuable; these are recent works published, the latter by Cassell, so lately as 1882. In these works proof is to be found of the fact that the Caucus is inseparable from the Ballot, and was one of the elements of disturbance that caused the American Civil War. Now, this Bill, according to the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, is not against corruption, but against expensive agency—it does not contemplate the Caucus. The hon. and learned Gentleman, on Monday, 4th June, said, with regard to this Bill—

"For his part he should take the side of the candidate as against that of the agent. … It was to protect themselves from this foolish and unnecessary expenditure that this Bill was introduced; it was introduced to guard themselves not only against absolute corruption, but against the fact that candidates were being constantly preyed upon by a class of men who delighted in elections on account of the money they obtained from the candidates."—(3 Hansard, [279] 1701–2.)

There cannot be a more terse or distinct statement of the objects of the Bill; but the hon. and learned Gentleman seems totally to have neglected the fact that a Member of the present Cabinet—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—is not only a Member of the Cabinet, but is Chief of the Caucus, which has its head-quarters at Birmingham. I will read a letter published by the right hon. Gentleman, descriptive of the operation of this organization, which is by no means confined to Birmingham, but which, he states, has its ramifications in nearly 80 constituencies of this country, and the House will observe that he boasts of the success of the organization. The evil of its effects have been proved in the United States. I am persuaded that it will have similarly cor- rupting effects in this country, unless something is done to check them. This Caucus system seems to prevail in the Liberal Party, and my American friends assure me that, unless its corruption he stayed, it will he positively impossible for their opponents of that Party to avoid adopting it. This I should sincerely lament. It was out of this system that grievous evil grew in the United States, until it culminated in and during the Civil War, and continued until the American Legislature adopted repressive measures, of the substance of which my Amendment is the embodiment. I would not venture to trouble the Committee on this subject if I were not speaking from more than ordinary information, from knowledge obtained by having visited America, and by having kept up American friendships, and from having received up to yesterday information on this subject from the other side of the Atlantic. One American gentleman was sitting with me the other day, and I showed him this Bill and told him of the operation of the Ballot, to correct some of the effects of which the measure before the House has nominally been introduced. I acquainted him also with the existence of the Caucus system in this country. I was asking him as to the remedies for the evils of the Caucus system adopted in the United States, when he observed—"Why, you have put on our old clothes, and now ask us to teach you how to darn them." I will now, Sir, read the letter of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). This letter is dated April 10, 1880, immediately before or immediately after the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to a seat in the Cabinet. I need not say that in North Warwickshire we read this communication with some surprise, and have by no means forgotten the substance of it. On the 13th of April, 1880—during the formation of the present Government—this letter of the right hon. Gentleman appeared as addressed to the editor of The Times, headed "The Caucus"—

"Sir,—A few days after the Dissolution of Parliament it was said by a writer in the Press that the elections would test the efficiency of the new Democratic machinery, of which Birmingham is the capital. It may interest your readers to learn the result of the experiment. Popular representative organizations on the Birmingham model, sometimes called the 'Caucus' by those who have not taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the details of the Birmingham system, exist in 67 of the Parliamentary boroughs, in which contests have just taken place. In 60 of these, Liberal seats were gained or retained. In seven only the Liberals were defeated; but in three, at least, of these cases a Petition will be presented against the Return on the ground of bribery.

"This remarkable success is a proof that the new organization has succeeded in uniting all sections of the Party, and it is a conclusive answer to the fears which some timid Liberals entertained that the system would be manipulated in the interest of particular crotchets. It has, on the contrary, deepened and extended the interest felt in the contest, it has fastened a sense of personal responsibility on the electors, and it has secured the active support, for the most part voluntary and unpaid, of thousands and tens of thousands of voters, who have been willing to work hard for the candidates in whoso selection they have for the first time had an influential voice.

"Among other results may be noticed the fact that the gentlemen who have commended themselves to these popular and somewhat Democratic committees have been, on the whole, more decided in their Liberalism than was usually the case with the nominees of the small cliques of local politicians whom the new organization has superseded. A long purse has not been an all-sufficient passport, and the candidates who are so thundering eminent for being never heard of,' have been passed over and over again in favour of others, who have won their spurs in political conflicts, and have given proof of steadfastness to their principles, and of ability in maintaining them.

"The restricted franchise in the counties, and the large area of these constituencies, have hitherto prevented any considerable extension of the plan outside the boroughs. One of these difficulties will now shortly be removed; the other may be overcome, and I expect that, at no distant date, the electors will universally demand a preliminary voice in the selection of candidates.

"Meanwhile, in ten county constituencies in which the Caucus has, in spite of all obstacles, been already established, and where contests have taken place, the Liberals have won seats in all; and it may he affirmed that in most of these cases there would have been no contest but for the energy and determination of the new element imported into the councils of the Party.

"Altogether, for good or for evil, the organization has now taken firm root in this country, and politicians will do well to give it in future a less prejudiced attention.

I have been very unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has read very copious extracts relating to American affairs; and I wish to call his attention to the fact that, looking at the time he has been occupied in reading extracts alone, so far as I can make a calculation it would take three whole working days to dispose of the Amendments on the Paper at a similar rate of progress.

I thank you, Sir Arthur Otway; I am always grateful for advice from the Chair, as I hope every Member of the House is. I think I have said enough to show what the Caucus system has become in the United States before it was restrained by law. I could show the Committee by reference to history how it began, by action upon the municipal organization of the large cities and States, how it extended its evil influence to the electors of the Legislature, and at last extended to the highest officials. I do not wish to exaggerate this comparison. I admit that the Constitution of the United States was more open to this conspiracy than is that of the United Kingdom. The authors to whom I have referred admit this, as do the American friends with whom I have conversed upon this subject. They all said that since this system has obtained an extensive hold, already in this country, if it remains unchecked, it must entail the necessity upon those assailed—who, in this case, are the Conservative Party—the necessity of adopting some similar organization to counteract the operation of the system of conspiracy, which has its centre at present in Birmingham. They further assert that between the two organizations we shall have the worst features of electoral corruption very soon exhibited, and among these that crushing of the independent choice of Representatives which has been experienced in the United States, unless we, in some degree, by our legislation adopt the precautions against this system of conspiracy in electoral affairs, which the Congress of the United States has found absolutely necessary in order to save the representative system of the United States. I thank the Committee for having allowed me to bring these American experiences before them. I have done so, because I wish to impress upon them the force of the observation of my friend, that as you have put on the old clothes of the United States you must learn how to darn them. If you will adopt the Ballot and will not restrain the Caucus, it seems to me and to the American friends whom I have consulted inevitable that in great measure the corrupting influence of this system which has been experienced across the Atlantic must extend to this country, and we shall thus, in all probability, sacrifice that free representation of the people which, thank God, has for centuries existed in the United Kingdom.

said, if the hon. Gentleman would allow him, he would at once deal with his proposal. There were 66 new clauses now on the Paper before the Committee. Therefore, if he dealt with each as it arose, shortly, he hoped hon. Members proposing them would not think that he was treating them or their views with discourtesy; but would take it that he only desired to save time. He would adopt that system with regard to the clause just proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate). He would ask the Committee not to assent to the second reading, for the reason that, so far as he could judge, there was nothing in the clause which was not already the law of the land, and they would enact over again what was already on the Statute Book. The hon. Member told them that his Amendment had been drawn by American draftsmen.

No; I am aware some provisions analogous in purport to that of the clause I propose exist in the Statute Book; but these provisions are scattered and incomplete; they are deficient, and are not generally understood. This clause has been drawn by an English draftsman from the American text; its purport is complete and intelligible.

said, then the English draftsmen had not had regard, in drawing up the clause, to what was already the law of England. Under the circumstances, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should be satisfied with the interesting discussion which had taken place, and which had occupied the Committee for nearly 50 minutes, and would not press his Amendment.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman was not satisfied that the terms of the clause were necessary, in order to deal with the offence of corrupt practices by persons acting in combination, and that there already existed some Statute which touched the subject, and which explained to the public what they had to avoid, he would withdraw the clause, and endeavour to meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

wished that he could impress upon the Committee the value which such a clause as this would have been to an individual like himself at the last General Election, and, he believed, generally to candidates who contested county constituencies in the Liberal interest. He said the Liberal interest, because it was well known that the influence which greatly preponderated in the counties was that of the Party whose opinions were influenced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, what was it that happened in the election which he was fortunate enough to win? Cards were sent round to nearly every elector to this effect:—"If you intend to vote for Mr. Murray Stewart be good enough to sign the enclosed card and return to me." Those circulars were sent, in some cases, by the law agent of the Conservative candidate, and in others by his political agent. What was the consequence? The tenant farmer who held his farm under a Conservative, or, for that matter, under a Liberal, because the effect would be the same by whichever Party the practice was adopted—the tenant farmer who did not wish to declare his politics, but desired to keep his political opinions secret, and to go to the poll unbiassed by anything that might be brought to bear upon him, found himself placed in a difficult posi- tion; because what would the effect be if he signed the card? In some instances he would have to tell a falsehood if be intended to go to the poll and vote according to his political views. But what was the effect if he did not sign the card? The effect in that case was that he became a marked man. He was immediately known to all the agents, whether Liberal or Conservative, who attempted to use this evil influence, as being a man likely to entertain opinions that were not in consonance with theirs. What was the other alternative? If he did not sign the card and stayed away from the poll altogether he affected the fortunes of his own Party. At the last election in the county which he had the hon. our to represent, it was quite certain that more than 200 tenant farmers abstained from going to the poll, because they would not vote against their consciences, and they would not sign a card calling on them to vote against their principles. Nevertheless, by the course they pursued, they made it patent to the world what their opinions were. He knew that there were Associations in the counties which were supposed to look after the interests of the electors; but what was the use of an Association in a county like his, where four-fifths of the land belonged to the Conservatives? He hoped the Committee would seriously consider the Amendment; and he wished to impress upon the Attorney General this fact—that a Member like himself (Captain Maxwell-Heron), who had fought the battle against very long odds in a county constituency, ought to be secured by every means which could be devised for guarding his interests and those of the constituency. He was afraid, if this Amendment were not passed, it was very possible that more than one hon. Member who now represented a Scotch county would not be seen in that House again after the next General Election.

said, he was much inclined to accept the last argument of the hon. Member as conclusive. The practice of sending out circulars, asking persons to vote for a particular candidate, was undoubtedly very objectionable, because it was contrary to the spirit of the Ballot Act, and resulted, in many eases, in the violation of expressed promises. Nor was the question one which affected one Party more than another. It was a practice which was resorted to by both Parties, in many instances, either for the purpose of sending out passes on the railway or for other purposes. But the clause, as it stood at present, would have the effect of causing a candidate, whose agent committed an offence against it, to lose his seat. He sympathized with the object of the hon. Member; but he feared that the Amendment would not be effectual in causing a discontinuance of this objectionable practice, and he should be very unwilling to extend the list of the penalties under the Act, except in cases where it was absolutely necessary. His hon. Friend would see that the clause, as it was now drawn, imposed a heavy penalty. It provided that—

"No person shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, solicit or induce any elector to write or sign any paper or document directly or indirectly announcing his intention to vote for any candidate, or pledging him to vote for any candidate, or to refrain from voting. Any person soliciting or inducing any elector to sign any such paper or document shall he guilty of an illegal practice."

Under the clause, if the chairman of an election committee or the law agent of the candidate endeavoured to ascertain from a voter how he was going to vote, the candidate might lose his seat. No doubt, that difficulty might be avoided by altering the wording of the clause, and he should be very glad to assist his hon. Friend if he could see that any good result was likely to be obtained by passing the clause; but the whole matter was one of considerable difficulty. Under the clause, if an agent went round from door to door and said to a voter—"How are you going to vote? Let me put your statement down in my book;" and if he wrote down how the voter intended to vote, the clause would not touch the act of that person; and an agent might go round from door to door and take the promise from the voter's lips as to the manner in which he was going to vote, and communicate that promise to a committee or anybody else. He entirely sympathized with the spirit of the clause, and he thought the practice ought to be discontinued, and he should like to see that object effected; but the question altogether was one of great difficulty, and he did not see how it was to be dealt with effectually by the present clause. He was sorry, in one sense, that he could not accept the clause; but, certainly, as it stood, it went much too far, and it was so framed that if any person at an election were to write to another, saying—"Let me know how you are going to vote," that simple act might cause a candidate to lose his seat.

said, the objections raised to the clause by the Attorney General were of a two-fold character. The first was, that the act of the agent would unseat the candidate. He thought that difficulty would be obviated if his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) inserted words at the end of the clause to provide that the offence should not be an illegal practice, but an offence against the Ballot Act. That would get rid of one difficulty suggested by the Attorney General. The second objection raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was one partly of drafting, and one partly inherent in the clause—namely, that in the wording of the clause, as drafted, any one person asking another person in the most bonâ fide manner how he was going to vote would be guilty of an offence. Now, he (Mr. Reid) thought it was impossible, by any mode they could adopt in the drafting of the clause, to meet that difficulty in any way. It would be impossible to draw the clause in such a way as to be effectual, and, at the same time, not to be open to that objection; but he would suggest to the Attorney General that if a fine were imposed—say a penalty of £50—a person could be prosecuted under the clause, and if it was proved to be a minor offence the small amount of the fine imposed, as the Attorney General had pointed out in another case a short time ago, the imposition of a fine of a farthing for instance, would not injure the man either in the eyes of the constituency or in the eyes of the world.

said, he hoped the Attorney General would stand firm in the resolution he had come to with regard to this clause, which, upon examination, he (Mr. E. Clarke) considered to be the climax of absurdity. He did not see how it would be possible, by the imposition of a small fine, to remove the hardship, because it was not the smallness of the fine which inflicted the hardship, but the absurdity of imposing any penalty at all. He asked the At- torney General to examine the clause and see what it suggested. If the clause were carried, it would be illegal to get up a Petition asking any man to stand for a constituency. They could not ask a person to sign an invitation to a man to stand for a constituency because they would be thereby, either directly or indirectly, promising their votes. Then, again, if a man wrote to a friend in a particular constituency, and said—"In the event of my standing for your borough, will you support me and give me your influence?" he would render himself liable to prosecution. The only meaning or object of the clause was to preserve that precious liberty of lying which appeared to be the great merit of the Ballot Act. They had now a Member of Parliament standing up in the House to propose this clause, and, at the same time, describing what an elector might do in the way of promising a vote and then evading the performance of his promise.

Not what a voter might do, but what a voter actually does now.

said, the hon. Member suggested that an evasive answer would be given. "Oh!" said the voter, "I shall not be found far off; you will find me all right; "the meaning being, at that very time, that he did not intend to keep the promise he was pretending to give. It was in order to secure to the elector the enjoyment of such a right that the Committee were asked to insert this clause in an Act of Parliament. The Attorney General said that he sympathized with the spirit of the Amendment, and that he would be glad to do something to prevent the practice complained of. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had already done something, and the Bill would do a great deal to prevent the practice of sending out these circulars. The limitation of the election expenses in the Bill would check the expenditure of money upon many things that were of doubtful value. His own belief was that these circulars were of very doubtful value indeed; and an experienced election agent, when he found that he was limited to the expenditure of a particular sum of money, would feel himself bound to employ that sum in the best way possible for the purposes of the election, and he would be unwilling to lay it out in the issue of circulars of this description. But to make an ordinary, proper, and natural incident of an election—namely, the writing to a man for his support, an offence or an illegal practice was approaching as nearly as possible to the region of absurdity. He presumed that in future ideal elections there would be a time when it would be a criminal offence to speak of politics at all. The moment an election was announced, a candidate would be entitled to put up his name and to spend a particular sum of money; but neither he nor his friends must do anything to gain the support of anybody else.

said, he did not concur in the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The object of the clause was to protect the voter who desired, under the Ballot Act, to record his vote in secret. He did not, however, approve of the wording of the Amendment, and he thought it might be considerably modified. Certainly the words "write or" ought to be omitted from the clause, because it would cover a letter that might be sent from one friend to another in ordinary correspondence asking for information with regard to the election. The principal evil, however, against which the clause was directed, was the sending out of circulars to every elector enclosing a stamped envelope for a reply, and calling upon them to state whether they would or would not vote for So-and-so. He himself had votes in more than one constituency, and at the last election he received a considerable number of these circulars. Now, he did not put the circulars he received into the waste-paper basket; but he always sent them back again with nothing in them. The evil involved in this practice was the evil of intimidation. A list was made of tenants or other persons likely to be influenced, and to those persons these circulars were sent, and as the replies came back, the answers were recorded against the respective names. If there was no reply, the voter was treated as being adverse, and was dealt with accordingly, and they had received the testimony of a gentleman of considerable experience in a constituency where this system was brought into play as to how it worked at the last General Election. Practically, the result of the system was this—If a man was to tell the truth, they deprived him of the pro- tection of the Ballot, and if a man was to have the protection of the Ballot, then they compelled him to tell a falsehood. He thought the House ought not to be deterred from grappling with what was an acknowledged evil, and an evil affecting both sides. He trusted the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) would go to a Division and test whether the Committee was genuinely determined to support the Ballot Act or not. If they divided upon the second reading of the clause, they would not be committed to its wording, and it would be open for them to amend it when it came to be considered in Committee. For instance, he thought it would be necessary to impose a different penalty, and not to make the offence an illegal practice.

said, he entirely differed from hon. Members on the other side of the House who talked about the spirit of the Ballot Act. He was a Member of the House when the Ballot Act was passed under the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and it was intended to give those who desired to vote secretly the protection of the Ballot. But it was never intended that those who desired to vote openly should not be able to go up to the poll with their orange or blue rosettes, freely displaying their colours, and declaring the way in which they intended to vote. Whenever he (Mr. T. Collins) went to the polling booth to vote, he invariably said—"Give me a paper. I want to vote for So-and-so." He recollected on one occasion, when he did so, at the Castle of Leicester, that a policeman told him it was illegal; but his reply was—"I have a perfect right to say how I intend to vote, but you have no right to toll anybody." If he desired to vote for Mr. Holden and Sir Matthew Wilson in his own county, was he, as an independent Englishman, to be told that he should not go to the poll and show his colours, and declare how he was going to vote? The Ballot was meant to protect those who wished to give their votes in secret, and not the ordinary Englishman who desired to vote openly. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said that whenever he received a circular asking how he was going to vote, he sent it back without a reply. Now, he (Mr. T. Collins) did not follow the plan of the hon. Gentleman; but he invariably gave all the information he could. His vote was solicited on behalf of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the county of York, and he at once filled up the card and returned it with an intimation that he certainly did not intend to vote for him. He did not see why the hon. Member should have been deprived of that information, and he certainly should not have thought of sending back the card in a rude and insolent way, without even the courtesy of enclosing it in a stamped envelope. If hon. Members opposite thought that that was the best way of treating the people whom they met on equal terms in social life he (Mr. T. Collins) did not, and he always gave information freely both to his opponents and his friends. At the same time, he did not think it was of much value. He did not think the card was worth the frank; but he presumed the practice was followed with the view of gaining general information. It was an entire mistake to suppose that these cards were sent out with the view of marking the list of voters, and of intimidating A, B, or C. Hon. Members knew that the wage class were quite as independent as their masters, and the tenant farmers were even more independent of their landlords in these days of depressed agriculture than the landlords were of them. The landlords were only too glad to get their tenants to stay upon the land; and, therefore, it was idle to talk about the spirit of the Ballot Act and to pass a stringent law of this kind, which would even go the length, as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out, of preventing a man from signing a requisition to a candidate to stand for a constituency, because, by so doing, he would be violating the spirit of the Ballot Act in declaring beforehand that he intended to vote for a particular candidate. It was simply ridiculous and unwarrantable to say that an independent man should not sign a requisition intimating that he would do his best to return a particular person; and he was satisfied that it would be utterly impossible to gag Englishmen by a clause of this kind.

said, that his own recollections of the Election of 1880 would probably have led him at first sight to feel rather inclined to look with favour upon any proposal which would put a stop to a practice which in his own county virtually led to a contest, and which required him to incur a considerable expenditure. His opponents sent out cards to various electors asking whether So-and-so ought to stand in opposition to himself and his Colleague for a seat which had never been contested before, and such a large number of persons signed the requisition to the gentleman in question that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had the pleasure of a contest, and his opponent was very much astonished to find afterwards that not nearly so large a number of people supported his candidature as those who had asked him to stand. After what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General he hardly thought they ought to go on discussing the clause. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that with all his sympathy for the object which the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) had in view, he was unable to find the means of carrying it out. Under those circumstances, after a statement of that sort had been made by the Attorney General, the Committee, at all events, ought to go to a Division upon the matter, instead of discussing a proposition which the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill would not take upon himself the responsibility of supporting.

said, he was just as strongly opposed to these circulars as the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson). At the last General Election he received a circular asking him to vote for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). It enclosed a stamped envelope, and requested him to send a reply back. Well, he sent back no answer at all; but he simply impounded the stamp, and so made a penny by the transaction. The Committee had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the clause was unworkable as it stood. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that they ought not to pass the second reading of a clause which was unworkable, merely on the chance of his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) being able to convert it into a workable clause, and it was better to look at the clause as it stood, and as it was submitted by his hon. Friend who moved it. It was admitted to be unworkable. [Mr. H. B. SAMUELSON: No.] At all events, it was so admitted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and he had not heard anybody deny it except the Proposer of the clause, who contended that it was workable. With all his anxiety to get rid of this practice of sending out circulars, he found himself unable, on this occasion, to support the proposal of his hon. Friend.

said, he did not see why the discussion ought to be cut short. If it was undesirable, it was one which had emanated from an hon. Member below the Gangway, who had now, for the second time, raised this point; and if the Attorney General felt inclined to complain, he could only cry out—"Save me from my friends!" Personally, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinek) was not at all sorry to see the question started again, because it showed what was the animus of the false Liberals of the House. They were all in favour of these restrictions upon liberty, and it was upon that ground that the hon. Member had brought forward a clause which was so objectionable in every point of view. He was quite able to confirm the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) with regard to the Ballot Act. No such principle was pronounced on the Treasury Bench at the time the Ballot Act was before the House, as that it was once and for ever to prohibit a man for stating what his political opinions were, either at the polling booth or anywhere else. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite were sometimes said to belong to the Whig Party. He did not know whether that was so or not, or whether there was any Whig Party at all; but if they wished to ascertain the views of that Party, they ought to consult the opinion of Lord Russell, who, upon the occasion of the passing of the Ballot Act, maintained in "another place" that the Ballot was only intended to give security to the voter, and to do away with the possibility of intimidating him without depriving him of his liberty. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said this clause would be valuable in relieving the voter from intimidation; but he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had never heard of any case of intimidation at all. He concurred with hon. Members on that side of the House that the Bill was full of ridiculously small things, and that it constituted traps and pitfalls for honest men. If the theory of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) were carried into effect, what would be the state of things established? Nothing else than a second Spanish Inquisition affecting the hon. Member's own denomination, and, perhaps, converting the hon. Member himself into another "Torquemada." The idea was to prevent a person from giving free expression to his opinions. If that principle was to be adopted, what would become of the great Birmingham Caucus and its proceedings? He had read in the newspapers that, at the time of the last Election, circulars were sent round to all the voters directing each individual how he was to vote, in order to get rid of the minority representation. In point of fact, the Leaders of the Caucus put their heads together, and devised a plan how every elector was to vote, and then sent out circulars saying—"The Caucus don't know how you are going to vote; but you must vote as you are told." Therefore, Birmingham might be another instance, and the junior Member for that borough might be made a second "Torquemada." They had heard a great deal about balloting in the Reform Club. In that great Institution did the Liberal Party practise what they preached now? Did they never announce how they were going to vote, or canvass for votes? If so-called Liberals had any regard for liberty, they ought to vote against the clause, and denounce altogether the doctrine advanced by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson).

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—that, according to the terms of the clause as it stood, a request to an elector to sign a nomination paper might actually be an illegal practice. People talked about the spirit of the Ballot Act as if the Ballot Act was to put an extinguisher upon every elector, and not allow him to be seen or heard at an election. He wanted to know whether, if he, at the next Election, were to write to 10 chosen friends asking them to honour him by proposing and supporting his nomination—and, probably, he should select some of his most valued friends and leading supporters—would he fall under the tender mercies of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuel-son), and be guilty of an illegal practice? If so, he presumed that hard labour would scarcely be a sufficient punishment for the offence. This extraordinary clause only foreshadowed the eagerness with which hon. Members opposite were pursuing a phantom. They did not perceive the consequences which might even accrue to themselves; but, hand over hand, they went to show their desire for purity of election. They stopped at nothing, and they were ready to carry out their extraordinary ideas, even to the extent of preventing a candidate from being nominated at all. Now, he was not one of that foolish class who desired to prevent himself from being nominated; and he could not agree with the course recommended by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that, disagreeing with the penalty, and also with the sense of the clause, they ought, nevertheless, to pass the second reading of it, with a hope of modifying it afterwards. He did not think the Committee ought to go through the form of stultifying themselves by even giving the clause a second reading. He should like to learn from the Attorney General whether, in his view, the signing of a nomination paper would, under the clause, be an illegal practice?

begged to inform the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) what, no doubt, the hon. Member very well knew himself—that the nomination paper contained no promise to vote whatever. Yet that was the only important objection which had been advanced against the clause. The nomination paper simply nominated a person as candidate; and the clause dealt with a written promise to vote for a candidate after he had become a candidate. It had nothing whatever to do with the nomination of a candidate. He trusted that the Attorney General would accept the clause, which could be amended in Committee, as far as the punishment of illegal practices, and so forth, were concerned. The Bill scarcely contained any better provision in the direction of checking undue influence, which was a much more potent illegal practice by means of these cards and circulars than hon. Members had any idea of. Many of the poorer class of voters, when they had signed these cards, really thought they had as good as voted, and never went back from the promise they had given. No subsequent argument could be brought to bear upon them. He had known such instances himself; and he had been told more than once by an elector—"I have already promised, and I have, therefore, as good as voted." Consequently, this was a case of undue pressure and undue influence brought to bear upon the voter, which practically defeated the intention of the Ballot Act; and he therefore trusted that the Attorney General would accept the clause.

said, he was one of those who felt strongly about the issue of the cards which formed the subject of the Amendment; but he thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) went somewhat too far. The cases stated by the hon. Member were eases which really went against canvassing altogether—there could be no question about that. The Attorney General, and all others who had had much to do with elections, knew very well that it was perfectly easy for the election agents, or the friends of a candidate, to go about talking to the people and saying—"Will you allow me to put your name down on my list as a person who is likely to vote for my candidate?" Well, he did not see how they were to prevent that. The Amendment of the hon. Member would not do it. He thought there was a great deal to be said against all forms of canvassing. Canvassing was unquestionably contrary to the strict spirit of the Ballot Act if they construed it literally, and ever since the Ballot Act was passed he had never asked a poor man to vote for him. In point of fact, he had made it a rule to refrain from doing so. Whenever he had to deal with an elector whom he thought he could not entirely depend upon, he had refrained from asking the man directly for his vote. He did not like to ask a man to make a promise which he might be exposed to the temptation of not performing. At the same time, he did think that the Committee should make the offence a penal one, and punish it as an illegal practice. He was certainly not prepared to go that length.

said, he thought that the Committee ought to be obliged to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings) for candidly supplying them with information as to the nature of the political morality of the Birmingham Caucus. It now appeared that there was nothing to bind a man who signed his name to a nomination paper to vote for the person nominated. No doubt, the signing of the nomination paper was not an actual promise to vote; but nobody would for a moment imagine that the man who signed a nomination paper was not morally bound to vote for the candidate on whose behalf he did so. So far as a promise could be given, it was certainty given in such a case. But this clause went much further, and if a candidate were to write to a gentleman, and ask him to be one of his committee, and if the gentleman answered the letter, thereby putting his name to a piece of paper, promising to support a particular candidate, he would incur a penalty. He thought that would be carrying legislation to an absurdity; and he was quite sure the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson), if he considered the true meaning and result of the clause, would not take the trouble of asking the Committee to discuss it, much less of calling upon them to divide upon it.

remarked, that anything that had been said on the other side of the House did not lead him to suppose that he ought not to divide upon the clause, because, especially after what his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated, he was of opinion that the clause was susceptible of improvement. No doubt, the same remark applied to the Bill itself, and especially to the condition in which it was first presented to the Committee. If they were never to vote for a clause because it was capable of amendment, then it would be almost impossible to vote for any Bill that was introduced, and especially for the present Bill, which was full of clauses that had been altered. Therefore, on that ground, it was not desirable that he should refrain from pressing the second reading of the clause; but, if it were read a second time, he would willingly accept an Amendment rendering the offender liable only to a small fine instead of being punishable for committing an illegal practice. Many of the points which had been raised in opposition to the clause would not come under the clause at all. The only thing which would he made an offence was the offence of sending out circulars to he returned signed, containing a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Of course, if a requisition were lying at a particular place for signature, any voter might go there and sign it, and would not render himself liable to punishment.

said, as he understood it, the object of this Bill was to promote, first of all, economy, and, secondly, to prevent undue influence; but he did not find in the Bill any power of restricting the particular matter with which the Amendment he was about to propose dealt. It was quite within the power of any friend of a candidate to expend money in advertising and placarding walls, and there was nothing in the Bill to touch that. He therefore begged to move the new clause which stood in his name.

said, the effect of this provision would he that if any editor of a newspaper wrote a leading article in favour of a candidate he would come within the Act.

pointed out that it was provided that—

"This Clause shall be read and con strued with the forty-fourth and forty-fifth Victoria, chapter sixty, section two,"

replied, that that was the Libel Act. Under this clause reporting a candidate's speech might be held to be an illegal practice. As to the question of caricatures, there was an Amendment on the Paper by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he had to propose a new clause which he believed would meet with universal assent. Hon. Members knew that there were some people with tyrannical instincts who came forward merely to advertise themselves, and without the slightest intention of standing. They came forward, and then said if the other candidate would pay their expenses they would retire, and having spent, perhaps, £20, they seemed to think they had spent £200. Candidates were frequently blackmailed in that way. He had gathered from the Attorney General that he would accept the principle of this clause, but would make some alteration in it. He did not care about the wording, but he wished to prevent this practice.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member that something of this kind was necessary. He did not approve of the exact words of the clause; but they might, perhaps, be reconsidered, and the Government might bring up a new clause. He thought it was doubtful whether this should be made an illegal practice affecting the candidate's seat, but should rather be an illegal payment.

said, he quite took the view of the hon. and right hon. Members; but this could only be an illegal payment if done by the election agent. He had a clause drafted to carry out this idea, which he would move if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

asked whether any awkwardness would arise in a case in which two persons were of the same politics and there was no corrupt action? He did not say that rewards were actually offered by the Leaders of Parties to induce one candidate to withdraw; but he could conceive circumstances under which such a withdrawal might come within this clause.

said, he thought there was something in that view. Very often gentlemen who had been candidates, and had been induced to withdraw, got some reward afterwards. There were cases in which gentlemen had been created Baronets; and such cases would come under this clause, because there would have been some inducement held out in the shape of some reward.

suggested that it would be well to defer this clause in order that it might be seen in print.

said, he had no objection to bring it up later—on the Report.

said, he objected to the matter being deferred to the Report. This was a matter with which many Members were practically acquainted, and he thought it would be much better to deal with it at once, although he agreed that it would be much more convenient to have the proposed words in print. The question mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had come within his own personal knowledge. On one occasion he was called upon to endeavour to settle certain differences which had arisen between two rival candidates pro- fessing the same politics. He suggested that, as they had entered into the candidature in good faith, they should appoint certain gentlemen to go through the canvass books, and that their decision should be conformed to by both the candidates, and that the candidate who withdrew should have all his lonâ fide expenses defrayed by the other candidate who, in the opinion of the arbitrator, had the greatest number of promises. That was a perfectly bonâ fide arrangement, which he felt he was quite justified in suggesting, although it was not carried out, and the arbitrament of the poll was resorted to; but so far as the suggested words of the Attorney General were capable of being judged at a moment's notice, it would almost appear as if such a legitimate proceeding as that just described would be deemed an illegal or corrupt practice. He thought that, perhaps, the words "corruptly paid" might be introduced; but he hoped the Government would endeavour to deal with the matter in some reasonable and practical way if it was deferred.

said, the instance given by the right hon. Gentleman would not come under the clause. He would make a proposal on the Report.

asked whether a payment of money to meet the expenses of a candidate up to the moment of withdrawal would come under the maximum scale?

said, he thought a candidate should not be allowed to buy out a rival by paying his expenses.

said the Committee would remember that the question of providing an appeal from the finding of Election Commissioners had been discussed, and he should not revive the question; but he wished to know whether the Government would deal with that subject in this Bill? He quite admitted that the terms of the clause he should propose might not be complete; but he had put the Motion down in general terms, in order that the Government might say whether they would put something of the sort into the Bill.

said, he was desirous of having some sort of appeal; and he would consider whether the Judges would not form the best Court of Appeal. They could not expect Royal Commissioners to submit to a minor Court. Before speaking definitely on this matter, he wished to confer with the Lord Chancellor; and if the Motion were withdrawn, he should hope to be able to do something in the matter.

said, he had a clause to propose with reference to the proposal to send Commissioners down before the actual trial of an Election Petition to inquire into all the circumstances of the election which was challenged. His view was that corrupt practices must be prevented, not by imposing extreme penalties, but rather by making discovery almost certain. At present, the procedure of an Election Petition was certainly not in favour of discovery. The candidate seeking to oust the Member was anxious to put forward just so much as was necessary for his case, and no more; and it was the object of both parties to keep out of view, as much as possible, the corrupt practices which had occurred, and which might lead to a Commission being issued. The Judges were perfectly helpless, for they had no means of exercising an independent authority, or making independent inquiries. They could simply act on the information given by the two parties, and that was, generally, as scanty as possible, in order just to serve the purpose of the Petition. He believed that was a great hindrance to detection and punishment of corrupt practices. The Committee had done something to deal with the cost of Petitions by a new clause, which they had adopted, providing that such costs should be taxed; but it was difficult to see what the exact effect of that would be. It might only make the institution of a Petition so expensive a matter that Petitioners would be discouraged; but the real fact with regard to the detection of corrupt practices was that if immediately after an election one or two trustworthy men went down to the place, with authority to call witnesses, and examine them as to the conduct of the election, they would find out, in a few hours, with sufficient certainty, whether the election had been pure or not. It fell to his lot to be a counsel in the Macclesfield Election trial, at which the Liberal Members were unseated without his having to call a single witness. They were unseated by the sudden calling into the witness-box of the man who printed the bills and circulars for the election, and who was the secretary of one of the local or district Associations. Before he left the witness-box the seats were gone. Immediately after the election two barristers went down, armed with authority to make inquiries. They sent for the managing agent of each party, and asked him questions as to the amount of money spent, and so on. In the same way, under this clause, gentlemen would be able quickly to decide the question of a Petition. Of course, their decision ought not to be final; but they would report to the Judges whether they found that the allegations of the Petition were sustained or not. In addition to a Report, he proposed that they should send in the evidence they had taken; and, also, they should send a copy of the evidence to the Petitioner and. the Respondent. Then the Judges should have power, if they found from the Report that bribery had been committed by the agent of the man elected, to make a conditional judgment, that the seat was void and the election bad. That step, however, should not be final, and he had provided that within 14 days of that conditional judgment either party might appeal against it, and after that the Judges might go down and try the case in the ordinary way. He believed that this method would lead to the immediate detection of corrupt practices, and that with an effectual promptitude which had never been and never could be found under the existing system. In the next place, it would relieve the Member from a very great hardship. At present a candidate was elected by a constituency, and an Election Petition was presented against him. It might be that some person who would be held to be his agent, had been guilty of some act of bribery or other corrupt practice which would affect the seat. The Member knew this; he knew what was going to happen; and, consequently, those who went down to defend the election knew that if the facts had only been found out, and witnesses been forthcoming, the seat could not be defended. In that case the Member would be able to surrender the seat under a conditional judgment; but he would not be exposed to the enormous cost of an Election Petition. Justice would be done; corrupt practices would receive their proper punishment; and there would be relief from enormous expense. If these results were arrived at, a great deal would have been done to assist in the work which all had at heart in this matter. In the framing of the clauses he had had the help of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), and he hoped the Attorney General would see his way to inserting what he believed would substantially help forward the object of the Bill.

said, he thought it was necessary, not only in the interest of the candidate, but also of the constituency, that the conduct of an Election Inquiry should no longer be a matter as between party and party, but as far as possible should be conducted in the same manner as a Coroner's Inquest. Great complaints had been made of the cost of Election Petition trials; but that could be avoided if there were some inquiry made at the places by impartial persons, on whose reports he believed nine cases out of ten would be determined. This scheme would be for the convenience of a constituency, and in the interests of purity, because it would no longer be possible for litigants in matters of this kind to prevent the real truth being ascertained, as they could when there were counsel on each side who called or did not call witnesses, as they thought proper. The framing of these clauses might be open to objection by the Attorney General; but he understood that his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly willing to withdraw if the Attorney General would bring forward some scheme embodying similar principles.

said, the hon. and learned Member had certainly taken great care in drawing up this plan; but he did not see how he could accept it, and he did not think the Committee would consider that it should be accepted. As he understood the proposal, there were to be two Commissioners to make this inquiry; but the Petitioner and the Respondent were not to be present. The inquiry would be perfectly useless if no witnesses were to be called; and he did not think it possible that either of the parties would be satisfied. If he could see his way to accepting the scheme with any advantage, he should be disposed to do so; but he thought it would defeat the object in view, and there would practically be three inquiries—the preliminary inquiry, the Election Petition trial, and the Royal Commission.

said, the scheme would be open to the objection that the inquiry would be more or less a double trial of the same event. It could hardly be supposed that either party would be satisfied, and a new inquiry would be required. If the inquiry was to be real, the parties who were to be reported on ought to be heard; but if they were not to be heard, the inquiry would be worthless, and, in that case, would operate unfairly, because it might lead to the reporting of corrupt practices without the parties being heard, and they ought not to be exposed to that. He hoped the scheme would not be accepted.

said, this was, no doubt, a well-intentioned proposal; but he thought it was open to all the objections raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory). He could not see that it would produce any beneficial results.

said, he thought he should not have very much difficulty in defending these clauses against criticism if that were desirable at this moment. As to any objection on the ground that these gentlemen would be unable to find out anything, that was answered by the fact that the Royal Commissioners, when they went down to a town, went with their secretary, and made inquiries of the same character as was suggested here. Of course, they would not go unless a Petition was presented alleging corrupt practices. He felt that, at this stage of the Bill, it was impossible to urge on the Government the acceptance of these clauses unless the Attorney General had come to the conclusion that he ought to incorporate them in the Bill, and take the responsibility of them. Therefore, though with much regret, he should accept the Attorney General's decision at once, and withdraw the proposal. He was sure they were not at the end of legislation upon corrupt practices; and, therefore, he had desired to submit a substantial proposal for an effectual remedy.

said, he objected to the Motion being withdrawn. In his opinion, it ought to be negatived to show the opinion of the Committee upon the bringing forward of such proposals. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. Clarke), who had had a large experience of election trials, should have devoted so much time to formulating such clauses; and the only way in which they should be met was by an emphatic opinion being pronounced upon them by the Committee.