better do one thing at a time? He did not think it was business-like for the Government now to be asked to deal with the second suggestion, and be told that if they would not, in anticipation, promise to accept something else, the Committee must go on to debate this insufficient remedy. He thought the Committee would scarcely favour that view; and when he was asked to give an equity clause or an elasticity clause, he could only say, on the part of the Government, that he would not at this moment give a pledge one way or the other, except that whatever Amendment was proposed should have the most careful consideration of the Government, after having had the assistance of debate, and he would ask the Committee to take assistance from the Government, as the Government asked it from them. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) of an equity clause was well worthy of consideration; but what he said was that they should treat this Amendment as they had treated others. The hon. and learned Member was a perfect master of equity. Would he assist the Government by drawing up a clause which could be safely accepted? He could only promise, on the part of the Government, that they would consider the Amendments as they arose, and he asked the Committee to deal with each as it came before them. The Go Gorst) say that the Government were to | tice to the Government, had they not accept this as the best Amendment that could be found, and say they were satisfied? He did not say they would not accept it; but it would be unjust to the constituencies, because a constituency ought not to lose its Member, when he had only employed a man to carry a bag, or deliver a circular. He was certain that there was no hon. Member who did not feel that that would be unsound. That was the outcome of a week's consideration; and he was sure the hon. and learned Member had done his best to find a definition. If that was the best definition that could be found, was he not justified in saying they could not define agency? And if they could not do so, they must leave the question of fact to be determined by the Judge. They must not make a bad law because they were not satisfied with the present law. This tribunal might give an unsatisfactory decision; but it would try the question of fact, as a jury did; and it would be better to take away that jurisdiction and give it to some other tribunal than to put on the Statute Book a bad law. If they were to define this principle to the fullest extent, would they take away trial by jury because some innocent men had been found guilty, and guilty men had been acquitted? He thought the hon. and learned Member would best display the courage of his opinion, not by suggesting an alteration of the law, but by suggesting some other tribunal. An-vernment did not approach any Amendother view had been put forward by hon. Members. They said they had put Amendments on the Paper for a limitation of agency. The Government were prepared to take a vote on every one of them if carefully framed; but they must stand or fall by the decision of the Committee on the question whether there should be a limitation. That was not a question of framing or drafting, but of substance, and that amounted to an impossibility. Another view was suggested which was unusual and unprecedented in his experience in Parliament. It was said by some hon. Members there was some evil in the system, and they offered a remedy that they knew the Government could not accept, but that they would not part from that insufficient remedy until they obtained a solid promise that the Government would do something. In jus The Attorney General ment in the spirit of not trying to meet it; and if they could not give reasons for not accepting it, they might be defeated, and, if so, would be prepared to take the consequences. This Amendment stood alone, and could not be coupled with that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and ought not to be so treated. MR. GORST said, he was not acting with any intention to hold a pistol at the head of the Government by keeping this Amendment before them until they agreed to discuss it. He had not the control of the Amendment. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had control of it; and as soon as the discussion had arrived at a point when it became unnecessary and useless, the Amendment would be withdrawn. So far as the discussion had proceeded, it seemed to him that no Members of the Committee were | Committee, except at the close. When eager to seek a solution of this difficulty the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of defining agency. The Solicitor General and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) had denounced any attempt to define agency, and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch found fault with all the other Amendments; but neither hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed himself to this particular Amendment. As he had frankly stated, it was not his definition, but the definition of Mr. Justice Lush; and he was still of opinion that it was a very good definition. The only Members of the Committee who had addressed themselves to the discussion of the Amendment itself were the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and the only fault they found with the definition was that it was wide and vague. But it was not so wide and vague as the present law. The definition was some sort of guide to a judgment as to what was to be considered agency; and it gave a more precise idea of what an election agent was than was to be obtained from text books, or from merely hearing the word "agent" in all its generalities pronounced. If this definition was wide and vague, what became of all the denunciations of the Attorney General as an encouragement to corruption? That being the case, no Member of the Committee, he thought, with hardly an exception, considered it possible for them to frame a definition of election agent which would extricate them from the difficulty of the present unsatisfactory state of the law. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, he thought the discussion had reached a point when this Amendment might with advantage be withdrawn, because they might go on discussing the general subject, and not, upon this Amendment, arrive at any satisfactory result. Therefore, he would venture to suggest to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire that he might now withdraw the Amendment, and in a short time they would arrive at an equitable clause, which might be pressed on the Government. One or other he hoped the Attorney General would accept. of this being an unprecedented course, he must have forgotten what took place in the discussion of the Land Bill. Directly after the Land Bill went into Committee, a discussion was raised as to what the Government intended when the 7th clause, which dealt with fair rent, was reached; and long before the Committee came to that the Prime Minister stated what the Government intended to do. Anyone who had been present when the Bill was passed through would remember that the progress was very much facilitated by that early statement. What hon. Members now wanted to know was, what course the Government intended to adopt? and this question arose out of the question of agency. The Attorney General need not have made so long and eloquent a speech to prove, practically, that two and two made four. It was impossible to define agency, and every remark the hon. and learned Gentleman made was true up to the hilt; but what they said was that under the existing Law of Agency gross injustice had been done, and that one of the most eminent Judges of the landLord Bramwell-stated before a Committee of that House that although it was impossible to give a new definition of the Law of Agency by Statute, yet he was compelled to administer an unjust law; and he suggested to that House a mode by which that injustice might be remedied. The mode he suggested was, that where an Election Judge was satisfied that the election had been pure, and that the candidate and his agent had been entirely guiltless of any corrupt or illegal practice, but that some unrecognized local agent had committed some trivial act which did not effect the general result of the election, the Judge should have power to do what the House had always had power to do-namely, to exercise equity, and not vacate the seat. What did the Government mean to do under those circumstances? As an illustration, he would give the case of an hon. Member who was now sitting in that House, to show how the Law of Agency had worked. The night before his election his coat of arms was being MR. H. H. FOWLER said, the At-painted in the Town Hall of the city in torney General had made a powerful and earnest speech; but he had not touched the real question before the VOL. CCLXXX. [THIRD SERIES which he resided, he himself paying the cost. He had never seen the painter before then; but the man came for some [Seventh Night.] 2 R instructions with respect to the work. | right and fair, and not to inflict injustice The next day the man asked someone in the market place how he was going to vote. He persuaded the man to vote for the hon. Member, and gave him 68. for his vote, and the hon. Member was unseated for that. That was a case which ought to be met; the Judge should have power to deal with a case of such gross injustice. Hon. Members might say they were not discussing that; but they were discussing that; and what they wanted to know was what the Government intended to do? The Government were now altering the law; but Members who took the course he had taken to-night were put to a great disadvantage. He very much regretted to hear from the Treasury Bench, and especially from the Solicitor General, a sort of implication that those who differed from the Government upon this question were, somehow or other, sympathizing with corruption. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL) said, he had never made any such suggestion. He had only said that in dealing with a matter of this sort it was a question more for the protection of the candidate than for putting down corruption, and therefore they ought to be very careful. MR. H. H. FOWLER said, that impression had been conveyed, and it had not been confined to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The suggestion had been made that those who differed from the Government on this subject, who were quite as loyal as the Government as to putting down corrupt practices, and were entirely free from corrupt practices themselves, were endeavouring to make this Bill, practically, a measure for encouraging corrupt practices. The Solicitor General said they ought to be very careful not to protect themselves; but they were here to make laws, and to protect candidates as well as other people-and they were here for something more than that. The object of this Bill was to prevent, as far as possible, causes which would prevent introduction to that House of desirable Members. They might make candidature for Parliament so dangerous that it would be a strong door against men of the class they desired to see; and he repudiated any desire to protect themselves unduly, or to injure a constituency. He wished to do what was Mr. H. H. Fowler on one class or on another. The question SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT asked the Committee to consider how they stood in reference to this Amendment. In a very candid speech the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had offered up a child for sacrifice. He said the time had arrived when the Amendment might be withdrawn. That seemed to be a very reasonable course; but, so far as he could see, no one, however much interested in the matter, thought that the Amendment could be, or ought to be adopted. One would say satisfactorily attempt to make a definition of agency, or without doing a great deal more harm than good, they had better pass over all these Amendments, and come to the subsequent Amendment, and hear the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and those who thought with him; hear the argument from the other side, and then decide upon the matter which the hon. Member wished the Government to decide by anticipation, by saying "Aye" or "No." That was the fair way of dealing with the question; and he hoped those who wished Business to be regularly and speedily transacted would assent to that course. that a business-like Assembly, under those circumstances, would dispose of the Amendment and go on with something else; and not, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and hon. Members opposite seemed to wish, to keep it before the Committee until they got a pledge of something else. If the House of Commons were going to act on that principle, they would transact Business in a manner contrary to the first principles of Parliamentary procedure; and for the Government to accept such a rule of action as that would be not only injurious to this Bill, but altogether destructive to the conduct of the Business of the House of Commons. Therefore, all he could SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, that say, on the part of the Government, was the Committee had been discussing this that they could not accept any such question with the greatest calmness, rule of action. He had attended very and the greatest advantage, until the carefully to the debate, and he under- speech of the right hon. and learned stood that the general feeling of the Com- Gentleman the Home Secretary. That mittee was that this matter could not be speech no one could say had advanced dealt with by a definition of agency. That the matter in any way. The right hon. argument was exhausted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not produced Member for Wolverhampton said, in the a single argument. He was very anxious broadest terms, that that was his view. to see this question settled, and he thought Why, then, did he insist on protracting that everyone who had been present the debate on the question of a defini- throughout the discussion had made up tion of agency? That was the most their minds that the result had been unbusiness-like method of dealing with very advantageous, and had tended the Bill that could be conceived. Then really to facilitate the progress of the the hon. Member said the Government Bill. The right hon. and learned Genmust give some idea of what they were tleman had said these two questions were going to do on some subsequent Amend- distinct and separate; but they were ment. Why? The Government, ac- not. The question of the definition of cording to the hon. Member, must say agency and the question of relieving the "Aye or "No" upon Amendments hardship of the Bill as it stood by some which had not been discussed, and which equitable clause were one and the same. could not now be discussed. Why were The whole point which had been obthe Government to say "Aye" or "No" jected to was that, by this Bill, they were upon an Amendment which had not yet imposing a much more stringent law been discussed? That would be to say than that which at present existed. that argument was to have no effect [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Were upon them; that they would not listen they not adding to corrupt practices to, discuss, or advance arguments; but enormously? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL by anticipation would say "Aye" or (Sir Farrer Herschell): Not by this "No" upon an important question raised clause.] This clause affected the quesby a subsequent Amendment. That was tion of who were guilty by an agent. a most unbusiness-like and improper They had increased the number of corproceeding, and, if the Government ac- rupt practices; but they need not now ceded to it, would destroy the proper discuss that. While they were increasing conduct of Business. Therefore, the pro- the stringency of the Law of Agency posal of the hon. Member was objec- they were creating a great hardship; tionable, not only upon this particular and the law, as administered by the point, but upon the general question of Judges as compared with the adminisParliamentary Business. If the Com-tration of the law by that House, was mittee were of opinion, as he thought the majority were, that they could not working evil. That was admitted. A great number of Amendments had been [Seventh Night.] 2 R 2 down to the House, wished, apparently, to drag them over and over again over the ground they had already traversed, and it seemed to him a most useless enterprize. He, for one, was not inclined to sit there hour after hour listening to observations he had heard again and again. Very often in trying to define certain terms they succeeded, not in enlarging the discretion of the Judge, but in confining it; and what he said on the question of equity was this-that it was not clear to him, from anything which had been said in the discussion, that the Judges could not now administer equity in reference to agency if they liked. If they had failed to do it, that was no argument against the letter of the law. If the Committee proceeded to definitions the Judges would be bound to administer strict law; whereas, under the law as it stood, they were free, if they had sufficient intelligence, to administer equity. put on the Paper on the question of definition, and hon. Members said they did not care whether the Government accepted them or not; but they had put down these Amendments with a view to solving the question, and then the Government said they could not discuss this matter now. Suppose there were no Amendments, they must solve the question by defining agency, or they must restore the equitable jurisdiction which did exist when these matters came before this House, and take away the hard-andfast lines which the Judges had been obliged to follow. Quite irrespective of the Amendment, they were perfectly entitled to ask, with regard to an admitted difficulty, the opinion of the Government as to how they meant to get over it? It was idle for the Government to say "There is another bridge we have to get over later on, and we will tell you what you want to know when we come to that." He did not care whether the Amendment was withdrawn MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, he had or not; the sooner they came to the real been in the Committee since the comdiscussion the better. He did not think mencement of the evening, and had folthere had been any waste of time, how-lowed the arguments which had been ever, the question having been fairly argued from all quarters of the House. There had been unanimity on all sides such as he had never seen before, no one having said a word in favour of the clause as it stood, except the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood); and sooner or later the Government would have to give some relief when they came to consider the equity jurisdiction. If it was the wish of the Committee that he should withdraw the Amendment he would do so. He had only moved it in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), in order that they might have a discussion upon it. He was not in the least satisfied with what had fallen from the Attorney General, but should be willing to withdraw the Amendment. MR. O'CONNOR POWER said, he did not rise to impede. He had been an attentive listener to the whole of the discussion, but up to now had not taken any part in it, although some other hon. Members had spoken two or three times. He saw no practical result to be gained by the continuance of the discussion, as the Committee had now had every aspect of the question presented to it; but hon. Gentlemen who had not heard the whole of the debate, having only recently come Sir R. Assheton Cross used. He now wished to say, in corroboration of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that a good deal had been gained by this conversation. The Home Secretary had given them to understand that this was not a practical mode of conducting the Business of the House of Commons- -that to insist on one clause until they got the sanction of the Government to another was not a business-like way of proceeding. Well, he (Mr. Cowen) wished to say that, so far as his knowledge of Business was concerned, this was a common way of proceeding. On the Irish Land Bill he perfectly remembered that when one clause was reached the Committee refused to go further until the Government made known the drift of their intentions on another part of the measure. The same thing occurred during the discussion of the Irish Church Bill, and of the Arrears of Rent Bill of last year. The Committee had insisted on having a declaration of the general policy of the Government on the measure before the House on a special clause, and they refused to go further until that was done. They were doing the same on the present Bill. The Committee said-"You cannot define agency; therefore we wish to have the Equity |