brought forward by private Members, to the Amendments, and had obtained their consent. He hoped to have them in printed form by to-morrow, and that they would be in the hands of Members on Saturday.

on Tuesday and Friday evenings, the time had not arrived when the Government should take those nights for their own Business?

MR. GLADSTONE: I appreciate the motive of the hon. Member; but I must remind him that on Tuesday last we had a very useful discussion. The Government would like to have a little further experience before entertaining the question.

MR. CHAPLIN reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had succeeded

ELECTIONS (COR

RUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES)
BILL.-[BILL 7.]

in obtaining first place on Tuesday, (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt,

July 10th, for a Motion on the importation of diseased cattle from abroad. Considering the importance of that question, he hoped there would be no appropriation of Tuesdays by the Government till the House had had an opportunity of considering it.

PARLIAMENT THE STANDING COM

MITTEES-PROCEDURE.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, he be

lieved it was the case that when a Bill

had been referred to a Select Committee, and the labours of that Committee were not completed at the end of the Session, it might resume its work next Session at the point where it had left off. He wished to ask whether the same rule applied to Grand Committees; and whether plied to Grand Committees; and whether they could take up a Bill next Session at the stage where it was left in this

Session ?

MR. SPEAKER: As the House is

aware, the act of Prorogation of Parlia

ment terminates the existence of Bills

Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke,
Mr. Solicitor General.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th June.]
[THIRD NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Corrupt Practices.
Clause 1 (What is treating).

COLONEL NOLAN, in rising to move,

in page 1, line 20, to leave out from had no wish to detain the Committee "And every," to "treating," said, he long on this point; all he desired to show was what would be the consequences if the Bill were passed in its present form. Clause 1 enacted that treating was a corrupt practice; Clause 2 enacted that corrupt practices were to be punished; and Clause 36 enacted that anyone guilty of a corrupt practice was liable to six months' imprisonment. If the Bill were passed as it now stood, any elector who took a glass of beer, or anything else on the day of election, would be subject to six months' imprisonment. If he could receive an assurance that Clause 36 would be so far modified that treating would not render an elector liable to more than a week's imprisonment, he would be inclined to Se-withdraw his opposition. He really considered that six months' imprisonment was too severe a punishment for the mere acceptance of a glass of beer on the day of election, and he hoped the Committee would take the same

on the Order Book of the House; and Standing Committees will have existence only to the end of the present Session of Parliament, unless otherwise ordered by

the House.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL. MR. SEXTON asked the Chief cretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What course the Government intends to pursue in regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in regard to Irish La

bourers?

MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he was glad to say that he thought the promise he gave off-hand, without knowing the circumstances, had been kept as well as promises could be expected to be kept. That day the Irish Office had practically agreed with the Treasury as

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir, the wives of electors to any extent he HENRY JAMES) said, they were not now chose. discussing what punishment should follow upon a particular offence; but whether treating was, or was not, to be considered a corrupt practice. It was admitted on all hands that treating had, of late years, been indulged in very largely; and, in his opinion, it would be very undesirable if the Committee were to say that they would not allow treating to be considered a corrupt practice. If it were the wish of the Committee he would be disposed to modify the sub-section in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)-namely, by excluding non-electors from the operation of the clause.

MR. WARTON said, he put down an Amendment upon this point days before the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He was entitled to a little consideration in the matter; and, therefore, when the proper time arrived to put the Question that "and other" stand part of the clause, he should move his Amendment. His Amendment, too, would make better sense.

MR. SEXTON said, he thought the proposition just made by the Attorney General was a very reasonable one. It would have been severe in the extreme if persons, not being electors, were to be rendered liable to punishment under the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) asked if the Committee would like the wives to be punished? MR. ONSLOW said, there was a good deal of force in what his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) had just said. It would be a very common thing for bribery in future to be done through the wife. There was an idea in the minds of certain Members of the Committee that people could only bribe with something to eat or drink. The wives and daughters of electors wanted a new bonnet or a new dress; and he believed that had been one of the common forms of bribery in some places. If the words were struck out he had no hesitation in saying that bribery would be done through the wife.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No; not bribery.

MR. ONSLOW said, it would, at any rate, amount to treating. The elector would know it was going on, and therefore treating would take place through the wife. He believed it was a common thing for a bottle of wine to be got from the grocer's shop and given to the wife. The elector was not supposed to know anything about it; but he did know all. If the words in question were struck out there would be an enormous amount of indirect treating, and it would be difficult to prove that the elector knew anything about it. If anyone was to be punished it ought to be both the man and the woman. If the wife or the daughter accepted a new bonnet or dress for a corrupt purpose she ought to be punished, just as much as the man who accepted a bribe.

MR. RYLANDS said, he considered the Attorney General had very wisely determined to exclude non-electors from the operation of the provision. They ought to go upon the lines that if a man did a corrupt act tending to interfere with the proper conduct of an election he should not be screened from punishment, but that, on the contrary, he should be duly punished. A provision, however, which fastened upon a man the responsibility of somebody else's act must be regarded with the greatest possible suspicion. What the Committee ought to do was to make the Bill very severe against the actual culprit; but not to make a man who might be inno-" "entertainment." cent liable to punishment for what somebody else did."

MR. E. STANHOPE pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted, either in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), or in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), it would be open for a candidate to treat

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE pointed out that they were dealing with treating and not with bribery.

MR. LEWIS said, he was, unfortunately, not able to be present on Tuesday last; and, therefore, he wished now to have some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of the word

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) rose to Order. The word "entertainment" was passed last Tuesday.

MR. LEWIS said, he was speaking upon the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), which included the word "entertainment." Surely the Attorney General

did not wish to stop discussion. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to omit the words

"And every person, whether an elector or not, who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment, or provision shall also be guilty of treating."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) protested against the Committee being asked to discuss the word " "entertainment a second time. The question was raised on line 14 in the absence of the hon. Member. They discussed it at length, and they determined to retain the word in the clause. He asked the Committee if it was right that, in consequence of the absence of one Member on Tuesday last, they should now repeat the whole of the discussion which took place on that day, and that he (the Attorney General) should be called upon to give the explanation of the word he gave on that occasion? The word "entertainment" occurred in an Act passed in the time of William III., and in the 6 & 7 Vict. and 18 Vict. Having once convinced the Committee that the word must remain, he respectfully asked them to relieve him from the necessity of a second explanation.

MR. WARTON said, it was perfectly true, as the Attorney General said, that úpon an Amendment of his (Mr. Warton's) they did on Tuesday enter

With all submission to the Attorney General, however, he would again point out that the word 'entertainment" might be regarded in a very different sense by the person entertaining and by the person entertained.

Under such circumstances the Attorney General said he was not entitled to refer to the word "entertainment." They would get to the end of the clause all the sooner if the Attorney General did not attempt to shut him up. He intended to pay some attention to the Bill; and though the Attorney General objected, he contended, in the presence of the Committee, that for the sake of justice it was absolutely necessary they should understand what the meaning of the word " entertainment" was. He would give the Committee an illustration of what his objection to the word was founded upon. A gentleman, not now a Member of the House, was a great traveller; he travelled nearly all over the world during the time he was a Member of the House; and when he came back he was in the habit of show-upon the question of "entertainment." ing to his constituents some very handsome photographs of the chief places of interest he had visited-in other words, he gave his constituents an entertainment in the shape of an exhibition of the photographs he had collected. Now, he (Mr. Lewis) wanted to know whether such an entertainment was a corrupt practice? It certainly would be if there was any meaning at all in the word "entertainment." He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not withdraw his Amendment. He (Mr. Lewis) objected very strongly to having such dubious words introduced into this penal Act of Parliament without some explanation being offered by the Government. The Attorney General had not properly explained the meaning of the word "entertainment." It seemed to him, too, to be a matter of the gravest possible importance that before they parted with the clause, they should endeavour to understand what was meant by the Government in attempting to cast so great a punishment upon anyone guilty of treating; and, inasmuch as the hon, and gallant Gentleman had not yet withdrawn his Amendment, he (Mr. Lewis) submitted that he was entitled to refer to one of the words which formed the subject-matter of the Amend

ment.

BARON DE FERRIERES was of opinion that the very stringency of the Bill would defeat its object. A person who accepted a glass of beer or a meal would necessarily be held guilty under the Act of a misdemeanour. Under the existing law, anyone who treated was liable to a penalty of £50; by this Act, treating was made a misdemeanour, for the commission of which a man would be liable to 12 months' imprisonment and £200 fine. It would rest with the Judges who had to try any Petitions arising under the Act to determine what constituted " treating." "Treating" was an illegal practice now; yet they knew very well it had been the custom of the Judges only to punish when treating was carried on to such an extent as really to demoralize a constituency, or carried on for the purpose of obtaining votes. It was a great mistake to inflict such severe penalties as to ensure their not being enforced.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, the hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) was again absent from the Committee; and it was, [Third Night.]

therefore, possible they would have to discuss "entertainment" even a third time upon his return. Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place, he (Sir Henry Holland) wanted to point out to him that there was no danger if the friend of his gave his entertainment honestly. Hon. Members overlooked the word " corruptly," and the words "for the purpose of corruptly influencing." To be discussing again what "entertainment" was, without any reference to the question of the circumstances in which the entertainment was given, was really a waste of time.

MR. HICKS said, that, as there appeared to be great doubt as to the meaning of the word "entertainment," he would suggest to the Attorney General that all the difficulty might be removed by the introduction of some words which would refer the readers of the Act to the Statute of William III. in which the word occurred. It would then be seen that the word was intended to have the same meaning in this Act as it had in former Statutes.

MR. F. W. BUXTON said, he was glad the Attorney General left it to the Committee to decide whether the words "whether an elector or not " should be omitted or not. The question whether wives and children who accepted a bribe, or were treated "corruptly," should be punished, might well be also left to the decision of the Committee. The clause had been much modified since it was brought in last year by the insertion of "corruptly" and other words. He hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposed omission.

MR. CHAPLIN said, he had not overlooked the word "corruptly," as the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) suggested some Members had. As the clause now stood, it was possible that because a man had come to his house, Heaven only knew how long before or after his election, he might be unseated.

vite one of the electors to dine with him or to drink with him? Whenever a candidate so invited a friend it must either be "before, during, or after an election." There was nothing in the world to prevent any act of hospitality being made to tell against a man.

MR. R. H. PAGET said, he thought the progress of the Bill would be greatly facilitated if the Government would define in the Bill the word “ corruptly." If the word remained as it was, what would be the result? Why, there were numerous attempts to prove that the giving of some refreshment-in however innocent and harmless a way it might have been given-was virtually a corrupt giving; and it would be when a certain number of Petitions had been tried that the Judges would give their decision as to what corrupt giving was, and what it was not. If the Government would only state what they intended by "corruptly " the whole matter would assume a very different complexion. The clause, as now drawn, was of enormous width; there was no limit as to the person or date; indeed, the only limit to the clause was the word "corruptly," the meaning of which was not thoroughly understood. As matters at present stood, corrupt giving would be entirely a matter for future decision.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD expressed the hope that the Attorney General would not be disposed to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Paget). It was absolutely impossible to define accurately the word "corruptly." If they attempted to define the word it would certainly happen that innocent persons would suffer, and persons who ought to be punished would escape. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Paget) would only try his own hand at a definition of the word he would soon find the difficulty which surrounded him. While he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was upon his feet, he could not help expressing his regret that the Attorney General had yielded to the MR. O'KELLY objected very strongly Amendment which had been proposed. to the clause. The time was so indefi- He was sorry, for this reason that nite that it would be simply impossible treating in its very nature was a corrupt for any man to eat or drink on the day act; and he thought that the treater and of election in the presence of an elector the treated were both parties to a corwithout being brought within the ope- rupt practice, and ought to be held so ration of the clause. How was a man by the Judge. It was a serious thing to guard himself from being charged at to alter the Bill so as to enable the some time or other with having treated Judge to come to the conclusion that the corruptly, if he should at any period in-treater was corrupt, and that the treated

Sir Henry Hol'and