held responsible for what an excited and Member's manner was agreeable, his utterance was extremely clear, and the general conclusions to which he asked them to arrive were often persuasive; but, notwithstanding these very great advantages which the hon. Member had in addressing them, he (Mr. Gibson) was unable to arrive at a clear understanding as to what was the advice which the hon. Member gave them with reference to the particular Amendment before them. The hon. Member admitted that it was inadequate, and, therefore, not to be accepted; and one would think that the natural consequence of that view would be that he would not now be prepared to support the Amendment, whatever he might do on a subsequent stage of the Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) looked on the question as being one which really lay within a very narrow compass. They were dealing not with a new, but with an old law, which had been in force since 1854, and which, considering the intricacy of the subject, had not been found to work with any great difficulty. Now, was it to be suggested as a thing which was desirable, or was it not to be suggested as a thing essentially undesirable, that there should be a difference in this respect between the law of the two countries? Did the hon. Member for Wolverhampton suggest, as a reasonable Member of the House, that he would retain the Act of 1854, with its definition of undue influence for THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir England and Scotland, and manufacHENRY JAMES) said, the hon. Member ture some new law for Ireland? [Mr. had advanced the simple proposition H. H. FOWLER: No.] The hon. Memthat a man speaking at a meeting for a ber, then, agreed with the proposition candidate became that candidate's agent. which underlay the present structure of From that proposition he (the Attorney the Bill, that there was to be the same General) entirely dissented. The hon. Electoral Law for the three countries. Member had accredited him with having The Bill proposed to give that by resaid that a person who was sent down taining the existing Electoral Law; and to a constituency to work for a candi- it, therefore, had to be pointed out why date and speak for him was not an this law, which had been in operation agent; but he had never made any such so long, and had been administered by statement. He had never said anything the Judges of England and Ireland about a person being sent down and without ever having called for or reworking for a candidate. Why did not quired amendment, should be altered the hon. Member note the words which because Irish Members took some obhad been said; and would he bear injection to it. The hon. Member for the mind the words which he (the Attorney City of Cork, who was a man of great General) really had said on the future stages of the Bill? MR. GIBSON said, he always listened with attention and interest to whatever fell from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The hon. Mr. H. H. Fowler ingenuity, had framed and presented a definition which he must feel could not be introduced into an Act of Parliament. It had been pointed out from the Treasury Bench, and admitted in the fullest terms by the hon. Member for Wolver hampton, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, with his study of this question and his interest in presenting a good definition to the Committee, had failed to present one which he (Mr. Gibson) would venture to say found acceptance even in the hon. Member's own mind, or in the minds of those on the other side of the House. who would like to agree with him if they could. They all knew that it was practically impossible to suggest to the House any exhaustive terms which could be regarded as a definition of this subject of undue influence. He (Mr. Gibson) did not think it would be desirable to depart from the existing law, which had not been found to work in an unsatisfactory manner. They must trust the Judges; it was absolutely impossible to escape from facing that proposition. They might carp at them, and suggest that they would prefer one Judge to another to try particular cases; but whether they gave them the existing definition, or sought to manufacture a new one, they must always, in the last resort, trust the Judiciary to decide whether or not a person was guilty of undue influence. For himself, he was not satisfied that it was desirable to make any change in the existing law; therefore, he should vote for the Bill standing in this particular as it was at present. As to the doctrine of agency, he should approach the clause dealing with it with an earnest and anxious desire to consider whether more strictness could not be introduced with reference to this most difficult and intricate subject. He did not say, dogmatically, that he should be able to present to the House words which would readily commend themselves to the acceptance of legal minds in definition of this very difficult subject, which must always be left, to a certain extent, to be acted upon by the particular facts of each case; but none the less should he approach it with an earnest desire to endeavour to prevent some of the consequences which had been found to attach to certain acts in some election cases. MR. SEXTON said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down professed to be puzzled as to the nature of the advice given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He (Mr. Sexton), however, had to thank that hon. Member for his speech, which displayed a rare largeness of political perception, and summed up briefly and clearly the main facts of the political situation in Ireland. The hon. Member had offered some suggestions to the Committee which, if the Committee were wise enough to accept them, would have a good effect, not only in facilitating the progress of the Bill, but upon the general state of feeling between the Members of the House and the different parts of the Kingdom. He could not help thinking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had been easily puzzled as to the meaning of the advice of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The hon. Member recommended that the Committee, instead of accepting the slothful counsel of lawyers to abandon the effort to make a definition should continue that effort. Lawyers sometimes spoke in a very cloudy manner; but whenever they came to the subject of definitions they always spoke clearly. They seemed to object to defining anything-they wished to leave everything to the Common Law. They expected to mount the Bench some day, and the absence of definitions was agreeable to them, as it left it open to them to decide cases on their private judgment, without coming into contact with public opinion or Parliament. He maintained, however, that the function and desire of that Assembly ought to be exactly contrary to that. It ought to set itself to endeavour to produce such a definition as would place every candidate, every elector, and every person in the country hereafter outside the whim of any Judge. There was nothing impossible in completing a definition. For two years the House professed to be greatly puzzled as to the definition of intimidation in land movements in Ireland. It was said to be impossible to define intimidation; yet the House passed, in the Prevention of Crime Act, an elaborate clause dealing with it, and that clause was now said by the lawyers of Ireland to have answered its purpose. If it was possible to exhaustively and satisfactorily define that offence, it was equally possible to define the offence of undue influence; and it should be done, unless the lawyers wished to reserve an opportunity to play tricks with the liberty of the public. It had been very Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.". Sexton.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) urged the Committee to deal with the Amendment before them before reporting Progress. Last year, when the Bill was before the House, they had not heard one word about the definition of undue influence, even from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and nothing had occurred since last year to raise the question. They had now discussed the matter for upwards of two hours, and he would therefore ask that they should be allowed to divide. interesting to listen to the speech of 12 o'clock to-morrow; and unless the the right hon. and learned Gentleman laws of that House were to supersede the Attorney General for Ireland. the laws of Nature his proposal should He (Mr. Sexton) had been pleased to be adopted. hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in his opinion, a person who spoke for a candidate was not an agent. The matter had been some-(Mr. what brought into the fog by the verbal legerdemain of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken at the Table (the Attorney General). It was difficult to gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's two speeches whether, in his view, a man who spoke for a candidate at a meeting was an agent or not; but, however this was, the Judges would not be likely to accept the dicta of the hon. and learned Gentleman at the Table of that House. The statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, interesting as it was, was no assurance to him (Mr. Sexton) that the Judges would accept it hereafter. As for the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), he had said, first, that the offence could not be defined; then, that the definition of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was unsatisfactory, and that the definition in the Act should be retained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been obliged to admit the authority of the words the hon. Member for the City of Cork had adopted as the terms of his Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had taken the words from the statement of a learned Judge as eminent as any who had graced the English Bench during the course of the last century-namely, Mr. Justice Willes. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton should be adopted by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, so as to include "corrupt promises or inducements." He (Mr. Sexton) would close by moving that Progress be reported, as it would be impossible for the hon. Member for the City of Cork to act in the spirit of the recommendation of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton without time for consideration. If Progress were reported, the hon. Member for the City of Cork might be able by to-morrow to bring forward a proposal which would settle this matter. Many hon. Members had been in the House since 12 o'clock to-day, having been in attendance on the Grand Committee. They would have to be down again at Mr. Sexton MR. O'DONNELL said, he thought the Attorney General had referred a little too often to the fact that this Bill was before the House last year. Of course, in a sense it was before the House; but everyone knew it was not seriously before the House. It did not receive the attention last Session which it was likely to receive this. The Attorney General said the question had been debated by the House for two years, and, therefore, they ought to come to a decision on it; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) would point out that this question of undue influence had been, or ought to have been, under the notice of the Advisers of the Crown since 1854, although they did not seem to have arrived at much conclusion on the subject. The views of the Government had developed with remarkable slowness. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated reasons of the strongest kind-which ought to be accepted by the Committee-for giving further time for the consideration of this important Amendment. Haste, under the circumstances, would be scandalous, and would be irritating in the highest degree to the Irish people; and it was quite evident that some of the English Members, as devoted to Liberal principles as the Government, would consider it disgraceful. He hoped the Government would not endeavour to exercise undue influence upon their supporters, but would consent to have this ques tion carefully considered at a becoming time, and when so many Members were not absent, and when Members would be in a better spirit for considering it. He also hoped that the Attorney General, having had his attention called to the complaints of the Irish people, would, between now and to-morrow, provide some suggestion which would meet with the exigencies of the case. If the hon. and learned Member brought in anything like a tolerable amendment to the law, he could assure him that the Irish Members would not treat it in an attitude of cold indifference, or in any captious spirit, such as had been manifested by the Treasury Bench that evening. MR. THOMASSON suggested to hon. Members opposite that they would not get a better division than they could have now, and said the question was merely whether any definition of undue influence was necessary? He thought the Committee might very well adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member, and report Progress, and then the Attorney General could consider what further Amendment was necessary. MR. JUSTIN MCARTHY pointed out that the leading Members from Ireland were not present. COLONEL NOLAN said, he thought it unreasonable to expect hon. Members who had been engaged in the House for more than 12 hours, as he and the At disposed to go on to a decision, as he had hoped they would, it was better not to waste any further time. MR. PARNELL said, he was very glad that the noble Marquess had agreed to report Progress, because he hoped to arrive at some compromise which might take a practical shape. The Attorney General objected to his definition of undue influence, on the ground that it was too limited. He, however, objected to the definition in the Act of 1854, on the ground that it was too wide. To-morrow they might examine the definition in the Act of 1854, and see how much they could give up. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman had not set his face against yielding any portion of that definition, which was passed before the Ballot Act under very different circumstances to those now existing, and which was certainly not needed now. He must either yield something in regard to the proposed definition, repeal the old definition, and grant a new definition, or else make undue influence an illegal instead of a corrupt practice. Either of those courses would meet the case. Motion agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock. LORD WOLSELEY'S GRANT torney General had been, to proceed (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exfurther now. MR. ILLINGWORTH said, he thought there was some force in the appeal of hon. Members opposite. He should regret any decision at that moment, because if that decision was adverse it would be against the appeal of the Irish Members on behalf of the great majority of the Irish people. The proposition of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was apparently made in a fair spirit; and if the Committee would, in an equally candid spirit, undertake to examine the proposal to-morrow, he was satisfied that the progress of the Bill would not be in the slightest degree retarded. He considered this question as one of primary importance to Ireland; and as Ireland was more affected than any other part of the Kingdom he thought the Committee should adjourn. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, that as hon. Members did not seem chequer, Mr. Gladstone.) THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) MR. R. N. FOWLER said, he had steadily voted for this Bill, and for Lord Alcester's Bill; but he wished to express his regret at the course Lord Wolseley had taken with regard to the Holy Carpet which was sent to Mecca. Lord Wolseley had presented a Memorandum, in which he argued that this was not a religious ceremony, and that the course he took was to pay a tribute of respect not to the Mahomedan religion, but to the Sultan. Lord Wolseley was a man of high authority; but he would venture to put against his opinion the opinion of Sir William Muir, a man equally emi nent, though in a different way, who was not only one of their most prominent Indian statesmen, having been Governor of the North-West Provinces and Minister of Finance in India, but who was also a great authority upon this subject, having devoted his leisure to the study of the Mahomedan religion. His Life of Mahomet was the best work on the subject. Sir William Muir had written a letter to The Standard, in which he contradicted Lord Wolseley; and he submitted that his opinion ought to have more weight than Lord Wolseley's. It seemed to him to be the duty of this country to protest against any sanction being given to the Mahomedan religion. This was still, he hoped, a Christian country, and they ought not to give their sanction to the religion of the false Prophet. tive. That was the regular duty of the Solicitor to the Treasury, who was constantly called upon to determine such questions. Clauses 2 to 7, inclusive, amended, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Payments made by directors under the power above given). On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:In page 3, line 13, leave out "the;" line 13, leave out "of any society;" line 17, after "society," insert "or savings bank." Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9 (Direction to give notice of interest nominated over £50 to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue). Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 24, after "exceeds," insert "after deduction of any moneys payable under the registered or certified rules of such society for the purpose of defraying the funeral expenses of such member the sum of."-(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.) Amendment agreed to. MR. O'SHEA said, he was sorry that this question had been brought before the House at that late hour. He was astounded to hear the hon. Member quoting the opinion of Sir William Muir, who was a Member of the Indian Council, and had sent round Circulars in favour of the Zenana Mission. When the Queen became Empress of India, it was clearly laid down that she was not In page 3, line 25, leave out from "shall," to to interfere with the religious beliefs of making payment thereof to a nominee or otherend of sub-section (1), and insert "before the people of India; and yet the hon. wise, require production of a duly stamped Member cited the opinion upon this sub-receipt for the succession or legacy duty payable ject of a gentleman who sent Circulars round to Members of Parliament in favour of the Zenana Mission. Motion agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. FRIENDLY, &c. SOCIETIES (NOMINA- (Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Burt, Mr. Albert (In the Committee.) MR. TOMLINSON asked for some explanation of the proposed reference to the Solicitor to the Treasury? MR. COURTNEY said, the object of this clause was to determine who should be the person, in case of intestacy of an illegitimate depositor having no legal representative, to receive the money of the member as his natural representaMr. R. N. Fowler Amendment proposed, thereon, or a letter, or a certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating that none such is payable."-(Mr. Courtney.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, leave out "nominated or."—(Mr. Courtney.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 36, at end of sub-section (2), insert" and the directors shall be at liberty before making such payment to require satisfactory evidence that the total personal estate of the deceased, including the sum in question, does not after deduction of debts and funeral expenses exceed the value of one hundred pounds."-(Mr. Courtney.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, leave out sub-section (3). — (Mr. Courtney.) Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. |