PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COR-
RUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES)
BILL.-[BILL 7.]

Bill again considered in Committee. THE CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). But it seems to me that they apply generally to the cost and sale of articles, and to matters of trade during an election, and that they do not properly refer to any corrupt practices; nor do they even state that the expenditure is incurred by the candidate. Therefore it does not seem to me that these expenses in any way come under the purview of the Bill. Certainly the first Amendment does not, and the second, which relates to the expenditure incurred in making provision for ballot boxes, would be more properly introduced into the Ballot Act. I should not, therefore, consider that it would be in Order to put either of the hon. Member's Amendments from the Chair.

ral that it was of no use making appeals to the Committee if he did not stick to his guns. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had continued in the position in which he was on Tuesday when the Committee separated, there would have been no difficulty about this question at all, as they were quite prepared at that time to go to a Division. What, however, had happened now? Why, when the hon. and learned Gentleman was challenged by hon. Members below the Gangway, he put forward the extraordinary statement that he was in the hands of the Committee, and that he wished to follow not the principle which the Government had hitherto adopted, or any principle that was in his own mind, but simply that which might be agreeable to the Committee. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman threw down on the Table an Amendment which was exceedingly objectionable to him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) and to hon. Members sitting near him; but in all probability, when it came to be argued, it would be found to carry out the views of hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House. However, it was not to say this he had risen, but simply to protest against this back-tended that the first Amendment was in wards and forwards policy. Surely the hon. and learned Member had had plenty of time to consider the matter, and to make up his mind what he was going to do.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE wished to ask the Mover of the Amendment whether he considered that a person who lent a tricycle to another person for the purpose of proceeding to the polling place would come within the scope of the Amendment?

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 54; Noes 244: Majority 190.-(Div. List, No. 155.)

Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, being come with a Message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.

MR. BIGGAR wished to submit that the first Amendment was in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

MR. BIGGAR said, he did. He con

Order in this way. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the Amendment is irregular, and cannot be put. If the hon. Member has any point of Order to raise I am ready to hear him; but I cannot hear him in support of the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR wished to remark, on the point of Order, that one of the most common forms of corruption consisted in paying excessive prices for things that might be legally required, and he thought the object he had in view in bringing forward the Amendment was perfectly within the scope of the present measure. It must be well known that one of the most direct means of corruption was the practice of paying extravagant prices for goods and services which might not be of an illegal nature in themselves. He, therefore, submitted that the first Amendment was not irre

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair. Message to attend the Lords Commis-gular in providing for the insertion of sioners;the following Sub-section

The House went ;-and being returned;

"No payment shall be recoverable for any work done, services rendered, or goods supplied during the progress of any election contest at

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent any higher rate than the usual charges for to several Bills.

similar work, services, or goods in ordinary

Mr. Cavendish Bentinck

times; in all cases when a claim is made or an | hon. Gentleman had given Noticeaccount furnished at twice what is fair no costs namely, in line 30, to insert the word shall be allowed to the plaintiff, and the Court may order the costs of the defendant to be deknowingly." The clause would then ducted from the amount decided by the Court readto be due; in all cases when three times or up- "Subject to such exception as may be alwards of a fair price is asked no payment what-lowed in pursuance of this Act, if any payment ever shall be recoverable, and in case proceedings or contract for payment is knowingly made in are taken the plaintiff will be liable for the costs contravention of this section either before or of the defendant." after an election," &c.

In regard to the second Amendment, he proposed in the same clause to insert another sub-section to provide that-

"When ballot boxes and other apparatus have been paid for by candidates for county elections, they shall be lodged in the custody of the sub-sheriff for the time being, and shall be supplied for the use of future elections without charge to the candidates, except for necessary repairs; and, notwithstanding the maximum limit for fitting up polling booths, furniture, hire of rooms, &c., it will not be competent for any returning officer to pay more than is reasonable or fair for such necessaries, or be able to recover more than is reasonable or fair for

same.

"

Perhaps the Amendment might more reasonably come under the Ballot Bill, if that Bill came before a Committee during the present Session. But, certainly, in regard to the first proposal he respectfully submitted that it very properly raised an important question in regard to a most common form of corruption, and was not, therefore, irregular. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not seem to me to be one which I can put; and, in my opinion, it is clearly

out of Order.

MR. CALLAN said, he wished to move an Amendment which was not upon the Paper. He proposed to make a slight change in the first paragraph of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); and he would

move

"That any payment for any work done, or services rendered, or goods supplied during the progress of an election contest at any higher rate than similar work would be done for, at any other time, shall be deemed to be an illegal and corrupt practice."

THE CHAIRMAN: I am unable to put that Question. It seems to me to resemble almost in actual words the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), which I have already ruled to be out of Order.

MR. LEWIS, in the absence of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), wished to move an Amendment of which the right

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, after "is," insert " knowingly." -(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he accepted the Amendment, and he intended further on to submit a clause to relieve innocent persons from penalties which they might have incurred inadvertently; or, rather, he intended to extend the clause already in the Bill in regard to other illegal practices. He made this statement now in order to show that in this direction, and also in regard to other matters, he wished to do all he could to prevent any serious consequences falling upon an innocent person.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN moved, in sert the words "the issuing of the Writ." line 31, after the word "before," to inHe was not quite sure that the clause as it had now been altered did not accomplish what he desired. The point which he wished to raise by the Amendment had reference to the expenditure which might have been going on for weeks or months previous to the election. For instance, he wanted to provide that the extensive preparing of canvassing books or other expenditure in that direction should be deemed an illegal expenditure if it took place before the issue of the Writ. But probably the Attorney General might say that the insertion of the word " knowingly" embraced all he had in view. He would, however, propose the Amendment, in order to afford an opportunity to the Attorney General for explanation.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after "before," insert "the issuing of the Writ."-(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he did not quite [Eleventh Night.]

apprehend what the hon. Gentleman | the best and easiest means of grinding meant by saying "before the issuing of down the rights of the public. He the Writ." An Amendment to that effect might apply to the very day before the issuing of the Writ. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amend

ordinary business of an elector to exhibit for | payments and contracts with an elector, payment bills and advertisements, a payment to in the ordinary course of business. He or contract with such elector, if made in the did not quite understand what that ordinary course of business, shall not be deemed to be an illegal practice within the meaning of meant. How long back did it refer to? this section; but such elector shall be deemed How many elections might there have to be employed for reward for the purpose of been going on? Suppose it had been the election, within the meaning of the enact- done at the last election, would that be ments mentioned in Part Two of the Third Schedule to this Act, and accordingly shall not be sufficient? He was afraid the clause, as entitled to vote, and if he votes his vote shall it stood, would give rise to no end of litigation. Supposing a person actually occupying particular premises had gone away, and a new person had come in, business" still apply to the person who would the words "ordinary course of succeeded? He did not profess to be a lawyer, or to understand legal terms; and, therefore, he should like to know whether this was an ordinary mode of expression in an Act of Parliament ?

be void."

The hon. Member said, his reason for moving the Amendment was that last Session the House agreed to the principle that, under no circumstances whatever, should an elector who received payment for services, or any act done by him during the election, be allowed to take any part in the election. That seemed to him to be really the main principle of the Bill of last year; and in moving the rejection of this subsection he was anxious to raise that question at once. He had put down, further on in the Bill, Amendments which would raise the question again; but this was the thin end of the wedge, and if the Committee were of opinion that no elector should receive payment, under any circumstances, during a contested election, then he asked them to

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, the sub-section was intended to cover a case such as that of Willing, the advertising agent, who let hoardings for the exhibition of bills. Several speakers the other day, in discussing an earlier sub-section, pointed out that some such provision must be made, and that was the effect of The principle of the Bill was that, where the debate which occurred last year. an elector was employed, he was emsupport him in this proposition. He ployed of necessity, and he was not to knew it would be argued against him vote, and this sub-section forbade him that electors in such a position were to to vote. In answer to the question of be deprived by the Bill of the privilege the noble Lord as to whether the disof voting; but, on the second reading ability would attach to the premises or of the Bill, he had mentioned to the to the individual, he took it that it would House that such a provision would have follow the individual, and not the prevery little practical effect. It had hap-mises. It would depend upon the busipened in his own case, and he believed it had happened in other cases, that the object of a candidate would be to for hire certain voters whom he knew to be against him. That happened to himself when he stood for the borough of Athlone; and it was likely to happen again in many other constituencies, and for that reason he begged to move the omis

engage

sion of the whole of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, leave out Sub-section 3.-(Mr. Sheil.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the

Clause."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, he thought it would save time if the hon. and learned Attorney General would answer a question he wished to put to him. The sub-section spoke of

ness of the individual. In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), if he followed the hon. Member's arguments correctly, he understood him to point out that the insertion of this sub-section would be in conflict with the general principle of the Bill.

MR. SHEIL said, it would be in conflict with the principle of the Bill of last

Session.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he thought not. The Bill of last Session laid it down as a general principle that where an elector was employed and paid he was not to vote, and the adoption of the present sub-section would still prevent an elector, under the same circumstances, from voting. Seeing that there was this restriction in the clause, he did not think it necessary to accept the Amendment. It was not a new subject, but one that had been discussed before,

[Eleventh Night.]

and a necessity for some such provision | front of the house, and to receive some had been fully admitted.