involving heated political differences. | number of Members, who were only When Mr. Justice O'Brien—who died a known to fame as combatants who had few months ago-was upon the Bench, conducted very severe and expensive he was a Judge of the old school, and election contests, had been created Bahe adminstered justice according to the ronets. He made no imputation upon abstract principles of justice; but, at the the Government, or upon the hon. Baropresent moment, there was not a single nets themselves; he only said that the Judge in Ireland whom, in the matter of Government might have reserved the an Election Petition, he would trust, new creations until the Bill had been if their political prejudices were strongly read a second time. He thought such a enlisted on either side. The only rea- course would have been more simple, son he could see in favour of two Judges because, on an occasion of this kind, the was that if both of them were of op- House was apt to draw inferences; and posite politics and Party partizans, the when he came to consider the claims of view of one would counteract that of these Gentlemen to the dignity conferred the other. If the Liberal Ministry upon them, he felt almost inclined-using was in power, it was desirable that the expression applied to the Claimant there should be a Tory Judge, and if -to put them in the same category as there was a Tory Ministry in power, that "unfortunate nobleman." When then there ought to be a Liberal Judge. Gentlemen with such claims were apCare should always be taken that when pointed Baronets, Her Majesty's Gotwo Judges were appointed to try an vernment must not complain if the Election Petition in Ireland they were, House felt inclined to be a little inquiat least, of opposite politics. He had no sitive as to the services they had rentrust whatever in the impartiality of dered to entitle them to the dignity. He Irish Judges in political matters, and the therefore repeated that it would have sooner the House made up its mind to been better and more simple for the understand that question the better. Government to have reserved these high They were men who at an election, pro- distinctions until the Corrupt Practices bably through bribery they had prac- Bill had passed through the House. tised, had got a seat in the House of There was another matter to which he Commons, and they were pitchforked on wished to refer-namely, the question to the Bench when they had served the of penalties. The Under Secretary of purposes of the Government of the day. State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles In Ireland there was nothing of the W. Dilke) had stated that upon that noble example occasionally set in Eng-point, as well as regarded the Elecland of appointing a Member of the Opposition to a seat on the Bench. He was obliged to admire the spirit which had induced the Prime Minister to appoint Sir John Holker-the late Member for Preston-to a Judgeship. It showed the total absence of Party feeling; and what he wanted to know was, why they could not do the same in Ireland? Unhappily, they never saw anything of the kind there; and why he approved of having two Judges appointed to try Election Petitions instead of one was, that he saw some slight additional safeguard in the matter. This was a Bill to prevent undue and corrupt influence; but it seemed an extraordinary thing that, on the eve of the second reading of a Bill to prevent corrupt practices, the Government should have created half-adozen Baronets for Party purposes. On Thursday they were discussing the second reading of the Bill; and on Tuesday or Wednesday he had read that a

tion Judges, there was no disposition to apply too hardly the question of penalties. In Ireland what they had to fear, so far as their constituents were concerned, was that there might be a strained interpretation by partizan Judges of what was called undue influence. He desired that there might be a clear definition of the phrase "undue influence." For instance, a popular candidate in Ireland generally marched into a town and out of it accompanied by a band and banners. Perhaps there was a little disturbance, and a few windows got broken. He did not think that was an unusual event even in England. Occasionally a head got broken; and it would be a very hard thing indeed if, when such things occurred in the heat of an election, they were to hold the candidate liable for the injury done on the score of undue influence. What might happen if it were left to an Election Judge, or to two Election Judges, appointed under

[Third Night.]

the Bill, unless a strict definition of the | some cheque; and, if he desired to meaning of that phrase were supplied, contest a constituency on the Liberal was that the successful candidate might be deprived of his seat, even when the broken glass and broken heads were supplied by his opponents. The Judges would be asked to inspect the broken glass and the broken heads; they would at once cry out "undue influence," and unseat the Member. He (Mr. Healy) thought that would be a very strange interpretation of the Bill, and one which no Irish Member could consent to support without considerable criticism. He also objected to the proposal to prohibit the candidate who was alleged to be guilty of undue influence from sitting for the constituency. As the Bill stood, a candidate found guilty of a breach of any of the provisions of the Bill would be prohibited from sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years. Let him be prohibited from sitting for the constituency among whom it was established that undue influence had prevailed for 10 years; but it was far too severe a penalty to say that he could not sit for any other constituency at all. Why should anything that happened in Yorkshire prevent a man from sitting for Wexford? Why should a man, simply because he was alleged to be guilty of undue influence in one quarter of the globe, be prevented from sitting for a constituency in another? He had no objection to prohibit him sitting in the House of Commons for the same constituency; but he confessed that he was unable to see the justice of placing him under a general disability, because a few panes of glass had been broken by some boys he had never seen, and of whom he knew nothing. This was a Bill which laid down that all expenses in excess of a maximum should be illegal expenses, and an illegal practice. No doubt, the introduction of that clause, so far as England was concerned, would be hailed with satisfaction. But he would suggest that, if all expenditure in excess of the maximum was to be considered an illegal practice, the first thing that ought to be done would be to disestablish and disendow the Reform Club and the Carlton Club, which were the rings that interfered so greatly in these matters. He was told that if a man wanted to fight a constituency on the Tory side, he had only to go to the Carlton Club, where he would get a hand

side, it was only necessary for him to go to the Reform Club. [Alaugh.] If his allegations were unfounded, it was only his virgin innocence that induced him to make them. At all events, statements of this kind were currently made; and, therefore, instead of bringing in Section 9 of the Bill, which declared that all expenditure in excess of the maximum should be considered an illegal practice, they could bring in a clause declaring that, whereas the Carlton and Reform Clubs were reported to the House to have encouraged the dissemination of corruption hitherto, they should be in future disestablished. Then there was the question of throwing upon counties the expenses. Section 33 declared that power was to be given to the Election Court to order payment by the county or borough of the costs of the Election Petition in certain cases. His knowledge of elections was so slight that he was unable to say how the English counties or boroughs were to be made to pay the election expenses, which were to be thrown upon them by the Judge; but, so far as Ireland was concerned, he was not aware of the existence of any other machinery than the Grand Juries for providing them. Therefore, in the case of Ireland, he strongly objected to any such mode of procedure. As it was well known that the Grand Jury system in Ireland was thoroughly abnormal, he warned the Government that if they intended to make Grand Juries the means of enforcing payment of the expenses, they must look out, when they went into Committee with the Bill, for a discussion upon the Grand Jury system. The Government were themselves pledged to re-model and revise that system; nevertheless, at a time when they admitted that the machinery was inadequate or rotten, they introduced a clause in the Bill which threw heavy expenses on the counties, and empowered Grand Juries to mulct the taxpayers to meet them. He was, therefore, not prepared to consent to the Bill in its present form ; and he contended that, as far as Ireland was concerned, no case had been made out for the Bill. He was with the Government in any attempt they might make to cut down election expenses; but Ireland was, so to speak, virgin soil, and Members were in that country

babies. However that might be, he repudiated the necessity for the Bill in relation to Ireland, which was an electorally pure country, whose people, as he had before pointed out, were simply anxious to find men who would serve them properly in Parliament.

MR. R. N. FOWLER said, he rose, in pursuance of the intimation he had given on Tuesday, to ask leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment, upon the ground that later consideration led him to believe that the question raised by it could be better dealt with when the Bill went into Committee. Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed

frequently returned to Parliament free in boroughs, expected that candidates of cost. He was himself practically would call upon them. In former days returned free of cost, and the expenses although the custom, it seemed, had of his hon. Friends were exceedingly been since done away with-he believed moderate. His argument was that the candidates were required to kiss the Irish constituencies found that there was a great lack of suitable candidates to represent them in Parliament, and they were only too happy to pay the expenses of such candidates when they were found. For instance, on the opposite Benches he saw several hon. Members who would never again serve in Parliament as Representatives of their present constituencies. He referred, of course, to a class of Members who were known as nominal Home Rulers; and at a General Election it might happen that a number of candidates were required to oust these Gentlemen from their seats. In that case the constituencies would be only too willing to pay the expenses of the new candidates, in order to bring about that result. Therefore it seemed to him extraordinary that the Govern- for Monday next. ment should be eager to carry out their plan, seeing that the constituencies were quite willing to pay the expenses of suitable candidates. Of course, he considered the Bill only so far as Ireland was concerned. With regard to England, it was well known that the smaller English borough constituencies were notoriously corrupt. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No!" but that was alleged; and if they were not corrupt, he would ask why the present Bill was introduced? It was impossible for him to regard the Bill as anything less than an indictment of many Members of the House; and he considered that they were called upon to plead guilty or not guilty to the indictment brought against them in this country. For his own part, he pleaded "Not Guilty;" and he objected to the introduction of a Bill which, however necessary it might be in England, was nothing but a slur upon the people of Ireland, and almost an insult upon Members representing Irish constituencies. The fact was the Irish Members had no money to throw away, and the Bill seemed to proceed on the needless and erroneous assumption that they were possessed of the wealth of Croesus. He objected that the Bill was unnecessary, and that it ought not to be brought in for Ireland. With regard to canvassing, he thought provision ought to be made in the Bill for putting down that practice. Many persons, especially

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS asked whether the Government would be able to name any particular time when the Bill would be taken in Committee? The learned Attorney General had met the objections raised to many portions of the Bill in an extremely fair and candid spirit; and it was probable that, having listened to all that had taken place in the debate, some points might have occurred to him on which he might be inclined, on the part of the Government, to make certain alterations in Committee. If that were so, he ventured to suggest that those alterations should be put upon the Paper as soon as possible, in order to avoid similar Amendments being put down by hon. Members, and thereby shorten the discussions in Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, that Notice of the Committee stage of the Bill would be given as soon as possible. He would endeavour to keep in mind the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he thought the more convenient course would be for hon. Members to give Notice of their Amendments, and he would then endeavour to say whether they could be accepted, either in conversation with hon. Members, or by statement in the House.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he thought it would be an advantage if the Government would put down the Schedule suggested by them.

[Third Night.]