The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1881-02-26 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

THE CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.  From the statements one reads in Tory newspapers it would be supposed that the Corrupt Practices Bill was aimed at that organisation which is commonly known as the "Caucus." On Monday, a Conservative daily paper seriously informed its readers that the passingof the Corrupt Practices Bill would be the death blow of the Caucus, and it was interesting to watch the struggle and to see who would give way, Mr. Chamberlain or the Attorney-General. Now, whatever opinion may be held concerning the leaders of the "Caucus," it is not generally supposed that they are fools, nor are they the men of all others who would be likely to be guilty of the crime of political suicide. And yet if these Tory statements and hopes are well founded, the " Caucus" leaders must be placed in one or other of the category. It is a matter of the commonest notoriety that the " Caucus " has had the chief hand in framing the Corrupt Practices Bill. There is far more of it owing to the fathorship of Mr. Chamberlain than of Sir Henry James. This Bill is certainly trusted to the guardianship of Sir Henry James in the House, but be has had a very small hand in drafting it. The deputation which waited on Sir Henry James on Thursday last from the National Liberal Federation has led to some slight misapprehension. The deputation objected strongly to the pro ions of the Bill limiting the expenses of elections according to the number of voters, and enemies of the Caucus, only too happy and eager to take an advantage, however unfair or unworthy, at once pointed the moral that the "Caucus," anxious to bribe, objected to the lessening of election expenses. This is:a favourite theory with Conservatives, that the successes of the " Caucus " are due to bribery. Knowing themselves but one way of winning elections, they naturally believe that no other exists, and this, despite the fact that the returns showed a much heavier expenditure at the last general election on the part of the Tories than of the Liberals. But the deputation did not object to the lessening of expenditure at elections. it is part of the object of Of; " Caucus " to effect that very purpose. What the deputation objected to was the principle on which the expenditure was lessemd. Minimise the expenditure as  much as possible, said the deputation, but do not carry out that object on a crude principle that will be neither fair nor wholesome. By the bill the expenses are limited solely according to the number of the voters, irrespective of whether the constituency be a small borough, a large borough, or a county. But it is manifest that a sum of stoney, more than sufficient to contest a small compact borough of a thousand voters, would be btally inadequate to pay the legitimate expenses of a wide, straggling, but sparsely populated county containing no greater number of voters. And even in boroughs there is a wide difference, for the Bill would make it almost impossible to contest some small agricultural boroughs, where the number of voters would oely legalise the spending of a nominal sum, whilst in huge, densely-populated boroughs the legal amount of expenses would be excessive and far more than the necessities of the case required. And yet po difference whatever is made by the bill, all constituencies are regarded alike, the only point considered being the number of voters. The effect of the provision would be ery injurious. It would certainly make bribery in small boroughs and counties very much more difficult, but it would open the door on a large scale to bribery, where it does not now exist. in large boroughs, and would induce the' starting of bogus candidates in order to justify the doubling •f the expenses. Then again, though it is wise to cut down the expenses by the prohibition of paid canvassing, is it wise, at the same time, to limit the amount spent in printing and advertising to a perfectly inadequate sum 1 If paid canvassing be abolished, surely that is a reason why :b more extended use should be made of printers' ink and paper. The electors must be appealed to in some way, and you do not get a tithe of them present at public meetings. Newspapers cannot be expected to undertake the work gratis, and therefore we think it most impolitic to place so narrow a limit upon the amount spent on printiag and advertising. The Government, when this matter is urged upon them, cannot fail to see how injudici6ns and injurious is the basis upon which the limitation of expenses is founded, and we believe will not place any difficulties in the way of a wiser and juster principle.