I beg to move, "That this Clause be read a second time."

I view this Clause very differently from the last Clause brought forward by the hon.. and learned Gentleman. I see no objection to it in principle, and I agree that it is important that everyone should have a knowledge of the law, and that no one should have any excuse for not knowing the law. I think it is a suggested expedient which might, in the first elections at any rate, possibly be of real service to ignorant plural electors. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should put down this Clause on the Report stage, and, with that object, should withdraw it now. It was only put on the Paper this morning, and there are one or two points in connection with the wording of it which I am not satisfied with. If he will put the Clause down for the Report stage, I shall be prepared to consider it with my Friends with a view to possible amendment in the wording of the Clause. I feel there is nothing in principle against the Clause.

Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman not only sees no objection in principle, but that he really means to insert some Clause on the Report stage which will actually carry out these proposals?

That is my intention.

It is most important to have some provision in the Bill requiring the returning officer to explain to every voter who goes to the poll that if he votes more than once at a General Election he will be committing an offence. A large number of people never read the Debates in this House, and the sole knowledge of many people of our proceedings is derived from one or two snippets in the "Daily Mirror," the "Daily Mail," or the "Daily News," and there are some who do not even know that much. One of the reasons why we should have this provision is that it will be to the advantage of Radical agents to encourage Tory voters to vote more than once if they can. It will also be the object of Tory agents to encourage Radical plural voters to vote more than once. Therefore I am quite certain that the agents of various parties will probably not take any steps to inform the plural voter that he is likely to commit a crime, and it is essential there should be some prominent notice displayed at the entrance to every polling booth rather than in the polling stations. [HON MEMBER "Agreed."] I am very glad to hear that the Members of the House are agreed.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that on the Report stage he would consider this Clause with his Friends. At the same time he used an expression which rather raised my suspicions. He said that it would be useful in the first election. Does that mean that he would limit it to the one time? If so, I think it is obvious there will be no sense in that.

I had no such idea. What I had in mind was that it would be more valuable at the first General Election than in the others.

There is another consideration which the Government have to bear in mind in framing the Clause if they are going to accept the spirit of the Clause. For instance, there is the case of the universities. This Clause takes no account of universities. Would it not be necessary to insert some corollary provision in the case of universities? In that case something would have to be printed upon the voting paper. All these are matters which I recognise may require "some consideration. I am only a little surprised that this valuable idea should not have occurred to the Government earlier.

I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill whether he would not accept the Clause now? All the hon. Members on that side, as well as en this, are in favour of the new Clause. They have been calling out "Agreed." I will give some reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept it now. First of all, it would stop the discussion; secondly, we do not quite know how far we shall be able to get on the Report stage. It is quite true that new Clauses come first on the Report stage, and we may have it put down again on Report, but as we are only going to have one day we may not get very far on that stage. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Clause now? It will save time on the Report stage, when we may not have very much time to discuss other matters, and it will save time now, because the acceptance of the Clause finishes the discussion. It may require amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot amend it now he can surely amend it on the Report stage. That would take up less time and save us discussing the matter over again.

I am prepared to put a new Clause down myself in these or some similar words, but I cannot commit myself to any particular words until the Report stage.

The usual course is for the Government to accept the Clause and then to introduce the Amendment on the Report stage. I think that was what they did on the earlier part of the Bill. That is the course I ask the Government to adopt now.

I think the usual course is, that when the Government does not accept the words of any proposal, they undertake to carry out the object by introducing words of their own at a later stage. That is what I propose to do as we are not prepared at this moment to accept the new Clause in the words proposed by the hon. Member.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

The proposed Schedules are covered by the Bill as it stands. There are two proposals to amend the Preamble. As there is no Preamble the Committee cannot amend it.

On a point of Order. If there is no Preamble, is it not possible to move to insert one?

No. That would be a new practice, and in any case it could not be done without an Order from the House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of what it leads to he will understand why I cannot allow such a novel practice as that.

I rather gathered when I first put down the proposed Preamble without 'the words, "which cannot at once be brought into operation," that it was not in order, but I gathered that if I -was willing to include these eight words at the end you would allow it to be brought forward. I understood you to say it would be in order if I added those eight words, and, therefore, I put it down in that form.

The hon. Member came to me on Tuesday last week, before, I confess, my careful consideration of the Amendment had gone so far as the Preamble. I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. It is not competent for the Committee to introduce a Preamble where it does not exist in the Bill as introduced.

Is it not a fact that the result would be that the Preamble would become the prerogative of the Government and it would be for them to decide whether their will would be expressed in that form in the Bill or not. It would be possible for the Government to absolutely debar private Members from moving a Preamble to a Bill.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman introduces a Bill he may insert a Preamble or not, but it is not competent for the Committee to insert one where one does not exist.

The title of the Bill states that it is "a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." My Amendment would make it read to impose a penalty on any elector who votes or asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency at a General Election. I think it will be obvious to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Amendment is certainly desirable and absolutely necessary, following on the discussion which we had in connection with this particular point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull). It is a question of the penalties to be imposed upon a person for asking for a ballot paper in more than one constituency. The point occurred to my mind immediately I had an opportunity of perusing the terms of the Bill, and, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory way in which the Bill was drafted, it was my intention to have moved to amend it. I had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter in a speech which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. My objection was taken to the whole Bill on the ground that it exceeded its title, and I think the subsequent Debate in Committee has completely justified that contention. I might have raised the point even before the Second Reading, but at that time two or three objections of a similar character were raised by two other Members, and Mr. Speaker's ruling on those objections was in effect that possibly there was something in the objections, but so long as the Bill was in general conformity with its title Amendments could subsequently be moved to the title, and that was the proper course to pursue, rather than uphold an objection to the whole Bill on the Second Reading. Having regard to, that decision by Mr. Speaker on the objections, which were raised before I had an opportunity of dealing with the particular point I had in my mind, I thought it was, on the whole, better to leave the matter then for the time and to put down an Amendment for discussion in the Committee stage, which would deal with that particular point. Unfortunately, Mr. Whitley, you decided that that Amendment was not one which could be dealt with, and I now desire, in order that the Bill may be brought into accord with the title, that the alteration I suggest in this Amendment should be submitted for the approval of the Committee. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had a rather long but, as it turned out, a rather unsatisfactory discussion upon this particular Amendment at an earlier stage in the Committee, and the result was in my view that, although the right hon. Gentleman was willing to accept an Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Shropshire, it did not in the opinion of a large number of hon. Members on these benches, including myself, in the least degree satisfy many of the objections which we very rightly took to the very loose way in which the Bill was drafted. It was pointed out in the course of that discussion that university voters would be placed—

All this is very wide of the question. The hon. Member must understand that any opportunity for debating or moving Amendments to the title must be confined to the very small point whether the alteration is necessary to bring it into conformity with the Bill. This is not a question of the merits of the title or of what happened in Committee.

I was trying to meet the possible objection that this point had already been dealt with in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. What I desire to emphasise for the purpose of bringing forward this Amendment is the fact that in the opinion of a great many of as, although we admit that the position is not so bad as it was in the original drafting, we are satisfied that cases of hardship and injustice can still arise, and that it is desirable, in the interests of everybody concerned, that they should know that they are liable to penalties, not merely for voting in more than one constituency at a General Election, but also they are equally liable to the same penalty if they ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election. The question of the university voter was dealt with—

The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the merits of the Bill, and he is taking much too wide a flight.

I am only anticipating difficulties—

The hon. Member must not anticipate arguments which I have ruled out of order.

To justify this alteration I have to show that there are two distinct offences, otherwise there is no point in snaking this alteration. If it was merely an attempt it would be included in the penalty with regard to actual voting, and there would be no necessity to change the title. To justify the alteration I have to show that there are two offences under the Bill, and not merely one. I will allude very briefly to the case of the university voter, because it was clearly shown by the hon. Member for Cambridge University that that difficulty was not met by the hon. Member's Amendment. Let us take another case which was not dealt with. I am trying to show that there are two separate offences under this Bill which are not indicated in the title unless the change I suggest is made. Take the case of the voter who goes into the polling booth with the intention of registering his vote in that constituency. Suppose that after asking for his voting paper he is taken ill and is unable to register his vote—

The hon. Member is not justifying his Amendment at all. As I have already pointed out, the opportunity given by our Rules for amending the title is a very small drafting point, simply whether it makes the title conform better to the Bill. Hon. Members will recollect that Mr. Speaker himself said that it is impossible to put the whole Bill into the title, and it is equally impossible to put the discussion on the whole Bill into a discussion on the title.

I think there are a large number of hardships and injustices—

I call upon Sir Frederick Banbury.

I beg to move, in the title of the Bill, after the word "votes"["a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes "], to insert the words "or asks for a ballot or voting paper."

I agree with the hon. Member that the label ought to be accurate and that it should describe as near as possible the precise contents contained within the four corners of the Bill. The point is whether this alteraton will make the label better or worse. It is not true that this Bill imposes a penalty on every elector who asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency, because it is necessary that the elector should do it for the purpose of so voting. That is effectively described by the present label which imposes the penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency, and the title is none the worse for being short.

I think the Solicitor-General has been disregarding the ruling of the Chair, because he has been arguing this point on the merits of the Bill. He has been arguing that the Bill does not, as a matter of fact, impose a penalty on persons who ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency, and that was the point which my hon. Friend was arguing when he was called to order by the Chairman.

I am sorry if I was negligent enough to allow that argument to pass. Had I observed it I should certainly have stopped the Solicitor-General.

If that is the Solicitor-General's defence of the title as it stands, then it is an unsound one. We have not now to consider whether the Bill does or does not impose a penalty on everyone who asks for a voting paper. It is enough that it is general and happens in a certain number of cases. Why is the title not to be made to correspond with the Bill? The Solicitor-General says it must be a short title. A short title is already provided and the long title is intended to describe the Bill with accuracy. This Bill is supposed to be scrutinised in this House and the other House, and the title is intended to indicate generally the contents of the Bill. I do not think the defence which has been offered is at all an adequate one, and it would only be adequate if the Solicitor-General was entitled to enter into an elaborate examination of the Bill in order to show that the words of the Bill did not have their apparent significance. The Bill as drafted does contain a second offence, and unless you can examine the merits of the Clause the case cannot be made out. I hope my hon. Friend will divide the Committee upon this Amendment.

I agree with the Solicitor-General that you ought to have the title accurate and short. No one suggests that you should put on the label a full and detailed description of the Bill, but you should, at any rate, indicate what the Bill contained. Anything more misleading than the title of this Bill it is impossible to conceive. The title is "A Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election," but the Bill contains nothing of the kind. This is a Bill which creates an offence, and the imposition of a penalty is merely ancillary to the creation of the offence. If you look at the label, it is quite consistent with the offence already existing. In an Act of Parliament you should define what is going to happen to you if you break the law. This Act creates the offence and imposes the penalty. If the title has to stand in that short form, instead of calling it an Act to deal with the offence of voting in more than one constituency, for goodness sake let us be accurate and state exactly what you are doing. It is not only for voting in more than one constituency, but there is the entirely separate offence of asking for a voting or ballot paper for the purpose of voting, and to anyone hunting for this Bill there is nothing in the title to guide him as to its contents. Surely you should, at any rate, state that the penalty is to be imposed for two offences which the Bill creates for the first time. As the title stands, it is only for one offence, although the Bill imposes it for two. Surely this is an Amendment which the Government ought to accept!

The Solicitor-General is so anxious for brevity that he is willing to sacrifice the truth. The title of this Bill at present consists of eighteen words, and, with this addition to bring it into conformity with truth, it would still be a great deal shorter than the title of the Parliament Act.

The Solicitor-General, I am sure, desires to be accurate, but the Government are creating two totally new offences. It has always been considered to be a laudable object to endeavour to cast your vote wherever you have the qualification, and one has asked for a ballot paper for that purpose, but under this Bill you turn that into an offence. The very least you can do is to make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill what you are doing, and, in the interests of all. I do ask the Solicitor-General to accept this Amendment.

May I appeal once more to the Solicitor-General? I understand him to say that my Amendment is not correct because the penalty is not imposed for asking for a ballot paper, but only for asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting. That, of course, is quite correct. The Amendment no doubt was put down in the interests of brevity, and it is perfectly clear and intelligible, but, in order to shorten the discussion, I am prepared to add to my Amendment the words "for the purpose of so voting." That will make it fourteen words instead of eight. Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of keeping out fourteen words, allow the title to be misleading, and continue the discussion of what, after all, is suite a minor point. I would almost say

The hon. Baronet puts it so pleasantly that one might easily consent without thinking what it would mean. I am afraid I cannot agree to the hon. Baronet's suggestion, because the next thing that would happen would be that he would point out that unfortunately his new title did not correspond with the contents of the Bill, because it forgot to mention that it authorises a new question to be asked of voters.

No, I agree not to raise any further point.

If the Government do not accept the words "for the purpose of so voting," I must say that I prefer the present title, because the penalty is not for asking for a ballot or voting paper, but for asking for a ballot or voting paper with the intention of voting. Therefore, unless the Government accept the whole words, I think the present title is more in accordance with the Bill than the words suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

On a point of Order. The Question, "That the title stand part of the Bill," has not been put.

The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There is no