asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he can now state to the House what augmentation is proposed to be made to the salaries of the Assistant Barristers in Ireland, in consequence of the additional duties thrown upon them by the Irish Land Act?

said, he was not in a position to state what augmentation it was proposed to make to the salaries of the chairmen of counties in Ireland. A full Return on the subject not being in the possession of the Government it was impossible to come to any definite conclusion this year with respect to it. He might, at the same time, state that he was authorized to say that whatever augmentation might be proposed next Session would include the present financial year, so that the chairmen would not be losers by the delay which would occur.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Rope system of communication between passengers and the officers in charge of Railway trains has been reported on; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy of such Report upon the Table of the House; whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Colonel Yolland's Report on Major Wethered's system of communication, which has been declared by the Board of Trade to be a Report not unfavourable to that system; and, whether the Board of Trade is using or intends to take measures to discover the best means of communication between passengers and officers in charge of trains, and to encourage its adoption?

said, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade with reference to the establishment of a means of communication between railway passengers and guards consisted in signifying their approval of any particular arrangement. Under the authority which they possessed, they had approved the rope system in most instances, the exceptions being the South-Eastern and the South-Western Railways; in their cases the electric system had been approved. There was no Report within the last two or three years of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade with regard to the rope system; but there were elaborate Reports of Colonel Tyler and Colonel Yolland on the whole question of communication between passengers and guards, including that system. Colonel Yolland, he might add, had also reported on Major Wethered's system; but he was bound to say that he, as well as other Inspectors, considered it as being by no means the best mode of communication. The hon. Gentleman could see Colonel Yolland's Report if he wished; but there was this objection against laying it on the Table of the House, that if it were produced the same course should be pursued with respect to the Reports of the officers of the Board of Trade upon the plans of other inventors.

asked the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the practice in certain Poor Law Unions to arrange their Vaccination Contracts for the months of April and October only; whether an application recently made by the Guardians of the Hambledon Union to the Poor Law Board, to sanction such an alteration of their Vaccination Contract as would enable vaccination to be performed in the month of July in addition to the months of April and October, has not been refused; and, if he considers an arrangement safe by which children born shortly after the months fixed for public vaccination remain unvaccinated for nearly six months?

, in reply, said, it was the practice in sparsely-populated Unions to sanction vaccination contracts for the months of April and October only. The object of that arrangement was to secure the attendance of a sufficient number of children for vaccination and the supply of fresh lymph. It was true an application had been recently made to the Poor Law Board by the Guardians of the Hambledon Union to sanction such an alteration of the vaccination contract as would enable vaccination to be performed in the month of July; but the Privy Council had advised them not to assent to the arrangement.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Lords of the Treasury intend to extend to the clerks in the Custom Houses at the large outports the new classification adopted in London, as promised in Treasury Minute of the 10th December, 1868; whether their Lordships propose to pay to the clerks at the outports the arrears of the increase of salaries from the 1st of April, 1869, as has been, or is to be done, under Treasury Minute dated the 6th of March last, in the case of the clerks in the London Custom House; whether their Lordships intend, in making out the scale of salaries under the new classification, to pay any regard to the present cost of living and maintaining a family in the outports; and, whether it is their intention to make the salaries of the Customs clerks at the large outports equal to those of the clerks in London?

Sir, the Treasury Minute referred to in the first Question of my hon. Friend approved a scheme of establishment for the Customs clerks in London, and fixed their salaries; but as regards the clerks at the outports the Minute merely authorized the Board of Customs to prepare a plan, and no promise was given to sanction it. On the 1st of January, 1869, the Lords of the Treasury stated that it was not expedient to take any steps with reference to the clerks at the outports; but subsequently they have directed an inquiry to be made into the state of the Customs establishments at the outports, which inquiry, however, has been delayed pending a decision on the Warehousing Departments in London. Instructions have now been issued to proceed with the investigation, commencing with Liverpool, and then probably taking Dublin. The House; I am sure, will agree with me that it would be quite premature to offer any opinion on the measures which may hereafter be recommended by the Special Commissioners and sanctioned by the Treasury; but no doubt all the circumstances of the case, including those stated in my hon. Friend's third Question, will be duly considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the distinguished and devoted services rendered by the Reverend D. Smyth to British subjects during and subsequent to the late siege of Paris; and, whether any Report of the administration of the "Cave" Fund by D. Smyth and others in Paris can be laid upon the Table?

Sir, the humane and praiseworthy exertions of the Rev. D. Smyth, as well as those of Mr. R. Wallace, Mr. E. Blount, Mr. Alan Herbert, and others, have been gratefully recognized by Her Majesty's Government, and Lord Lyons some time ago was informed of the high sense entertained here of the conduct of these gentlemen during the siege of Paris, and if my hon. Friend will move for this despatch I shall be happy to present it to Parliament. With regard to the Special Report of the British Charitable Fund, I have a copy of it in my hand which I will leave in the Library for the Printing Committee of the House to decide as to whether it should be generally circulated; but I apprehend it would not be convenient for the Foreign Office to be called upon to print documents of this character.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state what amount of money has been recovered from the Government of Persia on account of the debts of a late member of the Persian Legation in this Country, and to ask him to state whether, under the circumstances, he does not believe it will be just to repay the debt incurred by Mr. Mackenzie, late Her Majesty's Consul at Resht, to a Persian subject, the bond having been secured under the Consular seal?

Sir, the late Minister of Persia in this country has remitted, since his departure, about a third of the whole sum that was claimed from him to meet certain specified liabilities in England. The case of Mr. Mackenzie was as follows:—When Consul at Resht he borrowed a sum of money, to be repaid in four months, of a merchant of Teheran, named Mirza Jafir. He was recalled within the four months, and left without paying. The Persian Government intervened on behalf of Mirza Jafir; but Her Majesty's Government have stated on several occasions that they could not hold themselves responsible for debts incurred without their knowledge and sanction. The case for the creditors was re-opened in March, 1870, by their lawyer, Mr. Pringle, who forwarded a copy of the bond on which the seal of Her Majesty's Consulate was visible; but in the copy of that document presented to the Foreign Office by the Persian Minister, the seal is the private seal of Mr. Mackenzie, and the copy is certified as correct by Mr. Abbott with the Consular seal, Mr. Abbott having been Mr. Mackenzie's superior Consul at Tabreez.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If a specimen of a new time fuse was not submitted to the War Office by G. F. Jobson in 1869; if since that time large numbers have not been made upon this principle; and, if any reward has been given to Jobson for his invention; and, if not, why such reward has been withheld?

, in reply, said, Mr. Jobson submitted a modified time fuse in 1869; but there is no proof whatever that his proposals or suggestions led to the introduction of any improvements into the service fuse. His claims to reward have been frequently considered and rejected. They were finally submitted to the Ordnance Council in January last, and it was decided that they were inadmissible.

said, he had placed on the Paper the Notice of a Question in the following terms:—

"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is still prepared to affirm 'that the Revised Statutes published by the Queen's printers, by authority, in 1870 to 1871, were authoritatively given to the people in accordance with the Report of a Royal Commission appointed by the Lord Chancellor, are now the binding Statute Law of the land"—

intimated that the House would doubtless permit the hon. Member to make an explanation without requiring him to move the adjournment of the House.

said, that the Question he intended to put to the right hon. Gentleman was not that which stood in his name on the Paper. The Question had been changed by the clerks, and the change annoyed him, because the Question was now made to appear discourteous and like the question of a cross-examining counsel, who asked a witness whether he was still prepared to affirm that which he had before stated. He had not the least wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman. He had been for many years, together with the right hon. Gentleman, a follower of Sir Robert Peel, and, though his support of the right hon. Gentleman's policy might now be called discriminating, he should be sorry to be thought capable of putting a question in a taunting style to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself set an example of courtesy which perhaps in time all his Colleagues would follow. The right hon. Gentleman, before he answered the Question the other night, probably consulted the Statute Law Commissioners, one of whom was Sir Erskine May, who could confirm the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Statute of Edward III., which had been referred to, was still the binding law of the land.

said, he felt bound to say that the hon. Member's observations extended to such a length that they could not property fall within the compass of a Question.

said, he would more the adjournment of the House.

said, that if he understood the case, it might be disposed of in two minutes. The hon. Member's Question was drawn in a certain form of words, and a slight alteration had been made in those words, leaving the substance entirely unchanged. As to the point whether the hon. Member is in Order in moving the adjournment of the House on such a matter, that must be left to the hon. Member's own discretion. There were certain Orders of the House which were distinctly contravened by the course now pursued. One Order was that on Mondays Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion; and if the hon. Member chose to move the adjournment of the House and raise a discussion on a Notice of a Question, he contravened that Order. Another Order was that on Mondays the Government should have the right to place at the head of the list of business such Orders as they thought it necessary to bring forward; but that rule would be contravened if, by moving the adjournment, an hon. Member gained precedence for a Notice he had put down on the Paper.

said, it was quite clear that by the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair he had a right to move the adjournment.

proceeded to say that, according to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the two volumes of Revised Statutes contained the law of the land; and the Attorney General admitted that the Statute of Edward III. was binding, when he said that it should be inserted in the Bill brought in to repeal certain existing statutes and parts of statutes. As had been remarked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the law should have no favourites, and, least of all, ought it to favour lawyers. The Attorney General said he meant to introduce a Bill to repeal that which he admitted to be a statute; but until he did so, in what position were those hon. Gentlemen whose sitting in the House was a breach of an Act of Parliament? But the object of his Question was to appeal to The Speaker, as the guardian of the privileges of the House, if the Clerks at the Table were allowed to do what they liked with the Notices which Members placed in their hands. The results of such a usurpation might become serious, and therefore it was that he addressed himself to The Speaker, who inherited the traditions of the Chair he occupied, that the practice ought to be checked before it became so common that it could be claimed as a right. He had been referred to Lord Brougham and Sir John Rolt with respect to the other Question which he had raised; but they were not charged with the care of the privileges of that House.

rose to Order. He wished to know whether an hon. Gentleman was in Order in stating over and over again as a fact a disputed question of law, and by which it would seem that he (Mr. Pemberton) committed a breach of the law by sitting in that House as a Knight of a Shire?

The House has not delegated to me any power of preventing hon. Members repeating the same argument over and over again.

, whose observations were rendered inaudible, concluded by calling the attention of The Speaker to the fact that the terms of the Question of which he had given Notice had been altered by the Clerks at the Table without his consent or knowledge.

I should be very unwilling to believe that the hon. Member put his Question on the Paper with the view of moving the adjournment of the House, and thereby introducing a discussion of the merits of a Question which has already been considered. I think that would have been a great invasion of the Rules and practices of the House. I understand that the hon. Gentleman objected to an alteration which has been made in certain words of his Question. I hold in my hand the Notice in its original form as given in to the Clerks. It appears that the only alteration made is by striking out a reference to a past debate by substituting for the words "whether he still adheres to the statement officially made by him in the House of Commons" the words "whether he is still prepared to affirm." It is the duty of the Clerks to follow the Rules of the House, and these provide that in Questions all reference to past debates shall be avoided; and on the present occasion they have altered the Question of the hon. Gentleman with the view of keeping it within the Rules. I cannot but much regret that the House has been occupied with this subject.

I rise, Sir, to answer the Question of my hon. Friend, and to thank him for the courteous terms in which he has been pleased to refer to me. With regard to the subject relating to the Clerks at the Table, I trust I do not go too far when I state parenthetically for myself, after long experience, in regard to Motions which have been put in by myself and others, that nothing more affects my admiration than the extraordinary precision, as well as rapidity, with which the miscellaneous Questions handed in to the Clerks are reduced to order and circulated all over London nest morning in a manner that forms a perfect masterpiece of Parliamentary machinery. As to the other point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I believe the case is this—that the point on which his Question turns is one of those points which, as a legal question, must be considered to be doubtful. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in stating that I represented to him, acting on the best information I could obtain, that the volumes to which he referred contained the binding Statute Law of the land. The Commissioners who compiled these volumes have, of course, no authority to rule doubtful questions. All they could do was to act to the best of their judgment; they were not armed with any legislative power. No doubt they so acted; but in determining the question whether any statute or ordinance should or should not be printed that would not affect the legal question, which must remain for the decision of the proper authority, whether the statute is law or not. My hon. Friend has given his opinion upon it, and I am extremely sorry that any remark of mine has caused him any trouble; I gave him the best information. I could, but I have no power to deliver an irrevocable judgment ex cathedrâ.

The hon. Member has said that he would move the adjournment of the House, but he sat down without doing so.

I rise for the purpose of seconding his Motion.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman sat down without moving. I hold it would be the wish of the hon. Member, as well as of hon. Members generally, that the matter should now conclude.

said, he understood the hon. Member to move the adjournment of the House, and he himself had risen for the purpose of seconding the Motion, when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government rose to answer the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tomline). If he was in Order he would second the Motion; if he was out of Order, he would be glad to hear the grounds of his being held to be so. He would not detain the House long; but he wished to make a few remarks. He would merely say in reference to this statute—[Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE: The statute does not exist.] If that was the case nothing further could be said on the question; but with regard to the other point, the alteration of Notices by the Clerks, it was one of which the House should take some account. He was the last man to impugn, and he was the first man to inquire into the way in which the Business of the House was conducted. He maintained that no man had a right to alter any Question which was put into the hands of the Clerk to be inserted in the Orders of the Day.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How soon the Report of the Commission on the Contagious Diseases Act will be in the hands of Members; and whether it is the intention of Government to propose any legislation founded on that Report during the present Session?

, in reply, said, the Report of the Commission would be in the hands of Members in the course of a few days. It was signed by 23 of the 25 Members, two being absent, one from illness and the other on duty. The number of dissents detracted from the unanimity of the Report. Two-thirds of the Members were in favour of qualified compulsory application of the Acts, one-third—or rather, seven—were in favour of strengthening rather than weakening the Acts; six were in favour of repealing all compulsory legislation, and all were in favour of further legislation, with a view of modifying the law to make it applicable to the whole country. Such a Report was intended for the information of Government, of Parliament, and of the whole country; and at this period of the Session it would be impossible for hon. Members to give due consideration to the Report so as to be able to pass a useful measure founded upon it. It was therefore not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. Strong feelings had been created in the public mind by the frequent repetition of statements that in carrying out these Acts outrages had been committed upon innocent and virtuous women; but those statements had not been confirmed. Had they been confirmed, it would have been the duty of the Government, under any circumstances, to repeal Acts capable of such abuse; but the Commissioners said that the result of inquiry was to satisfy them that the police were not chargeable with any abuse of authority; that they had discharged delicate and difficult duties with moderation and caution; and that there was no foundation for the charges which had been so rashly made and repeated, and which had contributed to excite public indignation against these enactments. That finding was unanimous, and an examination of the facts showed not only that many of these statements were gross exaggerations, but that the greater part of them were sheer inventions. The House would therefore see that the substitution of legislation for that now in force was a matter which required on the part of the Government deep and anxious consideration, which could not be given to it either by the Government or by private Members at this period of the Session.

I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with respect to the order of Business. The House agreed to the Irish Education Vote on Friday night on the understanding that the discussion might be taken on the Report, and I see that the Report is fixed for an hour to-night, which would render discussion quite impossible. There was also some intimation on Friday that there might be a Supplementary Vote, and that the discussion might be taken then; but it is not within my Parliamentary experience that discussion should be postponed till a Supplementary Vote is brought forward which is not even on the Paper. I have no wish to interfere unnecessarily with the conduct of Public Business; but, as I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) will fail to gain the opportunity of raising the fair discussion he wishes on the question, I would suggest that the Report should be taken at the Evening Sitting to-morrow.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has misunderstood in some degree what took place on Friday night last, because the arrangement then was that the discussion should be taken on the Supplementary Vote, and that Vote is now on the Table; but we shall be happy, if we can, to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and take the Report of the Vote on Account to-morrow evening. As the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the course of Business, I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to the subject, and for the sake of order I will move the discharge of the Order for Committee upon the Debtors (Ireland) (Re-committed) Bill, which stands for tonight. It will be all the more convenient that I should state the views of the Government, because rumours have appeared, with more or less apparent belief on the part of the writer of the paragraphs, in print, which may naturally tend to raise doubt and misgiving in the minds of hon. Members, with regard to the intention of the Government to abandon, in particular, the principal and most important measure now before the House. These rumours are founded upon a misapprehension—an agreeable misapprehension, but one which I am desirous to remove. It is assumed, I admit, in strict conformity to the practice of the last few years, that we are rapidly passing, or have almost passed, by that period of the Session when, in conformity with Parliamentary usage, Votes may be taken upon the principal Estimates for the services of the country, the Army and Navy, or when measures may, with advantage and propriety, be sent to the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I have looked into the matter, and I find, from instances to the contrary, that neither of these suppositions is supported by invariable custom; but that their existence has given rise to the presumption that there is a uniform rule as to the time after which there will be no proceeding as to voting money, or doing legislative business. It will be found, however, as might, perhaps, have been anticipated in a practical Assembly of this kind, that the House has in years of pressure met that pressure by devoting more time to the discharge of its Business. That, however, I know, is not a convenient or an agreeable course to any of us, nor perhaps, Sir, to yourself, and very glad should I be if you and we could be relieved from the inconvenience; but duty must come before convenience, and I wish to refer to the rule applicable to such a case. In the year 1862, which was not a year of pressure at all, the Army Estimates were only closed on the 22nd of July—not the Supplementary, but the original Estimates. In the year 1861, which was a year of some activity, though certainly not one of great legislative pressure, the Army Estimates were closed on the 27th of July, on which day the Navy Estimates were also closed. In 1860, which was a year of great legislative pressure, the Navy Estimates were not closed until the 20th of July, and the Army Estimates not until the 18th of August. In 1853, which was likewise a year of much business and activity, both the Army and the Navy Estimates were closed on the 9th of August. I have not had a search made into a long series of years, but was guided by my recollection of the years of 1853 and 1860, as indicating the manner in which the House adapted its convenience to the exigencies of Public Business. That is the state of the case as far as regards the Estimates, and it is not necessary for me to go into other cases where there have been Supplementary Army and Navy Estimates. Then, with regard to Bills, it appears to be an illusion with which hon. Gentlemen not at all unnaturally please themselves—and I feel, myself, a fond temptation to suppose that it is a thing without precedent, or almost without precedent, for Bills to be prosecuted in this House after we have reached what may be roughly called the middle of July. Again, I have looked back to two years within my own recollection, when the affairs of this country were conducted by the £10 Parliaments, as they may be called, and not by the Householders' Parliament, and I do not suppose that, in proportion as the constituency becomes more popular, either the zeal of the House of Commons or its disposition to make sacrifices for the public good is likely to become more slack. The two years to which I refer are 1833 and 1835, and in both of them I was myself a witness of and a participator in the whole of the proceedings. I will mention three of the most important measures of that very remarkable Session of 1833. The Irish Church Temporalities Act and the Irish Coercion Act had been passed at a comparatively early period of the year, but the East India Charter Act was read a third time in this House on the 26th of July, 1833; the West India Slavery Bill was read a third time on the 7th of August; and the Bank Charter Act Bill was read a third time on the 19th of August in the same year. Hon. Gentlemen will see, therefore, that there is still a large margin available, though I hope we shall not require to make use of it. One other case of legislation I will quote, because it is a remarkable one. It is the case of the Municipal Corporations Act, which those who sat in this House at the time will recollect was regarded as a measure of immense constitutional and political importance at the time it was passed, though the case and smoothness with which it was worked may diminish the liveliness of our recollections. Two of my hon. Friends who are sitting opposite will remember the occasion very well, and will agree that I have given a correct description of the measure. The Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced into this House on the 5th of June, 1835, it was reported from Committee on the 17th of July, read a third time on the 20th of July, and then sent to the House of Lords. With exemplary patriotism the House of Lords went thoroughly into the particulars of that Bill, and I believe they heard evidence and counsel on the subject. Their Lordships sent the Bill back to this House on the 31st of August, and the Lords' Amendments were not considered here until the 1st of September. They were considered for four days, during which time a conference ensued; a second Conference was held on the 7th of September, and the Bill was finally disposed of and made an Act of Parliament on the 12th of September. Therefore, there is time available for every reasonable purpose, and more, I trust, than is likely to be required for reasonable purposes under the present circumstances. I need not say, with these considerations in our mind, that the rumours which have been propagated as to the intention of the Government to recede from the prosecution of the Secret Voting Bill are wholly and absolutely without foundation. They rely upon the known and proved views of a large majority of the Members of this House, and they adhere without the slightest reserve to the intentions that they have hitherto declared. This being so, it has been their duty to review the Orders from time to time, and we have found that the number of Bills of secondary importance is so great that we think it will not be in the power of Parliament satisfactorily to dispose of them during the present Session. The Orders for to-night, so far as the Government are concerned, number 33, besides which there are several in the charge of private Members. We have examined that list with a view of ascertaining what measures it may be in our power to prosecute, for we are desirous to relieve those hon. Members who take a special interest in any of those measures from uncertainty in regard to them. First of all, there is the 15th Order for the re-committal of the Debtors (Ireland) Bill, which I shall move to discharge. The 16th Order relates to a subject which has been already discussed in this House on a point of form, though not upon its merits. It is a Parliamentary proceeding with regard to the Black-water Bridge Bill, and we think it better not to go on with it, because the subject is one which will require more consideration. The 17th Order refers to the Inclosure Law Amendment Bill, and it is with regret that we have arrived at the conclusion that it will not be possible to have that measure satisfactorily disposed of during the present Session. I may say the same of several other Bills—the Pilotage Bill, the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill. These are Bills of great importance, but they are likewise Bills requiring very considerable discussion of details, and we do not think it will be possible to obtain for them that full and thorough discussion which we desire. Then there is the Pharmacy Bill, which evidently could not be passed without a great deal of discussion, and that we propose also to withdraw. The next Order is the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill, which is an important measure, likely to be beneficial to Ireland; but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, who has charge of it, does not think he can fairly expect the House to pass it during the present Session. These are the eight Bills which it is not our intention to go forward with. After this statement of particulars, which I thought it desirable to lay before the House, I will conclude by moving that the Order of the Day for the re-committal of the Debtors (Ireland) Bill be discharged.

said, he wished to correct an erroneous impression of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government with regard to the division on Friday night, in reference to the Irish Education Grant. He wished to state that no factious opposition was raised on that side of the House. His hon. Friend proposed to move the reduction of the Vote, leaving a portion of it to stand over, in order that there might be a subsequent discussion; but the Chairman ruled that his hon. Friend, not being a Minister of the Crown, could not make that Motion. He confessed that hon. Members on that side were surprised at his right hon. Friend not moving that which as a Minister he might have moved.

I am extremely sorry that there should be any misunderstanding as to the proceedings on Friday night. The Chairman of Ways and Means undoubtedly did rule that no one but a Minister could move a Grant of money, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge should have expected us to bring forward a Motion. The fact, however, is that we had ascertained from the Chairman that that could not regularly be done, and if we had simply diminished the Vote we should have crippled the service for the year.

pointed out that up to this time only two Votes in the Navy Estimates had been taken. Consequently, the House had no opportunity of discussing important questions respecting dockyards and the supply of stores and ships.

inquired what the Government proposed to do with the Chancery Bill, which for the last three months had been placed on the Paper once, and sometimes twice, a-week.

We do not abandon all hope of proceeding with it; but some further statement on the subject will probably be made shortly.

expressed his deep regret at the withdrawal of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which both masters and men had looked forward to with anxiety.

said, he had been prepared for some such announcement from the Government with regard to the course of proceeding as had just been made to them, because, during the past six weeks, he had calculated that every Monday the Government Orders had numbered more than 30. That day there were more than 40 Orders on the Paper, and they were chiefly Government Orders. If that were the first occasion on which the Order Book was so crowded, he should have thought little of it, but should have regarded it as preparatory to the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he was about to sweep off the list eight of his Bills. Now, with 33 Orders of the Day still remaining upon the list, he held that it was totally impossible for hon. Members of that House to know what business was to be proceeded with and what was not; and he took that opportunity of humbly and respectfully representing to the House that, if they intended to understand the business which they were expected to proceed with, the House ought to remonstrate against the practice of thus thronging the Order Book, and rendering it impossible, amongst such a large number of Orders, to discover those which were to be prosecuted further. He had looked into the public newspapers, and with shame he saw that their playbills were distinguished from other playbills by nothing but their excessive variety. But he wished to comment, for an instant, upon the course which had been taken by the Government. It was this—they had now swept from the list various Bills, in particular the Mines Bills had just been adverted to, to which numerous sections of the population had been looking with anxiety; and they treated the present occasion as one of urgency, he might say as an emergency; but who had created that emergency? Who but the Government themselves? And what, he would ask, was their object in creating that emergency? It was this—they were determined that the country should not, during the Recess, if they could prevent it, have the opportunity of considering the Secret Voting Bill, which was, in itself, either a new Reform Bill, or the matrix of a new Reform Bill. Well, he presumed that that was the result of some arrangement entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the majority on the other side, whose conduct on that subject had been so unprecedented—unprecedented, that was, in their determination to vote, and their determination not to discuss. Why, they seemed to represent the very essence of secrecy themselves. They had entered into a secret understanding with the Government to coerce the House of Commons, and it was impossible to avoid that which they appeared most to dread—the reference of that measure to the country for mature consideration during the Recess, before they had the opportunity of forcing it through the House of Commons. But he also thought that they had another object. There was manifestly a desire on their part to produce a collision between the Houses of Parliament, and a desire to avoid a reference of that measure to the country before that collision was produced. He could not help thinking, then, that the only exigency which impelled the Government to act in that way was a party exigency; and, in his judgment, a party exigency was but a poor excuse for retaining in Session the Houses of Parliament, as though there were some great emergency which rendered it necessary.

said, he hoped the Government would re-consider their determination with regard to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill.

said, he should like to take notice of one observation which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government as to the practice of that House, and the course of proceeding with regard to postponing the Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned precedents for postponing Committee of Supply until the end of July, or even until August; but the unusual occurrences soon after the passing of the Reform Act would account for some of those postponements; and with regard to the later ones, both 1853 and 1860 were exceptional years in consequence of the change which had taken place in the Government. He was anxious that the House should bear this in mind, and that the attention of the Government should be called to the matter, because if Committees of Supply were postponed, two consequences must follow; one of which was that of late years it had led to the growing practice of taking Votes on Account, which was a most objectionable course, for it did not give the House the opportunity of considering the grievances connected with those Departments for which the money was taken. The other consequence was that so far as regards the two great services — the Army and the Navy—he did not believe that the Government could produce any instance in which the Votes had been postponed so late as in the present year. Now, if that proceeding were to be drawn into a precedent, a most dangerous consequence might be established, because at a future time the peculiar duty of the House to superintend and control the expenditure on the Army and Navy would be postponed to a period of the Session when there was not that large attendance of hon. Members which led to the Estimates being properly criticized. For those reasons, he hoped the House would impress on the Government the necessity of going into Committee of Supply at an earlier period of the Session.

said, he agreed with his right hon. Friend that the practice of taking Votes on Account was inconvenient; but that which had occurred this Session was still more objectionable, for money had been taken on account of the first two Votes in the Navy Estimates, which had been applied to other matters, without the policy of the Government as to those matters being either stated to the House or sanctioned.

said, the "Massacre of the Innocents" had that year been accompanied by threats and worthless precedents. The right hon. Gentleman had said he withdrew those measures because they required more consideration; and the same argument would apply to the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, which was likely to be made a good one if the opinion of the constituencies interested could be taken on the subject. That Bill might be withdrawn, and brought in again next Session.

, in supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), said, he should protest most strongly against the withdrawal of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. There never had been an occasion when the question was more ripe for legislation; both employers and employed had fully discussed it, and the question might be settled in a shorter time than it ever could have been before. He believed that two Saturday Morning Sittings would finish it. It was a matter affecting the welfare of thousands of their countrymen, and they had spent hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds to bring the Bill to the present stage. The greatest mortification and dissatisfaction would be felt if it were now thrown overboard.

said, he would make a similar appeal, for he was equally certain, with the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Mundella), that there existed no difference of opinion as to the principle of the Bill. The only variance was as to details.

Sir, in consequence of representations which were made to me, and with which I greatly sympathise, I promised to support these Mines Regulation Bills when they were brought before the House. No Bills have been brought forward in which a large number of people take a greater interest, and I think it one of the first duties of the Government to make arrangements that such Bills should be passed. One of the first duties of this House, we have always been taught, is to redress the grievances of the people, and these are real grievances of the people. This portion of the working classes looks with confidence to Parliament for redress; and I am authorized to say not merely on their part, but on the part also of some of the most important employers of labour whom I have seen, and others interested in mines, that there never was a happier moment for settling the question, for there never was a period when a better understanding prevailed between employers and employed; when all the questions arising out of this matter have been more thoroughly scrutinized; or when they have arrived at a more satisfactory solution of them. It is therefore with great regret I hear those Bills are to be withdrawn; and I must say that I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Colleagues, in order to carry not only those but various other measures of great interest, would make up their minds to withdraw the Bill for secret voting. That Bill is the great obstacle to the progress of useful measures in which the people feel the deepest interest, because they know that if they are carried they will materially benefit their position; and I do not think that they will be satisfied to see them sacrificed in order to carry a measure which, after all, is a mere political speculation. But if it be one of our chief duties to redress the grievances of the people, certainly our first great duty is to attend to the due expenditure of their money, and I cannot at all agree with the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived about closing Committees of Supply. Speaking without notes, but having a tolerably clear remembrance of what has occurred in reference to this subject since I have been a Member of this House, I think I may venture to say that there never was a period when the Committee of Supply, especially with regard to the Navy Estimates, was in such an unsatisfactory state of arrear. Only two Votes out of 19, I think, have been passed; and of the remaining 17, some clearly involve discussion, and I hope settlement by this House, as important questions connected with the administration of the Navy will then be brought forward. Irrespective of that, there is the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) with regard to the loss of the Captain, and it would be disgraceful to the House of Commons if Parliament were to be prorogued without going into that matter. A national catastrophe has happened, and when it has been asserted, and asserted upon authority, that that catastrophe can be clearly traced to mal-administratton in our Navy—without giving now any opinion of course myself but speaking of it in a desultory manner, it would be disgraceful to this House to separate without investigating that matter, as far as a Parliamentary discussion will permit us so to do. Here are the grievances of the people. Year after year a measure with respect to the miners, from whom I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation at my house on the subject, has been thrown aside, and it is again withdrawn, although the miners have been led to expect and believe that nothing could this Session prevent a satisfactory settlement of a question in which they are deeply interested. We are, moreover, told that there is no prospect of any arrangement by which we may go at an early day into Committee of Supply. When the right hon. Gentleman rose to communicate to us the decision of his Cabinet, I certainly thought it was not for us to question on this occasion the propriety of their judgment with respect to proceeding with the Ballot Bill, though I regretted their decision; but I supposed that that notification would be accompanied by an intimation being made to the House that fair and constitutional opportunities would be given to the House, particularly as regards the expenditure of the country, by going at an early period into Committee of Supply. But, as regards both these matters, we find that there is no prospect of our doing our duty to our constituents and the country generally, and I think it most unsatisfactory. It is certainly for the Government to decide how long they may think proper to postpone Parliamentary discussion; and when we remember the great responsibility of the Government, no one can seriously maintain that so long as they sit upon that bench they are not the best judges of that question. But we have a right to make conditions, and to say that we expect the business of a great nation as this is, if it is carried on by a large and an unusual sacrifice of time, will be conducted with a due deference to the constitutional privileges of Parliament. The bonâ fide control in Committee of Supply is one of our most valuable and important privileges, and if the right hon. Gentleman insists on proceeding with this Bill for secret voting, we have a right to expect that he should have secured to the miners of the United Kingdom the passing of these Bills, which they have regarded as a certainty, and which would have been accepted by all classes connected with that important branch of industry with the utmost satisfaction. I adverted earlier in the evening to another point, in the hope that I might have made a suggestion which would have removed some of the embarrassment of the Government, and at the same time have satisfied the representatives of Ireland as to that matter of education in which they are so deeply interested. I made the suggestion that we might probably take the Report on Tuesday evening, and then have the discussion; bat I find my efforts have been quite unavailing, for it cannot be brought forward at any hour which would give us a fair prospect of any satisfactory discussion, and therefore all I can do is to suggest to the Government to give to-morrow morning to that subject. The discussion will probably conclude at an early hour, and we could then resume our duties in Committee on the Bill for secret voting. After what occurred on Friday night, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to secure a fair consideration of the question of Irish education, and I am sure that the Government will not refuse Irish Members an opportunity of speaking upon a question which so deeply interests them. I deplore the state of Public Business, for our position could not be more unsatisfactory. I will not say that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a minatory tone to-night; but the adroit intimation which he made that if we do not meet him exactly as he wishes he will secure for us a great deal of personal inconvenience is to be regretted; because I am quite convinced that to attempt to force down a measure which no one can say is one of exigency or emergency—which is an unexpected measure—which is a different measure from that produced by the Government last year, and therefore, from the nature of that circumstance, an immature measure —I say, I think to attempt to force a measure of this kind upon Parliament by such a sacrifice as this—the sacrifice of the highest constitutional privilege of the House of Commons, in checking and controlling public expenditure, and the sacrifice of the most important interests of the miners, and compelling those industrious classes to forego that redress of their grievances under which they have been so long suffering, and which now might be terminated with the happy concurrence of their employers, is, in my mind, fraught, or soon will be, with great disaster to all concerned.

I rise with the intention of making some proposition on the part of the Government with reference to the Mines Regulation Bill. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the removal of the grievances of the miners is a matter of the first consideration, for although those grievances are deeply felt, it appears to the majority on this side of the House, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and his followers, that there are also grievances connected with the freedom of voting in which the people of this country take a still greater interest. I readily admit that the feeling in reference to the Mines Regulation Bill is great; but the Government must at this period of the Session be allowed to select which measures shall be advanced and which shall be withdrawn. However, there appears to me to be a chance, of which I would gladly avail myself, of passing this Bill which has been so long before us. There is, I believe, a general desire to settle this measure, which involves some questions of considerable difficulty. It is said that both masters and men are interested in the passing of the Bill, and that is true; but they are interested from different points of view, and, therefore, there may be a difficulty in disposing of them, except in Committee of this House. I would, however, propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, which should be so constituted as to represent all interests, in the hope that their efforts may succeed in narrowing to the smallest extent the differences which still prevail. It may then be possible to reduce the number of Amendments which now appear on the Paper, and, should there be then sufficient time still remaining at the disposal of the House, we might pass this Bill.

, who had some Amendments on the Paper, was understood to approve this suggestion.

said, he could not consent to go into Committee on the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill unless it could be fully and fairly considered. There were many points on which the miners of particular localities were specially interested; but their opinions would have little weight at the end of a Session. Under the circumstances, he should prefer to go on with the Ballot Bill.

remarked that the subject of regulating mines had been before the House for many Sessions, while the opinion of the country had never been asked about the Ballot Bill, on which not one-third of hon. Members were pledged to vote. It seemed, however, that all the legislation of the country must give way to that paltry, contemptible Bill. It was becoming clear to the country that the Government were theoretical and not practical, and were incompetent to conduct the affairs of the nation. Was not the position of the House becoming ridiculous? He recommended hon. Members to go home to their constituents, and to return to this House determined to pass measures of a more sensible character than the Ballot, which would destroy the straightforward character of Englishmen.

said, the Government could not accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), to take the Irish Education Vote the first thing to-morrow morning instead of the evening. After the Ballot Bill the first business that would be taken would be the Navy Estimates.

suggested that the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Mines Bills.

desired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to postpone the consideration of the Navy Estimates until the Ballot Bill had passed through Committee? He could only say that if the Government persisted in any such intention, it would tend to produce on the House a feeling of uncommon exasperation.

replied that, as far as the Government could at present see, the Navy Estimates would be taken the first time the House went into Committee of Supply.

contended that the Question put by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. C. B. Denison) had received no answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government do him the favour to give him a distinct reply? He might also observe that he could confirm what had that evening fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone—that the statement made by the Prime Minister was calculated to give rise to a very erroncous impression, for the fact was that as yet the Navy Estimates were almost untouched.

desired some information with respect to the course to be taken in connection with the inclosure schemes which had been before the House for the last three years.

replied, that one of the difficulties connected with the subject was that it was impossible to proceed with the inclosures until the House had decided the principles upon which the inclosures were to be made.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to give an Answer to the Question that had been put to him relative to the Navy Estimates, or whether it was to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman declined to state when he should be prepared to go into Committee. The House ought to have a clear understanding on the subject.

said, the House should be distinctly informed whether the Navy Estimates were not to be brought forward until after the Ballot Bill had been disposed of.

said, it was impossible then to name a day.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had intimated across the Table that it was impossible then to name a day. That was not the Question that was put to the Government, but whether the Navy Estimates were to be delayed until the Ballot Bill had been disposed of. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform one of his Colleagues, and let him state it to the House.

said, the only answer the Government could give was, naturally, that they would make the Business they had in hand their first consideration. They could not say how long the business would take, and therefore it was impossible to say, until they found what time they had at their disposal, what other business they would be in a position to take.

said, the Government appeared to make the Business of the House as disagreeable as they possibly could. The question of the unfortunate loss of the Captain, concerning which Motions had long been on the Paper, as well as the great question of the construction of our ships, were at least as important as the business that they were nightly in the habit of discussing. Owing, however, to what he might term the obstinacy of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman had hitherto not yet been able to pass a single measure; and the right hon. Gentleman, to punish the House, had determined to keep them there as long as his royal pleasure dictated, and to inflict upon them as great inconvenience as possible to induce them to submit to the course prescribed by his tyrannical Government.

asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to refer the Metalliferous Mines Bill to the same Committee as that which was to be appointed to deal with the subject of Coal Mines?

replied, that the same reasons for referring the latter Bill to a Select Committee did not prevail in the case of the former measure. In any case they would not be referred to the same Committee.

, in rising to move the substitution of the word "each" for "the" in the first line of the 2nd sub-section, said, that the object of this and the other verbal Amendments he proposed to make was that the returning officer should provide a separate voting paper for each candidate. He believed that this would be a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this measure to explain what mode he intended to employ for the purpose of taking this vote by ballot, for upon that point the Committee were still in the dark. The Times of that morning, in an article on the subject, had described it as

"The rudest form of compulsory secret voting that it was in the power of a Parliamentary draftsman to imagine,"

intimated that the Amendments placed in his hands were not those to carry into effect the objects which the hon. Gentleman contemplated.

said, he would not attempt to defend the drawing up of the Bill in all its details, but would be ready at any moment to answer any questions respecting it. The objects of the Government, shortly, were that the voter upon going in should receive from the returning officer, and from no one else, his voting paper; that the same official paper should be used by every voter; that the voter should vote in secret; and that the vote should be finally stamped before being put into the box. It was possible that the mode of voting suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might be more easily understood than the Government proposal; but the vote, if so given, would also be more easily detected by those who might desire to influence the voter, and it would have the effect of degrading vote by ballot, as it would destroy the secrecy of the proceeding; and for that reason it was impossible for the Government to agree with the Amendment.

thought the hon. Member's (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) proposition worse than the Government's. It was open to two objections. The stupid voter would not understand it, and the knave would find means of getting unused voting papers into the box.

said, his experience at the last election for the Corps Legislative proved that the vigilance of the returning officer's representatives would prevent fraudulent voting.

said, he was in favour of prescribing the form in which the votes should be given to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in connection with the voting for the school board, when in Marylebone alone 600 votes had been lost. The word "Ballot" having been struck out in the Lords the Amendment was agreed to on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, on the eve of the election, issued purely on his own authority a ukase, prescribing minutely how the votes should be given and recorded, and making infringement of his orders penal.

suggested that a simple form of ballot paper ought to be issued by the returning officer; that they should be all printed in the same type and on the same paper; and that there should be some precaution taken to guard against the use of spoiled papers.

remarked that his object was to make the process of voting as simple as possible, and asked that any suggestions hon. Members might desire to make with that object should be put in writing.

said, he should support the Amendment because he believed it would secure to the voter that power of discrimination among a number of candidates from which he would be practically debarred by the evil practice of ticket voting as it prevailed in the United States.

, on the contrary, said, the proposition in the Bill would more surely prevent ticket voting, because the official voting paper handed to the voter would contain the names of all the candidates instead of only those put forward by a single party.

said, in explanation, he desired the paper to be official, but to contain only one name.

said, he did not think the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had yet been met—namely, that a voter would have the opportunity of helping himself to spoiled papers, and of using them dishonestly. As a proof of the danger attaching to that proposal, he might mention that in the progress of the plébiscite, in reference to the transfer of Savoy and Nice to the French Empire, the official presiding over one division, finding that the voters did not come to the poll, assuming that "silence gave consent," placed all the affirmative papers into the electoral urn. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would guard against any difficulty of that kind. The regulations should be put in some conspicuous position, for no object could be gained by printing minute details upon the actual paper. ["Order!]

considered that his Amendment raised an important principle. In past Sessions the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) and his friends had frequently advocated the adoption of the system in operation at Maryport and some other seaport towns, and therefore his proposition was entirely in accordance with precedent.

, in the absence of his Colleague the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), proposed an Amendment to insert in page 3, line 19, after "shall," the words, "be endorsed personal-tender ballot paper."

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Carlow intended to bring up a new clause on that point.

said, an Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper in his name on the subject of personation. The question had been really discussed, however, on an Amendment previously moved, and he would not, therefore, re-open the discussion, though he thought his scheme simpler and more effective than that which had been before the Committee. At the same time he wished to repeat his impression that personation was one of the most serious defects of the Bill.

proposed at page 3, line 20, to leave out "as near as may be in alphabetical order," in order to insert "in the order of nomination." He believed that under the clause, as it now stood, much confusion would arise in the distribution of votes, and not only that, but he had an insuperable objection to mixing up Liberal and Conservative candidates.

said, he would agree to omit from the words "as nearly as may be in alphabetical order" the words "as nearly as may be."

said, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to move that the word "alphabetical" be omitted in order to insert "the order of nomination."

No; the Motion is simply to omit the word "alphabetical."

said, he would in that case agree with the hon. Member, because he himself intended to propose the omission of the word "alphabetical" in order to insert the word "such."

said, he also objected to the alphabetical order, and recommended that the arrangement should rest with the returning officer, or that each candidate should stand first upon an equal number of cards.

suggested that the order should be determined by lot by the returning officer.

strongly objected to that, and thought the best course would be to follow the order of nomination. Perhaps the difficulty might be got over by printing the names in a line instead of one under the other.

said, they would go to a division under very awkward circumstances if the word "alphabetical" was to be struck out; and they did not know what word was to be put in its place. He thought it might be very fairly open to the consideration of the Committee whether it would not be better to amend the principle of the alphabetical arrangement than to adopt the principle of selection by lot, which of all the proposals was one of the least satisfactory. There was something in alphabetical order, because the voters generally would know who the candidates were, and whether their own man stood first, or third, or fourth. There was also something to be said in favour of the candidates being placed in the order of their nominations.

said, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) was open to objection. He had no objection to the candidates being arranged alphabetically if the Committee preferred it; or, suppose they agreed that the order should be determined by lot, he would undertake that the order in which they stood should be published immediately.

said, he strongly contended for the arrangement by alphabetical order, which would give one uniform method throughout the kingdom, and was not capable of giving rise to disputes.

said, that he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he elected to abide by his original proposal that the names should be placed in alphabetical order, which seemed to find most favour, and, therefore, he must divide against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) proposing the order of nomination. However, he promised to consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), that the names should be printed from left to right, instead of from top to bottom.

said, he thought that the discussion which had taken place showed that the Bill was very imperfectly drawn.

said, he believed that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) would prevent any one candidate having the slightest advantage over any other candidates.

said, he was afraid that many of the electors would not know which of the candidates was of their own party, and to obviate that difficulty, he suggested that the names of the candidates should be printed in such colour as they might choose.

said, he could not accede to the suggestion, which he could assure the right hon. Baronet, he had, prior to that evening, had under his consideration. He objected to recognising in an Act of Parliament the old system of candidates of different parties assuming particular colours.

said, that he had an insuperable objection to separating the names of candidates of the same political opinions. They might adopt the system of lot in reference to nominations, so that the parties getting first there should not necessarily have precedence.

said, that he should, in the first instance, put the question, that the word "alphabetical" should be omitted.

said, he thought it was of great importance that the addresses and descriptions of candidates should be inserted, as otherwise much confusion would be likely to arise; for that reason he should oppose the Amendment.

said, the omission suggested had been proposed from the fact that the descriptions and residences of the candidates had been left out in the South Australian Code, and had been found to work well. He had placed on the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the names of the candidates should be printed in alphabetical order, with their residences, as was done in South Australia.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, as the plan of striking out names would, in his opinion, produce much misunderstanding. He hoped the printed square would be retained.

said, that if they ommitted the residences and descriptions, they would certainly have to provide for the case of two candidates of the same name. If they went into the question of whether the name should be struck out or inserted in a square, they might discuss it till the middle of September. It was a matter of comparatively small importance, and he should recommend hon. Members who wished to argue it, first to read the celebrated discussion in Gulliver's Travels between the Big-endians and the Little-endians. On the whole, he thought, to make the matter more certain, they had better retain both the description and the square.

said, he thought it essential that the addresses and descriptions of the candidates should be given, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.

said, that as regarded the first part of his Amendment, the difficulty had been met by the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council as to two candidates of the same name coming forward. He therefore would withdraw that portion of his Amendment, and with regard to the other portion he proposed to follow the same course.

said, it was important that the voter should be able to see at a glance the name of the person for whom he intended to vote, and therefore the cross should be placed close to the name. The surname should be printed in large type, and where there were more than one candidate of the same name then give the Christian name, and let the two be printed in different size type. Printing the names in colours would lead to fraud.

thanked the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) for withdrawing his Amendment. He thought the schedule might be improved, and he would undertake to give the matter his consideration, with a view to making it as simple and clear as possible.

advocated the adoption of colours because, from the ignorance of many electors, they would, he feared, when left alone, either vote for the first two names on the list, or give votes which would be invalid.

proposed an Amendment relative to the position of the square on the voting paper.

said, the Amendment had better not be pressed until he had brought up a new schedule.

said, he saw no objection to the addition. There would be an advantage in electors knowing before the day of election the number as well as the names of the candidates.

said, the objection was that the numbers would not be known before voting.

objected, on the ground that the difficulties of the uneducated voter would be increased by the squares being occupied by figures.

also objected to the Amendment.

said, if it was not already provided in the Bill, he would undertake there should be a provision to the effect that the form of the voting paper should be published as soon as possible after the nomination.

said, the Bill sufficiently provided a method simple enough to enable a voter to know whom he voted for. Whether it did or not, the Government strongly objected against any recognition of colours under that Bill.

maintained that the use of colours to distinguish the candidates would provide the easiest method, and it was highly important the people should have every assistance in recording their votes that could be given to them.

said, he must express a hope that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would give way upon this point. Both the educated and the uneducated voters in the constituencies generally voted a great deal according to colour.

observed that colour was one of the most essential things in guiding the voter to a proper vote that could possibly be imagined.

said, he was sorry that he could not accede to the appeal that had been made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk); but he did not wish to embody in an Act of Parliament the notion that a large mass of voters thought more of colour than anything else; and he believed there would be practical difficulties in the way of carrying out that proposal. In Ireland, for instance, colours were not hoisted at elections, but if that Amendment were accepted, orange and green colours would be used in that country, and that circumstance would not assist to the orderly conduct of elections.

said, the fact that a public display of banners and colours was not permitted in Ireland supplied no argument against that Amendment.

said, he knew that the humbler class of voters did not vote for individuals, but more frequently for colour. So long as they had government by party, considerations of colour must enter into elections.

said, he was of opinion that if hon. Members opposite objected to that Amendment, which would enable the elector to vote conscientiously, they had no faith in the principle of the Ballot. Even with the use of colours the voting would still be secret, and as it was important that the less intelligent voter should know how to record his vote, he should support the Amendment.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was mistaken in supposing that the Amendment was put forward because they believed voters cared more for colour than for anything else; but colour would symbolize a principle, and the Amendment supplied a practical means of assisting the voter. Unless that suggestion should be adopted, the Bill in that, as well as in other clauses, would act as a disfranchising measure. Under the present system every effort was made to secure a free and satisfactory exercise of the franchise, but the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would render voting odious. The Amendment was eminently calculated to secure a due exercise of the franchise.

observed that when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government returned to the House, after a lengthened absence, he was no doubt surprised to find that much of the opposition which had prevented the progress of the Bill had come from his own side of the House. ["Order!]

said, the hon. Member for Whitehaven must confine himself to the question before the House.

, continuing, said, he would point out that the objection raised to that sub-section was that it provided no satisfactory mode by which a man who was "incapacitated" could give his vote properly. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he had a remedy which would be found in the 8th sub-section of the 9th clause, but his interpretation of the effect of the provision was erroneous. In order to get the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty, he would make a suggestion founded on a principle which the right hon. Gentleman had already enunciated. ["Oh, oh!] He suggested as a means of obviating the objection to the use of colours, as party colours, that the returning officer should be instructed to choose certain colours to represent the candidates, and that these colours should be apportioned by lot to the different candidates.

said, the Amendment, while it sounded very well in theory, the Committee would see that it was perfectly impracticable. Who was to select the colours? If there were ten candidates, and if any two or three choose the same colour, what then? How were the colours to be distributed? [A VOICE: By lot.] And who was to determine between them? The adoption of such a proposal would give rise to a great amount of confusion, and instead of enlightening the voter, it would produce the greatest perplexity in his mind. Those hon. Gentlemen who said that the persons who had been admitted to the franchise by the Reform Act were fit to exercise the vote, now told the House that they were unable to read, and required the aid of colours to enable them to exercise their right.

said, he would always protest against any educational standard being set up. The Bill provided that—

"Persons who were blind or otherwise incapacitated might apply to the presiding officer to fill up their printed papers,"

said, he thought the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) could only expect one answer to that suggestion. If it were adopted the result would be to defeat the object of the Bill, because any undue influence exercised on the voter might oblige him to state his willingness to allow the returning officer to fill up his paper. If the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had attended to the progress of that Bill, he would have been aware that he (Mr. Forster) had already answered the question whether the words quoted included a person who could not read or write, when he had stated that they did not.

It seems to me that this is a disfranchising Bill There seems to be an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to establish what I shall be always opposed to—an educational test in the exercise of the suffrage. Now, it is not every man who can read or write. I know able men who cannot read or write, and I should be sorry to deprive them of the privilege of voting. This Bill is framed in total ignorance of human nature, and I am certain if we are persuaded to pass this measure in this crude state the whole country will laugh at us.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had sneered at the colours used in Irish elections; but the reason why colours had had a bad effect in Ireland was, that the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged had always tried to put one set against another. The confusion which took place in elections in Ireland was because the Government, and the party the right hon. Gentleman belonged to, set one party against another for their own private purposes.

asked why Government was so strongly opposed to colours. Some of them had shown very great versatility on the question of colours, and he could not understand what objection there could be to colours. This clause should be postoned, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had no remedy to propose, in order that some means might be devised for obviating the difficulty, which had been stated, to the clause.

said, he had no idea, when his Amendment was proposed, that it would give rise to such a discussion, and the arguments which had been used against it had not convinced him of the necessity of withdrawing it.

said, that it would be desirable to distinguish the candidates in Ireland by colours.

said, he must point out that if they allowed a candidate to impress his colours on the voting papers he would display them also on flags and banners, and in that way the old election practices would be revived. He hoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment.

said, that sub-section 3 was really only surplusage, and therefore he would move its omission.

said, that he did not think that the sub-section was necessary, and to propitiate the hon. Member for Whitehaven he would consent to the Amendment.

said, that the candidates' names were to be printed on the papers, but a candidate might subsequently be withdrawn. If his name still continued upon the papers, and he were elected, how then would the matter stand?

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) to the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It was, of course, competent for the hon. Gentleman to move to omit sub-section 4, but it was not competent for him to move to insert the words which he proposed. The same objection applied to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), inasmuch as the clause in question was one dealing exclusively with the regulations as to the mode of taking the poll. The Amendments, then, to which he referred should be made the subject of another clause.

said, he was then at a loss to know how he could amend the clause by substituting the words he proposed for sub-section 4, which he wished to have struck out, and which proposition he would move accordingly.

said, he must remind the Committee that he had undertaken to amend the clauses by providing for a larger number of polling-places. He hoped in a short time to be able to lay upon the Table the Amendment which he proposed to make, and he therefore hoped the Committee would postpone any further discussion upon it until they saw the clauses which the Government proposed to insert in the Bill.

said, he must take the same exception to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) as he had to that of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), and to that of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), because it did not relate to the mode of taking the votes on the polling-day, but to the making out of the list of voters. The Amendment was perfectly relevant to the Bill, though not to the subject-matter of that clause.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

then moved the omission from sub-section 5 of the words "the returning officer shall provide for every polling station a compartment." He objected altogether to compartments. He could not conceive anything more contrary to the practice of an Englishman voting for a Member of Parliament or a town councillor in any other than an open and distinct manner. He was in future to be sent into a compartment to grapple with materials of which he had no previous knowledge. At Whitehaven they were not adopted, although the Ballot had been in operation there at municipal elections ever since the year 1708. Although he was himself opposed in toto to secret voting, he must admit that under the system practised at Whitehaven for more than 160 years no election had been disputed, and there had been no cases of fraud. It was the system adopted in various clubs in this country, and was well understood.

said, the Government must adhere to the proviso as to compartments, in order that the electors might vote in secret. The system had been tried in Australia and found to work well.

hoped the proposition would not be pressed, as he did not think it affected the general question.

thought the clause required some Amendment, even if all the objections raised by his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk did not apply to it.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council expected that voters could be told off like sheep to a pen.

replied there would be no telling off. If there were 450 voters to be provided for, the returning officer would simply have to provide three compartments.

wished to know how they could get a person of such a mathematical mind as to carry out an arrangement of that kind.

believed the plan as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to be impracticable.

said, the hour was not late (12.15), and the Committee seemed to be just getting into the spirit of the Bill, but he should not resist the Motion.

said, he strongly objected to the indirect repeal, by means of that Bill, of the Act of Charles II., which constituted the only legal recognition of the sanctity of the Lord's Day. The operation of the Act should not be left entirely to police officials, but the public should have some voice in the matter.

said, it was the intention of the Government to leave the door open for something of the nature proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone.