asked the Secretary of State for War, When he intends to bring in the Bill alluded to in the Correspondence laid upon the Table of the House on the subject of the Supersession of Colonels in the Royal Army?

According, Sir, to the interpretation put by Lord Cranworth's Commission upon the Acts of 1858 and 1860, and to the Report of Lord Cairns' Commission of 1870, there is no power to give effect to the Report of the Select Committee of last Session without the interposition of the Legislature. The intention of the Bill is to afford the opportunity of dealing with that Report with a qualification agreed to by the India Office. That Bill has been prepared, and I shall be ready to introduce it when a suitable occasion offers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would lay upon the Table of the House so much of the Reports of Drs. Gordon and Wyatt in relation to their recent sojourn in Paris, and in connection with the French Army, as will throw light upon the character and treatment of wounds received during the late war and siege, and any successful or defective system of hygiène which the Reports may contain for the guidance or caution of the Military or Civil medical and surgical profession?

I have, Sir, already stated that these Reports are made by medical officers who visit foreign Armies, and are received in a very friendly spirit; they are Reports of no value unless they are minutely critical, and are, of course, of a confidential nature. I have not yet seen these Reports in type, and am not prepared to engage that I will publish any portions of them.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has any information as to the approach of Cholera; and, whether he considers that there are now existing sufficient powers in the central and local governments of the country to protect the population from its ravages?

Sir, as I only saw the Question in the Business Paper this morning, I shall not be able to answer it so fully as I otherwise might. The latest information I have received on the subject is to the effect that cholera has for the this two years been in Russia, and since August of this year in St. Petersburg. Since April of this year it has been in Wilna, and other western places; recently it has increased in St. Petersburg, but not nearly so much there as some months ago, and the disease is said to have some diffusion in the western provinces of Russia. We need not assume that this bodes any immediate danger to this country. We have no knowledge of any cases in Germany, but I have requested the Foreign Office that special inquiry on this point may be made at Berlin, and that if cholera is, or arises, in Germany, Returns respecting it may be systematically forwarded to us. While thus there is no reason for immediate alarm, or for any particular action of central authority, there is ample reason that local authorities should exert themselves in the removal of nuisances, and should watch with extreme care over the sources of water supply within their districts. Water companies should be mindful that the greatest disasters produced by cholera in this country have been due to their distribution of sewage - tainted water, and every care should be used by them, in good time, to prevent the recurrence of any such mischief. Their customers, too, should watch them, narrowly. Authorities and water companies, acting as advised, need not be afraid of wasting their trouble; for whether cholera comes or does not come, they will be preventing other diseases. The danger of cholera is one against which the central Government can do scarcely anything—not because the law gives insufficient jurisdiction, but because from the nature of the case, everything depends on local action. The Medical Department has given to local authorities in systematic memoranda, and is constantly in various ways giving anew, the best information which it can afford in aid of the local exercise of sanitary powers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have been invited to send a Representative to a Customs Conference which is to be held next month at Berlin, having for its object to arrive at an improved system of classifying goods in tariffs, and the simplification of Custom House business; and, whether it is their intention to send a Representative to that Conference?

said, in reply, that no invitation had been received by Her Majesty's Government to send a Representative to the Conference, and the Board of Trade had no information that such a Conference was about to be held. He had made inquiries at the Foreign Office, and as far as the Government knew, judging from the information received from Berlin, they had no reason to believe that any such Conference was proposed by the German Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, To inform the House of the nature of the Constitutional Reform Act just passed by the Cape Parliament; and whether it makes the Executive Ministry completely responsible to the Legislature of that Colony?

Sir, no Constitutional Reform Act had been passed by the Cape Parliament according to our latest information. What had occurred was this—the House of Assembly had agreed to Resolutions in favour of responsible Government, founded upon which a Bill had been introduced, but had not yet been passed. The main, object of that Bill was to render Ministers responsible to the Legislature by enabling them to be elected and take their seats therein. At present they are allowed to sit, but not as elected members, and not to vote.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he has considered whether advantage might not be taken of the approaching autumn encampment and manœuvres of troops to test the plan of Infantry equipment with the newly adopted valise system proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Carter, which can be done without any cost, as fifty sets of the proposed equipment are at present in the Military Stores?

Sir, after a series of trials and experiments extending over some years, the new valise equipment has been adopted for the Army. The Reports of it are most favourable in every respect, and it is liked by the troops. On the other hand, the knapsack proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Carter has been fully and fairly tried, and has not been found satisfactory, and the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief recommends that no further trial of it be made.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could inform the House whether the Sultan's Government has recently taken steps in favour of civil and religious liberty; and, whether any advance has been made in securing that Christian evidence shall be admitted in Courts of Justice, on a footing equal to that of testimony given by Mahometans?

Sir, all accounts from Turkey agree in confirmation of the progress made in that country by the Sultan's Government towards toleration, and much has been done of late years towards raising the position of the Christian population in Turkey. The Imperial Ordinances promulgated by the Porte within the last few years have granted to its subjects, irrespective of religious distinctions, privileges and immunities hitherto accorded to its Mussulman subjects alone—namely, equality as regards the levying of the taxes, the just administration of the laws, and the right of admission into the public service of the Empire; but up to the present time it is only in mixed causes that Christian testimony is on an equal footing with that of Mahometans. I may add that recently a Christian has been nominated to a seat at the Council of Ministers at Constantinople.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is in a position to state what course the Government intend to pursue with regard to the appointment of the Mines Regulation Bill Committee?

, in reply, said, he had communicated with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Department with reference to this Bill. From the opinions which had been expressed as to the Committee, he was led to believe that it would not materially shorten the labours of the House, he therefore did not intend to proceed with its nomination.

Sir, it may be convenient to the House that I should take this opportunity of answering a Question which was asked—not to-night but on Tuesday last, and which I promised I would answer this evening—as to what clauses the Government, on reconsideration, propose to omit from the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill. We have been very careful in going over the clauses and considering what, with due regard to the object we wish to accomplish in the Bill, can safely be omitted. I feel sure that the House would not desire, notwithstanding the length of our discussions, that we should strike out of the Bill any clauses which in our opinion are necessary in order that the Bill, when it actually becomes law, should be properly carried out. When we brought the Bill forward four objects were contemplated—first, an alteration in the mode of nominations; secondly, an alteration in the mode of taking votes, which, of course, was a provision of the Bill, and gave it the general name of the Ballot Bill; thirdly, the amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act; and, fourthly, the new provisions for charging the rates with the legal expenses of elections. With regard to the first object—an alteration in the mode of nominations—the Committee have already dealt with it, or almost entirely so. With regard to the second provision—for taking the vote by Ballot—wo have had several meetings of the Committee upon it, and we have arrived at a point at which the principal provisions have been assented to by the Committee. We are now on the supplementary provisions with reference to elections by ballot; but, judging from the Amendments on the Paper, and from what has happened, we have no reason to suppose that any long discussion will arise on the other questions as to taking votes by ballot. Nevertheless, we have carefully gone through these clauses to see whether any of them could be safely omitted, and we have come to the conclusion that we can only recommend the omission of one, though that is an important clause. That is the 30th clause, which is one of the penalty clauses, and provides penalties against voters who do not follow the directions given in regard to voting secretly. We have come to the conclusion that as the Committee assented to the 19th sub-section as it then stood—the 18th as it now stands—of the 3rd clause, which declares a vote void and not to be counted unless that provision be complied with, we hope that will be a sufficient penalty, and that ballot may be enacted without any other penalty. That is the only omission we propose to make with regard to the Ballot clauses. We then come to the two other objects, and, first, the amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act. The clauses relating to this subject are from 22 to 28 inclusive. Clauses 22, 23, and 24, although amendments of that Act, are clauses which seem necessary to us, because we introduce the system of ballot so as to guard against personation. I need not repeat—it has often been stated to the Committee—that we do not think personation will be increased by ballot; but, taking precautions against it, we think it right to adhere to those three clauses. We then come to the 25th and 26th clauses. Clause 25 provides for bringing before a magistrate any person arrested for personation. We propose to omit it, because that provision is in principle secured by the present law. We then come to a very important clause, which is entirely new matter in the Bill. It is an amendment of the Parliamentary Elections Act, passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) in 1868. The Government are still of opinion it would be a good amendment of the Act. It is a clause relating to the expenses of candidates, and if we had unlimited time at our disposal—if we were at the beginning of the Session instead of the end—I should not hesitate to ask you to enter upon it; but under present circumstances I think we may safely postpone it; first, on account of the pressure of time; and, secondly, because of the facts I shall shortly detail to the Committee. The Parliamentary Elections Act passed in 1868 was passed only for three years. Therefore, this year we shall have to make provision for its continuance; and, instead of making provision for another three years, we propose to continue it merely for one year, with the full understanding that next year it shall be brought before the House, not merely as a continuing, but as a subject of amendment; and we think that new matter of amendment would be best treated at that time. This applies not merely to Clause 26, but to very many of the new clauses put on the Notice Paper relating to canvassers, &c. There is another amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act which we must treat in the same way if there is any differences of opinion or likelihood of any long discussion on it; that is a clause to prevent Election Committees being held in publichouses. So far as we can learn, there is an almost unanimous feeling in its favour, and I do not propose to omit that. We then come to the fourth point which I alluded to—namely, charging the legal expenses on the rates. It is true that is new matter, but it is very important matter, and in the opinion of many hon. Members in the House, and many electors outside, it is a question very desirable to settle at the same time when settling the question whether we do or do not take the vote by ballot; and the Government being of opinion that it is a most important provision, and one we should be very glad if the House would adopt as brought forward; although there is pressure of time we do not think we can advise the House not to take it into consideration this Session. It is first stated in the 18th clause. All the clauses from the 18th to the 21st relate to that question, and therefore must be considered as affected by it. But at the same time, as it is new matter, it is desirable that we should deal with all the other clauses first which relate to the Ballot, and to guard against personation. Therefore, supposing, as I have good reason for hoping, that we may to-night reach the 18th clause, I should propose to take the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th clauses before we take that clause. On the clauses after 28 I can hardly expect there would be much discussion, for they are almost formal clauses, being provisions that would be generally agreed to. The only other point on which I have to make any statement relates to a new subject which has been brought before us during the discussion in Committee, and that is in regard to polling-places. We had not introduced originally any provision as to polling-places, because we naturally did not want to add to the Bill provisions which we did not think exactly belonged to the subject. But in accordance with a wish which seems to prevail on both sides of the House, although first expressed on the opposite benches, I have put on the Notice Paper clauses with regard to polling-places in England, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland has done the same with regard to that country. We propose to go on with these clauses; at the same time, wishing to be perfectly fair to the House, I should state that we propose to go on with them and press them on the Committee, believing them to be important, but, under the circumstances of the Session, if they were likely to lead to any very long discussion—that is, if they were not in principle accepted—we should doubt whether it was advisable to proceed with them this year, more especially as they would naturally, if not settled this year, come under the provisions of a Registration Bill for counties, which I conceive cannot be postponed beyond next year. That would be the proper place for them, but I quite agree with the hon. Members who have taken an interest in this matter that it is advisable to settle the question now if it can be settled. I have only, therefore, to state that I shall in the course of the evening put on the Paper a Notice for the omission of Clauses 25 and 26, and Clause 30, and the postponement of Clauses 18 to 21; or, if we come to them to-night, I shall move their postponement till after we have got through the other clauses.

To be taken up afterwards?

Where a clause is postponed it is taken up after the other clauses as they stand in the Bill.

said, there was an elasticity about the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman which looked as if the Government wished to pass the clauses which they could pass without comment or opposition, and leave out those which they could not so deal with. He only wished to say one word on this subject. [Cries of "Order!" "There is no question before the House."] He wished to say that there was one part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which he hoped Government would re-consider, and that was its proposal to postpone the clause relating to the expenses of elections until all the other clauses had been disposed of. The effect of this might be that a large number of Members who took an interest in that question might be absent, and would not have an opportunity of discussing the clause, so he hoped it would be taken up when a fair attendance of Members could be secured.

presented a Message from the Crown.

read the Message, which ran as follows:—

"Her Majesty being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of Her Majesty's third son, Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, on his coming of age, relies on the attachment of the House of Lords to confer on the adoption of such measures as may be suitable for the purpose."

This is a mistake. I am not aware whether that vitiates the proceeding in any way. I move that the Message be taken into consideration on Monday next.

This is no Message at all. An Hon. MEMBER: What Message?

The Message of Her Majesty. I refer to the Chair on the subject. If the Order is made as to proceeding with the Message, I will take care that it is corrected.

said, he wished to put a Question to the First Minister of the Crown in reference to the course of Public Business. The other night it was indicated from the Treasury Bench that there should be an autumn sitting. ["Order!"] He only wanted to put a Question before going to the Continent. He asked respecting the notion about the 1st November?

I never heard of any arrangement as to the 1st November. What took place was this—when the subject was opened on Monday night by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and several hon. Members expressed their opinion upon it, I said that it would be necessary for the Government to have a little time yet for consideration—that we would do what we could to ascertain the general feeling of this House, and also that of the House of Lords, who are interested in the question. The present week has not been a very favourable one for the discharge of that part of the matter; but in the course of a few days—probably on Monday next—I hope to be able to give an answer upon the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, which of the 39 Orders upon the Paper he intends to proceed with that night, as it was totally impossible that they could go on with all of them?

I have never, in the course of my experience, known such a Question put. I would ask the hon. Gentleman how much time each Order will take, and having learnt that I could give an answer to the Question. Our intention is to proceed with the Orders; and if there is any Order in which the hon. Gentleman has special interest, I will give him the best answer that I can in reference to it.

asked what time they would begin with these Orders?

The practice is to take the principal Orders as long as would be convenient to the House to proceed, and after that to go on with the other Orders.

asked the Vice President of the Council, as he had given Notice to postpone Clause 18 and other clauses of the Ballot Bill relating to the payment of election expenses, whether he will adhere to those clauses as part and parcel of the Bill, and whether, in the event of his not being able to carry these clauses, he will look upon the Bill as lost. This part of the Bill very much affected the constituencies of the country. He wished to know whether the Government looks upon these clauses as a vital part of the Bill?

said, he thought that the first Question need hardly have been asked, because he had already stated as clearly as he possibly could state it, that the Government adhered to these clauses, and would press them upon the acceptance of the House. The hon. Member asked further, whether, if the House should disagree with these clauses, the Government would drop the Bill; and his reply was, that much as the Government would regret the omission of these clauses, they would not in consequence drop the Bill.

brought up a Message from the Crown, which was read by the Clerk at the Table as follows:—

"Her Majesty being desirous of making a competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of Her third son Prince Arthur Patrick Albert on his coming of age, recommends the consideration thereof to Her faithful Commons, and relies upon their attachment to adopt such measures as may be suitable to the occasion."

gave Notice that on Monday next he would move that the Message should be taken into consideration, and that the House should then resolve itself into Committee of Supply for the purpose.

In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council having made his statement under circumstances that would not allow hon. Members to make any remark upon it at that moment without breaking through the general order of our business, which I wish always to observe, I am under the necessity of moving that you, Sir, report Progress, in order that I may make some inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman, and also make some natural comments upon that statement. My impression after hearing him is, that so far as the Bill generally is concerned, there is nothing substantial in the statement. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give up is really of little importance, and would probably under no circumstances have greatly occupied our attention; but, at the same time, there is an apparent semblance of reducing the labours that would be submitted to the Committee, and under that semblance the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of proposing contingent arrangements that in the transaction of our business might prove extremely injurious to the rights of Members, and to the public interests. There is an appearance of surrendering some provisions of this Bill; but, so far as I can form an opinion upon the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, no time will substantially and really be gained if we follow the scheme which has been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman; whilst if the Committee were to adopt his views they would find themselves in a very embarrassing and injurious position. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said with respect to polling-places, I must express the opinion entertained on this side of the House—and, I believe, of many Gentlemen who sit opposite—that there was a distinct understanding that these clauses for securing an increase of polling-places should be included in the Bill. Her Majesty's Government had substantially agreed that they were to be a part of the Bill upon which we might as much rely as upon the 3rd clause, upon which they themselves rest so much; and therefore I must say at once that if there is any attempt to pass this measure without including provisions for the increase of polling-places—without, in fact, carrying the provisions and Amendments that have been placed upon the Table by the right hon. Gentleman himself on the part of the Government—I think there would be an absolute breach of faith; and therefore, in considering what time the Bill will occupy in Committee, there ought to be a clear understanding that the House expects that those provisions that were promised by the Government and laid on the Table by them, should be fairly brought forward and supported by all the influence of the Government, and should form a part of the measure. There is another point upon which the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were, I think, unsatisfactory, and which indicate a mode of proceeding with an important measure most unusual in Committees in this House, and which I do not think the Committee ought to sanction—that is, the postponement of important clauses, clauses which, whatever may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen respecting them, are clauses in which they are deeply interested—postponing those clauses according to the will of the Minister who has the conduct of the Bill. Take Clause 18, which has occupied much of our thought and attention, and which refers to the payment of the expenses of Parliamentary elections, I greatly object to the clause; but I do not think I am asking too much when I say that the opinion of the Committee ought to be taken on that clause in its fair position in the Bill, and that if any unexpected delays should occur with respect to the preceding clauses which the Government have not counted upon, it should not be in the power of the Government to postpone that clause to a period of the Session when the attendance would probably be very thin, and when there would not be an opportunity of obtaining the fair opinion of the Committee upon it. I think that both sides of this House have a right to expect that this important provision should be brought forward under circumstances that would ensure a fair consideration and a satisfactory verdict, and that it should not be left to a Minister to shuffle about this important matter from night to night, and at last to bring it forward when a fair verdict could not be given, and when due consideration could not be ensured to it. These are two important points upon which the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was unsatisfactory to me. If the right hon. Gentleman observes the solemn engagement that he has made to the House to have due regard to the fair transaction of Public Business, it does not appear to me that at this period of the Session, and with the sad arrear of indispensable and urgent Public Business before us, and after the conversation of the other night, chiefly carried on by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, there is a prospect of getting that fair consideration which Her Majesty's Government ought to have secured.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman considers the statement I made unsatisfactory; I do not know whether it would have been more satisfactory to him if I had proposed what would have been a substantial alteration in the Bill. The Bill is one the Government have much at heart, and they never supposed they would be expected to make in it such substantial alterations as would defeat its object. The right hon. Gentleman says the changes I propose are a pretence or a semblance; he would have been better satisfied if they had made the Bill a pretence as far as its purpose is concerned; but that was not the intention of the Government. I am rather surprised to hear it said that the postponement of a clause is unprecedented, for surely the right hon. Gentleman can recollect that in the conduct of the Reform Bill, which he himself brought in, very important clauses were postponed for the convenience of the House. That being the position of the case, I can only repeat the statement I have made, that the Government adheres to their intention to put these clauses before the Committee; but certainly the right hon. Gentleman is very much straining the statement previously made, if he supposes it to mean that we consider these clauses essential to the Bill—as essential as the 3rd clause, for instance, which relates to the Ballot. We assented to the wish expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which seemed to be supported by the House generally, that we should anticipate a Registration Bill, and insert clauses as to the increase of polling-places, and I hope that the Committee will adopt these clauses. But we cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to consider them of such vital importance as the Ballot clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman—I think inadvertently—forgot the usual course of business; he seemed to suppose that the 18th clause—the expenses clause—would come after the clauses relating to polling-places.

said, it would be a great convenience to hon. Members if a time could be fixed for discussing the clauses proposing to charge the expenses of elections on the rates, which clauses practically constituted a new measure and really formed no part of the Ballot Bill.

said, that the postponement of the clauses was a most substantial alteration of the Bill, because the clause as to putting the expenses of elections upon ratepayers governed a great portion of the Bill. It governed, for instance, such portions of the Bill as referred to the deposit of money and the withdrawal of candidates. If they knew that the expenses were to be paid by the candidates, they might on that side receive many objections, because it was a serious thing to cast these expenses upon the ratepayers. It was important that they should know until what time these important clauses were postponed, because they might be brought on at a time when many hon. Gentlemen had left the House.

said, that they were now upon the 9th clause, and that clause to which the hon. Baronet particularly referred was the 18th; but hon. Members must be well aware that he could not state when Clause 18 would come on. He did not, however, suppose that it would make any great practical difference whether it were taken in its place in the Bill, or come on after the other clauses, because he could not imagine that any of the other clauses would lead to much discussion. They postponed it because they thought that it was a separate question, that would be better discussed after all the questions as to the Ballot had been taken. The matter as to deposit money would arise upon an Amendment on Clause 18, and as to the withdrawal of candidates that had been dealt with by the Committee, and could not come on again until the new clauses were brought forward. This being so, the particular difficulty which had been referred to disappeared.

said, he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had said showed the inconvenience of the course that had been taken. Nothing was more usual than to postpone clauses, when called on, for the sake of the general convenience of the Committee; but whoever before heard of a right hon. Gentleman giving Notice that he would postpone clauses in order to make a better position for himself in the conduct of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman asked to postpone important clauses in order that he might bring in clauses that were more germane to what he considered the most important part of the Bill. He thought that this was a most inconvenient course to adopt, and he hoped that it would not be assented to. He deprecated the tone of levity with which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the clauses re- lating to polling-places, for if anything could reconcile the Opposition to the passing of the Bill, it would be the multiplication of polling - places, without which, in their judgment, the Bill would absolutely disfranchise a large number of voters.

was of opinion that many important questions turned upon the clause for the multiplication of polling-places, and it was an understood thing on both sides that it should form part of the Bill. If those clauses were not inserted in the Bill by the Government, he should consider it a breach of faith, and that the Bill would then not be the measure they had expected it to be when they agreed to the clause under the engagement given by the right hon. Gentleman with the view to make as much speed as possible in the progress of the measure, and to avoid all acrimonious disputation he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would do all he could to carry out at once the pledge which he had given them.

protested in the strongest manner against the withdrawal of the Government from the pledge which had been distinctly given to himself. Nothing, indeed, could be more definite and distinct than the pledge given by the Government to place clauses on the Paper with reference to polling-places, which they had faithfully done, and also to insert those clauses in the Bill. Since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement he had referred to The Times of the day after the discussion on polling-places. ["Chair!"]

said, the hon. Member could not quote reports in The Times.

said, if that were the case he would read an authentic record of what occurred. His right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire stated on his behalf that he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment on the clear understanding that the Government should deal with the subject in the present Bill. The Prime Minister stated that clauses would be proposed to carry out the object in view, and so strong was the impression that the matter was absolutely settled that on the following day it was stated in a leading article in the well-known organ of public opinion that the value of the pledge thus given could hardly be overrated. If the Government desired to keep their word they must do their best to insert these clauses in the Bill.

said, there was no intention on the part of the Government to withdraw from the pledge which they had given. The clauses had been placed on the Paper, and would be proposed by his right hon. Friend, who had merely said he thought it might conduce to the convenience of the House, and to the shortening of the discussions, if the consideration of those clauses was postponed to another time. It was, in fact, simply ex majore cautelâ that his right hon. Friend proposed to postpone their consideration. He was unable to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire that the Government were bound to make these clauses as essential and vital a portion of the Bill as the 3rd clause. That would be tantamount to saying that if those particular clauses were not passed the Government were bound to drop the Bill. There was not the least foundation for such a statement. The proper time for the right hon. Gentleman to make his complaints was when the clauses came under discussion if he thought the Government were not acting up to the spirit of their pledge.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the postponement of the 18th clause, which would throw the expenses of elections upon the rates, and remarked that several hon. Members sitting on his side of the House who disapproved the clause had paired off with hon. Gentlemen who were favourable to it. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be better that the clause should be considered in its proper place.

said, he did not entertain the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would fulfil the pledge he had given in respect to the clauses alluded to; but he must urge him not to pos-pone the 18th clause in the way that had been suggested. That clause raised a question which was seriously viewed by a very large number of Members in that House, and it was highly desirable, therefore, that it should be fixed for a certain day, when the Committee might fully and fairly discuss its merits.

stated that at a large meeting of Irish Members held some time ago it was unanimously agreed that unless there were a great multiplication of polling-places in Ireland it would be impossible to carry out the Bill there, and that an enormons number of electors would be practically disfranchised.

said, he had never for a moment supposed that there was any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to retire from his proposal, or to shirk the consideration of the clauses respecting additional polling-places; but if, as he believed, the Committee were wisely bent on largely increasing the number of polling-places, this would be an additional reason for not postponing the discussion of Clause 18, because the multiplication of polling-places must increase the expenses of elections.

said, that he had made the proposition to postpone the consideration of the clauses in question, because in the innocence of his heart he thought it would tend to promote the convenience of the Committee. If, in the course of to-day and to-morrow they dealt with all the other clauses of the Bill—and he did not despair of this—he had no objection, with the approbation of the Committee, to take the clauses relating to polling-places next Monday.

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not assigned a single reason in support of his statement that the convenience of the Committee would be promoted by the adoption of his proposal. The object in view would not be attained by the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, because it was obvious that all the new clauses would have to be considered after the postponed clauses. The Business of Parliament generally was placed in a most unsatisfactory position in consequence of the course pursued by the Government, and it was most unfortunate that up to the present moment the House had not been informed when it was likely that the Army and Navy Estimates would be brought forward for discussion. He hoped an early day would be now fixed for the consideration of the Army Estimates.

trusted that circumstances would permit the Committee to consider on Monday next the clauses relating to additional polling-places.

said, that when the Committee last separated they had been discussing an Amendment originally proposed to Clause 3 by his hon. Friend, the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), but which was subsequently referred to Clause 9. The effect of that Amendment was to provide that no voter should be entitled to vote at any polling-place except that situated in the parish or ward in which he resided, the object of the Amendment being, first to reduce the chances of personation, and secondly to cause a list to be prepared to confine voters to particular districts. He thought, however, that the latter part of the object which his hon. Friend had in view would be met by the adoption of an Amendment, which he now begged leave to move—namely, in page 9, line 20, after "allotted" insert—

"But no voter who is resident within the county or borough shall be entitled to vote at any polling place except that for the parish or ward within which he resides."

said, he could not assent to the Amendment either in its original or its present form, because it would interfere with the right a county voter at present possessed to vote where he resided, although his qualification might be elsewhere. The proposal would leave the law as it stood in regard to boroughs; but in counties it would operate in a manner most inconvenient to many of the electors.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment with the addition of the words "or where he resides."

said, this would merely have the effect of leaving the law as it now stood.

said, he thought that they ought to submit to much inconvenience, if by so doing they thought that they could, prevent personation—the risk of which was greatly increased by the Bill now under consideration.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was willing to leave it in the power of the returning officer to compel electors to vote in alphabetical order, and to send them, perhaps, three or four miles from home to vote.

moved, in line 23, insert—

"4. Every presiding officer shall on the two days next preceding the day of polling, with the assistance of one or both of the overseers of each parish (which assistance he or they shall be bound to give), go through the list of voters allotted to poll at such polling-place, and shall mark the word 'dead' against every voter whom he shall know or be informed by such overseer or overseers to be dead, and the words 'out of the United Kingdom' against any person whom he shall know or be so informed to be out of the United Kingdom; and before delivering a ballot paper to any person claiming to vote as being an elector whose name has been so marked as aforesaid, shall administer to him the oath specified in part one in the First Schedule to this Act, and shall take such means for identifying such person, and if need be for the furtherance of a prosecution or prosecutions of such person as he may deem advisable."

The hon. Member said, he thought it likely that special agents on both sides would have lists of such electors as were dead or gone abroad, and that for all such persons votes would be polled before 9 o'clock. There would be no challenge from an agent because he would not know for whom the vote would be given; and no remedy was provided by the Bill for striking off such votes, while the penalties on personation were not likely to be enforced. The object of the Amendment was to prevent personation, and especially friendly personation, which he feared would be greatly increased by the fact that there would be no scrutiny. He believed that friendly personation had been practised to a great extent at the late school board elections, and one lady had boasted that she had given no loss than 63 votes for Mrs. Anderson at the recent election for Marylebone. The result of a canvass having been to make this lady acquainted with the names of the spinsters and widows who were householders, and who were not likely to go to the poll, she had been enabled at the different polling-places to record that number of votes for the candidate of her choice.

said, that although he could not agree that personation would be increased by the Ballot, yet he thought that every possible means should be taken to prevent personation. As to the Amendment, he should object to any proceeding which should stop the course of the election; but the proposition that the list should be carefully looked through before the election, and the names of those who were either dead or abroad marked, was one which required full consideration. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, he would think the matter over, in order to see whether a fresh clause might not be introduced to accomplish the object in view.

said, he should be willing to withdraw the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would say that the presiding officer should have power to administer the oath specified in the first schedule.

observed that he could not commit himself to that matter; but he should take the point into his consideration.

trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to have the duplicate votes marked also, as it would be of material assistance to the presiding officer.

remarked that if the register, after it had been revised by the revising barrister, was to be tampered with by subordinate officers, it would lead to considerable confusion.

said, the list would not be tampered with, but only a mark made against the names of those who were known to be dead or abroad.

expected personation to be carried on to an incredible extent in large boroughs under this new system, for it would be easy to ascertain, by means of the Post Office, the names of such electors as could not be found. It was desirable that the register should be corrected up to the day of polling, and the substance of the Amendment ought to be accepted.

moved, in page 9, line 31, leave out sub-section 5—

"Where the presiding officer is the returning officer, and he proceeds immediately after the close of the poll to ascertain the number of votes given to each candidate, it shall not be necessary for him to seal up the ballot-box,"

which he thought unnecessary after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham).

said, he thought the sub-section ought to be amended, but not omitted. He moved Amendments to the effect that it should not be necessary for returning officers to seal up the ballot-boxes according to the form provided in the case of presiding officers at polling-places.

moved in page 10, sub-section 7, line 2, leave out from after "officer," to end of sub-section 7, the effect of which would be to take away from the returning officer this power of giving a casting vote, and to render the restriction upon his voting absolute. This question was discussed in 1866, when the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) introduced a Bill, of which he (Mr. Lowther) moved the rejection, to prevent the returning officer from recording a vote until the close of the poll, and requiring him then to give a vote in the event of an equality of votes. That Bill was eventually abandoned. According to the existing state of the law, the returning officers had different rules laid down for them in the three kingdoms. In England a returning officer had the right of voting in his capacity of an elector, if he was one, but was specially debarred from giving a so-called casting vote. In Ireland he was permitted to give a vote in his own right as an elector, and then he had the extraordinary power, after the period during which the poll was open, of giving a second vote under the name of a casting vote. This, he thought, was a gross anomaly. By the Scotch law, which he would urge upon the adoption of the House, the returning officer was prohibited from giving any vote whatever; but as that officer in Scotland was seldom an elector, the provision rarely applied. A returning officer, placed as he was in a position of great trust and responsibility, ought, in his opinion, to be free from all suspicion of party feeling; and in English counties, at all events, he believed that returning officers, as a rule, abstained from taking any part in the elections over which they presided. The Helston case was one in which the return was annulled because the mayor, who was a bigoted partizan, having already voted once, claimed the right of giving a casting vote for the candidate of his choice. The Committee, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Chairman, resolved, in that case, that a gross breach of privilege had been committed, the mayor was summoned to the Bar of the House, though eventually he was not compelled to appear; but the right hon. Gentleman himself subsequently brought forward a Resolution declaring it to be the duty of returning officers to make a double return wherever an equal number of votes had been recorded. The Resolution was carried by a large majority, and was still binding upon returning officers. The Amendment which he now proposed was in accordance with that Resolution, and in conformity likewise with the salutary provisions of the law in Scotland.

concurred in thinking the law ought to be uniform in the three countries, and said that in 1866 he had introduced a Bill for the purpose of making it so, which was received with approval, and only failed because of the lateness of the Session. He believed, however that a law which, by depriving mayors of the power of voting at all, would in many cases render double returns imperative, was a law which it would not be prudent to adopt. It would compel fresh elections in many places where these would not otherwise be necessary, putting candidates and constituencies thereby to trouble and expense without any corresponding benefit; and it would thus, in effect, be adopting one of the most undesirable features of the French electoral system. He hoped the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would receive the approval of the Committee, because he believed it was a reasonable one. It was calculated to save much trouble and give more satisfaction than the sub-section would in its present form.

, while admitting it was desirable that the law should be uniform in the three kingdoms on this subject, thought the clause would make the law uniform in the wrong direction. He was once engaged in an election where there was a treble return. The returning officer sent all the names up to the House, and the House decided in favour of two of the candidates. In the clause under discussion they could not get rid of double returns, for the returning officer was not bound to vote. He would leave out the whole paragraph, for he objected to the disfranchisement of the returning officer, who was a man of mark in the eyes of his fellow-citizens. The proposal of the Government went too far or not far enough, and he was thereby decidedly of opinion that the best course to be taken would be to leave the returning officers with the constitutional right to vote as was the case at present, relying upon their discretion to use it or not.

said, he had placed upon the Paper a proposal with regard to this branch of the subject, which was in effect to assimilate the law of this country to that of the Australian colonies, where it was rendered obligatory upon the returning officer to give a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes for two or more candidates.

said, he thought it would be unjust entirely to disqualify the returning officer, and thereby he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther). He could not see how the mayor of a borough would be placed in a disadvantageous position by the clause as it stood in the Bill, for the reason that he would be enabled to give his vote at a period when it would possess the utmost value—namely, when it would have the effect of deciding who should represent the borough. He admitted the desirability of making the law of the three kingdoms uniform with regard to their election laws, and agreed with those hon. Members who thought that the occurrence of double returns should be guarded against as far as possible; but he could not admit the absolute necessity of this being done. Under the present law there must be a Petition and a scrutiny in case of a double return; but the scrutiny did not always settle the question, as all the votes given might be good. On the whole, he thought the proposal as it stood in the Bill would meet the case. It would, in the first place, be a hardship to compel a returning officer to vote for a candidate whose political principles he did not approve; and, in the second place, it would scarcely be desirable to enact a law under which the representation of a county or borough should be decided by a person who, though returning officer, was not on the ordinary roll of voters for the place.

moved the omission of the sub-section, believing that the simplest and most satisfactory course would be to leave the law as it stands at present. The great increase in the number of electors under the late Reform Bill had rendered a casting vote so much less valuable in a numerical point of view, that he thought it would prove more satisfactory, notwithstanding the inconvenience which would be occasioned, to hold a new election, in the case of a double return.

said, he was of opinion, then, as in 1866, that it was necessary to render the electoral law of the three kingdoms uniform, and he thought further that the Government had arrived at the right conclusion as to the best mode of bringing that uniformity about. It was not desirable that the official who had to make the arrangements for holding an election should take part in it as a voter, and it was still less desirable that the returning officer should be placed in the absurd position of having to vote for a candidate with whose politics he had no sympathy, having been deprived, in the first instance, of the power to support the candidate of his choice. It would be far better in such cases to hold new elections. For instance, there was not a Member of that House whom they would less desire to disfranchise than the Speaker. But the right hon. Gentleman did not vote in the first instance, and when called on to give it on an equality of votes, he gave it, not in accordance with his own feelings, but to promote the convenience of the House. It was desirable that an election should be the election of a majority, not a casting vote or a tie. He thought the Government had taken the proper course.

said, he should support the Amendment.

was of opinion that if returning officers were deprived of the legitimate influence they would be able to exercise by recording their votes, they would be the more likely to resort to the use of illegitimate influences, in order to turn elections according to their own way of political thinking. It would therefore be better to leave the law as it stood at present.

said, he should object to the representation, in cases of an equal return, being decided by a non-elector. It was surely inconsistent with a Ballot Bill that they should oblige the returning officer to give his vote without the protection of secrecy. Why, of all men, should he be thus left unprotected?

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the point on the Report, if not before. For years past the policy of the House had been in favour of enfranchisement, and it was extraordinary that a solitary exception should now be made to the rule.

said, he thought it would be very desirable to prevent the nuisance of double returns, and that the practice of the three countries should be rendered uniform; but it must be remembered that in Scotland the returning officer was hardly ever a voter, so that the proposal of the Government would not prevent double returns in that country. It seemed to him that the only satisfactory method of deciding an election, in the case of equality of voting, was by lot.

said, that the responsibilities already thrown upon the returning officer by this clause were very heavy, and they would be much aggravated if that of a casting vote were also to be placed upon him. The fact of his having given one would certainly inspire the defeated side with suspicion, and would result in a demand for a scrutiny.

suggested the withdrawal of the sub-section. The wording was very defective.

said, he was unable to withdraw the sub-section; it involved a question of detail on which he preferred to take the sense of the Committee. The Government thought they had made a just proposition, and that it was the best arrangement which could be made to prevent the inconvenience of a double return. He was delighted to find that the principle of the Ballot had made such progress that the right hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gordon) held up his hands in horror at the idea of any person being required to give an open vote.

said, that he had fought many a contested election, but hitherto he had never known suspicion to fall on the returning officer. It would be most unjust to deprive him of his vote.

moved the omission of the whole subsection.

objected to the comparison which had been drawn between the Speaker and the returning officer giving a casting vote. The former usually gave the casting vote with a view to allow the question at issue to be reopened; the latter would give his to prevent the question being re-opened.

renewed his Amendment, the chief object of which was to prevent the officer having charge of the election from becoming a partizan, and to disqualify him from voting under any circumstances.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) could hardly have apprehended the case which might occur under this clause as it was worded. Suppose that for two seats there were four candidates—Brown, who polled 105 votes; Jones, 100 votes; Wilson, 99; and Tomkins, 99. Under the sub-section as it stood, the returning officer, there being an "equality of votes," would be entitled to vote for either Wilson or Tomkins. One of those candidates would thereby be brought to an equality with Jones, thereby creating the very contingency which the clause professed to avoid—namely, an equality of votes between two candidates, one of whom would otherwise have been declared duly elected; and then the returning officer would again be able to vote for his favourite candidate, so that Jones, after all, would be defeated. This would be a great hardship to Jones.

said, he thought the matter ought to be fully considered, inasmuch as the Committee were dealing not only with Parliamentary but municipal elections, where there might be 30 or 40 candidates.

said, he thought it would be outrageous that, in the case put, the man who had really won the election should be defeated by the returning officer polling twice for another candidate.

agreed to amend the clause by providing that where there were two or more candidates the returning officer should be only entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes between candidates "one of whom is otherwise entitled to be declared elected." If this Amendment did not meet the case, the words might be altered on the Report.

said, he wished now to raise a question which had been discussed at some length on the 3rd clause, but which, as was then said, might more properly be raised now. Sub-section 8, as it now stood, was one of the great difficulties of the Bill, and might lead to the disfranchisement of a considerable number of voters who were so illiterate as to be unable to read. He therefore proposed in page 10, line 8, after "blind," insert "or unable to read," so that the voter might be able to obtain such assistance as would enable him to mark the ballot paper. In the colony of Victoria it was provided that—

"If any person to whom a voting paper shall be delivered shall be blind, or unable to read, he shall signify the same to the returning officer, who shall strike out the name of such person as he may designate."

In Tasmania the returning officer, in similar cases, was required to strike out the names of all the candidates except those for whom the elector intended to record his vote. A similar regulation existed in Queensland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state the views of the Government upon this important question.

objected to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman as opening a door to wholesale bribery and intimidation, because if it were adopted a voter would only have to state that he could not read to secure to himself an opportunity of having a witness of the way in which he gave his vote. But he had simply to call the attention of the Committee to a practical proposal for obviating all difficulty in the matter. A plan had recently been invented which, by means of two pieces of perforated zinc or metal properly arranged over the voting paper, would enable a blind man to fill in his paper properly.

said, he was glad to hear of a practical suggestion coming from the other side of the House, for such things were so rare that when they did come they were like a gleam of sunshine thrown over the long and arid debates which had taken place on this question. But he wished to point out that unless some such proposal as that of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) were adopted, ignorant men, who were generally nervous and blundering, would practically be disfranchised—and they formed a very large portion of the people of the country—and we should have to fall back upon the educational franchise, which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) in opposition to the proposals of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire in bringing forward his last Reform Bill. He trusted that the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.

remarked that this question had been discussed for several hours when Clause 3 was under consideration, and he had already stated that the Government felt themselves unable to accept any proposal which would involve the violation of the principle of secret voting. In South Australia the system was precisely what the Government were recommending here. By an alphabetical arrangement of the names of the candidates the generality of voters would be perfectly well able to know for whom they intended to vote, and it was evident that if any other person were admitted to assist a voter that person might be an intimidator or briber who might exercise undue influence over those very voters whom it was most sought to protect. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykeham-Martin), the Amendment would open the door to bribery and intimidation, and he (Mr. Forster) must therefore decline to accept it.

said, that, without such an Amendment the Bill would have a largely disfranchising effect, and the Ballot would become, in point of fact, an education test. He should have thought that the words "or otherwise incapacitated" would have included the cases of those voters who were unable to read. The returning officer might be empowered to mark the voting paper for illiterate voters if requested to do so by them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider this point before the Bill passed through the House.

looked with extreme uneasiness at the present position of the Bill, having regard to unlettered working men. An alphabetical arrangement of the candidates' names would be simply absurd, because many of his own constituents, for instance, were not only unable to read, but even if they could read the only language they would be able to understand would be Welsh. It was important that the voter should know who he was voting for, and it was also important that his vote should be given in the strictest secrecy. It was often urged that the main benefit of secrecy was to protect voters from their employers and landlords; but it was quite as important that working men should be protected from their brother working men. At present, the trades unions of the country were governed and led by men of such talent, energy, and ability that hundreds of thousands of working men were driven like sheep to vote in a direction quite opposed to their feelings. It was therefore essential that the voting should be really secret, and unlettered men might have all their difficulties removed if the Government would consent to allow the space in which the voter was to make his mark to be coloured with the candidate's colour.

stated that there was a strong feeling in Ireland against allowing any voter who stated that he was unable to read to take a witness into the polling-booth with him, as being calculated to open the door to bribery and intimidation. He thought that the end in view would be sufficiently met by placing in the space intended for the voter's mark a number which corresponded with the position of the candidate in the alphabetical list. Such an arrangement had been found sufficient in Australia.

said, the returning officer would have to take an oath of secrecy to enable him to fill up the papers of blind men, and the same oath would also enable him to fill up the papers of those who could not read, or who were otherwise incapacitated, without any injury to anyone. Something ought to be done to meet the cases which had been referred to without disturbing the secret nature of the voting.

agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill) that absolute secrecy in voting was of the first importance; but with regard to the proposal to colour the spaces for the voters' marks, that question of colour had already been discussed, and it had been considered that the advantage of having such colours printed would be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantage of recognizing candidates' colours at all. He believed there would be no difficulty at all if an alphabetical arrangement of the candidates' names were adopted.

said, he was struck by the inconsistencies in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman, who stated that absolute secrecy in voting was indispensable, had himself introduced a provision in the Bill under which in the case of a blind voter a witness was permitted to enter the booth with him in order to show him where he should put his mark, and thus the indispensable principle of secrecy was immediately violated. It was quite clear that if this curious Bill were to become law—which he much doubted now that its details were before the public—the returning officers should be trusted to mark the voting papers at the request of the blind or illiterate voters, and so permit the latter to enjoy the exercise of the suffrage, from which otherwise they would be practically debarred. They all knew that there were a vast number of the electors of this country who could not read or write, but who were well qualified to fulfil the duties of electors. There were leading men in their own districts who could not read or write, but who greatly influenced opinion, and who formed sagacious views of public life. Were such men as those to be disfranchised? The right hon. Gentleman thought he should be able, by delaying the Committee until the month of August, to force them to come to his own conclusion in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, never mind whether a voter cannot read or write. I have an alphabetical arrangement which will meet his case." But the Committee as yet knew nothing about this alphabetical arrangement, and men who could not read or write knew nothing about the alphabet. It was really trifling with the Committee to answer their objections by saying that there would be an alphabetical arrangement by which the wholly illiterate would still be able to exercise the franchise. If the Bill were to pass, they ought to make every provision they could that all those who were enfranchised should enjoy the suffrage. By the Bill it was already provided that in one case where the elector could not exercise the franchise without some one being conscious of his intention he should be allowed to enjoy the right of voting. The question then was—to what degree they were prepared to extend that indulgence. The Government were bound by all the principles they upheld in the Bill to take every possible stop by which large numbers who were entitled by law to vote should not be disfranchised. And the simplest mode by which they could effect that object was to extend the confidence which they proposed to place in the presiding officer still further. They must trust to the presiding officer if the Bill were to become law. He called upon the Committee, therefore, to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck).

said, that unless the Government could show that the practice adopted under similar circumstances in Sydney and Tasmania had failed they were bound to adopt the Amendment.

entertained a confident expectation that under the Government scheme the voter would as often as not vote for the wrong man. He trusted that before proceeding further the right hon. Gentlemen the Vice President of the Council would lay upon the Table the voting paper itself. He (Mr. Lowther) had anxiously looked day after day for the appearance of this wonderful document, and he felt considerable curiosity as to what would turn out to be this universal panacea for ignorance which was to emanate from the Privy Council Office—that he who ran might read, or rather he who could not read at all could decipher with ease. The ballot paper now in the cchedule was such a complicated affair that it was utterly unworkable, and nothing but personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) prevented him (Mr. Lowther) from calling it ridiculous. It was, however, he understood, to be considered as withdrawn, and the Government had promised to lay an amended schedule on the Table. The proposal in the Bill was to punish the people for the fault of the Legislature. It had failed to discharge its duty in educating the people, and now it was proposed to visit them with disfranchisement for a fault not their own. He understood that the Welsh alphabet differed from the English, and thus the right hon. Gentleman's alphabetical arrangement would visit with disfranchisement all the uneducated people in the Principality, as well as many others elsewhere.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, that double returns even in large constituencies had been matters of not very infrequent occurrence. For instance, Derby was decided by one vote in 1859 in a poll of over 3,000 on each side. He would point out one great danger which occurred to him as arising under the Bill—namely, that while the people understood the present system of Parliamentary elections they would not be equally familiar with the new system; and so long as a constituency was totally uneducated as to the system under which they were going to give their votes a very considerable number of Members would be returned by mistakes arising from the ignorance of the constituency. 30 or 40 years hence, when the Education Act had produced its results, this might be obviated; but in the meantime they might expect that a considerable number of seats would be filled by mistakes which would be made in consequence of defects in this Bill. The Bill, as it stood, would disfranchise every elector in the country who could not read. With regard to the alphabetical arrangement, he had heard one of the ablest Members sitting on the Ministerial benches say that if it were adopted he should apply for an Act of Parliament to enable him to change his name, because he knew that he should stand a much better chance of being returned if his name began with A than with W. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill) had told the Committee that a great number of his constituents could not read English, and it did not appear that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) would allow papers to be put before them in Welsh, because the Bill only proposed to put papers before the electors in English. This subject was well worthy of the attention of the Committee. They had heard indirectly of a meeting which had been lately held in Downing Street, and which strongly reminded him of a couplet which appeared in The New Whig Guide, in 1815—

"The meeting is strongly entreated to note

The few who can speak and the crowd who can vote."

He might, in this case, say, "the one who can speak." The proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) to extend the provision with respect to the blind to persons otherwise incapacitated was a reasonable one, and he would support it.

said, the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) had stated that the Welsh alphabet was different from the English. The hon. Gentleman was under an entire misapprehension. The Welsh had an alphabet precisely the same as the English, and a name written in the Welsh language was precisely the same as if it were written in the English language, so that there was no ground for difficulty as regarded those Welsh people who could not speak English. His impression was that there were fewer people in Wales who could not read than in other parts of the United Kingdom. His firm opinion was, that his countrymen would have no difficulty in giving a vote.

said, they had two expressions of opinion from the two hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil, diametrically opposite to each other, because the Colleague of the hon. Member for Merthyr who had just spoken made a speech which was a flat contradiction of the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Richard), and had told the Committee that there was a vast number of men in his constituency who could not read, and that it was impossible for them to record their votes as the Bill stood. It was a very pretty quarrel as it stood, and he would leave it there, though disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr, who had first spoken. When this Bill was first framed it contained no provision whatever with respect to those unfortunate people who could not read; but the right hon. Gentleman when pressed on the subject said that at a future stage of the Bill he would introduce a provision to meet the difficulty. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, that the provision was in the Bill as first drawn.] The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, admitted that the ballot paper was defective, and said that he would bring up a ballot paper of a different kind. It was admitted that men of the greatest intelligence had not been able to record their votes properly at the late elections for the school board in the Metropolis. His hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory), for instance, had stated that he had failed to do so. A political agent of great experience had told him this morning that half the constituency with which he was connected would not be able to vote under this Bill. At the election which had just been held in the county of Monaghan, a great number of votes for the sitting Member were thrown away because many of the voters gave him the title of Colonel, which belonged to the late Member. But if votes were lost under the present system, much more would that be the case under the system which the right hon. Gentleman was introducing. In a subsequent clause it was provided that any person other than the presiding officer, or his clerk, who assisted a person to mark a ballot paper would be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labour. He wished to know whether the person who assisted in the marking of this Ballot paper beforehand would be liable to this punishment?

said, he thought it was perfectly impossible, no matter what arrangement they made, to prevent the vote of any person being known—the more illiterate a voter was the more would his vote be known. It was the working classes that the House was called upon to protect, and he believed they would be the very persons who would be the victims. What would be more natural than for a husband to tell his wife the way in which he had voted; and if he did so, what became of the vaunted secrecy of the Ballot; while if he did not and prevaricated, the effect would be that a system of deception would be engendered lasting from the cradle to the grave. He should not, however, vote on the question. He thought the Bill gave a great deal too much power to the returning officer.

said, it was a necessity, according to the system of secret voting, that the illiterate voter must trust the returning officer. He assumed, however, that the principle had been carried against the Conservatives; and the question now was, how best to carry it out. There would be upwards of 150,000 voters who would fall under the name "illiterate"—a number almost as large as that of the compound householders of a few Sessions ago. He knew a man owning 50,000 sheep, who could not write, and how was he to vote? He would, in all probability, vote for the candidate whose name stood at the top of the alphabetical list. He thought that the alphabetical arrangement generally would give an advantage to candidates whose names began with the letters A or B, and that uneducated voters, who were likely to become confused when they entered the secret booth, would be more apt to vote for the names that stood at the head of the list than for those towards the end. They had the admission of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill) that a great many working men would be prevented from voting through giving a vote to the wrong person. At the election for the school board in Marylebone 600 voters were excluded from voting because they had made mistakes which prevented their votes being received. He understood that at that election a great many voters were assisted who could not have voted without such assistance. But the Government said a voter who could not read should not get assistance even from the returning officer, and therefore, according to the testimony of the hon. Member, a great many working men would be disfranchised. It was said that the returning officer might be dishonest and act improperly, if he were to be allowed to file the papers, but the question could not be dealt with at all, even with regard to blind men, except on the assumption that the returning officer would not deal corruptly. The Opposition were told that because they were arguing in the interest of more than 100,000 voters, they were wasting the time of the House. It would be better for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to answer the arguments advanced by the Opposition. The question was so serious a one, and involved the votes of such a large number of persons, that it ought to be most carefully discussed and considered. If the returning officer was a rogue, where was their system? By the Amendment the illiterate voter would be enabled to apply to the returning officer. It was merely a permissive and not a compulsory power which was sought to be given.

thought the Committee were wasting time, because he believed the words of the clause carried everything required by the Committee. He, however, wished to know, whether the words "or otherwise incapacitated," which were already contained in the clause, would not cover the case of men who were unable to read?

said, that the Government did not consider that they were introducing any educational test, but they had provided for the illiterate voter by having the names placed alphabetically. Hon. Members who had illiterate constituents were slandering them by supposing that they would not know sufficient to enable them to vote if the names were placed in the order proposed. On being informed beforehand of the order in which the candidates were arranged, the illiterate voter would be able to know for which candidate he should vote, by the simple operation of taking his finger from the top to the bottom of the paper. The Government had drawn a distinction between a blind man and an illiterate man. They knew that a blind man could not vote without help. In answer to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) he must say they would not, as the meaning of the phrase only had reference to those who were physically incapacitated.

said, he could not see how the illiterate man could benefit by the names of candidates being placed in alphabetical order.

said, he must point out that the alphabetical arrangement of the candidates' names, which was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, as solving all the difficulties of the question, would be of no use in such a case as that of the last election for Preston, where three out of four of the candidates' names began with the same letter, the three candidates being Lord Edward Howard, Sir Thomas Hesketh, and himself (Mr. Hermon.)

said, he wished to know if the fact of an elector being physically incapacitated by drunkenness would bring him within the phrase "otherwise incapacitated," because, if so, there might be found a great number of persons willing to bring the voter into that position. Such things must be seriously considered, and he wished to know whether such a state of things had been contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council.

said, he wished to know the definition of "otherwise incapacitated." Who was to determine the incapacity? Was it to be the returning officer? Would the old, the infirm, and the sick, be deemed to be incapacitated? He also wished to know whether that term would include those who from their avocations were prevented from attending the poll?

, in reply, said, that the words meant those who were incapacitated by physical infirmity. He had no objection to insert the word "physically" before incapacitated.

proposed an Amendment principally of a technical character, in consequence of the adoption of a previous Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham.) It was that in page 10, line 21, after "ballot papers," the words "delivered or transmitted to him (the returning officer) by each presiding officer" be inserted.

moved the insertion in line 22, after "account," of the words—

"Of the ballot papers intrusted to the charge of such presiding officer, by adding the total number of such spoiled ballot papers, tendered ballot papers, and unused ballot papers, to the recorded number of used ballot papers contained in the ballot-box delivered or transmitted by the same presiding officer."

The object of the Amendment was to check any misuse of the ballot papers, by providing that the whole number issued should be properly accounted for.

said, he must object to the Amendment as being too complicated, too precise, and also as unnecessary.

, on the contrary, maintained that it was indispensable to guard against abuse, and that it was simple.

said, his objection to that Amendment was the same as he made to the last. He thought it was going too much into precise details, and was likely to lead to a Petition, which would not otherwise be thought of.

said, he must ask what, then, was the use of the presiding officer making out an account as provided by the Bill? He considered that his proposal, if adopted, would be a great check on the presiding officer.

said, that the object of the Amendment was not only to secure an accurate account, but also to prove that the account was accurate, and that would be a satisfaction to the electors.

said, he thought it essential that the Amendment should be adopted, as it was absolutely necessary that it should be known that the election was properly conducted. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill objected to Amendments moved from the Opposition side of the House, on the ground of their entering too much into detail; but the fact was that the whole Bill was bristling with details, and when it was proposed to bring any of the details to a test such as that now proposed, it was then objected that hon. Members were too precise and particular. It was necessary, he thought, in the case now before them, in order to be assured that the election was properly conducted, that the returning officer should make some publication of the adding up of all the papers which came into his possession.

said, the subsection provided that the summing up should be in the presence of the agents of the candidates, and that appeared to him to be all that was required. He had no objection to add the words—

"After having declared to the agents of the candidates, if any were present, the result of the verification if the account was verified."

said, if the account was correct it would be so stated at the time; but if incorrect, what was to be done? If incorrect, some inquiry ought to be instituted. For that reason he should support the Amendment.

said, it was a matter of account keeping, and if it was worth keeping an account it was worth keeping it correctly.

said, the Committee was entitled to have some more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. All that was required was to know if the agents had properly discharged their duty, just as it was required to know that the agents of a joint-stock concern had discharged their duty faithfully to the shareholders, who in this case were the electors. If the account did not tally it should be publicly known. The whole object and intention of the Bill appeared to be to prevent a scrutiny into the way votes were given.

said, he had already stated that the sub-section did provide for the verification of the account being conducted in the presence of the candidates or their agents, and enabled them to obtain a verification. He had no objection to add words to the clause, if it was necessary to make it more clear. It was not of much importance either way. His reason for opposing the Amendment was, that it was undesirable, if any unintentional mistake was made, that it should be used in contemplation of proceedings against the sitting Members.

said, they now had the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was opposed to the only constitutional check they could have to secret voting. A most important principle was involved in the clause, and he trusted the Committee would not decide hastily upon it.

asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to propose some words that would give the necessary verification.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the words he proposed as an alternative.

said, he proposed to add to the end of the clause,

"After having declared to the agents of the candidates, if any were present, the result of the verification as aforesaid."

proposed the Amendment which stood in his name. In page 10, after line 25, to add the following sub-section:—

"If any ballot-box in the course of transmission from the presiding officer of a polling booth to the returning officer be lost or broken open, the election shall be ipso facto void and a new election shall take place."

said, it would be better to leave such a case to the natural remedy—that the aggrieved party should Petition.

moved to add this proviso to the clause—

"Provided always that the word 'incapacitated' hereinbefore mentioned, shall mean physically incapacitated."

said, that question had already been decided in the negative, and that, therefore, it could not be again put.

said, he disliked the disfranchisement of returning officers, who ought not, he thought, to be so stigmatized, and with a view to give the Committee another opportunity of expressing an opinion on this point, he should divide against the clause.

moved that Progress be reported.

said, he hoped that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would feel that they should not lose time over the Bill, and that Progress could not be reported at that early hour (a quarter to 12.)

asked for some explanation respecting the 18th clause, upon which a good deal of misapprehension, now existed, and it was the general wish that it should not be taken on an uncertain day or hour. If it could be taken on Monday, he believed that it would suit the general convenience of the House.

said, he hoped that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford would be adopted.

said, he should be loth to suppose that the fate of the other clauses depended upon the 18th clause. He had already stated that he had proposed to postpone the 18th clause till the others had been taken, because he thought it would be convenient that it should not be taken either to-day or to-morrow. To fix the day for a clause was not a usual one; but he thought it very probable that clause would come on on Monday, but not if they had proceeded as slowly as they had done that night.

said, that the Amendments made that night had been owned by the right hon. Gentleman to be mostly of a very valuable character, so that it could not be said that there had been waste of time. It was not impossible for those experienced in the conduct of the Business of the House to form an idea of the prospect of their progress, and he thought that there was a fair prospect that they might arrive at the 18th clause on Monday.

said, he should be glad if the anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) turned out correct. He (Mr. Forster) understood it was not the wish of the Committee that Clause 18 should be postponed, and in order that it should be taken on Monday, he proposed to put it first for to-morrow's Morning Sitting, and after that the Educational Vote in Supply, so that if the Committee came to Clause 18 before 7 o'clock they would be able to report Progress and yet not waste time. He proposed also to put the Bill down for Monday after Supply, which would be taken first on Monday.

said, he thought it would be impossible altogether to get rid of the expense of employing agents, but he thought it would be very much diminished by the adoption of an Amendment which stood in the name of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), which provided that—

"In the event of an Election being contested, there shall be present at each polling station, during the time of polling, one or more of the overseers of the parish or township in which such polling station is situate, or some person appointed by such overseers in that behalf, by writing under their hands; and such overseer or person shall affix his seal to the ballot-box, when the same shall have been looked by the presiding officer, and to every packet of ballot papers required to be sealed by the presiding officer; and it shall be the duty of such overseer or person to assist the presiding officer in preventing personation or other irregularity."

However illegal the charges for them might be made, he feared that private agents would be employed by the candidates, and that with respect to them there would be that secrecy which was to characterize all other proceedings at elections. If polling-places were multiplied to a great extent, in many places the overseers, or persons appointed as local public officers, would be accepted by the candidates as their agents, and the danger of personation would be much diminished. It could be still further reduced by the presence of persons who were acquainted with the voters. He believed that a provision of this nature would be a great advantage not only to the public but to the candidates themselves. In the absence of his right hon. Friend he begged to move the Amendment.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, although he admitted the object to be a good one. There might be an advantage in having the rate collectors present at the polling; but it would be very unadvisable that the overseers should be the agents of any candidate, while the words "or other persons appointed by them" were too vague. He would, however, undertake to consider the matter, which seemed to him to apply rather to the County Registration Bill, though he could not hold out any hope of accepting it when that Bill was before the Committee.

moved, in page 11, line 20, after "Act," to insert—

"But no minister of religion shall be appointed officer, clerk, or agent, at or for the purpose of any election."

It was not necessary for him to argue that it was undesirable for the clergy to interfere in elections, which must of necessity withdraw them from the higher spiritual duties discharged by them in so satisfactory a manner; but before the Select Committee evidence had been given that the electors constantly urged forward the clergy into prominent positions, which otherwise they would be unwilling to take up; and what he aimed at in this Amendment was to protect them by prohibiting their acceptance of an official and recognized position. For evidence had likewise been given that ministers of religion had acted as paid agents, and that in some cases they had even sent in their accounts and been paid like the other agents. The cause of religion in any form must suffer, he thought, from being mixed up with transactions of this kind. Even in former times, clerical intimidation was felt to be a serious evil. But under the existing system many persons besides the voter could get into the booth, whereas under the Bill the only person able to get into the booth besides the voter would be the officer, or clerk; and if an unscrupulous person wished to exercise religious influence, getting himself appointed to be the officer, or clerk, would be exactly the way to do so with impunity. It was contemplated, moreover, to increase largely the number of polling-places, and where responsible persons could not easily be found, there would be the greatest temptation to urge the clergy to act officially in the booths. His proposal to exclude ministers of religion from acting as agents was moved in the interest of the clergy themselves, and would not in anyway diminish the legitimate influence which they possessed, while it would save them from being forced forward, under pressure, into positions which they would rather not fill, but from which they might find it hard to escape. The term "minister of religion" was rather vague, and therefore he proposed to adopt the definition which was given in the Juries Act, and which, in the discussion upon the measure brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), had been referred to as the most comprehensive and suitable that could be given.

said, he did not believe that the addition would have any practical effect, as persons inclined to exercise illegitimate influence would do so whether they were appointed agents or not. But he could not imagine that practically it ever happened that clergymen were appointed clerks or agents, though it might well happen that a person well fitted for such an office in places where agents were scarce might also be a clergyman. The senior partner in a firm, with which hon. Gentleman opposite ought to be well acquainted, was at one time a very efficient and eloquent minister of religion. Difficulties might also be expected to arise in practice as to what constituted a minister of religion. On the whole, therefore, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he feared that he could not have made his original statement plain to the right hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee reported that there were cases in which it had been actually proved that the ministers of religion acted as paid agents. There was also a danger that ministers might seek to be engaged as agents for the purpose of entering the polling-booth, to which they would not otherwise be able to gain admission. The danger, therefore, was not an imaginary one against which he wished to guard, and he should feel obliged to take the opinion of the Committee.

said, the clause as it stood provided that a candidate might also attend at any place where an agent might attend. He did not think that sufficiently explicit, and would move in page 11, line 27, after "attend," to insert—

"But the attendance or presence of any candidate shall not in any way prevent or hinder his appointed agent acting for him, unless at the express desire of such candidate."

said, he would accept the Amendment.

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Bill, he said, was part of a measure introduced and withdrawn early in the present Session; and he objected strongly, therefore, to the course which had been taken in re-introducing it at the fag end of the Session, when the House was overburdened with Government measures, very few of which had any chance of being passed.

protested against this attempt to shelve the Bill in the present Session, and urged the Committee to proceed.

opposed the Bill, remarking that the House had no conception of the number of offices which were intended to be created by that Bill, but not actually contained in its provisions. The Bill was but a fragment of a measure, and the House was asked to pass it without the slightest notion of the burdens with which it was about to saddle the Consolidated Fund.

said, that the hon. Members for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. J. Fielden) and North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) utterly misapprehended the object of the Bill. The Bill was a measure to combine central departments into one power, which power was to assist the various local boards throughout the country. It was not only a measure of efficiency, but one of economy.

said, that if he had been misled, it was by the statement which was made the other day by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) himself.

complained that every stage of the Bill had been introduced after 1 o'clock. He did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to object to the system of discussing important measures at an hour when no one was fit for discussion.

said, that the Bill was only one of eight clauses, and it did not authorize a large expenditure. Neither was it a centralizing, it was a concentrating measure, confining to one department business which had previously been scattered amongst three or four; and not only that, it would encourage and develop local authority instead of detracting from it. No expense could be incurred under the Bill without coming again to the House.

objected to proceed at such an hour and such a period of the Session with a Bill which if it did not increase the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, would certainly throw increased charges upon the rates. He denied that the Bill was a small one, and thought its effect would be to cut to pieces the very thews and sinews of local Government.

said, he must protest against the system which was proposed to be established by that Bill.

said, that that Bill would extend the same protection to human beings that Parliament had already given to cattle. If a disease appeared among cattle there was a direct responsibility of the Privy Council to stamp it out. But when small-pox, cholera, or any other epidemic attacked human beings in this country, they could not fix responsibility upon anyone; or, at least, it was so diffused and attenuated among four or five departments that it ceased to be operative. That Bill consolidated 25 Acts from the Privy Council and Home Office with others under the Poor Law. It was a Bill to get order out of disorder, and though it gave no new powers which have not already been enacted, it made a new Health Department of the State which would be more powerful in administration. It was a Bill of consolidation and concentration. Such a Bill was at all times desirable; in the approach of an epidemic such as cholera, it was at that time indispensable.

said, that the Bill would create one great central authority—much, he believed, to the detriment of the country; and he denounced the attempt to smuggle it through the House before the country knew anything about it. He believed that the zeal to pass the Bill arose from the patronage which it would place in the hands of the Government.

, while of opinion that the Bill was a good one, objected to its being proceed with at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning.

supported the Bill, and spoke of his experience as to the results of divided authority in 1848, during the last visit of cholera to Dublin, having been fatal to the lives of hundreds.

, while in favour of the Bill, said, he was sorry it should have been brought forward at a time when it was impossible it could be duly considered. It was a consequence of the unsatistactory manner in which the business of the House was conducted. Important Bills such as the present were taken at unseemly hours, and a preference given to measures which advanced party objects.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who would be intrusted with the carrying out of that measure should occupy the position of a responsible Minister rather than of the head of a Board. He would move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "Board," and insert "office."

said, it was a scandal that the head of that Department should be removed on every change in the Ministry.

said, that while as anxious as anyone to see the Bill passed, he objected to its being forced on at an hour when the strength of hon. Members was exhausted. Unless a different system were adopted, a most important Department in the State would be sacrificed to the exigencies of the promotion of political officials. It was felt as a great misfortune that the present First Lord of the Admiralty should have been removed from the Poor Law Board at a time when he had just begun to know his business well, and it would be a grave error if such a system should be continued.

said, it was impossible for the Government to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with the Motion, observing that the Bill was one of the greatest importance. The objections which had been raised on the question of the title of the Department were merely expedients to prevent the Bill becoming law during the present Session. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) could not properly be raised on the present Bill.

opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

said, that after the intimation of the First Lord of the Treasury, he would withdraw his Amendment; but would reserve to himself the right of proposing it on another opportunity, as he felt that it deserved serious consideration.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

supported the Motion.

opposed the Motion.

asked for a pledge that there should be no new appointments under the Bill.

said, that the medical officers of the Poor Law Board and Mr. Tom Taylor would be transferred to the new Department.

moved that the Committee report Progress.