asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the provisions of the Bill introduced into this House by the Honourable and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight), to authorise the punishment of whipping for certain offences against women and children; and, whether he is prepared to co-operate in extending similar provisions to Scotland?

My attention has been called to the Bill referred to, the purpose of which is to enlarge the power of punishment under an Act of Parliament which does not apply to Scotland. I am not at present prepared to express any opinion as to the merits of the Bill as regards England, nor can I express any opinion as to the expediency of extending it to Scotland; but I shall be prepared to consider the question when the subject comes before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory and unhealthy condition of the Old Barracks at Fermoy, and whether reports in reference thereto have not from time to time been forwarded to the War Office; if it be true that the latrines are old cesspits, and that the Control Department have great difficulty in getting them emptied; whether a proposal to construct earth closets has not been for some time under consideration; and, if so, when will that proposal be carried into effect; whether it is the case that the water supply during the summer is so limited that it has to be obtained by means of water carts; and, if he will state the number of cases of measles and typhoid fever that have occurred in the said barracks amongst the men, women, and children, during the months of March and April, together with the number of deaths that have resulted in consequence?

I have, Sir, made inquiry of the proper department as to the details involved in this question, with the following result:—1, Reports specially reporting the unhealthy and unsatisfactory condition of the old barracks of Fermoy have not been received; 2, the latrines are on the old cesspit system, they are emptied satisfactorily under a contract; 3, the substitution of earth closets has been considered, but no steps have yet been taken for the purpose; 4, the water supply was last year represented as deficient, one of the principal wells was thereupon deepened and a good spring of water struck. In the summer it has been found necessary to supplement the supply by the use of water-carts; 5, the occupation of the old barracks is by 856 non-commissioned officers and men; from the 2nd of March to the 3rd of May, inclusive, there had occurred at Fermoy—presumably at the old barracks—one case of typhoid fever—a soldier; of measles—one officer, three soldiers, one woman, 30 children; one child is reported to have died of measles. Measles have been very prevalent, and the spread is referred rather to infection than to any insalubrity in the condition of the barracks.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to reduce the establishment of Irish Militia; and, if so, by what number; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to amalgamate any Irish Regiments of Militia; and, if so, which?

Sir, the question of the future establishment for the Irish Militia is not yet finally decided; but in General MacDougall's Report it is stated that, in proportion to the present population, Ireland has too large an establishment as compared with England and Scotland, and it is proposed to reduce Ireland by 5,000 men. The detailed arrangements with respect to the smaller battalions, as far as they have been yet completed, are given in Schedule A, and the very small battalions will eventually be consolidated.

, who moved the Adjournment of the House with the view of putting himself in Order, said, he had given Notice of a Question on this subject to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and he desired to say a few words in explanation. His remarks had reference to the very extraordinary division which took place yesterday. It was one of the Motions which the Government of the day charged themselves with, and his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government put his name down for it, although—so little anticipation was there of any opposition—it was moved by another Member of the Government. No notice of opposition was given, and yet a "snap" division was taken by surprise, and the Motion was rejected by a majority of 5 a few minutes after the meeting of the House. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that the custom was of recent date, and its origin was attributable to the efforts of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), at whose instance the arrangement was made by the present Prime Minister, acting for Lord Palmerston during Lord Palmerston's Government. But the fact was that the adjournment on Ascension Day dated from 1849. It was moved on the 16th of May in that year by his right hon. Friend then and now the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), and it was acceded to on the part of Lord Russell, who was Prime Minister, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), who was at that time Home Secretary. He would not dwell upon the discourtesy, to say the least of it, of upsetting an arrangement upon which the House relied. But that discourtesy was in this instance exercised in respect to a matter which affected the religious feelings of Members in that House. ["Oh!"] Some hon. Members might doubt that statement; but the fact remained, and he was not ashamed to own that his religious feelings had been hurt by what had been done, and he believed that the religious feelings of others had been hurt in a similar manner. There were, at least, two religious bodies in the House—the Established Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church—both of whom observed Ascension Day with peculiar devotion. Years ago there had been a revived demand for the observance of services of especial religious significance, and that demand had continued to increase, and he ventured to say that the proceedings of yesterday would make a sensation through the country. He undertook to say that there was not a parish in the land in which people would not be surprised and hurt at what took place yesterday. Some people might think that going to church savoured of superstition.

rose to Order.

ruled that the hon. Member for Cambridge University was in Order, as he intended to move the Adjournment.

said, that his Question also referred to the observance of Ash Wednesday—an observance for which day, also, the House was accustomed to provide by not sitting till 2 o'clock. He might remark that in the Division List he observed the names of two Gentlemen, with reference to whose religious susceptibilities the House had been recently manifesting its tenderness. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, regarding the Division which was taken by surprise at the sitting of Wednesday, shortly after the meeting of the House, in reversal of the continued custom of the House for twenty-three years that Committees should not sit on Ascension Day until two o'clock, he will consider the advisability of embodying the custom by which the House does not sit on Ash Wednesday till two o'clock, nor Committees on Ascension Day till two o'clock, in a Standing Order?

said, in reply, that he was not surprised at the Question having been put; but he trusted the House would not be led into a discussion on the subject, not only on account of the interruption it would be to Public Business, but because he did not think any discussion of the matter at the moment would promote the spirit which should prevail on such a day. He felt bound to take exception to the use of the word "surprise" in the Question, because the result must have been a surprise to everyone concerned, and could not be said to have been premeditated, as the use of the word in the Question seemed to imply. He regretted the decision, because it had given rise to misapprehension out-of-doors; but he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of the matter now on the understanding that the question would be raised before another such occasion arrived, so that the deliberate opinion of the House might be taken upon it. He hoped the House would not think that he was to blame in the matter. He was in the House till half-past 2 in the morning of the same day, and he would have been in his place when the question came on if he had anticipated that it would have been anything but a matter of form.

explained that he did not rise yesterday to oppose the Motion, but simply to give full Notice that he should do so next year. The feeling of the House, however, was against the Motion, and he did not think anyone had a fair right to complain if, upon a Question being put to the House, any hon. Member chose to say "No" to it, and proceed to a division. The legal maxim, Vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt leges, applied in this case. Those who were wide-awake got the benefit of the law. There were upwards of 100 Members in the House at the time, and he believed as a matter of fact that the Speaker's decision was in favour of the "Noes," and that the "Ayes" forced the division. He admitted his error in reference to the origin of the practice, but explained that he spoke from memory, and had confused what occurred on the subject of Ascension Day with the proceedings in connection with a Day of Fast and Humiliation. Having searched the Journals, he found the Motion originated with the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), and was assented to by Lord Palmerston. Afterwards the Motion was made by Sir William Hayter. But it was a mistake to suppose, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) had done, perhaps inadvertently, that this division was in reversal of the continued custom of the House. In 1856 the Motion was first made and agreed to, and it was repeated in 1857. Then followed a gap until 1861. In that year and the following the Motion was agreed to. Then there was a gap until 1865, when in that year and the two following the Motion was agreed to. It was not made again until 1870 and 1871, so that out of 17 years the Motion had been made in only nine. Another point upon which some misapprehension seemed to exist was that the decision come to had obliged the Committees to sit at 12 o'clock, in accordance with their ordinary practice. But the Committees were quite able each individually to adjourn to 1 or 2 if they chose, and the only complaint that could be made on the matter was that, if the Motion had been carried, the Committees were suddenly told they should not sit until 2. As a matter of fact, the Committees, having their time of meeting in their own hands, had eight of them met at 12, one at 1, and another at a quarter to 4—for formal business, probably. So that it was evident the only compulsion was the proposed compulsion of the Committees, forbidding them to sit, and not the compulsion of the House by any refusal of the Motion. It was necessary these things should be understood before forming an opinion on the question.

rose to move the insertion, after Clause 18, of a clause to amend the Law as to polling in wards in certain boroughs in Ireland. There were in that country three or four boroughs in which the municipal and the Parliamentary boundaries were not conterminous. The object of this clause was to authorize the Sheriff to treat the portion of a Parliamentary borough which lay outside the municipal boundary as if it were inside of it, and thus to erect booths and compartments out- side of that boundary, so as to afford greater convenience to the electors in recording their votes.

moved, after original Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—

(Limitation of expenses.)

"From and after the passing of this Act, the expense to be incurred by any returning officer and chargeable to the candidates in respect of each polling station at any Parliamentary Election shall not exceed the sum of seven pounds over and above the expense of providing ballot papers and of the fee of the presiding officer; and the charge to be made by the returning officer in respect of the certificate or return to the writ shall be one guinea, and no more; and no candidate at any Election shall be required to pay any charges or expenses incurred for the services or attendance of any police or other constables at any Election."

The effect of his clause would be to mitigate, though not absolutely to remove, the evil of which many hon. Members had cause to complain. As long as Members were required to possess a property qualification, perhaps it was only fortifying that qualification that they should be obliged to pay a considerable amount of the expenses of elections. But since the abolition of the property qualification that reason for imposing this burden on them fell to the ground. The payment of those expenses by the candidates was a matter of comparatively modern origin. It was only about 40 years ago that there was any decision that candidates should be bound to pay for the erection of hustings; the ground on which that decision rested being that if candidates and their friends used the hustings they must be taken to have assented to their erection, and therefore must pay for it. It was not until the first Reform Act that those expenses assumed any magnitude. Before that time there was only one place for taking the poll at each election, which was generally held in the Town Hall or some other public building, and the expense, consequently was small. But after the passing of that Act the thin end of the wedge got inserted, and the expenses of elections were thrown absolutely on the candidates by the Legislature. Since then the expenses charged to them had been legally, and some of them probably illegally, increased. He proposed by his present clause to deal with three classes of expenses. The first was, the charge of the Returning Officer for making the return, which was now a very arbitrary one, ranging from two guineas and a-half to 30 guineas. In Scotland they were wiser in those matters. There were only two or three cases in which they paid anything beyond a few shillings for the cost of the parchment. The duty of making the return was a very light one, and he proposed that the remuneration for it should not exceed one guinea, which he thought was sufficient. The second charge was that for the polling-booths. By the Reform Act the maximum charge on this head in an English county was fixed at £40, and in English boroughs at £25; but he could not see any reason for such a difference. In Ireland the maximum had been fixed at £5, and he considered that £7 would in all cases be found sufficient. The third charge was that for the police during the time of election, which amounted in some small places, such as Ripon, for example, to £20 8s. 6d., and Windsor to £155, and which, he thought, ought to be abolished altogether. He concluded by moving the new clause of which he had given Notice.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member that election expenses ought to be reduced as much as possible, but thought he could show him good reason for not pressing his clause. In the first place, the indenture expenses had been abolished altogether by Rule 43 of the 1st Schedule. The Act 7 & 8 Will, & Mary, c. 25, s. 2, imposed a fine of £500 upon any Returning Officer who received any reward or gratuity for making out the return to a writ. The charge for the services of the police was not legal at the present moment, and the Returning Officer was required by 6 Vict., c. 18, s. 20, to provide them. With respect to limiting the expenses for polling-booths to £7, he thought it was undesirable to put into the Bill any positive limitation, as the circumstances of dif- ferent places were likely to vary very much. In some cases £7 would be too small a charge, while in others it would be a great deal too much.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member would press his clause, in order to put an end to the present system under which every official at an election endeavoured to make as much money as he could. When himself a Returning Officer, he was offered an allowance if he gave an order for a certain number of polling-booths.

said, he thought the maximum charge of £7 for polling-booths would undoubtedly in some places be taken advantage of for making an increase of the charge to that amount. No such charge was incurred in the borough he represented (Sunderland), as a room was simply hired for conducting the election. If the Mover of the clause would consent to strike out all but the provision relating to the police, he would support the clause. The hon. Gentleman had just informed him that he was willing to accept this Amendment, which he (Mr. Candlish) would therefore move.

The clause has not yet been read a second time by the House, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to move an Amendment upon it before it is so read. The Question before the House is, whether the clause be read in its entirety or rejected in its entirety?

moved the following clause:—

(Offences how to be prosecuted.)

"Any misdemeanour under this Act may be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."

He said that his Amendment was in the ordinary form in which a clause was framed when it was desired to give summary jurisdiction to try offences. As the Bill at present stood, a single justice sitting in his back parlour could try these offences; but if his clause was adopted, it would then be necessary that the proceedings should be before two ordinary justices or one stipendiary magistrate.

observed, that the offences mentioned in the 3rd clause were misdemeanours, and, in his opinion, they were offences that could properly be tried only before a jury. It would introduce a new practice into the law to enact that misdemeanours should be tried by two justices.

said, he hoped that the clause would not be pressed in its present form, because the offences named in the 3rd clause were not fit ones to be tried before two justices. As to the offences named in Clause 4, he thought that they should not be dealt with by one justice, and he would suggest that the proper time to bring this question forward would be upon the 4th clause.

moved to leave out Clause 1. Although the question of nominations had been the subject of debate for several days last Session, and had been much commented on in the public Press, still he felt that he owed no apology to the House for giving it another opportunity of considering whether it was worth while to depart from the ancient practice of public nomination, and to establish a system which he thought would be equally unnecessary and unpopular. He doubted whether the House was aware of the great change intended in this respect; and he was sure that the country was not aware of it. The Bill proposed that a candidate should be nominated in writing; that the writing should be signed by such two of the registered electors as might be his proposer and seconder, and by eight other registered electors. The Schedule relating to this subject carried the process further, and pointed out that the place of election should be a convenient room, situate in the town in which the election might be held, and selected for that purpose by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer was to appoint the nomination sometime between 10 and 2, and he was to attend during two hours. The nomination papers were to be delivered to the Returning Officer at the time and place mentioned, and the candidate, his proposer and seconder, and one person selected by the candidate, were the only persons to be present during the proceedings. If the election were contested, the Returning Officer was to give notice of the day of polling to the candidate and the persons subscribing the nomination papers. The House would perceive that this was an entire departure from the immemorial practice of nominations, and it would require a considerable amount of justification before it was passed. It might be said that public nomination was a useless and generally riotous proceeding; that the proceeding was carried on in dumb show; and that the consequences were scandalous to this country. He wished, however, to point out that in a large proportion of nominations no riotous proceedings took place, so that the remedy proposed was wider than the grievance, which was a very common form of legislation in these days. In the second place, the nomination was, in a very large number of instances, the actual election. He should not so much have objected to a plan for deciding in private whether there should be a contest or not, because the nomination was not so important where the subsequent proceedings were to be of a public character; but it was most objectionable that the election should take place in a room—a garret or an attic perhaps—from which not only would the public be excluded, but even the reporters for the public Press would be excluded also. To do this would be to trust the Returning Officer with a very large discretion. Had it ever been heard in recent times that Parliament proposed by its formal legislation to exclude from a proceeding upon which the light of day ought to be let in, and in which the public and the constituency affected by it took the greatest possible interest, the reporters of the public Press? The only precedent for this hole-and-corner proceeding was the law requiring that executions should be inflicted in private. But, unfortunately, the Government of the day forgot to introduce such exclusive words as this Bill contained, and reporters were allowed to witness the dying agonies of the criminal, and by their description to demoralize the public mind pretty much as public executions had done. It reflected no great credit on the Liberal party that they should propose to carry secrecy to such lengths. There was a plan on the Paper suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), which would be a great improvement on the scheme of the Government; a plan was proposed by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer) last year, and many other plans might be suggested for divesting nominations of their riotous and turbulent character. There was no occasion, therefore, for legislation of this kind. The matter had been very carefully considered by the Select Committee from whose lucubrations this Bill had proceeded, and they did not recommend that nominations should be abolished. The provision of the Bill of last year as finally settled was less objectionable, for the Returning Officer was then authorized to allow 10 persons, besides the proposer and seconder, to be present. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Not as finally settled.] The whole position of the Government with regard to the proposer and seconder and the eight registered electors was full of anomalies, and when understood by the country would be considered ridiculous. The Returning Officer was to placard outside the place of nomination the names of the proposer and seconder, and the eight registered electors who recommended each candidate. What became of secrecy in that case? There was an Irish borough which had been often spoken of in this House—he meant Portarlington—which had not above 60 or 70 electors. [An hon. MEMBER: 120.] Well, it was conceivable that there might be six or seven candidates for a small borough like Portarlington, and if the names of the 10 registered electors for each candidate were to be placarded in public, what was to become of the secrecy which the Bill was to secure? He was quite sure that in the majority of counties the change now proposed would be, in the highest degree, unpopular, and the difficulty which had arisen in the case of boroughs might have been got rid of by other means.

said, that the hon. Member who had moved the omission of the clause had hardly given sufficient weight to the fact that this system of public nomination had been complained of by men of all parties for the last 20 years. As long ago as that an eminent writer described the day of nomination in these words—

"Nomination days altogether are a most unsatisfactory affair. There is little to be done, and that little mere form. The tedious hours remain, and no one can settle his mind to anything. It is not a holiday, for everyone is serious; it is not business, for no one can attend to it. It is not a contest, for there is no canvassing. It is not an election, for there is no poll. It is a day of lounging without an object, and luncheons without an appetite; of hopes and fears, confidence and dejection, bravado, bets, and secret hedging; and, about midnight, of furious suppers, grilled bones, brandy-and-water, and recklessness."

Most hon. Gentlemen could testify from their own experience to the truth of this description, which he had copied that afternoon from a work written by the only Member of this House who could give so true and striking a picture—he meant the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). It struck him that this passage, which he had repeatedly read, would have more weight with the House than anything he could say on the subject. There were few hon. Members who had attended more contested elections than himself, and in the whole of his experience during the last 17 years he recollected only three nominations, whether for counties or boroughs, at which the candidates were heard, except perhaps by the reporters and a few friends nearest to them. The doing away with open nominations would, in his opinion, be a popular process, because the people who came to make a row were generally not electors, but men who were hired to do mischief.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. It was not for him to criticise the eloquent language of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli); but they all knew in what powerful colours the inimitable Hogarth had painted county and borough elections, and did anyone suppose that such a genuine Englishman as Hogarth did not appreciate the freedom, openness, and hard hitting of English election contests? Hogarth was a man who of all others would stand up for elections carried on in the light of day. There were many distinguished men on both sides of the House who were of opinion that nominations should be carried on in the accustomed way, and many others who would support the old system did they not think that it would militate against the passing of the Bill. But the proposal of his hon. Friend had no such intention. There was no reason, if public nominations were continued, why the Ballot should not be carried and pass into use in the country. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that he did not wish to check the public expression of opinion or interfere with any use of tongue or voice by Englishmen. But the greatest interference with use of tongue and voice would occur if they abolished the immemorial custom by which candidates appeared on the hustings. The Times, speaking lately of a great question which agitated the public mind, said it must be relegated to consideration at the hustings; but if this Bill were carried there would be no hustings at all, a customary phrase would lose its meaning, and so even the English language must be altered. It was said that you could not hear what occurred at the hustings. In the county which he represented (Dorsetshire) this had never been so, though there had been stout fights on many public questions. To the best of his recollection, on no occasion had the speakers—proposer, seconder, or candidate—failed to make themselves heard at nominations in his county. Surely means might be contrived by which in particular instances—in cases of riot—nominations might be suspended, and perhaps the plan in the Bill adopted, without abolishing nominations altogether. Believing that such abolition was not called for and would cause great dissatisfaction throughout the country, he should cordially support the Motion that the clause should not form part of the Bill.

Sir, the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Floyer) of elections in that favoured county is so alluring, that if I could by any chance acquire property in that county I should certainly like to stand upon the hustings there. But let me call his attention and the attention of the House to this—that there is a great difference between Dorset and Nottingham "lambs." My experience shows that, while those of Dorsetshire come earlier into the market and are less expensive, Nottinghamshire lambs are very dry and tough. We have heard repeated to-night something about the wisdom of our ancestors. I am sure if our ancestors had lived in these days nominations would have been abolished long ago. In my opinion, one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill is that which proposes to abolish nominations. The hon. Gentleman talked about the voices of the electors. As if the individual voice of an elector were ever heard at a nomination, and as if there were not a general agreement to roar, to hiss, and become debased with drink! The true-born Englishman is said to delight in that day. Now, who are the true-born Englishmen who take part in the proceedings at nominations? Why, the representatives of muscular Christianity—prize-fighters and people of that sort. I have spent as much money in retaining the services of those gentlemen as anybody in this House. One of my most efficient supporters in Nottingham was a gentleman who was always clothed as a clergyman of the Church of England, but whose true profession was that of ex-champion of England—Bendigo by name. This is a sample of your true-born Englishman on whose behalf we are to strike out the 1st clause. The clause is essential to the utility of the Bill. If you wish to improve the proceedings at elections and make people reasoning men, do away with nominations. It is all very well for the; quiet inhabitants of Dorset to stand up for nominations; but look at the boroughs of this kingdom, not only in England, but in Ireland too. The hon. Gentleman who moved the omission of the clause said, in the simplicity of his heart, that we might do away with open-air meetings, and hold the nomination in some hall or public room. Why, there is more security in open-air meetings than in any other. In Ireland we have no open-air meetings. It is all done in a private room, where we run into infinitely greater danger. You may escape missiles at the hustings; but what are you to do in a closed room in a small Town Hall, where the galleries are seized vi et armis by opposing forces, and there is a general shindy to get the best place? Immemorial custom, indeed! I know it is a custom which often breeds disorder and riot. It is true wisdom to get rid of these immemorial customs, and thus make the proceedings at elections more quiet and orderly. The men who rejoice in nominations are not the electors, but men paid to be there, with a strong development of the biceps muscle and an uncommon power of roaring. These are your "true-born Englishman." I do hope that the Government, who have given way on so many other points, will now stand to their colours; and they will then do more for morality and good order than by many other things they have done lately.

As I served on the Committee alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and concurred in the recommendation of the majority of the Committee, I feel it my duty to state my reasons for supporting the Amendment. The Committee state fairly their opinion on the subject. They admit the fact that there are many cases, chiefly in Ireland, in which public nominations are attended by proceedings which are a disgrace to the places in which they occur. The addresses delivered at these nominations are, they say, sometimes inaudible on account of the interruptions which prevail, and serious disturbances occur. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) has had a somewhat exceptional experience in these matters. He stood for Nottingham, and, as everyone knows, the proceedings at elections in that town are not only a disgrace to it—[Mr. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!]—but are almost without parallel in any other town in this country. The Committee, however, say that in the majority of cases the proceedings at nominations are conducted in an orderly manner. I am of opinion that we ought not to depart from an ancient and a beneficial practice because it has in certain instances been abused. Let me take the case of political meetings at which disgraceful scenes sometimes occur, against which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department has been appealed to afford protection. Does anybody suppose that because of such proceedings public meetings should be prohibited? Nobody can for a moment imagine that anything of that kind could be done. We must in this world put up with the mixture of evil with good, and in the case which we are discussing the good, in my opinion, greatly predominates. More effectual means might be taken to prevent disorderly proceedings, instead of depriving the whole of the constituencies of the country of their constitutional right under the presidency of the High Sheriff in counties, and of the Returning Officer in boroughs, to choose, in obedience to the Queen's Writ, fit and proper persons to represent them in Parliament. One of the advantages of public nominations is that they afford a candidate an opportunity of meeting his opponents and criticizing their political opinions in their hearing in the presence of a meeting convened not by the candidates themselves, but fairly representing persons in the constituency of every shade of political opinion. By open nomination an opportunity is also afforded to a candidate to vindicate himself from any unfounded charge which may interfere with his prospects of success. I have not had the experience in contested elections of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykeham Martin); but I have had some experience, for I have stood three sharply-contested elections for a borough in the South of England and two for a county in the North. I must, with that experience, say that I felt it a great advantage to meet my rival candidates face to face, and in their presence to try to justify my claim to the confidence of the constituency. When this is done with candour and good humour on both sides, candidates are, on the whole, listened to very fairly. There must, of course, be some interruptions; but not, as a general rule, carried to any great extent. Under the present system, also, candidates are liable to be subjected to cross-examination for the purpose of satisfying any reasonable doubt as to their political conduct and opinions, and they are placed in a position to answer frankly in the face of the constituency. There is, no doubt, sometimes considerable excitement at nominations; but, in my opinion, political excitement to a certain extent is wholesome, and it would not, I think, be desirable that anything like torpor and indifference should prevail in its stead. I look upon nominations, too, as constituting a means of promoting the political education of the country. We are, I am afraid, becoming over-sensitive in these matters. The evils of nominations are not greater now, I believe, than they were at the beginning of the present century. We have all read the accounts of Westminster elections in former times. They were attended frequently by great disorder, and the candidates were exposed to much rougher treatment than in these days. Mr. Fox, however, was not afraid boldly to face these difficulties. He did not come to Parliament and ask to have substituted for public nominations nominations carried on in a private room, from which everyone is to be excluded but the Returning Officer, and some half-dozen privileged persons. I, for one, very much deprecate the proposed change, and I take the line which I am following in the present instance with the less reluctance because this clause has nothing whatever to do with the main object and principle of the Bill. If this clause be omitted every provision of the Bill with respect to the mode of taking votes at elections will still remain. I wish, in the next place, to say a word or two with respect to some of the provisions which are rendered necessary by the proposal to abolish public nominations. The Committee refer to such abolition as tending to fetter constituencies in the choice of representatives, and also as incurring the danger of the fraudulent withdrawal of candidates. The objections based upon both those considerations are, in my opinion, well-founded. Under the existing system any two electors may propose and second a candidate who comes forward on the day of nomination, and when the candidate has been proposed and seconded after a show of hands he is not allowed to withdraw, and becomes in a certain degree the property of the constituency, if a poll is demanded in the event of the show of hands being against him. Under the Bill, however, a candidate may withdraw at the last moment, leaving no time to the constituency to nominate another in his place, and to that extent depriving them of a liberty of choice. It is possible a wealthy candidate might find it his interest to influence a poorer candidate and to induce him to withdraw, so that a state of things which is now impossible might easily occur if the Bill, in its present shape, becomes law. The complexity of the regulations which the abolition of public nominations renders necessary is one of the reasons why I am opposed to that abolition. Under the existing system a candidate appears on the hustings, he is duly proposed and seconded, and the constituency know all about him. Under the new system there is to be a nomination paper, and there is to be a power given to any person who wishes to object to the nomination to state his objection to the Returning Officer during the time fixed for the nomination or within an hour afterwards, and the Returning Officer is to be the sole judge of its validity. Now, Returning Officers are not all infallible, and the objection may be wrongly allowed. Where is the remedy of the candidate? It may be in many cases impossible to present a Petition to Parliament against the return and to try at his own expense the question before the Election Judge. But if he does so and succeeds he cannot get the seat, though his nomination may have been quite in order. But the main ground on which I rest my defence of public nominations is that they afford candidates the opportunity of fairly and openly stating their opinions before the constituencies. I am desirous, if we are to have secret voting, that the conduct of our elections should be attended with as great an amount of publicity as can be retained in the exercise of a constitutional right and performance of a public duty.

said, he hoped this question would not be decided by appeals to sentiment and immemorial practice, or to the superior courage of Fox in standing on the Westminster hustings to be pelted with cabbage stalks and other missiles, but by the application calmly of common sense. The real question was, what was the use of public nomination followed by a show of hands? Was it really of any use; and, if so, were its advantages so great as to outweigh its disadvantages? Originally elections were decided by a show of hands. The freeholders were summoned to a particular place for a certain hour on a certain day, and made their choice by acclamation, and the election was practically decided there and then. Down to the time of James I. or Elizabeth it was a moot point whether the granting of a poll was not in the discretion of the Returning Officer; but gradually a poll was invariably resorted to in cases of contested elections. In these days no one would say that the show of hands decided the election in the event of a contest, or even guided the course of a candidate. No candidate really intending to try to be returned to Parliament was deterred by the show of hands if it should go against him, for he knew that the show of hands was valueless as an indication of the feeling of the electors. Such being the case, it might be asked what made persons anxious to obtain the show of hands? The only reason was that there still remained a sort of lingering feeling or superstition in the minds of election agents, committee men, and candidates that if they obtained the show of hands it created a prestige in their favour, and had some effect on a certain number of voters, who liked to be on what seemed the winning side. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) argue that public nominations tended to the political education of the people, for he was at a loss to conceive how such a purpose could be served by a candidate standing forward to be pelted with rotten eggs and flour, or something less agreeable. Such proceedings tended rather to foster brutality and cowardice. It was said to be desirable that candidates should be brought face to face with their constituents for the purpose of explaining their political views; but, in his humble judgment, public nominations were very valueless for that purpose. It constantly happened that the speeches of the candidated were roared into the ears of the reporters only, and, when printed in the local newspapers, they could have very little influence on the election, because the nomination day was one or two days only before the polling. A much better opportunity for candidates to make explanations and clear up misunderstandings was afforded by those public meetings which candidates attended some time before the approach of the election. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the clause (Mr. Sclater-Booth) did so on the ground that nominations under the Bill would be secret. For his part, he supported the clause, not because it provided for secret nominations, but because it tended to secure orderly nominations without destroying any wholesome publicity or depriving the electors of the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the character, ability, and the opinions of the candidate.

felt compelled to vote for the rejection of the clause. A Parliamentary election was now going to be one long, solemn, secret ceremony, and he thought it desirable to retain, as far as possible, any amount of publicity compatible with the other objects of the Bill. Nominations would be made so secret under the Bill that the electors would know nothing about them, and it was only when the ballot papers were put into their hands on the day of polling that they would learn from them what candidates had been nominated. Under the Ballot, trades unions would be the real moving power in politics, as their members would vote in organized masses. Individual electors, not belonging to organizations, would exercise little influence on the result. Meetings held before the election would not ensure sufficient publicity, inasmuch as they would be organized by candidates from among their own supporters; and, therefore, it was desirable that there should be public nominations, at which each candidate would be openly proposed and seconded. No one going before a constituency would like to forego the advantage of being proposed by some eminent and respected elector; but by the mode of nomination proposed by the Bill that advantage would be lost, as the nomination would be in secret.

objected to the Motion for the rejection of the clause, both on account of form and substance. As regarded form, he thought it most inconvenient, after they had decided this question very lately and carried the clause by a larger majority than almost any other part of the Bill—["No, no!"] Then, perhaps, he might be permitted to say that after the partial discussions and divisions this year, and after the general principles had been decided last year by a larger majority than supported any other part of the Bill, it was an inconvenient course for the hon. Member now to take to propose the rejection of the clause without letting the House know what he proposed to substitute for it. This was especially inconvenient on the Report. They had had a great deal of experience of the working of public nominations in this country, and there had been no small experience of the working of another system elsewhere. He had been twice asked publicly to explain the working of certain portions of the system of election by Ballot elsewhere, and, therefore, coming to that point, he should say that where Ballot had been substituted for open voting nominations had been abolished, and the result had uniformly been satisfactory, and none of the evils anticipated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) and other Gentlemen had occurred. And what had been their experience of the existing system in this country? Only one special case had been pointed out, and it was said that great benefit had been derived from the addresses of candidates during the Westminster election. Allusion had been made to the speeches of Mr. Fox; but those speeches were delivered during the 20 or 30 days of the poll, not on the nomination day. In the great majority of cases the speeches on nomination days were set speeches, which were not often heard; and as to the effect of those speeches when heard, it was, he believed, correct to say the show of hands was, in the majority of instances, reversed by the result of the poll. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

said, he wished merely to observe, with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that he was citing the experience of the youngest of their Colonies against that of both Canada and England; and he must be allowed to add that the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech reminded him of the objection which most people entertained to accepting instruction from their children. In fact, it reminded him forcibly of the old saying about "teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs." He had had considerable experience of contested elections during the four or five contests he had stood. He had known occasions when attempts had been made to interrupt the proceedings. He had seen a thousand men sent to a nomination by train for the purpose of interruption; but he had seen such attempts put down, and order restored. By thus vindicating the rights which for years they had enjoyed, the people learnt the lessons of self-government, and he was convinced that the majority of that House, by seeking to deprive the orderly inhabitants of the opportunity of catechising their candidates at the hustings, and by the course they were in other respects pursuing, were striking at the great principle of self-government.

said, if the House accepted this clause, a nomination would become so like a funeral that they might as well have the parish church bell tolled during the proceedings. Whatever the reception of the clause by the House, it would be essentially unpopular with the great body of the English people. If open nominations were abolished, the great mass of non-electors who now took part in the election by the show of hands would be deprived of that right, and the election would then be a matter to be settled only between the electors and the candidates. That would be most unpopular. Nominations were, in fact, the means of an education in polities to the great mass of non-electors, and they were the only practical, feasible method by which they could start a candidate in a simple, plain manner without these technicalities of procedure specified in the schedules, a failure in which would afford the readiest means of upsetting an election. Several provisions in those schedules presented a mass of traps, pitfalls, and snares which would undoubtedly be laid hold of by active election agents; and as the Returning Officer was in certain cases the sole and final judge with regard to the validity of voting papers, it might turn out that of the two electors who were to nominate a candidate, and the eight others who were to sign the nomination, not one might happen to be a registered elector, and a candidate thus be shut out without any poll whatever. The papers might be concocted by an astute election agent, so as to create these difficulties. It was of the utmost importance that the mode of starting candidates should be perfectly free from any technicality. If this clause were adopted, they would be opening the door to disputes and Election Petitions, and means of avoiding seats which had hitherto been entirely closed under the present system, and of which they were now utterly unaware.

said, that when the Bill was in Committee they consented, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), to qualify certain offences named in sub-sections 4 and 5, by requiring that they should be committed "fraudulently;" but, as the Committee had proceeded too far to insert the word, a proviso was added to the effect that a person should not be convicted unless he had done one of the prohibited acts "fraudulently." He now proposed to get rid of this proviso by introducing the word "fraudulently" into the sub-section, and, as they contained the words "without due authority," which would be unnecessary if "fraudulently" were inserted, he proposed to omit them in order to insert "fraudulently." He also proposed to qualify the offences mentioned in sub-sections 3 and 6 in the same way. Therefore, from the third sub-section, "Without due authority supplies any ballot paper to any person," he moved to omit the words "without due authority" for the purpose of inserting the word "fraudulently."

remarked that the hon. and learned Member had given Notice of three Amendments on this clause. He could not accept the first of them, but had no objection to those on sub-sections 4 and 5, and the consequent omission of the proviso at the end of the clause. As for sub-section 3, it was thoroughly considered in Committee, and passed as it stood without a division. It was felt that there ought to be a restriction to "fraudulently" in sub-sections 4 and 5; but as it was then too late to insert the necessary words in the clause itself, a proviso was added. He had no objection to the insertion of the words in the body of the clause and the omission of the proviso.

then moved in subsection 4 to insert "fraudulently;" in sub-section 5 to leave out "without due authority," and insert "fraudulently;" and to leave out the proviso at the end of the clause.

moved, in page 3, line 35, after "agents," insert—

"Shall communicate at any time to any person any information obtained in the polling station as to the candidate for whom any voter in such station is about to vote or has voted."

Without the insertion of some such Amendment, the words "officer, clerk, or agent" would be superfluous and devoid of significance. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to extend to this part of the clause the principle which had been carried with regard to displaying a ballot paper—namely, that punishment should be inflicted, not on the voter who displayed his ballot paper, but on the person who induced him to do so. In like manner, he proposed that a penalty should be imposed on the person who induced an elector to state how he had voted. He contended that it was impossible to carry the clause as it stood into effect, and to impose perpetual silence on voters. Indeed, he had always thought the Ballot would fail to attain the object its supporters had in view; because supposing an elector declined to state for whom he had voted, his landlord or employer would have no difficulty of turning him out of his farm or employment if he could do so under the existing system. Therefore, he maintained that without some such Amendment as that which stood next on the Paper the Ballot would be practically useless.

said, he was unable to accept any of the Amendments which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to introduce into this clause. One of them would have the effect of relaxing the operation of the clause, while another would greatly increase the penalty. The Amendment just moved would enable any person who was not an officer, clerk, or agent to communicate any information he might obtain as to how an elector voted. A division on this subject was taken in Committee, when it was agreed that the restriction must apply to all persons.

next moved the omission of the word "summary," and the insertion of words to the effect that misdemeanours under the Bill should be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. As the clause at present stood an offender might, under the provisions of Jarvis's Act, be tried by a single Justice in his back parlour. As, however, these were new offences, he thought it was only fair that persons charged with having committed them should be tried by two unpaid Justices or by a stipendiary magistrate.

wished to know whether there was any limitation of the time within which a man could be brought before the Justices?

said, he thought the omission of the word "summary" would be perfectly useless, if the object were to prevent cases being decided by a single magistrate. He would suggest that the words should run thus—"On summary conviction by two Justices or by a stipendiary magistrate."

said, he could not at that moment answer the question put by the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), but promised to make inquiry on the point raised. He thought the object of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) might be attained by the addition after "conviction" of the words "before two Justices of the Peace."

moved the insertion of the words "before two Justices of the Peace."

suggested the addition of the words "or a stipendiary magistrate."

said, he believed the latter words would be superfluous, as there was a General Act making a stipendiary magistrate equal to two Justices.

moved the insertion of words in the clause which would compel the authorities in boroughs as well as in counties to divide them into polling districts, and assign polling-places to each district. There were many boroughs which were as extensive as counties, and he did not see why the voters in such boroughs should not have the same convenience as those in counties. Another reason in support of his proposal was that whereas the cost of conveying voters to the poll might be paid in counties by the candidates, they could not be paid in any large boroughs, except in five which were specified in the Act of 1867.

said, he could not accept the proposal. He thought that Parliament did not possess a sufficient knowledge of the circumstances of boroughs as compared with one another to be justified in laying down any stringent rule such as was applied to counties. It was felt by the Government that they could not go further in this respect than to provide that in boroughs the local authorities should take into consideration the division of the borough into polling districts, and report to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, the conclusion at which they had arrived.

reminded the House that as the Bill stood the local authorities would only have the option of dividing the boroughs into polling districts, and would not be able to assign a polling place to each district, as would be done in counties. He thought the one power without the other would be of very little use, and might as well be omitted from the Bill.

moved the insertion of words in page 5, line 27, to provide that Returning Officers might use schools aided by Government as polling places, unless they could "procure other convenient premises at a moderate cost." He thought the proposal was a very moderate one, and hoped the House would agree to it. Before sitting down he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a statement which he was reported to have made in a previous discussion upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said that the managers of rate-aided schools had the power already to allow the schools to be used as polling places. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, he had no recollection of having made this statement.] He was glad to hear the disclaimer, as the report had caused some surprise in his part of the country. If the House would pass his Amendment he should be perfectly willing to accept any words which would prevent the possibility of public-houses being used as polling places. It was said that, these being Government-aided schools, the Government had a perfect right to the use of them; but, as had been stated in a letter to himself by an Association of Schoolmasters, the Government stood to the schools in the relation not of proprietors but of contributors only.

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. The matter had been fully considered, and it was the feeling of the House that this was a proper and patriotic use to which schools might be put. Considering the large share of public money which the schools received, the use of them on these occasions might fairly be requested, and no single complaint had come to his knowledge from the school managers as to this provision in the Bill.

regretted that the Amendment could not he accepted. He did not deny that if no other public buildings were available, the use of these schools was a quid pro quo which the State might properly require. But when the House recollected what an election was, and what it no doubt would remain even under this immaculate and transcendental system of voting, was it not desirable that the schools should be kept clear from association with polities? There was a chance of a row, and if in this row any damage was done to the school building, some days must elapse before it could be patched up, so that there would be an interference with the attendance of the children.

moved, in Clause 8, page 6, line 9, after "Act," insert—

"All expenses properly incurred by any returning officer in carrying into effect the provisions of this Act in the case of any Parliamentary Election, shall be payable in the same manner as expenses incurred in the erection of polling booths at such election are by law payable."

He expressed his regret that the proposal to throw the expenses on the rates had been rejected.

said, some new expenses would be incurred under this Bill, such as the cost of ballot boxes. It would not be necessary that new ballot boxes should be made for every election, and if they were made to last for a generation it was unfair that the first candidate should pay the cost.

feared it would be impossible to make a fixed rule on the matter.

said, there would be a number of fittings to put up as well, and they would be of a permanent character, to serve for the municipal elections. These would have to be provided for whichever election came first, and he thought the proper plan would be to charge them upon the municipality.

moved, in Clause 16, page 8, line 31, after "Scotland," to insert—

"5. The ballot boxes, ballot papers, stamping instruments, and other requisites for a Parliamentary Election shall be provided and paid for in the same manner as polling rooms or booths under the fortieth section of the Act of the second and third years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-five, intituled 'An Act to amend the Representation of the People in Scotland;' and the reasonable remuneration of presiding officers, assistants, and clerks employed by the returning officer at such an Election, and all other expenses properly incurred by the returning officer, and by sheriff clerks and town clerks, in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, shall be paid by the candidates."

He said he wished to make one correction in, and one addition to, the clause as it appeared on the Paper. The correction was this—the Act to amend the Representation of the People in Scotland was referred to as of the reign of Her present Majesty, whereas it ought to be of the reign of William IV. The addition consisted of this—his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) had put an Amendment on the Paper which was to this effect:—Page 29, line 1, after "Scotland," insert paragraph 57—

"The fee to be paid to each presiding officer shall in no case exceed the sum of three guineas per day, and the fee to be paid to each assistant to the returning officer, and to each clerk, shall not exceed one guinea per day."

Now, he (the Lord Advocate) proposed to adopt that as an addition to the subsection he proposed. He therefore begged to move the sub-section, together with the proviso of his hon. Friend.

said, he thought if such a proposal were to be adopted at all, it should be in the form of a general clause applicable to the three kingdoms, and not in that of an Amendment tacked to a Scotch clause.

said, he could not speak as to the circumstances of Scotland; but the result of making the proviso general would be to increase the expense in England, where many of the presiding officers had not three guineas a-day.

considered uniformity of liability should be observed, and if candidates were to pay for ballot boxes in one country they should do so in all parts of the United Kingdom.

wished to know whether the ballot boxes were to become the property of the candidates who paid for them?

explained that after the first election new implements would not require to be made, as the old ones would suffice for a number of elections.

said, he thought the Amendment dealt with matters of detail which were too minute for discussion at this stage of the Bill.

said, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Lord appeared to him to take Scotland out of the operation of Clause 14 of the Bill, under which the implements, if he might so call them, to be used at a municipal election might be used in a Parliamentary election, or the implements to be used in a Parliamentary election might be used in a municipal election, the effect of which would be that there would be but one set of ballot boxes, and so forth; and, in consequence, considerable expense would be saved to the candidates. Now, he should like to be informed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Amendment or addition which he had proposed, and which referred to ballot boxes, ballot papers, stamping instruments, and other requisites for a Parliamentary election, would take Scotland out of the operation, of the 14th clause of the Bill as it stood, and thus deprive Scotch candidates of the benefit which it would confer upon candidates in this country?

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh was good enough to ask—

The learned Lord has already addressed the House, and can only speak again by its indulgence.

was of opinion that the Committee should not deal with the rates in the fragmentary manner proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.

said, with the indulgence of the House he was prepared to answer the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. He meant to explain—he was sorry he did not make himself understood or heard by the hon. Gentleman opposite who had just spoken—that he assented to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr to a different part of the Bill, because it appeared to him that the more convenient place for its introduction was to append it to the Amendment which he had himself proposed. It related to the fees payable by the presiding officer; and he was of opinion that it was necessary to make some provision upon the subject, because otherwise there would be no limitation to the fees payable to that officer, or to his assistants and clerks, and it was obviously proper and convenient that there should be some limitation. As the limitation proposed by his hon. Friend was in accordance with the present law and practice, he thought it not inexpedient to adopt his Amendment.

said, it was impossible for the sheriff in the interval between the nomination and the polling to have these ingenious pieces of machinery constructed so as to be really impervious to view and defeat the various tricks practised at elections. It was unfair that the candidates should be asked to pay for those things. He thought that ballot boxes might be paid for out of the Consolidated Fund—a fund for which they had a great affection in Ireland. He objected to Irish candidates, who were not at all so rich as the English, being put to the expense of erecting screens to cover the voter, and other things of that kind.

suggested that it would be more advisable to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) in its proper order, instead of proceeding with it by anticipation, hon. Gentlemen might come down later in the evening prepared to discuss it in its due course, and then find that it had been already disposed of.

believed it would be unfortunate if one law in this matter were adopted for Scotland and another for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be miserable economy, for the sake of a small saving, to put inferior persons in the responsible position of presiding officers; and mischief might arise from their doing so which it would not be easy to set right afterwards.

said, the Amendment proposed was quite necessary. The regulation of the necessary expenses should be left in the hands of the sheriff clerks or town clerks, as the case might be, and not in those of the Returning Officer, who was a Judge, and not therefore in a position to enter into a contract for booths or to make the other necessary arrangements for an election. When, however, they came to the first point—the ballot boxes, ballot papers, and so forth—it was said that they were to be provided in the same manner as the polling booths. It appeared to him to be a little hard that if an election took place, and there was no occasion for any polling, it should be necessary for the Returning Officer to provide these ingenious contrivances, the ballot boxes and the other paraphernalia of this new system of voting, and that the candidate who had derived no benefit from the proceeding should be subjected to the expenses of it. The first candidate in Scotland under the new system was to bear the expense, and was not to be recouped in any way by his successors.

moved, in Clause 17, page 8, after line 39, to add as sub-section 3 the following:—

"The provision contained in the sixth section of this Act providing for the use of schoolrooms free of charge, for the purpose of taking the poll at Elections, shall not apply to any school adjoining or adjacent to any church or other place of worship, nor to any school connected with a nunnery or other religious establishment."

next proposed a sub-section to Clause 17, that no Returning Officer in Ireland should be paid for polling-booths and compartments in court-houses and other public buildings other than the sums actually paid by him for the same. At present the sheriff, who always took possession of the court-house for the purpose of a polling booth, was entitled to charge for 12 compartments in a public building which did not cost him a farthing.

proposed, in page 9, line 8, to leave out the "first day of January," and insert the "fifteenth day of October." The result of this alteration would be that the voting arrangements would be in perfect order by the time the next General Election was held—namely, by October 15, 1873, instead of January 1, 1874.

said, that the subject had been considered by the Irish Government, but the difficulties in the way of the Amendment were greater than were apparent. The polling places could not be got ready by the time mentioned in these Amendments unless all the subsequent dates were altered, and it would be necessary to have a special Revision Sessions in every county in Ireland. An appeal from the decision of the Sessions must also be provided for, which would occupy several weeks. He should be glad if he saw his way to carry into effect the object aimed at by his hon. Friend. He admitted that with some difficulty the operation of the clauses could be accelerated by some months; but the Amendments on the Paper would be quite unworkable. As far as was in his power he would endeavour before the Bill became law to meet the wishes of hon. Members, unless he found this was absolutely impossible.

remarked, that no sooner was the possibility of accelerating the operation of these provisions perceived six weeks ago than the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland was called to it by nearly all the independent Members from Ireland concerned in securing peaceful and satisfactory elections. He then admitted privately, as he had now done publicly, that the thing could be done, and he promised to look into it and frame provisions for the purpose. At a later period a Member of the Government, having no great confidence in Amendments standing on the Paper in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's name, urged the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) and other Members to try and frame the requisite provisions. The hon. Member accordingly placed an Amendment on the Paper, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention was called to it. He undertook to consider it, and see whether it was effectual for the purpose, and to give an answer on this point. The Amendment had remained on the Paper some time; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer that it was not effectual was only given privately at 6 o'clock this evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now admitted that the object was attainable, and undertook that during the progress of the Bill in "another place," where he would have no control over it, he would endeavour to carry it into effect. Why could it not be carried into effect before the Bill left this House? It was almost impossible for private Members to carry an Amendment, and he would appeal from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. A pledge by him that the object should be attained would be frankly accepted.

urged that it was the duty of the Government to enable additional polling-places to be provided in Ireland, in the event of an Election in 1873. He could see no difficulty in arranging for special Sessions eight or ten months earlier than October, 1873, and surely the expense or the additional duty cast on the chairmen of Quarter Sessions was no obstacle?

, as his right hon. and learned Friend could not rise again, could only confirm what he had said. His right hon. and learned Friend was desirous of bringing the provisions as to polling places into operation as quickly as possible; but he found a difficulty—as was the case also in England—in extemporizing a register out of the usual time. He had on examination found it insuperable, or at least not surmountable with out grave inconvenience—such as the work being done badly, and a considerable increase of cost. His right hon. and learned Friend would be glad to communicate with Irish Members, and would undertake, if the thing was found practicable, that it should be considered by those who would be in charge of the Bill in "another place." It was impossible now to assent to an Amendment which would be ineffectual for its purpose.

regarded the proposal that Irish Members should confer with the Attorney General for Ireland with the view of procuring the insertion of an Amendment in the House of Lords as one essentially Irish in its character. Why should not the matter have been considered in time for the insertion of the Amendment here? In England the difficulty had not been found insurmountable, and if the Bill, which he forbore to designate by the epithet it deserved, became law, elections in some counties at an early date under the newfangled system of voting would be accompanied by the additional polling places which the Government admitted to be necessary. In Ireland, however, as the Bill stood, those polling places could not be provided in time for elections next year. The reasons assigned for this were unsatisfactory. That an appeal from the decision of the magistrates might occupy some weeks was no reason why Ireland should be exposed to the risk of a General Election without additional polling places. If the hon. Gentleman went to a division, he should support him.

said, the Attorney General for Ireland had given a pledge that he would do what he could in this matter. They all knew that right hon. and learned Gentleman's powers, and there could be no doubt that he could and would do what was required. If what was asked for were not done, the result would be this—if a General Election were held in 1873, elections in England and Scotland would be by ballot, but in Ireland they would be under the existing system. He thought his right hon. and learned Friend would take care that what was asked for was done.

said, he thought the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland was not at all satisfactory. What needed correction in the Bill should be corrected in that House, and not left to be dealt with in "another place." The remedy asked for was a very simple matter. If that remedy were not provided, some electors would be 8, 10, or 12 miles from a polling place. He should support the Amendment.

said, when the Bill was going through Committee he drew attention to the fact that there were many schools which ought not to be selected as polling places, and the Attorney General for Ireland said he would put an Amendment on the Paper referring to that question; but no Amendment had been put on the Paper, and but for the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Pim), he believed that matter of the schools would have been left unremedied. The hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) had put another Amendment on the Paper to remove another blot in the Bill, and this he (Mr. Bruen) believed was the proper time to deal with that question.

said, he did prepare an Amendment with regard to the schools and had it ready to put on the Paper; but his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) came to him and said that he had an Amendment on the Paper on the same subject, and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) said he would accept it. That Amendment had been moved, and was accepted by the House, in the absence of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen).

said, the difficulty in the clause was caused by the penuriousness with which everything relating to Ireland was treated. The Attorney General for Ireland would have been able to manage the whole matter if the money had been forthcoming for enabling a more rapid procedure to be made. Of course, if the money were not forthcoming the more rapid procedure could not take place; and there was this objection to leaving the matter to be settled by the House of Lords—that that House could not deal with money questions.

said, he thought the best plan would be to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of amending this clause, and that course could be adopted without causing much delay. It was not unusual to re-commit a Bill for a special purpose, and in this instance the process would not delay the Bill more than one day, for a little discussion would doubtless enable the House to arrive at some conclusion in the matter. Such a course would be more satisfactory than a postponement of the question to "another place."

rose to move, in Clause 23, page 14, line 27, after "Parliamentary," to insert "and municipal." He said it would be recollected that on the Motion for going into Committee he proposed that this Bill should be referred to the same Committee as the Corrupt Practices Bill. He did so on the ground that the Ballot would introduce a considerable increase of personation and other corrupt practices, and that, therefore, when bringing the disease into the country they ought to provide a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government acknowledged to some extent the justice of the proposal, for he agreed to admit into this Bill two or three clauses out of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Some hon. Gentlemen did not think that enough; but he did not offer any objection. But how stood the case now? This clause, which defined personation under the Ballot, and imposed more severe penalties upon the offence, applied only to Parliamentary elections; but in the other part of the Bill it was provided that the new method of secret voting was to be adopted both at Parliamentary and municipal elections. Nobody would deny that municipal elections were as liable to personation as Parliamentary. But with regard to them the law as to personation was to remain as at present, while with respect to Parliamentary elections it was to be altered to suit the new method of voting. Under the present law the offence of personation was not held to be committed until the vote was recorded. Under this clause, however, it was provided that the offence should be held to be committed when the ballot paper was applied for. Under the present system of voting personation was checked mainly by the fact that the vote could be traced and struck off the poll. But where the vote could not be traced some further safeguard was necessary, and that was provided as regarded Parliamentary elections by the present clause. What he asked was that the same safeguard should be extended to municipal elections. They all knew that corruption of various kinds was practised at municipal elections with a view to secure the Parliamentary elections for the same side. It was evident, then, that the same stringent measures were required in both cases, and that it would be of no use at all to provide them for Parliamentary elections alone. It might be said that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) proposed to deal with the subject of municipal elections; but the experience of the Session was not very encouraging as to the prospect of legislation in the hands of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that personation would become a much more serious evil, and require more stringent remedies, under the new system of secret voting. He was justified, therefore, in asking that these more stringent remedies should he provided in every kind of election to which secret voting was to be applied. He begged to move the Amendment.

said, the difficulty in accepting the Amendment was that the machinery of this clause was adapted only for Parliamentary elections, and the mode of trying Petitions in Parliamentary elections. The amendment of the law, not only as to personation, but as to corrupt practices at municipal elections would, he hoped, be treated separately, and if it was not dealt with this Session, it could not be delayed much longer. Meanwhile, it would be inconvenient to attempt to make clauses intended for Parliamentary elections and the Parliamentary election tribunal apply to personation at municipal elections.

said, there was no legal objection to the adoption of the Amendment which would make personation a criminal offence, whether committed at Parliamentary or municipal elections, leaving the offence to be punished by the ordinary tribunals of the country. As to dealing with the subject by another Bill he did not think there was any prospect of that, for there was a Bill coming from the other House in which he was interested, and he saw no chance of its being put down in that House till July 31.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the Amendment. It was acknowledged on all hands that personation at municipal elections trained people to perpetrate the same practices at Parliamentary elections. Why not put a stop to those practices at once? Let the offences of personation be made a felony, whether it was at a Parliamentary or a municipal election.

said, he thought it would give great satisfaction on both sides of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would adopt this Amendment. There was much more personation at municipal than at Parliamentary elections, because the former elections occurred three times as frequently. In both cases the crime was precisely the same, and he hoped there was no machinery in the clause which would make it impossible to deal with it.

said, the Government were quite as anxious to check personation at municipal as at Parliamentary elections. He had been under the impression that, as regarded municipal elections, the offence could not be included in the clause; but as his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) did not agree in this construction, he was quite willing to adopt the Amendment.

moved the omission, at the end of Clause 26, of the words, "and shall apply to any election for a University or combination of Universities." There were, he pointed out, no such things as ballot papers in the case of University elections; and as the mode of voting in those elections was not to be changed, nothing in this clause ought to apply to such elections. When the Bill of last year came before the House, it contained provisions applying to them; but on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon), these provisions were omitted, with the unanimous assent of the Committee.

said, Clause 23 had already been made applicable to municipal elections, so far as it was pertinent to them, and he saw no reason why the present clause should not be made applicable to University elections under the same conditions. Why, he should like to know, should not the punishment for personation be quite as severe in the case of University as of any other elections? What particular privilege should Universities have? Why should the offence be a felony in the City of London, and not in the University of Oxford or Cambridge? There was another part of this clause which applied as much to Universities as to other elections, and that was that the candidate who had anything to do with per- sonation should lose his seat. He did not believe there would be a greater amount of personation under the new system than under the old; but, whether there was more or less, the offence was of equal magnitude.

said, there was some difficulty with respect to the construction of the clause. The first part of the section was incompatible with the second. The legal advisers of the right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, tell him that having defined the offence of personation in the first part, the second part must be assumed to apply to the definition.

replied that the definition in question was a mere addition to the existing law, and did not repeal it. It was not an exclusive definition, and consequently the offence of personation still remained.

said, that though they were bound to abide by the authority to which they had listened, the words seemed to him to be very exclusive.

said, that the use of the words "county or borough" showed that the clause did not apply to Universities.

moved in First Schedule, Rule 1, at end, add—

"And in the case of a county election send one of such notices by post, under cover, to the postmaster of the principal post office of each polling place in the county or division of the county, endorsed with the words 'Notice of Election,' and the same shall be forwarded free of charge; and the postmaster receiving the same shall forthwith publish the same in the manner in which post office notices are usually published."

The right hon. Gentleman explained that the object of the Amendment was to limit the expenses of elections. At present Returning Officers, for the purpose of making known when an election would be held, sent deputies to each of the polling-places to proclaim the day. Now that the number of polling-places was likely to be greatly multiplied, that was a practice which would be productive of very considerable expense, and he therefore proposed that it should be sufficient for the Returning Officers to send copies of the notice to the postmaster, who should make it public as was usual in the case of post office matters.

moved, as an Amendment on the First Schedule, Rule 8, the insertion of words permitting a Returning Officer to appoint a deputy in the event of his requiring to leave the polling-booth. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Returning Officer might be called away by illness, or accident, or by design, or by riot, and he therefore ought to have the power of appointing a deputy.

trusted the Amendment would not be pressed. The duties of the Returning Officer were so important that he did not wish to encourage their performance by deputy.

moved in Rule 9, at end, add—

"And, in the case of an election for a county or division of a county, deliver to the postmaster of the principal post office of the place of election a paper, signed by himself, containing the names of the candidates nominated, and stating the day on which the poll is to be taken, and the postmaster shall forward the information contained in such paper by telegraph, free of charge, to the several postal telegraph offices situate in the county or division of a county for which the Election is to forthwith at each such office in the manner in be held, and such information shall be published which post-office notices are usually published."

rose to propose an Amendment with reference to the nomination of candidates. According to the Bill, if there was any defect in the nomination papers, and that defect was discovered within an hour after the expiration of the time appointed for the election, the Returning Officer might decide that the defect was fatal, and strike off the name of the candidate to whom the objection applied. Under this provision of the Bill, a gentleman who had represented a constituency for a great number of years might be struck off the list of candidates in consequence of its being discovered that one of the persons signing his nomination paper was not a registered elector. He thought there was no necessity for such a strict regulation.

said, it would not be possible for the objection to be taken at the moment of the delivery of the nomination paper, as some little time must be allowed for consideration.

said, he thought that the object of the Amendment was not understood. It would be a serious thing if through some mistake one of the persons nominating a candididate happened not to be a registered elector, and that defect should not be discovered until one hour after the delivery of the nomination paper. There would then be no time to correct the mistake, and the candidate would be struck out of the nomination paper.

said, he thought that some other mode than that proposed for amending this part of the Bill should be adopted.

said, that under the new arrangements there must be a scrutiny of the ten names upon the nomination paper. All the nomination papers might be open to objection, and in the end there might be no candidate, and consequently could be no election. This was one of the consequences of the abolition of the old system of nomination. The moment this system was introduced they would become involved in all these technicalities and difficulties.

said, he did not think that the Amendment would get rid of that difficulty. He would suggest that additional time should be given to the Returning Officer to correct imperfections or informalities of this kind.

wished to know what would invalidate a nomination paper? If an elector who signed the nomination paper spelled his name in two different ways, and his name were challenged, would that be sufficient to invalidate the nomination?

put a case which had occurred in a scrutiny under the Election Petition against the return for Oldham. An elector, whose name appeared on the register as "Jinks," gave his name to the polling clerk as "Ginks." Mr. Justice Blackburn decided that the vote was bad, and struck it off the register. After such a decision, in a similar case, the Returning Officer would be bound to reject the name, and the nomination would be defective.

remarked that there might be five candidates, so that the names of 50 electors would be handed to the Returning Officer as signing the nomination papers. He would have to decide whether all these papers were in proper form. Suppose the Returning Officer, who was vested with such plenary powers, did not know all these voters, or committed an error in regard to any one of them, there would be no opportunity for him to reconsider his mistake, and the nomination would fail through his default. He did not think one hour sufficient space to allow the Returning Officer for that purpose.

believed that they were making a mountain of a mole-hill. Candidates need not restrict the number of voters signing the nomination paper to eight; it might be signed by 20. If candidates could not select eight good men out of the whole constituency, there would be nobody to blame but themselves.

observed, that under the Bill a nomination might be rendered invalid by the slightest mistake. He moved to insert the words, that "no nomination paper should be deemed to be invalid by reason of a defect of form only."

said, he thought it was quite possible the addition of these words would enable the nomination to be conducted very differently from what was intended by the Bill. The form prescribed in the Schedule was sufficiently plain.

said, he would briefly describe the nature of the Amendment he had put upon the Paper with regard to the hours of polling. The Committee seemed to be of opinion that there was a grievance in this respect, especially in the case of working men, and that it would be advantageous to prolong the hours of polling, if such an alteration could be made without danger to the public peace. At the same time, many hon. Members believed that it would be extremely hazardous to carry on elections in the dark, and therefore his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government promised to consider the subject with the view of introducing an Amendment on the Report. He had now to propose that the poll should close at 8 o'clock in the evening in May, June, July, and August; at 7 o'clock in March, April, September, and October; and at 5 o'clock in the other months of the year. In regard to the hour proposed for the winter months, he might mention that as it was the poll was now kept open till 5 o'clock in Ireland and in English counties. A General Election was rarely held in the depth of winter. It might, perhaps, be objected that the interests of the working classes were more considered in one part of the year than in another; but he did not think this objection was well-founded, because the Government had endeavoured to consider their interests throughout the year as much as they possibly could. Of the 19 General Elections which had been held in the present century, nine had been held in those months in which it was proposed to close the poll at 8 o'clock; six in those periods of the year when the poll would be closed at 7; and only four in the winter months. Again, in the last century six General Elections, were held in May, June, July, or August; 12 in March, April, September, or October; and only two in the winter months. It was also worthy of remark that of the six elections which had occurred in the winter since the commencement of the 18th century, two were owing to the demise of the Soverign—Queen Anne and George III. The last General Election was, as everyone must remember, held in the winter under very exceptional circumstances. It would be necessary, he thought, to add the following words to the Amendment—"Except in the county of Orkney and Shetland, where the poll shall continue for two consecutive days," as in those islands a poll of less than two days would be most inconvenient.

said, he should propose an Amendment to the effect that at all times of the year the poll should close at 5 o'clock. It was almost essential that the time of polling should be absolutely certain, as otherwise the more ignorant voters would never know at what hour the poll was actually to close. [Murmurs.] He did not think this was by any means a fanciful objection. The Government were professedly extending the hours of polling for the purpose of giving facilities to the working men, but they would say—"If you choose to have an election in the winter time for purposes of your own, you are practically depriving us of our votes." If the right hon. Gentleman's proposal were adopted, the turmoil of the election would extend over two days in counties and large boroughs, because it would be absolutely impossible to get the votes counted the same night if the poll were kept open until 7 or 8 o'clock, and in many cases the ballot boxes could not be sent to the central office until the next day. The inconvenience of keeping open the poll till a late hour was remarkably illustrated by the elections for members of the London School Board, when the experiment was tried of keeping the poll open till 8 P.M. A Gentleman, whose words he would quote, said he much doubted whether this was really of any advantage to the working men, because a large number of them put off voting till the last hour, and the result was, that in several places they found it difficult to record their votes at all. The same Gentleman expressed his belief that it was not desirable to hold out an inducement to voters to poll late. The Gentleman from whom he was quoting went on to say that prolongation of time was of no use, and he did not see how, if it was to be prolonged at all, they could stop short of 9 or 10 o'clock. These were the words of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech in support of his present proposal, made two great omissions. He had not answered any of the arguments which he used in 1870, in answer to the proposal of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Henry Hoare) to keep open the polls to 8 o'clock, nor had he explained the nature of the circumstances which had induced him to change the opinions he held at the time of the first school board elections in the metropolis. He thought great practical inconvenience would arise from adopting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and being of opinion that 5 o'clock all the year round would meet with general approval throughout the country, he moved, as an Amendment to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, that all polls throughout the kingdom should cease at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

said, he could not agree with either the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman or the Amendment which had been proposed. From time imme- morial the practice had been to close polls in boroughs at 4 o'clock, and in counties at 5, and he could see no reason to alter that system, unless an alteration was proposed the effect of which would be to give greater voting facilities to the large number of working men who had been recently enfranchised. To keep open the polls till 5 or 6 o'clock would give no such facilities, and in point of fact he believed that the whole thing was nonsense. From his experience of elections, he did not remember a case where the voters were not nearly polled out by half-past 3 o'clock in boroughs. He could not conceive that an extension to 5 or 6 o'clock would be of the slightest advantage to working men voters if they were at work; but, as a matter of fact, working men generally never worked on the afternoon of a contested election; and if the time were extended a number of persons would, without the slightest real necessity, put off voting until the last moment just as they did at the present time. At any rate it was desirable that the excitement of an election should not continue into the hours of darkness, when no one knew what might result, and with that in view, he suggested that while in June, July and August the poll might be kept open until 8 o'clock, it should be closed at 4 in the other months of the year. That experiment might be tried to see if it would be for the benefit of the working men who had votes.

said, one strong objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was, that it would throw a difficulty in the way of a dissolution of Parliament at any time of the year when the sun set earlier than 8 o'clock. To adopt the system of the right hon. Gentleman would lay all future Ministries open to the charge of forcing on a dissolution at one period of the year, rather than at another, from party considerations. He could imagine no position more disastrous to the general course of legislation than one in which a Minister who enjoyed the confidence of a majority in that House might run the risk of being taunted that his majority did not represent the true feeling of the country, because the Parliament was elected at a period of the year when a large and important body of the electors were hampered by vexatious restrictions upon the exercise of their franchise. He agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) in deprecating any proposition which would carry on the polling far into the obscurity of night; but, at the same time, he thought that with an extended franchise increased voting facilities ought to be given, and he would, if in Order, move as an Amendment to the proposal of the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), that the polls should be opened at 6 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock in the morning. Whether his Amendment was accepted or not, he should, at any rate, have had the satisfaction of protesting against a proposal which would create evils far worse than those it was proposed to remedy.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would adhere to his proposal, as there would be great dissatisfaction among the working men if the promise—implied at least—which was given to them on this subject was not kept. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) that 5 o'clock should be the hour would be of no use, for it made very little difference to the working man whether the poll closed at 5 o'clock or at 4. He had heard with some surprise one Member for Westminster (Captain Grosvenor) soliciting the Government not to extend the hours for the working men; but he should be still more surprised if the other Member for Westminster who sat on the opposite side would take the same view. An objection to the extension of the hours of polling had been taken on the ground that there would be danger from voting in the dark. But, living in London, and frequenting this and other houses in the evening, he was very little conscious whether it was day or night. Gentlemen walked out of this House at night and found it nearly as light as in the day. To say, therefore, that there would be difficulty in carrying on an election by gas seemed to him not a very forcible objection.

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the suggestion that 6 o'clock in the morning should be the time for opening the poll. It struck him—though in this, perhaps, many would not concur with him—that 5 o'clock in the morning would be better still. If the men went to work at 6, and the poll were opened at 5, they could record their votes before going to their duties, without any interference by their employers. He thought this would do better than keeping the poll open late in the evening.

said, that if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was accepted the poll would be open on the 31st of August until an hour and a-half after sunset; on the 11th of December until an hour and a-quarter after sunset; and on the 31st of October until two hours and a-half.

said, the best course to take would be to reject all the Amendments, and leave the matter as it was. The objections to the change proposed by his right hon. Friend were many and great, and its recommendations slight. A small number of working men in the metropolis who were employed out of the districts in which they lived were said to desire this change. But these men formed but a small portion of the community, and if they desired to take a holiday to go to the Crystal Palace or for any other purpose their employers generally granted it, and at elections often paid them too, in order that they might have an opportunity of voting without incurring loss. It would be almost impossible to carry on elections under the new system if the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was adopted. They were about to increase the number of polling-places, and that would make it necessary that the number of agents and presiding officers should be increased also. But where would they get competent men to perform the duties if they were asked to remain in a booth from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night? In addition to that, they would never get a statement of the poll on the same evening, and that would necessitate the watching of the ballot boxes, and a dealing with them would be suspected if it did not actually occur. These were only some of the many objections to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. As for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), that would confer no advantage whatever on working men. He hoped, therefore, the House would leave the hours as they were.

said, that if the polling time were fixed for 12 hours some adjournment must take place, as it was quite impossible to expect during that period from the Returning Officer, who alone was held responsible for the duty, so long a continuance of the service Any person who had experience of sitting 12 hours at a stretch knew the difficulty of keeping attention awake for so long a period. The proposed change would extend the time of polling to a very convenient time for letting money run. It would he continued to a time when brandy and water would be flowing freely, and things would he done in the last two hours that all would wish should not be done. He would gladly support any Motion to shorten rather than lengthen the hours of polling.

said, that his experience was that to lengthen the hours of polling would not benefit the working classes. The general practice of working men who took an interest in an election was to poll early. No employer would think of preventing this, and if he attempted to do so he would fail. Under the present system elections were virtually over by 2 o'clock in the day. He hoped the hon. Member for Southwest Lancashire (Mr. Cross) would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and take the division on the original Amendment.

said, he had, with a view to come to a sound conclusion on the matter, furnished himself with tables of the time of sunset in various parts of the country upon the first and the middle of each month, and, without troubling the House with the particulars, he believed that if the House accepted the Amendment there would be few, if any, more elections in the dark than there were now. The feeling of the House, however, seemed to be against the Amendment, and much divided on the question as to whether there should be any change at all. The proposal was quite outside the Bill, and he could not deny that the balance of opinion was in favour of allowing things to remain as they were. He therefore proposed to withdraw the Motion.

said, he had listened with great regret to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to remind him that on a previous occasion the House had expressed its opinion in a very unmistakeable manner on this question, and his right hon. Friend stated distinctly at that time that he would submit this Amendment to meet the feeling of the House, and now when they came prepared to accept the Amendment as a compromise, and when hon. Members refrained from taking up the time of the House in order that the measure might be passed that night, they were to be told that their silence was to be interpreted into a change of that opinion. Now, he ventured to say that there was not a Member of the House who had changed his opinion on the subject. Under these circumstances he should feel it his duty to divide the House on the question.

approved the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and remarked that this was not the first time he had been led into error by listening too readily to a small section of the House. The present hours had always worked well in Ireland. After an election experience of 30 years, he could state that he had never known a man lose his vote for want of time to go to the poll.

whether there was a single Member who could give a single instance of a voter having lost the chance of polling through the early hour at which the poll closed?

said, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had expressed what was very well known, that he entertained a very strong feeling on the subject, and earnestly desired to lengthen the hours of polling from motives which did him honour. But the House was not so decided on the subject. At first there seemed to be considerable desire for the change; then there seemed to be no unity of opinion on the question, and now the balance of opinion seemed to be clearly against a change. Under these circumstances, as the hon. Member for Birmingham would not allow the Motion to be withdrawn, the manly course for the Government, having abandoned the Amendment, would be to vote against it.

objected to the Amendment on the ground that although undoubtedly in a large majority of cases a clerk would be required to assist the presiding officer, still in many cases the attendance of such a person would be useless.

reminded the House that the presence of a polling clerk would be no security for an accurate return, as was evidenced by the presence of the hon. Member himself among them.

moved in Schedule 1, Rule 26, page 23, line 14, after "Act," to insert "or of any voter who produces such a declaration and certificate as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read." The voter who was unable to read would be able to go before a magistrate, and on convincing him that he was unable to read he would be furnished with a certificate to that effect. He was still of opinion that a voter who was unable to read would have been able to record his vote by means of the ballot papers; but, accepting the decision of the House, he had proposed this Amendment in the belief that no hon. Member would object to this extra precaution against fraud being taken.

said, he thought the Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of disfranchising a large number of respectable voters in counties who would have to go four or five miles in order to find a magistrate, who, in all probability would be out when they reached his house, if he did not purposely absent himself. When they had obtained the certificate in question they would have to take it to the presiding officer, who, after all, would be just as good a judge whether they could read or write as the magistrate himself. Had the Ballot Bill been a real instead of a sham measure there might have been some ground for taking the precautions proposed by this Amendment; but when the majority of the House had passed a clause permitting the voters to flourish their marked voting papers in the face, not only of the presiding officer but of the election agents, it was preposterous to pretend to insure secrecy. Believing, therefore, that the Amendment as it stood would be utterly useless, he begged to move to amend the Amendment by substituting the word "declares" for the words "produces such a declaration and certificate as hereinafter mentioned."

was of opinion that the Amendments placed the House in a very great difficulty with respect to the whole scheme of the Bill. The man who wished to vote secretly ought to be allowed to do so, but this Amendment would not enable the illiterate man to vote secretly. The first thing he would be called upon to do would be to go into a magistrate's room, and that, he imagined, was the very last thing that the illiterate voter would desire to do; and in the interests of those who desired to be protected from intimidation that was the very last thing they ought to be called upon to do. He might divide the illiterate electors into two classes. There was the honest and independent man who, owing to the misfortune of his education, had not learned to read or write—the man who in a tone which was familiar to many hon. Gentlemen said—"I am no scholar," but who was as well fitted to exercise the franchise as any member of the University. That was a class of man whose self-respect would prevent him from going before a magistrate and ticketing him- self as a dunce. He would not go and ask a magistrate to give him a ticket-of-leave to exercise his right, and that was the class of man who would be disfranchised if the provisions under discussion were agreed to. There was, however, another and entirely different class of illiterate voters who would not object to take oath or make the prescribed declaration before a magistrate. He would go before the magistrate. And why? Because it would be made worth his while to go. That class of man would be the pot of ointment round which the insects of corruption would swarm and buzz, and there might be a sufficient number of such men to turn an election. Now, looking at those two different descriptions of electors, the proposal before the House was, in his opinion, a most objectionable one. How had it come about? It was originally no part of the Government scheme. On a former night his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council came down like Pharaoh to the banks of the Shannon, and picked up a Moses among the bulrushes of Limerick who disposed of the question. He could not on that occasion vote against the Amendment, because he was told that the illiterate voter would be disfranchised altogether, and he could not vote for it because he was told that he would be putting votes into the hands of the Returning Officer. He, therefore, took the only course which was open to him, and did not vote on it at all. But his right hon. Friend the moment the proposal was made accepted it, and then the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), with that adroitness for which he was remarkable, seeing the Vice President of the Council had walked into the trap, got up and immediately shut down the lid. Whereupon the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who was the Archimandrite of secrecy, showed, more in sorrow than in anger, the consternation with which he was filled at the position in which he found himself placed. The voter, he might add, was, according to the provision under discussion, not only to be called upon to go before the magistrate, but he was to be examined. Exemptions had been introduced to meet the religious feelings of the Jews, then exemptions with regard to physical disabilities, and now much larger exemptions were proposed to be made in reference to educational incapacity. Then would come the difficulties in the case of persons who desired to show their votes, and the difficulty with regard to the marks which were to be made, which would, he thought, be found to be a matter of very great difficulty indeed, because if a man were to be allowed to make any mark he liked, how could he be prevented, he should like to know, from making such a mark as would identify his vote? The difficulties, indeed, which beset the subject were greater than had been supposed, and those on the Liberal benches must take their share of blame for not having discussed it more fully last Session. If the Ballot by ball voting instead of by printed papers were adopted the difficulties would in a considerable degree be obviated. He did not think anybody in the House—and especially Her Majesty's Government, who had accepted Amendments from all quarters on the subject—could deny for a moment that a great deal of light had been thrown out by these discussions—that by the conflict of antagonistic minds upon this subject a spark of truth had been elicited. He would vote against the proposition of the Government, because he believed a respectable illiterate voter would rather not vote at all than go through the ordeal that was proposed.

said, if by chance his hon. and learned Friend had to undertake the charge of a Ballot Bill he would meet with as many difficulties as those which he had started, and a great deal more. The Government had thought it worth while to encounter the difficulties connected with the Ballot in order to secure the advantage of secret voting. It was undoubtedly easier to say you would have a Ballot Bill than to prepare the details for carrying out the Ballot. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Rainald Knightley) would make the Bill a purely permissive Ballot Bill. It would appear from what his hon. and learned Friend had said about the two different classes of voters who would be affected by this clause that he had not done him (Mr. W. E. Forster) the honour of attending to what he had said on this subject. His hon. and learned Friend said there was a class of illiterate voters who desired to perform their duty—and no doubt there was a great many such—but who dis- liked going before a magistrate. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) believed they would not go before a magistrate, and that they would have the common sense to vote with the voting paper. But there was another class who might make a mark and who might be bribed or intimidated. His hon. and learned Friend said no means had been taken to put a check upon those men. But the fact was that the Government had introduced a provision requiring those men to appear before a magistrate to be examined.

said, he believed all the difficulty on this point would have been avoided had the Government accepted the proposal to use colours in the voting papers. The proposition before the House would place a difficulty in the way of the illiterate voter. A voter who could read would have no reason for telling the Returning Officer that he could not read and asking the Officer to mark his paper for him.

said, that Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House who had talked so much of protection for the illiterate voter talked as if a free-born Englishman was an idiot. Every Englishman who could not read or write could at least count enough to secure protection under this Bill with respect to his voting at an election.

said, he voted in favour of secrecy the other night because he believed the Returning Officer would not divulge the mark of a voter.

considered that this Amendment would deprive illiterate voters of the advantage of the concession made the other evening. A declaration to the Returning Officer would be sufficient.

congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) upon having had another opportunity of speaking against the Ballot Bill. He hoped on this occasion, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not, as he did on the last, act on the principle that—

"He who fights and runs away

Will live to fight another day."

But that, instead of going out of the House, he would record his vote. This Amendment was intended for the class who bonâ fide were not able to read, though they might be able to count. In a portion of the country unless the Bill were carried with this Amendment, one-third of the electors would be disfranchised.

wanted to know why the illiterate elector was to be dealt with less favourably than persons of the Jewish persuasion. Persons of that persuasion were extremely numerous in this country, and in the City of London the election depended very much upon their suffrages. There was nothing in the clause relating to them which required that they should go before a magistrate, and why, then, should illiterate persons be required to do so? All who were either physically or morally unable to fill up their papers ought to be treated on the same footing, and his impression was that in practice it would be found that no fraud would be perpetrated.

explained that when he assented to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), what he really intended was that the declaration should be made before a magistrate.

, as the representative of a large constituency, expressed his conviction that when ballot papers were to be filled up by the electors the result would be a large disfranchisement. A great number of persons at present abstained from going to the poll, and the result of the Amendment would be that a still larger portion would be deterred from recording their votes. He should, therefore, earnestly protest against any difficulties being thrown in the way of a voter obtaining the aid which under the clause as it stood he would be able to receive.

said, as it was impossible at that hour to discuss all the suggestions that had been made, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he hoped the House would be able to go to a division without adjourning.

said, that they had arrived at a period of the Report when it appeared to him that the House should not hesitate to conclude the business of the evening.

said, he had hoped to finish the Bill that night; but it was useless, of course, to proceed if the hon. Gentleman determined to press his Motion at that hour of the evening.