asked the hon. Member for North Kensington, if he intends to proceed with the Education and Maintenance of the Blind Bill, put down for Second Reading on 25th June; and, if so, will he deliver a copy for the printers?

There being no reply,

May I remind you, Sir, that last night although I put this notice on the Paper to remind the hon. Member he called his Bill after Eleven o'clock, when no one had had an opportunity of reading it. I want to ask you how we can be protected, because on several occasions lately hon. Members have called Bills which they have not even now had the courtesy to us to hand in to the Vote Office to be printed?

A new Standing Order to prevent the Second Readings of Bills in this House, unless they have been printed, seems reasonable, but it is not the rule at present and I cannot enforce it now, because it is not the practice of the House.

As a Member of the Committee on Procedure, I will make that proposal for the acceptance of my colleagues.

The hon. Member proceeded to put three additional questions, and there being no answer given, said: I will repeat these questions on Monday. A fifth question I beg to postpone at the request of the hon. Member, who will be in his place next week to give me an answer.

Is it incumbent upon these Gentlemen to answer the questions?

It is not incumbent on them to be here on a Friday morning for the purpose. Of course, it is a matter of courtesy for a Member in charge of a Bill to give information in regard to it, and it is open to any hon. Member to question any other hon. Member who has charge of a Bill, or has introduced a Bill, as to his purpose in regard to it.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."

I make this Motion in order that the Bill may be referred back to the Standing Committee for the purpose of taking evidence from the various officials affected by the Bill whether in fact it is possible to carry out its provisions. It provides that all elections shall take place on one or other of two days which are settled arbitrarily, not by those who will have the conduct of the election, but fixed as a mere matter of chance—not dependent upon their action at all—and it is notorious that in some Parliamentary Divisions public opinion is easily roused and at election times candidates are greeted, not merely with election eggs, but with stronger measures on the part of the electors. For that purpose it is very necessary, not only to protect would-be Members of the House of Commons from the affectionate regards of the electors, but also, to maintain the public peace, that strong bodies of police should be drafted into those constituencies; and if it should happen, by reason of this Bill, that protection was not able to be given to the electors and the candidates, I would submit that the Bill itself would do a great deal of harm and would, in fact, become inoperative. So that the House may realise that I am not talking of a purely hypothetical case, I would give some facts with regard to Somersetshire. There are three Parliamentary Divisions, and the police force altogether numbers 367. During the by-election in South Somerset, made memorable by certain telegrams sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, feeling ran very high and it was thought that if the Liberal candidate was elected he would suffer some rather rough treatment and very naturally the police were drafted in for the purpose of protecting him. I understand that usually it has been possible to draft, in such elections, bodies of police varying in number from fifty to 150, but whereas the total police force of the county is only 367, it is quite obvious that equal protection could not possibly be given if all the three elections in that county took place on one and the same day. The theory of the Bill is, as I understand it, that all borough elections should take place on one day and all county elections should take place on another day. It matters very little whether all borough elections are to be settled on one day.

indicated dissent.

I see that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill is shaking his head. It is claimed that all borough elections and all country elections may take place on one day. If that is, what the hon. Member means, it strengthens the case I am submitting to the House, because the more the elections take place on one day it is obvious that adequate protection cannot be given to those who are taking part in them. I submit that, before this House proceeds, with its consideration, the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee so that the evidence of the police and of presiding and returning officers should be given to that Committee in order that the House may have before it the real facts upon which to decide before it sets up a system which may lead to hopeless confusion, if not worse, in the conduct of elections. For instance, it is not only a question of protecting candidates; it is also a question as to the machinery of the election itself. Hon. Members know that ballot papers have to be printed, and it is quite within the bounds of possibility, at any rate, that the pressure on the printers in a district where so many ballot papers have to be printed and numbered, and so many other forms have to be prepared, would be so great that it would be an actual physical impossibility to carry out the provisions of this Bill.

If that, in fact, took place, see what a position the House has put itself into! It is really destroying the whole electoral machinery under which elections now take place. There will be hopeless confusion at elections, and it may very well happen that when the House of Commons reassembles it will find that a considerable percentage of elections, some 20 per cent., have not been completed, because of obstacles placed in the way of carrying out the elections by this Bill. Of course, it would not be proper for me on this Motion to discuss the merits of the Bill, but I do put it to the House that, before it enters upon the consideration of the merits, it ought to know the facts. It ought to know whether or not it is possible to carry out the proposals in the Bill. Looking at the matter merely from the police point of view, and the call made upon the local authorities, I, for one, think that the difficulties will be so great that it will be impossible to give the necessary protection in order to have a peaceful and quiet election. When we come to consider the machinery that has to be employed—the setting up of polling booths and the preparation of the necessary documents—again I believe, if the Bill were to come before a Select Committee, it would be quite possible to show that there would be at least serious risk of the machinery breaking down.

I beg to second the Motion to recommit the Bill, and, if I can, to add a few arguments in favour of it. I do not think anybody will deny that this Bill does make a very considerable change in our electoral system. I do not claim that this Bill is as big as that which proposes the abolition of the plural vote, or a Bill dealing with Redistribution, but I do think that it deserves very serious consideration, because it does away with the system which has lasted many years, and sets up a rigid rule that all elections, except those for University Members, must take place on the eighth or ninth day after the date of the Proclamation for the election of Members to serve in a new Parliament. When we consider that in the past elections have dragged over nearly a month, and that you are going to confine them to two days, it must appear, even to the supporters of the Bill, that a very considerable and weighty change in the electoral system is now proposed. If that is so—and I think I will carry most Members of the House with me, whether they are opposed to the Bill or in favour of it—I ask the House whether the Bill has received sufficient consideration from Members of the House, and whether my hon. Friend's Motion to send it to a Select Committee ought not to be accepted.

What is the history of this Bill? It was sent upstairs, and on Mr. Speaker's direction it was committed to Standing Committee C. That Standing Committee contains Members of high standing in this House, representing all parties. It contains no less than sixty-seven Members, and fifteen were added for the purpose of the Bill, making in all eighty-two. I entirely agree that if these eighty-two Members had been always in attendance giving prolonged and careful attention to the Bill, my hon. Friend would have little or no ground for his Motion. If the eighty-two Members had devoted many days to the discussion of the Bill, then I think it would be proper to proceed to consider it now, but what are the facts? We heard during last week many complaints in regard to the procedure on another Bill—the Dogs Bill. Hon. Members, for some reason or other, did not attend, and adjournments were common, and altogether the procedure on that Bill came to a standstill. I do not claim that the proceedings in Standing Committee C in relation to this Bill were as bad as in the case of the Dogs Bill, but I claim that the consideration which was given to this Bill was very partial and very scant. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire (Major Morrison-Bell), who takes such interest in all electoral matters, was a Member of the Committee. The Committee met for the first time on Thursday, 16th April, and how many Members do you think attended in all? Out of the eighty-two Members not more than twenty-five took the trouble to attend—less than one-third of the Members. I submit we have made out a very strong case for the Bill being considered by another Committee.

What did the Committee do when they met? So far as I understand they adjourned, because they were so bored with the proceedings. The hon. Member for Middlesex moved an Amendment, and the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, instead of discussing the Amendment, moved, "That the Committee do now adjourn." I ask the House whether that was giving detailed and careful examination to the Bill which the hon. Member himself, I am sure, considered to be a measure of some importance. The next day there was a tremendous muster. At various times thirty-six Members came into the Committee room. They proceeded to get to work probably at the usual hour, half-past eleven, and they had two Divisions in which thirty-two Members took part. My researches do not enable me to say at what hour they adjourned for luncheon, but probably it was at the usual hour, which is half-past one—that is, a little less than two hours were given to the consideration of the Bill on the second day. The first day's proceedings do not count. Next day a tremendous effort was made and they started again at half-past eleven, with twenty-eight Members present. There was a Division in which twenty-five took part, and they finished the Bill. I presume that that did not bring them up to luncheon time. Therefore this Bill, which is going to make this great alteration in our system of holding elections, was only considered for four hours by an average of about twenty-five Members out of a total of eight-two. Whatever the merits of the Bill may be, nobody can say that this Bill received careful and thorough consideration, and my hon. Friend is not only justified in his Amendment but it ought to be acceded to at once. Having said a few words about the tribunal which considered this Bill, may I say a few words about the tribunal before which it is proposed to send it? Committee C did not summon any witnesses. They have no power, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), with his great knowledge of procedure, informs me, even if they wished, to summon witnesses or take evidence. Therefore the evidence which would have been available to a Select Committee was unknown to them and out of their power to obtain. As has been mentioned, before making a great change such as this evidence ought to be received from the police, and, above all, from the returning officers, as well as from candidates, Members of Parliament, and political agents, because after all this is a matter which affects the constituencies much more than us here in the House of Commons. Those people ought to have evidence of the desirability of this change, and a body ought to be appointed which would have power to get evidence from these witnesses, and therefore I support earnestly the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Though we have listened to two very interesting speeches I almost wish that the hon. Member could have seen his way to move this Motion after the Second Reading of the Bill.

We could not possibly foresee that Committee C would be badly attended.

The hon. Member has far more Parliamentary experience than I, but my experience is that I have never been on any Committee which did its work so well and so expeditiously, and my only regret was that the hon. Member for Blackpool was not on the Committee. I do not want to go into the merits, but I would suggest this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. At an election it is always in the power of the chief constable to swear in special constables, and what the hon. Member says is impossible has been done in other countries. But the particular point which I put to the hon. Member is that I would appeal to him on the ground that this is the last day for private Members. I do not for a moment suggest preference for this measure, but I put it to him that the result of this Amendment is to wreck this Bill. He must know perfectly well, as the hon. Member for Blackpool knows, that if this Bill is wrecked to-day it will be wrecked on the day on which there is the last chance for a private Members' Bill. We on this side of the House realise that if and when hon. Members opposite come into power the hon. Member, by his industry and ability, has shown that he should have, and he will no doubt secure, a seat on the Front Bench. But I put it to him that at present he is, as I am, a private Member, and I suggest that it is a real blow to the power of private Members if one of the most distinguished of our body were to move an Amendment of this sort, which would simply result in ruining a private Member's chance. I would suggest that he should look at this from the point of view of a private Member. Here we are with comparatively small Front Benches. The private Members outnumber them in every way, and I would suggest that he should tell in the Division against the combined Front Benches, in order to secure private Members against the tyranny that is practised upon them.

The hon. Baronet made an appeal to my hon. Friend on two grounds. The first ground is that my hon. Friend is going to be an ornament on my Front Bench when we come into power.

If and when.

There is no doubt about it. The only doubt is whether it will be next month or the month after. I will not go into that because I do not wish to waste time, but everyone knows that that is a fact. The speech of the hon. Member is an attempt to bribe my hon. Friend by pointing out to him that he is a fit and proper candidate for the Front Bench. I call that direct bribery. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist that temptation, and will not surrender to the bribe offered by the hon. Baronet.

My hon. Friend meant an unpaid post.

On this side our object is to do our duty. The question of salaries does not concern us. The second argument of the hon. Baronet was equally bad—that was that if the Amendment was accepted the Bill would be killed. The object of the House of Commons on both sides is to pass a good Bill, not to pass a bad Bill merely because it happens to be a private Member's Bill, or even if it happens to be a Bill of the Government, but to endeavour to pass a good Bill. It is because we on this side think that we may possibly be able to pass a good Bill, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried, that we have proposed this Motion. It is an absolute fact, which I think the hon. Baronet will not deny, that this Bill will cause a considerable amount of reorganisation among the returning officers and people who will have to deal with the Bill if it ever becomes law. Therefore, I think, as they are experts upon this subject, and as the majority of the Members who will be on that Committee are not experts that there should be an opportunity for us to know what are their views. Experts will be summoned before the Committee, and they will then and there give their reasons. I am informed by my hon. Friend beneath me that there is a very considerable objection on the part of Scotland. I have looked at the report of the proceedings of the Committee, and I find that on the first day the Committee met and promptly adjourned. There was one Member from Scotland present, and he did not attend any more—not even on the two days when the Committee did sit and deliberate. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Argyllshire attended on one day. I think I am not taking the hon. Member's character away when, I say that he attended one day. That is the result as far as Scotland is concerned.

I was present in the Committee during the whole time of the sittings, and my name is on the back of the Bill.

I am afraid that I forgot that the hon. Member, who bears an Irish name, was one of the Members from Scotland. I apologise to the hon. Member for my foolishness and forgetful-ness. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, one question. I am not sure whether I am right, but I should like to know from you. Sir, what is the position of the Bill? As the measure originally came before us, it was a Bill to enact that the polling should be taken upon one day, and that that day should be the Saturday. I do not for a moment say that some of the Amendments which have been made in the Bill are beyond the scope of its title; I do not think they are; but the Bill as it now appears is very different from that which was read a second time in this House. The Bill as it went to the Committee provided that there should be only one day, and that to be a Saturday. It now provides that there may be two days, and that neither of those days need be a Saturday. But it goes very much further, because the Committee have put in a new Sub-section, to which I would especially like to call attention. It is Sub-section (3) of Clause 1:—

"Where the poll in any contested election to which this Act applies is taken on the earlier of the two days that may be appointed, the Returning Officer shall not begin to count the votes until eight o'clock in the afternoon of the later of those days."

That provision was not in the Bill, and it has nothing to do with polling days or Saturdays; it is a question as to the counting of the votes. I suggest that is brought in as an Amendment of the Act passed last Session or the Session before, which extended the hours of polling. In fixing the hours of polling it might arise that the counting of the votes would be difficult or inconvenient, and therefore an alteration was to be made. I submit that the Sub-section is beyond the scope of the title of the Bill, and that the Bill itself is so much altered since it left this House that it substitutes two days for one day, and neither need be a Saturday. That provision is totally different from what was contained in the Bill which passed the Second Reading. I would remind the House that on the Franchise Bill which we had two or three years ago the question was raised whether the admission of women was in the scope of the title of the Bill, and you, Sir, ruled that as the Amendment made such an alteration in the measure the Bill would have to be withdrawn and another Bill brought in. I ask you, Sir, if you will kindly consider those points, in view of the Sub-section and alterations in the Bill, and to say whether the Bill should be withdrawn, and another brought in? As the hon. Member for Blackpool pointed out in regard to the Committee, at no time were there more than twenty-five members present in a Division. There was a larger number of members present at one time, but apparently they went out of the room or did not vote, and the largest number in a Division is twenty-five. I submit that was not a proper tribunal to make such considerable alterations in the Bill, and, therefore, on those grounds, I support the Motion for recommittal.

I thought the hon. Baronet was supporting the Motion for recommittal, but in the middle of that he put his question to me, and if the House will excuse me for intervening in the Debate I shall be very glad to reply to him. The title of the Bill is "Bill to amend the law with respect to the determination of the day or days upon which polling shall take place." Therefore, while the Bill may have been introduced limiting the polling to one day, it is possible, under the title, to insert two days; and, having inserted two days, the question of machinery arises as to whether the count should be taken on each day or the second of the two days, and therefore I do not think that objection can be taken to Subsection (3) on the grounds that have been advanced.

The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill made an appeal to my hon. Friend with regard to the rights of private Members, and I have the authority of the hon. Member for stating that, while he will support the interests of private Members, there is a larger public interest in regard to this Bill. I think it has been amply shown that this Bill has received no real consideration, and certainly not the consideration which it deserves The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has not even consulted any of the returning officers of this country. Again, the police difficulty is a very real one, and so is the difficulty with regard to returning officers, which, indeed, is very much more serious. Take a county like Somerset: The difficulty of providing returning officers with their staffs of clerks for the whole of the constituencies of the country, would be very difficult indeed, while in addition it would very likely have the effect of disfranchising those presiding officers, clerks, and officials. Under the present conditions matters are so arranged that they have an opportunity of recording their votes; but if they are to be engaged simultaneously all over the county, even with the most admirable organisation, these officials would not have an opportunity of recording their votes.

On a point of Order. May I recall your ruling, Sir, on a Motion of this kind last week, and ask whether the hon. Gentleman can go into the merits of the Bill on this Motion under your ruling of last week?

I was not referring to the merits of the Bill, but as to the evidence which ought to be taken by the Committee. I submit that I have a right to state my reasons why there should be further consideration of this Bill by a Select Committee before the House proceeds with the further consideration of the final passing of the measure.

The hon. Member is entitled to show, if he can, that the Bill as it stands at present will be unworkable, and that it is desirable that a Select Committee should take evidence as to its workability or otherwise.

I only intervened when the hon. Member was describing our present returning officers' duties and going into details which you, Sir, would not allow me to do, had I wished to do so, last Friday.

I was pointing out that the present system has worked well, and that I do not think it is possible to work it under this Act, and that we ought to have from the returning officers, who are the persons most concerned, an expression of opinion on that point. There is then the difficulty about the declaration of the poll. The candidates will desire to have the results at the earliest possible moment, and there will be the difficulty in the matter of police, and I think the chief constables ought to be asked to give evidence before a Select Committee as to whether they would be able to afford the necessary police protection with all the declarations on the same day. We all know that the real trouble of the election comes not so much on the polling day as on the day after when the return is made. You have the borough returns on the same night, and the counties round about return another class of Member from that returned by the borough, and I think you would require a very large number of police at the various county centres. I cannot imagine a more suitable evening for the burglar than that that would be provided if this Bill were carried into law, or even for the suffragettes. What more charming evening could they have to amuse themselves at the expense of Cabinet Ministers, or in other ways, than the evening in which all the police would be engaged at the various storm centres, are they would be, all over the country? On this point we should have further information which the proceedings of the Committee have not given the House. May I also, in return, make an appeal to the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney). I myself have had a Bill which was rejected, and therefore I can quite sympathise with his feelings at the loss of his as the result of these proceedings. May I point out that there is much time before him? He, like myself, is not a very old Member. I hope that if we are to have a large number of Liberal Members he may be one of them. He in his turn is doing his best to qualify for a seat on the Front Bench, both by his admirable speeches, his constant attendance, and by his position as Private Secretary to a Minister, and also by that constant applause which comes from the bench on which the Private Secretaries sit for any Ministerial statement—however wild! By all those things he is qualifying for a seat on the Front Bench, and I do ask him—not for the sake of having his name on the posters of the "Westminster Gazette" or the "Daily Chronicle" as having passed his Bill into law, and for the sake of that slight temporary fame to sully what will be the wider renown which I feel sure he will one day earn by having his name attached to a measure which I believe would prove totally unworkable.

The difficulties which have been pointed out by the hon. Members who have supported the proposal to recommit the Bill have a very special relevancy to Scotland. It has also been pointed out that on the Committee which considered the Bill there were very few Scottish Members, and only, I believe, three or four came from this side of the House. This is not either the time or the place to make complaint of that, but, at the same time, I cannot think that it is a wise arrangement in relation to a Bill that applies just as much to Parliamentary elections in Scotland as in England, that there should be only a very small and almost negligible representation of Scottish Members on that Committee. The difficulty which has arisen in relation to the Scottish aspect of this Bill may be said to have arisen only a day or two ago, and I think I should be doing no wrong, either to those representing Scotland who are on the Committee, in saying that neither they nor I had before us any information from those really qualified to speak about this matter when we deliberated upon the Bill. Certainly I did not realise the extent of the character of the difficulties which those people have now, at the last moment, pointed out only a day or two ago. What happened is this. Within the last day or two, or certainly within the last week, the returning officers in Scotland, who are the Sheriffs, have prepared and sent in a Report containing their opinion on the practicability, or I am afraid I must say the non-practicability, of this Bill in Scotland. To a considerable extent the points with which they deal are in effect similar, or, indeed, the same as those to which reference has already been made; and that is the difficulty of making the necessary arrangements in the very short time which will be at their disposal. The gravamen of the thing is that in Scotland there are a number of constituencies where there is an absence of facilities of transit, and where, owing to the distance from any centre, those officers say it is practically impossible to get printing done with any certainty in less time or in materially less time than is available under the law as it stands. I thought it might have been possible to make some sort of provision for that state of things by way of amendment to the Bill. And I, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), have tried to put down certain Amendments to the Bill to overcome those things which we are told represent difficulties which can be overcome. I am not quite certain that they do; and what is worse, I am afraid they would make a very big hole in the Bill. I can quite understand that the hon. Baronet would look upon them with no friendly eye, or would accept them simply as a pis aller rather than lose the Bill altogether.

That those difficulties are not unreal, I think may be gathered not merely from the report of the returning officers, but also from this very significant circumstance that I see at the last moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has himself put down certain proposals to amend the Bill which, although they by no means cover the ground, still are evidently in this direction. He has, I suspect, been moved by the urgent entreaties of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Catheart Wason). The hon. Member shakes his head. Anyway, the Lord Advocate proposes to take the hon. Member's constituency out of the Bill. Nor is the Lord Advocate unmindful of his own constituency, for I see that, although Wick Burghs are not specially singled out for treatment, he makes a special provision in which Wick is concerned. I am very far from saying that the Lord Advocate is wrong in so doing; if I may respectfully say so, I think he is quite right. The circumstances of the Wick Burghs justify special consideration, but that is not the only constituency. If what the returning officers tell us is true we would require practically to cut out of the Bill the whole of the west and north. Argyle, Ross, Inverness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland would require to come out, and also the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs.

The difficulties are really very serious. These gentlemen inform us, for instance, that if you take Ayr Burghs, no communication from London reaching Edinburgh or Glasgow later than half-past eight in the morning can get to the political centre of the Ayr Burghs that day at all. A circumstance like that alone makes the applicability of the system exceedingly difficult. Although my heart is not hard enough to be unmoved by the appeal of the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and, what is more, although I am not myself at all opposed to the idea, either of shortening the time or of having the elections on one day, I feel that it is quite impossible for us, in the present state of our opinion, to shut our ears to what the returning officers say. If they tell us, albeit, unfortunately, at the last moment, that in a good half of Scotland this Bill will not work, and that in the rest, if it works at all, it will work with very great difficulty, particularly in regard to the police, I am afraid the only thing we can do is to allow an opportunity for that information to be laid before us and properly sifted. Therefore, although really with unwillingness, so far as I am concerned, I do not see my way to do anything else but support the proposal for the recommittal of the Bill.

1.0 P.M.

The hon. and learned Member, in supporting the Motion for recommittal, has really founded himself on the report of the returning officers for Scotland, and his arguments were based on the conclusions which those learned gentlemen have reached, and which they have expressed in the report with which certain Members of the House have been furnished. No one has a higher respect than I have for the returning officers in Scotland, who are sheriffs and hold very responsible positions. But with regard to the report which they have made, at least two observations fall to be made. The first is that if my hon. and learned Friend consults the report he will probably agree with me that the time table upon which the sheriffs have based their conclusions is entirely wrong, and that the conclusions in that document are largely vitiated by the fact that these learned gentlemen, for some reason or other which I cannot understand, have misapprehended the provisions of the Bill as regards time. That goes to the very root of the report. If the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) looks at the time table attached to the report, I think he will agree with what I have said. But, apart from that consideration, it has also to be borne in mind that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Clyde) and the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) have put upon the Paper new Clauses and Amendments for the express purpose of giving effect to the views of the sheriffs. Then why not get on with those Amendments? Why not let us discuss those Clauses and Amendments upon their merits? The hon. and learned Gentleman has given time and consideration to this matter. He has picked out from the report the important objections which the sheriffs have urged, and he has put down Amendments for the purpose of obviating those objections. I submit that the proper way to deal with the report of the sheriffs, even assuming it to be sound, is upon those Amendments and new Clauses. The hon. and learned Member suggested that at the last moment I had put down Amendments to exclude Orkney and Shetland, and that I had also looked after my own interests, or those of my Constituency, by putting down Amendments relating to Wick Burghs. I would remind the hon. and learned Member, in the first place, that the Amendment with regard to Orkney and Shetland has been on the Paper, according to my recollection, for weeks, and was put there not on my suggestion, nor on the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cathcart Wason), but on the suggestion of the returning officer for that county. The same observation applies with regard to the Constituency which I have the honour to represent. The Amendment was put down on the suggestion of the returning officer. I have further to remind the hon. and learned Member that in the whole history of our election law these two constituencies have been specially treated, and accordingly, one is only following precedent in adapting to the conditions of the general law the special conditions of these two constituencies. The whole of the hon. and learned Member's objections can be well and properly dealt with at a later stage, if only he and his Friends will allow us to get to the Clauses and Amendments which they have put on the Paper.

One of the unsatisfactory features of this Debate is that none of the suggestions or objections as to the way in which this Bill was considered in Committee has been in any way met by speakers on the other side. The Lord Advocate, in an interesting speech with regard to Scotland generally, and especially with regard to Wick Burghs and Orkney and Shetland, has controverted the statements made by the Scottish sheriffs. The very fact that it was necessary for the Lord Advocate to make that speech shows, I think, how much better it would have been if the sheriffs could have come before a Select Committee as we now suggest and given their evidence, when an opportunity would have been afforded for their cross-examination, and a proper decision could have been arrived at as to the real facts of the case. But this is not merely or essentially a Scottish question. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is, in fact, a suggestion that the Bill should be recommitted to a Select Committee for the purpose of obtaining evidence from returning officers generally and from police authorities, in order to. ascertain whether this Bill is a practicable measure at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) stated very definitely that only a very small proportion of the Members of the Committee attended its sittings, and that the whole Bill was disposed of in the space of some four hours. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Verney), being called upon immediately, had an ample opportunity to-answer the objections raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment He had an opportunity of explaining that in the Committee the question of returning officers had been adequately considered. He had an opportunity of showing to the House that the Bill was. a workable measure so far as the necessary provision for the police at times of elections was concerned. He had the Opportunity, also, of describing to the House the way in which the Committee had actually done their work, and had considered the details of the Bill. On none of these essential details did he give us any information whatever. He made a personal appeal to the hon. Member for Colchester without dealing with any of the suggestions which that hon. Member had raised. Certainly, unless some other Member of the Committee will get up at this stage and make some answer far more satisfactory than that of the hon. Baronet in regard to the various matters which have been brought forward in support of this Amendment, I shall feel it my duty to follow the hon. Member for Colchester into the Lobby.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes.71.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Baronet who was telling in favour of the Bill was inside the Bar of the House and was called back to enter another name upon the Division List? Is he entitled to come inside the House and to be recalled to the Division Lobby to add the name of another hon. Member?

May I say I never came back into the House, but that while the count was on I strayed rather far from the door? I did not come back into the House, and the Attorney-General was the last I counted and added his name, which made 131.

The Tellers must agree as to the numbers. I cannot settle the matter.

I was telling with the hon. Baronet. We thought all the Members had come through, and we then saw the Attorney-General and we went back to add his name.

Have the Tellers agreed?

Yes.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."

The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 142.

Bill, as amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Commencement of Act.)

This Act shall not come into force until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixteen.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

There is no provision in the Bill for a date on which it shall come into operation, and that being so, I thought it was advisable to put down a Clause which would enact a date at which the Bill should come into force. I chose the date, 1916, which is one and a half years from now, for two reasons. I have had the privilege of learning from my hon. and learned Friends that there was considerable doubt as to whether the machinery of this Bill would work in Scotland, and I have also heard that there was considerable doubt whether the machinery could be put into force in some of the more remote parts of England, and some of the larger counties where a candidate has to visit a very large number of places. Therefore I thought it would be the best to fix a date which would give sufficient time for all the officials concerned and for all the candidates to make their arrangements to meet the new conditions which would ensue under this Bill. It has been pointed out to me that in England, where a candidate has a very large number of villages in his constituency—I am not exaggerating when I say that in some cases there are between thirty-five and forty Divisions in a county constituency, and a very large number of polling stations—unless the operation of this Bill was postponed, it would entail very great inconvenience upon all the people connected with the election. That is one reason why I think there should be a considerable lapse of time, and therefore I propose to defer the operation of this Bill for a period of one year, seven months. There is another strong reason, which is not actuated by political motives. I do not accuse the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Verney) of bringing in a Bill for the personal advantage of his party. I do not question that he is bringing forward this Bill sincerely, and that he believes that it will be an advantage for the electors. If that is so, then the hon. Baronet will accept my Amendment for the reasons which I propose to give him very shortly. If the Bill comes into operation at once, it would apply to the existing electorate. Now I think that the existing electorate ought to have a chance of saying whether or not they approve of the action of His Majesty's Government in making alterations in the number of hours of polling or the polling day, so that we shall be able to ascertain the real opinion of the country upon the action of the hon. Baronet and his Friends.

dissented.

The hon. Baronet shakes his head, and I am surprised at that. Do I understand by that shake he means that he does not want the genuine opinion of the electors in the constituencies at the present time? If that is so, I must say that I have misread the character of the hon. Baronet very considerably. I think I have shown that it is very necessary for two reasons to accept the new Clause which I have the honour to propose. It does not touch the principle of the Bill, and I cannot myself see what real valid arguments can be brought against it. When I put it down I thought the Clause must be accepted, because there must be something in the Bill to show when it must come into operation. It will be impossible for it to come into operation the moment it is passed. There might be another by-election, and if my Clause is rejected the Bill would come into operation at once. Suppose an hon. Member opposite, after years of meritorious service here, is promoted to another place.

It would not apply to a by-election.

Then that is a very strong argument for seeing that the whole of the electors should be put in the same advantageous position. I do not say that I am absolutely wedded to the particular date I have moved, provided it is one which gives a sufficient period to make the necessary arrangements. I think I have put forward some unanswerable reasons why this Clause should be accepted.

I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion for the Second Reading of this Clause. I am not quite certain, when one comes to examine all the various Electoral Change Bills, if I may so call them, that have been introduced during the last few Sessions of Parliament, that I can quite agree with all the charming phrases which have been used with regard to electoral virtues which have been so freely distributed by the hon. Baronet. I am driven to think that it is possible the hon. Baronet opposite thinks there is something to be gained for his party by this Bill. I am one of those who would willingly reduce the long and trying time which takes place between the Dissolution of Parliament and the end of the elections. It is not always a happy time for those who are fighting elections which do not come on until the end of the period, and it is not a very pleasant time even for those who have been fortunate enough to gain seats. I am not quite sure whether it is the hon. Members who are in or those who are trying to get in who have the worst time. Surely, if this Bill will do any good at all, it is incumbent upon us to see that we get the full advantage out of it, and, if it is to come into force, there should be such a time elapse between its passing and its coming into operation as will enable all those who have to participate in elections to make it a working measure. As a London Member, and one who has sat for no other than a London seat, naturally the case of London always occurs to me in these matters, and, if we take the question of policing alone, very grave consideration will have to be given to the question whether we have enough police or whether we should have to enlarge the force.

On a point of Order. Is not the only question before us the date when the Act is to come into force?

The point of the hon. Member, I understand, is that it would take a year or two years to prepare the police for this change.

That is the point I was feebly endeavouring to make. I believe it is a point well worthy of consideration, and it should not in any way conduce to levity on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Anybody who lives in London, or who has contested four elections in London, as I have, knows that the question of the policing of London at the time of a General Election is of the greatest concern. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite desire that the electors should be able to give their votes in full security and personal safety, so that the views of all the electors may be registered. I venture to say that this will require very calm consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I have not the smallest shadow of doubt, looking at the vast matters with which the Government are concerned at the present time, that they will not have time to consider all these questions, and I think my hon. Friend is perfectly right in seeking to fix a date, not an immediate date, when the Bill shall come into force. Then there are those unfortunate gentlemen, the returning officers. I know that there are many gentlemen, returning officers, for more than one constituency. I do not approve of it, but, when you are considering the alterations taking place under a new Bill you have to consider, not what you like, but what exists, and I know that there are returning officers who will have to recast their whole engagements. Some of them have deputies. I do not approve of that, but, considering this Bill and the vast alterations it makes, I am firmly of opinion that it is our bounden duty to see that it does not come into operation at a date so early as to prevent every possible consideration being given to all these questions. I am afraid that candidates are never considered at all, but it will make a vast difference to all of us, and, although I am afraid I cannot plead any special consideration for the exemption of my Constituents from the Bill, I do ask, and I do plead that no undue haste shall be shown to put this Bill into operation at too early a date, but that at all events we in the House of Commons, who have to settle these matters, shall have the credit of endeavouring to pass wise and well-considered measures.

The hon. Baronet who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded this new Clause really plead that more time should be given, so that the operation of the Act may not be hurried. I find myself, in point of substance, in very near agreement with the hon. Baronet. I agree with him that there is no prospect of a General Election until June next year, and therefore it is merely a question of six months between us. The hon. Baronet proposes that the operation of the Act should be postponed until January, 1916. I suggest that it should not come into operation until the next General Election, so that there is only six months between us. I hope that he will not press this point. I can quite see that there is this difference between us. If this new Clause is rejected, then, whereas I, for my part, am always anxious to obtain the opinions of the electors on any matter in question, it will be in the interest of the hon. Baronet to prevent a General Election, in order that there may be plenty of time to bring the Bill into operation.

I am afraid that not for the first time in electoral prophesy I find myself in total disagreement with the hon. Baronet. I cannot conceive it possible, unless he and his Friends are prepared for civil war, that a General Election in this country can be deferred more than two or three months. There is no alternative between civil war and a General Election, and, that being so, the interest in this Bill in my opinion is alive and immediate. I wish to say how this Bill, if it came into operation practically at once, and there were a General Election this year, would affect my own Constituents, because in this matter a Member has a very real duty to his constituents. The majority of my Constituents are engaged in catering for the teaming millions of Lancashire and Yorkshire. They come down to my Constituency during the summer months to enjoy their hard-earned holidays, and they spend a week or ten days there. These holidays are fixed months and almost a year ahead, and the holidays of these people from Bradford, Bolton, Blackburn, and other big towns are now fixed for next months, August, and September. It would be fatal to my Constituency and to the enjoyment of all these people who have fixed their holidays, if, when the General Election comes in August or September, there were no latitude given to the returning officers to place the election in my Constituency, and in the neighbouring constituency some time during the middle of the week—

That argument would be just as good next year or the year afterwards. It is no argument for postponing the operation of the Bill.

On that point of Order. The point I make is that these holidays have now been fixed for this year, and they cannot be altered. If time were given so that the Bill did not come into operation until the middle of next year, or January, 1916, then in future years these people, knowing what might happen, would do their best to avoid any difficulty.

I am afraid I cannot see anything in the hon. Member's point.

May I then say one word with respect to the wider principle. We have heard a good deal during this Debate of what might happen in Scotland, supposing these arrangements were made under this Bill. Time is undoubtedly wanted in other places besides Scotland to complete the arrangements for polling and for the police. I am surprised that hon. Members from Ireland are not here to help us in this Debate and to point out that the difficulty of arranging these matters in Ireland are equally as great as in other parts of the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will settle about that in our own Parliament in Ireland!"] I can only repeat my surprise that hon. Members are not here to give us the benefit of their experience.

This probably is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing this particular point. In the memorandum sent to me by the Returning Officers' Association, I notice that the returning officer for Wick Burghs said that, at present, the police force was available at various places by reason of the different dates on which the elections took place, but it might be possible, under this Bill, for a county election to follow so closely upon a burgh election, as in the case of Caithness and Wick Burghs, that it would be utterly impossible to utilise the services of the same body of police at the two elections. Further than that, it is clear that elaborate arrangements will have to be made, if this Bill comes into operation, for the appointment of special constables to do police duty in cases of this kind. As the Bill has been drafted, I do not see the possibility of raising these questions on any Amendment but this. I am not at all against the principle of the Bill. I rather like the idea of shortening the period of election; of having the pollings as nearly as possible all on one day, particularly in Scotland, and I will tell the Committee honestly why. Where elections in Scotland are held in what I should call strong Radical centres, the publication of the results while other elections are pending is calculated to do my party harm, and that is my reason for rather liking the Bill. All the same, I see some difficulty in the fact that no means are provided for making the necessary arrangements for the Bill to come into operation, and that is why I support the Amendment.

After the announcement made by the hon. Baronet opposite, the only proper thing would be to move the Adjournment of the House, and nothing restrains me from doing that except my desire to assist the passage of this Bill, unless it is a feeling that the Motion might not be carried. The reasons advanced by the Seconder of this Motion are of the utmost cogency, and I should like to associate myself entirely with them and can do so from knowledge of the constituency of Walworth, which is on all fours with the cases he cited. Reference has been made by hon. Members to the absolute necessity that the police should have time to prepare to carry out these very considerable changes, and I should like to give an instance which proves that necessity. A county like Montgomeryshire returns two Members. It has a police force of only thirty men, and if this Bill is carried it will require considerable time to secure the necessary power for increasing that police force. The ratepayers will have to be consulted, and so will the county council, the Standing Committee, the Home Office, and even this House. It would therefore be a long business. I remember an occasion, not so very long ago, when it was quite impossible for the police—I bring no charge against them—to personally protect a successful candidate from a concerted assault by his adversaries, and had it not been for the advent of a passer-by who, irrespective of political views, came to his assistance, I am not sure he would have lived to represent the constituency in the House of Commons. That is by no means a solitary case. But again let me point out that here you have a county of a large geographical extent, which necessarily, because of its low rateable value, has a very small police force. Combined with this fact you have in the county extreme political activity, and such an interest in politics that, with a register of about 9,000 voters, or under, no fewer than 97 per cent. go to the poll in the case of the District Election. In these circumstances, unless candidates, successful or unsuccessful, are to run the risk of being killed during the election, it is absolutely necessary that ample time should be allowed for the authorities to make fresh arrangements, and this one fact attaches importance to a Bill which at first sight would seem to be a very little measure. I should like to call attention to a speech made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department on this subject. He said:—

"As a matter of fact, I understand the great difficulty of the police in making their arrangements for election day, is not in regard to what happens during polling hours, but in regard to what happens after the polling. When the people come together to hear the declaration of the poll disturbances occur, and still more so after the declaration of the poll when the two sides have to seek refreshment, one as a matter of celebration and the other as a matter of consolation. Under these circumstances there are no doubt difficulties."

That is very true and I should like to know in case any of the right hon. Gentleman's, colleagues speak on this Amendment in what way they differ from him in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman when he made that speech was perfectly right in all he said, and, unless the hon. Baronet's Amendment is carried, we may have a serious situation in certain constituencies where, in order that there may be proper protection for the candidate, it is necessary that arrangements should be made for the orderly conduct of elections.

An examination of the provisions of this Bill reveals a rather serious defect, owing to the fact that no date has been inserted in the measure to provide, when it shall come into operation. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Verney), who is promoting this Bill, made a very important announcement with regard to the next General Election. He said it would not be likely to take place until next June. We attach very great value to everything the hon. Baronet says, and a statement of that kind, falling from the lips of one so closely associated with the occupants of the Front Bench, will be received in this House, I am sure, at its proper value. But I am inclined to think that in this case the wish is father to the thought, and certainly our anticipations with regard to the date of the next General Election are very different from those of the hon. Baronet. We think it is highly probable, taking everything into consideration, that the General Election will take place at a very early date. For that reason, especially, it is most desirable that some definite date should be inserted in the Bill as to when its provisions are to take effect. As the hon. Baronet opposite said he was almost in agreement with my hon. Friend, I suggest that after the speeches to which he has listened, bringing forward still further arguments in support of this proposal, he should now come completely into agreement with him and adopt it.

I base my arguments in support of this proposal on grounds rather different from those put forward by hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. I base them principally on the ground of expense. Everything should be done not to increase the cost of elections, but to lessen them. We hear a great deal at the present time about the undesirability of membership of this House being confined to comparatively wealthy men. I am certainly very much in favour of any proposal which would allow those who are less well endowed with this world's goods to have an opportunity of becoming Members of Parliament, but proposals such as are contained in this Bill appear to operate in exactly the opposite direction. If we are going to have, as we believe, a General Election very shortly after the passage of this Bill, all these different arrangements will have to be made by the returning officers in a hurry. There will be the engagement of fresh clerks to assist them at the elections, which will take place on two days, instead of being spread over a large number of days in the various counties. That must necessarily add very largely to the cost of elections, and, consequently, make the position of poorer candidates more difficult than it is at the present time. If these things are done in a hurry, they will be very expensively done. Although I object to the principles of this Bill, if it is going to be passed, let us arrange that it shall be passed at the least possible expense to everybody concerned. On the ground of economy it is particularly desirable that this definite date on which the Bill shall come into operation should be accepted. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) made some reference to Irish elections, and was interrupted by some hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. I should like to call their attention to the fact that the Bill as it stands applies to Ireland, and that the forty-two Irish Members, of whom we have heard so much, who are coming over from Ireland to take part in the deliberations of the Imperial Parliament, will be elected under the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, if we expected support from one quarter of the House more than another it would be from hon. Members sitting on the Nationalist Benches, because if their view of the political future is correct—I do not think it is—when the date named by my hon. Friend is reached the Irish Parliament will be in full active operation, extending its beneficent work all over a certain portion of the country. Under the suggestion made by my hon. Friend they will then have the opportunity of seeing that those elections are carried out in a proper and orderly fashion. I do not wish to make any reflection on hon. Members below the Gangway, but it appears to me, especially with regard to Ireland, very necessary that the authorities should have sufficient time to organise their police forces, because we know that in the past, unfortunately, many elections in Ireland have been conducted under most unsatisfactory conditions. That was the case under the old system when the elections were spread over a considerable period, and if the elections are to take place in Ireland in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, and are confined to two days, the difficulties of the police there will be far greater than they are at the present time. We know that the existing police force in Ireland has had very great difficulties indeed with regard to certain elections, and as no doubt the Irish Parliament will be desirous that all elections to the Imperial Parliament should be conducted under the most favourable conditions possible, I hope they will give their support to this new Clause.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 74.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 155.

The Clause in relation to the "Amendment of Returning Officers Expenses Act" standing in the names of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) and the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) and also the Clause in relation to "Returning Officer's costs," are both out of order, because they deal with matters which do not come within the scope of the Bill.

On the point of Order. May I submit to you, Sir, that these Amendments are the actual corollary to the provisions of the Bill, making all these pollings take place on a particular day? This change will add very greatly to the expenses. The returning officer must obviously be put to increased expense for two reasons. First of all, it would be impossible to use the same machinery that is used now; and secondly, it would be impossible at the same fees to get the necessary qualified persons to act as returning officers, because at present they get two or three elections in a week in a particular county, and are, therefore, able to accept lower fees for the performance of the work than they would be able to accept if they only get one election. The scale of fees in Scotland is in several respects considerably lower than that in England. Returning officers now complain of that, and if you are going to make a change in the law with respect to polling days, you are surely obliged to give some elasticity in connection with the returning officer's expenses. That being so, I do not understand how it should be out of order to deal with that question in this Bill.

The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised does not affect the ruling I have given. It seems to me quite clear that the Clause is outside the scope of the Bill, and I see no reason for altering my decision.

On the point of Order. No doubt the direct purpose of the Bill is to bring about that these elections, whether county or burgh, shall take place on one or other of two immediately succeeding days, which days are regulated with regard to the interval between the date of the Proclamation and the day of the election. With the greatest deference to the ruling you have given, can you say that a consequential change in the returning officer's expenses is outside the scope of the Bill? No change is being made, or proposed to be made, by these new Clauses other than such as are directly the consequence of what, I agree with you, is the main purpose of the Bill, namely, the bringing about of an election on the eighth or ninth day after the date of the Proclamation. The fact really is that that means two things. It means, first of all, that the existing scale of expenses for returning officers will not fit the changed conditions. Does it not seem very hard to say that the Clauses are outside the scope of the Bill when it is proposed to put right a matter which is the direct consequence of the Bill? The other thing is this: May I give one little illustration—it is not a complete one—as to the relation of the existing scale to the provisions of the Bill? The Act which regulates the existing scale provides that the returning officer is bound, wherever possible, to use the same set of ballot boxes in Parliamentary elections as are used in a county council or parish council elections in a constituency. That will not do now. I agree that this is not a complete illustration, but it is one which shows how the Bill affects the returning officer's own expenses.

I respectfully submit that it is impossible to say that the new Clause is anything else than a direct consequence of the main proposal of the Bill. It appears to me, therefore, that it is within the scope of the Bill. Another thing is this: If the time between the nomination and the polling is going to be restricted in the way proposed, I agree with the Lord Advocate that you must add a day, but that does not affect the question with which I am dealing, for it will still be necessary for returning officers to undertake duties which involve expense before the nomination day if they are going to get the electoral work done. At present they could not recover these expenses at all, and all that is asked by the new Clause is to make the Bill workable, and to allow returning officers to include in their expenses such anticipated costs as they will have to incur before the day of nomination. I respectfully ask you to reconsider the ruling you have given. If you are going to say that we are not entitled to discuss Amendments which are necessary as the direct consequence of passing the main proposal in the Bill, it will make many of us regret bitterly that we did not hold out more strongly and insist on the Bill going to a Select Committee. Unless these Amendments are made, the Bill is going to have the result of creating an absolutely impracticable situation.

Before you give a ruling on the point that has been raised, may I point out—

On a point of Order—

If the hon. Member for Colchester wishes to address me on the point of Order, I would remind him that I have already given my decision, and I have heard the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh out of courtesy to him.

What I wished to call your attention to was the ruling of Mr. Speaker when he was occupying the Chair, and when I think perhaps that you were not in the House. It was to this effect: That Clause 1, Sub-clause (3), was in order because it was the direct and necessary consequence of the Bill. That is to say, that when the polling at a contested election is taken on the earlier of the two days, the declaration of the poll should be postponed. The Member for the City of London asked Mr. Speaker's ruling as to whether that was germane to this Bill. Mr. Speaker said that it was necessary to make some sort of provision to make a practicable measure. I submit that these two Amendments are the necessary outcome of the Bill, and that unless they are considered the Bill itself would be impracticable. I would call attention to what the Lord Advocate said when speaking to the previous Instruction to refer to a Select Committee. He begged the House to get on with the consideration of the Bill, so that the difficulties concerning Scotland might be considered, and we naturally thought that these Amendments would be considered, but—

The hon. Member is going beyond the point with which I have to deal. Perhaps it may allay the hon. Member's fears if I tell him that the ruling which I have now given is the ruling which Mr. Speaker himself would have given had he been here, as I took the opportunity of consulting him before he left the Chair. I listened with attention and respect to what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh said, but I see no reason to alter the ruling which I have already given.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deputy Returning Officer.)

The authority conferred by Section eight of the Ballot Act, 1872, to appoint a deputy returning officer is hereby extended to and may be exercised by any sheriff in Scotland who is returning officer for more than one Parliamentary constituency.

Brought up, and read the first time.

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

Sheriffs have now a combination of counties in many cases in Scotland, and they would find it essential to have the same power which is given in England in large areas where there is not a sufficient number of sheriffs-substitute to go round. This is merely extending to sheriffs in Scotland a power which they do not possess at present, where there is a combination of counties, of appointing someone other than a sheriff-substitute to act in the election. In the county Ayr there are four elections to be carried out. I suppose that with the two consecutive days we might manage with two sheriffs-substitute in Ayr, but there are great difficulties, as the Lord Advocate knows, in the grouping of Ayr Burghs, and so on. Certainly there are cases in which, if this principle is further extended, and these groups of counties are enlarged, there would be a necessity for the sheriff to appoint some other people than the sheriffs-substitute.

I beg to second the Motion.

The hon. Baronet is, I know, friendly to the principle of the Bill, as he has told us. This is a matter which concerns Scotland. I am informed that with the sheriff-substitute it is possible to manage all the groups with two days' polling, but as I am very anxious to meet him, and I quite recognise that the sheriff is a person to whom every consideration should be given, I gladly accept this Clause.

I do not doubt that the hon. Baronet is doing a good thing from his own point of view in accepting the Amendment of my hon Friend, especially when backed up by my hon. and learned Friend below me. But what I want to protest against is accepting Amendments because they are supported by such a powerful combination when they make such considerable alterations in the Bill.

It makes no alteration at all, but if the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) thinks that it will facilitate, I am very anxious to meet him.

The hon. Baronet opposite thinks that it will not make any alteration. The hon. Baronet on this side thinks that it will. Now, what are we to do? We have got to make up our minds at very short notice which hon. Baronet is correct. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or if the third hon. Baronet is correct."] On which hon. Baronet are you to place the greater reliance?

We are agreed.

You do not agree. I place the greater reliance on the hon. Baronet on these benches. As the hon. Baronet says it makes a great change in the Bill. In those circumstances, I want to know why we should accept an Amendment because it is asked for by a powerful combination. We are fortunately blessed during the whole of the present sitting with the presence of one Member of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Local Government Board (Mr. Herbert Lewis), and we are also blessed with the presence of a Member of the Government learned in the law (the Lord Advocate). Why should we not have from him some explanation of the Clause about which there is evidently very great doubt? Then I think that we ought to hear something from the Secretary to the Local Government Board, because this is a local question. I sat watching him during the whole day, hoping that he would get up, but he never stirred from his place, not even to have luncheon.

This does not apply to England.

Why should not something of this sort apply to England? That is my point. We are carrying on the discussion on this Clause with very great difficulty. My hon. Friend tells me that he is so pleased that he does not want to have any discussion as to whether it is right to have the Clause inserted. I am not concerned about this. I should not be inclined to accept this Clause unless I was quite certain that the same spirit of conciliation which had been shown by the hon. Baronet in meeting my hon. Friend here would be shown to me.

Certainly; I will undertake that.

Does the hon. Baronet accept my next Amendment, because if so, I will sit down at once?

When we get to it I will reply to the hon. Gentleman.

I thought the hon. Baronet assented. What I wish to point out to the House is, what may possibly happen if the hon. Baronet accepts the Amendment. I am most anxious to assist my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger), but I really must have some explanation in order that I may know what I am going to do.

I also am in doubt, and I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give some explanation of the effect of the Amendment in a group of boroughs like Kilmarnock. In that case you have a sheriff for the borough, which is in the middle of the county of Ayr, and in immediate contiguity to Ayrshire constituencies, and has no connection whatsoever with the other Kilmarnock burghs situated on the banks of the Clyde, and one of them practically a part of Glasgow. If the Amend- ment is passed, would the sheriff of Kilmarnock be able to fulfil the duties of the returning officer for other constituencies of Glasgow, because that would be a point of the greatest objection. No doubt circumstances point to a Redistribution, in which Kilmarnock would no longer be connected with those other boroughs which have no sort of geographical connection with it. But assuming this is introduced into the Bill—and the Government deal with electoral reform in this piecemeal fashion—what would be its effect in regard to a constituency like Kilmarnock Burghs, which is in very much the same situation as the constituency of the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), though the case of Oban is an extreme one, that place being more distant from the other boroughs than is Kilmarnock from its sharing burghs. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that my question is put from a desire to learn the facts in regard to that constituency, which is the only one in Scotland with which I have any personal acquaintance. I confess that between the three Baronets, and the fact that the Bill affects the three kingdoms, I am completely involved in a legislative fog.

With regard to the questions which have been put to me, the view which I humbly take is that there is no necessity for this Amendment. There are only five returning officers who are affected by it. They are the sheriff of Ayr, the sheriff of Forfar, the sheriff of Lanark, the sheriff of Perth, and the sheriff of Argyle. Those are the sheriffs who are alone affected by this Amendment.

May I ask why not more than five sheriffs in Scotland are affected, and why it does not affect other sheriffs?

Those are the only sheriffs, each of those being of one county. The other sheriffs are of more than one county, and accordingly they have the power referred to in the Bill. Let me state the circumstances of those five sheriffs. In Ayr there are four constituencies, two sheriff-substitutes, and the sheriff; in Forfar, two constituencies, two sheriff-substitutes, and the sheriff; in Lanark, thirteen constituencies, nine sheriff-substitutes, and the sheriff; in Perth, three constituencies, one sheriff-substitute, and the sheriff; in Argyle, one constituency, and four sheriff-substitutes. In these circumstances, considering that sheriff-substitutes can be appointed by sheriffs without the aid of this Clause at all, and having regard to the fact that there are two days on either side of which, under this Bill, an election can take place, it seems to me unnecessary that this Amendment should have been accepted, but the hon. Baronet has generously done so. With regard to Kilmarnock Burghs, they fall within the Ayr district, and the election there would be governed by the considerations I have mentioned in dealing with Ayr. I do not think it would be necessary for Ayr to have this Amendment given effect to. There you have a sheriff and sheriff-substitute dealing with four constituencies in two days. I have responded to the appeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and may I make an appeal to him, that after the acceptance of this Amendment, which I humbly think is not necessary, we should now be allowed to proceed with the next Amendment on the Paper.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just informed us that the Amendment is not necessary. I remember that last week I moved the adjournment of the Debate because the Law Officers of the Crown were not present to give us the necessary advice. To-day we have a Law Officer present who is able to assist us in our Debates. He has told us, necessarily told us, that the Amendment which the hon. Baronet has accepted is useless, unnecessary, and, in his opinion, apparently, ought not to be included in the Bill. I am very grateful to the Lord Advocate for being here to-day, and it would be very ungrateful on our part if we did not accept his advice. He has told us that the hon. Baronet has accepted the Amendment, otherwise he certainly would not advise the House to accept it. But the fact that the hon. Baronet accepted the Amendment does not mean that the House accepts it, and therefore I for one, although I would have voted in favour of the Amendment before the Lord Advocate arose, will certainly vote against it if it goes to a Division.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Baronet who has so kindly accepted this Amendment. The Lord Advocate must know that the five sheriffs to whom he refers are the very people who want this particular Clause. The point which he never dealt with in regard to the county of Ayr is what is to happen when the sheriff is ill. He has no power of appointment. What is to happen under those circumstances? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to object to the Clause, which is obviously one of very great necessity. However, as the hon. Baronet opposite has accepted it, I do not think I need say anything further.

Many of us on this side of the House are in very great difficulty as to how we shall vote on this Amendment. I myself feel disposed to accept the statement of the Lord Advocate, and it is a very great advantage to have a Law Officer of the Crown present to give information. I know nothing of the law, and for that reason I accept the verdict of the Lord Advocate as to this particular Clause being quite unnecessary. It always seems to me to be a very questionable thing to insert in any Bill an unnecessary Clause, because it only tends to complicate the matter, and very likely give rise to causes being tried in the Courts in order to decide points arising under a Clause of that description. If the Clause is really unnecessary, I feel I could not vote for it even though it is accepted at the request of the two hon. Baronets, and I think it is absolutely necessary to divide against it.

I desire to support the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith). I know nothing about Scottish or English law, but I understood that Scottish law was much more intricate, and with the advice we have had from the Lord Advocate, I must, with reluctance, differ from the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), whose lead I would follow on ordinary political questions. No doubt my hon. Friend will get on the Front Bench, but is not yet there, and is not so eminent as the Lord Advocate, and therefore I must support the Member of the Government who has spoken. The House, I am sure, would be interested to hear the opinion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde), who held high office, and is one of the most distinguished lawyers in Scotland.

I seconded.

He and the Lord Advocate are not arguing a case before a judge, and perhaps we may find that they are in agreement in this case.

The House is placed in a curious position. The hon. Baronet in charge told us that he did not understand the Clause, and apparently he did not take the trouble to find out what it meant. The Lord Advocate told us there was no necessity for the Amendment, but that, as the hon. Baronet in charge is so chivalrous and charming and generous, he thought the Clause had better be put in. Can anyone imagine a worse reason for putting a Clause in an Act of Parliament? If it goes to a Division I shall certainly vote against it.

It is a matter of great pain to me to have to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I have sat on many Committees with him and I know him not only to be an able and well-informed man but an extremely versatile man; but with all his great gifts I have never found him to be a learned lawyer. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said he did not understand the Clause, and had not much acquaintance with Scotland, but as a matter of goodwill towards the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs he is graciously pleased to accept it. On Grand Committees we had the advantage of learned Gentlemen, and to-day the Lord Advocate gets up and makes mincemeat of this proposal; but although he considers it unnecessary and futile, yet as the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) is a friend of his, as a matter of chivalry he has accepted it, and we are asked in the House of Commons to perpetrate this nonsense. Friday afternoons are supposed to be set apart for us private Members to do legislation with regard to matters which the public want, and not nonesnse, but fundamental laws, and I, for one, am not coming down here on Friday to waste my time legislating for nonsense, even when a chivalrous act is to be bestowed on my hon. Friend. Much to my regret, and indeed real pain, I shall have to vote against my hon. Friend.

We have had so far three hon. Baronets who have addressed the House and as far as I can gather two of them have put their heads together to accept the Clause, and the hon Baronet the Member for the City opposes.

I am not sure. I have been rather touched by the appeal of the Lord Advocate. He has told us something about the Clause. It is true he says it is nonsense, but in order to encourage him to intervene again with the Debate I shall vote for it.

I feel bound to vote against this Clause. As I am rather convinced by the arguments of the Lord Advocate, the only legal opinion we had, except that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh who seconded the Clause, and is therefore, I presume, more or less in favour of it. The Lord Advocate says the Clause is unnecessary, and I am strongly opposed to adding unnecessary Clauses to a Bill. One of the great things we have in our law at present is that there is an enormous redundancy of words, text and Clauses, which makes it almost impossible for the mere layman to understand. It is one of the things that lawyers are always pleased at, as it gives additional work to their profession. I am not very fond of the legal profession except when they are assisting me, and I am in favour of anything that can simplify legislation and make it more easily understood. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill does not understand this Clause, and to the mere layman it is unintelligible, and I presume unnecessary. The Lord Advocate seemed to think so. My hon. Friend who proposed it thinks it is necessary. The Clause is meant to extend Section 8 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act of 1872, which now refers to England; also to Scotland. By that Act sheriffs or returning officers from more than one county are allowed to appoint a fit person to act as deputy in connection with elections. At the present moment they have not got these powers. By this Bill an election has to take place within a certain number of days. Supposing the returning officer is ill, and he is not allowed to appoint a substitute, are we to be deprived of the presence of certain hon. Members who, in such a case, could not be returned within the required period. That appears to be the idea which the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs has in mind. I should very much regret it if the House were deprived of the presence of the hon. Member, and I would vote against any proposal likely to have that effect. In the absence of any further explanation, I shall feel bound to vote in opposition to this Clause.

The arguments of the Lord Advocate were so lucid, and his manner so persuasive, that I shall vote which ever way he advises me to do. I do not know which way that is, and I do not know which hon. Baronet I shall vote against, but, at any rate, I am prepared to vote with the Lord Advocate owing to his charming manner, having carried conviction on this side of the House, which was not the case with his predecessor. I hope that very shortly we shall have no more of these Scottish Burghs. We do not want these small towns scattered about Scotland in this very vague way. At any rate, if we are to have them, let us have proportional representation. By accepting this Clause we shall be doing an act of kindness and humanity to the deputy-returning officers. Therefore, I think, the Clause should be inserted, and I shall support it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 104.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 74.

CLAUSE 1.—(Polling Day for Counties and Boroughs at General Elections, etc.)

(1) In an election of Members to serve in a new Parliament of the United Kingdom the poll shall be taken in the case of any contested election (other than an election for a university or a combination of universities) either on the eighth or ninth day after the date of His Majesty's gracious Proclamation declaring the calling of the Parliament.

(2) ( a ) The provisions of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, relating to the date of giving notice of the day of election and to the fixing of that day, in the case of a borough election, shall apply in the case of all elections to which this Act applies, and the provisions of that Schedule shall have effect accordingly, subject to the modifications contained in the Schedule to this Act.

( b ) The form of writ enacted in the Second Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall have effect for the purposes of any election to which this Act applies, subject to the modification contained in the schedule to this Act.

(3)Where the poll in any contested election to which this Act applies is taken on the earlier of the two days that may be appointed, the returning officer shall not begin to count the votes until eight o'clock in the alternoon of the later of those days.

(4) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the provisions of Section one of the Ballot Act, 1872, relating to the commencement afresh of the proceedings with relation to the election on the death of a candidate, and this Act shall not apply to proceedings so commenced afresh.

(5) Time shall be reckoned for the purposes of this Act as for the purposes of the Ballot Act, 1872.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), to leave out Clause 1, is not in order, as it amounts to a direct negative of the Bill.

Do I understand you to rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as Clause 1 is practically the whole Bill, an Amendment to leave it out is a direct negative, and, if that is so, I would ask very respectfully at what stage in these proceedings can the rejection of Clause 1 be moved?

On the Third Reading.

That is a different stage. I believe I am correct in saying that you rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not possible at this stage to move the rejection of the whole Clause?

The hon. Baronet has correctly stated my ruling. If the hon. Baronet wishes, he can move the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading, and there state his objections to Clause 1.

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the manuscript Amendment which I handed in is in order, and, if so, would it not come before the next Amendment on the Paper? My Amendment is in Sub-section (1), at the beginning, to insert the following words:—

"Provided that an Act for the Redistribution of seats has been passed in the present Session."

In framing that Amendment I have been guided by the precedent in the Finance Bill, which in Clause 13 makes a similar stipulation:—

"If provision is made by Parliament for dividing the rateable value of land so as to distinguish the value, and so forth … the following provisions shall have effect.

Following that precedent, it appears to me that the most suitable way in which I could raise the desirability of the Redistribution of seats taking place before this electoral reform is given effect is that these words which I have suggested should be inserted. I should be glad of your ruling upon the point.

The Amendment which the hon. Member has handed in is out of order in the place that he wishes to move it. If it is to be moved at all, it should come in as a proviso at the end of the Clause. I do not rule whether it would be in order there or not, but that is the place where the question could be raised.

May I ask whether the effect of your ruling is that a Clause beginning with a hypothesis should be founded upon that hypothesis materialising?

I prefer to put my ruling in my own words, and not in the paraphrase which the hon. Gentleman has given.

Do I understand that your ruling is confined to this case, and, if it is, I beg to submit that you have not given any reason for it, and I presume that the only reason is that the Clause begins with the hypothesis, and I would ask whether that would not apply to other cases and other Amendments?

I have nothing to add to the ruling I have already given.

May I ask, on a point of Order, if it is not the case that a great number of Acts of Parliament that have been passed by this Government and by other Governments before, begin with the word "provided," and may I ask whether you have indicated that it would be always out of order to propose a proviso, and if not, what special circumstances make this Amendment out or order?

I take it that your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was, not that the Amendment was out of order at all, but that it would be better taken at the end of the Clause?

I have already ruled, and I do not think the Noble Lord's question requires any further answer. He raises a matter of general policy which will be better addressed to Mr. Speaker.

My only reason for raising this point is that this principle should be granted to those opposing Bills, and I think I am in the recollection of the House when I say that provisos have constantly been proposed to Bills, and that they have been always taken at the beginning.

That may or may not be so, but the proper place for this is at the end. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), to insert in Sub-section (1) after the word "Kingdom" ["in a new Parliament in the United Kingdom"] the words "or any portion of such Kingdom possessed of a separate Parliament," is of a hypothetical character and is out of order.

May I respectfully ask, whether this question can be considered hypothetical when a Home Rule Bill has passed its Third Reading in this House?