COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.] (Hansard, 25 July 1871)

§ MR. GOLDNEY
moved an Amendment in line 18, which was merely verbal, and introductory to another to be moved at the end of the clause. The verbal Amendment in line 18 was that the words "claimed to be" left out, and the word "as" be inserted in their place. The object of the second Amendment which the hon. Gentleman intended to move, as consequent on the first, was that the real voter, in the event of his having been personated at an election, should not be shut out from voting, but should have his vote received in the same manner as any other elector, the presiding officer being required to mark the voting paper with the voter's name, to insure identification afterwards. By the present law it was absolutely necessary for a person to have voted to make a case of personation complete, and means were provided for a challenge by either candidate of the votes. If there were to be provisions in the present Bill against personation, it was clearly necessary that there should be some means of identifying the voting paper. The clause as drawn took away the right the true voter would clearly have of giving his vote, and he could not see any justification for the exclusion of the real man because he happened to be an hour later in coming to the poll than the man who had personated him.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
, in referring to the very wide subject of personation, said that by this unfortunate 219 Bill which had been brought in by Government, not only to disfranchise an honest voter, but to enable a dishonest voter to vote with impunity, if a dishonest man came and personated another at the polling-booth, and if his vote were not challenged his vote was taken, and was always valid in favour of him for whom it was given. But when the real man came, his vote was to be sealed up as a tendered vote in the mode described in the section, and was handed over to the keeper of the ballot papers, and could only be used when some legal proceeding was taken in order to set aside the election. Before the clause went further, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would explain or defend this provision.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the first Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Goldney) was merely verbal. Whoever voted, the act of voting was claiming to be a particular elector. "Claiming" was, he thought, the right word to use. The Amendment proposed at the end of the section was an important one, and the reason he could not accept it was that it would put the law on a perfectly different footing from that on which it stood at present. He did not believe that personation would be increased by this Act, but some hon. Members did, and they were entitled to their opinion. It had been frequently stated in the course of the discussion that personation existed at the present moment. Now, where there was personation, what happened? A man went up and tendered his vote orally, and he found somebody had voted in his name. He was not at present able to vote. He tendered his vote, and his vote was kept aside as a possible vote to be counted in case of a scrutiny. The same provision was made under the new system of voting. The voter found that a person had signed a voting paper he ought to have; he tendered his vote, and the returning officer was bound to take and keep it separate, to be used in case of a scrutiny. In either case the tendered vote was to be used in case of a scrutiny, not otherwise. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Goldney) in proposing this Amendment, went on the supposition that the second man was necessarily the right voter; but it was just as likely that the second man might be the personator. He therefore thought that that was a 220 sufficient reason for declining to assent to the Amendment.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
replied that the difficulty he had in the matter was that a man who was, by the present law, in a bad position, was placed in a very much worse position by the Bill, because if a man claimed now to vote as a certain person his vote was reckoned where he had been personated, whereas by the Bill he was shut out.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
believed there would be greater precaution under the new Bill than under the present system. It would be an entirely new principle to admit two votes on the same day by two persons claiming to be one person.

§ MR. CORRANCE
said, that as a scrutiny was almost impossible by the Bill the vote would be lost unless the Amendment was adopted.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the difference between the present and the proposed system was this—that as soon as a man voted, if he was personated, the candidate against whom he voted had a direct interest in immediately proceeding against him; but by the new system the agent was uncertain how the man voted, and therefore the interest of the prosecutor was lost, and he (Mr. Newdegate) did not know how a scrutiny could take place. It appeared to him that the case presented by the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) was perfectly good.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that the point raised by the Amendment indicated a break-down in the system of voting proposed by the Bill. If there was no safeguard to the voter that his vote would have due effect, then the whole system of voting came to be a fallacy, because any man's vote was at the mercy of any personator who came first. It was said there would be a scrutiny, and ultimately the true voter would be righted; but where was the temptation to a scrutiny, and where was the money for a scrutiny? The men who would be personated would most likely be persons in a poor position in society, and unknown to the agents or returning officers, and these poor men would not therefore have any means or legal knowledge to prosecute their case. It might not be worth the while of the defeated candidate to follow up a scrutiny, which would be very expensive and very doubtful in the result; and the consequence 221 would be a total confusion of right and wrong in the whole voting. He asked his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council where was the morality and advantage of secret voting over the old system of voting? It was said that the old system produced intimidation. Well, granting for the sake of argument that it did, and intimidation was no doubt a bad thing, yet everything had its price, and there might be too high a price at which to get rid of intimidation; and he contended that by the provisions of this Bill they were paying too high a price for it. The existence of this clause was damnatory of the whole Bill; it was damnatory of the whole system of voting, because the whole system of election was reduced to uncertainty as regarded the identity of everyone of those voters who claimed, to elect the Members of that House. On that ground he supported the Amendment.

§ MR. LIDDELL
believed that the crime of personation would become very rife under the system of secret voting. He wanted to know how, if the process of secrecy was complete, a scrutiny could possibly take place. The vote could not be followed.

§ MR. JAMES
said, he thought that personation would be increased to an unlimited extent if the Amendment were adopted. The result of the Amendment was that if the right person had gone to the poll and the wrong person went an an hour afterwards, the vote of the wrong person must be accepted. They did not wish to trust a presiding officer to decide whether a vote was good or not, because if dishonest he might admit 20 votes for one qualification. If this Amendment were carried it would give facilities for any number of persons to poll in respect of one qualification. The Amendment would, in fact, create an unlimited power of personation. What was necessary to be done was not to let people vote twice over, but to keep the wrong votes out of the ballot-boxes, and when the proper time arrived he should move the insertion of a clause which would have the desired effect. If this was done, the system would be as perfect as that existing at the present time.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought Parliament ought not to stereotype existing abuses, but rather to remedy them if possible. Under the existing system no two votes could be recorded for the 222 same qualification; but now they were about to enact that two votes might be received for the same qualification. Under the proposed system, if A and B voted for the same qualification there was no knowing for whom the one who first polled recorded his vote. Under the existing system it would be recorded for whom A voted, and B's vote would be placed in the margin and would await the result of a scrutiny, when the matter would be sot right. Suppose that under the new system there should be a scrutiny, and that B proved that he was the right person that had been personated, there would be no power to say for whom A voted, nor from which candidate a vote should be taken away. If this were so, then they would for the first time establish the principle that two votes might be received for the same qualification. It was assumed by those who supported the Ballot that the personators would be political opponents of the voters personated; but he thought, on the other hand, that electors would be personated under a system of secret voting by their political friends, and he repeated that there was nothing to prevent two votes being given for the same qualification.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, in reply, said it was provided by Clause 3 that, when the ballot paper was handed to a voter, a tick would be placed opposite his name on the register, and thus the possibility of giving two votes in respect of the same qualification would be non-existent if the Bill passed in its present form. To pass the Amendment would at once admit the possibility. The question of the mode to be adopted for striking off votes improperly given would arise on the 22nd clause.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
asked whether they were not for the first time establishing the principle that the presiding Judge would be bound to allow two votes for the same qualification?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Supposing the argument and the assumptions of the hon. Member to be correct, and also that they had passed Clause 22, no doubt what was said would be correct. He did not, however, admit the correctness of the statement, and he would not further enter into the question until they came to Clause 22.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
contended that the question really arose under the present clause. There was no 223 power under the proposed system to remove a personated vote from the ballot-box. Under the present system the vote of the personator, when he was discovered, was removed from the poll, whilst under the proposed new-fangled system the dishonest vote would remain upon the poll. Possibly these false votes might carry the election.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that he had repeatedly given his answer in reference to this point. They were perfectly aware that the particular vote could not be struck off; but they thought that this small evil would be more than compensated by the great advantages which would be conferred by the Bill. He would not anticipate the discussion upon Clause 22, which referred to the power of striking off particular votes.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
wished to observe that the only person who was to sustain inconvenience through the ballot secrecy was the honest voter. The rogue who personated was to have his vote placed in the ballot-box, and unless you could prove agency you could not touch his vote in any way; and it must remain in the box. But when the voter who had been personated went up he was bound to place his name upon the ballot paper, and thus would be deprived of that secrecy which was so valuable to the rogue. Then before the scrutineers the person who had been defrauded of his vote would have publicly to claim in accordance with the ballot paper upon which his name was written. Even if he should prove his title to vote he would not in effect get the vote, because in all probability his ballot would be neutralized by the person who had voted for his qualification. The secrecy would operate to defraud the honest man of his vote and prevent his having any redress.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have heard the earlier part of the discussion. So long as personation existed the voter personated would run the risk of losing his vote. Under the present system he would lose it entirely, unless there should be a Petition and a scrutiny. Something similar would exist under the new system; but it was believed that under the new system personation would be less likely than formerly; especially as the personator could not know whether the real man had voted or not.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
denied that the circumstances were the same in the two cases. In open voting the vote of the personator was struck off, and that of the real person placed upon the register; but under the new system they would have both votes recorded. When the man personated proved his right, his vote was registered, but the false vote would not be struck off.

§ MR. JAMES
said, this was not a new objection, nor did it come originally from the Opposition benches. He himself urged it on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill; but on that occasion he admitted that there were countervailing advantages, which outweighed the objection, and ought to prevent its interfering with the progress of the Bill. Hostile personation was in almost every instance accompanied by bribery, and could be dealt with under the 22nd clause of the Bill. On the other hand, in the case of personation by a political friend, the rightful voter would receive more than justice, in that two votes instead of one would be recorded for his own candidate. The very fact of the Bill being a Ballot Bill would do away with many of the inducements to personate, and if the penalties for the offence were increased personation would speedily come to an end.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
moved an Amendment to provide that a second ballot paper should not be given to a person claiming to have been personated as an elector until the first one had actually been put into the box and the vote completed. As the clause stood, the second paper could be given after the first one had simply been "delivered" to the claimant.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
accepted the Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he thought that the danger of personation being resorted to was increased by every step taken to render its detection matter of increased difficulty.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he thought the danger to be expected from the personation of a dozen or two of voters was reduced to nil by the vast increase in the numbers composing the constituencies.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, that in one of the Ridings of Yorkshire at the last Election there was only a difference of 225 eight in the number of votes recorded for each of two candidates, though upwards of 15,000 electors voted on the occasion. In the case of another constituency the Liberal candidates were defeated by one because they had the foolish modesty not to vote for themselves. The question, then, of a dozen votes was of the utmost consequence.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, another difficulty might arise. What was to prevent a person who desired to assist a particular political party, but did not care to face the penalties attaching to personation, going to a voting place, obtaining the ballot paper of a political opponent, and carrying it away in his pocket, so depriving the voter of his right to the franchise?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, such a case was provided against by a clause in the Bill.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved the insertion of words in the clause to the effect that the ballot papers given to voters who had previously been personated in the same election should be of a different colour, in order to prevent the vote being counted twice.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the object of the Amendment was to guard not against personation but mistakes. The proposed precaution was, in his opinion, almost superfluous, but he had no objection to it.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the clause provided that on the occasion of any poll taking place at a Parliamentary election, if any person whose name had been struck out of the register of electors by the decision of the revising barrister applied for a ballot paper, the presiding officer should upon the applicant answering certain questions and taking a certain specified oath deliver to such applicant a ballot paper. It was, he thought, highly desirable that claims disallowed by the revising barrister should not be re-opened until the next Registration Court should be held. With that view he would propose as an Amendment the omission, in page 6, of the words commencing "if at any poll," in line 24, to the words "such applicant," in line 29, inclusive.

§ MR. BOWRING
said, that he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Vice Pre- 226 sident of the Council would find it consistent with his duty to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster. He saw no reason for so great an alteration as the proposal contained in the clause would in practice effect. In large constituencies hundreds of names were annually struck off by the revising barristers, owing to death, removal, or other loss of qualification, and the percentage of cases in which there was any chance of the barrister's decision being reversed was extremely small, and yet, under the clause, the whole of the persons so struck off were to be allowed to tender their votes, thus causing, as he feared, needless obstruction at the polling-booths. He had himself placed a Notice on the Paper to limit the right thus to tender votes to the case of individuals who had given notice of appeal against the decision of the revising barrister; but he should prefer to see the Amendment now under consideration adopted, as he thought it desirable that the register of votes, as settled at the revision, should be final, subject of course to such emendations as the superior Court of Appeal might direct.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. There were enough complications without this one in the Bill.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that the clause simply allowed the law on this subject to remain as it was at present.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that personally he should be glad if the Committee determined that the register should be deemed conclusive for the year. The Government would accept the Amendment if such was the wish of the Committee.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, the clause would be unworkable in Scotland, where the register was conclusive until the next registration.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, perhaps the better way would be to make the required provision in the Registration Bill, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke).

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, several extreme cases occurred during the last Election which it would be necessary to provide against. He thought some provision ought to be introduced to facilitate appeals from decisions of the revising barrister.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would take time to consider whether such a provision should be inserted in the Bill.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, the number of his constituents was largely increased by the last Reform Bill. His opponents objected to about 300 working men who were on his side, and the revising barrister decided in favour of the validity of the votes. An appeal was thereupon made to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision of the Court below; but if the ultimate decision had been otherwise, in all probability he should not now have represented the borough. He thought it desirable that appeals should be heard more speedily than at present.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he hoped it would be clearly understood that provision would have to be made for accidental errors in the filling up of the ballot paper.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that under the clause, if a voter inadvertently spoilt his paper, he might go to the presiding officer and get a fresh one, the spoilt paper being retained in order that the returning officer might make up his account of the papers.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that a man who spoilt his paper must disclose to the presiding officer and the other persons in the booth the way he intended to vote, and thus violate the secrecy so strongly insisted on by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he hoped the clause would be carefully considered with reference to other parts of the Bill.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, the exhibiting and proving the spoilt voting-paper to the satisfaction of the presiding officer might lead to collusion. If the presiding officer opened it and examined it in the presence of the agents, the way the man intended to vote might be discovered. The voter should hand it to the presiding officer folded up, and the latter destroy it without opening it.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would think over the point, with the view of introducing the provision required in another part of the Bill.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had not produced the promised amended schedule, and it was very inconvenient to discuss on this clause the possible mistakes that might be made in a document that was not before the Committee. He (Mr. Lowther) suggested that all the regulations applicable to the filling up of ballot papers should be posted up in large letters and in conspicuous places in each polling booth, and that the ballot paper itself should, contain nothing but the names of the candidates.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the course suggested by the hon. Member had already occurred to him; and in a short time he hoped to be able to place the first schedule upon the Table, the frame of which would, he thought, be approved by the hon. Gentleman.

§ COLONEL SYKES
observed that since the year 1714 the Directors of the East India Company had been virtually elected by ballot, in the shape of voting papers, which were deposited in a box.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
moved to omit the clause, with a view to the insertion of a new one, shortening the time of notice.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that there having been plenty of time to look through the Bill and see what could be omitted, without endangering its main objects, the Government had come to the conclusion that the clause might be dispensed with. Every part of the clause already had force in the existing law, excepting the sub-section providing for the withdrawal of candidates between the day of nomination and the day of election; and in regard to that, he thought the discussion on the 2nd clause of the Bill pointed to the desirableness of not interfering with the law as it now stood.

§ MR. LIDDELL
suggested that as extensive alterations had been, made and 229 the matter was getting rather complicated, it would be desirable to re-print the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would be prepared to act upon the suggestion if at the end of the sitting the House had reached the end of a clause, where they could conveniently pause.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
asked whether, if the whole of the clause were omitted, it would not be necessary to substitute some provision as to withdrawals of candidates. He inquired because he had some personal experience of how matters of that kind might be worked.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
referred to several of the sub-sections forming part of the clause, and said that if these matters were not now discussed and dealt with, extensive alterations would be rendered necessary upon the Report.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
, referring to the proposed omission of sub-section 1 of the clause, which gave power to the returning officer, with the consent of a Secretary of State, to appoint as the place in which the election is thereafter to be held, such towns in the county as he thinks most convenient to the electors, said, that if the Bill were altogether silent on this point grave difficulties must arise, in cases such as those of Kent and East Kent, where the place for the election was an open common. It would be necessary, he supposed, to move out the ballot-box and the whole of the furniture—in short, to hold a sort of electioneering "Feast of Tabernacles."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not think the absurdity spoken of was likely to arise, as the election, legally speaking, was the nomination, not the polling.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH
said, the difficulties under which the Committee laboured already would plainly be increased by the omission of this clause. Clause 2 had been extensively altered, and was, it seemed, to be reprinted; but the discussions and suggestions upon that clause had frequently turned upon Clause 8, which was now to be omitted.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he intended to provide for the withdrawal, but it did not appear to be necessary to do so now.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, a man might be nominated, and in consequence of being unable to withdraw himself might be saddled with considerable expense, although his nomination might have been made without his consent.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he might thus find himself forced into an expensive contest.

§ MR. JAMES
said, it was clearly absurd to hold that a man nominated without his consent should not be allowed to withdraw.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would give consideration to the point.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, if a man was not allowed to withdraw himself from candidature he might be put to great expense.

§ MR. PELL
said, a man might be nominated who was not in the country.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, a candidate might not always be nominated by his friends. One or two candidates might be nominated, at an expense of £100 each, to break the constituency into fragments, and ensure the success of the other side. He thought it would be desirable to retain sub-section 8.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, it would be most desirable that a power of withdrawal should be retained for all candidates.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that what had just been stated showed the advantage of the clause being postponed till Clause 18 had been decided. At present a candidate who was nominated must serve, if elected. There were difficulties in the way of providing for withdrawal.

§ MR. C. S. READ
remarked that eight or ten persons might be proposed where only two could be elected; and a man might be proposed for two places. Surely it was absurd to say in such cases a candidate might not withdraw.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought a candidate should not be allowed to withdraw without paying a fine. A Liberal grocer might be a candidate and withdraw, after putting the county or the borough to the expense of preparing for a contest. Such fickleness should not be allowed to a candidate.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he hoped the sub-section would be postponed. There would be a serious difficulty connected 231 with the withdrawal of candidates. But if they were not allowed to withdraw nothing would be so easy as to nominate several people, advocates, perhaps, of the Permissive Bill, on which there happened to be a strong feeling amongst a minority, and a great party might be broken into small fractions and a man returned, not as the representative of the majority, but of one of the minorities. The only way of preventing this was by introducing some system of preferential voting. He would have an opportunity of discussing the point when they reached the new clauses.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that after the nominations had been made and the returning officer had issued the voting papers with the names of the candidates, it would be impossible for any of them to withdraw.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, that it was impossible that these details could be satisfactorily settled at present. The better course would be to adopt simply the principle of the Bill and leave the details for future consideration.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
repeated that he thought the best plan would be to omit the clause; but, of course, he proposed that course on the clear understanding that it would not prevent any part of the clause being brought up again subsequently.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that it would be very convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state now, or as soon as he could, what clauses he intended to strike out, and what clauses he intended to persevere with. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had spoken of the corrupt withdrawal of candidates as one of the dangers that would have to be guarded against in future. He was glad that the hon. Member had formed such an excellent opinion of the character of the candidates that would be introduced under the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it quite likely that some of the gentlemen who appeared at public meetings in London would be only too glad to enter a sham candidature, take the money, and go back by the next train. It was not the electors that he wished to protect—for if they were foolish enough to be deceived by such men they deserved no pity—but the ratepayers, upon whom it was proposed that the expenses of elections 232 should fall. In regard to the question of withdrawal, it must be remembered that this Bill would offer much greater inducements to candidates than now existed, and the question was therefore one that well merited attention.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, that the unexpected withdrawal of this clause by the Government was attended with inconvenience. It had been admitted that the withdrawal even of single Amendments by hon. Members should be given notice of, and surely that rule ought also to apply to the withdrawal of an entire clause by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The inconvenience was the greater because many hon. Gentlemen certainly left the House last night under the impression that the further progress of the Bill was likely to be suspended until autumn.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would undertake, after the close of the present sitting, to go carefully through the Bill, and either before, or on next Thursday he would state what clauses, if any, the Government did not think it necessary to proceed with.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
, being of opinion that it would be impossible to get through this clause at the present sitting, moved that the Chairman should report Progress with a view to the re-printing of the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he hoped that the Motion would not be pressed. If they did not get through Clause 9 today he should be willing to re-print the Bill as far as they had gone.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded hon. Members that the Bill could not be reprinted during its progress through the Committee; but such clauses as had been agreed to might be printed on a separate paper.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
moved in page 9, leave out sub-sections 1 and 2, to and including "placed," in line 17, and insert— Every polling station shall be a separate room or separate booth, and shall have the name of the parish; and if such parish is divided, the names of the streets or other local divisions within such parish the voters of which are al- 233 lotted to poll at such polling-place, placed in a prominent manner. The hon. Gentleman said that the object of his Amendment was that the voter might know, without trouble or doubt, the place where he was to vote.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not think it advisable to be too precise in limiting the discretion of returning officers of boroughs, who, generally speaking, were desirous of consulting the convenience of the inhabitants. In large places several polling-places were sometimes necessary. He did not state that that ought to be done; but he thought it ought to be left to the discretion of the returning officers.

§ MR. HERMON
asked, whether the managers of schools would be deprived of a grant from the Education Department if an election were held in their rooms.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that he would bring up a clause on the Table which would prevent the Education Department from prohibiting the use of national schools for the purpose of polling.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
moved to omit sub-section 2, for the purpose of inserting the words which he had previously proposed. He considered it most important that every effort should be used to prevent mistakes at the polling-places. Mistakes sometimes occurred under the present system, which was generally well understood, and he should not be surprised if, at the first election under the new system, a great many false returns would be made owing to mistakes having arisen.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
remarked that the Interpretation Clause did not sufficiently define the meaning of the word "room." 234 A distinction had been drawn between separate rooms and other rooms. He imagined a room to be a place which had a separate door, and not a class room in a school, which ought to be clearly excepted.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed, that the word "room" did not appear at all in sub-section 2, and therefore that the remark of the hon. Member did not apply to it. He could not consent to the striking out of sub-section 2.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
rose to move an Amendment to the effect that no voter should be allowed to vote in any parish or ward except that in which he resided.
And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman, left the Chair, to report Progress.