HC Deb 08 March 1888 vol 323 c684

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, he had no objection to the Bill, if its object were expressed in the title; but a word or two of explanation was desirable.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said, the object of the Bill was to remove a technical objection which disqualified occupiers who were obliged under some contract of service to temporarily leave their houses. This disqualification attached to many persons, soldiers, sailors, and others, by reason of their being obliged to break the continuous occupation of their premises. This disqualification was removed in the case of policemen by the Act of last Session, and he wished to extend the removal to others who might suffer from this merely technical disqualification. He proposed, by the Bill, that those persons who otherwise would have a vote should have it if absent not more than four months. He asked the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time, for he believed it was a perfectly reasonable measure, enabling those who were qualified in every other respect, but who were barred from voting by the technical disqualification of a compulsory absence. He assured hon. Members opposite it had no sort of sinister object; it simply removed a legal, a techncially legal, objection which at present affected many railway servants, domestic servants, clerks, and others.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said, it was obvious that the Bill required some little discussion, and he must object to the second reading being taken at that time.

The Motion being opposed, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Forward to