PLURAL VOTING BILL.

HC Deb 29 October 1906 vol 163 cc720-78

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

*VISOOUNT CASTLEREAGH(Maidstone) moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to provide that a voter should merely be required to cause to be delivered in the form prescribed by Order in Council, his notice of selection, and should not, according to the original drafting of the Bill be called upon personally to send that notice. The noble Lord said that as far as he understood at the present time there was no provision in the Bill as to how notice should be sent. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what the position of the voter was when a notice had been sent but had not been received. This appeared to him to be a very important Question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten them. If a voter voted under such circumstances would he be a criminal? His Amendment would remove one of the ambiguities with which, to his mind, the Bill at the present time was full. The words he proposed would relieve the voter of a great many difficulties and would also strengthen the Bill.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word 'send' and to insert the words 'cause to be delivered in a form to be prescribed by Order in Council made under this Act.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendale

replied that he did not think the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary, inasmuch as a provision would be made in the Order in Council by which a receipt would be sent to the voter notified by the clerk. He was quite sure the noble Lord would not wish to cause unnecessary trouble to the voter notified. He (Mr. Harcourt) would certainly be unwilling to accept the Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said that his noble friend's Amendment suggested that the obligation should not be laid upon the voter to send in his own notice, but the clerk should cause the notice to be sent in on the form prescribed. Was it to be optional for the voter either to send his notice or cause it to be sent? There was no Party question involved in this matter; both sides of the Committee were anxious to know how the machinery of the Bill would operate. This obligation imposed upon a voter, however, was a very serious matter, for it was an obligation which many would be very unwilling to undertake. A claimant himself knew very little of the means by which his vote was obtained. Under this Bill, in future, if a man made his own claim he would be liable to a penalty, but the Amendment of his noble friend would remove this difficulty.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said there were really two points before the Committee — the one referred to by his right hon. friend and the other referred to by his noble friend. The only one which had been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply was whether the notice of selection should be in the form prescribed by Order in Council, or whether the person sending the notification might send it in any form he liked. The second point was as to whether the whole thing could be carried out by agents or organisers, or whether the labour, responsibility, and care required should rest on the shoulders of each individual voter. He thought it would be better for the Committee to restrict themselves to the first point, and postpone the consideration of the second point till a later Amendment was moved.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had stated that a receipt would be sent to the voter for the notification of selection. If a man sent notice and received no receipt, would he come within the purview of the Act?

MR. HARCOURT

said that on this particular point he had given to the voter the greatest amount of latitude. He thought it would be a pity to tie him down in any way, or to subject him to any inconvenience.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE CHAIRMAN

In regard to all the proposals to insert words after "send," I think the whole point of how the notice is to be sent or delivered should be taken together. I mean that these various Amendments overlap one another, and it is impossible to debate one without infringing on the others.

CAPTAIN CRAIG(Down, E.) moved an Amendment to provide that a person desiring to select a constituency would have the option to send "or cause to be sent" a notice of his selection. He explained that this Amendment would be necessary in view of another which he proposed to move at a later stage, to leave out the words "signed by him." In connection with this particular matter they had to consider the object which the measure was intended to carry out. He understood from what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the real object of the Bill was to prevent anyone from exercising the franchise more than once. According to the wording of the Bill it was necessary that the voter in making his selection of a constituency should send a notice "signed by himself" intimating the particular property or residence in respect of which he desired to vote. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a very large number of electors in this country would be prohibited from exercising the franchise if this clause was carried as it stood, because whether, as was the case at the present time, a very large amount of the work of registration was done by political associations, or whether the work was done by the individual, the onus here rested upon each, plural voter to decide for himself and to sign with his own hand the paper notifying the constituency selected. Those who had most votes would be those who engaged solicitors to look after their various affairs and especially the matters with regard to their property. He held that it would be a great hardship that those voters should be obliged to exercise this nomination personally, and not be in a position to do so through their own trusted agents who had been conducting their affairs in the past. Another serious point arose in connection with constituencies where the balance of power was very narrow. He had in his mind's eye constituencies where twenty, forty, or fifty votes generally turned the election one way or another. This clause as it stood lent itself in these cases to very grave abuse by anyone who cared to simply fill up a notice paper in the name of a voter and have his name put in the register in respect of property which he held in a constituency. The notice being a forgery, the voter might at an election time ask for a voting paper in another constituency and immediately become subject to the serious penalties set out in the Bill. In many instances men of the humbler class who were not accustomed to the placing of their names on the register would find themselves in the peculiar position of having all at once to take up this matter of selection and signing with their own hand the notice of selection. By making the alterations which he proposed in the wording of the clause they would enable the voter who had two or more qualifications to exercise the power of selection through his solicitor or some other person authorise to act on his behalf. A voter might be seriously ill, or away travelling abroad, and if the clause were amended as proposed his instructions could be carried out by his agent. Supposing the clause stood in its present form, a very large number of electors would be deprived of the power of exercising their votes at an election. It was not the voters who could be chased hither and thither by one Party or another at election times who would be affected in the way he had indicated, but those who were outside the dictation of either of the Parties—those whom one was anxious to retain on the register. The Committee knew how very varied were the questions which came to he discussed at election times, and it was the man who did not follow the Party hacks whose voice was most necessary for the solving of these questions. It was those men who did not desire to press themselves to the forefront of political affairs, but were always ready to come forward and vote when an election took place, and to give an un- biassed record of the feeling of the country who would be prevented from voting by not having attended themselves to the selection of a constituency.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'semi,' to insert the words 'cause to be sent.'"— (Captain Craig.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

raised a point of order. Two quite distinct questions had been raised by this Amendment. One was as to the form or shape in which the notification was to be given, and the other whether the notice was to be sent by post or otherwise. But by the suggestion of the Chairman these two questions could not be discussed separately; the lion. Gentleman treated them as more or less one question. There was another 'point, viz.: whether the sending of the notice, must be done by the individual action of the voter himself or by an agent? All he asked was whether, under the Tiding from the Chair, there could be a general discussion on these questions? The hitter question was raised in a very precise form by an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.

*THE CHAIRMAN

confessed that the suggestion he had thrown out was under a misapprehension; but he would try and make the present situation perfectly clear. He thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to deal with the matter of how the notice was to be sent; but he had not dealt with that question at all. He had associated with the Amendment actually moved a subsequent consequential Amendment which involved the question of agency. The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University seemed to him to raise a very similar point to that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had introduced. If the discussion were to follow the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member it would not be possible to allow a further discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the ruling of the Chairman was perfectly clear, but the result would be that if his hon. and gallant friend pressed the discussion of his Amendment and his consequential Amendment, the Committee could not discuss the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, although it raised a broader question than that of the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. HARCOURT

said that the actual point raised by the hon. and gallant Member in what he stated was his consequential Amendment was really not necessary, on the principle qui facit per alium facit per se, because it was included in the words that a person desiring to select a voting constituency "must send or cause to be sent a notice of his selection to he signed by him." Subsection (3) (b) stated that if any person "sends or causes to be sent a notice of his selection of a voting constituency without withdrawing any notice which is in operation in any other constituency" he should be guilty of an illegal practice, etc. There never had been any intention of compelling the voter to deliver the notice paper himself at the door of the town clerk or clerk to the county council or anything of that sort. But it was absolutely essential that the voter should have a notice paper brought to him and signed by him, otherwise there might be bogus demands for selection without any notice having been put on the register. Another question raised by the hon. and gallant Member was the case of a foreign traveller or the illness of a voter which would prevent the notice being sent on the appointed day. He had already promised to bring up a clause to meet the case of a person who was on foreign travel or was ill, and who subsequently discovered that he was registered elsewhere. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to leave out the words "signed by him;" otherwise it would load to personation. But he had no objection to accept the words "cause to be sent."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that if they were to have any form of notice at all the voter should sign it himself. If not, the door would be left open to all sorts of fraud. On the other hand, if the clause were retained as it stood, many people would not take the trouble to sign a notice-paper and hand it to an agent who would send it in to the proper officer.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

asked, on a point of order, whether or not it had been decided that the voter must sign his notice-paper himself.

MR. A. T. BALFOUR

said that it was quite right that the Committee should know exactly where they were. The Government had stated that they did not object to introduce the words "cause to be sent," but these words were important as an introduction to his hon. and gallant friend's second Amendment. He ventured to suggest that they should introduce here the innocuous words "cause to be sent," and then they could come to the real issue when the hon. and gallant Member moved his next Amendment.

MR. HARCOURT

said he accepted the words "cause to be sent," but with the warning that he must be careful to introduce similar words in subsequent parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FELL(Great Yarmouth) moved an Amendment providing that the terms of the notice should be in a statutory form to be provided by the overseers or by an Order in Council or in some other way. At any rate, the form should be identical in all cases. It was not in the power of an agricultural labourer to draw a proper notice of selection which would pass the scrutiny of a town clerk or clerk to a county council.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'in a statutory form to be provided by the overseers.'"—(Mr. Fell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HARCOURT

said he had already promised to insert a statutory form, but he was not inclined to inflict upon the plural voter the inconvenience of using that form. A simple letter would be all that was necessary.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he shared very much the hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the practical difficulties which would arise in connection with this Bill. Many people upon whom these duties would be put would be either undesirous or unwilling to carry them out, and to inflict upon them what was really a penal law would be a great hardship upon the poorer classes of the country. The greatest freedom should be given to these unfortunate people, because what the Government was doing was to impose upon the industrious man who had saved a little money and had got two or three votes a responsibility in regard to selection which he had not hitherto had. It would be better if his hon. friend did not press his Amendment, and left to these poor people the small limit of liberty which the Government were pre pared to give them.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. FELL moved an Amendment providing that a person desiring to select a voting constituency must send a notice to the clerk of the county council or town clerk of his selection, and a list of the other constituences in which he is registered, and a form of renunciation of his right to vote in such other constituences. This Amendment was, he believed, a most important one, for if it was required that the voter should send this notice then his object would be attained. That was to make all the registers in this country more complete and more exact. It would also save trouble to agents and returning officers and also expense at elections. If the registers were made up in this way and these voters were "starred" they would, he believed, be not only at the disposal of the candidates, the agents and the returning officers in the districts, but they would be available for the purposes of those interested all over the country. He believed that there would be very grave danger to these plural voters if they applied on the other registers without any notice being placed against their names that they had votes in other constituencies. In the case of a borough with 10,000 voters, and 1,000 plural voters, possibly 500 might select the borough to vote in and 500 the county. There would therefore be 500 names "starred" on each list. The expenses of the returning officers were regulated by the number of electors, and unless some step of the kind he proposed were taken he did not see how the number of electors could be ascertained in any particular place. The expenses of candidates were also regulated by the number of voters, and in future it appeared that the candidates would be allowed considerably more expenses than the number of voters in their constituencies would justify under this Bill, because every constituency in the country would have a list of more voters than there were in it. If the voter sent in the list which he suggested the town clerk should, he thought, put a blue star against his name, and that would prevent not only expense but the grave danger of personation. It would save the expense of serving notices upon all these people, of sending them the candidates' address and the polling cards, although in 500 or 1,000 cases such a course was absolutely useless. Moreover these documents were in the nature of invitations to a man to vote who had not a vote, because a man got a card with his polling number and an intimation that he had a right to vote. In a well known book dealing with election law, Mr. Lloyd stated that a grave difficulty arose with regard to dead voters, and when an election was on it was almost impossible to prevent personation. Under this Bill they had to deal with thousands and thousands of people who were in the position of being dead to the constituency. Coupling that with the statement of an astute election agent that before nine o'clock he had polled all the "deads" in his constituency, the Committee would see the danger they were running in regard to personation. Of course there were eases in which a man would get a dual qualification after the time for sending notices, but that was a small danger compared with the other. Some people said they did not know what votes they had, but he thought that was an illusory statement. He had three votes: he knew where. they were and would be perfectly able to send in a notice of selection. He ought to be able to expect to find a mark against his name at the place where he could not vote, and if this course were followed as he suggested a large amount of personation would be done away with. Under the system proposed by the Government a clever election agent would be able to render it impossible to conduct an election without the risk of a scrutiny.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'selection,' to insert the words 'and a list of the other constituencies in which he is registered and a form of renunciation of his right to vote in such other constituencies.'"—(Mr. Fell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said he could not accept the proposal, and asked what would have been said if he had made such a proposal as this. He should have been told that he was inflicting upon the pauper pluralist every outrage that it was possible he could inflict.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked what was a pauper pluralist?

MR. HARCOURT

said he meant a working-man pluralist. He, however, did not think it was really necessary to argue the question seriously. He admitted that this proposal was a counsel of perfection, as he should extremely like to see every plural voter "starred" in all the places in which he could not vote. No doubt it was a blot upon the Bill that it did not so provide, but he came to the conclusion that that was not a liability which ought to be put upon the plural voter, because if it was imposed there ought to be put upon him for not making the return some penalty which would seem somewhat harsh, as a man was often put upon a register without his knowledge. It had been said that this Bill was going to lead to wholesale personation. [An HON. MEMBER: That is true.] He believed it would do nothing of the sort, and if that was the view of hon. Members opposite they ought to be very cautious about asking for any reduction in the penalties now being imposed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed that this Amendment would throw too great a burden upon the ratepayers, but there was one point his hon. friend had raised to which he would like to refer. He had pointed out that the limit of a candidate's expenses at any election depended upon the number of electors on the register. He wished to know whether the persons who were not qualified to vote because they were pluralists counted for that purpose under the Corrupt Practices Act. There might be some constituencies in which the number of persons on the register was far in excess of the number qualified to vote. He thought that the scale should be framed not upon the number of persons on the register, but according to the number entitled to vote. He would like to know if that sound policy was going to be carried out under this Bill.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

pointed out that there were many registers at the present time which contained hundreds of duplicate voters, but they could not vote without running the risk of the penalties imposed under the Act. The maximum scale counted all these, and, although in some constituencies there would be still more "dead heads added by the present Bill, yet it was impossible to deal with either. No means existed of officially discovering who were these voters that the right hon. Gentleman wished not to count.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked the Committee to take as an example the constituency which he represented, containing over 30,000 electors. A very large number of them were duplicate voters who voted in the City of London, and who also had votes for f heir residences outside the city. If those voters elected to vote for their residences and not for the city, it was quite evident that the scale of expenses in the city, being based upon the number of voters upon the register, would be extremely distorted and the discrepancy would be far more than the few hundreds which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it would amount to many thousands, and the whole purpose and object of the Corrupt Practices Act would be defeated.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

hoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment. As the Leader of the Opposition had stated, this proposal would put a great burden upon the elector by requiring him to remember all the constituencies for which he had a vote. Personally he preferred that the voter should not have to make any selection, hut the Committee had decided otherwise. If the elector was obliged to make a selection they ought not to make it such a burden upon him. This Amendment would not carry out the object his hon. friend had in view.

MR. HARCOURT

thought the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into the mistake of treating the maximum expenses as if they were the minimum. Of course the maximum expenditure was not one which was bound to be incurred.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

thought the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It was quite true that none of them were bound to spend the maximum allowed by the Corrupt Practices Act, but Parliament in its wisdom had laid down that any expenditure exceeding an amount in a certain ratio to the number of electors was illegal. He thought Parliament intended the number of electors to be the number of people actually entitled to vote, but in the case which had been cited the number of electors on the register would be enormously greater than the number entitled to vote. By the new Bill Parliament would be defeating the intention under the present Act, and would be making it legal to spend a much higher sum in proportion to the number of electors eligible to record their votes than under the Corrupt Practices Act. He agreed that they could not deal with this matter by the Amendment which had been moved. He wished to point out that he had given notice of a new clause which would deal with the same point in another way. He thought the objects of his hon. friend commanded sympathy, and even the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that he would gladly carry them out if he could. He trusted that the new clause that he should move later on would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of carrying out his good intentions.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said the great object of this Amendment was that the voter on the register who was not going to use his vote should be marked in some way. It was quite clear that if a voter had got to make some selection the only place where a selection would have any notice taken of it would be the constituency to which it was sent. If the Committee did not adopt this Amendment there would be no mark on the register of the different constituencies where the voter was not going to vote, and the result would be that out voters would appear on the register without any mark as being perfectly entitled to vote, although, as a matter of fact, they would not be entitled to vote because they had selected some other constituency. The result would be that the returning officer's expenses would lie very much increased. The returning officer had to provide polling booths, presiding officers, clerks and machinery of all sorts and descriptions, and in a constituency which he had in mind it would cost almost twice as much to carry out that official machinery than would be the case if there was some way of marking off the voters who were not going to vote in that division. The voters who were on the list would have to be canvassed, and an immense amount of trouble and expense would be incurred dealing with a large number of voters who were not going to vote at all. Supposing a voter turned up in a constituency which he had not selected, and claimed a vote. There was nothing on the list to show that he was not entitled to vote. His name would be on the register, and there would be no mark and no notice to invite the presiding officer to put the stipulated question to him; in fact there would be nothing to prevent him from voting. He agreed that this Amendment was impracticable and would be a very great burden. Me would have much preferred arguing in favour of his own Amendment, which had been ruled out of order, to the effect that notice should be given to the constituency in which the voter did not, intend to exercise the franchise. Supposing a voter had two qualifications and had to send a notice of selection. If, at, the same time, he sent notice to the constituencies in which he was not going to vote, all those evils which had been complained of would he cured, because that would automatically reduce those registers, and reduce the expenses of electioneering. There was one final argument which he ventured to put before the Committee. Surely it was necessary to know the number of voters in any given constituency. As long as they permitted, by using the machinery of this Bill, the registers to contain the names of those who were not entitled to vote, so long would it remain impossible to tell what the actual number of voters in any constituency was. For these reasons, whilst he could not support the Amendment in the form in which it was put, he did urge upon the Government that they should take into consideration the absolute necessity, if this Bill was to be made at all perfect, of having some mark against the names of people who were not entitled to vote.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR WILLIAM BULL(Hammersmith) moved an Amendment requiring the notice to be sent by post in a form which he proposed to move on the consideration of the schedule. After what had fallen from the right, hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill he was not particular whether it was sent by post, post free, or otherwise. What he desired was that the Bill should provide a form that might or might not be used, and that it should be witnessed for one thing; otherwise there would be nothing to prevent bogus claims being sent in wholesale. Then he would suggest that the form should be sent in duplicate, and that a receipt should be given at the foot of the notice, with a declaration by the town clerk or clerk to the council county that the notice was in order and that the name had been duly starred on the register of voters for the particular constituency. He suggested that this model form should be inserted in the Bill, so that election agents and others might know what the clerk expected to receive.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

, rising on a point of order, asked if the Committee had not quite recently had a discussion relating to this question on an Amendment which had been rejected.

THE CHAIRMAN

did not know which Amendment, the hon. Gentleman alluded to, but he thought this Amendment was clearly in order. It was understood that such an Amendment might be brought forward.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

said there was no reason why the voter should not use his own form or write a letter to the clerk if he so desired. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, after the word 'selection,' to insert the words, 'by post in the form set out in the Schedule hereto.'"—(Sir William Bull.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HARCOURT

thought the hon. Member must have been out of the House when he promised that there should be a form in the schedule as guide, and that there should be provision for a receipt, to be sent to a voter. He could not accept the words "by post," because he did not want to limit the voter to that particular method of conveyance. With regard to the question of witnesses, he thought that would be inflicting additional labour on the voter, and as he left, the voter to write a letter if he so pleased, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member would involve a great deal of inconvenience.

MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)

Would the form be obtainable at a Post Office?

MR. HARCOURT

At the town clerk's office.

MR. HICKS BEACH

asked whether it would not be more convenient if it were obtainable at any Post Office. It would surely be a great convenience to the working-class plural voters, of whom the right hon. Gentleman himself said there was a large number.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had stated that he was going to do certain things, and when they were done would be the time, to ask these questions.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)

understood that the town clerk or the clerk to the county council would have forms which the voter might obtain, but that he might send his notice on a sheet of Paper if he so desired. He did not often agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought his proposal was the simplest and best way.

Question put, and negatived.

CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to leave out the words "signed by him." He desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman once more the importance of bearing in mind the fact that the Bill as it stood would be distinctly in favour of the man who had one vote for one particular place as against the man who had two or more votes. According to this clause the man with several votes would have to take precautions to see that he marked one of them, whereas the man with only one vote had an advantage in that his vote was looked after entirely for him.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, lines 17 and 18 to leave out the words 'signed by him.'"—(Captain Craig.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,) Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe

said the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. If the words "signed by him" were left out it might lead to all kinds of personation. If the claimant put his name upon the claim that could not occur. It was but little to ask. The Committee would see the signature was all that was required. The Amendment if agreed to would give rise to all sorts of difficulties, and therefore it was impossible to accept it.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

thought his right hon. friend was not quite right. Although those words were in every Act of Parliament relating to claims for registration, in practice, as he had stated on a previous occasion, the authority and directions were assumed and frequently allowed in cases where it was against the strongly expressed wish of the person supposed to be making the claim. He had brought with him the claims to which he had previously referred arising in the townships of Manchester, which, although they were supposed to be signed by the persons claiming, were all in fact signed by the clerks. He had also brought the ownership claim, signed by a clerk after it was publicly stated by the voter that he had refused to sign and that the claim was sent in against his wish.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked, as an ardent student of the registration laws, whether the right hon. Baronet would further enlighten the Committee as to what action was taken by the Courts when a document purporting to be signed by a man was found to be signed by somebody else.

MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said the inference which he drew from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had replied for the Government and those of the right, hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was that this Bill should be postponed owing to the state of confusion in which the Government found itself. On a previous occasion the right hon. Baronet made an elaborate speech in favour of an Amendment with regard to a man having a right to vote in the district in which he resided. Having proved his case to demonstration the right hon. Baronet said he did not intend to divide the Committee upon the Amendment as it was obvious that his argument would cause an entire reconstruction of the Bill. Well, there was surely no objection to that. Where was the necessity for this haste? Was a general election or numerous by-elections so imminent as to make it necessary for a Bill of this kind to be hurried through?

MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in discussing on this Amendment the advisability of postponing the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is in order.

MR. LYTTELTON

said he bowed to the Ruling of the Chair and would only ask some representative of the Government to reconcile the refusal of this Amendment with the statement that the words at present in the Bill were unnecessary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

said that when the Government inserted these words "signed by him" they intended them to be interpreted according to the ordinary usage of the English language. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said with truth that in a number of eases it had been customary to accept documents not actually signed by the persons authorised to sign them, but signed by persons authorised by them. It was lax practice, and might be a very bad and loose interpretation, but it was the law, as would be seen by reference to the Municipal Registration Act of 1878, which dealt with the question of how declarations were to be made, and which stated that they might be accepted without proof of the signature of the claimant unless the revising barrister had good reason to doubt the genuineness of the signature. The distinction between those cases and the one under discussion was that in all those cases the matter was submitted to the judicial decision of the revising barrister, and therefore a certain amount of laxity could be allowed because, if there was reason for doubt, the case could be inquired into. In this case they were dealing with a ministerial officer, the town clerk, or the clerk of the peace, who had no such power as that possessed by the Revising Barrister. In such cases he thought it was right to require the signature of the voter himself.

*SIRCHARLES DILKE

said after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he would repeat the question he recently put which the right hon. Gentleman then promised to consider. Would the Government reconsider the form laid down? The lodgers' case was different. The words "signed by him" were those of an ordinary claim, and in the Bill they had the word "notice." It was not "declaration" as in the lodger's case. There it was a witnessed declaration.

MR. ASQUITH

said he did not himself see any special sanctity in a declaration that was not in a notice. The point, however, was well worthy of consideration, and he had promised to consider it, and he would consider it. But for the moment he was dealing with the distinction between the two cases. In this case the claims were sent in for a purely ministerial purpose.

MR. MOONEY (Newry)

thought these words ought to be left in in order that there should not be a repetition of what happened two years ago in South Dublin. Then a number of claims were put in each purporting to be signed by the claimant, and the Revising Barrister was about to accept them when objection was taken to the form of signature. The Revising Barrister then said he could not go behind the signature. It was then proved that all those signatures were in the writing of one man. The claims were disallowed, and the agent who signed them was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for forgery. If these words were taken out of the Bill such claims would be allowed, and there would be no means of punishing the guilty person.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said there was a discrepancy between the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the form in which notice of selection was to be given. He thought the two right hon. Gentlemen should lay their heads together and give the Committee a clear statement on the matter before the debate proceeded.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

suggested that words should be introduced to provide for the notice of selection being sent either by the voter or his agent. That would obviate the inconvenience which would otherwise be caused in the case of a person who from any reason could not send the notice.

MR. ASQUITH

said his right hon. friend had already promised to introduce words providing for cases of illness.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

said he meant rather more than that.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

said the letters or notices would he sent to the town clerk or clerk of the county, but they would be subjected to no scrutiny whatever. If a forgery was committed how was it to be found out and how was the offender to be punished?

MR. ASQUITH

said his right hon. friend had already promised to provide for an acknowledgment of the notice being sent to the person from whom the notice would proceed. That would, to a certain extent, prevent the possibility of names being forged. The sending of an acknowledgment by the town clerk or the clerk of the county council would be a considerable safeguard.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he had qualifications in Birmingham and London. If an acknowledgment was sent to his London address when he was out of town it was a hundred to one that it would not be forwarded to him because the letter would resemble a circular.

MR. ASQUITH

said the right hon. Gentleman could arrange to have letters re-directed.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said some kind of discretion should be exercised as to the letters to be redirected.

MR. ASQUITH

said the Government were considering whether it was desirable to put in some words to make falsification of a notice of this kind a special offence.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

said he was quite confused by the voluminous arguments which had been used in the discussion upon this Amendment. It seemed to him

that it resolved itself into a question of whether the Bill as it stood—[Laughter and interruption from the MINISTERIALISTS]. He did not know what he had done to be subjected to that interruption. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentlemen on the other side were permitted to make speeches upon any subject, whether they knew anything about it or not, whilst on the Opposition side of the House, when hon. Members got up, they were subjected to all sorts of interruptions. It seemed to him that Free Traders were not prepared to allow free speech. The arguments apparently resolved themselves into whether the Amendment or the Bill as it stood was the more likely to leave the way open to fraud, and it distinctly seemed to him that under the Bill as it stood fraud was the more likely to arise. So far as he could see, there was no possible reason why if a person forged a signature he should ever be found out. When a person voted he did not sign his name on the ballot paper. There was no possible reason why forgery should be discovered, and the arguments which had been used, or rather the references given to cases which had already occurred where attempts had been made to forge signatures, showed there was very considerable danger under the Bill as it at present stood that, signatures would be forged. Therefore he thought on the whole it was much better that the Committee should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to answer the point raised by his hon. and gallant friend. The light hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that the form of the notice would be optional, and he himself said that he would vote with the Government if that was so.

MR. ASQUITH

said they would consider that point.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 315; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 340).

AYES.
Abraham. Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Alden, Percy	Atherley-Jones, L
Acland, Francis Dyke	Ambrose, Robert	Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry	Banbury, Sir Frederick George
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lamont, Norman
Barlow,JohnEmmott (Somerset	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Langley, Batty
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Dunne, MajorE Martin(Walsall	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Barnard, E. B.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Barnes, G. N.	Elibank, Master of	Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich
Beauchamp, E.	Erskine, David C.	Lever, W.H.(Cheshire Wirral)
Beaumont, Hn.W.C. B.(Hexham	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Levy, Maurice
Bell, Richard	Everett, R. Lacey	Lewis, John Herbert
Bellairs, Carlyon	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bonn, Sir.J. Williams(Devonp't	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lough, Thomas
Benn, W.(T'W'rHamlets,S.Geo	Fenwick, Charles	Lundon, W.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Ferens, T. R.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Bertram, Julius	Field, William	Lynch, H. B.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex.Romford)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Flynn, James Christopher	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Billson, Alfred	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Fuller, John Michael F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshir	Fullerton, Hugh	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Boland, John	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Crae, George
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.	Gill, A. H.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Bowerman, C. W.	Ginnell, L.	M'Kenna, Reginald
Brace, William	Gladstone, Rt.HnHorbertJohn	M'Killop, W.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Branch, James	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Micking, Major G.
Brigg, John	Grant, Corrie	Maddison, Frederick
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Mallet, Charles E.
Brodie, H. C.	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Marks, G.Croydon(Launceaton)
Brooke, Stopford	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Marnham, F. J.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)	Gulland, John W.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Brunner,Rt.Hn.SirJ T(Chesh.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Masterman, C. F. G.
Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Meagher, Michael
Bryce, J. A.(InvernessBurghs)	Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Munzies, Walter
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Burke,E. Haviland-	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Harwood, George	Montagu, E. S.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth	Montgomery, H. G.
Byles, William Pollard	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mooney, J. J.
Cairns, Thomas	Haze, Dr. A. E.	Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Cameron, Robert	Hedges, A. Paget	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Helme, Norval Watson	Morrell, Philip
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morse, L. L.
Cawley, Frederick	Henry, Charles S.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cheetham, John Frederick	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Murnaghan, George
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hobart, Sir Robert	Murray, James
Clarke, C. Goddard	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Myer, Horatio
Clough, W.	Hodge, John	Napier, T. B.
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew,W.)	Hogan, Michael	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nicholls, George.
Collins,SirWm. J. (S.PancrasW	Horniman, Emslie John	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)
Cooper, G. J.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Nolan, Joseph
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hudson, Walter	Nuttall, Harry
Cowan, W. H.	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Cox, Harold	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Cremer, William Randal	Jackson, R. S.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crossley, William J.	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Doherty, Philip
Dalmeny, Lord	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea	O'Malley, William
Delany, William	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshir	Palmer, Sir Charles Mark
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dickinson, W.H.(St Pancras,N	Joyce, Michael	Paul, Herbert
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.	Paulton, James Mellor
Dobson, Thomas W.	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Donelan, Captain A.	Laidlaw, Robert	Pearce, William; (Limehouse)
Duckworth, James	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Perks, Robert William
Duffy, William J.	Lambert, George	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Snowden, P.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Pollard, Dr.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Soares, Ernest J.	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)	Spicer, Sir Albert	Waterlow, D. S.
Radford, G. H.	Stanger, H. Y.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	Weir, James Galloway
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Steadman, W. C.	White, George (Norfolk)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whitehead, Rowland
Richards, T. F. (Wolverhamptn	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Sullivan, Donal	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Summerbell, T.	Wiles, Thomas
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Williamson, A.
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.	Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)
Rowlands, J.	Thorne, William	Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W. R.)
Runciman, Walter	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Toulmin, George	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Ure, Alexander	Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersfd
Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Vivian, Henry	Young, Samuel
Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Younger, George
Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Yoxall, James Henry
Sears, J. E.	Wallace, Robert
Seely, Major J. B.	Walters, John Tudor	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds.S.)
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
Sloan, Thomas Henry	Wardle, George J.
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Covan	Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baldwin, Alfred	Fletcher, J. S.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Forster, Henry William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Gadiner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hambro, Charles Eric	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill,Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bull, Sir William James	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kimber, Sir Henry	Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cave, George	Liddell, Henry	Valentia, Viscount
Cavenidish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Long, Rt.Hn.Walter,(Dublin,S	Wilson, A.Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lytteltor, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Courthope, G. Loyd	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craig, Capt. James (Down.E.)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Craik, Sir Henry	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Craig and Viscount Turnour.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Question put, and agreed to.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS(London University) moved to insert in. sub-section (2) words which had been omitted probably by an over sight or by some fault of the draftsman, after "clerk of the County Council or town clerk," viz., the words "in the case of a University constituency the clerk of Convocation or other persons who are responsible." Reference was made in Clause 2 to the possible selection by an elector for a University constituency of that constituency as the one for which he desired to vote; but no direction was given in sub-section (2) that he should be required when he made that selection to send a notice paper to any one. It would be quite useless for him to send in a notice paper to a town clerk or a clerk of a county council. He desired to point out that members of Convocation of his own University were placed automatically on the register and a selection might cause very considerable inconvenience especially when the selection would have to be made some time before the election. Moreover the number of electors in a University constituency was likely to be considerably greater than the number of persons entitled to vole.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the word 'clerk,' to insert the words 'in the case of a University constituency the clerk of Convocation or other persons who are responsible.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said there had been no omission of words from the clause or oversight on the part of the draftsman of the Bill. There were very few constituencies in the country that were not dealt with by the words "clerk of the county council or town clerk." But if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the end of Clause 3 he would sec that an Order-in-Council might be made for prescribing the manner in which the name of a person selecting any constituency as his voting constituency was to be marked on the register, and applying the provisions of this Act to constituencies for which no register was made under the Registration Acts 1843 to 1891, or in which any officer was responsible for printing the parliamentary register other than the clerk of the county council or town clerk. That clause was specially meant to meet the case which the hon. Member had dealt with and entirely covered the Amendment he had proposed.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that he had put down an Amendment proposing to leave out the words "who is responsible for the printing of the parliamentary register,'" more to ask for information from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill than for any other purpose. He wanted to know why those words had been put into the clause. Was it not the case that the person always responsible for printing the parliamentary register was the town clerk in the case of a borough, and the clerk of the county council in the case of a county council? These words were therefore pure surplusage, and he understood that words of surplusage were invariably bad. If these officers were not always responsible, then surely there should be the responsible officers named in the Act. How was the ordinary voter to know that there might be any other persons except the town clerk or the clerk of the county council who could make up the register?

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that he had an Amendment which came before that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester, E.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

admitted that that was so.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that his Amendment was to insert after the words "clerk of the county council, or town clerk" the words, "or other officer." He did not propose this Amendment for the sake merely of verbally amending the Bill, but because it seemed to him that there was a considerable amount of confusion as to where these notices were to be sent. Anyone acquainted with the machinery of preparing the lists of voters knew that down to 25th August in each year the town clerk in a borough and the clerk of a county council had practically little to do with the register at all. The position was that the list which was subsequently to become the register was prepared by the overseers. In the case of boroughs the town clerk had merely to make up the list of freemen, which was a comparatively trifling matter. There were a large number of statutes which dealt with questions of dates, who was to mark up the lists, and how they were to be published. The preparation of the lists was not in the hands of the town clerks in boroughs or of the clerks to county councils. It seemed to him that all those notices should be sent to the people responsible for preparing the lists, and those people were the overseers. The notice should not be sent to the clerk of the county council or the town clerk, who had nothing to do with the details of the register, and had no power to alter it, but be sent to the people who actually had the repsonsibility and the custody of the lists. The Revising Barristers sat early in September until the 12th October, and during that time the validity of this notice could be gone into. He did not wish to press his Amendment if the Government did not want to accept it, but he thought that if the Government were going to provide for these notices at all they should provide that they should be given not to the people who had not got the control of the list, but to those who had control. The Government might well accept the words which he suggested, "or other officer," and it would certainly avoid a difficulty which he could see would otherwise arise.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the second word 'clerk,' to insert the words 'or other officer.'" —(Mr. William Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said the hon. Member seemed to think that notification of selection by a voter should be sent to the person making up the register, but it was to avoid that that he put these words in, as his whole point was that this was a question of typography, and had nothing to do with the making up of the registers.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman suggested that these selections were to be sent in under no authority, and that no authority had any right to say whether they were valid or invalid.

MR. HARCOURT

said that certainly there was no authority to refuse them at all supposing they were in order. A man made his selection and sent it in to the person who was responsible for printing the register. The man who was responsible was the person responsible for printing the register.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

inquired whether there was any person responsible for the printing of the register other than the clerk to the county council or the town clerk. Nobody else but those officers were specified, and it seemed to him that there was some very clumsy drafting in the Bill when the town clerk and the clerk to the county council alone were mentioned in this clause, while the "other officer" was only mentioned in Section 3. It would be much better drafting if some such words were included here as well as in Clause 3.

MR. HARCOURT

said the hon. Baronet the Member for London University had assured him that he was perfectly satisfied with the words which he had pointed out to him would cover the case he raised. He himself thought it would be dangerous to insert the words "or other officer" because it might lead a voter to think that it did not matter which officer he sent the notice to.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said the voter could not possibly think that.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE

protested that he had not been heard.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that if an hon. Member wished to withdraw an Amendment and the Committee consented, it constantly happened that hon. Members were shut out from taking part in the debate.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

formally moved to leave out the words, "who is responsible for the printing of the parliamentary register."

MR. HARCOURT

said he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman wished him to reply to this Amendment as the point was really included in their previous decisions. He supposed he merely moved it for the purpose of enabling an hon. friend of his to make a speech.

MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that was so. His hon. friend the Member for Birmingham was interrupted in making a speech. He himself was satisfied, but he thought his hon. friend was trying to raise another point.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said that all he wished to say was that if there was another officer beside the town clerk or the clerk to the county council and the voter was required to send a notice to him he would be acquainted with the fact just as much as he would be acquainted with the existence of the town clerk or of the clerk to the county council. He thought he had been treated a little bit irregularly.

THE CHAIRMAN

said he admitted that the hon. Member was treated irregularly, and it was because the hon. Member below him withdrew his Amendment. He must not speak, however, as if he (the Chairman) had treated him irregularly.

SIR FRANCIS LOWE

said he did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the Chairman, but he was under the impression that if an hon. Member was speaking to an Amendment he had a right to conclude his speech before the hon. Member who moved it withdrew it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON(Durham, Barnard Castle) moved in Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the word "constituency "to insert" on or." He thought the Amendment would make the Bill more in harmony with the existing registration law.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20,'after the word "constituency" to insert the words 'on or.'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)

Question proposed, "That those words there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said he would accept the Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON moved an Amendment altering the date applicable to the selecting of a constituency from 1st September to 5th September. He did this, he said, to avoid the difficulty of clashing dates. There was already a date of electoral law, which was the 5th of September. Some years ago an effort had been made to assimilate these dates with great success.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out 'first,' and insert 'fifth.'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.) Question proposed, "That the word 'first' s'and part of the clause.'

MR. HARCOURT

was prepared to accept the date of 5th September, and agreed as to the desirability of assimilation.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

thought the proper thing would be to postpone the date for selection until same day after the lists had been revised by the revising barristers, and suggested the 1st of November.

MR. HARCOURT

said the Committee would see why this month was put in instead of November. During the revision the person responsible for printing had of course to get on with his work. Practically the whole register came into force on the 1st November, and it must be printed before then, and if they made the notices too late the plural voter would not be able to be marked in the printed register, and would have to be written in afterwards in ink. He did not think the 5th of September would be an inconvenient date, and any delay would be so trifling that it would not be worth troubling about.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the 5th September because it was not intended that the question of these marks should come within the purview of the revising barrister at all. It was the practice to set up in type the draft lists in advance, and issue, not the written lists, but advance copies of the list intended to be printed, but which only ought to be printed when the revision was completed on 12th October. Apparently it was intended that the notice of selection should be a matter entirely outside the purview of the revising barrister. It seemed to him that the 5th of September would meet the case without any other date.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

took as an illustration the case of a voter on the register in the City of London, Chelsea, and a constituency in Surrey. Supposing when the Surrey list was considered this voter's claim was struck off, he would still have two other qualifications, but it would be too late to send in a notice to the City of London or to Chelsea, and therefore that man would be disfranchised.

MR. HARCOURT

thought it would save time if he repeated the promise he had previously made that any case arising in that way would be dealt with so that the man might make a selection after 5th September.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed word inserted.

MR. FORSTER

said the Amendment he wished to move affected the plural voter who became a plural voter for the first time. It was the case of a man with one qualification who suddenly became possessed of another. He would claim to be put upon the register and it would not be allowed or disallowed until after the date had gone by upon which he had to make his selection. If the month of September stood that man would appear when the new registers came into force as having the right to give two votes, but he would not have been in the position to make a selection. The object he had in view was that where a man had simply a claim he should have the right to make a provisional selection, so that if his claim was allowed or disallowed he would be able to select another constituency. As far as he could see, if the month of September was left in the Bill they would disfranchise such a man as he had suggested for fifteen months after he had become qualified to vote. He was sure that could not be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he hoped to have some assurance or proof from the Government that the fears he entertained were groundless.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word 'September,' and to insert the word 'August.'" —(Mr. H. W. Forster.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'September' stand part of the clause"

MR. HARCOURT

said he had already promised to put in the Bill on the Report stage a provision by which a man who has been abroad or who had been incapacitated whilst at home should be able to make his selection at a date subsequent to the 5th September. He had also stated that he was willing to allow a fresh selection to be made if in the interval the man had discovered for the first time that he had a duplicate qualification elsewhere. He thought that would meet the case which had been raised by the hon. Member.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

pointed out that the Committee had already decided that a selection must be sent to the town clerk or the clerk to the county council. The list would not pass out of their hands until two or three weeks later, and that would probably lead to great difficulty and confusion.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the right hon. Gentleman had promised to bear in mind the case of a man who suddenly acquired a new qualification. Would he also include the equally deserving case of the man with two qualifications who selected one constituency and was then struck off.

MR. HARCOURT

I promised to do that last Friday.

MR. H. H. MARKS

said with the Amendment he desired to move that the Act would read "Before the 5th day of September preceding the commencement of the year in which the selection is to take effect." If the claim was made this year it would begin to take effect this year, that was as soon as the selection was made. The making of the selection was the first step towards getting on the register, and as soon as that was done the act performed began to take effect. There were various processes of taking effect.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order. We are only talking about the month now.

Mr. FORSTER

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In line 22, to leave out the words 'to begin.'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'to begin' stand part of the clause."

MR. HARCOURT

thought the omission of those words was quite unnecessary. He did not say that the words of the clause were the most eloquent that could be framed, but at any rate they carried out the intention of the Act. The register did not come into force until the 1st January, and he thought that fact carried out what the hon. Member wished.

MR. H. H. MARKS

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said the Amendment he wished to move was such a simple one that he thought the Government might very well accept it. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to argue that this Amendment was against the principle or destructive of his Bill. It was an Amendment of an improving order. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the name should be marked in open Court. He did not claim that the Amendment would do away with all the evil consequences which would arise as a result of this unfortunate Bill, but it might at any rate mitigate those evil consequences. Parliamentary agents would be present when the revising barrister placed his mark against a name, and so mistakes would be guarded against. This was a Bill to disfranchise Unionist electors, but if the Government would adopt this Amendment mistakes would be less liable to occur.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 22, after 'clerk' to insert the words' shall send the name and address of the voter to the revising barrister, who.'"—(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. HARCOURT

said he had explained so many times to the Committee that he was really ashamed to repeat it that the matter of the selection would not come before the revising barrister at all, and no one would have any right in the Court to make any remark or take any objection to the selection made.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

thought the hon. Gentleman hardly appreciated the object his hon. friend had in view. It was one which he understood the Government had themselves already undertaken to provide for in one way or another before the Bill left the House. The object of the Amendment was to limit the chance of fraud or forgery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted there was real danger of notices of selection being forged. If the marking of the register were done in open Court the chances of successful forgery were diminished, for, while the county council clerks would not know whether the signature was forged or not, the Party agents in court would. That was the point to which the right hon. Gentleman in his reply made no reference, and he would ask him to consider the matter from that point of view.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

asked how the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill proposed to meet the case of a man who might have one qualification and who had claimed at the revision court for a second. He might be on the list as an occupier in one constituency and also get a claim allowed at the revision court. He would then be a plural voter. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to make some provision on the Report stage to prevent such a voter from being disqualified from using either of his votes in the subsequent year if a general election should take place? It might be advisable to give the revising barrister the final right of accepting a selection form from any voter whom he might have passed on, and by doing so have created a duplicate qualification.

MR. HARCOURT

said he had already given a promise that the matter should be dealt with, as it could easily be. But it would be inappropriate to bring this matter under the purview and active operation of the revising barrister, because he had no power to add or to remove a mark. The point as to forgery would be largely met by the receipt which would have to be sent to the voter acknowledging his selection.

MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his attitude in regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the revising barrister had nothing to do with the matter. That was just the point they wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman. It would be only through the revising barrister that the general public, and in many cases the voter himself, would be made aware of the selection, and the more publicity that could be given to a selection the better it would be alike for the voter and for all concerned. It would very materially assist in the prevention of fraud and forgery. If this matter passed under the eye of the revising barrister the chance of a man being ignorant of the fact that somebody had sent in a notice in his name that he intended to select a certain constituency would be very much minimised. There were many men who were entirely ignorant of the fact that they were plural voters. He was on a register for thirty-three years without knowing the fact. A person could not personate in a case of that kind if his hon. friend's Amendment received the consideration from the right hon. Gentleman Which it abundantly deserved.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

quite agreed that the revising barrister should not have any power of making any alteration or refusing to accept any notice of selection, and he did not understand his hon. friend to move his Amendment with any such object. His hon. friend's object was that if a notice were sent in to the clerk he should send it on to the revising barrister, who would merely put a tick against the name. The mere fact, however, of there being a second officer as a sort of Court of appeal would enable anybody who made a mistake or whose name was sent in without his knowledge to see publicly what had happened and rectify the mistake. The Amendment was not at all likely to do any harm, but it might do good.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

questioned the desirability of keeping the revising barrister entirely out of the Bill, and of having the selection notices dealt with in camera by officers who might fail in their duty. In matters of fraud and forgery, and, in fact, in all criminal matters, prevention was better than cure. This Amendment tended to throw a purely ministerial duty upon the revising barrister, who, though in respect to many matters a judicial officer, yet already had many ministerial duties to discharge, and this would give great security against fraud without interfering with the functions naturally forming part of the revising barrister's duty.

*MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said he supported the Amendment because for the first time since the registration laws had come into force the duty of marking the register was taken out of the hands of the revising barrister. At present all town clerks and clerks to county councils attended on 8th September, before the revising barrister with all lists, and the revising barrister expunged names of aliens, infants and others, and rectified mistakes and dealt with duplicates, and was the official who marked the register in the case of a divided borough where the voter elects to vote in a particular division. Further than that, it was throwing a great responsibility upon the town clerks and clerks of county councils. The Government would, he thought, be well advised to accept this Amendment, and leave in the hands of the revising barrister that judicial work he had always carried out.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

pointed out that the register was before the revising barrister in proof, and that that Gentleman corrected the proof. One of the things, therefore, that the revising barrister might very well deal with was the errors of all descriptions that had crept in in the course of registering the claims. On the one hand the town clerk might have made a mistake, or he might have mislaid the notice of a claim sent in. Why should they not give the revising barrister the right to put these matters right at the last moment? The revising barrister did not sign his list and close it until 12th October, and if what he suggested was allowed, it would give time, not to send in notice, but to put anything right that might be wrong. For these reasons he thought the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

expressed the opinion that they were really adding to the morass of the franchise laws by departing in this small detail from what was now the practice in municipal registration. Why the municipal list should be corrected by the revising barrister and the town clerk be responsible for the Parliamentary register was a matter he failed to comprehend. As he understood the section, the notice had to be signed by the man qualified to sign it or it was of no value. If the clerk to whom it was sent had grave reason for supposing it was not so signed, what was he to do? Was he to adjudicate upon it on his own initiative? They knew that over and over again these notices had been signed by agents. Supposing a large batch were sent in the handwriting of one man. What was the town clerk to do? The only way in which that question should be raised was in some Court, and the revising barrister was the proper person before whom it should be raised. Supposing a notice was sent and not received by the town clerk, or was not put into the register by hint, and the question arose as to whether it ought to be put in, surely the case ought to be dealt with by the revising barrister. In the borough of Eastbourne only last year there was a gentleman whom a large party were trying to prevent from being selected mayor. In correcting the list the town clerk took the old list, and ticked off those entitled to vote on the old list, amongst others the name of this gentleman. When, however, this list came out his name did not appear upon it. What happened? In the printing office somebody had been got at to strike out the name which the town clerk had ticked to remain. He thought the Government were running a serious risk, and he suggested in order that a man might be able to see that he was not disfranchised he should be allowed to go before the revising barrister and look at the list. It would be far better to have one system for settling the municipal and Parliamentary lists than to leave the matter in this way. Nothing worse, nothing more difficult, or more likely to render the Bill unworkable could be suggested than working these two principles conterminously.

MR. HARCOURT

was averse to persons being dragged from one part of the country to another to revising barristers' Courts. It was obvious in a case where a man had a vote in London and Northumberland that the revising barrister in Northumberland could not know anything about any register except that which he was revising. There were already contests enough in the revision Courts, and this was not a question that could be properly brought there.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Does the town clerk know anything of any other?

MR. HARCOURT

said he was not supposed to. He was a purely ministerial officer. He did not wish to make this a question of debate. He would only say that.

SIR E. CARSON

said that was the very point. The revising barrister had nothing to say to them; they were left to the town clerk.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

asked, supposing the town clerk received a batch of documents obviously in one handwriting, with this provision as it stood, and with no power to go to the revising barrister, what was his duty?

MR. ASQUITH

To send an acknowledgment, and wait for it to be found out.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

said the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to understand what the Amendment meant. It was to allow the revising barrister to put a mark against the name of a man. There was no question of fighting in open Court. It merely meant that the two agents should be before the revising barrister to look into the matter. It ap-

peared to him that the Government were endeavouring to disfranchise as many electors in the country as they possibly could, and therefore he must press this matter to a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 333. (Division List No. 341.)

AYES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan	Percy, Earl
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Faber, George Denison (York)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Baldwin Alfred	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.	Fletcher, J. S.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Roberts,S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hambro, Charles Eric	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Boyle, Sir Edward	Kennaway, Rt.Hn.SirJohn H.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col. W.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bull, Sir Willian James	Kimber, Sir Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thorne, William
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A. R.	Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cave, George	Long,Rt.Hn. Walter(Dublin,S.)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wortley, Rt, Hon. C B. Stuart-
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Younger, George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Courthope, G. Loyd	Marks, H. H (Kent)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Staveley-Hill.
Craig, CaptJames(Down,E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Craik, Sir Henry	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Nield, Herbert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Bethell, J. H, (Essex, Romford)	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Byles, William Pollard
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Billson, Alfred	Cameron, Robert
Alden, Percy	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Boland, John	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight
Astbury, John Meir	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cawley, Frederick
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bowerman, C. W.	Chance, Frederick William
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Brace, William	Cheetham, John Frederick
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Branch, James	Clarke, C. Goddard
Barker, John	Brigg, John	Clough, W.
Barlow, JohnEmmott(S'mers't	Bright, J. A.	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Cobbold Felix Thornley
Barnard, E. B.	Brodie, H. C.	Collins, SirWm.J.(S. PancrasW.
Barnes, G. N.	Brooke, Stopford	Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinstd
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Beauchamp. E.	Brunner,Rt,Hn.SirJ.T.(Chesh.)	Cowan, W. L.
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(Hexham	Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen	Cox, Harold
Bell, Richard	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Cremer, William Randal
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonpt)	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Crooks, William
Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Crosfield, A. H.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Crossley, William J.
Bertram, Julius	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dalmeny, Lord
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hudson, Walter	Nolan, Joseph
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Hyde, Clarendon	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Idris, T. H. W.	Nuttall, Harry
Delany, William	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jackson, R. S.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras,N	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Doherty, Philip
Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Sir D.(Brynmor,Swansea	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Duckworth, James	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N
Duffy, William J.	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)	O'Malley, William
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furess)	Jowett, F. W.	O'Mara, James
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Joyce, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Palmer, Sir Charles Mark
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kekewich, Sir George	Parker, James (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Paul, Herbert
Elibank, Master of	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Paulton, James Mellor
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Laidlaw, Robert	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Erskine, David C.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lambert, George	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lamont, Norman	Pollard, Dr.
Everett, R. Lacey	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Price, RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)
Fenwick, Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Radford, G. H.
Ferens, T. R.	Lehmann, R. C.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Field, William	Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Flynn, James Christopher	Levy, Maurice	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lewis, John Herbert	Redmond, William (Clare)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Rees, J. D.
Fullerton, Hugh	Lough, Thomas	Rendall, Athelstan
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lundon, W.	Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th)
Gill, A. H.	Lupton, Arnold	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Ginnell, L.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Ridsdale, E. A,
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbortJohn	Lynch, H. B.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gooch, George Peabody	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Grant, Corrie	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Robinson, S.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Crae, George	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Gulland, John W.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Rose, Charles Day
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Killop, W.	Rowlands, J.
Hall, Frederick	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Runciman, Walter
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	M'Micking, Major G.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Maddison, Frederick	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mallet, Charles E.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hart-Davies, T.	Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston	Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marnham, F. J.	Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne
Harwood, George	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Sears, J. E.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seely, Major J. B.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Menzies, Walter	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hedges, A. Paget	Molteno, Percy Alport	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Helme, Norval Watson	Mond, A.	Snowden, P.
Hemmerde, Edward George	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Montagu, E. S.	Soares, Ernest J.
Henry, Charles S.	Mooney, J. J.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Stanger, H. Y.
Higham, John Sharp	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Hobart, Sir Robert		Steadman, W. C.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Morrell, Philip	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hodge, John	Murnaghan, George	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hogan, Michael	Murphy, John	Strachey, Sir Edward
Holland, Sir William Henry	Murray, James	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hooper, A. G.	Napier, T. B.	Sullivan, Donal
Horniman, Emslie John	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Summerbell, T.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Nicholls, George	Tayor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r	Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Ward, W.Dudley (Southampt'n)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.	Wardle,George J.	Williamson, A.
Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset,E	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Tomkinson, James	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Toulmin, George	Waterlow, D. S.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Weir, James Galloway	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Ure, Alexander	White, George (Norfolk)	Wood, T. M' Kinnon
Vivian Henry	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddorsf'd
Wadsworth, J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Young, Samuel
Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Whitehead, Rowland	Yoxall, James Henry
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Wallace, Robert	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Walters, John Tudor	Wiles, Thomas
Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	William,Llewelyn(Carm'th en)

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR E. CARSON moved an Amendment to make it incumbent on the clerk of a town or county council on receiving a notice of the selection of a constituency to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of such notice. The object of the Amendment, he observed, was to enable the person who sent a notice to be sure that the clerk had received it, or if he did not receive it, by reason of not getting an acknowledgment to know that such was the case. What would happen if he sent notice and the clerk did not receive it he did not know. The Bill did not provide for that. If the notice was sent and the man was not put on the register he could not vote. That was a flaw, and he did not know whether the Government at some time or other would turn their attention to it. His Amendment would at all events obviate some of the difficulties, because a man who had sent his notice some time before the 1st of September would, at all events, have an opportunity of inquiring afterwards whether the clerk had got the notice or not, and it was of the greatest importance that some opportunity should be given to the man who had taken the trouble to give a notice to see that he had secured his right. Even if this Amend-mendment was accepted—and he could not understand why it should not be —he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the advisability of making these obligations upon the clerk in some way or other effective by putting upon the clerk such a penalty as would make him carry out the provisions of the Act, because otherwise nothing would happen by reason of the default of the clerk.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'send an acknowledgment of the receipt of the said notice and.'"—(Sir E. Carson.).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said he had already promised that an Amendment should be made in the sense of that now proposed. He thought the terms of the Amendment carried out what he had promised, and therefore he accepted them. He was also prepared to impose a penalty on the clerk for not carrying out his duties. This he would fix at a later stage.

SIR E. CARSON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could place the Amendment on the Paper for consideration by the Committee. He thought that would be desirable, as they were leaving so much to the Report stage.

MR. HARCOURT

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be content with the promise he had given. Those who had long experience of the House knew that it was not unusual to bring up such Amendments on the Report stage.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed that the course proposed was the one usually adopted. He thought, however, there had sometimes been a tendency to carry too far the practice of postponing the introduction of Amendments to the Report stage of a Bill.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

thought there was a little clerical error in the use of the word "register". At the time when the person sent his notice of selection, there was no register, but only a list of voters. He begged to move to leave out "register" and insert "list of voters."

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 24, to leave out the word 'register' and insert the words, 'list of voters.'"—(Sir William Bull.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'register' stand part of the clause."

MR. HARCOURT

said it was quite true that technically this was a list of voters; but it was no interest to a person that he should be on the list of voters, but only on the list when it became an effective register.

SIR WILLIAM BULL

said that all other Acts of Parliament called it a list of voters.

SIR E. CARSON

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because the list of voters only became a register when it was signed by the revising barrister.

SIR E. CARSON moved to leave out the words "in the manner prescribed by the Order-in-Council made under this

Act," and in lieu thereof to substitute "with the word 'selected' opposite such name." He objected to these matters being done by Orders-in-Council. Why should they not say here and now what the mark was to be? The procedure should be plainly set out in the Act of Parliament without the necessity of the voter having to refer to an Order-in-Council.

Amendment proposed— In page 1,line 23, to leave out from the word 'register' to the word 'and,' in line 25, and insert the words 'with the word 'selected' opposite such name.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. HARCOURT

thought it would be more for the public convenience that the matter should be governed by Order-in-Council. The right hon Gentleman had found Orders-in-Council exceedingly useful in bringing Irish legislation into operation. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Coercion Acts.] Experience might show that an alteration was desirable in the form of working, and an Order-in-Council would afford the necessary elasticity.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 342.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.	Burke, E. Haviland-
Acland, Francis Dyke	Berridge, T. H. D.	Burns, Rt. Hn. John
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Bertram, Julius	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Alden, Percy	Billson, Alfred	Byles, William Pollard
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cairns, Thomas
Asquith, Rt.Hn.HcrbertHenry	Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)	Cameron, Robert.
Astbury, John Meir	Boland, John	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Atherley-Jones	Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Causton, Rt Hn. RichardKnight
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)	Bowerman, C. W.	Cawley, Frederick
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Brace, William	Chance, Frederick William
Barker, John	Bramsdon, T. A.	Cheetham, John Frederick
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset	Branch, James	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Brigg, John	Clarke, C. Goddard
Barnard, E. B.	Bright, J. A.	Clough, W.
Barnes, G N.	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Brodie, H. C.	Corbett, C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd
Beale, W. P.	Brooke, Stopford	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Beauchamp, E.	Brunner, J. F.L.,(Lancs.,Leigh	Cowan, W. H.
Beaumont, Hn. W.C. B. (Hexh'm.	Brunner, RtHnSirJ.T. (Cheshire	Cox, Harold
Beck, A. Cecil	Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Bell, Richard	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Cremer, William Randal
Bellairs, Carlyon	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Crooks, William
Benn, SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Crosfield, A. H.
Crossley, William J.	Hudson, Walter	O'Doherty, Philip
Dalmeny, Lord	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dalziel, James Henry	Idris, T H W	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Malley, William
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jackson, R S.	O'Mara, James
Delany, William	Jardine, Sir J.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Paul, Herbert
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jones, SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)	Paulton, James Mellor
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Donelan, Captain A.	Jowett, F. W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Duckworth, James	Joyce, Michael	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Duffy, William J.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pollard, Dr.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Kekewich, Sir George	Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, J. H (York, Otley)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Radford, G. H.
Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Raphael, Herbert H.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Laidlaw, Robert	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Elibank, Master of	Lambert, George	Rees, J. D.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamont, Norman	Rendall, Athelstan
Erskine, David C.	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lehmann, R C.	Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Everett, R. Lacey	Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Levy, Maurice	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fen wick, Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Ferens, T. R.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)
Field, William	Lough, Thomas	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Flynn, James Christopher	Lundon, W.	Robinson, S.
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lynch, H. B.	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs	Rose, Charles Day
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Rowlands, J.
Gill, A. H.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Runciman, Walter
Ginnell, L.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)
Gooch, George Peabody	M'Crae, George	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Grant, Corrie	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Kenna, Reginald	Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Killop, W.	Sears, J. E.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Laren, H D. (Stafford, W.)	Seely, Major J. B.
Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Micking, Major G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B
Gulland, John W.	Maddison, Frederick	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hall, Frederick	Mallet, Charles E.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil	Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)	Snowden, P.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Marnham, F. J.	Soares, Ernest J.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcr.)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Hart-Davies, T.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Stanger, H. Y.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Meagher, Michael	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Harwood, George	Menzies, Walter	Steadman, W. C.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Sullivan, Donal
Hedges, A. Paget	Montagu, E. S.	Summerbell, T.
Helme, Norval Watson	Mooney, J. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hemmerde, Edward George	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Henry, Charles S.	Morrell, Philip	Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Murnaghan, George	Tomkinson, James
Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Napier, T. B.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nicholls, George	Ure, Alexander
Hodge, John	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Verney, F. W.
Hogan, Michael	Nolan, Joseph	Vivian, Henry
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wadsworth, J.
Holland, Sir William Henry	Nuttall, Harry	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Hooper, A. G.	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wallace, Robert
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)	Walton, SirJohn L. (Leeds, S.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, John(Kildare, N.)	Ward John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Ward, W. Dudley(South'mp'tn.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Wardle, George J.	Whittakar, Sir Thomas Palmer	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)	Wiles, Thomas	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)	Williams. J, (Glamorgan)	Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersfd.
Waterlow, D. S.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn	Young, Samuel
Weir, James Galloway	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)	Yoxall, James Henry
White, George (Norfolk)	Williamson, A.
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Whitehead, Rowland	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fell, Arthur	Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J. (CityLond.	Fletcher, J. S.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Hambro, Charles Eric	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Beach, Hn. MichaelHugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boyle, Sir Edward	Heaton, John Henniker	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hill, SirClement(Shrewsbury)	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool,Walton
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kimber, Sir Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cave, George	Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.	Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)	Warde, Col C. E. (Kent, Mid).
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. J. A.(Worc	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Courthope, G. Loyd	Marks, H. H. (Kent)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.
Craik, Sir Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)	Nield, Herbert
Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON(Lanarkshire, N. W.) moved to add the following new sub-section—" (3) If a person having selected a voting constituency should become disqualified or disabled from voting in that constituency in any year, he may, at any time during such year, select for the purposes of this Act another voting constituency from among those constituencies for which he is registered, and send a notice of his selection signed by him to the clerk of the county council or town clerk in manner aforesaid, and such selection shall forthwith have effect accordingly." The hon. Member said that several points had been raised in the course of the debates which the hon. Member in charge of the Bill said he would take into consideration, and he hoped he would take into consideration the point he was now raising. He brought the Amendment forward in order to provide for the case of a man who had a vote, say, in three separate constituencies, who made a selection in one them, and then found that the particular vote he had selected was disallowed by the re- vising barrister. Unless some such provision as he now proposed was inserted that man would be disfranchised, and he thought it would be very desirable to prevent such a state of things from arising.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 28, at end to add the words, '(3) If a person having selected a voting constituency should become disqualified or disabled from voting in that constituency in any year, he may, at any time during such year, select for the purposes of this Act another voting constituency from among those constituencies for which he is registered, and send a notice of his selection signed by him to the clerk of the county council or town clerk in manner aforesaid, and such selection shall forthwith have effect accordingly.'"—(Mr. Mitchell Thomson.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

agreed with the spirit of the suggestion which had been made although he could not agree to the exact words which the hon. Member had proposed. He would consider the matter and bring up words to meet the, case upon Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said he had an Amendment on the Paper which provided that if any plural voter should fail to send such notice before the first day of November in any year he should be entitled to vote for any one constituency, in which he resided. He thought that this proposal raised a separate point which had not yet been discussed, but perhaps the Chairman might differ from him and ride it out of order. He therefore wished to know whether it was in order or not. It would enable a man to vote in one constituency only and compel him to vote in the constituency in which he resided if he had not sent in a notice of selection in due time.

THE CHAIRMAN

thought the point had been covered by the discussion which had gone before, and therefore the Amendment would be out of order.

MR. FORSTER

said he also had an Amendment on the Paper which he thought raised a point which had not been discussed. It would enact that "provided always that if no selection be made by any elector residing outside the county or borough in which he is registered, the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall, before the twenty-fifth day of August in each year, send a copy of the entry in the register to the registration officer of the county or borough in which such elector resides, asking him if the elector is on the register of such county or borough, and the reply must be returned on or before the fifth day of September, and if the reply is in the affirmative the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall inform the revising barrister of the fact, and the revising barrister shall mark the register in the manner prescribed by Order-in-council; nothing in this Act shall prevent any elector who shall not be marked as aforesaid from recording his vote at any election."

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the Amendment would alter the decision at which the Committee had arrived in regard to some of the Amendments in Clause 1. He had looked at it very carefully and he thought the point had been covered.

MR. FORSTER

said he did not wish to dispute the ruling of the Chair, and quite agreed that the concluding part of the Amendment might be taken to deal with a matter which had already been discussed and decided. Therefore he should propose to leave out all reference to the revising barrister and make the Amendment read that the clerk should mark the register.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member had altered the Amendment very much. He did wish that hon. Members would give him notice of these alterations, because many of the points were extremely difficult to decide. He was not prepared to rule the hon. Member's Amendment out of order with that alteration. Of course the latter part was clearly out of order, but he did not think he ought to prevent the other part from being discussed.

MR. FORSTER

regretted that he was not able to let the Chairman know of his proposed alteration, but he pointed out that it was only within the last few minutes the Committee had decided that the revising barrister should not be brought in. The object he had in view in moving his Amendment in its amended form was to prevent the possible disfranchisement of a large number of people whom he was afraid would be disfranchised if the provisions of the Bill were left un-amended. What he wanted was that in cases where no selection had been made by the elector the register should make it apparent and should be so marked by the clerk that he was an "out voter."

THE CHAIRMAN

was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he had not grasped before that what he was now moving was really a contradiction of what had already been passed. The first subsection stated distinctly that the individual plural voter must select before a certain date and this proposal would go altogether beyond that. He ought, therefore, to have ruled it out of order before and he did so now.

MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

formally moved the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin University.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and the clerk shall retain and preserve all notices so sent.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

also begged to move the following Amendment standing in the name of the same right hon. and learned Gentleman. He pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had agreed on the previous Wednesday to provide for this matter, and suggested that if he was not willing to accept those words he should be prepared with the words he proposed to substitute for them. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'provided that when on application made it is shown to the High Court that a person was prevented by illness or by absence beyond the seas from sending such notice the Court may, if it thinks right, give liberty to serve such notice together with a copy of the Order giving such liberty, and thereupon the clerk shall mark the name in manner prescribed by the Order in Council.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

demurred to the implied suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that he had neglected in detail the promise he had made. The reason he said that he did not produce the words now was that he was anxious to carry the matter further and deal with the case of the application of the voter who subsequently discovered he was on another register. An application to the High Court would be a rather expensive thing to the working plural voter, and he was considering whether the application could not be made to the county council in the locality. He could not, of course, pledge himself that it should be so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY(Shropshire, Newport) moved an Amendment to provide that where a voter was entered on the register of more than one constituency by reason of a claim's having been proved before a revising barrister, he should be at liberty to make a selection within seven days after such proof has been made. He desired to take this opportunity of putting on record another proof of the extraordinary want of care with which this Bill had been drafted. Let the Committee assume that this Bill passed into law, and a Parliamentary election was being conducted under its provisions in the year 1908. In that case the register would be completed in the autumn of 1907. Under the provisions of this Bill a plural voter had to select the constituency in which he would vote before the 5th of September, 1907. The man who possessed only one qualification had not to send in any notice of selection. Supposing in the course the revision Court in September, 1907, either with the knowledge of the voter or without, a claim was put forward in another constituency and established, and on the 1st of January, 1908, that voter was initialled as a plural voter. By the law of the land he could not have a vote unless he made a selection, and he was exposed to dire penalties if he exercised the franchise. He had no chance of selection, because the claim to the second vote was established after he sent in his claim. On the face of it the position was absurd. When the Bill contained such an arrant error as the omission of a provision to deal with such a case it stood convicted as an absurdity. This, he contended, was only one of the numerous instances of many similar blunders and the same want of care. It was in order to get rid of this absurd position that he moved his Amendment. It was absolutely necessary in the interests of fair play and justice that a man should have a certain time during which he could signifiy to the proper authorities that, having now a second vote, he did select to vote in a particular constituency. He bogged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words,' Provided always that where a voter becomes enrolled as a Parliamentry elector in more than one constituency by reason of a claim having been proved before a revising barrister, he shall be at liberty to make a selection within seven days after such proof has been made.'"—(Colonel Kenyan-Slaney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said he had already explained that this case would be dealt with in his proposed new clause. It was perfectly clear that a voter could not select if his second qualification accrued subsequent to his sending in his notice.

MR. LYTTELTON

pointed out that the point raised by the Amendment was not that which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to deal with. The point the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind was the case of a voter who sent in a selection. The point raised here was where a selection had not been made and where a second and new qualification accrued subsequently, rendering a selection necessary.

MR. HARCOURT

said he qui to understood that. This came within the category of those who through illness or absence abroad had been omitted during the year.

MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said the right hon. Gentleman had made a definite promise that if this case had not been covered he intended to provide for it. He wanted to point out, however, that cases of this kind ought to make the right hon. Gentleman and Members generally ask whether this was a fair way of dealing with the selection. The only fair way of dealing with selection was that in force in boroughs, where a voter qualified in several wards had not until the election came round to decide in which ward he would vote.

MR. HARCOURT

said that his was the usual fate which befel those who endeavoured to meet objections. He had tried in many instances to meet points on which hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to feel alarm, but which he did not think really ever would arise. He could not allow this action of his to be the excuse for a charge that the Government produced a Bill which would not have operated perfectly in its original shape.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it was perfectly true that concessions from the Government bench were not always so kindly received as they might be. This was the first Bill the right hon. Gentleman had conducted, but he hoped it would not be the last. The right hon. Gentleman Had displayed admirable qualities in dealing with this measure, but he must not think he was a special victim of Parliamentary ingratitude. He himself had had a long and, he thought he might say, painful experience of conducting controversial measures through this House, and relatively to some of his predecessors the right hon. Gentleman could rest assured that he was in a peculiarly fortunate position.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved an Amendment to provide that in the event of a plural voter's name being struck out in the place where he had been accustomed to vote notice should be sent him by the clerk in order that he might select another constituency where he was entitled to vote. Unless this Amendment were adopted the voter struck off would be disqualified altogether.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 28, at the end, insert, 'In the event of the person's name being removed from the register, the clerk shall give him notice that his name has been removed.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARCOURT

said he could not possibly accept this Amendment, as it would put a very considerable labour upon the clerk, and was not necessary, because ex hypothesi a person having been removed from the register must have received notice of the objection upon which he was removed.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and said he could give a case in point. He himself was on the register for the borough of Chelsea, and voted there several times, but at a certain election he went to the polling booth and found that his name had been removed, although he had had no notice. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how it was he did not receive a notice.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he thought it could readily b explained why the hon. Baronet did not get a notice, and the explanation would show that this Amendment ought to be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the last year's register had to stand unless objection was given against it. That was not the case. The list of voters was prepared afresh, or ought to be, every year by the overseers, and the hon. Baronet's name was clearly left off by the overseers. If his name had been put on the list by the overseers, and somebody had made an objection, it would have come before the revising barrister and notice would have been sent to his. hon. friend. But if the overseers left out any voter's name the only remedy was for the voter to make a claim. The overseers were alone responsible for the list until it got into the hands of the revising barrister, and the overseers were not bound to follow the preceding year's list to any extent whatever.

MR. HARCOURT

said he was dealing, of course, with continuous good qualification.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said he was put on the list again.

MR. HARCOURT

said then the hon. Baronet was in a very unfortunate position; but it was, of course, open to everyone to see the overseers' list before the 1st August.

MR CARLILE

said the Amendment was an extremely reasonable one. Notice of objection might be sent to the voter, and if the objection were upheld his position was one of very considerable difficulty.

And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, Further Proceeding stood postponed without Question put.