Commons Sitting of 3 August 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Tribunals of Commerce [No. 409]; Thames Embankment [No. 411]; Thirty-third Report—Public Petitions.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Prince Arthur's Annuity [280],
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.; Tramways (Ireland)* [245], debate adjourned; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2)* [228], debate adjourned,

IRELAND—LABOURERS' HOUSES.

  QUESTION
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, in consequence of the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate), he begged to ask the Question which stood in his name; and, in the absence of the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary, perhaps the Solicitor General for Ireland would answer it. The Question was, Whether, in the event of his not bringing in this year any Bill to facilitate the erection of Labourers houses in Ireland, the regulations of the Board of Works respecting Labourers' houses to be in future erected by Government loans can be made less stringent, so as to include houses of a less expensive kind?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, in reply, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary would not be able to bring in a Bill on the subject this year. His noble Friend had carefully considered the whole question; but the regulations respecting labourers' houses and the loans for their erection were matters on which it was necessary to consult the Board of Works
  766
  in Ireland; and a correspondence was now going on relating to the subject.

  CASE OF MR. BARRY.—QUESTION.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of Mr. Barry, a late assistant messenger of the London Court of Bankrupty, praying the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to award compensation to him on account of his employment having been abolished by "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869;" whether it is not within the power of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to award compensation to Mr. Barry under section 131 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869," on account of his employment having been abolished by the operation of that Act; whether it is not the fact that a large fund exceeding £100,000 in amount was formed in the Court of Bankruptcy partly out of deductions from the sums charged to bankrupt's estates for the services of the assistant messengers, and that this fund has been paid over to the Consolidated Fund; whether he is prepared under the circumstances to recommend such compensation to be made; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Petition, Correspondence, and other Papers relating to the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the attention of the Lords of the Treasury had been called to the Petition of Mr. Barry, a late assistant messenger of the London Court of Bankruptcy, praying for compensation on account of his employment having been abolished by the Bankruptcy Act of 1869. They had no power under the 131st section of that Act to award compensation to Mr. Barry. He had no doubt been a loser by the passing of the Act; now that estates were in the hands of creditors they employed their own agents to get in the assets, it not being necessary to employ the messengers of the Court; the office which Mr. Barry held was therefore much less remunerative than it would otherwise have been. The Commissioners were only able to make compensation when the office had been abolished; but in this case the office had not been abolished, and therefore they could not give compensation.

  767
  No good purpose would be served by printing the Petition and the answer to it. There was no further information regarding the case than his hon. Friend's Question and this explanation had already given.

PARLIAMENT—CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.

  QUESTION
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will suggest and support any proposal calculated to avoid the serious inconvenience and disadvantage consequent on the frequent introduction of very important legislation at so late a period of the Session, and at such hours in the morning, when Members of this House are physically incapacitated for the careful and efficient performance of their duties? There were now no fewer than 43 Orders of the Day on the Paper for that evening.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard, Sir, to the number of Orders of the Day, I can only say that, so far as I am aware, the number of Orders in the hands of the Government is not at all unusual. Speaking from recollection rather than from any minute calculation, it is within, not beyond, what it usually is at this period of the Session—that is, with so many days of labour as we have still before us. With regard to the number of private Members' Orders on the Paper, my impression is that it is large; but we have no means of controlling that number. It is entirely for private Members to consider at what period they should drop those Orders, and when they should give up all idea of being able to carry their Bills. But as to the general question, I think it well worthy of consideration. I do not think there would be any advantage in attempting to indicate any views I may entertain as to the mode of dealing with it, because it can only be met by some regulation as to the sittings of the House. But when the House shall proceed to the consideration of new regulations for that purpose, which, no doubt, it will do at an early period of next Session, the point to which the hon. Baronet has referred is one very fit and proper to be considered.

  ARMY—CHAPLAIN TO THE TROOPS AT BRIGHTON.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is correct
  768
  that the Acting Chaplain to the Troops stationed at the Preston Barracks, Brighton, has been summarily dismissed without notice; and, if such is the case, whether it is usual so to dismiss a Chaplain without any proper notice, or without stating any reason?
  MR. CARDWELL: It is usual, Sir, to appoint to the acting chaplaincy the incumbent of a church near to the barracks. In this case the troops left Brighton in April, and the barracks were not again occupied till June. On this occasion it was thought expedient to put the troops under the care of the Vicar of Brighton instead of under that of a curate of one of the incumbents. This is the more usual practice, and it has been explained to the former acting chaplain that there was no intention of casting any slur upon him.

SLAVERY IN CUBA AND PORTO RICO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLA (for Mr. T. HUGHES)asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government can assure the House that the measures for the abolition of Slavery in Cuba and Porto Rico, which the last Spanish Ministry had undertaken to introduce in the coming Session of the Cortes, will be taken up by the new Government; and, if not, whether the Government will be prepared to urge upon Spain the fulfilment of the Treaty obligations for the abolition of Slavery by which she is bound to Great Britain?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the new Government in Spain has any intention of withdrawing from the policy adopted, though not yet carried out, by the late Ministry, with reference to the abolition of the slave trade in Cuba and Porto Rico; this country has not failed, through her Representative at Madrid, to offer suggestions and encouragement in this matter in a friendly and temperate spirit; and the late elections for the Cortes are a proof that the party of Abolitionists has been numerically increased.

OFFICE OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

  QUESTION
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it be true, as stated in one of the military newspapers, that the vacant political

  769
  office of Judge Advocate General is about to be re-filled; and whether he will not delay doing so till the House can decide by Select Committee or otherwise whether that office is not sinecure and unnecessary?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the office of Judge Advocate General is not vacant; it is held by the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. The political office is vacant, since it is inseparable from the judicial office, and no provision is made for the discharge of the Parliamentary duties of the office. The question of the discharge of those duties will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I am not sure whether it will not be wise to postpone any action in the matter until the House can inquire into it. Of course we shall proceed to fill up the office on our responsibility in case we find any inconvenience arising from the continuance of the present arrangement.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS REGULATION ACT.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Which are the Government Manufacturing Establishments and Workshops that are exempt from the operation of the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts, and which those wherein the Government claims to exercise a dispensing power; and, if he will state the section or sections of the Act or Acts under which the exemption or dispensing power is conferred?
  MR. BRUCE, said, in reply, all manufacturing establishments and workshops connected with the Government were exempt from the operation of these and any Acts unless specifically mentioned in them, and it was clear that there was not the same reason for subjecting them to the Factory Acts that there was in the case of private establishments, which had a practical interest in urging to the utmost the labour of women and children for the purpose of gain, on account of the competition to which they were exposed. No such motive existed in the case of Government establishments; at the same time he must repeat the assurance he gave the other day that, as a general rule, they were conducted in uniformity with the Acts. It was only in cases of extraordinary emergency
  770
  they were not observed; but it must be remembered that children under 13 were not employed in Government establishments, and any unusual pressure on those employed was made as slight as was compatible with the exigencies of the moment.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked what were the exempting sections?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, there were none; but the Crown was not included in any Act unless specifically named, and it could not come under definitions applicable to places carried on for the purposes of gain.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSgave notice of his intention to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject in the Bill before Parliament.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the definitions extended to the Postal and Telegraph Departments, in which women and children were employed?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it would be necessary, before answering that question, to communicate with the Postmaster General.
  MR. CAWLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any information as to the number of Workshops which will come under the operation of the "Factories and Workshops Regulation Acts Amendment Bill" now before the House, if it become Law, and how many additional Assistant or Sub-assistant Inspectors it will be necessary to appoint in order efficiently to carry out the Act; and what he estimates will be the cost of the inspection?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he had for some time directed the attention of the inspectors of factories to this subject, and they estimated that the number of workshops which must be included under this Act was about 100,000, but the greater number of them, employed only about one-fifth of the women and children who were employed in factories properly so-called. The question of the number of inspectors to be employed, irrespective of the transfer of the Workshops Regulations Act to the factory inspectors, had been for some time under consideration. He thought that it would be admitted that no two public officers could have performed their important duties with greater zeal and discretion than Mr. Redgrave and Mr. Baker; and both of these officers were of opinion

  771
  that under the then state of the law a very considerable reduction indeed in the number of factory inspectors and sub-inspectors might be safely made. In 1833, vast numbers of children were employed in these factories, and the great object was to guard against the employment of children illegally; and a very large proportion of the time of the inspectors was taken up in examining registers and certificates of age. At present the public feeling as to these statutes had entirely changed; both masters and men thoroughly supported the Acts, and therefore such supervision as was formerly necessary was now no longer required. The opinion, therefore, was that less strict regulations might be made, and that there might be a large reduction in the number of sub-inspectors. The opinion of Mr. Redgrave and Mr. Baker was that under the new Act, by adding three sub-inspectors to each of their districts, an efficient inspection of workshops and factories might be made, and that these appointments might be created without any additional cost to the country. This would come about in this way. The greater number of accidents returned under the statute were of a trivial character, and the result of a plan for limiting these Returns would be that there would be a saving of £2,500 at least, and this sum would be sufficient to provide the additional sub-inspectors required under the new Act. It was not intended to alter the general character of the duties of sub-inspectors; but it was under consideration that they should begin their employment at an earlier age, and at a lower rate of payment than that at present received.

ARMY—ABOLITION OF PURCHASE.

  QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, upon the abolition of Purchase in the Army, the limit of the period of the command, of a battalion will be retrospective, or whether it will simply come into operation from the 1st of November; whether, in either case, the Officers who may be displaced will at once receive any portion of the over regulation money which they have paid according to the custom of their regiments; whether Officers who go on half-pay after twenty-five years' service will receive any over
  772
  regulation money; and, if so, in what proportion; and, whether Officers who have completed twenty-five years' service, or who are put on half-pay, or who went on half-pay of their own accord, will be in as good a pecuniary position as they now are, according to the existing system, with respect to the over regulation prices of their commissions?
  MR. CARDWELL: The limit, Sir, will not be retrospective. The other questions are all questions of the construction of the Act, the terms of which were so fully considered by this House, and whose authoritative interpretation will rest with the Commissioners. The intention of the Bill is, as was repeatedly stated in the discussions, to put all the officers affected by it in as good a pecuniary position as they would have been in if the Act had not passed.
  LORD GARLIESasked the Secretary of State for War, when the appointments of Colonels on the Staff for the supervision of the auxiliary forces of the Kingdom are to be made, in accordance with the announcement made on this subject nearly six months ago?
  MR. CARDWELL: The delay in these appointments has been consequent on the delay in passing the Bill, under which the officers are to receive their powers; and to that delay few persons have contributed more efficiently than my noble Friend himself.

  ARMY—THE COLOUR OF THE 68TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, If it meets his approval that a Colour of a Regiment which has been consecrated and given over to the care of a regiment should have been confided to the charge of a contract carrier; and, whether it is expedient, considering the extreme veneration which is attached by the soldiers to their colours, that a symbol they are taught to honour so highly should be treated with such want of respect as in the case of the colour of the 68th Regiment? He would move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of making a few remarks upon this subject. Everybody must be aware that there was the greatest possible difference between colours which were consecrated and those that were not consecrated. If unconsecrated colours were lost the question

  773
  would be one only of money; but when colours had been consecrated and delivered over to the care of a regiment the matter became very different. All soldiers were taught that a greater disgrace could not arise than the loss of their colours, and every man must be prepared to sacrifice his life in defence of them. The colour in question was inscribed "Salamanca," "Vittoria," "Pyrenees," "Nivelle," "Orthes," "the Alma," "Sebastopol," and since then was to be added "New Zealand." One could hardly understand how the colonel could allow the colours to leave the regiment except under protest. Each of the badges were embroidered upon a scroll, and therefore he could not understand the necessity of sending the colours of the regiment to London, because the embroidery could have been sent down and affixed by the master tailor to the colours of the regiment. The loss had occasioned a profound feeling of regret throughout the Army, and he could not understand what was meant the other night when it was said that the colour was to be paid for by the contractor, and not by the public. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who called "Oh!" did not understand the feelings of soldiers with regard to their colours. It was a tiling almost unprecedented in our Army for a regiment to lose its colours, which were looked upon far differently from a mere square of silk that could be purchased for so much money. He never knew colours to be sent except under an escort, and he hoped that this was the last occasion when the colours of a regiment would be treated with disrespect. These colours had been carried by the regiment throughout New Zealand, and now one was lost, no one knew where or how.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he put the Question of adjournment with regret, because if this course were generally pursued it would be impossible that the Business of the House could be carried on.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel North.)
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that with the permission of the Secretary of State for War he would say a few words upon the question. There was no one who was more sensible of the attachment
  774
  of soldiers to their colours than he was, and he yielded to no one in reference to anything by which the esprit de corps, gallantry, and right feeling in the Army were to be promoted. It was a single regimental colour that was lost. The proposal to send it by the contract carrier never was submitted to him; but the facts were simply these—It was originally proposed to send the scroll to the regiment to be attached, but it was reported that they could not attach it, and orders were thereupon given that the colour should be sent—as had been the case on a previous occasion when colours required repair—to London. What he had said the other night as to expense was merely in reply to the Question put to him, and he did not say whether it was right or wrong that the expense should be paid by the carrier and not by the public; he simply stated the fact. He quite agreed that the colours of a regiment ought to be respected and preserved with the greatest possible care; and he thought that on future occasions it would be desirable to take more care in reference to the transmission of colours.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that no answer had been given to the question whether the colours were consecrated or not.
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that if Notice of this Question were given he would answer it to-morrow.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state upon any reliable local authority, and, if so, upon what authority, that the harvest in Berkshire will probably not be gathered in by the 20th of September; and, whether, in the opinion of the head of the Medical Department of the Army and in that of the Military Authorities, the 20th of September, looking to the health of the Troops, is too late a period of the year for them to go into camp?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the time fixed was not the 20th, but the 9th of September. The question is not whether the 20th of September would be too late for the troops to go into camp in any case of necessity. The question is, whether

  775
  it was desirable to fix the period of the equinox for the encampment for purposes of instruction of 30,000 men, consisting partly of Regulars and partly of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and I am decidedly of opinion that it was not. On the contrary, I wish it had been possible to fix an earlier day than September 9. As to the authority on which I can make a statement with respect to the probable time of harvest, I have just received from Commissary Milne a Report, dated Newbury, Berks, August 2, in which he says—
  "The farmers say that with the most favourable weather the harvest will not be over until the 25th of September, so that no horses could be spared, and they have an objection to hiring horses for military services out of their own county."
  LORD GARLIESasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of Regulars, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers respectively, it is intended to employ throughout the intended manœuvres at Woolmer, now proposed to be substituted for the Berkshire encampment; and, what is the number of Troops for which there is sufficient means of Transport and Supply under the guidance of the Control Department?
  MR. CARDWELL: It is proposed to assemble a force of about 30,000, and in addition to 15,000 Regulars and 8,000 Militia, about 2,000 Yeomanry and 5,000 Volunteers have been invited to attend. I am informed that it is doubtful whether, owing to the lateness of the harvest, the whole of the Yeomanry will be able to attend. The powers of the Control department are adequate to the supply of a much larger force; but as regards transport, a nucleus only is maintained in peace, to be supplemented by the local transport of any country in which there may be military operations.
  LORD GARLIESwished to know, Whether the Control department possessed the means of transporting 30,000 men at one time?
  MR. CARDWELL: In the Paper which was laid upon the Table and circulated yesterday morning the exact number of horses employed by the Control department is stated. That number is not sufficient for the transport of 30,000 men without drawing on the local transport, and it is not intended to do anything so extravagant as to maintain
  776
  a large number of transport horses in time of peace, which in time of war we should not be able to use, inasmuch as we should be obliged to rely upon local transport in the country where the troops were engaged.
  LORD ELCHOasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, How it happens that local transport was available at an early period of the year in one part of the country and not in another?
  SIR HENRY STORKSreplied that depended on the harvest. Other means would be available, as he had stated in his Minute on the Report of the Inspector General of Fortifications. Sufficient transport arrangements would be made for carrying out successfully the manœuvres in the neighbourhood of Aldershot.

MINES REGULATION BILL.

  QUESTION
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention now to withdraw the two Mines Regulation Bills; and, whether he does not consider that a fair opportunity of discussing and passing them may be afforded by the proposed Session of Parliament in October?
  MR. BRUCE: Undoubtedly, a very fitting opportunity for discussing these measures will be afforded should an Autumn Session be held, and I shall not discharge the Orders until that question has been settled.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.

  QUESTION
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, the system upon which Greenwich Hospital Pensions are allotted to retired members of the Merchant Service; and how it is that a retired sailor of forty-seven years' service who contributed one shilling a-month when Mate, and two shillings a-month when Master, to the fund connected with the above-mentioned Pension, can now obtain no benefit from it?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that the fund applicable to pensions for retired members of the Merchant Service was at present exhausted in supplying pensions to seamen who had entered the service prior to 1817 or

  777
  1818. Of course, as vacancies occurred, applications from persons who had joined the service at a later period would be taken into consideration.

IRELAND—MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

  QUESTIONS
  MR. MACFIEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it has been the custom to elect, as Trustees of Maynooth College, under the Act of the 35th George 3, cap 21, of the Parliament of Ireland, lay as well as clerical persons; if so, how many of each of these classes of persons were eight or ten years ago, and on the 1st of January last, and how many of each are now trustees; how many of the trustees are archbishops and bishops; whether, in allowing the now acting trustees to appoint as many more trustees as will bring the number up to twenty-eight, which the Bill to amend the Acts relating to the College of Maynooth is intended to do, there is to be any provision for the maintaining in the number such a proportion of laymen as now is usual; what is the number of Roman Catholic bishops and of archbishops and bishops having sees or exercising episcopal and archiepiscopal functions in Ireland; who, if the foregoing Bill becomes law, will be the electors, after the ensuing appointments are made, of trustees to take the place of retiring or deceasing trustees; whether, if it become law, the form of disapproval or veto, which appears now to exist in the Lord Lieutenant, on the framing of bye laws, rules, regulations, and statutes, which might be objectionable, will remain in force; whether the Government can state that the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland are favourably disposed towards the contemplated changes which this Bill is intended to effect and facilitate; and, whether he will lay upon the Table, in time to enable a judgment to be formed on sufficient data, any Correspondence, Resolutions, Statements, or other Documents illustrating the motives and encouragement which have led to the introduction of this Bill, and justify it being pushed through at this late period of the Session?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, in reply, that in the year 1851 there were six lay and 11 clerical trustees of Maynooth
  778
  College, and in 1871 there were one lay trustee and 16 clerical trustees. The number of trustees who were Archbishops or Bishops was 16. In allowing the now acting trustees to appoint as many more trustees as would bring the number up to 28, which the Bill to amend the Acts relating to the College of Maynooth was intended to do, it was not proposed to insert any provision to maintain any particular proportion of laymen. There was no such provision in any Act relative to Maynooth College. The number of Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland was 28, there being four Archbishops and 24 Bishops. If the Bill became law the continuing trustees would be the electors, and the veto at present possessed by the Lord Lieutenant would be removed, as it was reasonable that the State should have no further interference with the College. With respect to the question whether the Government could state that the Catholic laity of Ireland were favourably disposed towards the contemplated changes which the Bill was intended to effect and facilitate, he would merely remark that the Government had had no opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of the Catholic population since last night, when Notice of the Question was given. He might add that for much of the information he had just given he was indebted to Thom's Irish Directory and The Catholic Directory.
  MR. MUNTZdesired some information which was not to be found in The Catholic Directory. For what reason was the Bill introduced?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he did not mean that he had gathered any information respecting the Bill from The Catholic Directory, but that the particulars he had stated as to the Archbishops, Bishops, and trustees were given in that work. The Bill was introduced in consequence of the Government having stated that the proposed change would be effected by the Irish Church Act; but as this had not been done, it became necessary to deal with the subject by a separate Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTasked after what hour it would not be considered?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would not proceed with it at an hour when a

  779
  reasonable number of gentlemen thought it unreasonable for him to do so.

ARMY—REVIEW AT WIMBLEDON.

  QUESTIONS
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of men absent from first battalion of the 4th Regiment and second battalion of the 15th Regiment on the occasion of the recent Review at Wimbledon; ages of men absent, and length of service, and Copy of Reports, if any, addressed by the medical officers concerning their regiments, representing that a certain number of men were unfit to undergo the fatigue of the march from their quarters with their arms and accoutrements?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, if the hon. Member would move for the Papers they should be laid on the Table.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, on the occasion of the recent Review at Wimbledon, orders were not issued to the officers commanding the second battalion, 15th Regiment, that all recruits over three months' service should march with the regiment; and, whether the medical officer did not report that ninety out of ninety-six men fulfilling these conditions were physically unfit to march; and, whether that was not the reason for their being left behind with the other recruits, numbering in all over 400?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I am informed that no such order was given from the Horse Guards, and it is not known there whether any such order was given at Aldershot.

  RAILWAYS—THE ROPE SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the officers of the Board of Trade have tried the rope communication placed under the carriages of the Great Western Railway Company's express trains; whether they think that such a mode of communication with the guard is a "good and sufficient mode," and a full compliance with the Act of Parliament; whether the accumulation of slack rope in a long train does not make the mode of communication insufficient; and,
  780
  whether in the case of women and children the means of communication is sufficient?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he was not aware of any Report having been made respecting the rope communication adopted by the Great Western Company. Two recent cases had, however, happened on the London and North-Western line, in which it was alleged there had been a failure in the means of communication. The Board of Trade had sent an Inspector to make inquiries upon the subject.

ARMY—SALE OF COMMISSIONS.

  QUESTION
  COLONEL DYOTTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having granted permission to an Officer to retire from the service by the sale of his commission, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore to such Officer a portion only of the regulation price which he had paid; and, if so, whether it is intended to pay any and what amount of interest upon the balance due to such Officer as long as the same shall remain unpaid; and, further, in the case of Lieutenant Mackinnon, late on the half-pay of the 16th Lancers, whose name appeared in The Gazette of the 31st May last, it is intended to hand over to that Officer £250 only, instead of £1,190, being the amount of the regulation price which Lieutenant Mackinnon had paid for his commission?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it is intended to pay the money as soon as it shall have been voted by Parliament. The delay in submitting the Vote has been owing to the delay in passing the Bill. I am informed that Lieutenant Mackinnon was allowed to sell without waiting, and gave his consent in writing to the conditions. There is certainly no intention, on the part of the Government, to pay interest on the balance.

  ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give a day for the consideration of the Papers relating to the proposed manœuvres? In order to explain his reasons for asking the question he would read a portion of a resolution which had been

  781
  passed in Berkshire. A committee appointed in the western district of the county protested that the lateness of the harvest was no reason for the abandonment of the proposed manœuvres as far as the farmers were concerned, inasmuch as they had not departed from their original intention, and still wished to aid in the arrangements and to supply the necessary transport. The committee went on to state that they considered they had been treated with a want of courtesy by the Secretary of State for War. ["Chair."]
  MR. SPEAKER: A Member, in putting a Question, is at liberty to state any facts which are necessary for the clear understanding of the Question; but he must not enter into other matters.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he thought it was necessary, in order to explain his Question, to show that what had occurred in Berkshire did not support the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay on the Table of the House the Instructions contained in his Minute to the Quartermaster General and the Inspector General of Fortifications; and likewise the Programme submitted to him by them of the military manœuvres in Berkshire?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not, Sir, in my power to set aside the Elections Bill, the discussion on the Treaty of Washington, or the remaining Estimates in order to discuss the matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has called attention; but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given Notice of a Bill in reference to this subject. He intends to ask the assent of the House to that Bill on the earliest day he can find for the purpose, and then the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, as there is considerable perplexity and dissatisfaction in the public mind on what is a very important subject, I hope the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will be brought forward at a time when the House will be able to fully consider it.
  MR. CARDWELLwas understood to say that the documents referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) had been already laid upon the Table.

THE POPE AND MR. GLADSTONE.

  QUESTION
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given him private notice. It was, Whether a certain statement made in an evening paper was correct? The readers of that journal were informed, minute particulars being given, that the Pope was about to take up his residence on a Scottish island. The writer added—
  "I am further informed that Mr. Gladstone has been sounded privately on the subject, and has expressed himself favourable to the residence of His Holiness in the British Islands under certain conditions and stipulations."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, on receiving the notice which my hon. Friend kindly gave me I ventured to suggest in a note to him that I thought the exigencies of this case of a local report might be met by a local contradiction; but as he has thought it necessary to raise the question in the House, and as great interest is taken in all matters relating to a change of residence on the part of the Pope, I beg to assure him there is not the slightest shadow of a foundation for the statement.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he had not received the letter which the right hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to send.

  ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he wished to put a Question to his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Storks) as to the autumn manœuvres. There must, in his opinion, have been some Minute from His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this subject, for it was impossible to conceive that His Royal Highness could have been completely ignored—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not state matters of opinion in putting his Question.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, his object was to ascertain whether such a Minute had been made, and, if not, why not? The Reports published, instead of being addressed to His Royal Highness, were addressed to Lieutenant General Sir Edward Lugard; he believed, therefore, that these must be considered as garbled Reports and extracts merely—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled, in asking a Question, to state his personal opinion.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: Then he would confine himself to asking, Whether there was any Minute by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief upon the subject; if not, why His Royal Highness had not been consulted; and why the only Minute which had been put forward was one signed by his right hon. and gallant Friend himself who was the accused party?
  SIR HENRY STORKS, in reply, said, he thought it hardly fair that such Questions as this should be put without previous Notice. However, he was prepared to say that he was not aware of there being any written Minute by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, nor was he aware that the Reports were garbled in any way. The Reports were addressed to Lieutenant General Sir Edward Lugard, as he was the Under Secretary of State for the War Department; the instructions were given at a War Office meeting. He was not aware that he was an accused party in any respect. He should be very glad to answer any accusation that might be made.

PRINCE ARTHUR'S ANNUITY BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
PRINCE ARTHUR'S ANNUITY BILL.

  [BILL 280.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was the last man to make any objection to the very moderate annuity to be given to His Royal Highness Prince Arthur. The Bill was not in the hands of Members, but he should take no objection on that point, because he supposed it would follow the precedent established in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He only ventured to state that he thought the modest provision that was about to be made for His Royal Highness was quite in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. He believed him to be a Prince who would do honour to the country in the high position in which he was placed, and therefore it was that he thought the people would most ungrudgingly grant this annuity. He rose to call attention to the rather significant Vote which was taken the other
  784
  night. That Vote, in his humble judgment, did not express in its actual terms the views of hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway, or of the masses whom they claimed to represent; but that Vote did, he believed, embody the sentiment of many who, Englishmen as they were, loyal as they were, most anxious in every way to support the Sovereign of this country in that high position in which she was placed, were yet particularly anxious that the Sovereign should come more among her people than she had done for some considerable time past. He believed he was only expressing the views and opinions of large masses of his fellow-countrymen when he stated that, having granted to Her Majesty, as they believed, a very liberal provision for the high position which she occupied, they were anxious that she should, in that high position, spend the money in the way in which it had been granted—namely, for her benefit and that of the nation. He would only add, upon his own part, the expression of a hope that the right hon. Gentleman who could make use of the Royal Prerogative, stating that the exercise of that Prerogative was asked for because it was in accordance with the view of the majority of the House of Commons, supported by the view of the majority in the country, would, in like manner, be able to state his full belief and his earnest hope and conviction that effect would be given to the desire of the vast majority in that House and in the country that Her Majesty would return and come among them as she had done heretofore. He ventured to assert—and proof of this would be found, if necessary, in what was going on in Dublin at the present moment—that if such a course were taken, the Queen would gather again to her the hearts of the whole of her people, and she would be, as she had been heretofore, the most popular Sovereign in the world.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend had spoken his mind courageously, as he always did, on this subject, and he thanked him for the opportunity thus afforded of saying a few words in justification of the unpopular vote which he gave the other evening at an hour when he was unwilling to detain the House with a personal explanation. He was additionally anxious to make the statement, as it was quite

  785
  possible that the same reasons which influenced his conduct might also have influenced the action of some of the small minority who accompanied him into the lobby. He was not one of those who wished to find fault with the Government, or to speak harshly of them for bringing the Vote before the House, because he did not conceive it possible for any Ministry placed as they were to have done otherwise than they did, or to have broken through all the rules of routine, and gone contrary to the action of all former Ministries. But when the Vote was once proposed, it became a matter to be dealt with by the House, and it was in that light that he, as an humble representative of the people, wished to view the matter. The only question which they, the Members of the House of Commons, ought to ask themselves was this—would the granting of this money conduce to the contentment and welfare of the country at large? There was no contract, no agreement, no bargain that this Vote should be given, that had been clearly laid down by the great authorities upon the Treasury bench. It was suggested, however, that there was an honourable understanding, and that, as far as he could understand, was the view taken by the majority of hon. Members. But if there was an understanding, there must be something understood upon both sides, and here he was partly, inclined to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite. When, at the beginning of her reign, a large sum of money was settled upon Her Majesty, the object was to keep up what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had very properly described as the pageantry of the Crown. He was not in a position himself to say whether that pageantry had been kept up to the satisfaction of the country or not; he did not know enough about these things. But he believed that there was an opinion abroad—he had no wish to put the matter coarsely, but simply to render his meaning clear—that the country did not get its money's worth for what it had given. There being an opinion of that sort in existence—whether rightly or wrongly he would not say—when a Vote of this description was brought forward, it would have been well if the Prime Minister had been prepared to state the exact position which both parties occupied,
  786
  and whether the Crown was not now in a different position from that which it occupied 30 years ago, in being able to make provision, without a special grant, for the person for whom the House was called upon to give this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman rested the grant more upon the ground of precedent than of agreement. That, how-over, was a dangerous ground, for if they went back to precedents, there was no saying how many Princes and Princesses they might not have to subsidize—down even to the grandchildren of the Queen; for the House would remember that an annuity of £12,000 a-year was granted to the Duke of Cambridge, which he now enjoyed. The painful and unfortunate part of the matter was, that those who thought it right on public grounds to vote against this grant were supposed to be doing something harsh towards the young Prince for whom the Vote was asked. No doubt, it might be hard; but it very seldom happened that persons could take action in public matters without hurting the feelings or injuring the prospects of somebody or other. He himself felt most reluctant to say those few words in vindication of his own vote, lest it might seem as if he was casting some slur upon the young Prince, of whom, as far as he knew, nothing but good had ever been reported. But, as he said, it was necessary to begin somewhere, if this system, which seemed to have for its object to subsidize as many as possible of the branches of the Royal Family, were ever to stop. He believed this was the right time to interfere, and he did not think the feeling of this country would for many years longer willingly sanction the granting of these large sums of money. All the grace, all the charm, all the value of these grants to Royalty, it seemed to him, must depend upon the unanimity with which they were given. No doubt the House had been nearly unanimous in support of this Vote; only 11 Members divided against it. But let them look the facts in the face. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had stated—and he had since heard the statement confirmed in conversation by many Members representing large constituencies—that there was growing up in the minds of the people in large towns an increasing feeling in favour of Republicanism. Now,

  787
  there was nothing so foolish as to hide, or pretend to ignore the facts—nothing so foolish as the ostrich policy of hiding one's head and thinking there was no danger. Such a feeling existed in the country. [An hon. MEMBER: Question.] Well, he believed he was speaking directly to the question. He was very far, indeed, from saying one word in justification of the feeling of which he had spoken; but undoubtedly it existed, and the only possible way in which legislation could add to that feeling was by making the people of this country believe that the expenses connected with Royalty were enormous, extravagant, and unnecessary. He did not believe that even among those who called themselves Republicans in the large towns, any one of them could get up and say one word against the way in which Her Majesty had performed all her political and constitutional duties, and if that were so, it was clear that the feeling which actuated these men in crying out against Royalty was the feeling that they were paying far more for it than was necessary, or than they thought it to be worth. He would quote one sentence from a nobleman who, in political sagacity and forethought, was certainly equal to any Gentleman in that or the other House of Parliament—Lord Derby.
  "Any institution," he said, "which is successfully to be defended must carry its justification upon its face, or else it is quite certain to go down in the first gale of popular opinion."
  There was a question which hon. Gentlemen opposite often talked about; they cried out loudly against the reductions in the dockyards which had been made by Her Majesty's present Government. He had supported the Government in those reductions, for he objected to public money being spent upon useless work; but he would ask his hon. Friends upon the Liberal benches, when they went down into the country and justified the votes which they had given by urging that objection, how were they at the same time to account for having paid over the money which was thus saved out of the wages of labour to a Royal Prince who did no work at all. He objected to the Vote on the ground that no proof had been given that this additional sum was required to keep up the pageantry of the Crown, at a time when our public expenditure in other matters was so enormous, and especially
  788
  he objected to it because by voting these large sums of money for this purpose they were doing the only thing that could tend to make unpopular the best Monarch that ever ruled over this country. He thanked the House for listening so kindly to these remarks, which he had felt it his duty to offer; and he would only add that, having made this protest, hon. Members who objected to the Vote would not put the House to any further trouble upon it.
  COLONEL BERESFORDexpressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the annuity for His Royal Highness Prince Arthur, had omitted to make the very important statement which he made this year in the case of the Vote for Princess Louise—that if the Crown Lands had remained in the hands of the Crown to the present time they would be realizing an income of nearly £1,000,000 a-year, while the Civil List amounted only to £385,000. That omission he knew had been much commented on.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was not aware that the Bill for granting this annuity had not been circulated amongst hon. Members; but if that is an objection to the second reading of the Bill, I will not press the Motion. I can assure the House that the Bill has been framed entirely on the basis of that agreed to for the Duke of Edinburgh's annuity. The words will, I think, be the same, with the necessary change of name. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Beresford) has alluded to a former statement I made when making a similar proposal to the House. On this occasion I referred to the lengthened statement I formerly made, and in order not to repeat it I stated that I entirely adhered to it. I am glad to correct a certain amount of misapprehension which appears to prevail with regard to it. I never stated that the Queen, if upon her accession she had not surrendered the Crown Lands, would now be deriving from them a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year; but I stated—and it is strictly true—that if during a series of reigns it had not been the case that a most valuable part of the Crown Lands—much of the most valuable part of the Crown Lands—had been used for the benefit of the Metropolis, and not for the benefit of the Royal Family, that in that case the revenue of the Crown Lands would have increased. ["No!"] I am perfectly

  789
  ready to maintain it; but I am desirous of removing misapprehensions it was certainly well should not be entertained. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has treated this subject, with one or two exceptions, in the most gentle and courteous manner which it admits of from his point of view, and he discusses them—as he always does others—in the true spirit of an English gentleman. Though I am not particularly certain that I understood the meaning of the expressions he used, I will endeavour to give them the explanation they seem to require. I understood the hon. Baronet to say there is no proof that the revenues of the Crown, as they are now administered, would not fairly admit of an adequate provision being made out of them for the younger branches of the Royal Family, without making special application to Parliament. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: The savings out of the Crown revenues.] That is to say, the hon. Baronet assumes that the economies practised have been so large as to enable the Queen to dispense with the necessity of applying to Parliament. It is with reference to that that I wish to state there is not that difference beteen the past and present expenditure of Her Majesty and the Court as might be naturally supposed. My hon. Friend has gone back to a state of things before the death of the late lamented Prince Consort, and imagined the possibility of saving a sufficient sum out of the Royal income to dispense with the necessity of coming to Parliament for provision for the younger branches of the Royal Family. Since that period Her Majesty has not been able to reside in London to the degree which we all desire, and which she would herself have desired; yet many entertainments have been given at Buckingham Palace which have required proportionately a much larger expense in the removal of the establishment than would have been incurred if the Court had been more stationary in London. In point of fact, the difference in Court expenditure, between what it is now and what it was before the death of the Prince Consort, is but a very small difference relatively to so large a sum, and would not at all admit of that change which my hon. Friend appears to suppose. Well, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), who has also adverted to this subject,
  790
  has expressed a feeling which he entertains, and which in truth springs up spontaneously in the minds of everyone of us; but he has used an expression on which I would venture to comment. He says that if Her Majesty were to appeal more in the view of the community he is quite certain that she would gather again to her the hearts of all her people. I do not in the slightest degree quarrel with the spirit which I am sure prompts that expression; but I venture to say that Her Majesty, in the exemplary discharge of her public duty, has never lost that confidence and that respectful loyalty which has been founded upon a long experience of the personal qualities of the Queen in every function of Royalty. Those sentiments have undergone no change, and the feeling of regret to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given expression—and in which I have no doubt he carried with him the sympathy of many Members of the House—is not merely a feeling proving that the Queen has lost the hearts of her people, but is a feeling growing out of the very fact that she possesses those affections, and that the truth and strength of those affections make the people desirous of seeing the Queen among them. I have only to say upon that subject that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I feel certain, have observed with some satisfaction that during the present year Her Majesty has found herself able to undertake a great number of public duties, placing her in the view of the people, than has been the case for some years past. I venture also to express my conviction that, while I am sure no one would wish the Queen to go beyond the performance of her duties which health and strength will permit, it will be the earnest desire of Her Majesty to comply at all times with the wishes of her people by undertaking to discharge every function of a public character which she shall be advised or find herself able to perform.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he could not omit to notice one expression of the Prime Minister's, because he was afraid that from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman an impression would go abroad to the effect that the improvements in the Metropolis had diminished the value of the revenue derived from the Crown lands. Now, he did not think that the Votes

  791
  for the Crown should depend on what the Crown Lands produced. He was confident that the people of this country would always provide the amount that was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown without regard to whether the revenue of the Crown Lands increased or diminished. If this question were discussed, he could prove that the largest portion of the increase of that revenue was entirely due to the improvements that had been effected in the Metropolis, and to the great increase in the value of rents therein, and it was an illusion to say that if Hyde Park had been let on building leases a larger income would now be derived from the Crown lands.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow at Two of the clock.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st August.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 28 (Application of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125 to this Act.)
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 18, line 24, after "in," insert "section 3 of," in order to direct attention to the Interpretation Clause, where it was stated what "corrupt practices" should mean.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Election Offences.
  Clause 29 (Offences with respect to voting).
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in line 31, after "or," insert—
  "3. Falsely and deceitfully personates or applies for a ballot paper, or assumes to vote in the name of any other person whose name appears upon the register of electors, whether such other person shall then be living or dead, or the name of such other person be the name of a fictitious person."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, a highly penal code was being drawn up, and it was important to be careful in wording this clause, which should be separated into two parts—one relating to felonies, the other to misdemeanours. Personation and forgery were intimately associated, and were made felonies by
  792
  many statutes. The Vice President had said it would be too severe to visit personation with the same punishment as forgery; but a reference to Russell on Crimes would show that personation had always been regarded as an offence of the deepest dye. At an election personation was very serious, because one vote might decide the election of a Member, whose vote in that House might change the direction of legislation. Against unscrupulous persons who would resort to personation the Committee ought to protect themselves by inflicting a severe penalty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the reason why the clause was drawn as it stood in the Bill was because the Government, while admitting that personation was a great offence, did not think it right to impose a severe punishment, for that would only result in the discouragement of prosecutions. To interfere in this case would be to raise again very wide questions with respect to election offences.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he was quite willing to insert a provision limiting the punishment to penal servitude for seven years if that would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the whole question of offences was a very important one, and he could see no reason for departing from the scale of punishments which existed in the present law. The difficulty of procuring detection ought neither to increase nor diminish the penalty.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in line 33, after "ballot paper," insert—
  "Shall be guilty of felony, and be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the former decision should govern this question.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved, in page 18, line 34, leave out sub-sections 4 and 5, which provided penalties for the offence of endeavouring to secure the identification of voters. He considered the loss of the vote quite sufficient penalty for

  793
  the publicity; and the voter should be encouraged to vote rather than frightened from the poll by an accumulation of penalties.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that now that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit Clause 30 an elector would escape without punishment if he committed an offence for which a non-elector would be liable to two years' imprisonment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the Bill passed that year, as they hoped it would, they could reduce the penalties if the experience of the municipal elections warranted their doing so.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYobjected to offenders under these sub-sections being classed with forgers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sub-sections omitted.
  MR. COLLINSmoved the insertion of the word "fraudulently," so as to make it necessary before punishing a man for voting twice that he should have done so wilfully.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas of opinion that voting twice was and ought to be an offence, and he did not see how it could be put a stop to without a punishment being attached to it. Besides, as they all knew, a discretion in the administration of the punishment was vested in the tribunal.
  MR. GOLDNEYquestioned whether the mere application for a ballot paper a second time should constitute an offence, because he heard of cases from which it seemed to be commonly believed that it was not improper to vote first for A and then for B.
  MR. COLLINSconfirmed this as far as the North was concerned.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was desirable the attempt should be an offence in accordance with the ordinary practice in common law, and thought it might be left to the Judges to be lenient in cases of extreme ignorance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREENEobjected to the words in sub-section 8, which proposed to make a voter who "offers to vote" falsely liable to the same penalty (two years' imprisonment) as the voter who actually accomplished the offence. He moved, therefore, the omission of the words "offers to vote."
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 7, to leave out the words "or offers to vote."—(Mr. Greene.)
  MR. CANDLISHsympathized with the motive which prompted, this Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that their object was to prevent the accomplishment of the crime, and in order to do that effectually the attempt to commit it must also be strictly prohibited. It would be dangerous legislation to enable a man, without fear of punishment, to take all the preliminary steps towards recording a false vote.
  Question put, "That the words 'or offers to vote' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 37: Majority 95.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested that Section 9 (making liable to the penalty of two years' imprisonment anyone guilty of depositing in the ballot-box any paper other than the ballot paper given to him as an elector by the presiding officer) was too severe, and might well be modified. He moved the omission of the section.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that the term of two years' imprisonment was the maximum penalty for extreme cases—not one to be imposed in every case for all the offences mentioned in the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Minor offences at poll).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit the clause.
  MR. CHARLEYdesired to retain sub-section 6, which provided—
  "That any one refusing to disobey the lawful commands of the presiding officer given in execution of his duty as such, should be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should be glad to see at least the 1st section retained, which provided that if any person failed to vote (after being provided with a voting paper), and did not return the paper to the returning officer, he should be liable to the penalty of £10. He thought that unless this provision was retained the "Tasmanian dodge" would soon be introduced into our English elections.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsupported this. Sub-section 1 makes it penal for a voter to leave the polling-place without putting his paper in the box. If a man brought out a blank polling paper, it could be filled up by an agent and given to another voter, who could go in and put it in the ballot-box, returning his own blank paper to the agent on coming outside, who would be only too glad to give a sum of money for it, and might go on repeating the practice all day.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERknew there were good reasons for retaining the clause, and especially the 1st sub-section; but the Government thought it would be better to try the scheme without too many penal clauses, and the offence aimed at by the 1st section was forbidden by the last clause.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKagreed with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 31 (Infringement of secrecy).
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he had a strong objection to the imposition of additional penalties, and more particularly for the mere attempt to obtain information as to the manner in which a man voted, or even, as the clause provided, for offering an opinion on the subject. He therefore proposed the omission of sub-sections 1 and 2, which provide that if any of the persons employed—
  "Attempts by any means to obtain or assists any person in obtaining information as to the person for whom any elector votes, or offers any opinion or affords any information to any other person as to the vote which he knows, believes, or suspects any person to have given at an election."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was willing to strike out the words with reference to "offering an opinion" at the beginning of sub-section 2, but could not assent to the rest of the Amendment. If they were to have the Ballot at all, the presiding officer who took the votes, the clerk who assisted him, and the agent who was there to watch the proceedings in the interest of the candidate, ought not to be allowed either to ask the voter how he voted, or, if they found it out, to divulge the information they had obtained.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought it desirable to limit the time within which the offence might be committed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that in the United States the attempt to enforce secrecy had been made and had entirely failed. The New York Tribune, of the 11th July last, said—
  "It is by no means true that men constantly desert their avowed principles under the Ballot. On the contrary, party fealty is, if anything, too strong, and the readiness of the average elector to vote strictly in accordance with his avowed principles encourages conventions to nominate candidates who are personally unworthy, in the confidence that party discipline will secure their election. It is very much to be wished that the desertion of avowed principles, or, to speak more correctly, the scratching of tickets which contain objectionable names, were a great deal more common. It is a mistake to suppose that the Ballot facilitates an improper concealment of one's political faith. In America no man thinks of making a secret of his political principles, or professing the creed of one party and voting for the candidates of the other. Every voter may vote in secret if he chooses; but he is quite ready to tell all about his ballot if you ask him, and the Englishman who believes (as the Liberal opponents of the Ballot do) that the elector ought to face responsibility like a man and take the consequences of his action, would be perfectly satisfied with the operation of the secret vote as we have it in the United States. The truth is that in ordinary cases the Ballot is not secret at all; its value lies in the fact that any individual may make it secret so far as it relate to himself, whenever it suits him to do so."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Amendment. It was quite impossible that some of the sub-sections could be carried out, for many of the electors might not choose to keep their votes secret for any length of time.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the clause ought not be allowed to stand, and that it would be monstrous to subject a man to a term of imprisonment for merely offering an opinion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had agreed to the omission of those words. He had no objection to introduce in sub-section 1 the words "during the poll," after "attempts."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved that the parties employed at the election were to be punished not merely for attempting to obtain information, but for affording information which the voter himself might have given.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, that if the words "during the poll"

  797
  were to be applicable to the whole of the clause the objection would in a great measure be done away with.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the insertion of the words in question, he would consider whether they were consistent with the protection which the Bill was meant to secure to the voter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed at the beginning of the clause, after the word "employed," to insert the words "under this Act at any polling-place."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman removed the objection which he entertained to sub section 1, by making the penalty applicable to the divulging any information which he had officially obtained during the poll.
  Amendment (Mr. Scourfield), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
  MR. JAMESmoved an Amendment extending the penal effect of the subsection to any attempt to obtain that information between the time of the polling and the declaration of the poll.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved the omission of those words in the 2nd sub-section which rendered it penal for any person to offer an opinion as to the vote given by another.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved an Amendment providing that the penal effect of the 2nd sub-section, which rendered it penal to afford information as to the vote of any elector, should also be governed by the insertion of words which would confine the sub-section to such information as was afforded during the poll, or between the polling and the declaration of the poll. If such an Amendment were not made, no one would be found who would be sufficiently rash and reckless to accept the thankless office of presiding officer and be tonguetied.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he could not see any objection to the words as they stood. The mouths of Income Tax Commissioners were also stopped in a similar manner, but no inconvenience arose from that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved an Amendment providing that the information to be dealt with by the 2nd subsection should only be such information as was obtained under the 1st subsection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 32 (Destroying ballot papers or ballot boxes).
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 20, line 19, leave out "or," and insert—
  "And shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years nor less than three years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if such a thing was already a larceny, it would still remain so under this Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 33 (Breach of duty by returning officer. See 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 76. 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 65. s. 38).
  MR. CHARLEYmoved an Amendment, providing that the penalty should be increased from £100 to £500.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that this clause only provided a penalty for such breaches of duty as were not already dealt with under the other clauses. The other and larger penalties imposed by the Bill would also be in force.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Public notice by returning officer).
  MR. BRUENmoved that notice should be given in one "or more" newspapers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Disqualifications of returning officers).
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought there would be some difficulty with regard to the sheriffs in those cities which were counties of themselves, the sheriffs therein being the returning officers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALbelieved there would be no alteration made by the Bill in the existing law.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 39 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Definition of returning officer).
  MR. DIXONmoved, in sub-section b, line 36, leave out from "but acting with the assessors" to the end of the subsection, and insert in lieu thereof—
  "And that section forty-three of the Municipal Corporation Act, fifth and sixth of William the Fourth, chapter seventy-six, which provides for the election of ward assessors shall be and is hereby repealed, and so much of the said Act as requires Municipal Elections to be holden before assessors or their deputies shall not extend to Municipal Elections holden after the passing of this Act."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the words of the Amendment would go further than was necessary, and undertook to prepare a proper repealing section.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDNEYcalled attention to the phraseology of the clause, with the view of preventing both the sheriff and the mayor from acting as returning officer.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would look into the clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would have some conversation with his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) on the subject of the clause.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 44 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 48 to 51, inclusive, withdrawn.
  Clauses 52 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Application of Act to Ireland).
  MR. PIMsaid, he had an Amendment, which proposed to insert the words, in page 30, line 21—
  "And also any place the boundaries of which have been fixed and ascertained under the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or by any private local Act, and in which a register of voters is kept, and is revised every year."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he had to propose an Amendment similar in effect, but more technical in form, on the clause, the object being to extend the Act to towns under Town Commissioners in Ireland. The Bill, as originally
  800
  framed, did not include towns under Commissioners in Ireland, but was confined to municipal boroughs. Strong remonstrances had been made to him and to other Members of the Government against the exclusion of those towns from the operation of the Bill, inasmuch as towns similarly circumstanced in Scotland were included in the Bill. In Scotland the Police Act might be applied to towns with 700 inhabitants; but in Ireland the Act could not be applied to a town of less than 1,500 inhabitants, and it appeared to him and his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill that those towns under Town Commissioners should be brought within its scope. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the words of the Amendment which he proposed, and which were not on the Paper.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but merely to say that if the words had been on the Notice Paper the Irish Members would have had an opportunity of considering them in order to see whether they required any alteration.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) had precisely the same Amendment, and the non. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) had also a similar Amendment for three weeks on the Paper. His own Amendment differed from theirs in only being framed more technically, and it was practically their Amendment.
  MR. BRUENrepeated that the Amendment was not on the Paper, and the Committee could not therefore judge of it.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that if the Government intervened and accepted the Amendments that were proposed by hon. Members, they should either give notice of their intention to do so, or they should bring up the subject in the shape of a new clause on the Report. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Bruen) had great cause to complain of the conduct of the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would not have departed from the usual course but for the fact that he did not propose to make any addition whatever to the Amendments that had appeared on the Paper. He had a fancy that the form

  801
  of his Amendment was the better one; but, practically, it was the same thing.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that hon. Members who had not legal knowledge or acquaintance with technicalities could only deal as plain men with the circumstances as they came before the Committee, and endeavour to understand them. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement might be quite correct; but he had pursued a most unusual course. If the Government intended to adopt the Amendments of hon. Members, notice should have been given, and the Committee ought not to be hurried into this course.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it was quite a usual practice when an Amendment, especially of detail, was accepted by the Government to alter the wording so as to adapt it better to the object in view.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 56 (This Act, as far as consistent, to be construed with enactments now in force).
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, in page 31, line 16, to insert after "thereat" "so far as the same Laws, statutes, and usages are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no ground for making the proposed change.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Repeal of Acts).
  MR. HERMONsaid, as this was the last clause of the Bill, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) whether he was satisfied with the result of his labours, and whether now on mature reflection he did not think that several of the Amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side of the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman had contested, ought to have been accepted?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he was satisfied with the Bill, and that he had accepted all the Amendments from the other side which he thought would improve the Bill.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he was pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the measure. He confessed that he was not satisfied with
  802
  it; and it was a relief to his mind tha the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with his labours.

  NEW CLAUSES.
  THE CHAIRMANinformed the Committee that the Government had the privilege of proposing the new clauses which they wished to insert before new clauses could be proposed by any private Member.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed to insert, before Clause 7, the following clause—
  ("Time of notice of Election and of nomination and poll.)
  In a Parliamentary Election the returning officer shall give notice of the time and place at which he will proceed to the Election, and fix the day of Election, as follows (that is to say):

  1. In the case of a borough, he shall give such notice on or on the day after the day on which he receives the writ, and shall fix the day for the Election not later than the fourth day after that on which he receives the writ, and shall give not less than two clear days' notice of the day so fixed:

  2. In the case of an Election for a county, he shall give the said notice within two days after the day on which he receives the writ, and shall fix the day for the Election not later than the ninth day after that on which he receives the writ, and shall give not less than three clear day's notice of the day so fixed.

  The poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being in the case of a Parliamentary Election for a county or a combination of boroughs less than two nor more than six, and in the case of any other Parliamentary Election more than three, clear days after the day fixed for the Election."
  The right hon. Gentleman said, these periods had been fixed after a good deal of painful examination in order not to give more time than seemed absolutely necessary. The result was but a very little alteration in the present mode.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSinquired why, if the notice in the borough was to be given on the day on which the writ was received, or on the day after, it was not to be given in the county sooner than two days.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that at the last General Election in 1868, the shortening of the period for giving notice of the day of election (under an Act passed in that year) was attended with very beneficial results. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman had made the period for giving such notice as short as possible.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could state the difference between the present

  803
  law and the intended law. A little more time was necessary between the nomination and the day of election on account of the preparation of the ballot paper. As to boroughs, according to the present law, suppose the writ was received on July 1, the last day for giving notice would be on July 3. According to the proposed law the last day would be July 2. According to the present law the first day for nomination would be July 5; according to the proposed law it would be July 4. July 5 would be the last day for nomination, and also the first day for polling for boroughs. According to the present law the first day for polling would be July 6. The last day for polling for boroughs it was proposed should be July 9, according to the present law it was July 8. As to counties—again supposing that the writ was received on July 1—according to the present law the first day for nomination would be July 5; no alteration was proposed; the first day for polling, according to the present law, would be July 8; no alteration was proposed. But, according to the present law, the last day for nomination would be July 15; it was proposed to make July 10 the last day for nomination. The last day for polling, according to the present law, would be July 18; it was proposed that July 17 should be the last day for polling. He thought the clause had better be left as it was, and if it were desirable it could be altered on the Report.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the Government would consider the period between the reception of the writ and the giving of notice of the election.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is the same as now.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that otherwise they would be inviting people to carry on their election business by surprise. Suppose a man accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, it might be known to hardly anyone that a writ was issued. The writ might have been prepared beforehand, and it might go down the very day it was moved for; and could anyone say that three days was a fair notice, in a county that an election was to come off?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is not so.
  MR. HENLEY: The day of nomination was the day of election, if there was no opposing candidate.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is the same as now.
  MR. HENLEYasked how, in a county, it was possible for parties to know who would be put up? The time was altered some years back to six days. It was then considered only fair play to all parties that six days should intervene, because this gave full opportunity of the notice appearing in all the county papers, the only way in which information could be given in counties. In six days they were sure to take in the day of the election, and it was but fair play to the electors that they should know that a vacancy had occurred, and that they were called on to exercise their franchise. It would be impossible, in counties, that three days would give the necessary information. It would be a complete job, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not want that. The right hon. Gentleman left it to the returning officer to say how many days after the receipt of the notice the nomination should take place. In fairness and consideration to the returning officer the Committee ought to fix the number of days. Fix them, if they pleased, according to the number of the electors; but let not the returning officer be exposed to the insinuation which he would be exposed to if power was given to him of determining the time that was to elapse between the receipt of the writ and the day of polling.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was under some error. The time of notice from the receipt of the writ was not altered at all, neither was the first day for nomination altered; therefore there could be no greater surprise than now. It was true that under the clause the discretion of the returning officer as to the last day would be altered; but at present he might choose any day between the 5th and 15th (if the writ was issued on the 1st); but as he would be limited to between the 5th and the 10th, it was necessary to give him some discretion between the day of nomination and the poll. It was impossible to make a hard-and-fast line between the day of nomination and the day of poll, because the preparation of the ballot papers would vary in different counties according to their circumstances.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that the clause, in all but one respect, embodied the

  805
  scheme he had himself put on the Paper; but he thought that in the point on which it differed it was for the worse—namely, that it did not allow, as he had proposed, that there should be one clear day between the nomination and the poll. He feared that, unless this was given, a rival candidate might be started at the last moment, of whom neither the candidates nor the constituency could know anything, and the result would occasion great inconvenience.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the periods fixed for county elections by the Act of 1868 had worked very well, and he suggested that the precedent of the Act might be followed in regard to the interval between the nomination and the poll, the shorter the interval the better.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed that the shorter the interval the better, within proper limits; but he was convinced that the period he now proposed was necessary. At the same time, if hon. Gentlemen would think the point over, and would communicate with him before the Report, he should be glad as any of them could be to shorten the period. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Goldsmid's) suggestion, it seemed to him that if the returning officer could prepare the papers the election might well take place the day after the nomination; but in large towns that would sometimes, of course, not be possible.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he did not exactly see why the preliminaries should require more time in the counties than in the boroughs. The different periods, therefore, that were now proposed for towns and for counties required explanation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreminded the right hon. Gentleman that at present there was a difference in the time allowed to elapse between the day of nomination and that of the poll in boroughs and in counties. The matter would be left to the discretion of the returning officer. In large counties the preparation of the voting papers must necessarily take some hours.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that the effect of the clause in Ireland would be to deprive them of the clear day that now always elapsed between the day of nomination and the poll.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he thought that the sooner the polling followed the nomination the better.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHentirely coincided in that opinion, only he wished to see it applied to counties as well as to boroughs.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the clause would be much improved by the introduction of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid). A clear day between the nomination and the poll would be found indispensable in most boroughs.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagain explained the precise nature of the proposals contained in the clause, and in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester, he pointed out that the returning officer would not be obliged to take the polling the day after the nomination. It would be discretionary on his part.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that it had been overlooked that in counties there would be some difficulty in providing rooms fitted up for voting, unless there was full time allowed for doing so.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested that there should be one clear day between the nomination and the day of the election, as was the case in Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, why they should lengthen the time in English boroughs when the present time was found convenient?
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that under the new system polling places would require more fitting up than was required under the present system.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHproposed to amend the clause by substituting "6th" for "9th" in section 2 of the clause, and "4" for "6" in the third section, in order to make the period between the day of nomination and that of polling as short as possible.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that it would not be prudent to shorten the time more than he had already done.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that there was a special Act which shortened the time for the election of 1868, and that Act worked remarkably well.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he thought the time provided in the Bill was the least that should be allowed in counties.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERpointed out that county electors might have qualifications in various counties, and therefore it would not be desirable to have too many elections upon the same day.
  MR. GOLDSMIDproposed an Amendment to insert, after "Parliamentary election," "less than one nor."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed to insert after Clause 17 a clause with regard to polling-places.
  (Division of counties into polling districts.)
  (For the purposes of a Parliamentary Election every county in England shall be divided by the county authority (as hereinafter denned) of such county into polling districts, with a polling place assigned to each district, and arranged in such manner that, so far as is reasonably practicable, an elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding four miles from his residence (so, nevertheless, that a polling district need not in any case be constituted containing less than one hundred registered electors); and the county authority shall, by the same or any subsequent order, determine the polling places at which the revising barristers are to hold their courts,)—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)
  The right hon. Gentleman said, he hoped that this clause would carry into effect the expressed wish of the Committee.
  Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had taken time to consider this matter; but he did not think that the clause proposed would be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the distance of four miles within which every resident elector, as far as reasonably practicable, should have a polling-place. Now, he thought the meaning of these words, "as far as reasonably practicable," would be that the polling-place should only be within that distance of the large majority of the electors. Especially in the less populous districts there would be many men who had to go much more than four miles before they could vote. For that reason he was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated his reasons for adopting the distance of four miles instead of two miles, as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had proposed. A four mile distance had many of the faults of the present system, and few of the merits of a real multiplication of polling-places. Like all half-and-half measures it was open to objections on both sides. Many of the electors would be disinclined to walk the additional distance, while, on the other hand, the expense of the conveyance of voters to the poll,
  808
  which was borne by the candidates, would only be very slightly diminished. In the Amendment which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would presently move to the clause, he had adopted the three mile distance in order to meet the wishes of the Government as far as he could, and also because there was a precedent for such a distance in the provisions of the Education Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman might say that children of tender age could not be compared with electors; but the Committee must bear in mind that they were legislating not only for rich voters with carriages, and for young and healthy voters, but for old, poor, and feeble electors. A limit of three miles was by no means unreasonable, and he did not see what objection it was open to, especially as any single polling-place at an ordinary county election ought only to cost about £10.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would postpone his reply until the hon. Baronet's Amendment was before the Committee.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the limit adopted by the right hon. Gentleman a very illiberal one. He thought every parish ought to have a polling-place. Parish officers ought to be the persons to take the votes of the parishioners. He objected to the idea of the candidates having agents at every polling-place. The parish officers were to be trusted to discharge this duty as they were trusted at present in counties and in boroughs to place the greater portion of the electors on the register. By a proper development of parochial authority and responsibility much expense could be got rid of and arrangements much simplified.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had submitted a plan adapted to the future. When the First Lord of the Admiralty had carried his Bill for reforming local government, he might act on the suggestion which, had just been made; but the regulations the Committee had already made with regard to presiding officers were not such that the duties could now be safely intrusted to overseers. In many parts of the kingdom the parishes were small, and he could hardly suppose that under any circumstances there would be a polling-place in every parish. The hon. Member would admit that his suggestion

  809
  would hardly suit our present circumstances.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped, at all events, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider those suggestions before he re-introduced his Dill next year. Any legislation must as far as possible be of a permanent character; and therefore he trusted that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether some parochial authority could not be introduced into the Bill. It was hardly worth while discussing the matter now, as they would have to discuss it at another time. Small parishes could be combined, as they were for school boards under the Education Act.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment for reducing the distance from four miles to two.
  MR. DIMSDALEmoved, as an Amendment, the omission of the words "so far as is reasonably practicable," which were used in reference to fixing the districts for the polling-places. The Quarter Sessions would have to make the arrangements for fixing those districts, and it would be a great evil to have party discussions at the Quarter Sessions on such a subject. The direct terms on which such arrangements were to be made should be laid down, so that the Court of Quarter Sessions might know what they were to do and what they were not to do.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if the hon. Member would visit him in the autumn, they could take a walk of 20 or 30 miles across the moors, and he would then see that it would be impossible not to leave some discretion, because it would be unreasonable to provide polling-places for the sparse population.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHrepeated that it would be most convenient to adopt the arrangement he had suggested. No man could object to go to the centre of his parish, and if he were more than four miles from it that would be his misfortune.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved to insert three instead of four in reference to the number of miles within which the polling-places should be brought to the residence of electors. He said the proposals of the Government were more liberal for Ireland
  810
  than for England. The Returns for Irish counties showed that, in proportion to population, they would have many more polling-places than English counties were likely to have. In the case of his own county he did not think the Amendment would make much difference, because the limit of 100 electors would leave things much as they were now.
  Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out the word "four," and insert the word "three,"—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Baronet must bear in mind the clause did not propose any limit of four miles as a minimum; it would leave it to the discretion of the county authorities to make the distance as much loss as they liked. It would be going too far to propose compulsion with reference to a less distance than four miles. There was no analogy between children going to school every day, and electors going to the poll once in three or four years. It was possible that hereafter they might find it necessary to go further; but considering the expense that was likely to be incurred by the change, and that it was to be borne by the candidates, it was going far enough to make the four-mile distance compulsory, leaving a discretion with reference to a less distance.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that by putting a polling-place within reach of every voter they would save the expense of conveying voters to the poll. He believed it would be found many voters would not walk even three miles to record their votes.
  MR. COLLINSurged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment for the convenience of electors.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreferred to suggestions he had previously offered to the Committee, one of which was that the county voter should be placed as nearly in the same position as the borough voter in regard to the facilities for going to the poll. The second suggestion he made was that the polling-places should be situate at such distances as to enable workpeople to record their votes during the dinner hour, so that they might be freed from the effects of any influence on the part of their employers. He had thought these suggestions, being consistent with the principle of the Bill,

  811
  would have been adopted, and he deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not given them some consideration in this clause. He should now therefore support the Amendment.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYobjected to the multiplication of polling-places, because a multiplication of expenses would follow, as election agents would probably require to have a confidential clerk, and well paid, at each polling-place. He did not think that the distance as between three miles and four miles would much affect the aged and infirm, for many persons who could walk three could, also walk four miles.
  COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. In canvassing the poorer voters they were very often told—"I voted at the last election for so-and-so, and have never been paid for my day's work." Many such voters would not walk even one mile, and the clause would disfranchise hundreds and thousands of county electors.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Committee ought to consider what would be the inconvenience or loss to the electors if the clause were passed. How were they to be repaid for the loss of their day's wages in walking to the poll? It was only reasonable and right that the distance of the polling-booths should be reduced as much as possible, in order to save the time and labour of the working classes.
  MR. EASTWICKwished the distance could be reduced even to one mile. If a man had to walk four miles to the poll and four back, he would at least lose three hours, which would be tantamount to a day's wages. No poor voter could afford such a sacrifice, and as for the aged and infirm such a distance was out of the question.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he would vote for the Amendment because he held the limit of three miles would save expense, and do away with the necessity of carrying voters to the poll, that being the greatest of all objections in county elections. Under the Education Act they would have school-houses at a distance not exceeding three miles, and he hoped that it would be made compulsory that they should be used as polling-places.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the reason why the Government proposed four
  812
  miles was that it being in the power of the county magistrates to make the distance much less they thought no harm could be done and that this was a fair figure. The probability, moreover, was that supposing the four mile standard was adopted a large majority would only have about a mile to walk.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought the electioneering agents would have the best of it under the proposed conditions.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the question was solely one affecting the convenience of voters. His object was that the House should be a fair representation of the constituencies, and this could not be the case unless the utmost facility for voting existed.
  MR. PELLpointed out that under the law as it now stood the county magistrates might make as many polling-places as they liked, and the Bill only said that the distance must in no case exceed four miles.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment, as in many counties without it voters would, to a large extent, be disfranchised. In the county he represented (Middlesex) there were at the last Election 18 polling-places to 25,000 electors, and he could state that there was no point on which the electors were so sore as that in regard to the paucity of polling-places, though the county was really a small one. He trusted the Committee would accept the Amendment.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had not heard one conclusive argument for the preference of the figure four to three. In spite of existing Acts, for causes into which he did not care to go, magistrates had not provided sufficient polling-places. If the Amendment was not carried magistrates would divide the counties into districts, with the polling-places separated from each other by eight miles.
  Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 83: Majority 76.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpointed out that in many districts with which he was acquainted the union of as many as 10 or 12 parishes would be necessary to furnish the stipulated quota of 100 electors. He proposed, accordingly, to substitute 50.
  Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out the words "one hundred," and insert the word "fifty."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  COLONEL BARTTELOTbelieved the reduction to be absolutely necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the same argument applied as in the former case. The magistrates already had a discretionary power, and he did not think it wise to go further in the direction of compulsion than the Bill already went.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the magistrates already possessed many discretionary powers which were not exercised—such, for instance, as the power to form highway districts and to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the magistrates generally declined to interfere unless applications were made from individual parishes, which were not very probable if the effect were in any way to increase expense.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Bill contained so many new matters that one must assume that the magistrates would regard any figures contained in the Bill as indicative of the wishes of the Legislature. Accordingly, it was very desirable to adopt the reduced limit of 50.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. Members taking part in the discussion upon this clause were themselves active magistrates, and no doubt would exercise much influence in their respective districts in having the discretionary powers of the former Act exercised.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment, said, it was because hon. Members had already tried and failed that they were anxious to have these Amendments introduced into the Bill.
  Question put, "That the words 'one hundred' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 89: Majority 69.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthen moved the ollowing clause:—
  "For the purposes of a Parliamentary Election, the borough authority (as hereinafter defined) of every Parliamentary borough in England, shall take into consideration the division of such borough
  814
  into polling districts, and, if they think it desirable, by order, divide such borough into polling districts, in such manner as they may think most convenient for taking the votes of the electors at a poll."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked how far the polling-places were to be distant from each other?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was almost impossible to define what the distance was to be.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that provision should be made for having polling-places in every ward.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERconsidered that it would be well to leave the matter to the discretion of the several boroughs.
  Clause agreed to.
  New Clause—
  (In England, any room in a public elementary school shall be deemed to be a room to which section thirty-seven of "The Representation of the People Act, 1867," applies, and may be used with such consent as therein mentioned for the purpose of taking the poll at a Parliamentary Election,)—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was possible that persons having control over a school room might raise some frivolous objection to its use, or might have some reluctance to its being used for the purpose of polling. He therefere proposed that the power should be made compulsory, not only with regard to the use of school rooms, but to any room to which the Act applied.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "with," to insert the words "or without."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsupported the Amendment, on the ground that it was better to save school managers from the odium of political partizanship which might be involved in exercising a discretion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could have no objection to compulsion in respect of schools if it extended to other public rooms.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTwas opposed to compulsory powers being introduced into the clause, and pointed out that many of the schools were close to churches.
  MR. KINNAIRDcould see no objection to using a school room for a national purpose. Neither could he see any

  815
  harm in its being near to a church. The hon. Member for Kent ought to be the last man to make such an objection, seeing that he celebrated his last election by a demonstration or celebration in a parish church.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTobserved that the hon. Gentleman was hardly in Order in making such a remark.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he had a right to allude to the circumstance, as he was one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In the county of Perth, where strong religious feelings prevailed, churches even were constantly used by the people for political purposes by general consent, and there was no idea that there was any desecration of the edifices involved in doing this. On some occasions he had often himself occupied the pulpit, when engaged in a purely political duty.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he did not know what they did in Perthshire; but he could assure the hon. Member that nothing of the kind took place in Kent, and he denied that his return had been celebrated in any parish church.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENthought it would be a great improvement to make the clause compulsory.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERfeared that the possession of a discretionary power might occasionally lead to a bitterness of feeling.
  MR. COLLINSsuggested that some provision should be made for compensating the managers for any damage done to the school room.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, of course if the clause was compulsory such a provision must be added. If the managers had power to refuse their consent, they could make their own bargain.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment, as he intended to extend its application to corresponding schools in Scotland.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would not press the Amendment which he had on the Paper; but he considered it rather an extreme measure to give a compulsory power to use schools which were not the property of the State.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErecommended that some allowance should be made for the loss of time of the school caused by the use of the building for election purposes.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think any hardship would arise, because elections only occurred once in three or four years.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTobserved that in country districts it was difficult to get the requisite number of attendances of scholars, and if school rooms were taken without the consent of the managers the Parliamentary grant would be diminished.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the present arrangements for pay were based upon the assumption that there would be a considerable number of holidays in the year, and the manager would include the days during which the school was closed at an election amongst the holidays.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONconsidered it a small matter that in rural districts school rooms should be given up once in three, four, or seven years, for a great public service.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would be impracticable, as the holidays occurred at fixed times.
  MR. BIRLEYwas of opinion that if no choice was left to the manager some compensation should be given to him.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 43: Majority 147.
  MR. COLLINSmoved to limit the operation of the clause to elementary schools in receipt of public grants.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the wording of the clause would require some little alteration on the Report, as it was rather brusque to say the schools should be used with or without the consent of the manager, although that was the result to be attained in effect. He undertook, at the same time, to make the clause apply to those schools which were in receipt of public money. He was ready likewise to extend the same principle to the schools in Scotland.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved the addition at the end of Clause D of the following proviso:—
  "Provided always, That the returning officer of any county or borough shall be liable to make good any damage done to such room, or any expense

  817
  incurred by the person or corporation having control over the same, on account of its being used for the purpose of taking the poll as aforesaid."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERmoved to add at the end of the clause—
  "That the occupation of any room in an unoccupied house for taking the poll shall not render such house liable to be rated."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.
  MR. PELLthen moved that the Chairman report Progress, as there were many Orders on the Business Paper, and he thought their consideration should not be delayed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the object of the Government was to finish the Bill, so as to make way for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) on Friday. He added that if the Bill were passed through Committee he would consent that no other Order should be taken.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)proposed certain provisions for the purpose of increasing the number of polling-places in Ireland.
  New Clause—
  (In every county in Ireland when in relation to such county any order made under the provisions of this Act is in force, every place in which petty sessions are at the time of the passing of this Act held shall be a place for taking the poll at contested elections of Members to serve in Parliament for such county, and every such place is in this Act referred to as "a polling place."
  The chairman of quarter sessions and the justices of the peace having jurisdiction in any county or riding in Ireland, assembled at any general or quarter sessions which may be held before the first day of February next after the passing of this Act, shall make an order in relation to every polling place within such county or riding, uniting such and so many townlands, parts of townlands, places, and areas, as they may think fit to constitute the polling district for such polling place.
  A copy of every such order shall forthwith be sent by the clerk of the peace for such county or riding to the clerk of the Privy Council in Ireland, who thereupon shall take such steps as may be necessary for submitting the same for confirmation by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland, in the manner by this Act provided, and such order shall not be of any validity until the same has been so confirmed.
  Notice of the intended submission of any such order shall be given at least one month before the day fixed for such confirmation by the clerk of the
  818
  said Privy Council by the publication of such notice and order in some newspaper circulating within such county or riding to which such order has reference.
  It shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, on the day fixed for the intended confirmation of any such order, to confirm the same as it stands, or with such variation, alteration, or modification as may seem fit: Provided always, That where any person is dissatisfied with any such order it shall be lawful for such person, within ten days after the publication of the notice of the intended submission for confirmation of such order, to appeal against the same, and such appeal shall be in writing, stating the grounds thereof, and shall be signed by such person, and shall within such time be lodged with the clerk of the Privy Council; and it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, previous to the confirmation of any such order, to hear and determine such appeal against the same, and to make such order as to the costs of such appeal as may seem meet.
  When any such order has been confirmed as aforesaid, the clerk of the said Privy Council shall transmit a copy of the same to the clerk of the peace of the county or riding to which the same relates, and shall cause the same to be published once in the Dublin Gazette, and once in the newspaper in which the notice of intended confirmation was published.
  Every such order shall, so far as is required for the purpose of framing the lists of voters, take effect on the first day of June next after the order is confirmed, and so far as it relates to the register of voters and to taking the poll, shall take effect on the first day of January next following such first day of June: Provided always, That at any Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for any county to which any such order relates held after the making of any such order, and before the register of voters to be formed subsequently to the date of the making of such order shall be in force, the poll shall be taken as if no such order had been made.
  The provisions of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-two, in relation to the registration of voters and the revision of the list of voters, when any declaration or order such as is mentioned in the said Act has been made, shall extend and apply to every case in which any order has been made under the authority of this section in like manner as if such sections were herein re-enacted, and the orders to which the same refer or apply were orders made under the authority of this section.
  All precepts, notices, and forms relating to the registration of voters shall be framed and expressed in such manner and form as may be necessary for the carrying the provisions of this Act into effect.
  When the chairman of quarter sessions and justices of the peace having jurisdiction in any county or riding in Ireland, assembled at any such general or quarter sessions as aforesaid, or at any subsequent quarter sessions, are of opinion that for the purpose of affording further facilities for polling at contested Elections, there should be polling places in addition to the places where petty sessions are held at the time of the passing of this Act, they may, by an order to be made at the same quarter

  819
  sessions or at any subsequent quarter sessions, in like manner and subject to the same provisions as are in this section contained in relation to orders to be made under the authority of the same, appoint such other places to be polling places as they shall think fit, and shall constitute polling districts for such polling places.
  No Election shall be questioned by reason of any polling district not having been constituted in conformity with the provisions of this Act, or by reason of any informality relative to any polling district.
  When any day fixed for taking the poll at any Election is the day fixed for the holding of the petty sessions court at any polling place, the court shall stand ipso facto adjourned till the next day, which shall in that case be the legal day for holding said court, and, if that day be a Sunday or legal holiday, till the next day,)—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONapproved these provisions upon the whole, and suggested that no power to select school houses for the purpose of taking the poll should be given, for the question of allowing school rooms to be used for that purpose was a much more difficult one in Ireland than in England.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that it was provided that every petty sessional court-house should be a polling place, and that the justices at the Court of Quarter Sessions might order other polling-places. On the Report, if the Committee so wished, he would add words to prevent schools from being used as polling-places.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he hoped that the power of ordering additional polling-places would be left to the chairman of Quarter Sessions, and that the words "and that justices of the peace" would be omitted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 13, after the words "polling place," to insert the words "and arranged in such manner that, so far as is reasonably practicable, an elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding four miles from his residence (so, nevertheless, that a polling district need not in any case be constituted containing less than one hundred registered electors)."—(Mr. Bruen.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)opposed the Amendment as unnecessary.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 109: Majority 40.
  MR. J. LOWTHERproposed, after sub-section 2, to add—
  "In Ireland any room in a school aided by Government grants may be used by the returning officer for the purpose of taking the poll at Parliamentary elections."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, convent schools in Ireland received Government grants, and the Amendment would, include them; but he could not consent to such schools being used for the purpose of polling places. He had no objection to insert a power to justices of the peace to select such school-houses as they should think proper for the purposes of polling.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)proposed to insert the words "Provided that any suitable school receiving the Government grant may be adopted," at the end of sub-section 9.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwas willing to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman in lieu of his own.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MAJOR WALKER (for Mr. GORDON)moved the insertion of the following new clauses:—
  (Polling places in Scotland.)
  "With respect to the division of counties in Scotland into polling districts, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  "1. Each sheriff shall, with the consent of Her Majesty's Advocate for Scotland for the time being, from time to time, hereafter increase or otherwise alter the number, situation, or arrangement of the existing places or districts in his county, in such manner that, so far as is reasonably practicable, an elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence (so, nevertheless, that a polling district need not in any case be constituted containing less than fifty registered electors.)

  "2. Subject to the provisions of sub-section one hereof, the provisions of the second and third sections of the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-eight, shall remain in full force and effect."

  In many counties in Scotland the electors had to travel 10, 15, and sometimes even 20 miles, to get to the polling-places, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that some such provision as that which he moved should be embodied in the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the clause. Under the existing law, the sheriff was empowered to multiply the number of polling-places and make other necessary arrangements; but the electors had the power of dissenting from his arrangements, or he might be compelled to act on a petition being presented by not fewer than ten of their number. He believed that the working of the law had been satisfactory.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that in the county with which he was connected there were only two polling-places, which were 32 miles apart. One of them was seven miles from the railway. He was at a loss to understand why the electors had not petitioned the sheriff for better arrangements. But there was at present no law compelling the sheriff to provide adequate polling-places, and he was unable to see why the Lord Advocate did not enforce the same arrangements for Scotland as had proved satisfactory in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
  LORD GARLIESexpressed astonishment at the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate had stated that it was open to the electors to make application to the sheriff to provide a greater number of polling-places. He knew that before the last election there was a special application made to the sheriff for Wigtonshire for more polling-places, and that application was treated with contempt. In his county the voters had to come as far as 25 miles to the poll, and as in England the electors were to have polling-places within four miles, he thought the claims of his countrymen to be placed, in a similar position should be allowed.
  MR. MILLERstated that his experience was quite the reverse of that stated by the noble Lord. At the last election in one of the counties with which he was connected, an application was made to the sheriff for additional polling-places, and there was no difficulty in the matter at all. But supposing that this clause were inserted in the Bill, the voters might still have to go as many miles to the poll, and in such counties as Aberdeenshire or Argyleshire they might have to go 30 or 35 miles. He thought that as far as polling-places were concerned, the electors of Scotland were in a very good position.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it appeared that in Scotland there were sheriffs and sheriffs, and that some would give facilities which the others withhold. He wished to get rid of the anomaly, and that it would be a monstrous thing if the country should refuse to give to Scotland what they had already insisted upon for England.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not aware of the occasion of the surprise of his noble Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Lord Garlies), because the whole of his (the Lord Advocate's) statement referred to the statute law of the land, and he would undertake to say that what he said was strictly correct. As to the noble Lord's statement that the electors of the county of Wigtonshire had petitioned the sheriff, and that the sheriff had treated that petition with silent contempt, he ventured to say, without knowing anything of the particular circumstances, but knowing the sheriffs of Scotland, that the statement must be inaccurate. There was certainly no sheriff in Scotland who would dare to treat a petition presented to him under the Act of Parliament with silent contempt. If he were to do so he would violate the statute, and would in all probability be removed from his office. There were not sheriffs and sheriffs in this matter. Every sheriff had a statutory form to guide him, and if such a petition was presented to him, he must proceed in the manner prescribed in the Act.
  MR. CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Scotch county voters at present were in a much better position than the county voters in England, because every ten electors could petition the sheriff and get polling-places arranged to their satisfaction, subject to appeal to the Lord Advocate.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that it had been overlooked by all his hon. Friends that while it was true that any ten electors could present a petition calling on the sheriff to appoint additional polling-places, it was equally true that any other ten electors could present a petition against their being given; and the result was that the decision was left to the judgment or caprice of the sheriff. The sheriffs were no doubt very estimable and excellent men; but probably English Members were not aware of the exact position which the sheriff occupied in

  823
  Scotland, for it was very different from the position of a sheriff in England. A sheriff in Scotland was a stipendiary magistrate appointed by the Lord Advocate. Therefore, the appeal from the sheriff to the Lord Advocate was an appeal from the Lord Advocate's nominee to himself.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, as the opposition to the clause seemed to have taken everybody by surprise, and could only have a political motive, it would be better to report Progress until tomorrow.
  After some further discussion, Motion to report Progress withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House, That Mr. Speaker was unable to return to the Chair during the present sitting of the House.
  Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.