HC Deb 17 July 1871 vol 207 cc1903-18

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Mode of taking the Poll.

Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling.)

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

, in rising to move the substitution of the word "each" for "the" in the first line of the 2nd sub-section, said, that the object of this and the other verbal Amendments he proposed to make was that the returning officer should provide a separate voting paper for each candidate. He believed that this would be a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this measure to explain what mode he intended to employ for the purpose of taking this vote by ballot, for upon that point the Committee were still in the dark. The Times of that morning, in an article on the subject, had described it as The rudest form of compulsory secret voting that it was in the power of a Parliamentary draftsman to imagine, and that description he maintained to be thoroughly accurate. He might add that in spite of the chaos in which they were left on Friday afternoon last, none of the Law Officers of the Crown were now on the Treasury bench, and the right hon. Gentleman was deserted even by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who had hitherto so frequently acted as amicus curiæ. He maintained that the Amendment he now begged leave to move would tend to avoid mistakes, and would be more easily dealt with by the electors.

THE CHAIRMAN

intimated that the Amendments placed in his hands were not those to carry into effect the objects which the hon. Gentleman contemplated.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not attempt to defend the drawing up of the Bill in all its details, but would be ready at any moment to answer any questions respecting it. The objects of the Government, shortly, were that the voter upon going in should receive from the returning officer, and from no one else, his voting paper; that the same official paper should be used by every voter; that the voter should vote in secret; and that the vote should be finally stamped before being put into the box. It was possible that the mode of voting suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might be more easily understood than the Government proposal; but the vote, if so given, would also be more easily detected by those who might desire to influence the voter, and it would have the effect of degrading vote by ballot, as it would destroy the secrecy of the proceeding; and for that reason it was impossible for the Government to agree with the Amendment.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thought the hon. Member's (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) proposition worse than the Government's. It was open to two objections. The stupid voter would not understand it, and the knave would find means of getting unused voting papers into the box.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, his experience at the last election for the Corps Legislative proved that the vigilance of the returning officer's representatives would prevent fraudulent voting.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was in favour of prescribing the form in which the votes should be given to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in connection with the voting for the school board, when in Marylebone alone 600 votes had been lost. The word "Ballot" having been struck out in the Lords the Amendment was agreed to on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, on the eve of the election, issued purely on his own authority a ukase, prescribing minutely how the votes should be given and recorded, and making infringement of his orders penal.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

suggested that a simple form of ballot paper ought to be issued by the returning officer; that they should be all printed in the same type and on the same paper; and that there should be some precaution taken to guard against the use of spoiled papers.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked that his object was to make the process of voting as simple as possible, and asked that any suggestions hon. Members might desire to make with that object should be put in writing.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he should support the Amendment because he believed it would secure to the voter that power of discrimination among a number of candidates from which he would be practically debarred by the evil practice of ticket voting as it prevailed in the United States.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, on the contrary, said, the proposition in the Bill would more surely prevent ticket voting, because the official voting paper handed to the voter would contain the names of all the candidates instead of only those put forward by a single party.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, in explanation, he desired the paper to be official, but to contain only one name.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not think the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had yet been met—namely, that a voter would have the opportunity of helping himself to spoiled papers, and of using them dishonestly. As a proof of the danger attaching to that proposal, he might mention that in the progress of the plébiscite, in reference to the transfer of Savoy and Nice to the French Empire, the official presiding over one division, finding that the voters did not come to the poll, assuming that "silence gave consent," placed all the affirmative papers into the electoral urn. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would guard against any difficulty of that kind. The regulations should be put in some conspicuous position, for no object could be gained by printing minute details upon the actual paper. ["Order!]

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

considered that his Amendment raised an important principle. In past Sessions the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) and his friends had frequently advocated the adoption of the system in operation at Maryport and some other seaport towns, and therefore his proposition was entirely in accordance with precedent.

Amendment negatived.

MR. KAVANAGH

, in the absence of his Colleague the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), proposed an Amendment to insert in page 3, line 19, after "shall," the words, "be endorsed personal-tender ballot paper."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Carlow intended to bring up a new clause on that point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, an Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper in his name on the subject of personation. The question had been really discussed, however, on an Amendment previously moved, and he would not, therefore, re-open the discussion, though he thought his scheme simpler and more effective than that which had been before the Committee. At the same time he wished to repeat his impression that personation was one of the most serious defects of the Bill.

MR. CHARLEY

proposed at page 3, line 20, to leave out "as near as may be in alphabetical order," in order to insert "in the order of nomination." He believed that under the clause, as it now stood, much confusion would arise in the distribution of votes, and not only that, but he had an insuperable objection to mixing up Liberal and Conservative candidates.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would agree to omit from the words "as nearly as may be in alphabetical order" the words "as nearly as may be."

MR. CHARLEY moved that in line 20, the word "alphabetical" be left out. He said it was always a matter of courtesy that the sitting Members should be first proposed, and then the candidates whose addresses had been first issued.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out the word "alphabetical."—(Mr. Charley.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to move that the word "alphabetical" be omitted in order to insert "the order of nomination."

THE CHAIRMAN

No; the Motion is simply to omit the word "alphabetical."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would in that case agree with the hon. Member, because he himself intended to propose the omission of the word "alphabetical" in order to insert the word "such."

MR. E. POTTER

said, he also objected to the alphabetical order, and recommended that the arrangement should rest with the returning officer, or that each candidate should stand first upon an equal number of cards.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

suggested that the order should be determined by lot by the returning officer.

MR. GOLDNEY

strongly objected to that, and thought the best course would be to follow the order of nomination. Perhaps the difficulty might be got over by printing the names in a line instead of one under the other.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, they would go to a division under very awkward circumstances if the word "alphabetical" was to be struck out; and they did not know what word was to be put in its place. He thought it might be very fairly open to the consideration of the Committee whether it would not be better to amend the principle of the alphabetical arrangement than to adopt the principle of selection by lot, which of all the proposals was one of the least satisfactory. There was something in alphabetical order, because the voters generally would know who the candidates were, and whether their own man stood first, or third, or fourth. There was also something to be said in favour of the candidates being placed in the order of their nominations.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) was open to objection. He had no objection to the candidates being arranged alphabetically if the Committee preferred it; or, suppose they agreed that the order should be determined by lot, he would undertake that the order in which they stood should be published immediately.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, he strongly contended for the arrangement by alphabetical order, which would give one uniform method throughout the kingdom, and was not capable of giving rise to disputes.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he elected to abide by his original proposal that the names should be placed in alphabetical order, which seemed to find most favour, and, therefore, he must divide against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) proposing the order of nomination. However, he promised to consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), that the names should be printed from left to right, instead of from top to bottom.

MR. G. BENTINCK

said, he thought that the discussion which had taken place showed that the Bill was very imperfectly drawn.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he believed that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) would prevent any one candidate having the slightest advantage over any other candidates.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he was afraid that many of the electors would not know which of the candidates was of their own party, and to obviate that difficulty, he suggested that the names of the candidates should be printed in such colour as they might choose.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not accede to the suggestion, which he could assure the right hon. Baronet, he had, prior to that evening, had under his consideration. He objected to recognising in an Act of Parliament the old system of candidates of different parties assuming particular colours.

MR. CHARLEY

said, that he had an insuperable objection to separating the names of candidates of the same political opinions. They might adopt the system of lot in reference to nominations, so that the parties getting first there should not necessarily have precedence.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that he should, in the first instance, put the question, that the word "alphabetical" should be omitted.

Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 71; Noes 16: Majority 55.

MR. LEATHAM moved, in page 3, line 20, after "order," to leave out to end of line 22. He did so with the object of simplifying the method of voting by enabling the voter to scratch out the names of those he did not vote for, instead of making crosses and squares. The Bill proposed the South Australian method. He approved the Victorian method, which had been adopted by three other colonies.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it was of great importance that the addresses and descriptions of candidates should be inserted, as otherwise much confusion would be likely to arise; for that reason he should oppose the Amendment.

MR. M'MAHON

said, the omission suggested had been proposed from the fact that the descriptions and residences of the candidates had been left out in the South Australian Code, and had been found to work well. He had placed on the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the names of the candidates should be printed in alphabetical order, with their residences, as was done in South Australia.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he must oppose the Amendment, as the plan of striking out names would, in his opinion, produce much misunderstanding. He hoped the printed square would be retained.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that if they ommitted the residences and descriptions, they would certainly have to provide for the case of two candidates of the same name. If they went into the question of whether the name should be struck out or inserted in a square, they might discuss it till the middle of September. It was a matter of comparatively small importance, and he should recommend hon. Members who wished to argue it, first to read the celebrated discussion in Gulliver's Travels between the Big-endians and the Little-endians. On the whole, he thought, to make the matter more certain, they had better retain both the description and the square.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he thought it essential that the addresses and descriptions of the candidates should be given, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.

MR. LEATHAM

said, that as regarded the first part of his Amendment, the difficulty had been met by the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council as to two candidates of the same name coming forward. He therefore would withdraw that portion of his Amendment, and with regard to the other portion he proposed to follow the same course.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was important that the voter should be able to see at a glance the name of the person for whom he intended to vote, and therefore the cross should be placed close to the name. The surname should be printed in large type, and where there were more than one candidate of the same name then give the Christian name, and let the two be printed in different size type. Printing the names in colours would lead to fraud.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thanked the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) for withdrawing his Amendment. He thought the schedule might be improved, and he would undertake to give the matter his consideration, with a view to making it as simple and clear as possible.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

advocated the adoption of colours because, from the ignorance of many electors, they would, he feared, when left alone, either vote for the first two names on the list, or give votes which would be invalid.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GOLDNEY

proposed an Amendment relative to the position of the square on the voting paper.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Amendment had better not be pressed until he had brought up a new schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In line 22, after the word "square," to add the words "with a number corresponding with such alphabetical order inserted in such square."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he saw no objection to the addition. There would be an advantage in electors knowing before the day of election the number as well as the names of the candidates.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the objection was that the numbers would not be known before voting.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

objected, on the ground that the difficulties of the uneducated voter would be increased by the squares being occupied by figures.

MR. J. LOWTHER

also objected to the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if it was not already provided in the Bill, he would undertake there should be a provision to the effect that the form of the voting paper should be published as soon as possible after the nomination.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 89; Noes 55: Majority 34.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert at the end of the clause, the words "and the squares opposite the candidate's name shall be printed in the colours of the candidates," in order to enable illiterate voters, who would otherwise be at the mercy of the returning officers, to record their votes correctly and by the simplest method.

Amendment proposed, After the words "inserted in each square," to add the words "and the squares opposite the candidate's name shall be printed in the colours of the candidate."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Bill sufficiently provided a method simple enough to enable a voter to know whom he voted for. Whether it did or not, the Government strongly objected against any recognition of colours under that Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

maintained that the use of colours to distinguish the candidates would provide the easiest method, and it was highly important the people should have every assistance in recording their votes that could be given to them.

MR. MONK

said, he must express a hope that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would give way upon this point. Both the educated and the uneducated voters in the constituencies generally voted a great deal according to colour.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

observed that colour was one of the most essential things in guiding the voter to a proper vote that could possibly be imagined.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was sorry that he could not accede to the appeal that had been made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk); but he did not wish to embody in an Act of Parliament the notion that a large mass of voters thought more of colour than anything else; and he believed there would be practical difficulties in the way of carrying out that proposal. In Ireland, for instance, colours were not hoisted at elections, but if that Amendment were accepted, orange and green colours would be used in that country, and that circumstance would not assist to the orderly conduct of elections.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, the fact that a public display of banners and colours was not permitted in Ireland supplied no argument against that Amendment.

MR. TIPPING

said, he knew that the humbler class of voters did not vote for individuals, but more frequently for colour. So long as they had government by party, considerations of colour must enter into elections.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was of opinion that if hon. Members opposite objected to that Amendment, which would enable the elector to vote conscientiously, they had no faith in the principle of the Ballot. Even with the use of colours the voting would still be secret, and as it was important that the less intelligent voter should know how to record his vote, he should support the Amendment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was mistaken in supposing that the Amendment was put forward because they believed voters cared more for colour than for anything else; but colour would symbolize a principle, and the Amendment supplied a practical means of assisting the voter. Unless that suggestion should be adopted, the Bill in that, as well as in other clauses, would act as a disfranchising measure. Under the present system every effort was made to secure a free and satisfactory exercise of the franchise, but the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would render voting odious. The Amendment was eminently calculated to secure a due exercise of the franchise.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

observed that when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government returned to the House, after a lengthened absence, he was no doubt surprised to find that much of the opposition which had prevented the progress of the Bill had come from his own side of the House. ["Order!]

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Whitehaven must confine himself to the question before the House.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

, continuing, said, he would point out that the objection raised to that sub-section was that it provided no satisfactory mode by which a man who was "incapacitated" could give his vote properly. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he had a remedy which would be found in the 8th sub-section of the 9th clause, but his interpretation of the effect of the provision was erroneous. In order to get the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty, he would make a suggestion founded on a principle which the right hon. Gentleman had already enunciated. ["Oh, oh!] He suggested as a means of obviating the objection to the use of colours, as party colours, that the returning officer should be instructed to choose certain colours to represent the candidates, and that these colours should be apportioned by lot to the different candidates.

MR. JAMES

said, the Amendment, while it sounded very well in theory, the Committee would see that it was perfectly impracticable. Who was to select the colours? If there were ten candidates, and if any two or three choose the same colour, what then? How were the colours to be distributed? [A VOICE: By lot.] And who was to determine between them? The adoption of such a proposal would give rise to a great amount of confusion, and instead of enlightening the voter, it would produce the greatest perplexity in his mind. Those hon. Gentlemen who said that the persons who had been admitted to the franchise by the Reform Act were fit to exercise the vote, now told the House that they were unable to read, and required the aid of colours to enable them to exercise their right.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would always protest against any educational standard being set up. The Bill provided that— Persons who were blind or otherwise incapacitated might apply to the presiding officer to fill up their printed papers, and he wished to know if the words "otherwise incapacitated" included persons who could not read. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No.] He could not understand why, if the privilege was given to blind persons, it was not also given to persons who could not read. Now, if a voter could not read, would any hon. Member stand up and say that he could vote in the manner prescribed by the Act? He was going to propose that the sub-section to which his remarks were applicable should be amended, so that an elector who wished his ballot-paper to be filled up might have it done by the returning officer.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) could only expect one answer to that suggestion. If it were adopted the result would be to defeat the object of the Bill, because any undue influence exercised on the voter might oblige him to state his willingness to allow the returning officer to fill up his paper. If the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had attended to the progress of that Bill, he would have been aware that he (Mr. Forster) had already answered the question whether the words quoted included a person who could not read or write, when he had stated that they did not.

MR. DISRAELI

It seems to me that this is a disfranchising Bill There seems to be an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to establish what I shall be always opposed to—an educational test in the exercise of the suffrage. Now, it is not every man who can read or write. I know able men who cannot read or write, and I should be sorry to deprive them of the privilege of voting. This Bill is framed in total ignorance of human nature, and I am certain if we are persuaded to pass this measure in this crude state the whole country will laugh at us.

COLONEL STUART KNOX

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had sneered at the colours used in Irish elections; but the reason why colours had had a bad effect in Ireland was, that the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged had always tried to put one set against another. The confusion which took place in elections in Ireland was because the Government, and the party the right hon. Gentleman belonged to, set one party against another for their own private purposes.

MR. G. BENTINCK

asked why Government was so strongly opposed to colours. Some of them had shown very great versatility on the question of colours, and he could not understand what objection there could be to colours. This clause should be postoned, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had no remedy to propose, in order that some means might be devised for obviating the difficulty, which had been stated, to the clause.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had no idea, when his Amendment was proposed, that it would give rise to such a discussion, and the arguments which had been used against it had not convinced him of the necessity of withdrawing it.

MR. VANCE

said, that it would be desirable to distinguish the candidates in Ireland by colours.

MR. LEA

said, he must point out that if they allowed a candidate to impress his colours on the voting papers he would display them also on flags and banners, and in that way the old election practices would be revived. He hoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 187: Majority 65.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that sub-section 3 was really only surplusage, and therefore he would move its omission.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that he did not think that the sub-section was necessary, and to propitiate the hon. Member for Whitehaven he would consent to the Amendment.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that the candidates' names were to be printed on the papers, but a candidate might subsequently be withdrawn. If his name still continued upon the papers, and he were elected, how then would the matter stand?

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) to the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It was, of course, competent for the hon. Gentleman to move to omit sub-section 4, but it was not competent for him to move to insert the words which he proposed. The same objection applied to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), inasmuch as the clause in question was one dealing exclusively with the regulations as to the mode of taking the poll. The Amendments, then, to which he referred should be made the subject of another clause.

MR. G. BENTINCK

said, he was then at a loss to know how he could amend the clause by substituting the words he proposed for sub-section 4, which he wished to have struck out, and which proposition he would move accordingly.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he must remind the Committee that he had undertaken to amend the clauses by providing for a larger number of polling-places. He hoped in a short time to be able to lay upon the Table the Amendment which he proposed to make, and he therefore hoped the Committee would postpone any further discussion upon it until they saw the clauses which the Government proposed to insert in the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must take the same exception to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) as he had to that of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), and to that of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), because it did not relate to the mode of taking the votes on the polling-day, but to the making out of the list of voters. The Amendment was perfectly relevant to the Bill, though not to the subject-matter of that clause.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

then moved the omission from sub-section 5 of the words "the returning officer shall provide for every polling station a compartment." He objected altogether to compartments. He could not conceive anything more contrary to the practice of an Englishman voting for a Member of Parliament or a town councillor in any other than an open and distinct manner. He was in future to be sent into a compartment to grapple with materials of which he had no previous knowledge. At Whitehaven they were not adopted, although the Ballot had been in operation there at municipal elections ever since the year 1708. Although he was himself opposed in toto to secret voting, he must admit that under the system practised at Whitehaven for more than 160 years no election had been disputed, and there had been no cases of fraud. It was the system adopted in various clubs in this country, and was well understood.

Amendment proposed, In line 31, to leave out the words "the returning officer shall provide for every polling station a compartment."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Government must adhere to the proviso as to compartments, in order that the electors might vote in secret. The system had been tried in Australia and found to work well.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 143: Majority 77.

MR. G. BENTINCK moved to leave out words from "compartment," in line 32, sub-section 5, to "allotted," in line 34, the object of the Amendment being to prevent crowding. As the clause stood, as many as 1,500 persons might be assembled together.

Amendment proposed, In line 32, to leave out the words "or such number of compartments as will give at least one compartment to every one hundred and fifty electors to whom such polling station is allotted."—(Mr. Bentinck.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the proposition would not be pressed, as he did not think it affected the general question.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought the clause required some Amendment, even if all the objections raised by his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk did not apply to it.

VISCOUNT ROYSTON

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council expected that voters could be told off like sheep to a pen.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

replied there would be no telling off. If there were 450 voters to be provided for, the returning officer would simply have to provide three compartments.

VISCOUNT ROYSTON

wished to know how they could get a person of such a mathematical mind as to carry out an arrangement of that kind.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

believed the plan as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to be impracticable.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 115: Majority 104.

MR. J. HARDY moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in page 3, line 34, leave out from "and" to "paper," in line 40, agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER moved to report Progress.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the hour was not late (12.15), and the Committee seemed to be just getting into the spirit of the Bill, but he should not resist the Motion.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.