COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.] (Hansard, 20 July 1871)

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
moved, in page 4, leave out sub-section 10.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
refused to consent to the omission.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he would beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "vote," to insert the words— Shall have his name and description, and the qualification in respect of which he claims to vote called publicly by some person appointed by the returning officer.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he must decline to accept the Amendment; but he should be willing to insert in subsection 12 words requiring the name and address of the voter to be called.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
proposed an Amendment to the following effect:— The presiding officer at any polling station, on the application of any elector entitled to vote at such polling station, shall deliver a ballot paper to such elector, but before doing so shall mark the back of such ballot paper with his initials. One of the reasons urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) 58 for the abolition of the present system of voting at Parliamentary elections in this country was that the Australian colonies had adopted the Ballot, which he said was a superior plan of voting. But the right hon. Gentleman did not propose that the Ballot should be carried out here in the same manner as it was carried out in Australia, although he professed to prefer the Australian plan. From reports that had been received from the Australian colonies, it appeared that the voting paper was not stamped in any of them with an instrument, but that the returning officer marked it with his initials. He believed that the Australian plan of thus marking the voting paper was the best and most convenient that could be adopted.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought the question as between an instrument and initials had been decided on the 8th sub-section. His objection to initials was that they could be more easily forged. Moreover, initialing would take up more time than stamping. He was not so fearful of fraud as many hon. Members, but a stamp, he thought, would afford better protection than initials.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, there was no evidence from the Australian colonies of any complaint having been made of the plan of marking with initials. On reference to the 19th subsection it would be seen that there would be some danger of an imperfectly stamped ballot paper being thrown away, to the loss of the candidate for whom the vote was intended. He should therefore press his Amendment to a division.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he would propose that the voting paper should be stamped on the face instead of behind.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not accept the hon. Member's Amendment, because the object of the Government was to prevent the presiding officer from seeing the face of the paper, so 59 that he should have no opportunity of ascertaining which way the vote was given.

§ MR. CORRANCE
, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for West Suffolk (Lord Augustus Hervey), moved an Amendment, in page 4, line 33, after "instrument," insert— And shall mark thereon in plain figures a number corresponding to the number attached to the name of such elector on the Register of Voters.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the principle of this Amendment having been already fully discussed and decided by the Committee, he thought it would be a waste of time for him to do more than state that he could not assent to the proposed alteration of the clause.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
wished to propose an Amendment, in order to render the discovery of personation not absolutely impossible. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been unfortunate enough this year to frame a Bill without that amount of precaution which existed in the Bill of last year in cases of personation, and with reference to a scrutiny where there was an inquiry. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) proposed to insert words in the 35th line to give an opportunity for that inquiry. The wording of the Bill was— Shall enter on the copy of the register of electors with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the elector has received a ballot paper. He proposed that the words "cross or other" should be struck out, leaving the clause to read "a mark;" and if that was approved of, he would add after the word "paper," "and shall make the same mark on the ballot paper." That would give the means of identification, in the event of a scrutiny.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, that they had discussed this question of a scrutiny over and over again, and it was now at an end.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he had great respect for the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend; but he must call on the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) for an opinion.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not accept the Amendment, which had already in substance been negatived by the Committee.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
moved, in page 4, line 42, to leave out from "proceed" to "place," in line 43, inclusive. By that sub-section the elector, on receiving his ballot paper, was required forthwith to proceed into one of the compartments at the polling-station, and there record his vote. It was contrary to all the principles which had hitherto regulated English elections that the elector should be compelled under a penalty to go into one of these compartments to record his vote. In the Bill of last year there was a provision to the fact that any elector who thought fit to vote, but who did not enter one of these receptacles for the purpose, should be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to two years' imprisonment. In the present Bill the penalty was reduced to £10. He did not believe in this Botany Bay principle. He thought it ought to be left optional with the elector to record his vote either in one of those compartments or outside of it, as he might prefer; and the object of his Amendment was to give the elector such a choice. It was only right that the British elector should be allowed to vote according to the principles which had hitherto governed British Elections, so far as that could be done consistently with the adoption of the Ballot.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman raised that question on sub-section 5, when he had proposed to strike out the words requiring the returning officer to provide those compartments. As the compartments were to be provided, the Government looked forward to their being used. He would not detain the Committee by repeating his former arguments on that subject.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, the Government seemed desirous of getting a voter to skulk into the polling-booth and hide himself in a box, as if he were ashamed of being seen there, like a man going into a pawnbroker's shop. It was most improper to associate the exercise of the franchise with such degradation.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the object of his supporters was to prevent intimidation, and for this purpose nothing but the utmost secrecy would suffice.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
trusted some consideration would be had for the elector, and that he would not be subjected to this indignity.

§ LORD HENRY THYNNE
regretted that some endeavours were not made to check bribery and corruption as well as intimidation, to the prevention of which all the efforts of the Government seemed directed. The Bill was one that would give every facility to bribery and corruption, and would facilitate personation. He had known of bribery in quite as high quarters as that of the returning officer, and yet they were going to place attorney's clerks in that position.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, the description "forthwith, proceed" was rather grandiose, considering the elector had to sneak into a box to record his vote.

§ MR. BEACH
said, the provision was quite unnecessary, because if the voter sought secrecy he would turn his back upon everyone, while the more bold could fill their paper up before the eyes of all.

§ MR. HERMON
said, he would support the Amendment, as he thought that entering the box should be permissive.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, hon. Gentlemen opposite believed the Government exaggerated the intimidation which existed. But they on that side felt that unless they got this provision they did not attain their object. If voting secretly was left optional, influence would, undoubtedly, be brought to bear.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, hon. Gentlemen opposite argued from their own experience, having been returned by constituencies which had been grossly coerced. In his own case he was happy to say a large number of voters supported him openly in opposition to their landlord's brother.

§ COLONEL CORBETT
believed the result of the provision would be that, although intimidation would be put an end to, bribery would increase twenty-fold.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, that when the House was considering the Elementary Education Act and its schedules referring to London, some described the method of voting prescribed there as a sham. The Vice President of the Council, however, replied it was nothing of the kind, and said it was arranged on the model of the Cumberland ballots, which answered every purpose; but now the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time imitating the inconsistency of the First Minister of the Crown, repudiated the Cumberland ballots as useless, and introduced a novel and undignified method of voting. What he (Mr. C. Bentinck) wanted was to give voters two alternatives—the Botany Bay system of skulking to the poll, and the system of voting like a free-born Briton, and he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon this Amendment.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 4, sub-section 13, line 43, after "shall," to insert "himself, or if requested by the elector the returning officer shall," said, those on that—the Opposition—side had been charged with bringing forward points of a minute character, not worthy the time they had occupied. But it could not be for a moment denied that the Amendment he was now about to propose eminently deserved consideration. Under the Bill a voter who was uneducated or ill-educated was practically disfranchised, and the point was, whether or no it was sound policy to adopt an educational test for the suffrage. In 1866, when the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) proposed such a test, the First Minister of the Crown said it was contrary to the policy which guided the distribution of political power. The argument was unanswerable, and it applied now. What he (Mr. J. Lowther) suggested by the present Amendment was that, if requested by an elector, the presiding officer should fill in the ballot paper in accordance with the elector's intentions. The Vice President of the Council had said, if that practice were allowed, an influence might be brought to bear upon the elector to submit his ballot paper to a presiding officer, through 63 whose agency a vote might be made known outside the polling-booth. But if you were not to trust even the presiding officer you were cutting away one of the foundations of the Bill. One of the sub-sections in Clause 9 allowed the presiding officer to fill in ballot papers of blind persons, or other persons incapacitated from voting in the manner required by the Act. Now, he contended that a voter who could not read was really incapacitated from voting in the manner required by the Act. However this might be, blind persons and others were placed unreservedly in the power of the presiding officer; and why, then, should the right hon. Gentleman object to give him the same power in the case of voters who could not read? The question was one of such importance that he thought it should have been laid before the Cabinet, end the Committee were entitled to have the opinion of the Prime Minister respecting it. As the Bill stood, thousands of electors would be disfranchised by a side-wind, for he must remind the Committee that not only uneducated, but imperfectly educated voters would be unable to decipher and properly fill up a ballot paper. He should be very willing to accept any suggestion as to the form in which the Amendment should be put; but he was determined to afford the Committee an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon this scheme for the disfranchisement of thousands of electors in all parts of the United Kingdom. In conclusion, he would beg leave to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the proper place for such an Amendment was in sub-section 8, of Clause 9, where provision was made for the blind and other persons physically incapacitated, and he did not deny that, when the proper occasion arose, it was a question which might be fairly considered, though the Government did not think it necessary to make special provisions for those who could not read or write. As the Amendment stood he objected to it because it would apply to all electors. The Government were of opinion that the 64 uneducated voters would not be disfranchised by the operation of the Bill, because if they were men of common sense, they would know where to place their marks, on being informed before going into the polling-places.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that the question was one necessary to be considered, for a great number of voters were certainly unable to read. He agreed that the proper place for the Amendment was in Clause 9, and he had given Notice of an Amendment to enable an illiterate voter to take a witness with him into the polling-place, to see that he put his mark in the right place. There was a precedent for this provision in the Victorian Act. In the case of a blind man the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that he should go before a justice of the peace and declare for whom he intended to vote; but considering that a poor man could not spare the time required for going to a justice of the peace, and then to the poll—such a provision would have the effect of virtually disfranchising such a voter. What the working men throughout the country felt very strongly was this—the Bill related not only to Parliamentary, but to municipal elections; and they very fairly, as he thought, urged that the returning officer was not the proper person to assist the voter in this matter, as that officer would very likely in the former elections, and certainly in the latter, be some great employer of labour, against whose influence the Bill was intended to protect the working man.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he should certainly prefer to challenge the decision of the Committee on the point now, unless hon. Members opposite were prepared to show reasons against his proposal, for when Clause 9 was reached the Committee would doubtless be told that the question had been already decided by Clause 3. He was sorry he had not previously known that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. Cross) had an Amendment relating to this matter on a subsequent clause, as he should have liked to have consulted him upon the subject. He (Mr. Lowther) however must say he much preferred his own Amendment to that of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. Cross), as numerous objections would be urged against any person being admitted into 65 a polling-booth except the responsible official sworn to secrecy under heavy penalties, whom his Amendment proposed to intrust with this duty, and who could not be objected to in the manner that a friend of the voter, who might be an agent or other person having influence over him, could be taken exception to.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he must oppose the Amendment on the additional ground that it would open the door to a great evasion of the Ballot.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, a reference to the Colonial Acts would show that in every case but one provision similar to that now proposed was made for the blind and voters unable to read.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that in South Australia the provision was precisely what was made in this Bill.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he wished to ask if the Government would be disposed to adopt some Amendment on the 9th clause if the discussion were postponed till then?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
could only say that the Government would consider the subject, and he hoped hon. Members on both sides would do the same.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
said, he considered it essential in the case of the working man that there should be no means of ascertaining how he gave his vote.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he thought this a most important question. He had no doubt the papers would be a mass of error, and he believed the result of the clause as it stood would be to disfranchise one-third of the new constituency.

§ COLONEL CORBETT
said, he entertained the same opinion. If they had agreed to the use of coloured cards the illiterate electors would have been able to see for whom they wished to vote.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, this was a municipal as well as a Parliamentary Bill, and it applied equally to female voters who might not possess that feeling of independence which was generally attributed to working men. Great numbers of persons would be disfranchised by the Bill until education was more thoroughly spread than it was at present.

§ MR. BIRLEY
said, he thought it a great defect in the machinery of the Bill that an illiterate voter would not be able to poll. He hoped the hon. Member for 66 York (Mr. J. Lowther) would take the opinion of the Committee on the Amendment. It was desirable that the country should know who were for curtailing the franchise, and who were really desirous of extending it. He believed the constituency would rather see a good election Bill than a Bill for secret voting.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he believed the protection proposed would be necessary in many eases for the educated as well as for the illiterate voter. Even an educated man having to run the gauntlet of a large crowd hissing and hooting, and forced into a compartment with a paper he was compelled to sign, might require assistance.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that what was asked for was reasonable, and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say how he proposed to provide for a bonâ fide difficulty in the case of an uneducated voter.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that, in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, he had stated that Clause 9 would have afforded a much better opportunity of discussing the matter. The Government considered that they had protected the uneducated voter by giving him a list of candidates arranged in alphabetical order, and common sense would enable him to give his vote without any special provision. From his experience of uneducated men he thought they would have little difficulty in running a finger down the list, and voting for the first, second, third, or fourth candidate, as the case might be, having previously been told the order in which the respective candidates stood on the list.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, some one would have to tell the voter this, so that, after all, it came to dictation.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he must remind the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) that it had already been determined that public notice of the order in which the candidates stood should be given immediately after the nomination; and the working men to whom the right hon. Baronet referred must be more stupid than any with whom he (Mr. Forster) had come in contact, if, with that amount of information, they would not be able to fix upon the candidate or candidates for whom they wished to vote.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he might mention a case which occurred in the West of England. An election for Truro was held some years ago when there were four candidates—two Smiths and two Vivians, one of each name being a Liberal, and one of each a Conservative. This conjunction of names might have puzzled even a tolerably well-educated man. In such a case it was clear an ignorant man must get information from some one outside, and getting it would expose him to influence; it was therefore reasonable to ask that he might be allowed to consult the returning officer, who was hypothetically above suspicion.

§ MR. A. EGERTON
said, one reason for deciding the matter now was that no one had any idea when Clause 9 would be reached.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
mentioned an election for Lisburne at which there were two candidates with identical names—Jonathan Richardson.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, the reason why it was necessary to discuss these details in Committee so fully was that they had not been discussed, as they ought to have been, in a Select Committee upstairs. Even now the Bill had better be withdrawn for the Session in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee next Session. As a representative of a southern county he could say that there were electors who could no more fill up their ballot papers than they could fly over the moon.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he did not think that the uneducated peasant or artizan would have any difficulty in knowing the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote as he would be put through a preliminary training, and would be told whether the name stood No. 5 or 6 on the list.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he must insist that the clause as it stood would disfranchise a large number of electors, and that there was as much reason in assisting a man who could not read and write as there was in assisting one who was blind.

SIR JOHN HAY
said, he could not perceive what disadvantage could arise from giving a voter information before he entered the booth. Though acknowledging the educational attainments of voters in the North of England, he would mention a case which occurred in 68 a northern constituency, that he once represented, of a gentleman by no means uneducated who intended to vote in his favour. The gentleman's name was Bright, and on being asked whom he voted for he answered "Bright," with the object probably of pointing out to the returning officer the fact that his name was on the register. The returning officer, however, choose to record the vote in favour of "Bright," although there was no candidate of that name. This was one of many instances which might be adduced to show the desirability of making the change recommended by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther).

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that, however much he might be opposed to a Bill on the second reading, yet when it came before them in Committee he, for one, should never be a party to anything like factious opposition. But he wished to state that he felt so strongly upon the point under discussion that, whether they went to a division or not, he should feel it his duty to divide upon the point when they arrived at the 9th clause, acting in conformity with a large meeting of working men, who were friends of the Ballot.

MR. SCOURFIELD
said, that the returning officer was a responsible official, who might be rendered liable to a penalty if he disclosed the way any elector had voted, whereas the obligation of secrecy could not be imposed on a private friend of a voter.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, in reference to what had been said as to the educational superiority of northern constituencies, he must remark that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was a native of Dorsetshire, and consequently belonged to the South of England.

§ MR. GREENE
said, he did not think the clause would disfranchise a number of voters, but it would certainly lead to their voting otherwise than they intended, and voting ought not to be a matter of haphazard. On such a subject as this the Committee ought to have the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Was it possible for the Prime Minister to shut their mouths, and if the Bill were not passed did he intend to apply for a Royal Charter? Hon. Members opposite knew perfectly well that the measure could not pass this year; they were bringing themselves into ridicule throughout the country, and at the next 69 General Election the Conservatives would have a large majority. ["Question!"] The question was whether voters should vote in the way they intended. For himself he might mention that he had been very fortunate throughout his career. Good fortune had followed him from his earliest days, and he had no doubt that any mistakes which occurred in the polling-booth would be in his favour. Whatever he thought he said, because, unlike hon. Members opposite, he was not afraid of his leader. In conclusion, he appealed to them, if they were free men, to state their opinions with respect to the Amendment.

§ MR. RODEN
said, he would accept the invitation of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Greene) and express his hope that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would allow the division to be taken at once, as the sole object of the Opposition was to strangle the Bill. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had adverted to the ignorance of constituencies in the West of England: on the Government side there was but one opinion and one argument—namely, "We mean to pass the Ballot Bill in spite of all your opposition."

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the want of intelligence was rather on the part of the hon. Member who had just sat down than on the part of his constituents. He had not said there was any particular want of intelligence among West of England voters, but had merely mentioned a mistake which occurred in that part of the country in consequence of a similarity of names, and pointed out that ignorant voters might be easily puzzled under such circumstances.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
said, he was of opinion that the Bill would strangle itself without any interference on the part of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure had been justly lauded in the course of these debates, but it must now be obvious to him that he had undertaken a task so Herculean as to be beyond even his powers. The Bill was crudely and imperfectly framed; every word of it must necessarily give rise to a discussion; every clause contained a host of blunders, and every section was a comedy of errors. Members of Parliament ought to be allowed to express 70 their opinions, and if the Committee had had the assistance of hon. Members opposite on the entangled clauses of this Bill it would have been more advantageous than their sitting in silence and leaving all the work to those who sat on the opposite benches. ["Question!"] Would hon. Members neither speak themselves nor allow others to do so? Was the House of Commons to sit in dumb show under the dictation of one man? Was no Member to be allowed to express his opinion? If that were so, the sooner they left the House the better. Many of the difficulties and errors that were to be found in this hopeless measure might have been simplified or removed if the Committee had had the assistance of hon. Members opposite, who were not only thoroughly conversant with the details of the measure, but were prepared to state them until there came forth the stern dictum for silence. As far as they had gone, the proceedings showed that almost every clause in the Bill required alteration, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, at this period of the Session, looking to the difficulties which were before him, he would proceed unaided to carry out his design? The Bill was so crudely drawn that every line was full of mistakes.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
I desire now, Sir, to make another appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. Earlier in the evening we were told that the Government desired to proceed this evening with at least three Bills of importance, two of them Irish Bills, and the third the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill; and I would, therefore, now ask the Government and the House whether the time has not come when we may fairly devote the rest of the evening to doing something like real business. We have now wasted five hours. [Loud cheers.] I cannot feel any surprise at this wild burst of unaccustomed liberty. It is but natural that hon. Members should desire to make themselves heard after so long an enforced silence, and no other result could be anticipated from this extraordinary 71 attempt to gag one side of the House of Commons. ["Oh!"] Still, Sir, we have wasted hours in this hopeless struggle on the part of Her Majesty's Government—["No, no!"]—to force this Bill, under such extraordinary circumstances, through the House of Commons. It seems to me that neither the Government nor the House can be fully aware of the magnitude of the task in which they are engaged. Here is not only a Bill of 57 clauses, but a Bill with no less than 133 sub-sections, each of which is, in fact, a separate clause. I ask the Government, I ask the House, if you have any reasonable hope at this period of the Session of being able to force the Bill through Parliament. [Cheers.] Then, if you really have any such hope, I appeal to the common sense of the House, and to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether it is right you should entertain it. What is this Bill? ["Ballot!"] I put aside now the difference of views entertained as to the wisdom or otherwise of the Ballot, but this Bill is an attempt to make a very great and important change in the electoral system of this country. Is it right—I appeal to the common sense of Gentlemen on all sides—is it right that a Bill of such importance, with this great number of clauses, should be forced on at the end of July with one side of the House bound to silence, and under circumstances which absolutely forbid the decent and decorous discussion of a measure of this immense magnitude? I beg, Sir, to move that you do report Progress.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I hope, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) does not seriously intend to ask us to stop our discussion so early (12 o'clock), and after having been engaged on this Bill so short a time. I do not think the right hon. Baronet is quite aware—indeed, I feel assured he is not, from the tone of his remarks—of the real manner in which this question is regarded by hon. Members on this side of the House. We have been constantly taunted with our wish to pass this Bill through the House, and hon. Members on this side have been taunted for not assisting in throwing obstructions in our path. From the fact that I have had charge of this Bill it has been my lot to trouble the Committee very often, and I 72 feel it due to hon. Members on this side of the House to explain what I believe to be the grounds which actuate them in the course they have taken. We believe—and we think we have reason to believe—that this Ballot Bill is desired by our constituents, and that there is no measure which they have more at heart. [Cheers and counter-cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen on the other side deny that. We say we are a majority of this House, and that the majority of the constituencies of the country have returned us, and we think we have a right to say what we believe our constituents wish. And when hon. Members on this side of the House are taunted with having preserved silence, and with having taken no part in the discussions in this Bill, they reply, and they have a right to reply—[An hon. MEMBER: But they do not reply.]—[Laughter]—I believe I am not going beyond my authority when I say that their reply is, that they believe that more discussion, more obstruction, has been raised upon this Bill and upon its details, with a view to delay, than is usually the case even with Bills of this importance. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House feel they are fulfilling the wishes of the country in supporting the Bill, and in doing their utmost to obtain the sense of the House of Commons with respect to it, leaving the responsibility of rejecting it on the other House of Parliament if they desire to exercise the right to do so, while they, at the same time, believe that the other House, acting in accordance with their past history, would not refuse to consider a Bill even at some sacrifice of convenience, which the majority of the House of Commons are in favour of, and which concerns the manner in which its Members are elected.

§ MR. LIDDELL
Sir, I do not desire to see Parliamentary privileges strained unduly, but I must remind my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) that if there is a man who has set a precedent for factious opposition, he is that man. He took a very prominent part about this period of the Session a few years ago, in respect of another Bill, when he was in a minority. I wish to add that I do not think a more unfortunate remark ever fell from a Minister than that which fell from him to-night. The right hon. Gentleman talked about throwing on "another place" the odium and the 73 responsibility of the rejection of this measure—and if that "other place," in the exercise of their unquestioned prerogative, should reject this Bill, Her Majesty's Ministers may, perhaps, exercise the Royal Prerogative against them. If such an act had came from this side of the House, it would have been called an act of the greatest tyranny.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he did not think a reference to what had occurred at 4 o'clock would at all assist hon. Members in dealing with the question under discussion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) would find the Government prepared, at the proper time, to enter into the question. At present it was desirable that any observations which might be made should be confined to the subject immediately before the House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had paid a most questionable compliment to his own Friends, for he had observed that no speeches had been delivered on the subject of the Ballot on the Ministerial side, but yet that the whole of the evening had been wasted. A specimen of neater workmanship when the right hon. Gentleman for the moment acted in the capacity of leader he had never seen. As to the prospect to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had referred, that Her Majesty's Government would exorcise the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of interfering with the independence of the other House of Parliament in reference to the present Bill, he would only say that it was the pure creature of his own imagination. No such statement was to be found either in the language of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. W. E. Forster) or his own, and no Member of the Government had ever intimated any intention of the kind. As to the debate which had now arisen, it was quite clear, taking into account the animated manner in which it had begun, that there were materials sufficient in the House to prevent the further progress of the Bill that evening, so that, on the whole, it would, perhaps, be the best course to pursue to accede to the Motion which had been made, although whatever right hon. Gentlemen opposite might think, the Bill was regarded by the constituencies at large as a most important measure.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) should have deprecated any allusion to what had occurred in the early part of the evening, for anything more disgraceful to the House of Commons had never happened, or anything which, unless checked, was more likely eventually to imperil the liberties of this country. Why the right hon. Gentleman should be astonished at what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), considering what had previously fallen from the Vice President of the Council, he could not understand. The Vice President of the Council had gone out of his way to assume in the most unconstitutional manner that if the Bill under discussion went up to the House of Lords it would certainly be rejected.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had not stated anything of the kind. He did not say that the Bill would be rejected in "another place." He spoke of the responsibility of its rejection, if it were passed by the House of Commons, being thrown on the other House of Parliament.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman in future never to explain, seeing that his explanation amounted simply to throwing the responsibility of the rejection of the Bill on the House of Lords. Was it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gloated with triumph over the idea of their taking that course, and that every hon. Member connected his expressions with what had occurred at the beginning of the evening, as if the whole thing were a part of a conspiracy into which the Government had entered—[Cheers]—yes, part of an avowed and shameful conspiracy against the undoubted privileges of the other House of Parliament?

THE CHAIRMAN
I think the expressions "avowed and shameful conspiracy," as employed by the right hon. Gentleman, are not quite Parliamentary.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that if there were any expression of his to which the Chairman objected he begged immediately to withdraw it. He believed, however, that he could, if necessary, furnish good precedents for the use of any expressions which he had employed. 75 They might, at the same time, be considered as withdrawn without hesitation. He wished, in the next place, to make a few remarks on what had just fallen from the First Minister of the Crown, and his happy sarcasm on the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), to the effect that five hours had that evening been wasted on the Ballot Bill. "If," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that time has been wasted, it must have been by you and your Friends;" but had he forgotten that five minutes before the Vice President of the Council had announced that he had been speaking the whole evening on the part of his political supporters? Therefore he (Mr. Disraeli) thought Her Majesty's Government, and those whom they represented in that debate, must admit that they had had their fair share of the waste of the evening. The real position of the case was that the Government had contrived, and had apparently long meditated, to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords. He wished to remind the House that it was but a short time back—only some ten days ago—since the right hon. Gentleman picked a quarrel with the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, little more than a week ago, rated and vilified the House of Commons, and told them that they had behaved in such a manner that they were unworthy of the privileges which had descended to them for centuries—privileges by which alone an imperious or incapable Minister could be kept under control, and that the consequence of their conduct would be that probably they would be deprived of those privileges. Therefore hon. Gentlemen opposite, who felt so proud of the hostile position which Her Majesty's Government had taken with respect to the other branch of the Legislature, should not forget that their turn might soon come, and that they had had an intimation, almost within a week, of the spirit with which they will be treated if they assert those rights and privileges which hitherto had been considered the best security for their liberties.

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who is an accomplished actor, and who is capable of affecting a passion he does not feel, has taunted us on this side with our situation. Now, I may venture to 76 make one remark, and it shall only be one. ["Hear, hear!"] You taunt us with not speaking, and when we try to speak you will not let us. I was going to say that the right hon. Gentleman to-night has made a very important statement. He says there has taken place in this House to-day a scene which is shameful to the House of Commons—disgraceful to the House of Commons, and which is perilous to the liberties of the country. Now, the right hon. Gentleman occupies the great and responsible position of Leader of the Opposition, and I venture to say that the first duty of the Leader of the Opposition, when a scene occurs in the House of Commons which is disgraceful to this House and perilous to the interests of this country, is to propose a vote of censure on Government. If the right hon. Gentleman, after the language he has used to-night, shrinks from bringing forward such a Motion, he has exhibited an amount of political—what phrase shall I use?—timidity—I do not wish to indulge in strong language—I say he has taken a course of political timidity which has characterized no Leader of the Opposition in the Parliamentary history of this country. When Mr. Fox occupied the same situation, opposed to a great majority, he also used strong language, but he did not shrink from bringing his principles to issue in the House of Commons; and if we are to have language of this kind employed, I think it ought to be employed by a Leader of the Opposition who ventures to take upon it the sense of the House of Commons.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. V. Harcourt) has appeared in new colours; he has appeared as counsel for the Leader of the Opposition. He has cited the authority of Mr. Fox, a great Whig authority. Now, Mr. Fox never accepted the advice of his opponents in the guidance of his Parliamentary conduct, and I will quote one of the maxims of Mr. Fox with respect to the duties of the House of Commons. Mr. Fox emphatically says that deliberation, and not despatch, is the duty of the House of Commons. And, Sir, the whole tone of the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, supported and advised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), is the reverse of that. Mr. Fox understood the policy and practised 77 it by appealing to the country be fore he moved a Vote of Censure. The time may come, and I trust will come, when it may be the duty of the Opposition to move votes of censure; but at this period we have on the Table of this House an exemplification of the conduct which has been complained of this evening. Before this warrant is on the Table of the House it is idle for us to take the sense of the House. I wish to call attention to the position in which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are placing our business. Before the discussion on this Bill, I asked the Attorney General for Ireland to explain as to two Bills which have never been—[Cries of "Order!" and "Question!"]—

THE CHAIRMAN
I must remind the Committee that they are a Committee on the Parliamentary Elections Bill, and that the debate is wandering from the subject. The question is that the Chairman report Progress.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
I am very sorry, Sir, that I have followed the example of higher authorities, and violated the rules of debate; but I thought this Motion of Progress was that the House may proceed to other business; and I was exemplifying to the House the necessity of proceeding to other business. If I have been wrong I apologize. I rose to warn the House to terminate this discussion.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) that it is the duty of hon. Members on this side of the House, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) to challenge the course adopted by Government. I consider the question one of the greatest constitutional questions which has been raised in this House, or over brought before the country. ["Question!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question is that I report Progress.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, if he can state when he will place on the Paper the terms of the clauses with regard to polling-places?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I hoped to have done so this evening; but it will be done to-morrow morning.

§ MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE
Will they include Irish polling-places?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
No, those are now under the consideration of the Solicitor General for Ireland.