HC Deb 28 July 1871 vol 208 cc396-413

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 12 (Admission to polling station) agreed to.

Clause 13 (Decision of returning officer as to validity of votes).

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, in his opinion, it was difficult to see what was the necessity for this clause.

On the Motion of Mr. GOLDNEY, Amendment made in page 12, line 4, after the word "paper," by inserting the words— And shall make out a statement of the number of ballot papers declared by him to be void or invalid, and not counted by him; and give public notice of such number at the same time that he gives public notice of the total number of votes given for each candidate.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (Publication of names of electors who have voted).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he wished to move the insertion of words to the effect that a list of the voters at each election shall be placed on the church and chapel doors in each district. The clause left the mode of publication to be determined by the Secretary of State.

MR. W. R. FORSTER

said, he objected to the Amendment, which introduced a novel practice. He thought it was better not to carry the result of the elections to churches and chapels.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he wished to ask in what manner the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) proposed to make the publication. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think the Amendment a novel principle. The idea was to ex- hibit the list wherever it could be best subject to inspection, and the doors of churches and chapels were selected because they were the places most easily accessible. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he should say where the proclamations were to be made.

MR. COLLINS

said, he would support the Amendment. The objection to it could not be on the ground of expense, as an election occurred once in every six years or so. He thought the list of the persons voting should be published wherever the registration lists were published. There could be no better means of preventing personation than the knowledge that the names of the persons voting would be publicly posted up.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he must hold that there was no analogy between the notices at present posted at church doors and the list of persons voting, and he deprecated publishing the list on church and chapel doors.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

then moved the Amendment in altered form, to the effect that such portion of the list of persons voting as related to any district should be posted on the doors of any registered place of worship.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that the question really for the Committee to consider was, whether there should be an authorized list published, or whether the publication of a list should be left to the parties themselves.

MR. COLLINS

said, he did not want the publication to be left to an electioneering agent, or electioneering club. The cost of publishing such a list should not be left to be defrayed by some wretched club, and he wanted the electors to be entirely independent of such clubs. If churches and chapels were objected to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), the list could be posted at the market cross; at any rate there should be some place where the electors could see it.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished to point out that in whatever manner the list was published, any elector would have the right to inspect it for the purpose of seeing whether it contained his name.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he should support the Amendment. What was wanted was that the list should be published on some public place where the poor man who had only a few hours a day to spare might have an opportunity of seeing whether he had been personated, and who were the parties who had voted. He would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Collins) that there were very few market crosses now in England, and, little palatable as church doors might be to some, they were probably the best alternative that was left.

MR. JAMES

said, he would recommend that the Amendment should not be pressed. What might be good in one place might be bad in another. A combination of boroughs would require a different form of publication from a large borough, and it was impossible to lay down any inflexible rule such as the Amendment proposed.

MR. COLLINS

said, he should be quite content with sufficient publication. What was wanted was a fixed place, no matter where, and a real publication.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he would suggest that the clause should be made to read—if the Amendment was rejected—that in the event of the Secretary of State not prescribing the time and place of publication, the returning officer should not refuse to allow the list to be inspected.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he had an Amendment bearing on this subject on Clause 17. In all the regulations connected with this Bill a very wide discretion was left to some authority, and according to the precedent established by the House that authority ought not to be connected with the House, and should not be a political officer. That the House had decided in a most emphatic manner, by transferring to the Judges the whole jurisdiction in Election Petitions. It appeared to him that it would be better to put into the hands of the authority who was to judge of the proper or improper use of the franchise, the regulations which should become necessary by the operations of this Bill. Either the decision of Parliament was right in having removed from the jurisdiction of this House the whole conduct of Election Petitions, or it was wrong. Assuming it to be right, it was perfectly clear that where regulations were needed under Act of Parliament in order to avoid abuses which would become subject of Petition, it would be infinitely preferable to interpose, in the first instance, the jurisdiction of that authority which Parliament had selected to supersede this House and every political officer connected with it. Because one great misfortune flowing from this Bill was this—that it would give the widest scope to suspicion, and he could not conceive any suspicion more disagreeable than that arising from the Secretary of of State, who was one of the leaders of a political party, being compelled to make regulations for an election in which his party and himself had a deep and immediate interest. Parliament had decided to relieve their House from all imputation of unfairness in the jurisdiction connected with seats in the House, and this was why he had introduced an Amendment on Clause 17. He wished to ask whether, in the present state of the discussion, it was competent for him to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member could not competently do so at the present stage of the proceedings.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not wish to press the question, but he felt there should be some place where the list should be published.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that as the Amendment was withdrawn, he would propose an Amendment which would essentially meet all that was wanted. He proposed to omit the words in line 18, "open to public inspection," and to substitute the words "shall be posted in some public place within each polling district." This phraseology would govern both boroughs and counties.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 18, after the word "inspection," to insert the words "and a transcript of so much of the same as relates to each polling district shall be posted in some public place in each polling district,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would be guided by the sense of the Committee with regard to the Amendment, but he preferred the clause as it stood.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he thought that it would be wise to adhere to the clause in its present shape, as the words "some public place" were vague.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he thought it was a waste of time to go on discussing matters which had nothing to do with the Ballot, the only thing the country expected they were discussing. This Bill entirely failed to realize the idea of the Ballot as foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Whalley) denied that this was a Ballot Bill at all.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must call the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to Order. The Question was whether the Amendment before the House should be adopted, and the observations of the hon. Member had no connection whatever with that Question.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

rose, and having been called upon by the Chairman, said that he would withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it "and the transcript thereof shall be posted in some public place in each polling district."

MR. WHALLEY

said, that the Chairman had called him to Order, and he having sat down in obedience to the Chairman's authority, but intending to continue his observations in proper form, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was called upon to address the Committee. He (Mr. Whalley) asked whether, upon reflection, the Chairman considered that that was a proper course of proceeding?

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he was of opinion that the Amendment would not effect the object sought—

MR. CANDLISH

said, he rose to Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had asked a Question, and the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) should not have interfered to prevent an answer being given.

THE CHAIRMAN

I was engaged with another hon. Member as to the terms of an Amendment to be proposed, and I did not hear the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough.

MR. GOLDSMID

was about to continue his observations, when—

MR. CANDLISH

again rose to Order, and said that the hon. Member for Peterborough, having addressed a Question to the Chairman, had sat down, waiting for an answer. He wished to know whether that hon. Member was not in possession of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

According to the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) the hon. Member for Peterborough had resumed his place when I called upon the hon. Member for Rochester.

MR. CANDLISH

He had resumed his seat to await your answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he had to submit that the Amendment did not provide any machinery for making the copies which were to be posted. He believed that the words in the clause were the best, and should be retained.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he must again inquire whether it was within the competence of the Chairman under the plea of calling an hon. Member to Order to prevent his continuing his observations, provided that he kept within the rules of Order. He wished to advert to what he had heard said by a Member of the Treasury bench—that the reason why the Chairman did not answer his question was that it was not worth an answer. He submitted that it was not becoming in a Member of the Ministry to throw out such an observation.

THE CHAIRMAN

I called the hon. Member for Peterborough to Order because he was making observations that were not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, and the hon. Member having thereupon stopped, I called upon the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. With regard to the observation that is said to have been made by some Member of the Treasury bench, I did not hear it, and I do not know that any such observation was publicly made. Of course the hon. Member is at liberty to address the Committee subject to the condition that he will obey the rule of confining himself to the question before it.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he thought the discussion which they had been carrying on was really a frivolous one. He wished to refer to observations which he had made on a former occasion, and which in substance he would repeat — that nineteen-twentieths of this Bill had really nothing to do with the Ballot.

MR. JAMES

rose to Order. The question before the Committee was as to the publication of certain notices; and the observations of the hon. Member had nothing to do with it.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that without troubling the Chairman for his opinion he would refer to the objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. James). He had been 19 years in that House, and he did not consider it consistent with his self-respect or his duty to his constituents that he should sit silent and see a delusion practised upon the country, and this with such an unconscionable waste of time as must bring discredit upon the House of Commons. There were very lengthy discussions upon details when neither the principle nor the details were in accordance with the promises of the First Minister of the Crown.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he wished to modify his Amendment by saying that— A transcript of so much of the same as relates to each polling district shall be placed upon some public place in each polling district.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he preferred to adhere to the clause as it stood, which provided for everything.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he would suggest that the lists should be placed for inspection in the vestry hall.

MR. HERMON

said, he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that he should prefer to take the opinion of the Committee upon the matter.

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

The Committee divided: — Ayes 39; Noes 118: Majority 79.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would propose in line 19, of Clause 15, to leave out "a Secretary of State" and to substitute for these words "the judges appointed under the statute 21 & 22 Vic., c. 125, for the trial of Election Petitions." The measure for the establishment of secret voting was one, he thought, well calculated to create suspicion of foul play or a political bias in the conduct of the officers, from the highest to the lowest, appointed to carry out its provisions. It therefore behoved the Committee to do everything possible to remove or mitigate that feeling. Now, it must be admitted that the Secretary of State was a political officer, and necessarily connected with the conduct of the political party he represented. It seemed to him that his Amendment, if adopted, would commend the Bill to the judgment and satisfaction of the country, inasmuch as it provided that the regulations in respect to elections should be intrusted to some officer who could not be suspected of party bias in respect to the conduct of elections. He did not, however, believe that his Amendment would cure the radical defects of the Bill, but he thought that the promoters of the measure would be acting wisely by adopting his proposal—a proposal that was in complete accordance with the course adopted in respect to the trial of Election Petitions. It might be said that the acceptance of his Amendment would have the effect of burdening the Judges with a task which they had not assented to, and that they would not be always present to frame the rules or regulations in question. Now, he was not aware that the Judges had expressed their unwillingness to undertake this new duty, and though the Judges in the case of Election Petitions acted only as they stood upon the rota, the power for the trial of those Petitions was vested not in a single Judge but in the Judges generally. It could not be said then that the subject of those rules and regulations was wholly unfamiliar to them. It should be also remembered that there were always some of the Judges present. He contended that the duties under this clause would most probably be more efficiently discharged by the Judges than by a Secretary of State.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he trusted that the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) because it would be introducing a novel arrangement into our legislation—namely, that of adding administrative functions to the judicial business of our legal dignitaries. He questioned very much whether it would be in the interests of justice to impose such duties as those referred to upon our Judges. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that he had not been informed of their unwillingness to discharge this duty, but in all probability they had had no opportunity of consulting together and stating their opinions on the subject.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) that in regard to the Registration Act it was provided that the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas should from time to time make rules for the regulation of the registration. It appeared to him that that was a prece- dent very much in point. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was one of those who had objected to transferring the jurisdiction of the House over Election Petitions to the Election Judges, but as the House had been of a different opinion on this point, he approved the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, because it would merely impose upon the Election Judges duties analogous to those which they now had to perform. The Judges, he might remark, were fully qualified to do the work.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the question was not whether the Judges were competent to do the work, but whether the making of regulations respecting the inspection of the registers was congruous to their present duties. In all probability the President of the College of Physicians was perfectly competent to draw up such regulations, but it by no means followed that Parliament ought to select him for the purpose. The duties were purely local and administrative, and he thought the Secretary of State might well be intrusted with them. It was really a comfort and consolation to him (Mr. Beresford Hope) to be able to say something in favour of the Bill. He certainly thought that the proposal of the Government was a reasonable one, and that it would not be prudent to assent to the Amendment of of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he desired further to call attention to the fact that the learned Judges had the appointment of the revising barristers, who had to discharge duties connected with the qualification of voters. If, however, hon. Members desired more time for the consideration of his proposal, he would withdraw it for the present, and would make it again on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. GORDON

said, considering that there were at present 6,500 polling-places, and that they were likely to be multiplied ten times under this Bill, he thought the clause would cast upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department a burden almost too great for any individual to bear. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman could not give his personal attention to all the local arrangements under this clause. In his opinion the regulations ought to be made by some official in each locality, the right of appeal to the Home Office or to a Judge being reserved to anyone who felt dissatisfied with the arrangements.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, and propose it again on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COLLINS

said, he wished to draw attention to an ambiguity in the wording of the clause, which said that any portion of the register might be copied on payment of such fees as were prescribed by the Secretary of State. This would seem to imply that it would not be the business of the official in charge of the register to make copies for persons who required them. In order to raise the question he would beg to move in line 20, to omit the word "and."

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he had intended to move an Amendment to obviate this difficulty.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would undertake to insert words for the purpose of removing the ambiguity complained of.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed in line 21, after "fees" to insert "for copies furnished,"—(Mr. Goldney.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (for Mr. CORRANCE)

moved, in page 12, line 20, after "State" to insert— And a poll book containing the names of such voters shall be published at a period of not less than six months after, upon the requisition of any of the candidates at such an Election, or of the persons signing their names to the nomination paper. The information would be of great value in the working of the Act.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he must object to the Amendment, which was an entirely new proposition. Under the clause opportunities for obtaining information were given to all persons interested.

MR. COLLINS

said, he considered no benefit would be derived from printing the names of the voters in one large volume.

MR. MELLY

asked at whose cost it was to be done—the ratepayers, the candidates, or the defeated candidates.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the lists were now printed before the election, and he could see no objection to the printing in the same manner, and by the same authority, the names of those who voted at an election.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, any person could, without the Amendment, publish such a list if he thought fit.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, hon. Gentlemen appeared to forget that this was a Bill for regulating Municipal as well as Parliamentary Elections. If the Amendment were agreed to it would be necessary to publish, at very short intervals and at great cost, a volume in some boroughs and counties as large as The London Directory, and when done it would be worth no more than waste paper.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said he intended that the Amendment should only have reference to Parliamentary Elections.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Powers of Secretary of State to make rules).

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the clause authorized the Secretary of State to make rules for the construction of polling-places and the compartments therein "with a view to secure secrecy." He could not understand what was the object of inserting the latter words, and he would therefore beg in page 13, line 14, to omit the words "with a view to ensure secrecy.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not insist on the retention of the words.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GRAVES

said, he rose to move an Amendment in page 13, after line 23, to insert the following sub-section:— 4a. For enabling masters and officers in the Mercantile Marine, holding certificates of competency, and pilots holding the licence of any licensing authority, and whose names may be on the registration list, and who may be compelled to go to sea between the nomination and the opening of the poll, to vote by means of ballot papers. There were exceptional reasons for the exceptional treatment of the claim of persons to whom the Amendment referred. They numbered between 60,000 and 70,000, and unless some such provision as he had moved were adopted they would be virtually disfranchised. The effect of the clause, unless enlarged as he desired, would be to stop the coasting trade for at least one day, because it would be impos- sible to provide suitable substitutes to discharge the duties which devolved upon these men, as none but licensed officers or pilots could be employed, and the number so licensed was regulated by the ordinary laws of supply and demand. He should like to see this experiment tried in the first instance with officers holding certificates of competency, but if it answered there was no reason why the system of voting papers should not be extended to all other classes of seamen and especially men engaged in the deep-sea fisheries. He had not drawn up a clause on the subject, as he was perfectly content to leave it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to draw up the necessary regulations.

Amendment proposed, In page 13, line 23, after the word "place," to insert the following words:— 4a. For enabling masters and officers in the Mercantile Marine, holding certificates of competency, and pilots holding the licence of any licensing authority, and whose names may be on the registration list, and who may be compelled to go to sea between the nomination and the opening of the poll, to vote by means of ballot papers."—(Mr. Graves.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) was, in fact, reviving the question of voting papers, which the Committee, after a long debate had resolved not to adopt. His hon. Friend would not be surprised to learn that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not accept the Amendment. He would not deny that the case brought forward by the hon. Member was a strong argument in favour of voting papers; but the Committee, with all those exceptional cases before them, had come to the conclusion that the public disadvantages of voting papers were greater than their advantages. The hon. Member must perceive that it would be hardly possible to make an exceptional rule in favour of the class for whom he pleaded. If they were permitted to vote without personally attending at the polling-place, medical men and the members of other professions might justly claim the same privilege. Even if the Committee wished to allow marine officers holding certificates of competency to be exempted from attendance at the poll, the power of making the necessary regulations ought not to be vested in the Secretary of State, who would thus be rendered liable to charges of partizanship and unfairness. He however thought the proposal enlarged the scope of the existing law. Railway guards were placed under electoral disadvantages as great as those which attached to a seafaring life, and it was only fair, if provision were made to meet the exigencies of the one class, a similar provision should apply to the other as well.

MR. COLLINS

said, the inherent difficulty was that these men were obliged to vote on one particular day, without that latitude that was given in University elections. As the representative of a maritime borough (Boston) he had seen the great hardship inflicted on the seafaring population by the present state of the law. A fisherman must either forfeit a week's wages or lose his vote. If he remained on shore to vote his friends by some means would have to make it good. It would be a great boon to the maritime population to make a law in accordance with the Amendment which had been proposed, and if the clause were sanctioned he thought it ought to be extended to common sailors; but as there were other classes of the community placed in similar circumstances he did not think the question ought to be dealt with by an incidental Amendment like the one before the House, and therefore he thought it would be as well not to push the proposal to a division.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, as representing a maritime constituency—[Mr. CANDLISH: Oh, oh!] He did not know why the hon. Member should say "Oh, oh!" except that it was the only kind of argument he was permitted by the occupants of the Treasury bench to use. As representing a maritime constituency, he hoped the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) would be adopted by the Committee. He remembered one case in which a number of seafaring voters were blown out to sea in a sailing vessel on the morning of a polling day, and the political party to which they belonged had to charter a steamer in order to fetch them back again to vote.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) inadequate, but would vote for it on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. If the Amendment were passed he should move to in- sert words which would extend its operations to persons other than seafaring men, who were prevented by exceptional circumstances from being present at the poll.

MR. BRUEN

said, he thought the seafaring population deserved to be relieved from their present electoral difficulties.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he hoped the Government would favourably consider this proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves). They should remember that for a long time—more than 40 years—the tendency of all our legislation on this subject had been to reduce the period during which a vote could be given. On the whole, there was no doubt very good reasons for our first efforts in that direction; but within the last few years the time secured to the elector for the recording of his vote by the Bill of Lord Grey, had been reduced to one day, a reduction which amounted to the disfranchisement of considerable classes of the community. Now that the constituencies had been enlarged this grievance was proportionately increased, and it always had appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, whether ballot were adopted or not, that some arrangement should be made by which certain classes of electors — seafaring men and others similarly situated — might be enabled to exercise the franchise without being personally present at the polling-place. Otherwise, this concession of the franchise would become a mere mockery. Considering that this was an insular country, with a very large maritime population, and that we were peculiarly dependent upon the virtues and character of that class of the community, he must say that to give them the franchise under circumstances in which they could not exercise it, was to create a state of affairs amounting to a great public grievance, and a source of national danger. Therefore, he thought the proposition of his hon. Friend was one well worthy of consideration. Nor did he think, whatever might be the decision of the Committee, that this was a subject which could really be neglected. He could not, with the Vice President of the Council, see a similarity between the case of sailors and railway employés in regard to this question. The one class were frequently compelled to go to sea between the nomination day and the day of polling, while the other class were always on land, and had the greatest facilities afforded to them by the railway companies to give their votes. For these reasons he hoped the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool would be adopted.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he thought it a little suprising that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), if he thought the point so important, did not think of it in 1867 when he was passing his Reform Bill through the House.

MR. DISRAELI

I proposed voting papers in the Bill of 1867.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he had quite forgotten the fact; but he did not think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was a very vital one. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman abandoned it.

MR. DISRAELI

I divided the House upon it.

MR. CANDLISH

At any rate, the number of persons entitled to vote who were prevented doing so by having to go to sea was very small as compared with the whole number of those whose voting power was crippled by exceptional circumstances, and if personal voting was dispensed with in the case of seamen, it ought to be dispensed with altogether. Why ought commercial travellers, for instance, to be excluded from the advantage now proposed to be conceded to the seafaring class? He did not think the proposal was at all necessary; and, as far as he was concerned, he did not, as the representative of an important maritime constituency, ask for the concession to be made. He believed he served his constituents best by refusing the offer. But if the proposal were adopted, why should it not be made to include the men as well as the masters and officers, the former being much more numerous?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was undoubtedly one of great importance; but he thought the Committee would come to the conclusion that, as the question was altogether new to the Bill, it would be better to adhere to the one day of voting. He did not say the question was not worthy of consideration, but it involved conditions perfectly new to the Bill, and was one of great difficulty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that this Amendment could not be taken by itself. There would really be no consistency in it. The only mode in which the matter could be considered was on making a provision by which any person who might satisfy some official that his calling took him from home should be allowed to vote, not at the regular time, but at some other time between the day of nomination and the day of election. Such a provision would involve an important change, the principle of which should not be adopted by means of the Amendment of the hon. Member. He believed that the opinion of the country would be in favour of one day's poll and of personal voting, and his hon. Friend would see that the Government could not in consistency accept the Amendment.

MR. COLLINS

said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) would go to a division and secure to a deserving class the means of exercising the suffrage.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he admitted that the principle was a new one, and that it could not be limited to a particular class; but he thought it was not a new principle in the Legislature. He saw no reason why some indulgence should not be extended to electors engaged in a seafaring life.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, it should be borne in mind that this particular class were debarred by law from recording their vote, because a seaman, absenting himself for the purpose when the ship had to leave port, would be guilty of desertion. The law was so set in motion as to prevent such persons from exercising the franchise. For that reason he should support his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves).

MR. GRAVES

said, he was surprised that hon. Members could not see the distinction between voters whose avocations took them to sea and others who were employed on land. He maintained that there was no analogy between employés on a railway and seafaring people, since the former possessed the advantage over the latter of being able to provide substitutes while they went to the polling-booth. From his connection with one of the principal railways in the kingdom, he knew that the greatest possible facilities were given to railway officials to record their votes. The subject was of such moment that he should again take it up if no one else would.

MR. WARD JACKSON

said, he objected to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) to confine the operation of his proposal to those seamen who were above the rank of ordinary sailors. Officers and men ought all to be included, as all suffered under an equal disability. There were various modes by which the ballot paper might be delivered in the absence of a seaman who had a vote to give. One method he would suggest was to empower the collector of Customs, at the port from which the ship sailed, to receive the signed ballot paper, and give it up on the day of election. A pilot had no option, but was bound to attend a foreign-going ship. Why should he lose his vote for doing so? The collector of Customs was aware of this necessity, and he therefore would be the best person with whom to deposit the voting paper. He denied that the case of seamen, the incidents of whose lives were so exceptional, and who were dependent upon and obliged to watch tides, the action of which no man could control, was in any sense within the rules applicable to working men on shore. Their interests required to be protected just as much as those of any other persons, and those interests would be ignored if they were not allowed to vote as suggested.

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

The Committee divided: — Ayes 95; Noes 149: Majority 54.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

In accordance with the arrangement come to late last night, or rather early this morning, I now propose to report Progress, with the intention of proceeding with Clause 18 on Monday evening. I think I may be allowed to say that the rapid progress made to day has justified me in the idea which I yesterday entertained that we might have proceeded with all the clauses of the Bill, and that if the same rate of progress had been observed complete discussion might have been secured upon each. However, the arrangement was entered into for the convenience of the Committee, and though we may regret the loss of two hours — [An Hon. MEMBER: An hour and a-half.] An hour and three-quarters. ["No, no!"] Well, even an hour and a-half is a very precious commodity at this time, I the less regret the delay, however, as I shall have to ask the House to take the Education Vote some time in the course of the day.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.