PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 11 April 1872)

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
moved an Amendment in the 6th line of the clause. This portion of the clause provided that— At the time of voting the voting paper shall be marked at the back with an official mark, and delivered to the voter within the polling station, and the voter having secretly marked his vote on it, and folded it up so as to conceal his vote, shall place it in a closed box," &c. The hon. Gentleman moved the omission of the words "within the polling station." As there was, he believed, no principle involved in the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would, he trusted, have no difficulty in accepting it.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
believed that the retention of the words "within the polling-station" were necessary to prevent the voter being tampered with.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
objected to the use of the word "secretly," as descriptive of the act of voting—an act done in the presence of, perhaps, hundreds of voters. How was the elector to mark his paper secretly?

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
, who had an Amendment on the Paper to expunge the word "secretly," said, it might very well be omitted. The clauses and schedules minutely described what a voter should do, and it would be better to let the manner in which a voter acted be judged by that description rather than by the ambiguous word "secretly."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it was necessary to indicate the character of the act of voting in the Bill, although the operation was described in detail in the schedule. In answer to the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), he stated that the voter would mark his paper secretly by going into a compartment; all the Bill required was that he should be in a position to mark it secretly, and that he should not be protected merely by a provision requiring him to fold up the paper.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, the word "secretly" appeared to mean that a man should go into a compartment where there might be 150 other people.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
explained, that compartments would be provided at the rate of one for every 150 electors; but it was not intended that more than one should be in the compartment at one time.

§ MR. CAWLEY
objected to the word "secretly" not only because he objected to secret voting altogether, but because the word was either a mischievous, disfranchising word, or it was pure surplusage, having no meaning whatever. Many men would, in perfect innocence, fail to comply with the minutely detailed provisions of the Bill, and would, in consequence, be disfranchised.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
pointed out that there was a distinct difference of opinion between the Vice President of the Council and the Leader of the Government on the subject of secret voting. The object of the Bill, as advocated by the Vice President of the Council, was to make secret voting compulsory; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in a speech delivered at Wakefield last year, used these words— What is the Ballot Bill? We say popularly that it is a Bill to establish a mode of secret voting. What does that mean? Much advantage is taken of that expression, and it is said that voters ought not to give their votes in the dark. Men ought not to be ashamed of what they do. I quite agree with that view, and, probably, most men in this room would have their votes as well known under the Ballot as if the Ballot had not become law. But we mean the Ballot for protection of the weak. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that remark; and it had been long understood that the weak were those who wanted to sell their votes. The right hon. Gentlemen went on to say—"We mean to put it in the power of the voter to vote secretly if he likes." But that made it optional; whereas this Bill proposed to make secret voting compulsory. They ought to know before proceeding farther whether the measure was intended to make the voting compulsory, because in September the Prime Minister had stated that his object was to make it optional whether the vote was given secretly or openly. ["No, no!"] He should like to know what other interpretation could be put upon the words he had quoted.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that he was at all times very happy to relieve the mind of the hon. Member for West Norfolk of any perplexity, and he could 1093 do so with great facility on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman had very properly, and not unnaturally, called his attention to certain words used by him, without attending to the circumstances under which they were spoken. The hon. Member seemed to think that he (Mr. Gladstone) had expressed an opinion at Wakefield that the votes of all voters would be as well known under the Ballot as they were now. But that was an error. The hon. Member had been pleased to dignify with the title of a speech at Wakefield a few sentences spoken by him in the private house of a friend to 16 or 18 gentlemen. That at once disposed of the principal part of the difficulty. Those sentences were not entitled to be treated in the formal way in which they might be if they had been addressed to a public assembly and duly reported. What he said to those gentlemen was, that the measure which the Government had introduced last year, and which they proposed to re-introduce, did not aim at compelling the voter to keep his vote secret, and that probably in respect to himself, and those he was addressing, their votes would be as well known after the passing of the measure as before. The 16 or 18 gentlemen he was addressing were all educated and independent men, accustomed to take part in public affairs, and for all practical purposes their opinions and votes would be just as public under the Ballot as now. He went on to explain what the object of the Ballot Bill was—namely, the protection of the weak; and for that protection it was absolutely necessary that the mere formal act of voting should be secret. The hon. Gentleman might, therefore, dismiss from his mind the idea—an idea which must, no doubt, have given him great pain—that there was any discord of opinion on the subject between himself and his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council. He begged to assure him that on this, as on all other subjects, they were in most perfect harmony.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
said, he did not see that the right hon. Gentleman had given at all a satisfactory answer to the question which he had put to him. There was no difference that he could see between a statement made to only 16 or 18 gentlemen and one made to a large meeting. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman still said he did not want the 1094 voter to keep his vote secret. The question was whether the Bill made secrecy compulsory.

§ MR. D. DALRYMPLE
said, he thought no one could have any difficulty in understanding the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, which was that the Ballot was necessary for the protection of the weak, and not for that of the independent voter, whose principles were openly declared. If they were to raise an interminable discussion on the principle of secret voting, it would only be repeating the tactics of delay adopted last Session. They had been over and over again taunted with discussing the principle of Bills in Committee. Surely they might proceed to a vote at once.

§ MR. R. TORRENS
said, that in Australia there was nothing in the law to compel any man to keep his vote secret. The practical result of the Ballot there had been that the idea of bringing undue influence to bear on any voter died out, as it did in every country where the system of secrecy had been introduced.

§ MR. J. HARDY
remarked that as employés all over the country were dictating to their masters, he should like to hear who the weak people were whom it was sought to protect. Why should secrecy be compulsory? If there were weak people let them proclaim themselves so, and avail themselves of the Ballot; but those who were not weak ought not be compelled to vote in secret.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
wished, allusion having been made to Australia, to point out that elections there were, for the most part, a matter of indifference, while the object in England was that every man who had a right to vote should go to the poll. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had left his place, for he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have remained in accordance with his duty. Lord Palmerston, when Prime Minister, would never have left the House under such circumstances. He had no doubt that a shorthand writer was present when the speech which had been referred to was delivered, and took down the words accurately; and that speech only showed that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had changed his opinion on this as on all other subjects.

§ MR. CAWLEY
moved, in line 13, to leave out from "for" to "shall" in line 14. He thought the vote of an elector should not be declared invalid because of anything that might be written or marked on the ballot paper, inasmuch as whatever was written or marked could not be known until after the election.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that if these words were omitted a great object of the Bill would be disappointed. The object of the Bill was to prevent the purchase of the vote, or the intimidation of the voter. If the voter were permitted to mark his voting paper so as to be identified, it would afford facility for corrupt arrangements.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he thought that much was to be said in favour of the Amendment. It was of the greatest importance that the man who recorded a vote should know that it was registered for the person for whom he desired to vote. At present, when a man left the polling-booth he knew either that his vote was rejected or that it was given in favour of the candidate whom he supported. He had mentioned a case the other day in which 600 voters were disfranchised in the educational election for Marylebone. If the Amendment were adopted, confidence would be given to the voter that his vote was rightly recorded.

§ COLONEL STUART KNOX
believed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was the only man in or out of Parliament who took an honest interest in carrying the Bill. It was all very well to hold "hole-and-corner" meetings in the country, and to bamboozle the people; but the interest taken in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was to hold the Liberal party in Parliament together, though he might well apprehend that the Liberal party would soon all go their own way. He thought it was to be regretted 1096 that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would not give way one iota, simply because he thought he had a majority at his back.

§ MR. CHARLEY
thought that, as it stood, the clause vested too large a discretion in the Returning Officer as regarded the disfranchisement of voters.

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved, in line 14, after "counted," to insert— But no ballot paper shall be rejected by reason of non-compliance with the rules contained in the First or Second Schedules to this Act, or any mistake in marking the ballot paper, if it appears to the returning officer that such non-compliance or mistake was due to ignorance or inadvertence. He contended that no elector should be disfranchised merely because he made a mistake with regard to the machinery of voting. Under this Bill it would be necessary that an elector should be able to read, count, and write—to read, in order that he might select a candidate; to count, in order that he might not vote for more candidates than there were vacancies; and to write in order that he might put his name opposite that of the candidate for whom he intended to vote. We had no accurate statistics as to the number of persons who could read and write in this country; but we knew that 28 per cent of women and 20 per cent of men could not, or would not, sign their names to the marriage register. As many as 40 per cent in some counties were not able to sign their names to the marriage register. It was in the interest of honest electors who, through ignorance or inadvertence, might make a mistake in the process of voting, and also as a protest against the disfranchising character of this Bill, that he moved this Amendment. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had said, some years ago, that the exercise of the suffrage was a kind of education for the voter; but according to the existing provision of the Bill, the voter would be driven from the polling-booth.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Amendment would put the return in the hands of the Returning Officer, for it would be at his discretion to construe ignorance or inadvertence. Returning Officers would probably continue to act from upright motives, but to give them such a power would put them in an invidious position.

§ MR. CHARLEY
observed, that the Bill, as it stood, would place great power in the hands of the Returning Officer, and the object of the Amendment was to limit his power of rejecting ballot papers. The Amendment would give the officer a discretion to be exercised in favour of the voter.

§ MR. GREENE
said, he thought that the more the Bill was discussed, the more evident became the impossibility of insuring perfect secrecy. He understood that at a test ballot held in an adjoining room or at the Reform Club, hon. Members made a great many mistakes; and it was notorious that powers of attorney and other instruments were often wrongly signed. The clause, as it stood, would disfranchise some of the best voters—respectable artisans with little education. Going into a dark hole-and-corner place, voters would fall into mistakes, and the system was disgusting to every right-minded man. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt), if he had occasion to oppose a scheme of this kind before a jury, would show a multitude of objections to it, nor would the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) adopt such a plan in his own business. The right hon. Gentleman had got this child and must support it; but the sooner he put it to somebody to farm the better.

§ MR. DENISON
, observing that the question was far too important to be snuffed out by repartees on either side, asked what provision was to be made for voters unable to read or write. It was provided that if any person was from physical incapacity unable to mark the voting paper the presiding officer should mark it for him. There should be a similar provision for those who could not read or write.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
replied, that provision had been made for persons unable to read or write by the candidates' names being arranged alphabetically. If the hon. Gentleman thought this insufficient, the question, which was debated for days last Session, might be discussed, though he hoped with more brevity, when the Committee came to the schedule. That would be the proper time to raise the point, unless the Committee thought with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stuart Knox), that the existence of the Government depended on these debates being protracted.

§ COLONEL BERESFORD
supported the Amendment. He feared that the clause would inflict great hardship by working the disfranchisement of many working men.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
objected to their being so frequently told that the question had being discussed last year, because what was said last year had no reference to this Bill. Besides, in these days, discussions a year old went for very little, because we had such rapid and remarkable conversions, in which the views of public men were entirely altered upon great questions. It was not long since the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government disclaimed any wish to make voting secret, whilst the whole object of the present Bill was entire secrecy.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
said, he thought that the whole of the clauses with reference to the mode of voting were complicated and embarrassing. By having an ordinary ballot—that was, by simply dropping a ball into a marked box—the whole difficulty would be avoided. This was similar to the system pursued at the Clubs.

§ MR. KENNAWAY
concurred in the object of the Amendment; but agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that the question should be discussed at a future stage.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to settle every question as it arose, instead of leaving questions to be re-discussed hereafter. The clause, as it stood, would practically disfranchise many voters unable to read or write. No one knew so much of the working classes as the right hon. Gentleman, 1099 and he appealed to him to say whether lots of the men employed in his mill would not put their marks in the wrong place unless they were shown where to place them. He was afraid that there were many hon. Members opposite who, so long as they got the Bill, did not care a pin whether the machinery of it worked well or ill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the names of the candidates would be printed alphabetically; but of what use would this be to those who could neither read nor write?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would gladly accept the decision of the Committee upon this matter at the present time; but he thought it would be better for the discussion with reference to it to be held when the schedule came to be considered.

§ MR. COLLINS
regarded the question as too important to be decided off-hand, and agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to defer the discussion upon it until the schedule was before the Committee. Taking into consideration the number of working men who could neither read nor write, he thought that it was of the first necessity that the presiding officer should be at liberty to mark the paper for those who could not read. Unless the Bill were amended in this way it would operate as a Bill of Pains and Penalties upon a large class of Her Majesty's subjects.

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
called attention to the fact that last year a remedy was provided for the evil complained of, and that was by having the names of the candidates numbered. There were very few people who would not be able to vote if they were told that the name of the person they wished to vote for was numbered "2" or "3."

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he thought the discussion had gone beyond the Amendment, which was merely intended to provide that in cases where a man made an accidental mistake in filling up the ballot paper the vote should not be lost. He quite agreed that the matter should be discussed when the schedule came under consideration rather than at the present time.

§ MR. GRAVES
failed to see that the question involved was one of principle. The present form of voting papers was 1100 invariably signed at the bottom by the voter, and doubtless many persons would sign the ballot paper in the accustomed manner through habit. It would be a monstrous thing if all these people should be disfranchised. In his own town he should not be surprised to find thousands of votes null in consequence of accidents of this kind. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider this portion of the Bill, which really did not affect the principle of the measure.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was surprised that the hon. Member who had just spoken should not regard the subject under discussion as involving a question of principle, because it involved the whole principle of the Ballot. If men were permitted to attach their signatures to their ballot papers the whole machinery of the Ballot would be rendered nugatory.

§ COLONEL STUART KNOX
, referring to an allusion that had been made by an hon. Member to the stability of the Government, said, he was satisfied to know that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had promised to honour the country to which he (Colonel Stuart Knox) belonged by visiting it, and he only trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be equally satisfied with the reception he would meet with there. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee how he proposed that a man who could neither read nor write should record his vote under this Bill.

MR. HINDE PALMER
moved, in line 14, after "counted," to insert— Every person entitled to vote who is at the time of the Election in the employment of any other person shall, notwithstanding such employment, be at liberty to go and record his vote at his proper polling place, returning to his employment with all reasonable dispatch, and every such employer shall appoint a time, not being less than one hour, during the time of polling for the voters in his employ to go and record their votes; and every employer who shall refuse to allow such time, or shall directly or indirectly obstruct, hinder, or prevent any such voter from recording his vote, or inflicts upon him any loss or injury for so exercising his franchise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (and in Scotland of an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment), and shall be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same. 1101 The hon. and learned Gentleman said that all proper facilities ought to be afforded to the working men to exercise their votes, and it was very well known that the present hours of polling virtually disfranchised large numbers of them. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had promised to bring up a clause extending the polling hours in proportion to the length of the days; but such an arrangement would be wholly inoperative in the winter months. The working men ought to be able to say to their employers—"We are about to be engaged in a Constitutional duty, and we therefore require to be absent from work for a short time." He had fixed an hour as the shortest convenient period that could be named, and seeing that elections did not occur more than once in four years, it could not be said that the concession was an unreasonable one. It had been suggested that the penalty specified in his proposal was too severe; but he had no objection to strike out the words rendering an employer liable to forfeit the sum of £50. It was said that if no deduction were made from the wages of the working man for the time spent in voting an injustice would be done to the employer; and he should be prepared to meet that objection by an addition to the clause, which would seldom be acted upon, to the effect that the employer, if he thought fit, should be at liberty to make a proportionate deduction from the wages of the voter. The proposition that all workshops and factories should be closed from 8 to 10 a.m. would involve greater injustice than this Amendment, because in a large establishment many persons would not be voters. In conclusion, he proposed the Amendment, omitting the portion which named the penalty.

§ MR. CLAY
said, he was disposed to go with the hon. Member until he came to the proposal to make a deduction from wages. Nothing could be devised which would more surely prevent a working man from giving his vote.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the proposal corresponded with one formerly made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), and withdrawn after a discussion of some hours; and he could not help hopeing that this Amendment would likewise be withdrawn. He thought that the new clause which he 1102 was to devise would practically do what was required. When he read the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh he saw at once that it would be more convenient to meet the difficulty, if it were possible to do it, in the way now suggested; but he had, nevertheless, found it impossible to frame a clause which would be just and equal in its application without qualifications which would make it nugatory, and that owing to the necessity of providing for special and exceptional cases. At present, 99 out of every 100 employers allowed their men to go out and vote without making any objection, and he feared that the proposal to authorize a proportionate deduction from their wages would be most unacceptable to the working classes. He promised that his clause on the subject should be laid on the Table in ample time to allow of its consideration before the Report.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, that if the Amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to say that the period allowed should be before or after the dinner hour, or else an employer might name the dinner hour and so defeat the provision.

§ MR. E. POTTER
said, that in Manchester working men experienced no difficulty in obtaining leave of absence to record their votes.

§ MR. J. HOWARD
contended that there was no necessity for such an Amendment, and that if greater facilities for voting were required they could only be afforded by an extension of the hours of polling.

LORD HENLEY
was of opinion that the polling would be much slower under the new than it was under the old system, and he was most anxious that the working men should have ample time to record their votes. He was unable, however, to support the Amendment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
considered himself pledged to bring forward a clause which he hoped would meet the difficulty, and they need not now anticipate the discussion which would arise upon its introduction.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he hoped the sliding-scale system would not receive the sanction of the House, uniform hours being infinitely preferable. He had never known of any obstacles being thrown by employers of any political creed in the way of their men voting. 1103 He would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he was sorry the Government had agreed to any change; but he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.

MR. HINDE PALMER
said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. CAWLEY
moved, in line 15, after "sealed up," to insert "so as to prevent the introduction of additional ballot papers."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thanked the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, as the insertion of the words would render the clause more clear.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
moved, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from "Where," to end of clause. He objected to the last paragraph now as strongly as he did last year, when he was supported by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney), whose absence he regretted that night, but who had been called away in the service of his country. Practically, it was a disfranchising paragraph. It declared that— Where an equality of votes was found to exist between any candidates at an election for a county or borough, and the addition of a vote would entitle any of such candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer, if a registered elector of such county or borough, might give such additional vote, but should not in any other case be entitled to vote at an election for which he was Returning Officer. His first objection to the closing paragraph was that it provided for cases which were exceedingly rare, and inflicted injustice on a deserving body of public servants. Besides, when such an emergency arose, why should not the equality be left to be removed by the old natural method—namely, a Parliamentary Petition? That seemed to him far preferable to this new principle which was sought to be introduced for the first time into Parliamentary elections. As the right hon. and learned Member for Southampton said in the course of the debate last year, a Returning Officer who was deprived of his legitimate influence as an elector would be more likely than one who was allowed to vote to resort to illegitimate influences in order to secure the triumph of the party to which he 1104 was attached. No adequate reason had been adduced for the change by the the right hon. Gentleman having charge of the Bill, and it would be exceedingly difficult for him, with all his ingenuity, to find any that would stand investigation. Did the Government suspect that the High Sheriffs of counties, holding the most distinguished office, representing Her Majesty, and administering justice, were not fit to be intrusted with the suffrage? Why, this part of the clause was an imputation upon gentlemen of character and position, of which he (Mr. C. Bentinck), were he a Member of the Government, would be sincerely ashamed. Or, to go a little further, did they think that men of humbler station, to whom had been committed the important functions of Returning Officers in boroughs, were not fit persons to record their votes? It really appeared to him that if they were not to be trusted to go to the poll, they were not be trusted to preside at the poll. It was quite true that one Returning Officer at the last election had given his vote to the candidate who had his sympathies, and by that circumstance the candidate was returned; but the offender was publicly rebuked, after making a narrow escape from being brought to the Bar of the House for his misconduct. But, surely, if the Mayor of Helstone did wrong to advance party objects, that was no sufficient reason for visiting his misdeeds upon his official brethren throughout the United Kingdom, all of whom were regarded as honourable men. There was no possible prospect of any danger accruing to the State by allowing these gentlemen to exercise their privileges as electors; and, as he had no sympathy with disfranchisement of this kind, he should press the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he must repeat what he had said last year, although he was afraid the arguments would have no effect upon the hon. Gentleman opposite. The law was different throughout the three kingdoms. In England a Returning Officer might vote in the same way that any other elector did, but might not give a casting vote 1105 in the case of a double return. In Ireland he might vote in the election, and also give a casting vote; and in Scotland he might not vote at all. This was an unsatisfactory state of things; and the Government, after determining that in future the law should be rendered uniform, decided, further, that the most satisfactory mode of settling the whole question would be to give a casting vote only to the Returning Officer. So far from the Government doubting the character or impartiality of Returning Officers, they proposed to intrust them with the power of absolutely determining an election in the case of a double return. Therefore, instead of being disfranchised, the Returning Officers would be endowed with the most important votes given in the course of contested elections.

§ MR. COLLINS
objected to the disfranchisement of 400 Returning Officers, for the sake of a remote contingency of a possible double return, of which there was not an average of above one in a Parliament. He did not see any necessity for disfranchisement; and he would prefer that the Returning Officer should be allowed to vote twice in the case of a double return—once in 400 times—rather than 400 should be disfranchised at every General Election. He regretted the course which had been taken by the Government, and thought it would have been better if they had left the law as it now stood.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
remarked that the Chairman of Committees did not cease to be a Member of the House, or to hold a most honourable position, because he did not vote in the divisions, while he was entitled to give a casting vote.

§ MR. COLLINS
replied that the case was entirely different, for the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees gave their casting votes in accordance with well-defined rules.

§ MR. KENNAWAY
objected to the Amendment, thinking it desirable that the Returning Officer should be kept free from all suspicion. On their appointment they were subject to various disabilities, amongst which he might mention that they were not eligible to become Members of that House, and it was most desirable that they should be as little as possible mixed up with politics.

§ MR. M'LAREN
concurred in the view that the Returning Officer should be, as far as possible, above all suspicion. The fact of a man knowing before an election took place that he would have no vote must have a tendency to make the election more pure. If he was at liberty to take part in an election there would be a danger that justice might not be done. He trusted that the Government would abide by their own proposition.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
, referring to proceedings at the recent election in Yorkshire, said, that the fact of the High Sheriff having voted had given rise to the feeling among a section of the electors that he had acted with partiality. ["No!"] He did not charge the High Sheriff with partiality; he merely stated the fact that his having voted gave some people the impression that he had voted unfairly. Such an occurrence showed it was desirable that the Returning Officer should be placed, as far as possible, above suspicion.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, that last year it was unanimously agreed that power to give a casting vote was a fit compensation to the Returning Officer for being deprived of his right to vote as an elector. A Returning Officer ought not to be allowed to act as a partisan in the first instance and as a judge in the last, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division.

§ DR. LUSH
said, he did not think the objection applied so much to the case of Sheriffs of counties, whose interest was not local, as to the Returning Officers for boroughs. In places where party spirit ran high, and the Mayor was the protector of the public peace, he ought to be placed in a position of strict impartiality.

§ MR. GORDON
remarked that in Scotland the Sheriffs, who were the Returning Officers, were excluded from voting or taking interest in elections, and that this system had worked admirably. He did not say that those gentlemen had not their private opinions; but the fact of their not taking active participation in elections had the effect of generating the most complete confidence with regard to the discharge of their duties. If that was the case in the elections, which had hitherto been carried on openly and in the face of day, how much more important was it that the same sense of security should prevail under 1107 the Ballot, and that there should be no suspicion of partisanship or connection with any of the candidates? He thought that this was a question well worthy of the consideration of the Committee, and he regretted that the attendance on the occasion was so thin as it was. Speaking with the experience of a Scotchman in the working of elections, he could say that no aspersions had ever been thrown upon the Returning Officer in Scotland, and he believed that this was owing to a considerable extent to the fact that they had no power whatever to interfere in the elections. The system was different in the three kingdoms. The question they had to consider was whether the Scotch system was not the best; and, if the Lord Advocate was present, he should claim his assistance, because the committee of Sheriffs had expressed their opinion in favour of the Scotch system. He supported the Amendment, because the effect of it would be to leave the Scotch system as it already was. He thought that the Scotch system was the best, and that the House had kept the Returning Officer free from any interference in elections.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
understood that, during his absence from the House, the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Illingworth) had made some observations reflecting upon the conduct of the High Sheriff of Yorkshire during the late election. It was, he believed, in accordance with usage that when an attack was about to be made on a public functionary—

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I simply said there was a rumour that the High Sheriff had voted, and that, in the minds of the lower classes of the community, his doing so was considered an irregular transaction. I added that I did not think the High Sheriff had been guilty of any irregularity whatever.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
Well, the hon. Gentleman says that, in the minds of the lower order, the High Sheriff acted with partiality. Am I to understand that the charge against the High Sheriff is withdrawn? I ask the question, and I demand an answer.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
I can have no difficulty whatever in answering the question. I made no charge, and I have, therefore, no charge to withdraw.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
The hon. Gentleman withdraws a charge—["No!"]—based on a rumour of something existing in the minds of the lower order of the community. ["No, no!"] I am quite content with the withdrawal. I stand before the House as the returned Member by the High Sheriff.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
I rise to Order. This is not the question before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Knaresborough having denied that he made a charge against the High Sheriff of Yorkshire, the hon. Member for the West Riding will not be in Order in continuing his observations.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he would then content himself with the remark that when a return, or the conduct of an election, was impugned, it should be done before an election Judge, and not in this House. He saw no reason why the Returning Officers should be shut out from the privileges of British subjects. He was a warm supporter of the Bill, but did not wish the reform it would effect to be accompanied by any restriction of the franchise.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he regretted that the two last speakers had thought it necessary to make the remarks which they had just uttered. No one who knew the High Sheriff of Yorkshire could believe that he would do anything likely to forfeit his high position. No doubt Sir Henry Edwardes would feel it his duty to give his vote; and no person could blame him for acting as the law allowed him to act. As to the question now before the Committee, the Government did not think they could go farther in the case of a double election than give the Returning Officer the power of giving a casting vote, for the Returning Officer might dislike both candidates, and it would not, therefore, be fair to make him vote for either. In Scotland the Sheriff was often not an elector for the county in which he acted, and the Returning Officer would not under the Bill be able to give a casting vote unless he was an elector. Altogether, though there were some difficulties in the matter, he thought they were fairly met by the clause. To vote during an election and to give a casting vote after the election were two different things. While an election was proceeding a Returning Officer was conducting 1109 it, and if he voted during that time some persons might think this was an act indicating partiality. At any rate, it was desirable that the Returning Officer should not be open to any such imputation or suspicion. But after the whole of the voting was at an end, it was a very different thing that he should then give a casting vote. To such an act there could be no objection, and that was the distinction made by the clause.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
said, he entirely agreed with the view taken by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) on the subject of the Returning Officer, and he also endorsed the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) in moving the rejection of this paragraph. It was said that as men grew older they grew envious, and certainly he could not but envy the more juvenile aspirations of his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven, when he told the Committee that he should have been ashamed of doing that which the Government had done in introducing this Bill had he been a Member of the Government holding a seat on the Treasury bench. But he would remind his hon. Friend that it was a good many years now—he would not say 20—since that strong sense of shame had exhibited itself upon the Treasury bench. He would go further and say that if any such sense of shame had existed, hardly any measure which had emanated from the Treasury bench during the past 20 years would have been brought forward. He would go further still, and he would assert that if that sense of shame had been so vivid and so active, the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would not have allowed the whole evening to pass by in a discussion on the details of the measure, without giving to the Committee the explanation which he (Mr. Bentinck) had asked for in the early part of the evening, as to the total discrepancy which existed between the right hon. Gentleman's own statements and the statements of the Prime Minister. [Laughter.] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh; but they would do much better if they would get up and defend a Government which was incapable of defending itself. It was not consistent with the honour of the Government, if they entertained any scruples on such a question, to persist in dealing with the details of a Bill until they had 1110 condescended to make the Committee aware of what were the sentiments of the heads of the Government with regard to those details. He had quoted the words of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill and those of the Prime Minister, and the statements of both were entirely opposed to each other.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, that in Ireland the Returning Officer was obliged to give a casting vote in case of an equality of votes. It had been urged that it was a very hard thing to require a Returning Officer to do so; but he was appointed to discharge a public duty, and it was much better that he should be obliged to give a casting vote than that a constituency should remain unrepresented for several months until the matter was decided by another election. In France they had the Ballot, and in case of a tie or equality of votes the senior candidate was elected. In America, in case of a tie, the election was decided by lot. In New South Wales, in case of a tie, the Returning Officer was obliged to give a casting vote. In Ireland the Returning Officer, in case of a tie, was obliged, under a penalty of £2,000, to give a casting vote. He thought the Committee ought to adopt that rational proceeding which prevailed in every country where the Ballot had been adopted, and which had been found so satisfactory in Ireland. The hon. Member moved, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "may," and insert "shall," with the view of compelling the Returning Officer to give a casting vote in case of a tie. He proposed that where the Returning Officer was not entitled to vote for the district the election should be decided by lot between the parties. In the elections of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and also of the School Board, the Inspectors decided by lot in case of an equality of votes. There could be no effectual scrutiny under the Bill, and if new elections 1111 were necessary to determine the "tie," these might have been determined over and over again before the matter was set at rest. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the question was not so important as his hon. and learned Friend appeared to suppose. The object of the clause was identical with that of his hon. and learned Friend—namely, to avoid a double return. A double return, however, was very rare, his hon. and learned Friend beside him not recollecting one in Ireland; and it was very unlikely that the Returning Officer, especially in Ireland, should have no preference for either of the candidates. It was very improbable that these two contingencies—as also that of the Returning Officer being an elector—would happen, and it was not worth while providing for such cases by a rule in itself objectionable. Why should the Returning Officer be the only elector not at liberty to abstain from voting? He might have been elected on account of his strong conscientious feeling, and in that case he might choose to incur the fine and disqualification proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman rather than give a vote.

§ MR. M'MAHON
then moved, in page 2, line 31, after "vote," to insert— And if not a registered elector of such county or borough, shall decide by lot upon the person to be declared duly elected.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought this contingency also a most improbable one, and that if it occurred there must be a double return. He did not wish to put a Member in the position of being returned in the manner proposed.

§ MR. GORDON
believed that, owing to the mistakes of voters in recording their votes, elections under the Bill would, to a considerable extent, be determined by lot. This would not occur in Scotland but, in other parts; and when it did occur, he saw no inconsistency in making the Returning Officer decide an equality of votes by lot.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
remarked that the difficulty might be met by providing that the Returning Officer should be an elector. The High Sheriff might be an elector for the county, but not for a borough within it, and in case 1112 of an equality of votes there would be a difficulty. Nothing was more just than that in such cases the election should be decided by lot. It would be a dreadful thing in his own county, with so numerous a constituency, if, in case of a double return, the Returning Officer was not a registered elector, or did not choose to record his vote, and the election had, therefore, to be held over again, at a cost of thousands of pounds.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, it would be making confusion worse confounded if in case of a double election the Member were chosen by the vote of a gentleman who was not even an elector of the particular constituency, or by chance lot.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, he thought the rational solution of the difficulty was to give to the Returning Officer a casting vote in all cases. The High Sheriff of Yorkshire was the Returning Officer of the five divisions, and it would be four to one against his being a registered elector in all the divisions, and against his being able to vote in case of a double return there.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the double return in such large constituencies was a possible, but not a very probable, contingency. If the Returning Officer were not a registered elector, there must be a new election or a scrutiny.

§ MR. COLLINS
suggested the addition to the Amendment of the words "or if, being a registered elector, he declined to vote," because the clause did not compel the Returning Officer to vote.

§ DR. BALL
said, that in several of the boroughs in Ireland the Returning Officer was the High Sheriff of the county, and was not a voter for the borough. What was to happen there in the event of a double return? Some authoritative decision on the subject ought to be recorded in the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that one object of the clause was to assimilate the practice in the three kingdoms, and the Returning Officer would not vote as an elector, but would, if a registered elector, have a easting vote if he chose to give it.

MR. GILPIN
said, he did not regard this as a final measure, many of its provisions being necessarily experimental. There was a good deal of uncertainty with regard to some of the clauses, and experience alone would test them. He 1113 approved the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that every Returning Officer should have a vote where there was an equality of votes.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that in their debates on that measure much stress had been laid by its advocates on the practice and experience of the Australian Colonies. The present Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) was based on that Australian experience. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill did not seem to be aware that the Returning Officers of five or six Irish boroughs had not votes for those boroughs. The Amendment ought to be fairly considered, unless the Government would adopt the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie).

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
explained that the Committee had already decided that the word "may" should remain in the clause, and not "shall." He had not stated that there were no Irish boroughs in which the Returning Officer was not an elector, but that Ireland had not been blessed or cursed with any considerable number of double returns.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
, as this was a Bill which assailed the long-established constitutional privilege of open voting, felt that he would not be doing his duty towards those who sent him there if he was a party to the hurrying of the measure through the House, more especially as it was a measure which one of its warmest supporters (Mr. Gilpin) had characterized as experimental, and likely to need early amendment.

§ MR. CORRANCE
moved, to leave out the clause. They had, he presumed, before them the Bill of the Session, and upon which the fate of the Session and the Liberal party depended. On a former occasion he said that he hoped when the Bill went into Committee it would never come out again; but he wished now to qualify it by saying that he should be content if this clause were struck out of the Bill. Amendments in it had been proposed from both sides of the House; but they had been uniformly rejected by the right hon. Gentleman who 1114 had charge of the Bill. About one-tenth part of the population of the country were to have intrusted to them the exclusive and almost irresponsible privilege, under the secret vote, of legislating for the other nine-tenths, of deciding on questions of taxation, of colonial government, and of peace or war. That was the consequence of the vote which the Committee were asked to give that night. It had been said that the secret Ballot was a great party move. Those who said so, it was to be presumed, believed it would be for the benefit of a party. But he thought a grave suspicion must have crossed the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point. Indeed, he had heard it remarked that this measure was an act of political suicide on the part of the Liberal party, and that, for the boroughs especially, no Liberal Member would ever be returned twice. Several hon. Members on the Ministerial benches had expressed an anxiety for the passing of the Corrupt Practices Bill, and also for a measure dealing with bribery at municipal elections—an anxiety which showed that in their belief this Bill would not meet its professed object of repressing bribery and intimidation. As to personation, the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) had made light of the danger of its extension; but he should like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General for England, who had had some recent experience as to the possibility of that offence. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had candidly admitted that no rational man expected more from the Bill than that it would for a short period afford the voter some protection. Now, he protested against the adoption of so important a measure for a temporary purpose. Another witness whom he would cite against the Bill was the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), who had cautioned his side of the House against expecting too much from its operation; and he added, that he perceived on the Conservative side of the House a certain pre-disposition to accept the Bill, which had raised in his mind so many grave doubts. With regard to that remark, it might be that some Conservatives expected to derive some advantage from secret voting; but he would warn them against being influenced by such considerations. Conservatism could only rest on clear and 1115 distinct principles, though they were sometimes subjected to the unjust strictness of a censorius Press. His party could never rest on any chaotic majority. As to the next General Election, he was at a loss to understand on what the Government intended to base their appeal to the ballot box. Surely not on their foreign policy, as exemplified in the Black Sea and Alabama questions? If, content with the boroughs they thought of winning the counties, they were wofully mistaken—for rating bills, the retention of the malt-tax, and the refusal of justice in various ways, were not recommendations to the favour of county constituencies.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he thought this clause one of the most important in the Bill. What were they to gain by secret voting? It certainly would not tend to repress personation, for whereas at present a personator could be traced and the vote rectified, this would be impossible under the Bill; the clause, moreover, would have a disfranchising effect on many voters unable to read or write; and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had deferred the question of the hours of polling, not having the courage to propose a definite hour, though the importance of this time in preference to a sliding scale was manifest. They all knew that if intimidation existed it prevailed to a very slight extent; and they knew, also, that nine-tenths of the people of this country would rather record their votes openly than secretly. He agreed with what had been said that publicity meant honesty, and secrecy meant fraud; and yet it was now proposed to tell the honest that they must not record their votes openly in order that the dishonest and timid might be protected. He should record his vote against the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. R. TORRENS
observed, that raising a discussion in objection to the present clause was simply re-opening the debate on the second reading of the Bill. He hoped that, as the clause contained the essential principle of the measure, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would declare that the success of the Motion for its omission would be sufficient ground for withdrawing the Bill.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he was in the position of a man who was compelled 1116 to differ from those with whom he usually acted. The question was not whether the Bill was well drawn, but whether, under all circumstances, the House would set its face against the Ballot. He could not deny that a great deal of intimidation existed. His Friends below him had largely extended the franchise, of which he cordially approved. The thing now was to enable those enfranchised to give a free and unbiassed vote. Under the circumstances, he could not say that the present system of taking votes was perfect; and, therefore, looking at the Motion, he felt very reluctant that it would be his duty to vote with his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on this question.

VISCOUNT NEWRY
moved, in page 2, line 37, after "any," insert "forged or defaced," and leave out "knowing the same to be forged."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
opposed the Amendment. The words proposed to be left out were necessary to show intention, which was part of the crime for which the penalty was to be inflicted.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
asked, what was the legal interpretation of the words "forging" and "defacing?"

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that the interpretation was an intent to defraud. If the defacing were done accidentally the party would not be subject to the criminal law.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
But what is the legal meaning of defacing the paper?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
It is either the erasing of the name from the front of the paper, or of obliterating it and making the same illegible. There is no legal difficulty in the matter.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
What is the meaning of the word "fraudulent?"

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
It is a common word in law, and the jury will have to determine it upon the evidence.

§ MR. LEATHAM
moved, in page 3, line 1, before sub-section 3, insert— 3. Wilfully displays his ballot paper in such manner as to show to any person the name of any candidate for whom he has or has not voted; or. He said, that unless some such provision were introduced, nothing would be easier than for venal voters to arrange with electioneering agents, who were watching the polling-booths, to show their voting papers, and so establish their claims to bribes. This provision was in the Australian Acts, in the Bill of last year, and in the Bill submitted by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). He therefore moved the Amendment.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
said, he thought that the whole principle of the Bill was involved in this matter; and that a Ballot Bill would be worthless unless it were made penal to expose the vote.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it was quite true the provision was in the former Bills, and it had been inadvertently omitted from this, though the offence was partly met by the 4th clause, which made it penal for any person to give information as to how a voter had voted. The Government accepted the Amendment, which was simply copied from their former Bills.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that of all the Amendments proposed this was the most ludicrous and absurd. A voter would not have "voted" until he had put his paper into the box, and it was proposed to enact that he should not show his ballot paper when he could not get hold of it.

§ MR. LEATHAM
said, he was under the impression that a man was exercising his right to vote when he marked the paper; but to obviate any difficulty, he would alter the form of the Amendment, and substitute the words "for whom he is about to vote."

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the hon. Member, when he wrote the Amendment, evidently thought that it would be possible for the voter to recover his voting paper; but what was chiefly remarkable 1118 was the extremely despotic character of the Amendment. The whole meaning of it was that there should be a penalty upon a man revealing his vote when he wished to do so. A man who wished to conceal his vote would not inform anybody how he had voted. It was proposed to inflict a penalty upon that remnant of a bygone age—that unconverted Englishmen, who ventured by revealing his vote to outrage the despotic notions of modern Liberalism.

§ MR. A. EGERTON
said, he thought that the objection to the Amendment was, that it would be very difficult for any jury to come to a conclusion as to the wilfulness of the acts. A case occurred at a school board election of voters who had difficulty in understanding how to place the marks upon the papers, and they asked the agents in the polling-booth. This would be very likely to occur in a Parliamentary election. He hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was extremely surprised to hear that the Government would accede to this Amendment, after what had been said at an earlier period by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham) was not to blame for the original language of the Amendment, which was necessary, because it was quite possible an arrangement might be made as between bribers and the bribed.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
claimed the vote of the Prime Minister against the Amendment, because in a recent speech he had said—"We mean to put it into the power of the voter to vote secretly if he likes; he will be the best judge of that." Where would be the freedom of the voter if this Amendment were carried? He hoped the Prime Minister would explain the discrepancy between his words and the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill.

§ MR. JAMES
said, this sub-section must be argued on the assumption that it was desirable to have a system of secret voting, and therefore it was necessary that the Amendment should be adopted. If we were to have the Ballot at all we must enforce secrecy, and if an elector had the right of showing in what way he had voted he would have 1119 the power of voting in public in case he thought fit so to do. Hon. Members opposite had frequently alleged that this Bill would increase the facilities for corruption; and he admitted that such would be its effect if an elector were allowed to show the way in which he had voted, because when a man was bribed the briber would say to him—"Give your vote in pursuance of the bribe, and let me see how you have voted, and then I will pay you." If a man could show to the candidate's agent in the polling-booth the way he had voted, he would secure the amount of the bribe, and thus there would be increased corruption. Of course, an elector would be free to state which way he had voted, but this was a very different thing from showing his voting paper. Much had been said about the experience of other countries in regard to the Ballot, but that had not so much weight with him as with those who used such arguments, because the analogies were entirely different. But it so happened that the Liberal opponents of this measure had last year produced a pamphlet, in which they had collected the experience of many descriptions of Ballot, more particularly in the different States of America; and it showed that, wherever there was a semi-public Ballot, the Ballot had failed; but that, in every instance and in every State where the voting had been perfectly secret, there the Ballot had been successful in removing every evil attaching to open voting. They had accepted the principle of secret voting, and the Amendment was intended to fill up a loophole by which secrecy might be evaded. Admitting the cogency of the verbal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy), he would with much respect urge upon the Committee that, when so altered, all should accept the Amendment who wished the Bill to pass as an effective and good measure.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) had assumed that any person who wilfully displayed a ballot paper must do so with a fraudulent and corrupt motive; but, for his own part, he demurred to the accuracy of that assumption. It was highly probable that, in voting under an entirely new system, many an honest man would open his paper without any intention of corruptly showing it; and, 1120 although he might be entirely innocent of any such motive, this Amendment would subject him to imprisonment for two years. The proposal was an intolerable stretch of tyranny, and yet this was a popular measure for the advancement of popular rights and political freedom. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council and the Mover of this Amendment joy of such a step in the assertion of popular privileges. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) had cited in support of his argument a report drawn up by Liberal politicians, which, he said, showed that in every state of America which had a secret Ballot there was no corruption. On referring to that document, he found that Mr. Ware, of Boston, U.S., said— The secret Ballot is the parent of so many frauds that it is but seldom the return reflects the popular will. These frauds would not be easy of accomplishment if the voting were open.

§ MR. CLAY
remarked, that it was more important to cure intimidation than bribery; but if the ballot papers might be shown before they were delivered, the evil of intimidation would continue to exist.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
said, he hoped the Committee would not be led away from the real point of the Amendment. It had already been described as being an absurd proposition, and he should not have thought that anything so absurd could have been suggested, because it required a man to show how he had or had not voted. But as the paper went at once into the ballot box that could not be done; and he was sure the Amendment could not be made a legal enactment. He should object to any alteration in the Amendment until a division had been taken upon it as it stood on the Paper, or it had been withdrawn.

§ MR. H. B. SAMUELSON
pointed out that there was no analogy between the Ballot in this country and where the Ballot was not a method of secret voting. The Amendment contained the word "wilfully," and, therefore, a man could not be punished for accidentally showing his voting paper.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
remarked, that if the machinery provided by the Bill were as good as the Government represented it to be, there was no necessity for such heavy penalties. 1121 Parties ought not to be punished for what might often be innocent acts, and the penal regulations looked like a trap for the unwary.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, that as it could not be considered immoral for a man to state the way in which he intended to vote, or, after voting, the way in which he had recorded his vote, it could not be considered necessarily immoral for him to disclose how he was voting at the time when actually engaged in the process. It was now proposed to create by statute a new penal offence, and he hoped great care would be used before the proposal was adopted by Parliament. If the Government or any hon. Member had proposed that the vote of a man who disclosed his intention should not be accepted, he would have supported the proposal; but he could not accept a suggestion that would render penal any act which might be performed by accident, or be the result of ignorance or inadvertence.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
, in deference to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy), said that as a new criminal offence was now proposed to be created, it would be well to have a clear definition on the face of the clause. He would, therefore, move to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting words to render it penal for any voter wilfully, by displaying his ballot paper, to show to any person "the name of any candidate for whom he has, or has not, marked his vote on his ballot paper."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he thought the alteration proposed by the Solicitor General placed the proposal of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) in a more absurd light than ever, because it would render liable to two years' imprisonment a voter who allowed any person to see his ballot paper before he had placed a single mark upon it, and when it was, in fact, in the condition in which it came from the hands of the printer.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
moved, that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.

§ MR. W. M. TORRENS
said, he hoped the Government would take time to consider this question, before creating a new statutable offence which should be punishable, like theft, with imprisonment. Experience showed that penal laws could not be enforced unless the penalty was proportioned fairly to the offence. He had witnessed the process of balloting, and had seen the ballot papers displayed by inexpert voters without the slightest evil intention. He would like to have from the Solicitor General a definition of the word "wilful," because if it could not be defined with the utmost clearness, it would be safer to adopt as a punishment for the offence mentioned in the Amendment, the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell), and punish a display of the mode in which an elector intended to vote by a forfeiture of the vote tendered.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. S. Hardy) would not press his Motion to report Progress until this question had been settled. In the Bill of last year the display of the ballot paper was proposed to be made an offence, but it was to be punished by a fine of £10, and not by imprisonment, as recommended by his hon. Friend (Mr. Leatham). To make the Ballot effective the vote must be a secret one, and it would not be secret if the voter showed his ballot paper. He thought it was right, therefore, to make it an offence, and would suggest that they adopted the provision in the Bill of last year.

§ MR. CHARLEY
said, that in the Bill of last year the penalty was to be inflicted if the voter displayed his paper, not to anyone, but to the presiding officer.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the question now became a serious one, because it involved the liberty of the subject and the matter of penalties. He wished the Committee to understand what was provided by a Liberal Government, and to show the cruelty which they were proposing to inflict on honest men. He would assume that a man coming out of a dark recess had the voting paper in his hand, and allowed it to be seen by some one who was passing, and it was then placed in the ballot box; the 1123 person who saw the paper might lay an information against the voter for exhibiting his paper, and proceed against him for two years' imprisonment or the infliction of a penalty. Now, how was the man to defend himself? He was deprived of a scrutiny, and could not take his paper out of the ballot box. Hon. Gentlemen, in their desire to protect the timid and weak, were forgetting the respect due to the honourable and honest voter; they forgot that there were many honest men who had enemies, political or otherwise, who might prefer charges against them; and he would ask, was it a just thing that a charge should be made against a man, when what would be conclusive evidence in his favour—the production of the ballot paper—was refused him?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
would, in answer to the objection urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), ask every hon. Member in that House who was a lawyer, and every hon. Member who was not a lawyer, whether they had heard of such a thing as wilful murder, and whether it was supposed that a jury would be unable to determine whether that offence had ever been committed? His answer to the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was, that the showing a voting paper by a voter would be an offence, whether it was marked or not. That, at all events, was their intention. They did not propose to give the voter accused the right of appealing to the ballot box, because the question of how a man voted was immaterial—the offence was the showing the ballot paper. He certainly did not believe—as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine—that candidates or their agents were at all likely to be guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
congratulated the Government on possessing a Solicitor General who, in the course of five minutes, appeared to have forgotten the nature of his own Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that a man would be unable to defend himself by appealing to his voting paper. A. would accuse B. of having shown his ballot paper, marked or not marked, in a certain way, and A. would if the charge were untrue, be able to say—"I did not show you my paper, and as a proof of that, 1124 it is not marked in the way you state." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James) objected to the voting paper being shown, because an agent who bribed would then be able to insist upon seeing that his voters voted in accordance with his promise. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No, no!] As the hon. and learned Member for Taunton appeared to acquiesce in the interpretation which he had given to his argument, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would perhaps do well to confine himself to answering for and defending his own opinions. The hon. and learned Gentleman differed from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton in believing that the agents of the candidates must invariably be guiltless of all offence, and he (Mr. G. Hardy) repeated, that by this provision they would be placing an honest man at the mercy of an accuser, by shutting against him his only means of defence.

§ MR. LEATHAM
regretted he could not accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the vice President of the Council. A penalty of £10 would be no penalty at all, because the money would come out of the pockets of others than the wrong-doers. It was necessary to have a personal guarantee.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, a blot had been pointed out as existing in the two previous measures; but the blot had been repeated in the Amendment then before the Committee, proposed from the Opposition benches, and accepted in blind haste by the promoters of the Bill. He therefore asked that the Motion that the Chairman report Progress be put from the Chair in order to enable the Government to reconsider the point during the next 24 hours.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he was disposed to accept the Motion to report Progress; but in order to leave the question quite open, he trusted the hon. Member (Mr. Leatham) would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment before the Motion to report Progress was agreed to. In the estimation of some it seemed that showing a voting paper was an innocent and even laudable act, and was, in fact, a fine manifestation of English spirit which ought not to be discouraged. The Government, however, was not disposed to go as far as that. When the House had seriously adopted a Bill, the 1125 principle of which was secret voting, it was incumbent upon it to do everything in reason to carry that decision out effectually. Although it was not necessary to impose any ulterior obligations of secrecy upon the voter, it was necessary effectually to prevent, even by penal clauses, a disclosure of the vote in the act of voting. Therefore, it appeared to the Government essential that some penalty should be imposed by way of punishment for the wilful, though not the accidental, exhibition of the voting paper on the part of the voter. He felt that there was some force in the objection urged on the opposite side to the insertion of the penalty in that particular clause. The maximum penalty of two years with or without hard labour, was undoubtedly a very severe one. Although it was right to repress the British pluck and energy of the voter by moderate measures, it might not be necessary to bring so sweeping a penalty upon his head. The Government would be obliged to vote against the insertion of this Amendment in this particular section; but they would reserve to themselves the liberty to consider whether they should insert the Amendment in the 4th clause of the Bill, which dealt with a class of offences liable to a maximum penalty of three months, or whether a pecuniary penalty would be sufficient.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, he thought the penalty of two years' imprisonment was far too severe, especially when, according to the terms of the Amendment, the exhibition by a voter of a voting paper unfilled up would expose him to it. According to the Australian Act, the electors were directed to fold up the marked paper in such a manner as to conceal the names of the candidates, and then deposit the paper in a box, and any elector wilfully obstructing the process was deemed guilty of a misdemeanour. The clause was well drawn, and the penalty attaching to a misdemeanour would answer every purpose.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment before the Committee divided on the Motion for reporting Progress. The Government agreed with his hon. Friend to this extent—that what was enacted ought to be enforced by some penalty being attached to the wilful display. Therefore, if his hon. Friend would withdraw his present 1126 Amendment, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would undertake either to agree to a penalty, or provide for the matter in a separate clause.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had expressed the opinion that the clause would not work unless a penalty for exposing the vote were imposed. No doubt that was so, because the whole measure was repugnant to the feelings of the people, and nothing but a penal clause would make it work. While the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) proposed to inflict a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment, with hard labour, upon an ignorant voter who showed his voting paper, the next clause of the Bill only proposed to inflict three months' imprisonment upon any public officer engaged in the election who should misconduct himself in his office. Such inconsistency as that showed the way in which Amendments were prepared by hon. Members opposite. It was extremely difficult to define the meaning of the word "wilfully," and it was very hard that such a punishment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield should be visited upon men who only did that which for years every Englishman had been proud to do—namely, give his vote openly. The proposal was certainly a most extraordinary one to come from an extreme Member of the Liberal party.

§ MR. LEATHAM
said, he would willingly withdraw his Amendment, provided the Government would undertake to introduce an Amendment into the next clause, limiting the punishment for the offence indicated to three months' imprisonment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had no hesitation in giving the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman required.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, he was astonished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that penalties had dropped out of the Bill last year, because he understood perfectly that they had been in the Bill when it was originally introduced, and that they had only been omitted from it on the Motion of himself and other hon. Members who sat near him. The penalties had, therefore, not been omitted by accident, and had only been taken out of the Bill when the right hon. Gentleman found his position untenable, in consequence 1127 of English, voters refusing to stand these punishments being hung over their heads. What had occurred to-night showed how incapable the Government were of conducting their Business. After a great deal of time had been wasted, an understanding had been come to between the Government and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham); and if that understanding were carried out, it would only land them in fresh disasters. Although Her Majesty's Government presumably possessed a majority in that House, they actually did not possess the confidence either of a single Member in it, of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright), or of Mr. George Odger.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, if hon. Members would not consent to the withdrawal of the Amendment, he must divide the Committee on the question for reporting Progress.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, that considering that the Government within the last 10 minutes had turned their backs upon their former position, hon. Members on his side of the House were not bound to become parties to the arrangement which had been entered into between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Huddersfield. This Bill, as it was originally introduced, was an improvement upon that of last Session; but he was afraid that the arrangement with the hon. Member for Huddersfield had been entered into in order only with the view of enabling the Government to resume the position they had occupied with regard to this measure last year. The fact was, that the nearer the Ballot was approached, the more difficulties presented themselves in the way of its adoption.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
observed, that not 10 minutes since the First Minister of the Crown had stated that provided the hon. Member for Huddersfield would accept the Amendment of the Government, they would not oppose the Motion for reporting Progress. In consequence of that statement the benches near him had considerably thinned, and if the Government divided the Committee on the Motion for reporting Progress, they would be guilty of a breach of faith.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that after the observation of the hon. Member the Government would not offer any opposition to the Motion for reporting Progress.