PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. (Hansard, 22 April 1872)

§ MR. CADOGAN
moved, in page 4, line 29, after "in the case of a," the insertion of words as an Amendment, to the effect that in every borough of which a town council was not the local authority, and which was not wholly situate within one petty sessional division, the justices of the peace in which such borough or the larger part thereof in area was situate, assembled at some court of general or quarter sessions, or at some adjournment thereof, should he the local authority thereof, and should for that purpose have authority over the whole of such borough.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he would agree to the insertion of the words.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
next moved an Amendment, to the effect that any order made by a local authority in relation to polling districts or polling-places should apply only to registers of voters—and not to lists of voters—made subsequently to its date, and to elections held after the time at which the register of voters so made had come into force.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the question started by the hon. Baronet was whether, if an order were issued at any time before the end of the year, the arrangements as to the new polling-places should come into force upon the register of the 1st of January in the next year. Of course, everybody wished that that should be so; but, for reasons he had stated on a previous evening, it would be extremely difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible, that that should be the case, unless time had been given 1634 for the list of voters to be prepared for the new divisions. He therefore thought it would be necessary to limit the application of the order to the list and register of voters in force at the time of the passing of the order.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman would insert words confining the cases in which the new register should not be put in force to cases in which parishes were divided.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had no objection to adopt the suggestion.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, with a view to meeting the wishes of the hon. Baronel opposite, which were shared by the Government, that the new polling districts should be brought into operation wherever practicable, proposed to add to the clause a provision that where an order was made before the 1st of November which did not create any new division between two or more polling districts of any parish or township, it should apply to the next following register and election.

§ MR. ASSHETON
urged the propriety of providing polling facilities for voters in boroughs with large areas, which were practically portions of counties. The county authorities were required to take measures of this kind; but with borough authorities the matter was left optional. Aylesbury contained 69,000 acres, or about 100 square miles; Shore-ham was still larger, and Chippenham, Droitwich, and other boroughs contained very large areas. He hoped, before the Bill left this House, the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the question.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, he had already called attention to this point, and had mentioned the case of his own borough, where the voters and the polling-booths were arranged in alphabetical order, under which system a voter might have to go to a polling-booth two or three miles distant, though another booth was close to his door. Such a regulation amounted to disfranchisement in the case of voters of the 1635 humbler class. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, on the Report, frame or agree to words which would meet this difficulty.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had already considered the point, and was ready to consider any Amendment which might he proposed on the Report. The difficulty was, that the position of different boroughs exceedingly varied, and that a general compulsory enactment would be likely to do more harm than good. There was scarcely any borough which had not outlying districts, and to provide a polling-booth within a quarter of a mile of every voter would be a heavy and unnecessary expense, while the number of voters thus accommodated might be very few. The clause would require every borough authority to consider the matter and report to the Home Secretary its reasons for not taking action. Public opinion might be expected to influence the authority if there was ground for taking action, and he did not think more than that could be done.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
contended that the arrangement of voters alphabetically should at any rate be prohibited. He trusted that at a future stage the question would be considered.

§ SIR THOMAS BAZLEY
proposed, in line 39, after "Parliamentary," the insertion of the words "or municipal."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not accept the Amendment. It was no more than fair that schools and other public rooms should be used for Parliamentary elections; but to extend the clause to municipal elections would necessitate a considerable encroachment upon their legitimate use. He believed it would be found that municipal authorities already provided rooms for the purposes of municipal elections.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
asked whether, in case the day of election were made a compulsory holiday, allowance would be made for that circumstance in the calculation of the attendances?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not believe that the education of the children would suffer, and hoped that 1636 the children would so grow up as to associate the idea of an election with that of a holiday.

§ SIR HERBERT CROFT
, in proposing the next Amendment, said, that from a circumstance with which he was acquainted, the provision was calculated to inflict upon the schoolmasters a fine of about 5s. a-day, as it would deprive the schoolmasters of at least one day's grant. As the candidates would be relieved of the heavy expenditure attaching to the present system of erecting polling-booths, he should move the erasure in lines 39 and 40 of the words "free of charge," and in page 5, line 4, after "aforesaid," the insertion of the words, "and also pay one pound per diem for the use of each school or room as aforesaid." If the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment everybody would be satisfied. The children would get their holiday, and the schoolmasters would suffer no pecuniary injury.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was sorry that he could not be tempted to accept the hon. Baronet's Amendment by the pleasant prospect of affording everybody satisfaction, as that position was one certainly in which he had never yet succeeded in finding himself with respect to this Bill. He did not believe that the proposal would at all interfere with the amount of the grant, which was given provided a certain average of attendances was reached, and, moreover, the Government dealt with the managers only, who must make their own terms with the masters under them.

§ MR. HUNT
pointed out that in all probability the schoolmasters would gain considerably by this Bill, as it was extremely likely that in many cases they would be selected to act as the deputy Returning Officers.

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
feared that the preparations which would have to be made would involve the closing of the school for more than one day, and was of opinion that a stipulation should be made guarding against such extension.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
also doubted whether everything that was necessary, together with the polling, could be included in one day.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
believed that the school would be useless for school purposes for, at least, three days.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
felt perfectly certain that everything that was necessary in the way of preparation could be managed easily in the school in his own neighbourhood after 4 o'clock in the afternoon before the election, and removed before 9 on the morning after the election. If they inserted such a stipulation as proposed, it would be almost certain to lead the school authorities to the impression that they would be justified in using the school for the three days.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
observed, that that might be so in large towns like Bradford, but would, he believed, be impossible in country places.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had referred to a village school.

§ SIR HERBERT CROFT
said, he found that the objection entertained by the school managers to this proposal was so great that he felt bound to propose an Amendment, which was not on the Paper, but of which he had given private notice. The objection of the managers was, that their school was founded for purposes of education and not for elections, and that an election might so far interfere with the course of the school as to lessen the Government grant through non-attendance. He accordingly moved the insertion of words giving school managers power to veto any demand for the use of their school as a polling-station.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
stated that managers at present had the power the hon. Baronet wished to give them; his Amendment was, therefore, an Amendment against the whole clause.

§ MR. LIDDELL
remarked that this was the most tyrannical Bill ever submitted to Parliament, and the farther they went the more tyrannical it became. This clause would compel managers of schools to violate the terms of the trust deed.

MR. HEYGATE
did not think the objection to the use of schools for Parliamentary elections could be sustained. If it were proposed to use them for all elections, municipal and parochial as well, the interference with the school might be worth considering.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the recurrence of Parliamentary elections might be regarded as a part of the education of scholars, particularly of adults.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
, as a school manager, preferred the clause as it stood.

§ SIR HERBERT CROFT
said, that the schoolmasters strongly objected to the clause, as shown by the following extract from a letter of remonstrance drawn up by an association of schoolmasters:— Further, the use of the school is not for educational purposes, and is therefore opposed to the spirit of the Education Act. On these grounds, supposing the clause is passed, they think any manager would be legally right in closing his door, and refusing the use of his school for such a purpose. He could not disregard the very strong remonstrance which had been made to him by his constituents on the subject, and would be compelled to divide upon the question.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
hoped the hon. Baronet would not divide.

§ MR. JAMES
moved the addition of a Proviso, prohibiting agents and others at present disqualified by existing Acts of Parliament from voting, notwithstanding their names might be on the register. He had not given Notice of the Amendment, but presumed there would be no objection to it.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was quite willing to accept the Amendment, as it served more completely to express the object of the clause.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, it was inconvenient to have Amendments moved without Notice. If the Proviso went no further than the hon. and learned Member had described, it would be unobjectionable; but it would be more satisfactory to have it on the Notice Paper before it was brought on.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he also thought they ought to have more time to consider that Amendment, which appeared to make a great change in the law in reference to non-resident voters in boroughs.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
suggested that, as its meaning was uncertain, the Amendment should be withdrawn, at least for the present.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
doubted whether the Committee could entertain the Amendment without a previous Instruction from the House.

§ MR. JAMES
said, in consideration of the objection shown against it, he would withdraw the Amendment, and bring it forward again on the Report.

MR. GREGORY
said, he must object to the clause altogether, as being to all intents and purposes a franchise clause. Now, the Bill was not a Bill for amending, or in any way dealing with the franchise. The clause said, that every person whose name was on the register should be qualified to vote, unless he was disqualified for voting by some statute for the time being in force, or by "the common law of Parliament." He understood what "the common law of the Realm" was; but he had some doubt as to what was meant by "the common law of Parliament. He opposed the clause.

§ MR. GRAVES
, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in line 20, after "Act," to insert— And shall make provision as hereinafter mentioned for receiving the ballot papers of masters and officers in the mercantile marine, registered seamen, and licensed pilots, 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, said, he could see no reason whatever why these men should be denied the option of expressing their opinion the same as all other classes had. Many proposals had been brought forward in these discussions to give facilities to various classes of voters in exercising their franchise, but none had yet been moved for the benefit of the class referred to in his present Amendment. He rested the Amendment on the principle that officers and men of the Mercantile Marine and licensed pilots formed an exceptional class of the community in being placed under statutory obligations to fulfil their engagements such as no other section of 1640 the public were subject to. A master or officer of the Mercantile Marine if he did not fulfil his engagement with his employer was liable to forfeit his certificate; a seaman in the like case could be treated as a deserter and severely punished; and a licensed pilot, where pilotage was compulsory, was in a position of still greater difficulty. The personation at elections of seamen who were absent on voyages was of frequent occurrence, and if his proposal were adopted this door for recording fraudulent votes would be closed. He had heard of a remarkable instance which occurred at Hull. Soon after the poll had opened a vessel went out of the docks, and was brought up in the roads, because the pilot wished to record his vote; but when the vote was tendered it was refused, because it was declared that the voter had been seen on the ship when passing through the docks. He left it entirely to the right hon. Gentleman to make such regulations as would prevent the indulgence his proposal would afford to seamen from being abused, and, from what had already occurred, he was satisfied that if his proposition were accepted, the Government would be at no loss to devise pains and penalties sufficient to prevent the violation of the principle of secret voting. The principle having been conceded in the case of the election of University candidates, he could not conceive why the same indulgence as was granted to the members of the Universities should not be accorded to our seamen, especially seeing that more Petitions had been presented during the Session in favour of it than had been presented in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

§ MR. C. SYKES
hoped that the Committee would allow him to trespass for a very short time while he said a few words in support of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Living, as he did, in the immediate 1641 neighbourhood of the third largest port in England—namely, Hull—of which, though he had not the honour to be one of the Parliamentary representatives, many of his constituents were inhabitants, he happened to know that a strong feeling in favour of the Amendment existed there. The trade of Hull was chiefly with the Dutch, North German, and Danish ports; the voyages were necessarily short, the ships being only two or three days in port. Consequently, it frequently happened that a large number of persons directly affected by the Amendment left port before they were able to record their votes. In this respect the seafaring population of Hull were more immediately interested in the Amendment even than those of Liverpool, from which port the voyages were longer, and the vessels remained a longer time in port before leaving.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Amendment, which he believed would prevent the virtual disfranchisement of our sailors.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought if they were to pick out certain classes as was proposed, and allow them to vote by means of ballot papers, it would be impossible to prevent other classes from making the like demand. But, apart from that objection, he believed it would be impossible to carry out the arrangement without opening the door to improper influences, and conceding the principle of open voting rather than the secret Ballot to the parties in question. He regarded the hon. Member's Amendment as a mere reiteration of his proposal of last year, and as one which should have been brought forward when the clause of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), of which the object was to replace personal voting by voting papers, was under discussion. The general feeling of the country not being in favour of voting by voting papers, he could not accept the Amendment; and, in fact, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not know how to adopt the system of voting papers to the Ballot.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal of the hon. Member for York was in the nature of an alternative to the Ballot, whereas the present Amendment was proposed in connection with the system of the Ballot. He was interested 1642 in the question, as he represented a mercantile constituency, and he did not see why those who were voters, but who were engaged upon the sea, should not have larger liberty accorded them for the purpose of recording their votes, though the system might afterwards be extended. What he wished, with reference to seamen and master mariners, was that they should have the power not of signing the paper, but of secretly giving their ballot paper at any time between the proclamation and the day of the poll. It would be a great facility to them, and would enable them to record their votes, which it would be impossible for them to do under the present provisions of the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
, in opposing the Amendment, said, that it would virtually make the polling last from the proclamation to the day of poll; in other words, for six clear days, and during all that time the same precautions must be taken with reference to personation, the conduct of the presiding officer, and secrecy of voting, as were required on the day of the poll. It would be enlarging the clause which had been under discussion the other evening; but instead of enlarging it only for several hours, as was then proposed, it would be enlarging it for several days.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
observed, that the question was, not whether the polling would be made easier by the Amendment of his hon. Friend, but whether the polling of this class should be rendered possible. The right hon. Gentleman had acquired great experience since he undertook that the Education Office would lay down the rules by which all the elections to the school board in the metropolis should be taken by Ballot; and there would, he thought, be no great difficulty in devising machinery by which this very reasonable Amendment might be carried into effect.

§ MR. CANDLISH
thought the Amendment, if adopted, would be fatal to the Bill. It involved a very wide principle, and the only way of meeting the case was by a provision for receiving the vote of every man who had to leave his home in the prosecution of his calling.

§ MR. LIDDELL
urged, in support of the Amendment, that the class of men to whom it applied were men going to sea in discharge of a legal liability. They were compelled by law to fulfil 1643 their contracts. Further, they were not merely fulfilling their ordinary occupation, but they were doing one thing under statutory penalty, when their inclination might lead them to do another. He knew there was a very strong feeling among sailors that their interests were not properly attended to in that House. Now, that feeling might be right or wrong; but was it right to encourage the feeling, as not giving them an opportunity of voting would certainly do?

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he would put this case to the hon. Mover of the Amendment. Suppose a ship went to sea with 10 men on board on a Monday, and the polling was to take place on Thursday, and suppose the ship foundered on Tuesday or Wednesday, and suppose 10 votes turned the election; what was to be done in that case?

MR. SCOURFIELD
thought it was not necessary to anticipate such an alarming supposition.

§ MR. GRAVES
said, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Crawford) had asked him what position 10 men would be in who had unhappily lost their lives before the day of polling? All he could say was, that they would have the benefit of having their votes recorded before they did go to the bottom. Not only this year, but also last year had the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) failed to meet his Motion by any argument whatever. The right hon. Gentleman had specially failed to appreciate the point he had endeavoured to place before the mind of the Committee—that the class of men to whom the Amendment pointed was an exceptional class of men, and that they lay under statutory obligations from the moment they registered their names on the articles of the ship. From that time these men were no longer their own masters, and the law was hanging over their heads with its pains and penalties.

§ MR. MAGNIAC
supported the Amendment, as the Bill without such a provision would disfranchise large numbers of men, and among them 300 or 400 of his own constituents.

§ MR. HUNT
said, the votes of the men whose ship had foundered would be struck off on the scrutiny. In the case of the University elections, the elections took place by voting papers, and no objection had been raised, in their case.

§ MR. STEVENSON
asked from what side the voters would be struck off? Again, how were registered seamen who were going to sea to be recognized? Any man might come forward and say he was a registered seaman going to sea.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, the contingency suggested by the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) might occur in the case of a voter at a University election, whose vote would be good notwithstanding that he might die before the declaration of the poll. It was even possible that a man who voted by ballot might die during the polling, or even be killed in a row, or in an attempt to steal the ballot-box.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
asked the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) if men who were compelled to go to sea for six hours, and might come back again in time for the voting, would be allowed to vote in terms of this Amendment?

§ MR. GRAVES
replied that that was a point that might be left to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill.

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
said, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had referred to the hardship to which seamen were subject in reference to voting; but he would suggest to his hon. Friend the redress of an injustice to which seamen were subject. He (Mr. Harcourt) had always thought it a most unjust and iniquitous provision that the contract with seamen alone should be enforced by statutory penalties. When his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool had got rid of that, he would have done a great deal towards assuring the seafaring class of men that the House of Commons had an interest in them. There was nothing that that class of men resented so much as that they should be sent to prison by the hundred by benches of magistrates consisting of persons belonging to the class of their employers. If that unjust statutory penalty were removed they would be placed in the same position as all others who had made contracts with respect to their labour.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he would postpone his Amendment, providing that 1645 the Returning Officer should mark the papers of incapacitated voters, until the 24th rule of the Schedule was discussed.

VISCOUNT NEWRY
moved, in page 5, line 37, the omission of the words "unless with the permission of the presiding officer." His object was, that if a man so misconducted himself that he had to be removed, he should not be readmitted. The Returning Officer ought to have no such option in such a case, for if he had that option, the agent, feeling sure how the man would vote, might press for his re-admission.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought it undesirable to limit the discretion of the Returning Officer. If a man, once expelled, could not be re-admitted during the whole day, the Returning Officer would allow a good deal of disorder before resorting to so extreme a step. Then, again, even an agent might be so excited, that it became necessary to warn him by turning him out for a short time; but it was inexpedient that there should be no power to bring him back. Moreover, a man expelled for drunkenness at noon might be sober at 3.

VISCOUNT NEWRY
admitted that, but maintained that a person who had misconducted himself should suffer for that misconduct.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he must propose the rejection of the clause, regarding it as a desire for secrecy run mad. It was very much the same clause as was accepted with great reluctance by the right hon. Gentleman last year from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now see fit to expunge the clause. At present, there were no means of ascertaining how a man had voted, in the case of a scrutiny, except by questioning the man himself. It might be that the agents of both candidates had bribed, and in that case it would be necessary to ascertain for 1646 whom the elector voted; or they might prove that a person not upon the register voted, and if the election happened to be determined by a majority of 1, they were not even then to ask him how he voted.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, his difficulty last year was not as to the cases which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), but he had doubted whether Parliament ought to secure a man against being asked questions in a criminal court. That difficulty was met by the insertion in the clause of the words, "in any legal proceeding to question the election or return." The right hon. Gentleman seemed to lose sight of the fact that a man might be found guilty of personation or bribery quite independent of the fact for whom he voted. As regarded the striking off of the vote, that would be met by Clause 2 of the Corrupt Practices Act.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he regarded this clause as most objectionable in reference to the probability of the increase of corrupt practices. See how it would work. A Petition was got up upon a report of 15 or 20 persons that they had been bribed, but these persons, on being seen by the other side, would tell a very different story in the witness-box. In that state of things, a most important question to ask would be—"How did you vote?" If that question could not be asked, how could they find out whether the person called was or not a hostile witness to the party who had called him, and whether the Judge should allow that party to cross-examine him? If his experience was worth anything—and he had sat as a Commissioner in one of the longest inquiries over held—this clause, in its present shape, would entirely wipe out the Corrupt Practices Act.

§ MR. JAMES
admitted that the words "or without his previous consent be asked," were objectionable, and he should support their omission. If a voter were to be asked—"How did you vote?" the Judge would have to determine the question whether he should be cross-examined by the party calling him, and that would depend upon whether the witness had told the truth. But the Judge would have no means beyond that of looking at the witness how this was. There would be no record as to how the person had voted, and he (Mr. James) 1647 must protest against the word of the witness being taken upon the question. If he had been bribed he would probably say that he voted for the candidate for whom he did not vote. What would be the use of asking the question, unless they were to be bound by the answer? If they did not pass the clause the voter might be compelled to answer how he voted, and the principle of secrecy would be destroyed. He, however, regarded the rest of the clause as necessary, remembering that if even the question were put, there would be no opportunity of testing the truth of the answer.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, that the clause would operate so as to prevent the new clauses regarding personation to be brought up by the right hon. Gentleman being fairly carried out. When a man was brought up for personation the vote of the elector personated was to be added to the poll on the side of the candidate for whom the elector wished to vote. But the other man might have voted for the same candidate, and in a close election, where the majority was only 1, the vote of the personator might determine the issue. Now, as under this clause it would be impossible to find out how a man had voted, if the Bill passed the House of Commons would be doing its utmost to promote personation and bribery. He, therefore, was decidedly of opinion that the clause should be omitted.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the object of the clause was to prevent the purpose of the Bill from being defeated in case of inquiry into an election.

§ MR. HUNT
asked, in that case, how an election was to be verified if this clause stood part of the Bill? If a voting paper were marked by the voter with the names of more candidates than there were vacancies the vote became void. What could be easier than for a Returning Officer under the clause to mark an additional name on the voting paper, and in that way to make the vote null? At all events, such a clause as this would make the Returning Officer open to suspicion.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, it would be impossible, with the safeguards that were provided, for a Returning Officer to tamper with the voting papers. He hoped, therefore, the clause would be retained.

§ MR. GORDON
said, the clause appeared to refer to England only, and he did not see why it should not apply to Scotland also—especially as a Committee had reported in favour of a considerable increase of polling-places in that country. The House would recollect that last year a discussion arose on the question whether Scotland should be exempted from the operation of the clauses which had been inserted in the Ballot Bill, and an effort was made to have such a clause inserted with reference to polling-places in England. The Government opposed the Amendment, and there was considerable discussion; but ultimately the Government consented to the insertion of provisions with reference to polling-places exactly of the same character as those which applied to England; and the Bill, as it went up to the House of Lords, contained that provision. But they now found that in their Bill of this year the Government had departed not only from the recommendation of the Committee and from their own Bill, which had received the sanction of the House, and had not only omitted the provision in Section 5, which was applicable to England and Ireland, but declared expressly by the sub-section which he now moved to strike out that Scotland should be excepted from the operation of the section. He could not understand on what principle it was that Scotland should be exempted from the operation of a rule which had been applied to England, and was about to be applied to Ireland, without objection. Personation was what was dreaded under the operation of this Bill, and therefore it was most important that the number of polling-places in Scotland, as well as in England and Ireland, should be as great as was reasonably practicable. Then in Scotland they had large districts belonging to one proprietor, and the manner in which the tenants voted could be watched with 1649 great case if there were but one polling booth for the whole district.

§ MR. M'COMBIE
said, he could not see how the voters in Scotland should not have the same advantages and the same privileges as in England. Many a tenant farmer in the far distant glens of Scotland would be grateful to his right hon. Friend for proposing this Amendment. West Aberdeenshire, which he had the honour to represent, was about 70 miles long, and in many parts 30 and 40 miles broad, and many of his constituents lived from 20 to 30 miles from a polling station. Some warned him that if they increased polling-places they increased the expense. Grant it; why should they not study the convenience of their constituents? The tenant farmers might have one consolation. From no future Government could they get less than they had got from the present. He must cordially support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.

§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN
also supported the Amendment. They could not divide the country into districts entirely fulfilling the requirements of the Bill. According to the clause, the polling districts were to be so formed that no voter should be obliged to go more than four miles to the poll; yet it appeared to have been forgotten, especially in Scotland, that there was a proviso that a polling-place need not be created for any district which did not contain 100 voters. If this proviso remained in the Bill, in some of the Scottish counties—Inverness for instance—electors would have to go eight miles to the poll, and he thought a walk of eight miles out and eight miles home would be more than sufficient for the pleasure of voting. It might be said that these electors were mostly occupiers, who could ride. But many of the electors were poor farmers, who only kept a couple of horses, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not let them use one horse to go to church on Sunday without paying duty for it, it was hardly to be expected that they could afford to pay duty for a horse to take them to the poll.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, this subject of dividing counties and boroughs into polling-districts was not a matter of principle but of convenient arrangement, and he thought the circumstances of Scotland were such that no alteration in the existing law was required. Scotland, taken as a whole, was much more thinly populated than England, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said the other night, it would be difficult if not impossible to make any one provision which could be suitable to England, it would be much more difficult to do this in the case of Scotland. He was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) did not, before bringing forward his Motion, endeavour to ascertain whether the people of Scotland were dissatisfied with the operation of the existing law, which, so far as the burghs were concerned, was precisely the law it was proposed by the Bill to enact for England—namely, that in cases where the convenience of the voters required it the boroughs should be divided into polling-districts, according to the discretion of the Returning Officer. So far as the counties were concerned, the Sheriff was empowered, by the 16 & 17 Vict., c. 28, if it seemed to him expedient to increase or diminish the number, or alter the situation of the polling-places within his county; but if any objection be made by any of the electors, they must be submitted to the Lord Advocate, who might dispose of them as seemed most just; or any 10 electors might send a written request to the Sheriff for such alterations as might seem desirable. If the Sheriff refused, the requisitioners might appeal to the Lord Advocate, who acted in those matters on his responsibility as an officer of the Government. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing), therefore, that the existing law afforded a sufficient means of remedying any inconvenience that might arise. In the more populous lowland counties it was no doubt desirable to have a large number of polling-places—it was a mere question of expense; but in the case of such counties as Inverness, where there were only two voters to every three square miles, and Argyll and Boss, where there were only two voters in every four square miles, it would be impossible that some like the 1651 20 polling-places which Ms hon. and learned Friend would establish could be equipped within the prescribed six days and provided with the necessary presiding officesr, besides the clerks and agents who would be required. There were not lawyers and solicitors in the counties which he had named to supply the demand. The operation of the Amendment would, he maintained, be, under the pretence of diminishing inconvenience and expense, to multiply both. While willing to assimilate as far as possible the laws of England and Scotland, he must decline to act upon that principle when geographical considerations which could not be surmounted stood in the way.

§ MR. ORR EWING
said, he could not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend. Much inconvenience arose from the present state of the law in Scotland and the paucity of polling-places. At the last election for Dumbartonshire, his agent and himself thought that it would be convenient if they could have a separate polling-place for two distant parishes, one of them divided from the rest of the county by a loch of considerable extent, and which the voters must otherwise have to cross. But notwithstanding that additional polling-places would have accommodated 300 voters, the Sheriff refused the application, and had there been a poll at last General Election his constituents living in the parish of Rosenenth would have been obliged to cross the loch in stormy winter weather at great inconvenience. The learned Lord Advocate told the House that an appeal lay to him. Now, speaking with all due respect of the Sheriffs and the Lord Advocate, he must be pardoned for thinking that under certain circumstances it was very natural that they should feel a bias either for one side or the other, and he did not think that either the Sheriffs or the Lord Advocate was exactly the proper tribunal to appeal to for an extension of the polling booths. So far as the Lord Advocate was personally concerned, he (Mr. Orr Ewing) was quite sure that he would be glad to escape from the uncomfortable position of being the person to whom the appeal must be made. With respect to another point raised, if the candidates were willing to pay the additional expenses, he could not understand why, when it was for the convenience 1652 of the electors, they should not be allowed to have an increase of the polling-places, which, as far as the expense was concerned, he was of opinion that, instead of increasing, it would greatly diminish that expense.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. He distinctly asserted that if the Committee should adopt it, they would have less power to increase the number of polling-places in Scotland than they now had. It seemed to be forgotten that at present, if a candidate wished to have the polling-places increased to such extent as that not more than 100 voters should poll in any one district, he had an absolute right to go to the Sheriff and insist upon that being done, on his giving an undertaking to pay the expense. He did not see why Scotland should be asked to depart from a rule which was elastic and had been found convenient, and believing the law to be amply sufficient he should support the Bill as it now stood.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, it was generally admitted that the same law should apply to different parts of the kingdom, except in cases where the circumstances were specially different. With respect to the argument of the Lord Advocate, he might observe that there were some parts of Wales and the Yorkshire moors where, from the sparse character of the population, it was quite as difficult and tedious for them to get to the polling-places as in Scotland. Whether the present law was sufficient or not, the fact remained that the power had not been sufficiently exercised either in England or Scotland, and that the authorities in Scotland had been as remiss in considering the convenience of the electors as they had been in England. The proposed Amendment would have the effect of consulting the convenience of the electors in both countries, and therefore he should support it.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
considered this a question purely for the convenience of the electors, and hoped that the Government would take a favourable view of any suggestions that might be made for that purpose, from whichever side they might come. In view of a sudden General Election, which some people regarded as imminent, it would not be wise to leave the polling-places to the chance application of the electors; 1653 but Parliament should insist that proper care should be taken by the responsible authorities to provide them What was wanted was that polling-places should be provided by the action of Parliament, with such variation as the circumstances might require.

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought the learned Lord Advocate had not argued this question with his usual care and ability. There was a fallacy that pervaded all his remarks His speech resembled an address to a jury who did not know much about the matter rather than an address to persons practically acquainted with the subject. It should be remembered that in the territorial division of the counties into polling-districts there was to be a limit observed as to the number of electors. In the large county of Inverness, for example, there were only 1,642 electors; and if they divided the county into polling divisions, each including 100 voters, that would give them 16 polling-places for the whole county. A similar principle might easily be applied to other counties. An active man might divide Argyllshire in two days most accurately and symmetrically. His chief reason for supporting the Amendment was this—that he altogether objected to saying in an Act of Parliament that what was beneficial to England and Ireland should not be applied to Scotland. This provision should be struck out, and the matter allowed to work itself out in Scotland in the same manner as in England and Ireland. The matter was not left to depend on applications from the electors in England and Ireland, but the thing was commanded to be done, and the same rule ought to be fairly worked out for Scotland also. They were entitled to take the schools as polling-booths; and as every parish in Scotland had its school, they would have in the schools admirable polling-booths, thus saving expense to the candidates, while greatly promoting the convenience of the electors, who ought not to be put to the loss and trouble of going long distances to vote. The provision in the Bill to exclude Scotland from that advantage was most unjust, and he should, therefore, cordially support the Amendment.

§ MR. ROBERTSON
said, he perfectly agreed that there should be the same law in England and Scotland; but in some respects the latter was so different from the former that a different mode of action was required. At present 1654 they were satisfied with the existing state of things in Scotland. He never heard any objection alleged. They could have as many polling-places as they wished. They had only to apply to the Sheriff, and he would meet the wishes of the majority of the constituents. Why, then, should they have a number of new polling-places, and incur an enormous expense? It had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) that this was not a party question, but he was afraid it was so to some extent; and as the people of Scotland were perfectly satisfied with the existing state of the law, he hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to by the Committee.

§ MAJOR WALKER
said, he did not think that the present system by which polling-places could be increased in Scotland was at all satisfactory. So long as it was left to the Sheriff to establish fresh polling-places on the unopposed requisition of any 10 electors great difficulties would arise. Each party would regard the application of the other side as a party move, and endeavour to meet it by a fresh requisition of their own. It must be borne in mind that these applications for additional polling-places would be made on the eve of a General Election, when men would look with great suspicion upon the appeal upon the matter from the Sheriff to the Lord Advocate, a political officer and a Member of the then Government, and perhaps deeply interested in the decision he was to give.

§ MR. FINNIE
said, the present law undoubtedly required amendment. It was necessary that the polling-places in Scotland should be increased on account of the enormous expense that was obliged to be incurred at present in conveying voters to the poll from long distances. For instance, there were at present only six polling-places in Ayrshire—a number obviously insufficient. Unless the Lord Advocate could give him a pledge that the Highlands would be divided from the Lowlands for election purposes and that the number of polling-booths would be increased in Scotland, he should be obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment.

§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY
appealed to the Government to give way on this point in deference to the opinions of Scotch Members. It was an invidious task for the Sheriff to decide as to polling 1655 places during the excitement of an election, and to appeal to the Lord Advocate was unsatisfactory. A reasonable case had been made out for placing Scotland upon the same footing as England in regard to this matter.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
, as a Scotch Member, was decidedly in favour of the proposal of the Lord Advocate. The case of Scotland stood on a different ground from the case of England. In Scotland there was a competent authority—the Sheriff of a county—to settle the polling-places, with an appeal to the Lord Advocate, and that, on the whole, formed a good and impartial tribunal to decide as to the necessity of polling-places. But in England the Justices in Quarter Sessions were as bad a body for deciding such a question as could be conceived—they heard no evidence, and they were always suspected of bias, so that their decisions were either unsatisfactory or were supposed to be so by the public. To compare the case of England with that of Scotland in the present instance was, in his opinion, absurd. There was no real resemblance between the authorities with whom the decision lay. The diversity of circumstances, too, between the Highlands and the Lowlands of Scotland was such as to place them wide as the poles asunder with regard to the operation of the clause, which laid down an iron rule as to the distance of voters from polling-places, because that which would be utterly unreasonable for one district might be perfectly reasonable for another. What was required in Scotland was an elastic authority such as that which at present existed, which would adapt the number of polling-places to the wants of the country. He should, therefore, support the Lord Advocate in his opposition to the Amendment.

§ MR. MAXWELL
did not think it fair that Scotland should be placed in a different position with regard to the erection of polling-places from that which would be occupied by England under the Bill. The poor elector ought to have the polling-places brought much nearer to him than they now were; but he knew from his own experience how difficult it was to obtain the requisite number of such places for the convenience of voters.

§ MR. MILLER
said, he concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The 1656 people of Scotland were quite content with the present state of things. He objected to the hard-and-fast line being drawn in the case of Scotland which was applied to England. In some cases the effect would be to drown the Scotch elector with justice, while in others he would not get what he wanted. The present state of things, in his opinion, gave as much satisfaction as could reasonably be expected from the adoption of any other system. He did not see that the Amendment would reduce the long distances in the Highlands.

§ MR. CRUM-EWING
hoped the Lord Advocate would not agree to the Amendment. No inconvenience had been caused at the last election—at least, not in Dumbartonshire—owing to the operation of the present system.

§ MR. ELLICE
said, if his right hon. Friend chose to divide Scotland into two parts, and say that this proposal should only apply to one half, then the Amendment might not be impracticable; but so far as the large counties of Sutherland, Ross, and Inverness were concerned, he believed it was utterly impracticable. So far as he could learn, the present system worked very satisfactorily.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, that during the last election not the slightest inconvenience had been experienced in the county of Perth owing to the want of polling-places.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, it was not the wish of the Government to oppose what the representatives from Scotland might think best for the convenience of the electors. His strong conviction was that the wishes of the people of Scotland, and of the great majority of the Scotch Members, were not in favour of the compulsory increase of the number of polling-places. He thought, however, that if the Bill became law it would be proper to call the attention of the Sheriffs in the various counties to the distribution of the polling-districts within their jurisdictions with reference to the new mode of election under this Act, and every proper encouragement would be given to an increase in the number of polling-districts where it appeared to be desirable.

§ MR. GORDON
said, that in England, while a discretion was given to the magistrates, they were required to have as nearly as possible not less than 1,000 voters in any polling-place; but in Scotland 1657 not more than 300 voters were to be contained within a polling district. No satisfactory reason was assigned for such a difference in the law of the two countries; and, except the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), whose fidelity to his party was notorious, not a single county Member on the Liberal side had expressed satisfaction with the law as it stood, and was not favourable to a change. His proposal was one made for the convenience of the electors and for economy, and it would not affect borough Members in the slightest degree.

§ MR. ROBERTSON
wished to say but a single sentence, and he wished that other Members would follow his example in that respect. His right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gordon) had alluded to his support of Her Majesty's Government. He was proud to say that, so long as his right hon. Friend remained First Minister of England, his greatest pleasure and his proudest vote would be to support him to the utmost of his power.

§ MR. BRUEN
proposed, in line 7, after the word "districts," to insert "and the use of schools as polling-places," his object being to extend the prohibition as to the divisions of counties and boroughs into polling districts to the use of schools for taking the polls. He believed that electors would be as much exposed to mob violence after the passing of this Bill as before; and it was not seemly that mob violence should be extended to places devoted to religious purposes. It was to the interest of all religious denominations that schools should not be used as polling-places, and he would conclude by moving an Amendment to the effect that schools should not be used as polling-places.

§ MR. PIM
said, he had prepared an Amendment to carry out the same principle as that advocated by the hon. Member for the county of Carlow. He believed it was very undesirable to have 1658 elections held in school-houses which were in the immediate vicinity of places of worship or convents. But there was a large number of schools that were not connected with any place of worship, and those schools, he thought, might be used as polling-places. The hon. Gentleman said his Amendment was to the effect that schools in Ireland which adjoined places of worship or convents should not be used as polling-places.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, neither the Amendment of the hon. Member for the county of Carlow (Mr. Bruen) nor that of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) had been put on the Paper, and they came upon him rather by surprise. However, there was no doubt that, as the Bill now stood, Clause 6 would apply to Ireland, and it was a doubtful question whether that would be altogether desirable. Therefore, if the hon. Gentlemen would be good enough to put their Amendments on the Paper, the Government would consider the matter before the Report, and he thought the result would be that they would arrive at the same conclusion as that of last year—namely, to allow schools to be used as polling-places, provided they were not connected with places of worship or religious institutions.

§ DR. BALL
agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin, and suggested that it should be at once incorporated in the Bill.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
also expressed the hope that the point would be disposed of without delay, in the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that by the clause as it stood it was left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to take action in the matter of appointing polling-districts and polling-places, whereas it had been decided in the case of England that such action on the part of the magistrates should be compulsory. As he thought it should not be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to take action in this matter, he proposed the omission of the words "it shall be 1659 lawful for" in page 8, line 11, of the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had no objection, and would accept the alteration proposed.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he saw no provision for the payment of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions for the performance of the duties imposed upon them by this sub-section. They had as yet received no payment for the duties cast on them by the Land Act, though that had been promised them, and they objected to additional duties being imposed on them without additional remuneration.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, he did not feel that it was for him to say that the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions should be called upon to do anything without being paid. As to their duties under the Land Act, the Government had promised that they should be paid for them, and that when the amount was calculated, the time that had elapsed since the passing of the Act should be considered. They would, therefore, be no losers by the delay, and he did not think they would suffer much if they allowed this matter to stand as it was. They had very good pay at present for what they did.

§ MR. M'OARTHY DOWNING
said, he wished to separate the Irish magistrates from all connection with party contests, and believed that that was their own desire also. Now, in 1830 an Act was passed giving them power to provide polling-places; but though in the large county which he represented many applications had been made to them, they had persistently refused to exercise that power. There were at present only 10 polling-places, though the county contained nearly 2,000,000 acres, and was 110 miles long by 70 wide. The inconvenience suffered by the 17,000 electors of the county could, therefore, be imagined, some of them having to travel 20 or 25 miles in order to vote. At the last election there were 75 polling-booths, and under this Bill, as only 150 electors could vote at each booth, there would have to be 110. The Sheriff charged £10 per booth, and the persons employed by the candidates cost another £10, so that only a gentleman with the 1660 heaviest purse would be able to contest the constituency. The Lord Advocate and the ex-Lord Advocate had stated that in Scotland no application for additional polling-places had been refused, except on sufficient ground. That could not be said of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had stated that the system was unsatisfactory in England owing to a feeling that the action of the magistrates was influenced by party considerations. The same feeling prevailed in Ireland, and though magistrates were impartial in judicial matters, they were politicians. He wished, therefore, to take away from them the function of providing polling-places. In districts where the estates of a single proprietor, such as Lord Bantry or the Marquess of Lansdowne, extended uninterruptedly for many miles, the magistrates, if they had the power of selecting places other than those where the petty sessions were held, might so arrange them that all the tenants of a great landlord voted at one booth, and the landlord's agent might be there, who would know how they voted. That ought to be provided against. The Lord Advocate had promised to meet the wishes of the majority of the Scotch Members in the matter, and he believed the right hon. and learned Lord had consulted them; but, though his own Amendment had been a long time on the Paper, the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed no such willingness to meet the views of Irish Members, nor had he been consulted by the right hon. Gentleman or by any one connected with the Government in the matter. The same, he believed, might be said of other Irish Members. His only misgiving as to the success of his Amendment was the fact that it was moved by an Irish Member. He would urge the Government, however, to prevent such a scene as that which occurred at Waterford in 1868, when heads were broken and carriages overturned in connection with an application to the magistrates for an additional polling-place. He would therefore move, as an Amendment, the omission, in page 8, line 14, of the words "and justices of the peace," thus entrusting the duty to the Quarter Sessions.

§ MR. M'MAHON
supported the Amendment, thinking it would be well to prevent the magistrates from having any such function as the Bill entrusted to them.

§ MR. BRUEN
, who had an Amendment on the Paper, opposed the present Amendment, as he thought his own would better answer the purpose. The speech of the hon. Mover of the Amendment was premature, and would have been better delivered in support of his (Mr. Bruen's) Amendment.

§ MR. O'REILLY
thought the determination of the polling-places should be left to the chairman of the county, as being further removed from political influences than the local justices.

§ MR. PIM
hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
pointed out that the magistrates were the natural judges of a question of this kind, from their knowledge of the circumstances of each county. He could answer for a good many counties in the North of Ireland, that the question of the number and locality of the polling-places would be decided without reference to political considerations, but by reference solely to the point how far it was convenient for voters to go to the poll. If the barrister had some steady rule to go by, or if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would accept the four-mile limit as laid down in a subsequent clause, he should not be sorry to leave the matter to the barrister. But they had no security of that kind; and really if this duty were taken away from the Irish magistracy, he did not see of what use they could be. He would point out, also, that if the power of determining the polling-places were placed in the hands of the revising barrister, he had his politics just as much as the justices could be supposed to have.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
supported the Amendment, which he hoped the Government would accept. Political elections as carried on in Ireland showed that landlords, as a class, looked upon voters as their property. ["Oh, oh!"] He was very glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite disagreeing with that sentiment; but it happened to be a sentiment recently sworn to both by landlords and the agents of landlords, and evidence to that effect had been given by many agents and many landlords. That being the case, the magistrates should be saved from being put in the position of having to determine where the polling should take place. On 1662 the other hand, the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, however appointed, acted with impartiality and dignity, and never disgraced the chair they occupied. There was not a single instance of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions being known to be swayed by political motives.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
protested against this being considered as simply an Irish question. If the magistrates of Ireland could not be trusted to perform this very simple duty, the sooner they did away with the justices the better.

§ MR. STACPOOLE
warmly vindicated the magistrates of Ireland, declaring that they were as impartial as the magistrates of England, and ought to be entrusted with the same powers. He therefore trusted that the Government would not be led away by clap-trap.

§ MR. SMYTH
said, they all know that the magistrates of Ireland had their political opinions, and the hon. Members for Ireland did not believe them to be the best authorities for deciding these questions. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would not yield.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, that if this matter were being discussed as an abstract question, without reference to the particular clauses of the Bill, a good deal might be said in favour of the Amendment; but having regard to the fact that this Bill was originally framed as it now stood and contained these clauses, which were not inserted without due consideration, he was sorry he could not accede to the Amendment. Moreover, the Bill passed last year with these clauses in it without any discussion similar to that which was now raised. Under the existing law the justices had power to make new polling districts, and might re-arrange them on the petition of 10 electors. It might be that now they neglected to do so; but this Bill would leave nothing to their option; it imposed an express duty. He was sure that the Chairman and justices together would be better able to perform the duty than the Chairman alone, for he had some Chairmen in his mind who, from want of local knowledge, if the duty were cast upon them, would have to consult with the magistrates as to the mode of dividing the districts. If the justices made a mistake, their conduct could be reviewed by the Lord 1663 Lieutenant, with the assistance of the Privy Council, which, composed of men of all parties, took an interest in matters of this description.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
disclaimed any intention of casting a slur on the magistrates of his own county, as had been suggested. All he said was that magistrates were insensibly led away by their feelings. It was too bad to turn round upon him now and say he did not propose this Amendment last year, when he had many Amendments on the Paper and refrained from proposing them in deference to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

§ MR. BAGWELL
trusted the Government would adhere to their original plan.

§ MR. BRUEN
moved, in Sub-section 4, to leave out all the words from the word "place," in line 38, to "county," in line 40, both inclusive, and insert— Polling-place, so that, so far as it is reasonably practicable, every elector resident in the county shall have a polling-place within a distance not exceeding four miles from his residence, so, nevertheless, that a polling district need not in any case be constituted containing less than one hundred registered electors. He supported the Amendment on the ground that the four-mile radius, which had been found to work so successfully in England, ought to be applied to Ireland.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
hoped that the hon. Member for Carlow would not press his Amendment, and pointed out that the case of Ireland in reference to this subject was substantially different from that of England. The power of arranging the polling-places rested with the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland and the justices, an appeal lying from them to the Lord Lieutenant in Council; the intention being that the polling districts should be equal at least 1664 to petty sessions districts. Under the provisions of the Bill the number of the polling-places would be largely increased. Thus, instead of having 10 polling-places, as at present, Cork would have 58; Antrim, instead of five, would have 24; Carlow, instead of three, would have seven; and Donegal, instead of four, would have 27. There was a great objection to the adoption of the principle of the four-mile radius, for in certain districts in Ireland it would be impossible in a great number of cases to find a house every four miles which could be used for a polling-place. He trusted that the effect of the Ballot would be to prevent riot at Irish elections, and to render unnecessary the attendance of 3,000 soldiers at the polling-places, as in the recent Kerry election. They should be careful, however, to provide for every contingency, and if it required that number to keep order at five polling-places, what number would be required in the event of 50 polling-places being established in that county?

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
thought that troops would not be required when the electors were distributed among a larger number of polling-booths. The justices ought to be placed above all suspicion, and should be able to point to the fact that they were guided by a plain and certain rule, such as would be afforded by a provision for a four-mile radius. But the formation of such a polling district would not be imperative. In the words of the Amendment, it would be only "as far as is reasonably practicable." Unless it were adopted, the sick, infirm, and old, and many other electors, would be practically disfranchised.

§ MR. PIM
argued that many electors would not go more than three or four miles to vote, for they would not have the credit which they enjoyed from the existing open system of voting.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, that in the election for Cork County there were 75 rooms for polling-places, which cost £10 a-piece. Under the Amendment, there being 16,500 electors in the county, the election might cost £16,500.

§ MR. BRUEN
reminded his hon. Friend that the Amendment did not render the formation of such districts absolutely necessary.

§ MR. PIM
rose to move a further Amendment.

§ MR. EASTWICK
moved, That the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) was in possession of the House.

§ MR. PIM
then moved the insertion of words providing that notice of the intended confirmation of orders dividing the counties into polling districts shall be given by the clerk of the Privy Council a month before the day fixed for such confirmation.

§ MR. EASTWICK
renewed his Motion to report Progress.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
assented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin, and appealed to the Committee to pass it before reporting Progress.

§ MR. EASTWICK
said, he would withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
moved, That the Chairman be directed to report Progress.