HC Deb 02 May 1872 vol 211 cc107-39

First Schedule.

MR. CHARLEY

moved, as an Amendment, that the words "or by inability to read" be inserted in the 24th Rule, after the words "incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause," page 19, line 25. The hon. and learned Member said, that this Amendment did not raise a party question. The Bill, as it stood, would disfranchise, he believed, more Liberals than Conservatives. His object was to mitigate the severity of its disfranchising clauses. The Amendment was not nearly so sweeping in its scope as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), which was discussed on Monday night. That Amendment enabled all persons incapacitated by any cause to appeal to the presiding officer for assistance. His Amendment only extended this privilege to persons "incapacitated by inability to read." He objected to the Bill as it stood, because it would disfranchise the very persons whom it was designed to protect. Illiterate voters were generally dependent, and the object of the Bill was to protect dependent voters. What a mockery to say to these dependent voters—"We will protect you by enabling you to vote secretly," when, at the same time, they, in effect, told them—"We will mate the mechanical process of recording your vote so difficult that you won't be able to understand it, and therefore will be practically disfranchised." Were they prepared to take away with one hand what they gave with the other? Under the existing system the illiterate voter could, at all events, record his vote. Suppose there were 15 per cent who were dependent voters, and 10 of them could not read; were they prepared to disfranchise the 10 for the sake of protecting the remaining five? But then, it was said, the presiding officers would falsify the vote. Well, the Bill gave the Returning Officer absolute power of rejecting votes for invalidity. If the right hon. Gentleman could trust the Returning Officer, why not trust the presiding officers? There was only one Returning Officer, but many presiding officers, and, in his opinion, the danger of corruption would be diminished by spreading the power and responsibility over a large surface. And what was the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to obviate the disfranchisement of voters unable to read? That the names of the candidates were to be distinguished by numbers; but the illiterate voter would know as little about 1, 2, 3, as he did of A, B, C. Indeed, at school, A, B, C, was taught before 1, 2, 3. And what was there to prevent the voter who could not read from holding the ballot paper upside down, and trying to decipher it the wrong way? There was another point to which, before sitting down, he wished to allude. By this Bill they were imposing a new educational test. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), on Monday last, referred to a Bill which he introduced and withdrew in 1866—a Bill by which it was proposed to give the franchise in boroughs to those who satisfied a certain educational test. It was an enfranchising Bill, and was therefore much better than this Bill, which was a disfranchising measure. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill was before the House, and in moving its rejection he said— In the Scotch Church there is the phrase 'fencing the tables,' used by way of describing the means taken to prevent persons not properly prepared from taking part in sacred rites. My hon. Friend, I must admit, has fenced his tables very well, and the sacred rite of the franchise is not likely to be intruded upon by too many labouring men. I think my hon. Friend has totally overlooked all considerations of human feeling. In my opinion the labouring classes—the mass of the English people—would rise with dissatisfaction—I will not use a stronger word—against those enactments which my hon. Friend proposes to establish in connection with what he calls a boon, but to which he has given a very different character by this Bill. My hon. Friend proposes to burden the people with conditions of time and the observance of a multitude of forms from which the whole of us are free. And let us remember that the observance of minute particulars and dates with regard to notices and documents, and going backwards and forwards, are annoying even to such as are in our station of life, and would become almost impossible of observance by persons of a certain station.…. My hon. Friend might, for any use the Bill will be to them, put a cipher at its head, and substitute a cipher for every one of its clauses.…. In my opinion, no method has yet been suggested of making any educational test practically available in regard to the franchise.…. Regarding the amount of accomplishment and knowledge required, the cumbrous difficulty—practically, the almost impossible nature—of the process my hon. Friend requires these, I must say, unfortunate people to go through, I contend that his Bill is unsound in principle, and that it would be inoperative and even offensive in practice."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 1484–6–7.] The present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen), speaking against the same Bill, said— It combines the maximum of Liberal profession with the minimum of Liberal result."—[Ibid. 1499.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) also opposed the Bill, and in the course of his remarks, said— The idea of education, in the sense of reading, writing, and arithmetic—and I know not what other branches of knowledge may at some time be added—seems to me to be almost puerile in considering this question.…. The Bill might admit a large number of young men from 21 to 25 or 30 years of age. Now, I have no objection to young men; but I think a system of franchise which said to the great bulk of the existing working men of England—'Whilst your boys of 21 shall be admitted to the franchise under this Bill, you, their fathers, because in your time education was not so common, shall not be admitted, although it may be that you have brought up those very boys in the position in which they are now'—I say a Bill like that would be wholly contrary to the constitution of the country, and would be grossly insulting to the great body of the working classes."—[Ibid. 1513–17.] All the passages he had quoted were equally applicable to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Education Act, had provided the means for educating the rising generation; but the opportunities so afforded could be of no avail to the existing generation of working-class voters, and it was unfair first to fine and imprison the fathers if they did not send their children to school, and to punish them also by disfranchisement for not having themselves been properly educated. To defraud the working classes of the extended franchise given to them in 1867 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was a policy on the part of the Prime Minister which might, indeed, be correctly described as combining the "maximum of Liberal profession with the minimum of Liberal result." The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

MR. ELLICE

believed that the object of the Bill was not to regulate or limit the franchise, but merely to protect the voter in its independent exercise. An evening or two since he had interposed because it seemed to him that the clause, as understood and explained by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster), would have a very prejudicial effect upon a considerable number of voters in the Northern part of Scotland. That position was controverted by his right hon. Friend. He (Mr. Ellice) spoke at that time in general terms, and without any precise data; consequently, he was not prepared to state the exact effect which the Bill would have in the part of the country he had referred to. Since then he had been in communication with gentlemen well acquainted with the Highlands, and who were specially conversant with the condition of the population of Inverness-shire, in many parts of which the English language was imperfectly known, and he now wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend for a moment to the two polling districts of Inverness and Fort William. The district of Inverness was, including the town of Inverness, somewhat thickly populated, and contained a large number of voters. Fort William, on the other hand, had a very sparse and scanty population and a small number of voters; but the two taken together might very fairly represent the average condition of the Northern part of Scotland. After he made the statement which was controverted, he telegraphed to parties upon whom he could thoroughly depend, and he begged to assure the House that there could be no possible bias in the information which he received in reply. What he asked for was the number of voters who it was supposed would be unable to deal with the ballot papers as proposed under this Bill, and the reply he received was— In the town of Inverness and its vicinity nearly all are able; in the upper parishes one quarter unable; in some parishes a higher rate unable. With respect to Fort William, he had his information from the Sheriff, who would be the Returning Officer. He was a gentleman well known to most gentlemen in the Highlands, exceedingly well acquainted with the whole district, and he said— There are 236 voters in my district; of whom 88 are Gaelic, and not able to deal with ballot papers without assistance. Now, upon this showing, it was plain that under the provisions of the Bill, unless modified to meet these peculiar circumstances, one-fourth, at least, would be disabled from voting in one district, and one-third in another. Taking them together, rather more than one-fourth would be practically disfranchised by the Bill as it now stood, unless some assistance was given to the voter. He did not think that that could have occurred to his right hon. Friend, who, he believed, was actuated by an earnest and honest desire to give the country a good Bill. They had arrived at a stage of the measure at which he (Mr. Ellice) thought that if there were reasonable grounds shown for the re-consideration of this Schedule, his right hon. Friend would not be indisposed to adopt an Amendment. It was a serious matter that in a Bill to protect the independence of voters, clauses were inserted which, in all probability, would tend to disfranchise a large number of them. They were going to create a complicated machinery, which, he was satisfied, that a large number of uneducated voters in various districts of the country would, without help, not know how to deal with. In all probability they would make a complete mess of the paper, or else they would not vote at all. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration, with a view of proposing some clause which might be brought up on the Report, to provide against the contingency he had referred to. The Bill, as it stood, would practically take away votes which Parliament had deliberately conferred, and whether this was done directly or indirectly, and whether the number of persons disfranchised was one or a thousand, the principle involved was the same, and ought not to be countenanced.

MR. SYNAN

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper of a more practical character than that under consideration. He was not disposed to give to the presiding officer the power of determining whether a man could read or write, or even to read only, and therefore proposed that he should act only on the production of a declaration to the effect that the voter applying to him could not read, and required his assistance. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the point in dispute. Out of 1,540,148 adult males in Ireland, 816,000 could not read. The county of Cork, which was a model county in the matter of education, had a male population of upwards of 200,000, of whom 64,000 could not read and write—say nearly half the adult male population. The constituency numbered 16,000, and perhaps a quarter of those forming it could not read and write. If they numbered only 2,000, that was far too many to disfranchise by the Bill. Suppose the defect were not remedied, what would be the consequence? The landlord's agent would try to coach the voter by telling him that all the names would be printed one below the other, and that he was to make his mark against the first and second. But the man might say he could not count. Then the agent would tell him to put his fingers down the side against his names, and to put his mark against the name upon which his third and little finger rested. The voter would naturally ask for a paper to see how this was to be done, but of course this was forbidden. So he would go into the polling-place, and, being unable to read, he would be as likely as not to turn the paper upside down, and placing his fingers on the names, would mark the names upon which his third and little fingers rested, which would chance to be the third and fourth names, and the priest's candidates instead of the landlord's. Again, if they reversed the order of things, and supposing the voter to be coached by the priest or by the agent of the popular candidate, the voter would be as likely to vote for landlords' candidate as for the one he supported. Again, he was as likely to mark it in some wrong place or in some informal manner. By this means one-half or three-fourths of the votes of the ignorant voters would be misapplied or thrown away. It might be said they should not have votes. [Mr. RYLANDS: Hear!] If so, let the House act honestly, and pass a Bill disfranchising the ignorant. It was scarcely possible to secure absolute secrecy in regard to the vote of the illiterate voter, who was as much in need of assistance as the blind voter, for whom they had provided help. Either exclude the illiterate voter from the voting compartment, or, if they admitted them, permit the officer to give them the directions he stood in need of.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he thought the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) had added a very valuable contribution to the common sense arguments by which that question ought to be decided. But it was not in the Highlands of Scotland, nor in the wilds of Galway alone, that persons were found who could not write. Scores and scores of excellent and industrious English workmen were fully competent to exercise the elective franchise, although they could not read or perform the mechanical act of writing, and common justice required that they should have proper facilities given them for voting. If the House wished to lay down an educational standard for the voter, let them say so; but they ought not to disfranchise by indirect means that class of voters. The two great arguments adduced for the Ballot were that it was easy and convenient, and that it would protect the poor and dependent voter. But they were now going practically to deprive the poor voter of his vote altogether by refusing him assistance in filling up his ballot paper. He would not, until he saw it, believe that the Liberal Members of that House would take such a course. The Amendment before them was a practical one, and he trusted it would commend itself to the good sense of the Committee.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, said, that they were not considering this question in a party spirit, but they were seeking so to deal with the principle of secret voting as to cause the least inconvenience to the voters. He quite agreed that they ought not to make the Ballot Bill a means of imposing an educational standard. If it were intended to take that step it ought to be done by positive enactment. It was never meant by the Government, nor would the House permit, that the Ballot should be employed in order to disqualify persons who could not read or write. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) had given them some figures, which had considerable force, as everything which came from him had; but it was rather doubtful whether the question had been quite fairly brought before his friends in the North, and whether many of the people referred to were persons who were unable to read English or who could not read at all. However, there were, no doubt, a great many people in England who could not read; but he could not help thinking that they were now rather overrating their numbers, and also underrating the ability of such persons to get over that difficulty as to their votes. He maintained that the form of the voting-paper itself, the fact that that form would be known, and the additional fact that there would be hundreds of people who would tell the illiterate elector what was the meaning of the voting paper, would make it easy for every English, Irish, or Scotch elector of average sense to solve the question whether he should vote for the top, the bottom, or the middle name on the list of candidates. An ordinary artisan, whether he could read and write or not, knew very well whether one brick was above or below another. Hon. Members seemed to forget that there was something in Clause 4 that prescribed the duty of the presiding officer. Though there was a prohibition as to obtaining information as to the person for whom the vote was given, there was nothing to prevent the presiding officer answering necessary questions. A voter might ask the presiding officer—"Which is the way in which I am to hold the paper; which is the top and which is the bottom?" There was no difficulty upon that point. What the presiding officer was prohibited from doing was finding out how the voter had marked his paper. If there were no objections to giving the presiding officer the proposed power of helping illiterate voters, the Government would be glad to do so; but if they invested him with such a large power they would probably create a great want of confidence throughout the country. The mere possession of that power on his part would perhaps do more mischief than any actual misuse of it. The hon. Member (Mr. Charley) asked him whether he could not provide some machinery which would meet all these difficulties; but he need scarcely inform him that a great part of the labour he had gone through in reference to this measure had been that of considering the various plans which had been laid before him by which it was proposed that these difficulties should be overcome, and he must honestly say that he could not hold out any hope of hitting upon any plan better than that proposed by the Bill. In consequence of a suggestion that had appeared in a morning journal that all the inhabitants of England should do their best to aid him (Mr. Forster) in finding out the best method of taking votes by ballot, he had been overwhelmed by proposals, some certainly of the most ingenious description, but all equally impracticable. One most remarkable piece of machinery proposed would not take more than one ball from one voter, and would, in a manner, spit up a second if there were an attempt to introduce it; at the same time, it counted the number of balls on each side, and appeared to meet every difficulty that had been anticipated in the working of the ballot. It was impossible, however, that such complicated machinery could be used by thousands of presiding officers and by millions of electors without there being great danger of its getting out of order either by accident or wilful act, and thus vitiating the election, and under these circumstances it would, in his opinion, be most inexpedient to adopt it, more especially as the Committee were not likely to sanction the substitution of the ball ballot for the voting paper ballot. He merely alluded to this subject in justification of himself, as he was anxious to show that he had closely looked into these various suggestions, and had not thrown them aside without having examined them. It had been stated that voting papers were a novelty, but that statement was inaccurate, because they had been used in all municipal and local elections in this country, and had been adopted in every part of the world where the Ballot was in force, except in Greece. He should gladly accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley), if he (Mr. Forster) did not think that they should be exposing themselves to a much greater danger by accepting it, and if he did not honestly believe that the plan they proposed was sufficiently clear to enable a voter with common sense, even though he should be unable to read, to record his vote.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the right hon. Gentleman founded his opposition to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley) on the experience of those countries where the Ballot obtained; but he must remind him that in all the Australian Colonies, to which such frequent reference was made, means were provided for taking the votes of illiterate persons analogous to those proposed by the hon. Member. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to provide such machinery for taking the votes as would prevent any person who was enfranchised by the Act of 1867 from being practically disfranchised. All Englishmen on whom the Legislature had conferred the franchise ought to be encouraged to give their votes, whether or not they could read or write. The right hon. Gentleman said that by the Bill as framed a man who could not read would be entitled to receive that amount of assistance which would enable him to vote. But if a presiding officer answered any other question than that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, he would be guilty of a misdemeanour. Was that a position to put the presiding officer into? Again, what sort of question was likely to be addressed to the presiding officer, when he was asked for assistance by a man who could not read? Was it not very likely to be—"Where am I to put my mark for Jones?" The speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be really worth nothing at all. He protested against the clause as it stood, and unless some such Amendment as that proposed was carried it would practically disfranchise a very considerable portion of those on whom the Legislature had conferred the privilege of the franchise.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he thought the effect of the clause would be to disfranchise a large number of voters, and to lead to such confusion in the manner in which the votes were delivered, that the Bill would require to be remodelled in the course of another year. His right hon. Friend suggested that a voter who could not read might take counsel from the Returning Officer; but had he ever seen how even half-learned persons came to behave when they required to put their names on paper? If the Committee wished to get votes of illiterate people recorded, some means must be devised by which they might give their votes without the confusion which the clause threatened, and which might vitiate either the election or a large number of votes.

MR. RAIKES

said, he could not understand why the Government should not adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charley), seeing that the Bill had already provided that where a voter had, through inadvertence, improperly marked his voting paper, he could apply to the Returning Officer for a fresh paper.

MR. DODSON

pointed out an ambiguity which appeared to arise in connection with the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment, by proposing to insert the four words "by inability to read," classed a man who was unable to read as equally and absolutely incapacitated with the man who was blind or paralyzed. And the sub-section so amended would be open to the interpretation that a man who was unable to read was to be held to be absolutely incapacitated, and be bound to apply to have his vote marked by the presiding officer. It seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member could not be adopted, as it would give rise to that ambiguity. Effect would be better given to the intention of the Mover of it by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan). And he would also alter the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, by making it so run that the voter who could not read should have the option of applying to the presiding officer to mark his paper for him, accompanying his application with a declaration that he was unable to read.

COLONEL BERESFORD

, in supporting the Amendment, referred to an instance in which great confusion, and even a riot, had arisen in consequence of the voters being called upon to make marks opposite the names of the candidates. Four-fifths of the voters on that occasion did not succeed in voting at all.

CAPTAIN GROSVENOR

admitted that the number of illiterate voters was likely to decrease; but he thought some provision was necessary for them. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. He would have no option but to vote in its favour. Against the evidence brought forward in support of it they had nothing but the unsupported assertions of the right hon. Gentleman. The necessity for it would, no doubt, be greatly diminished in time; and though the statesman was bound to keep one eye upon the future, it was no less binding upon him to keep the other eye upon the present.

MR. NEWDEGATE

remarked that they had been told that this Bill had been introduced and pressed forward for two Sessions, not for the sake of the great bulk of the constituency, but for those unhappy electors who laboured under a difficulty in the free expression of their votes. Now, the Bill itself interposed a difficulty in the way of that class of voters who could not read, and it was inevitable that some one should assist them to give their vote unless some ingenious contrivance was adopted by which they might inform themselves. In criminal cases a highly efficacious method had been introduced of identifying persons who had committed a great offence. They were photographed, and he ventured to suggest that a photograph of the candidates should be affixed to their names, for the benefit of those who could not read their ballot paper. The whole Bill was a sarcasm on the alleged in competency of the mass of constituencies to vote freely, and on Members of the House, to whom it imputed that they had been returned by, if not accessory to, a system of intimidation.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not rise for the purpose of repeating the arguments he had used. He thought the Committee, after their decision on Monday on the somewhat broader Amendment of the the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), could not accept the present proposal. Were it adopted, the presiding officer would either make an inquiry into the educational state of the voter applying for his paper to be filled up, which would involve delay, or would, on his mere statement, fill it up, which would throw a large power into his hands. He admitted, however, that a good deal of sympathy had been shown by the Committee for the position of these persons, and he believed he should carry out the views of the majority if he stated that the Government were prepared to some extent to meet the case. He was willing, with verbal alterations, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he was surprised that the Government, after secret voting had been done away with by two divisions, each resulting in a majority against them, should have offered any objection to such an Amendment as this. The strongest objections to the clause in its present shape had come from their own side of the House, and 11 speakers had all favoured the Amendment. He had a right, therefore, to say that the Government had been compelled to yield because their own side would not support them in a clause which he would describe as iniquitious. As to the large power which the Amendment would confer on the presiding officer, why did not the right hon. Gentleman put that forward as an objection in the case of a similar concession which he had made to the Jews? He had acceded to the proposal that if the election occurred on a Saturday the officers should fill up the papers for the Jews, though in London, no doubt, there would be a very large number of them. Surely, then, as much should be done for Christians who could not fill up their papers from not being able to read. He was perfectly certain the people of England would appreciate this Bill when it came before them. Government showed their apprehension of this by not daring to take the sense of the people upon it. He believed that this Bill was repugnant to the feelings of the people of England, as it was to the majority of the Members of the House, and that the Government dared not put it to the test of having their opinions recorded. They had refused to give way and had been beaten; again they had refused to yield until pressed and squeezed by their own supporters, when they gave way to avoid another defeat; and now, after refusing to give way to the Opposition, they had yielded to their own supporters, not because the proposal was fair and just, but because of the quarter whence the pressure came. This was an unfair Bill, and it would be unworkable without alteration.

MR. ELLICE

said, he stated at first that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would require to be modified in some such way as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) met his view completely, and he should think it would also meet that of the hon. and learned Member for Salford, to whom he would put it, therefore, whether it would not be better to withdraw his Amendment and accept the offer made on the part of the Government.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Salford would yield to the appeal just made to him; and in reply to the remarks just made he would say that the position of a person in charge of a Bill was not an enviable one. If he refused to yield on a point which was important, he was called obstinate; if he yielded on one that was not vital, he was called squeezable; and in regard to details it was the business of a person in charge of a Bill to ascertain, if he could, the opinions on both sides of the House, and to give effect to them, so far as he could, consistently with the principle of the Bill. He had come to the conclusion that the general feeling of the Committee was that some provision should be made for persons who could not read and write, and although he was not convinced, he thought it unwise to waste time and resist that conclusion.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he had no fault whatever to find with the conduct of the Government in reference to the Bill. As he understood it, they accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), and therefore he would recommend the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) not to press his Amendment; but he should like a clear understanding of the situation. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick was to be adopted, it should be adopted at once—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Quite so]—and without alteration, so that the Committee would know at once what was the decision it had arrived at.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair. The only alteration he would make in the Amendment would be to retain the words relating to the declaration and omit those at the end of the Amendment relating to perjury.

MR. JAMES

said, he wished to say one or two words before this bargain became a contract. He protested against the proposition being accepted without there being time for full consideration. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was fatal to secrecy, and it would give to one individual a power which would be objectionable to every friend of the Ballot. Of course, the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) cheerfully accepted it; but he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not ask for time to consider it. According to that Amendment, the voter, before he went to the poll, would have to make a declaration which any corruptor or intimidator could make for him; and he would take this declaration with him to the Returning Officer, upon whom there would be no check, and who could therefore give such vote as he liked. The voter would be unable to tell which way the vote was given, for if he were able to tell he would be able to vote for himself. If there were no check on the Returning Officer, he would have the power of disposing of the vote of every illiterate voter; and however honourable a man he might be, there would be sure to be a portion of the constituency who would suspect him. If the Amendment were to be accepted, why should not the vote be recorded in the presence of a third person? If an agent were objected to, let the voter take a friend in whom he had confidence. If this fatal step were to be taken, against the taking of which he protested, do not let them invest the presiding officer with the power of giving votes. He would ask the Committee not to be led away now, but to take time to consider whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick would not make the Bill worse than useless.

MR. RYLANDS

wished to say that the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had been one-sided, inasmuch as the speakers on the Government side of the House sat above the gangway, and the supporters of the Ballot sat below the gangway. For one, he did not hesitate to adopt every word which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. James), and to say that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) would strike fatally at the object of the Bill. It would give an immense control over the illiterate voters to the Returning Officer; and although he might be respectable and trustworthy, it should not be forgotten that his deputy was generally merely an attorney's clerk. Under the clause of the hon. Member for Limerick, he would undertake to contest the constituency against him if he could fee the deputy Returning Officers handsomely, and he should be confident of the result, always assuming that the hon. Member did not outbid him. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hesitate before he accepted this Amendment on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), as by doing so he would give the Ballot a stab which he believed it would not survive.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, his hon. Friend must be aware that he had no intention of accepting the present Amendment. He had some cause to complain of the remarks of his hon. Friend, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) stated that the ball went from one side of the House to the other, and that a fatal blow against the Ballot had been struck on both sides. But surely the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him ought to have interposed and caught the ball. The feeling of the Committee certainly was that this alteration ought to be made, and although he did not conceal the fact that he did not like it, he must altogether deny that it would be such an evil as the hon. Member for Warrington imagined. He might mention that no one was a more ardent supporter of the Ballot than the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), who nevertheless declared before to the Committee his preference for the Victorian plan, which authorized the presiding officer to fill up the papers of voters who were unable to read and write. Ever since he had to deal with the Ballot he felt this was a very difficult question, and that strong arguments might be advanced on either side. He had put it to deputations of working men, and had by no means got a conclusive answer as to their feelings upon the matter, the answer being sometimes one way and sometimes the other. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was himself a very strong supporter of the Ballot, and what he (Mr. Forster) had said to him was that he would accept substantially his Amendment, but that he must not be surprised to find that there were some alterations or modifications upon the Report. He thought that it was doubtful whether other persons beside the presiding officer and the voter should be present, because those other persons would probably be agents of the candidates, the landlords, or some other person of influence. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would be withdrawn.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) was rather hard on his supporters. They had not discussed the proposal because the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) had passed the word to be silent. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) Was adopted at once, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), though it was true that it might require amendment.

MR. CHARLEY

, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, said he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CRAWFORD

moved in page 19, line 26, after "Act," insert— Or (if the poll be taken on Saturday) of any voter who declares that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in manner prescribed by this Act, shall The object of the Amendment was to enable Jews to vote when elections took place upon their Sabbath.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

moved that the Amendment should be so altered as to apply to all persons who on any day of the week might object on religious grounds to fill up their voting papers.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) was intended to apply only to members of the Jewish persuasion, who were forbidden by their religious law to write on Saturday, and he could not agree to insert the words just suggested.

Amendment (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Crawford) agreed to.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

moved in page 19, line 26, leave out "cause," and insert "himself secretly mark." He thought it important that the knowledge of how any man had voted ought to be limited as narrowly as it was possible.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped he Amendment would not be pressed. It would greatly delay the polling if the Returning Officers were alone empowered to mark the papers where necessary, instead of their clerks, who were also bound to secrecy by penalties, being allowed to assist in the work.

MR. CHILDERS

supported the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), but urged the importance of subjecting the clerks, as well as the Returning Officers, to severe penalties, if they disclosed the votes or attempted directly or indirectly to influence the voters.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

suggested that the power of marking the ballot papers of persons unable themselves to mark them should be confined to the Returning Officers and their clerks. If the Amendment were not pressed, he would undertake to consider the point raised by it, and also the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers.)

Amendment negatived.

MR. SYNAN

, on rising to move formally the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and upon which he had already addressed the House, remarked that a deal of unnecessary heat had been introduced into the discussion by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who charged him by insinuation with having entered into a secret compact with Her Majesty's Government and with the Opposition for the purpose of carrying an Amendment, the effect of which would be to render corruption easy. He denied the accuracy of this, and declared that his only object was to save the votes and protect the voters. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 28, after the word "box," to insert the words "Provided further, That on the application of any voter who is unable to read, and on the production by him to the said officer of a declaration that he is so unable, the said officer shall cause the vote of such voter to be secretly marked on a ballot paper in manner directed by the said voter, and the ballot paper to be placed in the ballot box; and the said officer shall retain the said declaration and hand the same over to the returning officer."—(Mr. Synan.)

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

MR. M'MAHON

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would inter- fere with a vital principle of the Bill and render corruption and intimidation much more easy than it would otherwise be.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, out of the 16,500 electors in his county (Cork) he did not think there were 50 who would not be able to exercise their right of voting according to the provisions of the Bill as it originally stood. He wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would look below the gangway, before adopting as he did the proposals of those immediately behind him. The right hon. Gentleman would then be prevented, if that were possible, from making any further mistakes in this Bill. The proposal was, that a voter should be enabled to have his paper marked for him if he made a declaration that he was "unable to read." Read what? There was no Gentleman in that House who could not with truth make a declaration that he was "unable to read" something or other. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a certain number of Gentlemen sitting upon that side of the House who would not be led away even by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but who would be true to the pledges they had given and still do their best to pass an honest Bill and to prevent the adoption of anything that looked like a sham. There were, under existing arrangements, 10 polling-places in his county. In accordance with the proportion fixed by the Bill these would at once be increased to 110, with an equal number of presiding officers. He contended that the real effect of this Amendment would be to disfranchise a large number of voters. Besides, no provision was made for those electors who were unable to speak English, and each polling-booth would have to be furnished with an interpreter. The principle of the Bill was now torn asunder, and the Returning Officer might be able to turn an election if he chose to act dishonestly.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was alive to the danger of entrusting so great a power to the hands of the Returning Officer, but they had to consider a choice of evils. Personally, he had approved the proposal to adopt the use of the colours; but the Committee had refused to sanction that plan. He would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) that the position of the man who could not speak English would not be affected either one way or another by the proposal now under consideration.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it had been suggested to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) to omit the declaration "before a magistrate," because it was open to the objection that it would probably entail an expenditure of money on the part of the voter. It might be necessary to make it clear that the declaration was a bonâ fide declaration by the voter of his inability to read the ballot paper, and he would undertake to insert some words on the bringing up of the Report to effect that object, and he would be happy to receive the assistance of his hon. Friends the Members for Cork (Mr. Downing) and New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon) in framing such a provision. In going to a division he desired it to be understood that the Government, recognizing what was understood to be the feeling of a great number of the Committee, and also the difficulties which beset the question, were prepared to do what they could to meet the case of those voters who were unable to read; but some safeguard would have to be provided against the abuse of power which the Amendment would place in the hands of the presiding officer. To re-assure the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, he might state that there was only one country where the Ballot was in use where provision was not made for the case of voters who were unable to read.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, he preferred an Amendment of his own, which could come on subsequently, that the candidate's name should be printed on a ground of such colour as he or his agent might select. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he thought it right that some one from the North should enter a protest against the course of Her Majesty's Government. They in the North, at any rate, could read and write, and they did not require such a provision as that proposed; and he was surprised that the Vice President of the Council should for a moment have thought of adopting a provision which would render the Bill, as a Ballot Bill, almost useless. He spoke the sense of all those who wished for a secret ballot, that they would rather not have the Ballot at all than have it with this Amendment. If a specimen ballot paper were printed large enough and posted up, even those who could not read would become sufficiently familiar with it to be able to mark it properly.

MR. REDMOND

expressed his dissatisfaction at the disposition that had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment which would have the effect of lessening the efficacy of the measure. He had just left his constituency, and one of the declarations that he made was that he would support the Government in the efforts they were making to insure that this Bill should be a real and not a sham Bill. He regretted exceedingly that in the first division in which he was called upon to take a part he should have to vote against the Government. To create the slightest suspicion in the minds of the electors of Ireland upon the question of voting would produce the greatest harm possible. What they required was a really efficacious measure, and not a sham.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was desirous that no exaggerated views should go forth to the country, but erroneous impressions would prevail if it were supposed that the Committee was discussing the question of a real or sham Bill. There might be those in the House—though he did not pretend to say that there were—who put down Amendments with the view of impairing the efficiency of the Bill; but such an imputation ought not to be made except on the clearest evidence. It was the duty of the Government to consider impartially every suggestion that was made, and it was impossible for a man of candour to examine the question before the Committee without seeing that it was one of considerable difficulty, though its operation would be on a small scale. The hon. and learned Member for Cork County (Mr. Downing) had expressed his belief that there were not 50 out of the 16,000 voters he represented who could not read and write. ["No, no!"] [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Who are not able to exercise the franchise.] But if so, there were not 50 men who would be entitled to make this declaration, and therefore even supposing it were a declaration before a magistrate, which he apprehended it would be, where was the ground for fearing some great wholesale operation which was largely to affect the character of the election? For his own part, his belief was, that this declaration would not be largely used. The great bulk of intelligent men, if they could not read or write, could count, and they would be able to put their mark against the candidates for whom they wished to vote. There were other securities. It was not a very attractive thing for a voter to come forward and make a declaration that he could not read or write. As a general rule, a man would not do so unless there was a real necessity for it; and, upon the whole, he could not believe there was any reason for supposing that any great effect upon the efficiency of the Ballot was to be produced one way or the other by this Amendment. But, unquestionably, there was force in the appeal that had been made that the Bill should be divested of anything that was likely to have a disfranchising effect. If there were those who required assistance in voting from their inability to read and write, it would be a very odious and invidious reproach, which would be justly made against the Government unless, under an imperative necessity, they consented to exclude from the Bill provisions under which those who could neither read nor write could receive assistance how they should vote. It was a question of considerable difficulty; but he was inclined to hope that they were leaning to a just decision. But whether it was so or not, he hoped they would not allow it to be supposed that they had been engaged in a struggle of life and death, such as to determine whether this was to be a Bill or no Bill; but to approach the question as it really deserved, when he felt satisfied the Committee would come to a just conclusion.

The O'DONOGHUE

said, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had done good service in bringing forward this Amendment. He was sorry to say that in his part of the country (Tralee) a great number of voters were unable to read or write, and the Government had simply to choose between disfranchising them, and affording them facilities for recording their votes under this Bill. It, however, should be borne in mind that it was perfectly optional with the voter to exercise this privilege or not.

MR. JAMES

said, that once more, not in anger but more in sorrow, he protested against the course that was being adopted by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped he had given proofs of his wish not to throw obstacles in the way of the progress of this measure; but he wished the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to recollect that the opponents to the Amendment who had stood by him and expressed their views on Monday night last had no knowledge of the Amendment until it was put on the Paper this morning, which had prevented many from knowing what it was until within a few hours they were called upon to express an opinion upon it. And now, when practical suggestions were made, an admission was made by the Government that they intended practically to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister had told them it was a question of great difficulty; and that being so, the more time was required for consideration before arriving at a decision. Like the right hon. Gentleman, he was unwilling to disfranchise voters; but, on the other hand, he was unwilling to increase presiding officers; and although he had said that only 50 voters need make this declaration, the opponents of the Amendment feared that those who need not avail themselves of it would be induced to make it, for the causes for which the Ballot Bill had been introduced to remedy. The Prime Minister, a few nights ago, warned his Friends not to listen to the cheers of hon. Members opposite; and he (Mr. James) would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to listen now to the grateful murmurs of hon. Members opposite in approval of the concession, but learn from it what he might expect would result from it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think there was much practical difference between himself and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee. He agreed that the power of the presiding officer would have to be very carefully considered with a view to its limitation, and it would be necessary that something should be done with regard to it on bringing up the Report. All the Government wished to determine by this Amendment was, that persons who could not read should not be disfranchised. He trusted that the Committee would go to a division without regarding it as a party division, and that they would have the real opinion of the Committee on that question.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 88: Majority 154.

MR. CAWLEY

moved the first of a series of Amendments on the 25th subsection which deals with the subject of personation. As the sub-section now stood, in the case of a voter who tendered his vote—and it appeared that a vote had already been given by another person in the same name—the man who tendered the second vote would have his ballot paper marked with his name and number on the outside, and placed in the list of tendered votes, and in case of a scrutiny the paper would be opened, and it would then be known for whom the person tendering the vote had voted; whereas the vote of the first person, who might be the real personator, would have been put in the ballot box, and would be regarded as a good vote. So that the unfortunate men who had been personated would be the only class whose votes, under the Bill, would become known, while the personator would escape detection. Personation in most cases—and especially in the great towns—would only be made in the names of the dead or the absent; but when it was made in the name of a living voter, the only vote which could be challenged would be that of the legitimate voter who would come up after the guilty personator had voted for him. The Committee had decided that personation should be a felony; and, therefore, under this Bill, a man might be arrested after he had personated, or when he was tendering a personating vote. It was a most anomalous state of things that a man who might be arrested when he had voted, or was about to vote, had still a perfect right under this Bill to have his voting paper put in the box, and his vote would be counted at an election, though he might be tried, and, when found guilty, condemned to serious punishment. He (Mr. Cawley) proposed to insert words which would make the vote of any man which was challenged a tendered vote, and not an absolute vote; but that the way in which the person tendering the vote proposed to vote should not be known, inasmuch as the challenged voting paper should be placed in an envelope, which should be marked, instead of having the voting paper itself marked. In a subsequent portion of the Bill he intended to propose another Amendment, the effect of which was that in cases of personation, as that offence depended on identity, the Returning Officer should be empowered to hear evidence on oath in relation to the charge, and should himself decide it without going through the long and expensive process of a scrutiny before an Election Judge. It was clear that after a vote was given in the ordinary way under the Ballot it would be impossible to strike it off, because the way in which the vote was given would not be known, and, therefore, all challenged votes should be made merely tendered votes, and should not be put into the ballot box, until the charge of personation had been heard and decided, which should be done as speedily as possible before the Returning Officer before the official counting of the votes took place. His first Amendment which he now moved was the insertion, in line 30, of the words "to whose right to vote objection shall be then taken on the ground that he is not such person."

Amendment proposed, In line 30, after the word "paper," to insert the words "to whose right to vote objection shall be then taken on the ground that he is not such person or."—(Mr. Cawley.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would enable the presiding officer at his own discretion to use a vote, and would, in fact, abolish the present law; because, according to the present law, if a man tendered a vote and the presiding officer suspected that he intended to personate, all he could do was to put the oath to him, and if he answered in the affirmative he was bound to take the vote. He believed that law was passed in consequence of its having been discovered that it was very inconvenient to leave it to the discretion of the Returning Officer to say who was and who was not a voter. The effect of the Amendment would be that the vote of a person to whom objection was taken on the ground that he was not such person would not be counted, and would, be put aside by the Returning Officer.

MR. CAWLEY

said, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely beside the question.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if the Amendments of the hon. Member were taken as a whole, the Returning Officer, after refusing to take the votes in question on the day of the poll, would be placed in the position of an Election Judge, and would have to determine whether or not they were valid. That would lead to endless delay, and open the door for operations on the part of election agents.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

supported the Amendment. If it were undesirable that the Returning Officer should decide upon the validity of tendered votes the matter might be left to the decision of a stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace. Anything that would tend to get rid of the scandal of personation would be a benefit to public morality.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he thought the Amendment right in theory, but it would be difficult to carry out in practice.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 77: Majority 55.

MR. MUNTZ

urged the importance of taking precautions against the ballot box being tampered with by the Returning Officer. He was in France about 20 years ago, when a vote was taken on a new system of government, and it was almost universally believed that unfair returns were made; the officials, indeed, being so zealous for their new master that they returned a larger number in his favour than that of the whole adult male population of France. In Paris, Lyons, and other large towns such practices were, no doubt, out of the question, and there Opposition candidates were repeatedly returned; but it was believed that in many of the rural departments duplicate locks and seals were used, by means of which the voting papers were manipulated over-night. He did not suppose English Returning Officers would resort to such devices; but what might happen hereafter could not be known, and it was desirable to prevent the possibility and even the suspicion of trickery. At his last election he had a majority of 5,000 or 6,000; but his opponents expected from their canvass up to the previous night a majority of 2,000 or 3,000, and had ballot boxes then been left for the night with the Returning Officer, who was rather a friend of his, suspicion might have rested on him. It might be said that if 100 presiding officers had to meet in one room and count the rotes in the presence of the Returning Officer and of the agents, the process would be a tedious one; but Members of the House underwent the fatigue of sitting till 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and a Returning Officer might go through a night's work, for the duty was not likely to fall on one man more than twice in his life. Without such a regulation the public would lose confidence in the Ballot and in their being fairly represented by the Members returned. He therefore moved, in page 20, line 19, to leave out all after "shall," and insert— Convey such packets to the Returning Officer, so that the number of votes may be ascertained before the presiding officer of each station or the agents (if any) of the candidates shall have lost sight of the ballot box.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

agreed in the necessity of taking every reasonable precaution—in fact, sufficient precaution—against any possible tampering with the ballot boxes, though the Committee might congratulate themselves on the suspicions raised in a neighbouring country being unlikely to arise here. He could not accept this proposition, however, because it was impracticable. In a large borough or county all the presiding officers could hardly be crammed into one room, and before the counting was over sleep would close the eyes of some of the persons who were to watch or take part in it. They would have to sit up one night and perhaps two. His hon. Friend appeared to underrate the precautions embodied in the Bill. The rules stated that at the close of the poll the papers were to be sealed in separate packets with the seals of the presiding officer and of the agents of the candidates, and that the presiding officer was to deliver such packets to the Returning Officer, who could only count the ballot papers in the presence of the agents. If a night intervened, they were to be again sealed by the Returning Officer and agents, while the presiding officers had to account to the Returning Officer for all the papers issued, and he in his turn to the Clerk of the Crown. He thought that was sufficient precaution to prevent any tampering; but he proposed to take the additional precaution in Rule 32 after the word "shall" in the lines "before the Returning Officer proceeds to count the votes he shall open each ballot box," to insert, "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

observed that the object of the Amendment was not so much to guard against fraud as to prevent suspicion of fraud. His right hon. Friend had given no sufficient reason for not adopting the Amendment. Surely the mere deprivation of sleep in the case of a Returning Officer for a few hours in one night would be held of little account in that House, where they were accustomed to such late hours.

MR. MELLOR

asked whether it would not be possible to count the papers before they left the polling booth?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought that would increase the danger.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he thought the checks already provided were quite sufficient to prevent fraud or the suspicion of fraud. He did not see how the return could be made up at all if any additional checks were imposed.

DR. LUSH

felt convinced if the suspicion once got abroad that the ballot-box could be tampered with, the secrecy of voting would be entirely frustrated.

MR. SCOURFIELD

reminded the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) that although they often sat until a late hour in that House, it did not prevent hon. Members from going to sleep, which some seemed to enjoy very much.

MR. ANDERSON

was of opinion that the ballot boxes should not be lost sight of until the result had been ascertained.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

really did not see how they could adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz). It might be very desirable not to lose sight of the ballot box, but the parties would lose sight of it by falling asleep. Even if the scheme could be worked, it would add largely to the expenses of an election.

DR. BREWER

preferred the Schedule without alterations.

MR. MUNTZ

believed that there would be no difficulty in carrying out his proposition without adding to the expenses.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to insert words to allow the agents of candidates, if they chose to do so, to watch the boxes during the night?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would think over the suggestion if his hon. Friend would put it into a form which could be adopted; but he thought they would want somebody to watch the agents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

proposed the addition, in line 28, page 20, respecting the counting of the votes, of the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved, in Rule 54, page 24, line 36, at the end of Rule, insert, as a fresh paragraph— The expression 'agents of the candidates,' used in relation to a polling station, means agents appointed in pursuance of section eighty-five of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that in regard to elections, they laboured under very considerable disadvantages in Scotland as compared with England. The Provost of a burgh in Scotland had no power to act as Returning Officer, and there was not a single deputy-officer who was not a lawyer. The practice in Sotland was to pay these officers three guineas, while in England the practice was to pay them two guineas. To that extent there was an additional cost on Scotland. Then the Reform Act of 1831 did not enact that these deputy Returning Officers or presiding officers at the poll should be lawyers—the words used were "The Sheriff or Sheriff-Substitute," and the use of these words had led to the popular notion in Scotland that the men appointed to this office should be lawyers—in other words, a legal officer receiving Government pay, and having a Government appointment, In England there was no such rule, and the practice was now growing up in England to appoint as presiding officers men who were not lawyers, and who received no payment for their services. He therefore proposed, as an Amendment, in page 24, line 40, to add the following words:— In the seven cities and burghs, which severally return one or more Members to Parliament the Lord Provost, Provost, or acting chief magistrate shall be Returning Officer, and in districts of burghs each Provost or acting chief magistrate shall be a presiding officer at the poll in his own burgh, and accountable to the Sheriff as Returning Officer for the district of burghs. It shall be lawful for the Sheriff to appoint as presiding officers at the poll persons not belonging to the legal profession, and no presiding officer shall be entitled to a fee of more than two guineas. He proposed the Amendment not so much for the purpose of pressing its adoption at the present stage, but in the hope that, after the ventilation of the subject, some such provision might be adopted on the Report.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that with regard to the first part of the Amendment, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member. In Scotland the Sheriffs of counties were the Returning Officers not only for the counties, but also for the burghs within the counties, and the object of the Amendment was to make the chief magistrates of seven large burghs the Returning Officers for the burghs, superseding the Sheriff; but that the Sheriff of the county in which the burghs were situated should still be the Returning Officer. He should be very glad to consider that proposal, and, according to his present impression, to consider it not unfavourably. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, the hon. Member was quite right in his statement that it was not the law, but only a popular error, that Sheriffs were constrained to appoint lawyers as their substitutes with reference to election matters. That being clearly so, it did not occur to him that an enactment of the Legislature would be a very judicious method of correcting a popular error—an error which certainly did not extend to the Sheriffs themselves, because they, as lawyers, knew very well that it was open to them to appoint competent persons without legal qualification. As regarded the fee of three guineas, that was prescribed as the maximum—the fee was not to exceed that sum—and he thought it should be allowed to stand so, because there were many eases in which three guineas were certainly not excessive.

MR. ORR-EWING

expressed the opinion that the country would prefer it if the post of Returning Officer were retained in the same hands as at present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, after Rules 56 and 58, "Sheriffs Clerks" in Scotland, "Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper" in Ireland, to be construed to the same effect as "Clerk of the Crown in Chancery" in England.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

moved, in Second Schedule, page 31, line 24, after "large," insert "black." Same line, after "form," insert "upon a ground of such colour as the candidate or his agent may select." The proposal was perfectly simple, and as every voter identified his opinions with a colour, the result would be to enable every voter, however illiterate, to record his vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that an Amendment of a similar character had already been decided by the Committee, and therefore this Amendment could not be discussed.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, he thought it would have been as well if he had been stopped before troubling the Committee with any observations; but he submitted that his Amendment was not the same as that which had been already disposed of. ["Order!"]

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he thought it would be well if the Committee knew the rule which governed them in this matter; because, when some time ago the Committee struck from one of the clauses the word "wilfully," his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill proposed next day to insert words which were exactly equivalent.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it appeared to him that the hon. Member was about to propose that which had been substantially before decided by the Committee—that in the ballot paper the name of each candidate should be accompanied by some distinguishing colour, and his ruling was, that an Amendment virtually to the same effect could not be put to the Committee.

MR. BOWRING

said, that before the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) moved his Amendment, he would move the omission of the side-note to the Second Schedule, with a view to a subsequent Amendment.

Side-note omitted.

MR. BOWRING

then moved to insert in the blank in the Schedule the word "cross" as the mark which the voter was to put in the ballot paper against the name of each candidate for whom he voted. He objected to allow the insertion of any other mark, and contended that it was a very natural thing for an illiterate man to mark his voting paper with a cross.

MR. CAWLEY

said, it was no doubt desirable to have uniformity; but a voter might make a mark which was not a cross at all, and he therefore moved the addition of the words "or other mark."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked that he had consented to the omission of the side-note—first, because it was not very intelligible; and, secondly, because it was undesirable to let the Returning Officer decide what kind of a mark should be made. Nobody intended that a vote should be cancelled because a man marked his paper with a mark which was not a cross. In his opinion it was of little importance whether the words "or other mark" were inserted or not.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he thought it was advisable to have simplicity, and could not perceive why any mark should not be as good as a cross.

MR. CANDLISH

pointed out that another section of the Bill would prevent any vote from being lost by reason of an informality in making the mark.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

said, the Committee were arguing about a mere matter of form, as the Government had declared that if any other mark than a cross were made the vote would still be good. On the whole, it would be better to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, this part of the Bill did not contain enactments, but merely directions for the guidance of the voter, and he did not think it would make much difference whether the Committee inserted "cross" alone, or the words "cross, or other mark." If, however, "cross" alone were inserted, it would be equivalent to advising the voter to use that particular kind of mark.

MR. F. S. POWELL

expressed the opinion that the Amendment ought to be agreed to, or otherwise the difficulties prepared by the Bill for the voters would be very considerably increased.

MR. LEATHAM

said, it was absolutely indispensable to prevent voters from making such marks as would render the identification of votes possible. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) were agreed to, an agreement might be made by a voter to use a particular mark in order that his ballot paper might be identified.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the 13th clause provided that an election should not he declared invalid in consequence of an infringement of the Rules in the First Schedule; but it did not follow that such an infringement would not render a vote invalid.

MR. JAMES

remarked that Clause 13 was not applicable to this regulation, which was in the Second Schedule. If they told a voter that he might put any mark he liked, how could they prevent him putting his initials, or any particular mark? But the Bill provided that if a voter could not he identified by his mark, his vote should be void and not counted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was inclined to think that the word "cross" which was inserted in the last Bill should be inserted in this Bill. If the word "cross" were inserted, he would undertake to move on the Report the addition of other words if, upon obtaining legal advice, he found that such addition was necessary.

MR. CAWLEY

, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would return to the question on the Report, would not press his Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he thought the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) might be overcome by inserting after the word mark "by which the voter cannot be identified."

Amendment (Mr. Cawley) withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Bowring) agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Remaining Schedules and Preamble agreed to.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

asked whether the Bill would be reprinted before the Report?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said the Bill would be instantly reprinted and delivered to Members of the House.

In reply to Mr. R. N. FOWLER,

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Report would be fixed for that day week.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]