§ Further Proceeding on Consideration of Bill, as amended, resumed.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in proposing to amend the Amendment to the First Schedule, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, by leaving out the words "and certificate," said, his object was to relieve magistrates of the duty sought to be imposed upon them—namely, that of giving to a voter who declared himself unable to read a certificate to that effect. He therefore begged to move to leave out in page 23, line 14, Rule 26 of the First Schedule, the words "and certificate."
§ Amendment proposed to the Amendment, which was proposed to be made in page 23, line 14, by inserting after the word "Act," the words "or of any voter who produces such a declaration and certificate as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read,"—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)—namely, to leave out the words "and certificate."—(Mr. Cross.)
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that he could not see the necessity of requiring the voter to go before the magistrate at all, for quite sufficient security would, in his opinion, be provided by a declaration before the presiding officer, the same penalties being attached to a false declaration as if it were made before a magistrate. They could determine whether a man could read by making him read, but they could not make a man read who said he was un- 666 able; and from what he had heard of Irish witnesses, he did not see that it would be very easy to make an Irishman acknowledge that he could read, if he was determined to declare that he could not. Why was it necessary, moreover, to oblige a man to make two declarations, one before a magistrate and the other at the poll? At present it was hard enough to get electors to go before the revising barrister. Many would lose their votes sooner than do so, and the House might be sure that men would not be readily got to go before a magistrate to make this declaration, because there was an atmosphere of summary conviction about him. They would never get a man to go before a magistrate unless the agent took him there. But in addition to those objections, the voter whom they wanted to protect from influence would first of all have to go with the agent to a magistrate, and then to declare to the Returning Officer, in the hearing of the agent, how he was going to vote, and that was not a good machinery either for getting rid of influence or securing secrecy.
§ MR. WHARTONsaid, he could give a very good idea of the considerable additional duty that would be imposed upon magistrates by means of the question at issue, for he was a few years ago Secretary to the Great Yarmouth Commission, and he had to take receipts from every one examined before it. There were 700 witnesses examined, of whom 300 had to make their marks. Now, if between the nomination day and the day of polling the magistrates were to be engaged in giving certificates in such a borough as Great Yarmouth, it would be utterly impossible that the work could be got through.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would be a very dangerous one in Ireland, because there every agent of a large proprietor was a magistrate. He did not mean to state that anything improper would be done by a magistrate; but where party feeling ran so high, all the voters on the proprietors estate might be taken to a justice of the peace, and for one that could read 40 would declare they could not. That declaration would be made before the agent, the men would then be taken to the presiding officer, and how they would vote could be easily 667 ascertained. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal, moreover, would not touch the question of those voters who wished for a little assistance in order to record their votes.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would remind the House that when last year he brought forward a proposal for the introduction of a system of voting papers, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that they would not have magistrates enough to execute the duties that would be thrown on them. That argument was conclusive against the right hon. Gentleman's own scheme now. The machinery of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was so cumbrous that he believed voters would grope about in the dark rather than avail themselves of it. It was, in point of fact, a proposal which would take away with the left hand what was given with the right. The voter would be taken to the polling-booth, and having committed some trumpery inaccuracy in voting, in consequence of the involved nature of the process through which he had to go, would be met at the door of the booth by the right hon. Gentleman's favourite conveyance—the prison van, and taken away to undergo a term of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman generally treated his suggestions with suspicion, but still he would offer him another, which if adopted would help him out of his difficulty. It was that in boroughs the polling-places should be the gaol, and that, on the receipt of the writ, every registered elector should be committed to solitary confinement until the return of the writ to the Crown Office.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Wharton) that the presiding officer and the Returning Officer would not, as he seemed to suppose, be one and the same person. Under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) it was proposed to make voting as easy in future as it was now, when a man in a state of drunkenness was taken to the the poll as a free and independent elector. He (Mr. Rylands), however, looked upon the Ballot as a preventive against such voters recording their votes; and if they wanted by the Bill to be able to coach 668 such men up to the poll, he would be no party to it.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Rylands') argument appeared to be based on the assumption that if an English voter was not able to read, he was ignorant and vicious, but he (Lord John Manners) objected to that assumption. The objection to the proposal of the right hon Gentleman was not with the view of disfranchisement, but that the machinery would be found in practice to be so difficult and so complicated that in reality the voter would not be able to record his vote. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwest Lancashire.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he must object to the word "certificate" being left out of the Amendment. The magistrates could not obtain information as to the inability of the voter to read, except by means of a declaration; and therefore he ought to have full power to receive and act upon such declarations. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment.
LORD HENLEYsaid, there was a grave objection to taking these voters before magistrates. During the cattle plague the same sort of provision existed, and it was found impossible in many districts for two justices to sign the certificates within a given time. He knew a parish that contained a large number of illiterate inhabitants, and he felt convinced that it would be impossible to take the voters first before a magistrate and then to the poll in time for them to record their votes. Not only that, but a magistrate would probably be ignorant of the voters residing out of his own parish, and the certificate, therefore, to be of any value, should be signed by some one residing in the parish where the voter lived—either the clergyman or the churchwarden, and not by a magistrate who would probably reside at a distance.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, the Government proposition would be found to be impracticable without adopting a double conveyance—one to the magistrate and the other to the poll, and on different days, for they would have to make special arrangements for "ticketing the dunces." They would be also obliged to have a separate canvass to ascertain 669 the number likely to require certificates. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) evidently desired to disfranchise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham once called "the residuum," but the experience of Yarmouth showed that it was not always the most ignorant who were the most corrupt. He would suggest that the most competent persons to give the required certificate would be the certificated schoolmasters. It would not be open to such objection as going before a magistrate, and a man did not like to have thrown in his teeth the statement that he had been before a magistrate, so as to imply a slur that he had been in trouble.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, what reason he had for supposing that a man who could read would say that he could not?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped hon. Members would excuse his not answering all the observations that had been addressed to the House in the course of the debate that afternoon, and must decline further to treat of them, except to say there was no desire to disfranchise in any part of the House. The Government, in their original proposition, had provided for the case of the illiterate voter; but there was a difference of opinion on that matter; and as it was not a vital point, they had conceded to the wish of many hon. Gentlemen. The question of examination by the magistrate into ability to read was not one on which it was worth while to take a division, though he still thought the proposal of the Government the better plan.
§ MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to their Amendment, for there had been already too much yielding on important points of the Bill. In South Australia, where universal suffrage existed, a great number of illiterate persons came to the poll to vote; but in that country there was no such provision as that to be provided by this Bill for voters to record their votes, and in practice it had been found to be totally unnecessary. Almost every man who could not read letters was able to read figures up to "nine," and by that means in Australia a man was able to mark the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote. If necessary 670 colours might be used; and if a man who could not read perfectly was so stupid as not to be able to distinguish colours, it would be no great detriment to him or to the community if he were disfranchised. The presiding officer too, in many instances, was not the man to be entrusted with the power of marking voting papers, for it would give him an opportunity, in many instances, of turning the election. With regard to the proposed Amendments of the Government, he thought it would be impossible to take the number of declarations that would have to be made in the progress of an election.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that in each of the four colonies of Australia, according to the Reports of the Governors, provision was made for illiterate voters. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and those who acted with him, evidently wanted to disfranchise as many voters as they could. Why was it the Christians were to be obliged to make all those declarations, and the Jews were relieved from the obligation? How was the Jewish voter to be identified? Surely the order of things had been changed, and the Christian must now say that "Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe." He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, if it was clearly understood that it would not preclude their raising the question at a future stage.
§ DR. BALLsaid, a certificate would be of use only for the information of the returning Officer, in case the declaration were made before a magistrate, for if the declaration were made before the Returning Officer the certificate would be useless. But if the Returning Officer's time were to be taken up by receiving these declarations, how was he to discharge his ordinary duties?
§ MR. EASTWICKsaid, he thought a very short way might perhaps be found, by which to avoid all the loss of time and inconvenience likely to arise from these certificates and declarations. Why not have a distinct polling-booth, which might be called the "illiterate booth?"
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think he could persist in putting upon the magistrate the duty of satisfying himself by examination that the voter was unable to read. It seemed, however, to be necessary that the magistrate, or whoever it was before whom the declaration might be taken, should give a certificate that the declaration had been made. But to retain the words of the Amendment "and certificate" would in effect imply that the magistrate had satisfied himself that the voter was unable to read, and he was therefore prepared to allow the exclusion of the words on the understanding that when he came to his next Amendment he should move the insertion of the words to show that a certified declaration had been made by the voter, in the presence of the person to whom it was given.
§ MR. DENISONsaid, he was unable to accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for he maintained that no certificate was necessary, since the declaration before the presiding officer would be sufficient.
§ Question, "That the words 'and certificate' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had given Notice of words which he believed would meet a wish very generally expressed by the House—namely, that all voters, Jew or Gentile, should be placed on an equal footing. If the opinion, however, should be in favour of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), he would not press his Amendment. He only wished it to be distinctly understood that the words he proposed were a protest against any other authority than that of the presiding officer being brought into requisition. He moved that the words "or who states to the presiding officer" be inserted.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in page 23, line 14, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or who states to the presiding officer."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the words would not be pressed. If they were, he should vote against 672 them. He thought there ought to be a recorded statement which might be marked, and that would take no more time than the verification of a declaration made before a magistrate.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it was the opinion of the House that there ought to be an actual declaration. If so, it was also of very great importance that the whole of these declarations should be filed. The presiding officer, therefore, would in every case enclose them to the Returning Officer, who would forward them to the Clerk of the Crown.
§ MR. HUNTobserved that the Amendment would not only place Jew and Gentile on a par, but it would place the Jew on a par with himself; for if a Jew who could not read voted on Saturday, he might vote without a declaration, whereas, if he voted on the Monday he must make a declaration.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion there should be no declaration except before the presiding officer. There was nothing more uncertain in description than a person's being able to read; but the presiding officer could at once test the fact by asking the voter whether he could read the paper he held in his hand.
§ Amendment to the said proposed Amendment withdrawn.
§ Original Question, "That the words 'or of any voter who produces such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read' be inserted after the word 'Act,' in page 23, fine 14," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought the clause in its present shape would put in jeopardy two of the main conditions of a satisfactory election—that every elector when he voted should be certain that his vote was given to the proper candidate, and that the conduct of the Returning Officer should be above suspicion. As long as votes were given by blind and illiterate people, great distrust would be felt of the conduct of the presiding officer, especially when the majority at an election was not large; and he proposed to cure this defect in the Bill by proposing that the declaration of the voter should be made in the presence of the agents of the candidates, and not in a hole-and-corner way to the presiding officer. He therefore moved 673 to insert in page 23, line 14, after "shall," the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 14, after the word "shall," to insert the words "in the presence of the agents of the candidates."—(Mr. Assheton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. JAMESsaid, he felt compelled to support the Amendment. He had protested—in a manner, he had been told, not wanting in earnestness—against the provision permitting the presiding officer to assist illiterate voters; but, now that the provision had been introduced, he desired to see the best arrangements made for carrying it out. Practically, he submitted, it was absolutely necessary to adopt the Amendment. It would, in fact, be unavoidable that the voter should receive the required assistance in the presence of the agents of the candidates, for there would be no separate place where he could get it, and he could not be compelled to speak in a whisper. If the agents were to become aware in that way what candidate the voter favoured, they might also, very properly, be allowed to see that the presiding officer carried out the voter's wishes. Moreover, if there was no check, a serious amount of power would be placed in the hands of the presiding officer. He looked upon the proposed Amendment as an antidote in some measure to the provision against which he had protested.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, that if the House divided he would vote in favour of the Amendment.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he thought it would be a check upon a dishonest presiding officer if the declaration were made in the presence of the agents and the presiding officer.
§ MR. DENISONsaid, that at present they did not trust the presiding officer to record votes without the presence of the agents, and therefore the Amendment would make no change in that respect.
§ MR. LEATHAMsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not accept the Amendment, because he believed it would be fatal to the Bill.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that a very important part of the Bill. He did not think that the Returning Officer 674 could retire with the voter; for who was to look after the ballot box and the security of the ballot papers, for which the Returning Officer was responsible? In order to enable illiterate men to vote, he had suggested a resort to colour, and in that way what was felt to be a difficulty could, he thought, be got rid of. But that was rejected; and he, therefore, agreed that it was necessary, if the Government proposal was persisted in, that it should be amended in the form suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe.
§ MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, that when the Returning Officers and the voters retired together bribery would be as easy as now. And so would coercion. What so easy as to say to a man—"You can't read. Go and vote in the presence of the agents." The whole affair of the voting would then become known. All difficulty in this direction would have been obviated by the adoption of a mechanical contrivance which he had without success recommended to the Committee last year.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the Bill was one to promote secret voting. The House, however, had been told by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) that 20 per cent of the voters in Ireland would vote under the declaration that they could not read, and in the presence of the agents; but, if so, the Bill might as well be given up. He should not vote for the Amendment, as he believed it would be far better to employ colours as aids in this matter, and would reserve his vote for that question, which he saw was to come on later.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there could be no doubt whatever as to the difficulty embraced in the question under discussion. He, however, believed that the proportion of illiterate voters had been greatly exaggerated, and was quickly diminishing. He might remind the House that in every colony but one where the Ballot was in use provision was made for the case of the illiterate voter. He was not much afraid that the presiding officer would misuse his power; but, on the other hand, he could see that it was advisable not to leave him without any check. It was a choice of evils; but the balance was probably in favour of placing a check upon the presiding officer. After a great deal of thought, therefore, he believed it would be better 675 to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 59: Majority 101.
§ Amendment made.
§ MR. ASSHETONproposed, in line 15, to leave out the word "secretly," for a vote given in the presence of the presiding officer and two other persons could not be said to be given "secretly."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved the insertion of words, the object of which was first to secure a list of all voters whose votes were marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why they were so marked. Then came the question of the declaration; and his amended Amendment would provide that the declaration of inability to read should be made by the voter before a justice of the peace, who should attest it in a form hereinafter mentioned, which would include a statement by the magistrate that the declaration was made in his presence.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 23, line 16, to leave out from the words "Provided further," to the words "returning officer," in line 23, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "and the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter alter the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration or certificate, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment raised the question whether the declaration should be made before the magistrate or presiding, officer? It had been already agreed that the presiding officer should mark the vote; and if he was to be trusted to do that, was he not a fit man to receive the declaration? The Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he now 676 moved, would enable the presiding officer to take the declaration of the illiterate voter at the polling station.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
Question proposed, "That the words
'And the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter after the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration or certificate, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting,'
be there inserted."
§
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
After the word "voter," in line 6 of the said proposed Amendment, to insert the words "shall be made at the polling station before the presiding officer in the manner hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), as the intervention of a magistrate in taking the declaration of the illiterate voter would be a safeguard against corrupt practices on the part of the presiding officer.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that the illiterate voter would rather make the declaration of his ignorance before a magistrate than before the presiding officer; and also because the magistrate would be less likely than the presiding officer to receive such a declaration on insufficient grounds. He also thought the illiterate voter was much more likely to be known to the magistrate of his locality than to the presiding officer; and, moreover, it would greatly delay the polling if the latter had not only to take the votes, but also to receive those declarations.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he thought that it was of very little importance what became of the Amendment, or what became of the Bill; whether it passed that House, or whether it ever returned from 677 the other one. He had always been a warm supporter of the Ballot, but the Government had now given up the whole principle of secret voting, and nothing that remained in the Bill was worth contesting about.
§ MR. RYLANDStrusted that the Government would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Harcourt).
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the balance of argument was decidedly in favour of the proposition as he had first made it. They ought to guard against the danger, which he thought was exaggerated, but which without doubt existed—that the voter who was most likely to be bribed and intimidated would be brought up under cover of being unable to read, and made to vote under pressure. The declaration before a magistrate was likely to be a more effectual check upon that than a mere statement made in the polling-booth. Therefore, if the hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) pushed his Amendment to a division, he should be compelled to vote against it. With regard to the fears of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he believed they were exaggerated; and if the evils which he dreaded were found really to arise, something would probably soon be done to correct them.
§ MR. CHARLEYsaid, he was afraid the result of the clause, whether they adopted one kind of cumbrous machinery or another, would be that the illiterate voter would be disfranchised.
§ DR. BALLsaid, he thought the House was under a delusion—and more especially with regard to Ireland—as to the amount of exertion the illiterate voter would make, if they thought he would search for a magistrate before the day of election to enable himself to vote. It would also be very difficult in Ireland to get a magistrate to remain in the booth all day during the polling. Then, again, the penalty on making a false declaration would be the same, whether it was made before the magistrate or before the presiding officer. The illiterate voters would not only complain of the additional labour that would be imposed upon them by requiring them to make a declaration before a magistrate, but they would also expect that the candidates would pay their travelling expenses, an item of election expenditure 678 which in the case of some Irish constituencies had amounted to upwards of £1,000. He thought that the presiding officer might well be trusted to receive the declaration himself.
§ MR. LEATHAMsaid, he was glad that a point had been found beyond which the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would not go. It was important that the mode of making this declaration should be as little onerous as possible. Had his proposal to have coloured voting papers been adopted, all the difficulties that were now started would have been swept away.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he must also urge upon the Government the necessity of permitting the presiding officer to take these declarations, on the ground of the difficulty that would be experienced in finding a magistrate before whom they could be made.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had supported the Government until they had betrayed themselves, and now he thought that the Bill had been so greatly impaired during its passage through that House that many friends of the Ballot were scarcely anxious that it should receive the Royal Assent. The various duties which the measure would impose upon the Returning Officer were very heavy, he having to make out lists of the blind, of those who could not read, and of the Jews, whose consciences would not permit them to vote on Saturdays, besides having to stamp every ballot paper with a secret stamp, and to keep everything generally in order. He was satisfied that the only remedy for the difficulties that had been suggested was that the Government should retrace their steps, and adopt the proposition for having coloured printing on the voting papers.
§ MR. GORDONsaid, the Government would find it difficult to retrace their steps on this question; and that being so, the next thing was, how best to carry into effect what had been passed? His own experience had shown him how difficult it was to settle such a question. The Government seemed to have accepted a conclusion, and they must abide by that conclusion. He, however, thought that the presiding officer, who would be a respectable person, might well be trusted to deal with the illiterate voter, without the intervention of a magistrate.
§ MR. M'MAHONtrusted that the Government would resist the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 112: Majority 69.
§ Amendments made to the said proposed Amendment.
§
Question, "That the words
'And the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act called 'the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.'
The said declaration, in this Act referred to as 'the declaration of inability to read,' shall be made by the voter after the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before a justice of the peace, who shall attest it in the form hereinafter mentioned, and no fee, stamp, or other payment shall be charged in respect of such declaration, and the said declaration shall be given to the presiding officer at the time of voting,'
be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was now competent for him to move the rejection of the Rule just adopted? If it was not, he should endeavour at a future stage to get rid of it, for it was one of the most mischievous parts of the Bill. Every hon. Member must be convinced that the House had got into inextricable confusion in this matter. Secrecy had been done away with. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he could not on a point of Order enter into a general discussion of the Bill.
§ MR. MAGUIREwished to know whether he could move the rejection of the Rule?
§ MR. SPEAKERin reply, said, that the House was now considering the First Schedule of the Bill, of which this Rule formed part. Had the hon. Gentleman wished to propose the omission of the Schedule, he should have given Notice thereof before the Schedule was entered into; and so, also, had he wished the Rule omitted, he should have intimated his desire before it was entered upon. It was now too late for him to move the omission of the Rule; but he could, if he thought proper, propose the re-committal of the Bill at the third reading for that purpose.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, in that case, he intended to move the re-committal of the 680 Bill for the purpose of having this Rule struck out.
§ MR. HUNTmoved, in Rule 43, page 26, line 40, to insert after "law," the words—
And the returning officer shall deliver the writ with such certificate endorsed to the postmaster of the principal post office of the place of election, or his deputy, and shall take a receipt from the postmaster or his deputy for the same; and such postmaster or his deputy shall forward the same by the first post, under cover, to the Clerk of the Crown, with the words 'Election Writ and Return' endorsed thereon.He said the Amendment was proposed to enable the writ to go back, if it should be thought desirable, in the same way as it had come, and was desirable for purposes of economy.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENmoved, in page 29, after Rule 61, to insert the following Rule:—
A presiding officer at a polling station in a county in Ireland need not be a freeholder of the county.He said, that by the law as it stood at present with regard to county elections in Ireland, every presiding officer must have a freehold of £50 a-year in the county. It was impossible, however, to get a sufficient number of persons so qualified to act, as the remuneration was only two guineas, and the result was that persons not duly qualified were frequently appointed as deputy Returning Officers. It was better to get rid of the qualification.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in moving, in page 36, line 1, to omit the words "as to," and insert "guidance of the voter," said, that by inserting these words at the head of the Schedule it would be shown that the words which followed were intended as directions to the voter, and not as positive enactments. When it was proposed that the voter should make a cross simply, an objection was taken to it; and he stated that if there was any danger that the vote would be lost on that account he would introduce on the Report the words "or other mark." He had been informed, however, that there would be some danger if those words were introduced, and he thought that if the words which he now moved were inserted it would be clear that this was a directing and not an enacting Schedule.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, as he understood, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in making this proposal was that any mark made by the voter—and not a cross simply—should be taken as sufficient indication how he wished to vote, and should be accepted by the Returning Officer. But if such were the case, why not say so in plain words? Since the Amendment was put on the Paper he had taken the trouble to inquire how persons voted at charitable institutions, and he found that while in some cases it was by a tick, in others by a line, it was never by a cross.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that a man might denote his initials in a flourish, and that it would be unfair to make that a punishable offence.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 24, after the word "characters," to insert the words "in different colours, to be determined by the returning officer."—(Mr. Charley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]