COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th July.] [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 09 July 1883 vol 281 cc831-92

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Miscellaneous.

Clause 41 (Punishment of bribery or treating committed in houses open for refreshment).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had promised to make a statement in regard to Clauses 41 and 42. Having considered the matter he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw both of these clauses, the first of which rendered any person occupying premises kept open for public refreshments and entertainment in which any intoxicating liquor was sold, liable to indictment or summary conviction for illegal practices if he permitted any act which constituted bribery or treating within the meaning of the Act. Clause 42 involved the forfeiture of the licence by any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquors, when proved guilty of suffering either bribery or treating to be committed on his premises. The object of these clauses was to transfer the power of dealing with these offences from the Election Judges to the licensing authority, who at present had the sole power of dealing with a person carrying on a business of this nature for an infringement of the licence, and of exercising and controlling power over the mode in which the business was carried on. Of course, it would be necessary, in the first instance, before any action could be taken, that there should be a report from the Election Judge. In the event of any person being convicted after he had been reported, the licensing authorities would take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and would have the same powers as the Election Judge. He found it would be necessary to modify Clauses 41 and 42 for the purpose of substituting the licensing authority for the Election Court or the Special Commissioners, and he proposed to introduce a new clause on the Report. He would place the new clause upon the Paper as soon as it was possible, and, of course, he would afford ample time for the consideration of the question before he asked the Committee to pass the clause. He hoped this course would have the effect of removing the opposition which had been raised to the clause.

Question proposed, "That Clause 41 stand part of the Bill."

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper to leave out in the first part of the clause the words "premises kept open for public refreshment," in order to insert the words "used either solely or partially for supplying refreshments, or for pleasurable resort and entertainment, &c." He was glad to hear the statement which had been made by the Attorney General, and, as he entirely acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would not press the Amendment, which he had only placed on the Paper as an act of justice to a particular class of individuals.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was not in a position to state what course it would be desirable to take in the matter, until he had an opportunity of seeing what the new clause was. He confessed, however, that he did not understand why they should stigmatize a particular occupation or business in this way; and, therefore, he wanted to see how far it was intended to carry legislation in this direction. He thought it would be better to deal with the matter through the Licensing Court, rather than through the Election Court or the Special Commissioner. As to Clause 42, he was of opinion that it was altogether wrong. He would not, however, discuss the matter now, but would defer any observations he had to make until the new clause was brought up.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he thought no one ought to object to the course which the Attorney General proposed to take. There were strong objections to these clauses in their present form, and it would be better to save the time of the Committee by withdrawing them now, in order that a modified clause might be brought up on the Re-port.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he hoped that, in bringing up the new clause, the Attorney General would take into consideration the Amendment he (Mr. Tomlinson) had proposed to move—namely, the omission of the words "suffers to take place," with the view of inserting the words "knowingly permits." the object of that Amendment was to require that any act constituting bribery or treating within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts should have been done with the permission, knowingly, of the occupier of the premises.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would consider all the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper; and he thanked the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) for postponing his observations until the new clause was brought up.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 42 (Forfeiture of licence by person licensed to sell intoxicating liquors when quilty of committing or suffering bribery or treating on his premises).

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 43 (Removal of incapacity on proof that it was procured by perjury) agreed to.

Clause 44 (Amendment of law as to polling districts and polling places).

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought the adoption of this clause would materially increase the expense of an election. In Ireland there had been no complaint of the present system. He believed the practice there was to divide the county into Petty Sessional districts, constituting each one into a polling place; and he thought that was a most efficient and a most convenient mode of proceeding. He believed that the extension of this clause to the boroughs in Ireland would occasion a great deal of confusion; and he, therefore, trusted that it would be modified.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

asked whether the Attorney General accepted the Amendment which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had placed on the Paper for extending the operation of the clause to boroughs as well as to counties?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Amendment had not been moved.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

remarked that as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not present to move the Amendment, he (Mr. J. Cowen) would move it instead. He had understood that the Attorney General had made an agreement with the hon. Member in regard to certain Amendments by which he had undertaken to deal with them himself; and it was scarcely fair, as far as the Committee were concerned, that that understanding should be departed from, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton did not happen to be present. The object of the Amendment was to meet the case of large borough constituencies; and in the absence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton he begged to propose the Amendment which appeared in that hon. Member's name.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 3, after "county," insert "and borough."—(Mr. J. Cowen.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not intend to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but he thought both the hon. Member for Wolverhampton and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) would see that the Amendment could have no result if it were inserted here. The effect of inserting it would be to provide that every county should be divided into polling districts, and that separate polling places should be assigned to each district, no matter how small the borough constituency might be—for instance, the borough of Portarlington and various other small Irish boroughs which had never hitherto been divided into polling districts would have, in future, to be divided, and separate polling stations provided. It was a very different thing in regard to a county; but in the case of small boroughs it was quite unnecessary to divide them, and the only effect would be to impose a large additional expense upon the candidate.

MR. CALLAN

said, they had now abolished the employment of cars, and it would be necessary in such a borough as Drogheda, which extended for more than five miles into the county of Louth, to have various polling districts. He knew that in one part of the borough there were about 80 voters resident who were at least five miles from the centre of the borough; and as it would be impossible in future to provide thorn with carriages these voters would be obliged to walk to the polling place, a distance of from three to five miles, in order to vote. The case of Galway was a similar one, and in that instance they would oblige many of the voters to walk a distance of more than five miles. He, therefore, hoped the Attorney General would promise on the Report to see whether this difficulty in regard to some of the Irish constituencies could not be removed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would consider the matter both in regard to Ireland and England; but the two cases of Galway and Drogheda, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, were separate and special cases. If there were any other exceptional cases in which the borough was not divided into wards, if any hon. Member would call attention to it he would see what provision ought to be made.

MR. CALLAN

said, He had only mentioned Galway and Drogheda; but he believed there were other cases.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

remarked, that in England there were boroughs similarly situated—such, for instance, as Morpeth. He would not, however, press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEWIS moved, in line 7, to leave out "three," and insert "seven." the object of the Amendment, which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), was to provide that, whenever it was reasonable and practicable, every elector resident in a county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding seven miles from his residence.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 7, leave out "three," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."

MR. ONSLOW

said, he did not know how the Attorney General proposed to deal with this question. He knew a part of Cornwall in which the constituents were small farmers scattered over a wide district, and he wished to know who was to conduct the polling if it was required to be within three miles of the voters' residence? He believed that in many districts, if they fixed this as the mileage, a considerable amount of difficulty would be experienced, and that some of the voters might be left out because there would be no polling booth to which they could have access. He thought if the Attorney General would substitute "five" for "three" miles it would be an improvement, and it would be better than going as far as seven miles.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought the Amendment was a backward movement towards the law as it now stood. They had abolished the use of carriages to convey voters to the poll, and it was, therefore, necessary to bring the voters near to the polling booths. Something must be done to render the voting more easy, although, no doubt, the multiplication of polling booths would increase the expense.

MR. ONSLOW

wished to put a ease to the hon. and learned Attorney General. Supposing that a farmer were in the habit of attending a market at a considerable distance from his residence, would he be allowed to vote at the place where the market was held? He might be two or three miles away from his regular polling booth in the district where he lived, and it might not be convenient for him to go there. If, then, he came to the market on business, would he be entitled to go to that central place and record his vote there?

SIR CHAELES W. DILKE

said, that no voter would be able to vote exactly where he liked; but, in a case such as that mentioned by the hon. Member, the voter could attend the Registration Court, and complain to the Revising Barrister of the polling district provided for him being inconvenient.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he had a very important Amendment on the Paper, which he hoped would receive favourable consideration at the hands of the Attorney General. He proposed to add the following Proviso at the end of the 1st section of this clause:— Provided always, That it shall be lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station at which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as he may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least two days before the election the elector shall sign a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have selected to vote at such station; and he shall also notify to the presiding officer in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station. He wished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the Committee generally, that the present provision in regard to polling booths would not help working men in the city which he represented. In the city of Liverpool the vast majority of the working class were employed at a considerable distance from their residences, some of them five or six miles, so that it would be utterly impossible for them, under the new regulations, to vote unless they were prepared to sacrifice their day's wages. At present it was the practice to bring them up to the poll in carriages and omnibuses. By that means they were able to vote within their dinner hour, and then return to their work; but it would be utterly impossible for them to walk a distance of four or five miles to record their vote, and then return to their work within the hour; and the consequence would be that a large number of the workmen would be disfranchised. The Amendment simply carried out a principle which had already been adopted with regard to the county of Middlesex, where a voter could select the place at which he would vote. He proposed that an elector should make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace that he wished to poll at the place at which he was working, and not where he resided; and upon that declaration being made two days before the election, the presiding officer of the district in which the voter proposed to vote should have authority to record the vote, having received from the Justice before whom the declaration was made a notice that A or B had decided to vote in the place where he was working. He thought that in that way any attempt at personation might be avoided, and he assured the Attorney General that a privilege of that kind would be most acceptable generally to the vast majority of the working classes, who felt that, under the Bill as it stood, they would be, practically, disfranchised. The class most affected were the really hard-working and respectable members of the working class. Those who worked without any regular employment might be able to vote; but those who were in constant work would be, practically, disfranchised by the Bill. He hoped the Attorney General would consider whether, by altering the present clause, or by bringing up any other clause to effect the object which would equally serve his (Mr. Whitley's) purpose, he could not consent to this request. He (Mr. Whitley) had not met the Bill in any captious spirit. Indeed, he was anxious that it should pass; but he was also anxious to secure that the working classes especially should have the pri- vilege of enjoying their votes. He would, therefore, be glad if the Attorney General would accept the Amendment, or bring up another clause to carry out the view expressed in the Amendment in any way that might seem best to himself. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he did so he would earn the gratitude of a largo number of working men who would otherwise be disfranchised. As he had pointed out, there was a precedent in the case of the county of Middlesex, where it was provided that a voter whose name was upon the register should be able to make an application to be allowed to record his vote in another district.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

remarked, that the application would have to be made to the Revising Barrister.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he only wanted to effect that object. He was quite careless as to the way in which it was carried out. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 9, after the word "electors," to insert the words,—"Provided always, That it shall he lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a justice of the peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station in which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as He may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least two days before the election the elector shall sign a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have elected to vote at such station, and he shall also notify to the presiding officer in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station."—(Mr. Whitley.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, they were all agreed in the desire to prevent anything like the disfranchisement of any voter; but he thought the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would see that the Amendment he proposed went far beyond what was necessary. The proposal made by the hon. Member was to allow any person to go to the Revising Barrister, to give in his name, the place where He resided, and to state the name of the district in which he wanted to vote. It might be advisable to give such power to the voter in boroughs if they were bringing forward a new Registration Bill; but that was not the case at present, and his own opinion was that it was desirable for a man to vote among his neighbours by whom he was known, and that he should go to the poll with his neighbours. If the hon. Member knew the extent to which personation was carried on at elections, he would be induced to see that the only check upon it was that a voter should poll where he was known. Therefore, any suggestion of this kind would require careful consideration, and it would be necessary to see what safeguards there were by which the voting could be surrounded. The Proviso moved by the hon. Member was very loosely drawn. It stated, in the first place, that it should be lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a Justice of the Peace to the effect that he was unable to vote at the polling station in which his qualification was situate, &c. Now, he confessed he could not understand what those words meant. How could a man's qualifications be situate in a polling station? He did not wish to be hypercritical; but he really did not see what his hon. Friend meant, and he did not think the words of the Proviso would carry out what was desired. The other parts of the clause were drawn with equal looseness. As he had already said, it might be proper, if they were introducing a new Registration Bill, to consider the question; but they ought to be chary how they provided that a man on the eve of an election should vote at some different place from that at which, according to the register, he was entitled to poll. He was afraid that the Amendment would open the door to a large amount of personation. He had every desire to facilitate the power of the elector to vote; but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member was of too dangerous a character to justify its insertion in its present form.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he could not help thinking that the objection which the Attorney General had raised to the Amendment of the hon. Member was illusory. As a matter of fact, people did not vote in the presence of their neighbours, and the only way to prevent personation was to have a personation agent in attendance—some person acquainted with the district from which the voter came. The Attorney General seemed to think it was desirable that every man should march to the polling booth with his neighbour; but if that were done it would have no beneficial effect, because each man would go in singly to vote, and would be left by his neighbours at the door of the polling booth. It therefore seemed to him that the objection of the Attorney General came to nothing; and as to the verbal criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be got rid of by the insertion of words showing that the polling station was to be "in the district" in which the qualification was situated. If they prolonged the hours of polling into the hours of darkness, he believed that deeds of darkness would prevail. He thought it had been the impression of Parliament hitherto that it was not desirable to extend the hours of polling. He knew that there had been a strong effort made in that direction; but the general feeling of Parliament had been against it. It was thought that they would facilitate corrupt practices by allowing an election to take place at a late hour. The Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would get rid of a difficulty in the case of persons engaged in labour. As the Attorney General did not promise to bring up any clause upon the subject himself, and as there was no promise of any future legislation in that direction, he certainly should support the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had pointed out serious objections to the Amendment in point of form. Another objection was that it was proposed to add it to the sub-section of a clause which related to county elections only, whereas the contention of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) applied only to borough elections. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not see why they should insert the Proviso in the middle of a clause which related entirely to county elections. The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had referred to the question of extending the hours of polling, and had assorted that the feeling of Parliament was strongly against such a change. That was not so, because in the last Parliament the question was discussed on several occasions at some length; and not only was the feeling of the House in favour of the proposal, but the hours of polling in London had been extended.

MR. CALLAN

remarked that, by the law as it stood at present, no application could be made to the Revising Barrister to transfer an applicant from one polling place to another until next September. He (Mr. Callan) knew from experience that if they adopted the Proviso of the hon. Member for Liverpool, they would have to keep up a very extensive and expensive staff of personation agents. He knew some voters who would require at least half-a-dozen of these personation agents to prove whether they were the proper persons to vote or not.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, the additional objection which had just been made from the Treasury Bench by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was also an objection, upon a matter of form, to the place in which this sub-section was proposed to be inserted. He hoped the fact that the objections were substantially objections to matters of form would induce the Government to give some facility such as was asked for, in order to enable large bodies of working men to record their votes. He knew something of what occurred in a large constituency, where there were a considerable number of working men. He had undergone two contested elections in one of these constituencies, and he must say that serious difficulty was experienced in getting the votes recorded at all. It must be remembered that under the state of things constituted by the present Bill there would be no power to convey voters to the poll. Although in the elections which took place in the Metropolis in 1880 the poll remained open until 8 o'clock in the evening, he knew that there was very great difficulty, in the borough he was specially referring to, in getting working men up to the poll on both sides, even by a very extensive use of carriages. The use of these conveyances was now forbidden, and he was satisfied that in a large district of that kind it would be impossible, even if the hours were extended until 8 o'clock, to get up the full strength of the working men to the poll, unless there were some provision of this kind. He thought it a most desirable provision to add, both in regard to large con- stituencies in boroughs and also county constituencies, where there was a good deal of time sacrificed by requiring the voter to vote in the place in which his qualification was situated. It was quite true that in the counties a voter could, by giving notice to the Revising Barrister, select the place at which he should record his vote. But the Revising Barrister sat in the month of September, and the list of voters came into operation in the following January; and it might be that the election did not take place until November, and by that time it might have become a matter of importance for the voter to vote in another district altogether. He trusted that the Attorney General would give proper consideration to the matter, and bring up some clause in order to deal with the subject.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, the Attorney General had criticized the manner in which the Amendment was drawn up; but he thought some of the clauses of the Bill itself were very much open to the same objection. He believed that everyone connected with the large manufacturing towns would be desirous of affording facilities for the voting of large gangs of working men who were employed at a distance from their place of residence. In his own district there was a considerable number of shipwrights and engineers who possessed a right to vote, but whose work was situated some six, eight, or ten miles away from the place where they resided. What the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) wished was to give these men facilities for voting without obliging them to lose a day's wages on the polling day; and if that object were not met in the present clause, it might be met in some other way. He (Mr. J. Cowen) was quite sure the difficulty did arise, and, if some provision was not made to guard against it, it would disfranchise a large number of working men.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, it appeared that the only objection raised to the Amendment by the Government was that it would give facilities for personation; and he thought that objection had no foundation. It was quite true that if the elector appeared before the Revising Barrister, and showed that he was working in another part of the constituency from that in which he lived, facilities might be given for changing the polling place; but that was not what was wanted in the present case; and in regard to the personation, he failed to see how the Amendment would assist anyone who desired to commit that offence. This provision would enable an elector, on the eve of the election, to apply to the Returning Officer for leave to vote in another district; and, in that case, the name of the voter would be struck out of the list for the district in which he resided, but where he might not be very well known, and would be inserted in the list for the place where he worked, and where he could be identified. In fact, the Amendment afforded security against personation, inasmuch as it required the voter who applied for the change to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and thereby to afford evidence for his identification. If some such modification were not made, he thought a good many electors who belonged to the working classes would be disfranchised.

MR. STANTON

wished to point out that the register must be prepared some little time before the election took place, and the lists were usually prepared at the end of the year. In the case of working men, they were constantly changing their places of abode, and, in a good many instances, were constantly changing their places of work; and if, on a sudden, an election took place, and if the Returning Officer, a few days before the election, when his hands were full of all kinds of arrangements, were to find himself surrounded by 300 or 400 working men who wished to change their place of polling, he would have his labours in connection with the election enormously increased. He (Mr. Stanton) did not think it practicable or possible to change the lists in the short time fixed in the Amendment. A very large number of the lists of voters would be required for distribution all over the borough or county, and the Returning Officer would find it absolutely impossible to conduct the election under this Proviso. He thought the objection of not being able to poll might be met by giving the working classes a couple of hours during the middle of the day instead of the dinner hour, or by extending the hours of polling generally, or by adopting a system of voting such as he (Mr. Stanton) and other hon. Members were prepared to support—namely, in the shape of voting papers.

MR. LEWIS

said, that the question was only one of a choice of evils. He did not think that he should have supported the Proviso of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) if the Bill did not go a great deal further by getting rid of the use of conveyances, notwithstanding the fact that, in many instances, they would have the infirmities of human nature to deal with, and very long distances to travel. All they had to consider was this—whether, for the sake of that idolatry they were all more or less going through with regard to the Bill, it was necessary to say that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to take a man to poll in a cab, or to pay a shilling for conveying a working man or an infirm person to the poll. He failed to see how they were to deal with the question when it arose in regard to the great constituencies of the country, or how they were to provide men with an opportunity of polling at a great distance from the place where they worked. One hon. Member suggested that there should be an hour for polling in the middle of the day; and another suggested that the hours for polling generally should be extended. The present proposition was to allow an elector to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and to get his polling place changed. As it was only a choice of evils, and as the Amendment would prevent the necessity on the part of a working man of travelling for many miles, he should not oppose the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) said the Bill got rid of the power of carrying voters in conveyances to the poll; but it was only since 1880 that they had the power of doing that. Suppose on the day of polling 200 or 300 people went to the Returning Officer and said they wanted to go to another polling station, and to have their names struck out from the list in which they appeared, how was the Returning Officer to know the persons who made the application, and be satisfied that they were not cases of personation? Take the case of Liverpool. The place of a man's work might be some distance from the place where he resided. It was said that they might have personation agents at the polling booths; but unless the personation agents lived among the people, how could they know who they were? They could not send a personation agent out of the district in which he was acquainted with the electors; and, therefore, this practical difficulty in respect to personation agents would still exist, and upon that ground he opposed the Amendment.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, it was quite true, as the Attorney General had pointed out, that before 1880 it was not lawful to pay for conveying voters to the poll. But the law in 1880 was considerably altered; and the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that the law in 1880 was not so stringent as it would be made now by this Act. At that time a man could exercise charity by ordering carriages to convey voters to the poll; but at the present moment, if any man did such a thing, He would bring the most serious consequences, not only upon himself, but upon innocent persons. Now, in the first place, he did not think this was a personation matter at all. He took exactly the view of the Bill which had already been stated, although in far better words, by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He was not at all in love with the clause nor with the Amendment; but he admitted that the Amendment would be better than nothing. He was sure, from his own experience, which was not very small in electioneering matters, that the ban which had been placed upon the employment of conveyances would disfranchise a large number of voters. At the same time, he knew perfectly well that many hon. Members who voted with the Attorney General wished to see a large class of these electors disfranchised solely upon the ground that such electors did not agree with themselves in political opinion. [Cries of "No!"] At any rate, that was his experience, and it was not a very small one. There were many voters who, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), desired to see nobody represented or have a vote except they happened to agree with him in opinion. The Liberal Party thought that a large portion of the electors living away from the polling places were likely to vote in a different way from that in which they would vote themselves; and, therefore, they desired to prevent them, as far as possible, from being taken to the poll. They all knew the difficulty of getting electors to poll unless the polling place was handy. If the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) went to a Division he should support the Amendment.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down told the Committee that he had had some experience in elections. So also had he (Mr. Torrens), and he deprecated this Amendment most decidedly. He would tell the Committee why. In London there had been an extension of the hours of polling; and he was bound to say, from his own personal observation, that nothing in the world could work better or more orderly, and he only wished the Government could be induced to extend that provision to their fellow-citizens in the country towns. If there was one thing he found it hard to eradicate from the minds of what were called half-educated people, it was the notion that personation, when it was done honestly, was not wrong. He would tell the Committee what happened to himself at the last Election, and he would leave the Committee to judge whether he was dealing with an imaginary case. In the course of the contest he had an interview with a foreman of a large establishment, and he took occasion to ask him if they had voted there. "Oh, yes," he said, "we all voted before 9 o'clock this morning, excepting So-and-so; and we intend to put that all right. I will take care that if he does not come up by 3 o'clock I will go and vote for him." This was said in perfect good faith, and the man evidently thought he was doing something perfectly right. Of course, he (Mr. Torrens) regarded the idea with horror, and told the man to do nothing of the kind, adding that he would only vitiate the election. The reply he received was—"Mr. Charles is as well entitled to vote as any man in England, and we must take care that his vote is not lost." That was a danger which the Committee might not realize Persons of this class had a notion that if a man was qualified his vote ought to be given, and he was afraid that if the Committee consented to pass this Amendment they would only be giving facilities for personation. He would give the Committee another experience he had obtained of a different character. In the Metropolis, thanks to the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, the poll was now kept open until 8 o'clock. At 7 o'clock on a winter's evening he had gone to the furthest suburb of the borough he represented in order to see how things were going on. He found that there was a great portion of the constituency in that part of the town who worked in the centre of London, but who lived at Stoke Newington. They could not give up their day's pay in order to vote; but they hastened from their work to be in time, and they were in time. They came in from the centre of London, and went into the polling booth with such order, regularity, and as silently as a troop of ants. If the Committee was to take the same course in regard to other borough constituencies, and extend the hours of voting, they would have orderly voting; but if they attempted to carry out the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) they would only bring about personation, and render elections liable to be vitiated without any real cause.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he understood that the principal objection of the Attorney General had reference to personation. He should be the very last to desire to do anything to encourage personation; but he did not think there was the slightest difficulty on that head. He believed that a certain amount of personation did exist now; but there would be no danger of personation if the Amendment were adopted, and if it were not, great numbers of the working classes would be practically disfranchised. His experience was that it was only the most respectable of the working classes who would avail themselves of the privilege. The Amendment required every man taking advantage of it to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and he would know that in making that declaration he would render himself liable to a serious punishment if he made a false declaration. It would be found that men who were prepared to make such a declaration before a Justice of the Peace would be the last men to attempt anything in the shape of personation. The difficulty he proposed to deal with was no imaginary one. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) said that an extension of the hours of polling might meet the case. Probably it might in some localities, and in regard to large boroughs he was not at all opposed to extend the hours of polling; but, at the same time, a measure of that kind would not remedy the evil in a place like Liverpool. They had in Liverpool tried, on one or two occasions, to prolong the time for election in connection with parochial affairs; but a strong feeling was expressed against voting in the dark hours. In the summer, when the days were long, there was no difficulty in this respect; but in the winter time, in some parts of Liverpool, it would be absolutely dangerous to conduct elections. He gathered from the remarks of the Attorney General, that the only thing they had to guard against was the possibility of personation; and he certainly was of opinion that personation would be prevented if they required a man who wished to change his polling place to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace some three or four days before the day of polling. The names of such men would then be transferred from the place at which they resided to the place where they worked, and they would be easily identified. If the Government declined to concede this privilege, they would virtually disfranchise a very large number of working men who were among the most respectable men in the borough, and who had a fair claim and right to the consideration of Parliament. They had already made it penal for anyone to hire a carriage and convey a working man to the poll; and under the Bill, as it stood, no working man could hire a carriage to convoy himself and some of his fellow-workmen to the poll. Surely, under such circumstances, the labouring classes had a right to the favourable consideration of the House. Objection had been made to the way in which the clause was drawn; but he did not tie himself to the words of the clause. They might alter it as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had suggested, by inserting the words "in the district," after "polling station," or he should be perfectly contented if the Attorney General would bring up some clause to meet this very urgent case—a case which he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman would in Liverpool alone affect from 15,000 to 20,000 voters. Surely a case like that was worthy of the attention and consideration of Her Majesty's Government. As he had already said, he did not think for a moment that the alteration he suggested would lead to personation, which he would be the last man to defend. The Attorney General said that men ought to go up to the poll in company with their neighbours and friends by whom they were known. That might be all very well in the borough of Taunton; but he (Mr. Whitley) represented from 60,000 to 80,000 electors—men who did not know their neighbours any more than the "man in the moon." the presiding officer would not know them, neither would their neighbours know them; but an opportunity would be afforded, if necessary, of making inquiries and identifying the voter by requiring a declaration to be made before a Justice of the Peace three or four days before the polling took place. He thought it would be a great hardship if the elector was not allowed to make that declaration; and he hoped the Government would seriously consider, if they found themselves unable to accept this provision, whether they could not bring up some clause of their own to meet the difficulty. By that means they would earn for themselves the gratitude of a large number of the working classes.

SIR CHAPLES W. DILKE

said, he would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision at once upon the Amendment. As a matter of fact, up to that moment, they had made no progress with the Bill. The first clauses brought under the consideration of the Committee had been dropped, and it was now time that progress was made. He, and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, had already several times pointed out the objections which were entertained against the Amendment and the form in which it was now proposed. In addition to the other objections, the Amendment would render the conduct of elections absolutely impossible. Towards the close of the poll there might be a large number of voters in a borough desiring to record their vote at a particular polling place under the Amendment, and the Returning Officer would have no means of checking their votes. He would be altogether unable to cope with the difficulty at the last moment.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not think the Committee ought to listen for one moment to the suggestion made by the President of the Local Government Board that, although they had been sitting for an hour, they had made no progress with the Bill. No doubt, they sometimes went rather quickly, and sometimes rather slowly; but the real question to consider was how they could best do justice to a large number of their fellow-subjects. The first objection to the Amendment was one taken by the Attorney General as to the manner in which it was worded; but that objection was hardly worth serious consideration, because, in two minutes, the Committee could obviate it by altering the phraseology of the Amendment. The next objection was that the clause was in the wrong place; and that was an objection which was got rid of quite as easily. In point of fact, the Attorney General had pooh-poohed and sneered at the Amendment; but, after it had undergone some discussion, the hon. and learned Gentleman began to see that there might be something important in it after all; and, finding that a considerable number of Members did attach importance to it, another Member of the Government got up upon the Treasury Bench to tell them they ought to divide, because, so far, they had made no progress with the Bill. Now, it seemed to him that the Government had not given the slightest consideration to the proposition; and, if they had any real desire to make progress, they would not have met the Amendment with ridiculous criticisms about the words in which it was framed. The adoption of the Amendment would facilitate the polling of working men; and, upon that ground, he (Mr. Warton) would support it.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he had one or two verbal Amendments to propose which would remedy the objection raised to the Amendment by the Attorney General. In the first place, in line 9, at the end of the 1st sub-section, after the word "electors," he would move to add the words "in any county or borough."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "elector," insert the words "in any county or borough."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, He would accept that Amendment, and also any other Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman had to propose, in order that they might divide upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) in the form in which hon. Members opposite desired to put it.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD moved, in line 3, after the words "polling station," to insert the words "in the district."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD moved to extend the time for making the declaration from two to four days, and also after the words "the elector shall sign," to insert the words "and forward to the Returning Officer." It appeared to him that two days were too short a time for the declaration to be made and sent to the Returning Officer, and he proposed to strike out "two" and insert "four." the second Amendment made provision for the reception of the declaration by the Returning Officer.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, leave out "two," and insert "four."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "sign," insert "and forward to the Returning Officer."

Amendment agreed to

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment by inserting, in line 11, after the words "presiding officer," the words "of the district."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)

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

MR. GORST

rose to Order. He wished to make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment—namely, whether it would not be as well in the last words of line 4 to insert an Amendment requiring the district in which the voter resided to be notified to the Returning Officer?

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he did not think that would be necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR CHAELES W. DILKE

said, that now the Amendment had been amended he should ask the Committee to reject it altogether.

Question put, That the words' Provided always, That it shall be lawful for any elector in any county or "borough, on making a declaration before a justice of the peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station in the district in which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as he may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least four days before the election the elector shall sign, and forward to the returning officer, a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have elected to vote at such station, and he shall also notify to the presiding officer of the district in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station,' be there inserted."—(Mr. Whitley.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 79: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 184.)

MR. E. S. HOWARD

said, he thought the Amendment he was about to propose would not be objected to by Her Majesty's Government, because the Committee had agreed to the abolition of payment for conveyance of voters; and this was an attempt to remedy the inconvenience which some voters would suffer in consequence of that abolition, by bringing the poll nearer to their doors. The clause proposed that every county should be divided into polling districts, and a polling place assigned to each district in such a manner that, so far as was reasonably practicable, every elector resident in the county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence, provided that no polling place should be constituted which contained less than 100 electors. That meant that the electors should have the polling places nearer to themselves, and if it were carried out there was no doubt there would be a great increase in the number of polling places where the population was scattered, and a corre- sponding increase of the expenses; but he did not think they ought to complain of the latter, because the expense of polling places would be as nothing compared with that of conveying voters to the poll. At the same time, he did not see why needless expense should be incurred for clerks, messengers, and officers, as well as a waste of time. It was his experience that in many of the outlying districts in his county the poll, even where there were 300 or 400 electors, was closed at 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and that the rest of the day was spent by the officers in chatting with the persons who came in with the election agents. Now, the adoption of his Amendment would utilize the staff during the whole day, because, where the electors were widely scattered in any polling district, he proposed that the poll should be taken at such two places successively as might be determined upon by the local authority, with the proviso that the poll should be open for not less than three hours at each place. At the risk of not having stated the case as strongly as he might have done, having regard to the time of the Committee, he would conclude his remarks by pointing out that the Amendment was only permissive in its character; and if the local authorities did not think it practicable they need not put it into effect. He trusted, under all the circumstances, that the Amendment which he now begged to move would receive the favourable consideration of the Attorney General.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, Sub-section 2, at end, add:—"Where in any polling district the electors are widely scattered, the poll may be taken successively at two places which shall be determined upon by the local authority in such manner to equalize as far as possible the distance to the poll to be traversed by the surrounding electors: Provided, That the poll shall be open for not loss than three hours in each such place."—(Mr. E. S. Howard.)

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

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, which, if it were adopted, would provide an especial convenience in counties where the electors were scattered, and where the character of the district rendered communication difficult. In counties like Cum- berland and Derbyshire the means of conveyance to the poll had always been especially necessary; and he thought that the restrictions which they had put upon the conveyance of electors in the earlier portion of the Bill placed them under a strong obligation to bring the poll nearer to the door of the elector. He apprehended that the expense would not be so much in the cost of the stations to be provided as in the staff necessary to carry on the business of the polling; and, therefore, if they made the staff do double duty in the manner proposed by the hon. Member, it would make a great difference in the cost on the side of economy. He trusted the Attorney General would see his way to accept this Amendment, or one of a similar character.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, while he could not complain of the Amendment of his hon. Friend being brought forward, He hoped that the Committee would perceive that the question involved in it did not naturally arise on this Bill. It ought to be rather an appendage to the Ballot Bill than to a Bill for the suppression of corrupt and illegal practices at elections. He should be quite willing to consider the hon. Member's proposal in connection with the Ballot Bill; but he could see at once a considerable disadvantage in it, and that was that it would give one staff to two different polling districts, or, in fact, it would cut one polling district in half. In that way they would disfranchise, to a certain extent, persons who went away from their homes in the morning and could not get back before the polling place in their district was closed. Nor did he think it would add to economy in the matter of the staff, who, when they had finished at the first place, would have to follow the presiding officer and catch him up at the second polling place. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had been on the point of rising to ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cumberland was in Order. The Committee had passed a clause making the payment of voters' travelling expenses illegal, by which means a large number of persons had been disfranchised. Hon. Members on those Benches would, therefore, have to call upon the Government to find some machinery by which those voters who were too poor to pay the necessary travelling expenses would be able to get to the poll. It was all very well to say that the Ballot Bill would offer a more appropriate opportunity of introducing the Amendment of the hon. Member; but the Ballot Bill would not make its appearance that Session, and they could not wait until then for machinery necessary to enable the persons he had indicated to record their votes, because no one could say what a year might bring forth. What he desired to impress on the Government was that they must settle some means of getting voters to the poll before the Bill passed.

MR. GORST

said, he thought the idea of the hon. Member for East Cumberland an excellent one, although it would take too long to discuss it at that moment, and defend it against the strictures of the Attorney General. But he hoped the hon. Member would not be disheartened by the manner in which his suggestion had been received, and that when the Ballot Bill was before the House he would bring it forward again. The Amendment would be more appropriate to that measure, and he gathered from the Attorney General's remarks that he was not unfavourable to its principle. Having put a stop to the conveyance of voters, some means must be devised, in the case of districts where the electors were scattered, for getting the electors to the poll.

MR. E. S. HOWARD

said, that, on the principle that a bird in hand was worth two in the bush, he should have liked to have taken the sense of the Committee with regard to this matter. As, however, it was to be taken up again he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARTON

said, that in line 10 the words "who have" evidently ought to be "which has." He would, therefore, move to make the alteration.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 10, leave out the words "who have," in order to insert the words "which has."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, they might as well discuss the question as to whether the Committee has or the Committee have. It was usual for the words to take the form in which they appeared in the clause, and it was hardly worth while altering them.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. RANKIN

said, he wished to propose the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, which was, after the words "Much Wenlock," to insert the word "Leominster." the object of the 3rd section of the clause, into which his Amendment would be incorporated, was to treat certain large boroughs—East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much "Wenlock, and Aylesbury—as if they were counties. These places were more like counties than boroughs, and his desire was to include Leominster, the circumstances of which place were similar to those of the places enumerated in the sub-section. Leominster had a large number of voters scattered over a very extensive area—about 25 square miles—and many of the electors lived further than three miles from the polling station; and as conveyances were not to be allowed, and many of these people were poor agricultural labourers, they should be treated as though they were electors for a county.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 16, after "Much Wenlock," insert "Leominster."—(Mr. Rankin.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Leominster' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said that certain boroughs in this country had for a long time been treated as counties. In 1867, East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, and Much Wenlock were treated as counties at the request of their Representatives, and at that time nothing was suggested as to the exclusion of Leominster. He would ask the hon. Member not to press the proposal.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, He had no doubt he should be corrected if he were wrong; but to the best of his recollection there were four places originally included, and that Much Wenlock was added in 1867, which place was included on the representation of a very distinguished man, the present Lord Forester, who, at that time, represented the borough. It seemed to him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) only reasonable that Leominster should be added in the same way on the Motion of its Representative.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there were a large number of other boroughs in the country which could make the same claim, and which it would be difficult to exclude if the request in the case of Leominster were acceded to. For instance, he should be prepared to move that Wolverhampton, with its 25,000 electors, and its area extending 10 or 12 miles, should be included. Wolverhampton was not all one town, but was a variety of towns grouped together; and it seemed to him that any argument that applied in the case of Leominster equally applied in the case of his borough. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, no!] He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) claimed to be better acquainted with the place than the hon. Member for Eye. He did not think the Committee ought, on a simple off-hand Motion of this kind, without any inquiry, but simply on the Motion of the Member representing the borough, to adopt a change of this kind. He was sorry that he had not been present when the clause dealing with polling places was considered; but, at the proper time, he proposed to bring up a new clause, providing that all large boroughs should have polling places provided at a distance of not more than a mile from the residence of the electors, provided there were not more than 100 electors in each place. Without questioning the claims of Leominster, he objected to any exception being made in its favour, unless many other places were included.

MR. H. T. DAVENPORT

wished to point out that there was a great difference between the boroughs of Wolverhampton and Leominster. In the case of Leominster, the district was a very large one, and the polling places were very far apart; but in Wolverhampton the polling places were scattered all over the borough.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

hoped the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir. Rankin) would not allow himself to be deterred by the dictatorial instructions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because, as the hon. Member who had just sat down had shown, there was an immense difference between the boroughs of Wolverhampton and Leominster. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) might, with much reason, propose the inclusion of the borough of Eye; but, for the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, he would state that he did not intend to take that course. "What was the difference between Much Wenlock, Aylesbury, and the borough of Leominster? Why should Much Wenlock and Aylesbury be treated as counties, and not the borough of Leominster? Because five places had already been treated as counties, it was no reason why another borough, under similar conditions, should not be treated in that way also.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 93: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 185.)

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said the next Amendment was in his name, and it was one which it was hardly necessary to explain at any length. Its object was to provide a polling station for every 500 electors. It was not unnatural that there should have been some considerable discussion to-night upon this subject, and he thought that hon. Members had a perfect right to endeavour to remedy the evils in this Bill with regard to the difficulty that many electors would have of getting to the poll. It might be argued that this was not the proper place to insert such an Amendment as this, and he was not himself sure that this was the best part of the Bill in which to insert it. He made his proposal, however, as much as anything else for the purpose of hearing the views of hon. Members, and of having a discussion on the question. It might be said that the proper place for such a proposal would be in the Ballot Bill; but they had heard that that measure was to be dropped this Session. Well, before that measure passed a great many things might happen. As disabilities were to be created by this Bill, and as a provision preventing the use of conveyances for taking voters to the poll had been adopted, unless some such alteration as that he proposed were accepted many electors would be disfranchised. He begged to propose his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 18, after "county," insert "Provided also that in every county and borough, whether a district borough or not, there shall be at least one polling station for every Ave hundred electors."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) seemed to think that his Amendment required no explanation; but it would have been advantageous if he had given the Committee some explanation of it. What, for instance, did he mean by polling station? Did he mean to retain those words? [Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE: Yes."] A polling station was not a polling place, but was only a building in which a voter polled. A polling place might be a market place, and, if this Amendment were accepted, in such a place as a market place they would not be able to poll more than 300 voters; and it seemed to him that in very many cases they might have as many as 1,500 voters who would require to poll in a market place. Polling stations and polling places were very different things. In the case of county voters residing in a large area surrounding a town, the people were accustomed to come by railway to the place where there were hotels to dine, and so forth; and it might be convenient for them to vote in that central place—the necessity for them to go elsewhere putting them under very great inconvenience. No doubt the intention was that they should not have too many voters coming to the same polling place, and that the voters should not be inconvenienced by having the polling place too far away. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's desire would be met by the clause as it stood, as it provided that every elector resident in a county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he thought that no district containing 500 electors should be without a polling station, and that, it seemed to him, was the clear object of the Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, to his mind the meaning of the Amendment was perfectly clear, and it was only unintelligible to those who did not choose to understand it. There were provisions dealing with the representation of the people requiring local authorities to pro- vide convenient polling districts; but none of them laid down any particular limit. They said generally what were convenient districts, but did not point them out. If there were 500 electors in any district, that was surely a district sufficiently large to have a polling place of its own. Probably some districts around central market towns might find it convenient to have their polling station in a market place; but other districts of 500 electors, which were not so situated, might require, and surely were entitled to have, their own polling place. He could not, for the life of him, see the objection to enacting either that, or something like it. Why should they not lay down a limit as to the number of electors in a district which should have a polling place? It did not at all follow that two or more districts should not have their polling places in the same town.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was not surprised that some confusion arose as to this matter, and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) had full reason for introducing his proposal. He knew that the Ballot Bill was not to be passed this Session, and the words he proposed were, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) believed, practically taken from that measure. In the 2nd sub-section they gave the local authorities power to divide the county into polling districts, and to assign polling places to those districts; and the right hon. Baronet asked that they should so divide those districts as to have 500 electors for each polling place. It was desirable that polling districts should not be overcrowded, and the right hon. Baronet wished to give the local authorities power, whilst deciding the question as to the polling places, to have regard to the desirability of giving a polling station to each 500 electors.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, a difficulty arose upon this point—namely, as to what constituted a district. His impression was that the 1st sub-section, which provided for the division of the polling districts, and the assignment of polling places to each district, so as to give every elector a polling place within three miles of his residence, would meet the object of the right hon. Baronet. But directly they got their polling district, it did not matter whether 500 or 600 people polled at one place. If the district was a populous one, and the polling place was central, it would be convenient to send more than 500 people to that place; and it would not be satisfactory to say that, however convenient such place was, no more than 500 voters should poll in it. As he had said, there was some confusion at the polling places and polling stations. He had never heard as yet that there had been a block in a polling station in consequence of voters not having had sufficient accommodation.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he must plead ignorance as to what was the definition the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General sought to draw between polling places and polling stations.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the right hon. Gentleman would see the distinction in the Ballot Act.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that that was no answer. The Ballot Act had been the cause of introducing no little confusion into their proceedings on this Bill. On a former occasion some very reasonable—and, he made bold to say, necessary—Amendments were proposed to the Bill; but the Chairman, acting, no doubt, rightly enough upon that which was then before him, decided that these, although of great importance, and he might say even of urgency, would more appropriately be introduced into the Ballot Act Continuance Bill. Well, he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood that they were no longer hampered with that confusion. He understood the Prime Minister to say that that Bill, which many of them, months ago, were of opinion had no chance of passing, had been definitely withdrawn. The Committee, therefore, was now in a position to deal with this subject as a whole. The right hon. Baronet had proposed that facilities for polling should be given to every body of electors numbering 500. Well, he would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General into the subtle distinction between a polling place and a polling station, which, to his (Mr. J. Lowther's) mind, was one and the same thing. He had often heard that a polling district might be sub-divided into minute departments; but he would not ask what was the the correct phrase for them. They all knew what his right hon. Friend meant. He simply desired to give facilities to voters to record their votes. He wished to ask whether the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) with regard to voting papers, to which he attached considerable importance, would be taken up in consequence of the Ballot Act Amendment Bill having been withdrawn?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that with regard to the distinction between a polling station and a polling place, the law required that every Returning Officer should provide a sufficient number of polling stations for the accommodation of voters entitled to vote at such a place.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked how the distances were arranged?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there must be a polling place and a polling station. The polling station was the place at which people were to vote; and in a populous district or polling place it would be most convenient to let them go to a particular town.

THE CHAIRMAN

With regard to the point which the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) submitted for my opinion, I cannot now express any opinion about the clause which I see in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex. When that clause comes on I shall be ready to give my opinion. As to the other point respecting an Act of Parliament which is at present in force, what I know is that the Ballot Act is at present in operation.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, what he wished to ask was whether he or any other Member would be in order in moving an Amendment raising the question of voting papers or any other matter dealt with in the Ballot Act?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is premature to express any opinion upon that now.

COLONEL NOLAN

believed that the Amendment would create no increased facilities, but would add to the expense.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he would like to put it to the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) whether the discretion of the local authority might not suffice to deal with this queston? There was ample power given to the local authorities, and they had every motive to arrange for polling stations in the best way, with a view to the convenience both of the candidates and of the voters. He was afraid that the Committee was going too much into detail in this Bill. This was not a matter in which the Imperial Parliament should lay down rules for all possible cases; but it was rather a matter in which the local authorities might be safely left to make the most convenient arrangements.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he was loth to take up the time of the Committee; but he thought it due to himself to explain why he had put the Amendment on the Paper. In the Ballot Act Amendment Bill, which was now not to be proceeded with, he saw in the 1st Schedule a proposed addition to Rule 15, providing that in every county and every borough, whether a district borough or not, there should be at least one polling station for every 500 electors. That provision, however, was not to apply to municipal elections. Seeing that these words were in that Bill, and observing the disfranchising effects of this Corrupt Practices Bill, he thought it fair to bring the question before the Committee. If this provision was fair and right, he thought it was not unnatural that he should bring it before the Committee, and ask them to consider this point carefully—namely, whether, as by a clause in this present Bill a great number of voters would be virtually disfranchised by being deprived of all means of getting to the poll, the Committee should not consider the advisability of inserting in this Bill the words which were proposed in the other Bill? With regard to the question of polling stations, the object of his Amendment was to place a polling station within the reach of every 500 voters.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet's explanation was very reasonable. The provision for polling stations was intended to prevent a crowd of electors at one particular spot; but that would not meet the right hon. Baronet's view as to bringing people to the poll. A station was a building, and the object was that too many voters should not be brought to one particular building or booth.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he thought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), that this matter should be left to the local authorities. That was at present done; and in the borough which he represented there were two polling places provided for Parliamentary Elections, although he thought that was one too many. For municipal elections there was only one polling station, and, so far as he knew, no more would be wanted, and this Amendment would only increase the expense. When a Returning Officer saw that, Tinder this Bill, conveyances were not allowed to be used, he would, no doubt, decide that he must have more polling stations. He (Mr. Onslow), however, thought it would be very hard to lay down in this Bill that in every county and borough there should be, at least, one polling station for every 500 electors. Suppose there were 1,()00 electors, how many polling stations should there then be? According to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, there would have to be four; but he did not believe that so many would be required. This matter had much better be left in the hands of the Returning Officer.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for he thought the right hon. Baronet could not have considered its effect upon borough constituencies. In the borough he represented (the Tower Hamlets), instead of 20 polling stations, which were now required, 90 would be needed under this provision. Such a number would be entirely superfluous, and would enormously increase the expense. He did not say that they might not have some more; but such an increase as would take place if this Amendment were adopted was not at all necessary.

MR. LABOUCHERE

suggested the substitution of ballot boxes for stations. People found great difficulty in finding time to go up to the Presiding Officer to get their ticket and then put it into the ballot box. If it was said that the local authorities should not be interfered with, it must be remembered that they were already interfered with. The difficulty was that men had to wait until the Presiding Officer could give them their papers; and if it were laid down that only 500 people might place their papers in one ballot box, then, he thought, the difficulty might be overcome.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

said, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he observed that Clause 65, Section 2, prevented the application of this clause to Scotland. Clause 45, which would shortly be under consideration, allowed, as he understood it, the use of vessels and boats to convey voters at the expense of the candidates; but this clause did not apply to the Islands to which this Amendment referred. He should, therefore, ask leave to withdraw an Amendment which he had been asked to move, if the Attorney General would see whether some arrangement could not be made by which floating polling places might be provided and taken to the Islands to voters who otherwise might be disfranchised.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 (Conveyance of voters by sea in certain cases).

MR. CRAIG-SELLAR

said, the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to enable candidates to act as heretofore in certain counties, especially Scotch counties, which were difficult of access, and in which the electors were widely scattered, and to enable them to bring electors to the poll at their expense. It was apparent that in this clause the principle was admitted that there must be certain exceptions made to the prohibition against the conveyance of electors. If there was no such exception with regard to Scotland the effect would be that 40 or 50 per cent of the voters would be unable to go to the poll. The object of his Amendment was to extend this exception to a slight extent. He proposed in certain counties to allow, in addition to sea conveyances, the use of land conveyances under certain circumstances; and, as a matter of fact, in those very counties intersected by arms of the sea, unless land conveyances were allowed as well as steamboats and other vessels, voters would not be able to vote. In the district of Lochgoilhead there were from 35 to 40 electors, and in order to vote they had to go by road about 18 miles to St. Catherine's, and then across Loch Fyne to Inverary. In the Islands of Colonsay, Oronsay, and Jura, there were 69 electors. They had to poll at Bow-more, in Islay, and had to be taken some 15 miles to Portaskaig by sea, and thence 15 miles more by road to Bowmore. At Arisaig, in Inverness-shire, there were 40 to 50 electors, and they had to poll at Fort William, 40 miles away by road. In the parish of Laggan there were 45 electors who had to go 30 miles by road to their polling place; in the parish of Fortingall, in Perthshire, there were 124 electors, of whom 33 were within five miles, 23 from 10 to 20 miles, and 10 over 20 miles from the polling station. Then, in Banffshire there were nine polling stations; and in No. 1, the electors were from six to seven miles from the polling station; in No. 2, seven to nine miles; in No. 6, 10 to 12 miles; in No. 9, 22 to 23 miles. In one polling district in Argyllshire—that at which he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) voted—there were 219 electors, of whom only some 15 were within five miles of the polling place. It was obvious that some provision must be made in order to enable those electors in the Highland counties to have the benefit of the franchise. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Far-quharson) had suggested earlier in the discussion that the Returning Officer should authorize the employment of carriages, and charge the expense to the candidates; but the Attorney General had shown that that would not work effectually. Another hon. Gentleman had suggested that there should be perambulating stations, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had suggested a floating station. He thought the Committee, however, were satisfied that neither perambulating nor floating stations would exactly answer the purpose. Then it had been suggested that additional polling places would meet the case. But additional polling places in these remote regions involved very great additional expense. In the county of Argyll at the last Election there were 14 stations, and the expenses were about £600; and the reason of that was that in that county there was not a sufficient number of men learned in the law who were able to act as Presiding Officers, and the Returning Officer had to import professional men from Edinburgh and Glasgow, who went down with their clerks, and charged from three to five guineas a-day. If, therefore, the suggestion of additional stations were adopted, the expenses would be increased enormously, especially as these stations would have to be provided and manned with Presiding Officers and their staff, whether there was a contest or not. Then, there remained his own suggestion, and he thought it would answer very well. He proposed that where the nature of the county was such that the electors were widely scattered, a certain amount might be paid for means of conveyance, in addition to the maximum amount allowed by the Bill. If that were adopted, he thought it very likely that the agents of the two candidates would meet and arrange for a coach or omnibus to go and take up the voters for both sides, and take them to the polling station, and in that way the expense would be comparatively small. That plan was adopted at the last Election, and he had no doubt that it would be followed in most counties. The Amendment referred exclusively to resident voters, and not to out-voters or faggot-voters, and he limited the distance to five miles. He did not insist on that figure, because three, seven, or ten miles would suit his purpose. Then there was the further safeguard to which he especially wished to call attention—namely, that, by the additional Amendment which he would move if this were carried, the Registration Officer and Revising Barrister—the Assessor and Sheriff in Scotland—would, when they revised the register each year, have to make up a list of the electors in each polling district who should be entitled to be conveyed, and none but these could be conveyed. The clause, so safeguarded, could not possibly be abused. He should probably be told that the object of the Bill was to diminish expense; but he did not think his Amendment would much increase the expense, and if it did there was something to be considered besides the mere expense. There was the question of the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of voters, and he was sure the Attorney General would not wish to disfranchise electors wholesale who were duly qualified. The danger had been recognized by the partial provision made in the Bill for such cases. He did not urge this Amendmenton Party grounds, for it would apply equally to both Parties; he urged it in the interest of qualified voters who, without some such provision, would be unable to vote.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 31, after "thereof," insert "or where in any county, the electors are widely scattered, and where it has not been found reasonably practicable to divide the county, so that every elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding five miles from his residence."—(Mr. Craig-Sellar.)

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

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, he hoped the Government would make a concession upon this matter. Under the provision of this Bill, as it at present stood, total disfranchisement must result in many parts of Scotland which were remotely situated from the polling place, and the Attorney General had already given some concession in that direction. But that concession was only a marine concession, and he hoped he would give a dry-land concession as well. He did not in any way wish to weaken the Bill, and he was sure that all who represented counties were grateful to the Attorney General for endeavouring to diminish the expenses; but he hoped that if the Attorney General could not accept this Amendment, he would be able to devise something which would diminish the chance of disfranchisement with regard to Scotch electors while not weakening the Bill.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he entirely concurred with his hon. Friend in regard to this Amendment. He would not detain the Committee by an argument in addition to those which had already been submitted to it, as he thought they fully made out the case. He hoped the Government would make some concession.

MR. LEWIS

said, it was pleasing to find this chorus of opinion amongst Scotch Members who had been persistently voting to their hearts' content against any conveyance of voters in England, Ireland, and Wales. Directly, however, the shoe pinched themselves they were inclined to cry out, and in most piteous tones entreat the Attorney General to allow them to pay travelling expenses for voters in certain cases. This Amendment would be a complete departure from the principle of the Bill; and hon. Gentlemen opposite who had felt there was some difficulty about the conveyance of voters by sea, ought to remember that there was an equal amount of difficulty in the conveyance of voters over mountains. If there was difficulty in crossing an arm of the sea there was quite as much difficulty in crossing mountains. As a matter of fact, he believed there were some men who would rather swim across an arm of the sea than climb over a mountain. Hon. Gentlemen from Scotland voted against the conveyance of compatriots in England, Ireland and Wales; and he wondered that they had not a disposition to be straight and fair all round, and object to the conveyance of voters in Scotland also. For his part, speaking from an abstract point of view, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) was a very sensible Amendment; and in order to be consistent, if the hon. Gentleman went to a Division—which he doubted very much, for it was the practice of hon. Gentlemen opposite to propose an Amendment and then run away—he (Mr. Lewis) should vote with him. He cordially tendered his sympathy and his vote to the hon. Gentleman.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that all throughout his wish had been to make voters go to the poll, as much as a voluntary effort of theirs as possible. Unless they had a boat at their command, it would be physically impossible oftentimes to bring a person across an arm of the sea. And this clause was intended to remove physical impossibilities—as, for instance, when an arm of the sea separated a voter from the mainland on which his polling station might be situated. He must remind his hon. Friend that, while he spoke eloquently for Scotland, he had made his Amendment apply to the whole country; and in regard to this Amendment he (the Attorney General) must be consistent. When they were endeavouring to prohibit the conveyance of out-voters in counties, 20 Conservative Gentlemen voted with the Government, and those Gentlemen he could not now desert. Let them see what would be the effect of the Amendment. If they let their carriages loose, what guarantee had they that they would only bring up voters marked on the list for conveyance? They could not control their drivers, and it was impossible to put a limit upon the number of people conveyed. They would, therefore, do that which they had already decided should not be done— they would send out an unlimited number of carriages; they would let loose in a constituency a large number of carriages without the slightest guarantee that they would bring up to the poll only the voters marked on the list. This Amendment, therefore, which applied not to Scotland only but to constituencies generally, would be in direct contradiction of what was voted in the Committee by a large majority, including, as He had said, many Conservative Members. The Amendment was one that he could not accept. He admitted that he had had some communication with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Donald Cameron) and other Scotch Members as to whether Scotch counties could not be excepted from the provision prohibiting conveyance of voters. He admitted the difficulty of the position, and he should earnestly endeavour to consult the wishes of hon. Members, and see if there was any way in which the difficulty could be met and overcome. If the Committee would allow him, he would consult further with hon. Members from Scotland, and see what could be done in this matter; because, while adhering to the principle they had adopted, he should be glad to find some way out of the difficulty. He certainly could not accept an Amendment which would allow carriages, unchecked in number and uncontrolled as to their destination, to go forth on the polling day.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) prided himself upon his consistency; but he (Mr. A. F. Egerton) failed to see it. He did not see the difference between the proposal now made by the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) and the present system. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) was at one time a Member for a division of a county, and at one of his elections he was obliged to convey a voter from Bury to his polling station in Manchester—a distance of many miles. By this Amendment the hon. Member (Mr. Craig-Sellar) proposed that a voter living on an island should come his 10 miles, or whatever the distance might be, at the expense of the candidate. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) could not see the difference between conveying a voter by boat across an arm of the sea, and conveying him by carriage overland. Voters had to be brought up, and it really did not matter whether they were brought by sea or by land. As a matter of fact, the only remedy for this possible disfranchisement rested in this—that they would have to come to a system of voting papers.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he was of opinion that the Committee ought not only to reject this Amendment, but the clause as well.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, He could not compliment the Attorney General on his consistency in regard to this matter. In his own county—Lancashire—it was quite as impossible for many men to get to the poll, as it would be for the voters in Scotland who had an arm of the sea to cross. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] the Attorney General shook his head. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, was a young and a very active man. But many of the voters in the county which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) represented were very old. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that up to the present he had not been able to see his way to accept this Amendment; but he would be glad to see what could be done in the matter. This Amendment had been down on the Paper now for weeks. Therefore it was quite time the Government should make up their minds as to what they would do. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) voted in favour of payment being allowed for carriages for the conveyance of voters in counties, because he saw most clearly that unless the use of carriages were allowed a great number of people would be disfranchised. Certainly, if the hon. Member went to a Division, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would vote with him. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would go to a Division. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the question of conveying voters in Scotland was totally different from the conveyance of voters in many boroughs in England. He and his hon. Friends wished to prevent excessive expenditure at elections; but in some counties in Scotland the conveyance of voters was a matter of necessity. If some means of bringing up outlying voters to the poll were not provided the result would be the disfranchisement of a large number of men. Unless conveyance were permitted in certain cases, a much larger number of polling stations ought to be set up at the expense of the county. The Government, however, had said that they would not do that. They, therefore, ought to be prepared to meet the distinct physical difficulties which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar). The Attorney General, in stating his objections to the clause, had said that if carriages were hired they might take up other than voters scheduled by the Returning Officers. But the hon. and learned Gentleman hardly realized the character of the country in which the voters were to be picked up; there was no one else living in the country except the voters themselves. As he (Mr. Buchanan) understood it, it was proposed that the Returning Officer should make a list of the voters who had a right to be conveyed to the poll; and it would be found that in the districts in which the Amendment was supposed to apply, no other people but the scheduled voters could possibly be picked up.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, now that the Attorney General appeared to be in a frame of mind which would allow him to reconsider some of the opinions he had rather hastily formed, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would like to throw out one suggestion for the hon. and learned Gentleman's consideration. He owned freely, in the first place, that he was utterly unable to follow the line of reasoning which had led the Attorney General to the conclusions contained in the Bill. He could not understand the Attorney General saying, as he did the other day, that if electors had not a polling station at their doors, they deserved to be disfranchised. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently forgot that they were discussing the case of electors who were legally entitled to record their votes, whose possession of the franchise was an unalienable right. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General say as to the non-resident voters? Why, that if an elector did not reside within easy distance of the poll, it was his own look out. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not dissent from the conclusion he (Mr. J. Lowther) had drawn as to the sense of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, that he had no sympathy with non-resident voters—that non-resident voters in his opinion ought not to exist—he even thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the non-resident voter ought never to have existed, at any rate he was not prepared to afford him any facilities for recording his vote. He wanted to ask the Attorney General, now that he had admitted that there were electors who could not conveniently get to the poll without assistance, what right he had to draw an invidious and illegal, if not an unconstitutional, distinction between one class of electors and another? In one clause of his own Bill—in Clause 45—the hon. and learned Gentleman, in effect, contended that it was right that candidates should have to put their hands in their pockets, and provide means for a certain class of the electors to be brought to the poll. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee by what line of reasoning he came to the conclusion that one class of electors, who were not within easy reach of the poll, ought to be brought at the expense of the candidate, while another class ought not to be so conveyed? His main object, however, in rising was not to go over ground which had been already covered, and which, in the present temper of the Committee and especially of the Government, it would be useless for him to do, but to ask the Attorney General, now that He had held out some slight hope of reconsidering some of the hastily-formed opinions which led to the framing of this Bill, whether he would not once more consider the subject which they were now free to touch upon—namely, the subject of voting papers? He desired to put this question at the present moment, with the object of saving time, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would admit that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had contributed rather more in the saving of that commodity than Members on the Ministerial side. It was found very difficult to bring Mahomet to the mountain, therefore he desired the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the advisability of bringing the mountain to Mahomet. That might be effected by a system of voting papers; besides which the adoption of voting papers would lead to a great saving of expense. One of the main objects of the Bill, they were told, was to diminish the expenses of elections; and he was persuaded that if the Attorney General would consider how far he could adopt the system of voting papers, and accommodate it to the principle of secret voting, he would do good service in the interest of the representation of the people. Possibly, voting papers in the form in which his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) had suggested might be objected to on the ground that they would be somewhat inconsistent with the general tenure of the Ballot Act. He, however, did not think his noble Friend had put his Motion upon the Paper with a determination to reject any Amendment which might be moved. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would be prepared, when the proper time came, to move an Amendment which would enable the system of voting papers to be accommodated to the system of secret voting, in accordance with the principles of the Ballot Act. If the system of voting papers were adopted, there could then be no objections raised as to the impracticability of any electors recording their votes.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, it was evident to the common sense of the Committee that this Amendment could not be confined to purely Scotch constituencies, but that it must really be applied to all other parts of the Kingdom. The difficulty seemed to him to be rather a financial than a physical one. One could easily find carriages, but not so easily find his way to the candidate's pocket. Why could not electors in Scotland find their way to the polling booth just as they now found their way to fairs, and markets, and churches? If they were obliged to rely on their own resources for their own accommodation in regard to attending the places he had specified, why could they not also do so when they required to exercise a Constitutional right? The Committee would make a great mistake, if they allowed a principle they had already adopted to be broken down in the interests of a few.

MR. DUNDAS

said, he had been led to consider, by the condition of affairs in the Orkney and Shetland Isles, how the difficulty in question could be met. In nearly all villages there was a school, and there was a schoolmaster who was more or less educated. It appeared to him that these schoolmasters might be utilized as poll-clerks, and the schools might be made available for polling stations. In this way the poll would be brought almost to the very door of every elector. He believed that the adoption of such a plan would be regarded as a very great boon to the electors in poor districts.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, this was a plain and simple question, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General re-opened it with regard to the conveyance of voters in Scotland, He (Sir Walter B. Barttlelot) and his hon. Friends would expect the re-opening of the whole question of the conveyance of voters in England. Every one of those Gentlemen who now advocated the claims of Scotland, voted against the use of conveyances for voters in England. They wished to put a stop even to the use of private carriages; and now they came forward, forsooth, because they found they could not convey some voters in Scotland, and asked to be allowed to provide the means of carrying these voters. As a matter of fact, many of the voters in the county he represented were in quite as awkward a position as many of the electors in Scotland. On the Downs, for instance, there was a very sparse population, who resided many miles away from a polling station. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that in no district in England were out-voters to be conveyed. Why, therefore, should out-voters be conveyed to the poll in Scotland? He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would vote against the Amendment, because he wished them all to be tarred with the same brush. He would not give an advantage to anyone which was denied to himself and his hon. Friends.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs applied to England as well as to Scotland, and for that reason he should vote in favour of it.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, as the Committee had decided that voters should not be conveyed to the poll, he did not see why any exception should be made in the case of people whether separated from the polling places by sea or any other natural obstacles. He could per- ceive no reason why there should be any distinction between the people who lived on the high hills of his county and those who lived on the hills in Scotland; the principle of conveying them three miles in either case was the same, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.

MR. SALT

said, the Amendment, to a certain extent, had the same object as the clause they were discussing. He was unable to see any difference, so far as the Bill was concerned, between men living in an island who had no boat and men living at the top of a mountain who had no cart. It was, to his mind, perfectly illogical not to treat them in the same way; and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment, with the intention, if it were lost, of opposing the clause.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) constituted a conclusive argument against the clause itself. Were they to maintain the principle of the Bill with regard to the conveyance of voters intact or not? If it was right that voters should not be taken to the poll at the expense of the candidate, then let the principle be carried out fully; but he objected to its being frittered away by exceptions which would lead to a great amount of difficulty. If they were to give facilities to persons living in the places contemplated by the clause and the Amendment, how were they to deal with voters who lived 200 miles from the place of election? It appeared to him that the proper way to deal with the matter was to give no advantage to one class of voters over the other.

MR. WARTON

said, that there was no clause of this kind in the Bill introduced last year, and he was unable to see that the Attorney General was consistent in introducing it into the present measure.

MR. KNIGHT

said, he hoped the Attorney General would not treat this as a Scotch question only, but consider the question generally. He trusted that an arrangement would be made under which all voters who lived five miles from the polling place might be conveyed there.

MR. CRAIG-SELLAR

said, he hoped the Attorney General would give some indication of his intention with regard to this Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he was willing to put the Scotch counties into a Schedule for the purposes of his Amendment, he should be only too happy to withdraw his opposition to the clause in its present form; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman could not give such an undertaking, he should be obliged to press his Amendment to a Division.

MR. HOPWOOD

hoped that, if any assurance was given, the Attorney General would give the assurance that He would withdraw the clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 148: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 186.)

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, although the Government had made provision for the conveyance of voters to the poll across the sea, they had not made any provision for taking them back again. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words that would carry out the latter object.

Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 32, after the word "to," insert "or from."—(Captain Aylmer.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LEWIS

said, he saw no distinction, so far as the conveyance of voters was concerned, between crossing an arm of the sea in a vessel and crossing the country in a cart. He thought that to be consistent the Government should take this clause out of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the clause had been introduced because the Government considered there was a distinction between the provision which it contained and the main principle with regard to the conveyance of voters, If the Committee thought fit to go further, or deal differently with the matter, they could, of course, do so; but he was not prepared to withdraw the clause or yield to the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, He should, of course, accept the decision of the Committee on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 147: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 187.)

Clause 46 (Polling station and committee room not to be in the same building).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that although he thought this a desirable clause, and held that the polling booth should not be in the same building as a committee room, as it would be difficult to make the clause effective if the heavy penalty which a disregard of its provisions would entail upon a candidate were retained, he would not oppose its rejection. He would agree for this clause to share the fate of the last.

Question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Legal Proceedings.

Clause 47 (Trial in Central Criminal Court of indictment for corrupt practices at instance of Attorney General).

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, he had waited to see whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) intended to move the Amendment standing in his name, and, finding that he did not rise, he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would himself propose it. The Amendment proposed to insert, after the second "the" inline 14, the words '-Court may, if it think fit." He did not think the Committee generally appreciated the effect of this clause. It was about the most unconstitutional clause that any Attorney General ever suggested. He had not any distrust of the Attorney General. He had lately very often desired to intrust more to the Attorney General than the Attorney General was inclined to accept; but did the hon. and learned Gentleman see what the effect of this clause would be? It looked innocent enough; but the fact was, it would make a Court of Justice merely a registry office of the Attorney General's will. As the law stood, if there was any reason why the venue should be changed in respect of a particular case, the Court might, if it saw fit—which was the language adopted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton—order that the trial should take place in a particular Court. Now, the Attorney General would not trust the Court to do that, but asked that the power giving that direction should be in the hands of the Attorney General. That was to say, that in an essentially political offence the Political Officer of the Government should have it in his power to determine where the case should be tried. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) deliberately stated that it was not for the Attorney General to give this direction. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really appreciated what this clause was, without doubt he would at once join with him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) in recommending to the Committee the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He begged to move that Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 14, after the second "the," insert "Court may, if it think fit."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he must explain the object of the clause. No doubt, the Committee would understand that trials in localities where political feeling had run high, and where it continued to run high, were places where to try such cases would be an insult to justice. Scenes which had recently occurred in Court had shown the impossibility of obtaining either a fair trial or that proper decency in Court which ought to be maintained in cases of such importance. He did not know whether his hon. Friend was aware of the instance to which he referred; but in these cases he had been informed that jurymen had stood up in the box cheering, that verdicts of acquittal had been received with open manifestations of approval in Court, and that scenes which were highly discreditable, and which ought not to be allowed to occur, had taken place. Where they had heated political conflict they could not find 12 jurymen to bring unbiassed judgment to bear upon the point. What was the object of this clause? Not that the Attorney General should choose a tribunal, but that in all cases the tribunal should be, in fact, the Central Criminal Court. In the first place, they then got a London jury; and he knew no city in the world where they would be able to obtain a more fair and impartial trial without local prejudice being brought to bear. The clause did not say that a trial should take place here and there, but that it should take place in the Central Criminal Court by the direction of the Attorney General. No one could want more than an impartial trial. Did the hon. and learned Member wish that trials should take place in the localities where they would have upon them persons who were political partizans on the one side or the other? His hon. Friend proposed the words "if the Court thought fit;" and sooner than have a heated discussion upon the matter, and in order to arrive at an understanding, he (the Attorney General) would accept a modification of the clause, and agree to the words "if he thinks fit." That would be a concession he should be prepared to make; but if the Committee thought that the Attorney General would have an arbitrary power he would disabuse their minds. The Attorney General would have no desire to exercise arbitrary power.

MR. GORST

wished to ask the Attorney General a question—namely, whether, if this Amendment were accepted, there would be any use whatever in adhering to the clause? With the proposed Amendment the clause seemed to be simply declaring what was the existing law.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he had reason to know that it would go somewhat beyond the existing law.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General would find that 19 & 20 Vict. c. 16, was almost in the same terms as the clause as amended.

MR. CALLAN

remarked, that the Bill seemed to have been framed for England, and that Ireland had only been included as an afterthought. In the last paragraph of the 66th clause he found— The provision with respect to the removal of cases to the Central Criminal Court shall not apply to Ireland. He would ask the Attorney General how he proposed to deal with Ireland in similar cases?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should propose in this matter to leave Ireland exactly where she was.

MR. CALLAN

asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell him what was the course of procedure in Ireland? The Attorney General had said he would leave Ireland as she was; but he did not tell them the position of Ireland with respect to these trials.

[No reply was given to the hon. Member.]

MR. CALLAN

said, he insisted upon having an answer before being called upon to vote for this clause. They had adopted an Amendment, at the instance of the hon. and leaned Gentleman, which was wholly inapplicable to Ireland. He wished to know what the course of procedure in Ireland was to be in cases where it was considered that they could not obtain affair trial? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman in this respect intend to leave Ireland out of the Act, or did he intend to propose any machinery for this change of venue?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

replied, that the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) was not present, and in his absence he preferred to postpone answering the question.

MR. GIBSON

pointed out that the matter should be discussed on the 66th clause, which related to Ireland. Upon that clause the question would arise whether the section, and any utility there might be in it, should be applied to Ireland. The question could be dealt with by saying the provisions in Clause 46 should be so and so.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Yes; I will deal with the matter on Clause 66.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendmen proposed, in page 31, line 14, after the second "the," insert "if he thinks fit."—(The Attorney General.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 15, leave out from "tried" to end of Clause.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 (Limitation of time for prosecution of offence).

MR. RAIKES

said, he had to propose, in page 31, line 20, to leave out "two years," and insert "one year." He did not know whether the Attorney General was prepared to make a concession on this point. The clause as it stood stated that a proceeding against a person in respect of an offence of a corrupt or illegal practice, or any other offence under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, or this Act, should be commenced within two years after the offence was committed, and his (Mr. Raikes') proposal was to reduce that term to one year. It seemed to him very undesirable to keep open the door to these prosecutions for too long a time; and that appeared to him to be the intention of the law as it at present existed. He was not aware that there had been any failure of justice in the matter. They had provided that the candidate should be free from the terrors of the law within some 28 days of the time he had taken his seat, or within a certified specified time; and it seemed to him, therefore, not unreasonable to say that proceedings against a person in respect of corrupt or illegal practices should be commenced within a year after the offence was committed. The clause which referred to the sending down of an Election Commissioner within six months after the sending down of a Special Commissioner to inquire into corrupt and illegal practices had been struck out; and, having abandoned that provision, it seemed very strange that they should adhere to so long a period as two years for the trial of these offences. It appeared to him that it would be in harmony with the decision taken the other day if they accepted this Amendment, and inserted "one year," instead of "two years."

Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 20, leave out "two years," and insert "one year."—(Mr. Raikes.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would not, unless it were necessary, have too long a period in which a prosecution should take place, and all these prosecutions for corrupt practices should follow the Report of the Commissioners. When the Commissioners reported it should be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute all persons charged with grave offences, unless they had certificates of indemnity, and he (the Attorney General) knew of no prosecution which would take place unless founded upon the Report of the Commissioners. But this practical difficulty would arise. It would take a long time for the House to move for a Royal Commission, to begin with. In the elections which took place in March, 1880, it was found impossible to move for a Royal Commission until late in the Session, and nearly 12 months elapsed before the Commissioners could be appointed. The result would be, if this Amendment were accepted, in such cases that there might be no opportunity of knowing who were the persons to be prosecuted. The Commissioners, after the last Election, had to hurry through their work, and to curtail it, in order to give the Attorney General time to see whether the persons guilty of offences should be prosecuted or not. That was a state of things which would occur again and again if prosecutions had to take place exactly within 12 months. Many people might escape who ought to be prosecuted, on account of the Commissioners not having sufficient time to report their offences. He only wished sufficient time after the Commissioners had reported to enable the prosecution to be instituted. He should be glad to agree to an Amendment of this kind, if it would meet the views of the Committee—namely, that a prosecution should take place within one year of the commission of the offence, or within three months after the Commissioners had made their Report.

MR. RAIKES

said, he should be very happy to accept the compromise suggested. The Attorney General would, no doubt, accept his Amendment, and after the word "committed" insert "and three months after the Report of the Election Commissioners."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was the substance of his proposal. He did not pretend that the words were absolutely correct.

MR. GIBSON

said, it would be as well to put in a maximum period, so that in no case should the time exceed two years.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that was his intention. He was willing to accept two years as a maximum.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 31, line 20, after the word "year," by inserting "and not exceeding two years;" in page 31, line 20, after the word "committed," by inserting "or within three months after the Report of the Election Commissioners."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 (Persons charged with corrupt practice may be found guilty of illegal practice).

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he should like to ask a question upon this clause. It appeared to him to involve some difficulty with regard to drafting. As he understood it, any person might be indicted for corrupt practices; but illegal practices might be punished by summary conviction. The proposal here was that any person charged with corrupt practice might, if circumstances warranted such finding, be found guilty of an illegal practice, which offence, for that purpose, would be an indictable offence. That was very curious. It was to the effect that they would be entitled to punish a person on indictment for an illegal practice, provided they did not charge him with the offence of which they convicted him. That was to say they might charge a man with an offence he had not committed, that was, a corrupt practice which was an indictable offence in order that they might punish him for an illegal practice, which was an indictable offence. It seemed to him that the first part of this clause ought not to be in the Bill at all.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this was a principle known in a great many cases. For instance, they charged a person with murder and frequently found him guilty of manslaughter. It was better to leave the case as it was than that a person should be twice vexed with the same matter. It would be found that frequently this clause would save a man a second trial.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 (Application of enactments of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29, relating to prosecutions for bribery) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 (Prosecution on summary conviction, and appeal to Quarter Sessions) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 (Application of Summary Jurisdiction and Indictable Offences Acts to proceedings before Election Courts and Special Commissioner) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 (Exercise of jurisdiction of High Court and making of rules of Court) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 (Director of Public Prosecutions and expenses of prosecutions) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 (Recovery of costs payable by county or borough or by person) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Supplemental Provisions, Definitions, Savings, and Repeal.

Clause 56 (Obligation of witness to answer, and certificate of indemnity).

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 7, to leave out sub-section 3.—(Mr. Lewis.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for he thought there ought to be a distinction drawn between criminal prosecutions and absolute absolution.

MR. GORST

said the Committee had already discussed this point at some length, and had decided that a certificate should not carry entire exoneration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GREGORY

said, it was well known that Gentlemen, who were attacked by Election Petitions, sent down a solicitor or other person to the place to investigate the case against them, and to collect the means of defence. He was told, however, that gentlemen so sent down were liable to be examined, and to be bound to disclose evidence. It was a well-known principle of law that as between solicitor and client, the client was protected against disclosure by the solicitor. The Election Commissioners had held that that did not apply in regard to Election Petitions, and so a solicitor was liable to be required to disclose the in- formation he had collected for his client. A gentleman sent down in that way had to make the most searching and confidential inquiries in order to be able to advise his client as to the exact position of the case, and to meet the allegations. To do that he must see all the witnesses he could, take their evidence in the most minute manner possible, and make himself thoroughly acquainted with all the facts. His proposal was that a solicitor sent down for that purpose should not be liable to examination. He did not propose to extend that privilege to anyone connected with the election; but he thought it might fairly be extended to the solicitor acting for the Member attacked. Otherwise, persons whom he had seen and obtained information for might be convicted out of his mouth, and the client would be deprived of the assistance of the solicitor.

Amendment proposed, In page 35, after sub-section 4, insert,—"(5.) Election Commissioners shall not be entitled to summon or examine a Solicitor or Parliamentary Agent who was concerned only in or in relation to an Election Petition, who took no part and was not concerned in the election, to be enquired into by the Commissioners, and who was not resident in the constituency in question."—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would accept the principle of this proposal, and if the Amendment were withdrawn he would bring up a new clause on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 (Submission of report of election court or commissioners to Attorney General) agreed to.

Clause 58 (Breach of duty by officer) agreed to.

Clause 59 (Publication and service of notice) agreed to.

Clause 60 (Definition of candidate, and saving for person nominated without consent).

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved to omit the words "at an election," in order to raise the question of when the expenses which could be brought against a candidate should begin and end.

Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 15, to omit the words "at an election."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the Attorney General ought to seriously consider this matter, and, therefore, he (Mr. Warton) begged to move to report Progress. If the Attorney General would do him the honour to look at this extraordinary clause he would see the strangest inversion of time. In the first place, they had a person nominated as candidate; then they had what really came before that, a person declared a candidate; and then they had the writ for the election. He earnestly asked the Attorney General to consider what he could do to meet the objections raised by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), and to consider also carefully whether he could not put the different events of a candidature in a proper and orderly way. Let them know where a candidature commenced and where it ended. In order to enable the Attorney General to arrange this clause in a proper sort of way, he begged to move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not serious in the Motion he now made.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped they would be able to finish this clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

proposed, in page 36, line 19, to leave out from "on or after" to "being issued," in line 21, both inclusive. He hoped that without any remarks from him the Attorney General would be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 19, leave out from "on or after," to "being issued," in line 21, both inclusive.—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, as at present advised he would prefer the words to remain; but he would be prepared to consider the matter between this and Report.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he considered that this was a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. He, however, could not help remembering that on every day the Committee had sat, the Attorney General had been on the Treasury Bench, and therefore he had had very little time to turn his attention to the subject. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be quite willing, therefore, that the matter should be left till the Report. The difficulty was a great one, and he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) solved it at all.

MR. WARTON

said, that if the words— On and after the day of the issue of the writ for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which such writ has been issued, were struck out, the clause would be even more absurd than it was at present.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that something would be done on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 36, line 22, after "candidate," by inserting "at an election."

MR. LEWIS

suggested to the Attorney General that after the word "may," in line 31, the words "if he thinks fit," should be inserted, because they knew that, as a rule, the word "may," in Acts of Parliament, was interpreted as "shall." He thought it ought to be made clear that the word was really "may," and not "shall."

Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 31, after "may," insert "if he thinks fit."—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. LEWIS

said, they were now dealing with the case, presumably, of a person who had been nominated without his knowledge or consent. He did not understand how, under such circumstances, agents were to be appointed at all. Clause 18 provided that an election agent was to be nominated on or before the day of nomination as the agent for such election. Now, if a man was nominated as a candidate without his knowledge or consent, it was out of the question that he could nominate an agent. There was no provision made in such an event. There ought to be no mistake about this, because it was rather a serious question who was a properly appointed election agent.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that his view of such a matter was that the persons who nominated a candidate, in his absence, would represent the candidate. It was necessary that an election agent must be properly nominated, because, if he was not, the whole thing would come to an end. He thought it would be a question whether those who put a candidate forward were not the proper persons to conduct an election

MR. LEWIS

said, he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee; but supposing the persons who nominated a man as candidate did not appoint an election agent, what then? There was nothing in any part of the Bill which required them to do it. If an election agent were not appointed, would it be understood that the candidate would be the sufferer?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, clearly that must be so, because no contract would have been made, inasmuch as there was no machinery for the election provided.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was quite content to leave it to the Attorney General to consider whether he would not, by the introduction of a few words on Be-pert in Clause 18, make that clear which, at present, seemed in doubt.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the difficulty might be met by the insertion of the word "if any," after the word "election," in line 33.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

could not accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). His hon. Friend the Member for London- derry (Mr. Lewis) had been good enough to direct his attention to the question. There must be an election agent appointed, either by the candidate, or by someone on his behalf. It was clear that if there was no election agent there would be no machinery for an election.

MR. LEWIS

said, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would not persevere in his suggestion. He (Mr. Lewis) had no wish to make an absurdity of any part of the Bill.

MR. SHEIL

asked if it was the intention of the Government to proceed further with the Bill to-night?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was in the hands of the Committee. There were only some half-dozen other Amendments to the clauses of the Bill; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would think it right to dispose of the clauses at this Sitting. If they did that, there would only remain for consideration the new clauses and the Schedule.

MR. SHEIL

said, that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was most remarkable. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine that, because there were only six Amendments on the Notice Paper to the remaining clauses, none others would be moved. The experience of the Committee must be that many Amendments were proposed which were not printed. He, himself, knew that there were several Amendments, not on the Paper, but of considerable importance, which were to be proposed to the remaining clauses. At this hour of the night he considered it his duty to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sheil.)

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that surely the Committee might be allowed to finish this clause.

MR. SHEIL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to forget the question he had put to the Attorney General. He (Mr. Sheil) had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would agree to report Progress after this clause, and he (the Attorney General) declined to answer the question.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had simply expressed a hope that the Committee would proceed a little further with the Bill. He was, however, in the hands of the Committee.

MR. WARTON

said, he always obeyed his Leaders, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had expressed a wish to finish the clause tonight, he (Mr. Warton) would offer no opposition. He certainly agreed, however, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) that they ought not to go beyond this clause. He (Mr. Warton) had several Amendments to propose to the remaining clauses; and he altogether objected to rattling off Business as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to desire.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he thought it was not unreasonable for the Attorney General to desire to take this clause to-night. There were, besides, a great number of technical objections to be taken to the Interpretation Clauses, which it would be impossible to consider to-night.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

thought they might be allowed to take this clause, and then report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. GORST

suggested that those Members who had Amendments to the remaining clauses should place them on the Paper.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

suggested that, so far as they had gone, the Bill might be printed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.