COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 26 June 1884 vol 289 cc1463-500

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. E. STANHOPE

quite admitted that at one time he might have held views on this subject different to those he now entertained; but since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act, by which voters were no longer permitted to be carried to the poll, a different case had arisen. It was not, therefore, from any desire to delay the Bill that he thought it should be referred to a Select Committee. He objected to one rigid rule being applied to all constituencies. He had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the views of the various constituencies on this subject, both large and moderate-sized constituencies, and the result showed that a very considerable difference of opinion existed in their views on the subject. This inquiry showed that some constituencies desired an extension of the hours of polling such as was proposed in the Bill; others were of opinion that no extension was required at all; while others, again, thought that the hours should be modified, but not prolonged to the full extent suggested. One or two places considered that a distinction should be made between summer and winter, the extension of hours being confined to the former period, in consequence of the increased difficulty of keeping order in winter when it grew dark earlier. What was really required was a more elastic system, which could easily be adapted to the peculiar circumstances of each constituency. He, therefore, thought that the proper mode of dealing with that Bill would be to refer it to a Select Committee. If that were done at once, the Select Committee might report the Bill to the House in. a fortnight or three weeks; and if the Session continued for the ordinary period there would be no difficulty in passing the measure through that House, and sending it up to the House of Lords in time for its proper consideration by that Assembly. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)—instead thereof.

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he was willing to acknowledge the fairness of the hon. Member's speech; but he would remind the hon. Member that that subject was not new, but one that had been considered by two Select Committees, and discussed on several previous occasions. Many of the questions that had been raised by the hon. Member were questions of detail, which could be conveniently dealt with in Committee. The present Bill differed from the former measure on the same subject by substituting the number of electors as the test instead of the optional system, because when the optional system was proposed many objections to it were stated in that House. The hon. Member had attacked the adoption of a rigid system. As the Bill was now drawn, it proposed an extension of the hours in boroughs having over a certain number of electors. The limit fixed was, of course, open to consideration in Committee. There would, therefore, in future be two systems in existence. There were now two systems, because the hours of polling in the Metropolis were longer than the hours in the country, and that Bill would apply the London system to boroughs in the country with 5,000 electors and upwards. The hon. Member had spoken of the possibility of a Select Committee recommending the adoption of varying hours; but as long as they retained nonresident franchises it would be specially inconvenient to have different hours of polling throughout the country, as many people who travelled from a distance to vote would not know for certain the hours of polling at a particular place. That Bill had been proposed as the result of a very large amount of local inquiry made by a relative of his, now, unfortunately, no longer among them. With regard to the bearing of the lengthened hours upon the preservation of law and order, that matter had been very carefully gone into by the former Committee. They not only had before them the Chief of the Metropolitan Police, who was strongly in favour of the Bill extending the hours of polling in the Metropolis; but they also had similar evidence as to the School Board elections in the boroughs of the country, which caused considerable excitement. Those elections were all conducted under a system which enabled the local authorities to extend the hours between 8 and 8, and yet they were unaccompanied by any rioting or disorder. There was often a disinclination for the long hours on the part of the authorities who conducted the election, but not on the part of the people. In Manchester, for example, a great number of the people desired an extension of the hours, though those at the head of affairs might be otherwise disposed. The working of the longer hours in the Metropolis had been completely successful, and all the experience they had had of it was favourable. [Mr. E. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor): Not in the City.] The City was in a very peculiar position, because, while in the Metropolis generally it was known to be difficult to get people to meet before 8 o'clock in the evening, it was very difficult to get them to meet in the City after 5 or 6 in the afternoon, because so many of them lived at Brighton and other places. It had been suggested that they should make a difference as to the hours in winter and summer; but that plan had been tried in the Ballot Bill of 1872, and after being carried with great opposition through that House it was rejected in the House of Lords. He had given up what, in his own opinion, was a compromise which might have been accepted on this subject, because he had found that there was great difference of opinion on the question, and that, on the whole, opinion was against giving the local authorities power to fix the hours of polling.

MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)

admitted that for constituencies like those of Chelsea, and in the suburbs, later hours might be found convenient; but he did not think the same advantage was experienced in the City of London. In the City, at present, they found that after 5 o'clock in the afternoon the polling clerks were left sitting with nothing to do, as nearly everyone went out of town at 4 o'clock. That was not an argument against the Bill generally; but he thought that it was an argument in favour of giving to the local authorities some power to regulate the hours in which polling should take place in each particular constituency. He thought that the different questions which must arise as to each constituency would be far better considered in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House; and he would, therefore, support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

, while opposing the Amendment, suggested that as they had two Grand Committees sitting idle, one of these might dispose of a Bill of this kind, so that it might come before the House at an advanced stage.

MR. TOMLINSON

thought that a Select Committee was the best means by which individual opinions might be gathered. At the same time, as regarded his own constituency, he thought that the hours fixed in the Bill would be the most suitable.

MR. SCLATER - BOOTH

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in thinking that a Bill of this description might, with advantage, be referred to a Standing Committee. The necessary information would be more readily obtained by that method than by a Select Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that they had only one object in view, which was, to frame a Bill which would allow all voters to go to the poll. For large constituencies it was absolutely necessary that some alteration should be made; but the question was, what was the proper standard by which to go? A Select Committee consisted of a very few Members, and the result of sending the Bill to such a Committee would be that they would practically have to go through the whole Bill again, losing sight alto- gether, perhaps, of the Report of the Select Committee. In a Committee of the Whole House, however, they had not the means of getting information which they had in a Select Committee. It was a question for the House to consider; but he thought that this was a matter of business, and the Standing Committees had proved themselves exceedingly useful in dealing with such questions.

MR. CAUSTON

said, he hoped the suggestion-to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee would not be agreed to, because it was a measure which could be dealt with very well by the House itself. They were about to extend the franchise at the present time, and he thought it would mean a large amount of disfranchisement to the working men in our large cities if the hours of polling were not also extended. He hoped the Attorney General would not press the suggestion which had been made, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would be rejected, and that the Bill would be proceeded with in Committee of the Whole House that night.

MR. BROADHURST

said, if the suggestion of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee had been made at an earlier stage, he did not think any objection would have been made to it; but he must remind the House that they were approaching a period of the Session when to lose time over the consideration of such a Bill as this would mean the Bill being lost for the whole Session. He, therefore, asked the Government to proceed with the Bill now. He thought that no reason existed why a measure upon which there was no serious difference of opinion should not be got through Committee in a very short time.

MR. RUSTON

said, he could assure the House that there was scarcely any measure before the House at the present time which was regarded with so much satisfaction by a very large class of electors than the present proposal. A large class of the electors of this country had been enfranchised; but the effect of the hours of polling was such as to mean a considerable amount of disfranchisement. This proposal, which extended the hours of polling, was one which was regarded with immense satisfaction, particularly by the working classes. Having had occasion, recently, to consult a constituency numbering 7,000 electors many of whom were working men, he thought he could say this with confidence. This proposal might be regarded as a complement to the Corrupt Practices Act of a former Session. He could understand that in past times, when elections were characterized by a large amount of rioting and disorder, it was desirable that the poll in populous towns should be closed early; but under the new Act he thought no such necessity existed. He thought, therefore, it was desirable to proceed in passing an Act of this kind. There was an important fact to consider in regard to how this matter affected the working classes. In London alone there would be from 10,000 to 20,000 working men who were employed at their daily work four or five miles distant from their homes, and who found it absolutely impossible to leave their work and record their votes in their own polling districts without losing at least half a day's wage. This was a very important consideration, and as this measure would bring relief to the working men who had been enfranchised, and also to the many thousands who were to be enfranchised, he gave his earnest support to the Bill, and hoped it would be carried as rapidly through the House as possible.

MR. HEALY

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to the sending of this Bill to a Grand Committee. Irish Members were generally very inadequately represented on those Committees; and he protested against a Bill of this kind being sent to such a Committee. If this were done, it would simply mean a large amount of subsequent discussion on Report. If the Government wished to save time, his advice to them was to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and proceed with the Bill now.

MR. GLADSTONE

said the suggestion of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee was made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and it had been supported in the most impartial spirit by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The Government had been inclined to suppose that it was the general view of the House that the Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee; but it was now quite evident that this was not the general view, and, as the hon. Member who spoke last said, would only lead to a waste of time. While quite willing to concur in sending the Bill to a Grand Committee if it had been the general view of the House that it should be so, yet, as it did not seem to be the general desire of the House, he believed they had no other course to adopt than to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and proceed with the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he must protest against the Bill being proceeded with now in Committee of the Whole House, because there were many hon. Members having Amendments on the Paper, who were not in their places to move them. It seemed to him that the Government wished to force the Bill through in the absence of those who had carefully considered it. In his opinion, that seemed to be a reason why the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he was very much disappointed at the action which the Government had taken, because they had practically admitted the proposition he had put forward, and that some inquiry was necessary. He had suggested a Select Committee; but they had not adopted that suggestion, although willing to adopt the suggestion of a Grand Committee. Now, however, an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency came forward to oppose this course, and the Government gave way. He did not think this was treating him fairly in this matter. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and if this permission was granted he should ask leave of the House to propose that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. ["No, no!" and "Divide!"]

Question put and agreed to.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Hours of polling in boroughs with more than five thousand electors. 31 and 32 Vict. c. 125).

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he should like to know if he would be in Order now in moving that the Chairman report Progress? He thought, under the circumstances, the Government would be quite prepared to assent to that Motion.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government could not assent to it.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he had thought that the object of the Government was to secure that the Bill should be discussed by Members who had paid attention to the subject, with the object of making it as good a measure as was possible; but, at the present moment, there were hardly any Members present who had put down Amendments on the Paper. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not present; and as the Government intended to go on with the Bill, he would move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Member's name—namely, to leave out the words in the 1st clause "to which this Act applies," in order to insert the words— In a Parliamentary borough, which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding 10,000. It appeared to him that the limit contained in the proposal of the hon. Member—namely, boroughs exceeding 10,000 registered electors—would be a much better limit than that proposed in the Bill. As the House would not allow him to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, so that it might be inquired into carefully, he would make this proposition. He could assure the Committee that there was a large consensus of opinion in the smaller Parliamentary boroughs likely to be affected by the Bill that if the hours of polling were extended to the full extent proposed by the Bill, there would be much greater risk of bribery and corruption than there was at present. He knew that that was one reason why the Government were inclined, in the first instance, to accept his proposal that there should be some further inquiry into the matter. He believed the case of large boroughs was one which did require some alteration; but he thought it would be better to fix the limit at 10,000, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) proposed. The clause would then read as follows:— At every Parliamentary or municipal election in a Parliamentary borough which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding 5,000, and not exceeding 10,000, the polls (if any) shall commence at 8 o'clock in the forenoon, and be kept open until 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer. Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," and insert the words "in a Parliamentary Borough which has, at the passing of this Act, a number of registered electors exceeding ten thousand,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had not moved the Amendment with the same object the hon. Member for Northampton had in view. The intention of his hon. Friend was that there should be a sliding scale— that in the case of boroughs with 10,000 registered electors they should be allowed to vote until 8 o'clock at night; while in boroughs with between 5,000 and 10,000 electors the poll should be closed at 5 or 6 o'clock. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire moved the Amendment in order to make it appeal-that 10 was substituted for five in the Bill itself. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it would be more convenient to take the opportunity of discussing the figure to be substituted for the figure 5,000 now in the Bill, when they arrived at the figures. The hon. Member for Northampton would have been in Order, because he wished to move a sliding scale; but if it were desired to change the figures, it would be better to do so when they came to the figures themselves.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he did not understand the object with which his hon. Friend had moved the Amendment, and he was sorry that the hon, Member for Northampton was not there to move it himself, seeing that it was one of which he had given Notice; because, although his hon. Friend might be moving it with the best intentions, still it would have been satisfactory to have heard what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Northampton at the time he placed it on the Paper. He had risen to protest against the poll being kept open in small boroughs from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night. Anybody who was accustomed to take part in elections in small boroughs knew how important it was to have the town quiet as soon as possible after the election was over. Representing, as he did, a large acreage constituency where the voters came up to poll from considerable distances, if no declaration of the poll took place before 8 o'clock in the evening, the consequence would be that the whole of those enthusiastic voters, from the want of something to employ their time between the hours of 3 and 8 would be found drinking in the public-houses, and congregating together in a manner which would probably lead to inconvenient and undesirable results. He did not know whether, after what the right hon. Baronet had stated, that was the proper time to move any Amendment in regard to restricting the hours of polling; but he certainly thought that they were beginning at the wrong end. If it was necessary to extend the hours of polling, the beginning had better be made earlier in the morning instead of the hours being continued later in the evening. If a man wanted to go to the poll he would not object to get up a little earlier in the morning in order to do so; but he thought they were running a great risk of bringing about drunkenness and riotous proceedings if they kept the poll open late in the evening. It might be that it would only be good-humoured rioting; but, although commencing ill that way, it frequently degenerated into very undesirable rioting. If the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary that 12 hours should elapse between the opening and the closing of the polling booth, he thought it far better that the extra hours should be given in the morning, rather than that they should keep open the polling booth until 8 o'clock at night. Personally, he did not agree that the extension of the hours of polling was at all desirable; but if it was necessary to have the polling booth open for 12 hours, it was desirable to commence earlier rather than to continue it open later. He did not think the limit; suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was that which was desired by the hon. Member for Northampton. As he understood the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, it was that there should be a sliding scale in the case of the smaller constituencies, in regard to which there was no necessity whatever for an extension of the hours. Why should the hours be extended where the voters did not exceed 2,000 in number? He thought it was only in a case where they exceeded 5,000 that the hours of polling should be extended beyond 4 o'clock, and they might be further extended by a sliding scale, according to the number of electors on the Register. He was not, however, prepared to say what the eliding scale should be.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. S. Herbert) appeared to be labouring under a misapprehension. He appeared to think that it was intended to extend the hours of polling in boroughs of 2,000 electors, whereas, as the Bill was drawn, the extension would be limited to boroughs of 5,000 electors. The hon. Member suggested that the poll should be opened earlier in the day—at 6 o'clock in the morning instead of 8. That was a matter which had been carefully considered by one or two former Select Committees, and especially by one that was presided over by Sir Charles Adderley (the present Lord Norton), who was himself much in favour of the proposal. But it was found that in the building trade, in the summer months of the year, the men for whom this Bill was very much needed indeed, began their work so early that even 6 o'clock in the morning would be of very little use to them. All the people who were interested in the matter preferred an extension of hours in the evening to the opening of the poll earlier in the morning. He was, therefore, afraid that he could not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he was willing to confess that he had had in his mind the future constituencies rather than the present.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he should support the Motion for leaving out the words "to which this Act applies."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, they had not reached that point yet.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is, that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that was the point he desired to address himself to. He wished to support the proposal for leaving out those words, not with the view of accepting the words which followed, but for the purpose of including all boroughs; and his reason was this. He understood the ground upon which the hours of polling were to be extended was that it would meet the convenience of a great many electors who were employed at a distance from the place of polling, and who were unable to register their votes before 4 o'clock. Now, that was a difficulty which did not apply to large boroughs only. The difficulty in the small burghs in Scotland was quite as great as in the large. His own district of Kilmarnock consisted of five burghs, the largest of which had only 4,000 electors, while one of the remaining four had only 700, and many of the voters in all the burghs which he represented, being miners and shipbuilders, were employed several miles away from the place of polling. In the whole of his burghs many of the electors would not be able to attend the polling booth before 4 o'clock without sacrificing a large portion of their working time. In almost all of the burghs in Scotland there were a large number of men employed in the building trade, who did all the building work that was necessary to be done within a considerable distance of the polling places. Many of them at present patriotically sacrificed half-a-day in order to record their votes; but he thought that if this boon was to be given to the large boroughs, the small boroughs should be allowed to participate in it also.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

remarked, that the hon. Member who had just spoken was mistaken if he was under the impression that the Bill would not apply to the district of burghs he represented.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he perfectly understood that it would apply to the Kilmarnock burghs; but he was speaking in the interests of other small boroughs.

MR. E. STANHOPE

expressed his readiness to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; and, as it would probably be better to discuss the question later on, he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, that as the Bill at present stood it would only apply to two constituencies in Ireland—namely, Dublin and Belfast. He wished to ascertain clearly what was in the mind of the Government on the question. The borough of Belfast had 21,000 voters, and the City of Dublin between 13,000 and 14,000; but Cork, which was the next largest Irish borough, had a constituency below 5,000. Of course, if they got the extended franchise which the Government proposed, there would be other constituencies which would come under the Act; but he certainly thought that, even as the franchise stood, the Bill ought to be extended to such places as Cork and Limerick.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the constituency of Cork numbered 4,800, and he had intended to include the Irish Members among the large number of Members he had proposed to consult. The intimation he had given, that the extension would include three boroughs in Ireland, applied to Cork. Perhaps it would be better that he should say now what he should certainly have to say later on in the Committee— that, for himself, he was disposed to think that 4,000 would be a better number than 5,000.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he understood the Question before the House to be that the words "to which this Act applies" should stand part of the clause. Was he to understand that the Act applied to all boroughs, or only to certain boroughs which contained more than 4,000 or 5,000 electors? He not only wanted to know the mind of the Government upon the matter, but he wanted also to know what his own mind was upon it. He was very anxious to collect what his own mind was, and also that of his constituency, and at present he was not able to complete the operation. He understood the Bill, as it was framed at present, would not apply to the Kirkcaldy district of burghs which he represented, whereas a limit of 4,000 and upwards would do so. It was, therefore, important to him and to his constituents to know whether the Bill was to affect them or not. He represented a good-sized burgh, so far as the number of electors was concerned; it was a very long burgh, when the area comprised in it was considered, and the Bill should apply to it. He not only represented Kirealdy, but three other burghs, which were very small and compact; and he wanted to know if the Act would apply to those small burghs—whether, in point of fact, the smaller and compact burghs would be included within its operation? He hoped the Government would explain clearly what was in their mind, and whether they intended that the Bill should apply to the small burghs or not.

MR. CROPPER

said, that for his own part, representing, as he did, a borough with only a constituency of 2,000 electors in it, he was perfectly content with the hours of polling as they stood. He thought that in the small boroughs, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to have the polling booth closed at 4 o'clock, so that they might not have people parading the streets all night in order to know what was going on. Those who were acquainted with the small boroughs would be perfectly aware that it would be productive of considerable inconvenience to keep the poll open until a late hour. He hoped, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill would not be extended to the small boroughs, and he recommended the Government to adhere to the figure which they had at first adopted.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he lost his election in 1874 owing to the poll not being kept open after 4 o'clock. He had a very strong feeling that this would be a very beneficial measure, and that it ought to be applied to boroughs generally. There were a great many voters in all boroughs who were not able to reach the polling booth at breakfast time, or during the dinner hour, and if they were not prepared to loose half-a-day's work they would practically lose their votes. He did not think that it was at all fair to deprive these men of their votes because they happened to be hard working men. He failed to see any sound reason for confining the Act in the way proposed by this clause. If he understood the matter rightly, the whole question of imposing a limit or no limit depended on the words they were now discussing. If the words "to which this Act applies" were left out, it would be a General Act. He insisted that that was the point the Committee were now really discussing, and if the matter went to a Division he should certainly vote for the omission of those words.

MR. HEALY

said, he did not see why the matter should be confined to the question of keeping open the poll until 8 o'clock. For instance, why not, in some cases, have it 6 o'clock? He thought that would be a very fair compromise in the small boroughs; and he would suggest that in Ireland the hour should be 6 o'clock for boroughs with 2,000 voters, while the suggestion made by the Government for the larger boroughs might be acccepted as being perfectly fair. He did not propose, however, to take any part in the discussion of the English question.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

thought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was rather disposed to reduce the privilege the measure would otherwise confer in the case of the small boroughs. The only objection which seemed to impress the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. S. Herbert) was, that by keeping the poll open there might be riotous proceedings. Now, rioting, under the new system of voting, was almost absolutely unknown. Riots took place formerly in districts where the majority of the inhabitants were without a vote, while the minority had one. But since the vote had been conferred upon all householders there was just as much respect manifested by the working classes for the mutual rights of the electors as was displayed by electors of a higher standing in society. He thought it would be a great boon to have the hours of polling extended generally. His hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) said he was anxious to get an election over as quickly as possible in a small borough. Now, those who represented large towns, and had some experience in the matter, knew that it was the practice to cast up the voting papers after the poll was closed, and the result was often not made known until 10 or 11 o'clock at night. He had known in his own constituency a very large and good-natured body of persons congregate around a polling booth and patiently wait until the result was made known; and under the modern system of elections in no instance had they manifested a disposition towards rioting. He doubted very much whether it was worth while to make any distinction between the large and small boroughs. At any rate, if there were any constituencies that ought to be exempted from the operation of the Bill it should only be those where the electors numbered less than 1,000 or 2,000, and he hoped that the existence of such constituencies would be very much circumscribed when the next Dissolution was brought about.

MR. BROADHURST

wished to ask the Chairman whether, if these words were allowed to pass, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and his own Amendment later on, would be ruled out of Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member refer to an Amendment later on in the sub-section?

MR. BROADHURST

Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question now before the Committee is, that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause. If the Committee agree to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that Amendment, no doubt, would cover the latter part of the section, fixing the number at 5,000; but, at present, the words before the Committee are that the words "to which this Act applies" stand part of the clause.

MR. WHITLEY

asked what the effect would be, if the Amendment were withdrawn, upon his Amendment, which provided that the polls should be kept open longer in the summer than in the winter months?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member, by his Amendment, proposes to leave out certain words which are quite of a different character, and that Amendment would not be interfered with by the one now under discussion.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

asked whether, if these words were struck out, he would be precluded from moving, in line 10 of the clause, after the word "any," to insert the words "or county," in order to bring county elections under the operation of the Act?

THE CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members are putting Questions prematurely. I think that it would be better to decide the Question now before the Committee before I answer any further questions of this kind.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, he had only put the question because he thought that it would be impossible to argue the question of the counties on the words now before the Committee; and it appeared to him to be more reasonable that the question should be raised distinctly by an Amendment. What he wanted to know was, whether he would be in Order, if the words "to which this Act applies" were continued in the Bill, in moving an Amendment which would have the effect of including counties?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see any Amendment to the effect stated by the hon. Member on the Paper.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

, said, the Amendment was not on the Paper; it only consisted of two words in line 10 of the Bill. He proposed to insert the words "or county" after the word borough.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that on the point of Order he would suggest that this was altogether outside the scope of the Bill. He believed that the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), who had placed an Amendment on the Paper on going into Committee on the Bill to provide that an Instruction should be given to the Committee that they should have power to extend the Bill to counties, had fully considered this point. The noble Lord had asked for an opinion upon the point, and he was distinctly told that, before the counties could be included in the Bill, it would be necessary to move an Instruction.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that the insertion of the word "county" would be clearly beyond the scope of the Bill.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

wished to explain the reason why he desired to move the Amendment. It was because the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), whose Amendment was down upon the Paper on going into Committee as an Instruction to the Committee, had, somehow or other, disappeared without moving it. As he (Mr. H. Samuelson) was now informed that the insertion of the words he suggested would not come strictly within the scope of the Bill in Committee, he would move to insert them on Report.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he assumed that the ruling of the Chairman had now been given upon the point of Order, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to go on with the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. He would simply remind his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) that the counties were altogether in a different position from the boroughs.

MR. E. STANHOPE

rose to Order. He thought the clause did not apply to counties at all.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is so.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he was about to consider the restriction which the clause did contain, and to discuss whether it should be applied to all boroughs. He would point out that he himself, on a former occasion, supported the general proposition for applying a provision of this kind to all boroughs; and he had done all he could to press that principle upon the attention of Parliament; but after the strong objections raised to it on the part of hon. Members, and especially of those connected with the small constituencies, he had consented to adapt the provision to the largest constituencies only. For his own part, he should have no fear of the general or universal application of the Bill to all boroughs; but he knew that that feeling was not reciprocated by a large number of persons in the House who did not share that view. A great many of them thought that this provision was altogether unnecessary in connection with the small boroughs. The operation of the Bill had, therefore, been limited to the case of the large towns; and if it worked well, they could hereafter extend it to the smaller boroughs. The proposition was now to apply a principle, which had worked well in the Metropolis, to boroughs of middle size; and he had no doubt that hereafter, if any proposition were made to extend the same provision to the small boroughs, that the Representatives of the boroughs, to which it was proposed to apply it now, would be able to rise in their places, as the Members for the Metropolis did now, and say that it worked well. He appealed to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) not to press his Amendment against all limitation as to the boroughs to which the Bill should apply.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he wanted to have an assurance that the words extending the application of the Bill which were contained in his Amendment, and in that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), would be capable of being moved if the present words were allowed to stand?

THE CHAIRMAN

replied in the negative.

MR. BROADHURST

said, it would then be his duty to support the omission of these words, in order that all limitation might be done away with. He could assure the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill that he would be sorry to do anything to jeopardize even a half-measure of this kind, in his endeavour to obtain a whole one; but his instructions on the subject were so definite, and his own opinion was so strong in favour of doing away with all limitations, that he dare not permit the Bill to pass without taking a Division upon this Amendment. Earlier in the evening the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), said that it would be very undesirable in many cases to have different hours of polling in different constituencies. He (Mr. Broadhurst) entirely concurred with that statement.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that was not his argument.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he was quoting the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and it was an argument in support of his proposal to do away with all limitations. It was quite a mistake to suppose that there was no necessity whatever in the small boroughs for the extension of the hours of polling. In the small boroughs it was much more easy for an employer, and for those who had authority over the workmen, to prevent them from voting before 4 o'clock in the afternoon, than it was for employers in large manufacturing centres. Speaking of his own constituency, he was bound to be frank with the Committee and to say that, so far as they were concerned, they needed no extension of the hours of polling at all. At the General Election in 1880, he believed that every voter who supported his hon. Colleague and himself had polled before 12 o'clock in the day. They had a general holiday afterwards, and the whole of the business was over before the dinner hour. He regretted to say that there were not a large number of constituencies which were as patriotic as his own. He hoped that would all be mended in time; but, until that day arrived, they ought to give every facility in their power to every man to enable him to record his vote without loss to himself or his family; and, therefore, to be in Order, he would move to strike out, in line 5 and in line 6, the words "to which this Act applies."

THE CHAIRMAN

That is the Question already before the Committee.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire proposed to withdraw his Amendment, in order to bring it on at a later period of the clause, when they would be asked to fix the number of electors, whether 5,000, 4,000, or 1,000. His own opinion was that that would be a much more convenient mode of dealing with the subject. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) would be in no way prejudiced, and when they came to define the constituencies to which the Act was to apply, it would be competent to insert the figures. Personally, he was indifferent whether the figure was 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000, because he was perfectly satisfied that no Liberal Government would propose, or the House of Commons pass, any measure of redistribution which would permit the retention of a constituency with less than 4,000 electors. He thought the extension would be far larger than that, and therefore he was indifferent in regard to what figure was put into the Bill. He would, however, suggest, as a matter of Order, that the question should be decided whether this Amendment was to be withdrawn, so that it might be raised later on when they come to insert the figures.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent ought to be taken unawares; therefore, he would ask the Chairman whether, if these words were struck out, there would not still remain a limitation necessarily by the very title of the Bill? It was a Bill to extend the hours of polling in certain boroughs, and therefore it seemed to him that there must be some limitation. Consequently, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent would be unable to move any Amendment which would render all boroughs liable to these hours of polling. He would like to have the decision of the Chairman upon that point—whether they were in any way bound in Committee by the title of the Bill, because, according to the title, the Bill could not be applied to all boroughs?

THE CHAIRMAN

In regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, it is quite competent for the Committee to alter the title. It is obvious that, if the words "to which this Act applies" are left in, it would be necessary to put some limit, or else all boroughs would come in.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Government did intend to fix a limit, and, therefore, it would be necessary to allow these words to remain in the Bill. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had expressed a hope, which he trusted would soon be realized, that in a, very short time there would be no small constituencies in existence; but the Government were dealing with things as they were, and the Bill had to be applied to the constituencies as they were. If the happy day should ever arrive to which his hon. Friend referred, the objection of the hon. Member for Stoke would remedy itself; but, dealing, as they now were, with very small constituencies, some of which did not contain as many as 1,000 electors, they had to consider whether these words should be retained or not, so as to determine whether the extension to 12 hours should apply to all boroughs, or whether some other provision should be made. He thought the House would agree that the keeping of the poll open for a long time was not a benefit in itself. All that was wanted was to keep the poll open for the exact time that would allow all voters, according to their position, to vote. No one wished, either for the convenience of the Presiding Officer, or for the avoidance of corrupt practices, or for the prevention of rioting, that the poll should be closed too early to allow the electors to record their votes. Nor should it be kept open late unless they were to obtain some benefit from, keeping it open. It was because it was thought necessary and beneficial to keep it open for longer hours than the law at present allowed that the Bill had been introduced. He would ask those who represented small constituencies whether they could not poll all the voters in those constituencies between the hours of 8 and 4? [Cries of "No!" and "Yes!"] There was evidently a difference of opinion upon that point. Therefore, upon that point, let them vote and determine whether or not in certain constituencies it would be sufficient to keep the poll open between the hours of 8 and 4. If it was, it would be advisable to apply the Bill to all other constituencies, but not to them. He did not see why they should force this Bill upon the unwilling Representatives of very small constituencies, who knew their constituencies could be polled within the hours named. If these words were retained they could always determine the limit to which they would apply the Bill. If they were rejected they would be bound to apply the Bill to the small constituencies containing only 600 or 700 electors, whether they required it or not.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, the question was not the size of a borough in which a voter lived, but the distance from it at which he worked. He did not think it was easier for a man, who was working three or four miles away from the polling booth, to record his vote, if he was an elector for a small borough than if he was an elector for a large one. It must be borne in mind that, under the Corrupt Practices Act, the candidate and his agents were not allowed to pay the voter's travelling expenses; and he could not see why any difference should be made on account of the size of a borough. A man who worked three or four miles away from a small borough in which he lived, would find it just as difficult to go to the polling booth and vote as one who worked the same distance from a borough containing 5,000, or 10,000, or 50,000 electors.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he thought it was more possible for employers to put pressure upon working men in small boroughs than in large ones. He had known instances in which employers had sent their workmen, whom they suspected were going to vote contrary to the way in which they wanted them to vote, out of the borough to a place in which they were kept employed until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening, and, in consequence, prevented their voting at all. He believed the measure was absolutely necessary in order to free working men from the pressure which would otherwise surely be put upon them at election time in small as well as large boroughs; and if the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) persevered in his intention to divide the Committee on his proposal to leave out the words "to which this Act applies," he should vote with him.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, he rose to repudiate the doctrine of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, on which he based his argument in favour of the Amendment—namely, that, under it, it would be less possible for employers to prevent their workmen voting. On behalf of employers, he maintained that they would never think of doing anything so base as the hon. Member had implied. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General, he thought that the statement made by him had placed the Committee in a somewhat false position, inasmuch as he had left the question an open one, notwithstanding the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was a question which Members representing small boroughs would decide for themselves—a statement entirely at variance with that of the President of the Local Government Board. As far as he could make out from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, every Member who believed it to be to his own interest to vote for the extension or restriction of the hours of polling would do so.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had referred to some boroughs of 600 or 700 voters, and said that in respect of them there was no necessity for the Act. Although the borough which he represented (Andover) was a borough of much more importance than those mentioned, containing, as it did, at least 900 voters, he might be allowed to state, in their behalf, that there was no question in which they took a stronger interest than that raised by the Amendment, the principle of which he hoped would be established by this Bill. As the borough had but one polling place, and many of the electors found it impossible to get there in time to record their votes—that was to say, before 4 o'clock in the afternoon—he sincerely trusted the Committee would adopt this Amendment. To have one hour of closing for the larger boroughs and another for the smaller boroughs, would, as far as he could see, lead to confusion without any good result.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 78: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 135.)

MR. WHITLEY

contended that the hours of polling named in the Bill were an unreasonable extension of those now fixed by law, and he proposed that they should be altered to between 8 A.M. and 7 P.M. during the summer, and 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. during the winter. If this Bill was to be what, a few months ago, he was told it was—namely, a measure for giving every working man an opportunity of recording his vote, some protection other than that which the Bill proposed must be provided, and such, was the object of the Amendment he was about to move. There were certain localities in Liverpool and other great towns where it would be almost impossible for respectable working men to record their votes without danger to themselves at an hour so late as that prescribed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told them that 8 o'clock would be the hour in London. Now, there was no doubt that at that hour a large amount of drinking took place; and he had ascertained that that was the case in Liverpool. The town, again, was divided into separate districts—in one part there would be a large number of Protestants, and in another a large number of Roman Catholics, and the result was that there existed at all times a considerable amount of excitement; the Constable having assured him that at election time, if the polling went on at a late hour, he could not be responsible for the peace of the localities. Therefore, he believed that the extension of the hours of polling provided for by the Bill was an unreasonable extension and an unwise one, because it would lead to a great deal of malpractice of the kind he had indicated. Again, he held that it was the true interest of the ratepayer that workmen should have an opportunity of recording their votes, and that they should be protected by the State in exercising the franchise; but the Committee would note that, as a rule, most working men left off work in the winter months at about 4 o'clock, and therefore he was convinced that 6 o'clock in the evening would be sufficiently late to enable them to record their votes. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said this was simply an Extension Bill, and he (Mr. Whitley) would be glad to see the legitimate intention of the measure carried out; but he earnestly hoped the Committee would be induced to accede to a reasonable extension only of the hours of polling, and his own idea of what was reasonable in that respect he had embodied in the Amendment he was about to move. He believed there were some boroughs where the extension proposed in the Bill would not be open to the objections that lay against it in the case of others, and with regard to them he would suggest that the local authorities should have the power of determining the hours that would be most convenient in their localities. Finally, on the ground of avoiding the abuses to which polling at a late hour must give rise, and with the object of bringing about the universal desire that the independent working man should have the opportunity of freely exercising the franchise, he submitted his Amendment to the favourable consideration of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 7, leave out all the words after "until" to the end of the sub-section and insert "7 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and no longer between the 1st day of April and the 30th day of September in each year; and shall commence at 8 o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open until 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and no longer between the 1st day of October and the 31st day of March in each year."—(Mr. Whitley.)

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

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

said, he could not acquiesce in the Amendment of his hon. Colleague. His own experience was, that in Liverpool it was the universal feeling amongst the working classes that it was necessary that the polling booths should be kept open until a comparatively late hour, in order that the people should not lose their opportunity of recording their votes. In Liverpool, large numbers of the working classes worked two or three miles away from the polling places during the day-time; and he was satisfied that unless they were to extend the hour till 8 o'clock, as proposed in the Bill, thousands of people would be disfranchised. Nor was he in favour of leaving the matter to the decision of the local authorities, as suggested by his hon. Friend. He thought, on the contrary, there should be a limit of time fixed by the Bill. With regard, however, to the hours of opening the poll, he thought a later hour than 8 A.M. might suffice when the closing hour was 8 P.M.

MR. C. JAMES

said, he was not in favour of any curtailment of the time proposed in the Bill, which would prevent a number of colliers exercising the franchise. These men had to walk very often two miles to the pit's mouth, descend a mile or so under ground, and walk another two miles afterwards; then they had to return to the bottom of the shaft and be wound up. Again, when a collier reached his journeys's end he would have to wash before going to vote; and therefore he said, if this Bill was to be of any use to the colliers, 8 o'clock must be the very earliest time at which the polling booth was closed. Finally, he appealed to the Committee not to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) in the interest of a worthy class of men.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the discussion of this question had been anticipated somewhat on the Motion for Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) having made some remarks bearing upon the subject, which he had ventured to answer. He could not help thinking that the hours proposed in the Amendment before the Committee would not be thoroughly satisfactory, either to colliers or to men engaged in the building trade. A good deal of evidence had come before the Government in regard to the hours of work obtaining in the various boroughs, which, if his hon. Friend were acquainted with it, he believed would cause him to confirm the statement that the hours he had proposed in his Amendment were not really such as would suit the classes he had alluded to. In 1872 the sliding scale scheme was proposed by the Government of the day; but the House of Lords rejected it on the Motion of Lord Shaftesbury. The Bill came back to the Commons, and the clause was again inserted; but the House of Lords once more rejected it, and the scheme was then dropped. On the whole, he thought the Committee would do well to adopt a fixed hour for polling.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he had great sympathy with the object of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who had given good reasons why the hours proposed should be considered in reference to the localities mentioned. But there was this objection to it, in common with the Bill itself—namely, that it introduced a rigid instead of an elastic system. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would be inclined to adopt the plan which he himself had hinted at, of the local authorities fixing hours which would be suitable to the various localities.

MR. HOULDSWORTH

said, he had no hesitation in accepting the proposal that the local authorities should have the power to fix the hours in the various districts; but he should feel it his duty to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), and he was convinced that in large constituencies such as he represented, and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, it would be perfectly impossible for the working men to exercise the franchise without an extension of the polling hours. The principal reason for that was that, as the House was aware, conveyances could no longer be used, and that prohibition had introduced an entirely new element in the large constituencies. An immense number of working men worked at a considerable distance from their homes, and he had statistics in his possession showing that in some wards in Manchester at least one-half, and in some cases as many as 75 per cent, of the working men would be disfranchised unless the polling hours were extended. As to the fear that an extension of polling hours would cause a danger of riot or disturbance, his view was that the danger of riot or disturbance arose not so much in connection with the polling as with the declaration of the poll, which, under the present system, often took place late in the evening, when there was a certain amount of excitement among the people, and a large number of people congregated to hear the declaration. If hon. Members knew the practice in these large towns, where there were a large number of polling districts, they would know that it was impossible for any large number of people to be congregated at any one of the polling stations when the polling was going on. The great danger was when there was a declaration of the poll, and there was an excited mob gathered together to hear the result; and he should suppose that the effect of this Bill, if it was carried into effect, would be practically that the declaration of the poll, instead of being made, as it was at present, at 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening, would be postponed to the following day. That, he thought, would be a great advantage. It would avoid the danger arising from a great number of people congregating together. He could not agree to the present proposal, and he must support the Government.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he still thought the hours he proposed would be amply sufficient to enable working men to record their votes; but he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he would not trouble the Committee by repeating the arguments he had used in support of his previous Amendment; but he wished to say that the result of a careful inquiry he had made in many boroughs in respect to the polling hours was, that there was the utmost difference of opinion. In some boroughs the people desired no change; in others they wanted the change which was proposed in the Bill; while in others they thought an elastic system was the best. They might, he thought, adapt the Bill to the season of the year, or the different circumstances of the locality; and these people earnestly hoped the Government would adopt some such Amendment as he now proposed, and for which he had already given reasons.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 8, at end, add "unless the local authority shall make an order varying either the hour when the poll shall commence or when it shall close, hut so that the poll shall always he kept open for 10 hours at the least." — (Mr. E. Stanhope.)

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

MR. BROADHURST

said, that, so far as his experience in connection with this matter had gone, it was entirely contradictory to that of the hon. Member and to the hon. Member's Amendment. He had found that there was a strong and almost unanimous feeling against leaving this matter to the local authorities, it being felt that in matters of this kind the House of Commons should decide, and not relegate the decision to Town Councils, there to be fought all over again. With regard to the suggestions of riot and possible drunkenness from late polling, he had seen late polling in London districts, both for School Board and other elections, and he had seen no riot or drunkenness; neither did he think it would occur anywhere else. If there was any voting in the world that ought to be done in the open daylight, it was the voting for the House of Commons itself, and they in the House should be the last to talk to people outside of the danger of voting under the influence of excitement.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

thought what he might have said had been somewhat anticipated, and that he could only repeat what had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. When this proposal was made on a former occasion, almost with one accord the House rose against it, and the strongest objection was urged against leaving this power to the local authorities. The proposal was open to the objections he had advanced earlier in the evening, and he could not assent to it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he would not trouble the Committee with the Amendment next standing in his name, as he thought the Committee had decided on the principle of it earlier in the evening.

MR. CARINGTON

hardly understood the course adopted by the hon. Member; but he should certainly take the sense of the Committee as to retaining "five thousand."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "four." — (Mr. Carington.)

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

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he had an Amendment, to leave out "five," and insert "three." He thought the Bill ought to be made applicable to all parts of the Kingdom, and he should, therefore, vote against "five thousand" standing part of the clause; and if the Forms of the House would permit it, he should move to substitute "three thousand."

MR. CARINGTON

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he was prepared to accept "four" instead of "five," as the Committee might decide.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

supposed the Government had some reason for inserting the limit of "five thousand;" but he did not understand why the right hon. Baronet had so readily expressed his willingness to accept "four" instead of "five," or even a lower number. This was not a question of the number of electors, so much as of the number of polling places in a constituency, and the occupations of the people. To apply this Bill to a borough like Shoreham, a large agricultural district, having 6,000 electors, in which there were about 22 polling places, with a very few electors to each, was quite unnecessary; but it was necessary for a municipal area, densely populated, containing a large number of working men who were employed in factories—men who had to vote at a few places only, and who would have great difficulty in voting within the present hours. He should have preferred to see a distinction based on the number of polling places rather than the size of constituencies; but he thought the Government ought to adhere to the limit they had inserted, or to give some reason for abandoning it.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the line of 5,000 was the line he had proposed as the result of inquiries among local authorities; but they should take in view the fact that there were a large number of places very close up to or just under 5,000, which were very important places. They had asked for this change, and as soon as the Bill was introduced this year five or six Members, coming from both sides of the House, had urged him to extend the area of the boroughs. There \vas some doubt as to whether the limit should be 4,000; but as to that not being the highest limitation his mind was made up, and he thought there was a strong feeling in the Committee in favour of an extension of the boroughs.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that earlier in the evening he had ventured to urge the Committee to make inquiries by means of a Select Committee, and everything that had been said since had justified that suggestion. The best answer that had been given to him was that the Government had made inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had most carefully considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that "five" ought, after all, to be put in; and that was a good argument in support of his proposition. He could not understand that the right hon. Gentleman now said he thought there should be further inquiries; and he hoped the Government would tell the Committee that they would stick to their previous decision.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that during this discussion both county and borough Representatives had spoken, and said the feeling in the counties had greatly grown on this subject, and there had no doubt been great progress in opinion on this matter. In the view of the Government they were not disposed to say arbitrarily that because at one time they had thought "five" would be the best number, they must now adhere to that figure, in spite of information given by borough Members.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

wished to say a word or two on behalf of another class of men who had been mentioned. Remarks had been made about agricultural labourers and miners; but the Committee had heard nothing as to fishermen, and the distance they had to go to sea, and the distance they had to go to get home. A very large number of boroughs in Scotland were sea-coast towns, in which a large proportion of the constituents were fishermen, and this Bill would very much affect them. In one borough—Kilrenny, in St. Andrew's burghs, for instance—there were 360 electors, of whom 248 were fishermen. In Pittenween, of 270 electors 120 were fishermen. The total number of electors in the St. Andrew's burghs was only 2,600; so that if the limit of 3,000 was put in the Bill, a very large number of these men would be prevented from enjoying the franchise under the most favourable circumstances. He hoped the Government would consider the case of these men, and reduce the limit as low as possible.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he thought the Irish Members were entitled to have some distinction made between Irish electors and other electors. Owing to the limited franchise in some of the large and more important towns in Ireland there was only a small electorate, and the consequence was that, if the original figure was adhered to, only two cities, Belfast and Dublin, would come within the provisions of the Bill, while Cork, the third city in Ireland, would be excluded. He thought such cities and towns as Limerick, Londonderry, Cork, and Waterford ought to be considered, and that the limit should be fixed at "one thousand."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had agreed, on the part of the Govern- ment, to accept 4,000, instead of 5,000, and that would bring some of these places within the Bill. He pointed out that the Bill which had been passed earlier in the evening would abolish the distinction between the English and the Irish franchises.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the right hon. Baronet had reminded his hon. Friend of a Bill which had been passed without dissent; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would remind the right hon. Baronet that the time had gone by for passing different laws for England and Ireland. That principle, he thought, had been abandoned. He objected to the proposal in the present Bill, because, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, the figure in the Bill, while it would apply to English boroughs containing a certain population, would not apply to Irish boroughs of the same size, as the electorate in the latter was less than in the former. He urged on hon. Members who voted for the Amendment in the last Division to press on the Government —for they seemed very open to pressure — the necessity of reducing the number of the constituency to which the Bill was to apply until they had brought it down to 2,000.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

On the whole, I think, we can on this occasion support the word "four." There seems to be a strong opinion on the part of a large majority that such alteration should be made.

Question proposed, "That the word 'four' be there inserted."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had intimated it to be the intention of the Government to take the figure 4,000, as it would not be satisfactory either to one side of the House or the other. It would not meet the case of the small boroughs; and, as a matter of fact, they might just as well retain the figure 5,000. It was argued that the difficulty was to be met by a multiplication of the polling places; but the real difficulty was that the working men whom it was sought to assist in getting to the poll were working away from, the polling places. These men in a small borough had as much right to be able to vote as men similarly situated in a large borough. All working men had a right to be able to exercise the franchise without a sacrifice of wages. The case put by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks) was put as a strong one. There was also the Irish case to consider; and as an Amendment, to test the question later on, he would move to insert the word "two."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

wished to know how many of the fisherman referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks) practised their vocation during the daylight?

MR. MARJORIBANKS

replied, that fishermen mostly practised their vocation during the daylight. They went out at daylight to shoot their lines, and returned home about 6 o'clock in the evening.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he hoped the Committee would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and he wished to say a word with regard to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) earlier in the evening as to the reason 5,000 was adopted rather than 6,000. It was evident that 5,000 was adopted, not because it was logically more correct than 6,000, or than 4,000, but because the Government thought it as far as the Opposition would allow them to go. This measure, like other Liberal measures, had been framed upon what was possible with the Opposition, and not merely upon what was right and necessary. It was not in the slightest degree logical. Logically, all voters, whoever they were, and wherever they lived, had a right to be enabled to exercise the franchise. The Opposition always made a deal of talk about the large number of working men. Well, if there were so many Conservative working men, the Opposition, surely, were as much interested in giving them facilities for voting as the Liberals were. What would the Conservatives have to say to the working men, when, on asking for their votes, they were told—"We cannot vote for you, because the polling places are closed too early?" What would the Opposition say to the working men as to the course they had taken in refusing to give them facilities for registering their votes?

MR. GATHORNE-HARDY

said, he should not have troubled the Committee at all had it not been for what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Broadhurst). His opinion was, that the hon. Gentlemen who were opposing the reduction to 4,000 were not those sitting on the Opposition side, but those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. He had not heard during the course of the debate—and he had been sitting there during the greater part of the evening—any hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House throw any impediment in the way of the Government in this matter. He had been rather surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) name the number 4,000 instead of 3,000, which he (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) should be perfectly satisfied to see adopted as the limit; indeed, he should not be in the least afraid of seeing an opportunity to record his vote given to every elector. He had been for years Member for a small borough, and was aware of this, that with the existing hours there was ample time for everyone to register his vote. Without wishing to cast any imputation on the employers of labour in the borough, he might mention that the last hour before the closing of the poll was the hour when the workmen polled. For these reasons, he was not anxious that there should be any change in the hours; but he objected to hon. Gentlemen getting up and casting on the Conservatives the imputation that they were the Members who would prevent working men from voting, when, in reality, it was the Government who would do so.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

wished to know whether the Government meant to hold to the view that in certain cases two boroughs could count as one for the purposes of the measure? Whatever the figure ultimately decided upon might be, he should like to have an assurance from the Government on this point.

MR. H. G. ALLEN

desired to say a few words on behalf of a very meritorious class of voters who had not been hitherto mentioned. He referred to workmen in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He had the honour to represent a Dockyard constituency of under 4,000 persons. A great number of the workmen lived three or four miles from the place where they voted, many of them having to cross a ferry to get to it, and all these would be greatly disappointed if the line of population was so laid down as to exclude them from the boon of being allowed to vote after the working hours. Under the circumstances, he thought that a small limit should be adopted. The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) would include his constituency, as it proposed to make the limit 3,000. He thought that the right hon. Baronet was going to accept that limit, and very much regretted that he had not.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 93: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 136.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the Government accepted their defeat with cheerful resignation, as he had already thrown out to the Committee a suggestion as to the possibility of the figure "three" being adopted as against "four" [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No; the figure "two."] He would now propose that the word "three" be there inserted.

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' be there inserted."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

was sorry the Government had not accepted their defeat on this question in a spirit of complete resignation. He had certainly understood the decision of the House to be in favour of the figure "two" in the last Division. If the Government persisted in adhering to the figure "three" —which he trusted they would not—in clear opposition to an overwhelming majority of their own side—[Mr. R. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor): Oh, oh!]. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not aware that the Lord Mayor could be described as belonging to the side of the Government. They would be happy to welcome him on that side, however. But what he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) maintained was, that the Government, if they persisted in the figure "three," would do it in clear opposition to an overwhelming majority of their own side. Unless the Government were prepared to accept his Amendment, he should trouble the Committee to divide again.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the Division taken was merely whether the figure "four" should stand part of the clause. After that, of course, every other figure was open to consideration. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton spoke of the overwhelming opinion of the Members of the Party of whom he himself was one. Well, no doubt, the opinion of every Member should be taken into consideration, and there were a class of Members whose opinion, above all, should be taken into consideration, and they were the Members who represented constituencies of between 2,000 and 3,000. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton represented a constituency of many thousands. He (the Attorney General) undertook to say that if they would ask hon. Gentlemen who represented constituencies of between 2,000 and 3,000 what figure they preferred, it would be found that the majority were in favour of 3,000 ["No, no!"] Then, he could only say that the opinion of the majority of these hon. Members would be of value. He, however, did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who said "No." The Government had gone down as low as "two," and that, he thought, was as low down as they could go.

MR. E. STANHOPE

was glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. So little did those hon. Members who represented between 2,000 and 3,000 electors think about the limit being fixed at 2,000, that there was no Amendment to limit the number to that figure on the Paper.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, there was one Member in favour of fixing the limit at 1,000, as there was an Amendment on the Paper containing that figure.

MR. WILLIAMSON

thought he was precluded from moving the Amendment he had on the Paper. He sincerely hoped the figure 2,000, or even 1,000, would be adopted in preference to 3,000. He knew cases in which men, though living in small boroughs, worked four or five miles from the polling places, and such men, he maintained, had as perfect right to have facilities for voting as those who lived in large and populous places.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he had voted against the Government in the last Division, but should support them now. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) should, he should think, be ashamed to support an Amendment recognizing the possibility of a constitency having so few as 2,000 voters.

MR. WILLIS

said, he was very sorry that this change was proposed, as he was for men voting in the daylight and not in the dark. He wanted people who desired to vote to make some sacrifice in order to do it. He would rather narrow than enlarge the hours of polling, and was, therefore, sorry the Government had been defeated on the question. He should support the proposal to fix the limit at 3,000.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, that as far as he could gather from the speeches he had heard, and the general tenour of the Committee, and looking at the majority last time, it was clear that that majority were under the impression that the present opportunity was too good to lose—that they had only to press on to obtain another advantage. The best thing to be done, under the circumstances, was to move to report Progress. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Sidney Herbert,)—put, and negatived.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 67: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 137.)

MR. BROADHURST

appealed to the Government to reconsider the whole question between now and the Report stage.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definitions).

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

moved to insert, after "borough," in line 23, "or combination of boroughs." He understood that it was the intention of the Government that combination of boroughs should be included in the Bill; but he feared they would not be unless they were specified, for the clause as it stood provided only for combinations of "places." Now, "places" were mentioned in the clause as something distinct from boroughs, and unless the words he proposed to insert were inserted, he feared that it might be held that combinations of boroughs were excluded from the benefits of the Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after "borough," insert" or combination of boroughs."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

assured the hon. Member that the Bill had been drafted with the view of including a combination of boroughs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, at end, to add "the word ' Councillor' shall, in Ireland, be taken to mean Alderman."—(Mr. Small)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short title) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]