Commons Sitting of 6 May 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Representation of the People (Consolidation) * [160].
First Heading—Criminal Law Amendment * [159].
Committee—Registration (Occupation Voters) (re-comm.) [140] [Second Night.]—R.P.
Third Reading—Burial Boards (Contested Elections) * [106], and passed.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 140.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. S. H. Fowler.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th May.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4 (Amendment as to revision).
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move, in page 4, line 36, after "county," to insert "or borough," the object being to provide that when the name of a person appeared to be entered more than once as a Parliamentary voter on the list of voters for the same Parliamentary county "or borough," the Revising Barrister should inquire whether such entries related to the same person; and, on proof that such entries did relate to the same person, should retain one, and erase the others. He failed to see why any distinction should be drawn between the cases of the counties and of the boroughs in this respect. Duplicate voters in boroughs entailed considerable expense and difficulty, and, in some cases, led to endless confusion in perfecting the Register. Although he hoped his Amendment would be accepted, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, especially as his hon. Colleague (Mr. Picton) had an Amendment upon the Schedules, which would come on later, and which, if adopted, would answer the same purpose, and probably involve less trouble in altering the clauses of the Bill. He trusted that the matter would be fully discussed, and it
  1736
  was in order to afford an opportunity for such a discussion that he had placed his Amendment upon the Paper. If, however, it was the desire of the Committee, he would withdraw that Amendment now, so that the discussion might be taken upon the proposition of his hon. Colleague.
  MR. PICTONsaid, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he would like to add a word to the statement of his hon. Colleague. He thought there ought to be some explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to the reason why this difference had been introduced between the counties and boroughs.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no Question before the House. If the hon. Member desires to move the Amendment pro forma, he can do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in moving an Amendment, in page 4, Sub-section 9, to leave out paragraph (b), which was as follows:—
  "The said person may select the entry to be retained by notice in writing delivered or sent by post to the revising barrister at or before the opening of the first court at which he revises any of the lists in which any of such entries appear, or by application made by such person or on his behalf at the time of the revision of the first of such lists,"
  said, the question raised here was one of selection; and his object in moving the Amendment was to provide that, in the case of counties as well as of boroughs, the Revising Barrister should have no option but to select, in the first instance, the place of abode in connection with which the name of the voter was to appear on the Register. In cases where the voter possessed a plural qualification, the name would be restricted to the first place of abode mentioned in the Register.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, Subsection 9, line 40, to leave out paragraph (b.)—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  Question proposed, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He did not see why a county voter should not be allowed to continue to do what was invariably done

  1737
  now in reference to the counties—namely, to select the place for which he would be registered.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that that was only done in the case of municipal elections.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was done in Parliamentary elections also. He did not see why, if a person had a freehold in one part of a county and a dwelling-house in another, he should not select the place at which he desired to vote. For instance, it might be more convenient to vote at his place of business than at his place of residence; and he saw no reason why the county voter should be deprived of the privilege of selection.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving in paragraph (c) of the same clause to insert the word "only" after the word "one," in order to provide that "one only" of the entries first on the list of ownership voters, if unobjected to, should be retained. In one sense, the Amendment was a verbal one. It dealt with plural entries where no selection was made by the voter, and he proposed to insert the word "only" in order to avoid any future difficulty.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, after"one,"insert"only."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That that word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the next Amendment he should propose was in order to carry out the view of the House, when the Bill was in Committee, in relation to the boroughs. He proposed to omit, after the words "ownership voters," the words "and unobjected to;" and he intended to move a similar Amendment in the next paragraph of the clause. He also proposed to add, at the end of the clause, an affirmative paragraph to provide that if any such entry to be retained was objected to the Revising Barrister should not finally erase such entry until the objection to the entry to
  1738
  be retained had been determined by him in favour of the voter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, leave out "and unobjected to."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 8, leave out the words "neither of the entries is," in order to insert the words "all or none of the entries are,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he did not rise to make any captious observation, because he approved of the Amendment; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General ought to express a little more clearly what his meaning was. The explanation already given by the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be satisfactory to his own mind, and to several hon. Members opposite; but it did not sufficiently explain the exact object of these Amendments.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had desired to deal with the Bill in a practical way, as a matter of business; and he thought he had explained that the object of these Amendments was to get rid of a difficulty which was now experienced in dealing with double entries. His object, in this particular instance, was to alter the dual into the plural.
  Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
  Question, "That the words 'all or none of the entries are' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 10, leave out "and unobjected to."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That those words be there omitted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 13, at end, add "and if any such entry to be retained is objected to, the revising barrister shall not finally erase any other entry until the objection to the entry to

  1739
  be retained has been determined by him in favour of the voter."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to the extreme baste with which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was rattling through the Bill. He wanted to know, before a final erasure took place, bow many times the process of erasure was to be gone through? Was it intended, first of all, to strike out the name, then to bear objections, and after that was there to be a final erasure? Who was to determine whether the erasure was final or not? He wanted the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain what the meaning of the Amendment was. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman take this ground—that a Committee had been sitting somewhere else to settle the clauses of the Bill, and that, although they had done the best they could, they had placed a very unsatisfactory Bill before the Committee? ["Oh, oh!"] If hon. Members were not to be at liberty to raise a question or object to the wording of the Bill, of course this proceeding was altogether a farce; and it would be better for the hon. and learned Gentleman to gay so than for his supporters, whenever an hon. Member rose, to endeavour to groan him down.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Warton) that he had no wish to withhold any explanation, or to abstain from answering any question that might be put to him. The object of his Amendment was this—Provision was contained in Clause 5 by which the Revising Barrister received power, in the case of duplicate entries, to retain one entry for voting purposes, and to place against the others a note to the effect that such person was not entitled to vote in respect of that particular qualification. But it was considered desirable that the Revising Barrister should not erase the qualification finally, because when the ownership vote was reached it might be found that it was objected to, and the consequence might be that the name of the voter might be struck off from the ownership vote after it had been previously struck off for another qualification, the result being that the voter
  1740
  would have no vote at all. Therefore, what was proposed to be done by these Amendments was to reserve to the Revising Barrister, on reaching the first entry, the power of withholding his signature to the entry, so that his final judgment would not be conclusive until he had heard any objection which might be raised to the ownership vote. The simple object was to preserve the name of the voter upon the Register.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked how a provision of this kind would work in conjunction with Sub-section 6 of Clause 4, which provided that—
  The revising barrister should, if practicable, complete the revision of the lists of the parishes in one polling district in a Parliamentary-county, and transmit the same to the clerk of the peace of the county, before proceeding to revise the lists of any parish in another polling district."
  The Revising Barrister was to transmit the list to the Clerk of the Peace before the revision was finally completed and the entries finally settled; but if be complied with that provision, how was he to reserve any final judgment as to erasing the name from the list?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the hon. Gentleman would look at the wording of the sub-section he would see that the Revising Barrister was, "if practicable," to complete the revision of the lists. These cases would not occur very often, and it was only right, when they did occur, that the Revising Barrister should make a note, and not finally sign the Register until it bad been completely determined bow the voter's name was to appear upon the list.
  MR. E. STANHOPEhoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Tomlinson) would be satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It seemed to him (Mr. E. Stanhope) that these Amendments would afford great protection to the voter, whose name might otherwise be struck off, although he was fully entitled to be on the Register.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he bad no objection to the Amendment; but he would like to know how the Revising Barrister would follow out his instructions for dealing with the polling districts? It seemed to him that the two things were inconsistent, and that it would be necessary to keep the polling

  1741
  district Register by itself, and to keep the names of all the voters upon it, until the revision was completed.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. H. Paget) would look at the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General he would see that the point he had raised did not occur. There was to be an actual objection which the Revising Barrister proposed to entertain; and in that case any other qualification was not to be struck out until it was rendered positively certain that the name of the voter would appear upon the Register in connection with one qualification or the other. This was altogether a provision for the protection of the voter.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the proposal was made, no doubt, for the protection of the voter; but he wanted to know how it would work practically, when the question came to be dealt with by the Revising Barrister? Was the Revising Barrister to keep a list of names, and to make up the Register from that list? He thought it would be impossible for the Revising Barrister to retain all the names in his mind.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the provision dealt with voters who were objected to, and the Revising Barrister would have a list of objections before him.
  Question put, and agreed to; words added, accordingly.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in moving as an Amendment, at end of clause, to add—
  "When it appears to the local authority having power to assign polling places in a Parliamentary borough divided into divisions that for the convenience of the voters it is expedient to direct the holding of a revision court in all or any of such divisions, the said authority may direct the revising barrister to hold a revision court in all or any of such divisions,"
  said, that he intended to press this Amendment upon the acceptance of the Committee by every means in his power. Its object was to enable the Local Authority, in the case of divided boroughs, to direct that the Revising Barrister, whenever it appeared to be for the public convenience, should hold his Court in all or any of the divisions. The Committee would see that by Sub-section 4 of the clause a somewhat similar power
  1742
  was given to the Local Authorities in counties. The matter was simply one of public convenience. The only difficulty which could possibly occur was in the position of the voter who had more than one qualification. But that was a much smaller objection than might be supposed. He had carefully looked through the list of voters in his own borough of Salford, and he was surprised to find that fewer than 100 voters out of a total of 24,000 had duplicate qualifications. Therefore, that question did not assume anything like the same proportions as the question of the general public convenience. He had consulted the Conservative Members for Manchester and Liverpool, who sat on the opposite side of the House, and hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side for Bradford and other places, and they quite concurred with him that the adoption of this Amendment would be for the public advantage.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 13, at the end of the Clause, to add the words"(10.) When it appears to the local authority having power to assign polling places in a Parliamentary borough divided into divisions, that for the convenience of the voters it is expedient to direct the holding of a revision court in all or any of such divisions, the said authority may direct the revising barrister to hold a revision court in all or any of such divisions."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought that was the wrong place to insert the Amendment, If inserted at all, it ought to come after Clause 5. Clause 4 dealt with the counties; but this Amendment did not refer to the counties at all, but only to the boroughs. His only desire was to see the Amendment inserted in the right place.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he would be quite ready, if his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would make the suggestion, to propose the Amendment later on; but the clause they were now discussing was entitled "Amendment as to revision."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, apart from the question of place, he would ask the Committee to consider whether this provision ought to be accepted at all. In the first place, the Bill was simply intended to assimilate the registration of

  1743
  householders in counties with the registration of householders in boroughs, and it was not intended to effect reforms in the Registration Law. There were a great many Amendments which would occur to most hon. Members of the House as capable of being introduced into the Registration Law; but the present Bill had not been brought in for the purpose of making it a means of effecting such reforms, which reforms must be dealt with at a future period, and very likely upon a more comprehensive scale. Therefore, the Government did not propose to deal with the question of improving the registration system, except so far as it was involved in the proposals contained in the Bill. The Amendment, if adopted, would give a wide expansion to the power of the Local Authority. At present, the Revising Barrister in any of these boroughs—take the borough of Salford, for instance—held his Court in the Town Hall, or some other public place provided, by the Local Authority, and no complaint had hitherto been made that the voters were required to travel too far.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he believed that great objection was felt on the part of the voters to the position in which they were now placed in that respect.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the voter would not be placed under any further disadvantage by the Redistribution Bill than he had now to contend with. He would only be required to go to the same place. It had been thought a great advantage to have the revision concentrated in one place, so that they could have all the officers in attendance who were able to give the information that was necessary for the guidance of the Revising Barristers. Surely that advantage would become still more important when they were establishing separate Parliamentary divisions in the same borough. For instance, an officer from Division A would not know whether a particular voter was also going to vote in Division B; but if the officers of both divisions were brought together, the officer of Division A would be able to say—"We have got the voter's name down already, and, therefore, he must not be placed in Division B." In that way the Revising Barrister obtained valuable information. But if they were going to hold each re-
  1744
  vision of a division separately, and to require the officer for Parliamentary Division A to appear in one Court, and for Parliamentary Division B to appear in another, it would be impossible to obtain any community of information. What was required was some central place, where all the officers could meet in order to advise the Revising Barrister. The Revising Barrister himself, of his own knowledge, would not know whether a man occupied a particular house or shop or not; but the parish overseer would know, and if the parish overseers were brought together they would be able to see that the same man was not placed on the Register in regard to separate qualifications. He believed that that was the practical view which the Revising Barristers took of this subject. Their feeling was that, if the Amendment were adopted, it would take away from them the opportunity of obtaining the information they wanted; and, as a matter of fact, they would be called upon to carry on their inquiry in each division without having in their possession the special information they required. There were one or two other practical questions which would also have to be considered. Of course, there was nothing more important than to give as little extra work as possible to the Revising Barristers. The adoption of the Amendment would certainly involve a waste of time. The Revising Barristers would have to make appointments at each of the Revision Courts; but they would not be in a position to know how long the sitting at each would last. For instance, they might go to one Court and find the work over, at the end of a morning sitting, or in half-an-hour, and for the rest of the day they would have no work to do. On the other hand, the sitting at a particular Court might be much more protracted than they had anticipated, and all the arrangements for completing the work, or for attending elsewhere, would be disorganized. A great waste of time would be involved in the one case, and in the other the Revising Barrister would not be in a position to discharge his duty properly on the following day. These, of course, were practical matters which must be dealt with. The Revising Barristers felt very strongly upon them, and had earnestly pressed that no arrangement should be made which would cut their time to

  1745
  waste, especially this year, when it would be most desirable, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, that they should hold their Courts and complete the revision on the best information they could obtain in the shortest possible time. There was one other practical question which was worth consideration. The Revising Barristers had to provide the Revision Courts themselves. They had not only to find them, but to pay for them. It would, therefore, be not only more advantageous, but less expensive, to go to a central hall in Salford; but if, as it might be in the case of Salford, the Revising Barrister were required to hold seven Revision Courts, instead of one, he might be required to sit at some hotel, or some building, which was not a public institution. His hon. Friend made no provision for such a state of things, nor did he suggest where the Courts should be held. As had already been pointed out, Sub-section 4 gave to the Local Authority in counties power to hold a Revision Court in a town near the division, which might be just over the borders of the district, the object being to study the convenience of the voters. There was another reason why he was unwilling to accept the Amendment. He was afraid there might be Local Authorities who would be governed by political feeling; and they might have a Local Authority in one borough saying to the Revising Barrister "You shall do this," and another saying "You shall not do it." Upon the Select Committee they had the assistance of hon. and learned Gentlemen who had been Revising Barristers. The matter was carefelly considered, and, after full discussion, it was decided not to introduce a clause in the direction of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It was necessary to concentrate in one place the information from all divisions required for the guidance of Revising Barristers; and it would involve needless delay, inconvenience, and extra cost to multiply the Revision Courts.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) had very properly placed before the Committee the objections from a Revising Barrister's point of view; but what the Committee had to consider was rather the convenience of the voters in connection with the
  1746
  registration work, so that the Register might be ultimately rendered as perfect as possible, and the work done with the least possible inconvenience to the voters. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the great difficulty in revising the Register was to induce those who had to appear to come up to the Court at all; and he presumed that the object the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had in view, in making this proposal, was that the voters should be placed in a position in which they could attend and make their claims before the Court of Revision, or appear in order to substantiate their claims when their names were objected to. He (Mr. Houldsworth) thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had not quite understood the object of this provision. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suppose that it was intended to deal with the revision list for one division in one particular neighbourhood, and that nobody else should appear from any other district; and it was imagined that if more than one Court was held the Revising Barrister would be deprived of the general information which he would receive if the Court sat in a central position. But there was no reason why the officers who were required to supply information could not as easily attend each Divisional Court as the Central Court. It appeared to him that it was a question between the Revising Barristers and the officers on the one hand, and the great mass of the electors on the other; and as the number of those who would have to attend in order to substantiate their claims was much greater than the number of officials who would be required to give information, the balance of advantage was certainly in favour of providing for the convenience of the voter rather than of the officer. If he thought there was any practical difficulty in the way he would not press the Amendment. But he could corroborate what the hon. Member for Salford had stated—that it was felt to be a great grievance to be required to travel for a considerable distance—perhaps from two to four miles—to the Revision Court, thus wasting a great deal of time; whereas, if the revision took place in the immediate district, the loss of time would be considerably less, and the general convenience much greater. It

  1747
  was only a permissive clause, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider it favourably. If any difficulty arose, it might be provided for upon another occasion; but his own impression was that if the Amendment were once adopted the difficulties which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General would disappear.
  MR. MELLORsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to one objection which, to his mind, was a serious practical difficulty. It was this—that the Revising Barrister had to settle his Courts, and to announce them beforehand, so that all the sittings of the Court were fixed when he went down to hold the inquiry. When a Revising Barrister began to hold his first Court in a large borough, he might find that he had a great deal more to do than he had anticipated, and that he had allowed only one or two days for the completion of work which would last three or four days. It was altogether impossible for a Revising Barrister, holding his Court in a large borough, to tell beforehand how long he would be required to sit. Therefore, if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member were adopted this difficulty would arise. The Revising Barrister would have to fix his first Court at a particular place—say, a Town Hall—and he would have to make appointments for that day. He would also have fixed a Court in another part of the borough for the next day; and the effect would be that, if the first inquiry was protracted, he would find that it was not possible to finish the first list on the first day, and a long interval would have to elapse before he would find himself able to return and take up the list again. The consequence would be that he would have to adjourn the Court until some indefinite period, and a number of people who had been summoned to attend would be put to the greatest possible inconvenience, and the time, not only of the voters, but of the officers, would have been wasted. The next day the same difficulty would occur again, and the Revising Barrister would then find himself, from day to day, in a position never to be able to finish anything. In addition to the public officers, a considerable number of voters would have been brought to the Court at great per-
  1748
  sonal inconvenience and expense. He trusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not refuse to listen to his (Mr. Mellor's) suggestions, simply because he happened to have been a Revising Barrister. He had endeavoured to deal with the matter only from a practical point of view.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he sympathized with the views which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth). He thought that, in this matter, they ought to consult, not only the convenience of the Revising Barrister, but also that of the voter; and he believed that, in some cases, the convenience of the voter would be best consulted if an inquiry were held in each separate division. But, at the same time, he felt the force of what had been urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the convenience of central sittings, and also the difficulty of entertaining in the present Bill proposals that were in the nature of reforms, rather than the mere assimilation of law, which it was the object of the Bill to secure. He was afraid that the only way of preventing duplicate entries upon the Register was to have all the officers together in one place. The Amendment certainly went beyond the province of the Bill; and he was afraid, if they were going to set to work to amend all the defects of the Registration Law which now existed, the scope of the Bill would have to be materially extended. He thought it would be better to try and limit the measure to the exact purposes for which it had been introduced.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it was somewhat unfortunate for Her Majesty's Government that every hon. Member who had spoken against his proposal was, or had been, a Revising Barrister. As far as the evidence of Revising Barristers was concerned, he had no hesitation in admitting that the Revising Barristers, as a body, would be against his proposal. They would not like to be under the direction of the Local Authority, even in the case of a great borough like Manchester; but his contention was that they ought to be. In Manchester and Salford there were seven Town Halls, so that there would be

  1749
  no difficulty in finding public buildings suitable for the purposes of the Revising Barrister. The hon. and learned Attorney General objected to the proposal on the ground that it was somewhat beyond the scope of the present Bill. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) maintained that it was exactly within the scope of the Bill; because it was consequent on the passing of the Redistribution Bill and the division of great boroughs into separate constituencies. The Attorney General had pointed out that the voters would be in no worse position if the Amendment were not passed; but what he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) wanted was to place them in a better position. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) that the voters generally would derive great benefit from the adoption of this provision, and that they would be prevented from being required to walk, as was constantly the case at present, from two to four miles in order to support their qualification. A further argument in favour of the Amendment was that it was permissive and not compulsory, and there was no possibility of its being put in force where it would not be for the convenience of the voters. Where it was for the convenience of the voters, it would undoubtedly be put in force; and he thought it was a matter of the highest importance that the Local Authority should possess this power.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was one point in the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General which had not been alluded to by previous speakers, and he did not think that it had been properly met by those who supported the Amendment. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had spoken of that borough having three Town Halls. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Manchester has four.] There might be a borough divided under the Redistribution Bill which had no public institution whatever in the second division, which would answer the purpose of a Revision Court. If, therefore, the Revising Barrister was required to hold a Court in a division of that kind, there ought to be some provision to secure that the Local Authority should provide a place in which to hold the extra sitting. It ought to be the duty of the Local Authority to provide a place of meeting, and not of the Revising Barrister.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as yet no answer had been given to a most important objection to the Amendment which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attnrney General—namely, that in the absence of information at the Divisional Courts electors might get placed on the list for two or three divisions. Before the Committee went into the Lobby, he would be glad if his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), or somebody who took the same view, would answer that objection, which was certainly a most formidable one.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the objections advanced by the hon. and learned Attorney General and his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) upon that matter would be as apparent to the Local Authority as the Revising Barrister. The Amendment had been opposed chiefly from the Revising Barrister's point of view. Surely the practical considerations which had been put forward would be appreciated quite as much by the Local Authorities as by the Revising Barristers. His (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) contention was that the chief matter of importance was the convenience of the public officers and the voter; and he was sure that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have full confidence in the Local Authorities that they would only pay regard to the public convenience. He had already stated to the House that, on looking through the list of voters for the borough of Salford, he found that the duplicate entries were very few indeed; and he had no doubt that, if his right hon. Friend would examine the list for the borough of Bradford, he would find that it was in a similar position.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that he was not a Revising Barrister, he had never been one, and never expected to be; but he was the Representative of a large borough, which was to be divided under the Redistribution Bill, and he thought the arguments which were put forward by his hon. and learned Friend and the Attorney General were sound and practicable. He thought that, so far as the balance of convenience was concerned, there might be some advantage if they could bring the Revising Barrister to the voter's own door. But they had to deal with a limited amount

  1751
  of time, and there was another provision which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had overlooked—namely, the possible protraction of the business of the Divisional Courts, which might, if the Amendment were adopted, much delay the completion of the Register for the borough of Salford and Manchester.
  MR. ARTHTUR ARNOLDremarked, that the course he had suggested was adopted in Salford the year before last.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that it was done by the Revising Barrister for the convenience of the voter, and the Revising Barrister was a local gentleman who understood the working of his own Court. The main question for the consideration of Parliament was to prevent duplicate entries. They were introducing a new system now, and what might have been of trivial importance before, when the voter could only vote for two Members, became of much greater importance now that the borough was divided into a large number of divisions. It now became of the utmost importance to prevent a man from finding his way upon the Register for more than one division, in which case he might possibly be tempted to vote for each. He thought the balance of 'convenience was against the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHthought that the difficulty raised by the Government in regard to duplicate votes was fictitious, and that the district Revision Courts might be so arranged as to have the agents and the officers of each part of the borough in attendance at the same time. All of them could go to each of the districts in turn, and the same information would, in that case, be before the Revising Barristers in each district division as in the central division. He did not see, therefore, that the adoption of the Amendment would create further difficulties in the case of duplicate entries.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. and learned Attorney General thought that the Revising Barrister's inquiry should be held in one Court for two or more divisions. His (Mr. Illingworth's) opinion was, that if a borough were divided into three divisions and three distinct Courts were held, the officers would be in pre-
  1752
  cisely the same position as if they had to wait in a Central Court until the lists for the second or third division were taken. In his judgment no inconvenience whatever would arise. If the Revision Courts were held in different parts of the borough, what would happen? Simply what happened now. When the Revision Court was held, the voter had to support his claim when his turn came; and the uncertainty as to when the name would be called, would be greater in a Central Court than if the Court were held in different districts. The convenience of the voter would certainly be better consulted by adopting the Amendment; and it was quite possible for the Revising Barrister to make arrangements with the overseers to be present at the Court held in each division. It would be just as necessary for the overseers to attend in the one case as in the other; and, therefore, he saw nothing in the objections which had been raised to the Amendment.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that having been a Revising Barrister, and being one no longer, he was able to take the position of an impartial witness. The Revising Barristers had to consult and did consult the convenience of the voters; but, notwithstanding what had been said by hon. Members who supported the Amendment, he believed that its adoption would create serious practical difficulties. The point referred to by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was a very serious one indeed. When he was a Revising Barrister, one of the most difficult things he had to do was to ascertain, in cases of alleged duplicates, whether the name objected to was really a duplicate entry or not—that was to say, whether it was the same man whose name appeared on the Register more than once. This was a very difficult matter to decide, because it sometimes happened that there were a dozen or twenty persons who had the same name. Of course the Revising Barrister was told at once that these were duplicate entries, and that it was the same man who had three or four separate qualifications. The Revising Barrister had to examine the evidence most carefully, and to satisfy himself whether the entries related to the same man or not; and it was really a very difficult thing to do. His hon. Friend the Member for

  1753
  Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) said there was no difficulty about it; but he (Mr. Mellor) was convinced that unless the Revising Barristers took the utmost care in this matter a good many persons would run the lisk of losing their votes. He was glad that the matter had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and that the right hon. Member for Bradford had added his objection.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had only asked for information on the point.
  MR. MELLORmaintained that in order to make certain, and to prevent an act of injustice being done, it was necessary to bring into Court all the officers who were connected with the parish. They were all summoned to attend the first Court held by the Revising Barrister; but if the sitting of the Court was broken off, as it was liable to be if the proposed Amendment were adopted, the Revising Barrister would find it impossible to give notice beforehand where he was going to hold his Court next. The result would be that there would be in Court on the first day a great number of persons who would necessarily waste their time, including, in some cases, the officers of different parishes; and then the Revising Barrister would have to adjourn the Court to some uncertain day, because he would not be able to tell when he might be able to get back again. He would then have to go to another Court and to get these important parish officers to go about with him; and, perhaps, through carelessness or some other cause, many of those who had wasted their time on the first day would not be in attendance on the next, and complaints would consequently be made. By that means the Register would get into confusion. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford had suggested that the Revising Barristers did not understand the matter, and that it was only the Local Authority who did. He thought it might sometimes be assumed that those who had had personal experience knew best; and he was sure that the Revising Barristers, as a rule, made it their first consideration to consult the convenience of the voters. He believed that if the Committee adopted this Amendment, a large amount of confusion and uncertainty would be occasioned by the Revising Barrister never
  1754
  being able to see how much of the business could be got through in a particular day. In these days of railways, tramways, and omnibuses, it would not be much to ask a working man to travel two or three miles in order to substantiate his claim to the vote. Voters in the counties had to travel much greater distances, and they did not complain. It was even in the power of the Revising Barrister to give costs if he thought that persons had been improperly objected to, and in such a case as this they were fairly entitled to costs. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. This year the Revising Barristers would have to do three or four times the amount of work they had ever been called upon to perform before, and they had already expressed their willingness to do it.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: That will not be the case in the boroughs.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that in regard to those boroughs which had been divided it would be found that the work had been largely increased. He was very sorry, for his own part, that his hon. Friend the Member for Salford had not been a Revising Barrister, so that he might have sat in one of these Courts and. have become acquainted with the difficulties which had to be contended with. He hoped that when his hon. Friend went back to Salford at the time of the next revision, he would go down to the Court and see how the work was managed.
  MR. TOMLINSONhoped that if the claim was agreed to the Committee would agree to insert in it a Proviso making it the duty of the Local Authority in the case of divided boroughs to provide proper places for the holding of Revision Courts.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the objection which had been raised to the proposal was fairly met by the answer that the overseers would attend at each Revision Court. After all, the Amendment was merely permissive. It would not be adopted in many boroughs, and he should be glad if the Government would see their way to make it possible to carry out the proposal of his hon. Friend.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked if he would be in Order in moving the Amendment he had suggested after the division which was about to take place?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 77: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Provision as to double entries in boroughs).
  MR. HOULDSWORTH MR. HOULDSWORTH moved, as an Amendment, after "voter," in line 33, to insert—
  "Any person who is entered more than once as a Parliamentary voter may, in pursuance of sub-section fourteen of section twenty-eight of 'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878,' select the entry to be retained for voting by notice in writing in the form given in the Schedule to this Act, and such notice shall be delivered to the revising barrister at the opening of the revision court for the borough."
  "Any person on the list of voters may object to the name of any person being retained for voting purposes on any list of voters in respect of more than one qualification, and the revising barrister shall hear and determine such objection; and, if the person objected to does not appear, or has not selected the entry to be retained for voting in manner prescribed by this Act, the revising barrister shall deal with such entry as directed by sub-section one of this present section."
  The hon. Member said, the simple object of his Amendment was to provide definite forms in two cases, one being the case of objection to a duplicate vote, and the other the case of selection of qualification. He drew the argument for the necessity of this from some remarks which had been made by an hon. Member opposite upon the last clause; and the provision was rendered necessary owing to the difficulty the Revising Barrister now experienced in getting proper proof of duplicate qualifications, and of the identity of individuals. In some cases the names of persons appeared on the list who were relations, while in others they were not relations at all; and the consequence was that very great care was required in deciding whether the name was that of a really valid voter or not. It was well known to those who had to work the registration system that there was great difficulty in getting voters to attend to the application made to them, requiring them to bring proof of their identity or to substantiate their claim. His object was to provide a definite form of objection, which might be sent to the man
  1756
  who was objected to, on the ground that he had more than one qualification. If this were not done, he did not see any provision whatever in the Bill, as it stood, which would protect a man who was on the Register from being taken off, on the ground that he had a duplicate vote. He failed to see that there would be any protection at all unless some provision were made that the objection should in every case be sent to the voter. He noticed, in the Bill in regard to counties, that there was a provision for selection; but he was not quite sure that there was one in regard to objection, and his object in providing this form of objection was to secure that every man whose name was more than once on the Register should have an objection sent to him, in order that he might be able to take the proper steps, by appearance or otherwise, to prove whether he had been really duplicated or not. Now that there was to be a system of selection, it appeared to him that great confusion would be created unless some definite form were provided which the Revising Barrister could have presented to him, and which, when duly signed, he would accept as evidence of the selection of the voter. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would be good enough to tell him how, under the Bill, the principle of selection would be exercised? There was nothing in the Bill, so far as he understood it, which enabled him to see exactly how it would work. He could understand that if the voter appeared personally before the Revising Barrister and said that he preferred to have his name upon the Register as being qualified for such-and-such a place, that that would be sufficient, or that it might be sufficient if the agent produced a letter from the voter. All that he would get by establishing a distinct form of selection would be to enable the Revising Barrister to get through his work much more easily, and to provide a form which would have a little more authority about it. The strong point was to protect the voter against being taken off, when it might not be really a duplicate entry at all.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 33, after "voter." insert—"Any person who is entered more than once as a Parliamentary voter may, in pursuance of sub-section fourteen of section twenty-eight of

  1757
  'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878,' select the entry to be retained for voting by notice in writing in the form given in the Schedule to this Act, and such notice shall be delivered to the revising barrister at the opening of the revision court for the borough.
  "Any person on the list of voters may object to the name of any person being retained for voting purposes on any list of voters in respect of more than one qualification, and the revising barrister shall hear and determine such objection; and, if the person objected to does not appear, or has not selected the entry to be retained for voting in manner prescribed by this Act, the revising barrister shall deal with such entry as directed by sub-section one of this present section."—(Mr. Houldsworth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said there was, under the Act already in force, the power which the hon. Member suggested; and under the present Bill Sub-section 9 of Clause 3 made this provision for counties by notice being given in writing. As proposed by the hon. Member, he thought the provision would be very awkward, because the voter would lose the advantage given him by the present Act of Parliament. The voter now could write a note to the Revising Barrister and select the occupation vote; and if the Revising Barrister was satisfied with the genuineness of the handwriting it would be sufficient. In counties that was so. The Revising Barrister would communicate with the voter, the voter having written to him—"I give you notice that I wish to remain on the list for that qualification." The hon. Gentleman wished to go further, and proposed a form which he (the Attorney General) could not accept, and which he thought the Committee would see was unadvisable. The hon. Gentleman proposed, however, two forms, one of which was a form of objection. A person might go before the Revising Barrister and say—"This person must not have this qualification because he is on the Register for another." Her Majesty's Government had considered this, and he (the Attorney General) had framed a clause dealing with the notices of objection; but they found it was so complex, casting the burden upon the voter, that he had abandoned it. But by Clause 16 the Committee would see, if they inserted this form in the Schedule, they would render the proceedings taken invalid if
  1758
  that form had not been used; whereas it was provided that disregard of a formal instruction should not invalidate. He should have no objection to meet the hon. Member's views in the proper place by inserting his form of objection. He could not, however, insert it in the clause under notice.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHsaid, his object, as he had stated, was to protect persons from having objections made against them which did not properly apply to them. Under the Bill any person could object to any other person on the list for what seemed to be a double qualification; the name of John Jones, for instance, might appear twice, but the individual in one case might be another person altogether from the individual in the other. His proposal was that a form of objection should be sent to every person whose name was more than once on the Register in order that he might take steps, by appearance or otherwise, to prove, if necessary, that he was not a duplicate voter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked if he was correct in understanding that the law would be that if a man had two qualifications—say, one for his residence in one division, and the other for his warehouse in another division—he would be registered for his house, unless he claimed to vote in respect of his warehouse; but that it would not be obligatory upon him to attend in person to make that claim—that it would be sufficient for him to write a letter which would satisfy the Revising Barrister?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the effect of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Saving as to registration of burgesses and voters in parishes in municipal boroughs) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Clerks of the peace and town clerks).
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to state very briefly his reasons for proposing the alteration embodied in the Amendment he was about to move to this clause. He was aware that there was great need for speed in the matter of this Bill, and, therefore, he did not

  1759
  wish to cause a moment's unnecessary delay. He would point out that Bills were rarely delivered by the Queen's printer's earlier than three days after the Royal Assent had been given to them; and, therefore, according to the clause, Clerks of the Peace would only have, at the outside, four days in which to issue the precepts to overseers. Those precepts were very lengthy, as the Committee might observe by reference to the Schedules of the Bill; they were not yet settled; but it would be obligatory on every Clerk of the Peace to issue, within seven days after the passing of the Bill, the whole of those lengthy precepts to every overseer in their respective counties. In the case of large counties, with 500 parishes, it would be impossible to comply with the provision of the clause in its present form. The mere printing of the precepts would take a considerable time. He repeated that he had no desire to delay the Bill, but wished to make it a practicable measure. He readily acknowledged that the work of the overseers was full of difficulty, and that they wanted plenty of time; and he was glad to find that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who the other night regarded this as a mere matter of simple copying, had been thoroughly converted on this point; but, in order to afford time to Clerks of the Peace to perform their statutable duty, he would move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word"ten,"—(Mr. R. H. Paget,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, so far as he was concerned, he should be perfectly willing that the Clerks of the Peace should have 10 days instead of seven in which to issue the precepts; but the Government had very carefully considered the point, and seeing that the additional time proposed to be allowed to them must come out of the time in which the overseers had to perform their duty he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that although he agreed with his hon. Friend
  1760
  (Mr. R. H. Paget) that an extension of the time allowed to Clerks of the Peace under the clause was desirable, he felt, at the same time, that it would not be advisable to hurry the overseers in the performance of their duties.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he was glad to hear that both the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), while opposing the Amendment, had recognized the fact that further time was necessary for the Clerks of the Peace. He was aware that the duties of the overseers were difficult, and he did not wish to deprive them of a single day, nor did he wish to detain or divide the Committee on his Amendment. But if it were correct, as he asserted it to be, that in certain cases as many as 500 precepts would have to be issued, then he said that Clerks of the Peace would be unable to comply with the words of the Statute.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I suggest that we should give the Clerks of the Peace a clear week of seven working days, and I am prepared to substitute "eight" for "seven," in order to secure that.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he was glad to secure for the Clerks of the Peace another day, and would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move an Amendment in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "eight,"—(Mr. R. H. Paget,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WARTONasked whether it was a fact that the overseers had already acted under the provisions of Section 9 of the "Representation of the People Act, 1884," by sending occupiers the form of notice contained in the 3rd Schedule to that Act? The Committee would observe that Form A, in page 59 of the Bill, had been copied with minute correctness from the 9th section of the Act of 1884. The two forms were identical. If the overseers had already acted under the 9th section of the Act of 1884, then there would be more time

  1761
  left for the Clerks of the Peace to issue their precepts to the overseers, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Somerset ought to be accepted; if they had not, then, as the said form of notice gave occupiers 21 days to answer, there would be little time left for the Clerks of the Peace, and he contended that the Amendment should not be accepted.
  THE ATTOREY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the overseers had had instructions.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'eight' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEasked for information as to the procedure of Clerks of the Peace in respect of persons scheduled in 1881, as guilty of corrupt practices. He had been written to by a Clerk of the Peace, saying that it would be absolutely impossible for him to find out how many of the persons so scheduled had the county qualification. The Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act provided that the registration officer should make out a list containing the names and descriptions of all persons who were incapacitated for voting by reason of their having been scheduled. The question he had to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General was this—"How is the Clerk of the Peace to make out a list of those persons who had been scheduled and who possessed the county qualification?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had not received any Notice of this question; but he might point out that in one respect the hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly stated the position.
  MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he referred to the case of Macclesfield.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that Macclesfield would be, under the Redistribution Act, a county division.
  MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he was also speaking with regard to the city of Chester, which was still a Parliamentary borough.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the electors there were borough voters. As he had no Notice of this question, he admitted that he was not quite certain "whether they were affected. He was not sure,
  1762
  but he did not think the disqualification would affect county voters at all.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Application of s. 31 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, as to remuneration of clerks of the peace).
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to know whether, in any case where a Clerk of the Peace was paid by a fixed salary which included remuneration for the work of registration, it would be competent for the Court of Quarter Sessions to consider his claim in regard to any increase of work involved by this Bill, and meet it with an increase of salary? There was a Statute existing which would make it very difficult for the Local Authorities to increase the salaries of the Clerks of the Peace; and he desired to know whether the right of taking into consideration this additional work was secured to the Authorities in those cases where it might be necessary?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause was framed so as to give the Local Authorities a discretion in the matter. They could remunerate the Clerks of the Peace if they liked to bear the expense. Whether the remuneration should be given by an increase of salary or otherwise was not decided.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Divided parishes).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 13, after "municipal borough," insert—
  "The burgesses of which are enrolled in accordance with 'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878.'"
  He explained that it was necessary to insert these words owing to an arrangement which had been effected in the Bill in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 19, after "Act," to insert "1884."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (As to constitution of polling districts).
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to point out that the enactments referred to in this clause provided that voters should have polling places provided for them within "four miles of their residences," and he desired now to insert words to define this provision by making it plain that the distance was to be measured along the nearest road, because it was obvious that if they took the distance as the crow flies, the actual distance by road might be much further. Although the distance from one point to another as the crow flies might only be six or seven miles, a person to get from one place to the other might be compelled to travel over eight or 10 miles of road. It might be said that if they had more polling places it would add to the expense; but it was generally laid down in the 5th section of the Ballot Act that no polling place should be provided for less than 100 voters. He, therefore, begged to propose the Amendment which stood in his name; and he hoped the Committee would agree with him, that having given the vote to a large number of labourers it was desirable that they should not be disfranchised by having too great a distance to walk after their day's labour was over to the polling place in order to exercise their right to vote. It was desirable that the four-mile provision should be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 20, after "districts," insert, "measuring the distance therein mentioned along the nearest road so as to."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he could not see that this was a necessary Amendment; and if he had wanted anything to confirm him in his opinion it was provided in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) who had moved it, and who was evidently quite ignorant of the whole subject. The hon. Member had spoken of four miles; but he would find, on reference to the Act of 1883, that the law as it at present stood was that the polling place should be not more than three miles distant and not "four miles." This matter was one which should be left altogether
  1764
  to the discretion of the Local Authorities, who would do all they could to facilitate the convenience of the labourers. This Amendment, therefore, be submitted was altogether unnecessary.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Act provided that the polling place should be not more than four miles distant.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked what Act the hon. Member was quoting?
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Act he held in his hand was the Ballot Act of 1872.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he had quoted a later Act—namely, that of 1883.
  MR. HENEAGEurged that the distance—whether three or four miles—did not affect his point at all. Whatever the distance, it should be measured along the nearest road.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there appeared to him to be a great deal of force in the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). It was the intention of the Legislature, when the Act of 1883 was passed, that the voter should have a polling place within three miles of his residence, which, of course, meant three miles measured along the road he had to travel. Surely the three miles intended was not an imaginary line through the air, but three miles travelling for the voter. If they now said that the three miles should be as the crow flies, they would not be giving the voter what they had intended to give him in the Act of 1883. In any case, he hoped the Local Authorities would do their best to carry out the spirit of the provision.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not see any objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Heneage), only that it seemed to imply distrust with those whose duty it was to carry out the law. In his part of the country they had not been particular about having 100 voters, but had done all they could for the convenience of those who desired to record their votes. He did not know if the Amendment were necessary; but if the hon. Member went to a division, he, for one, would support him.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was quite agreed to insert the Amendment. In his district, where they had a great many difficulties to contend with, the

  1765
  magistrates had done all they could to carry out the spirit of the Act; but, on the whole, he thought it would be better to put in the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he understood that the object of the Bill was to make it possible for a voter to pass from his district to the polling place; but if that were so, other considerations must be taken into account besides mere distance. Special arrangements were necessary in cases where Party feeling ran very high. In some towns in the North of Ireland—Newry, for instance—where political feeling was very strong, the polling place was always put in the Orange district. He trusted that in such cases something would be done to arrange that each district—the Orange and the Catholic—should be provided with a separate polling place, in order that the voters of each Party would be able to record their votes in safely.
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was a question for the Local Authorities.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, would it not be possible to introduce a provision in this Bill which might afterwards be transferred to the Irish Bill making it compulsory, on requisition by a certain number of electors, that the Authorities should provide polling places in districts where it would be perfectly safe for the voters to go?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Local Authorities already had the power to arrange the polling districts as they thought right.
  MR. PELLsaid, it appeared to him that they were now entering into very complicated matters. What were they to measure? Where they to measure the highroad? And supposing there was a ferry, was that to be measured also as the boat travelled, or were they to take the nearest cut across the river? What was meant by the hon. Member's Amendment? He did not wish to place obstacles in the way of the voter; but he did not think that any practical inconvenience arose under the present system, and it appearad to him that they were introducing complications into the working of the Act.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not desire to press his words, if any hon. Member could suggest any that would be better. What he meant to provide was
  1766
  that the distance should be the distance along the ordinary road which would be travelled in getting from the voter's residence to the polling station. He had received a great number of letters upon this subject, and he knew that in some districts great inconvenience arose from the present state of things. It was shown, in one case, that 200 voters were between eight and 12 miles from a polling place.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he did not care what number or quantity of letters the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Heneage) had in his possession. This matter had been before the Courts on various occasions, and in all the decisions the Judges had made it perfectly clear that the distance must be measured as the crow flies. If the Committee altered that, they would be flying in the face of the legal mind, and what the Judges had practically settled. If they once allowed this loose Amendment to be put in, the question would at once arise—"What is a road and how are you to define it?" It was clear that if they were to have a distance at all they must have the actual distance and nothing else. This Amendment would open the door to all sorts of confusion as to what was a road and what was not. The distance must be the distance and nothing else. If they once went into the question of the way round, they would land themselves into all sorts of difficulties. The Amendment seemed to him to be very absurd and opposed to all the late decisions.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that in spite of all the recent decisions which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had referred to, he was obliged to say that the County Justices had not limited themselves to so narrow a view, but had acted in the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage).
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that the point advanced by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been misapprehended. He was referring to the towns in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had great confidence in the Justices; but they in Ireland had no confidence in them, and believed they would make the polling places as inconvenient as they could to the National Party. He would ask the

  1767
  Government, therefore, if the Corporations in Ireland could not be allowed to have some voice in the matter of arranging the positions of polling stations, or if the power of the Justices could not be modified in some way?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, at the last General Election, he was at a particular polling place in Ireland, and he found that some of the people who lived within a short distance, instead of coming there to record their votes, had to go to another polling place five or six miles distant. He did not know if this had been wilfully arranged, or if it was the result of gross negligence, but it had given rise to much inconvenience, and in cases where there was great political excitement it was calculated to prevent opposing parties registering their opinions. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would adopt some means for influencing the Local Authorities. In the case of Newry, the Authorities were, of course, the county magistrates, and it was notorious that the county magistrates did not belong to the popular Party in Ireland; and he thought, in order to encourage people to give their votes, it would be better if the Government would give attention to the recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  On the Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, lines 20 and 21, leave out "and may."
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the magistrates residing within the county districts should be the authority to regulate these polling places. The suggestion he made had been acted upon by the Quarter Sessions in Somersetshire already voluntarily; and he thought his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. H. Paget) would tell them that it had been working well. What they in Somerset had done voluntarily he proposed to make compulsory. He proposed that the Court of Quarter Session, instead of sending this subject to a Committee of magistrates of the whole Quarter Session, should appoint a Committee in each electoral division of magistrates residing in the division, and
  1768
  that they should sit as a Court to arrange this question of polling places. This, however, was not so much a question for the Government as for the Committee itself, and therefore he would appeal to the Committee generally to support his Amendment. He hoped, he should get the support of the two Front Benches; but, in any case, he strongly appealed to those magistrates in the House who had had a great deal of experience with regard to local self-government. There was one case he should like to bring before the Committee. It was in South Lincolnshire, where the Quarter Sessional areas of Kesteven and Holland overlapped with regard to the Parliamentary county divisions. What he desired in this case was that the two Courts of Quarter Session should each appoint Resident Magistrates to act as a committee to decide the question as to the positions of the polling stations. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 22, at end, add the following sub-section:—"(4.) Where a parliamentary county is not co-extensive with one county quarter sessional area, the court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction within such parliamentary county shall, within one month after the passing of this Act, for a committee of all the magistrates acting for and residing in the said parliamentary county, who shall hold sittings within the said parliamentary county, and take into consideration the division of such parliamentary county into polling districts, and hear applications for and assign polling places to such polling districts in such manner as may make the districts conform with the enactment relating to the division of counties into polling districts, and measuring the distance therein mentioned along the nearest road, so as to meet the convenience of electors in recording their votes; the report of such committee shall be entered upon the records of such court or courts of general sessions, who shall make orders thereupon according to the respective areas of such parliamentary counties within the jurisdiction of the said courts."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he hoped the Committee would not entertain the proposal made to them by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Heneage). It was objectionable on several grounds, which he would very briefly indicate. In the first place, it produced a feature which was entirely unnecessary. The powers of the Local Authority were ample to deal with the matter as it now existed;

  1769
  and when that was the case—when they had an authority having entire control and knowing exactly what it had to do—he could not see why a change should be made. Now, what was it that was proposed? The Bill provided that the Court of Quarter Sessions should assemble within one month, and having assembled they would, if the Amendment were accepted, proceed to form as a committee all the Justices residing in the division. The words of the clause were—
  "Alone or jointly form a committee of all the magistrates acting for and residing in the said parliamentary county."
  They would therefore get a committee consisting of 50, or 80, or even 100 Justices; but no provision was made for assembling this monstrous committee. His experience was that if they wanted work to be done, and done well, the Court of Quarter Sessions must select the men, and make the committee as small as possible. In Somerset, they had already set up committees for each of the seven divisions into which the county was to be divided by the Redistribution Bill. They had formed committees by taking two of the Justices from each of the Petty Sessional divisions comprised in every one of the seven divisions. They knew their work; they had already got to work—in fact, by the end of the present week their work would be done. It was entirely unnecessary; indeed, it would hinder, instead of help the work, to appoint the vast committee now suggested, with nothing to direct it—no head, no centre. The 47th section of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act provided for the revision of the polling districts; that revision could be thoroughly well done under the existing system. He believed the plan of the hon. Member would cause delay and difficulty, because it would produce committees too large for practical work. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Committee were to adopt this proposal.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he joined with his hon. Friend (Mr. R. H. Paget) in thinking that this clause was not required. He was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) could, supposing it was necessary, bring up, on Report, much better
  1770
  words, because to make the large committee proposed would be the very worst thing that could be done, and even opposed to the interest which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) really wished to serve. His (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) county (Sussex) was a very typical county, because, for all practical purposes, it was divided into two counties. Two of the new Parliamentary divisions overlapped the present boundaries; there were two divisions, each of which took in a portion of East and West Sussex. Now, it would be most unwise to hamper the Court of Quarter Sessions, because what was it that those Courts—for there were two Courts in Sussex—always did? They appointed the best and smallest committees that they could select; and when they had anything to do which affected the interests of both divisions of the county, they had always appointed joint committees to act together. If they showed their mistrust of the Courts of Quarter Sessions to do their work properly by accepting the present Amendment, they would strike a great blow at the administration of the county business throughout the country. The proceedings of the House of Commons afforded a very proper precedent in this matter, because the Report of every Committee was brought up to the whole House for its sanction … He was certainly of opinion that the committee appointed to assign the polling districts of a county should submit their report to the general body of Justices. The clause now proposed was quite unnecessary, and, therefore, he trusted it would be rejected.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had proposed this clause with the double object of dealing with a particular case and also of making an amendment of the law in all counties. As to the general question, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) had made certain inquiries, and he was bound to say his Friends did not approve of the proposal. His Friends were of opinion that the machinery proposed would not be suitable for the purpose in view, and that it would be much better to leave the matter to the Court of Quarter Sessions, who had hitherto had no difficulty in dealing with it, and who would not have the smallest difficulty under the altered circumstances in dealing with it. He,

  1771
  therefore, hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would not accept the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did accept it, he would find his action very bitterly opposed by many Members on the Opposition side of the House. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) had no doubt the hon. Member for Great Grimsby raised a very special case when he mentioned Kesteven and Holland. But surely Kesteven and Holland, with their two Courts of Quarter Sessions, might appoint a joint committee which would be able to deal with all the matters in that respect. He was not quite certain whether, under the existing law, that could be done; but on Report words could be brought up to give the Courts of Quarter Sessions in question all the power they needed. On the general question he should be sorry to see the Amendment accepted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was glad to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) say that this was not a question for the Government, but one to be settled by the Committee itself. It was essentially a question for the decision of the county Members themselves. He understood that the Amendment was intended to apply not so much to small counties as to large counties. It had been determined that, wherever it was possible, local knowledge should be brought to bear on this matter; and he certainly was of opinion it would be better that polling districts should be mapped out by magistrates living in the district rather than by strangers.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that what they had done in Somerset was to get a committee for each of the new divisions composed of men from every locality, so that the local knowledge brought to bear upon the matter was complete. There was no area of any size in the divisions that was not thoroughly represented.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it had been said that in many counties there was only one committee. He could well understand that under such circumstances there might be found a want of local knowledge which would be somewhat injurious in the formation of polling districts. There was a great deal to be said in favour of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Heneage's) proposition, presuming it
  1772
  was properly worded; but he (the Attorney General) had to ask himself what was the best course to take in regard to this Bill. As far as he understood, the majority of the county Members were opposed to the clause. He should be very sorry to take a course which would be contrary to the views of those Members; and, therefore, whilst he thought there was much to be said in support of the clause, he was afraid he must vote against it, leaving, of course, hon. Members of the Committee to vote as they pleased.
  MR. BULWERsaid, that his practical experience as a magistrate in the county of Norfolk led him to the conclusion that the proposition of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was entirely unnecessary. In the county of Norfolk they had two Courts of Quarter Sessions; but they did not interfere with one another, and the county had been divided for many years past into three representative areas. What the magistrates did was to appoint small committees throughout the county to map the county out into polling districts. Their propositions were submitted to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and adopted, modified, or rejected, as the case might be. No difficulty in the present system was found, and he presumed no difficulty whatever would be found under the extended franchise. As he read the clause of the hon. Member for Grimsby, the Committee to be appointed were to be paramount in the matter; they were to submit a report, and the Court of Quarter Sessions were to act upon it. Supposing that he and the hon. Member for Grimsby were magistrates in the same county, and both appointed on the committee, and that the committee mapped the county out into such and such polling districts. When the committee presented their report, the hon. Member, though he differed with the majority of the committee, could not object to anything that had been done, but all he could do as a member of the Court of Quarter Sessions would be to act upon the report submitted. His (Mr. Bulwer's) great objection to the clause was that it was guite unnecessary. Most of the county Justices were practical men of business and intelligence, and could be safely trusted to arrange proper polling districts. Now, there was a very important matter to which he wished to

  1773
  call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. When the Redistribution Bill was before the House, he (Mr. Bulwer) and several other hon. Members endeavoured to obtain separate representation for the Isle of Ely, and he pointed out on that occasion the great difficulty which would arise under the present arrangements. The Isle of Ely had a separate Court of Quarter Sessions and a separate Commission of the Peace—that was to say, the magistrates of the Isle of Ely had no jurisdiction in the county of Cambridge, and the magistrates of the county of Cambridge had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely. By the Redistribution Bill, the Isle of Ely was divided into three parts. Of course, no difficulty would arise as regarded the Northern part, which was altogether in the Isle; but difficulty would arise in the case of the other two divisions. Some portions of the Isle were in the Eastern Division of Cambridgeshire, and other portions in the Western Division of the county; and many of the Isle of Ely magistrates who had. jurisdiction in those portions were not voters. They did not live within those political areas. Many of those magistrates who did live in those areas had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely. Now, who were to arrange the polling places in those districts? He saw nothing in this Bill to deal with the difficulty he had pointed out. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would give his attention to the matter.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that as a county magistrate, he did not agree that all county magistrates were opposed to this proposal. He thought there was some necessity for the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage). The number of voters whose convenience had to be consulted had very largely increased, and therefore it appeared to him there was increased necessity for not only actual intimacy of acquaintance with the neighbourhood, the convenience of which had to be met on the part of those appointed to arrange the polling districts, but also for confidence by the electors that such intimacy of acquaintance existed. The proposal of his hon. Friend was precisely that which was most calculated to secure both these results, and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a division.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that many objections had been taken to his proposal. One was the large size of the committee. Of course, he could not tell what was the case in other counties; but in his own county the committees in every case would not exceed 15 or 20. Their difficulty was to appoint a committee of 12 or 13; and having sat on every committee in the county for the last 18 years, he knew from experience that it was rarely that half-a-dozen or seven magisstrates met together. It very often happened that the magistrate who was selected to represent a particular district—a district it might be in which a matter of interest cropped up—was not present. If the difficulty which hon. Members seemed to have with regard to large committees could be obviated by forming small committees, instead of committees composed of all the magistrates, he should be willing to meet their views in that respect. Indeed, if the Committee would accept the clause, he should be only too glad to see it improved in every possible way by the Government on Report. He really could not understand why the magistrates in the different electoral divisions were so much distrusted. There was another question which had been overlooked. It was said that county Members were opposed to this proposition. Were county Members the only persons to be consulted in a matter of this kind? He should have thought, now that Parliament had made large additions to the electorate, the voters were the people whose convenience ought to be consulted. He should certainly go to a division, and be very glad of any support he got. He only wished he could have the support of the two Front Benches.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not oppose the Amendment in any Party spirit—this was was not a Party question—and he would not have said a word upon it if he had not thought it was a purely practical question. County Members had a right to speak upon it, because they had great experience in the management of local affairs of the kind. They had had large experience of the increased number of polling places under the late Act. Hitherto, gentlemen had been chosen to fix polling places who had peculiar local knowledge. He quite agreed with what had been said as to the difficulty of getting

  1775
  members of large bodies to come together. When comparatively small Committees were appointed, the members made it a point of honour to attend, and they set about the business with only one object in view—namely, to do it as well as they possibly could. The work of the Clerk of the Peace would be of great advantage in this matter. The Clerk of the Peace in Lancashire had always been found of the greatest possible use in matters of this kind. He had great knowledge of the localities, he had the maps of the different districts in his possession, and therefore his assistance was of great value. Then, he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) thought the body they would have, if all the magistrates were to form the committee, would in many cases—in his own county, at all events—be extremely unweildy, and they would not arrive at any more satisfactory conclusions than a small committee would—a committee composed of a certain number of each side of politics. Then, again, he did not think the Court of Quarter Sessions should be altogether excluded from any part in the settlement of the matter. If the matter was to be referred to them, they must have a voice in it. That would take up some time; and, therefore, he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Attorney General had done wisely in saying that the Committee saw practical difficulties in the way of the acceptance of this proposition.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he would suggest that the words "all the," in the fourth line, should be omitted, so that the Court of Quarter Sessions might appoint a large or small committee as it thought fit.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to point out the practical difficulty in which the Committee stood. This was an Amendment which ought by right to have come up as a new clause. Then, on the question that it be read a second time, they could have considered whether they would accept the principle involved, and if they had agreed to do that they could have discussed it line by line and put it into shape. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) admitted that the Amend-
  1776
  ment was full of errors in drafting; he did not present it to the Committee as an Amendment so neatly and carefully drawn as to be worthy of acceptance. They would get into endless difficulty if they attempted to deal with the matter on the present stage. Besides, the Amendment appeared on the Paper in one form, and had been submitted to the Committee in another form. Indeed, he did not think the Committee knew exactly in what form it was presented to them. He followed the clause as read by the Chairman, and he noticed that several omissions were made. He was unable, hastily, to see what the effect of the omissions would be. What he was particularly desirous of pointing out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was that by this Amendment an entirely new principle would be set up. There would be set up a small Court of Quarter Sessions or a series of little Courts. His hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage) used the word "Court" again and again; he said the committee was to be considered as a Court, was to sit as a Court, and the Court of Quarter Sessions was not to have any authority over it beyond that of approving of what it did. He (Mr. E. H. Paget) ventured to say that the system they had employed in Somerset under the present law concurred with the wish of the hon. Member. In Somerset they had gone so far as to desire that their committees should be open; having settled for themselves a scheme, they announced by advertisement in the paper the day and the hour on which the committees would sit to receive suggestions from the public. They had adopted for themselves an admirable set of rules; but, at the same time, the Somerset people did not wish to press their system upon other counties. All they desired was, that they should be allowed to do what they considered best for themselves. The adoption of the Amendment would strike a great blow at the discretion of Local Authorities, for it would introduce uniformity which would be extremely objectionable. As well as for the reasons he had given, he objected to the Amendment on principle. There had been no unreasonable opposition to the Amendment; it was not a necessary Amendment, it was a contentious Amendment; it was badly drawn; it even appeared on the Paper in a shape in which

  1777
  it had not been put from the Chair, because certain words had been omitted; and for all these reasons he trusted the hon. Member would be able to see his way to withdraw it.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he would point out that it was the custom in many counties to appoint committees for the fixing of polling places which had the unanimous approval of both Parties.
  MR. MELLORsaid, he had no doubt that if Courts of Quarter Sessions generally had followed the excellent example set by Somersetshire no necessity for this clause would have arisen. But, in point of fact, this clause was not intended in any way to cast a slight upon the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The real object of the clause was to secure in each Parliamentary county a local inquiry on the spot; that that local inquiry should be held in such a way that everybody—labourers, for instance—should be able to come before the magistrates and say—"We think that in this district we ought to have a polling place." He could not see how the clause could in any way hurt anybody, for it merely provided that the magistrates should appoint a committee of their brother magistrates who lived in a particular district, and that that committee should sit in the district to hear evidence. He doubted whether it would have been possible for the Court of Quarter Sessions of Somersetshire to have arranged matters so satisfactorily without it appointed such committees as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) suggested, for the Court of Quarter Sessions sat at Wells, one of the most inaccessible places in the whole Kingdom. He sincerely hoped hon. Members would give this clause a favourable reception, for it seemed to him that the committees, appointed as they would be by the whole body of Justices, would be best able to decide where the polling places ought to be. The clause would give general satisfaction, because it was an endeavour to meet the convenience of the main body of electors.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer). The hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Hencage), in
  1778
  moving the Amendment, more than once referred to the fact that there were two Courts of Quarter Sessions in a Parliamentary county. Now, there was a separate Court of Quarter Sessions for the Isle of Ely, and another Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Cambridge proper. Were the Committee to understand that each of those Courts of Quarter Sessions were to appoint a committee, and, if so, were the committees to meet conjointly? If the two committees were to meet together, where were they to sit? And who would be the clerk? He (Mr. Pell) would very much like to hear how the hon. and learned Attorney General or the hon. Member for Grimsby would clear up the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not think the clause now drawn would settle that question. As to the committees meeting, at the present time there were three Commissions of the Peace in Lincolnshire, and it was the constant custom to appoint three or four of each Quarter Sessions to meet and decide matters affecting the whole county. There was no difficulty in settling who was to be clerk to the committee.
  MR. BULWERsaid, that the magistrates of Cambridgeshire had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely, and the magistrates of the Isle of Ely had no jurisdiction in the county of Cambridge. No difficulty could arise in Lincolnshire such as that in the case of the Isle of Ely.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must make an appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage). This Bill had been framed with one object, and that was to give the new county voters the same facilities for registration as borough voters possessed. All controversial matter had been avoided. It seemed clear, however, that this Amendment would raise much controversy, certainly on principle, and perhaps still more in detail. It was not now a question of general reform of the system. The one object in view was that this Bill should be passed—it might be but a temporary measure—as quickly as possible. Every Member of the Committee knew that they would certainly break down the Clerk of the Peace and the overseers, if they did not give those gentlemen almost every day from this time in which to do the work. He

  1779
  would not discourage his hon. Friend entirely; but certainly the sub-section as now drawn would have to be discussed at great length in respect to detail. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment now, and if, after consultation with others, he could bring up a clause on Report to meet his view, especially with regard to the particular case of Kesteven and Holland, to do so.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that after the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), he did not see what else he could do but withdraw the Amendment. He would consider the matter and bring up a clause on Report, and he hoped that in the meantime hon. Members would turn their attention to the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (As to expenses in case of divided county jurisdiction).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 29, after "Acts," insert "or this Act;" and in page 10, line 6, after "Acts," insert "or this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to move the following new clause, to be inserted after Clause 9:—
  (Voter may select his polling district.)
  "Any person whose name shall appear in the list of voters of any parish or township in and for any Parliamentary county, shall be at liberty to make his claim before the revising barrister to vote at the polling place of any district within the same Parliamentary county; and every such person shall make his claim in writing under his hand, and such claim shall be delivered to and verified before the revising barrister holding his court for the revision of the list of voters in which the name of such person shall appear as aforesaid, and it shall then be lawful for the said barrister to insert in the said list, against the name of such person so claiming as aforesaid, the name of the polling place at which such person shall be registered to vote; and such person so registered shall be admitted to vote at every contested election for the said Parliamentary county at the said last-mentioned polling place and not elsewhere."
  This was, he ought, in the first place, to say, merely an extension of a principle which had been already laid down
  1780
  in 1843. By the provisions of the measure passed in that year, it was enacted that if voters had a qualification in one polling district and resided in another polling district, they would be at liberty to select either as the place in which to record their votes. It was provided that even if a voter was not within the polling district, but outside the county altogether, he might be allowed to choose the polling district at which he might prefer to vote. The clause he proposed simply carried that principle a little farther, and, if accepted by the Committee, would enable the voter to choose whichever polling place might be the most convenient, whether he resided in the district from which he took his qualification, whether he resided in the county in which he had his qualification, or whether he resided outside the county altogether. He might say that the clause would chiefly tend to the convenience of those who lived in the North, and in the more mountainous parts of the country, where the population was extremely scanty, and where polling places could not possibly be brought with-in three miles of each elector without violating the law as to 100 electors being necessary to form a polling place. In these places, at the present time, it was very hard for a man to find himself 10 or 12 miles from his proper polling place, and yet to have, just over the hillside, it might be only two or three miles away, a polling station at which he could easily record his vote. On these grounds, he begged to move the insertion of the clause.
  New Clause (Voter may select his polling district,)—(Mr. J. W. Lowther)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was one of a class of Amendments which he thought would be an improvement in the general law, but which did not come within that which was the scope of the Bill—namely, the assimilation of the borough and county registration. He would ask his hon. Friend not to press the clause on this Bill, for, in populous places, like Accrington, where they could not expect the different agents to know every person who came to the poll, there

  1781
  would be great temptation to personation. Considerable safeguards would have to be adopted, and a great deal of extra labour would have to be imposed on the Revising Barristers. No doubt, the clause, if properly worked out, would be of great benefit to the class of voters to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he should be glad to assist the hon. Member in carrying it if he could; but he would ask him, considering the course which had been taken in reference to other Amendments, and the course he would still have to take for the assimilation of the registration in the counties to that of the boroughs, not to press it.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that after the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also after the ray of hope he had thrown out that, at some future time, a Bill would be brought in dealing with the inconvenience he had pointed out, he would withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he was now a little in doubt as to what he should do in regard to the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name, dealing with "claim to vote at nearest polling place to voter's residence." His object was to secure the completest possible poll of occupation voters. The clause said—
  "Any person entitled to be registered in respect of an occupation franchise in a district of a county may, by notice in writing, delivered to the overseer of his parish before the fifteenth day of July, claim to be registered as entitled to vote at any polling place which may be nearer or of more convenient access from the occupation in respect of which he is entitled to be registered than the polling place of the district in which the parish or part of a parish in which he resides has been included.
  "And such claim once made by any such person shall, if allowed by the revising barrister, hold good from year to year so long as the place of residence of such person shall remain unchanged."
  He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would look favourably upon the proposal. He had limited it as to time, so that it should mean as little increased labour to the overseers as possible. He need hardly say to anyone acquainted with the rural districts of the country that it would be
  1782
  quite impossible for labourers who might be employed in various most important farming operations to attend other than the polling place nearest their residences. It was also notorious that there were a great many localities in which there were not 100 voters. Let the Authorities do the best they could, with the most loyal intention to meet the convenience of the inhabitants of all districts, yet he was certain that there would be many places where labourers would be included in parishes having voting places three miles away from the residences of those labourers. At the same time, there might be polling places in other districts much more convenient of access to the labourers than their own. He did not know whether there was any defect in the drafting of the clause which rendered it impossible for the hon. and learned Attorney General to accept it; but he did not know what other means could be taken to carry out the object he had in view. He was convinced that there was a necessity for some such provision; but he should be ready to fall in with any plan the hon. and learned Gentleman might propose, and which he was satisfied would have the desired effect. There were, he knew, many hon. Members who agreed with him in his desire; but he did not wish to go to a division unless it was absolutely necessary.
  New Clause (Claim to vote at nearest polling place to voter's residence,)—(Mr. Acland,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member had been good enough to ask him to make a suggestion, and had said that if he would do so he would withdraw the clause. They should not occupy much time on the matter. After what he (the Attorney General) had said to the Mover of the last new clause, it was obvious that he could not accept the present Amendment, which was of the same character, though it came from so stalwart a supporter of the Government. The clause now before the Committee was open to the same objection as that already disposed of. It did not come within the scope of the Bill.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see the advisability of providing in the future that all boundaries of polling districts should be conterminous with the boundaries of parishes. In many counties, such as that he represented, there were detached portions of parishes more than three miles from the parent parish that would be outside the polling district, and it would be very hard for a voter living in such detached parish to have to go four or five miles to poll; whereas if he were allowed to poll in another district, the difficulty would be got rid of.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he did not wish to press his Amendment against the desire of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but, at the same time, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether there was not some other means by which the object in view might be attained? Could not some Amendment be brought up on Report? The condition of the labourers in certain parts of the country was very different to the condition of other people. There were operations they had to attend to, and could not leave without loss to their employers. He was certain the Committee were with him in his desire to give to these labourers the most convenient access to the poll possible, and he was sure such access would not be given by the Bill in its present form. If some Amendment could not be inserted in this Bill, some indication should be given by the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the mode in which the desired result could be attained.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was not only desirous that the object the hon. Member (Mr. Acland) had in view should be carried out, but that it should be carried out in this Bill. He did not at all agree that the matter was one outside the scope of the Bill. It was necessary that the voters enfranchised by the Act passed last year should be placed in such a position as to be able to exercise the privilege conferred upon them. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider the matter carefully, he would see that the Amendment was one which should be agreed to.
  MR. E. STANHOPEhoped the Committee would not overweight the Bill. They had already imposed duties enough on the overseers; in fact, he was not
  1784
  sure that these officials would be able to got through the work they had to do.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that no one wished to prevent a voter from recording his vote—no doubt, every Member of the Committee desired to see every elector come to the poll. The Government, at any rate, had shown that this was their desire by passing an Act for the extension of the hours of polling to 8 o'clock at night. With regard to labourers being unable to leave their employment in certain seasons of the year, it would not be inconvenient for them to vote—in November and December, for instance—when elections were most likely to take place. He hoped this would remove the objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Tomlinson), who declared that whatever was done in this matter should be done in the Bill.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment; but, at the same time, would express a hope that when the general amendment of the Registration Law was entered upon, the hon. and learned Attorney General would give a favourable attention to the proposal he (Mr. Acland) had now submitted.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he begged leave to move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 14:—
  (Repeal of s. 78 of 2 Will. 4.)
  "From and after the passing of this Act section seventy-eight of the Act of Parliament passed in the second year of the reign of His Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter four, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
  The Amendment was on the same subject as one lower down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He (Mr. Marum) had not been aware, at the time he put down his Amendment, that there was another on the same subject on the Paper. If he had been, he should not have made his proposal. Even now he had been prepared to give place to the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan and his Amendment; but the hon. Member had desired him to retain his position and proceed with his proposal. That part of the Reform Act he wished to repeal set forth that nothing contained within its provisions should in any way affect the election of

  1785
  Members to serve in Parliament for the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, or for the city of Oxford or the town of Cambridge, in respect of any occupation of any chambers in any of the Colleges or Halls in the Universities. The merits of the matter had been fully debated by the House on the Amendment in regard to the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill brought forward by the hon. and learned Member, that Amendment having for its object the disqualification of certain students in the University of Dublin, and the bringing of them under a similar electoral law to that he had just mentioned. The House, by a large majority, had declared that it would not disqualify these students. There was no occasion for his entering into the merits of the large question as to whether students ought or ought not, under certain conditions, to be entitled to the franchise; but he took it that his Amendment would test the sincerity and consistency of the Committee. The Irish Members had determined to test that consistency, and to bring about an assimilation of the franchise, as regarded University students, throughout the United Kingdom. He did not wish to detain the Committee, and would merely state that there might be an objection raised to the Amendment of a technical character—it might be said that this was a Registration Bill, and that the Amendment was outside its scope. It was true that the Bill was a Registration Bill; but this was an enabling clause—a clause enabling persons to be put upon the register, and to avail themselves of the registration facilities of the measure. For this reason, he held his proposal to be thoroughly germane to the Bill. He trusted the Committee would vindicate the consistency of the vote it had given on a previous occasion, and would accept this proposal to enfranchise a body of literary persons.
  New Clause (Repeal of 8. 78 of 2 Will. 4,)—(Mr. Marum,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had expected the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to at once rise and announce his determination to accept the clause. The hon. and learned Gen-
  1786
  tleman had not been in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell- Bannerman) had so warmly defended the principle of retaining the franchise for the students of Trinity College, Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman had, at the commencement of the debate the other day, challenged the Irish Members to produce any Act disfranchising the students of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and had declared that, if they could do so, he would be for disfranchising the students of Trinity College, Dublin. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Allen) had immediately risen, and quoted the section of the Act disfranchising the students of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been immediately attacked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), who said that this was not to be a disfranchising Act, and that the Premier had declared that the group of Bills associated with Reform were to disfranchise no one, but were purely enfranchising Bills. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had then got up, and expressed regret to find that there was an Act disfranchising the students of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He declared himself precluded from voting for the extension of any privilege to Dublin which was not extended to Oxford and Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had protested against the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had excused himself by saying that he had only spoken for himself—as if a Member of a Government in charge of a Government Bill had a right to declare that "he only spoke for himself." The new clause before the Committee was a matter which would test the sincerity of the Government. He must say it was an extraordinary thing that Members of a Government should find it convenient to absent themselves from the House whenever anything embarrassing was coming on. He had first raised this question on the Redistribution Bill, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had declared that the matter, so far as Ireland was concerned, would be reconsidered. When he had brought it

  1787
  on a second time on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, the right hon. Baronet, the moment he found his Colleagues in shoal water, scuttled out of the House. Now, when the question cropped up once more, they found the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General solely in charge, and he, in all probability, would get up presently and say that he was not in the House when declarations were made by other Members of the Government, and could not hold himself responsible for what might have taken place. As he (Mr. Healy) had before had occasion to remark, the Government was constructed in water-tight compartments. One set of Gentlemen faced them one day, knowing nothing whatever about what had been done or said by their Colleagues yesterday, or the day before; and another day a fresh set of Gentlemen faced them, equally ignorant of what had been said or done by other Ministers. As he had said, this proposed new clause would put to the test the bona fides of the Government. He, of course, admitted that if the clause were carried the towns of Oxford and Cambridge would fall to the Tory Party at the next Election. He believed the Tory Party in those places would be immensely strengthened by the clause, just as the Tory Party in Dublin had been immensely strengthened by the Government refusing to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England; but what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander—what was sauce for Trinity College should be sauce also for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Could hon. Gentlemen consistently vote for the continuance of a law in the case of the English Universities which they said should not be applied to the Irish University? He appealed with confidence to English Members, and asked them not to allow themselves to be misled into inconsistency; and those who opposed his proposal the other day he would ask to explain why it was that a provision which applied to Dublin should not also apply to Oxford and Cambridge?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was in charge of this English Bill, and could only deal with the provisions of it as they were required in regard to the registration of voters. The hon. Member for Kilkenny
  1788
  (Mr. Marum) knew very well the objection which had been taken on behalf of the Government to this proposal. It was not germane to the Bill; in fact, he (the Attorney General) had rather doubted whether it would be considered in Order. It was a matter of franchise, and not of registration. It was not enough to say that because they used registration as a means of putting voters on the list, therefore they could deal with the question of enfranchisement or disfranchisement, otherwise they might now be discussing the subject of female suffrage. Their object was not to make the action of one day consistent with the action of another, or the legislation of one country consistent with the legislation of another. They must deal with these questions as they were proposed, and on their merits. What was now submitted to them? Why, that the settlement arrived at in 1832 should, in consequence of something which had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man), be put on one side. Why was that to be done? Assuming for a moment that what the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) had said was true, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a mistake, were they, in consequence of that individual mistake, to be asked to legislate in a particular direction? The object of the legislation of 1832 was this—the 78th section of that Reform Act, having allowed the representation of the Universities, said that the persons voting at elections for the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge should not be allowed to vote also at elections for the city and town. The clause applied not only to students and undergraduates, but to members of the University and of Convocation; and now Parliament was asked to reverse that law. Hon. Gentlemen opposite admitted it was evil legislation to give a double representation; but they based their claim for it in this instance on something which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He (the Attorney General), however, asked the Committee to deal with the case on its merits, to be consistent with itself, and not to say that, because a course was taken in one coun-

  1789
  try which, might be wrong, therefore they were to take a wrong course in another.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he must apologize for interposing to address to the Committee a very few words on this subject. He had not adopted the line of argument he was about to develop because of what had been said or done in the House the other evening in regard to the University of Dublin. He had adopted it because of the sense of injustice which he had suffered under for 20 years, which made him glad of the opportunity, on this Bill or on any other, of making a plea for representation for a class of whom he was one. It had been impossible for him to take any part in the franchise debates, because when they took place he was not a Member of the House; and in connection with the Registration of Voters Bill, he should, at an early period, have put down some Amendment—if not exactly the same as those which had been put down by hon. Members opposite, yet somewhat similar—had he not imagined that that which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said ought to have been the case really would have been the case, and that the Committee would not have been permitted on this Bill to enter into any question of enfranchisement or disfranchisement. But, now that the question had been raised, he was glad to give his support to, at any rate, a part of that which was contained in the clause before them. The hon. and learned Attorney General had said they must remember that the Disfranchising Clause of the Act of 1832 applied not only to students—meaning certain persons in statu pupillari—but also to Professors, Fellows, and graduates of their Colleges; and it was precisely because it did not apply to these that he (Mr. Stuart) wished to see the law amended. The hon. and learned Attorney General had made use of the very remarkable argument, which went the rounds pretty generally on such occasions, that the Government did not want to give those who were resident members of the University—not in statu pupillari—a vote for the city of Oxford and the town of Cambridge, because it would be giving them a dual vote. Well, no one took more than he did the view that it was a pity that there should be a dual vote. He was sorry that there should
  1790
  be two votes; but if any set of persons were to have the dual vote, let it be justly distributed. If any member of the Senate of Cambridge University resided in Chelsea or Hackney, or wherever else it might be, he not only had a vote as a member of that Senate, in consequence of his degree and his payments, but he had a vote for the borough in which he resided. When, however, he went to live in one of the Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge, he still, of course, retained his vote for the University, in virtue of his degree and payment and of nothing else, but he was not allowed by this Disfranchising Clause of the Act of 1832 to have any vote whatever for the city or town. And the ridiculous character of the disqualification was more evident from this, that if he chose to keep outside the College gates, and took lodgings in the town, he possessed a vote for the town just the same as if he were in any other borough. It really was a remarkable thing that a man should be disfranchised by Act of Parliament as soon as he went to reside within the College walls. He should have been only too glad, if he had been able, to move an Amendment—if it were in Order, he should ask leave to do it on Report—to the effect that all persons not in statu pupillari occupying chambers in any of the Colleges or Halls of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, should be entitled to be registered as voters and to have votes, notwithstanding the 78th clause of the Reform Act of 1832. That was the form in which he would desire to see the present Amendment modified, if adopted, as he had already given Notice on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) on which he expected the discussion would arise. The body whose disqualification he wished to see removed were persons of full age, who had political instincts, who were permanent residents, and who paid rates—who paid large rates, although they paid them collectively and not individually. They were in a position no other set of people in the country occupied, except women. This it was, possibly, which gave them sympathy for women in their electoral disqualification, and which accounted for the number of Petitions which reached the House in favour of the enfranchisement of women, signed by resident

  1791
  members of the University of Cambridge. The Government were proposing to tax corporate property, and the corporate property they were proposing to tax might include University and College property, and might come to 3s. in the pound on the resident members of the Universities, whom they debarred from the vote in the boroughs of Oxford and Cambridge, though if they were living in other boroughs they would not be so debarred. If they came to the other portion of the Enfranchising Clause submitted to the Committee, if he might so call it—that portion which related to the undergraduate students in the Universities—that was a different question; but let them consider for a moment whether there might not be a mistake as to what the extent of that enfranchisement might be. He had heard it said by an hon. Member, in conversation somewhere or other outside the House—"If this proposal is agreed to, you are going to enfranchise about 3,000 voters in the town of Cambridge, and, in that way, to swamp the whole of the ordinary electors." There never was a greater mistake. There were not 3,000 undergraduates in the University over the required age. The age that entitled a man to a vote was not 21, but was nearer 22, because he had to be an occupier for a year, and he could not be an occupier until he was of age. If that was so, a man must be nearly 22 before he could come upon the register properly. If he were wrong in this statement, he could be corrected. If, however, he were right, there were a large number of students in Cambridge who were undergraduates, or in statu pupillari, under the age of 22, and only a small number of the 3,000—if that were the total number—were over that age. It would not be a great number of the students, therefore, who would have the right to vote. The Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) referred to students, and he (Mr. Stuart) presumed it meant all members of the Universities, whether students technically in statu pupillari or not—those who occupied chambers in the Colleges or Halls of the Universities were to be registered and have the right to vote. The clause dealt with students having chambers in the University, and he did not know whether
  1792
  it meant simply students having chambers in the Colleges or Halls of the University. If it was not limited in that way, but applied to all students in the University, then he must say he had never heard of any enactment or of any interpretation of the law whereby a student of the University of Cambridge living in lodgings, and not in one of the Colleges, and possessing otherwise the proper qualifications, was debarred from having a vote. How many students in the University of Cambridge lived in lodgings? Why, considerably more than half. The number, therefore, living in the Colleges was under half the total number of students, or rather over 1,200. Of that number, those over 21 would, he should think, be not more than one-third. He spoke roughly, from long acquaintance with the subject. He could not give exact statistics; but he should say that those over 21 years of age who would ever be able to qualify themselves as lodgers or occupiers would not be more than one-tenth of the whole 3,000, for of the students living in the Colleges there were only a small number who occupied their rooms under circumstances that would eventually qualify them to vote—in regard to continuity, and so forth. He held himself justified in voting for the Amendment, therefore, without any apprehension of swamping the town constituency with the University vote. He did not feel any predilection for that part of the clause which placed members of the University in statu pupillari on the register. He wished to point out another thing in connection with this matter. It was to his mind somewhat doubtful whether the clause would admit upon the register any persons who were undergraduates and who were resident in College, for the restrictions to which they were subject were such that it might be fairly argued that they were living under circumstances where their tutors or the Heads of the Colleges stood towards them in loco parentis. He should vote for the Amendment before the Committee, and should it fail to pass, he should propose on Report the modified Amendment he had referred to.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought that what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. J. Stuart) left little more to be said on this part of the

  1793
  question. The hon. Member had pleaded the cause of the resident graduates, who were at the present moment deprived of the franchise, because they happened to live within the University, with all the fervour of one who was personally interested in the question. The Committee was called upon to contemplate a state of the law which, though it did not exclude his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Stuart) from sitting in the House, excluded him from being placed on the Register for the borough of Cambridge in which he resided. That was a good illustration of the injustice of the present state of the law, and, no doubt, would intensify the desire of the Committee to see it remedied. For himself, he (Mr. Raikes), broadly speaking, wished to lay stress upon two points. This exclusion of the residents in the Colleges, which was made part of the Act of 18.32, was decided on at a time when the constituencies in towns were very much smaller than they were at present, and when it might, perhaps, have been argued—he did not know whether it was so argued, but it might well have been—that the admission of 200, 300, or 400 voters who were connected with the Universities would have unfairly biassed the elections in the towns of Oxford and Cambridge. But now that the constituencies had enormously increased, and that the standard for voting was less exacting than it had been, it appeared to him that the whole argument, as far as this point was concerned, had materially changed. He would lay stress also upon the injustice done by the present law to some members of the University as compared with others. There might, for example, be half-a-dozen Fellows, three of whom resided in the town and could vote at the elections of its Members, and three of whom were excluded from the right to vote in consequence of their residence in College. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), though a Fellow of his College, was not allowed to vote at an election for the borough. This was even a more striking example of the injustice of the law than that supplied by the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart). It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the chief residents in the Colleges were the representatives of
  1794
  property which contributed very heavily to the rates, and yet they were excluded from a franchise the basis of which was said to be a ratepaying qualification. Take the case of a Master of a College. He resided in a commodious house, which was heavily rated, but was not allowed to vote for the borough. The Dean was similarly situated, whilst the tutors, who might be married men, would be allowed to vote. How was it possible for anyone to say that such an arrangement was just and equitable? Then, as to junior members of the Universities. He thought the calculation they had heard from the hon. Member for Hackney as to the number of undergraduates who would be likely to come on to the Register was as fair a one as they could arrive at without more accurate material to go upon. But if they were to consider the number of undergraduates out of a total of 1,200, or 1,500, who might be resident in the Colleges—if they were to consider the number of those who continued to reside in the Colleges, after having turned 21 years of age, they would find that a very small addition would have to be made to the electorate from that quarter. As to Bachelors of Arts, they, he thought, had a special claim to vote. Most of those who were resident had, had distinguished academical careers, and yet they had no vote for the University, the right to vote for that constituency being attached exclusively to the degree of Master of Arts. Surely these Bachelors of Arts ought not to be excluded from voting for the borough in which their University was situated. During the three years they remained Bachelors of Arts he ventured to think they would be as capable citizens as Members would be likely to find in the country, even amongst the 2,000,000 of newly enfranchised electors they were about to put upon the Register. But he would not argue the matter of the justice of the present appeal any further, preferring to leave the matter to the general sense of justice of the House of Commons. He did not think a Registration Bill the most convenient means of dealing with this subject; but having regard to the question as raised, and to the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for

  1795
  Hackney on the other side, he sincerely trusted the Government would fall back on the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General, rather than adopt the more restrictive interpretation of the law given to them to-day by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who had done his best to defend the Bill as it stood. It did not appear to him (Mr. Baikes) that anything which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman should induce them to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum); and if that hon. Gentleman went to a division he (Mr. Raikes) should certainly support him.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he should like to say a word or two about this clause, partly because he had voted for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) the other day in favour of excluding from the franchise the students of Dublin University, and partly with a view to pointing out why this Clause 78 was put in the Act of 1832. When the first Reform Bill was passed the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the Colleges paid no local taxation whatever. Later on, the University of Cambridge was constrained to pay local rates by an adverse legal decision, and when that decision was given the University of Oxford yielded the point quietly. So far, therefore, as the position of residents in the Universities was concerned, he admitted that it had materially changed since the passing of the Reform Act of 1832; for, whereas they paid no local taxation whatever at that time, they did contribute to such taxation now. And here he might observe, with regard to the clause which had been put upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that he thought the word "students" was extremely ambiguous. He presumed the hon. and learned Member did not mean to include everyone resident in the Halls of Colleges, as that would in many cases embrace the College servants; and he could point to a case within his own knowledge, where the occupant of the porter's lodge lived out of the College, and, if he were registered as residing in the College as
  1796
  a lodger, he would be entitled to a vote as a lodger in the College, and as a householder in the town. The word "lodger," again, was an objectionable word to employ in regard to a College, because every one of the College rooms in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was a separate tenement—that was to say, each room was a separate dwelling-house; and, consequently, if every person residing in one of those rooms was entitled to be registered, he would be registered not as——
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to Order. He was now discussing a clause that had been put on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whereas the Question before the Committee was the clause that had been moved by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum).
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSbowed to the ruling of the Chair. He would say, then, with regard to the general policy of the Question before the Committee, he did not think, as a resident in Oxford, that it would be expedient to confer the franchise on the residents in the Colleges. He had no means of knowing what direction the views of those who might be so enfranchised would take, and whether the effect would be to give a preponderance to the Conservative or to the Liberal Party was a matter about which he did not care; but he thought the residents in the Universities had quite sufficient to distract their attention already without the introduction of so fruitful a theme of debate and discord as the adoption of such a proposition would necessarily bring. When, for example, the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) went down to advocate his peculiar views, or when Mr. Hyndman went to Oxford to develop the principles of Communism, the authorities of the Universities very justly and wisely forbade the young men in statu pupillari to attend the meetings they addressed. On such occasions the presence of individuals who advanced the peculiar views they were known to entertain produced a good deal of excitement, and the result was that the speakers were very apt to be mobbed. He did not think it desirable that these scenes should be encouraged, and was of opinion that the University authorities were perfectly right, and acted very

  1797
  wisely, in checking the free access of the young men who were in statu pupillari, and preventing their attendance at popular political meetings. At the same time, if the Amendment were carried and the residents in Colleges were indiscriminately admitted to the franchise in the way proposed, he did not see how the University authorities could be expected to prevent the undergraduates from attending all kinds of public meetings. If the proposal were confined to the graduates in the Universities, the number of persons who would be enfranchised at Oxford and Cambridge would be very small; but, at the same time, he protested, on behalf of the two ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, against the enfranchisement of the under-graduates and the permission that must be given to them, as a necessary consequence, to take part in all kinds of public meetings.
  MR. SHIELDsaid, that, as the Representative of a University town and the Fellow of a College, he had no objection to his own enfranchisement; but he certainly entertained a decided objection to the enfranchisement of the undergraduates generally. It was, he admitted, quite true that only a small number of undergraduates would be enfranchised, but it must be remembered that if they were to repeal the 78th section of the Act of William the Fourth, although they would only confer votes on a few undergraduates they would be converting the whole body into an electioneering element; and his own experience had been sufficient to convince him that this would be a very undesirable proceeding. One of the reasons why he entertained a strong respect for the memory of the late Lord Beaconsfield and had always felt grateful to him was that he had brought about the General Election of 1880, at the end of a term, and therefore at a time when they were not troubled with the presence of the undergraduates during the electioneering proceedings in the University towns. He was quite convinced that in the interests of the Universities it was very undesirable to bring the undergraduates into the political arena. Personally, he was not glad that the Dublin students had acquired a dual vote; but the cases of Oxford and Cambridge were very different from that of Dublin, as in the latter University the residents were but a small and unimpor-
  1798
  tant portion of the Dublin constituency, whereas in Oxford and Cambridge they would dominate the elections. On the whole, he thought that if the franchise were to be given to residents in the Oxford and Cambridge Universities, it would be much better not to confer it on the undergraduate class.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had based his objection to the Amendment on the grounds that it would introduce the principle of double qualification, and also that it was not applicable to the present Bill, inasmuch as the measure was not one which dealt with the question of the franchise. Now, as to the question of the double qualification, his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) had so effectually disposed of that point, that he (Dr. Cameron) should not attempt to slay the slain. He would, however, point out that at the present moment persons who would not be otherwise qualified to vote in the towns in which they resided were already entitled, if they lived within the walls of the Universities of Scotland or Ireland, to vote as electors for those boroughs; whereas in England this was not the case. What he desired to point out was that it was the policy of these Registration Bills to rectify such anomalies, and he had risen merely for the purpose of putting before the Committee a case in point. In the discussions that had taken place on registration matters in Scotland, it appeared that the joint occupiers of lodgings, who were entitled to be put upon the Electoral Roll in England, were not entitled to be put upon the Roll in Scotland; and this fact having been represented to the Government, the consequence was that a clause had been introduced into the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill assimilating the law on this point in the two countries. In that case, therefore, they had a precisely similar instance of dealing with the question of enfranchisement under a Registration Bill to the one now before the Committee. Moreover, a further illustration was to be found in the fact that the enfranchisement of joint lodgers in England originally took place under the Registration Bill of 1868. He thought these things showed that the objection urged by the hon. and learned Attorney General to the Amendment under discussion, on the ground that the

  1799
  present Bill was not an enfranchisement Bill, was as futile as the objection with regard to the double qualification had already been shown to be, and that hon. Members opposite had particular reason to protest against any opposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the acceptance of the Amendment on such grounds, especially when it was remembered that when the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had put upon the Paper his enfranchising clause on the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill, he was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) on what grounds he had proposed that clause, and had replied that he had introduced it for the purpose of assimilating the Scottish law with that of England; whereupon the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had asked the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) whether he would bring forward the same proposal in regard to Ireland, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had replied that he would give the matter his favourable consideration. Upon these grounds, therefore, he (Dr. Cameron) should give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum).
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had not the opportunity of taking part in the debate that had occurred the other night; and, therefore, he thought it right to say a few words on the proposition now before the Committee. He admitted that there was some force in the observation of the hon. and learned Attorney General that the enfranchisement of the residents in the Universities was a question somewhat beyond the scope of a Registration Bill; but now that the matter had been brought before the Committee it was one on which their vote must be guided by the general feeling. For his own part, he should unhesitatingly give his vote for the proposal to extend to the students resident in the Universities of the city of Oxford and the borough of Cambridge the same privilege as had been conferred on students resident in Trinity College, Dublin. The hon. Member who had recently spoken (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had pointed out the dangers which, in his opinion, would be created by allowing persons in statu pupillari to take part in elections either at Oxford or Cambridge; but the
  1800
  hon. Member ought to have remembered that this was exactly what they were able to do at the present moment. There was nothing in the Statute 2 & 3 Will. IV. which prevented a student, either in the city of Oxford or the borough of Cambridge, from voting for the election of a Member of Parliament, so long as he occupied chambers or rooms that were independent of the Colleges. The section of the Act which it was proposed to repeal provided—
  "That this Act shall not entitle any person to vote in an election of Members to serve in Parliament for the city of Oxford or the borough of Cambridge in respect of the occupation of premises in any of the Colleges or Halls."
  They were all well aware that both in the city of Oxford and the borough of Cambridge there were a great many persons in statu pupillari who resided in lodgings, and who were just as much entitled to vote at any election of Members for those boroughs as any of the ordinary residents having the occupation or lodger franchise. It was, therefore, a mere bugbear to introduce the argument with regard to these students being in statu pupillari, because there were numbers who as lodgers in the University towns were already able to exercise the franchise. Besides, the Committee must remember that in the case of Trinity College, Dublin, the privilege that was now proposed to be extended to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had been actually tried for a long time, and the evils that had been urged against it had not been shown to exist. It had been said that the number of residents in the Dublin University possessing the franchise was very small; but he understood, in regard to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, that, of the total number, some hundreds were in lodgings outside the Colleges, the remainder being in residence inside. Consequently, it seemed to him that all the objections urged against allowing the students to vote fell to the ground; and he should certainly give his support to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart), should this clause be rejected, if the hon. Gentleman carried into effect his promise to bring the matter before the House in another shape on the Report. On these grounds, and believing it to be desirable that the Universities in England and Ireland should be placed upon the same footing, and seeing also

  1801
  that Her Majesty's Government had changed their front in regard to the matter since it was last before the House, he should unhesitatingly give his support to the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to say only a word or two on this subject. He desired to remove any apprehension that might exist in the minds of the Committee with regard to an undue extension of the franchise to the undergraduates of the University of Oxford, by pointing out that in the case of that University the custom was for the students to reside in the College rooms during the earlier part of their time, and to go out into lodgings in the town afterwards. Very few, therefore, would be above 21 years of age at the time when, in respect of the occupation of College rooms, they could acquire a vote; and those who were living in lodgings during the last year of their University residence might, under the present law, enjoy the franchise for the borough, so that the adoption of the clause would make little or no difference with regard to the Oxford undergraduates. He could say, however, that it would be very unwelcome to the University authorities if the right to exercise the franchise were to be extended to students who were in statu pupillari, or, at any rate, to such of them as had not taken even the degree of B.A. [Mr. HEALY: How about Dublin?] He was only now referring to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; but he thought that exactly the same rules ought to be applied to Dublin; and he was of opinion that if the clause were passed, and the franchise were thereby extended to those who were in statu pupillari, that House would have strong representations from the University authorities against introducing undergraduates into the political contests of the borough, representations to which the House would do well to listen. He should be ready to give his support to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) if, in case of this clause not receiving the assent of the Committee, he were to bring up on the Report a clause limiting the operation of the proposal in the manner he had stated—that was to say, allowing graduates, but not undergraduates, to vote in respect of College rooms.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his hon. Friend who
  1802
  had just spoken, and several other hon. Members, had expressed their desire to minimize the effect of the clause now under discussion. It would seem that they regarded the clause as an evil, or they would hardly desire to minimize its operation. There was one point he desired to put before the Committee in connection with this subject, and that was that it was now proposed to give the students of the Universities generally votes for the election of Members of Parliament, while it was not proposed to give them municipal votes. They were prevented by statute from voting at municipal elections, and yet it was proposed that they should have the Parliamentary vote conferred upon them, and this, too, under circumstances that were not relevant to the scope of the Bill by which it was to be done, and which, it had been argued, would be detrimental to the interests of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The matter was, however, fully before the Committee; and although Her Majesty's Government regarded it as one of very great importance, they proposed, at the same time, to leave it as one upon which the Committee could exercise its own judgment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time accordingly, and added to the Bill.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he had now to move the insertion of a clause providing that medical or surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine, should not be deemed to constitute parochial relief within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts. In doing so, he hoped he should not be told that this proposal was outside the scope of a Registration Bill, especially when he referred to the fact that what was asked by the clause had already been acceded to in the case of Ireland. He might, however, be told that the two cases were widely different, and he was prepared to admit that medical relief in Ireland stood on a somewhat different footing from that which it occupied in this country. He was well aware that it had been a question open to a certain amount of doubt, whether medical relief, under the Acts relating to this subject in Ireland, did, in reality, constitute parochial or Poor Law relief within the moaning of the law; and that in Ireland

  1803
  the people did not look to the provision of necessities of that kind, in the shape of public medical relief, as constituting a disqualification for the exercise of the voting franchise. He was quite free to admit the general principle that the acceptance of Poor Law relief, by which the individual accepting it lived at the expense of the public, ought to be a disqualification for the exercise of the franchise, and he did not deny that medical relief was, both in law and in fact, Poor Law relief. But there were several considerations which had led him to think that, in the case of the administration of medical relief, the Committee would be justified in making the exception for which he asked, considerations which he ventured to urge before the Committee as involving reasons why the argument as to medical relief, which no longer applied to the Poor Law in Ireland, should, therefore, in this country continue to be employed for the purpose of maintaining the existing disqualification for the exercise of the franchise. The first of these considerations was a practical one, and, in putting it before the Committee, he asked them to bear in mind that this question related almost exclusively to the country districts, in which a very large number of people would be enfranchised. The practical consideration which influenced his mind in reference to this matter was, that in many instances the labouring people could not conveniently obtain the services of any other doctor than the parish doctor; while, in some instances, owing to the distances which separated them from the residences of other medical practitioners, it was actually impossible for them to obtain the assistance of any but the parish doctor. Of course, it might be said that those who were thus compelled to avail themselves of the services of the parish doctor might pay him for the medicine and attendance they obtained; but he thought the Committee would agree with him in saying that it would be asking too much of human nature to expect that when, as in these cases, a man availed himself of the services of the parish doctor, he would volunteer to pay him for those services. The second consideration which had influenced his mind in bringing forward this proposal was the circumstance that in fact and in truth medical relief of a parochial character was not regarded in
  1804
  the same light as other kinds of Poor Law relief. As a matter of fact, it did not destroy, and he might say it did not even impair, the independence of the person to whom it was administered; for if he were a man living and supporting his family by his own labour, he did not regard the acceptance of medical relief as in any way interfering with his own independence. It was, he felt confident, a general rule that medical relief was not regarded by anybody living in the country districts as coming within the same category as other forms of Poor Law relief. But there was a further consideration which he desired to put forward, and it was this—that a vast number of persons would be disqualified from the exercise of the electoral franchise which Parliament was about to confer upon them if the existing disqualification were maintained. He was certain that a large proportion of those who were about to be admitted to the franchise were totally unaware of the fact that the acceptance of medical relief was an electoral disqualification. There were many in the rural districts who might obtain a bottle of medicine, or whose wives might be attended in their confinements by the parish doctor, or who might call him in to mend the broken arm of a child, or to perform some service of a like character, who would do so without being in the slightest degree aware that in thus receiving the services of the parish doctor they were doing what would have the effect of disqualifying them from the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise. He did not speak without having had some experience in reference to this question; for the borough he had the honour to represent (Christchurch) contained a large agricultural district, in which what he had just stated had been the effect of the existing law within his own knowledge, so that many men who would otherwise have been entitled to the franchise had, without being at all aware of the legal consequences following the receipt of medical parochial relief, been disqualified from giving their votes. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would see their way to the acceptance of his Amendment, and he would only add that he trusted his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would not tell him it was not a proper Amendment to bring forward on a Registration Bill; because,

  1805
  unless he was very much mistaken, it had been copied, mutatis mutandis, from the Amendment that had been introduced that Session into the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill. He begged, therefore, to move the clause which stood in his name.
  New Clause:—
  (Medical or surgical attendance not to constitute parochial relief.)
  "Medical or surgical assistance, or the giving of medicine, shall not be deemed to constitute parochial relief within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts,"—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he wished to express his view, in the strongest possible manner, against this clause being read a second time. He objected to it on this ground—in the first place, this was not a Bill on which to introduce a matter of this kind; and, secondly, it was a most objectionable clause. The clause raised questions of franchise, and was therefore altogether irrelevant to this measure, which was a Registration Bill. It was no argument to say that if they could introduce this clause it should be introduced. The tendency of such a clause would be to induce persons to pauperize themselves, to give up independence, and to seek that relief from the rates which they ought to obtain from friendly societies, or out of their own pockets. He did ask the Committee not to proceed with this clause. If they did, they would have a number of other matters of a like character introduced, and they would have a state of things happen which had been predicted by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). This Bill was not strong enough to bear the introduction of all these foreign matters. He hoped the Committee would allow them to proceed with the work of registration.
  MR. E. STANHOPEhoped the Committee would follow the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. This matter had been fully discussed when the Representation of the People Bill was under discussion, and, after due consideration, it was decided not to interfere with the disqualification which existed. It was a
  1806
  franchise question, and, having been dealt with in the Franchise Bill, they were now asked to re-open the matter on a Bill which was not a Franchise Bill, but one purely of registration. He hoped the Committee would not assent to this, and that they might be allowed to proceed with the work before them.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was sorry he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). He thought the clause was quite relevant to the Bill before them; for it dealt not with the conferring of the franchise on anyone, but to certain conditions which should not lead to a man being struck off by the Revising Barrister. He had observed some very hard cases, in which the wife and children of a man had obtained medical relief, unknown to him, and he had been struck off the Register. If a child got hurt in the hay field, for instance, and the mother took it to the parish infirmary for medical relief, the father would be liable to be struck off. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Davey) would press the clause to a division.
  MR. CAUSTONhoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see that there was some force in the proposition which had been made to the Committee that day, and if he could not consent to insert the clause which was now before them, that he would consent to a provision that the Relieving Officer should warn applicants of the consequences of accepting medical relief. He thought that some provision should be inserted in the Bill which would prevent a man being pauperized by the fact that he accepted medical relief, under stress of circumstances, for some member of his family.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that many people did not regard medical relief as a matter of charity; and, for his part, he failed to see why medical relief should not be accepted as a matter of course. He did not see anything more disgraceful, or of a more pauperizing character, in a man accepting medical relief for a sick child, than in accepting a grant for the education of his children who were perfectly healthy. He could not see why a man should be made a pauper because his child took a dose of Epsom salts at the expense of the parish, when his neighbour, who

  1807
  had raised a large family, cost the parish £10 a-year for the education of them. The retention of the disqualification in regard to medical relief he regarded as the height of Parliamentary hypocrisy.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was exceedingly glad this question had been raised. In rural districts pauperization for the acceptance of medical relief would have the effect of disfranchising a very large number of honest people. Parliament had wisely provided that the receipt of free education for one's children should not be an act of pauperism, and the receipt of medical assistance should be similarly treated. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) had suggested that the applicants for medical relief should be told what would be the result of their accepting it; but, in his opinion, that would be adding to the cruelty of the disqualification, because it would put a woman in search of medical relief face to face with the alternative of refusing medicine for her sick child, or sacrificing her husband's vote. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take a broad view of this matter—he would say a common-sense view of the matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) had said that the question was not germane to the measure before the House; but hon. Members opposite did not hold that opinion last night, when they pressed a question which was in no way germane to the question before the House to an issue. He considered that the clause was germane to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had pointed out, it was not a matter of conferring the franchise, but of deciding what people should not be disfranchised. He hoped that the poor people of the rural districts would not be deprived of their votes. In the small towns the people had their hospitals to go to; but this was not so in rural districts. It would be a farce to give those poor people the franchise on the one hand, and to disfranchise them in consequence of their poverty on the other.
  MR. PELLsaid, he could add nothing to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to this not being the place to move such a clause; but he opposed it on behalf of the Friendly Societies of
  1808
  England. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Davey) had a real acquaintance with the true interests of the humble orders of the people he would not have moved that clause. It was to be feared that its adoption would have the effect of discouraging the establishment or extension of sound Friendly Societies. In some districts the acceptance of parochial relief was very prevalent among persons who were able to pay for such assistance if they joined a Friendly Society; and representations had been made, over and over again, by managers of certain of the largest institutions of that description to Boards of Guardians, asking them to cease to exercise, by means of that form of parochial relief, a demoralizing influence among the people, so as to give those Societies a chance of rendering the people independent. There were, of course, certain Friendly Societies of the most vicious description, which would not allow a man any funds at all until he had made a most desperate effort to obtain from the Guardians medical relief; and although, happily, they were few in number, they would be encouraged by the passing of a clause such as this. He lived in a rural district—a very poor district. Ten or 15 years ago every eleventh person was a pauper; but now only one in 61 were paupers. The cases of medical relief in former times were innumerable; but, owing to the action of the Guardians, during the last three years there had only been two cases of medical relief. He assured the hon. and learned Member that if he had more acquaintance with the poor people he would never have moved such a clause as this.
  MR. PICTONsaid, they were all agreed that pauperism should disqualify from voting; but he contended that the receipt of medical relief did not make a pauper of a man. The receipt of elementary education did not do so. He held that actual pauperism only existed when a man, so to speak, surrendered in the battle of life, and made himself a burden, temporarily or permanently, to his neighbours. Whatever tended to that state pauperized, and, he quite agreed, should disenable a man from exercising the franchise; but he submitted that any other form of relief

  1809
  which enabled a man to tide over an emergency and preserve his self-reliance and self-respect ought not to be allowed to remove a man from the list of voters. There were a great many people who obtained charity from Benevolent Societies, and they were not disfranchised; but the poor people who were obliged once in a way to have recourse to parochial medical relief, who had no friends, and who might happen to be entirely outside the circle in which private benevolence administered such aid to others of their class, were to be struck off the list of voters. He did not think that this was a proper state of things, and especially when they considered how very hard the struggle of life was for millions of people. The man who was only receiving from 10s. to 15s. a-week, and broke his arm, or had his family down with measles, was absolutely unable to provide medical relief; and yet, perhaps, he was making a most heroic struggle to keep himself off the rates generally. He hoped the Committee would listen to the arguments which had been used in support of this Amendment.
  MR. J. R. HOLLONDsaid, that the difference between free education and medical relief was that, as a matter of fact, the former did not tend to pauperize, while the latter, as everybody who was well acquainted with the administration of the Poor Law system knew, was often the first step towards pauperism. If they once commenced to make subtle distinctions between medical relief and other forms of parochial relief, they would be led into all sorts of difficulties; and they would run great risk of breaking down the great principle under which the receipt of relief from the rates was held to be a disqualification for the exercise of the franchise. For his part, he thought it was extremely important that that principle should be maintained; and though there might be hard cases under the rule, yet if they once began to legislate on hard cases they would find they had the proverbial bad law.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it was inexpedient for them to enter into the discussion of the question on the present Bill. When he served on the Select Committee, he understood the measure was merely one to provide for
  1810
  the registration of those persons who were already enfranchised, and he thought they ought to confine it to that object.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, that, having had a pretty intimate acquaintance with the circumstances of the labouring classes and their difficulties and trials, he could state that the principal causes of sickness amongst them were hard work, exposure to weather, and damp, unhealthy dwellings. It was the most industrious who suffered most from the two first causes, and those whose fault it was that their labourers were ill-housed were responsible for the last. It would be a monstrous injustice to disfranchise labourers who had been compelled to accept medical relief owing to either of these causes. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr Horace Davey) went to a division he should vote with him.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, there was nothing fell more hardly on the poor man than illness, which was a calamity and not a fault, and the medical bill; and in many cases, no matter how hard he worked, it became necessary that he should obtain medical relief. He hoped the Government would not take the vote away from the poor man because he happened to be afflicted. To do so would be one of the greatest injustices which could be imposed. In the interests of the poor man he trusted the Committee would accept the clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 170: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it had been intended to proceed with the Army Estimates to-morrow; but it was so important to get on with the Registration of Voters (England) Bill, that if they could conveniently arrange for breaking off the Army Estimates at a reasonable hour—say not later than 11 o'clock—they should be very glad to get the residue of the evening for that Bill, as time was very important.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, this proposition would require a little further consideration on the part of the Opposition. They thought it would be necessary that the question discussed last night, on registration expenses, should be pursued at a further stage of the Bill. If the Committee were finished to-morrow, he presumed the Report could be taken on Friday.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that that would have to be considered to-morrow; he could not say anything now.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESgave Notice that, in consequence of the very strong expression of opinion manifested last night with reference to the question mentioned by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) he should move that the Bill be re-committed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Supposing the Bill before the House today gets through Committee to-morrow, will the Report of it on Friday be the first Order?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was of great consequence that the Bill should be got through as early as possible. However, he could not give a definite answer in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; but he was disposed to think that that course would be adopted.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he should like some information as to when the next stage of the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill would be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill has just left the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask whether the Report of the Bill will be taken on Friday first?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer that Question to-morrow.
  MR. PARNELL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say upon what stage of the Bill the Government propose to move its re-committal in respect to the new clause about registration expenses?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: At the conclusion of the Report.
  MR. PARNELL: Can it not be put down in the beginning of the Motion for Report?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Either at the end of the Report, or on the third reading.
  MR. GIBSON: As it is quite obvious, from the narrow division of last night, that this is a matter upon which there is likely to be very considerable discussion, and also as many hon. Members would be anxious to take part in the discussion, I should therefore like to know what arrangements will be proposed? It would be very inconvenient to many of them if the matter was postponed from the beginning, which is a period which will be known to the final stage of the Bill, which is a period which cannot easily be fixed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seriously urge that, in the present period of extreme pressure upon the Government, we should have four debates and four divisions upon the same subject?
  MR. GIBSON: I only ask for some definite information on the subject, which is one of importance.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have already had two debates and two divisions, and now we are threatened with another, by the Motion of which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) has just given Notice.
  MR. GIBSON: Very possibly.
  MR. PARNELL: As I suppose, from the very narrow division which was taken last night, it is evident that this question will be raised again, I presume it will be equally competent for me to raise the same question in regard to the Irish Bill, in reference to which matter I may say we defeated the Government, in the same way as the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) proposes to raise it on the English Bill. I suppose that it will be arranged for a single discussion to be taken, either on the Irish or the English Bill, and so settle the question. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Hear, hear!] But it would be desirable for the Irish Members to know whether the Irish Bill or the English Bill is to be taken first? It will be also desirable to know what will be the order of procedure in regard to the Motion for the recommittal of the Bill; because it will be on the Question "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," after the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, that I am advised that the Irish question will have to be raised?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is manifest that Notices of Motion of great import-

  1813
  ance having been given in to-day, I have no option but to say that I have to consider them, and will give an answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as to the procedure on these Bills when the House meets to-morrow.

MOTION.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HARDCASTLE, Bill to consolidate the Law relating to the Representation of the People of England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDCASTLE and Sir ALEXANDER GORDON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 160.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.