PLURAL VOTING BILL.

HC Deb 26 October 1906 vol 163 cc521-84

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

SIR E. CARSON(Dublin University) moved to insert after the word "knowingly" in the first sub-section, the words, "and with the intention of voting in more than one constituency," his object being to try and induce the Government to state more definitely in the Bill the particular nature of the crime for which a man would be prosecuted if he contravened the terms of the Act of Parliament. Anybody acquainted with the difficulties of the law would admit that they ought as far as was possible to define in exact terms what was the exact crime that they meant to punish. The whole object of the Bill was to prevent plural voting, and he suggested that if it was made a crime to exercise the right to vote more than once, that was as far as it was necessary to go to carry out the intention of the Government. They ought to go no further, and unless there was an actually guilty mind in the person proceeded against, they ought not to hold him responsible and a criminal. If the word "knowingly" had covered the whole case he would not have moved his Amendment, but it did not. Supposing a man, having two qualifications, knew he had not signed and served a notice, but was not acquainted with the fact it was necessary to serve a notice. Was it intended to inflict upon the man the punishments set up by this Bill for exercising or oven attempting to exercise the franchise, even though he had no intention of exercising a double franchise? As regarded the question of fact as to whether he had two qualifications or whether he had to servo his notice, the word "knowingly" would cover the matter; but as regarded the other question, that the man was unacquainted with the fact that the notice was necessary, that would not be covered by the word "knowingly." Therefore it would be necessary to sot up some words to define the offence, unless it was desired to punish a man and make him a felon because he had exercised his vote in that way. By his Amendment he proposed that they should define the offence by inserting "with the intention of voting in more than one constituency." He admitted that if they set up this law they must enforce it. It must be carried out, and they must have the means in their hands of enforcing it. But he submitted they would have covered the real offence which had been committed if they made it essential to prove that a man did commit the act complained of with the intention of voting in more than one constituency. That would always relieve any man who honestly made a mistake. Although he could not see any reason why these words should not be inserted, he was not wedded to them. Any words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was quite as capable as any other lawyer in the House to set up such a form of words as would effect this purpose, I would have his support. He had a very great objection in legislation to the words "knowingly," "wilfully," and "corruptly." It was far better that they should lay down in terms what it was they meant, than that they should adhere to these words because they were words which had been used in previous Acts. They gave very great trouble to the judges, who had to define what they really meant. He hoped the Government would consider this matter It was a matter which should be considered when they were setting up a new and indictable crime. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 11, after the word 'knowingly,' to insert the words 'and with the intention of voting in more than one constituency.'"—(Sir E. Carson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendale

said the Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member in so moderate a speech wont much further than the very moderate statements he had just made in regard to it, because the words which he proposed to insert did in fact destroy the principle of selection which had already been approved by the House. The words proposed by the right hon. Member were, "with the intention of voting in more than one constituency." The words prescribed by the Bill were that he should vote in his selected constituency. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words he might vote in a. constituency which was not his selected constituency, and that, he was sure, was not the intention of the right hon. and learned Member.

SIR E. CARSON

said that was his intention, because his point was that the only thing which should be criminal was that the man had tried to vote in two constituencies, and that he ought not to be prosecuted because he did not vote in the selected constituency.

MR. HARCOURT

thought it was not necessary to proceed further with this argument, because he always intended at another stage to give some further protection to the bond fide voters. But as the right hon. and learned Member had asked him to suggest some words, he would suggest, "and with the intention of evading t he provisions of this Act." He believed that would meet the case, and give all the protection necessary to a man who was acting bonâ fide. He hoped that that would be satisfactory to the right hon. and learned Member.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said he desired to associate himself with the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. He certainly hoped that the Government would see their way to listen to proposals which came from the Opposition. It was obvious from what had taken place in the previous day's debate that the opinion of the Committee was in favour of the abolition of plural voting; therefore, he did not propose to say a word upon that point. He did feel, however, that it was incumbent upon them now that they were unable to promote the principles they advocated with regard to the Bill to do what they could to carry it out in the manner in which it was proposed. Ho would urge upon hon. Members opposite to do their utmost to simplify the Bill. Its provisions would most cer- tainly have to be interpreted by the vast majority of laymen, and he thought that the terms of the measure as they stood at present would require a legal mind to arrive at an understanding of them. To his mind the Amendment moved on the previous day to insert the word "corruptly" was more suitable to meet the difficulty, but the majority of the Committee was against it. He thought, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give them on that occasion a clear explanation, and although he (the noble Lord) was quite ready to treat with the utmost respect any remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, yet with regard to the number of voters the Bill would affect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved to them his entire ignorance of the subject. He (Lord Castlereagh) felt it was not for them to attach very much importance to the right hon. Gentleman's words upon the Bill before them. The manner in which the Bill was interpreted at the present time would certainly give rise to ambiguity in the future. Instead of effecting the abolition of plural voting it would simply give employment to members of the legal profession. In matters of law he naturally bowed with all respect to the hon. Members of the legal profession sitting opposite him, but he himself had had a certain amount of experience on the subject under discussion, perhaps more than most Members of the House. There was a great deal of ambiguity in regard to the election law at the present time, but, if this Bill were passed, the ambiguity would enormously increase. The Amendment, however, certainly met the case before them. He thought overseers should only place on their list the names of electors, with their residential qualification. It would simplify matters, because if persons with more than one qualification sent in their claim in the usual way, it could be treated as their selection. He hoped the Government would see their way to amplify the word "knowingly." The word could only lead to ambiguity, which ho felt sure it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to avoid.

SIR FREDERICK BAXBURY (City of London)

said the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not meet the case of his right hon. and learned friend, because it still made voting in two constituencies a criminal offence, but it did go a great way towards meeting the wishes of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment of his right hon. and learned friend perhaps the words proposed to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman were the best that could be set up.

SIR E. CARSON

said that although the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move did not go the whole of the way which he himself would have gone, he thought it would be a great improvement in the Bill. While he would have preferred it to be clearly laid down that there was no crime unless there was an intention to vote twice, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment and accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— After the word 'knowingly' to insert the words 'with the intention of evading the provisions of this Act.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted

*MR. BRIDGE MAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said he did not quite follow the defence of the proposal that was made by the right hon. Gentleman, The intention of the Act was to prevent a man voting in more than one constituency. If that was the real intention it would have been better if the Government had cleared themselves of the suspicion which must now attach to them of placing greater disabilities on those who had more than one qualification, than on those who had only one qualification. He also thought that if this Amendment was carried there would be great difficulty on the part of a poor man defending himself from a charge brought against him. He reminded the Committee that earlier in the year an hon. Member, under a misapprehension, voted twice— once in the "No" lobby, because he thought it was a closure division, and I afterwards in the "Aye" lobby, when he discovered that it was an Education Bill division—and asked the clerk \ to strike his name off the "No": list. His subsequent explanation showed that he certainly acted in this way knowingly, but it would have been very hard to prove that he did not act knowingly and with the intention of evading the provisions made. If that could occur in that House, surely in an ordinary polling booth there must be numbers of people who might make an analogous mistake and try to vote, for example, in the place most convenient. To subject the ordinary voter to penalties which they would not dream of imposing on a Member c this House was very hard.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was discussing another part of the clause. The question now before the Committee was whether these modifying words should be added to the clause.

*MR. BRIDGEMAN

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked them to withdraw their opposition on the ground that h was going to make some alteration in the Bill in line 15, which dealt with the penalty, and it was almost impossible to discuss the Amendment without referring I to that part of the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LANE-FOX(Yorkshire, W.E. Barkston Ash) moved to omit the wore "personation," for the purpose of inserting "an offence." The point involved was that this was not an offence of personation. This was a new offence created by the new and complicated procedure of this Bill, and, therefore, it was a good opportunity for the Committee to decide whether they should apply the word "personation" to an offence which was distinctly not personation, and to decide what that offence was to be called.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 12, to leave out the word 'personation' and insert the words 'an offence.' "—(Mr. Lane-Fox.) Question proposed, "That the word 'personation' stand part of the clause.

MR. HARCOURT

thought the hon. Member was probably not present on the previous evening when he had explained this point. Ho had taken the exact analogy of previous Acts in dealing with the matter. It was already an offence of impersonation for a voter to vote in two different divisions of a divided borough; the law had specially stated that, and he was really only assimilating this Bill to the existing law as it stood.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)

said the tenderness of the right hon. Gentleman for j precedent when it suited his purpose was only equalled by his utter disregard of it when it did not suit him. He himself moved an Amendment yesterday in which he took words from the very statute on which the right hon. Gentleman now relied, but he declined to be governed by the precedent. In the case of a voter having more than one qualification in a municipal borough, the case upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied, it was the duty of the Returning Officer to give that man the right to vote on one of those qualifications without the man taking any steps in the matter. In this case the Government deliberately refused to do that and imposed on the voter who was qualified many times over an obligation which would not have been imposed on him had he merely had a single qualification. Personation to any man not conversant with the statute indicated a very clear and definite offence—namely, for a man to pretend for the purposes of fraud to be somebody he was not. In this case the man was not pretending to be any one he was not, or committing a fraud. Ho was merely trying to assert a right which every man on the register ought to be in a position to assert, and it was monstrous to dub him with the guilt of personation—one of the most serious offences against our electoral system, punishable by one of the severest sentences known to the law. In this matter they now had an opportunity of setting a better precedent than the law already set. There could not be any objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. The Committee must remember that the word "personating" was used in a much more narrow sense in the present Acts than in this Bill. The Bill, though it was neither a franchise nor a disfranchise Bill, did disfranchise a great number of people who usually voted against hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was openly supported by them on that ground. It was a Bill on the face of it to amend the criminal law. It created a now offence and punished that offence with one of the most savage penalties the law had power to inflict. That was not a very creditable work for the new Parliament to be engaged in. Whatever might be said for the principle of the Bill, there could he no justification for describing this offence as personation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

said he would not be tempted to pursue the right hon. Gentleman into invective. The question before them was whether the word "personation" should stand part of the clause. As far as the term "personation" was concerned, there was an exact precedent in the Ballot Act, where an offence almost indistinguishable from this was described as "personation." The right hon. Gentleman said it was a monstrous thing to bring into such a category the conduct of a man violating this section. But what would such a man have done? In the first place, he must be a man who had deliberately selected a particular constituency in which to vote. [Cries of "No."] No man would be guilty of an offence under this section unless he voted in a constituency other than that which he had selected. [Cries of "Yes."]

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Supposing he has made no selection?

MR. ASQUITH

The voter must know that it was his duty to select between his qualifications; and he could not be convicted unless it was proved that he knew the facts, and that lie acted with the deliberate intention of violating the provisions of the Act. Was such a person entitled to sympathy? Had ho not committed a grave offence against the law, the necessary ingredients of which offence were knowledge and a wilful intention to violate the law? If so, why should they not follow precedent, and say that he was guilty of personation?

SIR E. CARSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the crime of personation under this Bill was met in the same way as under the Ballot Act. The circumstances of the crime of personation under the Ballot Act were entirely different, for that Act was concerned with the man who attempted to vote a second time. The offender must apply for a ballot paper in the name of some other person, or in his own name after having already voted once. That was nothing like the case contemplated in this clause, where the person who applied for the ballot paper had not voted at all, but happened to be on the register in two places.

MR. ASQUITH

With the intention of evading the provisions of the Act.

SIR E. CARSON

But not with the intention of voting twice. To represent such a voter as guilty of personation was a misnomer. But there were other considerations. Were all the powers given to the presiding officer for dealing with fraudulent and corrupt personation to be given in this case? Was the presiding officer to have the power to order a man, who had two qualifications, but who had only tried to exercise one, to be immediately taken into custody? How could the proviso about "knowingly and with the intention of evading the provisions of the Act" be applied? How could the presiding officer decide the intention of the man when he asked for a ballot paper? The Government would carry out their object much bettor if they mitigated this penalty. Did they suppose that they would get juries to convict when the penalty for asking for a ballot paper was imprisonment with hard labour for two years, and seven years deprivation of civil rights? Juries would revolt against such savage sentences. [An IRISH MEMBER: Not if you pack the juries.] This was a question not of packing juries, but of packing the register. It was not necessary in this case to inflict a penalty attaching to an entirely different matter. Why could they not say, "This is an offence, and let us consider what is a proper punishment for it?" Did anybody really think it was essential or necessary to punish a man for this offence with two years' hard labour and deprive him of civil rights? What was the difficulty of simply saying that this was an offence and of providing a commensurate penalty? An offence of this character ought not to be classed with one of which the essence was criminality and dishonesty, lie thought the Committee would be well advised if instead of enacting this savage sentence in regard to a comparatively harmless crime they took care to set up a punishment commensurate with the offence.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said that there was one aspect of this case which the Government had not yet considered. He could not help fooling that the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced had completely changed. They all knew that the Bill was introduced with the view of depriving a certain class of voters of more than one vote.

MR. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)

said that as the noble Lord had referred several times to this matter he wished to state that ho had made a speech which might be misconstrued into the interpretation which the noble Lord gave. But he had at the time told the noble Lord what it was he really meant to say. Whether ho said it or not [Laughter and cries of "What was it?"] he could not say exactly, as he had not yet been able to obtain the official report of his speech. He had been in the House many years, and he had always found that when an hon. Member corrected a misconception as to what he had said his explanation was at once accepted. But the noble Lord, instead of accepting his explanation, had gone to the Gallery for a shorthand report of the words used, and then, taking a sentence from the context, quoted it against the explanation that had been offered. He had never meant to say that the Bill was intended to be of any particular advantage to the Liberal Party, and the action of the noble Lord was not in accordance with the usual courtesies of the House.

LORD R. CECIL

assured the hon. Gentleman that he meant no discourtesy towards him; and, of course, he accepted his correction. Perhaps he might say, however, that the correction which the hon. Member made on the previous occasion did not appear to him substantially to alter the meaning put upon his first statement. Now that the hon. Gentleman said that he meant to alter it altogether, he accepted the statement, and would not refer to it again, except to express his profound regret that the hon. Member should have disavowed what appeared to him to be the only clear explanation of the intention of the Government. In his judgment the object of the Government in introducing this Bill was to safeguard the position of the Liberal Party at elections by depriving their opponents of a certain number of votes, and it was clear, that being their object, their Bill would affect mainly the richer and the more educated classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had argued that it was perfectly fair to impose these extreme penalties, because the men concerned were those who must know what they were doing. The situation had been altogether changed by the speech yesterday of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who had shown to demonstration that this Bill would not only affect that class of voters, but would affect a very large number of the poorer class of voters, who were not able to follow the niceties of the election law. A good many would not send notices under this Bill at all, and in the result they would be disfranchised altogether. It was an absurdity to suppose that they would send notices, because anyone who had even a moderate acquaintance with registration work knew it was most difficult to induce a large number of voters to take the proper steps to see that they were properly registered. It was an undoubted fact that this Bill would disfranchise a very large number of the artisan and labouring class voters. Let the Committee consider how the matter would actually work. They knew that these elections were conducted with the greatest vigour and energy by the agents on both sides, and the moment they knew there was a large body of voters on one side or the other who were likely to vote in an irregular manner, they would take care on the eve of the poll to notify all those persons that they were not entitled to vote, and that if they did so they would be guilty of personation. However just it might be to stigmatise with the crime of personation a man who was able to keep himself abreast of all legislation, it was the height of absurdity to stigmatise men like agricultural labourers with that crime because they had failed to send in a notice at the proper time, in accordance with the complicated provisions of this Bill.

*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)

said the closing sentences of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin seemed to destroy the arguments ho had used in its earlier: passages. If he followed the right hon. Gentleman's contention rightly, i he acknowledged that they had to deal with an offence, and to allot to that offence an approximate penalty. In his earlier remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to show that there was some difference between the offence of personation, which involved giving a wrong vote, and the offence of seeking to claim a vote to which the elector knew he was not entitled. He acknowledged there was some distinction between the two cases, but the question was whether the offence could not with justice and advantage be placed in the same category and dealt with on the same footing. He was sure his right hon. and learned friend would recognise that there could be few more serious offences than deliberate and intentional breach of the law. No offence under this section could be committed except by a person who was intelligent enough to know the law, and to know its application in his own case; and, in the second place, it could only apply where there was a deliberate intention to break the law. There were few more serious offences, and few it was more to the interest of society to suppress, than intentional defiance of the law by a person who knew he was defying it. The offence under consideration was a serious one, and if so, there ought at all events to be a maximum penalty which would enable; a court in a proper ease to ensure respect for the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The law ought to have a weapon which was powerful enough in flagrant cases to ensure respect. That was an argument in favour of a maximum penalty. No doubt, in most cases those who had to award punishment would pass light punishment; but supposing there was a concerted attempt to upset this Act of Parliament. Supposing there was a batch of electors who treated the provisions of this Act wit h scorn, or, in the spirit of passive resistance sought to set the Act at defiance, was there to be no power behind the law to make its provisions respected?. Such a state of things was not altogether beyond the realm of imagination, and therefore the maximum penalty should not be out of the power of the tribunal. His right hon. and learned friend was surely wandering into the realms of technicality when he objected to this offence being grouped with analogous offences. Of course this was not a case of personation, but it was a conscious breach of duty in the exercise of the vote.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said there were evidently two questions before the Committee, one being a question of language and the other a question of substance. As to the question of language, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had said that this offence was not personation, but nevertheless he had asked why they should not group it with personation if they admitted that the penalties for personation were proper in this case. Then why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman make the Bill fit in with that view? The Bill did not say that the offence created by it should be in the group of offences described as personation. He thought that would make the Act of Parliament even more foolish than it would otherwise be. What was here proposed was not following the analogy of the Ballot Act which had been constantly referred to. The Ballot Act said that "a person shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who at an election" did this, that, and the other. He did not know that the language there was very felicitous, but there the statute said a person "shall be deemed to be guilty," and he thought these words should be introduced in line 12 of this Bill. It was really making our whole system of drafting absurd if they wrested words away from their plain, obvious, and undoubted interpretation. The resources of the English language were not wholly inadequate to making the definition clear, and yet carrying out the intentions of the framers of the Bill. On the question of drafting, he ventured to suggest that if the Government insisted on carrying out the extreme penalties which they desired! should be visited on the head of an offender against the Act they should introduce the words "deemed to be" after the word "shall" in line 12. That was a drafting Amendment which was worthy of the attention of the Government. On the question of substance the argument of the Attorney-General was that if a person knowingly broke the law the penalty could not be too severe for him. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear hear."] So ran the argument of the Attorney-General, and apparently it was approved by hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him. Was that in accordance with the practice of Parliament in framing the criminal law? Was it in accordance with common sense or common justice? It was an offence against the law, ho believed, to drive a perambulator on the footpath. If a nursery maid was warned by the police that she was breaking the law by driving a perambulator on the footpath and a mile further on repeated the offence was there any penalty too severe for breaking the law?

*SIR JOHN WALTON

I did not say that no penalty was too severe. I said that there ought to be sufficiently severe punishment to ensure respect for the law.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that that dictum showed that in the imposing of penalties regard should be had to the quality of the breaches of the law. There were two offences possible under this Bill. A man having two qualifications might vote in two places, and a man having two qualifications but not having selected one might attempt to vote in one and one only. Was it not ludicrous to say that these two offences were the same in quality, or to mention them in the same breath, or to visit them with the same penalty? Was not that a preposterous proposition? The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act distinguished the gravity of the offences. There were many gradations of offences under that Act, and all that was now asked was that there should be a gradation of the offences under this Bill, The learned Attorney-General's reply to that argument was that the court had ample power to recognise variations in the offences, and that where the offence was only a slight one the penalty would be slight. The Attorney-General was mistaken. If they said that the mere asking for a ballot paper without giving or intending to give two votes was to be treated as if it were personation, the court might no doubt inflict a low penalty in the shape of imprisonment, but the court had no choice but to deprive the offender for seven years of all his civil rights. His right hon. friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had pointed out that the maximum penalty for high treason was the deprivation of the right of citizenship for five years. Here the judge would be obliged, whatever the offence, to deprive a man of all his civil rights for seven years. The offender would be in a worse position than a South African traitor. Was that the manner in which the House thought they ought to treat the law of this country? Was that the way they thought they would gain respect for the electoral laws they chose to establish t Was it not manifest that, not merely humanity, but the sound principles of criminal legislation, and the possibility of getting the laws enforced, required that there should be some natural propriety and relation between the character of the offences, and the character of the penalties? If they wanted juries to do their duty, they must make the penalties which the juries knew would follow on that duty such as would not come in conflict with their conscience. There were cases of trifling offences where juries could not be got to convict, because they knew that when such convictions were obtained they were followed of necessity by sentences so severe that everybody's conscience was shocked. If they wished to carry out in this Bill the sound principles which had prevailed for many years, he ventured to suggest that they should draw a distinction between the two offences he had mentioned. He hoped the Government would do something to meet both these points—one of drafting and one of substance—by introducing words which would make a difference in the penalties.

[When the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat a coloured gentleman in the strangers' gallery rose and said — Gentlemen, before any reply is made I tell you I have come from Almighty God. The officials in attendance seized the visitor, who exclaimed, "Wait, I am a British subject." He was at once removed from the gallery.]

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said that the case of the voters who had qualifications in two borough constituencies was quite different from that with which they were dealing. In the case of the borough voter who went to the wrong division to vote he was told that he was not on the list, and he merely walked to a polling place in another division. The case of the borough elector was in no way relevant to this case.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said that the statement that the Bill would affect the working classes rather than the rich had been received with some amusement, but having had a considerable number of years experience of registration work, he could assure the Committee that that was the case. A man might be on an old register and, removing into another district, might be put on a new register without his being cognisant of the fact until an election came on. Only at that time of activity when an election agent came along and asked him for his vote he might become aware that he was on a second register. Even then, in some cases, he might not know and might present himself at the polling booth while on another register. It might be said that such a man would be free from the penalties of the Act because he "does not know," but he might be subject to all the annoyance and inconvenience of a Ballot Act prosecution. He did not defend a man who was actually guilty of violating the provisions of the Act, but he wanted to prevent the possibility of an ordinary elector being subject, at the hands of the presiding officer or the personating agent, to the annoyance of being given in charge. In Belfast there was a case where two men were given in charge for personating and they were both proved to be innocent. What he wanted to avoid was the giving in charge of an innocent man.

MR. HARCOURT

said that, of course, there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member, and the points ho had raised would be duly considered by the Government. The hon. Member must remember that when a man asked for a ballot paper knowingly, he had no right to demand such a paper, and the presiding officer was bound by the man's answer. He would introduce an Amendment to make the voter's answer to the presiding officer into an affirmative instead of a doubtful negative. The Leader of the Opposition had made a strong appeal as to the punishments which would be inflicted under the Bill by reference to the Ballot Act. He thought that it would be quite fair that he should, at a subsequent stage, insert some words which would give power to the judge to give relief from the disabilities imposed by the Ballot Act. On the general question of the severity of punishments, surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they did not wish to encourage breaches of the law, and to have frequent prosecutions and the consequent infliction of small penalties. That was not what Parliament wished. Their object was to deter people from committing an offence. He thought that if a high penalty were imposed on a voter who was highly educated and was cognisant of what the law was, that man would realise the facts of the case, and it would save him from prosecution. That was, he held, the best way of dealing with this matter.

MR STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said that this was not really a case of the interpretation of the language in a previous Act of Parliament. Undoubtedly if the present régime continued they would eventually find themselves in a forest of prohibitions. It was here a question of attaching the stigma of shabby fraud to something which was as far removed from that as it could possibly be. The distinction between the offences was profound and could not be evaded. Under the terms of this Bill it was very doubtful whether the prohibitions imposed were not for the convenience of one party in the State.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said that this clause affected ownership more than residence. Any person who had an ownership vote knew that he had it. What he was concerned about was the case of a man who had two occupying votes, one in a town and another in the country adjoining. In many cases that man might be on the register for one of these constituencies unknown to himself, as happened frequently in Darwen and Clitheroe. What he was anxious about was that a man should not lose his vote in the Clitheroe division because he had not had his name struck out of the Darwen register. It was, surely, not his business to have his name struck oil from one register more than another.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member seemed to be treating of a man who might lose his vote under certain circumstances. But this Amendment did not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member.

MR. SHACKLETON

hoped the Government would consider this question of the vote more than the penalty.

MR. ASQUITH

said that the Government hoped to bring up an Amendment at a later stage dealing with this point.

SIR FREDERICK B ANBURY

said he understood the Attorney-General to say that it was quite possible for the Court to award a light punishment in the event of conviction under this clause. But, as he understood, if a man was charged with an offence under the Ballot Act there was no option of imposing a light punishment. Section 6 of the Act of 1883 provided necessarily for the infliction of imprisonment for two years. At any rate that presented itself as the case to an ordinary layman's mind. If that were true, there was no option. There must be the punishment of imprisonment, and that imprisonment carried with it disfranchisement. And, however willing the Court might be to inflict a light punishment, they could not do so. That was too severe a sentence to be imposed on a man who had committed an offence unwittingly.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said that a man might easily commit accidentally an offence while trying to do his duty. He maintained that a moderate penalty was much more likely to be effective than a severe penalty. A severe penalty would prevent many people from going to the poll. He thought it was a terrible thing to inflict such a penalty upon a man as was provided for by the Bill. For a rich man £50 was an ample deterrent and for a poor man 5s.; and if the maximum penalty was £50 it would be quite sufficient. If there was inability or unwillingness to pay a fine then imprisonment might be resorted to. This system of deterrent sentences had been tried centuries ago and had failed, while experience had proved that light sentences which commended themselves to public opinion were upon the whole more effective.

MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire, Totnes)

said they were not discussing so much the nature of the punishment as the use of the word "personation," and there appeared to him to be no adequate reason why right hon. Gentlemen should use that word. Quite apart from the legal arguments which had been addressed to them it appeared to him that it was a question of common sense. The word "personation" was the wrong word to use in this connection. Why should they use it because it had been used in former Acts in order to save time? He did not see why the Government could not accept the Amendment unless it was because the legislature had made a similar mistake before.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said that as he had been appealed to he would give an answer. He thought the punishment of imprisonment must be inflicted; but of course it might only in trivial cases be for one day and sometimes hardly for that, as a defendant would be liberated at once.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said his objection to the word "personation" was that they were using a word to describe an offence which meant something different. This Act of Parliament would have to be construed not so much by lawyers but by ordinary people, and it was extremely advisable, as far as possible in all cases, to use the common words of the English language in their ordinary sense, so as to convey some idea of the meaning which it was sought to express to the man who had to act upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addressing himself to this particular Amendment, was evidently under the impression that in order to constitute the offence of personation the meaning of his own Bill was that an individual should have voted or had claimed to vote twice. It was pointed out to him, and he thought that before the close of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he admitted it, that the offence might take place under circumstances where the voter who attended to vote had not voted before at all, but was going to vote for the first time in the election. He could conceive a very large class of cases where the particular man going to vote had always voted before in that same place. He had not been accustomed to vote in any other constituency, and in all previous elections he had been accustomed to vote at that particular place. It was admitted on both sides that a man might claim a vote who had not voted in any other constituency and who did not know that he was on any other register. A man might also be entitled to claim another vote, although he did not know it, because he had been a successful man i of business, and had acquired some i further premises, so that because he was i successful, under this Bill he earned the penalty of being disfranchised and lost his vote altogether. He himself had had an experience in this direction during the last three or four days. For many years he had had a residential qualification in Liverpool, but some months ago he took some rooms in London. It might I be said that he ought to know the law and he thought he did, but he was not acquainted with the peculiar practice which prevailed in London. In the north they did not have the practice of taking rooms and paying a rent in which taxes and rates were included. In London, however, it turned out the practice was different. He took his rooms and no claim was made for rates or taxes, but he got put upon the register of voters although he was entirely ignorant of the fact. He did not know that he had been placed upon the register last September, and the first he heard of it was two days ago when he was canvassed by the Radical agent for the City of Westminster who wanted to get his vote. If this Bill had been in operation he would have been disfranchised. But that was not all, because if there was an election in Liverpool, although he had been put upon the register in London behind his back, because he asked for a voting paper at Liverpool he should be charged with personation. Was it right that a person who did an act like that bona fide in a place whore ho had been accustomed to vote for many years should be charged with an offence? It might be the case of a labouring man or of a rich man, he made t no distinction. The effect of such a provision would be, in the first place, although he had been guilty of nothing as far as he was aware, that he would be tried for a serious offence. Supposing the case came before a jury and there was some political feeling in the matter and he was found technically guilty on the ground that he ought to have known the law. The consequences would be very serious. But even before that, for merely asking for a ballot paper, he might be given into custody by the presiding officer and taken away to the police cells as a felon. The learned Attorney General said that that did not matter because, if the offence was of a trivial character, he might get only one day's imprisonment or less and be set at liberty after the hearing. That was all Very well, but what about the conviction which carried with it a deprivation of civil rights for a number of years and because of which he would be disfranchised?

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was indulging in great repetition, and he must ask him not to repeat over and over again his own or other people's arguments.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he had no intention of unduly prolonging the discussion and would at once obey the ruling of the Chair by curtailing his remarks, but he wished to point out that there was another serious penalty which he should incur. If there was an election in Liverpool, ho would certainly be on the Election Committee of the Unionist candidate, and if ho were found guilty of personation and oven got off with this half a day—still, if the candidate whom be supported were elected, the fact that he had been convicted would invalidate the election, because if personation was brought home to a candidate or his agent the election became void. It seemed to him that the penalties involved under this Bill were enormous and absurd and disproportionate. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment. If he did so he could proceed to indicate the proper punishment for a particular offence, and the penalties would not be all lumped together for an offence which was not personation although called by that name.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

wished to put one small point to the Attorney-General or the Minister in charge of the Bill. This offence was to be described as that of, personation, and he found that under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, Section 6, sub-section (2), it was provided that the person who committed the offence of personation or who aided, abetted, counselled, or procured it should be subject to the imprisonment and the other penalties provided for. This case might happen. A large number of working men, who were quite ignorant of the fact that they had two qualifications, might vote in the place in which they resided. That would not be an offence under the Amendment which the Government were going to introduce into the Bill, because it would be done unknowingly. Supposing the agent who looked after the working-class voters was aware that these people had a double qualification and yet urged them to vote, would he be guilty of personation or not? Would he be a person who had aided, I abetted, counselled, or procured personation? Morally he would be guilty, but not legally if the Government's Amendment were adopted, because ho would not procure the commission of the offence of personation if it was done unwittingly by the voter. So the agent, knowing the facts, who told the voter, who did not know the facts, to go and vote was not aiding and abetting, for the simple reason that no offence of personation was committed or could be committed by a voter who did not know he had a double qualification. There was a hole to be stopped up. The Government should introduce an Amendment to provide that a person who advised an ignorant voter to vote where he had not made a selection, although he had not aided or abetted the commission of an offence, was nevertheless guilty of an offence under Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act.

*SIR JOHN WALTON

complimented I the right hon. Gentleman on the legal ingenuity with which he had evolved this point and the perspicacity with which he had expounded it. His view was quite accurate. But the effect would be that it would be necessary to create a new offence. It would be necessary to create a new category of offenders to include persons who counselled ignorant electors to evade the law. That was a matter which would receive the consideration of the Government, but he hardly thought the right i hon. Gentleman wished this Bill to be made more drastic than it was.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said the question was rather a serious one after what the Attorney-General had said. He objected to the severity of the penalty altogether; he was assuming that the House would insist upon adopting the penalty as it was. They had heard that an immense number of working men had a double qualification. The party agents would have great interest in getting these people to vote, although they knew well enough they ought not to vote. If the Government really wanted to prevent a man with a double qualification from voting unless he had made a selection, it really was folly not to punish the man who, knowing the voter had a double qualification, still j urged him to vote. To leave unpunished

the agent who knew perfectly well the law was being broken and urged that it should be broken was absurd.

MR. ASQUITH

We will consider the matter. I beg to move that the Question be now put.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 284; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 335.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cooper, G. J.	Haworth, Arthur A.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Corbett, C. H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Agnew, George William	Cory, Clifford John	Hedges, A. Paget
Alden, Percy	Cowan, W. H.	Helme, Norval Watson
Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)	Cremer, William Randal	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Crooks, William	Henry, Charles S.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Crossley, William J.	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.
Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenry	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Astbury, John Meir	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Higharn, John Sharp
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Delany, William	Hogan, Michael
Barker, John	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Hooper, A. G.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Barnard, E. B.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Barnes, G. N.	Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Beaurhamp, E.	Dobson, Thomas W.	Hudson, Walter
Beaumont,HnW.C.B.(Hexham	Donelan, Captain A.	Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Bell, Richard	Duckworth, James	Hyde, Clarendon
Bellairs. Carylon	Duffy, William J.	Idris, T. H. W.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Illingworth, Percy H.
Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo.	Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall	Jardine, Sir J.
Billson, Alfred	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Jenkins, J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)
Boland, John	Elibank, Master of	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Brace, William	Erskine, David C.	Jowett, F. W.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Joyce, Michael
Branch. James	Evans, Samuel T.	Kearley, Hudson, E.
Brigg, John	Everett, R. Lacey	Kekewich, Sir George
Brodie, H. C.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Kelley, George D.
Brooke, Stopford	Ferens, T. R.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)	Fiennes. Hon. Eustace	Laidlaw, Robert
Brunner,Rt.HnSirJT.(Cheshire	Flynn, James Christopher	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lambert, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Fullerton, Hugh	Lamont, Norman
Burke, E. Haviland-	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Gill, A. H.	Layland-Batratt, Francis
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Glover, Thomas	Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington
Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lehmaun, R. C.
Byles, William Pollard	Grant, Corrie	Levy, Maurice
Cairns, Thomas	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lewis, John Herbert
Cameron, Robert	Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill	Lough, Thomas
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Gulland, John W.	Lundon, W.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Lyell, Charles Henry
Cawley, Frederick	Hall, Frederick	Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs
Cheetham, John Frederick	Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis	Mackarness, Frederick C.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr,Tyavi1	Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.
Cleland. J. W.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Clough, W.	Hart-Davies, T.	M'Callum, John M.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)	Harwood, George	M'Killop, W.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	M'Micking, Major G.
Maddison, Frederick	Philipps, J.Wynford (Pembroke	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Mallet, Charles E.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Manfield. Harry (Northants)	Pollard, Dr.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Cent.)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen), E.
Marnham, F. J.	Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Massie, J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Masterman, C. F. G.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Meagher, Michael	Rea, WalterRussell (Searboro')	Toulmin, George
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Micklem, Nathaniel	Rees, J. D.	Verney, F. W.
Molteno, Percy Alport	Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th	Vivian, Henry
Mond, A.	Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Wadsworth, J.
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Ridsdale, E. A.	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Montagu, E. S.	Roberts, Charles N. (Lincoln)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Mooney, J. J.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Walters, John Tudor
Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Morrell, Philip	Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Murnaghan, George	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Murphy, John	Robinson, S.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southamp'n
Murray, James.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wardle, George j.
Myer, Horatio	Roe, Sir Thomas	Warner, Thomas Courlenay T.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Napier, T. B.	Rose, Charles Day	Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Nicholls, George	Rowlands, J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Runciman, Walter	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Nolan, Joseph	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Weir, James Galloway
Norman, Henry	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Sears, J. E.	White, Luke (York, K.R.)
Nuttall, Harry	Shackleton, David James	White. Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick.B.)	Whitehead, Rowland
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Dohertv, Philip	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Grady, J.	Snowdon, P.	Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull, W.
O'Malley, William	Stanger, H. Y.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Steadman, W. C.	Winfrey, R.
Parker, James (Halifax)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Paul, Herbert	Strachey, Sir Edward
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Stuart, James (Sutherland)	TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sullivan, Donal
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)	Summerbell, T.
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan	Nield, Herbert
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Balfour, Rt. HnA.J.(CityLond.	Fletcher, J. S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Randies, Sir
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry.N.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel
Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Remnant. James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hamilton, Marquess of	Rutherford,W. W. (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bull, Sir William James	Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Starkey, John R.
Curlile, E. Hildre 1	Hills, J. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Carbon, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Thomson, W. Mitehell-(Lanark
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Turnour, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Liddell, Henry	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A. (Worc.	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Dublin,S.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craig, Charles Curti(Antrim,S.	Magnus, Sir Philip
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Craik, Sir Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'personation' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 288; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 336.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jenkins, J.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Agnew, George William	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Alden, Percy	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Dobson, Thomas W.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Donelan, Captain A.	Jowett, F. W.
Asbton, Thomas Gair	Duckworth, James	Joyce, Michael
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Duffy, William J.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Astbury, John Meir	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kekewich, Sir George
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dunne, Major E. Martin(WalsaU	Kelley, George D.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Kincaid-Hmith, Captain
Barker, John	Edwards, E och (Hanley)	Laidlaw, Robert
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Barnard, E. B.	Elibank, Master of	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barnes, G. N.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lambert, George
Beauchamp, E.	Erskine, David C.	Lamont, Norman
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(Hexh'm	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Bell, Richard	Evans, Samuel T.	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bellairs, Carlyon	Everett, R. Lacey	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lehmann, R. C.
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Ferens,T. R.	Levy, Maurice
Bilson, Alfred	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lewis, John Herbert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flynn, James Christopher	Lough, Thomas
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lundon, W.
Boland, John	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brace, William	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Mackamess, Frederic C.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gill, A. H.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Branch, James	Glover, Thomas	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)
Brigg, John	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Brodie, H. C.	Grant, Corrie	M'Callum, John M.
Brooko, Stopford	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Killop, W.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Micking, Major G.
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J.T. (Cheshe	Gulland, John W.	Maddison, Frederick
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeon	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Mallet, Charles E.
Bryce, J.A.(Invernes8Burghs)	Hall, Frederick	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis	Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil	Marnham, F. J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Massie, J.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Magtcrman, C. F. G.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Hart-Davies, T.	Meagher, Michael
Byles, William Pollard	Harwood, George	Menzies, Walter
Cairns, Thomas	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Micklcm, Nathaniel
Cameron, Robert	Haworth, Arthur A.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Mond, A.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hedges, A. Paget	Money, L. D. Chiozza
Cawley, Frederick	Helme, Norval Watson	Montagu, K. S.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mooney, J. J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Henry, Charles S.	Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Clarke, C. Goddard	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.	Morrell, Philip
Cleland, J. W.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wyeombc)	Mnrnaghan, George
Clough, W.	Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Murray, James
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hogan, Michael	Myer, Horatio
Cooper, G. J.	Hooper, A. G.	Nannetti. Joseph P.
Corbett,CH. (Sussex.E.Grinstd	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Napier, T. B.
Cory, Clifford John	Horniman, Emslie John	Nicholls, George
Cowan, W. H.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doneast'r]
Cremer, William Randal	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nolan, Joseph
Crombie, John William	Hudson, Walter	Norman, Henry
Crooks, William	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Crossley, William J.	Hyde, Clarendon	Nuttall, Harry
Da vies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Delany, William	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Doherty, Philip
O'Grady, J.	Rowlands, J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)	Runciman, Walter	Walters, John Tudor
O'Malley, William	Samuel Herbert L. (Clevland)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Scott, A. H.(Ash ton under Lync)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Sears, J. E.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Paul, Herbert	Shackleton, David James	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Pearce, Robert. (Staffs. Leek)	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Wardle, George J.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Warner, Thomas Courtenny T.
Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Snowdon, P.	Waterlow, D. S.
Pollard, Dr.	Spicer, Sir Albert	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Price, C.E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Stanger, H. Y.	Weir, James Galloway
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)	Steadman, W. C.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Whitehead, Rowland
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Sullivan, Donal	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rees, J. D.	Summerbell, T.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Wilson, Hon. C.H.W.(Hull W.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	Winfrey, R.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott-Bradfrd	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Toulmin, George
Robinson, S.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Verney, F. W.
Roe, Sir Thomas	Vivian, Henry
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Wadsworth, J.
Rose, Charles Day	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	Nield, Herbert
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hamilton, Marquess of	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bull, Sir William James	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds)	Smith, Abel H. Hertford, East)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hills, J. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cave, George	Hunt, Rowland	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebonc, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Turnour, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Wore)	Liddell, Henry	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Courthope, G. Loyd	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander-Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Magnus, Sir Philip
Craik, Sir Henry	Marks, H. H. (Kent)

*THE CHAIRMAN

called on Sir E. Carson to move the next Amendment, others of which notice had been given not being in order.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

on a point of order asked whether, with regard to the point which his hon. friend (Mr. LaneFox) had intended to raise as to the penalties, it would be practicable to propose an Amendment for definitely raising the question whether a fine should be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment in the case of personation being proved. It was an important point. If it were urged that the interpretation of the word "personation" covered it then it was suggested that the Government had themselves engaged to alter the penalty and not allow the Court to diminish the civil privileges of the person condemned.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he could only deal with the Amendments before him and none of these were in order which would allow the question mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to be raised.

MR. LANE-FOX

said he understood that he would be allowed to divide his Amendment and to propose the penalty of £100, with the alternative of imprisonment.

THE CHAIRMAN

protested against the practice of springing Amendments upon the Committee in this manner and not allowing him an opportunity for considering if they were in order.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

drew attention to the fact that there was an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston the point raised in which had not been dealt with in any way except by the Amendment raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. That Amendment was in favour of the plural voter and gave a right to a man who did not know he had a vote in two different places to vote in the district in which he resided. Although the wording was similiar to that of the right hon. Baronet, it raised, he submitted, a totally different point.

THE CHAIRMAN

said it was the same point.

SIR E. CARSON

said before he moved the Amendment standing in his name he would like to move to leave out all the words after "personation." He proposed to omit those words because, as he understood, the Government themselves proposed to limit the penalty for personation.

MR. ASQUITH

said what the Government proposed to do was more in the spirit of the Amendment on the Papor— to give the Court power to remit.

SIR E. CARSON

said that might not be very different but he desired to omit the words in order that they might be able to modify the penalties taken from the Act of 1883. If the Amendment was carried he would then propose necessary words embodying the modifications.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'personation' to the end of sub-section (1)."—(Sir Edward Carson.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.

MR. ASQUITH

pointed out that in every other case, unless the Court otherwise ordered, the disabilities as to status and so forth followed on conviction. These disabilities as to status followed automatically. If the Corrupt Practices Act were applied in propria forma there was no power in the Court to mitigate the penalties. He thought the Court ought to have full power and full discretion to omit all the penalties if it thought fit when an offence of this kind took place.

SIR E. CARSON

declined to agree with the view that if they omitted these words, they left no punishment for the crime. The very fact that they were crimes left the penalties there except so far as they were mitigated. He proposed if this Amendment were carried to put in some words mitigating the penalties under the statute of 1883. The right hon. Gentleman would see at once what he meant. Supposing instead of "personation" the word was "manslaughter,"—"that he should be guilty of manslaughter" the right hon. Gentleman surely would not say that there was no penalty for that.

MR. ASQUITH

said that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman read these words carefully he would see that he was not quite accurate. The Corrupt Practices Act should be read as part of the Third Schedule. If they were to apply to a conviction under this Act the disabilities as to status and so on, they must include this section under the schedule. If they omitted those words they would not do it.

SIR E. CARSON

said it was not worth while to argue the point, though he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It did not appear to him to be as stated because "personation" had already been denned by Act of Parliament. He admitted that these words read into this section the Act of 1883. That was the very thing he complained of; he contended that they should set up in relation to the offences they wore now creating appropriate punishments. All he said was that a much more convenient way to do that was not to refer at all to the penalties of the Act of 1883. That was a species of legislation of which he did not approve, and they ought, he thought, to have the penalties on the face of the Bill itself.

*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

thought it was a question of construction. The point was what was "personation" in this clause. They had to consider what a person must do in order not to come within this provision. He must, when selecting a constituency— send a notice … signed by him to the clerk of the county council or town clerk… before the 1st of September preceding the commencement of the year in which the selection is to begin to take effect, and the clerk shall mark the name of the person sending the notice where it appears on the register in the manner prescribed by Order in Council made under this Act, and shall keep the name of that person so marked in the register for every subsequent year so long as the name of that person continues without interruptionto be included in the register and the notice of selection is not withdrawn. If a voter had not sent in a selection and voted, was he acting in contravention? Or if he sent it in after the 1st of September, was he guilty of a contravention of the Act? If he was guilty in doing any of these things then it would seem that the greatest precautions should be taken in this matter, because the acts might be committed not by the man held to be guilty but by some person over whom he had no control.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

thought it was germane to the question of the penalties to consider what they were for. Let them suppose that a voter, not knowing he had another qualification, appeared at a polling booth and demanded a right to vote, that the personating agent met him with the statement that he had a qualification for another constituency also, and that he was not allowed to vote.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that seemed to be a question of the construction of the earlier part of the clause. It was not in order on this Amendment.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

asked whether such an act could draw down these penalties on a man's head.

MR. RAWLINSON

asked if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to add after the word "personation" the words "and shall be liable to," and then might follow whatever penalties they thought right. The penalties should be set out in the statute itself. This legislation by reference was not by any means convenient.

MR. ASQUITH

said this was the old story which he had very often told himself when sitting on the opposite Bench, but it would not do. If they were to set out seriatim and verbatim all these penalties in this Bill there would be Amendments to everyone of them. He could not in the interests of the Government and of the country disturb this old Parliamentary practice.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 284; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 337.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Beauchamp, E.	Branch, James
Acland, Francis Dyke	Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B. (Hexham)	Brigg, John
Agnew, George William	Bell, Richard	Brodie, H. C
Alden, Percy	Boelairs, Carlyon	Brooke, Stopford
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Bonn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T(Cheshire)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Billson, Alfred	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)
Astbury, John Meir	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Bryce, J, A. (InvernessBurghs]
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Boland, John	Burke, E. Haviland-
Barker, John	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Brace, William	Burnyeat, W. J. D.
Barnes, G. N.	Bramsdon, T. A.	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.
Byles, William Pollard	Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph
Cairns, Thomas	Hobart, Sir Robert	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cameron, Robert	Hogan, Michael	Nuttall, Harry
Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.	Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hooper, A. G.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cawley Frederick	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)	O'Doherty, Philip
Clarke, C. Goddard	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Cleland, J. W.	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	O'Malley, William
Clough, W.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W)	Hudson, Walter	Palmer, Sir Charles Mark
Cobbold. Felix Thornley	Hyde, Clarendon	Parker, James (Halifax)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Idris, T. H. W.	Paul, Herbert
Cooper, G. J.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinstd)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cory, Clifford John	Jacoby, James Alfred	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Cowan, W. H.	Jardine, Sir J.	Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)
Cremer, William Randal	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crombie, John William	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crooks, William	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pollard, Dr.
Crossley, William J.	Jones Leif (Appleby)	Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jowett, F. W.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Joyce, Michael	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Delany, William	Kearley, Dudson E.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Kekewich, Sir George	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Rees, J. D.
Dickinson. W.H. (St. Paneras, N)	Laidlaw, Robert	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Donclan, Captain A.	Lambert. George	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Duffy, William J.	Lamont, Norman	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lehmann, R. C.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Levy, Maurice	Robinson, S.
Elibank, Master of	Lewis, John Herbert	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lough, Thomas	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Erskine, David C.	Lundon, W.	Rose, Charles Day
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lyell, Charles Henry	Rowlands, J.
Everett, R. Lacey	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)	Runciman, Walter
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Ferens, T. R.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Flynn, James Christopher	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Sears, J. E.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	M'Callum, John M.	Shackleton, David James
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Killop, W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Fullerton, Hugh	M'Micklng, Major G.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Maddison, Frederick	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Gill, A. H.	Mallet, Charles E.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Glover, Thomas	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Snowden, P.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Marnham, F. J.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Grant, Corrie	Massie, J.	Stanger, H. Y.
Greenwood, G- (Peterborough)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Steadman. W. C.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Meagher, Michael	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Gulland, John W.	Menzies, Walter	Strachey, Sir Edward
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Micklem, Nathaniel	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hall, Frederick	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sullivan, Donal
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mond, A.	Summerbell, T.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Montagu, E. S.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Mooney, J. J.	Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hart-Davies, T.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Harwood, George	Morrell, Philip	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Murnaghan, George	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Murphy, John	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset E)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Murray, James	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Hedges, A. Paget	Myer, Horatio	Toulmin, George
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)	Napier, T. B.	Verney, F. W.
Henry, Charles S.	Nicholls, George	Vivian, Henry
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Wadsworth, J.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Weir, James Galloway	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W)
Walters, John Tudor	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wilson, P. W. (St; Paneras, S.)
Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Whitehead, Rowland
Wardle, George J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.	Williams, J. Glamorgan
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Williamson, A.
Waterlow, D. S.	Wills, Arthur Walters
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Faber, George Denison (York)	Nield, Herbert
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hamilton, Marquess of	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Bull, Sir William James	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Harrison- Broadley, Col. H. B.	Starkey, John R.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Staveley-Hill, Henry Staff'sh
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hervey, F W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hills, J. W.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Thornton, Percy M.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hunt, Rowland	Turnour, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Wore)	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Liddell, Henry	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craik, Sir Henry	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon	Magnus, Sir Philip
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved an Amendment to provide that the loss of civil rights should not follow on conviction of the offence of asking for a voting paper if the person asking for it had not already voted. He understood that the concession promised by the Government was limited to giving a discretion to the Court not to enforce the law if in the opinion of the Court it was not proper to enforce it. He now asked the Government to go further, and to say that the loss of civil rights should not follow where the offence was limited to asking for a voting paper without any intention of voting twice. The main object of the Bill was to prevent a man voting twice. He would assume that a man received a notice on the eve of the poll that his name had not been removed from the register in his last place of abode, although he had been properly put on the new register. Under this Bill he would be forbidden to exercise his right to vote, and if he did vote he would be committing an offence. It was, however, a very pardonable offence, and he might be regarded as a good citizen; at least to the extent that he took such an interest in public affairs that, being a qualified voter, he desired to exercise the franchise. At all events, the offence of such a man was so trivial that it ought not be possible for the Judge to deprive him of all civil rights in addition to sentencing him to imprisonment. The penalty was altogether disproportionate to the offence, and he trusted the Government would follow up the more salutary tone adopted to-day, and accept, if not the words of his Amendment, at least words to attain its object.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert the words, 'but so that Section 6, Sub-sections 3 and 4 shall not apply to a person convicted of the offence of asking for a voting paper if he has not already voted.'" — {Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HARCOURT

said he had not had notice of the Amendment.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he handed in the Amendment at the Table two hours before.

MR. HARCOURT

said in any case he was not going to complain, because the right hon. Gentleman had explained his Amendment so lucidly. His own impression was that it was a matter which should be left to the discretion of the Court, and, as he proposed to give the Court a dispensing power, he was quite sure the Court would not inflict an injustice. However, he would consider before Report stage whether anything could be done to meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman. But he must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take that as a definite pledge, because he believed the discretion which he proposed to give the Court would meet the case.

SIR E. CARSON

thought the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. Under the present Act of Parliament the Court could not, even if it wished, give a person any relief from the penalties which followed a conviction. But the sole question that arose from this Amendment could be put in a nutshell, namely, whether the offence of applying for a ballot paper without having voted once was sufficiently punished by two years imprisonment. If this Amendment were carried, that would be left. He did not look upon hanging as anything like imprisonment with hard labour for two years.

MR. HARCOURT

said he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the promise that he would bring up words to give a discretion to the court, and he only asked the right hon. Gentleman to give him a little time to consider the method in which it should be done.

SIR E. CARSON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the court meant in regard to a specific application, or where there was a trial.

MR. HARCOURT

Where there is a trial.

*MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)

said he was disposed to agree with the Amendment. There was much in the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when one considered a recent decision given from the bench. He therefore thought the matter should not be left to the discretion of the Judges.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

pointed out that so far as the Act was concerned there was no discretion given to the Judges.

MR. HARCOURT

said he knew there was no discretion, and he promised to give the Judges a discretion.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that giving the Judges a discretion would not meet the case. He doubted whether it would be possible to give such a discretion to the Judges, as under the Corrupt Practices Act disfranchisement followed automatically upon conviction. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would put in more concrete language what he really intended to do in regard to this matter.

SIR JOHN WALTON

did not think there would be any difficulty in inserting words which would have the effect of giving to the Court under this Bill a discretion which it did not possess under the earlier statute. The right hon. Gentleman had undertaken that words with this object should be inserted.

MR. LUPTON

asked whether it was a fact, as had been argued in the course of the debate, that the conviction of an agent or member of an election committee for impersonation would void the election. If that were so there would be a search instituted on behalf of the defeated candidate to see whether any of the committee who voted possessed double qualifications. The Bill accordingly was a Bill strongly in favour of millionaires who could bear the expense of inquiries and petitions, but to those who were not millionaires it was a ruinous procedure. If that wore so he would far sooner he without this Bill altogether.

LORD R. CECIL

hoped that some better answer would be given by the Government to the point which had been raised. He thought it would be better to postpone further proceedings on this Bill until Monday, so that they might see exactly what the effect of the words of the Amendment were. The Government should have an opportunity of considering how they were going to deal with the difficulties which had been raised by one of their own supporters. He certainly thought they ought to have something more precise from the Government as to what it was they were proposing.

MR. HARCOURT

said he did not think that this was the proper time to deal with the point, but there would be a further opportunity upon the new clause down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool. He was not prepared now to produce the form of words which would be acceptable to the Government, and he trusted the Opposition would be satisfied with his promise.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

thought it was quite enough if a man was guilty of this new statutory offence that some Court should have the power to give him two years imprisonment with or without hard labour. Sub-section (2) inflicted a penalty for personation, and sub-section (3) gave no discretion to the Judge, but laid down a lot of statutory penalties such as the deprivation of civil rights for seven years; that had nothing to do with the discretion of the Judge, but followed as a matter of absolute statutory penalties. He did not think that further statutory disability should follow for this offence. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to meet this objection by saying he was willing to give the Judge a discretion as to whether he

would impose these further penalties or not. He thought the Judge should have no discretion in regard to the penalties, and two years imprisonment with or without hard labour was quite sufficient discretion for any judge in such a matter as this. It was for that reason that he was not content to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would bring up words on Report which would give the Judge discretion in a matter in which he had no discretion at all under the original Act.

MR. ASHLEY

said he did not think it would be possible to raise the point which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Sleaford upon his new clause.

MR. HARCOURT

said he had considered the point and he thought that matter could be discussed.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

thought the discussion was wandering from the very narrow point which he had placed before the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman would meet him by accepting the principle that a man in such a case was not to be subjected to these civil disabilities he would not press him to produce the words now, and he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman only promised to take a discretion to consider whether he would or would not do this, then he could not withdraw his Amendment.

MR. HARCOURT

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman's provision, but at the present moment he could not give such an undertaking, and he must keep a discretion to himself as to what action he would take.

Question put.

The Committee divided—Ayes, 77; Noes, 284. (Division List No. 338)

AYES.
Anstruther-Grey, Major	Balcarres, Lord	Banner, John S. Harmood-
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Balour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond.)	Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)
Ashley, W.W.	Banbury, Sir Fredrick George	Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rawlinson, Jn. Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James	Haddock, George R.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Butcher. Samuel Henry	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfrd)	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Carlile, E. Hildred	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hervey, F W.F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)	Starkey, John R.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W	Hills, J. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafl'sh.)
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Wore)	Hunt, Rowland	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W	Talbot, Rt. Hn G (Oxf'd Univ)
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Liddell, Henry	Turnour, Viscount
Craik, Sir Henry	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Dixon-Hart and, Sir Fred Dixon	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govn)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Faber, George Denison (York)	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Fell, Arthur	Mildmay, Francis Bingham.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Finch. Rt. Hon. George R.	Nicholson, Win. G.(Petersfield)
Fletcher, J. S.	Nield, Herbert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork. N.E)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Glover, Thomas
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Clarke, C. Goddard	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cleland, J. W.	Gooch, George Peabody
Agnew, George William	Clough, W.	Grant. Corrie
Alden, Percy	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew. W.)	Greenwood. G.(Peterborough)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Cobbeld, Felix Thornley	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Gulland, John W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cooper, G. J.	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst)	Hall, Frederick
Astbury, John Meir	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Cowan, W. H.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cox, Harold	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barker, John	Cremer, William Randal	Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Crombie, John William	Hart-Davis, T.
Barnes, G. N.	Crooks, William	Harwood, George
Beauchamp, E.	Crossley, William J.	Halam, James (Derbyshire)
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B (Hexham)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bell, Richard	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Delany, William	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Hedges, A. Paget
Billson, Alfred	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)	Dickinson, W. H.(S. Pancras, N.)	Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W)
Boland, John	Dobson, Thomas W.	Henry, Charles S.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Donclan, Captain A.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wyombe)c
Brace, William	Duffy, William J.	Higham, John Sharp
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Branch, James	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Hodge, John
Brigg, John	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Hogan, Michael
Brooke, Stopford	Elibank, Master of	Holland, Sir William Henry
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs, Leigh)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Hooper, A. G.
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshr)	Erskine, David C.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bryce, Rt. Hn James (Aberdeen)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)	Everett. R. Lacev	Horniman. Emslie John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Horridge. Thomas Gardner
Burke, E. Haviland-	Ferens, T. R.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Hudson, Walter
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Flynn, James Christopher	Idris, T. H. W.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Illingworth, Percy H.
Byles, William Pollard	Fuller, John Michael F.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Cairns, Thomas	Fullerton, Hugh	Jacoby, James Alfred
Cameron, Robert	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Jardine, Sir J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gill, A. H.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Cawley-Frederick	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Nolan, Joseph	Snowdon, P.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Norman, Henry	Stanger, H. Y.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Jowett, F. W.	Nuttall, Harry	Steadman, W. C.
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Kekewich, Sir George	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Doherty, Philip	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Sullivan, Donal
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Summerbell, T.
Lamont, Norman	O'Malley, William	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Palmer, Sir Charles Mark	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Paul, Herbert	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Lehmann, R. C.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Levy, Maurice	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Lewis, John Herbert	Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye	Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,
Lough, Thomas	Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lundon, W.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Toulmin, George
Lyell, Charles Henry	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lynch, H. B.	Pollard, Dr.	Verney, F. W.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B.)	Price, C. K. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Vivian, Henry
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Price, Robert Jn. (Norfolk, E.)	Wadsworth, J.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Radford, G. H.	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
M'Killop, W.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Walton, Joeph (Barnsley)
M'Micking, Major G.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Maddison, Frederick	Roes, J. D.	Ward, W. Dudley(Southampt'n
Mallet, Charles E.	Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th	Wardle, George J.
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Marnham, F. J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Massie, J.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Masterman, C. F. G.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfd	Weir, James Galloway
Meagher, Michael	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Whitbread, Howard
Menzies, Walter	Robinson, S.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Roe, Sir Thomas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Mond, A.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Whitehead, Rowland
Money, L. G. Chiozza	Rose, Charles Day	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Montagu, E. S.	Rowlands, J.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Mooney, S. J.	Runciman, Walter	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Williamson, A.
Morrell, Philip	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Murnaghan, George	Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne	Wilson, Hn. C.H.W. (Hull, W.)
Murphy, John	Sears, J. E.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Murray, James	Shackleton, David James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Myer, Horatio	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Napier, T. B.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.
Nicholls, George	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Nicholson, Chas. (N. (Doncastr	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR E. CARSON,

in moving the insertion of the proviso of which he had given notice, said that there were certain classes of cases under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act in which the Court, if satisfied that no serious crime was intended, had power to give a certificate relieving the voter of the penal consequences of the act which he had committed. The section to which he referred was Section 23, which to his mind contained a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Court would have power to refuse a certificate of indemnity, but where they concluded that it was not a genuine attempt to commit the offence of plural voting they would have power to grant this indemnity. They ought to give the voter the power to take the initiative himself, and having stated the facts then the Court should have discretionary power either to relieve him or not. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, at end, lo insert the words, 'Provided that when on application made it is shown to the High Court that any person has acted in contravention of this section, without any intention of voting in more than one constituency, the court shall have the same power to grant relief as is contained in Section 23 of the said Act.' Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HARCOURT

said he was ready to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman more than half way, and he would accept the Amendment if he would omit the words "voting in more than one constituency," and would substitute "evading the provisions of this Act."

SIR E. CAESON

said he understood the point perfectly well. As he had said already, his Amendments had been framed with the view of making a protest against a man being deprived of his civil rights at all unless he had attempted to vote in two places. Although his protest had been overruled he must say that the concession which the right hon. Gentleman had made went some way as a mitigation of the penalties. He certainly hailed with satisfaction and accepted even the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He might be allowed to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee, and then move it in the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, or he could amend the Amendment he had already moved.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment may be amended.

SIR E. CARSON moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "voting in more than one constituency," and inserting the words "evading the provisions of this Act."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'voting in more than one constituency,' and insert the words 'evading the provisions of this Act.'"— (Sir E. Carson.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he objected to the original Amendment, and also to the way in which it was proposed to amend it. If they accepted the Amendment suggested on the Government side the effect would be this. If an offence was committed by a wealthy man he would be able to be represented in the High Court by counsel, who would make out a strong case by stating that the offender had forgotten the pocket-book in which he had noted the selected constituency, or something of that sort, and if the Judge was sympathetic the offender would get relief. But how about the case of a poor working man who unwittingly committed the offence and was struck off the register in the division in which he lived, but who I could not incur the cost of employing counsel to appear for him in the High Court? A poor man who had not an election agent, or the wealth of a political party behind him, would be deprived for seven years of all his civil rights.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words inserted.

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

LORD R. CECIL

said he should like to understand exactly what the effect of the power to grant relief would be. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University whether he had considered the effect of reading into this Bill Section 23 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. He had not the section before him, but if his recollection was right it involved an offence of an unimportant character committed by a person acting inadvertently. He rather doubted whether the words of that section would be applicable effectively to an offence committed under this Bill. If his right hon. friend had considered that point he would be more than satisfied, but if he had not considered it the Amendment ought to be amended by leaving out the word "same" and stopping at the word "relief," so that there would be no reference to Section 23 of the 1883 Act.

SIR E. CARSON

said he had considered that point. His view was that Section 23, which dealt with a trivial offence, would not apply.

LORD R. CECIL

said he had now before him Section 23 of the 1883 Act. Subsection (a) pointed out the kind of offences for which relief might be granted, and sub-section (b) pointed out the conditions tin which relief might be granted for those offences. It seemed to him that these sub-sections were inapplicable to the kind of offences contemplated by this Bill, because in the nature of the case they must be committed outside the conditions provided for in the sub-sections to which he had referred. Under the 1883 Act the Court must be satisfied that such act arose from "inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature." It was very doubtful whether an offence described by this Bill as committed "knowingly" could ever be committed from inadvertence, or from accidental miscalculation, or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature. Under these circumstances he ventured to think that the Amendment would better carry out the intention of all parts of the House if amended in the way he had suggested.

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said that the Act of 1883, to which reference had been made, specified certain offences and certain conditions on which the Court could grant relief. No doubt in regard to those offences one of the conditions was that they should be of a trivial nature. Under this Bill the condition on which relief could be given was in the terms specified, and the condition was that the Court should be satisfied that the person had acted without any intention of evading the provisions of the Bill. Then by granting relief, the Court could save the applicant from the unfortunate consequences of a prosecution. What he understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite was anxious to do was to make it impossible to subject an offender, who had not really been guilty of evading the Act, to the distressing consequences of a prosecution. That was, he agreed, rather a now step to take in our jurisprudence. He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that if this Amendment were passed, an Amendment of which he had given notice would be out of order.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's Amendment is out of order in any case.

R. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that gave him all the greater personal hostility to the present Amendment. The Amendment which he had intended to bring forward was to add words at the end of the clause to the effect that the punishment under this Bill should be that which was provided for under sub-section (1), of Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act, namely, two years' hard labour. The Amendment now before the Committee was absurd, because a man could not be convicted unless he "knowingly" evaded the provisions of the Act, and yet an offender would be able, if this Amendment were accepted, to apply to the Court for relief, on the ground that he had acted "without any intention of voting in more than one constituency." It appeared to him that the two propositions were directly destructive of each other. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had been answering the arguments addressed to him ad nauseam, and one would have thought that he would have seen it was time to modify his attitude and take a reasonable view. Two years imprisonment was a sufficient penalty.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is discussing an Amendment of his own which is not in order, and that is quite out of order.

MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert a proviso that "no offence under this section shall give ground for a scrutiny or proceedings under an election petition." He brought forward this Amendment for the purpose of dealing with a matter which had been indicated in the course of the debate. Under this Bill, when it became law, it would be perfectly possible for a man who was qualified in two constituencies to vote in one of them without knowing that he was qualified in the other. That would not constitute an offence, for the word "knowingly" covered the case. He wished to protect not merely the inadvertent voter who might vote in one division quite in ignorance that he was qualified to vote in another constituency, but also the innocent person for whom he voted from being penalised on account of such inadvertence. If an election was at all close it would naturally lead to a scrutiny, and if the scrutiny disclosed the fact, as it unquestionably would do in large constituencies, that a number of the voters who took part in the election had two or more qualifications, and that they had not made the selection required by the statute, it would lead to an election petition and the consequent expenses. The Bill increased the danger of election petitions, and practically invited the unscrupulous to commit fraud. At election times, when party feeling was running high, some people would run the risk of imprisonment if they thought they could unseat a political opponent. Unless they put in such a proviso as he proposed there would be opportunities of the kind indicated which would enable the opponents of the successful candidate to harass him cither with scrutinies or election petitions. He asked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to meet him in regard to this Amendment, which, he contended, would not affect the principle of the Bill.

Amendment proposod— In page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert the words 'No offence under tins suction shall give ground for a scrutiny or proceedings under an election petition.'"—{Mr. Rawlinson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. HARCOURT

said that the reception of the concessions he had already made was not very encouraging. That, however, was not a reason why he should not grant further concessions. As a matter of fact he largely agreed with what the hon. and learned Member had stated. The hon. and learned Gentlemen proposed that no offence under this section should give ground for a scrutiny or proceedings under an election petition. What the hon. and learned Gentleman meant was that if a man had voted honestly without the knowledge that he had another qualification that should not be an excuse for a scrutiny or proceedings under an election petition. He admitted that he found himself largely in agreement with the object of the hon. and learned Member, and the point raised by this Amendment had been present to his own mind for some time. But the particular form of words proposed by the hon. Gentleman would not do, because by it no offence, however corrupt, would give ground for a petition. No one in the House wished, he was sure, that the case of a mere inadvertent voter, who voted honestly and without knowledge of having another qualification, should give an excuse for a scrutiny or an election petition. He intended to introduce a provision later on to cover this point, and to remove the fear of such inadvertent act leading to the expense of an election petition. While not pledging himself to the actual words, he would give an idea of how he thought this provision should run:—" If, on an election petition, the vote of any person is objected to on the ground that the vote has boon given in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the vote should not be rejected upon that ground if the voter satisfies the Court that he did not know he was upon the register in any constituency other than the one in which he voted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the Amendment was not on the Paper, and therefore he had not had time to consider it. The basis of the Bill was that a man who had two qualifications should not vote for either until he had made his selection. Now, the Government were going to say not merely that a man should be regarded as innocent if he said he did not know what he was doing, but also that his vote, illegally given, should be regarded as valid. The subjective ignorance of the voter was to have a subsequent objective effect on the validity of his vote. That brought up again the point he made on a previous Amendment in regard to political agents. After this Bill passed there would probably be agents whose business it would be to make themselves acquainted with the number of double qualifications upon the register. If the voters were on their side it would be their interest to urge them to vote, and not to tell them of their double qualification. If their efforts were successful, the men would vote, but they would not be punished because it could be argued that they did not know what they were doing, and that therefore their votes were valid. If the agent belonged to the other side, his object would be to conceal the fact of the double qualification till after the 1st September, and then disclose it to the voter, and point out to him that if he voted he would be subject to two years imprisonment. That seemed to him to be an intensely ludicrous position in which to leave the electoral law. The Government, by yielding to the force of the arguments offered from the Opposition side of the House, had exhibited the inherent folly of their own original proposals.

MR. RAWLINSON

said that he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the way in which he had met him, although he did not think he had gone far enough. What he wanted to meet also was the case of a person who had run the risk wilfully of committing the offence under the Act, and who might be detected by the political agent on the other side. His second point was that by the words of his Amendment, an election should not be upset if the voter showed to the proper tribunal that he had voted quite innocently in the particular division for which he was not qualified. What he was anxious for was to protect the candidate who might be subjected to the payment, not only of his own costs in a Court of law, but the costs of the other side.

LORD R. CECIL

said what he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that in the case of a man who was put on a second register without his knowledge, and voted, or if he had done any work for the candidate, the election of that candidate would be declared void. That was a material point which had not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

MR. HARCOURT

said that he had not had time to consider the point raised, but he would do so.

MR. RAWLINSON

said that in view of the double understanding come to with the hon. Member for Sleaford and himself, he desired to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he understood that the question now before the Committee was that subsection (2) should be approved of. The Committee would see that that sub-section consisted mainly of machinery, and part of that machinery consisted in a reference to an Order in Council. He thought that this was the proper time at which to press the Government to say whether the Order in Council was prepared or whether the Government could give the Committee a broad outline of its character. He thought it would be admitted that the Committee could not discuss the machinery provided by this second sub-section, unless they knew what that machinery was to be. In order to raise the point he moved the omission of sub-section (2).

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 16, to leave out. subsection (2) of Clause I."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'must' in line 17, stand part of the clause.'

MR. HARCOURT

said he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman who had had so much experience in these matters must know that this was not a stage of the Bill at which the terms of the Order in Council could be produced, because the Order in Council necessarily depended on the final shape which a Bill might take, and a Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, might be altered at the last moment before it became an Act. A motion to produce the Order in Council before the Bill was passed had over and over again been resisted by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He (Mr. Harcourt) remembered that in the case of the Irish Local Government Act the Order in Council carrying out the whole of the machinery of that Act could not be produced until after the Bill was passed. The same thing might be said in regard to the Licensing Act of 1904. The right hon. Gentleman could not expect him to depart from those precedents.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

in moving to leave out sub-section (2) said the Government were introducing an entirely new system which was full of difficulty and complexity. The present system had worked extremely well and commended itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and he thought they ought to have some more sufficient reason given for its abolition than had been forthcoming. It seemed to him that it was hardly fair to throw upon the voter the responsibility of making this selection when there was already a well-known practice of leaving him on for his place of abode if he did not make the selection. That practice had worked well, and under it the person affected did not lose his vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member appeared to be arguing against something which had already been agreed to in the first sub-section of the clause. If he was doing so he was out of order.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

was not aware that any form had been fixed as to the way in which the selection was to be made, and he was only putting before the Committee an alternative process which had already acted well. If he was out of order he was quite ready to abide by the ruling of the Chair. The Committee, however, had a perfect right to consider one other matter. The difficulty which arose was to find out the selection which the particular voter made, but it was not insuperable, and this information could be easily given by some system of indices or references from various parts of the country to other parts. This system of reference was fairly well known and was used in regard to many other parts of the administration of the country. Under the present Bill it placed upon the voter the task of doing that which the town clerk, the overseers, or the agents of the respective parties in the various constituences ought to do for him, and his contention was that a voter who was exercising a right and a duty ought not to be impeded in any way in obtaining his vote. The process of obtaining his vote ought to be made as easy as possible for him, and this work of selection should not fall upon him or the agents, but upon those whose duty it was to make up the list of voters.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that that was precisely what he was trying to explain to the hon. Member. Subsection (1) said that a voter should only vote in a constituency which he had selected. Therefore, the Committee had already decided that he must select.

*MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

replied that he was not arguing against that. He was arguing that the way of the voter ought to be made easy by the overseers and town clerks whose duty it was to make up the list, and that there ought to be some system of forms or indices by which easy reference could be made not only by those who had made up the list, but by the voter himself, so that he might know what his position was. The number of plural voters was stated the other day to be 500,000. Whether that was right or not he did not know, but if it was somewhat about that number he did not think it ought to be difficult to deal with them.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that as far as he understood the hon. Member, what he desired could be done by the Amendment of sub-section (2), and if that sub-section was left out, he would not arrive at what he desired.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

said he was endeavouring to contend that the sub-section was wrong, inasmuch as it did not give the facilities which the voter had a right to expect.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was clearly seeking to amend the machinery in the sub-section, and if the sub-section wore left out altogether it would not do what he desired.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER

said he was trying to suggest machinery so that the Government might bring up some better provisions.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was out of order and must not go on.

*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said he understood that the way in which the Chairman had put the question made it incumbent upon him to speak to a series of Amendments which he handed in a short time ago, because they affected the first two lines of the sub-section. His Amendments would provide that the clerk of the county council, or the town clerk, who was responsible for the printing of the Parliamentary register should, before the 1st day of August preceding the year in which the register was to take effect, mark the name of every person who was on the register of Parliamentary electors for another constituency in the manner prescribed by the Order in Council made under the Act, and should keep the name so marked in every subsequent year. His object was not in any way to do away with the selection, but to simplify the whole machinery of registration by checking the vote of plural voters. Unless some machinery of this kind was set up, and if —as was certain to be the case—a large number of plural voters failed for some reason or another to make their selection, the registers would be in a state of extraordinary confusion, and would make the work of the revising barrister, the personation agents, and the presiding officers, a matter of very great difficulty attended with great inconvenience. His desire was, quite irrespective of selection, to have the register marked by the county authorities so that it should not be dependent upon a notice being received for the voter. If they left out marks against the names of all those who for some reason or another failed to send notice of selection, it would be perfectly impossible for any one of the officials to do their work efficiently and in a reasonable time.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

rose to a point of order. He understood that the question before the Committee was the omission of sub-section (2), and he wished to know whether it was competent for an hon. Member to discuss alternative machinery to that suggested in the subsection.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think he could allow the hon. Member to go on with this discussion, because he had handed in a series of Amendments to the sub-section, which by the forms of the House he could not move. He could not discuss this Amendment on the Motion that the sub-section be left out.

*MR. COURTHOPE

said that in view of the form in which the Question was put, a division would make it impossible for him to move his Amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that in that case the hon. Member must vote against the Amendment. It constantly occurred that an hon. Member was prevented from moving an Amendment by the Motion of an hon. Member who came before him.

*MR. COURTHOPE

pointed out that his hon. friend below the gangway was refused permission to continue his speech because he had failed to place Amendments on the Paper, but that he himself had done so.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that that was because he was speaking to the Amend- ment of the sub-section and not to its omission.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

submitted that if an hon. Gentleman could vote against the sub-section he was entitled to speak against it.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that obviously an hon. Member could speak against it so long and only so long as he was in order.

MR. COURTHOPE

attempted to continue his remarks, but

THE CHAIRMAN

said he was clearly out of order and could not proceed.

SIR E. CARSON

wished to ask a question in regard to the Order in Council which the First Commissioner of Works had said it was impossible that they could have until they knew what the effect of the Bill as u whole would be. Was he right in thinking that the Order in Council was not to set up any machinery at all, but merely referred to the method in which the clerk was to mark the selection on the register. That was how he read the words— And the clerk shall mark the name of the person sending the notice where it appears on the register in the manner prescribed by the Order in Council made under this Act. If that was so, and they wore not to have any additional machinery which he conceived to be necessary, the Bill would have no force at all. It was necessary, therefore, in his view to put down additional Amendments so that they might set up machinery to carry out the Bill.

MR. HARCOURT

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in error. The Order in Council would deal with other matters besides the machinery.

SIR E. CARSON

thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that as the Bill at present stood it did not seem to be

intended that the Order in Council should include other matters.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 339.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Crooks, William	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Alden, Percy	Delany, William	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S	Jowett, F. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Joyce, Michael
Ambrose, Robert	Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N	Kearley, Hudson E.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.	Donelan, Captain A.	Kekewich, Sir George
Astbury, John Meir	Duffy, William J.	Laidlaw, Robert
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Lambert, George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lamont, Norman
Barnes, G. N.	Elibank, Master of	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Beauchamp. E.	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Beaumont, Hn WCB.(Hexham)	Erskine, David C.	Lehmann, R. C.
Bell, Richard	Esmonde. Sir Thomas	Levy, Maurice
Bellairs, Carlyon	Everett, R. Lacey	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Benn, W.(T'w:r Hamlets, S. Geo	Flynn, James Christopher	Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lundon, W.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford	Fullerton, Hugh	Lupton, Arnold
Billson, Alfred	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Gill, A. H.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Ginnell, L.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Brace, William	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.
Brigg, John	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Killop, W.
Brooke, Slopford	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh)	Grant, Corrie	Maddison, Frederick
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir JT.(Cheshire	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen	Gulland, John W.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Marnham, F. J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Massie, J.
Burke, E. Haviland.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Meagher, Michael
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Hart-Davies, T.	Menzies, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Harwood, George	Micklem, Nathaniel
Byles, William Pollard	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cairns, Thomas	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.
Cameron, Robert	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hedges, A. Paget	Mooney, J. J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Channing, Francis Allston	Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morrell, Philip
Cheetham, John Frederick	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Higham, John Sharp	Murnaghan, George
Clarke. C. Goddard	Hodge, John	Murphy, John
Cleland, J. W.	Hogan, Michael	Murray, James
Clough, W.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Myer, Horatio
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.	Hope, John Deans (Fife West)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset	Napier, T. B.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cooper, G. J.	Hudson, Walter	Nicholls, George
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Hyde, Clarendon	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Idris, T. H. W.	Nolan, Joseph
Cowan, W. H.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William.
Cox, Harold		Nuttall, Harry
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cremer, William Randal	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crombie, John William	Johnston, John (Gateshead)	O'Doherty, Philip
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Rose, Charles Day	Verney, F. W.
O'Malley, William	Rowlands, J.	Vivian, Henry
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Palmer, Sir Charles Mark	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland	Wallace, Robert
Parker, James (Halifax)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Paul, Herbert	Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sears, J. E.	Wardle, George J.
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Shackleton, David James	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pollard, Dr.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Weir, James Galloway
Radford, G. H.	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Whitbread. Howard
Raphael, Herbert H.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Snowdon, P.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Spicer, Sir Albert	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Stanger, H. Y.	Wiles, Thomas
Rees, J. D.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Steadman, W. C.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williamson, A.
Rickett, J. Compton	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wills, Arthur Walters
Ridsdale, E. A.	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Robinson, S.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. J. A. Pease and M. Herbert Lewis.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset E
Roe, Sir Thomas	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Toulmin, George
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Courthope, G. Loyd	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Nield, Herbert
Balcarres, Lord	Craik, Sir Henry	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balfour, Rt. Hn AJ.(City Lond.)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Percy, Earl
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Faber, George Denison (York)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Fell, Arthur	Roberts, S.(Shieffield, Ecclesall)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fletcher, J. S.	Sasson, Sir Edward Albert
Bull, Sir William James	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carlile, E. Hildrcd	Hunt, Rowland	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col. W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Cave, George	Kimber, Sir Henry	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)	Liddell, Henry	Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Foster.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A.(Wore.	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee

And, it being after Five of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 4th August last.

Adjourned at three minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.