COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 17 June 1872)

HL Deb 17 June 1872 vol 211 cc1800-45 1800

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord President.)

LORD DENMAN
said, he had taken the course of moving that the Committee be deferred for six months, because he believed that the Bill could not be amended so as to become workable. Although he was perfectly satisfied that if their Lordships assented to the passing of the Bill they would deeply regret it; yet as it appeared to be the wish of their Lordships to consider the measure in Committee, he should not press his Amendment to a division.

§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)

§ EARL GRANVILLE
reminded the noble Lord that in the discussion on the second reading it was understood that no opposition would be offered to the progress of the Bill, whatever might be done during its consideration in Committee. He thought it was not in accordance with that understanding to discuss the merits of the Bill on the Motion for going into Committee.

§ LORD CAIRNS
desired to make a few remarks before the House went into Committee. The schedules of a Bill were usually considered complimentary to the clauses of the Bill, but in this case one-half of the clauses themselves lad been taken out of the body of the Bill and transferred to the schedules. In the Bill of last year there were 54 clauses; but in the Bill of this year no fewer than 27 clauses were put in the schedules, while just the same number 1801 were in the body of the Bill. The usual course was that their Lordships should take the clauses, consider them seriatim, and decide upon their merits; but here there was a clause which enacted that the schedule to this Act, and the notes thereto and directions therein, should be construed and have effect as part of the Act. If this system were persevered in, all the provisions of a statute might be placed in the schedule and a single clause be deemed sufficient for the body of the Act.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, there was no wish to limit the consideration of the provisions of the Bill. In the Commons every provision of the schedule had been discussed as fully and as keenly as any part of the clauses. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government would offer no objection to their Lordships considering every article in the schedule as they pleased.

§ On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ Procedure at Elections.

§ Clause 1 (Nomination of candidates for Parliamentary Elections).

§ LORD CAIRNS moved, in page 2, line 3, after ("candidate") insert— If after the adjournment of an election by the returning officer for the purpose of taking a poll one of the candidates nominated shall die before the poll has been taken, the returning officer shall, upon being satisfied of the fact of such death, countermand notice of the poll, and all the proceedings with reference to the election shall be commenced afresh in all respects as if the writ had been received by the returning officer on the day on which proof was given to him of such death; provided that no fresh nomination shall be necessary in the case of a candidate who stood nominated at the time of the countermand of the poll.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, he did not object to the provision.

§ Amendment, with verbal alterations, agreed to.

§ LORD COLCHESTER moved to omit the clause, his object being to leave nominations as they were at present. If nomination days were abolished, the excitement now displayed when candidates were being proposed would be exhibited on less convenient occasions in the course of the canvass or the election, and in a not less objectionable form. He thought that the ancient system to which they 1802 had become accustomed ought not to be abolished without sufficient reason for it being shown.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
took an entirely different view of the importance and value of this clause. In his opinion it was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill—especially in the way in which it bore upon the moral, orderly, and quiet character of elections. He could well understand attachment to ancient modes of proceding; but on the other hand he must say that it appeared to him that these public nominations had no real bearing upon the result of the election, whilst they gave constant opportunities for disorder of various kinds. The clause also had been passed in the present and previous Session in the other House of Parliament by large majorities. He must also point out that the omission of this clause would necessitate numerous other Amendments in the Bill, which the noble Lord had not even taken notice of.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 2 (Poll at Election).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he had now to propose the important Amendments of which he had given Notice. He proposed after the word ("candidates") in line 7, page 2, to insert— ("Each ballot paper shall have an official mark on the back and a number printed on the face, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face: Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding office shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates (if any) enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the register, and shall enter on the copy of the register with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the voter has received the ballot paper, but not showing the particular ballot paper which he has received: The voter shall place a cross or other mark in the figure of a square printed opposite the name of the candidate or each candidate for whom he votes: The voter having thus marked on the ballot paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes shall fold the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on its back, and shall exhibit to the presiding officer such mark, and then in the presence of the presiding officer put the ballot paper into the ballot box: At the close of the poll the presiding officer shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates or such of them as may be present seal up the counterfoils of the ballot papers and send them by the earliest practicable post to the clerk of the crown in chancery: 1803 Any ballot paper on which a cross is put opposite to the names of more candidates than the voter is entitled to vote for, and any ballot paper having anything written thereon other than the mark or marks made by the voter, shall be void, and shall not be counted.") His Amendments, as their Lordships would perceive, opened the whole question of personation. Personation was deemed by the promoters of the Bill so serious an offence that by the 24th clause it was declared to be a felony, punishable with two years' imprisonment with hard labour. That being so, it seemed to him to be absolutely necessary to provide some machinery by which the vote could be traced—because, without this, the offence could hardly be proved. The Amendment would enable the vote to be traced. When the Marquess of Hartington introduced the Bill of 1870, he said that he desired that the vote should be secret; but yet he thought that there should be power of tracing the vote. Being anxious to avoid all controversy on this point, he (the Duke of Richmond) had taken as his Amendment certain provisions of the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government in 1870. He should, therefore, await with some curiosity the arguments by which the noble Marquess who had charge of this Bill (the Marquess of Ripon) would oppose those securities which it had been thought necessary to include in a Ballot Bill having on it the name of "the Bight hon. John Bright." The noble Duke then moved the first paragraph.

§ An Amendment moved, in Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after ("candidates,") to insert— ("Each ballot paper shall have an official mark on the back and a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, he was not surprised that the noble Duke should have avoided any allusion to the real nature of the Amendment—the Amendment affected a vital portion of the Bill now before them. He admitted that following the vote in order to a scrutiny would not be possible under the Bill as it now stood; but the Amendment would not only provide for following the vote in order to a scrutiny, but it would in effect make the Ballot optional. It would go even farther than 1804 this, for it would render secret voting almost impossible. The noble Duke had declared that his Amendments were copied from the provisions contained in the Bill proposed by the Marquess of Hartington, on behalf of the Government, in 1870. But that Bill not only did not render the Ballot optional, as the Amendment did, but it contained most careful provisions against it—it provided that the voter should go into a secret compartment and there vote; and there was a penalty for infringing the secrecy of the vote. The tu quoque argument had no effect whatever upon him, because the Amendment had really nothing whatever to do with the previous Bill. The noble Duke could hardly pretend that this sham Ballot would ever have had the support of Mr. Bright. An optional Ballot meant a system under which any amount of intimidation might be exercised, only in another way and at another stage of proceeding than was the case at present. Now, the object of the secret Ballot was not so much to guard against intimidation from individuals as intimidation from classes, and classes were not amenable to general public opinion, but only to the opinion of those composing their own body: but an optional Ballot left the voter open to all the evils which the Bill was meant to remove. The Amendment, however, rendered secret Ballot impossible. His noble Friend had boasted that he had copied the Bill of Lord Hartington, but in doing so he had made a most important and most significant departure both from that Bill and from the Amendment of Mr. Ward Hunt. He hoped their Lordships would not pass a sham. It would be better for them to reject the Ballot altogether than to inaugurate a system which would be a mere pretence of secrecy, and which would be sure of rejection in the House of Commons.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, the noble Marquess, in the mode in which he met the Amendment, had taken a course which might be convenient to himself but which was not the most convenient to their Lordships. He had made a long and interesting speech on the question of a permissive or optional Ballot, but he had sat down without saying one word upon the Amendment proposed. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had said that the Motion now before their Lordships was the first of a series 1805 of Amendments which, he intended to propose, which, no doubt, would raise that extremely important question—the amount of secrecy which their Lordships would impose on the voters of the United Kingdom, whether they desired secrecy or not. That, however, was not the purpose of this Amendment, which was how to follow and detect personation. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) was utterly wrong in representing his noble Friend as saying that his Amendments were nothing more than restoring the Bill to the position of Lord Hartington's Bill. This Amendment did nothing more than restore that Bill on one important and exceptional point—he had taken certain securities against personation out of the Bill of 1870, and had argued that if they were thought necessary by the Government when they introduced that Bill, the same Government being answerable for the present Bill, the noble Marquess could not very well object to those securities now. He (Lord Cairns) would not follow the noble Marquess into the question of permissive or optional Ballot; but he rose to satisfy their Lordships of the propriety of the Amendment, and to show that without this Amendment the Bill would be the source of the most unmitigated mischief, vice, perjury, and fraud in every district of the country. The Bill provided that personation when discovered should be a felony. Their Lordships were very well aware that there was not a large constituency in the kingdom in which they would not find a great per centage of names of men who were dead or absent, and that as regarded the seaport towns it might happen that a substantial part of the electors might be absent at the time an election came on. With regard to all these dead men, and also with regard to the names of persons who were alive and in health, any person who was disposed to do so might go up to the polling-booth and represent that he was the person described on the register under a particular name, and demand a ballot paper. There was no reason why he should not get it unless he was detected on the spot—an extremely unlikely thing. Having got the ballot paper he must mark it, and put it into the ballot box, and in process of time it was taken out and counted as an absolute vote for the candidate in whose favour it was given. The Bill 1806 further provided, indeed, that if the real voter afterwards came forward he might satisfy the Returning Officer that he was the true person on the register and demand a second ballot paper. The ballot paper was then to be given to him and his vote was to be marked upon it; but it was not to be put into the ballot box, but into a separate bundle of tendered votes. When the time came for declaring the result of the election those tendered votes were not to be counted; but on any scrutiny or petition they might be brought in question, and if proved to be votes tendered by the proper persons they were to be received. What, however, became of the vote received meanwhile from the improper person? What became of the false, fraudulent, and vicious vote in the ballot box, and which was counted as a vote for him for whom it was given? Their Lordships would be surprised to hear that the spurious votes were still to be counted as good votes. True, if it could be brought home to the candidate or his agent that a personated or false vote had been given with their privity or connivance a vote might be struck off from the aggregate votes of that candidate for the bad vote so traced home. But in 99 cases out of. 100 they could not prove such privity or connivance, and in many cases neither privity nor connivance might exist; and yet the fraudulent vote remained triumphant, and was counted. Would any Member of the Government stand up and say that that was a pure, proper, and desirable mode of conducting an English election? If the man was absent or dead, and could not come forward, the vicious vote would remain without any counteracting vote. These were the provisions in the present Bill. Now, Lord Hartington's Bill did meet this case, and Lord Hartington himself said that it was necessary to meet this case. That there might be no dispute he would read the enactment in Lord Hartington's Bill. The second provision of the Bill ran as follows:— Each ballot paper shall have a number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on the back thereof, and have attached thereto a counterfoil with the same number or letter or other distinguishing mark printed on its face. Now, the object of that was obvious—it was to identify the counterfoil with the ballot paper. The 10th provision ran as follows:— 1807 Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidate, enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the name of the voter and number on the register. Since Lord Hartington's Bill the Government in the House of Commons had introduced a further provision that there should be on the back of every ballot paper what was called an official mark, and it was to be a new mark for every election, and to be kept secret and only within the knowledge of the Returning Officer. The noble Duke was only desirous to identify at the proper time the counterfoil with the ballot paper. If the Government, therefore, would not render its fulminations against personation idle and useless, it would accept the Amendment and give a means of detecting personation when committed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the noble and learned Lord had been very ingenious in finding fault, in the first instance, with the course taken by his noble Friend the Lord President in opposing the Amendment. He (the Lord Chancellor), however, thought that his noble Friend was perfectly justified in the line of argument he had adopted on that occasion. The whole scheme of the noble Duke's Amendments pointed to one end—namely, to reserve to the voter the power of disclosing the mode in which he had voted if he thought fit, and in effect to render the Ballot entirely optional. If the noble Duke succeeded in his object—if they once rendered the Ballot optional—they might as well put an end to the whole Bill. He looked on the noble Duke's Amendment as, in fact, substituting for the present Bill an entirely new measure for that which had come up from the other House. The Bill was one for insuring the power of secret voting; the Amendments would make it a Bill to insure the discovery of a man's vote. If they told the voter that he might, if he thought fit, disclose his vote, they practically told him that he must disclose it whenever pressure was put upon him by any person having the power and the desire to make him discover how he had exercised his franchise. Those who wished for secret voting thought it could only be reasonably secured by nobody knowing how the voter had voted. The effect of the Amendment would be to destroy the protection which the voter would other- 1808 wise feel that he had for the secrecy of his vote. The machinery for detecting personation had been omitted because it was found that perfect secrecy could not be maintained in conjunction with it. It was thought best to give up the machinery for detecting personation rather than to give up secrecy, because it was better that a dozen or so of bad votes should be recorded than that tens of thousands should be intimidated or coerced. Provision was made for correcting those bad votes in eases when the election was challenged; because in all cases where bribery or intimidation was proved it would be assumed the vote was recorded in favour of the briber, and it would be struck off accordingly. But what effect would the Amendment have in detecting the offender? How did it punish the false voter? What machinery would it provide for detecting a man who came up to tender a false vote? If the man was known when he came up there might be a remedy. But if there was any advantage in the Amendment, it seemed to him to be purchased at a disproportionate expense. It would be a worse evil in large towns with 12,000 or 14,000 votes, to deprive them of this security because there was a possibility of mistakes in a few cases. Allusion had been made to seaport towns, and the case with which personation could be committed in such places from the number of the absentees. But the absentees would be known to the agents of both candidates, and the non-voters who would act as personators would also be known. Detection would, therefore, in most cases follow upon the vote being tendered. Altogether the mischief would be reduced almost to nothing, and would be of no consequence as compared with the evil of coercion.

EARL GREY
said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had at present done no more than to raise the question as to whether it should be in the power of a properly constituted authority to conduct a scrutiny and identify votes by means of a number on the ballot paper corresponding with a number on a counterfoil. In that proposal he concurred, and he was quite prepared to alter the Bill on the principle that secrecy should be maintained, and should be compulsory, except that a scrutiny should be possible when abuse was sus- 1809 pected. He did not agree with the Lord Chancellor that the abuse was infinitessimal. It would be virtually impossible subsequently to prove any misconduct on the part of the Returning Officer, while his conduct would frequently be exposed to suspicion. The proposal now made by the noble Duke was substantially the same as that of Lord Hartington, which the Government accepted two years ago. It was in no way inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and he was utterly at a loss to understand the extraordinary change of opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Could a course adopted by the Cabinet on two previous occasions, after due deliberation, be so utterly wrong, or was it that Her Majesty's Government had determined at all hazards to gratify the extreme portion of their followers?

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, he cordially concurred in desiring to repress personation, and thought this could only be done by largely increasing the number of polling places and leaving them open to people acquainted with the neighbourhood and its inhabitants.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
wished to know from the Government whether they would or would not introduce the exact words of Lord Hartington's Bill. If they did he should be satisfied. They were now discussing the question of getting a knowledge of the voter, and he should like to know why the Government deviated from the proposition which they brought forward two years ago.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
admitted that the question of the noble Duke was a perfectly fair one. The answer was, that at that time the matter had not been fully argued. Now, however, the case was different, and it was too much to ask the Government, after the case had been argued on both sides, to adhere to a proposal which they did not approve.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the Amendment he proposed was substantially the same as the proposal made in 1870 by Lord Hartington. He had no objection to alter "in the face" to "in the back," and in originally proposing it in the former shape he could assure the noble Marquess opposite that he had no sinister object. The offence of personation was a very serious one, 1810 and one which the Government Bill in its present form would, as he believed, do very little to meet.

§ On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 162; Not-Contents 91: Majority 71.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

1812

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Bedford, D.	Nelson, E.
Cleveland, D.	Powis, E.
Manchester, D.	Radnor, E.
Marlborough, D.	Romney, E.
Norfolk, D.	Rosse, E.
Richmond, D.	Rosslyn, E.
Rutland, D.	Russell, E.
Somerset, D.	Sandwich, E.
Wellington, D.	Shaftesbury, E.
	Sommers, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Stanhope, E.
	Stradbroke, E.
Bath, M.	Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
Bristol, M.	Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.
Bute, M.
Hertford, M.	Tankerville, E.
Queensberry, M.	Verulam, E.
Salisbury, M.
Winchester, M.	Bangor, V.
	De Vesci, V.
Abergavenny, E.	Doneraile, V.
Airlie, E.	Gough, V.
Amherst, E.	Hardinge, V.
Annesley, E.	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Bandon, E.	Hereford, V.
Bathurst, E.	Hill, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Hood, V.
Bradford, E.	Lifford, V.
Brownlow, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Cadogan, E.	Strathallan, V.
Coventry, E.	Templetown, V.
Dartmouth, E.
Denbigh, E.	Carlisle, Bp.
Derby, E.	Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.
Devon, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Hereford, Bp.
	Abinger, L.
Feversham, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Fortescue, E.	Bagot, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Bolton, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Boston, L.
	Braybrooke, L.
Grey, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Harrington, E.
Harrowby, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)	Buckhurst, L.
	Cairns, L.
Home, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Jersey, E.	Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Lanesborough, E.
Lauderdale, E.	Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)
Leven and Melville, E.	Clinton, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Clonbrock, L.
Lucan, E.	Colchester, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Colonsay, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Manvers, E.	Congleton, L.
Morton, E.	Conyers, L.

1811

Delamere, L.	Overstone, L.
De Ros, L.	Penrhyn, L.
De Saumarez, L.	Raglan, L.
Digby, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
	Ravensworth, L.
Dunsany, L.	Redesdale, L.
Egerton, L.	Rivers, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Elphinstone, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)
	Saltoun, L.
Fitzwalter, L.	Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Sherborne, L.
	Sinclair, L.
Grantley, L.	Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Headley, L.
Heytesbury, L.	Sondes, L.
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	St. John of Bletso, L.
Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)	Stratheden, L.
Kesteven, L.	Strathnairn, L.
Lilford, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Thurlow, L.
	Tredegar, L.
Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
O'Neill, L.
Oranmore and Browne, L.	Vivian, L.
	Wharncliffe, L.
Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Ormathwaite, L.	Wynford, L.
Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Sydney, V.
	Torrington, V.
Devonshire, D.	Manchester, Bp.
Grafton, D.	Ripon, Bp.
Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]	Winchester, Bp.
Ailesbury, M.	Acton, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Annaly, L.
Ripon, M.	Auckland, L.
	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)
Abingdon, E.
Albemarle, E.	Belper, L.
Camperdown, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Clarendon, E.
Cowper, E.	Calthorpe, L.
De La Warr, E.	Camoys, L.
Ducie, E.	Carew, L.
Durham, E.	Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)
Granville, E.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Churchill, L.
	Clermont, L.
Kimberley, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Lovelace, E.	Dacre, L.
Morley, E.	Dinevor, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Dormer, L.
Spencer, E.	Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)
	Ebury, L.
Falmouth, V.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Halifax, V.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)	Eliot, L.
	Erskine, L.
Powerscourt, V.	Foley, L.

1812

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)	Mostyn, L.
	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Greville, L.	Penzance, L.
Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Poltimore, L.
Hastings, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Hatherton, L.
Houghton, L.	Robartes, L.
Howard of Glossop, L.	Romilly, L.
Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Leigh, L.	Sandys, L.
Lurgan, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Lyttelton, L.	Seaton, L.
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)	Sudeley, L.
	Suffield, L.
Methuen, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
	Vernon, L.
Monck, L. (V. Monck.)	Wenlock, L.
Monson, L.	Wrottesley, L.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
then moved the insertion of the next paragraph, which was, he said, consequent upon the Amendment which had just been carried— Every voter, on application to the presiding officer, shall receive a ballot paper, and the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the agents of the candidates (if any) enter on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the number of the voter on the register, and shall enter on the copy of the register with which he is supplied a cross or other mark denoting that the voter has received the ballot paper, but not showing the particular ballot paper which he has received.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, that, considering the vote which their Lordships had just given, he should offer no opposition to this Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert the following paragraph:— The voter shall place a cross or other mark in the figure of a square printed opposite the name of a candidate or each candidate for whom he votes. The voter having thus marked on the ballot paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, shall fold up the ballot paper so as to show the official mark on its back, and shall exhibit to the presiding officer such mark, and then in the presence of the presiding officer put the ballot paper into the ballot box. He thought this was the proper time at which to raise the question of secrecy, although the rules by which it was proposed to secure the secrecy sought by the Bill had been relegated to the schedules at the end. Up to the present moment the Committee had not dealt with the subject of secrecy. It was useless for noble Lords opposite to contend that the Bill before the Committee provided a Ballot of absolute secrecy, because it allowed an illiterate voter to 1813 have his voting paper filled up by the presiding officer in the presence of the agents of the candidates. It might be perfectly right that the illiterate voter should have the power of recording his vote in that manner, but by making such a concession they entirely gave up the idea of secrecy. If that were so, why should the great majority of the people of the country, who took a pride in voting openly, be compelled to gratify the whim of a small minority to vote in the manner provided by this Bill? When they came to the latter part of the Bill he would propose, by an Amendment to the schedule, to provide that the voter should, if he thought fit, go into a secret compartment, and there fill up his paper before giving it to the presiding officer; but he held that if the Committee were consistent, they ought to accept the Amendment which he now proposed.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, it was impossible that he could accept the Amendment. No doubt, the real object of the Amendment was to provide an optional Ballot, and he was obliged to the noble Duke for the very fair and candid manner in which he had stated the case. He had very little to add to what he had recently addressed to their Lordships, for he would not detain them by repeating the arguments he had already advanced. He had only to say that, in his judgment, it would have been far wiser to have rejected the Bill upon the second reading than to adopt an Amendment which would have the effect of making the Bill a pure delusion and a sham. The noble Duke had referred to those provisions in a later stage of the Bill by which persons suffering from certain disabilities might adopt a system of voting not altogether secret. He should be quite prepared to consider a proposal to strike out those provisions, in order to make the Bill perfectly consistent with itself; but, of course, there must be, in all human systems, points of difficulty. They could not make blind men, or men who could not read, do the same things as men who could see and read, and such difficulties must be met in the best way possible. But to say, because exceptions were made to meet difficulties—some of them of a physical character—they were therefore to abandon the whole principle of the Bill, seemed to be altogether inconsistent with a reasonable course of legisla- 1814 tion. The real question their Lordships had now to consider was, did they or did they not intend effectually and really to give the protection of secrecy to the electors of this country? If they did not, then this Bill had better be rejected; if they did, in his judgment, the only right and reasonable course was to deal with the measure in such a manner as would secure that secrecy, instead of leaving intimidation precisely as it was at present, and merely shifting its point.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the argument which had been pressed upon them with the greatest force in favour of this Bill, was that the country by its silence during two Sessions of discussion, and especially by the result of certain recent elections, had declared its readiness to have the principle of secret voting imported into its legislation. They were told also that this Bill came before them with the strong and earnest sanction of the House of Commons, and that by adopting an Amendment such as that proposed by the noble Duke, by which the Ballot would be rendered optional, they would be sending back a sham to the House of Commons and would disappoint the country. He ventured to take issue on both those propositions. He did not believe that either the real sense of the House of Commons, or, still less, the real sense of the country was that which Ministers desired them to believe. As to the sense of the country, the matter was clear enough. At the very elections on which noble Lords opposite relied so much, and which they (the Opposition) were taunted with not having noticed, the candidates won, not in consequence of their adoption of the Ballot, but because they avowed a preference for the optional rather than the secret Ballot. What stamp had the House of Commons put upon the Bill? They might have a perfectly compulsory or a perfectly optional Ballot; but it was obvious they could have no compromise. The whole strength of the Government, with perfect consistency, had been devoted to making the Bill entirely compulsory. Their Lordships knew how strong the Government was in the House of Commons, and that when the House of Commons voted on a Government proposal other matters beside the mere merits of the question were considered. Yet, in spite of these influences, the House of Commons had taken the whole 1815 sting out of the Bill, when they expunged the penalties and gave to illiterate and other persons facilities which were absolutely inconsistent with the principle of secrecy. He maintained that if the House of Commons had been really in earnest in regard to the principle of secrecy, all the penalties would not have been taken out of the Bill; for the House of Commons would not have been content with forbidding things in an Act of Parliament when it shrunk from attaching any penalty to an infraction of the statute. This was, he thought, a very intelligible view for the House of Commons and the country to take. It was very reasonable that they should take the view expressed by the Prime Minister in Yorkshire last year, when he said that everybody ought to have the protection of the Ballot who desired it. For his own part, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought the sustaining influence of publicity ought to be given to everybody, whether he desired it or not; but, at the same time, he could quite understood the other view—that publicity should be secured to those who desired it, and secrecy to those who desired that. They had been told by the noble Marquess the President of the Council that under an optional Ballot the voter would be intimidated into making known his vote—that only the point of intimidation would be shifted. This objection, however, was equally applicable to all contrivances which might be adopted for the protection of voters. Even if they passed the Bill in its most stringent form, the agent or customer, or whoever was supposed to intimidate the voter, would still effect his purpose by telling his victim not to go to the poll. For his own part, he disbelieved all this talk about intimidation. It did not exist in his part of the country at all events. But if intimidation existed anywhere, and if there were any of their Lordships who desired to coerce their tenantry, he could only say that, however close they might make the secrecy of the Bill, and however sharp its penalties, he could undertake to know the vote of every tenant on his estate. Nothing would be easier than to keep away from the poll those over whom influence was exercised, and so neutralize their votes. No contrivance could prevent those who had such influence from exercising it if they wished to do so, and the victim chose to 1816 submit. But these arguments about intimidation were founded upon a misconception of the existing relations of English society. Englishmen would assert their opinions, and he utterly disbelieved that any body of Englishmen worth mentioning, having real convictions of their own—that was a qualification on which he very much relied—would be, or had been, so base as to sacrifice them to any pressure whatever. But if there were individuals who wished to put pressure on individual voters, no legislative devices could prevent the action of social forces. The system of optional Ballot, so far from being a delusion and a sham or an idle compromise, offered in reality, from the point of view of the advocates of the Ballot themselves, the wisest course they could adopt. Starting from the point at which their Lordships arrived the other evening, when they determined that it was desirable, if possible, to legislate upon this subject, he maintained that they ought to give Englishmen as much liberty as they could. The Bill proposed to introduce a new system, strange to the inhabitants of this country and alien to our political life. Could such a system be introduced suddenly and without notice—not by the desire of the people, but as the result of a Parliamentary intrigue? Could it be expected that the people would yield a hearty allegiance to the mere law if violent restrictive penalties were attached to it? If an attempt were to be made to force them to adopt a system of secret voting, would it not be wiser to lead them up to it quietly, to induce them to examine the machinery at work, to appreciate its value, to have all their difficulties and apprehensions removed by experience—to move towards it, in short, in the gradual and tentative manner in which we had moved towards every change that had proved beneficial and permanent in this country? The people of this country did not like and would not submit to violent and hasty changes. It was the nature of our legislation to lead them towards all reforms gradually, and whenever an attempt had been made to disregard the tradition of the country in this respect, the law had been gradually worn away and pulverized by the steady and passive resistance of the multitude, who were unwilling to accept the sudden application of a novel principle. He believed their Lordships would 1817 act wisely in accepting the Amendment, which offered the only chance of a solution of the question, and the rejection of which would leave the question to be settled after violent and acrimonious controversy, when it might now be adjusted temporarily, and ultimately settled in the sense desired by the Government by gradual and cautious legislation.

§ EARL COWPER
said, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had stated that the other House had not manifested any strong wish for compulsory secrecy; but he (Earl Cowper) thought that if the noble Marquess would turn to the debates and divisions which occurred in that House he would find reason to doubt the accuracy of his statement. He thought that if there were one thing which more than another showed the worthlessness of an optional secrecy, it was that no attempt had been made to argue that the Bill would be of any use if it were passed with this Amendment in it. He could understand this Amendment being supported by the opponents of the Ballot and by those who voted against the second reading of the Bill; but if the Amendment were to be accepted the victory gained on the second reading would be no victory at all, and the House would place itself as much in opposition to the wishes of the country as it would have done had it thrown out the Bill on the second reading. For one, if opposed to the Ballot, he would rather have rejected the Bill in a straightforward manner than have proposed to defeat its object by introducing this Amendment.

EARL GREY
said, he had supported the last Amendment because it was necessary to insure fairness; but he could not help thinking that this Amendment was not consistent with what was called the principle of the Bill, upon which he hoped their Lordships would not engraft it. It was quite clear that if their Lordships adopted it, it would not be accepted by the other House; and then either their Lordships would be compelled to reverse their decision, or they would be held up to the country as having taken a course which was not straightforward in order to defeat the object of the Bill. On these grounds, he thought it was not desirable to adopt the present Amendment.

§ LORD LYTTELTON
said, that, while he had voted against the measure, which 1818 he thought was a most unworthy one, now that their Lordships had accepted the principle of the Bill, he would be no party to an Amendment which would palpably reduce the Bill to an utter unreality. Nothing could be more obvious than that intimidation would be just as easy under this Amendment as it had been hitherto. It would be rather too strong a measure for public opinion to attempt to prevent a man voting at all; but it would be quite practicable to say—"Unless you vote publicly I shall assume that you have voted against me," and the result would be just the same as at present. He therefore hoped the Amendment would be negatived.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
thought there was much to be said in favour of both secret and open voting, but this new proposal for optional secret voting appeared to him to combine the disadvantages of both secret and open voting. He considered that under the optional system of voting intimidation would be even easier than under the existing system. He believed, also, that bribery under the optional system would be much worse than it was at present, and detection more difficult, because a person who desired to receive a bride would be able to prove to the person who offered the bribe that he had voted for a particular person and to conceal his vote from every one else. This assertion of his was not founded upon mere theory but upon experience and upon evidence which was to be found in Parliamentary documents. He was astonished to hear the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) say he had never heard of a case of intimidation, and he could only ask the noble Marquess whether he had ever read the evidence given before the Marquess of Hartington's Committee?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
It has never been presented to us.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
It was in their Lordships' library, where he was reading it the other day. That evidence adduced scores of cases of intimidation by landlords in Wales. They heard much the other night about bribery and intimidation being practised in America, but it so happened that the particular States in which those practices prevailed were States in which secrecy was optional. It was optional in the States of New York and South Carolina, which 1819 were referred to the other night, but it was compulsory in Massachusetts, which was free from the bribery that existed in the other States. As to France, the evidence showed that the voting, though nominally secret, was in reality not so. There was a great and an unjust pressure placed upon voters. In Australia, with compulsory secrecy, there was no intimidation, and little bribery; and that fact only bore out what one would naturally expect. At all events, where secret voting was optional there was bribery, and where it was compulsory there was no intimidation—he would not say there was absolutely no bribery, because it was impossible to suppress it altogether, but there was very little indeed. The Amendment was quite inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. If they adopted the Amendment it would be said by those who were not friendly to their Lordships' House that their object was to allow intimidation to continue, in order to preserve the influence of the landlords. He hoped their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment, which was entirely at variance with the principle of the Bill.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, he altogether denied that this Amendment was an attempt by a side wind, or in an underhand way, to get rid of a Bill which had passed the second reading. Nothing could be fairer and more above-board, both in regard to the second reading and this Amendment, than the course taken on this occasion by his noble Friends. They had given their reasons for not exercising the influence they had to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill on a second reading; but they stated distinctly at the time the character of the Amendments which they would propose in Committee. On the other hand, he denied the right of any noble Lord to define to their Lordships the principle of a Bill after it had been read the second time, when that definition was made with a view to strengthen the opposition to the Amendment. He thought this one of the most important clauses of the Bill. The provision as to open nominations was a very good thing; and the maintaining of the secrecy of the poll until the close was also a very good thing. Indeed, he believed that by the keeping of the poll secret till the close they would get rid of nine-tenths of whatever bribery remained in the country. But 1820 so far as any desire in favour of Ballot existed out-of-doors, he believed that among the great body of electors the desire was only for a permissive Ballot; that there should be no imposition of secrecy on any voter who did not wish it; but that every man might, if he wished, record his vote in secrecy. This was the kind of Ballot which the Prime Minister declared it to be his wish in Yorkshire to establish—that secrecy should be provided for those only who desired it. That was the principle on which he supported this Amendment. It was quite consistent with the principle of the Bill and with the feeling out-of-doors in regard to the Bill. He would recommend the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) who spoke about intimidation to read the evidence given before Mr. Justice Keogh, and his decision in the case of the Galway Election Petition. That was a case in which intimidation of the most alarming character had been resorted to; but was it for the purpose of making persons vote? Nothing of the kind. It was known how the persons were going to vote; respectable men—farmers, professional men, clergymen—were met coming into the town to poll; they were mobbed, pelted with stones, and their lives endangered, to prevent them from voting at all. Was there a single word in this Bill to check or cure this gigantic evil—this disgrace to the country? Could that which was done on a large scale towards voters whose opinions were known not to be done on a small scale by the customer as against tradesmen, by trades unions as against a member of the union? Of course it could; and if this Bill passed in its integrity they would be only shifting the point of intimidation from one place to another. On the ground that they had no right to impose on any man secrecy of voting against his will, who desired to record his vote as he had done before, openly—on the ground that they had no right to constrain that man, to crush him into a silent voter, unable to declare the opinion he conscientiously maintained, he should support this Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he did not believe that anyone on his side had attributed to noble Lords opposite an intention by this Amendment to get rid of this Bill by a side-wind. What they said was this—that it would be an in- 1821 consistent part if their Lordships, after voting for the second reading, should adopt an Amendment which would substantially defeat the Bill. That was their contention; and for himself he believed that this Bill would become substantially waste paper if this Amendment should pass. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) would lead their Lordships to believe that the Amendment was in accordance with the views of those who out-of-doors were in favour of Ballot. He entertained a very contrary opinion. If there were no feeling in the country in favour of the Ballot, how did it happen that at those elections which had recently been held the successful candidates had expressed their approval of the Ballot?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
They were in favour of an optional Ballot—Ballot without the tread-mill clauses.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
mentioned the Oldham election, where Mr. Lyulph Stanley was a candidate.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
But Mr. Stanley was the unsuccessful candidate.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
At any rate his experience did not harmonize with that of the noble Marquess as to the feelings of the people on this question, nor was there any concurrence in their experience with regard to intimidation, which the noble Marquess had said was very rare indeed. He (the Earl of Kimberley) feared it was only too rife. Intimidation was not only open—it was often indirect, and if it was only removed by this Bill one step, that might be a very good step in advance. It was perfectly obvious that an optional Ballot was no Ballot at all, and he did not think it would be worth while to pass such a measure into law.

§ LORD ROMILLY
expressed his surprise at hearing the noble and learned Lord oppposite (Lord Cairns) say that the people of this country did not wish for the protection of the Ballot. Had he gone through as many contested elections as he himself had done, he would have arrrived at a different conclusion. Electors had over and over again come to him and said that they were sorry to feel obliged to vote for him, and that they would vote against him if they could; while others, again, told him that they desired to vote for him, but must vote against him, and 1822 that they wished they had some protection. By secret voting he understood a system by which the voter would not be able to prove how he had voted, but that he should be at full liberty to make any statement he pleased as to how he had voted. He thought it was impossible for any one who really knew the facts seriously to say that the people of this country did not want the protection of the Ballot.

§ LORD CAIRNS
denied that he had said that the people of this country did or did not desire the Ballot. What he had said was that he was persuaded that those people in this country who desired the Ballot desired the kind of Ballot which would give the protection of secrecy to those who desired that protection; and that those who desired to vote openly should be allowed to vote openly.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
thought the explanation just made by the noble and learned Lord opposite was perfectly fatal to the Amendment of the noble Duke. That Amendment would be entirely incompatible with giving the protection of secrecy to those who desired that protection.

§ On Question whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 83; Not-Contents 67: Majority 16.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

1823

CONTENTS.
Bedford, D.	Harrowby, E.
Marlborough, D.	Lanesborough, E.
Norfolk, D.	Lonsdale, E.
Richmond, D.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Rutland, D.	Russell, E.
Wellington, D.	Shaftesbury, E.
	Stradbroke, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Verulam, E.
	Wilton, E.
Bath, M.
Bute, M.	Bangor, V.
Exeter, M.	De Vesci, V.
Hertford, M.	Gough, V.
Salisbury, M.	Hardinge, V.
Winchester, M.	Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
	Hereford, V.
Amherst, E.	Hill, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Hood, V.
Bradford, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Coventry, E.	Strathallan, V.
Dartmouth, E.	Templetown, V.
Denbigh, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.
	Hereford, Bp.
Feversham, E.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Abinger, L.
	Bagot, L.

1823

Boston, L.	Headley, L.
Braybrooke, L.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Buckhurst, L.	Kesteven, L.
Cairns, L.	Lilford, L.
Chelmsford, L.	Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Clinton, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Colchester, L.
Colonsay, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Colville of Culross, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Delamere, L.	Redesdale, L.
De Ros, L.	Saltoun, L.
De Saumarez, L.	Sinclair, L.
Digby, L.	Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Egerton, L.
Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)	Sondes, L.
	Stratheden, L.
Fitzwalter, L.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)	Tredegar, L.
	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Grantley, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)	Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, Archp.	Churchill, L.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
	Congleton, L.
	Dormer, L.
Devonshire, D.	Dunsany, L.
Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Somerset, D.
	Erskine, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Foley, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Ripon, M.
	Greville, L.
Airlie, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Camperdown, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Cowper, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
De La Warr, E.
Ducie, E.	Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)
Durham, E.	Leigh, L.
Fortescue, E.	Lurgan, L.
Granville, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Grey, E.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Jersey, E.	Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Methuen, L.
Nelson, E.	Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)
Powis, E.
Rosse, E.	Monson, L.
Spencer, E.	Mostyn, L.
	Poltimore, L.
Halifax, V.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Sydney, V.
Torrington, V.	Romilly, L.
	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Ripon, Bp.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Belper, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Blachford, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Sudeley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Camoys, L.	Vernon, L.

§ Consequential Amendments made.

§ LORD COLCHESTER moved, in page 2, after Clause 2, insert— If any elector signify to the returning officer his desire to vote otherwise than by personal at- 1824 tendance, the returning officer shall, not less than three days before the day fixed for election, forward to him a ballot paper together with a ticket containing the voters name and number on the register, and the voter shall secretly mark his vote upon it and place it in a closed cover or packet, and send it together with the ticket under an outer cover to the returning officer who shall place it in the ballot box on the day of election. The noble Lord said he proposed this Amendment because he believed the system of personal attendance at the poll was the source of every evil connected with contested elections.

§ EARL COWPER
opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would give rise to as much bribery and intimidation as at present existed. The proposal was reported against very strongly by the Committee of 1870 on the ground that it would make bribery and intimidation easy, and it had been made twice in the other House, and was each time rejected by considerable majorities. Few dependent voters could resist a landlord, or a £10 note in a private room with a ballot paper to fill up. It would likewise open the door to the distribution of forged papers, which it would be difficult to identify.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
had always thought the arguments in favour of voting papers to be very strong. No doubt they might in some cases lead to mischief; but that mischief, in his mind, would be very slight when compared with the serious injury sometimes inflicted upon electors who had the misfortune to live a long distance from the polling place. Considering that the strength of the Liberals was generally to be found in towns, and that of the Conservatives in the country, he was not surprised at the aversion of the former to such an arrangement as that proposed. As, however, this question had been discussed on several occasions, he should advise his noble Friend not to press it, but rather to turn his attention to the more practical object of increasing the number of polling places.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Offences at Elections.

§ Clause 3 (Offences in respect of nomination papers, ballot papers, and ballot boxes.)

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved in Clause 3, page 3, line 19, after ("punishable") insert— 1825 ("Any offence specified in this section shall, if committed by the returning officer or his clerks, be punishable with imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour"); line 23, leave out ("returning officer at such election") and insert ("Secretary of State for the Home Department").

§ LORD ROMILLY
deprecated the adoption of the Amendment. In the House of Commons it was complained that the Bill was over weighted with penalties, and on such a charge as that contemplated by the noble Lord, and with such a penalty, it would be found practically impossible to convict.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
observed that all that the noble Lord opposite proposed to do was to render the punishment heavier in the case of the Returning Officers than in other cases. Hitherto the Government had poured out all their wrath upon the unfortunate elector; but what in his case was a mere crotchet was in the Returning Officer a crime. He trusted that the Amendment would be adopted.

§ After some discussion—

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, he would undertake to give the Amendments and suggestions consideration before the bringing up the Report.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 4 (Infringement of secrecy).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 3, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("interfere") in line 32, and insert— ("No officer, clerk, or agent in attendance at a polling station shall communicate before the poll is closed to any person any information as to the official mark or.")

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, what Her Majesty's Government desired in reference to this branch of the subject was to prevent the possibility of candidates availing themselves of the votes of corrupt electors. It was well known that in most boroughs there were a certain number of voters who were notoriously corrupt, and who "hung back" in order to sell their votes. If the agents of the candidates were allowed to be within the polling-places and to keep a record of the voters who applied for ballot-papers, the object of the corrupt candidates and voters would be gained. He did not think his noble Friend (the Duke of 1826 Richmond) desired that that state of things should arise, and as the Amendment was not necessarily consequential upon the proposals which had been already adopted he must ask the opinion of their Lordships upon it.

§ LORD CAIRNS
agreed as to the importance of preventing corrupt practices in the conduct of elections; but he thought it perfectly legitimate that the candidates or their agents should be enabled in the course of an election to ascertain who had not voted, in order that their support might be solicited. But the clause contemplated the presence of an agent at a polling station, and it would be idle to prohibit the giving of this information to candidates or their agents, because it could be as easily obtained by persons standing in the streets outside the polling-places as by agents who had access to the interior of the polling booths.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, it was important that the prohibition should be maintained. The only reason why the knowledge as to who had not voted could be desired, was that intimidation or bribery might be brought to bear upon them. If the agents were informed as to the names of the persons who had voted, they would be able, at critical points in the progress of elections, to "put on the screw" on those who had not.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
was absolutely startled by the facility with which Her Majesty's Government took alarm. It now appeared that it was an utterly wrong thing to ask anyone who had not voted to go to the poll. He remembered that in University contests some years ago, the supporters of the different candidates used every argument, and exercised every influence—if he might use the word—to induce the electors to record their votes, and it never occurred to any man that there was anything wrong in that. Now, however, it appeared that in regard to the poorer classes of voters, it was quite wrong to ask any one of them to vote. That was the only ground on which the argument of the noble and learned Lord could be justified. But even if this new political Decalogue were true, this clause would not attain the object he had in view. If a man should at any time drop a single word as to which candidate he had voted for he would be liable to "summary 1827 conviction before two justices of the peace and sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour." The Legislature would have this sword of Damocles hang over the unfortunate man's head for the rest of his life. Why, the very thought of it would drive a man mad, and to obtain relief he would probably rush home at once and divulge the terrible secret at once to his wife or friends so as to get it off his mind. Parliament had no right to inflict this fearful curse on a man who had voted, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would adopt the Amendment.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
said, the stringency of this clause was greater than he had ever before seen. Not only would the officers, clerks, and attendants, and the persons who supplied the voting papers act under alarm and anxiety, but it would exercise a new form of intimidation over the voters and deter them from voting at all.

§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 63, Not-Contents 36; Majority 27.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Amendment of Law.

§ Clause 5 (Division of boroughs and counties into polling districts.)

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
proposed an Amendment by which the polling-places to be provided by the authorities should be so assigned as that every elector resident in a county should have a place not more than "two" miles distant from his residence—instead of "four" as provided by the clause. The great object which those who promoted this Bill had in view was to enfranchise the greatest number of individuals, and enable the greatest number of persons throughout the country to exercise their right of voting. The Amendment he proposed had the advantage of giving every voter who wished to exercise his right an opportunity of doing so, by enabling him to walk to the polling-place, and it would thereby do away with one great source of expense and inconvenience attending elections—namely, the conveying the voter to the place of voting. A working man could, under the Amendment, record his vote in his 1828 meal time without losing his day's labour. He was at a loss to understand why Scotland was to be excluded from the operation of this part of the Bill, because Scotland required a multiplication of polling-places more than any other part of the United Kingdom. It was only reasonable that a man should be able to record his vote at the least trouble and inconvenience to himself, and on that ground he moved the Amendment.

§ Amendment moved, page 4, line 11, leave out ("four"), and insert ("two.")—(The Duke of Richmond).

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, the question was a purely practical one; and those who were competent to form an opinion believed that with the increased number which the lesser distance rendered imperative, it would be impossible in many districts to find suitable polling-places and competent and responsible presiding officers. It was believed that these arrangements would often be difficult with the greater distance named by the Bill; and the difficulty would be increased by reducing the distance—particularly in respect to presiding officers, because with optional secrecy for the unhappy voter, it would be more than ever necessary that the officers should be trustworthy persons. It must be borne in mind that the Bill fixed four miles, subject to the discretion of the local authorities to reduce it; but the Amendment would make the shorter distance imperative. Scotland was excluded because it was believed to be absolutely impossible to find the requisite number of presiding officers there even for the greater distance.

LORD DENMAN
said, he should have supported the Amendment if he had thought it to be a practicable one; but he did not believe it was on account of the difficulty of finding the requisite number of presiding officers.

§ LORD CAIRNS
questioned the right of the noble Marquess the President of the Council to assume that optional secrecy would increase the difficulty of multiplying polling-places, and as to the voter being made "unhappy" by giving him the option of voting openly or in secret, he might thank the Government, with whom "unhappy voter" had become a favourite expression. To walk four miles to a polling-place, and four 1829 miles back was a serious task, and the difference between doing that and walking two miles there and two miles back was so great, that the question was well worthy of their Lordships' consideration.

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, he should be obliged to support the Amendment, because he believed the multiplication of polling-places the only effectual remedy against personation, and necessary to the reduction of the evils against which the Bill was directed.

§ On Question, That the word ("four") stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-contents, 68; Majority 19.

§ Then the word ("two") inserted.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (Use of school and public room for poll).

§ THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to omit the words, "any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament." This provision affected many persons interested in Church schools, and from the diocese of Manchester alone no fewer than 60 Petitions were presented the other night, on the ground of the interruption of the arrangements of the school and the interference with the proper work of education. That, he might observe, would be especially aggravated by the tumult and distraction of an election. He hoped the Government would withdraw the proposition.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the object of this Amendment was the same as one which he had himself placed on the Paper; but as he feared his went too far and would prevent the use of any room other than a school-room, he should be content to take the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. He could not conceive anything more out of place, or more detrimental to good order, than to allow election proceedings to be held in school-rooms. Besides, as the number of attendances at school entitled managers to receive the Parliamentary Grant, the arrangement might interfere with the money a school was entitled to receive from Government.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
understood the provision had been inserted at the instance of the Education Department; but he hoped they would revise the decision they had come to.

1830

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
pointed out that schools received grants of public money for the performance of specific duties, and urged that when they had discharged that obligation it was unjust to impose another upon them.

§ LORD LYTTELTON
said, he presented three Petitions in deprecation of this clause from persons in Worcester and Birmingham practically acquainted with the subject. He believed it would be a serious impediment to education, and he hoped the Government would give way on this point.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, that the clause was not the invention of the Education Department, as had been suggested, but was proposed last year by a Conservative Member in "another place." He feared that in many places there would be difficulty in finding rooms suitable for the purpose of polling—the choice would often practically lie between the school and the public-house.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
suggested that as they were now engaged in the process of reforming public-houses, which when the Licensing Bill of the Government was passed, these houses would be places where nothing that was wrong would occur, and where virtue would be enshrined. It would be a most happy arrangement that purified elections should be carried on in purified public-houses.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that although estimating highly the probable good effects of the licensing measure of the Government, he was afraid that, after it was passed, public-houses would still not be the very best places in which to hold Parliamentary elections.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE
said, this concession would only be graceful on the part of the Government, and he hoped they would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on that question.

§ On Question? Amendment agreed to; words struck out; Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 agreed to.

§ LORD COLCHESTER moved to insert, after Clause 11, the following:— This Act shall not come into operation with regard to the manner of taking votes in any county or borough where by a poll taken by ballot according to the provisions in Clause 3 the majority of the electors shall decide that votes continue to be given openly as before the passing of 1831 this Act: and the returning officer shall cause such poll to be taken not less than one week or not more than four weeks prior to an election, at the requisition of any five registered electors. He trusted their Lordships would give a fair consideration to that proposal, and not be led to reject it for the sake of obtaining uniformity of system where the circumstances were the very reverse of uniform.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
opposed the Amendment. It would be very objectionable that different modes of election should prevail in various parts of the country, and he would draw attention to the difficulty which the Returning Officer would have in carrying out the latter part of the Amendment in the absence of precise information as to a forthcoming election.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
distinctly remembered that Sir Robert Collier proposed and Mr. Childers strongly supported a provision exactly like the present one. It had, therefore, found favour among orthodox Liberals.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Miscellaneous.

§ Clause 12 (Prohibition of disclosure of vote).

§ Clause 13 (Non-compliance with rules).

§ Clause 14 (Use of municipal ballot boxes, &c. for Parliamentary Elections,) and vice versâ.

§ Clause 15 (Construction of Act).

§ —severally agreed, to.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that when last Session he moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground of want of time, he referred to one or two subjects which he thought would require consideration should a Bill of the same nature again come before the Legislature. One of these related to the payment of the expenses of candidates. He greatly regretted in the interest of the working classes that the proposal to throw the expenses of elections on some public fund had been rejected by the House of Commons; but unfortunately it was against privilege to handle such subjects in the House. But there were two other points which he then pointed out as worthy of special attention, upon which he was now about to ask their 1832 Lordships' opinion. He had placed two Amendments on the Paper, one proposing that the poll should be kept open until 8 in the evening, the other that the public-houses should be closed on the day of the poll. He urged the adoption of these provisions on this ground, among others—that they had been pressed upon him by a deputation of 40 representatives of the trades of London, and a number of delegates from Lancashire and North Yorkshire. The delegates who had waited upon him differed as to the mode in which opportunity should be given to the working classes to ballot, but they were all unanimous in asking for some special facilities. One of the arguments used by the deputation which had waited on him, was that under the present system the reckless idle fellow would not be indisposed to leave his work regardless of the inconvenience to his fellow-workmen and his master, while the honest workman who shrank from throwing the work upon his fellows would be debarred from voting; so that by closing the poll at 4 many of the best class of workmen were practically disfranchised, and that, under an extended suffrage, was a serious evil. It had been said in answer it would be dark at 8 in the winter time; but the working classes replied they were quite able to take care of themselves, and as for the roughs, they were more than a match for them. The working classes were quite ready to accept the responsibility, if only the opportunity were given to them of recording their vote. In London at municipal elections the polling was always kept open up to 8 o'clock, and he had been assured by men of many years' experience that by far the best men came towards the close of the poll. If his second Amendment, requiring the public-houses to be closed on the polling day, were accepted, there would be no possibility of mischief resulting from the proposal to keep the poll open until 8. The same deputation strongly urged that the public-houses should be closed during the polling hours, alleging that they offered great facilities for bribery when men were half drunk. The working classes were very determined in the matter, and—to use the words of the deputation to which he had referred—they asked their Lordships to grant the boon the Commons had dared to refuse, Great difference of opinion 1833 would arise upon the vote given with respect to the question of an optional or a compulsory Ballot, but no difference of opinion existed among the classes most concerned upon the point he now submitted. He had never seen such unanimity, and he was sure that if the Bill were passed without these provisions it would be received with the greatest possible contempt by the people, who would never relax their efforts until they had obtained that which they regarded as essential to their honour and security. The noble Earl concluded by moving the 1st clause.

§ Moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following:— At every contested election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for any borough or borough county in England or Wales after the passing of this Act, the polling shall commence at eight of the clock in the forenoon of the day fixed for that purpose by the returning officers, and no poll shall be kept open later than eight of the clock in the afternoon; and so much of the Act five and six William the Fourth, chapter 36, as limits the hours of polling to four of the clock in the afternoon in respect of borough elections is hereby repealed."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

LORD DENMAN
said, the municipal elections took place at a stated time, but the example would not apply to Parliamentary elections, which might be held at any time of the year.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said, he regretted the course adopted by the House of Commons with regard to the first of the noble Earl's proposals, and he was ready to admit that there was great force in the argument with which he urged his present proposal. But it must be obvious to their Lordships that a general extension of the polling time until 8 o'clock would not answer. He was anxious to offer every facility to the working classes to record their votes, but nothing would be so bad as to carry on elections in the dark.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
desired to state the reasons why he should support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury). He fully concurred with much of what had been said by the noble Earl, but he viewed the Amendment in connection with a larger principle. It was quite true that this Bill would probably put an end to what he might call positive compulsion—that was, that no man should be able to force his dependents to the poll. But he was not 1834 quite sure—and this was a very important point, but one which he had not heard hitherto alluded to—whether it would put an end to negative compulsion? It would, he feared, be easy for a large employer of labour, who knew that his workmen differed in opinion from him as to such questions as to the distribution of wealth, or the tenure of land, for instance, by adjusting the hours of labour on the polling day in a particular manner, or by other means, to prevent their voting. He would give an instance which would appeal as forcibly as possible to noble Lords opposite. He would take the case of a Liberal manufacturer having in his employment 400 Conservative working men, and he was sure he could not put the case more strongly. Such a man, by preventing his workmen from voting, might seriously retard the progress of that Conservative reaction which the country was watching with such interest. It was in the hope that the Amendment might to a certain extent remedy the danger of the repression of votes that he should vote for it.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that the Amendment, as worded, seemed to leave too much to the discretion of the Returning Officer. He feared such a power as this would lead at times to the suspicion that the hour of closing the poll was appointed to suit the convenience of the side to which the Returning Officer belonged. It had been stated "elsewhere," too, that polling after dark, as would often be the case under this clause in the winter months, would lead to tumult and rioting. Again, there were boroughs as large as counties, and it would not be advisable that voters should have to go a considerable distance after 8 o'clock at night. He quite agreed it was desirable that every restriction should, as far as possible, be removed which tended to prevent the working classes from recording their votes; but, although no doubt the noble Earl's proposal was aimed in that direction, he could not but see that it was attended by difficulties which rendered its adoption in its present shape inadvisable.
The Earl of HARROWBY, Lord LIFFORD, and Lord DELAMERE offered some observations which were not audible.

§ The Question being put, and some of their Lordships declaring themselves 1835 Content, and others Not-Content, the Chairman of Committees declared the Not-Contents have it; and whereon

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
challenged the decision, protesting that he would take the sense of the House even if he had to walk into the lobby alone.

§ The Question having been again put; their Lordships divided:—Contents 87; Not-Contents 72: Majority 15.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative; Clause added to the Bill.

§ LORD CAIRNS
After what has happened, it is absolutely necessary that I should ask your Lordships to report Progress. Her Majesty's Government are clearly ignorant as to the course they ought to take with regard to this Bill. Almost the only Member of the Government who has taken any part in guiding the discussion upon this Bill is the noble Marquess the President of the Council, who, upon the Amendment of the noble Earl, rose in his place and gave us to understand that the Government were opposed to the noble Earl's proposition. Although greatly impressed by the motives of the noble Earl in bringing his proposal forward, yet, feeling the weight of the arguments used by the noble Marquess, I expressed my opinion that it would be unsafe for your Lordships to accede to the Motion in its present form. I do not think there is any one of your Lordships who heard what occurred who was not under the impression that Her Majesty's Government was going to oppose the proposal of the noble Earl. When the Question was put from the Chair I heard a great number of voices on the other side of the House challenge the passing of the clause; yet every Member of Her Majesty's Government, including the President of the Council, went into the lobby with the noble Earl. My Parliamentary experience is not so long as that of many of your Lordships; but I must say that in all my experience in either House of Parliament I never knew a course to be adopted by any Government similar to that which has been adopted on the present occasion. I hope it will be distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government, having, by their spokesman, sought to induce your Lordships not to accept the proposal of the noble Earl, nevertheless, at the last 1836 moment, turned round, and went into the lobby in support of the Amendment they had just opposed.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, the inference to be drawn from what the noble and learned Lord had just said was, that the proposal of the noble Earl would not have been carried if those who supported it had known that the Government would vote for it. Now, what was the fact? The President of the Council had expressed regret that the House of Commons had not adopted in effect, though not in exact terms, a proposal similar to that of the noble Earl. With that view, he had made a suggestion, which, however, the noble Earl thought fit to reject. The noble and learned Lord laid it down in positive terms, that it was a matter of the greatest importance that every restriction against the labouring classes recording their votes should be removed; and as he (Earl Granville) entirely agreed, he could not vote against the proposal of the noble Earl, considering it contained a principle which would be well worthy of consideration and adoption, in a modified form, when they came to consider the Bill on the Report.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, that if the noble Earl was of that opinion, he thought the noble Marquess the President of the Council was not justified in the speech which he had made. So surprised was he (the Duke of Richmond) to see the Members of the Government going into the lobby with the noble Earl that he remarked to a noble Marquess near him that the Government must be voting under some mistake, because the speech made by the President of the Council was directly opposed to the arguments of the noble Earl who had made the proposal. The Motion was that the first of the noble Earl's new clauses be added to the Bill; and the noble Marquess told them that he could not support that Motion. He thought that was a position which the Government might very reasonably take, and therefore he thought that the statement of the noble Marquess represented the views of the Government. He must say that it was extremely inconvenient that on a Bill of this importance, and upon an Amendment of which due Notice had been given, the Government should not have previously taken counsel as to the course that they ought to pursue. If 1837 the views of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary were correct—that the proposal should be modified, and that the time ought not to be distinctly fixed at 8 o'clock—then it was for the noble Marquess to make that suggestion, and he should have said to the noble Earl—"If you will withdraw your clause and agree to the terms that I think right, then I will not oppose your proposition, but will endeavour upon the Report to bring forward a Motion that will meet the case." So far from doing that, the noble Marquess distinctly opposed the proposition of the noble Earl. He (the Duke of Richmond) repeated that that was not the way in which a Bill of this importance should be discussed upon a Motion of which Notice had been given. They had a right to hear the opinion of the Government stated; and what he complained of was that the noble Marquess had laid down the course which the Government intended to take without giving them any notice whatever that they were going to vote in the directly opposite manner to that in which they had spoken. They gave no intimation whatever that having spoken one way they would vote another.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
I am quite sure that nothing could be further from the intention of the noble Duke who has just sat down than to misrepresent in the slightest degree anything said either by myself or any other Member of your Lordships' House; but the noble Duke has somewhat forgotten what I said, or I failed to make clear what I intended to say on this subject. What I said was that I regretted the course which the House of Commons had taken in striking out a clause the object of which was to lengthen the hours of polling, and so afford greater facilities to the working classes in the exercise of the franchise. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) pointed out the peculiar wording of the noble Earl's clause, which provided that the poll "shall not be kept open later than 8 o'clock." That wording seemed to indicate the intention of the noble Earl to be that the poll should not always be kept open till that hour.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
The Amendment has been in print for some days, and perhaps some Member of Her Majesty's Government will state whether when they came into the House they 1838 meant to support the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I cannot give any information as to what we thought yesterday, or at any other time. What I am concerned to do is to explain the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken. Now, I maintain that in assenting to the clause of the noble Earl, we have done what is perfectly consistent with the statement of my noble Friend behind me (the Marquess of Ripon). What he said was that he thought 8 o'clock would be too late an hour at certain times of the year; and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) said he agreed with my noble Friend that it would at certain times of the year be convenient to keep the poll open to a later hour than at present. The clause we have passed provides that no poll shall be kept open later than 8 o'clock in the afternoon—thus leaving it optional whether the poll should remain open till that hour. I admit that the clause is imperfect and that it will require to be altered on the Report; but still I contend that voting for the clause is perfectly consistent with the view we have taken—namely, that it is desirable that at certain periods of the year the poll shall be kept open till 8 o'clock.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The noble Earl speaks as if there were no power of amending any clause which has been proposed to the House. Instead of voting for that which he did not approve, the noble Earl might have moved some words to make it such as he did approve. However, I only rise to suggest that in voting against that which their principal spokesman had advocated, Her Majesty's Government were perfectly consistent with themselves, because, in reality, they were voting against that which Mr. Forster voted against in the House of Commons. I believe the right hon. Gentleman voted against having the poll open till 8 o'clock. It is obvious enough, however, that until the division was called the Government never dreamt of voting with my noble Friend; but having had an unfortunate evening, they thought they would take this opportunity of somehow getting a vote in their favour.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Marquess who says we have had an unfortunate evening, and the noble 1839 Lords who support him, are evidently disappointed at not having the monopoly of spoiling the Bill. I suppose it is the opinion of the noble Marquess—though it is not ours—that the last Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has had some effect in spoiling the Bill, and if so, of course, he and those who support him will be consistent in continuing the course of action which has been going on the whole evening, and in rendering the whole Bill as unlike the measure which came from the House of Commons as can possibly be conceived. As regards the particular question on which the division was taken, it was one of detail, and my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) wished to make such a variation in the hours of polling as would give the working men every opportunity of exercising the franchise, and our vote was perfectly in harmony with the speech of the Lord President. There is nothing in the clause to prevent us from bringing up on the Report an Amendment to the effect that a variation in the hours of polling should be made at different periods of the year, but that the polling should never be continued after 8 o'clock.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
This is such a singular instance of consistency on the part of the Government, that I think I ought to draw attention to it. I believe that Her Majesty's Government made in the other House a proposal in regard to this question of keeping open the poll, and that on the proposal being found unacceptable they acted as they did on the present occasion—they spoke one way and voted another.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
During the long time I have been in this House I have known many learned Lords who sat on the Woolsack. But all those noble and learned Lords, whatever their views may have been, have held them with dignity and firmness—with judicial firmness, and with the appearance at all events of judicial moderation. We have heard the noble and learned Lord opposite speak often in this House, and twice in the course of this evening, and I must say he never rises to address your Lordships without showing acrimony and bitterness, and imputing motives to his political opponents.

1840

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I must protest against the language used by the noble Marquess. I can only attribute what has fallen from him to the ignorance which is natural in consequence of his having been absent from the House up to a very short time ago. The notion that my noble and learned Friend is wanting either in moderation or dignity is one which I never before heard even whispered by the opponents of Her Majesty's Government. I regret extremely that an imputation should have been cast upon us of any unfairness towards the opposite side of the House; but I cannot help thinking that noble Lords opposite, accustomed as they are to exercise a despotism in this House—["Oh, oh!"]—

§ LORD CAIRNS
I rise to Order. The noble Earl has already spoken.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Why, we are in Committee at this very moment, and any noble Lord can make remarks as often as he pleases. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat that the noble Lords opposite, with the enormous power they wield in this House—["Oh, oh!"]—Am I saying anything which is not true? Noble Lords opposite are so accustomed to have their own way in matters of this sort, that they cannot conceive any course being taken except for us to vote and be beaten on every Amendment they propose. What is there unfair in what we have done? Putting all other questions aside, it comes to this—that if the noble Duke opposite had known more clearly than he seems to have done the line of voting we should take, he would have been able to exercise his influence over Members of his own party in order to prevent them from voting in the way they thought right.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
After the very pointed manner in which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has just alluded to me, your Lordships will not think it extraordinary if I rise to make a few remarks. The noble Earl has stated that if I had known the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were going to vote, I should have exercised my influence to induce noble Lords on this side of the House to vote in a way contrary to that which they thought right. I have not had the honour of a seat in this House for so long a period as many noble Lords whom I see round me; but I have sat in this House upwards of 10 years, and I think I never 1841 before heard in it so personal a remark as that which has just fallen from the noble Earl. My Lords, the noble Earl stated that as we on this side of the House were the majority, I was in the habit of exercising what he is pleased to call a despotism—that is to say, that I have the power and also the inclination to direct the noble Lords whom I now see around me to vote on every occasion in the way I prescribe, and that I am the despot who rules noble Lords on this side of the House. Now, my Lords, let me point to what happened last week. I call as witness the noble Earl opposite who had charge of the Licensing Bill (the Earl of Kimberley). I want to know whether anything like despotism was exercised on this side of the House on any occasion; whether there were not occasions—certainly there was one occasion—when, if I had urged noble Lords on this side to take the course that occurred to my mind, I could not have carried Amendments which noble Lords opposite would have thought hostile and injurious to the Bill? After what happened on that occasion the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has no right to tell me that I exercise a despotism over noble Lords on this side of the House. More than that—he has no right to make personal remarks, and to impute to me motives which, if I held them, would render me unworthy to sit in this House, and to hold the position I have the honour to hold. It is an imputation that I venture to appeal to noble Lords on this side to vote contrary to their views and wishes, because, forsooth, we are anxious to be in a majority on every occasion. I regret that matter of so personal a character has been introduced by the noble Earl, and, feeling so strongly upon it, and that the noble Earl has not a tittle of foundation for the language he has used, I have taken the liberty of making these remarks.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
—I move that the Clerk at the Table do read the Order of the House relating to Asperity of speech.
The Clerk at the Table accordingly read the 18th Order of the House, as follows:— To prevent Misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive Speeches, when Matters are de- 1842 bating, either in the House or at Committees, it is for Honour Sake, thought fit, and so ordered, That all personal, sharp, or taxing Speeches be forborn, and whosoever answereth another Man's Speech shall apply his Answer to the Matter without Wrong to the Person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill-taken, if the Party that speaks it shall presently make a fair Exposition, or clear Denial of the Words that might bear any ill-construction, and if any offence be given in that Kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the Offender, and give the Party offended a fit Reparation, and a full Satisfaction.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
The Motion before your Lordships is that the Committee report Progress. I move as an Amendment that the next clause of the Bill be now read.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
said, the next Question was that the second clause of which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had given notice should be inserted in the Bill.

§ Moved, after the above inserted clause, to insert the following clause:— ("That on any day fixed for polling at any contested election for any borough or borough county in England or Wales after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any licensed victualler or person licensed to sell beer by retail to be drunk on the premises, or not to be drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorised to sell any fermented or distilled liquors in any part of England or Wales, to open or keep open his house in any borough where a polling place is situated for the sale of beer, wine, spirits, or any other fermented or distilled liquors between the hours of eight of the clock in the forenoon of such polling day and eight of the clock of the afternoon of the same day, if the polling shall so long last, except for refreshments to a bonâ fide traveller or a lodger therein.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

LORD DENMAN
said, the only clause relating to public-houses was contained in the Ballot Bill of last year; but that contained a penalty of £20, so that the clause would require consideration in "another place" before it could be adopted.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he had no difficulty in stating what course the Government would pursue. They were of opinion that the clause related to a matter which would be better dealt with by the Corrupt Practices Bill. In order not to mislead the House he might inform their Lordships that the Members of the Government were about to vote against the clause.

1843

§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 133: Majority 90.

§ Resolved in the Negative.

§ Application of Part of Act to Scotland.

§ Clause 16 (Alterations for application of Part I. to Scotland).

§ LORD COLONSAY moved to insert words in sub-section 5, providing for the increase of polling-places in certain districts of Scotland.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
opposed the Amendment. The provisions of this part of the Bill were quite inapplicable to Scotland. The sheriffs of counties had complete power satisfactorily to regulate the subject.

§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 17 to 32, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

§ Clause 33 (Short title).

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, that the Act should continue in force till the end of the year 1880, said, that if the Act produced all the good results its promoters anticipated, there would be a general concurrence of opinion in favour of its renewal; and the objections of those who entertained grave doubts as to its working would in a considerable degree be modified if it were known that at the expiration of that period the Act would be impartially reviewed and its defects remedied by the aid of enlightened experience. A great deal had been said of the results of the system of secret voting in our Australian Colonies; but he denied the correctness of the analogy, for the circumstances of those colonies were very different from those of this country, and it did not follow that because the Ballot had succeeded in Australia it would therefore succeed in this country. Their Lordships ought, therefore, to pause before committing themselves to its permanent adoption. No doubt Parliament always had the power of revising in one year what it had done in a previous one; but he wished to secure that after a given time, this particular legislation should undergo reconsideration. He was anxious 1844 that that system, if Parliament in its wisdom adopted it, should receive a full and fair trial. He did not think that one General Election only would be sufficient to test properly the working of a measure so wholly new as the Ballot; but if, as he proposed, the Bill was continued in operation till the end of 1880, two General Elections at least must necessarily occur in the interval.

§ Amendment moved, at page 19, at end of Clause 33, to insert— ("and shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine; and on the said day the Acts in the fourth, fifth, and sixth schedules shall be thereupon revived; provided, that such revival shall not affect any act done, any rights acquired, any liability or penalty incurred, or any proceeding pending under this Act, but such proceeding shall be carried on as if this Act had continued in force.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
thought it highly undesirable to enact that a Bill of that nature and magnitude should be of temporary duration, so that Parliament in a given year would be forced to reconsider it, whether the Business of the country or the then state of public affairs might render such a course convenient or otherwise. It was competent for Parliament at the end of eight years—or in one or two years, if it thought fit—to amend that or any other Bill after it had seen how it worked, or even to repeal it altogether. But to provide that Parliament should take up again in 1880 that question which for the last two years had given rise to such lengthened discussions was a proceeding almost without precedent, and one that might impose on a future Parliament a burden which might be very inconvenient.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, there were several precedents for the Amendment, and even so recently as the Irish Land Act provisions had been inserted which fully justified the present proposal. Moreover, every provision in this Bill was of such a tentative and speculative kind that if ever there was a measure which ought to be limited in its duration in the first instance it was this one. The advocates of the Ballot thought it would have a great effect in checking bribery, intimidation, and similar matters. Other persons thought that an erroneous expectation. Nothing but experience could prove which of those opposite views was 1845 correct. They had been told that the state of things in regard to elections in Ireland could hardly be worse than it is. Well, time and experience could alone test that. He (Lord Cairns) was himself of opinion with many others that this Bill would turn out in practice to be a gigantic scheme of disfranchisement—that those voters who could not read and write would be disfranchised, from the great reluctance which such persons felt to come forward and confess their ignorance; while those who could only read and write imperfectly would be disfranchised from the difficulty they would experience in filling up their ballot-papers, and from the nervousness and uncertainty which would always attend their execution of the operations prescribed by the Bill. Nothing but time could show whether the Bill would be popular with the country, and if it were distinctly understood that the whole matter must of necessity be reviewed in the year 1880, people would express themselves upon its working with that in view.

§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 106; Not-Contents 69: Majority 37.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

§ Words added.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.