Sitting of 18 July 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—East India Finance [No. 363].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Factories and Workshops Acts Amendment* [255].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.; Epping Forest* [224]—R.P.
Report—Lodgers' Goods Protection* [54–254].
Third Reading—East India (Bishops' Leave of Absence)* [237]; Owens College* [246], and passed.
Withdrawn—Salmon Fisheries (re-comm.)* [121].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—OVER-REGULATION PRICES.
  NOTICE.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I give Notice that on Thursday I shall ask the Government, Whether, as this House has sanctioned their proposal for the indemnification of the Officers of the Army on the abolition of Purchase, they intend now to take measures to prevent the future violation of the Law involved in the continued payment of over-regulation prices?
POST OFFICE—POSTAL CARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DICKINSONasked the Postmaster General, What is the cost and what the charge to the public, exclusive of the stamp, of the stamped envelopes, book-post wrappers, and postal cards supplied to the public by the Post Office; and, whether the cost of the two former is not thrown on the public and that of the postal card on the Revenue, and on what authority this distinction is made?
  MR. MONSELLreplied that the cost of production of the envelopes, exclusive of stamps, was 5s. 7½d. per 1,000, and the charge to the public 7s. The cost of production of wrappers of the largest size, exclusive of stamps, was 4d. per 1,000, and of those of smaller size 3½d., 3d., and 2½d., which were also the charges made to the public. The cost of production of the postal card, exclusive of stamps, was 3s. 3d. per 1,000, and, under the authority of the Treasury, no charge was made to the public for the cards themselves.

ARMY—CLAIMS OF INVENTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Secretary of State for War, In cases where an inventor and patentee is of opinion that a Government Manufacturing Department has infringed his patent, and thereby given him an equitable, although not a legal, claim to compensation, to what authority is the question, whether the inventor's patent has been so infringed left for decision, and in what way are his interests represented before that authority?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, an inventor who considers he has a claim upon the War Department, and sends in an application, has it referred to the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and it comes to me with his opinion. If any legal points arise the solicitor is consulted, and in case of need I should refer to the Law Officers of the Crown. If there seems to be a primâ facie case it is sent to the Ordnance Council, of which Lord Northbrook is the Chairman, the Surveyor General and the Financial Secretary members, with many most competent officers, military and naval. That Council assesses the amount to be paid, which then, with the sanction of the Treasury, is submitted to the House of Commons. I think it right to add that the mere circumstance of a patent having been taken out does not necessarily constitute an equitable claim against the Government.

POST OFFICE—REMUNERATION OF POSTMASTERS FOR TELEGRAPH DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEasked the Postmaster General, When the question of allowance for Telegraph duty to Postmasters in provincial towns is likely to be decided; if it is intended to date back from the transfer; and, if the recommendation of the surveyors as to the scale is to be adopted?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the consideration of the remuneration to postmasters for telegraph duty was being proceeded with as rapidly as circumstances allowed. It was intended that the remuneration should date back from the time at which the duty commenced. In a great number of cases,
  1936
  however, the duty did not begin with the transfer of the telegraphs to the Stale, but at a much later date.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mode of taking the Poll.
  Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling).
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK moved, in page 4, line 2, after "unlocked," insert—
  "The construction of such ballot box to be approved by the candidates or their authorized agents."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that as on the previous evening, of five Amendments which he proposed, two were accepted by the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would be aware that his only desire was to improve the Bill now that its principle had been accepted. By this sub-section, the returning officer was ordered to provide ballot-boxes at each polling station, constructed in such a manner that the ballot-papers being introduced therein could not be withdrawn without the boxes being unlocked. His addition to that direction was intended to guard against fraud in the construction of ballot-boxes, and he trusted that it would be accepted, as such precautions were most necessary, and could produce no ill effect.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 2, after the word "unlocked," to insert the words "the construction of such ballot box to be approved by the candidates or their authorised agents."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, Re could not accept the Amendment. The construction of ballot-boxes would be a very simple matter, and the Amendment was open to the objection that it would make the conduct of the election dependent upon the approval of any candidate. Upon public grounds he did not think that should be allowed, and he feared the Amendment would put constituencies in the power of fictitious candidates, who might refuse to assent to any reasonable construction of a ballot-box.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKreplied that this objection might be easily met by a proviso. Indeed, it might be met under the Bill as it stood, because the Secretary of State would have the power to make such regulations for the conduct of elections as were not at variance with the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested that there should be a model ballot-box for adoption in all the constituencies. This difficulty was another instance of the inconvenience arising from, the habit adopted in order to save time, of introducing Bills which merely sketched out legislation and contained no well-considered details. Every precaution should be taken to avoid the least suspicion of irregularities. If any such suspicion prevailed, the whole plan would be brought into disrepute. In the absence of a model ballot-box it would be desirable to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck).
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHconsidered that everything should be done to remove the suspicion of unfairness. He should be glad to see some provision for a model ballot-box inserted in the Bill.
  MR. MONKconsidered the proposed Amendment very objectionable, and suggested that words might be introduced into the clause providing that the ballot-box to be used at an election should be approved by the Secretary of State.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it desirable that some regular and uniform model of a ballot-box should be adopted. Very recently he had seen the effect of the working of the Ballot in a club, not in the election of members, but with reference to the alteration of rules. It was announced that a certain proposition had not been carried; but it was afterwards found that, owing to faulty construction, 20 ballot-balls had slipped behind a drawer.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that in this case papers would be adopted. There was nothing complicated. All that was wanted was a slit in the box.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, that if the system of the Ballot was to be adopted in this country, it was important that no question should arise as to the uncertainty of the operation of the ballot-box. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would undertake to introduce words into the
  1938
  Bill for the purpose of obtaining greater security.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 91: Majority 51.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, thinking it right that there should be a model ballot-box for all England, asked the Committee to accept the Amendment he now moved—after the same word "unlocked" to insert the words "according to the form in the Schedule hereunto annexed."
  Amendment proposed, after the same word "unlocked," to insert the words "according to the form in the Schedule hereunto annexed."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. It was not advisable to make the clause too stringent. The subject would be more conveniently discussed upon Clause 17.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to secure that it should be the ballot of the Parliament of England and not of the Home Office. On the construction of the ballot-box would depend the degree of popularity which, the system would secure.
  COLONEL CORBETTsupported the Amendment.
  MR. CAVENDTSH BENTINCKsuggested the introduction of some words to connect them with Clause 17.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the ballot-box was intended for the safe keeping of the ballot. Many mischievous malpractices had taken place in foreign countries for the purpose of tampering with the Ballot, and he thought some provision ought to be introduced as to the locks and as to the general construction of the ballot-boxes; and, further, that it should be the duty of some recognized officer to prevent their being tampered with.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 106: Majority 60.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEY SIR THOMAS BAZLEY moved, in page 4, sub-section 7, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "and shall certify such copy under his hand to be a true copy."
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that the mayor was the proper party to make the certificate; there was no doubt about that. What was wanted was, that the returning officer should have a document in his hands, signed by competent authority, to which both parties might refer.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYsaid, he would leave the Amendment in the hands of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would see that care was taken to look into the point who should certify the list, and if his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Goldney) was correct, the necessary alteration would be made. The law would, however, stand as it was in Parliamentary elections, as the words objected to were not required to regulate Parliamentary elections.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK moved the omission of sub-section 8.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out from the word "The," in line 8, to the word "years," in line 16, both inclusive.—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not agree in the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the clause. The object of the sub-section was to guard against fraudulent papers by requiring the use of a stamp.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONtrusted that his hon. and learned Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. CHARLEYdirected the attention of the Committee to the fact that heavy penalties were attached to the publication of the secret device or mark to be made by the instrument employed for the purpose of stamping the ballot papers, it was impossible, he believed; effectually to provide against the device becoming known.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it stood to reason that if the returning officer was to be the person responsible for the manufacture of the die, he must delegate the power to some person. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that there would be no means of preventing the device adopted by the returning officer from being used fraudulently. It might be manufactured in duplicate; at any rate, its peculiarity being known, a similar article could be made in any workshop. They all knew how notorious it
  1940
  was that University examination papers became known to parties interested in the examinations, and there was the same likelihood of discovery in the present instance. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to establish some central manufactory for these devices? Unless Government did so, it must be apparent to the Committee that the door was open to fraud.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this was a case which might fairly be left without any special arrangement. The Secretary of State for the Home Department might make provisions for stamping the ballot-papers, and taking precautions against fraud. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: What are those?] It was not necessary to put them into the Bill, or to enter into such details in its provisions.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsuggested that the duty of providing the stamps should be placed upon the Home Secretary, instead of upon the returning officer. This latter person would probably order the dies of a tradesman in his town, and the secret of what that die was would probably leak out.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEpointed out several practical objections to the Government proposal. The returning officer would probably order a stamp of the leading ironmonger in the borough, who, in turn, would give instructions to his correspondent at Birmingham, where in all likelihood most of the stamps required in all the constituencies would be manufactured. There they would have to be sorted, and then forwarded to the various returning officers, and under such circumstances how could the secret be kept? Very likely the local papers would publish the device on the stamp, with a chuckle at the wisdom of the men at Westminster who passed such a law. If stamps were to be employed at all, they ought to be supplied by the Home Office to the returning officer of each borough.
  MR. ASSHETONdescribed the precautions taken with regard to the examination papers at Cambridge, at the time he was a student in that University. They were printed at the Pitt Press during the night preceding the examination in the Senate House, and the printers were locked up until the examination had closed. By this means perfect secrecy was secured; but it would

  1941
  be impossible to adopt such a system in the manufacture of stamps under this Bill, as they could not lock up all the ironmongers in the country. If they trusted the returning officer with this "dodge" to secure secrecy, they should also trust him to provide proper means to secure the public from being imposed upon by forged papers. In his opinion, the whole system of stamps and devices was a rotten one.
  MR. CHARLEYwished to know how the returning officer could keep secret the mark made by the stamp, as the Bill required him to affix it to each ballot-paper before it was delivered to the elector.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the returning officer must not let anyone know what mark was on the die, and that the voting paper, after being stamped, would be immediately placed in the ballot-box.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYremarked that the first thing the returning officer must do would be to communicate the secret to the person whom he employed to make the die, and it was obvious that the manufacturer could not be bound to secrecy. Was it seriously intended that the returning officer should at the beginning of each year provide himself with a sufficient number of these instruments for all the elections which might possibly be held in the course of that year? If so, what time would be allowed him to obtain a supply of all the materials mentioned in the Bill? It would be difficult, for instance, to get the book of votes printed in a short space of time in many country districts. He suggested that the returning officer should, instead of using a stamp, be allowed to put his initials on each ballot-paper.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, initials might be much more easily imitated than a device, and the object of the subsection was to prevent forgery. Proper instructions would, no doubt, be given to the returning officers; but it was not desirable to insert all the details in the Bill, which contained a clause—Clause 17—empowering the Home Secretary to draw up the necessary regulations.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that an elector, before voting, might, whilst left alone, take a copy of the stamp.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no objection, in order to meet the hon.
  1942
  and learned Gentleman's views, to omit the words "or mark to be made by."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreminded the Committee that the system was to be applied to municipal as well as Parliamentary elections. It would be derogatory to the dignity of the Home Secretary if he had to determine what instruments were to be used, and how many of them were to be supplied. In large towns there must be a great many of these instruments, and then there would be an Amendment that they should never be used again. It appeared to him that the provision was absurd and unnecessary.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that at Leeds there were 13 wards, and that there was generally a contested election in every one of them. It would surely be unfair to impose upon anybody the duty of finding a stamp for every election.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he did not like either the system of stamping or that of initialling. There would be great labour in placing initials upon many thousands of papers.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the object in view was that some mark unknown before the day of election should be affixed to every ballot-paper in order to prevent voters bringing with them papers filled up beforehand. The method of putting initials or marks on tickets of admission to election meetings answered the purpose perfectly well.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, there was a great difference between a meeting and an election, where there was every inducement to commit a fraud.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he thought it was not sufficient to keep the secret only up to the day of election, because the polling would last several hours. At the same time, he was willing to accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to omit the words "or mark to be made by."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcalled attention to the fact that the question before the Committee was the omission of the whole of the sub-section.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the sub-section had completely broken down, as the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give an intelligible explanation of it. In order to take the sense of the

  1943
  Committee upon the subject he should urge the adoption of his Motion.
  Question put, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 166: Noes 86: Majority 80.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON LORD CLAUD HAMILTON moved, in page 4, line 8 of the sub-section, to leave out the words "returning officer," in order to insert the words "Home Secretary." The noble Lord said, he thought that the effect of this sub-section would be to throw upon the returning officer a duty and a responsibility altogether novel, and involving much anxiety, inasmuch as the returning officer would, of course, be obliged to get these devices executed by some firm or artizan, on whose secrecy he could not, of course, depend. These difficulties would be obviated by the substitution of the Home Secretary, who could solve all perplexities by sending down the papers with the writ, and making them returnable with that instrument, taking care, of course, not to send the same device more than once to one place. It might be said, why delegate such a duty to the Home Secretary, who must necessarily be a politician, and more or less a partizan; but if that objection were to be held as good, it would equally apply to the returning officer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, to leave out the words "returning officer," in order to insert the words "Home Secretary."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would agree to the words of the section as they stood, as the Amendment, if adopted, would involve much inconvenience. The returning officer would, of course, be acting under the advice of the Home Secretary.
  MR. C. S. READtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not throw this burden on the returning officers—a duty which would be particularly unwelcome in the November of every year. In the event of a new Mint being established, a compartment of the establishment might be set apart for the manufacture of those election stamps.
  MR. GOLDSMIDtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the noble Lord's proposal, particularly
  1944
  as the question was one of detail merely, and involved no principle.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he thought the proposal a reasonable one, well deserving the right hon. Gentlemen's attention.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEraised the point of the efflux of time necessary in giving the order for those stamps. Elections sometimes took place by surprise, when it would be difficult for the returning officer to have the machinery ready for a contest by the day of nomination.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the difficulties were greatly exaggerated—as, indeed, were all difficulties in connection with this Bill—by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It seemed to him that the returning officer could easily provide these stamps as well as the other things necessary for a contested election. It might, however, be necessary for the Home Secretary to send him special instructions in relation to this matter. He had had several plans suggested for carrying out the objects intended by this clause, although he would not further allude to the plans at the moment, for fear of inviting a discussion which might last for several hours.
  Question put, "That the words 'returning officer' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 112: Majority 71.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Committee had decided that the returning officer should provide the stamps, and he proposed that there should be one general device, provided by the returning officer at every Parliamentary election, and by the mayor at every municipal election, instead of a different stamp in every ward or polling district. Such a provision would save expense, while secrecy would be at the same time equally well insured.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the clause as it stood was to the effect stated, but he would accept the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JAMESsaid, it was a fair question to consider whether the device should ever be used again, and he had given Notice of an Amendment to that effect, as opposed to the provision in the Bill

  1945
  that it should not be used again until after the lapse of seven years. He had no wish to press the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the word "not," in order to insert the words "never again."—(Mr. James.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, and it was open to the objection that if this and other directions were not complied with, the result of the election might be challenged.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he hoped it was not to be understood that the election might be voided if any of these directions were not complied with. Such a proceeding might be very unjust to the candidate who had been elected and whose seat was questioned.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that difficulty was met by Clause 35. When he used the word "challenge" he did not mean to assert that it would be done with any real hope of success.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the vote, and not the seat, would be open to be challenged.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council adopted a most unhappy expression when he used the word "challenge." This was one of those cases in which the returning officer would be liable to penalties, and not the candidate to have his return set aside. Their object should be to render it impossible for a returning officer, especially a strong partisan, to do anything of the kind. He suggested the adoption of a moveable die, such as that used at railway stations and for admissions to race stands. It should be proscribed in the Bill, and not left to the more imagination of the returning officer.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought they should not go into the detailed particulars of plans. The lapse of seven years between the using of the stamps would be sufficient for all practical purposes.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, with reference to the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that Clause 35 was simply an instruction to the Election Judge as to what should, and what should not render an election invalid; and as one Judge might decide the point one way, and another might
  1946
  decide it in another way, the clause was really an unsettling instead of a settling one.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the result of the voting paper not being stamped would be that the vote would not be counted.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he had no wish to divide upon the Amendment. It was a mistake to suppose that the disobedience to any direction given to the returning officer, who was a third party, could vitiate the return of the candidate. The penalty would fall on the returning officer only.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, as such an act would prevent the vote being counted, it would be committing an act of gross injustice to the candidate for whom the vote was intended, and it might thereby lead to the Petition being presented against the return.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, subsection 8 provided that there should be an instrument for making marks on the voting papers. Sub-section 11 provided that the returning officer should with the instrument stamp the voting paper; and sub-section 19 provided that no voting paper should be counted except it was stamped. He could see no difficulty in the matter.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, although the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) was correct in saying an election could not, under the circumstances, be challenged before an Election Judge, yet if a large number of votes were thrown away in consequence, the candidate who ought to have been elected would be at liberty to challenge the return.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, there was a case in point in the Helston election.
  Question put, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 83: Majority 156.
  MR. PELLobserved, that there was nothing in this Bill to prevent stamps once used for a borough or municipal contest being employed again for a county election, or for the election of the adjoining county immediately afterwards. He therefore moved the omission of the words "for the same place," so as not to permit of the same device being again used anywhere for seven years.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERopposed the Amendment as an exaggerated precaution, which was totally unnecessary.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, that, no doubt the proposition of the Government would tend to relieve the returning officers of their duties; but it would, at the same time, open the door to a good deal of fraud.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. R. TORRENS, in rising to move an Amendment, of which he had given Notice, with a view to the repression of personation, said, that the experience of the Ballot in New South Wales showed that though personation had not increased since the Ballot had been adopted,, it had not been entirely done away with. He believed the endeavour of the Committee was to do away with everything that favoured personation, and that result, he thought, would be attained by the adoption of his Amendment, especially if personation itself were made a felony, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James). He maintained that there should be publicity in the matter of claiming the vote, but secrecy in the act of recording it. He moved as an Amendment in page 4, line 21, after sub-section 9, insert—
  "(a.) Every voter shall, before receiving a voting paper as hereinafter provided, stand at the entrance to the polling station uncovered and facing outwards whilst his name and description and the qualification in respect of which he claims to vote are called by the public crier or other person for that purpose appointed by the returning officer."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that in the case of a large constituency there might be some difficulty in carrying out the election if each voter was to go through the long process described in the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERconceived that the Amendment was not one of a practical nature. Was the entrance, where it was proposed that the voter should stand, to be the entrance to the room where the election was held? In that case the entrance would be in a passage; and if the entrance to the building was meant, that was not the place where the returning officer would be. Then, as the Amendment directed that the voter should stand "uncovered," a question might arise as to how much of him was to be uncovered. [Laughter.] He supposed
  1948
  it was meant that the voter should stand without his hat on; but, as the Bill applied to municipal elections, at which women voted, would it be required that they should stand without having their bonnets on? The voter, too, at an open meeting was likely in facing round to the crowd to be molested by small boys and the Amendment was hardly a practical method of dealing with the evil of personation.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that personation was a large evil in a large constituency. Some years ago three persons claimed to vote in the City of London under the name of Isaac Isaacs, and the revising barrister had great difficulty in the case. He remembered a case which occurred when Mr. Cubitt was Lord Mayor for the City of London, and a gentleman voted early in the morning as Mr. Wood, who, it was known, must have been at that time off the coast of Spain. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. R. Torrens) would press his Motion on the attention of the Committee.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that a near relative of his who was proposed for two separate constituencies in South Australia had told him that personation was carried on to an enormous extent in that country, and that it was mainly fostered by the Ballot. He thought it would be advisable to adopt some such Amendment as the present, because the more publicity was given to the act of claiming to vote, the less chance was there of personation.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEexpressed surprise at some of the statements made by the Vice President of the Council. One of his arguments against the Amendment seemed to be that a voter, male or female, in facing round might be received with rotten eggs by degenerate boys, and yet that was a Bill professing to abolish corruption and intimidation. He was in favour of some such Amendment as the one proposed, because it would tend to check personation.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that according to the law, when a vote was once on the poll sheet it was given to all intents and purposes.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsuggested that it would be better to leave out the word "uncovered."
  MR. GREENEsuggested that the Committee should report Progress, in order that time might be given to consider

  1949
  the best mode of checking personation. The present Parliament were not fit to conduct the business of the country. He believed that if they were a parish meeting, employed in the fixing of a rate, and behaved as they did over this Bill, the parishioners would kick them out. This Bill was approved of by no one, and he quite concurred with the hon. and learned Member opposite, who had told them that publicity was honesty, and secrecy was fraud. It was admitted that the Ballot did not stop personation in Australia, and he asked the proposer to withdraw the Bill. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens).
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) had raised one of the most important questions in the discussion. Every discussion on the Bill proved that the measure would increase personation, and he trusted that the Committee would in some way carry out the object of the Amendment.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the great question was to prevent personation, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) would not divide the Committee on the Amendment, which was one of the most ridiculous ever brought before the Committee.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to diminish the risk of personation, which he regarded as the most serious danger attending this new mode of voting; but he thought that Amendment would cause delay, and probably subject voters to intimidation and annoyance. The Government ought to take the most efficient mode of preventing personation by providing means for identifying a vote after it had been given.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwished to take the opinion of the Committee upon the principle of the last Amendment without committing hon. Members to the same phrases. He proposed to insert words providing that the voter should stand in a place appointed by the returning officer and near to the polling station.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, this Amendment could not be submitted to the Committee, for the distinction between it and the one already disposed of was scarcely perceptible.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS (for Mr. STAPLETON)LORD JOHN MANNERS (for Mr. STAPLETON) moved an Amendment, inserting words to the effect that if the identity of a voter was doubted the returning officer should, on the application of a candidate or his agent, require the voter to sign a paper, and making it forgery to sign such paper, in the name of another person. He thought it desirable to introduce some check on personation, for the Bill was recommended on the example of New South Wales, where it was said that personation had increased to such an alarming extent that it had become necessary to take some step to check it. The Government had refused the most substantial Amendment that had yet been proposed for the punishment of personation; but they ought to accept this one.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment, which was open to two objections. In the first place, it would enable an agent to delay the election; and, secondly, although personation was a serious offence, the Government did not think it desirable to make it an offence equal to forgery. The noble Lord was wrong as regarded New South Wales, for there was no official statement that personation had increased there.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 175: Majority 61.
  MR. JAMES MR. JAMES moved the insertion of words at the commencement of sub-section 10, providing that the inspection of the ballot-box by the agents should be made within 15 minutes of the commencement of the poll.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, before the word "previously," to insert the words "within fifteen minutes."—(Mr. James.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the Amendment necessary; but he had no other objection to it.
  MR. G. BENTINCK MR. G. BENTINCK moved that the time be five minutes instead of 15.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "fifteen," in order to insert the word "five."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 67: Majority 111.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'within fifteen minutes' be inserted before the word 'Previously,' in line 22."
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  The House suspended its sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Private Chapels (96); Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels* (250); Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) (258); Statute Law Revision (242); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (247); Railway Regulation Amendment* (253); Glasgow Boundary* (199).
Committee—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (249–265); Prevention of Crime (248–266).
Committee—Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (183); Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000)*; Exchequer Bonds (£700,000)*; Pedlars Certificates* (252).
Report—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* (241).
Third Reading—Clerk of the Peace* (180), and passed.

PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL—(No. 96.)
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
PRIVATE CHAPELS BILL—(No. 96.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD LYTTELTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure, which had passed the other House with little opposition, had a two-fold application. The first portion of the measure extended to certain chapels more or less of a public

  1925
  character that exemption from the control of the incumbent already granted to certain institutions. It empowered the Bishop to license a clergyman of the Church of England to perform the services of the Church in any chapel belonging to any college, school, hospital, asylum, or other public institution, being duly consecrated and licensed, and to administer therein the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or such services as may be specified in the licence; but the licence did not extend to the solemnization of marriage. The clergyman so licensed was to be subject to no control or interference on the part of the incumbent of the parish or district; but without prejudice to the right of the incumbent to the entire cure of souls. The second part of the Bill applied these provisions to proprietary and other private chapels, the erection of which was sometimes thwarted by unreasonable opposition on the part of the incumbent. The Bishop, on being satisfied that the building was proper for the purpose, and that a sufficient stipend was provided, might license a minister to serve such chapel in the same manner as the first-named chapels. The Bishop was to give one month's notice to the incumbent of his intention, and in case the incumbent objected, was to transmit to the Archbishop his reasons for overruling his objections, and the decision of the Archbishop was to be conclusive. There was a provision with respect to pew-rents which he proposed to strike out in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the first part of the Bill referred to institutions of a public character, but under the second there might be two distinct churches in the same parish. In certain cases no doubt the working of the parochial system was too stringent, and he did not say that some modification might not be introduced into it; but our parochial system had been part and parcel of the system of the Church of England up to that time, and it ought not rashly to be parted with. This Bill would introduce a revolution into the Church of England, of which the clergy had had no notice whatever, and, influenced by these considerations, he now gave notice that in Committee on the Bill he should move
  1926
  the omission of the 4th clause. One further remark he had to make—the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill was under the impression that proprietary chapels were consecrated, but that was not the case—they were usually merely licensed buildings.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYconcurred in the observations that had fallen from the most rev. Primate. The Bill in regard to the first three clauses might be harmless; but the 4th clause ought not to be passed without very much consideration and inquiry, as it would authorize the Bishop to make a raid into every parish and set up an opposition chapel against the parish church. He doubted whether cases of unreasonable obstruction on the part of the incumbents were sufficiently common to justify so sweeping a measure. Even if the 4th clause were passed, it ought to be accompanied by a more stringent definition of what was a private chapel.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought it was hardly fair to say that the 4th clause would authorize the Bishop to make a raid into a parish, as it only empowered him to give a licence to a clergyman to perform service in a part of a parish which might have been theretofore entirely neglected. He could testify that there were many cases in which an incumbent did not do anything himself and would not allow anyone else to do anything—although a wealthy layman might offer to provide the pecuniary means—and the 4th clause of the present Bill would give the opportunity of remedying the serious neglect which occurred in some parishes. Nothing was more common than to hear a desire expressed for greater elasticity in the organization of the Church of England; and yet every measure brought forward with this object met with opposition at the hands of her friends. He should regret to see the clause struck out of that very useful Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he believed that in any case of insufficient ministrations for any hamlet an appeal by the Bishop to the incumbent would almost invariably be successful. The pecuniary means were frequently wanting; but where these were available he had never known an incumbent object, and instances of objection must be very rare. He had a strong objection to the clause, and hoped

  1927
  their Lordships would not be induced to adopt it by the more favourable opinion expressed by his right rev. Friend who had just sat down. He also thought that care should be taken that services in chapels belonging to public institutions should be conducted mainly, at all events, for the inmates.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONhoped that, whatever might be done with the 4th clause, the earlier provisions would not be rejected. In the case of the chapels attached to infirmaries and other charitable institutions, no service could be carried on in them without the consent of the incumbent of the parish; but it was most important that services of a special character, adapted to the circumstances of the inmates, should be held in those institutions, and they would not in any way interfere with the exercise of the incumbent's rights. In his own diocese there was an institution to promote the temporal and spiritual welfare of discharged prisoners, and there it was specially necessary to have services adapted to the circumstances of the inmates; but the incumbent of the parish had stepped in and exercised his power to interfere with the ministrations of Divine worship, and thus a great injury had been inflicted on the spiritual and moral welfare of the inmates of the institution. He thought that chapels of this kind ought to be regarded as extra-parochial; and viewed in that light the Bill could not be considered as interfering with the parochial system.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that inconvenience frequently arose from the incumbent's power of veto in the case of chapels connected with alms-houses and other charities; it being sometimes interposed not from any bad motive, but from an old incumbent's indisposition to change. He should be sorry to see the parochial system broken up; but he thought the Bill contained sufficient safeguards in the shape of a notice to the incumbent and power of appeal to the Archbishop.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND BILL—(No. 258.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND BILL—(No. 258.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to give certain administrative powers to the Charity Commissioners of Ireland, and to make regulations with regard to their proceedings. The present Board consisted of five Commissioners, and as it was sometimes difficult to get five gentlemen together to gratuitously administer charitable funds, it was now proposed that three Commissioners should be deemed sufficient. Then there was a proviso inserted in the Bill with regard to the cy prés power of the Board. In a number of small charities it was found impossible to carry out precisely the intentions of the testators, and as the Commissioners had at present no powers to vary the strict application of the fund, they were by this Bill empowered, in the case of donations and bequests not exceeding £300 principals or £30 annual, to direct the trustees to apply the fund to such pious and charitable purposes as they shall judge to be best, having regard to the direction and intention of the donors; and in the case of larger charities the Commissioners were to apply for directions to the Court of Chancery, as provided by the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 54, sec. 8. There were many other provisions in the Bill relating to smaller matters, but he need not trouble their Lordships with them now. The Bill had been most carefully considered, and it was entirely approved by the Commissioners themselves.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  THE EARL OF POWISobjected to some of the powers conferred on the Commissioners as too large. Some of the proposals of the Bill were unobjectionable; but others, he thought, were to be looked upon with suspicion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEfeared there was little chance of the Bill passing through the other House, the Government haying abandoned two more important Irish measures—the Debtors

  1929
  Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill—though the first of these would have liberated persons now in prison under a system which had been amended in England. Those Bills, which had been long under consideration, might have been passed earlier in the Session by dint of a little energy and forethought, and he regretted their failure the more as the wish for "Home Rule" and the feeling that their interests were subordinated to party interests were every day extending among the people of Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Marquess was irregular in referring to the progress of legislation in the other House on the second reading of this Bill; but he supposed the noble Marquess, like other persons who took an interest in any particular measure, was of opinion that it should be carried at the expense of other Bills. The noble Marquess must be aware that there had been some obstruction to legislation in both Houses, and the Government had thought it only fair to announce that Bills the passage of which was hopeless would not be proceed with. Considering the amount of Irish legislation since the last General Election, the noble Marquess could not think Ireland had been neglected by the Government.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not responsible for whatever might have happened in the other House, and he was at a loss to know of any obstruction to legislation in this House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not intend to re-open last night's debate; but the Amendment then carried by a considerable majority certainly amounted to an obstruction of legislation. ["Order!]
  LORD O'HAGAN, in reply, gave a short explanation.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 242.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL—(No. 242.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure carried the work of revision and expurgation
  1930
  down to the Act of Union with Ireland, and repealed nearly 1,100 Acts and parts of Acts. The task commenced by Lord Westbury had been going steadily forward, and after some years of laborious work two volumes of the Revised Statutes had been published, bringing the statutes down to the 10th of George III. He could not, he was afraid, hope that the reduction in the subsequent volumes would be on so large a scale.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 248.)
(The Earl of Morley.)
PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL—(No. 248.)

  COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Clause 5 (Convict holding licence to notify residence to police).
  LORD HOUGHTONobjected to the clause, which provided that convicts holding tickets-of-leave should be compelled to report themselves monthly to the police, under the penalty of having their licence revoked if they neglected to do so. It had been, he believed, the practice in that country to draw a positive line between a man who was actually under the action of the law, and a man who was placed in a position in which he was free to perform all the duties of a citizen. The power of supervision, however, which was given under the Bill simply meant that a man should be liable to be hunted down by the police, so that he could not possibly enter on any new course which would enable him to obtain an honest livelihood. Owing to it, in fact, a convict would be as completely under the operation of the law as if he were confined within the four walls of a prison, and would be led to look on the policeman as an enemy instead of a protector. In practice the system had not worked well, and he held in his hand a Report of the Surveyor General of Prisons which spoke of the present course of public policy as being directed principally to the hunting down of criminals. He should, therefore, advise their Lordships to express their disapprobation of that portion of the Bill to which he was referring. The noble Lord concluded by

  1931
  moving, in page 2, line 20, to leave out from ("reside") to the end of the paragraph.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He wished, however, to draw attention to the provision of the clause in accordance with which a holder of a ticket-of-leave would be obliged within 24 hours after his change of residence to notify that change to the chief officer of police of the district to which he happened to have removed. That was scarcely a sufficiently long time, he contended, to allow for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYconcurred with the noble Duke in the opinion that 24 hours was rather too short a time; but it should be remembered that the notification of change of residence need not be by personal application, but might be conveyed by letter. There was also a proviso that it need not necessarily be made to the chief officer of police, but that it might be made as effectually to any person authorized by him. He was, however, prepared to extend the time. He begged, in reply to the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), to say that the change to which he objected was in accordance with the almost unanimous opinion of the Prisoners' Aid societies as well as of the chiefs of police. He did not at all see that there was anything in that provision at all calculated to prevent the persons implicated from obtaining an honest livelihood. There was no question of hunting down the holders of those licences, because they might make their applications by letter—so that they need not become marked men at the police stations. A monthly report was the only means by which the police could exercise the necessary superintendence over the criminal classes.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved in line 26, after ("letter") to add—
  "And such reports shall be confidential communications, and shall not be divulged, except when the public service may require."
  His object was to give the criminal a fair chance of being absorbed in the working population, and earning an honest livelihood. It was therefore necessary to make the police more guarded in their conversation with respect to the
  1932
  criminal, and that the reports should be kept as quiet as possible.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYentirely sympathized with the object of the noble Earl, but held that the matter was one for regulation by the Executive rather than for introduction into an Act of Parliament.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Penalty for harbouring thieves, &c.).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved in page 8, line 3, after ("months") to add—
  ("And the owner of any such premises who, after the receipt of a notice in writing, signed by a superintendent of police, of the conviction of any occupier of any such premises, or of any person acting in his behalf, for an offence against this section, permits any such premises to be used for either of the purposes aforesaid, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour, and in addition to or in lieu thereof to enter into such recognizances as aforesaid.")
  He thought it was right that the owner who knowingly permitted his premises to be so used should be punished as well as the occupier. On the other hand, he proposed that such misconduct on the part of the occupier should incur the forfeiture of the lease to the owner.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that if the clause were made too stringent its effects might be nullified.
  After short discussion, Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Penalty on assaults on police).
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that it was frequently regarded as a matter of amusement, by classes who should know better, to assault the police in a brutal manner, as appeared from the reports in the public journals for the last twelve months. It was incumbent on their Lordships to show, by the severity of the punishment they would inflict, that they looked upon such conduct as disgraceful. He therefore proposed to make the penalty £100, instead of £20, or imprisonment for twelve months instead of six. He thought it necessary that young men should be taught that they were not to knock policemen about out of sport.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was rather surprised to hear that it was regarded as sport among the upper classes to assault the police in a brutal manner. He thought, however, that the disgrace would be felt to be as great by incurring a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment as of £100 or twelve months, and for summary jurisdiction £20 or sis months' imprisonment was probably as much as could well be inflicted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Children of convict women).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the clause provided that the children of women convicted of crime should be treated as children entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Schools Act, and to be fed, clothed, and lodged at the public expense. This he regarded as a direct encouragement to crime.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the object was to prevent the children from falling into the hands of the associates of the woman in crime. Although the principle was open to some doubt, the case seemed to be one where the children should be sent to industrial schools rather than to the poor-house. It was consistent both with good policy and humanity to send them to a place where they would be duly educated.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsuggested that in that case provision ought to be made in the Bill that when the mother came out of prison she should not have the power of reclaiming the children; or power should be given to some person in authority to say whether she should be entitled to them or not.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would take the suggestion of the noble Earl into consideration.
  Clause agreed to.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 266.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.