Sitting of 8 April 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Lord Muncaster,for Cumberland County (Western Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Game Laws, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 5] reported.
WATS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Loans to Infants * [107].
Second Reading—Marine Mutiny *; Municipal Corporations (Wards)* [102]; Isle of Man Harbours * [83].
Committee—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [21], and Corrupt Practices [22]—R.P.
Third Reading—Mutiny *, and passed.
Withdrawn—County Courts(Small Debts)* [85].

INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Officers of the Inland Revenue Department are under any statutory restraint or disability in respect to Elections of Members to serve in Parliament; and, whether any enactments restraining Officers of the Customs from taking part in Elections are still in force?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member for Gloucester would not think him disrespectful when he said that the Attorney General and Solicitor General were Law Officers of the Crown and not of the hon. Member for Gloucester, and that there were modes of obtaining their opinions on questions of law; but that the House of Commons was not the proper place for seeking to get that information. The function of the Law Officers was to advise the Government, and he must protest against any hon. Member putting a legal Question, and then asking the Law Officers of the Crown what they thought on the subject. Having made this protest, he had no objection to tell his hon. Friend that, with regard to the Inland Revenue officers, he believed that they might now vote, and also interfere in elections by canvassing, because the statute which prevented them from doing so had been repealed. With regard to the Customs' officers, the prohibition of their interference at elections used to rest on two statutes, and the first of those statutes had alone been repealed.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished the House to understand that he was requested by a Member of the Government to put the Question.

  NATIONAL DEBT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CUBITTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in his Finan-

  887
  cial Statement he mentioned that the reduction of the National Debt between April 1869, and April 1872, was £12,740,000; whether in this sum he included the Stocks of the Bankruptcy and Chancery Funds which were cancelled and converted into book debts within that period; what was the amount of stock so cancelled, and what would be the amount of the debt actually paid off without taking into account the stocks so cancelled; and, whether by reason of this transaction certain contingent liabilities do not rest on the Exchequer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that he had stated in his Financial Statement that the reduction of the National Debt for the last three years was £12,740,000, and had included in that sum the stocks of the Bankruptcy and Chancery Funds, which had been cancelled and converted into book debts within that period. The amount of stock so cancelled was £5,879,882; and, deducting that sum, the amount of the Debt actually paid off, without taking into account the stocks so cancelled, would be £6,860,000. There were certain contingent liabilities incurred by this transaction; but it was not believed that they could reach any considerable amount.

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DIXONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is expected that any more schemes under the Endowed Schools Act will be laid upon the Table of the House this Session; and, if so, whether they can be laid upon the Table at once in order that there may be time for their consideration?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that he would lay on the Table four schemes that night, and some more, he anticipated, before the end of the Session; but it was impossible for him at present to say how many. By the provisions of the Act of Parliament, time must be allowed for the consideration of the schemes, and it was not in the discretion of the Department to delay the presentation of them.

CRIMINAL LAW—TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON—PROSECUTION OF THE "CLAIMANT" FOR PERJURY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is a fact that six learned Counsel are retained to prosecute a prisoner now in Newgate charged with perjury; if so, whether it is necessary or usual to employ so many lawyers in a criminal case; and, further, whether it is the intention of the Government to maintain the system of disallowing the expenses of prosecutions in the provinces?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: With regard, Sir, to this somewhat complicated Question, it is true that the number of counsel to the extent indicated in my hon. Friend's Question have been retained and will be employed in the prosecution of the various cases that will arise out of the several indictments preferred against the person who has lately laid claim to the estates of the Tichborne family, if the bills containing these indictments should be found to be true bills by the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey in the course of the present week. My hon. Friend has not mentioned the name of the person, but I assume that is what is meant by the Question. If it is not, I am unable to answer the Question, and I have no means of procuring the information he desires. On the assumption that this is the question, he goes on to ask me whether it is necessary or usual to employ so many lawyers in a criminal case. But as I am not raising a question, but only answering one, I will not say anything about the language in which it is couched, except that in coming from him to me it might be somewhat improved. In reply to him, I may say, that I should have thought that the slightest reflection would have shown my hon. Friend that the answer is dependent on the nature of the case, for what might be proper in one might be extremely improper in another. When he asks me whether it is necessary and usual to take a particular course in a criminal case, I have to say that I cannot tell him, because I do not know from my reading, and have no experience, after 25 years' practice at the Bar, of any case resembling this, or one which could be deemed a fair precedent for it. It is not the difficulty of the

  889
  case, because, as I have always said, it is an extremely simple one, and the claim always appeared to me to be an assault on the common sense of mankind. But from the enormous mass of the case there is an amount of papers and details of which no one who has not the misfortune to be engaged in it can have the slightest notion. I suppose my hon. Friend has no idea of the subject-matter himself from the manner in which he has put the Question; but I can say for myself, that without the absolutely invaluable assistance I have received from my colleagues, it would been perfectly impossible for me to have put the case in an intelligible manner before the jury. I doubt if much abler men than I pretend to be could have done it either. I do therefore think that it is necessary that the counsel should be retained and employed as they have been retained and will be employed. They have been retained on my responsibility and under my directions. I accepted, with the sanction of the Government, the duty cast upon me by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of prosecuting the prisoner, and that duty I shall endeavour to discharge to the best of my ability so long as I hold my office; and I shall take the steps I think proper for discharging it with success, because I believe it to be a duty in the proper discharge of which the whole of society is deeply interested. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can only say that there has been a debate already on the subject, and the matter is, I believe, under the consideration of the Government, and that when they have arrived at a decision, it will be stated to the House; but it is a matter with which the Attorney General has no more to do than my hon. Friend himself.

  FRANCE—RE-IMPOSITION OF PASSPORTS.—QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence that may have taken place between the Foreign Office and the French Government relative to the re-imposition of passports upon British subjects entering French territory; and, what prospect there is, if any, of the heavy Duty now charged upon the free-
  890
  dom of travelling established between the two countries ten years ago being reduced or abolished?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDreplied, that he would have no objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence which had passed on the subject alluded to by his noble Friend; but he regretted to inform him, and the House, that he saw no immediate prospect of the abolition of passports upon British subjects entering French territory, or the reduction of the duty now charged.

SPAIN—CHINESE COOLIES IN CUBA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. HUGHESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received notice of an Order lately issued by General Ferrer, in the absence of Captain General Valmaseda, in the Island of Cuba, prohibiting Chinese from passing from one place to another and from leaving the Island; whether it is true that the British Consul, in conjunction with the Consuls of France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, and Denmark, have protested against this and previous Orders as practically reducing the Chinese to a state of slavery; and if he will lay any Communications the Government may have received on this subject upon the Table of the House?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, the Order referred to as issued by General Ferrer had been received at the Foreign Office. No protest had been made either by the British or any other Consul against that or any other order as tending to reduce the Chinese to a state of slavery, but a copy of the Order had been or would be sent to Mr. Layard, at Madrid, for earnest remonstrance with the Spanish Government. He was afraid, however, he could not at present undertake to produce any Correspondence on the subject.

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMP DISTRIBUTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to state whether arrangements are in progress for affording the public greater facilities for purchasing stamps in country districts by making Postmasters stamp distributors?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the Board of Inland Revenue, at the request of the Treasury, has directed the particular attention of their Inspectors, when on survey, to the subject of affording to the public the facilities referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, and their suggestions shall receive due and favourable consideration.

PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACT, 1871—DEALERS IN OLD METAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government were willing to entertain the question of relaxing the stringency of the provisions of section 13 of the "Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871," so far as relates to the minimum weights which dealers in old metals may purchase of such metals, as set forth in the schedule to that Act?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend I have to say that I have received several memorials on the matters referred to in the Act mentioned, and that I shall be prepared to introduce a short amending Bill on the particular subject to which he refers.

PENSION TO THE COUNTESS OF MAYO.

  QUESTION.
  LORD RONALD GOWERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any probability of the pension granted by Government to Lady Mayo and her children out of the Indian Revenue being increased out of the Imperial Exchequer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the noble Lord put the Question to me without Notice on two previous occasions; but, as I had been unable to consult with the other Members of the Government, I was compelled to postpone my reply. Having now had the opportunity of consulting them, I have to state to the noble Lord that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) having thought proper to give Notice of a Motion on the question, the Government think it most proper and respectful to the House to reserve any statement of their opinion till that discussion comes on.
  MR. OSBORNE: I beg, Sir, to ask the First Minister of the Crown, in con-
  892
  sequence of the extraordinary answer just given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give me a night for bringing the subject forward?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is not in my power, in consequence of the state of Public Business, to give a Government night for the Motion referred to; but the hon. Member for Waterford is aware that Friday, on the question of going into Committee of Supply, is appropriated by the House to questions which it may seem desirable to bring forward on short notice.
  MR. OSBORNE: Then, Sir, I will take advantage of that opportunity.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had been given to understand by the highest authority that the state of Private and Preliminary Business was now such that it was quite practicable to commence Business at a quarter instead of half-past 4 o'clock. He presumed, therefore, it would be the wish of the House that arrangements should be made accordingly.
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS—RESIGNATION OF MR. DODSON.

  WAYS AND MEANS. COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  On Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
  MR. DODSONrose in his place and said:—Sir, as I do not intend to resume the Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means, I apprehend this is the appropriate time for me formally to communicate to the House my resignation of that office, which I have now had the honour to hold in three successive Parliaments, and for a space of between seven and eight years. At the same time, I hope the House will not think it officious or presumptuous on my part if I ask permission to take this opportunity to convey to the House, in few but sincere terms, my acknowledgment of the support, the forbearance, and indulgence accorded to me on all occasions during the time I have held that position. Practically, the regularity of our proceedings depends, in the main, upon the sense of order entertained by the House itself in its aggregate capacity, upon the

  893
  self-control of individual Members, upon their readiness to defer to the authority of the Chair, and to place the most favourable construction upon the acts and the words of the person who occupies it. These conditions of order are even more essential in the short, desultory discussions that arise in Committee than in the more formal debates that take place in the House itself; and I feel a deep debt of obligation for the cordial co-operation and the spontaneous support which has been afforded me in my endeavours to give effect to the rules and practice of Committees. I must beg leave to offer my especial thanks to those Members who have assisted me in the discharge of my immediate duties in connection with the Private Business of the House; and who have often, in times of pressure, lightened my task at the cost of their own time and convenience. Nor are my thanks less due to those officers of the House who have so ably and efficiently assisted me in the performance of my functions whether in connection with the Public or Private Business of the House. Sir, in conclusion, I only wish to express—or, rather, I should say I wish I could express—my sense and my appreciation of the generous confidence and the undeviating kindness which have been shown to me by hon. Members on whatever benches they may sit.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am quite sure the House will feel that the retirement of my hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex from the Chair of Ways and Means, and the speech, brief but significant, with which he has accompanied it, ought not to be allowed to pass without some attempt to express the feeling of the House with regard to the services he has rendered. I do not entertain any difficulty in the endeavour to state, however briefly and crudely, the general sentiment, because I am convinced that it prevails alike in every quarter of the House. The office which has been held by my hon. Friend has been one of constantly growing importance and responsibility. It was a weighty office when the duties of the Chair were confined to occasions of Ways and Means and Supply; but those duties were afterwards extended to the general charge of Bills in Committee. With them have been growing, or rather joined, in the progress of our recent Parliamentary
  894
  history, an accumulation of important functions in connection with the Private Business of the House; and, lastly, the Chairman of Ways and Means has, by being charged with the functions of Deputy Speaker, been called upon, when the Speaker has necessarily been absent from the Chair, to perform the most arduous and most responsible of all the official duties connected with the proceedings of the House. Sir, I believe we all feel that my hon. Friend has proved himself entirely equal to this weighty and constantly accumulating business—equal to it, whatever its weight might be, by his ability, by his quick discernment, by his firmness, by his indefatigable assiduity; and with respect to the question of impartiality, as between party and party, I no not believe that, upon any single occasion, even in very arduous times, it ever crossed the mind of any hon. Member of this House to suppose that my hon. Friend could be induced to deviate a hair's breath from the line of perfect equity. Therefore, Sir, on my own part, as an individual Member of the House, much interested in the conduct of its proceedings, and, so far as I may venture to assume that duty, I beg to tender my cordial acknowledgments to my hon. Friend for all he has contributed to the efficiency of our proceedings, and to express my conviction that, although the House may exercise its best judgment in the choice of a successor, that successor will have before him an arduous task in endeavouring to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we have heard on this side of the House the announcement of the resignation of the Chairman of Ways and Means with deep regret, and it is the universal wish of those who sit on this side that I should offer to him, on my own part and on theirs, this public tribute of our respect. The hon. Gentleman has brought to the discharge of his duties adequate learning, perfect impartiality, and a courtesy which has always been acknowledged, and without a combination of such rare qualities the discharge of duties so difficult could not well be fulfilled. I am sure I am only speaking the general feeling of the House when I say that these functions have never been performed with greater devotion or more to the satisfaction of the Committee, and I only hope his successor may emulate his example.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL—CALL OF THE HOUSE,—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he was extremely unwilling to take up the time of the House unless he was absolutely-compelled to do so, and that was the case now. The Government had given Notice of their intention to bring on the Contagious Diseases question—the second reading of the Bill—on the 22nd of April, and he had given Notice of his intention to move that there should be a Call of the House on the day of the second reading. The shortness of the interval between the present time and the 22nd instant, however, rendered it impossible for him to give satisfactory Notice of his Motion that there should be a Call of the House on the occasion in question. It must be recollected that on this matter they had no Government, or, what was worse than no Government, petticoat Government; and that the Government had, in fact, abdicated its functions, because it was stated that the measures in force had been productive of good and were in advance of the age, and yet the Government proposed to repeal the Acts in deference to the will of the prava jubentium. So far from having a Premier on this question, they had only a "Dernier," and the House being the Cabinet, it was right that all hon. Members should share the responsibility of what was done; at least he, for one, did not wish to take more than his own share of the responsibility. As they thought proper in deference to an opinion out-of-doors to take a course which they conscientiously believed to be wrong, he was entitled to ask for an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion. He therefore asked that the measure might be postponed from the 22nd of April to a time when it could with certainty be brought on, so that he might not be compelled to come down to the House night after night, and remain till 2 o'clock in the morning, in order not to miss the chance of moving that the "Call" should be made.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he should be very sorry, indeed, that the hon. Baronet should be put to so much inconvenience to gain the opportunity of moving his Resolution and opposing the Bill; but he might rest assured that when the Government saw its way to bringing on the second reading of the Bill, they
  896
  would give the hon. Baronet notice sufficient for the purpose.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I move that Mr. Bonham-Carter do take the Chair.
  Motion agreed to; and Mr. BONBAM-CARTER having taken the Chair—
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered.
  After short time, the Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 21.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
  AND

  CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL— [BILL 22.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Considered in Committee. [Progress 25 th March.]
  (In the Committee.)

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Clause 2 (Poll at elections).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in rising to move in page 2, line 1, after "Election," the insertion of the words, "the polling shall commence at 8 A.M. and shall be closed at 8 P.M.," said, that the general opinion of the Committee last year appeared to be in favour of an extension of the hours of polling. Not only that, but various correspondents had represented to himself and other hon. Members that one of the most dangerous forms of bribery was the payment of the wages of voters for the loss of their time in voting. It was often said, and with reason, that it was difficult, if not impossible, to put an end to the payment of wages for the loss of time until the hours of polling were extended. So long as the polling was confined to short hours—it being generally admitted that in London and other large towns the majority of voters worked at great distances from where they lived, and that they could not record their votes in the dinner-hour, as working men could in smaller towns—in the large towns working men and clerks were obliged to ask for time to vote as a favour, or to sacrifice a day's or half-a-day's pay. That

  897
  might be safely said of a large number of employés on the railways. The advantages of the change he proposed were generally conceded, and the main objection was that concession would increase the danger of personation; but the experience of the London School Board election, at which five or ten minutes was often lost in finding the name of a voter, showed that the danger might be dismissed as imaginary. For these reasons he moved the Amendment, hoping it would commend itself to the Committee, and be more successful than last year.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "Election," to insert the words "the polling shall commence at 8 A.M. and shall be closed at 8 P.M. and."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, this proposal was rejected last year by 239 against 60, so that the sense of the Committee was then strong against it; but it was not surprising it should be brought forward again, because it was a grievance which the Government would be glad to remove if they could do it with safety. It must be the desire of all that the voter should be put to the least expense and inconvenience, and the hours of labour were such that it was difficult for many to go to the poll between the hours of 8 and 4; and if the hours could be prolonged as proposed, without incurring danger, the Government would be glad to assent to such a Motion. At the same time, this was a question outside the Ballot Bill; it was not in any way involved in the fresh arrangements with regard to voting. Admitting that it would be desirable to make the proposed change, if it could be done with safety, he must briefly state the reasons why it could not. In a large part of the year it would lead to polling being conducted in the dark, which he did not believe was done anywhere in popular elections, and which could not be anticipated with safety in some parts of the United Kingdom. The very ground on which the alteration was proposed involved the conclusion that the proportion of voters who would poll in the last hour would be unusually large, and there was an objection depending on that conclusion that it was not desirable that
  898
  electors should be encouraged to vote late. Hitherto electors had been urged to "vote early," as early voting was considered conducive to obtain a fair verdict from a constituency; and if there was a rush at the last, the probability would be increased of some voters being shut out altogether. On that ground he had doubted whether the extension of the hours of voting at the school board elections till 8 o'clock had really benefited the working classes. The hon. Baronet had by no means made out a clear case; indeed, the subject was one on which he entertained grave doubts, although he should be willing to carry out his views if it could be done with safety. If it was proposed to meet the objections that additional polling places should be opened, it must be remembered that that would increase the expense; but in order to meet the hon. Baronet if he could, he thought it would be advisable first of all to try the Ballot, and if the expectation of its supporters—that it would tend to prevent disorder—should be realized, the experiment might be tried at some future period of carrying on the polling after dark. His statement that this was a real grievance must be accepted with a certain qualification, for, in his opinion, it was much more a grievance in London than anywhere else. In the provincial constituencies, even in the large towns, it was said that employers thought of keeping their workmen away from the poll; but in the metropolis the distances and the areas were so great that in some instances electors might not have an opportunity of recording their votes. A good deal might be said in favour of the hon. Member for Edinburgh's (Mr. M'Laren's) Amendment for depriving employers of the power of preventing their men from voting; but that was also a question which might be more conveniently considered at a future period.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment upon the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Though not sharing the Utopian views of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the benefit of the Ballot, he feared that the present hours would not be sufficient in large constituencies without a considerable addition to the number of polling-places. Under the new system persons who were unable to read and write, or who could only do so imperfectly, would

  899
  occupy much more time in voting than they did now, and consequently an extension of the hours of polling was rendered necessary. Then came the question, what part of the day would most add to the convenience of those concerned in the matter; and he had come to the conclusion that it would most conduce to the convenience and order of a constituency if the polling were to commence at 6 o'clock in the morning, and to close at 4 in the afternoon. Operatives would then be able to record their votes before beginning their work. In conclusion, the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved an Amendment to the effect that the poll should remain open from 6 a.m. until 4 p.m.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out "8" before "A.M.," and inserting "6."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
  MR. E. N. FOWLERrose to support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend; but wished it had gone a little further, and proposed 5 o'clock in the morning instead of 6. Many workmen went to their labour at 6 o'clock in the morning, and he thought it would be much better to give them an opportunity of voting before that hour than to keep the poll open after dark.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that when the hon. and gallant Baronet brought forward this proposition last year it was received with even less favour than that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), having been rejected by 324 votes against 57. In winter time it would be extremely unpleasant for the officials to open the poll at 5 in the morning, and he could hardly think his hon. Friend would seriously make such a proposal; and whatever might be the heat and excitement at an election, it would be hardly right to send the voters out at so early an hour in the cold weather.
  MR. DIXONremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the Government had carefully weighed the hon. Baronet's proposal, and entertained a doubt on the subject. Under the circumstances, it would have been a proper compliment to the working classes to have given them the benefit of the doubt. They had no apprehension of any disturbance in consequence of the extension of the hours of polling, nor
  900
  had he. He did not think with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that the inconvenience of closing the polling-places at 4 o'clock would be felt only in the metropolis. In his own borough—the borough of Birmingham—some extension of the hours of polling was greatly required; for at present the distances at which workmen lived from their work and from the polling-places were so long that it was almost impossible for them to find sufficient time in which to go and record their votes. Again, it was a fact that in Birmingham many of the artizan classes were paid by the "piece," and if the manufactories were not kept open on polling days later than at present, so as to enable "piece-workers" to make up the time occupied in voting, considerable loss would be inflicted upon those of them who exercised the right to vote. The working classes of Birmingham, therefore, in numerous meetings, in order that they might not be so fined for the exercise of a right, had expressed a unanimous feeling in favour of the extension of the hours of polling to 8 P.M., and he hoped the Government would listen to them and support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke).
  MR. E. S. POWELLsaid, the hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion appeared to forget that there were counties in England as well as boroughs; and even the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, though he had spoken of the closing of the poll at 4 o'clock in boroughs, seemed to have overlooked altogether the fact that the poll in counties was kept open until 5 o'clock. No doubt there was great force in the objections made against keeping the poll open after dark; and he confessed that he did not feel encouraged to encounter the difficulty, of which, however, the hon. Member for Birmingham was not apprehensive; but it was a characteristic of the hon. Gentleman, that he had no apprehensions about anything. The results of election inquiries, both before Committees of that House and before the Judges, showed that during the later hours of polling there were considerable disturbances, and that the right of the British voter to approach the poll in peace was greatly weakened, and in many cases entirely destroyed, as the poll advanced to its latest moments,

  901
  He had referred to some of the documents relating to American elections, and he found that, although the polling did there extend to a later hour than in this country, still in certain of the States there was a rigid provision that the poll should close at sunset. When such apprehensions of after-dark voting existed in a country where the Ballot had been in use for so many years, he thought that due care and caution should be exercised in this country. We had had some experience in this matter from the London School Board election. In 1870, when the first election of members of the Board took place, there was no doubt that during the earlier hours there was an abstinence of the electors from the poll; but these electors crowded the polling-places during the later hours. As a result, the whole machinery broke down in some cases, and the returning officers were unable to discharge their functions properly. If the election had not been one of minor importance—if it had been the election of a Member of Parliament—there could be no question that great discussion must have arisen and official inquiries must have been instituted. What was the case the other day? He went during the breakfast hour to watch the polling which took place in a district of Marylebone, and he found that the polling-place was deserted. There was not one working man in the room, and there was no sign or symptom of anyone coming forward to vote. It was plain, then, that an extension of the hours of polling into a much later period of the day would not increase the numbers of those who voted, while, on the other hand, it would create a good deal of confusion. He himself felt most anxious that when the franchise was given widely it should be used widely. If the franchise was given to the people, it should be given in faith and in truth; but still they must have regard to the circumstances of danger which might arise by extending the polling into the hours of darkness. At the same time he did not see why the borough voter should be under any disadvantage as compared with the county voter, especially when it was remembered that the borough voter had plenty of gaslight to show him the way to the poll while the county voter was very imperfectly supplied with artificial out-of-door light. He hoped an arrangement might
  902
  be made by which the same hour should be fixed for closing the poll both in boroughs and in counties.
  MR. GOLDSMIDtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would re-consider the matter, for there was a great interest felt on this point among the electors; and in those constituencies where there were a great number of dockyard electors it was impossible for many of those men to record their votes unless they consented to lose half-a-day's work, which meant the sacrifice of a twelfth part of the week's wages. As the Government was not equally liberal with those employers who paid their workmen for the time occupied in voting, they ought at least to accede to a proposal which would enable their employés to exercise the franchise without losing time and money. There need be no fear of disturbances at after-dark voting so long as the votes were given secretly, for no one would know how the election was going on, and no reason for creating a disturbance could possibly arise; therefore, that objection had no perceptible foundation.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, that last year he voted with the Government against an extension of the hours of polling; but as he had since been assured by those who were most deeply interested in the question, that no danger could possibly arise from excitement caused by the state of the poll, which, under the Ballot, being secret, could by no possibility become known, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSthought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had been misinformed as to the practice of voting in other countries. In Paris, even during the siege, when passion and excitement ran high, the polling-places were kept open until 6 o'clock in the evening, but no disturbances of any consequence arose. In America, also, the hours of polling were much longer than in this country. What was the Government afraid of? They professed to fear danger from voting after sunset in the dark; but, if that were so, they ought to have a little mercy upon hon. Members of that House, whom they continually left in the dark. The Ballot itself was dark, but the Government professed to fear

  903
  darkness. It was not fair or true to say that an extension of the time of voting would result in people voting in the dart. The duty of the officials would be to light the polling-places, and render them as suitable for the transaction of business as were rooms in which public meetings were held at night. Do not let the Government give the Ballot to the people, and then insert in the Bill a provision which would have the effect of refusing the vote to those whom it was proposed to endow with the full and free power of exercising the franchise. He had attended the polling-places at the election of the school board in his district, and had found there, waiting to record their votes, a large crowd composed chiefly of working men. It was quite dark, but the crowd was in a state of perfect order. At the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) introduced his Reform Bill, he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had endeavoured to obtain an extension of the hours of voting, and had been met by objections which came reasonably enough from a Conservative Government. Now, he had waited till the time arrived when a Government professing to be Liberal, par excellence, should bring in a measure of reform, in the expectation that his desire would be accomplished; and he regretted to find such a Government throwing impediments in the way of the voter. When he supported household suffrage, he meant what he said; and he was sure that the mass of the people, who would be practically disfranchised by this law, would never be persuaded that Parliament had meant them to vote if it made such arrangements as would only enable them to do so at the cost of sacrificing some part of their employment. As a means of meeting the objection as to darkness raised by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, he proposed that the polls should be kept open from sunrise to sunset, so that, by the Government fixing General Elections at a proper time of year, there could be no inconvenience or hardship experienced by anyone concerned.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had forgotten that there were such places as mining districts. He knew localities where colliers had to
  904
  travel from two to five miles every day, in order to get to their work; and working as they did in "shifts" of six, eight or ten hours, it was impossible for them to attend the polling-places under the conditions as to time insisted upon by the right hon. Gentleman. The only way in which miners and colliers could fully enjoy the franchise was by an extension, in one direction or the other, of the hours of polling; and he should, therefore, have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he cordially approved of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), and although he (Mr. M'Laren) had given Notice of an Amendment of a more limited character, he should support the Resolution now before the House, and, if it was not carried, should press his own to a division subsequently. Many hon. Gentlemen did not seem to be aware of the great numbers of the working classes who were virtually disfranchised in consequence of the present state of the law, and deep injury was done them because the hours of polling were not extended. He found from a Parliamentary Return, that prior to the Reform Bill of 1868, there were 55,000 burgh electors in Scotland, and by the passing of that Bill the number was raised to 171,000, of whom 100,000 belonged to the working classes. Now, while these men were very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) for having given them the franchise, they were deeply sorry that no proper provision had been made for them to exercise that right. All sorts of impediments appeared to be thrown in the way of their getting to the poll. This was not merely a question affecting persons who were employed in manufactories and workshops, but it extended to other men, such as those engaged in the building trade. These men never worked near their own houses—they were employed in new buildings situate in different districts of the town, at considerable distances from the polling-places. If Her Majesty's Government did not extend the hours of polling, the present feeling of dissatisfaction would be increased, and they would feel that Liberal Members were throwing obstacles in the way of their exercising the franchise.
  MR. WHITBREADsuggested that the hours of polling should be fixed at from 8 o'clock in the morning till sunset, otherwise it would be found that, by the term "sunrise to sunset," as contained in the suggestion of hon. Members, the poll during some part of the summer would be kept open from 3 o'clock in the morning.
  MR. COLLINSobjected to the introduction of "sunrise" and "sunset" in the Bill, as, the hours varying with the changing seasons, it would be an inconvenient arrangement, necessitating constant reference to the almanack. If the number of hours for polling were increased by four, it would be possible to reduce the number of polling-booths by one-third, and thus materially reduce the expense.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was convinced that an extension of time would not have the effect of reducing the number of polling-booths, because the pressure would be upon the last hour or two. In fact, he believed a larger number of compartments would be required. He did not, of course, think there was anything in the mode of voting which would be dangerous to be carried on under good gaslight; but he thought it undesirable that there should be continued until the hours of darkness that stir and tumult which must accompany an election. He trusted they would not long have the state of things which at present existed in Ireland; but he was sure that the danger at elections in Ireland would be increased if the elections were carried on in darkness. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had alluded to other countries. On referring, he found that in Australia—where working men were as powerful as they could be expected to become for some time in England—the hours of polling were these—In Sydney, from 8 to 4; in Victoria, 9 to 4; South Australia, 9 to 5; and in Queensland, 9 to 4. In France, elections were not conducted in the dark, but the difficulty was met by holding elections on Sunday, and he hoped such a practice would not be approved in England. The Government were anxious to meet the case as far as possible, and he did not deny that to an extent there was a grievance, although he believed the grievance was much greater in London than in the provinces. A deputation
  906
  which waited upon him from Birmingham was unable to mention any instance of a man being prevented from voting by the poll closing at 4 o'clock, although he would admit that it might have resulted in a loss of wages which should be remedied if possible. The great objection to the proposition was the danger of carrying on an election in the dark. The proposition, however, of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) was one which they might consider, and perhaps they might adopt the plan followed in America of making sunset the time for closing the poll. Uncertainty might be avoided by arranging that the poll should close at such hours between 4 and 8 as might be reasonable after sunset, according to Greenwich time, which could be easily ascertained by the Returning Officer. If the Committee approved of that, he should be glad to bring up a clause to that effect on the Report.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman was certainly not exactly such a leader as Joshua, when he commanded the sun to stand still over the valley of Ajalon, and he was evidently forgetting that the British Isles extended from the 40th to the 60th degree of latitude, and that the time of sunset in some parts of the kingdom differed considerably from that in others on the same day. In the Orkney Islands, for instance, at some periods the sun set at 10 minutes after 3 o'clock, and rose at 20 minutes after 8 in the morning, so that by adopting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman they would in some cases materially reduce the hours of voting. He would move as an Amendment that the hours for taking the poll should extend from 6 in the morning to 6 at night.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTwas glad the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to meet the case in the best way open to him; but he was mistaken in supposing that the grievance was not felt beyond London, for so far as Manchester was concerned he had had many urgent representations on this subject. He might mention that at the election of the school board the hours were from 9 to 4 o'clock, and half the constituency were polled. But in the neighbouring town of Congleton, where the hours were fixed at from 1 to 8 o'clock, six-sevenths of the constituency were polled, and more than

  907
  one-third between 6 and 8 o'clock. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was better than nothing, and he therefore urged the Committee to accept it, and would express a hope that the hours of voting would be extended in municipal elections as well as in Parliamentary elections.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that in Sutherland-shire, in summer, the sun set nearer to 11 than 10 at night, and that it would be better to fix the hours from 8 to 6, and take the chance of what time of year an election occurred.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved that, in any case, the poll would not close earlier than 4, or later than 8. But the following clause might be acceptable:—
  "The poll shall commence at eight in the morning, and shall be kept open until such of the hours of four, five, six, seven, or eight as happens to be next after the time of sunset, according to Greenwich time, and no longer. The poll, however, shall not be closed later than eight, or earlier than four o'clock."
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that in the borough he represented there never had been the least difficulty in polling all the electors who wished to vote, between 8 o'clock in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. It was said that many of the objections against polling late under the system of open voting would not be valid against voting by ballot; that, for instance, there would be much greater quiet under the latter system than under the former. It would, however, be much better to wait until they had had some experience of how that would be. He hoped that no great change, such as that of keeping the poll open till 8 in the evening, would be adopted. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, that it would be simpler to provide that in the winter and autumn the poll should be closed at 4 o'clock in the boroughs and 5 in counties, as at present, and that during the spring and summer it should be kept open till 6.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, that having some experience of Irish elections, he found the voters there much disinclined under the present system to record their votes at all. In Ireland the polling was kept open till 5 o'clock for both boroughs and counties, whereas in England the hour of closing was 4 for boroughs and 5 for counties. Without pledging himself to any particular hour, he thought that, whatever decision the House came
  908
  to on the subject, the hour of closing the poll should be the same in both countries. Of course, he should like the poll to close as early as possible, because the outrages generally commenced after 2 o'clock.
  MR. T. HUGHEStrusted that the hon. Baronet, after the offer made by the Government, would not divide the Committee.
  LORD HENLEYhoped, on the contrary, that the hon. Baronet would press his Motion to a division, for the reason that it was the only distinct proposition before the Committee. Large bodies of working men did not leave work till 6 o'clock, and they ought to have an hour or two given them after that time in which to record their votes.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONcomplained of the course taken by the Government as preventing the Committee from clearly understanding the question upon which it was about to divide. The less darkness they had in elections the better, and he therefore trusted the Government would stand by their original intention of keeping the hours of voting as they were at present, with the single exception that 5 o'clock might be made the hour of closing in boroughs as it now was in counties.
  MR. MILLERmaintained that between 6 and 8 o'clock in the evening was the only time at which working men could conveniently exercise their franchise. Many working men in Edinburgh found a difficulty in voting during their dinner hour without risking the loss of half-a-day's wages.
  COLONEL BERESFORDhoped the Government would adhere to the existing well-known hours, between 8 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon, with which he believed the working men were satisfied, as they were able to poll at breakfast or dinner time. He was altogether opposed to voting in the dark.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, that holding the same opinion upon the matter as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Miller), he trusted the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) would persevere with his Motion.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the Government had made a distinct proposition in their Bill, and one which it was supposed they would have supported; but by the alteration they now tendered for acceptance, they had some-

  909
  what confused the question, so that the Committee hardly knew what they were doing. As there was no object to be gained by keeping open the poll for a longer period than was necessary for polling the constituency, if it was to remain open until 8, it might be equally desirable to commence in the morning later than at present. But he believed there was really no occassion for making that change. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said the working classes were disfranchised by the present system, and yet they represented themselves as Members elected to the last Parliament by those very working classes. He therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his first position, for if there was to be a new mode of election, it was important to try it in the hours with which they were acquainted. To have variable hours would be unsatisfactory, and to keep open until 8 o'clock on all occasions would not promote order or regularity. They were told that under the Ballot everything would run more smoothly; but he did not know of a constituency that was hindered in the choice of its Members by the present hours of polling. Therefore, in the division about to be taken, he hoped they would be understood as supporting the words of the Bill as against those proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Dilke).
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in the present state of their experience the Government were not prepared to assent to the insertion in the clause of words which would enable the poll to be kept open after dark. Of course, it was quite possible that the time might come when the proceedings at elections would be so tranquil that the disadvantages of keeping the poll open after dark might be much diminished; but that was a question for the future. The whole matter was one depending upon experience, and for the present, at all events, Her Majesty's Government were quite fixed not to assent to the proposal for keeping the poll open after dark. The Government had not proposed to make any alteration in the old hours of polling in their Bill; but they were, of course, perfectly willing that the matter should stand over for a short time, until hon. Members had had an opportunity of ascertaining what hours for polling would best suit the convenience of their
  910
  constituents. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), in his desire to meet the very considerable amount of feeling that had been shown in favour of suiting the hours for polling to the convenience of the working classes, had suggested for the consideration of hon. Members a method by which, without incurring the disadvantages of prolonging the proceedings after dark, a considerable extension of the hours for polling might be obtained during a large part of the year—namely, by fixing on 4 o'clock as the earliest, and 8 o'clock as the latest hour for closing the poll. But even that was a matter which the Committee ought not to be asked to determine without having had time for consideration, and therefore the course that the Government proposed to adopt was to resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) as well as the main proposal, and to place upon the Paper, an Amendment embodying the proposition which his right hon. Friend had sketched out, which might receive ample consideration when the proper time arrived.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEpointed out that if the sliding scale were to be adopted, it might be regarded as a working man's grievance if a dissolution of Parliament occurred at a time when there were only eight instead of eleven hours for voting. If the principle of the working man's convenience were to be imported into the matter in future, no election could be held during harvest time, nor, perhaps, during many other periods of the year. For his own part, he was in favour of the hours for polling being fixed.
  MR. BAINESthought the poll ought to be taken at a time that would be most convenient to the working classes. Speaking on behalf of the borough he represented, which contained a population of 250,000 and 40,000 electors, three-fourths of whom belonged to the working classes and to the class of small traders, he thought that sufficient had been said in the course of the debate to justify the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke). He could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were unduly apprehensive of the dangers of polling at a late hour, because he believed that when the Ballot came into operation there would be but

  911
  comparatively little excitement at elections. The tendency at the present time was to hold meetings at a late hour, and it had been found that a meeting was sure to be a failure if it were held at an earlier hour than half-past 7 o'clock. No danger attending meetings held at that hour, he could not see why greater danger should be apprehended from keeping open the poll as late or even later. It would be better to settle the question decidedly, and at once.
  DR. BALLreferred, more especially to Ireland, to the inconvenience that would result from keeping the poll open in country places after dark, in cases where there were no means for lighting the polling-booth. In the case of the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) being adopted, the lateness of the hour would increase the risk of disturbance, and great difficulty would be experienced in taking the necessary precautions for the safe conveyance of the ballot boxes and books relating to the election.
  MR. HINDE PALMERregretted that the Government had not made the concession which had been asked from them, and had refused to extend the hours of voting, because the large mass of the people who had been enfranchised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had hitherto been unable to avail themselves of the boon in consequence of their being engaged at work until after the poll closed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, while admitting that the concession offered by the Government was a considerable one, in view of the strong expression of feeling that had been shown with regard to the fluctuating times for polling, should feel bound to give the Committee an opportunity of dividing upon the Main Question.
  Question put, "That '8' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 66: Majority 176.
  MR. COLLINSfelt that there was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) as to the advantage of uniformity. He had never heard of any inconvenience arising from 5 being the closing hour for all elections in Ireland and for county elections in England. He would, therefore, move the insertion of 5 P.M., in-
  912
  stead of 8 P.M., and hoped the Government would accept this as to some extent meeting the wish of the electors for longer hours.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out "8" before "P.M.," and inserting "5."—(Mr. Collins.)
  MR. MACFIEsaid, his constituents thought that in the large city of Edinburgh the polling places should remain open till 8 o'clock in the evening, to enable the working classes to vote. It would be preposterous to make sunset the time for closing the poll, in some Scotch counties for instance, as the sun set so much sooner in one part of Scotland than in another.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government felt themselves compelled to oppose the prolongation of hours of polling to 8 o'clock throughout the year. Therefore he had merely to repeat what had been stated by his right hon. Friend, that if the Amendment were withdrawn he would undertake to put on the Table of the House, before the Report, an Amendment which would carry out the principle that an election should be conducted as long as it could be in the light between the hours of 4 and 8.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the hour at which the poll was closed in Ireland in both counties and boroughs was 5 o'clock, and he saw no reason why in the boroughs in Scotland the polling should not be carried on up to that hour.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEthought his hon. Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had proposed a fair compromise of this question—namely, that the poll should be kept open till 5 o'clock. He could assure the Committee that 300 of his supporters were shut out at the last election. ["Oh!" and laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen wished he could give them the particulars. He was in favour of opening the poll at 6 in the morning so as to give men an opportunity of voting early while their heads were clear, and of voting again later on. From all he could hear, the great danger of this measure was that there would not be time to poll the constituents within the time proposed.
  Question put, "That '8' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 206: Majority 108.
  MR. COLLINSthen moved that the figure "5" be inserted in the blank thus created in the proposed Amendment. There were serious objections to a sliding scale. If a Minister was going to dissolve Parliament when the days were short, it would be said that the Parliament was not a fair one, and it was, therefore, desirable to fix a definite time for the whole year. Now, as 5 was the time in English county elections, and in all the Irish elections, there would be a decided advantage in having it adopted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted that it was desirable that there should be the same hour in both countries, but at present the Government were not prepared to say whether 4 or 5 was the best hour. He had heard that at Irish elections in winter the hour of 5 o'clock was found to be inconvenient. He had undertaken to bring up a clause on the Report to carry out the wishes of his hon. Friends, that the polling hours should be made as long as possible without getting into the dark. He must be allowed time, however, to consider whether the best way to frame the clause would be to take sunset as the rule, or to regulate it according to particular months of the year.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was quite satisfied that they should remain as they were; but, as he did not wish to have a future question raised as to this system of going by sunset at any period of the year, he should vote for 5 o'clock. He had no other way of showing his objection to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked, whether, if the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Collins) were carried, the Government would consider themselves precluded from giving the Committee the benefit of the proposition which they had made? The answer to that question might determine his and other hon. Member's votes.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think that a positive answer could be given. The Government would not be absolutely precluded, but their position would be weakened.
  MR. MONKregretted that 6 o'clock had not been proposed, instead of 5, and intimated that in the event of "5" being rejected, he should move that "6" be inserted.
  Question put, "That '5' be there inserted."—(Mr. Collins.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 157: Majority 64.
  MR. MONKsaid, that as the Amendment now stood without any hour, he proposed to fill up the blank with the hour of 6.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the Committee would be satisfied with the divisions which had occurred, and would allow the matter to stand over until the Report, in order that the Government might consider it.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSwas in favour of extending the time for voting; but it was clear they must now trust to the Government, who had taken upon themselves the responsibility.
  MR. BOUVERIEasked, whether the hour of 6 might not be put into the blank, until the Government had made up their minds?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be happy to withdraw the Amendment, upon the understanding that the Government dealt with the question.
  MR. HORSMANhoped that it would be understood that when the Government made their next proposal they would adhere to it.
  MR. COLLINS, on his part, hoped that the Government would not commit themselves to anything more definite than they had at present undertaken.
  Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved an Amendment to the effect that voters might give their votes by voting papers, instead of personally, and which Amendment also embodied a variety of regulations for carrying out the object. The hon. Member said, that it was admitted by the Government that under the existing system many working men could not record their votes; and it was probable that the Government would propose to give them facilities for so doing by proposing a sort of sliding scale of hours for voting, such hours to be regulated by the seasons of the year, there being an objection to voting being carried on during the hours of darkness. The case of these persons, however, did not by any means constitute the whole difficulty, for it always happened that many persons were away from their usual places of residence at the time that the

  915
  polling took place; such, for instance, as persons who were engaged in commercial affairs. No means were provided in the Bill to meet these cases. It was an increasing practice also that labouring men were frequently employed at a distance from their homes, and there was the case of persons who were temporarily or permanently incapacitated from recording their votes at the poll, and no means were provided in the Bill by which either of those classes of voters could exercise the suffrage. Moreover, many hon. Members were in favour of enfranchising the gentler sex; and he would ask them whether, in the event of this proposition being adopted, they would compel them to go through the excitement incident to recording their votes at the poll? For all those reasons, he asked the Committee to give his proposition impartial consideration. The system of voting papers was no novelty; it had been tried in charities and elections for guardians of the poor; and it had been tried with signal success in elections for Members for the Universities. No doubt, certain defects had been discovered in the system of voting papers; but he believed that every evil was grappled with in his Amendment. The voting papers were to be signed and marked with the candidates voted for in the presence of a magistrate; and, in his opinion, the magistracy would be the best body for performing this duty, for if they were not our liberties for centuries must be regarded as having rested on a foundation of sand. He thought, also, that he had taken proper precautions against illicit voting papers being used; so that no opportunity would be afforded for the American practice called "repeating." The voter must be personally known to the magistrate, or there must be evidence on oath of his identity. The first or second of his sub-sections proposed to enact certain penalties, which, though not excessive, he still thought were sufficient to prevent the recurrence of those evils against which they were levied. One of the old evils complained of in respect to the election of guardians of the poor was that arising from the practice of canvassers going round in company with the persons employed to deliver the voting papers, and intercepting them and improperly turning them to their own account. But he proposed to guard
  916
  against that evil by requiring the voter to go before a justice of the peace. Another objection made to it was that it would lead to personation. He (Mr. Lowther) denied that it would do so; he believed that it would have the very contrary effect. On the other hand, the Government proposed a system which he thought would multiply that evil, and they confessed their inability to deal with that evil, and attempted to shuffle off the Corrupt Practices clauses which they had brought in last year. The conveyance of voters, which formed a large proportion of the expenditure attending county elections, would be entirely got rid of by his proposal, and it should therefore commend itself to the serious attention of all those who were in favour of cheapening the expense of elections; and, in addition, it would have the effect of giving constituencies the opportunity which they had not yet fully enjoyed—of recording fair and deliberate votes upon the questions submitted to their consideration. Many persons from bodily infirmity, or from the nature of their avocations, were sometimes prevented recording their votes, and the case of those as well as of the fair sex should not be overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, especially as he had admitted that a difficulty would arise in many instances of recording all the votes within the prescribed hours. This proposition had not hitherto been fairly considered by the House. And although he unfortunately addressed but a small number of Members, which the particular hour at which he was speaking (8 o'clock) might account for, nevertheless the Committee comprised some of the most influential Members upon this question, and he therefore trusted that it would receive due attention on the present occasion. He regretted the absence, however, of certain hon. Members, particularly that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had made objections to the proposal when it was first brought forward, that it would lead to the Ballot.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word "Election" to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "any voter may, in compliance with the provisions hereinafter contained, give his vote by a voting paper instead of personally."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  DR. BREWERsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would, if carried, destroy the whole principle and object of the Bill, which would be no longer a Ballot Bill. There was no analogy between a Parliamentary election and an election of a Board of Guardians. In respect to the latter it was often very difficult to get gentlemen to offer themselves as candidates. The entire proposal of the hon. Member would deprive the Ballot of its secresy because it would make a man's vote known to his neighbours, and would thus most certainly facilitate undue influence. It was a mistake to suppose that personation would be increased under the Ballot. On the contrary, if the districts were not very large, personation would be more difficult than ever.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the supporters of the Bill had always referred as a justification of the measure to the operation of the Ballot in the Australian colonies; but it appeared from the Reports of the different Governors of those colonies which had been presented to Parliament, that although the number of voters was small as compared with the number of polling-places, personation was very prevalent, and was loudly complained of. He was always in favour of the system of voting papers, and it was particularly required in a maritime constituency like his own, as many voters were prevented by their calling from personally recording their votes. He trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) would press his Motion to a division.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) would not think him discourteous if he did not reply at length to his proposal. He could only repeat what he had said last year, but he must demur to the statement that this matter had not been already fully discussed. It was discussed last Session as much as any other question connected with the Bill, and that fact might account for the small attendance of the Committee, hon. Members probably being of opinion that the settlement of the point was a foregone conclusion. The proposal of the hon. Member for York, in fact, was to do away with the principle of the Ballot—a principle which had been asserted in that House over and over again, and to
  918
  put in its place a plan of voting not personally, but by voting papers; and the hon. Gentleman could hardly suppose that the Committee would be prepared on the present occasion to stultify itself by acting contrary to the decision at which the House had arrived on former occasions. Moreover, if the proposal were adopted, a worse state of things was likely to arise than existed under the existing system of voting. True, there were cases in which personal voting was attended with disadvantages; but were not disadvantages met with in the discharge of almost every public duty? The question was, whether they could carry out the principles and ideas of voting without voting personally? He thought that there could be but little difference of opinion in the Committee on the proposal; and that they agreed that the plan of the hon. Member was likely to lead to less freedom and less independence in voting than was now enjoyed. Without intending any reproach against justices of the peace, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that they were often landlords, employers of labour, and large customers. The object of the Ballot was to enable the tenant, employé, or shopkeeper, to feel that they were not subject to the influence of landlords or employers, even though they were justices of the peace. How did the hon. Gentleman propose to meet the difficulty? He would have the candidate or his agent take the voter into the private room of the magistrate, or the magistrate might be got to call upon the voter, and then have his paper filled up in his presence. Was the hon. Gentleman really serious in making such a proposal?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in supporting the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther), said, it aimed to amend the present system of noise, and almost of turbulence, and to substitute for it a quiet and proper plan of conducting elections, such as might be procured by means of voting papers. The use of voting papers had been successfully tried in University elections; and he would not do away with the present system of open voting, to which so many electors were much attached, until the proposed plan had at any rate been generally tried throughout the whole country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said there were disadvantages which must necessarily attend any system of

  919
  voting, and that these could not be got rid of; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have lost sight of a class of voters who were now specially subject to disadvantages, and who would be still more so if this Bill became law, in comparison with other voters. He alluded to the non-resident county voters, who would be placed relatively to resident voters in a worse position, by the multiplication of polling-booths, than they were in at present. It was said that faggot-votes would be increased by a system of voting papers; but he contended that this need not by any means be the case. Faggot-votes must necessarily come under the scrutiny of the revising barrister, and could always be checked by him; and if a property was split up into 50 or 60 portions, and held by so many persons, he did not see why, if each vote was bonâ fide held, and had a legal value, there should be any objection to votes so obtained. As long as the possession of property in a county continued to confer a vote for that county, so long was it reasonable that every proper facility should be given for the exercise of the county franchise. Although it would be too much to expect from the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Members opposite, that they should support a proposal for the substitution of voting papers for the Ballot, he might, at any rate, venture to commend to their serious consideration the question, whether, consistently with the principles they avowed, they might not afford some better facilities for the exercise of the franchise by non-resident county voters than now existed?
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in explaining his reasons for supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), remarked that he did so neither as a supporter nor as an opponent of the Ballot, although he had given ample evidence both in the present and in the last Session that he was strongly opposed to it. He should consider the proposal both as, an element of the Ballot Bill, and as an alternative scheme for reforming the procedure of our elections, which might be substituted for that quack medicine. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford and other Ballot men had abandoned the philosophical heights from which they had heretofore defended the Ballot, and now palliated it as a prac-
  920
  tical measure for checking intimidation, although they were compelled to admit that that evil was rapidly dying out in this country. But, assuming the Ballot to be the working man's best defence against intimidation, it was clear that the persons who would derive benefit from the adoption of the present proposal did not belong to the classes who were most liable to be intimidated. They were emphatically the independent class, and they ought therefore to be helped rather than thwarted in exercising their civic privileges. Recently it had been the practice to extend the franchise only at one end of the social and monetary scale, and it surely was not unreasonable to demand that enfranchisement should be given to persons at the other end in the shape of increased facilities for voting. Employers could most effectually intimidate their workmen in person, for a letter was nothing compared with a scolding; and if the electors had the power to use voting papers, there would not be so much opportunity to the employers to put on the personal screw, especially as the growth of independence, wealth, and education, and the fading away of the feudal feeling between classes had greatly lessened the danger of intimidation. Accordingly, under a state of things which tended to break down the hard lines of local restriction, it was unfair to put a person who enjoyed and wished to exercise the right of voting in several counties, to a considerable expense which might be rendered unnecessary if the use of voting papers were permitted. He had once been put to considerable inconvenience in order that he might be able to give his vote in North Staffordshire and East Sussex on one and the same day. It was a hard day's work, while he might very easily have given both votes if the system of voting papers had been in operation. That system might, he thought, be fairly adopted by the Government as supplementary to the Ballot Bill. He had the honour of representing one of the few open constituencies which would continue to exist under the Bill. The Universities would continue to elect their Members by voting papers, and in the University of Cambridge, at least, during a contested election, there were certain hours of the night at which the votes might be taken. If, then, there were to be an area of ex-

  921
  ception left, both as to voting papers and as to the hours during which the process of electing might go on, why should it not be widened by extending the same privilege to non-resident voters, and allowing them to vote for counties in the way proposed? So much for the question viewed as supplementary to a Ballot Bill. He would now say a few words on it as a substitute. He knew he stood in a minority in the present House of Parliament, but still he must deliver his conscience. He did not yield to the most vehement admirer of the Ballot in his desire to purify the system of elections; and his regret was, therefore, that a practical Bill to this effect could not at first have been introduced in which all could agree, leaving the vexed matter of the Ballot for hereafter. Occupying this position, he felt that any system of election which would ameliorate the present rough doings would be advantageous, and he was, therefore, in favour of doing away with the public nominations; and therefore he advocated the system of voting papers, because he thought that a man sitting in his study who shrunk for respectable reasons from attending at the poll, was fitter to vote for our law makers than an elector filled with beer, or something stronger, who went hurrahing about with a bludgeon in his hand.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he did not rise as a strong opponent of the Ballot, because he was not regarded as sound on this question by his hon. Friends around him. He was disposed to look rather favourably upon the experiment about to be tried; but, representing as he did a seafaring constituency, he begged to point out the hardship inflicted upon pilots and other seafaring men who might have to leave their homes oh the very eve of a contested election. Under the Bill as proposed, a pilot must either sacrifice a sum of money of great importance to him, or he must lose the privilege of exercising his functions. That difficulty would be obviated if the Amendment were adopted, and he was of opinion that the machinery of parochial elections by means of voting papers would be found very effective. If that system worked so well, as it was said to do in respect to Boards of Guardians, why could it not be extended to Parliamentary elections? He admitted that there might be a great difference
  922
  between the importance of a seat in this House and one at the Board of Guardians, yet the principle was the same. He had that day voted for the Board of Guardians of Marylebone by means of voting papers, and he should cordially support the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was quite mistaken in thinking that he (Mr. Lowther) could not be in earnest in moving this Amendment. He was accustomed to fight a losing battle in that House, and he did not therefore lash himself into a state of uncontrollable fury on the subject, but he was so much in earnest that he intended to carry his Amendment to a division.
  Question put, "That the words 'the votes shall be given' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 36: Majority 45.
  COLONEL BERESFORDproposed to insert in page 2, line 2, after "given by ballot," the words "if the voter shall so desire, such desire being deemed to be expressed by the demand for a balloting paper."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member would defeat the object of the Bill, because, if it were carried, any person bribed or intimidated would be so bribed or intimidated on the condition that he did not apply for a balloting paper, but recorded his vote openly, so that the briber could be sure of it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, on rising to move in line 3, to leave out from "showing" to "candidates" in fine 4, said, the explanation which had been given of the Bill from the Treasury bench was, that its principles were to be found in the clauses and its details in the Schedules. The effect of the Amendment he had to propose would be to reduce the Bill to conformity with this definition, by omitting from the clause the proposal that the balloting papers should contain the names and description of the candidates—a point which he regarded as one of detail merely, fit for examination hereafter; and it certainly was not an indispensable detail, for it was not enforced in the

  923
  case of the school board elections. One of the principal objects of his Amendment was to simplify the mode of voting, and to obviate the wholesale disfranchisement which must ensue if the Bill passed in its present form. He remembered that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had last year stated in the House, that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) had tried a little experiment upon some hon. Friends on his side of the House, with the view of ascertaining how the system of voting by ballot papers would work. The result was, that out of the seven or eight hon. Gentlemen experimentalized upon, only one succeeded in correctly filling up his voting paper. All the others would have lost their votes, on account of errors in filling up the form, and from that the Committee might judge how the experiment would act if applied to the general body of voters. He had no hesitation in saying that if out of seven or eight presumably intelligent Gentlemen, only one succeeded in properly filling up the ballot paper, six out of every seven of the body of voters would be disfranchised by the clause as it then stood. He had last year raised the question in another form, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had then replied very briefly, to the effect that the Government had determined upon the adoption of the principle of secret voting, and he cited the Australian Colonies as proof that the principle was elsewhere working in a satisfactory manner. But he thought that in going to Australia, the right hon. Gentleman had made an unfortunate selection of illustration. He held in his hand a Paper containing the answers of several of the colonial Governors in Australia, and he found in them arguments bearing strongly against the adoption of the Ballot system in England. Sir James Fergusson, one of the Governors, pointed out in his reply, the difference which obtained in the circumstances attending Parliamentary elections in the colonies and in England. While in this country a seat in Parliament was one of the highest ambitions of a man's life, and the possession of a vote at Parliamentary elections was highly prized, Sir James Fergusson pointed out that in his colony a seat in the Legislature was not sought after, and that only about 60 per cent of the inhabitants qualified to vote took the trouble
  924
  to register themselves. Mr. DuCane, the Governor of Tasmania, bore similar testimony. He said a seat in the Colonial Legislature was anything but an object of ambition, and pointed out that a Parliamentary election in Tasmania was a very different matter from an election in a country where the honour was the subject of the keenest competition, and where large sums of money were spent by the candidates in the effort to secure the seat. The Governor of Queensland stated in his letter that the system of voting by Ballot led to a considerable amount of personation in localities where the polling places were not far apart, men sometimes voting at one booth, and then riding 12 or 14 miles to vote at another. In short, the consequence of the introduction of secret voting in Australia was, that the best men, whose services were of value to their country, were retiring into private life, and surrendering the direction of public affairs to political adventurers, such as found places in the American Legislature. Now, if they were to have the Ballot at all—and he assumed they were—it ought not to be a disfranchising measure; it ought, moreover, to be founded on English wants and wishes, and not on far distant colonial systems thoroughly unsuited to this country. He last year heard the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) ask the Government why they did not adopt the system of voting practised in the Indian Council, where a man went boldly up to the box with his ballot paper in his hand, instead of being sent into one of those dark receptacles, whence he was very likely to come out disfranchised. There was another system of Ballot which had always been spoken of in very high terms by the Liberal party, and had been highly commended by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on introducing the Bill. He referred to the Cumberland system, in accordance with which the elector wrote the name of the candidate on a piece of paper, which he folded up and handed to the Returning Officer. The voter was in that case always perfectly safe from anything like espionage; and if the Cumberland system had been adopted it would have been satisfactory to every one. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the systems in vogue in

  925
  France and Italy; and it was to be regretted that he did not adopt some system such as those. The French balloting paper, under the Imperial régime, one of which he held in his hand, was of a fixed size and colour; all of them had a common reading, and the name of only one candidate was printed upon them. Each voter was given ballot papers for each candidate; he selected that bearing the man of his choice and placed it in the box, retaining the others. In Home, where he was present at an election a short time ago, he found no one was allowed to vote unless he could write. The Returning Officer was first elected by ballot, and then he, supported by the candidates' assessors, sat at the head of a table, and as each voter presented himself he was furnished with a blank voting paper, whereon he wrote the name of his nominee, folded it up, and handed it to the Returning Officer. The system in Italy, in fact, was very similar to what was done in Whitehaven. But in addition to these instances in support of his Amendment, he would claim the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, who on the 5th of September last, in the course of a starring tour in the provinces, addressed an enthusiastic audience at Wakefield in terms which showed most clearly that the discussion last year had entirely converted him to the views of the Opposition. The Prime Minister was reported to have used these words—
  "It is said votes ought not to be given in the dark, and men ought not to be ashamed of making known what they do. I quite agree with that… We mean by the Bill protection for the weak (cheers); we mean to put it in the power of the voter to vote secretly if he likes. He will be the best judge of the interests that weigh upon him."
  The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, pledged himself and the Government to the principle that a voter should be allowed to vote secretly if he liked, and upon that principle he took his stand. Under the circumstances it would be unnecessary to detain the Committee further; this clear expression of the opinion of the Prime Minister was sufficient for his purpose, and he called upon the right hon. Gentleman to support the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amend-of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "showing the names and description of the candidates."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must really congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven on the progress he was making. Having hitherto vigorously opposed the Ballot, the hon. Gentleman was now willing to adopt a bad form of the Ballot. The hon. Member's Amendment would place the voter in this position—that he would have a blank ballot paper given him without the names and descriptions of the candidates.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKexplained. He understood the intention of the Government was to establish the principle of the Ballot in that clause, and to describe the details in the Schedule. What he, therefore, wanted to do was to leave it open to have the ballot paper in any form they pleased by the Schedule.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERcontinued. The hon. Member would strike out of the clause the words requiring the names and description of the candidates to be given on the ballot paper, and that the ballot paper should be delivered to the voter in the polling-station. Now, in France the great objection made to the form of voting by ballot there was exactly what the hon. Member stated. A voting paper, with the name of only one of the candidates was put into the hands of the voter, before he got into the polling-place. That plan was open to this objection, that any party—and in many cases the Government—wishing to bring influence to bear on the voter, printed the name of one candidate only, and put it into the hands of the voter outside of the polling-place; and under that influence the elector went in and gave his vote. That would much frustrate the object of the Ballot. Again, if the voting paper were left blank, and the voter might fill in the names, of course it would be much more likely that the mode in which he voted would be identified. It therefore appeared to the Government to be absolutely necessary for the good working of the Ballot, that there should be an official paper containing the names of all the candidates, and that it should be given to the voter within the polling-place. He held in his hand a description of the mode of voting at Maryport, from which he found

  927
  that the names and descriptions of the candidates were printed on the voting papers.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSthought, that the further they got into those discussions the smaller they found the experience on which the Government scheme was based. But the Committee were not without some slight experience to guide them in considering the merits of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck). At the first election for members of the London School Board in Marylebone, considerable interest was manifested by the constituency, and a very large number of voters exercised the franchise; but after they had given their votes hundreds of the electors of Marylebone were virtually disfranchised, owing to some technical informality which they could not understand in the mode of giving their votes. The effect of that was seen at the election of a member of the London School Board for Marylebone, held only the other day, when out of 58,000 voters not 4,000 went to the poll. Did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) attribute that to the diminished interest taken in the cause of education, or did the right hon. Gentleman attribute it to the difficulties the electors felt, 12 months before, when they flocked to the poll? The result must have been attributable to one of these two causes. The last election was one of great importance, and it was probable that voters became indifferent, because they did not know that their votes would be allowed to stand. The last Marylebone election, in fact, showed that what was matter of opinion had become matter of fact. He took it that the object of the Amendment of his hon. Friend was, that if the Ballot were adopted, some means should be adopted for showing that the vote had been secured.
  MR. A. W. YOUNGsaid, that if this Bill were passed into law it would enable the voter to vote secretly if he wished. Having been a candidate many years ago in Australia, he had a vivid recollection of the disturbances at elections there, which resembled those witnessed in this country; and, although he had not himself seen elections conducted in the colonies under the Ballot, yet from all he had heard he believed the Ballot was very successful there.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the clause being really one providing that votes should
  928
  be taken by Ballot, and the proper place for the details as to the Ballot being in the Schedule, the words which the hon. Member for Whitehaven proposed to strike out were out of place where they now stood, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  MR. W. R. FORSTERhoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven would not be surprised at his adhering to the view he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had already expressed, that the words should appear in the clause rather than in the Schedule.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKremarked that the credit of the Government with their supporters was not so great as it was last year. Many of them were to be seen supporting a measure which they had opposed all their lives, like the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who opposed the Ballot when it was proposed by Mr. Henry Berkeley, but who had now nothing to say for himself on the subject, unless he met his supporters in a country town. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had referred to the Ballot being tried at Maryport. He (Mr. C. Bentinck) did not know the extent of the acquaintance which the right hon. Gentleman had with the geography of Cumberland. When they came to the Schedules, however, which would be the proper time for fixing the precise mode of voting, he would tell the Vice President of the Council something about Maryport, and probably by that time the right hon. Gentleman would arrive at the conclusion that Maryport and Whitehaven were two different places, a point on which he seemed to entertain some delusion at present. He should take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 99: Majority 44.
  VISCOUNT MAHONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 4, after "candidates," to insert "and which shall be torn from a counterfoil bearing a corresponding number." The effect of the proposition was to provide that each voting paper should bear a number corresponding to the voter's number on the register, which should be recorded on the counterfoil. He was certain that

  929
  the Ballot Bill would never be accepted by the country, unless there was some check against personation. The experience of America and Australia showed that there was a large amount of personation at elections conducted under the Ballot, and in New Tort, cases were proved where men had voted upwards of 40 times at elections by using false names. If that were the case in New York, and in Victoria, where there was a comparatively thin population, it was likely to be even worse in such large towns as Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham. It was urged that the Ballot would not be accepted, unless it was absolutely secret; but it never could be made absolutely secret, for the votes of individual electors would be sure to be known at each election. The counterfoils, if this Amendment were agreed to, would be locked up and would only be used in case of a Petition, so that it would be a very rare exception for the votes of the electors to become known. Some such experiment as this ought to be tried, even if it were not finally adopted, before Parliament rushed headlong into this new system of conducting elections. He hoped that he would receive a more courteous reply from the Government than had been given in other cases.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped, that if he gave the noble Lord a very short reply, he would not suppose that he wished to treat him with any disrespect. The Committee must bear in mind that every one of these propositions was discussed at great length last year, and he forebore repeating arguments which could hardly be forgotten. Last year the Committee had decided by a large majority against this proposal. The Government had seriously considered the matter, and had adopted the plan of making every vote absolutely secret, without the power of subjecting it to a scrutiny.
  MR. HUNTmust protest against the argument which was constantly urged in the course of the present discussion, that certain points had been settled last year. Hon. Members were all a year older than they were then, and he hoped a year wiser. On the particular subject with which the Committee were dealing, the whole Government had turned in the space of a year from one side to the other. The plan of the Bill was the
  930
  most absurd thing possible, because whatever suspicion or knowledge they might have of a vote having been given wrongly or corruptly, they would have no means of identifying that vote. Let them suppose an election carried by one, and six persons who had been personated came forward and were prepared to prove that they had not voted. It was quite clear that that election was carried by a person who had no right to vote. The purposes of a scrutiny, so necessary in that case, could not be satisfied without ascertaining how the votes of these personated voters had been given; but the Bill said—"You shall not have any means of identifying a voting paper with the voter, even if you bring forward the person who personated the real voter." In short, they could not have a real, true, and genuine election, unless the Bill provided for a possible scrutiny leading to an identification of the votes. The Corrupt Practices Bill provided that, in the case of a Parliamentary Election Petition, one vote should be struck off the number of voters for any candidate in respect of any person who was proved to have been bribed, treated, or unduly influenced by such candidate, or anyone on his behalf. So that the framers of that Bill saw the difficulty in question, and they adopted the expedient of striking one vote off the poll in respect of any person who was proved to have been bribed; but it did not follow, because A. B. bribed C. D., that C. D. voted for A. B., and the vote might be struck off the wrong poll. It never seemed to have struck the framers of this Bill that a voter might have taken a bribe from both candidates, that one bribery might be detected and the other not, and that one candidate only would be punished, while the other candidate who had been equally guilty would not be punished. He entirely concurred in the principle of the Amendment, but he should have preferred the Amendment of which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had given Notice. He, however, hoped that the Government would revert to their original proposition and adopt the Victorian system of Ballot, where the registered number of the voter was placed at the back of the voting paper.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONexpressed his surprise that the Government had not noticed the speech of the right hon.

  931
  Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire. Surely the Government ought to propose some means of detecting and punishing personation, where it was a notorious fact that a man had been returned by a small majority through the giving of false votes. It could not be the object of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) to have a Ballot Bill passed in such a shape as would permit all sorts of evil and wrong. He, therefore, would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he should not undertake on the Report to bring forward some machinery by which personation should be detected and punished.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that if the Amendment were withdrawn, he would have an opportunity of making some observations on the subject on proposing his own Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, he did not think his Amendment was drawn up in strict form, and would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JONESthen proposed, in page 2, line 4, after "candidates," to insert—
  "And such ballot paper shall be marked after the name of each candidate with any colour or colours which the nominator of the candidate shall choose at such Election."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think it was desirable that a candidate should be compelled by Act of Parliament to have a colour, and that was the ground on which the House last year decided against a proposition similar to that now made by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CAWLEYbelieved that, if they were to have secret voting, the printing of colours to be adopted by the candidates was the only means by which a large number of the voters would be able to distinguish the candidates. At the proper time he should return to this subject, whatever became of the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSthought the Amendment would open a door to great frauds.
  MR. JONESsaid, as the Amendment would be brought before the House again in another form, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthen moved, to insert "or before" after the word "at" inline 4, with the view of providing that a voter should be fur-
  932
  nished with a voting paper before or at the election.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the word "at," to insert the words "or before."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had already given reasons why it was desirable that the voting paper should be given to the voter in the booth, and not before. The hon. Gentleman would himself acknowledge that the point now raised was substantially included in his previous Amendment.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he could not acknowledge anything of the sort. This was a totally distinct principle. The Amendment which he had previously moved was as to the form of the ballot paper, whether it was to show the names and descriptions of the candidates or not. But the present Amendment related to the period of time at which the ballot paper was to be delivered to the voter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not for a moment suppose that the present Amendment was actually included in the words of the previous Amendment. What he meant was, that in the opening words of the speech in which the hon. Gentleman brought forward the previous Amendment, his mode of Ballot was described, and in that description reasons for it were given to which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had endeavoured to reply.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 199: Majority 95.
  MR. GREGORYmoved as an Amendment, in page 2, line 5, after "mark" to insert "and a number corresponding with that of the voter on the Register of Electors." The object of his proposition was to raise the question of personation and the question of scrutiny, one of which was facilitated, while the other was impossible as the Bill stood. The question was of some importance, and although discussion was deprecated by the right hon. Gentleman—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, no!]—he was still justified in raising the point before the Committee. Personation was far more frequent, and determined the result of far more elections than was generally supposed; and

  933
  if personation was rife now, how much more would it be increased by the Bill? When a secret vote was once given it could not be recalled, however bad. One of the several remedies proposed by the Government to remedy that gross blot in the Bill was that, in the case of personation, one vote should be struck off the candidate for whom the personated vote had been given. But you could never trace with certainty for whom a personated vote was given. Another remedy was to bring the personated to a greater extent under the criminal law, and the provisions of the law were to be framed for that object; but was that the proper course of legislation, to give facilities for the commission of a crime, and to increase the penalties for committing it? That was immoral and criminal legislation. These reasons were sufficient to make the promoters of the Bill pause to consider whether a remedy could not be applied to this part of the Bill. He thought a remedy could be applied, and that remedy he ventured to suggest was to be found in the Amendment he had moved. That Amendment proposed that the balloting paper should be marked by the Returning Officer with a number corresponding with the elector's number on the register. That number would be known only to the Returning Officer, and the votes might be so counted as not to expose those numbers to the agents of the candidates. To the Returning Officer was committed the control of the election, and if you could not entrust to him this additional duty, he was not fit for his office. The hon. Gentleman concluded by observing that the Amendment he now submitted to the House, in his opinion, was quite consistent with the principle of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, after the word "mark," to insert the words "and a number corresponding with that of the voter on the Register of Electors."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he understood an objection to the principle of the Bill; but when objectors said that the Bill was bad because it was badly drafted, Government was entitled to call upon them to show that they had read the Bill with a little attention. They had been told in unmeasured language by the hon. Member for East
  934
  Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the Bill contained a great blot, and he had been kind enough to point out what he considered to be the blot. They would, however, discover that the clause did not contain the expressions with which fault had been found. The clause relating to personation was Clause 2 of the Corrupt Practices Bill, which provided that, on proof that a candidate or his agent was guilty of personation, there should be struck out one vote for every person proved to have been so personated; and there was a similar provision as to bribery. It had been said that a man might be bribed on both sides. If bribery was alleged on both sides, but proved only on one, the case put would not occur, for de non apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio. If it were proved that both sides had bribed a particular voter, a vote would be struck off on each side, and thus equal justice would be done. As to the objection that it would not be known how the personator had voted, that was no reason why personation should not be discouraged, and it could not be better discouraged than by punishing the candidate on whose behalf it was committed. If the personator had not, after all, voted for that candidate, the latter would lose two votes, and would thus be doubly punished. A scrutiny was an expensive process, and one seldom resorted to; and the question was not how it could most effectually be conducted, but how it could most effectually be conducted consistently with secret voting, which was the essence of the Bill. The Government had done all they could to devise a more efficient plan, but without success, and he was not aware that one had been suggested in any quarter. As to marking or numbering each voting paper, there would be the possibility of persons besides the Returning Officer becoming acquainted with the mark, and if the voter found that a Petition might be presented, not for the purpose of voiding the election, but really for the purpose of ascertaining how he had voted, the object of the Bill would be frustrated. That objection was, that the timid voter—the man who was afraid—would suffer if he voted according to his conscience. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to keep up undue influence, but the Government wished to give the voter entire protection from it. The Amendment would,

  935
  no doubt, make a scrutiny more effectual; but it could be made sufficiently effectual without it. Personation, while in some respects it would be more difficult under the Bill, might, perhaps, in others be easier; but he did not admit that the balance would be in favour of its easiness. The hon. Gentleman appeared to object to an increase of the punishment; but even irrespective of the Ballot, it was right to punish personation as severely as bribery or treating, and severity of punishment had generally a deterring effect. If secret voting were conceded, the existence of certain difficulties in the rare event of a scrutiny must be conceded also; but this was no reason for foregoing secret voting. As to the difficulty of proving on whose behalf personation was committed, it was not more difficult than to prove on whose behalf bribery was committed. If the new system were fairly carried out, the state of the poll in the middle of the day would be unknown—the great temptation to bribery being thus removed, and this alone would sensibly diminish bribery, a gain to be set off against a slight increase of personation, assuming that to occur. There would be, at least, as much purity of election as at present, and he hoped a great deal more. He hoped the Amendment would be negatived, as cause had not been shown why they should impair the very principle of the Bill, for the purpose of attempting to obtain better means for carrying out a scrutiny.
  MR. HUNTobserved, that the real question they had to determine was, not whether bribery or personation would be diminished by the Bill, but whether there should be the possibility of identifying the voter with the vote in the event of a scrutiny taking place. The views of the Government had at last been stated on that point; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had insisted that hon. Members wishing to mark the voting papers were desirous of retaining undue influence and depriving the timid voter of protection. Now, in a Bill introduced a short time ago, he observed a provision that the Returning Officer should attach a number, letter, or other distinguishing mark to every voting paper, as also to the counterfoil thereof. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the promoters of that clause must have desired to perpetuate undue
  936
  influence, and the Committee would be curious to know to whom this imputation applied. Well, on the back of the Bill he found the name of the Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Secretary Bruce, and Mr. John Bright. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman, on hearing those names, would withdraw his imputation. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill refused to discuss the question at any length, because it was discussed last year; but he (Mr. Hunt) submitted that the proposition in the Bill of 1870 was more valuable than the one before the Committee, for it emanated from the Government at a time when the evidence given before the Select Committee was fresh in their recollection. The hon. and learned Gentleman made some extraordinary propositions in his speech, and seemed to think it was not more difficult to prove personation than to prove bribery. But he evidently forgot that, while two persons must be concerned in bribery, a single individual, without communication with anyone, could go to the poll and personate a voter. Therefore, it was easier to detect bribery than personation. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that if corrupt practices were not proved, they did not exist for the purposes of an election inquiry; but he added that if both candidates were proved to have used undue influences, then a vote would be struck off from the poll of each. Only one vote, however, could have been given, and therefore one vote would be taken from the candidate for whom no bribed vote had been given. Such a scheme would not commend itself to the sense of the Committee. As he had said, he preferred the Bill of 1870, and he supposed they would have had it if the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had been in the House, instead of having this measure, which was far inferior as a practical working Bill to that originally introduced by the Government.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, no doubt the Solicitor General had his riding orders from the two right hon. Gentlemen who sat by his side; but probably, if he had spoken according to his belief, that speech would not have been made, for he, like others, was doubtless anxious to prevent personation. Although one or two timid persons might be afraid, it would be far better to adopt the safe-

  937
  guard proposed in the Amendment than to be led into the mud by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, who knew that if the clause was carried unaltered there would be no means of detecting personation. If the Returning Officer could be trusted this Amendment ought to be accepted.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that it was refreshing, in the course of these somewhat tedious debates, to find some one entering into the discussion who had evidently not turned attention to the matter before, and was in happy ignorance of all that had occurred before upon this question. He would take, as one instance, the forgetfulness shown by the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Solicitor General of the Bill of 1870; and, as another, the simple-mindedness which led him to argue that the Bill would materially lessen bribery. As a matter of fact, however, there was hardly one right hon. Gentleman upon the Treasury bench who had not openly stated that so far as bribery was concerned, they had no notion of materially diminishing it. The noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington, who introduced the Bill of 1870, made a distinct statement to that effect. What they desired to secure was purity of election, but the Solicitor General said the principle of the Government was secret voting; and therefore the question was how near they could get to purity of election consistently with secret voting. That, however, was putting the cart before the horse, and if purity of election and secresy in voting could not both be secured at the same time, the smaller advantage must give way to the greater. He was afraid that the Bill, as it stood, would practically create great facilities for personation; and the heavier penalties which it was proposed to enact against that offence would not, probably, be put in force, because when an election was over, the general feeling was that all grievances should be forgotten, and that old stories should not be raked up. If there was one thing more than another calculated to check personation, it was not the heaviness of the penalties, but the certainty of being found out, and that was the one security which the present Bill got rid of. Moreover, it was necessary to legislate not for the exception, but for the rule; and if this system was to be adopted, pro-
  938
  vision must be made for a scrutiny and an inspection of votes, in order that personation might be discovered.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had a strong objection to personation, but he had also a strong objection to personalities; and he had some ground to complain of the language of the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite, who thought he had stated to the Committee what he did not believe. He also thought he had some ground to complain of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Cross), and who stated that he was not aware of all that had passed, and that he was ignorant and simple-minded. He was by no means thin-skinned, but he thought both those hon. Gentlemen had gone a little too far in their statements.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained. He had no objection whatever to say that he did not think the hon. and learned Solicitor General either ignorant or simple-minded.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to say that he had no intention of saying anything offensive to the hon. and learned Solicitor General.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would remind the Committee of the celebrated Sligo case, where the Mayor, being the Returning Officer, attributed nine votes to MR. Somers which had been given to his opponent, and returned Mr. Somers as duly elected. A Petition was presented, and nine voters were called before the Committee, and stated that they had voted not for Mr. P. Somers, but for his opponent, Mr. Wynn. The poll was altered by transferring those votes from Mr. Somers to Mr. Wynn, who was declared duly elected, and the Returning Officer was convicted as a misdemeanant and remained for some months in Sligo gaol. Now, under the system of secret Ballot, if they could only secure the Returning Officer they would secure the election. They must not forget that 103 hon. Gentlemen sat for Ireland, and there were other Mayors beside the Mayor of Sligo. How were they to prevent the occurrence of a similar case? They should be very careful not to put too much in the hands of the Returning Officer.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think that such a case as that of Sligo could occur under the Bill. Whatever the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel

  939
  Barttelot) thought, he must repeat that he honestly believed the provisions of the Bill as it stood would render personation less likely than at present. There were two or three provisions that would diminish its probability. In the first place, the Bill made it an offence for any person concerned in the election giving any information as to who had voted or who had not voted; consequently, there would be a great increase of danger in a man's attempting to personate. Then, secondly, there was a considerable increase of polling-places, and therefore an increased probability of detection. Again, the fact that voting would occupy a longer time, there being two processes instead of one, would make it more likely than at present that the personator would be detected. The Bill also considerably increased the penalty for personation. Upon the whole, therefore, it was not likely that personators would run these increased risks. The Amendment would be altogether inconsistent with the scope of the Bill.
  MR. GREGORYhoped the Committee would remember that under this Bill, the personator must feel that he was giving a vote which could not be struck out.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would diminish personation. Experience showed that voters were generally personated in the early part of the day, when but few electors had polled. In the Bill there was an absolute prohibition against anyone giving information as to who had voted, not as to how he had voted. He thought the measure would increase personation. It rendered it almost impossible to detect the impersonator; and the only remedy proposed for this was to increase the punishment of the offender. The objection to the number of the elector being placed on the voting paper was, that it might be seen by some one else than the Returning Officer; but he apprehended that the candidates and their agents would all know who was the voter who came for his voting paper, and that as a mark would be placed against his name those interested in the progress of the election would always be aware of the names of the electors who had proceeded to vote. It was a monstrous thing that, in order to protect the timid voter every elector should be obliged to vote in secret.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he was surprised that no answer whatever had been given to the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He denied that it was the duty of that House to legislate merely, or chiefly, or mainly, with reference to the craven minority in any constituency. He admitted that it was right to protect those who were worth protecting, as the Bill of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland did, and those who objected to that Bill were not to be told that they desired to perpetuate corrupt practices. He had been beaten at the poll by a majority of 3; but on Petition, struck off 4 votes for bribery, and gained the seat; but he could not have done so under that Bill, if the votes had been invalidated by personation instead of bribery. He did not blame the Government for changing their minds, but they ought to state the grounds for that change. He believed the Bill was useful to prevent bullying at a time of excitement; but they had no right to tamper with the representation of the country to gratify the cowardice of a miserable fraction of the constituencies; and if they were to poll all the cowards in the country, they would not be much better for it. Moreover, the Prime Minister, in a speech he made at Wakefield last autumn, said, it was a mistake to suppose that the object of the Bill was to impose secresy on those who did not wish for it. His opinion was, that they would never effectually put a stop to bribery so long as they left small boroughs of 100, 200, or 300 electors—respecting which an election agent had remarked to him that he would extend his transactions in them, and do by wholesale what he had hitherto done successfully by retail, without any fear of detection or punishment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 166: Majority 40.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [April 5th] reported.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would take that opportunity to fulfil the promise he made on Friday, to give the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) the name of the Oriental Interpreter. It was James William Redhouse. That gentleman, who was an accomplished Oriental scholar, was employed by the Turkish Government from 1838 to 1854, and since his return to England he had been employed as Oriental Interpreter at the Foreign Office.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, the noble Lord's explanation was perfectly clear and satisfactory; but it was equally clear that there was no reason why the salary of Mr. Redhouse should be paid for out of the Secret Service money.
  Resolutions agreed to.

GAME LAWS—SELECT COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th March], "That the Select Committee on the Game Laws do consist of Nineteen Members."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had given Notice of an Amendment, that the Committee should consist of 21 Members instead of 19, as proposed by the Government. While he was of opinion that the 21 Members would make rather a large Committee, yet the Government would not offer any objection, provided it was the wish of the House that such should be the number.
  MR. MACFIEthought, that as evidence would be called from Scotland, there ought to be more Scotch representatives on the Committee.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as the Government had yielded the point as to the number who were to constitute the Committee, it would not be necessary for him to inflict a speech upon the House in favour of the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He could not help remarking, however, that the original constitution of the Committee was very bad.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "Nineteen," and insert "Twenty-one,"—(Mr. Anderson,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That 'Nineteen' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That 'Twenty-one' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Committee nominated:—Sir GEORGE GREY Mr. HUNT, Mr. WHITBREAD, Sir MICHAEL HICKI BEACH, Mr. M'COMBIE, Mr. ROWLAND WINN, Sir JOHN TRELAWNY, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. COWPER, Mr. STHRT, Mr. DENT, Mr. CAMERON, Mr. M'LAGAN, Lord ELCHO, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Viscount MAHON, Mr. SHERLOCK, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. WINTEREOTHAM, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. PELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  LOANS TO INFANTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Bill for the protection of Persons under twenty-one years of age from the solicitations and frauds of Money Lenders, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. GILPIN, and Mr. MAGUIRE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.