Sitting of 29 April 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2)* [134]; Courts of Law (Scotland) (Agents)* [135].
First Reading—Act of Uniformity Amendment* [136]; Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* [137].
Committee—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [21], and Corrupt Practices [22]—R.P.
Third Reading—Pensions* [113]; Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads* [127], and passed.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF TEACHERS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in the Estimates for National Education (Ireland) for the present year, provision will be made for an increase in the salaries of the Irish National Teachers, and for the addition of payment by results as recommended in the Report of the Commissioners on Primary Education (Ireland), presented to this House in the year 1870?
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any and what provision will be made in the Estimates this year for improving the salaries of the first and second class Teachers under the National Board of Education in Ireland; and if the principle of payment by results, as applied last year to the augmentation given to the third and fourth class Teachers, will be applied to all the Teachers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he would endeavour to answer as well as he could the Question of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), and also that relating to the same subject by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate). In the ordinary Estimates for this year the sum of £18,000 was taken for the purpose of being expended in payments for results to the Irish National School teachers; but that was, of course, the same item that was taken in the Supplementary Estimates last year, and was to be applied to providing additional payments to the third class and assistant teachers. The National Board of Education
  1930
  in Ireland had, however, submitted to the Treasury a proposal for further Supplementary Estimates amounting to about £80,000, to be expended in payments for results on the same principle to the first and second classes of National School teachers. The Treasury had not yet given their approval to that Estimate, and a correspondence on the subject was in progress between the National Board of Education, the Treasury, and the Irish Government. As soon as the correspondence was concluded, he would take the first opportunity of informing the hon. Members and the House of the decision which had been arrived at in the matter.

IRELAND—INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSING.—QUESTION.
MR. PIMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a separate Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Bill for Ireland this Session, or whether he proposes to legislate on this subject by introducing Clauses into the English Bill which will extend its operation to Ireland, subject to the necessary modifications, as has been done in some other cases?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that when he saw what Amendments were introduced in that House into the Licensing Bill for England which had recently been submitted to the House of Lords, he would decide whether he should endeavour to extend its operation to Ireland by the introduction of additional clauses; or whether it would be expedient to bring in a separate Bill relating to that country?

COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIP (WEST SOMERSET).—QUESTION.
MR. LOPESasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that it is not intended to appoint to the West Somerset County Court Judgeship (No. 56); whether the business of that Circuit is to be apportioned among the five Judges of the Circuits next contiguous; and, what arrangements have been or are to be made with such Judges respecting remuneration and otherwise for the additional duties cast upon them?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, it was true there was no

1931
intention of appointing to the County Court Judgeship which was vacant by the death of Mr. Charles Saunders. It was also true that the business would be distributed, not, however, among the five Circuits next contiguous, but among seven Circuits, so as not to throw an undue weight of business upon any of them. The Judges who would discharge this additional duty would receive no additional salary, but they would be paid extra travelling expenses. All the Judges who would be affected by the change had been communicated with, and none of them had objected to the plan, although two of them had suggested modifications, which would be taken into consideration.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. MICHAEL ROCHE.—QUESTION.
MR. BUTTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government or the Inspectors of Prisons has been called to the fact that Michael Roche, esquire, who is imprisoned in the gaol of Galway under an order of Mr. Justice Keogh, for alleged contempt of court, has been subjected to the penal discipline of the prison, and whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken as to the legality of so subjecting him?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that as soon as Notice of his hon. and learned Friend's Question was placed on the Paper he inquired of the Inspectors General of Prisons whether their attention had been directed to the circumstances alleged. He was informed by them that up to that time they had heard nothing of them, but that they proposed to make immediate inquiry into the matter. He might add that he believed the subject was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Board of Superintendents of the Gaol, who would act under the directions of the Inspectors General of Prisons. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had not yet been taken; but he would consult them when he had received the Report of the Inspectors General. He might take this opportunity of saying that he should not oppose the Motion of which his hon. and learned Friend had given Notice, for Copies of an Order made by Mr. Justice Keogh, presiding as Election Judge at the trial of the Petition against
1932
the return for the county of Galway, for the committal of Mr. Michael Roche, for alleged contempt of Court, and of the several affidavits used on the hearing of the application for such committal.

CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKsaid, it appeared to him to be essential that the House should know whether it was to be called upon to pass the Ballot Bill pure and simple, or whether the Committee to which that Bill had been referred would also proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill, which was also referred to it on the 29th of February last. He begged, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is prepared to state whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed further with the Corrupt Practices Bill this Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What has happened, Sir, with regard to this Bill is probably in the recollection of the House. There were many clauses of the Bill which appeared to many hon. Gentlemen to have a special connection with the Ballot Bill—namely, the clauses relating to personation. These clauses have, in conformity with the engagement given at an earlier period of the Session, been now incorporated in the Ballot Bill, and therefore the special relation as to time between the two Bills no longer subsists in the form in which it appeared at first. Consequently, we shall consult the general convenience of the House with regard to the time of bringing forward the Corrupt Practices Bill during the present Session. It is necessary, however, that we should go forward with it in consequence of the dependence upon it of the Elections Petition Act of 1867, and of other laws for the prevention of corrupt practices. It is, therefore, our intention to go forward with it, although it is not now in the same close and immediate connection with the Ballot Bill as it was formerly.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, in consequence of this answer, he would give Notice that in Committee on the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill he should on the first Motion being put from the Chair, move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, with the view of calling attention to the course taken by the Government with reference to the two Bills.

IRELAND—LOCAL LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will introduce the Bill to give increased facilities for Local Legislation for Ireland?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that looking to the state of the Business before the House, and the difficulty which had been felt in making progress with any minor measures up to the present time, he did not think it would be desirable to ask the House at present to consider any fresh question. If, however, he found that progress was made with the Bills which had already been introduced, he should be prepared to introduce a measure relating to the subject of the hon. and learned Member's Question. He would take another opportunity later in the Session of informing the hon. and learned Member as to the intentions of the Government.

SAVING LIFE AT SEA—LIFE-BOATS AND LIFE-BUOYS.—QUESTION.
MR. BOUVERIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether a Committee of Inquiry has been appointed to ascertain the best mode of constructing boats and of lowering them at sea, with a view of saving life; and, whether the inquiry will embrace the question as to the best form of lifebuoy?
MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, the Committee in question has been appointed and the points referred to are as follows:—The supply of life-boats to Her Majesty's ships, the best lowering apparatus for the boats, and, generally, the best means for saving life at sea, regard being had to the special character and duties of the ships. My right hon. Friend will see that the questions referred to the Committee will cover the points raised by his Question. The Committee, which held their first meeting to-day, consists of three naval officers unconnected with the Admiralty—namely, Vice Admiral Wellesley, Captain Sherard Osborn, and Captain His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh; two gentlemen not connected with Her Majesty's Naval Service, Sir James Anderson, for some time captain of the Great Eastern, and Mr. Wigram, the eminent shipowner; and
1934
Captains Willes and Tryon, who are connected with the Admiralty.

COUNTY OFFICERS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will introduce his promised Bill for the Regulation of County Officers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARINGTONsaid, the Answer he had recently given to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron) would not apply to the Question of the hon. Member for Armagh, because it was desirable that the subject of the Bill referred to in the Question should he considered in connection with the Grand Jury Amendment Bill which had already been introduced. He hoped, therefore, to be able to introduce a Bill in the course of the present week.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—CANADA, GUARANTEE LOAN, £2,500,000.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true, as stated in the "Fall Mall Gazette" of the 20th instant—
  "That a telegram from Ottawa says that a correspondence laid before Parliament shows that the Imperial Government had agreed to guarantee a Canadian Loan of two and a half million pounds for the Pacific Railway and Canal Improvements, on condition that Canada accepts the Treaty;"
  and, further, if the Washington Treaty falls to the ground, whether this alleged conditional guarantee to Canada would still be proposed to be made by the Imperial Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is true, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to guarantee a Canadian Loan of £2,500,000 for certain improvements in Canada. It is also true that the guarantee is connected with the proceedings under the Washington Treaty; but the statement which the hon. Gentleman has quoted does not give a full, or, as it stands, a just idea of the nature of the transactions on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The truth of the matter is, that the Despatch in which the views of the Government are contained has for some time been prepared in order to be presented to both Houses of Parliament; but the reply of the Canadian Government has not yet been received by post,

  1935
  although we have received a statement by telegraph that the offer has been accepted. The reply by post cannot be delayed for more than a few days longer, and perhaps the House would rather see the reply in extenso than a mere telegraphed reply which is always, by reason of its brevity, subject to misapprehension.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON: Will the whole correspondence on the subject be laid before Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will.
  MR. DISRAELI: Then this Loan is made on condition that the Treaty will be accepted by the Canadian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would rather that the right hon. Gentleman should see the statement complete as conveyed by post. The transaction is connected with the proceedings under the Treaty of Washington; but were I to answer the Question either with a simple negative or an affirmative, it would not convey a correct view to the mind of the House.
  MR. DISRAELI: Under the circumstances, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman being of so extraordinary a character and the credit of this country being involved to so great an extent, I think it would be becoming in the Government at once to make a declaration to the House, in order that the anxiety which naturally pervades the public mind may be at once met.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know that there would be any objection to our Despatch, with the answer, being laid before Parliament. I will consult my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies upon the subject, and be prepared to answer the Question to-morrow.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSON: The latter part of my Question has not been answered. I desire to know whether, if the Washington Treaty fell to the ground, this alleged conditional guarantee to Canada would still be proposed to be made by the Imperial Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We do not propose at present to answer any question on this branch of the subject.
  MR. DISRAELI: I assume, Sir, that the Government are not in possession of the answer of the Government of the United States, so anxiously expected; but in the present state of public feeling
  1936
  I think it is becoming that there should be an authoritative announcement to that effect. I therefore desire to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received the reply; and, if not, whether they can say if it has or has not been received by the American Minister in this country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Up to the latest hour at which I could receive information before the sitting of the House the answer had not been received by the American Minister, who, however, stated that he may perhaps receive it in the course of the evening, though he cannot be quite certain upon that point. I apprehend, therefore, that there has been some error in the information conveyed to the public in reference to the alleged arrival of the reply.

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 25th April.]
(In the Committee.)

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 21.]

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  New Clause (Voting papers for sick, infirm, or disabled persons,)—(Mr. Wheelhouse,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. G. BENTINCK, in moving that the Chairman report Progress, said, he believed, after the answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that it was a fair subject for consideration whether the measure ought further to be proceeded with. When the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections and Corrupt Practices Bills were introduced, there was an implied understanding that they should proceed pari passû, for the reason that there was a close connection between them. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman had just informed the House that he could give no assurance that the Corrupt Practices Bill could be dealt

  1937
  with at a period of the Session when it could receive the proper attention of the House. Now, past experience showed that when a Bill had been divided into two parts Her Majesty's Government was quite content to pass one Bill and drop the other, and that course of con-duet having been adopted with the measures under discussion, it was virtually a breach of faith with the House and ought to be reprobated. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated, when introducing the measure, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would bring forward a Bill to deal with the question of personation which was included in the Ballot Bill of last year. The explanations, too, given at that time by the Government showed that it was clearly their intention to proceed with both Bills simultaneously. It was a moot point in the House whether the Ballot Bill would not tend to promote the extension of bribery, and therefore it was thought necessary that with the Ballot Bill more strenuous measures than now existed should be passed for the suppression of bribery. What the Government, however, now proposed to do was to postpone the Corrupt Practices Bill to a period of the Session when it would be practically impossible to give it a fair and careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman, after saying that the two Bills were so important and involved so much detail that they would be placed separately before the House for their consideration, gave what he could not but regard as a distinct pledge that the Corrupt Practices Bill should be passed that Session. The right hon. Gentleman, who was at the time answering a Question, said—
  "At the same time, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was the absolute intention of the Government to do their best to bring the Corrupt Practices Bill under the notice of the House, so that it should that Session be passed into law."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 1171.]
  After the statement which had been just made by the Prime Minister, however, it was evident that the Bill was virtually to be abandoned. They might, perhaps, be told that it was the only course which was possible when the present pressure of Public Business was considered; but that that excuse would be a very unfortunate one was evident from the fact that the Government allowed the House
  1938
  to be counted out on Friday evening last at half-past 8. Regarding what had occurred as a distinct breach of faith with the House, he thought that they should, before proceeding with the discussion on this Bill, receive an emphatic assurance from the Government that its third reading should not be taken before the Corrupt Practices Bill had been reported. He begged, therefore, to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman, in charging Government with a breach of faith, had used very strong language, which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have felt very keenly were it not that they were accustomed to hear such expressions from him, and derived some consolation from the belief that he did not always mean what he said. As to the charge of breach of faith, the Government could not possibly have more strictly fulfilled the understanding entered into with the House. When introducing this Bill he stated that the Government hoped to pass the Corrupt Practices Bill that Session, and had every determination to do so. They had that hope and determination still. But when the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), on the 29th of February, moved that the two Bills should be referred to the same Committee, the Government assented to the Motion upon the distinct understanding that if they found upon going through Committee that it would be more convenient not to proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill after having passed through the clauses of the Ballot Bill, they should in that case pledge themselves to take into the Ballot Bill the two clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill affecting personation connected with the Ballot Bill. That understanding had been fulfilled, and those two clauses had been transferred to that Bill. It was still the hope and intention of the Government to pass the Corrupt Practices Bill as well as the Ballot Bill, and as two clauses of the former Bill had already been dealt with, that measure might be regarded as being in a more forward state than some other Government Bills. He had not the slightest doubt that the House would have an opportunity of considering the Corrupt Practices Bill, or that it would be passed this Session; and he equally thought the

  1939
  hon. Gentleman, in the course he was at present taking, had no desire to impede the passing of the measure under notice. He therefore trusted that he would not press his Motion.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to show the House of what use it was for him to say that it was his fixed determination to pass the Corrupt Practices Bill, when he knew it was impossible to do so. If the Government had taken two clauses from the Corrupt Practices Bill into the Ballot Bill as a security, why had not the Government contented themselves with one Bill instead of two? First, the Government had divided the Bills, then it partially re-united them; surely the Government could approach consistency, and either keep their Bills separate, or else distinctly announce their intention of postponing the consideration of the Corrupt Practices Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the two clauses had been incorporated in the Bill now under consideration, in accordance with what he believed was the generally expressed wish of the House, because they were consequent upon changes in the mode of election introduced by this Bill. The other three clauses were in no way connected with these changes, and, therefore, should properly form a separate matter. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured the Government intended giving those clauses a careful consideration, and hoped the House would do the same, with the impression that the course adopted by the Government was the most suitable.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the House had expected that both Bills would be referred to the same Committee; and what could the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire for referring two Bills to the same Committee mean, but that the two Bills should be moulded into one? It was all very well for the Government to propose that the course which they favoured should be adopted, and no doubt, if it were, it would be of great advantage to them during the hot days of July. The Ballot, however, was only one element of the whole question of election proceedings with which they had to deal.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the House was pledged to deal with corrupt
  1940
  practices long before it was pledged to deal with the Ballot. Two years ago, when he moved for a Select Committee on the subject, the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that the clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill should be embodied in the Ballot Bill, with a view to the whole being passed into law simultaneously. He (Mr. Lowther) did not then proceed any further, believing that the matter would be better dealt with in a future Session; and accordingly he now trusted at least that ample opportunity would be afforded to the House fully to consider the Bill and correct the glaring anomalies it contained.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had no intention of charging the Vice President with a breach of faith, and as for the Prime Minister, his memory during the present Session had been so strangely defective as to prevent him from recollecting the most striking events of his Parliamentary life, and therefore he equally acquitted him of any intentional breach of faith. He had not moved in this matter with a view to delay the Ballot Bill; but had made his complaint in good faith, believing he had strong grounds for doing so.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 212: Majority 79.
  MR. GOURLEY, in rising to move the following new clause:—
  "That the returning officer in every borough which is a seaport town shall (twenty-four hours before the day appointed for the holding of an Election) cause a polling booth to be opened, at which seamen who are under contract to proceed to sea in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, on a voyage of not less than four days, shall be able to record their votes by ballot,"
  said, that the reasonableness and simplicity of the clause were so apparent, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in accepting it; for no one could doubt that some special exception ought to be made in favour of the seamen on board vessels in ports on the North-east Coast of England, seeing that they might have to go to sea on the eve of an election. He, therefore, begged to move the clause of which he had given Notice.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member should waste the time of the Committee by proposing such

  1941
  a clause, after he had voted against the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) a fortnight ago. He supposed that the hon. Member had in the meantime received communications from his constituents in reference to the blunder he had then made, and that he was now seeking to rectify his mistake. He trusted that the Committee would not permit the hon. Member to condone his offence, and that they would reject his clause.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Motion under notice was simply wasting the time of the Committee. His hon. Colleague was a most fair man, and had he thought it possible to reconcile his proposal with the principle of the Bill, he would have brought forward a practical, instead of a general, clause on the subject.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the clause of the hon. Member, if adopted, would furnish a most inconvenient precedent, for if seamen were permitted to vote the day before they left port, there was no reason why those who arrived the day after the election should not be permitted to vote also.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, in reference to the allusion to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), in justice it ought to be stated that, in giving his reasons for offering a proposal of a general nature to the Committee, he had left it to the Government to devise the machinery for carrying it into effect if they adopted its principle.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he was not so much in the habit of wasting the time of the House as the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) represented; and if hon. Members on the Opposition side had done as little in the way of wasting the time of the House as he had done the Ballot Bill would have been passed into law long ago. With the permission of the Committee, however, he would not press the clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORY, in moving a new clause, providing that every voter for a county, or division of a county, who shall have no place of residence therein, and who shall reside at a distance of ten miles or upwards from the boundary of such county, or division of such county, shall have the right of obtaining
  1942
  a ballot paper from the Returning Officer, and of voting by signing the same in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, or Commissioner for taking oaths in Chancery, and transmitting the ballot paper, so signed and attested, to the Re-turning Officer, through the Post Office, said, he thought it was generally admitted that the out-voter was not a man liable to intimidation or extraneous influences, but that he was, generally speaking, an independent man, who would act for himself. Very often, however, out-voters were poor men who could not afford to pay the expenses of travelling from a distance to the place of poll, and as a clause proposed in the Corrupt Practices Bill would render the payment of such expenses illegal some machinery became requisite for enabling them to record their votes. It might, however, be said that out-voters were objectionable and that they ought to be got rid of; but facts must be taken as they existed, and it would be very hard that a man who discharged the duty of a good landlord and performed all his obligations to his poor dependents should be disfranchised because he followed an occupation which compelled him to reside at a distance from his property. It was, therefore, to throw facilities in the way of the out-voter to enable him to record his vote that he proposed the present clause, the machinery of which was simple and easy, and the principle of which he thought had been admitted when the Committee decided that a voter might display his vote.
  New Clause (Voting papers for out-voters in counties,)—(Mr. Gregory,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not in any shape accept the clause, for it was the same in principle that had been rejected by the Committee upon the vote upon the Motion of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther). He must further say that he could not admit that the Committee had decided that a voter might display his vote. What the Committee had decided was to refuse to attach a certain specified punishment to the display of a voting paper; but they had also resolved that the

  1943
  paper should be so folded up that its contents were concealed. The hon. Member's proposal, moreover, would introduce a new principle—namely, that out-voters should be relieved from the personal tender of their votes. Now, he would not argue whether it was desirable ever to have out-voters in counties or to retain them; but being there, he objected to conferring upon them any such exceptional privilege as freeing them from the obligation of personal attendance.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must remind the Committee that unless some provision of the kind were adopted many of the out-voters, who were comparatively poor and could not bear the expense of going some distance to the poll, would virtually be disfranchised. At present candidates were permitted to pay their travelling expenses; but under the Bill it could not be ascertained how votes were given, and electors could not, therefore, appeal to a candidate for their expenses. The Bill clearly ought not, by a side-wind, to disfranchise these voters.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must deny that out-voters had any vested right to the payment of travelling expenses; what the law did at present was simply to permit such payments. The noble Lord's remarks, however, were a proof that, under the Ballot, the temptation to bribe would disappear, for he had admitted that candidates would no longer have any inducement to pay voters' travelling expenses.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he questioned the inference to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's observations that the payment of the expenses was bribery.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he would offer a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, which was that the Amendment gave him an ample opportunity of imposing fresh penal clauses—not a beggarly period of two or three years, but capital punishment at least, for any violation of the principle of the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), in the event of his proposal being adopted by the Committee, to modify it in accordance with the suggestion offered by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) last year. These votes would then be recorded secretly in
  1944
  the presence of a magistrate, who would forward them to the Returning Officer, the latter being responsible for their production at the poll.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that one of the grounds of opposition to the clause he had put on the Paper last year was, that it involved the introduction of non-personal voting. He had, however, not been able to discover why the personal tender of a vote was a matter of such importance, as there could be no possible danger in sending the ballot-paper through the post-office. If they gave the poor voter facilities for voting, they would be doing injustice if they did not also give facilities to the out-voters. An Amendment like the present would work a great saving in the cost of county elections, and the objections which applied to it in connection with vivâ voce elections would not apply to secret voting.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that if the principle of the clause met with the approval of the Committee, he should have no objection to insert words such as had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for York, which he believed would tend to improve it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 226: Majority 81.
  MR. RAIKES, in rising to move the following new clause:—
  "This Act shall remain in force throughout the next General Election, and during the continuance of the Parliament to be then elected, but shall expire at the dissolution of that Parliament,"
  said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circumstance he (Mr. Raikes) stated last year with reference to his own constituency at the last General Election in the borough he had the honour to represent. The contest, in one sense, was not a close one, the candidates returned being more than 1,000 a-head of their opponents; but there was a close race who should occupy the first place on the poll—so close, that at the end of the poll both committees believed their man had come in first. At the declaration he was assured that he stood first on the poll; but the Returning Officer, a few minutes afterwards, announced the numbers, giving the majority to Earl Grosvenor of 72. If such uncertainty could prevail now, what would it be when, under the Ballot, the poll remained unknown

  1945
  throughout the whole day? And when a candidate was returned by only a small majority, especially when it was known that some votes which might have turned the election had been declared invalid by the Returning Officer, he could not believe that constituencies would be satisfied with the result. A not unnatural feeling of jealousy and suspicion must prevail, especially among the humbler classes, when they saw their interests confided to one who was so entirely irresponsible to them as the Returning Officer. He mentioned a circumstance that occurred only the other day to show how difficult it might be to vote at an election by ballot. At a recent school board election a very distinguished Member of the House of Peers had been obliged to refer his ballotting paper to a Cabinet Minister before he could satisfy himself that he had filled it up correctly. He trusted the House would believe him when he said that he did not propose the clause in antagonism to the Bill, but because he believed that almost as soon as the Ballot had become law, it would also become unpopular throughout the country. Hon. Members of the House, however, who had been elected by ballot would hardly be antagonistic to that system; and that would strongly apply to the Minister of the day who had had a majority for himself returned under the Ballot. He, of course, would not wish to disturb such an arrangement. The consequence of this state of things would probably be that there would be a dead-lock, the country pulling one way and the House of Commons the other. Even if the Minister of the day should be induced to introduce some measure for altering or remedying the system of the Ballot he would still have the best reason for not wishing to see it carried, and, therefore, probably in one way or other a decision upon the question would be postponed. He asked the Committee not to refuse to give the one hope of a better future for which he asked. Let them, if they liked, pass the Bill in its present shape, and let them even make it more stringent; but let them render obligatory the consideration of the question on a Parliament that would otherwise have every inducement to evade it, so that there might be some chance that we should see daylight before very long, and, it might be, of returning to that
  1946
  open public life which was so essential to English liberty.
  New Clause (Duration of Act,)—(Mr. Raikes,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would point out that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was such as might be most properly made on the second reading of the Bill. He would also observe that he did not believe the experience of the Ballot in England would be different from that of all other English-speaking nations where the system was in operation, and where no desire was exhibited that it should be done away with. But, supposing that were not the case, and that at the next General Election Members were elected who were opposed to the Ballot, the hon. Gentleman's object would then clearly be gained without the necessity of any legislation on the subject. There was one point, however, in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which he perfectly coincided, and that was where he said he believed that the majority of the next Parliament would be in favour of this measure. It appeared to him that they would be acting unjustly towards a future Parliament if they acted in such a manner as would force upon it the consideration again of this question, especially when they must know that if such Parliament should object to the Ballot, it would, of course, be in its power to act for itself in the matter.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in assuming that the Ballot gave satisfaction in every country where it had been tried. He had recently been speaking to an American gentleman of position, who said to him—"You are going too fast, and trying to follow us too closely. You have not, however, got the Ballot yet. When you get it, God help you!"
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 215: Majority 78.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—PART I.
  Rules for Parliamentary Elections. Election.
  First Schedule.
  MR. GOLDNEYrose to move a proviso, to the effect that no objection to a nomination paper on the ground of the inaccurate description therein of the Christian name of the candidate should be valid, unless made by or to the Returning Officer at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrose to move the insertion of another proviso, that nothing in the Act should—
  "Render obligatory the use of a nomination paper supplied by the returning officer, so, however, that the paper be in the form prescribed by this Act."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would move to add after "Act," the words "or to the like effect."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not assent to the additional Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must submit that if any nomination paper was open to objection that it should be taken at once, so that the objection could be removed at the time.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it would be better to consider that point at another part of the Schedule.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the question was whether the objection was to be taken and decided at the time, or be reserved to be settled on an Election Petition.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was impossible to provide against the validity of an election being questioned. That was not the proper time to raise the question before the Committee.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the objection ought to be taken at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper, and not afterwards.
  Proviso agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that in order to get a definite answer from the right hon. Gentleman, he would move to add to the clause the words "and no nomination paper shall be void for defect in point of form only."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, but he would
  1948
  consider the words before the Report. It would be necessary to carefully consider them, to ascertain what would be their exact meaning.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GOLDNEY, in moving as an Amendment, in sub-section 8, line 13, after the word "officer," to insert "or deputy," said, that as only two hours were given for receiving the nomination papers, and as the Returning Officer might be called away during that time—to quell a riot, for example—it would be necessary to have a deputy to receive the nomination papers. If there was provision for the appointment of a deputy it might happen that from design, accident, illness, or some other cause, it would be quite impossible that any person could be returned under the Schedule.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would look into the matter before the Report.
  MR. HUNTmoved to insert in line 15, page 17, after the word "seconder," the words "and one agent."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the point was debated a great deal last Session. He could not help thinking that it would be sufficient for a candidate to have the assistance of his proposer and seconder. If the candidate was anxious to have his legal adviser present, the candidate would take care that the agent should be either his proposer or seconder.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the candidate ought to be attended by his agent as well as his mover and seconder. It was acting in an impolitic manner to limit the number, as proposed in the Schedule. Questions might constantly arise when the aid of a professional man might be required. Candidates liked to have influential persons with them—men who might influence public opinion, from their position and the estimation they were held in by their neighbours. It would be very unwise not to allow an agent to be present.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the Amendment could not by possibility be any serious detriment to the clause. Questions might arise requiring legal advice.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, upon consideration, he had no objection to the insertion of words which would permit a candidate to be attended not only by

  1949
  his proposer and seconder, but also by "one other person selected by the candidate."
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. HUNTrose to move that after "public notice" there should be inserted "by telegram sent through the post-office to each polling place." As the Bill provided that at the place of nomination there should not be a general gathering together of electors, it was most desirable that a county or a division of a county should learn as quickly as possible the names of the candidates and the day of polling. Under the present system of post-office telegrams it would be easy to communicate information on those subjects to all parts of a county.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought they might rely on the candidates telegraphing the information in question to their friends without delay.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, it would be impracticable to give notice by telegram. It would be an inadequate mode of giving notice, and would lead to false telegrams being forwarded all over the country.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANasked, when the telegram reached its destination, who was to receive it? It would be necessary to provide to whom it should be addressed, and how it should be made public.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that at present he would not press his Amendment; but on the Report he would put it in the Notice Paper, and take the sense of the House on it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he was most anxious, if they were to have a Ballot Bill, that it should be made as workable as possible. In order to do so, they should take care to remove what was well known to be one of the chief difficulties in working a ballot—namely, the inability of a great number of voters to read and write. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had suggested that the names of candidates should be printed in alphabetical order, and that they should be numbered; and he had urged that if a voter could not read or write, he could at all events
  1950
  count on his fingers. But a voter who could not read or write must depend on some one to tell him whether the numbers he should vote for were 1 and 3, or 2 and 3, or 3 and 4. Now, colours he thought, would more readily be distinguished than anything else, and without them many persons would be disfranchised, or run the risk of voting otherwise than they intended. He had provided in a subsequent part of the Bill against a candidate having a colour which did not belong to him. He would move the insertion after "order," of the words "and colours."
  Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 23, after the word "order," to insert the words "and colours."—(Mr. Cawley.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he proposed to explain and defend the proposal of the Bill as to persons unable to read and write when the Committee arrived at Section 23. With regard to the proposal before the Committee, there was a large majority last year against the adoption of colours, the use of which it was surely undesirable to perpetuate. Many candidates would find themselves cheated out of the colours which they desired if they were assigned to the first claimant, and in the event of a competition for a particular colour, the Returning Officer would have a difficulty in deciding the question. Some candidates, moreover, presented themselves more on personal than on party grounds, and it would be hard that they should have to adopt party colours, or give offence to their party by refusing to accept them. There might, too, be several candidates of the same shade of politics.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, he trusted the Amendment would not be extended to Ireland. The Party Processions Act was about, on good grounds, to be repealed, and to adopt colours in election contests would act very injuriously.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, as he understood the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cawley), it was simply to meet a practical difficulty affecting a certain class of voters, and had no reference to parties. In rural populations many who could not read or write were able to distinguish colours, and it was to prevent their making a mistake at the time of voting that the Amendment was proposed. He did not

  1951
  believe the result would be the attaching a particular creed to a particular colour, but rather the reverse, for the colours would be assigned by the Returning Officer, not by the candidates.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was of opinion that had colours been used in the "test ballot" among hon. Members opposite last year, a larger percentage would have voted as they intended. Without such assistance the average householder, excited and naturally nervous, but unusually nervous on being shut up in a dark cell to exercise the franchise under a Bill bristling with penalties, would infallibly make a mistake.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman, entertaining such a horror of the Bill, had conjured up darkness as an additional terror. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Mental darkness.] He, however, believed that the Bill would remove a good deal of darkness both from electors and representatives. Colours would excite an inconvenient competition. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Ballot for them.] It was a sufficient answer to the suggestion that an Irish candidate of Orange politics might, as the result of the ballot, be saddled with the green. A considerable number of persons, moreover, were colour blind. As to the mistakes alluded to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, they occurred, as far as he could ascertain, under the Schedule of last year's Bill, and were entirely remedied by the present Schedule.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he should support the Amendment, because it would help illiterate voters to avoid mistakes in the ballot box. It ought to have a trial, at least until the happy results anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman through this Bill were arrived at.
  MR. LASLETTsaid, without the use of colours not a few electors would certainly suffer disfranchisement under a Bill of that character.
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he would give an instance of the difficulty alluded to by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. R. N. Fowler). It was, that at the late school board election for Westminster some persons made mistakes in the use of their ballot papers. The use of colours would lessen the chance of these mishaps and confusion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must repeat that he should reserve till the proper time his defence of the way in which the Government proposed to provide for illiterate voters. He understood that on some future occasion one or two hon. Gentlemen would move that the Returning Officer be instructed to mark the ballot paper for any person who was unable to read and write; but the question now under discussion was, whether colours were good in themselves, and he felt persuaded that they were not.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he could not think the right hon. Gentleman had met the difficulty, for he (Mr. Cawley) had yet to learn that simple black was not a colour; and the Bill proposed that all the names should be printed in black. Parties would long continue to distinguish themselves by means of colours, in spite of all the Acts of Parliament which might be passed; and there was, in his opinion, no reason why the candidates' names should not be printed in the colours adopted by their respective parties. This Amendment being desired by and in favour of a large body of electors, he should certainly press it to a division.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that colours for candidates were unknown in Scotland, and must express his belief, that if the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Salford were adopted it would tend to increase the perplexities of nervous voters.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, that a great difficulty not yet touched upon by any hon. Member would arise from the limited number of colours available, and from the fact that every candidate's name ought to be printed in a different colour, as it would be necessary to distinguish between candidates belonging to the same party. The resources of a provincial printing office with regard to colour-printing would soon be exhausted, and he was perfectly certain that the adoption of the Amendment would cause great trouble and annoyance.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the present Member for Bristol when contesting an election with him some years ago, not only adopted the blue colour which ordinarily denoted the Liberal party, but added yellow to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that the hon. Member for Bristol lost the election.
  MR. CRAWFORDhoped the hon. Member did not mix the blue and the yellow together and become green.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 97: Majority 59.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved the insertion, after Rule 9, of the following words:—
  "If any candidate nominated daring the time appointed for the Election is withdrawn in pursuance of this Act, the returning officer shall give public notice of the name of such candidate and the names of the persons who subscribed the nomination paper of such candidate, as well as of the candidates who stood nominated or were elected."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, words were inserted after the word "elected" to the effect that the Returning Officer should, on the nomination paper being delivered to him, forthwith publish a notice containing the names of the persons nominated as candidates, with the names of their proposers and seconders, in a conspicuous position outside the building in which the room was situated for the purposes of the election.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved, in page 19, line 13, to insert the word "immediately," before the word "before." There was some doubt about the operation of the clause as it stood, which, he thought, could be effectually remedied by the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. POTTERmoved in page 19, line 19, to leave out from "the" to "box," inclusive, in order to insert the following:—
  "Every elector who is not incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, shall record his vote at an Election in a voting compartment constructed and arranged according to the ground plan thereof hereunder drawn (that is to say);
  Each elector shall be admitted alone by a constable into the passage i, leading to the voting compartment e, and after stating his number, name, and description to the presiding officer at the desk at k, in the presence of, and with voice audible to the clerks and agents to the candidates, the elector shall enter the voting compartment e alone, and the door thereof shall be fastened outside by a constable. The presiding officer shall then give to the elector in the voting compartment the ballot paper, by passing the same to him through a slit six inches long and one inch high,
  1954
  cut in the side of the voting compartment next adjoining to the ballot box, and after having marked such ballot paper, the elector shall fold the same so as to conceal such mark, and shall return such paper through the slit above mentioned to the presiding officer, who, after satisfying himself of the identity of the ballot paper, by looking at the official mark on the back thereof, shall immediately deposit such paper in the ballot box. The elector shall leave the voting compartment immediately after voting, and shall take his departure through the exit door at x, which, after he has passed through, shall be locked on the inside by the constable before any other elector is permitted to enter the voting compartment."
  GROUND PLAN—a, the Returning Officer; b, b, b, b, b, b, b, b, b, b, b, the clerks and agents; d, the ballot box; e, a marking compartment 6½ feet in height, 4 feet square, with glass above 6 feet; f, desk 3 feet high; g, the door; h, a small slit, 6 inches long and 1 inch in height, level with the top of the ballot box and table in compartment; i, i, entrance passage; k, desk of presiding officer; and "Exit x."
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought they had now reached the pith and marrow of the Bill, because if, as was stated, the measure would produce great moral and political results by mechanical means, such proposals as that now made must be most important. The hon. Member for Carlisle had proposed a scheme of this kind, and might say—
  "Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti."
  With regard to the plan, he thought it somewhat remarkable that in the first line of the proposal, as well as in the last, the "constable" came in. That feature, indeed, pervaded every passage in the Bill. What would be the end of all those legal proceedings it might be impossible to say; but he anticipated that there must be a large increase in the number of prisons, for at every turn the elector would find himself delivered into the custody of a constable. Unless some mechanical means could be devised to secure perfect secrecy, the whole of the Bill would fall to the ground, and therefore the proposal ought to be debated during the whole evening.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he was of opinion that in Ireland, where there were sometimes 48 dragoons to one elector, a single constable would be regarded as a great improvement.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Carlisle would be satisfied with having put upon the Paper a proposal from which the Returning Officers might gather suggestions, but the details of which, however ingenious, could not be embodied in an Act of Parliament. Another objection to the hon. Member's plan was, that when the voter's paper was taken from him, he would not be sure that it would go into the box.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Member who had given the Committee a ground plan ought to be called upon to accompany it by elevations and sections. The ground plan certainly contained some peculiarities. There was "Entrance i," and eye in Germany and elsewhere was used to represent omniscience. Then there was "Exit x," and x was the "unknown quantity" which represented that the voter's personality had made its exit and been totally destroyed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Scourfield) had objected that the clause began and ended with the constable. But the constable also culminated in the middle, for the voter was to go into this dreary dungeon 6½ feet in height and 4 feet square, the door was to be fastened outside by a constable; a constable was to show him in, and another was to show him out. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) must say that the hon. Member for Carlisle was entitled to the credit of proposing the first practical scheme for insuring entire secrecy by mechanical means, and yet he was now snubbed out, and the first illustrated Motion he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had ever seen on their Votes was discountenanced.
  MR. F. S. POWELLwished to know whether it was in accordance with the rules of Parliament to insert a ground plan in a statute? He knew of no Act in which a ground plan had ever become a matter of enactment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, to insert in Rule 23, page 19, line 21, after "paper," the words—
  "And fold it up so as to conceal his vote, and shall then put his ballot paper, so folded up, into the ballot-box."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CRAWFORD, in moving in Rule 24, line 1, to leave out "shall" and in same line, after "Act," insert—
  "Or (if the poll be taken on Saturday) of any voter who declares that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in manner prescribed by this Act, shall"
  said, the object of his Amendment was to secure for members of the Jewish religion every opportunity of recording their votes on a Saturday.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had not the slightest idea of disfranchising such an eminent race of people as the Jews, but he wished the hon. Member for the City of London would give the Committee some explanation of the manner in which he intended to work this method of voting. Why was not the indulgence proposed to be shown to the religious scruples of a Jew not to be extended to a person physically incapacitated from voting? How would the scruples of a Jew be got over by his directing somebody to do that which he would not do himself?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the rule would apply equally to persons physically incapacitated and to Jews.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Cambridge University that, although the religious scruples of a Jew would be offended by his scratching out the name of a candidate on a Saturday, they would not interfere with his going to the poll and directing what names should be struck out.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, in that case, he could not understand why, if members of that ancient religion should be allowed to vote orally, the same indulgence should not be extended to Christians.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he understood that the Government were about to accept this proposal in favour of one particular class of Her Majesty's subjects, and he should like to know how they were going to deal with other religious classes who might have scruples against voting on other days. He knew many persons in high position who would never commence anything on a Friday, and how were they to be provided for? He would, therefore, propose that, in place of making this special exception in favour of the Jews, no election should be held on a Saturday. If the proposed concession were granted, it would have

  1957
  to be extended to persons who wanted to go out of town on the Saturday.
  ALDERMAN SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, that as he had just entered the House during the course of the discussion on the Amendment, he thought it would savour of cowardice or indifference if he did not express an opinion upon it. In his opinion it was of the greatest importance, because it affected the religious scruples of a large class of fellow-subjects who wished to give expression to their opinions at elections, and who were as distinguished for their loyalty as any class of the community. It was difficult to reason on religious scruples; but if the doctrines inculcated among the Jews led them to entertain conscientious objections to writing on the Saturday, he thought the Committee ought to grant the boon that was asked for.
  In answer to Mr. GORDON,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that the object of the clause was to meet the scruples of many persons of the Jewish persuasion, who considered that they were forbidden by their religious law from writing on the Saturday. They did not consider they were precluded from oral voting on the Saturday, or from going up with their voting papers; but it was their belief that they were forbidden to write. Although that was a scruple which some might scarcely appreciate, still it had been the rule of Parliament to consider conscientious objections when they did not interfere with a man fulfilling his duties as a citizen, particularly in relation to the body with which he was formerly connected, the Society of Friends.
  MR. GORDONsaid, that, if allowances of this sort were to be made for persons who had conscientious scruples, some allowance ought to be equally made for those who had conscientions objections to secret voting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in moving as an Amendment, in page 19, line 25, to omit the word "physical," said, that the Committee had shown a strong disposition to provide the greatest possible facilities for enabling the voter to express his opinion as freely as he could, but there were many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were of opinion that the Ballot, worked in the manner proposed by the Bill, would tend
  1958
  to the disfranchisement of great numbers of electors. It was a singular fact that so far as they had any experience of elections under the Ballot, they had resulted in a large number of the electoral body not recording their votes at all. In Prance, for instance, the abstention from voting had been peculiar and enormous, and even when questions of the greatest importance were before the people, a large proportion of the electors had failed to avail themselves of their right to vote. In this country, also, the metropolitan school board elections showed that only a small portion of the electoral body exercised their privilege, compared with the number of those who voted in other elections under the system of open voting. For instance, at the election for the Marylebone division in March last, the number of persons polled was only 3,996, although the number of ratepayers, allowing for duplicate assessments, might be set down at 58,000; and at the election for the Finsbury division, on the 3rd instant, out of about 60,000 ratepayers, only 8,408 persons polled. He thought that one reason for this abstention on the part of so many of the electors was a fear of handling the voting papers, and a certain feeling of want of capacity for filling them up properly, for every lawyer knew that forms which were so clearly expressed that it seemed almost impossible to make a mistake in filling them up, wore constantly filled up erroneously. It was, at all events, a fact that a considerable number of votes had been lost in this manner. In the Marylebone election, to which he had before referred, 4 per cent of the total number who voted—166 out of 3,996—lost their votes by not attending to the specific instructions that were given, and in one of the polling districts of St. Pancras as large a proportion as 10 per cent of those who voted filled up their voting papers so incorrectly that the votes were necessarily rejected. In Finsbury a similar result was recorded, and it might be said that among the less educated portions of a constituency at least 10 per cent of the votes would be lost in this manner. He had seen a Returning Officer on the subject, who told him that at some of the booths the proportions of invalidated papers reached only 1, 2, or 3 per cent; but then some

  1959
  discretion had been exercised by deputy Returning Officers, who had admitted papers not quite conformable to the instructions, but which still, in their judgment, indicated clearly what the intention of the voter was. But to the question—"How would you act in the case of a Parliamentary election?" the Returning Officer replied that, as heavy penalties would attach to any departure from the rules laid down, the strict letter of those rules must be adhered to, and hence it followed, as he said before, that the general invalidation of inaccurate voting papers would probably reach the high average of 10 per cent. If it was unavoidable that the Returning Officer and the deputy Returning Officer should exercise some such discretion in deciding what votes were good or bad, the objection entertained to the marking of papers by the Returning Officers was removed; and, moreover, they were to be sworn to secrecy, and to be subjected to heavy penalties if they made use of their powers for the advantage of any candidate. On the other hand, the consequence of refusing them such powers would be that a considerable number of timid or incapable electors would be virtually disfranchised for want of assistance. It should also be borne in mind that the preceding statistics he had quoted from the school board elections might have been more unfavourable still if it had not been that the voting at those elections was not carried on under strict secrecy. A right hon. Friend of his had told him that when he went up to vote at the school board election, a noble Duke in the next compartment called out to him—"I say, show me how to fill up the paper"—and he did so in the presence, and with the consent, of the presiding officer. But no such opportunities of assistance were to be allowed under this Bill. He believed, however, that it was only just and fair that not only those who were physically disabled, but others who felt themselves unable to fill up the voting paper properly, should be allowed to call upon the Returning Officer for assistance; and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would accept the Amendment, for there could be no doubt that otherwise not only would a large number of voters be deterred from going to the poll, but a large additional number would suffer practical disfranchisement on account
  1960
  of their filling up the voting papers irregularly.
  Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 25, to leave out the word "physical."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was of opinion that, in its present form, the Amendment would be superfluous, and defeat the object the hon. Member had in view, because the words "incapacitated by blindness or other cause" might be interpreted to mean any sort of incapacity, sui generis; and if his hon. Friend wished to carry out all that he had described, it would be necessary to provide that the voting paper of an elector might be filled up for him "upon application to the Returning Officer." In regard to the example of the noble Duke at the school board election, that might be explained by the well-known fact that Dukes were of an unassuming nature, and were always glad to acquire information for the proper discharge of their duties; but he must point out that the falling-off in the number of votes registered at the school board elections was not due to the difficulties of the system under which the votes were registered, but to the diminution of the public interest in the question of education, because, at the first election, the numbers polled in the London districts were almost equal to those of a Parliamentary election, and even in the recent cases they were considerably in excess of the average number of votes polled at municipal contests. No doubt there were some arguments in favour of the Amendment; but he thought that they were outweighed by the fact that in order to make the proposal of his hon. Friend effective, it would be necessary that the Returning Officer should record the vote of any elector who wished him to do so, and that would place a power in the hands of that officer which he believed would be felt by the country to be objectionable. There could be no substantial check as to the manner in which the Returning Officer could mark the voting paper, and the result of leaving him such discretionary powers would be that the candidates and the constituency would feel that the election was too much in his hands. He would not deny that some votes might be lost in the first election under this Bill, and until the country had become accustomed to the

  1961
  new system; but it would be a sort of educational test in itself, and he believed that in a very short time the simple method provided in the Bill would be generally understood. His hon. Friend had stated that at school board elections the deputy Returning Officer had the power of accepting or rejecting improperly filled-up voting papers. No such power, however, was given by this Bill. Every paper was given to the Returning Officer, and it was for him and his assistant, upon adding up the votes in the presence of the agents of the candidates, to decide what votes should be struck out.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that he feared the right hon. Gentleman was too sanguine in supposing that the difficulties of the new system of voting would become familiar to the country after a single election. How many people wrote their names in wrong places on legal documents, notwithstanding explicit instructions? Only the other day he had received from Brighton information that at the last election of Guardians for that town, out of 7,389 votes recorded, 3,861 were valid, and 3,528 were rejected, because the voting papers had been improperly filled up. If householders were unable to fill up a paper properly in the quiet of their homes, how could they be expected to do so in a polling-box during the excitement of a Parliamentary contest?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the reason must have been that the names of persons who were not candidates were on the lists.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: The lists were the ordinary printed lists. The fact was, that people not accustomed to write in public were often flurried. He knew a case where a gentleman who had 80 votes for the Asylum for Idiots, having erroneously written the figures opposite the wrong candidate, threw away all his votes at that election. If this was the case with educated people, what would be the result among the mass of country, and even town voters? He was convinced that unless the Amendment was agreed to, a large number of voters would be disfranchised at the first election under the Bill.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he would support the Amendment for the reason that under the Bill it was indispensable that great confidence should be placed
  1962
  in the Returning Officers, and he could see no objection to allowing them to assist the voters who required their assistance; otherwise they might have in that House, after the next election, 20 or 30 hon. Members not entitled to sit in it.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, he would remind the Committee that blindness did not always depend on physical causes. The omission of the word physical would leave the words "blindness or other causes." That would leave such a wide discretion to the Returning Officer that he would be cognizant of the vote of every man who applied to him for information. He, therefore, thought it would be better to omit the words "or other physical cause" altogether, and leave the words "if any person is incapacitated by blindness." If the words "other causes" were retained, the causes ought to be specified.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the point at issue involved a balance of difficulties. Was it wise to authorize the Returning Officer, who was bound to secrecy, to mark the ballot papers of people who declared themselves incapacitated, or would they disfranchise 10 per cent of the constituency? It appeared that at a school board election in the poorer districts 10 per cent of the voters who attempted to vote were disqualified through having filled up their voting papers wrongly. They must not only consider this risk at Parliamentary elections, but remember that probably among the poorer voters, 30 or 40 per cent would be deterred from ever going to the poll owing to the difficulties of voting, and so that they might not appear ignorant persons, whose votes were thrown away through their ignorance.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that not the Returning Officer, but the presiding officer, would have to fill up the voting papers. There would be large numbers of these presiding officers, and though no doubt they would be respectable men, he did not think it would be satisfactory to the country that not only the votes of a large number of voters should be known to the presiding officers, but that these officials should really vote for the electors.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that at the school board election for Marylebone, when he went up to vote, a gentleman who lived in Eaton Square conferred with

  1963
  him as to the place in which he should write his name in the ballot paper. Why should not a voter be able to ask the presiding officer—"Where am I to write my name?" When a voter was inops consilii through nervousness or ignorance, the impediment to his voting was quite as great as though it were a physical impediment.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, it was a serious thing that any measure should pass this House, which even for a time should disfranchise any number of voters, as he had always feared the measure under consideration would. It must have happened to the right hon. Gentleman, as it had to himself, to see many men make their mark, and he must have noticed how nervous they were in doing so simple a thing. He had to pay a large number of Militiamen every year, and it was quite remarkable to see how nervous many of them were in making their mark, even under the direction of an officer.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that if this Amendment were adopted a large number of persons would avail themselves of the privilege which would then be conceded to them. But these were the very men who otherwise would not be able to vote at all, and he wished to ask hon. Gentlemen below the gangway whether they desired to disfranchise those persons?
  MR. J. S. HARDY, in supporting the Amendment, said, that since the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had been carried, it would be in the power of the voter to show his ballot paper both before and after he had marked his vote. If that were so, there was no good reason why he should not be permitted to show the paper while marking his vote.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he should like to know whether the hon. Member for Westminster intended that the Returning Officer should fill up the voting papers of drunken persons?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had no wish whatever to provide facilities for drunken men, but only for a class which, as all hon. Members connected with the legal profession knew, existed in a very large proportion in the constituencies of the country—people who could not fill up a paper without assistance, even though the directions were of the most precise description. He felt that there
  1964
  was an objection to putting this power in the hands of the Returning Officer; still we had to choose under the Bill between two evils, and if Parliament provided that such persons should vote by ballot, it ought to take care that proper facilities were given them. The Committee had already given the Jews facilities for voting on Saturdays, or whenever they thought fit to claim the right by the assistance of the Returning Officer; and they were bound to give the same facilities to all other persons who honestly declared that they could not vote otherwise.
  MR. DENISONsaid, that the subject of discussion immediately under the notice of the Committee was the retention of the word "physical," but the discussion had widened so as to relate to every kind of incapacity. He did not think that any portion of the Bill exceeded in importance that to which the Amendment related, for if the Bill passed into law in its present shape, and it was found in the end that a large portion of electors would be disfranchised, the feeling on their part would be one of disappointment, which would ripen into one of anger, to be followed by resentment. That resentment would fall first on the authors of the Bill, and afterwards on Parliament, which, while professing to give the broadest and most unrestricted franchise by mechanical means, would deprive 25 per cent of the electors of all possibility of voting. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No," but he was afraid that highly intellectual men could not put themselves in the position of those whose minds were blank. In the voting paper there were no fewer than 12 separate places where crosses might be made, irrespectively of the lines; and if the lines were taken in there were 13 more. There were, therefore, 25 chances that a man would mark in the wrong place. Would it not be better and more rational, then, to allow the voters to call upon the presiding officer, assisted by the agents, to put a mark in the proper place, than to exclude them altogether from the possibility of voting?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had suggested that the difficulty would be obviated by enabling the Returning Officer, checked by the agents, to mark the voting paper. But if that were allowed,

  1965
  the Bill would cease to be a Ballot Bill. It was quite true the Committee had not put a penalty on the voter for showing his ballot paper, but they had directed, by the 2nd clause, that he should not display it, and if the hon. Member's Amendment were carried, it would altogether nullify that decision.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that he could understand the difficulty suggested by the question involved in the Amendment, so long as it was determined to carry out the Ballot by voting papers as distinguished from balls. It was perfectly clear that in the present state of education in England a very large percentage of the votes would be rejected merely because the voters would not know how to mark their papers properly. The course which the right hon. Gentleman supported would disfranchise a considerable number of his own constituents, and a still greater number of voters in the constituency which he (Mr. Wheelhouse) represented. He, however, objected to any disfranchisement, and contended that every man who had a vote, and had mental capacity to vote, should be allowed to do so. He (Mr. Wheelhouse) was lame, and in a crowd could not go up to the polling-booth, although no man living was more anxious to vote than he was. Why should he be disfranchised? Why should a man who was blind, or deaf and dumb, be disfranchised?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ought to have been delivered at an earlier period of the evening, when the Committee were discussing the clause which provided that any elector who was lame, blind, or otherwise physically disabled should obtain assistance in recording his vote.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he could not see why a man who was physically blind should have the privilege of voting, while a man who, through his incapacity to read and write, was equally blind in respect of the proper exercise of the franchise, should be prevented from voting.
  MR. SALTsaid, there was a great practical difficulty in the proper settlement of the question under notice, inasmuch as a very large number of voters were absolutely incapable from physical causes of filling up these voting papers. Take a constituency of
  1966
  2,000. At an election, probably only 1,500 of those electors would vote, the remainder being physically incapacitated from doing so. What would be the opinion of that constituency on such a result? They would at once say that something was radically wrong. And it would be impossible to persuade them that under such circumstances a wrong had not been done to them. He did not mean to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster had met this difficulty, and he (Mr. Salt) did not know how it was to be met, but it undoubtedly deserved the most serious consideration of the Committee.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he knew several instances at the last election of persons who through lameness or old age could not get out of their carriage at the polling-booth. Their votes were taken by a poll clerk who went to their carriage for that purpose. He (Viscount Galway) wished to know whether these parties were to be disfranchised under this Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was very much of opinion that the votes of the persons referred to by the noble Lord were void. The object of the rule under discussion was to give assistance in voting to those who were blind or otherwise physically incapacitated; and with regard to that object, he believed persons with physical infirmities would be immensely advantaged by the Bill, because elections would be more quietly conducted. Hon. Gentlemen opposite strangely exaggerated the number who they thought would be disfranchised, and, apparently, no argument of his would convince them to the contrary. Care, however, no doubt, would be taken by their friends that all these persons received preliminary instructions, so that the cases of mistake would be very few.
  DR. BALLsaid, he had, as assessor, taken the vote of a person unable to go up to the poll at his own house, and he had known this done by others; nor did he see any reason why the vote or the election should thereby be vitiated. Of course, a presiding officer would not leave the booth for such a purpose at a time when there was any great demand for the use of the booth. In excluding those votes, therefore, the Government appeared to value secrecy more than the expression of opinion. In large English constituencies the omission of a few

  1967
  votes might be immaterial; but in boroughs like Portarlington, where an election had twice been decided by a majority of one or two, the case was different.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, it was but justice that after the concession made to members of the Jewish persuasion, in which he quite concurred, equal facilities should be given to other persons who asked for them.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he could see no necessity for the provision involved in the Amendment.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that the question before the Committee was, how were the physically infirm voters to get to the poll? Circumstances might arise in which there would be great excitement, when it would be extremely difficult for even the most stalwart to record their votes. At present it was quite competent to poll a lame man; but under the Bill anyone who assisted a voter in any way was liable to heavy penalties, to which nobody of prudence would expose himself.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that special provision had already been made for assisting those physically disqualified, and he must protest against the extension of the provision to anybody who might wish to profit by it.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had heard rather startling statements made during the evening, especially the dictum of the hon. Member for Dublin, that blindness was not a physical infirmity. [Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN: No.] He did not wish to misinterpret the hon. Gentleman, but he certainly said it was absurd to speak of "other physical causes," because blindness was not always a physical cause. [Sir DOMINIC CORRIGAN: Yes.] The hon. Gentleman admitted having said that, which seemed to him much the same thing. With regard to the Amendment, however, it was well known that besides those unable to read or write, there were many who, describing themselves as "no scholars," did not like to rely on an imperfect knowledge of reading and writing. At present they could vote vivâ voce; but under the Bill they would be sent into a recess with a paper containing a number of printed names, of which they would know nothing. The alphabetical arrangement of the names would not assist them, and they might vote for
  1968
  the wrong man, which vote might decide the election. He had no desire to hinder gentlemen from voting who from religious scruples could not use a pencil on the Sabbath; but if in London, where there were hundreds of Jewish voters, the presiding officer were empowered to determine whether they were Jews or not, why should he not be likewise authorized to decide what other voters were incapable of voting? This ought not to be a party question, but merely a question as to whether persons who could now vote intelligibly should be in future prevented from doing so. He entreated the Committee to consider whether a man ought not to be allowed to ask the presiding officer to enable him to vote for the candidates whom he wished to be returned.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he agreed with the previous speaker that this ought not to be a party question; but if the proposal under consideration were adopted the presiding officer would in many cases have the power of returning any candidate he pleased. With regard to the members of the Hebrew community, they would see what the presiding officer was doing, and be able to check him if necessary; but in filling up the papers of electors who could not read or write, the presiding officer might decide the votes in accordance with his own political opinions, and, at all events, a portion of the constituency would be sure to suspect him of having done so, however impartially he might have discharged his duty. It was most undesirable to confer such an enormous power on every presiding officer.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had confused a principle with a matter of detail. The principle under discussion was, whether a person who was unable to read and write, or who thought he had not the power of voting properly, should have the right of voting and be protected by the law from voting wrongly. He could have understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), if he had stated as a principle that a man who was unable to read and write should lose his vote, because it was absolutely necessary to presevere absolute secrecy; but that principle had already been infringed in the case of the Jews. Then, why should a distinction be made between a voter

  1969
  whom religious scruples prevented from filling up his paper, and one who from physical or other causes were unable to do so? The Australian Acts, he might mention, contained a provision similar to that now proposed. As to the matter of detail, he wished to offer a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. He felt quite sure that before an election, there would not be the slightest difficulty in getting the candidates to agree to appoint some person who should be sworn to secrecy and placed in the polling-booth, to fill up the papers of such voters as were unable to vote for themselves.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was under a misapprehension, for the effect of the Amendment already made would be to allow the Jews to break the secrecy only so far as one person was concerned; whereas the proposal under discussion had virtually no limit. He further believed, with reference to the last suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible to arrive at the result which he deemed so easy of attainment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentlemen had not acceded to the reasonable proposal now under discussion. He had always been favourable to wholesale enfranchisement, and therefore he opposed the provision of the Bill which was now under discussion on the ground that it would practically disfranchise at least a third of the electors in the kingdom. If it were proposed to enable Jews and blind persons to call in the aid of the Returning Officer to fill up their ballot papers, for the life of him he could not see why the privilege should be denied to voters generally, and particularly to those who belonged to the poorer classes.
  MR. GORDONsaid, the subject was one of importance, well worthy of discussion. The voters in the United Kingdom were estimated at 2,300,000, and it was not unreasonable to say that 10 per cent of them were unable to read or write, or did so so imperfectly as to have great difficulty in voting according to provisions of the Bill. The Committee were, therefore, considering how 230,000 electors should exercise the franchise. The hon. and learned Member for
  1970
  Taunton (Mr. James) objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the ground that the Returning Officers could not be trusted to discharge the duty; but that objection disclosed one of the greatest vices of the Bill. If the Returning Officers could not be trusted so far, how could they be entrusted with the performance of the other important duties which the Bill proposed to put upon them? The hon. and learned Member for Taunton defended the proposal that Jews were to be entitled to call in the assistance of the Returning Officer, on the ground that they would be able to see that their votes were correctly recorded, but he seemed to forget that there were illiterate Jews as well as illiterate Christians. If the Committee were willing to accord this privilege to illiterate Jews, why should it not be extended to illiterate persons of another, or no religious body? A great deal had been made by the supporters of this measure of the practice in Australia, where the Ballot formed part of the electoral system; but it seemed to be forgotten that in that pattern colony any voter who was blind or unable to write might have the assistance of the Returning Officer when recording his vote. He trusted the Committee would adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Westminster.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that an illiterate voter must be illiterate in an extraordinary degree if he were unable to find out how he was to vote. Moreover, it must be taken that the words "physical cause" meant paralysis, or some such real cause, and not drunkenness, which, though a physical cause, was but a passing one, and was one that should not be recognized. It was proposed to omit the word "physical," fearing that its retention would disfranchise voters who might be incapacitated from voting in the manner required by the Bill. It was justly urged on the other side, that by omitting that word they would open too wide a door, and place too much in the power of the Returning Officer. The discussion appeared to him to turn very much on the case of the illiterate voter, who mistrusted his competency to distinguish the place where he should mark his ballot paper. He would, therefore, venture to suggest that the Committee should retain the word "physical" on the right hon. Gentleman

  1971
  in charge of the Bill undertaking that he would consider, before bringing up the Report, whether or not he could introduce words in the section which might meet the difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the effect of the Amendment confessedly would be that the presiding officer would have to fill up the voting paper for anybody who asked him to do so. That, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) said, was opening far too wide a door. An illiterate man must, indeed, be very illiterate if he could not fill up the ballot paper, especially with the instruction he would receive from agents and political friends before entering the polling-booth. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend, he should be able to deal with it better when he understood to what class of persons his hon. Friend referred. In his opinion, the words "blindness or any other physical cause" met every reasonable case. The case of persons of deficient education was met by the form of the voting paper.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked whether old age was a physical cause entitling the voter to the help of the presiding officer; and, whether the presiding officer could take the vote of such a man if he were unable to enter the polling-booth?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the rule would meet the case of a voter who, from old age, was unable to write his name; but the case of a Returning Officer leaving the polling-booth and going into the street and taking the vote would not be met by the Bill. He believed it was now illegal for the Returning Officer to do such a thing; but if it was considered desirable that he should do so, provision must be made for it by a new rule.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there might be 12 candidates at the election for the City of London, and it would not be so easy for an illiterate voter to be sure that he had put his mark opposite the name of the right candidate. Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee approximately what percentage of voters could not read and write? If so, the Committee would have a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman had considered the subject to which he (Mr. Assheton Cross) had called attention last year.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman rather exigeant in expecting that upon a Ballot debate he would come provided with the most difficult statistics which could be asked for with regard to education. He was perfectly unable to answer the question how many adults could read and write; but then he certainly disputed the assumption that persons unable to read and write would be unable to vote. He knew many persons who could not read or write, yet he believed they would be able to give an intelligent vote under the Ballot.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee might understand that the right hon. Gentleman had not in the least considered the question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must appeal to the Committee whether this was a fair statement. He had often considered the question whether it was proper to provide for the case of those who could not read or write, and he had stated the reasons which led him to believe it was not proper to do so otherwise than by the form of the paper. What right, therefore, had the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that statement?
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he would bring under the notice of the Committee the case of a voter who had recorded his vote for him when in his 100th year, and must complain that no provision was made in the Bill for taking the vote of such a man through the agency of the Returning Officer, instead of obliging him to go into a booth and recording it.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he looked upon the Bill for a long time as dying, but that evening he thought it must be regarded as absolutely dead. Let him suppose that Forster, Fordyce, and Funkum were candidates at an election for a borough, was it not extremely likely that mistakes would be made by many members of the working classes with respect to recording their votes for any of those candidates? It was perfectly certain that such mistakes must occur, and the Bill therefore, in his opinion, ought no longer to be called a Ballot Bill, but a happy-go-lucky Bill, because it was quite clear that the voting under it must be haphazard. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to inform the

  1973
  House how many voters could read and write; but hon. Members should not forget that these men were the same flesh and blood as themselves, and that the right hon. Gentleman was not dealing fairly with them. For his own part, he always thought that that wretched Ballot Bill could not pass, and he felt more and more confirmed in that opinion. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House must be aware that they had never whipped so dead a horse as on the present occasion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished merely to observe, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that there was not one of his constituents who, whether he could or could not read or write, did not know the difference between Forster and Funkum.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought the case of a voter 100 years old was so exceptional a case that it was not worth while to introduce into the Bill words to meet it. He had himself, on a former occasion, introduced a Bill conferring the franchise in what he deemed to be the right way; but he must say that if a voter were unable to use the very simple paper which would be put into his hand under the present Bill, he (Mr. Clay) was somewhat indifferent as to whether such a man recorded his vote or not. If his vote were of the slightest service, he might prepare himself to record it.
  DR. BALLsaid, he understood that the voter was to receive his voting paper from an official, and would then have to deposit it in a box; but unless something was done to explain it to him, he did not know how persons who did not speak English, as was the case in the Southern and Western parts of Ireland to a great extent, could make out who it was for whom they were about to vote. There were in Ireland a large number of men who did not speak English at all, and a still greater number who spoke it only imperfectly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member would examine the Bill, he would find that in the 32nd page provision was made that the directions as to the mode of voting should be printed in conspicuous characters, and placarded outside every polling station, and every compartment of the polling station. As to the case of Irishmen who did not understand English, such persons would probably
  1974
  have half-a-dozen interpreters to inform them of the exact meaning of the voting papers.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it seemed almost as if there were a wish to disfranchise a great many of the humbler class of voters. Anyone who considered how many people signed their marriage register with a mark must know that there was a great number of men who could neither read nor write; and what possible harm could it do to anybody if such a man said—"I can't understand this paper; pray help me?" It would be the man's own wish—his own act. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said such a man should not be helped. They very properly agreed to let in the Jews, because otherwise the Jews would be disfranchised. The blind man, too, was to be let in, because he could not vote under their new system, unless he was helped. On what principle, then, was the man who could not read to be shut out? They assumed that out of four or five names he would somehow or other be cunning enough to know the one for whom he wished to vote. Perhaps some persons who could not read might be cunning enough for that, but others might not be so; why, therefore, should they not be allowed to seek help?
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was prepared to vote against the Amendment, because by striking out the word "physical" before "cause," they would give too wide a discretion to the presiding officer. He was certainly at a loss, however, to understand why a man who was unable to read was to be precluded from asking for any advice in the compartment where he was called upon to vote. The illiterate voter should be placed on the same level as the voter who was suffering under physical incapacity. He should either be allowed to obtain advice or should be excluded altogether.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he differed entirely from the opinion of the hon. Member for East Sussex, that it was an easy task for any man to mark a ballot paper. There were many persons who when they appeared before the Returning Officer became so nervous that they were often unable even to pronounce the name of the candidate they intended to vote for, and gave the name of his opponent. It was also common for the voter not to give the name of his

  1975
  favourite candidate, but to state the colour for which he intended to vote. A very large proportion of the electors of this country, if this Bill passed, would be compelled to go through some species of rehearsal before they went to the poll. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) could depend on having an impartial Returning Officer to take the votes and preside at the polling station, why could not an impartial person be appointed, as had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Southwest Lancashire (Mr. Cross) to mark the papers of those electors who felt themselves incapable of marking them for themselves? He believed that in Australia the voter who could not read was not prevented from asking for assistance. He had always said that this was a Bill of disfranchisement, and he believed it was intended by the Treasury bench that it should be so. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his squeezable nature, had yielded to the suggestion that Jews should be allowed to have their ballot papers marked. Was a Jew of greater value than a Christian? The incapacity had been removed from the Jew; was the Committee going to incapacitate the Christian? He very strongly suspected that there was some great power at work behind the Treasury bench, and that those who sat on it were very much afraid of the next election for the City of London. Therefore they were doing their best to get all Houndsditch and the Minories on their side.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, if the words "or by inability to read or write" were inserted, his objection to the clause as it stood would be removed; but if that were not done he must support the Amendment. In many parts of the North of Scotland, there was a very numerous class who only knew Gaelic, and who would be utterly disfranchised unless some provision such as that to which he referred were made to meet their case.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could only repeat what he had said before, that samples of the voting papers would be placarded outside and inside the booths. He should be very much surprised if the voters who could only speak Gaelic, unless they were very different men from what they were generally represented to be, would not, by
  1976
  aid of the placarding, and by the information they would get from their friends, be able to fill up the paper properly.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the rule was not the same in all the Australian Colonies. But in Victoria there were three classes of voters under the Electoral Act—the non-residential voter, the residential voter, and the voter in respect of rateable property. The non-residential voter and the residential voter could not vote unless they wrote their names in a book kept for the purpose; but the voter in respect of rateable property was not required to do that, and he might ask the Returning Officer to fill up his paper.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given a most conclusive reason for supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), because, for practical purposes, three-fourths of the Members of that House, being the representatives of boroughs, were returned by persons who voted in right of occupation; and Englishmen ought to have the same privileges as their fellow-subjects in Australia.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that in the Paper with respect to the Ballot in Australia which was supplied to hon. Members, and which he held in his hand, the question was put what provision was made in the case of voters who could not read? It appeared that in Sydney, in Victoria, in Tasmania, and in Queensland—no answer had been received from South Australia—the Returning Officer was permitted to fill the paper in the case of those who could not read.
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he hoped the Government would withdraw the Amendment, as he must contend that after the concession that had been made to Jews, some consideration ought to be extended to those who could not read and write.
  Question put, "That the word 'physical' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 144: Majority 61.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

COURT OF CHANCERY (FUNDS) BILL.
(Mr. Baxter, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. William Henry Gladstone.)
[BILL 43.] COMMITTEE.
MR. BAXTERsaid, that as the Amendment for referring this Bill to a Select Committee had been withdrawn, he proposed to go into Committee pro formâ for the purpose of introducing an Amendment.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he would appeal to Mr. Speaker, whether the Rule was not absolute that opposed Bills should not be taken after half-past 12 o'clock?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, there being an Amendment on the Paper on the second reading of the Bill, the Rule of the House was, that it could not be proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock. It was true that the Amendment had been withdrawn; but that circumstance was not provided for by the Resolution of the House.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.

PENSIONS BILL— [BILL 113.]
(Mr. Baxter, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
PENSIONS BILL— [BILL 113.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Baxter.)
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Bill had passed through nearly all its stages at about 1 o'clock in the morning, and he believed its purport was not understood. He found that it interfered with vested rights secured by an Act of William IV., which was an agreement between the Government of that day and certain persons giving up their offices. The words "public department" in that Act could not be supposed to relate to India, and, therefore, being unable to regard this as an honest Bill, he must, by way of protest, move that it be read a third time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, since the Act passed in
  1978
  1834, it had always been acted upon as though the words "public department" in it did extend to India, and innumerable pensions had been granted on that supposition. A doubt having been suggested as to the truth of the construction, it was only a matter of justice to the parties who had acted upon that belief that the law should be altered as proposed.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the important question was whether injustice was done to individuals.
  MR. GLADSTONEagreed that the parties interested in the Bill should know what Parliament was about; but he thought the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman opposite dangerous and mischievous. There was no doubt as to the intention of the Act; but now the supposition was that it had failed to carry that into effect from a casual defect in the wording of the covenant between the parties.
  MR. COLLINShoped that the question would not be pressed to a division.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he was of opinion that the House was entitled to know how the Bill would work, and he thought that the Bill should not be pressed at that hour. He would move, therefore, that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir Lawrence Palk,)—put, and negatived.
  MR. HUNTbelieved that the orginal words were never intended to cover so much ground. He should not divide upon the question, but he wished to throw upon the Government the responsibility in this matter.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time; verbal Amendment made.
  Bill passed.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments read.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the Amendments which had been introduced into

  1979
  the Bill in the House of Lords were unobjectionable; but that according to the forms of that House they could not be agreed to. He therefore proposed that the Order be discharged, with the view to the introduction of a new Bill with the same object.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Amendments laid aside.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Reformatory and Industrial Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Viscount MAHON, and Mr. COWPER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]

  COURTS OF LAW (SCOTLAND) AGENTS BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend the Law regarding Agents practising in the Courts of Law in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Alteration of Boundaries of Dioceses* (84).
Committee—Prison Ministers* (72–91).
Committee—Report—West Indies (Incumbered Estates)* (88).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.—QUESTION.
EARL GREYinquired of the Lord Chancellor, Whether the adjourned debate on the question of a Supreme Court of Appeal was to be taken on the Resolution which had been moved by the noble and learned Lord, or on the Bill which stood for second reading to-morrow evening?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the subject was before the House on a former occasion it was fully understood that the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Bill would not be taken till after the Resolution had been disposed of. He had since ascertained, however, that the forms of the House required that the Bill should be first on the Notice Paper for Tuesday, because on that day Orders had precedence of Motions. On that account a formal change had been made; but he hoped their Lordships would find it convenient to adopt the course which had been agreed to in the first instance.
LORD CAIRNSthought it was understood on the former occasion that the debate was adjourned in order that their Lordships might see the Bill in print; but it was not of much consequence whether the debate was taken on the Resolution or on the Bill, because in reality everything turned on the plan proposed by his noble and learned Friend as a substitute for the existing system.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

  NOTICE OF MOTION POSTPONED.
  EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give instructions that all proceedings on behalf of Her Majesty before the Arbitrators appointed to meet at Geneva, pursuant to the Treaty of Washington be suspended until
  1928
  the claims included in the Case submitted on behalf of the United States and understood on the part of Her Majesty not to be within the province of the Arbitrators have been withdrawn,"
  said: My Lords, there is a Notice of some importance standing in my name on the Notice Paper to-day; but, as I am informed that the steamer bringing the despatch of the American Government, in reply to that of the Foreign Secretary, only arrived at mid-day on Saturday, off the coast of Ireland, and as I wish that your Lordships should have full time to consider this important subject, I propose to postpone my Motion till Monday, May 6.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the despatch has been received?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I called on General Schenck to-day, but did not find him at home. Subsequently he informed me that he was in hourly expectation of the despatch, and at 2 o'clock he wrote to me to say he had ascertained that it had arrived at Kingstown, and he expected to receive it by the Irish mail at 7 this evening.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BUCKHURSTasked, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session to render compulsory the Registration of Births in England and Wales?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYreplied that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had prepared a Bill on the subject; but in consequence of the extreme pressure of Public Business he had not been able to fix a day for its introduction. He hoped, however, that his right hon. Friend would soon be able to name a day for that purpose.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.