an elector may be damnified by voting at a by-election. Let me give an example. In December, 1905, as is well known, the Unionist Government resigned. A Liberal Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] If hon. Members opposite think they are going to get their Bill any quicker by interruption, they are mistaken. We are merely trying to clear up a difficulty. The new Government was formed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but it was understood that they must at once dissolve because they had not a majority in the then exist- 1780 ing Parliament. A General Election was imminent, and I know it was held by many election agents that the election expenses would begin before the actual dissolution of Parliament. Some doubt, it appears to me, might very well arise under this Clause, and assuming a vacancy occurred in that Parliament when the General Election was imminent and certain, might it not be held under this Clause, unless you have a definition, that that by-election took place during the continuance of the General Election? If that is so, my hon. Friend's contention is perfectly correct, and the unfortunate elector who voted in that by-election, which was not part of the General Election, might be damnified and guilty of a corrupt practice merely because he asked for a ballot paper. At all events, if a legitimate doubt arises, why not accept some definition? It will not hurt the Bill if you