This is a very long and rather elaborate clause. The aim is one with which we all sympathize, I am sure. It is to provide that a commercial traveller, a railway employee, a sailor, or any other voter who in the ordinary pursuit of his vocation is obliged to be absent at the time of of the election shall not lose his vote, and provision is made whereby he may vote at what is called an advance poll. I want to offer a suggestion to the minister which I think is worthy of his consideration. The purpose of this provision is undoubtedly a good one, but it seems to me the machinery is very elaborate and must be very expensive. Why could not provision be made, as in the case of a joint stock company, for instance, to let the few voters, because they will be few in proportion to the total electorate, who would avail themselves of this provision vote by proxy? There may be a giving away of the secrecy of the vote *by that method, but only to a very small extent indeed. Why could not a sailor or a railway employee who happens to be away empower his brother, or cousin, or sister, or mother, or anybody else, to vote for him? The only objection that can be offered to that is the lack of secrecy, but as a matter of fact nine men out of ten make no secrecy as to how they intend to vote. I think the suggestion is worthy of the minister's consideration. The machinery provided here is elaborate and expensive, and I think the same good end could be served at much less expense by allowing these men to vote by proxy. I need not elaborate the argument, but I would ask the minister to consider whether it is not a proper suggestion.