Might I point out that about eight months ago this House adopted the Franchise Act in which appeared section 101, and I make this argument just to show that ,1 am not guilty of any inconsistency or departure from principle; I am endeavouring to be consistent with what the House did eight months ago. That section as adopted provided for the use, in the vote to be taken under the Canada Temperance Act in 1920, of the lists as prepared for the provincial elections in 1919. That vote was not taken in 1920. Had it been taken, this very restriction which I propose now, requiring two months residence in electoral districts, would be in the Act. I did not hear any objection to that then, and I do not think any could have been made. Why the objection should be made now, I do not understand. I am sure the amendment which I have moved is not going to assist the temperance cause in any way, because the great majority of the voters in the rural districts are, I believe, in favour of prohibition and have always so voted, and if electors in the rural districts are disfranchised, the tendency will be to reduce the vote for prohibition. That is not the point I have in mind in moving this amendment. The provision requiring local residence is a good one in any election Act, and for that reason we should preserve it for this vote which it is proposed to take.