HC Deb 22 May 1855 vol 138 cc920-46

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to cause the votes of the electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot at Parliamentary elections. He had been told, on more than one occasion since his notice had been on the paper, that he was bringing forward this question at a most disadvantageous time, when the thoughts of all were deeply interested in the vast war in which the country was, as he thought, rightly engaged, and their minds were perplexed and suffering from the effects of a series of victorious disasters. But he considered, on the other hand, that there never was a time when it was more needful that the people's House should be composed of Members freely and indifferently chosen by the people, and that this was not, nor ever could be, the case under the present electoral system. To those who hated the name of Parliamentary reform this war had charms, and to those who only assumed the garb of Reformers for expediency's sake and to please their constituents; the preoccupation of the minds of the people and rousing to arms this warlike nation was a seasonable relief; to many true and sincere reformers the mismanagement of the war, its fatal errors, its waste of blood and treasure, present so shocking a picture that they can think of no other reform than of the evil immediately before them. To this last-mentioned class he particularly addressed himself, and would endeavour to convince them that no better state of things could be reasonably hoped for or expected under the present representative system. He wished to impress on all true Reformers, and on the country—for it was almost useless to impress it on that House—that the blunders, disasters, and failures which had occurred in the various departments having the management of the war had mainly arisen from several perceptible causes. Among the first of these causes was this—because the Government of the country had become hereditary in, and the property of, a class, and because the House of Commons, being returned by that class, is no check upon it. And, even in the case of a change of Ministry, what did the people know about it? All they knew was this—that one set of aristocrats, 'squires and lawyers, tristes et afflicti, went out of office, and that another set of aristocrats, 'squires and lawyers, magnopere gaudentes, groped their way into office. Of the proceedings that afterwards took place they knew this—that the aristocrats on the Opposition bench railed against the Treasury bench, and complained of jobbery, red tape, and routine, and said—"Only let us get in, and you shall see what you shall see." Now, when they did get in what was seen? Why, that they inherited, by the political death of their opponents, the sacred edifices in Whitehall and Downing Street, and with them took possession of jobbery, red tape, and routine—embalmed in those sacred edifices and consecrated to aristocracy. Well, taught by disaster, the people were now fully alive to the evils of this system, and were desirous of inquiring into the cause. Could anything be more apparent? It was because the advisers of the Crown were only selected from a few great families who monopolised place and power, and who, not contented with the exclusive possession of the Upper House, monopolised a majority in the House of Commons; and the consequence was, that not only the Ministers of the Crown, but the leaders of the army and the heads of departments, were chosen not for their ability or merit, though they might possibly possess both, but because they belonged to families so powerful and possessed of such political influence that they could either make or mar a Ministry; and because the strength of this influence lies in the power which the aristocratic factions exercise over the votes of the electors—it is this malversation of the franchise that makes them omnipotent in Parliament. The aristocratic factions had desperate fights for place, differing on speculative points, but on the points affecting monopoly of government they were united as one man. He believed if places could be found for both of the aristocratic factions that the House of Commons would become one vast cage, and Whigs and Tories would become the happy family—political cats fraternising and reciprocating friendship with political rats. The people had grown sick of a system which had been the cause of the late disaster, which had rendered this country all but contemptible in the eyes of Europe—they were sick of generals selected from the Red Book, and of a Ministry selected from Burke's Peerage—of seeing middle-class merit give place to upper-class imbecility forced upon them by aristocratic influence, and of seeing the tried bravery of our soldiers in the East thrust aside by the courtly interests of the soldiers of the West. All this had perplexed them, and they would have an inquiry into the cause. He might be told that they had a Committee which had concluded its labours and was about to bring up its Report, but what assurance had he that this inquiry would not go the way of all others? That Committee would do its duty as other Committees had done before them—they would amass a vast amount of evidence in a blue book, and would, no doubt, come out with a stinging Report, upon which a measure would be framed that would find its way to the House of Commons. But if that measure interfered with the influence, the appointments, and the patronage of the peerage and the upper classes, it would either not pass through the House, or else it would be so mutilated in Committee as to become worthless and inoperative. Instances of this sort occurred daily. We had lately a splendid instance of how to get rid of popular clamour. After the last general election a cry arose throughout the country against the abominations of our electoral system; every one was, or pretended to be, shocked and ashamed at the Saturnalia the country had just passed through, our orgies having been more abandoned than usual. Even good Lord Aberdeen cried out for a change, and every Member of the Government had a pocket-handkerchief at his eyes, weeping over the depravity of the land. To be sure matters were very bad; intimidation, bribery, bargaining for seats, and perjury had done their worst for the creation of a Peer-packed House of Commons. Ministers were ready with a Reform Bill, which proved abortive—it was impossible to get hon. Gentlemen who represented small boroughs to vote for the destruction of those boroughs and for turning themselves out of Parliament. Something, however, must be done, as John Bull was not satisfied, and the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) determined upon the appointment of a Committee, which might act as a kind of safety valve. The Committee was composed of very able men—Tories, Whigs, and Radicals—and did its duty, and a Bill founded on its recommendation purporting to put down bribery and undue influence, called the "Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill," was introduced. Now observe this, whatever that Bill contained calculated to put down bribery was carefully erased in Committee, but the pretence it made of dealing with undue influence was so transparent and absurd that the House was perfectly charmed with it, and it passed not only through this House, but also through the House of Peers, with a flourish of drums and trumpets. The old Gentlemen in that House were quite delighted to see that they were able to pass a Bill which pretended to be a Reform Bill, while in reality it in no way interfered with their undue influence. He had before him a very clever letter upon the subject of that Bill, said to be from the pen of an eminent Parliamentary casuist. After going through the Bill clause by clause, the writer concluded by observing that the effect of the new Bill would be to render direct bribery and the direct use of undue influence more difficult and dangerous, but indirect and circuitous bribery by means of payment for fancied services, notices to tenants to quit without reason assigned, and secret influence would not be affected; that the penalty for giving or paying for treating attached only to a candidate and a stranger—a friend or a body of people might give meat, drink, and entertainment to any extent; that the Committee would have to decide in each case whether a voter had received such treating "corruptly" before he could lose his vote; that the prohibition to give a refreshment ticket to a voter on the days of nomination or polling was confined to those two days and to the voter; that although by the Standing Orders no election could be questioned later that fourteen days after the return, the election auditor was not to have the bills of expenditure until three months after the return; that the notification by the candidate to the auditor of his agent or agents, who alone had authority to expend money on his behalf, was the most cunning device to shield the candidate and cover corruption ever propounded; that the whole fry of election agents in a borough would work for the benefit of the candidate, who had secured himself from the penalty attaching to their acts by artful disclaimer; that every attempt had been made to damage the Bill in the House of Commons, and that after Members of Parliament had declined to make a declaration "that they will not knowingly hereafter make any illegal payments on account of being elected to Parliament," they might call the Act by any name they pleased, but all the world knew what they intended it to prove. The editor of The Times observed, with regard to that letter, as follows— If this estimate of the honesty and power of this Act be correct, and we have no doubt it is, the Act is one of those pompous professions meant to be inoperative. This pompous profession, this miserable, emasculated Act, a fit type of Ministerial and Parliamentary insincerity, represented the extent of the interference of Lord Aberdeen, of the noble Lords the Members for London and for Tiverton, and of the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary at War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a majority of Whigs and Tories of the House of Commons, in order to check the scandalous abuses of our electoral system against which one and all had expressed so much virtuous indignation. All that indignation, however, was invested in this emasculated Act of Parliament—fit type of Ministerial and Parliamentary insincerity. If such were the results of the Committee that investigated the evils of the last general election, they might fairly assume what would be the effect of the labours of the Committee which had lately been inquiring into the abuses and crying evils of the war. In the case of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act every clause hitting at the undue influence of Peers or the corrupt practices of the wealthy classes, was carefully erased by a House of Commons returned under that influence. Need he ask what would be the fate of any measure devised by that Committee now sitting on the mismanagement of the war which would in any way interfere with the monopoly of power enjoyed by the Peers and the upper classes in a House of Commons, the majority of which was returned by the Peers and the upper classes? He might just as well ask what would be the fate of the criminal at the bar if he were allowed to change places with the Judge and to pass sentence upon himself? He therefore came to the conclusion that before a healthy state of the executive departments of the Government could be produced, the rottenness at the heart of the House of Commons must be destroyed, and for that purpose a reform of our representative system was necessary. The first step of that reform was to give every elector the use of his legal and constitutional right of freely electing a Member of Parliament—a right which was now wrested from him by the aristocracy, the 'squirearchy, and the moneyocracy, and turned, as the nation must feel, to the worst of purposes. Now, as regards the working of this celebrated "Corruption Practices Prevention Act," so far as it has been tried, the result was precisely what was predicted by the writer in The Times, and so happily described by the Editor of that paper as a "pompous profession meant to be inoperative." There was a society in that metropolis called the Ballot Society, which had been at some pains to collect evidence as to the operation of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and he ventured to say that if the House required evidence of the luxurious crop of corruption which still flourished in our counties and boroughs they would have ample means of judging of it from the statement now before him—evidence as strong—it cannot be stronger—than that produced by Mr. Grote's Committee, which sat twenty years ago; the labours of which Committee went the same way as the labours of all Committees hitherto had gone which attacked the unconstitutional influence of the upper classes; blighted—to use a fashionable phrase—"under the cold shade of aristocracy." The society sent out queries, and received replies from boroughs where elections had taken place since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. The queries were as follows— 1. Is there any reason to believe that money, bribery, treating, or any other corrupt means took place at the late election for——: and if so, to what extent? 2. Have any tenants, tradesmen, or other parties, whose votes at former elections have been controlled by their landlords, customers, &c. voted against them at the late election for——? 3. If so, do you think the new Bribery and Intimidation Act enabled them to vote more independently? 4. Was the election 'screw' used as usual in the canvass? The first return he would read was from the borough of Abingdon.

  1. "1. Bribery to a considerable extent. Many voters promised who never voted at all.
  2. "2. Intimidation. Landlords and customers controlled as usual.
  3. "3. The new Act caused no perceptible difference.
  4. "4. The screw was used in several places; especially where there were debts."
Then came the following boroughs— LIVERPOOL. No. 1. Bribery.—Certainly not by the Liberals, and no proof of any by Tories. No. 2. Intimidation.—In so large a constituency can give no reply as yet. After an analysis of the voting, now in preparation, we may, perhaps, give an opinion. No. 3. The new Act, of course, can in no way touch undue influence, change of tradesmen, exclusive dealing, &c.; but, as regards the sale of votes, we imagine the fear of its operation acted beneficially. No. 4. The Screw.—There was little or no canvass on either side. The parties were not prepared with books, which form the necessary machinery for putting on the screw. [An hon. MEMBER: Who are the writers of these returns?] If the hon. Member would call upon him, he would give him all the information in his power; or if he would move for a Committee to inquire into the truth of these allegations, the Motion should have his support. He would now go on with the replies. NORWICH. No. 1. Bribery.—Yes; in sums from 5s. to 20s. No competitor; hence the market dull. No. 2. Intimidation.—None that I am aware of, unless by the screw. No. 3. New Act.—As far as intimidation goes, mere waste paper. No. 4. The Screw.—Yes; by both parties. The whole science of electioneering rests upon the knowledge of 'influences.' PORTSMOUTH. No. 1. No treating or bribery. No. 2. Intimidation.—Government influence so powerful that there has been no contested election for the last eighteen years. No. 3. The Last Act.—No trial of it. No man in his senses would resort to it for intimidation. No. 4. Screw.—The Government people gave it just one turn when a contest was threatened. When he last had the honour of addressing the House on this subject, he gave illustrations of the folly and danger of the theory, that the elective franchise was a trust, and for that reason refusing to protect the voter on the plea that the non-elector had a right to stand by and see how the elector discharged his trust. He on that occasion instanced the case of the Cork election, and showed how the non-electors put their trustees to the martyrdom of St. Stephen for what they considered a breach of trust. They had now bad another brilliant specimen from Ireland of the pleasures and advantages of open voting, at the election for the county of Cavan. The non-electors did not here do much violence to their trustees with stones, but they rather took a leaf from the martyrdom of Ridley and Cranmer, and actually roasted one gentleman until his ribs appear to have been well done—though they failed to roast his vote out of him. As for digging graves before the doors of recusant electors, that was a jocular mode of proceeding which was thought nothing of. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read an account of various outrages perpetrated at this election.] There was another peculiarity attending this election—300 tenants of Sir John Young came to the rescue of the Derbyite candidate. Query—Would those 300 tenants have gone to the rescue of the Derbyite candidate if Sir John Young had been in office under the Aberdeen Administration? He thought any one could easily answer that question. There, again, was a specimen of the unerring influence of the landlord over his tenantry, by which 300 men were moved as so many automata, and suddenly became converted from one opinion to another, and voted as if they were one man. When the string or wire was pulled by the landlord, they were perfectly passive in his hands. Sir John Young, like all other landlords, was the political monarch of his tenantry. He said—"Go to the poll, and vote for Derby." To hear was to obey. He said—"Go to the poll and vote for Aberdeen." "Aberdeen and Derby, Derby and Aberdeen"— Whiche'er your Majesty may please to name; Long cut, or short, to us is all the same. There was no man in that House who was not perfectly aware that there was no remedy for this but secret voting. He was not aware whether the hon. Member for Cavan was present or not. If he were present he invited him to stand between his constituents and oppression, and vote for the ballot. These men who had been roasted, ill-treated, and almost suffered martyrdom, deserved something at his hands. But if he would not give them the ballot, let him rise in his place and say—"If not, why not?" It was not his intention to repeat those arguments which have never been refuted. It was I not his present intention to show that there was cowardice in oppressing the poor unfortunate elector and making him violate his conscience under pain of ruin and no cowardice in seeking the safety of the secret and silent vote—the mode of voting provided for every kind of election except Parliamentary election. Neither was it his intention to prove the self-evident assertion, that voting in secret could not be cowardly in the poor man, since it was not cowardly or unmanly in the rich man. He should spare the House any reference to that weak line of defence to which the opponents of the ballot commonly resorted, and which he had demolished so often, simply reserving to himself the right of replying to them, if worthy of reply. He was happy to say the question of the ballot steadily progressed, though some few hon. Members had ratted from it; but it was very remarkable that they quitted the ballot when they changed from a large constituency to a snug borough or to a county where they were returned by the intimidation of the landlords. There have been two remarkable seceders from the ballot, both now Ministers of the Crown. Lord Panmure gave no better reason for voting against the ballot than that it was an unworthy institution since it had elected Louis the Emperor of the French. The right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) said it was no longer necessary from the increasing virtue of the upper classes. I think Lord Panmure is answered by the noble conduct of the ballot-elected Emperor. Where the increasing virtue of the upper classes was to be found he could not very clearly understand. If he were to judge by the details of the last election, certainly no symptom of increasing virtue among the upper classes was to be found there—on the contrary, they distinguished themselves greatly by intimidating tenants and spending large sums in the purchase of votes. But he had some hope of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because when defeated in Northumberland he began to cast a longing eye upon his old love which he had deserted, and loudly accused the Northumberland party of intimidation. The noble Lord who unseated him (Lord Lovaine) retorted upon him, "Do not talk of our Northumberland intimidation; look at home, what you Greys do." It seemed to him an interchange of civilities between the pot and the kettle; and as to the electors of Northumberland, what between a Grey and a Percy, they would certainly be none the worse for protected voting. Among those who had always been consistent in opposing the ballot was the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, now at the head of the Administration. Although until the end of the last Session he had never heard the noble Lord speak on the question; and certainly the noble Lord's effort to reply was a great triumph to the cause of the ballot; for when he reflected upon the skill in debate which the noble Lord possessed, his powers of argument, of wit, and of satire, and compared them with the weakness of his speech last Session, he came to the conclusion that the case for the ballot was very strong indeed. Now, although the noble Lord was consistent in his opposition, he was not very consistent in the arguments he used. His noble Friend did not enter into many arguments which could be met, but declaimed generally against the ballot. "Oh!" he said, "the ballot won't do; the hon. Member for Bristol has brought forward all cases of 'exaggeration'—all cases of intimidation, but my hon. Friend exaggerates these things." That was the general tone of the noble Lord's speech; but, with the experience of the election of 1852, he could not very well tell how he could exaggerate. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who were amused at his mistake, in using "exaggeration" for "intimidation" would tell him. Would his noble Friend allow him to call his attention to the time when he was defeated for Hampshire? Did he not think that some little intimidation was used on that occasion? Did he think the Hampshire' squires were perfectly innocent when he took refuge in the arms of snug little Tiverton? At the nomination at Tiverton on the 23rd of July, 1837, his noble Friend expressed himself in this manner— My belief is founded not merely on what I have heard from others, but my own observations. My belief is, that a system has been extensively pursued to deter the electors, by fear of injury to themselves and their families, from doing that which we heard read this morning—to elect freely and indifferently the person whom they may think fit to represent them in Parliament. Now, gentlemen, this is not a solitary case, it is the regular Tory practice; and you will hear, when you see the proceedings of the different elections, that the same thing has been practised whenever a Tory candidate has opposed men of liberal and reforming principles. If such was the opinion of the noble Lord in 1837, he wanted to know what change had come over the spirit of his dream to make him venture upon a charge of exaggeration after the election of 1852?—that election which could even shock Lord Aberdeen into becoming a Parliamentary reformer. He would now proceed to point out to the House some of the great authorities who from time to time had given their sanction to, and testimony in favour of, protected voting—and he would commence with one whose pithy sentence might well he inscribed on the ballot-box wherever that institution existed. Cicero said—"Tabella vindex tacita libertatis."

[The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote observations in favour of the ballot from David Hume, Blackstone, Bentham, Mill, President Jackson, C. Buller, Lord Althorp, Macaulay, and also the opinion of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, that the "exercise of a vote is not merely a political right; that expression of his opinion is a moral and religious right to the elector, in the discharge of which he should be protected,"] He found also an opinion which hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House would perhaps be inclined to respect. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had stated as follows— I am desirous of completing the machinery of the constitution by two measures, which will invest the people with what was once their birthright. These measures are triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot, and, unless these measures be conceded, I cannot apprehend how the conduct of the Government can ever be in harmony with the feelings of the people. Again, he found the same right hon. Gentleman saying— It is true that I avowed myself a supporter of the ballot, because a number of little towns are enfranchised with the privilege of returning as many Members to Parliament as the shires, and the nomination of these Members is placed in a small knot of hard-hearted rulers, opposed to everything noble and national, and exercising a usurious influence over the tradesmen, who are at once their slaves and their victims. He now had to thank the House for its kind indulgence; but, before sitting down, he was anxious to enter a caveat against being misquoted or misinterpreted, of which he had on former occasions too often had to complain. He had referred to the aristocratic element which so unconstitutionally pervaded the House and the army. It was sometimes very handy to avoid the true question by talking and vulgar abuse of the aristocracy; but he called upon every Member to bear witness that he never denied the valour or the abilities of the upper classes. He was ready to admit that our Royal and aristocratic soldiers had displayed the greatest gallantry at Alma, at Inkerman, and at Balaklava—gallantry equal to that displayed by the soldiers of the middle and lower classes, but not one jot more. It would be folly to deny the ability of the aristocracy, and if he were foolish enough to do so, he would be met immediately by a reference to a Palmerston, to a Russell, or to a Derby. But he thought it was a matter quite susceptible of proof that the army and the Ministry were monopolised by a class to the great detriment of both. He was unfashionable enough not to believe that my Lord Foppington, the hon. Tom Shuffleton, or Sir Charles Easy, who were placed in the army to keep them out of mischief, would make as good officers as men selected from the middle classes. He said that the sympathies of such men, their amusements and pursuits, did not lie in the direction of field days, early drills, and the economy of their regiments; but would rather be found in the London season, at Melton or at Newmarket. He could not consider such men so likely to make good soldiers as Brown, Jones, and Robinson, of the middle classes, who entered the army with no view beyond making it their study, their amusement, their bread. Let them not forget that this had been tested—God forbid that it ever should be so again! Let them not forget that an army led by princes, and officered by the flower of English nobility, proved no match for an army led by a brewer and officered by men of low degree. That Cromwell's Ironsides were superior to Charles's Life Guards—not because they were braver, but because they were more professional. He trusted, also, that because he had dwelt on another phase of the ballot question, he might not be accused of attributing to the ballot miraculous powers, or of its being the panacea for all evils; he said nothing of the sort, but had endeavoured to point out that without a change in our electoral system, we could hope for no permanent improvement in our Government Departments. Emancipate the elector, and he would do his duty; continue him in his bondage, and you would entail on the country its present evils and disasters. He asked for the ballot because it was the only key which could unlock the fetters of the elector and give him that weight in the administration of public affairs which the constitution of this country intended and the laws have guaranteed.


seconded the Motion, and said, that he had long been an advocate for the ballot. Having been in Belgium, in America, in France, in Sardinia, and in Switzerland, in all of which countries the practice of secret voting prevailed, he had uniformly found order, peace, and propriety prevailing at the elections there; while in this country, he was ashamed to say—and he spoke from experience—he had observed disorder, violence, and intimidation prevailing to an extent which was a disgrace to the nation. At his own election for Blackburn, large bodies of bludgeonmen from other towns were brought into the borough, who maltreated his supporters, and their violent conduct deterred many of the electors who had promised him their votes from going up to the polling booths. He was, therefore, desirous that the ballot should be established in this country, and would give his cordial support to the Motion. Major Feilden then read extracts from depositions and evidence taken immediately after his election, from parties prosecuting for damage to person and property in the borough, and for which he complained that there was no remedy, but at such an expense as to deter most men from encountering it. Investigation and punishment seldom followed upon such acts, and even when they did, the crime was rarely brought home to the real perpetrator and instigator of the misdemeanor. If perfect freedom of conscience was un-English, then perhaps it might be said that so also was secret voting, but not otherwise; and if every secret act was unmanly, then voting by ballot at clubs might be said to be such also. In the case of his own election, in a small constituency of about 1,300 electors, only 631 had recorded their votes in his favour, though he had promises previously from between 700 and 800; and had it not been for the undaunted heroism and determination of his friends, in the opinion of the great majority of the electors, Blackburn must have been misrepresented by the return of his opponent. He concluded by saying, that he looked upon the elective franchise as a trust, of which conscience alone was the test of its being honestly discharged, which could not be the case when the voter was subject to control and punishment. No Act of Parliament, such as the Corrupt Practices and Bribery Bill, would be of the slightest use where there was no sincere desire on the part of the Legislature to remedy the evil; and he accounted for their resistance to the Motion, in their fear to give the people what the law professed to bestow upon them; at present they enjoyed but a nominal elective franchise, without the real privilege of popular representation. He considered this question ought to be the test of Liberal principles in every constituency, as it was as much the elector's birthright as his right to vote at all.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to cause the Votes of the Electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of Ballot at Parliamentary Elections.


said, he had listened with attention to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), and, as his hon. Friend always succeeded in dressing up his case with great ingenuity and novelty, he had not been surprised to hear him introduce questions which it would be difficult to see had any connection with the ballot—such, for instance, as the state of the army in the Crimea and administrative reform—combining the various subjects together much as an advertiser in the newspaper, who headed his advertisement "War in the Crimea," and ended by a panegyric upon the merits of the article he wished to sell to the public. The hon. Gentleman had said much against the aristocracy of both sides of the House. Now, he (Lord Seymour) had listened to his hon. Friend with great surprise, because he had always considered that the House of Berkeley had been somewhat mixed up in certain proceedings of the aristocracy with regard to elections. He remembered the time when they were called "the Ameers of Scinde," and when it was said that their mode of conducting the elections in their county was characterised by so much aristocratic arrogance, that it was not to be tolerated by the freemen of England. The hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing of either party, and called them "pot and kettle," but what the hon. Gentleman was between the two he (Lord Seymour) was unable to say. Following the example of the hon. Gentleman, he would not enter into the old arguments upon this question, but he would give his vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend chiefly because he considered that publicity was the main essence of the representative system. At present the conduct of the highest personages in the realm was open to be canvassed by the public and by the press; even the most insignificant were not exempt from criticism, and who were the persons whose conduct the hon. Gentleman proposed to free from public examination? The hon. Gentleman said, there was one particular class of persons, and one particular action that ought to be concealed—that particular action being the production of a Member of Parliament. He was to be hatched in the dark; nobody was to know how he was produced, and everything connected with his production was to be conducted with secrecy, until he made his appearance from the ballot-box. Going in as one of the people, he would come out a Member of Parliament, and that would be all that anybody would know of the matter. And who were the parties whose conduct was to be exempted from examination? They were the 10l. householders—the retail dealers of the country. Latterly it had been the custom to attack various classes of society. The aristocracy had been attacked, the army had been attacked, and the navy had been attacked, and now he wished to say a word about the retail dealers. Without attacking them himself, he would call into court a gentleman who was no opponent of the retail dealer, who was neither a Conservative nor a Whig, but who was a strong Radical—namely, the editor of The Lancet—who told the public that every article of food, every article of medicine, of clothing, and of furniture, obtained from the retail dealer was contaminated, and corrupted; that wherever there was the possibility of concealment there was the practice of fraud. These were the class of persons with respect to whom the hon. Gentleman said "Let them have complete concealment and secrecy; veil their proceedings with mystery, and of all the various classes throughout the country let them alone have the benefit of secrecy and freedom from examination." And why were they to be exempted from the exposure to which all classes were subjected under the present representative system? It was said that they were forced into dishonest measures by the pressure placed upon them; but he wished to ask who it was who forced them to corrupt everything they sold and to adulterate all their drugs This was what was said of them by a great Radical authority—the writer in The Lancet—who said, further, that their proceedings had reached that disgraceful pitch that there must really he a law to alter the existing state of things. Competition and the attempt to undersell one another were said to be the causes which breed the retail dealer to adulterate his goods; but was there no competition for seats in Parliament? The hon. Gentleman had read a memorandum obtained from some Ballot Committee in which an opinion was given that bribery took place at every election, though there was not in all cases legal proof; but it was very well known that at every election the unsuccessful candidate said he had been defeated by unfair means, and regretted that he bad no legal proof that bribery had taken place. Now, what was the position in which the adoption of the principle of secret voting would place the honest and independent voter? Under the existing system a man of character and consistency carried with him great weight, and his vote was of considerable value in an election; but, if the measure of the hon. Member for Bristol was successful, that man would be reduced to the same level of degradation as the corrupt and dishonest voter. At present the great difficulty was to bring the electors to vote. They would not go to the poll—not because they were afraid, but because they did not think it worth while, and because they took no interest in the contests. At the last general election that was very generally the case; and if the hon. Members were really desirous of raising the character of the voter, they would endeavour to show him that the proper way to enforce his opinions would he for him to come forward and have the manliness to avow them. It was not by secrecy and concealment that the liberties at present enjoyed by the country had been obtained, and he did not think that the philosophy of Bentham, which had been quoted by the hon. Member in support of his proposition, had been so powerful and successful that it ought to be adopted on all occasions. On the contrary, he thought that the frippery of Bentham's philosophy had been torn to rags, and that there was but little of it left that was worth anything. The memory of Bentham had almost faded away, and he was now considered as a writer of perplexed philosophy, whose doctrines with regard to religion were hostile to Christianity.


said, he felt the reluc- tance which every new Member must experience in presenting himself to the House for the first time; but he should only trespass on their attention for a few moments, while he stated the reasons which induced him to give his vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He was unwilling to give a silent vote on this occasion, because he did not entirely agree in the sentiments of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, but he shared in a still less degree in the opinions that had been expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down. He voted for the Motion, not so much because he thought it was likely to prove a panacea for the evils that existed in our electoral system, but in the hope that it might tend to eradicate, or at least materially to diminish, those evils of which they were all aware, and which they all professed, at least, to deplore. He did not believe that the most perfect system which it was in the power of man to devise—he did not believe that any amount of safeguards, of checks, of balances, of elaborately contrived systems of voting—would be entirely sufficient to check bribery, so long as human nature remained what it was. So long as there were venal voters, so long, he thought, would votes be sold. But at the same time he believed that a measure such as that now proposed was very much calculated to check corruption in its grossest form. He thought that it would check the direct and scandalous traffic in votes that at present existed, though, perhaps, it would not altogether remove it. But there was another evil connected with the electoral system which appeared to him to be far greater than that of direct bribery—he meant the evil of intimidation;—because, while he had no sympathy whatever with the man who trafficked in his vote as a piece of merchandise, and sold it to the highest bidder, he had great sympathy with those persons who, entertaining conscientious convictions, and desiring honestly to exercise the privileges which had been given to them by the laws of the country, were yet afraid to do so from the circumstance that they knew that their own prosperity in life, and the prospects of their family, might be ruined by a conscientious adherence to that which they believed to be their duty. With those men, he repeated, he had much sympathy—for their present difficult position he felt deeply—and it was for their sake chiefly that he supported this Motion. On former occasions when this point was discussed, it had been stated that intimidation had been much diminished, and that it might be looked upon as one of the evils of the past; but surely there was no Member of that House who had any experience, however slight, in contested elections of late years, but must know that such practices still existed, and were now in as great force as ever. It would be useless to multiply instances; but here was a letter, written by a landlord during the last general election, for the purpose of influencing the voter to whom it was addressed:—"I understand you are doubtful which way to vote, and I desire you to vote for Mr. So and So; for if you do not do that, you leave my farm." [Cries of "Name, name."] He was not at liberty to give the name, but he could state that the letter he held in his hand was the original, and no copy. The noble Lord who had just addressed the House had told them that it was not his intention to repeat the arguments that had been used against the Motion on former occasions, and he was glad to hear it, because, with all his respect for the persons who had used them, he must say the arguments they had brought forward in reply to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol appeared always to him to be most weak and inconclusive. The noble Lord had to-night given them new arguments, and said that this was a Motion to protect retail dealers. He (Mr. Gordon) was sorry to hear any class attacked in that House by any Member, whether they were high or low; but he must say that the terms in which the noble Lord had spoken of a large and important, and he would say honourable, class of the community, were at the least as offensive as the terms in which the hon. Member opposite was said to have spoken of the aristocracy. He did not believe the retail dealers in this country were systematically the corrupt body the noble Lord had described them to be; but if they were so, a measure which removed from them much of the existing temptation to those external influences would be all the more beneficial. The noble Lord also told them that publicity was the essence of representation; and he granted that publicity was essential to it. In that House they represented the constituencies of the United Kingdom, and he thought it was most desirable that every vote they gave, and all they said and did, should be published in the most distinct and unequivocal manner, in order that their constituents should know how they had discharged the trust they had committed to them. But whom did the electors represent? It might in some part be said that they represented the country; but that was not a trust which was delegated to them by election. It was wisely said that certain persons should exercise the right—which was the right of the country at large—of electing the representatives of the country to Parliament, and it was the duty of their representatives to do whatever they did publicly, but he could not see how the same argument applied to the electors. The noble Lord spoke incidentally of the difficulty of getting up the voters at elections, and of Course those difficulties would always exist so long as this system of intimidation was carried on. People told him they would be glad to give him their votes, but were afraid to do so, and accordingly they did not vote at all; and he believed that would be found to be the case at every election. The real cause did not arise from the indifference of the people of England to exercise their political privileges, but was occasioned by the difficulties thrown in their way when they desired to exercise those privileges according to their conscience and sense of duty. He should give his support to this Motion, then, because he desired to relieve a large number of his fellow-subjects from that intimidation under which he believed they now suffered, and because he saw no constitutional objection to the measure and thought it would be productive of great practical benefit.


thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have been in the position to give the name of the party who had written the letter he had quoted before he ventured to read it to the House; because, as the matter at present stood, they were left in doubt whether the writer was one of the "bigoted Tories" who had been described by the hon. Member for Bristol, or one of the pure Liberals who sat on the other side of the House. The noble Lord the Member for Totness had talked of the difficulty of inducing voters to go to the poll, and the hon. Member for Beverley had ascribed that difficulty to a system of intimidation which prevented them giving their votes. He was satisfied that if the matter were inquired into it would be found that intimidation was not the cause which induced the people to abstain from recording their votes; and as several cases had been instanced on the one side, he would give them an instance on the other. A remarkable thing occurred connected with the last election for the populous city of Norwich. A few days subsequent to the last election, an article appeared in a Liberal newspaper in that city complaining of the result of the election, and ascribing the return of the Conservative candidate to the Liberal electors of the lowest class, who could not be persuaded to go to the poll because there was no one to pay them for their votes. That hardly tallied with the statement of the hon. Member for Beverley. He gave the hon. Member for Bristol credit for the ability with which he had advocated the ballot, but he believed that the hon. Member was an exception to his class, and was one of the very few clever men who believed that the ballot would effect the purpose ascribed to it. He believed the whole question of the ballot lay in a nutshell; and it was this—whether they would pass an enactment by which the system of bribery should be perpetuated in this country for ever, without the possibility of detection. That was the whole question of the ballot in two words. He defied any one to say that any electioneering agent concerned for Gentlemen on either side could not be found who could tell the price in pounds, shillings, and pence of every borough and county in the kingdom if they would only give him the ballot.


said, he could satisfy the curiosity of the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) as to the position of the hon. Member for Bristol between the pot and the kettle—the hon. Member was the steam; he represented the force of public opinion, which must be brought to bear strongly upon the House before they could hope to carry the measure. But he rose to call attention to the fact that no allusion had been made to the effect which the proposed measure might have on Ireland, where intimidation at elections was practised to a far greater extent than in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. Under a late arrangement the registration of voters in Ireland was compulsory, and whether a man attended at the registration sessions or not he was placed on the list of voters. Formerly a man might escape the consequences that would follow if he exercised the franchise in a manner conducive to his interests and in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, by declining to register his vote, but he was now obliged to do so, and was thereby exposed to an ordeal which it was impossible for any man unacquainted with Irish constituencies to understand. In the county which he represented one man had, within six months, six distinct distresses levied upon him for rent. [An hon. MEMBER: Why did he not pay his rent?] He would answer that question; it was subsequently found, when an ejectment was brought at quarter sessions, that the man did not owe a half-year's rent when the ejectment was brought, and the ejectment was dismissed. In another case a lease had been purchased which was granted by Lord Norbury with a covenant that the tenant should not assign without the consent of his landlord. The tenant, not being aware of the covenant, underlet; and because the party had voted for him (Mr. O'Brien) an action of ejectment was brought, the covenant was declared to be broken, and the lease was forfeited. He should be sorry to say that landlords in Ireland had recourse to intimidation on all occasions, but he defied any man to stand up and say that landlord influence was not exercised in every county in Ireland. He was informed that acts of the kind had taken place at the late election for Cavan, and though the Gentleman returned was, he believed, a man of the highest character, he was told that men in that county had received notice because they had honestly acted in accordance with their political opinions. He believed if the franchise was more extended freedom of voting would be the best possible thing, but under present circumstances he did not know of any other protection than that suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol.


read a letter addressed by an hon. Member of that House (Mr. O. Gore) in answer to a memorial which had been forwarded to him by an Irish tenant of his, refusing to retain him any longer as a tenant, in consequence of the vote which the tenant had given at the last election for the county of Sligo. He had also been informed that since the last election for the county of Cavan a great number of notices to quit had been served by Lord Farnham and Mr. A. Nesbitt, on tenants of theirs, in consequence of the votes which they had given at that election. These, he believed, were intended as ex post facto threats, with a view to future elections. Such instances as these proved, he contended, that Irish electors needed some such protection as was proposed by this Bill to preserve them from the effects of exercising the electoral franchise according to their own convictions.


said, in reference to a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Bristol in regard to the late election for Norwich, that if the hon. Member had been informed that he (Sir S. Bignold) had gained his election by bribery or by intimidation, he had received information which was totally without foundation, and he felt quite sure that there was not an inhabitant of Norwich with the slightest claim to veracity who would have returned any such answer to the questions which the hon. Member said had been sent down to Norwich on the subject. He had polled 3,720 votes; his majority had commenced in the first half hour of the election, and had continued increasing till the close of the poll. He had been an active citizen of Norwich for 40 years, and he believed he owed his election to the fact that during that period he had obtained the confidence of his fellow-citizens.

MR. BURROWES rose also to correct a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Bristol. The hon. Member had related a story of a voter having been roasted during the late election for Cavan in consequence of his refusing to vote a particular way; but, having made inquiries in the county, he had not been able to ascertain that any such occurrence had taken place, and be believed the hon. Member's statement was totally without foundation. So was the hon. Member's remark, that had Lord Aberdeen's Government continued in power, Sir John Young's tenantry would never have been forced to vote for a Derbyite candidate; for the truth was, that Sir John Young did not in any way interfere with his tenants at the last election. He left them to do precisely as they pleased, and the great majority of them had supported him (Mr. Burrowes).


said, he had an Amendment to propose to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, which would widen its scope and greatly increase its efficiency: the effect of it would be that in all divisions in that House the votes of Members should also be taken by ballot. There was a great talk in the country just now about administrative reform; but he was convinced that the very best administrative reform which could be adopted would be to do away with the necessity of having a patronage-feeder in that House. That would be the effect of adopting vote by ballot in the divisions of that House. There would be no more places to be given away then for voting for this Member or that Member, and constituents would find it of little use making applications to their Members; for, if they did, there would be nothing for them. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) would then be able to do away with more of those nice liltle jobs which he was I always assaulting,—commissions, for instance, with large salaries attached—head commissioner 2,000l. a year, second commissioner 1,000l., and so on. He was not an old Member of that House, but from what he had seen, that House required the application of the ballot far more than any borough he had ever seen, and, he believed, more than any constituency in the kingdom, for the whippers-in could always obtain a majority as long as they went about with their pockets full of places. The manner in which the Government patronage was exercised was disgraceful, and to that he attributed all the horrors of the Crimean campaign. The proper men were not put into the proper places, but those only were chosen to fill offices who had Friends in that House to vote for the Government. The hon. Member for Bristol deserved little credit for the manner in which he lectured the aristocracy of the country, for, although he (Mr. Michell) was not connected with the aristocracy, he believed that, were it not for the House of Lords, the country would soon be in a state in which no patriot would desire to see it. Their gallant commanders, their Wellingtons and Hardinges, who were the glory of the country all over the world, sprang from the aristocracy, and it ill became the hon. Member for Bristol to condemn it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, the insertion in the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, the words, "and of Members in divisions in this house."

The Amendment, not being seconded, fell to the ground.


supported the motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol on the ground that the ballot was required for the protection of the voter.


Sir, I should be sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol were to imagine it possible, which he might do from what he has said, that he had convinced me by the amusing, though I think not very argumentative speech which he has made to the House this evening. In the very short address which I shall make to the House, I shall expose myself, no doubt, to the reproach which I have often heard made by the advocates of the ballot, that those who oppose it do nothing but reproduce old arguments; but believing that the arguments upon which the ballot has been resisted are conclusive in their nature, it seems to me you might as well complain that there is nothing new in the demonstrations of Euclid. Now, my objection to the ballot is that which has been stated by my noble Friend, viz., that publicity or responsibility for public opinion is an essential principle of our representative constitution. I hold, in opposition to the hon. Member for Bristol, that the right or privilege of election is a trust confided by law to a certain portion of the community, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the community at large. I hold, therefore, that every person who is invested with a public trust ought to discharge that trust in the face of the whole country, and that every man should have an opportunity of knowing how the trust has been executed, and be enabled to inquire how the individual entrusted with it has acted, and why he has so acted, in the discharge of his trust. It has often been proved that though there may at present be bribery in some cases, and intimidation in others, that secret voting would not be a cure for either of those grievances. Now, we have been told, as we have often been told before, that we ought to follow the example of the United States, and that in the United States votes are given by ballot. But the example of the United States is a complete mistake as bearing upon the proposal now under consideration. It is perfectly true that in the United States votes are given by ballot, but they do not profess to be given in secret; secrecy is not the object in view there, but the mode of electing by ballot is a short and simple method of giving votes for several elections going on at the same time. It is not, therefore, for the purpose of secrecy that the ballot is adopted; it is for the purpose of convenience; and so far from voting being secret, it is well known that in the United States every man who votes is as proud of his vote as are the men who vote in England, and would scorn to have their votes recorded in secrecy. But is it proposed to make it compulsory that voting shall be carried on in secret? Because if that were the law, it would be degrading to the national character, and I say no Englishman would submit to it. I say that no law you could pass would compel the majority of electors of England to vote in secret, no law could compel the people to suppress the political opinions they entertain. Sir, the majority of the electors would evade the law and give their votes in public; and it would be only the few who would go sneaking to the poll for the sake of screening themselves, from some personal inconvenience, but who would thereby become objects of obloquy and degradation in the eyes of their fellow-countrymen. Then, Sir, I say these are the short reasons why I think this proposal of vote by ballot is one which Parliament ought not to adopt. I think it would be ineffectual for the purpose for which it is proposed, and I think also it would become a great public evil. The House was much amused by the proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) but I think there was much more logic in that proposal than in the original Motion. You want to secure the elector from personal inconvenience; you want to secure the carrying out of a public object more effectually by enabling every man to act according to his own feeling; but if you want to screen individuals from such inconveniences in the discharge of their public duty, why are not Members of this House entitled to the same protection. If you intend it as a public measure for the purpose of enabling men more freely to perform a public duty, I would ask you whether the duty which is performed by the elector can for an instant be put into competition with the important functions exercised by Members of this House? Well, then, will any man tell me that Members of this House always act according to their own opinions. Will any man tell me that votes are not constantly given here in deference to the pressure of constituencies rather than from the sense the Member entertains of what is best for the public interest. Why, we all know that it is so; and if you require that the elector should be allowed to record his vote in secret in order the better to perform his public duty, I say that the argument has tenfold force as applicable to Members of this House. But, Sir, I should be sorry to see such an innovation introduced. The same principle upon which the elector is bound to perform his duty in the face of the public, becoming thereby liable to public responsibility, has also a tenfold force with regard to Members of this House; and therefore, whatever may be the advantage in point of logic of the proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin over that of the hon. Member for Bristol, I say that the argument is brought to a reductio ad absurdum, and only proves that according to the principles of the constitution of this country we ought not to adopt a measure which tends to withdraw from public responsibility the public or political acts of any person intrusted with any right which that constitution vests in him. On these grounds, Sir, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion.


, amid loud cries of "Divide," expressed his intention to support the Motion.


replied: In answer to the allusion made by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) to elections in Gloucestershire, in which certain members of his (Mr. Berkeley's) own family were concerned, he begged to state that he had never interfered personally in the proceedings in question, and that if he had refrained that night from touching on those proceedings in the course of his argument, it only was from a feeling that the House would have considered it bad taste on his part to refer to them.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 218: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.
Acton, J. De Vere, S. E.
Adair, H. E. Dillwyn, L. L.
Adair, R. A. S. Duffy, C. G.
Alcock, T. Duke, Sir J.
Anderson, Sir J. Duncan, Visct.
Atherton, W. Duncan, G.
Ball, J. Duncombe, T.
Barnes, T. Ellice, E.
Bass, M. T. Esmonde, J.
Baxter, W. E. Ewart, J. C.
Bell, J. Fenwick, H.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Ferguson, J.
Biddulph, R. M. FitzGerald, Sir J.
Biggs, W. FitzGerald, J. D.
Blake, M. J. Forster, C.
Bland, L. H. Forster, J.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Fortescue, C. S.
Brady, J. Fox, W. J.
Bright, J. Freestun, Col.
Brocklehurst, J. Gardner, R.
Brockman, E. D. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Brotherton, J. Glyn, G. C.
Brown, H. Goderich, Visct.
Byng, hon. G. H. C. Goodman, Sir G.
Challis, Mr. Ald. Gordon, hon. A.
Cheetham, J. Gower, hon. F. L.
Clay, Sir W. Grace, O. D. J.
Clifford, H. M. Gregson, S.
Cobbett, J. M. Grenfell, C. W.
Cobden, R. Greville, Col. F.
Coffin, W. Hadfield, G.
Cowan, C. Hall, Sir B.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Hankey, T.
Crook, J. Hastie, Alex.
Crossley, F. Hastie, Arch.
Currie, R. Headlam, T. E.
Dashwood, Sir G. H. Henchy, D. O'C.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Hindley, C.
Deasy, R. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Hutt, W. Perry, Sir T.E.
Jackson, W. Phillimore, J. G.
Johnstone, J. Pigott, F.
Keating, R. Pilkington, J.
Keating, H. S. Price, W. P.
Keogh, W. Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Kershaw, J. Reed, J. H.
King, hon. P. J. L. Ricardo, J. L.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Ricardo, O.
Kirk, W. Ricardo, S.
Langston, J. H. Rice, E. R.
Langton, H. G. Robartes, T. J. A.
Laslett, W. Sadlier, J.
Layard, A. H. Scholefield, W.
Lee, W. Scobell, Capt.
Lindsay, W. S. Scully, F.
M'Cann, J. Scully, V.
MacGregor, John Seymour, W. D.
M'Mahon, P. Shee, W.
Marjoribanks, D. C. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Martin, J. Smith, J. A.
Massey, W. N. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Meagher, T. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Miall, E. Strickland, Sir G.
Milligan, R. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Milner, Sir W. M. E. Talbot, C. R. M.
Mitchell, T. A. Tancred, H. W.
Moffatt, G. Thompson, G.
Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W. Thornely, T.
Morris, D. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Mowatt, F. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Muntz, G. F. Vivian, H. H.
Murrough, J. P. Walmsley, Sir J.
North, F. Warner, E.
O'Brien, P. Waterpark, Lord
O'Brien, C. Watkins, C. L.
O'Brien, J. Watson, W. H.
O'Connell, D. Wells, W.
O'Flaherty, A. Wickham, H. W.
Oliveira, B. Wilkinson, W. A.
Osborne, R. Willcox, B. M'G.
Otway, A. J. Williams, W.
Paget, Lord A.
Pechell, Sir G. B. TELLERS.
Peel, Sir R. Berkeley, H.
Pellatt, A. Feilden, M. J.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bunbury, W. B. M'C.
Adderley, C. B. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Alexander, J. Burrowes, R.
Annesley, Earl of Butt, I.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cairns, H. M'C.
Bagge, W. Campbell, Sir A. I.
Bailey, Sir J. Chelsea, Visct.
Bailey, C. Child, S.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Cholmondeley, Lord H.
Ball, E. Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.
Baring, H. B. Christy, S.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Clive, R.
Baring, T. Cocks, T. S.
Barrington, Visct. Codrington, Sir W.
Barrow, W. H. Colvile, C. R.
Bateson, T. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Beaumont, W. B. Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Bennet, P. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Bignold, Sir S. Cubitt, Mr. Ald.
Blackburn, P. Dalrymple, Visct.
Booth, Sir R. G. Davies, D. A. S.
Bramley-Moore, J. Denison, E.
Brand, hon. H. Denison, J. E.
Buck, G. S. Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Duff, G. S. Lisburne, Earl of
Duncombe, hon. O. Lyttleton, hon. E. R.
Duncombe, hon. W. E. Lock hart, W.
Dundas, G. Lovaine, Lord
Dungarvan, Visct. Lowther, hon. Col.
Dunne, Col. Lushington, C. M.
Du Pre, C. G. Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.
East, Sir J. B. Macartney, G.
Egerton, Sir P. Mackie, J.
Egerton, W. T. MacGregor, James
Egerton, E. C. Malins, R.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Mandeville, Visct.
Elmley, Visct. Manners, Lord G.
Euston, Earl of Manners, Lord J.
Farnham, E. B. March, Earl of
Farrer, J. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Fellowes, E. Miles, W.
Ferguson, Sir J. Michell, W.
Filmer, Sir E. Monck, Visct.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Morgan, O.
Forster, Sir G. Mowbray, J. R.
Franklyn, G. W. Mulgrave, Earl of
Frewen, C. H. Mundy, W.
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Naas, Lord
Gaskell, J. M. Neeld, John
George, J. Newark, Visct.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Newport, Visct.
Gladstone, Capt. Noel, hon. G. J.
Goddard, A. L. North, Col.
Granby, Marq. of Ossulston, Lord
Greaves, E. Packe, C. W.
Greenall, G. Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Greene, T. Palk, L.
Grogan, E. Palmer, Robert
Gwyn, H. Palmer, Roundell
Hale, R. B. Palmerston, Visct.
Halford, Sir H. Patten, J. W.
Hall, Gen. Peel, F.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B. Peel, Gen.
Harcourt, G. G. Percy, hon. J. W.
Harcourt, Col. Phillips, J. H.
Hardinge, hon. S. C. Phillimore, R. J.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Powlett, Lord W.
Heard, J. I. Pritchard, J.
Heathcote, Sir G. J. Repton, G. W. J.
Heathcote, G. H. Robertson, P. F.
Heathcote, Sir W. Rolt, P.
Heneage, G. F. Russell, Lord J.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Russell, F. C. H.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Seymer, H. K.
Hervey, Lord A. Seymour, H. D.
Holford, R. S. Shirley, E. P.
Horsfall, T. B. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hotham, Lord Smith, W. M.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Smith, A.
Hudson, G. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Jermyn, Earl Spooner, R.
Johnstone, Sir J. Stafford, A.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Stafford, Marq. of
Jones, Adm. Stanhope, J. B.
Jones, D. Starkie, Le G. N.
Kendall, N. Stirling, W.
King, J. K. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Knatchbull, W. F. Stuart, W.
Knight, F. W. Sturt, H. G.
Knightley, R. Sutton, J. H. M.
Knox, hon. W. S. Thesiger, Sir F.
Langton, W. G. Thornhill, W. P.
Lascelles, hon. E. Tollemache, J.
Lennox, Lord A. F. Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Tudway, R. C.
Lewis, rt. hn. Sir G. C. Tyler, Sir G.
Vance, J. Wigram, L. T.
Vansittart, G. H. Williams, T. P.
Vernon, G. E. H. Wilson, J.
Vernon, L. V. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Vivian, J. E. Woodd, B. T.
Vyvyan, Sir R. R. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Vyse, Col. Wynn, Lieut.-Col.
Waddington, H. S. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Walcott, Adm. Wynne, W. W. E.
Walsh, Sir J. B. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Welby, Sir G. E. TELLERS.
Whiteside, J. Seymour, Lord
Whitmore, H. Bentinck, G. W. P.

The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Thursday