HC Deb 20 March 1860 vol 157 cc935-57
MR. H. BERKELEY

, who on rising to address the House from the Opposition benches was received with cheers from the Ministerial side, said, that probably hon. Gentlemen who cheered, because they fancied he had deserted them, felt in their own consciences that they deserved desertion. He was about to make a proposition which he had often made before in vain, and he expected to make it in vain again that night. Nevertheless it was his duty to persevere in keeping the question alive, and he had never felt that duty I more imperative than on an occasion, when they had before them a so-called Reform Bill, without that protection to the elector which was doubly essential in any measure extending the franchise to the poorer classes. He must ask the House to permit him to go back to the severely contested general election of 1852, in which both the great parties who played at battledore and shuttlecock with the Government of the State exerted themselves to the utmost to gain or keep possession of Downing Street, and the grossest corruption and electoral abuse was extensively practised. The effect was so sensibly felt that it was scarcely possible for those who encouraged corruption most, to turn away from the complaints which were made, and the Earl of Aberdeen stated that our electoral system was such that no man could be enamoured of it. Something therefore must be done. It was not, however, really sought to amend the system, but only to go through the form of doing so. A Select Committee was accordingly appointed, on which many distinguished Members of that House sat—and among them was his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). Some time after the appointment of the Committee, he (Mr. Berkeley) met the hon. Member, and asked him what they were doing. He answered they were doing nothing, and he had got sick of the matter and come away. In due time, however, the Committee made its Report, and on that Report was based the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, in which also was faithfully exemplified the great principle of "How Not to Do It." This Bill met with the approval of the House, more particularly of its legal Members, and, being seen to be worthless, it was likewise received with open arms and passed with great satisfaction in "another place." Avery clever analysis of its pro- visions appeared in The Times newspaper, made by the late Mr. Coppock, under the signature of "J. C.;" and Mr. Coppock expressed his belief that all the world must know what the Legislature intended by enacting such a measure. Thereupon the Editor of The Times, endorsing Mr. Cop-pock's opinion, said the Bill was one of those "pompous professions which are meant to be inoperative." The experience of 1857, the first occasion on which the measure came into force, fully justified the character that The Times had given of it. In 1859, again, whenever it was used, it was followed by one universal yell of execration, it being proved to deserve the name of the "Corrupt Practices Encouragement Act" rather than that of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. When Parliament re-assembled in 1860 an intimation was made that something was to be done with this Act, He was astonished at the rumour, and would not believe it. He thought if anything was really to be done, that the House was going to hold some grand Fetish ceremony over it, that the Sergeant-at-Arms would be instructed to burn the Bill in Palace Yard, and that the bells of St. Margaret's church would be rung in exultation. Nothing of the sort. The hon. and learned Member for Maryle bone took it in hand, and when a lawyer got hold of a bad thing he would never leave it; he would tinker it and hammer at it till he made it tenfold worse than ever. Another Select Committee was to sit upon it, but what on earth they were to do with it passed the comprehension of men. Attorney Generals, and Gentlemen who hoped to be Attorney Generals, present Ministers and ex-Ministers, were to congregate round this Act like so many crows over carrion. They were to examine witnesses touching the Ballot; but when he knew the majority of the Committee were dead against the Ballot he had no sort of faith either in them or in the House, should they, contrary to his expectation, report in favour of that measure. He might fairly ask the House to pass the first reading of his Bill that night, and allow it the same chance as the Bills of those two hon. and learned Gentlemen, the Members for Nottingham and Suffolk (Mr. Mellor and Sir F. Kelly). His measure had at its back some 230 Members, the majority of those who kept the noble Lord in power; and the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and two Members of the Cabinet whose votes he hoped to have that night, were also among the supporters of the Ballot. He did not, however, expect that his Bill would be treated with the consideration to which it was entitled. The Bill was founded on a principle calculated to give the electors that protection at the polling booth which they so eminently required and to secure purity of election, the absence of which was so foul a blot on the national escutcheon. When he looked back at the names of those by whom he had been opposed upon this question he experienced mingled feelings of astonishment, satisfaction and regret. He was astonished at the vast amount of talent which had been arrayed against him, and satisfied at the miserably feeble arguments to which it had condescended. When he enumerated the names of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who had opposed this question, the House would at once see how fearfully overmatched he (Mr. Berkeley) must be. Among those who had opposed the Ballot were the honoured names of Viscount Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Sir J. Graham, Sir G. Grey, Mr. S. H. Walpole, Mr. S. Estcourt, and Sir G. C. Lewis, men of undoubted talent and great logical powers, and all practised debaters; yet, having looked through their speeches in Hansard, he declared on his conscience that he had not found one valid argument in them all. It was with regret that he was obliged to add that he had risen from the perusal of their speeches under the painful impression that they were disingenuous, that the thoughts of these distinguished speakers were apart from their words, and that they were opposed to the protection of the voter for some other reason than that which they alleged in that House. Their arguments reminded him of the attempt made by the hon. and learned Member sitting near him (Sir F. Kelly), who, when defending a poisoner, endeavoured to persuade the jury that the death of the victim had been caused by eating apples, the pips of which had generated prussic acid in the system of the poisoned person, but the jury, of course, scouted the idea out of court. Just that sort of applepip argument was used against the ballot, but those who used it had the advantage of addressing not an unbiassed jury, but an assembly a great part of which was returned to that House by the influence of the aristocracy through the medium of the institution of open voting which they were defending. The speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, (Viscount Palmerston) of which he had made ample notes from Hansard, contained nothing but the weakest platitudes. He could discover nothing like serious reasoning. The noble Viscount said that open voting was manly and English, and that secret voting was unmanly and un-English. He said it was manly to vote in public, and yet on many occasions he voted in secret himself. Then what did "un-English" mean? Something contrary to the manners and customs of England. How, then, could the Ballot be un-English when it was used in all elections except Parliamentary and municipal ones? [Cries of "No, no,"—"Parochial Elections," and "Public Companies."] It is employed at the Bank of England, at the Charter House, also at Dulwich College, and in elections of county constables; and even the proof of some exceptions would not bear out the assertion that it was un-English. The noble Lord also stated that the elective franchise was a trust—a proposition which was entirely refuted in an able speech by the hon. and learned Attorney General, but which the noble Lord rather dictatorially than argumentatively established to his own stisfaction by the assertion. "All the world knows it is a trust." This mode of reasoning reminded him of that adopted by Peter in the Tale of a Tub, who in order to prove to John and Martin that a brown loaf was a shoulder of mutton said, "Look, gentlemen, to convince you what a pair of blind and obstinate puppies you are [Query himself and Sir R. Bethell?] I will use but this plain argument:—this is good, natural mutton as ever came out of Leaden-hall Market, and eternally confound you both if you venture to say otherwise." The noble Lord's argument and that of Peter might be classed under the same category. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument that the franchise was a trust, the conditions of the trust were that the electors should vote freely and indifferently without fear of punishment and without hope of reward. How did publicity assist the discharge of that trust? Not at all. On the contrary, it impeded it, because it hindered many persons from voting according to their consciences, and prevented tens of thousands of electors from going to the poll, and tens of thousands more from placing their names upon the register. As for equal responsibility, where was it? A rich squire could vote as he pleased, but not so the tenant-at-will or the small tradesman, whose livelihood depended upon his vote. Well might be exclaim You take my life, When you do take the means by which I live"— and he carried on his shoulders the responsibility of his own ruin. He now came to another of his formidable opponents—Sir George Grey.

MR. SPEAKER

It is contrary to the rules of the House to mention any Member by name.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he would bow with submission to the correction, but he mentioned Sir George Grey as one of the speakers in a Debate which took place fifteen years ago.

MR. SPEAKER

What the hon. Member said was, "I now come to Sir George Grey." That is not the correct way of referring to a Member of the House.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, that perhaps he ought to have stated that he alluded to a Debate of fifteen years ago, in which Sir George Grey was one of the principal speakers.

MR. SPEAKER

I have reminded the hon. Member of what is the rule of the House, and am sure that with his Parliamentary experience and practice he will keep within it.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he would refer to the right hon. Gentleman as his right hon. Friend who had been opposed to him some fifteen years ago, when a Motion with regard to the Ballot was brought forward by Sir Henry Ward. The right hon. Gentleman had proviously voted for the Ballot, and then he voted against it, the reason he assigned being that his first constituents were in favour of the Ballot, and his second constituents were opposed to it. That might be a valid reason for his right hon. Friend, but it appeared to be a strange foundation for legislation, Another assertion of the right hon. Gentleman was that the upper classes had become more politically virtuous. Where did that political virtue exist? In 1852 there was no perceptible increase of it, while in 1859 it was nowhere to be seen. Yorkshire did not return a favourable answer, and the view under the walls of Gloucester cathedral was still more unfavourable. He next turned to his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham). There was nothing particular in the arguments of that right hon. Gentleman; they were the same as those to which he had already referred; but he was bound to say that his right hon. Friend had done good service to the Ballot, in the first place by the manly manner in which he had stated his belief that the popularity of the Ballot was a growing popularity, and then by his exposure of the intimidation exercised by a Whig Lord Chamberlain over the Royal tradesmen in a Westminster election. One case of that sort was of infinitely more importance than any amount of rhetoric, and he hoped the time was not far distant when his right hon. Friend would be found in the same lobby, on the Ballot question, with his able and popular nephew and Colleague. The next opponent to whom he would refer was the Secretary for War. The speeches of that right hon. Gentleman against the Ballot consisted mainly of the exploded jokes and witticisms of the Rev. Sidney Smith, whose playful fancy nobody could doubt, though nothing could be more unsound than his arguments, which had been confuted over and over again. He cheerfully made the right hon. Gentleman a present of the facetious canon's arguments, retaining to himself a single sentence, to be found in a letter addressed to Lady Grey, who had complimented the rev. gentleman on his writings against the Ballot. "Aye," he replied, "but it will come, let me write never so wisely." Another right hon. Gentleman—in the latter days of the late Administration (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt)—had girded up his loins and charged the Ballot home with original sin; an argument which, if it was not convincing, possessed at least the charm of novelty. He confessed he had nothing to say to it. The present Home Secretary (Sir G. Lewis) had selected America for his battle-field, and sought to establish a case against a secret Ballot in England by proving that the Ballot was open in the United States. The right hon. Baronet made a good speech but built up his edifice on a rotten foundation. He assumed circumstances which were not facts, he assumed that the advocates of the Ballot had relied on the mode of voting in America as the mode they desired to adopt in England. Nothing of the sort; but what the advocates of the Ballot in England wanted was, not the open Ballot of America, but a secret Ballot, such as existed in Australia. He now came to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell). The noble Lord had tried all kinds of fence on the subject of the Ballot. He was opposed to the Ballot at one time because it would not keep a secret, and at another because it would keep a secret. His temperature on the Ballot question was as variable as that of our climate; his ballot barometer was never steady, but always moving up and down, from "fair" to "stormy." In a speech to the constituency of Stroud, in 1837, the noble Lord said, "that in 1832 he proposed the plan of the Reform Bill, and the chief heads of that plan were adopted by the Committee of the Government. The plan originally embraced no proposition with respect to the Ballot or the duration of Parliament, but in the course of consideration proposals were made on those subjects and adopted; and in the plan he ultimately submitted to Earl Grey's Government he suggested that the Ballot should be adopted, and that the duration of a Parliament should be five years." This proposition of the noble Lord was defeated, he believed, by the narrow majority of one. At the general election in 1833 the noble Lord, having been in favour of the Ballot in 1832, made the following declaration:— Great as he apprehended would be the inconvenience of the Ballot, yet, if it should be a question that he must either adopt it or see the tenantry made to vote contrary to their opinions, he would at once renounce his former opinions and come round to the Ballot. It was not for him to say what amount of evidence the noble Lord required for his conviction, but in 1839 the noble Lord stood forward as a witness to the existence of intimidation. The noble Lord seconded the nomination of Mr. Heathcote at the Huntingdonshire election on the 2nd of May, 1859. The noble Lord stated, That the hon. Gentleman proposing Mr. Heathcote said, that the question who was to be the Member must be decided by the opinion of the majority; he should wish nothing better than than the opinion of the majority should prevail, and then Mr. Heathcote would be seated. But had there been no interference with the opinions of the electors, and were there not cases in which, their opinion being one way, foreign dictation had been introduced to bias them to pursue another way? Thus the noble Lord the Member for London, who had declared that if he were convinced that intimidation existed he would vote for the Ballot, stood forward and proved the intimidation. Was he not, therefore, justified in saying that the noble Lord's ballot barometer varied very much, and the noble Lord scarcely appeared now to have made up his mind? He had now pointed out the nature of the opposition he had met with in that House, and, with respect to the opposition out of the House and in speeches delivered on hustings, it was not his intention to dilate at any great length. He trusted, however, that he should receive consideration from hon. Gentlemen, as it was an up-hill battle that be had to fight. One of the most bitter opponents to this question had been The Times newspaper; but, while he admitted the great power of that journal, and the great ability which it could afford to command, he must at the same time say that the perusal of its writings on the subject of the Ballot was highly satisfactory to the friends of that measure. The other day he was in Yorkshire, and met a Conservative gentleman of great property. That gentleman told him that he was formerly opposed to the Ballot, but was now a convert to it, and the happy change, he said, was effected by The Times newspaper of which he was a great admirer, but the stupid articles in The Times against the Ballot convinced him that nothing could be urged in opposition to it. He might bring The Times into court, and cite it as one of his witnesses. Those who read the imbecile leading articles against the Ballot might remember such passages as these:—"Does Mr. Berkeley put faith in the existence of the screw? "and" Does anybody know anybody whoever required the Ballot for himself?" Then let The Times newspaper answer itself. Here was a paragraph which appeared in The Times of the 29th of April, 1859, on the North Shropshire election:— Sir Baldwin Leighton, the Liberal-Conservative candidate, has retired from the contest at the eleventh hour, and the Hon. Rowland Clegg Hill, the former member, and Mr. Ralph Ormesby Gore will be returned without opposition. The well-known business habits of Sir Baldwin, as well as his liberal views with regard to reform, church, rates, and finance, had secured him a great amount of independent support; but the 'screw' was put on the farmers so ruthlessly by some of the great landowners that the popular candidate had to succumb. Consequently he ventured to say that (he Mr. Berkeley) did put faith in the screw, and so did the Editor of The Times, and that he knew thousands of men who wanted the Ballot, and so did the Editor of The Times, and some of these men appeared to live in Shropshire. But would any sane man pretend that there was a doubt about the use of the screw? If any man doubted it, let him examine the canvassing-books of election agents: he had produced their books on a former occasion as used in boroughs and county elections, and there would be found valuable pencil-marks, denoting when and where the screw was to be applied. The evidence before the Wakefield Commission showed the modus operandi of an election agent after the model of the late Mr. Coppock, stating that he obtained a list of persons on either side who gave distinct and positive promises, and he then took into consideration the doubtful and those who might require to be influenced by persons having power over them. Astrology, also, was resorted to, and a man was invoked from the moon. The election agent, by dint of his office, became the huntsman of a sharp pack of attorneys, who would run into their game as well as a pack of foxhounds. These hunting attorneys knew the weak sides of their clients, the difficulties and liabilities under which they laboured, knew how to apply to their tender places that essentially English instrument, the screw. On this subject he would quote an authority to which the House would certainly listen with respect. It was but a short time ago that the Speaker of the House of Commons graced the obsequies of the late Lord Macaulay, when all England appeared to be in mourning, and the opinion of that eminent man, who had been so much honoured by the people of this country, could not fail to have weight upon the subject. Lord Macaulay, addressing the constituency of Edinburgh in 1839, pointed out the necessity for the Ballot, and said that corruption, when proved, rendered the parties liable to severe punishment, and that penalties for it had been awarded to the extent of £500, but they could not punish the intimidation by penal laws, because by doing so they would infringe the most sacred rights of property. "How could they," that eminent authority added, "require a man to deal with a tradesman who had voted against him, or prevent him ejecting a tenant who had done the same?" Lord Macaulay further said, that the only preventive ever suggested for intimidation of that nature was the Ballot, which protected the voter, and left the landlord to do what he liked with his own. It had always been his aim to unite theory with practice, find there could be no more practical evidence in favour of Mr. Grote's theories than was afforded by the fact, that in Her Majesty's Australian dominions secret voting had worked a quiet and bloodless revolution. In those colonies, instead of anarchy and confusion during an election, there was now peace and tranquillity; and intimida- tion, which did prevail there, could not exist in the atmosphere of the Ballot. He should say little respecting the operation of the Ballot in Australia, preferring to leave this in the hands of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who had a practical acquaintance with the subject; but let his hon. Friend beware of one opponent—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Way). That hon. Gentleman had made a most remarkable speech at the Bath election. His argument on this subject was ethnological, ichthyological, botanical, and metaphysical. Commencing with a doubt whether the Ballot had succeeded in Australia he continued thus:—If the Ballot succeeded in Australia it would be no argument with him. In that country the laws of nature were completely reversed. The flowers which bespangled the fields, though beautiful to the eye, were devoid of scent. The trees in that country shed their bark, but obstinately refused to shed their leaves. The cherrystones persisted in growing outside the fruit, and the note of the cuckoo, which in this country was the harbinger of spring, was only heard in those regions in the middle of winter and in the dead of night. Nature refused to reproduce herself as she did in this country—the animals were marsupial. The lobsters there came out of the water ready boiled—no, that was not the hon. Member's expression—red before they were boiled, and he added that these were plain facts to which he deposed from personal observation. Then, passing from the lower to the higher species—man—he said, "How many thousands of our countrymen, who have been exiled to Australia for their country's good, have there become virtuous citizens. So that the moral law, as well as the law of nature, being reversed in Australia—ergo, if the Ballot works well there I set my face against it here." He must hand the hon. Member over to his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) as he confessed he was totally unable to cope with these arguments. But if he could show that an Australian colony afforded an excellent precedent for our example, that tranquillity prevailed, the best men were elected to public offices, and that the whole system of the new electoral law worked well, be thought the lesson ought not to be lost upon this country. In order to show the real condition of our Australian colonies he would quote The Times newspaper, the words of which were:— The balance-sheet of the colony for 1858 is w lying before us. Its receipts for that year amount, in round numbers, to £3,000,000 sterling; the import duties alone amounted to £1,318,000. The export duty upon gold amounted to £316,000; the sales of public lands to £628,000; the rent of public lands and licences upon trades to £331,000, and postages £89,000. The revenue has been raised by taxation imposed by the rote of a freely elected assembly. It will be appropriated in like manner. We very much doubt, with all reverence be it spoken, whether the Pope would expend the money as well as the Assembly elected by the rude population which has crowded to thus remote quarter of the world. £114,000 for education, £24,000 for scientific purposes, £25,000 for sanitary improvements, £769,000 for useful public works, £25,000 towards the relief of the sufferers by the Sepoy mutiny, and £8,000 for a university purely secular. Surely, if that state of prosperity existed in Victoria, it was a complete answer to all the forebodings of those who prognosticated woe and ruin as the consequence of the adoption of any republican institution, as the Ballot was said to be. He asked the noble Lord opposite, and the hon. Gentleman who usually opposed the Ballot, to permit his Bill to be read a first time, that he might be allowed to place it side by side with the Bills of the hon. Member for Suffolk and the hon. Member for Nottingham. He was not disposed further to occupy the time of the House. It could not be a topic that was agreeable to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and neither could it be pleasing to the occupants of the Treasury bench, because the Liberal party, whenever their representatives were in office, were condemned to witness the painful sight of those who were their leaders creeping under the gaberdine of Toryism in order to defeat his Motion. As the poet said, "Misery made men acquainted with strange bedfellows." He, however, felt that he was pleading the cause of all electors upon whom the right of voting had been bestowed, without the means of enabling them to carry out the conditions of the trust which that right implied. It was a fair and abstract act of justice which he asked, and in making that demand he was supported by the Majority of the Liberal party in the House and by the great body of the people throughout the kingdom. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to cause the Votes at elections in Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of Ballot.

LORD HENLEY

said, in rising to second the Motion, he would ask the House for that indulgence which was always given to a new Member, and to one who had but rarely addressed them. There were two great and crying evils in the working of the existing electoral system which he believed the Ballot would effectually meet—intimidation and bribery. Bribery was the greater moral evil, but it was confined within narrower limits than intimidation, and would, he believed, before long, if not put an end to entirely, be confined to a few small boroughs; but intimidation, he feared, would continue in a greater or less degree as long as the electoral system existed. The species of intimidation which it was most difficult to cope with was that which was called landlord's influence. He was a landlord himself, and confessed that there was a kind of influence which it appeared to him any landlord might fairly exercise, and which he himself had not hesitated to use. When a tenant said, "My landlord is an excellent and an honourable man, I know he has given up his mind to political affairs and knows more of these matters than I can pretend to do, I will follow him to the poll," that was a feeling which he would not discourage, for he regarded it as honourable to both parties, and it was an influence which the Ballot would in no way affect. But when the influence of the landlord was improperly exercised, see how powerfully it might be brought to bear to coerce the tenant. Take the case of tenants at will. The tenant had perhaps lived all his life in the locality where he held his farm, and could not remove to another part of the country with any hope of success, consequently at every contested election, if the landlord chose to interfere, he was at his mercy. It had been said that the landlords of the present day were so improved in their moral notions that they would not have anything to do with intimidation. He knew that was true with regard to many; but in too many cases the landlords, if they did not interfere, left their agents to do what they would shrink from doing personally. He had in his eye at this moment a case where a clever busy agent ran about among the tenants whenever a contested election arose, directing how they should vote, threatening them if they did not vote according to the views of the landlord, and, in short, using the influence of the landlord in a most improper and tyrannical manner ["Name, name!"]. If he quoted instances in support of his argument they must be taken upon his personal credit, for he had no wish to create ill feeling by mentioning names of persons closely connected perhaps with Members of that House. He believed that in such cases as he mentioned a tenant who voted against the order of the agent, though he might not be actually dispossessed of his farm, would find himself after the election much worse off than the other tenants upon the same estate—for the agent had many ways of annoying and injuring a tenant which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to guard against. Therefore, he held that the landlord's influence, though it might in some degree be mitigated, was still great, and, he feared, was not diminishing. It was notorious that the influence of the landlords was so widely extended, by the possession of estates in various parts of the country, that they were able by their power over the tenants to turn almost all the county elections in their favour. What was the ordinary course of proceeding when a gentleman intended to offer himself as a candidate for a county? The first thing he did was to write letters to all the great landed proprietors in the district, asking whether he might canvass their tenants, and upon the answers he received his chance of success entirely depended. Were the tenants prisoners, or were they children, that a man must ask the permission of their landlord before he might even canvass them for their votes? Yet he could quote a case in which the landlord, having been so applied to, actually refused to allow the candidate to ask his tenants for their votes. He was sorry to say that the landlord to whom he now referred was a nobleman who called himself a liberal. The letter containing the refusal was addressed to an hon. Gentleman now sitting on the other (the Opposition) side of the House, who would confirm him if necessary. The noble Lord to whom he alluded, having been written to, replied that he did not intend to support the intended candidate, because he differed with him in political opinion; and he added, "without intending any personal disrespect to you, I must request that my tenants may not be canvassed in your behalf." And this in the nineteenth century! It would seem that some landlords looked upon the act of canvassing their tenants without permission as almost as great a crime as that which they regarded as next to murder, namely, shooting their pheasants. At all events it was well known that upon the answer to the application to the landlord to canvass his tenants depended the chances of success, and if that answer was unfavourable the candidate must either retire at once or gird up his loins for a contest, his only hope in that case resting upon the votes of those independent freeholders whom the Reform Bill of last year would have shut out from the representation. Such a system could not be considered a good one, and he was sorry to say that it was one that had increased since the Reform Bill of 1832. He believed that until that time this great influence on the part of the landlords was unknown. But that Bill let in a new class of £50 rental voters, who were especially susceptible of such influence, and he thought it a great defect in the Bill of 1860 that it would admit no less than 100,000 more of those dependent electors. In the county with which he was connected it would add about an eighth to the existing constituency. If the evil was unknown until the Reform Bill of 1832, surely they might apply a remedy that was also unknown to the Constitution at present, namely, the Ballot, which would to a great extent, he believed, be effectual. With regard to the influence of the Ballot in putting a stop to bribery in boroughs, he did not think any candidate would be likely to purchase votes that might never be given in his favour, any more than a man would be likely to set up a business upon the principle of buying goods and paying for them when he was not certain that they would ever be delivered. He was told that the Motion was strongly objected to by the Protestant county Members of Ireland, on the ground that the Ballot was not applicable to a country where the Roman Catholic religion obtained. He, on the contrary, thought it was peculiarly applicable. They were told there were two influences at work in Ireland in reference to election matters—the influence of the landlord and the influence of the priest. He could not conceive a more difficult position for a voter to be placed in under the system of open voting, than when the landlord insisted upon his voting one way under the threat of dispossessing him of his holding, and the priest made it a matter of conscience, involving present and future punishment in case of disobedience, that he should vote the other. Against such a state of things he contended the Ballot would be the only safegnard; while its general application he confidently believed would result in placing the dependent voter in a position to respect himself, and in a real and true election in all cases, seeing that the choice of the constituencies would turn wholly upon the consideration of the merits and the fitness of the opposing candidates.

MR. MARSH

said, he should not have addressed the House, had it not been that a challenge had been held out for any one to speak who had any knowledge of the working of the Ballot in Australia. In this respect he must give way to his hon. Friend, the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who had had personal experience of the working of the Ballot in Victoria, while he (Mr. Marsh) had obtained his knowledge of it in New South Wales, which would, perhaps, account for the different views they took of its operation. He held in his hand a pamphlet purporting to be a speech of the hon. Gentleman, in which he said that the Ballot was not in Victoria as in England, exclusively advocated by the Liberal party, and opposed by the Conservatives. He (Mr. Marsh) never could conceive why the Ballot was considered to be peculiarly a liberal measure. On the contrary, it struck him that, on the whole, it might have quite another tendency; for there were not a few persons who spoke loudly in favour of liberal opinions, yet in the inmost recesses of their hearts were very far from being liberal. It was stated that the great evil in Australia was not so much intimidation as bribery. The greatest evil in this country he believed to be intimidation, and not bribery. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman that in Australia, out of 200 elections, there had been two convicted cases of bribery and treating, since the introduction of the Ballot. That was not so very strong a recommendation of the Ballot. The Ballot was a new thing in Australia; and they knew that all new things were said to work well at first. Besides, there was not the same inducement to bribe in Australia, that there was here. The inducement to become a Member of the Legislature of that colony was not so great; the debates were not so interesting, the subjects not so important, and the company not so agreeable. In America they had had the Ballot for a long time, though it was in every case not a secret ballot; and yet the system of bribery was carried on there to an extent which was unknown here. Everything was decided by "caucus," and voting by ticket was the rule. He believed that even if the vote were kept secret, in nine cases out of ten a man would vote as he was bribed. There was that sort of honour among thieves which would cause him to do so. In Australia, he could assure them, that the greatest corruption existed, even after the Ballot was introduced. It was a subject of great debate in the Legislature, and the theme of discussion in every newspaper. It was stated that certain persons had been appointed magistrates entirely because they were election agents of a particular party. He knew an instance where a most illiterate man was made a magistrate, because he was an active electioneering agent, and his friend, whose servant this person was, considered himself rather elevated in society, because he had a justice of the peace to clean his hoots. He did not agree with what had been said by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) about the prosperity of Australia since the introduction of the Ballot. It was true that the country was prosperous; but it was so because it produced annually gold to the amount of £12,000,000, and other articles to the value of £3,000,000. But notwithstanding this, many capitalists had withdrawn their investments on account of the insecurity of the Government. Now, with regard to the secrecy of the Ballot in Australia, the machinery seemed to have been contrived with considerable ingenuity, but at the same time it seemed to be very far from perfect. The tickets were marked on the outside with the number of the vote; they were then unfolded by the returning officer and placed on their back. It seemed to him to be very easy to tamper with the tickets. And he believed that for a trifling sum the way in which votes were given, could readily be got at. Besides, it was necessarily provided that in the case of a petition, the tickets were to be opened so as to ascertain how each voter voted. Consider what a painful position a man must be in who had said he had voted for one person, and who had voted for another. And yet it would be the law which had led to his being placed in that position. So far as secrecy was concerned, the Ballot would certainly be a failure in England, for an Englishman seldom kept a secret, and an Englishwoman still more seldom; and as a man would be sure to tell his wife how he voted, then the secret would be out. It was also stated in the pamphlet he had referred to, that at the last elections in Victoria there was scarcely one case of intimidation. Now, he held in his hand a letter from a candidate to his constituents, who had been successful, and who therefore did not write under angry feeling; and he complained that the servants of his opponent's supporters were driven up like flocks and herds to the poll. Another view of the case was, that where a man felt there was no responsibility, he was too apt to be negligent about giving his vote at all. He was borne out in this by the fact that at the last Sydney election, though it was a contest in which the Prime Minister was a candidate, he believed, though he had not got the numbers or the register, that not more than one out of seven voted. The Ballot might be made the means of doing strange things. Kingdoms had been given away by Ballot, and that almost unanimously. They all knew what had occurred in Italy. He was not surprised at what had happened in Romagna, nor did he mean to find fault with it. On the contrary, he was glad that the Romagnese had joined Sardinia. Any one who had ever passed from Tuscany to the territory of the Pope, would cease to wonder that Romagna wished to get rid of such a Government. But the case was not precisely the same in Tuscany, and he could not help thinking that there must have been one or two strong influences at work to bring about so much unanimity under the Ballot, or, on the other hand, it must have happened that the people, under the Ballot, felt their sense of responsibility weakened, and rushed to give their votes without duly considering the consequences. The secret vote, it was clear, would be no protection to active persons and to Dissenters, because they would be marked men as much as they were now. Until bribery was considered a moral crime, it would never be got rid of. That day would, he hoped, soon arrive. People of character did not now-a-days constrain their tenants in the country, and shopkeepers in towns, as they formerly did, but left it for minor agents to do. Very soon, he believed, they would repudiate even this species of interference, and then the Ballot would not be necessary. If, however, the system of intimidation could not be put an end to, he had no doubt the Ballot would be resorted to, despite the great, arguments that existed against its adoption.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, it so happened that for several years he had given but one vote on this subject, and that was for the Ballot. He was enough of a party man to feel great reluctance to sever himself from the friends with whom he generally acted, and this reluctance led him without sufficient examination to give the vote in question. Since that time' however, he had thought much on the Ballot, and the more he had thought of it the less he liked it. These objections had not been lessened but increased by his Australian experience at the Foreign Office. He spoke with a full recollection of the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), on the operation of the Ballot in Australia, which so deservedly secured the attention of the House; but his strong conviction was that the House of Commons had nothing to learn from Australia in this regard. The facts of the case were, he thought, against the success of the Ballot, even in Australia. From what he had read in the Australian newspapers and heard from other sources he should be disposed to say that at the last general election the scenes that disgraced this country were reproduced in Australia, and that corruption, intimidation, and bribery were at least as rife as they had ever been in the old country. That was the conclusion he had arrived at from all he could learn of the last general election in Australia. Circumstances were, moreover, so different in Australia from the state of things in the old country that no safe conclusion from the one was applicable to the other. It was admitted that the evil to be met by the Ballot in Australia was of a different nature, that the influence to be guarded against was from below and not from above, from the masses and not from individuals. The question was not whether the Ballot was fitted to succeed in Australia or America and he would admit that the Ballot might tend to the orderly conduct of an election in such communities. But England was a country of great social inequalities, and how would the Ballot deal with the influences thence arising? The Ballot succeeded admirably where it was not wanted; but when there was real intimidation, it would either fail, or else the secrecy would be obtained at a cost that it was not worth,—namely, the sacrifice of the voter's honesty and uprightness. He had asked many small farmers in Ireland, whether, in their opinion, the Ballot would put an end to canvassing and pressure on the part of landlords and agents. He had never yet met a man who thought it would. Believing that the Ballot would fail as a protection to the voter, and that when it secured secrecy, it would be at a sacrifice of character and honesty that would be worse than the existing evil, he must, although reluctantly, oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol.

MR. LAWSON

(who rose amid loud cries for a division) said, he should not have thought it would be necessary for him to appeal to the House for that consideration which was never refused to hon. Members who addressed it for the first time. He could understand the great anxiety of hon. Gentlemen opposite to go to a division as speedily as possible, for he was told it was the dinner hour. The House and the country ought to be much obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol for having brought forward this question, and he agreed very much in the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member last night, that his Bill was more important than that of the noble Lord. He was a supporter of the noble Lord (Lord J, Russell) but he believed that if the choice were offered to the determined Reformers of this country, whether they would prefer the passing of the measure of the hon. Member for Bristol or that of the noble Lord, the verdict of the majority would he, "Give us the Ballot without the Bill, rather than the Bill without the Ballot." A great deal had been said about the merits and demerits of the Reform Bill of 1832. He thought that measure had conferred a great boon on the country, but he did nut believe that even yet it had ever had a fair chance. By that Bill vast numbers of the people were admitted to the franchise, but they had never had a fair opportunity of exercising it, in proof of which he referred to the fact that at the end of every general election the table of the House was loaded with complaints of undue returns. He believed that had the machinery for voting instituted in 1832 been better devised, the cry for reform would not have been heard so loudly throughout the country as at the present time. Bribery and intimidation had certainly not decreased since the Reform Bill, and he believed were as prevalent at the last as at any previous general election. The House had always expressed great anxiety to put an end to such practices, and all sorts of expedients had been proposed. But the House had the matter in their own hands, for by enacting that votes should be taken in secret, bribers would be deprived of the means of knowing whether they received value for their money, and prevention would soon be proved better than cure. The Ballot was said to be unfit for small boroughs, and it was certainly not so applicable to them as the larger ones; but he hoped that in the supplementary Reform Bill which must sooner or later follow that of the noble Lord, the small boroughs would be totally extinguished. The Ballot excited deeper interest throughout the country than any other part of the reform programme, and two-thirds of the Liberal party in the House were in favour of it, although the Ministers had unfortunately sided with their natural enemies in regard to it. He thought that the time when they were setting free the trade of the country was an appropriate time for setting free also the constituencies, and thus wiping off the blot which disfigured our representative system, and greatly enhancing its value.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

—I have more respect for the House than at this hour to go on refining, And think of convincing when they think of dining. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Berkeley) that his speech of this evening, which I cannot say was more argumentative than those he has addressed to us on former occasions, has not at all altered my opinion on the measure he proposes. I was in hopes when my hon. Friend began to quote the speech I made on a former occasion he would have had the goodness to go through that speech, and though I had not convinced him, I was in hopes that the arguments, sound as I believe them to he, which I then used, would have convinced other persons who heard them read. But my hon. Friend, having told us his mind was impenetrable to any arguments directed against the proposition which is the hobby horse on which he is riding to fame, omitted to quote them. My hon. Friend found fault with an assertion which I had made, that the franchise was not a right but a trust, and with me for arguing that, as it was a trust, and not a right, it ought to be exercised in the public view, and under a sense of responsibility. My hon. Friend treats that doctrine with great contempt. I only wish him to consider a little the consequence of the opposite doctrine. If the franchise is a right, the man is entitled to do what he likes with it. That doctrine goes in fact to legalize bribery. The voter may justly say, "This is my right, and I am entitled to dispose of it as I please, and to make any profit out of it which I can." But, as long as it is a trust, it is clear that a man is guilty not only of a moral but of a political offence when he barters away for profit to himself that function which is only given to him in trust for the benefit of his country. I say that even in the case of universal suffrage it is a trust. If every man of age and sanity were entitled to vote, he would still be exercising a trust on behalf of women and children, whose interests are deeply affected, though they are not entitled to exercise that function. I say that every political function which is vested in any man should be exercised in the eye of the public. My hon. Friend has himself instanced municipal elections. Those and all other political acts are done in public. Then my hon. Friend, and those who agree with him, say it is untrue that secret voting is un-English, because in clubs they vote by ballot. But does he mean to say that in clubs voting is ever secret? Did it never happen to my hon. Friend to be canvassed to go down to a club and vote for the admission of a man because he was a good fellow? Has he never known of a whole party dining together and going down to the club between 10 and 11 o'clock to bring a Friend in? Or was he never canvassed to go down to keep a disagreeable bore out? White balls and black balls are generally given with perfect knowledge of the way in which the vote will be given to a circle of friends, and, in truth, there is not that secrecy which the hon. Gentleman alleges. Therefore I say the case of clubs is no proof that secret voting is not antagonistic to English practice. I maintain that if the Bill were carried, and if the Ballot were enjoined by law, it would be degrading and demoralizing to the people of this country. You would turn your electors into law-breakers or hypocrites. They would be law-breakers if they made known their votes; but you could not punish that breach of the law. They would be hypocrites if they kept their votes secret, because they would have been asked to promise their votes. Men would have promised, and of those who promised ten to one would vote in violation of their promise. At all events, if they kept their votes secret they would be exposed to exactly the same results from which it is the object of secret voting to secure them. The measure would entirely fail of its purpose. We have heard this evening that in Australia secret voting does not prevent, bribery and intimidation, the two things to guard against which the Ballot is advocated. And it is somewhat singular that the advocates of the Ballot, who for a long time have vaunted the example of America, are obliged to quit the shores of the Atlantic and are now compelled to take refuge in the Antipodes. My hon. Friend said that in Australia everything is the reverse of what it is in England. I think he has caught the infection from Australia. In this country it has been the custom to inculcate on children the desirability of following the example shown them by the wisdom of their parents. But my hon. Friend calls on the parent to follow the errors of the child, and instances Australia as a reason why this country should depart from its old, time-honoured, and long-established custom. Now, Sir, I do not think the House of Commons is likely to listen to those arguments. I shall not intrude on the House by repeating the speech to which my hon. Friend has referred. I believe that by the vote of this night time will be given to hon. Members who still entertain doubts to turn to the pages of Hansard, and to see the arguments, which I think are very good. I compliment my hon. Friend on his devotion to this particular subject. He has persevered through good report and bad report, through evil success, sometimes greater and sometimes less. It does great honour to his perseverance, and I only hope that when the day comes—long may it be deferred—in which a public memorial is to be raised to his memory the monument which he will so well deserve may be erected in the shape of a ballot-box.

MR. H. BERKELEY

, in reply, pointed out the inconsistency of the arguments which had been adduced with regard to the case of Australia; it being urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) as an objection to the Ballot on a former debate that bribery could not be detected, whereas it was maintained by others, as an objection that evening that it was both detected and punished. He had never heard speeches with bolder assertions and less argument than those which had been delivered against the Ballot that night. His noble Friend, who really took away his breath, said, in a tone of indignant virtue, that by the Ballot men would be degraded into slaves and made liars; but the noble Lord did not seem to care how many slaves were tied to the wheels of country gentlemen's chariots and dragged to the poll, or to see any degradation in their being forced at the poll to tell a lie to God and to vote against their consciences. His noble Friend complained that be (Mr. Berkeley) bad not read his speech to the House; and he hinted that if he had done so his own Attorney General would have disappeared as our American friends have it into a grease spot. The noble Lord's speech was, in fact, totally opposite to that of his Attorney General; and he would read both. [Cries of "No!"] Well, the two speeches were as different as possible; the one being replete with argument, and the other containing nothing but delightful audacity. If the House had had its dinner he would have read extracts from those speeches, and it would be seen whether it was the Attorney General or the noble Lord that would have the worst if it. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was looking wide awake, to answer anything that might have been said against the precedent of Australia, but there had been nothing to answer. Australia had, in fact, proved the case of the Ballot, for it had demonstrated the possibility of detecting and punishing bribery, even if secret voting were adopted. The noble Lord sneered at the Ballot as his (Mr. Berkeley's) hobby. Let the noble Lord take care the time did not come when he would be glad to get up behind him. He ventured, notwithstanding the bold manner of his noble Friend, to predict that the division list of the following morning would present to him no pleasant object of contemplation, for there he would find his name separated from the majority of that very party by whose support he was enabled to retain the reins of power.

Motion made, and Question put,— 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.

The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 254: Majority 107.

List of the AYES.
Adair H. E. Bethell, Sir R.
Adam, W. P. Biddulph, Col.
Alcock, T. Black, A.
Atherton, Sir W. Blake, J.
Ayrton, A. S. Bonham-Carter, J.
Baines, E. Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P
Bass, M. T. Bowyer, G.
Baxter, W. E. Brady, J.
Bazley, T. Bright, J.
Beale, S. Bristow, A. R.
Bellew, R. M. Brocklehurst, J.
Berkeley, Col. F.W. F. Buller, Sir A. W.
Butler, C. S. Mitchell, T. A.
Caird, J. Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Monson, hon. W. J.
Childers, H. C. E. Morris, D.
Clay, J. Napier, Sir C.
Clifford, C. C. O'Donoghue, The
Clifford, Col. Onslow, G.
Clive, G. Osborne, R. B.
Cobbett, J. M. Padmore, R.
Coningham, W. Paget, C.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Paget, Lord C.
Crook, J. Paxton, Sir J.
Dalglish, R. Pease, H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Davie, Col. F. Peto, Sir S. M.
Deasy, rt. hon. R. Pilkington, J.
Dent, J. D. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Potts, G.
Douglas, Sir C. Pryse, E. L.
Duke, Sir J. Redmond, J. E.
Duncombe, T. Ricardo, J. L.
Ennis, J. Ricardo, O.
Evans, Sir De L. Ridley, G.
Ewart, W. Robartes, T. J. A.
Ewing, H. E. C. Roebuck, J. A.
Fenwick, H. Rothschild, Baron L. de
Fermoy, Lord Rothschild, Baror M. de
Forster, C. Roupell, W.
Freeland, H. W. Russell, A.
Gavin, Major Salomons, Mr. Ald.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Salt, Titus
Gifford, Earl of Scholefield, W.
Gilpin, C. Seymour, Sir M.
Goldsmid, Sir F. H. Seymour, W. D.
Greene, J. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Greville, Col. F. Sheridan, R. B.
Hadfield, G. Sheridan, H. B.
Hardcastle, J. A. Smith, A.
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.
Hennessy, J. P.
Hodgkinson, G. Stacpoole, W.
Hutt, rt. hon. W. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Ingham, R. Stansfeld, J.
Ingram, H. Stuart, Col.
Jackson, W. Sullivan, M.
James, E. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Kershaw, J. Tite, W.
King, hon. P. J. L. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Kinglake, A. W. Tynte, Col. K.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Vivian, H. H.
Langston, J. H. Waldron, L.
Langton, W. H. G. Wemyss, J. H. E.
Lanigan, J. Westhead, J. P. B.
Lawson, W. Whalley, G. H.
Leatham, E. A. Whitbread, S.
Lee, W. White, Col.
Levinge, Sir R. Willcox, B. M'G.
Lindsay, W. S. Williams, W.
Locke, John Woods, H.
MacEvoy, E. Wyld, J.
Maguire, J. F.
Massey, W. N. TELLERS.
Merry, J. Berkeley, H.
Mills, T. Henley, Lord
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B Baring, H. B.
Agnew, Sir A. Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Barrow, W. H.
Archdall, Capt. M. Bathurst, A. A.
Astell, J. H. Beach, W. W. B.
Ball, E. Beaumont, W. B.
Boecroft, G. S. Gregory, W. H.
Bentinck, G. C. Gray, Capt.
Beresford, rt. hon. W. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bernard, hon. Col. Griffith, C. D.
Bond, J. W. M'G. Grosvenor, Earl
Botfield, B. Gurdon, B.
Bovill, W. Haliburton, T. C.
Bramston, T. W. Hamilton, Major
Brooks, R. Hanbury, hon. Capt.
Browne, Lord J. T. Hartington, Marq. of
Bruce, Major C. Hartopp, E. B.
Buller, J. W. Hassard, M.
Burghley, Lord Heathcote, hon. G. H.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C. Heneage, G. F.
Cartwright, Col. Henniker, Lord
Cave, S. Herbert, rt. hon. H. A
Cayley, E. S. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Cecil, Lord R. Herbert, Col. P.
Churchill, Lord A. S. Hervey, Lord A.
Clinton, Lord R. Heygate, Sir F. W.
Close, M. C. Hill, Lord E.
Cobbold, J. C. Hill, hon. R. C.
Coke, hon. Col. Holmesdale, Visct.
Cole, hon. H. Hood, Sir A. A.
Cole, hon. J. L. Hope, G. W.
Collins, T. Hopwood, J. T.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. Horsfall, T. B.
Cross, R. A. Hotham, Lord
Cubitt, Mr. Ald. Howes, E.
Cubitt, G. Humberston, P. S.
Curzon, Visc. Hunt, G. W.
Damer, S. D. Ingestre, Visct.
Davey, R. Jermyn, Earl
Dawson, R. P. Jervis, Capt.
Deedes, W. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Dickson, Col. Johnstone, hon. H. B.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Johnstone, Sir J.
Du Cane, C. Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.
Duncombe, hon. A.
Duncombe, hon. W. E. Jolliffe, H. H.
Dundas, F. Jones, D.
Dunlop, A. M. Kekewich, S. T.
Dunn, J. Kendall, N.
Dunne, Col. Kennard, R. W.
Du Pre, C. G. Kerrison, Sir E. C.
Egerton, hon. A. F. King, J. K.
Egerton, hon. W. Knatchbull, W. F.
Elmley, Visct. Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.
Estcourt, rt. hn. T.H.S.
Euston, Earl of Knight, F. W.
Farquhar, Sir M. Knightley, R.
Farrer, J. Lacon, Sir E.
Fellowes, E. Laing, S.
Fergusson, Sir J. Leeke, Sir H.
Filmer, Sir E. Lefroy, A.
Finlay, A. S. Legh, Major C.
Forde, Col. Legh, W. J.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Foster, W. O. Lever, J. O.
Fortescue, C. S. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Gard, R. S. Lock hart, A. E.
Garnett, W. J. Long, R. P.
Gaskell, J. M. Longfield, R.
George, J. Lopes, Sir M.
Gilpin, Col. Lovaine, Lord
Gladstone, Capt. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Lyall, G.
Gordon, C. W. Lygon, hon. F.
Gore, J. R. O. Lysley, W. J.
Gore, W. R. O. Lytton, rt. hon. Sir G. E. L. B.
Graham, Lord W.
Greaves, E. Mackie, J.
Mackinnon, Wm. Alex. (Rye) Selwyn, C. J.
Shirley, E. P.
Mainwaring, T. Sibthorp, Major
Malins, R. Slaney, R. A.
Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. Smith, S. G.
March, Earl of Smollett, P. B.
Martin, J. Somerset, Col.
Mildmay, H. F. Somes, J.
Miles, Sir W. Spooner, R.
Miller, T. J. Stafford, Marq. of
Miller, W. Stanhope, J. B.
Mills, A. Stanley, Lord
Mitford, W. T. Stirling, W.
Moncreiff rt. hon. J. Steuart, A.
Moody, C. A. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Morgan, hon. Major Sturt, H. G.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. Sturt, N.
Mundy, W. Talbot, hon. W. C.
Mure, D. Taylor, Col.
Naas, Lord Taylor, H.
Newdegate, C. N. Thompson, H. S.
Nicol, W. Thynne, Lord E.
North, Col. Thynne, Lord H.
Owen, Sir J. Tollemache, J.
Packe, C. W. Torrens, R.
Packe, G. H. Upton, hon. Gen.
Pakenham, Col. Vance, J.
Pakington, right. hon. Sir J. Vandeleur, Col.
Vane, Lord H.
Palk, L. Vansittart, W.
Palmer, R. W. Verner, Sir W.
Palmerston, Visct. Vernon, L. V.
Papillon, P. O. Walcott, Admiral
Parker, Major W. Walker, J. R.
Patten, Col. W. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Paull, H. Walsh, Sir J.
Peacocke, G. M. W. Walter, J.
Peel, rt. hon. Gen. Watlington, J. W. P.
Peel, rt. hon. F. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Pevensey, Visct. Wise, J. A.
Philipps, J. H. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Powys, P. L. Woodd, B. T.
Pritchard, J. Wyndham, Sir H.
Push, D. (Carmarthen) Wyndham, hon. H.
Pugh, D. (Montgomery) Wynn, Col.
Puller, C. W. G. Wynne, C. G.
Repton, G. W. J. Wyvill, M.
Richardson, J. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Rolt, J. TELLERS.
St. Aubyn, J. Denman, G.
Sclater-Booth, G. Marsh, M. H.
Scott, Sir W.