Commons Sitting of 16 June 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel] [Bill 137].
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL [SIR ROBERT PEEL]— [BILL 137.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee (Progress 12 th June).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4 (Prohibition of Bag Nets in certain Places.)
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words, "or in any other waters except in the open sea at a distance of more than," and to insert the word "within;" but he would take the division on the Motion to omit the words "or in any other waters."
  Amendment proposed in page 2, line 18, to leave out the words "or in any other waters."
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, it was important that the clause should remain unaltered. It provided simply that bag nets should not be allowed "except in the open sea." That was a clear and intelligible definition, but nobody could tell where the mouth of a river began. The Amendment of which the Under Secretary had given notice was clearly proposed to save the interests of Mr. Sampson French. [Mr. H. A. Bruce: No.] Then, it was to save interests which might be represented by the word "Sampson-Frenchism." If they saved the interests of one Mr. Sampson French, they must do the same for a dozen other Sampson Frenches. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) had also given notice of a Motion to save the interests of some Sampson-French. He trusted that the Committee would reject the Amendment.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, as he had been pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he might say that on looking over the Bill he saw that it would injuriously affect some friends of his, and he had given notice of an Amendment in order to prevent their being injuriously affected.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the effect of the Amendment of which the hon. Under Secretary had given notice would legalize all bag nets in all rivers and estuaries, except those within three miles of the mouth. It would be much better for hon. Members to give in the names of their
  968
  special friends to the clerk at the table, so that a clause might be framed expressly protecting the interests of Mr. Hector, Mr. Little, and other gentlemen who had friends in that House.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would admit that his Amendment was a departure from the main principle of the Bill. The bag nets were put up legally under the Act of 1842, the framers of which evidently did not know what they were doing in legalizing these destructive engines. The Committee would be justified in refusing to legalize bag nets, because what did a bag net do? It might be run across so as to intercept the progress of all the salmon up a river. At the same time, the Committee would not be right in ignoring the rights that had grown up under the Act of 1842. It would be an act of harshness to sweep them away without allowing time to carry out the necessary arrangements. The case of Mr. Sampson French was one which he would admit had been considered by the Government, and they came to the conclusion that a limited proposal to be moved hereafter by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert) was a very fair one. The Bill would, however, still confer great advantages on the fisheries of Ireland,
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that if the proprietors of fisheries who were to be conciliated were named, he would vote for the Amendment; otherwise, as the Amendment would work a very important alteration in the meaning of the clause, and was intended to save the property of certain gentlemen, he would oppose it.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, be wished to know whether they were legislating for public or private rights. The hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had admitted that the bag nets might be so placed as to intercept every fish. Then, why did the hon. Gentleman ask the House to pass a Bill that gave to private individuals the right to intercept and kill every fish that attempted to go up the river? Talk of confiscation Could there be a more complete act of spoliation? He was now in favour of the Government Bill, and he thought it very hard to have to get up and defend it against the Amendments by which the Government now wished to destroy the efficiency of their own measure.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that by the Amendment he proposed they did not legalize any bag nets whatever.
  MR. BUTTsaid, by the clause as pro-

  969
  posed to be amended bag nets would be prohibited in river estuaries and within three miles from the mouths of the rivers.
  LORD NAASsaid, he hoped that they would retain the words "other waters," as he knew waters which could not be defined as estuaries, but in which by bag nets they might catch every fish that came up.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. On the west coast of Ireland, there were waters in which they might take every fish by bag nets.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 33: Majority 2.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would move to strike out the word "three" and insert the word "five." The effect of the Amendment would be to prohibit bag nets, except at a distance of more than five miles from the mouths of rivers.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. A great many persons might be injured if it were adopted.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. REDMONDmoved, after the word "rivers," to add "estuaries."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 20, after the word "rivers," to insert the words "or estuaries."—(Mr. Redmond.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 8: Majority 68.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would move an Amendment to the Clause, to the effect that no person should be allowed to erect a bag net within three miles of a river, "save any person having an exclusive right of taking salmon in any such river." It was manifest that in the case of an exclusive right to both banks of a river, from its source to its mouth, no injury could be done to any other party by leaving undisturbed the power of erecting bag nets.
  LORD NAASobserved that a person holding such a property might by means of bag nets erected within three miles of a river inflict an injustice on parties possessing rights of property over contiguous streams.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the Amendment; but he thought that they ought to exercise great caution in adopting it, lest they might thereby interfere with the rights of other parties. If the Amendment was not then pressed, he was ready to undertake that the Government would consider the subject, and endeavour to introduce a provision on the bringing-up of the Report, for the purpose of attaining the object contemplated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, the Amendment was so dangerous that the Committee ought not to allow it to be withdrawn, but they should negative it.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, that he could not approve of the Amendment, because it appeared to go beyond the purpose for which it was intended, and would enable a proprietor not only to preserve the bag nets already established, but to create new bag nets. All he could say was, that he and his right hon. Friend (the Chief Secretary) would give their best consideration to the subject.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he trusted than any further consideration given to the Amendment would lead the Government to oppose it on the Report.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Penalty on new fixed Nets).
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that he was a Member of the Select Committee to which the Bill of 1842 was referred. He felt quite certain, that if that Committee had foreseen the operation of the clauses of that Act, it would not have received the support of a single Irish Member. It was proposed on the responsibility of the Government; and though he was a consenting party to it, it was because he was ill-informed; and it had ever since been a matter of deep regret to him that he had assented to the passing of a law which had most materially injured not only the fisheries of Ireland, but also the poor of that country. It had, indeed, perpetrated an act of spoliation and confiscation. Parliament took away from one man and gave to another, and, what was worse, took away from the poor and gave to the rich. But the clauses of the Act of 1842 were proposed on public and not on private grounds—not to enable the proprietors of

  971
  the lower fisheries to make money, but because it was alleged that new and destructive engines had been invented for taking fish, that the public markets were ill-supplied, and that fish would be more abundant if that Act were passed. The Committee were now told, with truth, that the operation of the Act of 1842 had been most destructive to the fisheries, and that it had deprived the poor of their daily bread. Were they also to be told that the Act conferred vested rights upon particular individuals, to enable them to fish in a particular manner, and that the House of Commons must look on while all the river fisheries of Ireland were being destroyed? He trusted the Committee would not believe that rights conferred in such a manner, and for such objects, ought to stand in the way of more beneficial legislation. They had heard of nothing but the Shannon during the debates on the Bill before them; but what had become of the fish in the small and beautiful rivers of Ireland? They were absolutely destroyed, and the fish were gone. He was told that it was an angler's question. Well, he was in favour of protecting the rights of anglers, for an angler's success represented the stock of fish in the water. But year after year the stock of fish in the Irish rivers had diminished; He had supported the Bill as a compromise; but he could not find any compromise in the present Bill on the part of the weir-owners. The clause proposed that no fixed net not legally in use for catching salmon at the time of the passing of this Act should be used in any inland or tidal waters. He would propose as an Amendment to leave out the words "at the time of the passing of the Act" for the purpose of inserting "on January 1 1848." He proposed that Amendment, because in 1848 he brought in a Bill, which became law, by which he did not attempt to repeal the Act of 1842, but which remedied some of its defects. He did not recognize by that Act any of the vested rights supposed to be created under the Act of 1842, and the effect of his Bill was to increase the supply of fish in the rivers. The proprietors in many districts, however, took advantage of the increased stock of fish, and put up fixed engines. They thus took all the fish which his Act had been the means of preserving. The result was that the fisheries were again destroyed. His object now was to prevent those who took advantage of the improvement to be effected by the Bill before the
  972
  Committee from setting up any claim of vested interest in consequence of what they did in 1848. Those parties ought not to be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong; and if his Amendment were agreed to, the clause would only recognize the fixed engines put up prior to the Act of 1848.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that the Bill before the Committee was no compromise at all. [Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE: Not as to stake nets] Was it nothing to prohibit all new stake nets? Was it nothing to appoint a commission to carry put the Act, with larger powers than any commission had ever had before, to inquire into the rights of parties, and overrule everything contrary to those rights? He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the rights and interests which had sprung up since 1848 had no claim upon the consideration of the Committee. If the Amendment were carried, it would be for the Government to consider whether they would proceed with the Bill. It was opposed to every principle on which the Bill was brought forward.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he also must express his disapproval of the, Amendment. He denied that the salmon fisheries of Ireland had declined under the existing law. There certainly had of late years been a great increase in the quantity of fish forwarded from Ireland to the markets of Liverpool and London since 1842.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the construction of railways had no doubt facilitated the transmission of fish from Ireland to this country, but he believed, at the same time, that the salmon fisheries of Ireland were being gradually destroyed by the existing state of the law. He should add, however, that he thought it would not be wise for them to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury, inasmuch as by pursuing such a course they would in all probability render impossible the passing of the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Amendment would open the door to a vast amount of litigation. There was no certain record of the fixed engines in existence on the 1st of January 1848. It was most desirable that the Bill should pass in the present Session, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he approved of the Amendment as an abstract proposition.

  973
  But he thought it was not desirable that they should by its adoption endanger the success of the Bill. The measure as it stood would at all events be productive of considerable advantage. Out of 138 fixed engines in the Shannon it would remove 77, that number of the fixed engines being bag nets.
  MR. BLAKEremarked, that the only fault he found with the right hon. Gentleman was that his Amendment did not go half far enough. There were, he believed, only three rivers in Ireland containing bag nets. In all the others the stake nets were retained just as they were left by the Bill of 1842.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he perceived that the general sense of the committee was opposed to the Amendment and he would therefore not persevere with it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to move an Amendment in the clause to the effect, that "in no case should any stake weir, stake net, or fly net be allowed to extend beyond the low-water mark of ordinary neap tides." He believed that the Bill as it stood would be productive of little or no benefit of any kind, while it would be attended with one great disadvantage, that it would render any future amendment of the law entirely hopeless.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, it would be better to get rid of stake nets by a direct Motion than by a side-wind of the kind proposed. If the Amendment were agreed to, the stake nets on the Shannon would be entirely useless.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he would divide the Committee against the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—
  Mr. Conolly was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes; but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday, at Twelve of the clock.

CASE OF CHARLES THOMAS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a court martial, held on board Her Majesty's Ship "Victory," at Portsmouth, on Charles Thomas, a seaman, charged with insubordination and using offensive language to a Boatswain, who had ordered the liberty- boat to leave before its appointed time, when the prisoner was returning to his ship after the expiration of his leave of absence to get married; and if so, whether it be true that, under the circumstances of that case, the prisoner was adjudged to be reduced to the second class, to receive forty-eight lashes, to be imprisoned in Winchester Gaol for two years, and then to be discharged with disgrace from Her Majesty's Navy; and whether he will lay the proceedings of the court upon the table of the House?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, that as the hon. Gentleman appeared to have been misinformed with respect to some of the particulars connected with the court martial on Charles Thomas, he (Lord Clarence Paget) would shortly state the circumstances of the case. It was customary, especially at the home ports, to allow the seamen, as far as possible, to go on shore after their day's work, it being understood that they were to return to their ship on the following morning; and at a given hour a boat was sent for what were called the liberty men. Now, the first point on which the hon. Gentleman seemed to be misinformed was that the liberty boat to which he referred, left the shore before the appointed time, assuming which to be the fact, the House would naturally be led to infer, that it was not Thomas's fault that he had not returned to his ship in due course. The boat, however, had not quitted the shore before the time appointed, and, according to the evidence of the sailors in her, Thomas was not down in time to go on board. He had, however, later found his way on board, and was very indignant with the boatswain who had charge of the boat, towards whom he used most violent, offensive, disgusting, and insubordinate language—language which he also made use of in reference to the captain. His offence was of so grave a nature that it was thought requisite that he should be tried by court martial. Now, the hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that Thomas

  975
  had been on leave of absence for the purpose of getting married; but he had set up no such defence on his trial. On the contrary, he stated that he had been on shore to see his brother, had been drinking with him, and had, unfortunately, become intoxicated. The evidence of the sailors who were with him, however, was to the effect that he was sober when he used the language just referred to. The sentence passed by the court martial was stated perfectly accurately in the question; but he was bound to say that those tribunals, like individuals, were sometimes liable to error. They sometimes erred on the side of leniency; sometimes on that of severity. All sentences of courts martial came under the revision of the Admiralty, which not unfrequently exercised the privilege of mercy in mitigating a sentence, when in their opinion it was too harsh. He (Lord Clarence Paget) had no doubt that in this case the Admiralty would have an opportunity of mitigating the sentence; but he must be allowed to say, that if such a mitigation occurred, it would not be the consequence of the subject having been brought before that House, because nothing could be more fatal to the discipline of the navy, than that the House of Commons should be turned into a Court of Appeal from the judgments of courts martial. He hoped that the hon. Member would not move for the proceedings of this court martial, which would, under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, be obtainable by the prisoner at the end of three months.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to know, whether the Admiralty could not take steps to prevent misunderstandings respecting the proceedings of courts martial, getting abroad? The matter was one on which the public mind was very sensitive.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsincerely wished the Admiralty had the means of preventing misunderstandings on such subjects. And here he might refer to a question of which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) had given him notice, respecting a case where it was stated in a newspaper that a sailor had actually been ordered fifteen years' hard labour for attempting to commit suicide. There was not a word of foundation for that statement. The only way in which erroneous assertions respecting the Navy could be corrected, was by hon. Members having the goodness to draw his attention publicly to them as they occurred.

HIGHWAYS ACT.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he wished to ask the Law Officers of the Crown, in the construction of the following sentence in the Schedule of the Highways Act—namely, "All questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present," whether it is necessary that there should be a majority of the persons present, or that it is sufficient that there should be a majority of those who, being present, give their votes.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the point alluded to by the hon. Member was one on which there was a great diversity of opinion. As the clause had not yet received a judicial interpretation, he would be a bold man that would venture to express a confident opinion upon it. Nevertheless he had an opinion, and he would state it for what it was worth. It appeared to him there could be no fair doubt as to what the answer should be. It was not sufficient that there should be a majority of those who, being present, gave their votes; but there ought to be, for the purpose of constituting an effectual majority, a majority of persons present voting one way or the other.

DISTRESS IN THE COTTON DISTRICTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the continued severe distress in the cotton districts, and the great sufferings of the operatives from the want of remunerative employment, it is not due to them that an early morning sitting should be fixed for the Second Reading of the Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Bill.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that the second reading of the Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) Bill would probably come on the first thing on Thursday evening; but he could not at present make any arrangement respecting its committal. The Government had, however, every desire to expedite the passing of the measure.

OUTRAGE AT ZANZIBAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any information

  977
  respecting an outrage said to have been perpetrated by Arabs on an English subject at Zanzibar in February last, and respecting reports lately published in the French newspapers of hostile feeling against the European residents excited in the minds of the native population of Zanzibar by certain alleged operations of British cruisers engaged in the repression of the Slave Trade?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, he had referred to the French papers, and he had found in the Journal des Debuts an account of a state of things at Zanzibar corresponding with what his hon. Friend had stated It appeared that a meeting had been held of European residents respecting the feelings of the Arabs towards the English. The meeting was presided over by a French gentleman, and considering the source from which the information came it was somewhat suspicious. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to the papers which had been laid on the table, he would find, that while the slave trade had been repressed on the west coast of Africa, it had received an unfortunate development on the east coast, under the name of free-labour emigration. It was carried on not only by French agents, but under the French flag. The British cruisers, acting under a treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, had done all in their power to put an end to this infamous traffic, which appeared, from the evidence of travellers in Africa, to have produced the greatest possible misery amongst the unhappy people of the country. In districts that had formerly been inhabited by races of negroes in an advanced state of civilization when compared with those on the western coast, hundreds and even thousands of villages had been deserted, and an extent of suffering had been produced that could hardly be described. He hoped that the efforts of the British cruisers would put a stop to this state of things; but unfortunately the French merchants at Zanzibar derived large profits from the traffic, and they were very much averse to have it interfered with. He trusted, however, that when the French Government were informed of the facts, the Emperor, who had expressed his determination to put down the slave trade, would cause something to be done to remedy the evil.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, he wished to know if his hon. Friend had any information from the British Consuls?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had none beyond what he had stated. The hon. Gentleman
  978
  subsequently rose, and said that he wished to correct any misconception that might be entertained as to the meaning of his remarks on the slave trade on the east coast of Africa. What he meant to say was, that a trade which was virtually a slave trade was being carried on. A trade in what were called "free labourers" was being carried on under the protection of France, but the way in which those free labourers was obtained was something very much resembling a slave trade. By the Convention with France the slave trade was put an end to.

THE PATRIOTIC FUND

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Tyrone, What is the salary and the emoluments of Captain Fishbourne, one of the Honorary Secretaries of the Patriotic Fund?
  MR. CORRYsaid, he was afraid he must ask leave to preface his answer by explaining why Captain Fishbourne, although in receipt of a salary, was designated Honorary Secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund. At the time when the Commission issued it was not supposed that the Fund would reach a large amount, or that the time occupied in its distribution would extend over a long period, and consequently the establishment in connection with the Commission was organized merely on a temporary footing. Under these circumstances it was decided that the office of Secretary should be an honorary appointment; and Captain Fishbourne, having been strongly recommended by Sir James Graham, then First Lord of the Admiralty, his name was inserted in the Royal Commission along with that of Colonel Lefroy as one of the joint Honorary Secretaries. Colonel Lefroy shortly after received an appointment at the War Office, and ceased to act, and Captain Fishbourne thus became the sole acting Secretary of the Royal Commission. He entered on his arduous and responsible duties in the year 1854, and continued to serve as Honorary Secretary, without any salary, until 1860—that was, for a period of upwards of five years. It was true that during this period he received an annual allowance at first fixed at one hundred and fifty guineas, but afterwards raised to £200, but this was not a remuneration for service performed, but merely to indemnify him for the additional expenses imposed on him by the necessity of living

  979
  in London instead of in the country, where he had previously resided; and considering that he was a married man with a family, he did not think the amount would be considered extravagant. But it turned out that the munificence of the public, which placed a sum amounting to little short of £1,500,000 at the disposal of the Commissioners, enabled them to provide not only for the immediate wants of widows and orphans of the Russian war, but also to provide permanent allowances for widows and infirm children, as well as to appropriate large sums towards the endowment of schools for the education of the orphans of soldiers, sailors, and marines, Under these circumstances, the Fund ceased to be of a temporary character, and the permanent services of a Secretary were consequently required. Captain Fishbourne could not continue to act in that capacity Without foregoing all chance of promotion and employment in his profession, in which he had as fair a claim to advancement as any other Officer on the list of Captains of the Royal Navy; and he, consequently, applied to be placed on the same footing as the paid Secretaries of other Royal Commissions. It was not, however, within the competence of the Royal Commissioners to comply with this request, because his position was defined as Honorary Secretary in the Royal Commission, which they had no power to alter and they consequently decided on securing his services by appointing him paid Member of the Executive and Finance Committee; and it was in that capacity, and not as Honorary Secretary, that he received payment for his services. The amount of his salary was fixed by the Royal Commissioners at £600 a year, and to remove all doubt, he (Mr. Corry) might add that that salary was not in addition to, but inclusive of, his previous allowance of £200 a year. The duties which Captain Fishbourne performed in return for that salary required his daily attendance during the usual hours of official business at the Office, except when absent on other duties, such as visiting schools. Being at the head of the Office, he was responsible for the manner in which its business was conducted, and no money could be disbursed without his signature and sanction, and the present annual disbursement amounted to nearly £78,000. The hon. Gentleman had further asked, "What is the amount of Captain Fishbourne's emoluments?" His answer was, that he was not in the receipt of any emolument but his salary
  980
  of £600 per year. He was, according to invariable practice, allowed his travelling expenses, and the total amount of these for eight years and a half had been only £201, being at the rate of less than £25 a year.

CAPTAIN FOWKE'S DESIGNS FOR THE EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any engagement has been made by Her Majesty's Government—whether any agreement has been entered into with Captain Fowke, to pay him for those designs which had been exhibited by him at the Exhibition at the National Gallery. There were in that Exhibition two façades extending over the whole space of the Exhibition Building. He wished to know whether those designs have been made at Captain Fowke's expense, or whether there is any understanding on the part of the Government to remunerate him? Also, whether, if there is to be any remuneration, and the sum is not included in the Vote, Captain Fowke will be the loser by the amount of time he has devoted to the preparation of these designs?
MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that as far as his Department was concerned, he was not aware of any arrangement with Captain Fowke. His impression was that Captain Fowke, having designed the Exhibition Building for a temporary purpose, wished to show how, in his idea, that building might be made of an ornamental character. As far as he (Mr. Cowper) knew, Captain Fowke had volunteered his views with regard to these architectural plans.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Then I understand, if the Vote should not be carried, Captain Fowke will receive no remuneration?
MR. ROEBUCK: But the Vote is carried.

STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—QUESTION.
MR. DOULTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken to test the accuracy of the Standards of Weights and Measures deposited in the Exchequer in the year 1825?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the secondary standards of weights and measures

981
were used as local standards. The secondary standards of weight and length had been in use since the year 1835, and that of capacity since 1834. There was no reason to suppose that they were not accurate copies of the primary standards, but there was no power given to the Government to re-verify them. It might be advantageous that an occasional re-verification should be made, but a legislative measure would be necessary for that purpose.

BRIDE AND BLACKWATER RIVERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the officers of the Admiralty and the Board of Works in Ireland, regarding the serious obstruction caused to navigation in the rivers Bride and Blackwater, in the county of Waterford, by stake and head weirs. It appeared that a considerable number of weirs had been placed in those rivers, rendering them almost impassable; and that with regard to them the Admiralty and the Board of Works in Ireland acted very unsatisfactorily, each shifting the responsibility upon the other. The matter had at last got into the hands of the Board of Trade, and he trusted that some redress would at length be obtained by the persons who complained of the obstruction caused by the weirs. He should conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is the opinion of this House, that it is the duty of the Government to carry the Law into effect by immediately removing Stake and Head Weirs in the Rivers Bride and Blackwater, in the county of Waterford.—(Mr. Blake.)
  MR. PEELsaid, that the reports to which the hon. Gentleman had referred showed that the navigation of these two rivers was seriously interfered with by the erection of weirs. But when he came to consider to what the delay in the removal of those obstructions was owing, he found it did not arise from any apathy on the part of the administrators of the law, or from the bandying of responsibility between the Admiralty and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, but from the incomplete and inconsistent powers given by the Act of Parliament. There were many prohibitions in the acts, and no doubt many of the weirs were illegal, but
  982
  it was not by any means easy to apply a remedy. Many exceptions were granted by the law itself; and the Commissioners of Public Works had no power to take the initiative in the removal of the weirs. It was necessary that a complaint should first be laid before them before they could interfere. Somebody else, in short, must set the law in motion, but up to a recent period not a single complaint had been made. It was quite true that power was given to the Commissioners to remove all weirs where they appeared to obstruct the navigation of any river; but the reason why they had not interfered was because they were of opinion that they were conservators of the fisheries rather than of the navigation of the rivers. They had looked upon the Board of Admiralty rather than upon the Board of Public Works as the conservators of the navigation. Nor did they consider that they had power sufficient to enable them to interfere successfully. There was no right of appeal under the Act of Parliament. Moreover, the powers of the Board were on the point of ceasing, and were about to be transferred to the new Commissioners of Fisheries. He therefore recommended the hon. Gentleman to wait till these changes had been made before he proceeded with the subject.
  MR. M'MAHONmoved, at the end of the Motion, to add, "and all other encroachments on the property of the Crown and the rights of the public in the tidal waters and shores of Ireland." He said that all the rivers of Ireland were interrupted by weirs which parties had no right to place there. They wanted no Commissioners and no Act of Parliament. The Attorney General was all they wanted. In England, if anybody intruded on the seashore, there was an information filed at once. In Ireland, if an intrusion was made for the public benefit, as for a railway or the like, the Board came and removed the intrusion; but if it were by a private person, it seemed there was no remedy whatever. The Attorney General ought to file an information at once against the offenders. The weirs had been erected under the pretence of the Act of 1842, and now that they had been erected it would no doubt be pretended that a Charter granted by Charles I or Charles 11 sanctioned their erection. The longer they were permitted to remain the greater pretence would be given for pleading before a jury that a charter had been granted.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and all other encroachments on the property of the Crown and the rights of the public in the tidal waters and shores of Ireland."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, that the Motion seemed to him very like a truism. It looked like a declaration that the Government ought to enforce the law; and there required no Motion to inform the Government of that. The question was, whether or not the Government had failed to do their duty. From the statements that had been made by the hon. and learned Member, he did not see that any evidence had been brought forward of any neglect of duty on the part of the Government. As far as he had been informed, many of the weirs on the Bride and Blackwater were as much legal weirs as any in the empire. It was true that a number of cases of alleged illegality had been brought before his notice. But the answer he had given was, "Bring me sufficient evidence of the illegality, and I will prosecute. But if you do not, I must decline to do so." If sufficient evidence had been brought, he should have felt it his duty to proceed by a writ of intrusion in the Court of Exchequer. But nothing had been said that evening to show that the Government had been guilty of any dereliction of duty.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury and of the hon. and learned Attorney General did not quite accord. There were three branches of the Executive in Ireland—the Admiralty, the Commissioners of Works, and the Commissioners of Fisheries—who were charged with the duty of abating these obstructions. Each cast the responsibility upon the other, and between them the duty was neglected.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the case be-fore the House was a case of great hardship. The Reports showed that no less than three branches of the executive Government had for several years been guilty of breaches of duty. That was practically a denial of the rights of the poor. Under the circumstances he would, nevertheless, not recommend his hon. Friend to press his Motion.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that resting upon the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), he would not press his Motion.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BALLOT.—LEAVE.
MR. H. BERKELEYrose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to cause the Votes of Parliamentary Electors to be taken by way of Ballot. Until very lately he thought he should not have had any opposition from his own side of the House, because, until within a few moments of his rising, he saw an array of his own friends—stanch friends of the Ballot—sitting upon the Treasury benches, and those who were usually opposed to the Question had not arrived. However he was disagreeably disappointed. He now saw the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston), whom it was always so difficult to oppose, notwithstanding the right one might have upon his side. He also saw the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in his place. He ventured, nevertheless, to lay this question once more before the House; and in doing so, he must be allowed to call to the recollection of hon. Members that soon after the Reform Bill had become the law of the land, some of the most able men in England demurred to certain parts of it. Amongst them were the late Lord Macaulay, Mr. Grote, Lord Durham, Mr. Charles Buller, and many others. Those eminent men considered the Reform Bill was defective, because, in the first place, certain close pocket boroughs were allowed to remain, which were a disgrace to free institutions; and, in the second place, they considered that the electors had a right to protection at the polling-places. Mr. Grote embraced the latter question, and brought it before. Parliament in a series of the most logical argumentative speeches, remarkable for their brilliancy of truth, and also remarkable because they were never answered, and were, as he believed, unanswerable. On the retirement of Mr. Grote from Parliament, Sir Henry Ward, at the suggestion he believed, of Mr. Grote, took up the question of the Ballot, and he remembered on that occasion he chose him (Mr. Berkeley), though unworthy, to be his seconder—an honour paid him, no doubt, more on account of the power of his constituency than of any ability of his own. When Sir Henry Ward retired, he advised him (Mr. Berkeley) to take up the question, and he agreed with Mr. Grote that the question ought to be agitated—he thought, as a matter of justice to the electors, it was a question which should be annually brought

985
before Parliament. He therefore endeavoured to obtain the assistance of his hon. Friends, and proposed that they should take up the matter. And when he found that no man was willing to interfere between him and the question, he took it up himself; and this was the fifteenth time he had had the honour of bringing forward a substantive Motion on the subject. It seemed to him that the question ought to be brought forward. There was a great grievance resting upon the country; and if nobody was prepared to state that grievance, the question might fall through, and at the time when the people were prepared to assert their rights, and to call on the Government of the day to redress the grievance, the good fight would have to be fought over again. At the present moment, it was not too much to say that the question stood, as regarded argument, upon an unassailable foundation. It had been assailed by the greatest talents that that House possessed from time to time, from year to year, no matter which party might possess the Government; and if any one would dispassionately take up Hansard, he would see that the attacks made had all failed. He now brought forward the question under very adverse circumstances, it having been so often argued; but he would pursue the course he had pursued hitherto. He would not attempt to bring forward any new arguments, even if he were ingenious enough to find any; but he should he content to dispose of those arguments which, from time to time, had been brought forward against the question, and merely confine himself to the defensive. He should leave the question to the consideration of the House and the country. ["Divide, divide!"]. There were but two theoretical points which he should touch upon. One objection against the Ballot was, that it was un-English and unmanly. [MR. BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] Though the hon. Member for Norfolk cheered that sentiment—if he (Mr. Berkeley) could succeed in convincing him that the Ballot was the mode—the usual mode—of taking votes in all elections throughout England, and that open voting was an exception to that rule, he thought he would be able to do away with this objection. He held in his hand the list of public bodies, institutions and companies using the Ballot; and he thought that that would be a convincing proof that the Ballot was not only not un-English, but that that was the rule, and open voting was the exception. Now,
986
amongst those who were elected by Ballot, were the vestrymen and auditors of the vestries of London. Of institutions using it, he might name the Royal Astronomical Society, the Society of Antiquaries, the Royal Society, the Linnæan Society, Christ's Hospital, and Dulwich College. The Bank of England and the Charterhouse both acknowledged the principles of the ballot. So also did the following clubs—namely, the Guards, the Carlton, the Senior and the Junior United Service, the Travellers, the Oxford and Cambridge, the Clarendon, the University, Brooks's, White's, Boodles', the Wyndham, and the Union. The benefit societies, numbering 700,000 members, elected their officers by ballot. The Freemasons' Society elected the master and treasurer of every subordinate lodge by ballot. Nineteen out of twenty of the friendly societies used the ballot in the election of their officers. The Volunteer corps, when permitted to elect their officers, did so by means of the ballot. He now came to ecclesiastical bodies. He would say nothing about the ancient Established Church of the country—the Roman Catholic Church—because its practice might not apply to this case; but it was well known that all the ecclesiastical elections of the Roman Catholic Church, from the Sovereign Pontiff downwards, took place by ballot. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, incorporated in 1698, was very strict in electing its officers by ballot. That Society comprised some of the most distinguished men on either side of the House, and the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being was President, and all the Bishops were officers or members; and they voted by ballot. He would ask them to observe for a moment how that society illustrated the utility of the ballot. They all knew that the Church at that moment was torn with dissension by the Essays and Reviews. ["Divide, divide!"] If any young clergyman should come up from Oxford, being a pupil of an Essayist or Reviewer, and should state his desire to vote for a person belonging to that class, he would be received with indignation, and would be considered little better than a heretic. Now, the ballot gave the young clergy the free use of their vote; and if they acknowledged that in a society like that the ballot was useful, why, he asked, should they not extend the same protection to the elector at the poll, who had so much need of it? Again, the Church Missionary Society

987
used the ballot; the Wesleyan Methodists, the largest body of Protestant Dissenters in Great Britain, also used it. So did the United Methodist Free Churches and the Churches of the Baptist denomination. He would wind up the account of those elections with the fact that the Bishop of Canada was elected by ballot by the Synod of Quebec; after the election it was also stated that the Te Deum was sung, and the Synod separated. He had now shown that the ballot was adopted by almost every respectable body throughout England, and he must therefore say that the statement of the ballot being un-English was not merely a mistake or a fallacy, but it almost amounted to an untruth. He had one more theoretical point to answer, and that was a theory in which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) always indulged. The noble Viscount made use of that old maxim which nobody disputed—that all that we possessed, whether acquired or a gift by nature, we held for the benefit of mankind; and he applied that general axiom to the votes of electors, stating that the vote must not be given in secret, because the franchise was a trust bestowed upon the electors to be used for the benefit of the non-electors; and, said the noble Lord—he (Mr. Berkeley) now using his own words—"The elector must bear the responsibility, whether for good or for evil." Now, that was a very bold proposition—"for good or for evil;" what did that mean? Surely, if a man were found to be a faulty trustee, he fell under the indignation of the man of whom he held the trust; and if he were a good trustee, he deserved praise. The noble Lord's argument therefore was antagonistic to all the great maxims laid down by our first lawyers and statesmen. Even Lord Russell, who participated in the error of the noble Viscount, used language actually contradicting the position which he upheld. Lord Russell said—
"Our most ancient statutes, our greatest constitutional laws, our most established maxims, all laid down the position that the people of England ought to elect their representatives freely and indifferently."
The noble Viscount, however, said, that the electors were the trustees of the non-electors, and they must have open voting, and be content to bear the responsibility, whether for good or for evil. Now, if that were not directly contradictory of the maxim laid down by Lord Russell, he (Mr. Berkeley) did not know what was. Again,
988
Lord Chief Justice Holt, who was strong upon the subject, said—
"It is a great privilege to vote for those who make laws which govern life and property—a privilege so important that it may not be deputed to another."
But the noble Lord deputed this privilege to the non-electors. He took it from the elector, and placed the non-elector over him. The noble Viscount said the elector was answerable to the non-elector, and bore the; responsibility. There was another authority who delivered his opinions in good strong terse English. He meant Lord Chesterfield. In a debate in 1738, on the interference of Government in the election of Scotch Peers, he said—
"Every man who is allowed a vote in any election is the law-preserver, capable of determining within himself who is the most proper person for that office to which he elects. If the elector be dictated to in his voting, either by money, by threats, or by promises, it is the person so dictating who is properly the elector, and not the voter himself, who is made a tool of. Therefore it has always been deemed to be a maxim of the common law of England that elections should be fairly and regularly made without any interference whatever."
Lord Chesterfield, in this constitutional speech, was directly antagonistic to the noble Viscount and Earl Russell, who held the principle that the elector was to be answerable to the non-elector. One more authority—the last, certainly, upon his (Mr. Berkeley's) list. Edmund Burke, than whom no greater authority could be found as to the privileges and rights of the electoral body, when speaking of Parliamentary elections, said that his (the elector's) unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, ought not to yield to any man living; but the noble Viscount said that the elector's opinions should be biassed by the non-electors—that his mature judgment should yield to the non-elector, and that his conscience should be smothered in the commands of those who had no votes. But let him (Mr. Berkeley) deal more closely with the subject—let him ask the question—Since the electors were, as the noble Lord said, the trustees of the non-electors, and were answerable to the latter, to what body of the non-electors were they answerable? Because it was obvious that in a contested election the electors were divided into as many sections as there were candidates; and if the elector obeyed one section of the non-electors, he must disobey the others. Then he thought be bad a right, since it

989
was said that the decision of the elector did not lie within his own breast, to ask to what section of the non-electors did the right of discretion belong? And, further, let him (Mr. Berkeley) supppose that an elector was desirous of voting for a Tory, and that his neighbours, non-electors, desired him to vote for a Whig, which was he to obey—his own conscience or the dictates of the non-electors? Now he should like an answer to that question. He would show how the answer would tell in both ways. Suppose it were said that the electors must obey the command of the non-electors, what state of things was achieved? It was a virtual disfranchisement of the elector, and an enfranchisement of the non-elector. Could absurdity go further? It reminded him of the pas-gage in The Tempest—"Stephano shall be king of this island, and I will be viceroy over him." The noble Lord said the elector should continue to have his vote, but the non-elector should be viceroy over him. Having attempted to upset the theory, he would proceed to show how the system acted in practice. He had in his hand a very strange document founded on the noble Lord's theory. The non-electors of the Borough of Rochdale formed themselves into a society, and they said that Lord Russell had declared that the elective franchise was a trust given to the electors for the benefit of the non-electors. Now how was this trust discharged? They said, "We will have the poll book printed with the vote of every man, and we shall then know who votes one way and who votes the other." The preface to the poll-book was very curious. It was published by order of the non-electors' committee, and they said—
"The committee of the non-electors' association present to the unenfranchised portion of the inhabitants of the borough a list of the votes polled at the recent Parliamentary contest. The non-electors will read, mark, and learn, who supported their claims to the suffrage, and who have not recognized that right, and will not fail to bring their influence to bear on the electors, to show them that the interests of the electors and non-electors are really identical, and that both are in a wrong position under the present franchise—the one refusing to give, and the other un-able to obtain justice. The theory is that the £10 voters have votes in trust as well as in their own right."
This vindicated the practice of publishing lists of voters until the time should come when every man could vote in his own right under the protection of the ballot. Now, if this was not a piece of exclusive
990
dealing, got up under the sanction of the opinion of the noble Lord and Earl Russell, he should like to know what was. But that was not the only instance of the appliance of the noble Lord's doctrine to the rights of electors. At Cork, some years ago, there was a very severe election contest. The candidates were Murphy, Fagan, and Chatterton. The priests were extremely active. They said the vote was a trust held in trust for all who were not voters. It was the duty of the non-electors to watch the poll, and those who voted for Murphy and Fagan were good trustees, and those who voted for Chatterton were faithless and bad trustees. The consequence of telling an Irishman that one man was good and that another man was bad, was that he immediately tapped the good man on the shoulder and gave him a glass of whisky, and knocked the bad man down. That he conceived to be the Irish practice. At least, it was so some years ago. He had it on the evidence of Mr. Chatterton himself, that the hotel was more like an hospital after a battle, with the wounded and bleeding lying about in all directions, than a place of entertainment. That was the effect of the opinions of the noble Lord and Lord Russell as to the vote being a trust held for the benefit of the non-electors. He would just call the attention of the House to the evidence of Daniel Creane, who said or swore that he heard Father Beyney at mass one Sunday tell the people that the voters held the franchise only as a trust for the rest, and therefore he advised them to call on their neighbours and ask them to vote for Fagan and Murphy, and to oblige them so to vote whether they would or not. He then gave evidence as to the number of promises given which were afterwards broken, and the votes recorded the other way, and said the people told him that their only reason for breaking their word was that they had no other means of saving themselves from being murdered. If the doctrine of the noble Lord was right, it certainly was very inconvenient if it produced such results; but he (Mr. Berkeley) asserted that the doctrine was unconstitutional and contrary to the opinions of the greatest men, and mischievous and bloody in practice. He had often expressed an opinion that those hon. Members who united with him in advocating the ballot would do well to bring before the House instances of malversation of the franchise. That was the best argument that could be used. The

991
practice which too often prevailed was disgraceful to a civilized country. If hon. Gentlemen would confine themselves to illustrations of such malversation, they would materially assist those who might bring forward the question at some future time. There would then be a record in Hansard which would render the task of those who followed him comparatively easy—for the ballot was founded on the principle of right and justice, and must eventually be carried. He hoped the House would allow him to carry out in a practical shape the advice he had just given to hon. Members, and to lay before them a case or two out of many instances of malversation of the franchise which had recently occurred. Amongst the elections which had occurred since he last brought the question before the House were those of Southampton, East Kent, Devonport, Totnes, and Lisburn. There was likewise a very pretty specimen of an election at New Ross recorded in the papers of that morning, in which it appeared that two or three Roman Catholic priests were put into a boxing attitude before a crowd of women, and it appeared that they got considerably the worst of it. An examination of the details of these elections would bear him out in saying that some change was required. The first case he would mention was that of Devonport. It was the custom bf the Society of which he was the chairman to appoint agents without reference to party to watch the proceedings at elections, to receive reports from them, and then to judge of the necessity of giving them publicity. In answer to questions put to the agents at Devonport they said, there was no evidence of direct bribery, but that treating there certainly was to some extent; that the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act appeared to be only so much waste paper. In reply to the question, "Was the election screw used?" the answer was, "Tremendously, and chiefly by the hangers-on of the Government." They were next asked, if the votes had been given by ballot, what would have been the effect on the election? The reply was, that Ferrand's majority would have been increased considerably. It was stated that probably more than 300 of the electors had Abstained from voting from fear of the consequences. The electors at Devonport had always desired the ballot, and it was a remarkable fact that the same desire was manifested in all the other Government boroughs. From Devonport he would turn
992
to the remarkable borough of Totnes. In Dod's Parliamentary Companion Totnes was described as being under the fostering wing of the Duke of Somerset. He knew not how that might be, but would mention a few cases which had occurred at the last election. Mr. Lee, the seconder of Mr. Dent, the Conservative candidate, said, that as far as he could reckon, four-fifths of the electors were in favour of Dent, and that one-fifth of the Duke's tenants would support him. Mr. Dent stated that he had canvassed almost every vote, and was quite satisfied with the result. Then came an address from Mr. Dent, commencing—
"I abhor the ballot. In my opinion it would be unworthy of an Englishman to exercise the highest of all privileges and at the same time to shrink from public avowal of their responsibility."
He seemed to have copied the noble Lord's words. Now, what occurred the next day? He said—
"I regret to find myself compelled, by a regard to your interests, to withdraw from the contest at the eleventh hour. After the nomination and show of hands yesterday, a certain territorial influence, which had been looming in the background, was boldly brought to the front From that moment the election was lost, and as I was advised that I could not go to the poll without involving many of my humble supporters in instant ruin and compromising the future development of Conservative strength, I resolved, at whatever sacrifice of my own inclinations, to withdraw from the struggle."
The address and the speech were strange commentaries, the one upon the other. And now what occurred on the other Bide of the question? Mr. Seymour, at the nomination, said he had heard a great deal about intimidation and coercion, but he had found everywhere proofs within the borough that the electors were intimidated and coerced on the other side, and he saw men in the crowd who were themselves Liberals, but who were unable to vote with their party because of the influence brought to bear upon them. The electors were kept in folds like sheep, ready to be taken to the poll, and every night many of them were carried out of the borough that the Conservatives might keep them in their power till the day of election. The agents of the Ballot Society reported that bribery and intimidation were in great force, and that one party was just as bad as the other. It was stated at the time in The Standard newspaper—
"It is confidently expected that the Conservative candidate will win, notwithstanding the unconstitutional influence of the Duke of Somerset, which on this occasion has been exalted to a pitch

993
which has given rise to the by-word that the Duke has surpassed himself. If the Duke's man, as the Duke's local agents call him, does not win on the present occasion, we can only say he ought to do so.
"P.S.—The Duke's man won by eight votes."
That was a picture of an English borough. He did not say there was one word of truth in the charge against the Duke of Somerset; but if it were true that he had exercised all that power, the doctrine of the noble Lord would exonerate him, for the Duke of Somerset was a non-elector, and had a right to dictate to his trustees. Why should not the Duke adopt the opinion of the noble Lord as to his right over his trustees, or, following the example of an other Duke, say, "Have I not a right to do what I like with my own?" He now came to the East Kent election. When the screw was put on most tremendously, one man stated that that screw was put on him ferociously by his landlord. He wished to vote for Dering but his landlord desired him to vote for Knatchbull. The result was that he received notice to quit; but his landlord was cunning, and having the Corrupt Practices Act on his mind, he said, "I must take care—I must not say a word as to why I turn the tenant out; but I shall tell him I did not turn him out for political purposes;" and that was sufficient to put aside that glorious Act of Parliament. In another case, an East Kent elector, by the advice of his lawyer, went with a witness to his landlord with a view to draw from him a declaration that he was to be expelled from his holding on account of the Course he had pursued at the recent election. "I am very sorry," said the man, "that you should think it necessary to turn me out of my cottage on account of my vote." "Well," said the landlord, who saw through the object of the visit, "who told you that?" "You were very angry," said the man; "and as I have always paid my rent, I cannot see what other reason you can have except the manner in which I voted." "Now, mark me," said the landlord, "I have a great objection to men with Roman noses. You, Sir, have got a nose like a reaping hook, and I mean in future to have no tenants but those who have small noses." The tenant informed the lawyer of what had occurred, and the lawyer said, "There is no redress; you must consider yourself turned out on account of the turn of your nose." Thanking the House for the attention they had shown him, he would remark, that since he last addressed the House the ballot had been
994
bearing excellent fruit in every part of the world—even in America. It was looked upon there as the support of respectability against an overweening rank democracy. He would quote a paper adverse and impertinently personal to himself, and that was The Times. And what said The Times?—at least, what said The Times Correspondent? He always found that the faithful correspondents and reporters of that paper were in opposition to those gentlemen who wrote the leading articles. Well, what said the Correspondent of that paper? "That the only hope of upsetting Abraham Lincoln and his crew was the ballot-box." He did not say that the ballot was perfect in America; but it was the best institution that America possessed at present. Now as to France. We were told the other day that the French Government were preparing the ballot-box with great care, as The Times said, "with excellent care;" and then it added with a sneer, "Of what use is the ballot? It will be under the power of an autocrat, and will therefore be utterly useless." He was not prepared to say "No" to that, for an autocrat could override everything. But what happened? The ballot-box defeated the Government, and returned Members in their very teeth. He held in his hand a letter from M. Simon, who had been returned for one of the arrondissements of Paris. The Ballot Society had asked him his opinion relative to the operation of the ballot? This gentleman The Times described as a moderate politician and an able and honest man. The first question was this—
"The enemies of secret voting in England are accustomed to refer to secret voting as used in France under the decree of February 1852, as an institution hostile to public liberty."
The answer was—
"The ballot has always been considered in France as the shield and guardian of public liberty. After the coup d'élat of 1851 it was demanded that there should be open voting. The nation, preferring to give a vote of absolution to the author of the coup d'état, would not give up the secret ballot, and the Government yielded."
In reply to another question, M. Simon said he thought the opposition candidates in Paris might have been elected by open voting by a slight majority; but that in the communes they certainly would have been defeated. France, then, under adverse circumstances, was favourable to the ballot. America looked to the ballot for protection. And in Australia, while reviewing their electoral constitution, and

995
very properly, as he thought, deciding that electors should be three months resident, and able to read and write, not a man was to be found who spoke of the ballot as faulty. On the contrary, the whole of them rejoiced in the ballot as one of the most beneficial measures they ever had in Australia. He begged leave to hand in his Motion; and although he had no expectation that the House, would allow him to introduce the Bill, he should sit down perfectly satisfied that the foundation of the perfect structure of the ballot had been laid in the House.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He felt great pleasure in doing so, and he entirely adhered to the opinions he had expressed on former occasions. He never heard any answer to the admirable speeches annually made by his hon. Friend on the question. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was the only man who had attempted to answer them, but he always failed in doing so.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to cause the Votes of Parliamentary Electors to be taken by way of Ballot."—(Mr. Henry Berkeley.)
THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman Roan)said, he rose to speak on the subject with great reluctance, especially as he understood that the discussion would not be carried on; but he felt that the arguments which had been addressed to the House required a protest against the fallacies uttered in favour of the measure. The cases of France, America, and Australia which had been cited really tended strongly against the hon. Gentleman's argument instead of being in its favour. In France the Emperor could not have been elected except through the ballot-box. In America secret voting had driven the leading minds out of the Government, and they had no men to guide the people out of their present difficulties. That was the effect of the ballot. He thought the United States was a standing warning to this country; and, in fact, that which had been going on there had caused a reaction in this country. The next case referred to by the hon. Member was that of Australia. Now, Australia was an example to the world to avoid and eschew the ballot-box. There men got to power to carry out some great scheme for their own aggrandisement; and when they had accomplished this, they went out of power again. The hon. Mem-
996
ber said that the elector was entitled to the protection of the ballot-box; but the elector was the representative of the non-elector, and, that being so, he was no more entitled to the protection which the hon. Member claimed for him than were the Members of that House when discharging their Parliamentary duties. He thanked God that in the House of Commons the Members of Parliament had an array of reporters over their heads, and that publicity was given to their acts in that assembly. While that publicity remained, this country would maintain her present position. As soon as she lost it, she would sink to that dead level to which France and America had already come. The arguments against the ballot might be carried on ad infinitum, and it appeared to him that there was no argument on the other side. The hon. Member had alluded to the Southampton election. That was as open and as constitutional a fight as ever come off in this country. The men there cared no more for the political opinions of their masters than they did for those of any other individuals in the community; but it was not against the influence of the masters that they had chiefly to contend, because they had been oppressed for twenty years by the iron heel of Democracy. They had, however, indicated in his person their right to elect the candidate of their choice; and, in doing so, they had spurned a thraldom under which there had been a long struggle to place them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I will not detain the House for more than a very few moments, but I should be unwilling that my hon. Friend (Mr. Berkeley) should go to a division under the impression that he had convinced me by the mere assertion, which he has so frequently made, that all the arguments which I used against his Motion on former occasions have been answered, and are worth nothing at all. My hon. Friend, like other great performers, has an annual benefit; and though I am afraid he will not draw a great deal this time, still there it is, and I do not in the least deprecate it. But my hon. Friend, with great simplicity and frankness, said he had tried all over the House to find some other person who would undertake to moot this question, and that he had not succeeded—such was the general opinion, either of the merits of the question or its chances of success, that having knocked at every door, he was obliged to undertake the task himself. So much for his admission as to the value of the question in the minds of the Members of this House.

997
Then my hon. Friend stated, that though he had frequently had a great number of amateur supporters, yet, somehow or other, every Government that was responsible for the conduct of affairs opposed the Motion which he made. Well, that, I think, indicates primâ facie that there must be some value in the objections urged against his proposition. My hon. Friend seems to me to place the whole thing on a wrong foundation; for in his arguments in favour of the ballot he appears to forget what is the vital principle—I may say, the breath of life—of the British Constitution—namely, public opinion and public responsibility. My hon. Friend quotes a great number of private societies which use the ballot in the election of their members. That has nothing to do with the question—it has nothing whatever to do with the matter, and his illustration is totally foreign to his argument. Those private societies have no public responsibility; those clubs are not answerable to the country for the election of their members. They are guided solely by the consideration, who is likely to prove an agreeable member of society—whom it may be pleasant or whom it may be unpleasant to meet in the club-room; and therefore the argument founded by my hon. Friend on the practice of those societies is altogether inapplicable to the question under consideration. In clubs are there reporters present to make known in detail to the world the proceedings of the members? If there were, the case of my hon. Friend might be somewhat advanced by an illustration drawn from the clubs; but as it is the clubs do not help him. What would be the effect of the ballot in respect of public opinion and public responsibility? What is public opinion? The avowed opinion of the aggregate of the members of the community; but, according to my hon. Friend, an elector is to have no openly-expressed opinion, not only on the day of the election, but all through his life; because, if he ventures to express his opinion in conversation with his friends or neighbours, the ballot is of no use to conceal his political sentiments. If a man is known to be a zealous Tory, every one may legitimately conclude, when he goes to the ballot-box, that he does not vote for a Liberal; and so it is vice versâ. Why, Sir, if you have the ballot, the elector must conceal his opinion even from his wife and family; and is that a position you would wish any Englishman to
998
be placed in? To nullify public opinion by crushing it in each individual—that, I say, is contrary to the very spirit and essence of the British Constitution. The mere sneaking to the hustings with a paper in your hand, and poking it into a hole, hoping that no one will see how your wrist turns, that is not secret voting, unless you secure that all a man's political opinions, partialities, and preferences shall be confined within his own breast. The way in which a man votes will be known by the political opinions which he expresses. Then I say, that if you divest a man of the responsibility to which he ought to be liable in respect of his public trust, you quash public opinion, and extinguish one of the essential principles of the British Constitution, and establish a principle which is unconstitutional and un-English. My hon. Friend quotes other countries. He refers to America, that country which we have so often heard quoted as an example in this House. But does not every one know that voting is not secret in America? Certainly, they vote there by means of pieces of paper for their governors, judges, and other public functionaries; but their vote is known, it is no more secret than ours. They put their tickets in their hats, and every one knows whom a man votes for as well as we do here. I believe there is one State in which there is an attempt at secret voting; but, generally, the ballot in the United States is no more secret voting than is the open polling in this country. I am astonished at the arguments which those who approve the ballot make use of to show that it is a thing which this House ought to wish to establish; but I am happy to say, that so far from my hon. Friend having made converts to his cause, I believe there is a great and recent instance of conversion the other way. There is in this town a society which has adopted a name which is a guarantee for its liberal and advanced opinions—it is called the Reform Club. Well, I am told—it is reported in town, and hon. Members and others will say whether the rumour is correct—that this society has recently been converted to the opinion opposed to that of my hon. Friend on the subject of the ballot. I am informed, that in the first place, whereas up to a recent time the mode of election in that club was similar to the mode of election in other clubs—namely, by ballot—the members have upon deliberate discussion, and also upon the advice of a very eminent Reformer, the hon. Member for

999
Birmingham decided, after full consideration, that election by ballot is not a proper mode of election; and I am told that, in the next place, they have gone further, and imparted to the club the resemblance of a nomination borough, for they have invested a select committee with the choice of the persons who are to be admitted members. I am right in saying that they have gone further than to abolish the ballot, for upon the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, they have not only abolished the ballot—but, instead of reverting to open voting, which would seem to be the legitimate alternative, they have invested a select committee with the task of admitting members. I shall not detain the House; but I assure my hon. Friend that my opinions are rather confirmed than otherwise by the arguments which he has adduced. The mere assertions which he has indulged in, that his arguments are unanswerable, while those of his opponents are worth nothing at all—all those assertions have no effect on my mind, and I hope they will have no effect upon the minds of others. I hope the decision of the House will be on this occasion similar to that which it has been on so many former occasions, and that they will come to the conclusion that the proposition of my hon. Friend is one which ought not to be adopted.
MR. COX, who was almost inaudible amid the general calls for a division, was understood to say, that the ballot was the cardinal point in the creed of the Liberal party; and if the Conservative members would refrain from voting now, reserving to themselves the right to reverse the decision hereafter, the Government would be placed in a minority of at least three to one. The noble Lord forgot that he was at the head of the Government when a Bill was brought in for the government of the metropolis, which gave all householders of £40 a year and upwards the right of voting by ballot. The Metropolis Local Management Act had worked well for the metropolis; and if it was good for 3,000,000, it must be equally good for the whole country. The ballot would get rid of jobbery, bribery, and intimidation, and render elections less noisy and turbulent; because it would be impossible to tell, until the ballot closed, what was the state of the poll. He thought that so great and important a question ought not to be brought to a division without some discussion and some observations from hon. Members. As for the election at New Ross,
1000
which had been mentioned, the excitement there would have been entirely avoided by secret voting, as no one would have known until some time after that the majority had been so narrow.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that at present electors were not subject to the legitimate influence of public opinion, when they might sacrifice themselves by voting openly. Public opinion would act just as much upon men's minds as it did now, and, indeed, it would act more strongly if they gave their votes secretly. When a man's hands were tied, he could not consult public opinion. The noble Lord's manner was very graceful and charming, even when he talked about other gentlemen's wives. No doubt hon. Members were excellent disciples of the conjugal school; but he had some little doubt whether they told everything to their wives. Speaking for the wives, one thing he could be certain of, and that was, that if intrusted with the secret of the votes their husbands intended to give, they would not betray them, especially when ruin might be the result of betrayal. In such a case the wife and the children might be pretty safely intrusted with the husband's secret. Those, however, were futile objections. The noble Lord had intimated that he (Mr. Berkeley) had said his arguments were unanswerable. He (Mr. Berkeley) never thought or said so, but he did say that Mr. Grote's arguments were unanswered.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 122: Majority 20.

ASSIZE AND CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he rose to move a Resolution, "That it is expedient to make such alterations in the Assize and Circuit arrangements as would secure a more speedy trial in the country of country causes." His aim in proposing that Resolution was to carry out the objects of the Commission of 1857, which had inquired into the subject, and had made several recommendations, by giving to the country districts and to towns more frequent opportunities of trying their causes. In the country there were but two assizes in the year, while in London and Middlesex there were no less than ninety-six sittings—thirty-two for each of the three courts; so that a suitor in Middlesex had forty eight times more opportunities of having his case tried than the suitor over

  1001
  the river in the county of Surrey. This was an extraordinary anomaly; and it was also an anomaly, that whilst county courts sat twelve times a year, causes involving more than £50 could only be heard in the country twice in the year. The Great Charter of King John provided that trials of ejectments and other local causes should take place four times a year, and by a statute of Edward I. and others it was provided that there should be three Assizes in the year. But the tendency of modern times had been to concentrate legal business in London. In 1648 there were 452 causes tried in the county of Oxford, and from 1780 to 1849 the average was only 132. The tendency towards Lon don monopoly had at last produced dissatisfaction in the country, where suitors must either wait half a year, or incur the expense of coming to London; and nothing was more common than for defendants to settle on any terms rather than incur the cost and inconvenience of a trial in London. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce had adopted a memorial declaring that the present system involved a denial of justice, and that it ought to be maintained only on weighty and undeniable grounds of public security, and it was owing to such memorials from various law societies and towns in the country that the Commission to which he had referred was appointed, and inquired into the expediency of having a third assize in the country generally. The Commissioners would have recommended additional assizes, but what restrained them was, that they felt that to accomplish this change additional Judges must be appointed. The Incorporated Law Society of London reported, that considering the long interval of eight months between the summer and spring circuits, it was submitted that there should be a third circuit, and that the terms should be reduced to three by either Easter or Trinity term being abolished. One great objection to the present system was that of having assizes held in so few towns, which necessitated taking parties and witnesses far from their homes; and it was calculated that taking witnesses more than thirty miles doubled the cost of a trial. If that were so, there would be an enormous saving if assize towns were more numerous, and if there were three circuits, which would prevent many country causes being set down for trial in London. The saving which would as a result be effected would more than counterbalance the expense of increasing the number of Judges. At the
  1002
  time the Commission had made its Report there was an impression that the Common Law Judges had not very much work to do, and it was even contended that their number ought to be diminished. The fact was, however, that the business in the superior courts had so increased from various causes that the Judges had now more work than ever to get through, the result being that scarcely any of the courts in Westminster had its full complement of Judges available, some of them being obliged to sit in the Divorce Court or to attend at the Privy Council or elsewhere. Indeed, the great wonder was, seeing how wide was the extent of their duties, that the number of Judges had not long since been increased. In England, which possessed the largest commercial and manufacturing population in the world, there were only fifteen Common Law Judges, whereas in Ireland—where, in his opinion, the number of Judges was far from being too large—there were twelve Judges, although the population was so much less; the number in the superior courts in Scotland being thirteen for a population of only 3,000,000. Now, nothing could be worse in a country than that its Judges should be obliged to get hurriedly through their work, for, according to the old maxim, "Haste was the mother of injustice;" and everybody, he believed, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was satisfied that the number of Judges in England ought to be increased. The expense of creating additional Judges would not be more than £10,000 a year, while that expense would be more than made up for by the saving which might be effected as a consequence of the augmented facilities which would be given for trying causes in Yorkshire and Lancashire alone. The inconvenience of the present system bore with especial hardship, he believed, on the inhabitants-of Yorkshire, who had to go great distances to York to have their causes tried. Now, when they were about to expend so large a sum on providing a refuge for all the animals in the British Museum, it was not, he thought, unreasonable to ask that some £10,000 or £12,000 a year should be laid out in securing the services of a few more Judges to meet the wants of the country in the direction to which his Motion pointed. In 1857 it was intended to issue a commission for the trial of causes at the winter assize in Yorkshire, but that intention was abandoned in consequence, as was stated, of Lord Campbell having "informed the Secretary of State that the Judges

  1003
  were of opinion that parties would not be properly prepared for the trial of civil causes in December." The only difficulty really was the want of more Judges, and he hoped that the public would not be deprived of the accommodation which was so much needed on account of the small additional expense which such an increase would occasion.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that some alteration like that proposed had become of vital importance to the north of England, and particularly to such places as Sheffield. From that town they had to travel fifty-five miles to York to try their causes and their prisoners; whilst in Lancashire, which was a much smaller county, they had three assize towns. The expense was not at all to be estimated in comparison with the immense advantages to be derived from the change proposed. There was no place in the United Kingdom suffering from so great a disadvantage in this respect as the west riding of Yorkshire; and he appealed to the Attorney General, who was well aware of the inconvenience, to assist in its removal.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to make such alterations in the Assize and Circuit arrangements as would secure a more speedy trial in the country of country causes."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)
  MR. BAINESsaid, he should support the Motion, The population of Yorkshire amounted to 2,000,000, upwards of three-fourths of whom resided in the West Hiding. Thus Leeds had a population of 207,000, Sheffield 185,000, Bradford and Halifax each over 100,000, and many of the other towns had populations of 50,000 or 60,000; and the small number of assizes in the West Riding and the few places in which they were held amounted to a great substantial grievance and hardship. The vast amount of manufacturing and commercial transactions necessarily led to a great deal of legal work, and the present state of things involved, to a considerable extent, a practical denial of justice, owing to the want of due facilities for the administration of justice. He hoped the Government would seriously and immediately take the subject into consideration.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYrose to speak to the Motion, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Mem-not being present,
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock.