COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th June.]

HC Deb 04 July 1871 vol 207 cc1097-139

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."

MR. J. FIELDEN

rose to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He did so, he said, in order that the House might have a further opportunity of discussing what he must describe as a very important measure. It was quite true that, on Friday last, or rather at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, the Prime Minister had urged him to address the House; but no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that a closely-packed House would not listen to a comparatively new Member at such a time. He (Mr. Fielden) moved the adjournment of the House; but being defeated on that Motion, he had felt it his duty to take his present course in order to secure a full discussion of so important a subject. He had observed that throughout the whole of the discussions on the Bill no one except the hon. Member for Waterfowl (Mr. Osborne) had commented on the provisions it contained with respect to the abolition of public nominations and public declarations of the poll. Now, he attached more importance to those provisions than to the clauses which related to the Ballot. The Ballot was simply a mode of taking votes, and it involved no principle. There was, however, a great principle involved in the substitution of hole-and-corner meetings, as were proposed by the Bill, at the nomination of candidates for the open public meetings which were now held. It was said that the Ballot would do away with bribery and intimidation; but he took issue with those who used that argument on both points. So long as there were men who were rich and unscrupulous enough to give large sums of money for seats in that House, and needy men who had votes which they were willing to sell, those two classes would find means of communicating with each other. He had some knowledge of what went on in America, and there they had failed to put a stop to bribery. In the case of an election at New York, for instance, the constituency was divided into a number of sections, over each of which there was a committee. It was necessary to obtain the favour of this committee before a candidate had even a chance of being nominated. This was done by an arrangement that when the candidate got the nomination he should pay a certain sum of money to the committee, and a further sum on his being returned to Congress. It could not, therefore, fairly be maintained that bribery was unknown in the United States. But he was opposed to the present Bill on another ground, and that was that it was a libel on the great mass of the voters of this country. The great body of English electors were not corrupt, and the way to deal with those who were so was to take from them the privilege which they enjoyed. When he looked into the question of bribery he was, he must confess, astonished at the hypocrisy which existed with regard to it. Hon. Gentlemen preferred to be shocked at the bribing of poor voters; but there was another sort of bribery which most of them were cognizant of. There were very few Members of that House who were not constantly pestered with letters for subscriptions from people connected with churches and chapels, and all sorts of charitable organizations. Hon. Gentlemen contributed to those objects, not because they thought them worthy of being supported, but because they hoped by so doing to retain their seats in Parliament. They did so because they hoped to gain the interest of the minister of the church, or chapel, or the committee of the charitable organization. Now, that was a contemptible mode of proceeding, and one to which he would never submit. It was far more honest, in his opinion, if a man determined to give money to gain and keep his seat in that House that he should do it openly rather than under the guise of charity. But was it to be pretended that bribery was confined to the election of Members of Parliament? What was seen in the formation of Ministries in this country? Could any man say that every Member of a Ministry was selected because he was the most fit and most capable man for the office for which he was chosen? Undoubtedly there were in this country men who took their positions in different Ministries from high patriotic motives. But there were other men who entered the House determined to work their way up, and have place. These men did not scruple to turn and turn according to the exigencies of the case, and not one of them could be a consistent and honest man in the sense of always following his conscientious opinion. There were other men who, after persecuting a Ministry, after denouncing it and obstructing its measures in every way, had disappeared from the independent benches and taken a humble, perhaps a very humble, seat on the Government bench. Could anyone believe that this was done from patriotism on one side or the other? He feared that such men were placed on the Treasury bench in order to silence the voices of disagreeable opponents. In short, this giving of office, with £1,000, £1,500, or £2,000 a-year, was, in plain English, nothing more than bribery. The poor voter got his £10—of which he was perhaps sorely in need—once, perhaps, in five years. He thought it made no difference to him who was elected; while the office-seeker in this House got his £1,000 or £2,000 a-year. He maintained, then, that there was a great amount of hypocrisy in all this denunciation of bribery. He did not defend bribery; he never had been and never would be a party to it. But if Members were honest in denouncing it, let them begin in high places. When about to stop drinking let them begin at the clubs, and if they wanted to strike at corruption by money let them begin at high places, where men were selected, not because they were the most fit, but from other motives. So long as there were needy voters on one side, and on the other side rich and unscrupulous men ambitious of a seat in Parliament, they could not prevent bribery; and the effect of the Ballot would be to take away all power of detecting who had bribed. Cases had occurred before Committees, before Commissions, and before the Judges showing a great amount of bribery and corruption, but these cases could never have been detected under a system of secret voting. The Ballot would not prevent the offence; it would merely protect the offender, and effectually prevent his detection. As to intimidation, it was, no doubt, one of the meanest ways of coercing a voter. The man who was bribed got an equivalent for his vote, while if he were intimidated he was virtually disfranchised without obtaining any advantage for the loss of his vote. But what was the true remedy for intimidation? If a landlord or an employer were guilty of it, he was denounced in the newspapers all over the country, and public opinion was thus brought to bear upon the case. The Ballot would certainly not put a stop to intimidation. The man who had power over others would still exercise it to procure what he wanted; and if he were unscrupulous now, with the power of detection before his eyes, he would be still less scrupulous when the fear of detection was taken away. No law could deal with this improper exercise of power by the rich and powerful; the true correction for such an abuse was public opinion. The Bill, however, was not confined to the Ballot, or to dealing with bribery and intimidation; it had a much wider scope, and proposed for the first time in the history of this country to do away with public nominations. Now, a nomination was simply the most important public meeting held in this country. It was a meeting held for the election of representatives in Parliament, and we must always bear in mind that, unless a poll were demanded, the declaration of the returning officer did seat the person there declared to be elected. It was, therefore, the most free and popular form of election that was possible. Were the Government going to supplement this Bill by others, taking away from the people of this country the right of public meeting altogether? That might sound a strange proposition; but when they destroyed by Act of Parliament the right of public meeting for the purpose of electing representatives to that House, what was there to stand in the way of the abolition of the right to hold all other public meetings, which were necessarily of less importance? It seemed to him that this was only part of the policy, which the Whigs had pursued ever since the Reform Bill of 1832, for they had little by little taken away all the old institutions of the country, and all power of local self-government. There used to be the old parish constable in country districts, and in country districts the old parish constable was now sufficient for the preservation of the peace; but for the parish constables a police force had been substituted, over which force the authority of the magistrates was restricted, the chief power being lodged in the Home Office. The Justices could appoint policemen, but so insignificant had their office become that they were not considered worthy of being allowed to reduce the number of policemen without, forsooth, the consent of the Home Secretary. He repeated that if public nominations were abolished, nothing would stand in the way of putting down public meetings altogether; and therefore the House ought to pause before passing a Bill of this kind. The reason alleged for abolishing public nominations was that on those occasions scenes of riot and tumult did occasionally occur. But did not scenes of tumult sometimes occur in that House? In the Session of 1869 the majority in that House was described by the Bishop of Peterborough, who occupied a seat in the Gallery, as howling Members down. But the fact was that if public meetings were to be abolished because they were noisy, the public meetings which were most in earnest would have to go. With regard to nominations, it seemed to him that there was something noble and manly in a man who sought the suffrage of his brother electors doing so openly, and in the light of day on the hustings. There was also something honest and English in a man who had won the election going again before the electors and thanking them for the trust they had reposed in him. For this the Bill would substitute a hole-and-corner meeting. By that Bill a candidate would go with his mover and seconder and eight electors and one friend, and no more—save with the consent of the returning officer—into a room, and there the nomination would take place. It would be a hole-and-corner meeting to all intents and purposes, and, compared with such a meeting, the riot and the tumult which occasionally occurred at our public nominations and during the polling were infinitely preferable, for they were the result of the free expression of opinion where strong political convictions were held. At this meeting, from which the public were excluded, the candidates would be proposed, and if at the end of two hours there were only as many candidates as there were Members to be elected, these would be declared by the returning officer to be elected; and, so far as the Bill provided, the public outside, who were deeply interested in the result of the election, would know nothing of what had taken place. Now, what was to prevent a candidate who had no prospect of being elected for a small borough, sending down two men in his pay, nominally to oppose him, and who would, of course, during the two hours, retire. The unpopular candidate would thus be returned. In any case, the people outside would be sold. Looking at the details in regard to voting, he found that the voter had to go into a room to prove that he was on the register, a voting paper was to be handed to him; he was then to go into a compartment where nobody could see him, make his cross opposite the name or names of the candidates for whom he wished to vote, and then come back, and in the presence of the returning officer, deposit the vote in a box. But, he wished to know what was to become of the voter who could not read? Was he to be disfranchised? He (Mr. Fielden) had had much experience in election matters, together with his brother-in-law, Mr. Cobbett, at Oldham, where there were a good many colliers, and others who might be termed illiterate men. Well, the collier, under the Bill, would come and prove his vote and receive the voting paper. His first difficulty would be to make out the name of the candidate, and if by hard spelling he succeeded, he had then to make his mark, which was almost a greater difficulty than finding the name. The probability was that he would put his cross opposite the wrong name, or between the names; and, at any rate, he would most likely not put his mark opposite the name of the candidate for whom he wished to vote. There was a still greater probability that, after puzzling over the voting paper, he would go back to the returning officer, and say—"I want to vote for Cobbett, where must I put my mark?" Nine-tenths of these men would fold up their papers so as to show how they had voted, and say to the returning officer—"I want to vote for so-and-so, is that right?" And yet if a voter exposed his voting paper so as to show how he had voted, he would be liable, if this Bill became law, to a penalty of £10. He had endeavoured to show that the Bill was opposed to all principles of honesty and manliness, and what used to be called English feeling; that it was crude in its details, and would be practically an utter failure. He therefore asked the House to pause before proceeding further with the measure. He did not understand why, because at some nominations and public meetings such occurrences took place, as must be expected when freedom of thought and speech was allowed, they were to abolish the right of public meeting altogether, and substitute for open nominations a closed court. If the Bill passed it would proclaim to the world that a candidate was ashamed to stand before those whose suffrages he solicited; that the voter was ashamed publicly to register his vote for one to whom, when elected, would be intrusted, along with others so elected, the lives and liberties of the subjects of this realm; and that the representative was ashamed to appear in public before those who had elected him to thank them for the honour they had done him, and to give them his pledge that he would act honestly and justly by them. Could anything be more contemptible? Such a measure as this ought to be opposed at every stage, and by all lovers of honest, manly expression of opinion, and he therefore moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)

MR. STAPLETON

said, he could not see that the arguments of the hon. Member justified his Motion, unless he maintained that the House of Commons should not consider any Bill which did not remove every difficulty from the matter under consideration. He (Mr. Stapleton) thought the subject of nominations so important as to be worth a separate discussion when they came to the clause of the Bill referring to it; but from his experience of a moderately sized constituency he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member that nominations were a favourable opportunity for the expression of opinion. The objection with regard to a landlord's intimidation failed; for a promise to benefit a voter in the event of a certain candidate being returned would be bribery, which could be punished by law. As to the Ballot he had always supported it; but he had hitherto regarded it as an abstract question of no pressing importance. He thought Lord Palmerston quite right in not making it a Government question; but the condition of things had entirely changed, and the present Government had no choice but to make it a Cabinet question. After the large extension of the franchise which was made under the last Reform Act, the new electors were either under such influences as required the protection of the Ballot, or they were not. If they were, how could those who gave them the franchise refuse them protection in the exercise of it? In reply to the objection that the independent elector did not require protection, he maintained that the working man who was not a member of a union did need protection; while the working man who was a member of a union did not require it, and was rather a person against whom others had to protect themselves. The position in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had placed the country was, that we had a large body of artizans welded together and exercising the franchise according to what they deemed to be their rights, regarding the good of their country as identical with the good of their class. Then there were the £10 householders who, as a class, were weak, and the £50 tenants, who needed protection. On the occasion of a former election in his county, when he travelled by the train to the voting place, he found in a first-class carriage a number of tenant-farmers—at those times, somehow, everybody travelled first-class. Naturally the company talked politics; but the tenant-farmers did not proclaim their opinions; they hung their heads and were ashamed; and in the market-place of the town he found a number of these men, occupying a respectable position, and paying £200 to £;300 a-year in rent, hanging about waiting for orders. The agent was there, but did not know how they were to vote, because the landlord, or rather the landlord's wife—the lady being the better politician—had not quite made up her mind which candidate she would support, ["Oh, oh!] He defied hon. Gentlemen to deny that these things were not of constant occurrence at county elections. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) referred the other night to Rome, and he would now direct attention to Paris. What had caused the downfall of that city? While there was great political activity, independence, and audacity amongst the working classes, the middle classes were sinking into political abasement. Was that the condition to which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire wished to reduce England by his Reform Act? Landlord intimidation was too subtle a thing to be reached by the Judges under the present law. If a landlord went round with a candidate to canvass the tenants he could not be accused of intimidation. This Bill, however, would deprive such intimidation of its influence. It would also prevent wholesale bribery; and the suggestion of "payment by results" was a bugbear, for if money were spent in corruption it would find its way either to the publichouses or to the drapers' shops, or else there would be a suspicion that the agent had pocketed more than he ought. It was no charge against this Bill to say that it would not do that which it was never intended to do—namely, that it would not prevent the priest and secret societies from influencing the voter. It would not prevent the priest persuading the voter, nor the voter surrendering his opinion to that of others whom he believed to be better informed than himself; and it was not desirable to interfere with influence of that kind; but, with the Bill in operation, the priest and the secret society could not go beyond persuasion; they could not bring mob law to bear on the voter nor send him to Coventry; and so to this extent the Ballot would protect him from undue influence. With regard to the old question of the franchise being a trust, the argument might be put in two ways. It was said that the voter was guided by private interests, and by removing bribery and intimidation they would take away the most cogent of such influences. But he did not suppose that that was the manner in which the question presented itself to Lord Palmerston's mind. In those days there were small boroughs and contracted constituencies, and these small boroughs and contracted constituencies acted in a quasi-public spirit, and looked to the interests of their own localities and their own class. But all this had been done away with, and an argument, which was a strong argument when there were restricted constituencies and small boroughs, was no solid argument now. He admitted there were things the Ballot could not touch, particularly those which had been enumerated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). For instance, it would not prevent a landlord from surrounding himself with tenants of his own way of thinking, or anyone from dealing with tradesmen of the same politics as himself. Again, it would be powerless to stop that kind of coercion which consisted in preventing a voter from going to the poll. These were evils that could not be obviated. However, if Parliament by passing this measure set its face against these evils, public opinion would do the rest; but if the Bill was thrown out, then he apprehended that public opinion would be crushed.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

desired to state the reasons why he could not support this Bill. This question had always seemed to him to be a question of detail and not of principle; but that view had been somewhat modified. He sat there representing a constituency of working men who had given him a cordial and generous support, and it grieved him when a man came to him and told him that since he had voted for him he could not get any work. He believed working men very often attributed their dismissal to political reasons, when the real reason of their dismissal was entirely different, but nevertheless the feeling existed, and they were bound to consider it. With that feeling, if Her Majesty's Government had brought in a Bill, making due provision for a scrutiny, such as was done by the Bill of last year, and if the Ballot had been confined to England, and not applied to Ireland, he could not have found it in his heart to say "No" to the second reading of the Bill. The reasons why he could not support this Bill were—first, that no proper provision was made for a scrutiny; second, that this Bill applied to Ireland; and thirdly, there were certain other provisions in the Bill to which he had very great objections. To pass the Ballot without any provision for a scrutiny would, as had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in his able and exhaustive speech, be to place unlimited power in the hands of the returning officers. Now, he was by no means disposed to say that they would not execute their trust in a strictly honourable manner; he believed that they would, but still it should be borne in mind that the mayor of a borough was often the head of one of the political parties in the borough, and if he took a deep interest in the success of the blue party, for instance, and the blue candidate was successful, the defeated yellow party would be apt to suspect unfair play, although the returning officer might have acted with the utmost impartiality. It was a very serious thing to shake the confidence of the people in the result of the election. As to Ireland, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), had stated that if this Bill passed there would be between 60 and 90 Nationalist Members returned for Ireland. That assertion had been sneered at by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but had been in the main confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire.) Now, could any man contemplate with equanimity the fact of having 60 Nationalist Members in that House holding the balance between parties? This would be an evil which would be fraught with great danger to the nation. They might be told that that statement was exaggerated; but whether it was exaggerated or not he would not reproach himself with being a party to producing such a result, and on that ground he would not support the application of this Bill to Ireland. As to bribery, it seemed to him to be hardly wise at present to mix up that question with a Ballot Bill; they were going to make a great change, and the result of that change nobody knew. It had been said that the party on this side of the House would be annihilated by the Ballot; but he hoped it would be just as strong after the Ballot as before it. The fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite entertained that view—["No, no!]—well, if they said "No," there was still great difference of opinion as to the result that this Bill would produce, and he believed it would be admitted no one knew exactly what the effect would be. The Bill of 1868 worked well, and the same amount of bribery did not prevail at the last General Election as had prevailed on previous occasions, so that they ought to wait and see the result of the Ballot before legislating on the subject of bribery. In proof of this statement he would refer to the results of the Election Commissions. In Norwich, formerly a very corrupt constituency, the Commission failed to find bribery, except that which had been proved before the Judge; in Bridgewater, the worst case of all, the corruption was confined to a comparatively small portion of the constituency; while in Beverley, while there was ample evidence of corruption in former times, the borough was disfranchised after the only pure election which ever took place there. He was therefore justified in saying that the Act of 1868 was producing the desired results. As to nominations, regarding which he had an Amendment on the Paper, the question had never been discussed in the House, and it had never been discussed out of the House until the last General Election. On that occasion The Times had said that nominations were disorderly, and since then various Liberal candidates on the hustings had said that they hoped nominations would be abolished. Considering that the point had never been discussed by the House, and that until three years ago it had never been discussed by the country, and considering the late period of the Session, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press that part of his Bill, but leave it over for more mature investigation. He thought there were great advantages about open nominations. They brought candidates face to face, and made them acquainted with each other, and gave them an opportunity of meeting their constituents, thus tending to soften the asperities of a contest He also supported, on the same grounds, the declaration of the poll. He himself had been twice defeated, notably in the City of London, in 1865, and it had been a satisfaction to him to meet and congratulate the successful candidate on his success. Hon. Members wished to abolish nominations because they called them disorderly public meetings; but he wished to remind the House that public meetings during the Recess were on the increase, as it had become much more the habit of hon. Members to go to the country and give their constituents a history of the Session and their view of public affairs, and he was very glad to see this increase. Such meetings could not be prohibited by legislation, but he wished to remind the House that they were sometimes disorderly. The Vice President of the Council had gone down to his constituents at Bradford, and his constituents had the folly to pass a vote of want of confidence, against the right hon. Gentleman. He did not attach much importance to this vote because he could not conceive that any constituency would dismiss from their service a gentleman who had reflected such honour upon them. He believed that every Liberal would vote with great satisfaction for his right hon. Friend, and that every Conservative, though he might feel himself compelled by a stern sense of duty to vote against him, would do so with great reluctance. The First Commissioner of Works had also gone to his constituents in the Tower Hamlets, and the meeting refused to hear him, and passed a resolution declaring that the right hon. Gentleman had brought discredit on the constituency of the Tower Hamlets. But that vote had brought more discredit on the constituency of the Tower Hamlets than anything his right hon. Friend had done, because however much they might differ from him it must be admitted that he was one of the ablest Members of that House. Then, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General had been assailed with rotten eggs at the declaration of the poll that was no reason for abolishing nomination days, which were useful in bringing together the opposing condidates to discuss public questions in the presence of the public; or for abolishing declarations of the poll, which in the interests of the defeated as much as of the successful candidate he should regret to see prohibited. The right hon. Gentleman represented Ripon, and in these days when nomination boroughs were sneered at, he could well conceive that the electors of Ripon were unfavourably disposed towards the nominee of a great Whig nobleman. As it was impossible to abolish unofficial public meetings he saw no reason for abolishing public meetings which happened to be official. Then, if the expenses were thrown on the rates, that would only encourage mushroom candidates, without a chance of success, to spring up in order to bring their names before the public. Take the case of a talented young Radical contending a seat for that purpose, wishing to bring his name before the public. Why, the best thing for him to do would be to go to Greenwich or Bradford, and oppose the Premier or his right hon. Friend. He would not, of course, succeed, but he would acquire a reflected reputation, and would soon be returned for some other place. On these grounds he had given his vote with his hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire.

MR. WALTER

said, he did not rise to trouble the House with any remarks on the general features of the Bill, but for the purpose of making an appeal to the Committee on both sides. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made a speech which would more properly have been delivered on the second reading of the Bill, although, as he had informed the Committee, he had voted in the division on Thursday night. He (Mr. Walter) was unfortunately prevented from addressing the House on that occasion, and, as he had not had an opportunity of explaining what his opinions were, he had abstained from voting in the division. But now that the House had decided to go into Committee he had put on the Paper an Amendment to the 3rd clause which would enable him to say what he desired without troubling the Committee on this occasion. He would humbly appeal to hon. Gentlemen who might be anxious to address the House to postpone their remarks until the several clauses should come up in Committee. There was not a single point which could now form the subject of debate which might not be much better discussed on each clause as it arose than it could now. He had sat for two hours listening to this discussion, in which the whole of the details of the Bill had been debated seriatim, as if it were a discussion on the second reading. However regular such a proceeding might be in form, it was in substance quite irregular, and he should be ashamed to trouble the House with any remarks on that occasion. Any one of those questions as to the municipal franchise, the abolition of nomination days, and of declarations of the poll, the throwing of the expenses of candidates on the borough or county rates, as well as the vote by Ballot itself, could be much more properly discussed as the clauses arose in Committee, when every Member would have an opportunity of making a speech. Therefore, although he strongly objected to the 3rd clause as it stood unaccompanied by conditions which were not provided in the Bill, he felt unable to go into the lobby with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fielden).

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he should have been disposed to think that there was some force in the appeal of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter, if the Bill had been conducted in accordance with ordinary Parliamentary practice. But he must remind the hon. Gentleman that there was no opportunity of delivering the speeches which had been addressed to the Committee that morning on the second reading, and that the Government thought it convenient to take the usual discussion on that stage of a measure on the Motion for going into Committee. He for one, although he had not the pleasure of hearing the earlier portion of the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Fielden) who opened the present debate, was clearly of opinion that he had shown satisfactory reasons why it should be continued. He had been struck, as the Bill proceeded, with the remarkable admissions which had been made by those who were in favour of it. The hon. and learned Member for the county of Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) began by admitting that it was not intended to cope with bribery and corruption, but rather to put down intimidation in Welsh counties. Again, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) in his able speech did not support the Bill on the ground that it would operate as a cure for bribery or treating, for those offences he admitted were passing away. He would vote for the Bill, he said, not without some feeling of humiliation, because it would put an end to undue influence. But let him for a moment advert to the most common form of undue influence or intimidation. At what time was it exercised? Not after the vote was given, but as the elector was on his way to the poll, with the view to prevent him from giving his vote as he intended. In his own constituency, for instance, at the last election a violent mob attacked a gentleman who had gone down from London to record his vote, on his way to the poll, because his political opinions were well-known. Again, in Ireland, those electors on whom violence was brought to bear were men who did not conceal their political sentiments, and, as in the well-known case of Drogheda, the intimidation was practised on voters before they polled. What, he should like to know, could secret voting do to prevent intimidation which was thus exercised? There was another form of undue influence which had been referred to by the Prime Minister the other evening—that which was brought to bear by working men upon those who worked with them in mills and other large establishments. How would the Ballot prevent that sort of influence? The minority of those men would, according to the right hon. Gentleman, be persons who would not conceal their political views, and what would be their position, subjected as they would be to perpetual pressure from their comrades, who would be aware that they would slink into a polling-booth and deposit their votes there in support of candidates whose principles the majority hated and abhorred? Could anyone doubt that their position would be worse than it now was under the system of free and open voting? Well, but it was said by another hon. Member that the Ballot was required, not so much to protect the new class of voters, as the £10 householders and the shopkeeping class. It was somewhat strange, however, that it should so suddenly be deemed to be necessary in the case of men for whom previous to 1867 it was not thought to be essential. He would, in the next place, touch on the subject of treating, with respect to which, when Mr. Justice Willes was asked a question by the Committee upstairs, his reply was— I think there is a great deal of eating and drinking which falls under several heads, because I believe there is a great deal of eating and drinking by people on the same side of politics in the way of feasting people. The northern races have always feasted one another over any work that they have in hand, and they always will do so; that, of course, you do not call treating. It is a rejoicing over a common pursuit, in which people sitting down to supper or whatever it is, may be engaged. It does not alter their opinions; it puts them, as it is supposed, on better terms with one another, but it has no effect upon their political opinions that I can conceive of. Now, as no contradiction had been given to that statement, he would assume that that class of treating was not intended to be touched by the Bill. If so, what effect would it have in diminishing the offence of treating? As to intimidation, you could not hope to cope successfully with the forms of it he had mentioned so long as you persisted in dragging the voter to the poll, instead of bringing the poll to the voter. This was the great merit of the system of voting papers, to which, he believed, the country would come when it was sufficiently educated in the true theory of elections to dismiss as unworthy of consideration the fears of undue influence arising out of this mode of voting. Now, he asked the Committee to consider at what cost were they going to purchase this minimum of good contained in the Ballot Bill? The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), whilst supporting the measure, described it as a humiliation. That, then, according to its supporters, was the price they had to pay. But he would add that the Bill would sacrifice an old immemorial system of voting, which had endeared itself to the minds and habits of the great body of the people of this country. There was the smallest imaginable minority of the people in favour of it if they were to judge from the Petitions presented to that House. Now, as to authority and experience, take France. When at the recent Paris elections they found that the great body of voters had declined to vote, that was a fact which proved that the Ballot was not such a system of voting as commended itself to the wishes, feelings, or even prejudices of the French people. And as to Australia, to which reference had been frequently made by the advocates of this measure, it was proved that in Tasmania, and another important districts in those colonies, the electors did not care to vote, and there was little or no desire on the part of any individuals there to be elected. At the last elections there, it appeared that not 60 per cent of the electors came to the poll, so that whether they looked to France or to Australia they witnessed the same feeling of indifference as to going to the poll following upon this system of secret voting. References had been made to the late school board elections for London. Now, he had voted at Marylebone, which had 58,000 registered voters. Great and novel issues were at stake on that occasion. They had lady voters and lady candidates, and every influence possible was brought to bear upon the electors, but only 24,000 voted; and if such was the result in town districts, where the polling-booths were numerous, what result might be expected at our great county elections? How could they hope to overcome the natural indifference that many voters would feel to register their votes under this secret system, particularly when they would, perhaps, be required to walk 10 or 12 miles in order to record them on the day of polling? Such a Bill as this would be a virtual disfranchisement of tens of thousands of honest Englishmen in the counties, while it bristled with pains and penalties against them if they signed their names, or in any way identified their votes. Again, there was the risk that, after all, the vote would be rejected through a scratch of the pen in the wrong place, a signature, or an informality. Out of the 21,000 who voted in Marylebone at the school board election, 600 were disfranchised in the polling-booths from this cause. Such a possibility of disfranchisement, after a man had journeyed 10 or 12 miles to give his vote, would act as a still further discouragement to voting in the counties, and would tend to concentrate electoral power in the large towns situated within the county where polling was easier. Then, on what authority did this measure come to us? The Prime Minister had pointed to the colonies. Now, Canada was one of our greatest colonies; yet there, last year, an attempt to substitute secret for open voting was rejected by a majority of 2 to 1. Greece was also cited as an example; but, with every respect for the institutions of that little country, he did not think they were such as England should follow. Belgium had been referred to; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the Constitution of Belgium, compared with that of England, was of extremely recent growth, and could not be taken as a definitive authority for the adoption of any particular course of action in respect to proceedings in this country. As to the Australian colonies, the fact was that in two of them there was great indifference; and as to New South Wales, they were told that personation was there so frequent that the Prime Minister was considering what steps he should take in order to put down that offence. In Victoria they had not secret voting at all, so that the Australian precedent crumbled into dust. Turning to Europe, he asked what happened in 1849? In that year a new electoral law was promulgated for Prussia, and part of the declaration appended to that law was that the Ballot Stood in contradiction to every other branch of the system of Government, in which publicity was with justice demanded; it concealed the important act of election under a veil, under which all proceedings that would not stand the light of day might be hidden, while the public mode of voting had this result, that the vote given could be considered as the result of an independent conviction. That was the deliberate opinion of the great Prussian statesmen in 1849. There was then, he submitted, no sufficient reason to justify the House of Commons in subverting the immemorial system of open voting. In his opinion the Bill ought to have been limited to the object of perfecting the system of open voting, and of putting an end, especially in Ireland, to every overt act of undue influence and intimidation. As the Bill stood, it was a retrograde measure, removing the exercise of the franchise from the wholesome and bracing atmosphere of publicity, and rendering it the torpid and inanimate act of a skulking and timid man, instead of the conscientious and fearless discharge of a public duty by a free and intelligent citizen.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not intend to reply at length to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Joint Manners), but he wished rather to appeal to both sides of the House to remember that they were now in Committee upon the Bill. They were now upon a stage of the Bill when it was not customary to debate the principle, but only the details of the measure. He knew that the noble Lord had said that their position upon this Bill was different to what it was upon Bills generally; but he (Mr. Forster) could not acknowledge that. It was not usual to have two long debates upon the second reading and upon going into Committee, and in the present instance it was acquiesced in that the debate should be taken upon going into Committee. On this last occasion they had a debate of three nights' duration, and although some hon. Members might not have had an opportunity of addressing the House, still that was almost always the case on such occasions. There was a general feeling upon both sides of the House that it was not necessary to prolong the discussion indefinitely. They were now in Committee to discuss the different clauses, and he would ask why they should not adhere to the general rule, and discuss the clauses rather than the principle of the Bill. This would be far the most, convenient course; and there was really no object to be gained in debating on this occasion, because it was understood that it was not intended to press the Motion to a division.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was owing to himself that the usual custom had been departed from. They had consented to waive their right of discussing the Bill on the second reading upon an arrangement that had not been fairly carried out, and hence arose their present unpleasant position. The discussion upon such a great constitutional change as this could not be compressed within three nights' debate, and he, for his part, protested against the conclusion of the debate the other night. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that on the Maynooth Bill eight consecutive nights had been consumed in discussing the second reading, independent of lengthy discussions on the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair. He had waived the right of speaking on the second reading, finding it impossible to catch the Speaker's eye, although he had been in the House during the whole of Thursday night; and on one occasion no fewer than nine hon. Gentlemen rose anxious to address the House, only two of whom had yet been able to speak. He could not, therefore, in justice to his constituents, forego his legitimate right of publicly discussing this subject by accepting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom he entertained the most unfeigned respect. He entirely disapproved the whole system of secret voting. During the last 36 years, while he had a seat in that House, he had always felt the strongest objection to Ballot. How was it that for 36 years this question had always been known by the name of the Ballot, whilst now the subject was wrapped up in the title of a Bill that tended entirely to conceal it. The title should have been "A Bill for the better protection of Bribery and Corruption." He disapproved of the Ballot principle, because it had a tendency to destroy the feeling of self-respect in the voter. It would tend to deprive a voter of the feeling that he was responsible for his actions; for how could a man connect the idea of responsibility with being bound to hide his vote. It would also destroy the sense of responsibility to others, and thus tend to prevent the formation of a healthy public opinion in the country. The whole of the argument derived from the corruption in boroughs was wholly foreign to county elections. The advocates of the Ballot pointed to America; but did they not know that owing to the system of secret voting there was a total want of sound public opinion in that country; that venality was notorious even among the Judges; that "lobbying," or buying the votes of members of Congress was extensively carried on; and that "wire-pulling," a clever arrangement by which, through means of money influence, a certain result was obtained at elections, largely prevailed? Did they wish to introduce into this country a system which had induced the great bulk of the moral, religious, and highly educated community in America to abstain from taking part in public life, and to acknowledge that the tone of the public Press was degrading? Then France had been constantly quoted; but did anyone wish to see the political life of France enacted in this country? During the last 80 years the course of things in that country had been one long series of revolutions, wars, and changes of Government. During that time three Sovereigns had been dethroned, three Republics had been established, a third Emperor had reigned, and three times Paris had been occupied by foreign armies. They in that country enjoyed universal suffrage and vote by Ballot; but surely it would not be desirable by similar measures to bring about the same system as existed in Paris? In Australia, where the Ballot was said to have succeeded, few electors eared to register and fewer to vote; for many a man's object was to make a fortune and to return to this country and purchase a seat in that House. If they were to establish to-morrow at the bidding of the Government the exact Australian system, they would not find the same materials to work upon here as in Australia. They would fail to get rid of those ingenious gentlemen who lived on boroughs, and felt so much interest in their elections and all the old organization, and the spirit of bribery and corruption would revive, to be protected and fostered under the Ballot. Indeed, it was intended to secure immunity for those who resorted to those means of obtaining seats in the House; for the tendency of the Ballot would be not to repress crime, but to hide it. He had watched the growth of the question, and he was sorry to say the real cause of bribery and corruption was a want of sincerity in those who sought the suffrage. Those who talked most about purity of elections cut a very sorry figure when they appeared before election inquiries, and in many instances boroughs had been disfranchised on account of the Ballot candidates having been guilty of bribery and corruption either by themselves or their agents, notable instances of which were to be found in Cashel and Wakefield. He was old enough to remember many boroughs that had been disfranchised through the detection of plans hatched in the Reform Club, and brought out under Mr. Coppock, the archangel of corruption. They all remembered the annual Ballot farce of Mr. H. Berkeley, of Bristol, and probably in honour of that gentleman a test Ballot took place at the election after his death, when it was shown that the Ballot supporters bribed so largely that the whole thing exploded. The cause of the sudden change that had taken place in the opinion of the right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House was the stringent measure passed by the Conservatives for the prevention of bribery and corruption. The Liberal party had been scared at the searching inquiries made by the Judges, and fearing that, like some of the agents, they would find their way inside of the walls of a prison instead of the walls of that House, they called for the Ballot for their protection. And the Government, seeing the alarm that prevailed amongst their supporters and the want of a rallying cry, thought it best to change their opinions, to give up their convictions, and adopt the Billot. For three years the Licensing question had been before the House, and a Bill had been introduced to endeavour to raise the morality of the people. It had since been withdrawn, on the ground that there was not time to discuss it this Session; but there was to be ample time found for discussing this Bill, which would have the effect of degrading the people. It used to be said a public prosecutor would stop bribery; but the advocates of the Ballot did not want one; on the contrary, they wanted to avoid prosecution, and, therefore, they asked for the Ballot, the real object of which was to give security to bribery at elections. He had seen many persons who spoke of their purity come to grief. The right hon. Gentleman who was deputed to be the mouthpiece of the Government with respect to this Bill, alluded in his opening speech to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), "whose name," he said, "I cannot refrain from mentioning with honour in reference to the Ballot." When the hon. Member's brother stood for Wakefield the result was a rather peculiar exposure. A Commission was issued with regard to the election and reported that it had been conducted in a corrupt and illegal manner, and that Mr. William H. Leatham paid his agents £3,500, only £487 of which passed through the hand of the auditor. The Commissioners further reported that the residue had been disbursed in illegal payments, £1,800 or £1,900 having been paid by agents brought from London, and this was done with the full assent and knowledge of Mr. William H. Leatham. That gentleman stated on oath that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the only sums expended on his behalf were two sums of £400 and £70 respectively, and some small items. It subsequently transpired, however, that he wrote a letter to his relative, Mr. Gurney, the banker, to the effect that he was obliged to find money for "Ways and Means," and that instead of drawing money out of the bank, where there might be some clerks who would talk, he would ask the favour of a loan of £1,000. Afterwards Mr. Leatham sent for £500 more, and then for another £1,000, and it was eventually elicited from him that this sum of £2,500 was spent by his agents for election purposes. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, who was an active member of his brother's committee at that election, admitted that he could not fail to perceive that bribery was going on. Certain disagreeable prosecutions would, no doubt, have followed these disclosures but for the influence exerted by a distinguished relative of the hon. Member. If hon. Members opposite approved of bribery and corruption let them say so boldly, and he, for one, would rather have seats in that House put up to auction than the degrading hypocrisy that was now practiced. Such doings as occurred at Wakefield were what the Ballot was intended to hide. Under a system of secret voting illegal practices might be carried on with perfect impunity. He asked the House not to take so retrograde a step as the establishment of the Ballot. They had a right to know how it was the sudden conversion on the Ministerial benches had taken place; but they preserved a silent and judicious reticence upon the point. The noble Lord who last year had charge of the Bill (the Marquess of Hartington) produced some curious arguments, which showed that he had very little experience with regard to bribery. To the objection that money would be paid after the election, the noble Lord thought it a triumphant answer to say—"If people don't do that now, why should they do it then?" But the reason was that bribery now was applied to the individual voter who did not pledge himself to the success of the election, but then the case would be very different, and he had the authority of Mr. Coppock against that of the noble Lord to the effect that persons then would give a much larger sum on condition that the seat was secured. The noble Marquess had said that even if 60 or 80 Nationalists were returned from Ireland, let them come, for then the House would show the unalterable determination of this country to maintain the integrity of the Empire. But when that time should come, a certain distinguished individual would no doubt arise, who would inform the House that the Act of Union was an upastree, which threw its baneful shadow over the prosperity of Ireland, a sudden conversion would ensue, and the Union would be abolished. Now, though he exceedingly depreciated the National movement, which, if successful, would be pregnant with mischief to Ireland, he must do the Nationalists the justice to say that they had argument on their side. For had not the present Government struck at the Act of Union by the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland, the maintenance of which, as stated by Mr. Pitt, and as agreed on by two independent Legislatures, was a fundamental article upon which the whole thing rested? His firm belief was, that if Ireland was governed, as it bad been of late, for party purposes, instead of for the welfare of the country, this House would soon have to choose between civil war and separation, and if that should be the case the responsibility would rest with those who had destroyed the Act of Union. He was 36 years in the House, and he had never spoken on the question of the Ballot but once before. He would ask any man of common sense whether if the system of secrecy was adopted the Roman Catholic clergy would be likely to give up the influence which they obtained and renounce all political action. That was not likely. It was not the case in Belgium, where the political machinery had been brought to a deadlock on several occasions in consequence of the violent action of the clerical party. Hon. Gentlemen pretended that if they got the Ballot they would have a cure for bribery at once. But did they really desire a cure? No, impunity was the object, and persistency in evil practices the desire. He represented a great constituency which had never been supposed to have been swayed by bribery, and where such a thing had never been suggested, and how could he have done his duty if he were silently to have listened to a debate which would have fixed on that constituency a stigma and a brand?

MR. GLADSTONE

If the noble Lord has had the misfortune, which has happened to others, perhaps as good men as him, to be denied an opportunity of speaking on the second reading, at least upon this occasion he has had his revenge. In former times he has achieved a great reputation in this House as a speaker when the object was that our proceedings here should be delayed, and to-day he has not fallen short of, nor in any respect sunk below, the high level he has heretofore obtained. That, however, is not the reason which induces me to rise after the noble Lord. The art of speaking against time is an art which is generally best met by silence; but on this occasion the noble Lord has assumed a liberty and a licence of such a character that, although his speech has been listened to in exemplary silence, and with inexhaustible patience, it absolutely requires some remark. A large portion of that speech has been a direct, wilful, and constant infraction of the rule that governs the debates of this House—that motives are not to be ascribed to its Members. One of those words I will withdraw. I will not say the infraction of our rule was "wilful," for I am confident that if the noble Lord had not, in the eagerness and vehemence of his arguments, lost sight of the character of his language and his reasoning, it was impossible for him to have persevered in the strain of argument he adopted. For what was the argument running through a large portion of that speech? It was this—defined and pointed by gesticulation at different quarters of the House—"You gentlemen who profess to be enemies of bribery, only support the Ballot because you are the friends of bribery. Your object is to pursue bribery in security." Those expressions exceed in their licence everything I have ever heard in this House, and proceeding, as they do, from a noble Lord who, as he tells us, has for 36 years possessed a seat in this House, I think he ought by this time to have learned to set a better example. This extraordinary statement the noble Lord summed up again at the close of his speech in words not to be mistaken. "Impunity," said the noble Lord, "is the object, and persistence in evil practices is the desire" of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. These propositions without the slightest hesitation or qualification, have been applied by the noble Lord perhaps to the entire majority of this House—at all events, to a very large proportion of its Members. Sir, I presume that, as yon did not interfere, the noble Lord has kept within the rules that govern our debates. I do not presume to raise the smallest question on the subject; but I must record the fact that such a speech has been delivered, in order that it may serve as a warning in other cases. [Cheers.] I see an hon. Gentleman opposite apparently give—what I am sure on reflection he will not give—his sanction to such a course of proceeding. I appeal to the innermost convictions of Gentlemen opposite, as much as to Gentlemen on this side of the House, though a limited number of hon. Gentlemen opposite followed the speech of the noble Lord with cheers, and I ask them whether the debates of this House are really to assume such a character, that on occasions when we differ in opinion we are advisedly to impute and ascribe to one another the vilest, the most corrupt, the most degrading motives, and these are not only occasional—not only unconsciously or accidentally, but as the deliberate basis of conduct upon which large numbers of Members of Parliament systematically act. If that course is to be followed, the character of the British House of Commons would be on the eve of undergoing a fatal change, and we could not be consoled in the slightest degree for the ruinous consequences that would follow by the fact that the person who had chiefly contributed to this change was a supporter of the highest principles known to our history and Constitution. After the protest I have thus thought it my duty to record, what I have next to say will seem absolutely tame; but the noble Lord has shown us that the practice of the House allows him, in Committee upon the Ballot Bill, to treat us to a lengthened dissertation upon the Irish Church Act and the Union with Ireland. Sir, I am aware that freedom of discussion is a good thing, and it has been stretched on many occasions to great lengths; but the noble Lord to-day has out-stripped all his predecessors, and if it was open to him to have discussed the Irish Church Act and the Act of Union, I should like to know what there is in the wide universe which the noble Lord or any other Gentleman might not have just as well discussed as relevant to the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair upon the Electoral Procedure Bill. I hope I shall not appear extravagant in saying that there are subjects brought into view by the speech and the conduct of the noble Lord quite as important even as the Ballot itself. They comprise everything which relates to the liberties, to the laws, and to the duties of this House. The liberties of this House are practically gone, its laws are trampled under foot, and its duties never can be performed, unless Members observe in their own practice some limits of moderation. In this case, it appears that it is not in the power of the Chair to give us the the securities which we might desire. The noble Lord has made this speech on a proposal that the Chairman do leave the Chair; and we have now for a good many hours debated the subject. I do not mean to enter into the debate upon the Bill; but I wish to point out this—that we appear to be arriving here at the state of things which I shall now in a few words describe The House of Commons, before we get into Committee, carefully limits the number of occasions on which the principle of a Bill may be discussed at large, and will not permit any Member to speak more than once on each of those occasions. When, however, we have got into Committee upon a Bill the old supposition was that the principles of the Bill were not to be discussed, but the House was to address itself to details. According, however, to the new code, which appears to receive countenance from the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Fielden) the noble Lord, and some others, the case is the direct reverse, and the intention of the House is to give a far greater latitude for the discussion of the principles of a Bill in Committee than when the Speaker is in the Chair. The Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, may, I believe, be made at any time; it may be made any number of times. On that Motion, as we have seen, the Act of Union and the future of the Church of Ireland may be discussed; and not only so, but for ought I know, when I sit down, which I shall do very soon, the noble Lord in the exercise of his privilege may rise again, may deliver another speech a couple of hours long, and may state, what is undoubtedly true, that by the speech he has just made he has not in the slightest degree lost his privilege or his right to resume his activity in debate. These things to me are very serious, because I plainly see in the first instance that the privileges and powers of this House have been strained during the present Session to a degree altogether without example, and that if the same conduct is persevered in, either the House must renounce its duties or it will be compelled to do that which I should consider a serious though a lesser evil—namely, re-consider its rules. Let me now say a word as regards the particular grounds alleged by the noble Lord for the course he has pursued. He says he admits these proceedings to be of an exceptional character; but he justifies himself because the Government suggested that there should be no debate upon the second reading and because, when we came to the debate upon the Speaker leaving the Chair, we did not allow a fair opportunity for discussion. Now, I wish to test these allegations. The noble Lord says the Government suggested there should be no debate upon the second reading. Sir, the Government suggested nothing of the kind. The Government named for the second reading the Monday in Passion Week, and if you look to the records of the House of Commons you will see that, until within a limited number of years, it was the practice of the House of Commons to sit until the Thursday in Passion Week. The Government made no suggestion that there should be no debate on the second reading; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)—acting, I must say, in a considerate spirit—rose in his place and said that, on account of the Quarter Sessions, many hon. Gentlemen might find it convenient to be elsewhere, and, in the name of the party he leads, he said it would be better there should be no debate upon the second reading, but that the debate should be taken on the Speaker's leaving the Chair. The Government, therefore, are not responsible for there being no debate on the second reading. What happened when the Motion was made that the Speaker should leave the Chair? That Motion was made on a Thursday, and the debate lasted over the following Monday and Thursday. The noble Lord said that there we broke into the spirit of our engagement, and he refers as his authority to the Maynooth debate, in which he says there were eight nights of discussion. The noble Lord seems to be under an unhappy fatality as to points of fact, for there were not eight nights of that debate, but only six. That debate, too, rather illustrates the change of circumstances that has taken place. There were six nights of discussion on the Maynooth debate, but they occupied less of the time of the Session, as far as the business of the Government is concerned, than has been occupied by the three nights' debate on the Ballot Bill, for the Maynooth debate began on the 11th of April and ended on the 18th. The noble Lord, in referring to those times, ought to have reminded us of the fact that when there was a desire then for a number of adjourned debates, the regular and established practice was for private Members to give way. In the present Session that has not been done, for not a single night has been given in order to enable an adjourned debate to be continued, if my memory serves me rightly. The noble Lord will, therefore, observe that we were compelled to give for this debate at this period of the Session a longer time than was given by the Government of Sir Robert Peel for the Maynooth debate in 1845. And what was the state of the case at the end of the debate on the Ballot Bill? Certainly the noble Lord, and two or three other hon. Members, had failed to speak, and without doubt that was a great calamity to the House; but it was an inconvenience that happens at the end of almost every considerable debate in which a lively interest is felt. If ever there was a subject which three nights afforded ample time for debate that subject was the subject of election procedure which everyone has regarded as a matter in which, compared with almost anything else, the argument has been exhausted long ago by the persistent discussions that have taken place from year to year. I can only say I hope that, though it may not be in our power to control the procedure of the noble Lord, or of anyone minded like him, we at least who are desirous to make progress with this Bill shall avoid assisting the noble Lord by consenting to a stage so inconveniently, irregularly, and unusually chosen as the present, by consenting to debate the merits of the Bill. One remark only I must make before I sit down, still upon the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord thought it his duty, and he expressed—I know not whether ironically or not—the pain it had cost him, though certainly he bore about him no signs of that pain—the noble Lord thought it his duty to refer to the conduct of one formerly a Member of this House, whose name has been connected with irregular transactions and practices at an election, though I never examined the circumstances so as to enable the House to pass a judgment upon them. That was a most elaborate attack. I conclude, of course, that the noble Lord gave full notice of his intention to make that attack to a near relative of that gentleman who sits in this House, and who would be his natural champion. I have not a doubt that a person of the high chivalrous tone and temper of the noble Lord would be the last to take an advantage by drawing into a debate, on grounds so delicate and painful, the name of one who does not now sit among us, and whose case, I will venture to say, had no connection whatever with this discussion. I cannot doubt that at the very least the noble Lord took care that the discussion should be a fair one, and gave notice to the hon. Gentleman related to the gentleman be referred to, in order that he might be in a condition to meet any statements that the noble Lord was going to make. Sir, I protest against his personalities as much as against his irregularities. In the argument he made upon the Bill—such as it was—I entirely decline to follow him, and I hope that those weapons which are in our hands, and to which I have referred before, and which are our only weapons—namely, patience and perseverence in meeting unusual opposition, will take the legitimate form after adequate discussion, which alone they can properly and prudently assume—namely, the form of a determined silence.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he did not draw the same inferences from the right hon. Gentleman's statements as the right hon. Gentleman himself had done. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that the second reading of this Bill was fixed by the Government for the Monday in Passion Week, which was also Quarter Sessions week, and that in former times the House sometimes sat till Thursday in Passion Week. No doubt the House used to sit a long time ago, and used also to sit on Wednesday evenings, and do a great many other things which common sense had led them since to believe they could do better without. But certainly for a great many years past the Passion Week had been considered a holiday, or at all events, the Monday in that week was regarded as one of those bye-nights on which the Government might pass the more obscure portions of Supply and do other business that must be got through in the course of the Session, but which did not require more than a moderate quorum. But when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the second reading of one of the principal Bills of the Session on the night when there was no great gathering of the House, it was not surprising that hon. Members should not think that a fair offer, or one which the House could be expected to accept. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that a conciliatory proposal was made from those who, on the Opposition side of the House, took the lead in debates. Well, for his own part, he (Mr. B. Hope) was sorry that their Leaders should be so conciliatory, and he took the opportunity, in a little discussion which took place when that arrangement was made, of saying so. He said then that such arrangements between the front benches on both sides were never satisfactory, and that though he would not break through an arrangement which had been made, he protested against it, and merely accepted it with an expressed discontentment. After that first mistake it was not to be wondered at that there should be many other mistakes and blunders. The House having been deprived of its second reading, and the discussion having been postponed to a later stage, independent Members found they were the victims of another act of conciliation, for the Leaders on both sides decided that the debate, when it did come off, should only take three nights. He protested against a system of arrangements made on the two front benches. Such arrangements might be very convenient for the Leaders on both sides, but they did not conduce to the freedom, dignity, or, indeed, to the brevity of debate. When people found an arrangement of that kind made behind their backs they were apt to stand upon their dignity, and he did not blame them for it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the old forms of the House. He (Mr. B. Hope) would be glad to return to them, and always debate a great question on the second reading of the Bill which dealt with it. The wisdom of Parliament had settled that method of procedure for good reasons; but such an arrangement had been broken through several times this Session, and the result had always borne out the old proverb—"The more haste the less speed," as was usually the case with such irregularities. But the true reason of the dead-lock which had arisen was that the Government had tried to force too much business through the House. Parliament met in February, and was provided with work enough for three Sessions. If the work of the Session had been arranged within proper limits it would have been carried on with dignity and satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that private Members gave up their own days for the prosecution of the Maynooth debate, but that they had not given up a single day this Session. But what was the reason of that? Simply this. That the Maynooth discussion was carried on under the Constitution of 1832, while the present discussion was carried on under the Constitution of 1867. ["Oh, oh!] He did not say which of those Constitutions was the the better—all he wished to say was that if the first Reformed Parliament after the change of 1867 had stronger views of the rights of private Members as against the Government, those who helped to pass the Reform Act of 1867 were bound to suppose that those private Members were right. If the popular element were stronger, those who endeavoured to make it so should rejoice at the result.

MR. DISRAELI

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made one or two mistakes in his statement, and, as I am personally interested in the question which has been raised, the Committee will, perhaps, allow me to make one or two remarks. The hon. Gentleman is in error in stating that it was as an act of "conciliation" on our part that the agreement was come to not to have a division on the second reading. The expression used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was a correct one. He said I had acted in a considerate, not in a conciliatory spirit; and therefore the somewhat elaborate jokes which were extracted by the hon. Gentleman from the supposed phrase of the Prime Minister at once fall to the ground. We have just heard a complaint, often made, though made by a limited number of Members, as to the deleterious influence exercised over this House by the two front benches. There are certain Members who do not sit upon the front benches to whom the mention of those benches is like holding a piece of red cloth before a bull. At all events, it exercises a most strange and startling effect upon them. Now, my desire is to lead as quiet a life as I can. Allow me to state, therefore, though it can hardly be necessary, that I do not, and no one who sits on this bench pretends in any way to dictate to any individual or to exercise any arbitrary power over the course of proceedings in this House. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman holds a different position. He is the Prime Minister. He is the acknowledged Leader of this House, and is the head of a party with a great majority. He has a right to make, and we expect from him that he should take upon himself the responsibility of making, those arrangements for the conduct of Public Business which he thinks most conducive to the public welfare. On the other hand, I am the Leader of the minority; I am only a private Member in this House; and if I am the organ of a party occasionally in the matter of the arrangement of business, that is only for the public convenience. Even on matters of much more trifling importance than the second reading of a Bill like this I come to no agreement with the right hon. Gentleman without having first taken the obvious and sufficient means at my command for obtaining the general opinion of those with whom I act. It is quite impossible for me at every stage of a Bill, and on every subject, to make myself acquainted with the opinions of every individual Member who sits on this side of the House. But there are means by which the opinions of influential Members, of representative Members, and even of crotchety Members, can be ascertained through the kindness of those who attempt to assist me in conducting the business of this House; and before I rose to make that "considerate" suggestion, as the Prime Minister called it—and I think it was considerate—I had received communications from a large majority of Members on this side of the House, and expressed their wish in what I said to the right hon. Gentleman. Some Gentlemen found it most inconvenient to be present at that time in consequence of the impending Sessions. Others shrank rather from a discussion of such a nature in Passion Week. There was a very general concurrence that they should feel generally and individually obliged to me if I could make some arrangement which would substantially secure a discussion upon the principle of the Ballot Bill, and not at that moment. I therefore made the "considerate" suggestion which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and which, afterwards, as I believe, gave very general satisfaction. Now, I must come to the second error into which the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge has fallen, and his second "conciliatory" mis-statement. He protests against the arrangement by which the discussion on the Ballot Bill was limited to three days, through a supposed understanding between the Leader of the House and myself. Now, such an understanding is purely imaginary on the part of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, not the slightest communication, either direct or indirect, ever passed between us, as I believe, about the arrangement of the debate. It very often does happen that when debates have proceeded for a considerable time communications are made, with a view to the general convenience of the House, between those who from their position may be supposed to be best acquainted with the general wish, and some understanding is come to as to the conduct of the debate. Both sides have felt the convenience of such an arrangement; but in the instance alluded to by the hon. Member nothing of the kind was done. I did not want the debate to be concluded if it could be legitimately prolonged. A Member of the Cabinet rose late. Who replied to him? One of my late Colleagues and intimate friends. The debate had then readied an hour of the clock when the House might have adjourned; but the First Minister thought the adjournment unnecessary, and he was the best judge of the necessity for rising and speaking. Both he and the Member of the Cabinet who had preceded him founded their main arguments in favour of the measure on the assumption that it was a corollary of the legislation which I had myself introduced for the better representation of the people in Parliament. It was impossible for me to forego my legitimate claim of answering such arguments. If I had not answered, I should have been open to the reproach that I had shrunk from the challenge so openly made, which ought to have been answered with readiness. Afterwards there was nothing to prevent the House from continuing the debate; but I repeat that not the slightest arrangement was made for the conclusion of the debate. That conclusion was unexpected by me, and personally I did not desire it, for I had reasons for not wishing to address the House at that time. Now, we hear those complaints occasionally, though from a very few persons, and it is as well the House should understand the spirit in which, for the mutual convenience of the House, business here is conducted. Having spoken, I hope without heat, upon this subject, I may say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is altogether justified in the observations he has made as to the conduct of the House generally, because the opposition he has received on the Army Bill has arisen as much from his own side as from ours. I do not think he was justified in the declaration of his opinion that an unprecedented strain had been placed on the privilege of individual Members in the opportunities which they have taken for expression of their opinions. A few evenings ago we had a lecture from a high authority on the same subject. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), who always speaks with authority and is listened to with respect, delivered a very solemn address to the House at a period of the evening when it could not be noticed. He contrasted the conduct of the House of Commons this Session with its conduct in the two preceding Sessions, when measures of equal or of greater importance were brought forward. It appeared to me that, while the hon. and learned Member praised the conduct of both sides of the House in preceding years, he destroyed the whole argument he was building up as to the present year. Why should there be a difference between the behaviour of the House this year with respect to Government measures, and their behaviour upon the Bills for the abolition of the Irish Church, and the change in the land laws of Ireland? We are not to suppose that the House of Commons is a body of capricious men who during two years give themselves up to the consideration of Public Business and the passing of two important measures, and then all of a sudden go out of their way to inconvenience and embarrass the Government, to procrastinate and postpone Public Business. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond proved too much. The Irish Church and the Irish Land Bills excited as much hostile feeling as any Bills you have produced this year. We opposed them upon their principles, and when their principles were approved by a majority, we gave ourselves up to considering, maturing, and improving the details of them. Why did we not pursue the same course in the present year? Cannot the hon. and learned Member for Richmond and the right hon. Gentleman supply the reason? We on this side of the House objected to the abolition of the Protestant Establishment, and viewed with suspicion and fear the alteration in the land laws of Ireland; but at least the proposals of the Government were in both instances set forth in measures which were well-considered and adequate to the occasion; and when we found that our objections to the principle of those measures had been encountered and vanquished legitimately and constitutionally, we then gave ourselves to the consideration of the measures that were matured and adequate to the occasion. But does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that his Army Regulation Bill—for I will not be degraded into a discussion of the Ballot Bill now — was not adequately considered, has been subjected to many changes even at the hands of the Government themselves, and was not of the complete and mature character possessed by his two other measures passed in previous years? Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in the attack he has made on the House generally for embarrassment offered to the Government in the conduct of public affairs. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the good old times, when Ministers, carrying on great public measures with adjourned debates, made with confidence an appeal to private Members, and states that though the debates were adjourned there was not really any great waste of time in consequence of the noble and generous sacrifice by private Members of their rights. But the right hon. Gentleman forgets that he has in this Session adopted a course of Morning Sittings, and if private Members were now to give way and make an offer of their nights for the discussion of Government measures the right hon. Gentleman would thank them for nothing. He would say—"I do not want to begin Business at 9 o'clock. I have got the mornings." [Mr. GLADSTONE made an observation.] The right hon. Gentleman is repentant too late. If he had only been conciliatory—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Cambridge University—a little earlier, it might have been well for the conduct of Public Business. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us that he would be thankful to private Members for relinquishing their privileges, he would have found himself met in a corresponding spirit; but the right hon. Gentleman is too much given to showing the rod; and in the conduct of Public Business he manages us with a species of Parliamentary terrorism, which generally does not in the beginning of July produce such advantageous results as a course of conciliation. Sir, I could not help making these few remarks, first of all in reference to those allegations, entirely unfounded, which are sometimes made in respect to my repeated interference in the conduct of Public Business; whereas I never interfere unless when I have reason to believe I know the feelings of the majority on this side of the House, and when I think it would be for the general advancement of Public Business, and for the advantage of both sides of the House; and, secondly, because I could not help vindicating the House of Commons from an attack on the part of the Prime Minister which I think unfair and unfounded.

MR. NEWDEGATE

If I correctly understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, one thing is quite clear, and it is this—the right hon. Gentleman proposed to read this Bill a second time at an unusual time, contrary to the ordinary practice of the House, and by the arrangement to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire pledged himself the opportunity for debate on that stage of the Bill was lost. And I beg to say that, upon a measure of such magnitude as this Bill, which is to alter and decide the form of elections, and indeed the future character of this House, I cannot conceive that there is anything irregular, and I am glad to find from your silence, Sir, that you see nothing that is irregular in the course which has been adopted by my hon. Friend, with the view of repairing the loss of opportunity which occurred through the misunderstanding, or as it has been termed the understanding, between the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. The last night that this subject was before the House, I took the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the circumstance that we were only endeavouring to recover the loss of fair opportunity; and, further, I directed attention to the fact that the Rules of the House have been practically altered, and that, by a recent decision of the Speaker, the House has the opportunity given it, of enforcing that which, in the French Chambers, is known as the clóture, upon any hon. Members who move or speak upon the Motion for Adjournment; because the Speaker has held that, if the majority should decide against the Motion for Adjournment of the debate, that hon. Member who moved the Adjournment, and those who spoke upon his Motion, are precluded from speaking again upon the Original Question. I have called attention to this, because it is a great change in the procedure of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I beg to remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that he cannot, in Committee on this Bill, discuss the order of procedure of the House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I am much obliged to you, Sir, and will avoid testing your decision by moving that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, which I was at first inclined to do; because you might hold that the same rule, which I have adverted to respecting the discussions in the House, would apply to the notion that the Chairman should report Progress; yet, Sir, this is an hour which scarcely offers a fair opportunity for entering fully into this great subject, and for dealing with the points which have not yet been duly handled in debate. Sir, I could not feel the justice of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister upon the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton). I have been long a Member of this House, and I do not think that the noble Lord exceeded the freedom of debate which is constantly used in this House by referring to documents, which have been laid upon the Table or are to be found in the Library of the House, to the subject-matter of Reports of Commissions authorized by Act of Parliament, and laid before this House, with respect to elections. I hold that the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone has a perfect right to advert to such documents, and I am glad to observe, Sir, that he has your consent to his doing so, by your not rising in your place to stop him. The speech of the noble Lord may be overlooked, in consequence of the discussion on the order of procedure which has supervened in this debate; but there was more of substantial fact bearing on this measure in that speech than in any speech I have yet heard addressed to the House on the subject. Sir, it is asking too much to expect us to forget the long discussions which have preceded the measures which we have adopted from time to time with the view of securing purity of election. It is too much to ask us to forget the revelations of corrupt practices on which those measures were founded; and I say, that it is too much now to expect us virtually to emasculate, if not to abandon, the whole of the legislation, in favour of a plan of secret voting which it is perfectly well known has been fraught with corruption in other countries. The Report of the Committee of the Senate of the United States, which was produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) confirms the statements often made as to the amount of corruption which exists in that country under the Ballot. Thirty years ago I myself was in the United States. I happened to be there during a Presidential election. I know very well that corrupt practices were rife at the time, and I find them referred to in this very Report. The Report goes on to prove that these corrupt practices have been aggravated owing to the experience gained by artful managers of elections during the last 30 years; and when hon. Members ask us to accept the dicta of Mr. Grote, I do not forget that those speeches of Mr. Grote, in favour of the Ballot were made 30 years ago. Am I then to shut my eyes to the experience which we have gained in those 30 years with regard, to the experiment of the Ballot, which at that time was a novelty, but since has been amply tried in the constitution of the United States? I can well understand the feelings of hon. Gentlemen being excited by the recent death of Mr. Grote. They would, no doubt, be happy to raise a monument to his memory as the champion of the Ballot; but do they desire that the monument they would raise to Mr. Grote should overshadow the monument of their former Leader, Lord Palmerston, who had heard all that Mr. Grote could urge from the earliest period of his Parliamentary career in support of the Ballot, and who, with that keen perception and accurate knowledge of his countrymen which characterized him, always proclaimed that the scheme which Mr. Grote introduced for the conduct of elections was not adapted to the character of Englishmen? In the course of these debates, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that Lord Palmerston was ever opposed to the Ballot, and spoke very ably on the subject; but I have not heard the opinion of Lord Palmerston quoted with reference to various points, and particularly to this point, the applicability of the vote by Ballot to the present enlarged constituency, upon which he answered by anticipation the aguments of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that, because it has been the pleasure of the Legislature to establish household suffrage, therefore there was a necessity for the Ballot; and further, that the character of the franchise having been thus wholly changed, it is no longer the "trust" which Lord Palmerston always described it to be. With the permission of the Committee, I will quote the language used by Lord Palmerston, and I know that it conveyed his sincere opinion, because in his day the Ballot party were active, and twice, when on the Ballot, Lord Palmerston was in danger of being overborne by the exertions I made in recalling Members to the House, I was enabled to prevent him from being placed in a minority, and after that Lord Palmerston conversed with me twice on the subject. I wish I could convey to the House the full explanation which he gave me of the passage from his speech which I am about to quote. I prefer, however, asking the House to listen to his own words, spoken in the debate on the Ballot in the Session of 1864, and which words formed the foundation of the conversation with which he honoured me. Lord Palmerston said— I object to the Motion [that is, the Motion made by the late Mr. Berkeley] because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. The hon. Member deals with the right of voting as if it were a personal right, which an individual was entitled to exercise free from any responsibility, whereas I contend that the vote is a trust to be exercised on behalf of the community at large. Even if the franchise were ever so extended—even if we had a manhood franchise, if every man arrived at the age of discretion were entitled to vote, it would be only a trust, because there would still be a large portion of the community—women and minors—affected by the laws, by taxation, and so on, whose interests would be committed to those who had votes. Indeed, our legislation is based on the understanding that a vote is a trust, and not a right. If a vote were a purely personal right, would not a voter be entitled to ask on what principle of justice you should punish him for exercising it in the manner which he thinks most for his own individual advantage? But you attach a penalty to the man who employs that right of voting in a way at variance, as you deem, with the public interest, for bribery, or any other such consideration. I say, then, that a vote is a trust, and I maintain that every public trust ought to be exercised subject to the responsibility of public opinion. The House will excuse me for quoting this at length; but I think it important that this opinion should not be lost sight of. Let the House mark what follows— The whole political framework of civilized nations rests on the principle of trust. The interests of the community are in various degrees, more or less important, committed to a select few who are charged with duties, in regard to particular things, on behalf of the people at large; and their action in fulfilling that trust ought to be subject to responsibility towards those on whose account they exercise it. But I contend that the Ballot as proposed is intended to withdraw the voter from that responsibility which the public exercise of the trust confided to him would impose; and in that respect I think it would be a political evil. We have been told about the system in other countries—in America, for instance. But in America, as everybody knows, Ballot voting is not secret— In the majority of the States, in fact, no attempt is made to secure that it shall be secret. it is ticket voting. A man votes for a great number of officers at a time, and he sticks his ticket in his hat, and is proud of the party and the cause he espouses; he does not think of concealing the members, judges, governor, or other officers appointed by public election in the United States for whom he gives his voice. The Ballot, then, I hold, is founded on a mistake in principle, and is at variance with the fundamental assumption on which all our political institutions are based.—[3 Hansard, clxxvi. 44–5.] Sir, I have read this opinion of Lord Palmerston to the House, and I hope that it will go forth to the public; for I hold that it covers the whole ground, which has been very partially as yet occupied by the speakers in this debate.

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair, to report Progress.

Committee to sit again this day.