Commons Sitting of 13 July 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Thirty-first Report—Public Petitions; Sixth Report—Public Accounts [No. 350].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [247]; Endowed Hospitals (Scotland)* [248].
First Reading—Owens College* [246].
Second Reading—Epping Forest* [224].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.; New Mint Building Site (re-comm.) [223]—[No Report].
Committee—Report—(£10,000,000) Consolidated Fund*; Exchequer Bonds (£700,000)*; Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment* [229].
Considered as amended—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* [197],
Withdrawn—Education (Scotland)* [205]; Factory Acts (Brick and Tile Yards) Extension* [194].

PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it would be possible to state upon each Return or Paper laid before Parliament the cost of obtaining the information given and of printing the same, according to the practice of some of the Australian Colonies?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, as Returns are usually prepared by the ordinary staff of each Office, it would not be possible to give an absolutely accurate account of the cost of clerical labour; but there would not be much difficulty in stating it approximately. The cost of printing could, of course, be given. I have been for some time in communication with Mr. Speaker and the authorities of the House on the subject, and, unless general objection be taken to the change, I do not see why our practice should not be assimilated to that of some of the Australian colonies, and the cost of obtaining the information and printing the same
  1622
  stated on the back of each Return. One Return, with reference to the Land Tax, lately moved for, but not yet printed, will cost £207.

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to fill up the office of Judge Advocate General, which has now been vacant for three months; and, if not, what arrangements are to be made for performing the duties of the office?
  MR. GLADSTONE, said, in reply, that when a vacancy occurred in the office mentioned by the noble Lord in consequence of the much lamented death of Mr. Davison, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was desirous that there should be an opportunity of fully re-considering the duties of the office. It would, however, be hardly practicable to consider the whole of the subject satisfactorily at present; but it was the intention of the Government before the end of another Session to take the matter into their consideration with the view of having a representative of the office in his place in Parliament. The duties of the office were now discharged by the Judge of the Court of Admiralty; but the arrangement was merely provisional.

ARMY—CAMPAIGN MANŒUVRES IN THE AUTUMN.—QUESTION.
MR. F. STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that Volunteer Corps in Lancashire having applied for leave to join the proposed September "manœuvres," have been informed that it is intended to limit such permission to corps in the south of England; and, if so, whether it is under consideration to afford volunteers in other parts of the Kingdom any similar opportunities of acquainting themselves with field duties?
MR. CARDWELL, said, in reply, that the present being the first year of such manœuvres as those which it was proposed to hold in September next, it had been thought well to make Aldershot the base of operations, and that the corps which were to join in them should be selected from their contiguity to it.

1623
He hoped that in future years corps from other parts of the country would have a similar opportunity of joining in these manœuvres.

VISIT OF THE CROWN PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF GERMANY.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is able to inform the House, why the same hospitalities which are freely offered to Members of the Royal Family, when they visit Berlin, have not been extended to their Imperial Highnesses the Crown Prince and Princess of Germany; whether he is aware that there is a strongly-expressed feeling in Prussia, as well as in this country, at their Imperial Highnesses being allowed to take up their residence at Prussia House during their stay in London; and, whether any Correspondence on the subject has been received at the Foreign Office from Berlin; and, if so, whether he is willing to lay it on the Table of the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: In reply, Sir, to the last Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that there is no Correspondence in the Foreign Office on the subject of his inquiry. In answer to the second, I may say that I am not aware of what feeling has been expressed in Prussia on this subject, beyond the fact that I have read an article in a German newspaper commenting freely on it. That, however, is, I am bound to say, a German newspaper which has recently contained statements calculated to excite the astonishment of every reasonable man. As to the main part of my hon. Friend's Questions I must express my regret that he has seen cause to make the circumstances to which it relates the subject of inquiry. The arrangement to which he has called the attention of the House is not one primarily and principally connected with foreign Sovereigns, but with tenderly attached and closely related members of Her Majesty's family. As the question has come up I have made inquiry with respect to it, and I can say, in the first place, that the statement made in The Times of yesterday is correct. The circumstances are as follows—An arrangement was made between Her Majesty on the one hand and the Crown Prince and Princess of Germany on the other, in accordance with which a visit was to be paid by those distinguished personages
1624
to England. That visit was to have been paid about the middle of July—I think on the 15th—and it was fully settled that the Crown Prince and Princess, with their family and retinue, were to go to Osborne. That plan still holds good, and that visit will be paid. But the Crown Prince and Princess, in the exercise of their discretion, made—as, of course, they were perfectly entitled to do—a separate arrangement which was not known to Her Majesty until after it was concluded, and in accordance with which they availed themselves of the hospitality of the German Ambassador to spend a few days in London before visiting Osborne. That is the simple statement of the case, and the only part of the whole arrangements which has been modified is that Count Bernstorff, having been desirous of receiving the whole of the family of the Crown Prince and Princess, found that the accomodation at Prussia House was not sufficient for that purpose, and that it was necessary in consequence that the young Princes should be sent to an hotel. Her Majesty, however, hearing what was proposed to be done, at once requested that they should go to Buckingham Palace, and there they are now quartered. I may add that, although owing to an arrangement privately and separately made some misapprehension has arisen, I think we must all be glad that one of the results of this visit has been that an opportunity has been afforded the people of London generally of testifying the respect, regard, and, indeed, affection, which they feel for the Crown Princess and her distinguished husband, not only on account of the station of those exalted personages, but likewise because of the virtues and the high endowments by which that station is adorned.

THE CIVIL LIST—HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD.—QUESTION.
MR. DIXONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any action has been taken on the subjects referred to in the following paragraphs in the Report of the Select Committee on Accounts of Income and Expenditure of the Civil List, which sat in the Session 1837–8:—
"Although your Committee have not had the means of examining into the subject with the minute attention that would enable them to form a definite opinion, they are inclined to think that

1625
by Her Majesty's permission it would be a fit subject for inquiry, to be carried on by the Treasury and the great departments of the Household, whether the several existing offices of pay might not be united and consolidated, and a system simpler, more economical, and equally efficient substituted in their room."
"Your Committee entirely approve of the principle acted on in all the branches of the ordinary public service, by which sinecures of all descriptions have been abolished on the termination of the existing interests; the Committee consider this principle to be applicable to the departments of the Civil List, they therefore express their hope that with the permission of Her Majesty such inquiries may be instituted by the Treasury and the departments of the Household, and that such directions may be given as will enforce the application of this salutary principle from time to time;"
and, if any action has been taken on those propositions, whether the result could be communicated to Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he could not exactly state what arrangements had been made with regard to the consolidation of the pay offices of Her Majesty's Household; but he had no doubt the necessary steps in the matter would be speedily taken, and that it might be looked upon as being practically disposed of. As to sinecure offices, the Treasury, while in communication with the Household, pointed out that it would be desirable, in the view of the Government, to draw a line between those offices which were properly sinecure and those which were of an active and responsible nature. That also, as he understood, had been done, and a number of sinecures had been abolished. In regard to others, it had been arranged that they should lapse at the expiration of existing interests. There were, however, a certain number of offices with respect to which he could not say that any positive arrangement had yet been made. He referred to offices which, although they entailed very little duty, were not to be called by the name of sinecure in an invidious sense. They were such offices as that, for instance, of the Poet Laureate, the duties of which, although the duties attached to it were slight, yet had been admirably performed by its present holder. As to offices of that kind which afforded the Crown the means of noticing distinguished merit, the decision must be reserved. In the case of a number of offices properly called sinecure, they were either abolished or arrangements were made for their lapse.

NAVY—MR. CUNNINGHAM'S INVENTIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why no remuneration has been made to Mr. H. P. D. Cunningham for his inventions for working heavy Guns, and for the time and means which he has devoted to the subject, when help was so urgently needed on the introduction of modern heavy armaments for ships and forts; whether it is not the case, that Mr. Cunningham has given up his time, at the request of the Admiralty and the War Office, without any kind of salary or allowance, such as has been made to Captain Moncrieff, Major Palliser, and Captain Scott, all of whom have received salaries irrespective of any money awards for their inventions; whether it is not true, that the plan of running in and out by an endless chain, as imputed to Captain Scott, has been claimed by Mr. Cunningham as his patented invention, and that he has repeatedly protested against the use of it without recognition of his patent right, for which, and his other inventions, private firms pay him royalty; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between the Board of Admiralty and Mr. Cunningham on this subject, and in regard to the question of remuneration for his inventions; and whether this is still under consideration?
MR. GOSCHENreplied, that the Question of the noble Lord read like an interrogatory in a Chancery suit on Patent Rights. It was both historical and argumentative, and involved very intricate and complicated private rights, to which it was impossible for him to do justice within the limits of an ordinary answer, and he would therefore confine himself to a brief statement of fact. Mr. Cunningham submitted certain inventions to the Admiralty, and being asked to specify them, drew up a schedule of eleven inventions, of which seven related to the Navy and four to the Army. The seven relating to the Navy were investigated by a Committee, which recognized one of them as an invention that had been adopted, and for which he ought to be rewarded. They made an award for that invention, which had since been acted upon. He was informed that, as in the case of most inventors, it was at his own request that Mr. Cunningham

1627
sacrificed his time. One of these inventions was also claimed by Captain Scott; but he could not then go into the competing claims of those two gentlemen. The Correspondence mentioned was exceedingly voluminous, and would fill several Blue Books. He did not think it desirable to lay it on the Table; but any Member who desired to see the Correspondence could do so.

ARMY—REVIEW IN BUSHEY PARK.

  QUESTIONS.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether he is aware that he was misinformed concerning the Field Battery of Royal Artillery which marched from Aldershot to Bushey Park on the occasion of the recent review; and, whether it is not a fact that fourteen men and twenty-eight horses were borrowed by that battery from a battery of another brigade for the march in question?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: This Question, I submit, Sir, is one more for the Regimental Orderly Room of the Royal Artillery than for the House of Commons. The reply given by me on the 6th instant was, I am assured by the Deputy Adjutant General of Royal Artillery, correct according to the information at hand. The home peace establishment of men for a field battery is 144. The field battery which marched from Aldershot to Bushey Park had at the time of its march 143 men. It marched with 115 only, being 28 less than its actual strength. It appears by information subsequently received that the battery had 22 horses with their drivers (11 in number) from another field battery to horse extra waggons, and to increase the numbers of horses in the waggons in consequence of the length of the march. This was done by order of the Lieutenant General Commanding at Aldershot. The borrowed drivers are included in the 115 men which marched with the battery, so that it really left in camp at Aldershot 39 men belonging to it.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTbegged to give Notice that he would avail himself of the first opportunity presented by the forms of the House to call attention to the answers of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the subject. He begged,
  1628
  in the next place, to ask the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether any means exist of providing the requisite men and horses to enable a Battery of Artillery to make such a march as that to Bushey Park without drawing upon other batteries, which are thus crippled, or upon the Depôt which is intended for the training of recruits; whether the Depôt is not at present considerably below its establishment; whether, when at its full strength, it is not only sufficient for its ostensible object, viz. supplying men to keep up batteries abroad upon a peace establishment; and, whether any steps are being taken to provide a bonâ fide Artillery Reserve, whereby batteries of Horse and Field Artillery may be expanded?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: When the present peace establishment for batteries of artillery was fixed, it was not intended that they should make such a march as that from Aldershot to Bushey Park without receiving help in the way of additional transport, and it was then laid down that the transport so required should, when necessary, be furnished by the Army Service Corps. In consequence of the distance from Aldershot to Bushey, the Lieutenant General in command considered it necessary that the waggons should have additional horses; hence the necessity in this case for borrowing from another battery, the Army Service Corps providing for the general transport. The Depôt Brigade is complete in gunners, and has 139 drivers over its establishment. The depôt, when up to its full establishment, is only intended to supply men to the batteries serving in India and the colonies, the batteries at Malta and Gibraltar being at a full war establishment. In time of emergency the men in the depôt would, of course, be applied to filling up the horse and field batteries at home to the war establishment and for forming batteries in reserve, the draughts for India and the colonies being temporarily suspended. As regards the latter part of the Question, I may observe that short service under the Act of last Session has only as yet been applied to the infantry; but the Government agree with the hon. and gallant Member in the importance which he appears to attach to its extension to the Royal Artillery.
  LORD ELCHO: What is the distance from Aldershot to Bushey Park?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Twenty-five miles.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Mr. WHATMAN,
  MR. MONSELLsaid: The Post Office has completed a new line of telegraph along the high roads between London and Beachy Head, which line carries at present six wires from London to Beachy Head, eight from London as far as Polegate, ten as far as Tunbridge, and eleven as far as Sevenoaks, space being left spare on the poles for additional wires as occasion may hereafter require. The cost of such a telegraph along the roads as compared with the cost of putting it on the railway is not one-third greater. By adopting the high road for the Beachy Head line 22 miles of new line have been saved, and in parts the construction of this one line has been made to serve the purpose of two lines. It is estimated that, in maintenance and way-leave together, a saving of £638 per annum has been effected in carrying the Beachy Head line along the high roads in preference to the railway. The Post Office has not recently completed a now line of over-ground telegraph along the high roads between Liverpool and Manchester, nor has it any intention of constructing such a line. All that has been done is to replace a circuitous and defective line viâ the canal between Liverpool and Wigan by a direct road line 17 miles shorter. The Post Office is at present engaged in laying down an underground telegraph along the high roads between those two places. It is not the fact that underground telegraphs are acknowledged to be ineligible. Many years have elapsed since an underground line of any considerable length has been taken up and replaced by over-ground telegraphs, and the improvements which have since been effected in the processes of manufacturing and laying underground wires warrant, in the opinion of the engineer of the department, the expectation that the Manchester and Liverpool underground line may be permanently maintained—an expectation which is borne out by the experience gained of the durability of underground work in London and large provincial towns.

ARMY—COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS FOR WOOLWICH.—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is not a fact that co-ordinate geometry has been hitherto specified as one of the branches of mathematics for the competitive examinations for admission to Woolwich Academy; whether in the Regulations recently issued, and in conformity with which the examination of the present month is ordered to be conducted, the subject of co-ordinate geometry is not expressly omitted, all the other branches of mathematics being strictly defined as hitherto; whether, notwithstanding such omission, questions have not been given in that subject to the extent of one-half of one of the papers on Thursday last; and, whether any marks will be assigned to the candidates for their answers to these questions; and, if so, whether it would not operate unjustly towards those who, on the faith of the new Regulations, have not been instructed in co-ordinate geometry?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have been informed that questions in co-ordinate geometry were given in one of the papers set on Thursday last, though not to the extent of one-half of the paper—it being the opinion of the Civil Service Commissioners that in an examination in mathematics, embracing among other subjects the differential and integral calculus, co-ordinate geometry, whether specified or not, ought to be regarded as included. As the Civil Service Commissioners, in accordance with this opinion, informed candidates who inquired of them on the subject that questions in co-ordinate geometry would probably be given, justice to those candidates requires that marks should be assigned for answers to those questions, notwithstanding that other candidates appear to have been led by communications from other quarters to expect that no such questions would be given. The Commissioners have not yet received the report on this part of the examination; but as the paper to which these remarks refer contained a number of questions considerably greater than any single candidate was expected to answer, they do not anticipate any difficulty in so arranging the marks as to do substantial justice to both classes of candidates alike.

PROTESTANT CEMETERY AT FLORENCE.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of the closing of the Protestant cemetery at Florence, obtained through the intervention of the late King of Prussia, permission has been granted for the use of another cemetery purchased in part by foreign Protestants; and, if not, what reason has been assigned by the Italian Government for refusing such permission?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the ground purchased by the Protestant Burial Ground Committee at Florence, as the site of a new cemetery, although only a mile from the town, is within the jurisdiction of another Commune, that of Gallazzo, from which permission to use it had to be obtained. The Communal Council desired to withhold its decision, in consequence of a project to create in the same Commune a general necropolis for the city, of which a part would be set aside for non-Catholics. Pending the realization of this plan, which seemed far distant, the Government was urged to use its influence on behalf of the Burial Ground Committee with the Commune, which yielded so far as to allow a temporary use of the ground, on condition that it should be abandoned when the necropolis was opened. These conditions were refused by the Committee, and the Communal Council, with which, the Government cannot interfere, so long as it acts within the law, refused positively in October last to permit them to commence their works on the ground. The question still remains unsettled, depending apparently on the creation of the new necropolis. Meanwhile the old cemetery has not been closed, and a general cemetery existed four miles from Florence, at Trespiano, where non-Catholics may be buried.

SOUTH AFRICAN DIAMOND FIELDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any recent information in regard to the Diamond Fields of South Africa, and their proposed annexation; and, whether he has any objection to produce
  1632
  the Correspondence and other Papers on the subject?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, I have already informed the House that instructions have been sent out to the Governor of the Cape authorizing him to accept the proffered allegiance of the Chief Waterboer, to whom at least a large portion of the territory of the Diamond Fields belongs. The annexation of his territory has also been authorized, provided the Cape Colony is willing to undertake the responsibility of governing it. Owing to unavoidable causes there has been a delay in the receipt of Sir Henry Barkly's answer to the despatches conveying these instructions. Negotiations are still in progress respecting the disputed territory in the Diamond Fields, and any Correspondence presented upon this subject at the present moment must necessarily be incomplete; but as soon as full information has been received there will not only be no objection, but every readiness on the part of the Government to lay full Papers on the Table of the House.

IRISH BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House when the Bill to facilitate the erection of Labourers' Houses, Ireland, will be introduced; what Irish Bills are to be persevered with this Session; and, whether the Irish Education Vote will be proceeded with in sufficient time for a fair discussion to arise upon the merits of the case?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, there had been some unavoidable delay in obtaining information on the subject of labourers' houses in Ireland. There were two Irish Bills which had passed the House of Lords, and which the Solicitor General for Ireland was in hopes to pass through the House of Commons—namely, the Grand Juries Bill and the Judgments Bill. It was also hoped that the Bill for amending the Local Government (Ireland) Act might be passed; and the Solicitor General for Ireland was not without a hope—though in this case his hope was not so sanguine as in the other cases—of passing the Debtors and Bankruptcy Bill. There were also two smaller Bills,

1633
which would not, he believed, take much time, and the passing of which would give general satisfaction—namely, the Bill to amend the Maynooth Act and the Beerhouses Bill. It was the intention of the Government to ask the House to agree to a Vote for Irish educational purposes to-morrow.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he proposes during the present Session to relieve bankers, merchants, traders, and professional men who leave their business promises in the care of a watchman and his family from the charge of an Inhabited House Duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is a duty which is imposed upon persons very willing to pay; it is imposed by law; I want that money, and if I do not get it from, them I shall probably have to take it from some others less able to pay.

GIBRALTAR—ALIENS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is a fact that an alien residing by permit in Gibraltar, who marries a wife who is a British subject, is deprived of his permit if his wife remains at her home in Gibraltar on the occasion of her confinement?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, there has been for many years past a regulation in force in Gibraltar which at first sight appears to bear hardly upon ladies at an epoch of their existence peculiarly interesting. The reason of this regulation is to be found in the necessity of restricting the number of those who, born as British subjects, have claims to reside upon the circumscribed area of the fortress. This regulation, however, has been under consideration, and we are now awaiting a promised Report from Gibraltar upon the subject. When that Report has been received, the matter will be fully considered and decided upon, the decision being taken with a due regard, in the first place, to the health of Gibraltar, and its safety as a fortress.

ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. G. BENTINCKrose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, When it was intended to proceed with the Army and Navy Estimates; and, as he wished to make a few remarks, he would put himself in Order by moving the adjournment of the House. This was the seventh time in the course of a very few weeks that he had thought it his duty to put this Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and on no single occasion had he been able to extract an answer of any description from the right hon. Gentleman. The importance of the subject involved in his Question did away with the necessity of his offering any apology to the House for the course he had taken. His Question practically involved an accusation against the Government, and, he might also say, against the House; and he hoped, therefore, to have the attention of both while he made the remarks he was going to make. ["Oh, oh!] He was perfectly in Order if hon. Members would only extend to him that courtesy which they generally extended to Members addressing the House. Now, he apprehended no hon. Gentleman would attempt to deny that the first duty of the House of Commons was to carefully scrutinize the Estimates for the year, and the duty became more imperative when the Government and a majority of the House was composed of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had been always loud in their professions of economy. What was the course which the Government had taken up to the present time? They were persistently deferring the consideration of the Army and Navy Estimates to a period of the Session when all scrutiny on the part of the House of Commons became utterly impossible. It was very often the case that a precedent was quoted as a justification for some course of action; but, with the exception of the course adopted by the present Government last year, there was none, so far as he could find, for deferring the consideration of the Army and Navy Estimates to so late a period of the Session. During the preceding ten years, with the exception of last year, the consideration of these Estimates had never been deferred to so late a period of the Session. And he

  1635
  found, moreover, that the preceding Government had not adopted the course pursued by the present Government, but they had brought up the Estimates at a time which afforded an ample opportunity to the House of discussing them, and he hoped to have their assistance in discountenancing a course which he held to be utterly unconstitutional. There were other reasons why it appeared to him to be positively culpable on the part of the Government for not bringing the Estimates forward sooner—namely, charges had been brought against the Government which it seemed they were very much disinclined to meet. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had a very strong case to prefer against the Government, and his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had also had pending against them for weeks a charge which he had had no opportunity of bringing forward. Now, when such charges were pending against any Government it was their duty to give an opportunity of making these charges fairly and frankly, instead of adopting an unconstitutional course of trying to deal with them. But there was still a stronger reason for calling the attention of the House to this subject. He had ascertained within the last three or four days, that in consequence of the delay involved in considering the Army and Navy Estimates, there would be a considerable increase of expenditure, owing to the facts that the contracts required for building purposes in the engineering department could not be entered into and finished at so late a period of the year without largely raising the amount, in consequence of the approach of shorter days and bad weather. So that they were actually paying more on certain building works connected with that Department because Government refused to bring forward their Estimates. He left that to the consideration of hon. Members opposite, who were advocates of economy. This course had been taken by a Government who had come into office on a cry of economy. They had heard of nothing but retrenchment when the present Government took office. It was impossible to know what the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government were at any particular period of the year. That which the right hon. Gentleman
  1636
  held to be black last year he held to be white now; and therefore it was needless to waste time considering what his opinions were. But there were other right hon. Members of the Government who were also sharing in what he considered to be an unconstitutional course; there was the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department—why, he came into office notoriously for the purpose of affecting retrenchment. They had the authority of a noble Earl in "another place," who had stated distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman was put in the position he now occupied to carry out a system of retrenchment, and the noble Earl had added that he had ably fulfilled his task. Next, there was the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty; he was also closely connected with the retrenchment party, and he also advocated a most rigid economy. What was the course he had proceeded upon? He was a party to protracting the Estimates, a party to the policy which did not give the House an opportunity of discussing them. He would now appeal to a more powerful section of the House than Government. He would appeal to hon. Members below the gangway who, until a few days ago, had always governed the Government. He regretted the change which had taken place in this respect. There had certainly been an indication that Government was losing its power; but now there was a remarkable and ominous silence on the Liberal benches. He trusted, however, these days were over, and that hon. Members opposite would—
  MR. RATHBONErose to Order. He wished to know whether it was open to the hon. Member to discuss every possible subject on the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House, when deciding that debates should not be permitted to arise when Questions were asked, reserved cases of emergency when a Member might obtain the privilege of speaking for moving the adjournment of the House. That point was considered in the Committee on the Business of the House, and it was agreed not to disturb the existing state of the Rule, but to leave it, in the hope that discretion would be ever used, and great forbearance practised regarding the Business of the House; and under that impression, and

  1637
  with that understanding, the Rule was maintained as it now stands.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that when he rose to address the House he took upon himself the entire responsibility, He thought it was not quite becoming on the part of hon. Members opposite, to say nothing of the courtesy, to endeavour to stop a discussion which involved a certain amount of censure on themselves. He had to ask hon. Members opposite, who had always been the loudest in advocating economy, whether they were prepared to sanction an evasion of the old rules of practice in that House, and to allow the Army and Navy Estimates to be deferred to a period of the Session when it was no longer in their power to scrutinize them? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been very fond of charging them on that side of the House with being advocates of extravagance; but who were now the advocates of extravagance? Hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear in mind that they had already sanctioned during the Session an expenditure of about £40,000,000 for which they had nothing to show, and they were then about to sanction the course taken by the Government in refusing the appeal which he made to them to bring forward the Estimates at a time when they would be properly and fairly discussed. He asked them whether they were willing to relinquish their just rights as Members of that House and to neglect their first duty to those who sent them there. ["No!] He was glad to hear that hon. Members were so independent, not only of the Government, but also of their constituents; but when they came to give an account of their conduct during the present Session, they would have a very strange tale to tell. He would recommend them, in the short time left to them, to do something to retrieve their character. He would ask the House not to sanction a course which was unconstitutional, which deprived them of their first rights, and which, if persevered in, would add to the burdens imposed by taxation on the people of this country. He intended to divide the House on this occasion, and to take the division as a test whether hon. Members were or were not determined to support the Government in the course they were adopting, so that the country might know on whom it could trust and on whom it could
  1638
  not. He moved that the House do now adjourn.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE, in seconding the Motion, referred to the ruling of the Speaker—that anyone who had asked a Question, and imagined that it related to a matter of urgency, would probably receive attention from the House—and, having remarked that he was not in the habit of obstructing Public Business, said the answer he had received from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to the hour when the Irish Education Vote would be taken, would justify him in saying a few words. He wished to recall to the memory of the Chief Secretary a deputation which he received on that question—one representing the very large body of Irish schoolmasters who brought forward the grievances under which they long suffered, and his reply given to them that the question should be considered by the Government and disposed of. From that hour the matter had been neglected, and the noble Lord now bid Irish Members wait until the Irish Education Estimates were discussed, when he said there would be an opportunity of debating the whole question. At this advanced period of the Session, when the matter would probably come on at the end of a long Evening Sitting, or after a great number of Notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply had been disposed of, he wished to ask whether the answer he had received was worthy of the subject, or in any way calculated to satisfy those who were interested in it? He hoped that the Prime Minister would state to them precisely how the matter stood, and would give them some definite information upon the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Bentinck,)
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for West Norfolk says it is the first duty of Members of the House of Commons carefully to examine the Estimates. I take exception to that statement. There is one other duty—though there may be only one—that takes precedence of it, and that is to observe, in their spirit as well as in their letter, the Rules and Orders of the House. The hon. Gentleman said he placed himself in Order by moving the adjournment.

  1639
  There is a line of Tennyson which runs—
  "His honour rooted in dishonour stood."
  And I will take the liberty of parodying it and saying—
  "His order rooted in disorder stood."
  The hon. Member, it appears to me, professing a discretion, abused that discretion, and has done so for the purpose of obstructing the Business of this House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government has done wrong in not setting aside the legislative business on which it is now engaged for the purpose, not of introducing the Army and Navy Estimates, but of taking the remaining Votes in them, the hon. Gentleman has plenty of legitimate opportunities of raising that question—the financial Motions and the Orders of the Day that are made every week give the hon. Gentleman those opportunities. However, he says he has acted on his own discretion, he assumes the responsibility of raising this discussion. In the same manner I act upon my discretion, and I assume the responsibility of declining to enter into it. I shall be perfectly ready if the hon. Gentleman, when. Supply is moved, or on any other regular occasion, chooses to call attention to what he may think a very needless expenditure of time, and I shall deem it my duty, out of respect to him and the rights of Members of the House, freely to debate the question whether we have done right or wrong in proceeding at the present juncture with legislative business rather than taking the remaining Votes in Supply; but upon the present occasion, when the hon. Gentleman is, it appears to me, misusing the discretion which undoubtedly the forms of the House give, I feel it also to be my duty entirely to decline to follow him, and to refrain from discussing either that subject or the subject raised by the Seconder of the Motion with respect to the question that he had put. With reference to the latter, however, it is my duty to make reply that I can only say we are very desirous to find time when we can to proceed with the remaining Votes in Supply; but we are not prepared to name a day for the purpose until we have made further progress with the Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) Bill.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEconsidered that an hon. Gentleman taking the course which had been adopted by
  1640
  the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), he must act under a deep sense of responsibility; but on the present occasion he was ready to bear his share of the responsibility, because he considered that the question under discussion was one of the most important that could come before the House. There were Notices on the Paper as to which he agreed with his hon. Friend the Government were neither anxious nor prepared to meet them. He had a Notice with reference to the Navy Estimates—
  MR. BOUVERIErose to Order, and called attention to the fact that the hon. Member for West Norfolk had on the Paper for that day a Notice of Motion—
  "That it is not expedient that the consideration of the Navy and Army Estimates be longer deferred."
  In the ordinary course of business, this Motion would come on after the Orders of the Day, this being a day on which the Orders had precedence. The present Motion was one for adjournment, and it was out of Order now to discuss by anticipation that of which the hon. Member for West Norfolk had given Notice. This would be giving precedence to a Notice of Motion over Orders of the Day, contrary to the settled order of business. They could not in that way anticipate a separate Notice of Motion which stood for subsequent discussion after the Orders of the Day had been read.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member (Mr. Bouverie) is perfectly correct; and the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) is not in Order in introducing on the present Motion questions which would arise upon a future Motion of which Notice has been given.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbowed to this decision, and would not pursue the matter further than to say that hon. Members, in postponing the consideration of the Estimates to a period of the Session at which they could not be discussed, were pursuing a course which they could not justify to their constituents. He repudiated the insinuation of obstructiveness, and affirmed that hon. Members on his side of the House had as strong a wish as any others to forward Public Business—["Oh, oh!]—that was, the legitimate public business of the country—as any hon. Member in

  1641
  the House or the Government themselves; but when they saw the Session overlaid with measures brought forward simply to be withdrawn, whilst the real Business of the House was kept in abeyance, he could not desist from assisting his hon. Friend in his endeavours to get real business expedited and brought before the House when it could be properly considered.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, nothing could be more remarkable than the apparent acquiescence of hon. Members on the Government side of the House in a great change attempted in the manner of conducting the Public Business. The Prime Minister had said that the first duty of the House was legislation, and not the guardianship of the public purse. ["No, no!] That maxim was novel, and it was with regret he found it apparently accepted by hon. Members opposite, filling as they did the places of those who formerly maintained that it was the first right and duty of the House to guard the public purse. There was a great contrast between the neglect of this duty now and the manner in which it had been performed by Mr. Hume and others; and if many hon. Members had had the opportunity of witnessing the proofs of research and ability formerly brought to bear upon this subject as he (Mr. Newdegate) had, they would be equally conscious of the contrast between the past and the present conduct of the occupants of those benches. The general conduct of Public Business had been referred to a Select Committee, which had been reported, but its Resolutions had been totally disregarded. As a Chairman of that Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to induce the House to change its ancient forms, so that the legislation proposed by the Government might take undue precedence over the Motions of individual Members, and the Estimates. The Committee did not acquiesce in what was thus proposed to it on the part of the Government, and yet hon. Gentlemen were now practically opposing the decision of the Committee by sanctioning the course which was recommended by the Government. Agitation had been transferred from the country to this House; Session after Session the Government brought in sensational measures of a subversive character, which engaged the attention of the House to
  1642
  the total displacement of its legitimate business. This novel course was not conducive to the maintenance of the due position of the House in public estimation, and the House was losing ground in public opinion by departure from well-established precedents. He was glad the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) had called attention to this change, for hon. Members opposite seemed to conceive that support of the Government, by voice and by silence, was the sole object for which they were returned; they seemed willing to merge their individual character in party distinction, and they were sacrificing that which this country valued—individual, direct, and independent representation of the constituencies in that House. He wished to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that there was no opportunity at which the hon. Member for West Norfolk could bring forward the Motion of which he had given Notice at any reasonable hour of the day, and to inquire whether, as Leader of the House, he intended to afford facilities for discussing the substance of that Notice. In reply to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that the present Motion was irregular, as touching the Notice on the same subject given for that day by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, he (Mr. Newdegate) would remind the right hon. Gentleman of his own Motion, that no controverted business should be commenced at half-past 12 at night, which had been adopted by the Committee on Public Business and formed one of their Resolutions; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock who carried the Resolution to this effect in the Committee on Public Business must feel that his own Resolution virtually condemned his recent observations upon the Motion of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for West Norfolk; for he must perfectly well know that it was impossible for the hon. Member to bring forward that Motion at an hour that night which was proper for its discussion.
  MR. DISRAELI: I am unwilling to prolong this interruption to the ordinary course of Public Business, but after the conversation which has occurred, and the remarks made by the Prime Minister, I cannot be silent, lest from my silence it should be inferred that I am not sensible

  1643
  of the extremely embarrassing circumstances in which the House is placed, and which are every day becoming; more and more embarrassing, with respect to the transaction of Public Business. I must say I am not surprised that the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), or any other hon. Member, should call the attention of hon. Members to what is their first duty. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might have seized a more convenient opportunity; but I confess that I am at a loss at this moment to assist him or any other hon. Member who wishes to bring forward such a question in finding a more convenient opportunity. There have been imputations of faction made against hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and against some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, but there is one kind of faction of which they cannot be guilty; it certainly cannot be said of them that they had attempted to stop the Supplies, for we have not had for some time a Committee of Supply to give them the opportunity of doing so. In the remarkable state in which the Business of the House is now placed, I want to know how any hon. Member can obtain any redress whatever except by a Motion like the present. After the technical objection which has just been taken by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and which I believe is just, I will not treat of the Army and Navy Estimates save to make this observation, which I have a right to make—that there has been an important Committee of the other House of Parliament on the state of the administration of the Navy, that the Report of that Committee has been sent down to this House, and that a right hon. Gentleman, a friend of mine (Mr. Corry), who, it will be agreed on both sides of the House is competent to offer an opinion upon it, has no opportunity of bringing the matter forward. That is a question which of all others must interest the nation, and there should be, at least in this House, a feeling that it becomes those who manage Public Business to give due opportunities to Members on both sides to bring forward questions of such paramount importance. I think there are other Members who are waiting for opportunities to bring Motions forward. I do not know what Scotch Members think, but no doubt they are satisfied.
  1644
  Scotch Members are always satisfied—["No, no!]—always satisfied, I mean with the existing administration. But I am not aware that the conduct and progress of Scotch measures this Session has been such that hon. Members can rejoin their constituencies with cheerful countenances. I am surprised that Scotch Members have not expressed their dissatisfaction with the position in which popular education in Scotland is placed, and have stopped in their career to endeavour to ascertain what is the cause of it. We have other matters of gravity before us, and among them the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission. There is no subject of greater moment for the defence of the country than the health of our countrymen. We talk of our first line of defence and of our last; but, after all, both depend upon the health of the country, and every year we are becoming more degenerate, and the rate of mortality is increasing among us from our neglect of those recommendations of the Sanitary Commission which the Government are pledged to legislate upon. Here is the Session over, and not a single measure passed. What is the cause of it? I say we have a right to ask. In old days it used to be said that the principal duties of the House of Commons were to guard the public purse, and to secure the due administration of justice. I say nothing in addition to what has been said about the public purse; but if there was anything of primary importance, scarcely inferior to the defence of the kingdom and the Empire, it was the necessity for establishing immediately a tribunal of ultimate appeal. The neglect by Parliament of its duties in that respect has led to the greatest difficulties and even dangers to Empire; yet here is Parliament on the point of being prorogued. We have at the utmost another month. ["No, no!] Will you in the course of that month be able to establish a tribunal of ultimate appeal becoming the occasion? Will you be able to legislate in unison with the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission? Will you be able to consider the administration of the Admiralty Board? Why not? Because you are engaged upon something else which has forced you to neglect your most valuable public duties, and is the cause of the House of Commons being placed in a situation in which it is fast losing the

  1645
  consideration of the country. What is that "something else?" It is the Ballot—a Bill which I will say was the most unnecessary measure that could be brought into Parliament; for it is a measure merely to put into practice the ideas of a past generation, and to use old and antiquated materials which all practical men have always viewed with suspicion, and which now the most advanced philosophers repudiate and reject. Why is this Bill brought in to absorb the attention of the House of Commons? Why are all this time and labour to be diverted from the fulfilment of those great public duties to which I have adverted? Why is all this old stuff brought before us? Only because the Prime Minister has been suddenly converted to an expiring faith, and has passionately embraced a corpse. An hon. Gentleman contradicted me, or, at least, denied the justice of my observation, when I said that our labours are nearly at an end. I repeat, however, that we have arrived at a period when we should all contemplate the termination of our labours; but let us hope that we may have an opportunity of regaining our character, and that we may in the course of the month that is left be able to do something which will enable us to meet our constituents without shame. But do you think that will be done by spending your nights and mornings upon such a worn-out antiquated frivolity as secret voting? Secret voting is a process which would very well have suited the contracted constituencies of the 18th century or the beginning of the present one; but our existing constituencies, which contain large numbers of voters, are quite superior to anything like general corruption, and are animated by a sympathy so extended that they could protect any part of their body from anything like oppression. Do you think that those large constituencies will be satisfied that we should pass our days and nights in such a labour, when we are neglecting such important subjects as the popular education of Scotland, and the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission on which the Government are pledged to legislate and on which the public health depends? All these matters are entirely neglected; and there is a rising conviction in the public mind that we are neglecting all the substantial subjects, which as practical men and real legislators for
  1646
  the people and their interests they look look upon us to fulfil and to accomplish.
  Question put, and negatived.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mode of taking the Poll.
  Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling).
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved in page 3, line 15, to leave out all after "municipal," and insert—
  "Any voter may, in compliance with the provisions hereinafter contained, give his vote by a voting paper instead of personally."
  MR. LIDDELLregretted to observe an apparent disposition in a large number of Members to decline the discussion of the many very important matters contained in the Amendments proposed to be made in this Bill, because it appeared to him that if there was one measure more than another demanding calm discussion and deliberation, it was that one now under consideration. He rose to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend from the conviction that if adopted it would remove most of the evils which they so much dreaded from the operation of the Bill in its present form. He thought that those Members who opposed the Ballot would be very uncandid if they did not admit it to have some advantages, one of which was that it tended to secure tranquillity and order at elections. But that result would be much better secured by the adoption of voting papers than by the personal attendance of the voter at the poll. The voting papers would also go far to prevent the demoralizing influences to which constituencies were exposed in attending in crowds at the poll. The ex-Prime Minister of New South Wales, in his last letter to the Government, speaking of the Ballot, said that under it promises were made which had no binding effect, and that personation was an evil of so serious a character that it was an indispensable duty on the part of the Legislature to take immediate measures to check it. Were not those demoralizing influences resulting from the system of secret voting? He must take exception to an observation made

  1647
  by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—namely, that this was an "old and antiquated" question. It was true that in a certain sense it had been from time to time discussed in this country during the last 30 years; but the people had never until now been brought face to face with it. He had always looked on it heretofore as a sort of playground for a certain class of politicians to disport themselves when it suited their own purposes to do so. But it had never until now presented itself to the eyes of the people in a really practical form. It was, therefore, their duty to discuss its merits or demerits with the most serious consideration. He thought that the mode of taking the votes suggested by the Amendment of his hon. Friend was calculated to give them all the advantages of the Ballot, without its great disadvantages. It was no doubt true that the voting papers might be tampered with; but was there no danger of the ballot-box being tampered with? Was it not a matter of notoriety that in a neighbouring country the ballot-boxes had been tampered with by the officials employed about them? They had even heard of the ballot-boxes having been stuffed and broken into pieces by excited and disorderly crowds. Now those evils could be guarded against by the adoption of his hon. Friend's Amendment; and the system of voting papers would be found to be the most complete, efficient, and economical arrangement that could be devised for collecting the votes. In the event, too, of the franchise being extended to women, it was obvious that voting papers would be necessary to enable them to exorcise their rights in a satisfactory manner. That system would also remove the danger of hasty and excited expressions of opinion, inasmuch as it would enable the voter in the quietude of his own room to arrive at a cool and dispassionate judgment of the merits of the respective candidates. He attached the greatest importance to the fact that the voter would not be removed from the wholesome influence and action of public opinion in thus recording his vote. It was a great advantage to keep the voter under the public eye in voting, because a man under such circumstances was more careful of his actions than he otherwise would be. So long as personal attendance was required at the poll the voter must be liable to a great deal of
  1648
  disturbance and solicitation; but if he had to deliberate in his room, and record in writing the name of the person for whom he voted, he would be relieved from it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) must excuse his following him through his arguments against the Ballot, because by doing so he would have to repeat in almost the same words what he had already frequently stated in the course of this debate. He could assure the Committee his motive for not repeating himself was to save time. The Amendment of the hon. Member was intended, however, as an alternative scheme to the most important provision of the Bill, and, therefore, he would make a few remarks upon it. The system of voting papers was not unknown in this country; but of all the systems employed it produced the greatest evils, and was the most exposed to abuse. Indeed, it was hardly possible to conceive a system under which more influence could be brought to bear on the voter than under that adopted for the election of Poor Law Guardians. The system next proposed was that brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) in his Reform Bill, and finally rejected by Parliament. It was then intended that the system already applied to the University constituencies should be extended to Parliamentary elections generally, and it would appear that the Earl of Carnarvon was the real parent of the scheme now submitted to the Committee, for during the discussion in the other House the noble Earl proposed that the voting paper, after being signed before a magistrate, should not be returned to the elector, as was done in the case of University elections, but that the magistrate should himself forward it to the returning officer. Such a system might be applied with comparative case to a small number of select constituencies; but if it were made general, the magistrates would hardly be sufficiently numerous to get through the work. Besides, it would be difficult to prevent a person who had voted once from voting again. His great objection to the plan, however, was based on principle. Not only was it no substitute for the Ballot, but it would actually intensify the evils caused by the existing method of voting. It would have all the disadvantages of

  1649
  secret voting, without the advantage of its protection. The Ballot would diminish the motive to bribe and destroy the power to coerce; but the proposed scheme would fail to accomplish that object. When the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was under consideration in that House, the Marquess of Salisbury (then Lord Cranborne) truly described it when he said that "all the clause did was to carry the poll into every magistrate's drawing-room." The hon. Member for York would go further and carry the votes into the magistrate's pockets. The county and borough magistrates would in this, as in other cases, perform their duty honestly and fairly; but it would be unfair to impose upon them a duty which would expose them to every kind of accusation. It appeared to him that the mere description of the hon. Member's plan was almost sufficient to condemn it.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEadvocated the extension to the whole country of a system of voting papers similar to that which had been so successfully applied in the University constituencies. It might be urged that the University voters were men of a certain social position, and that a system might be well adapted for them, and yet quite unsuitable for more miscellaneous constituencies; but the hon. Member for York's scheme met that objection by providing—first, that when a voting paper was once executed it should not be returned to the voter but forwarded by the magistrate to the returning officer; and, secondly, that every paper should be issued by the returning officer and have a counterfoil so that it might be easily traceable; whereas in University elections they were provided by the candidates according to the form enacted in the statute. The voting paper was not intercepted by anyone, but collected by the candidate or his friends, and sent to the University. Judging from the University elections they might reasonably come to the conclusion that voting papers, under the plan suggested by the hon. Member for York would work well. The Ballot would increase rather than prevent bribery, corruption, and intimidation, and if the Ballot was to make elections more orderly, quiet, and sober, what could be more orderly, quiet, and sober than taking the votes as suggested? It would be almost philosophically stupid
  1650
  to those who liked a little fun and excitement at election time to have to go into the office of a magistrate, stand hat in hand at the end of a table before him, write his name, and see the magistrate pigeon-hole the paper, and the voter never again sees that recorded testimony of his opinion. It was unfair to adduce the example of Australia to show that tranquillity at elections was produced by the Ballot, because there the voters were comparatively few in number and scattered over a vast extent of country. In Victoria, for example, there were only about as many voters as in a metropolitan borough, although the colony was nearly five times as large as England. He believed that by the means of voting papers they would secure a much more quiet and orderly election than they did under the present system, or than they would under the new-fangled scheme of voting by ballot.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, there were three points on which voting papers deserved the consideration of the House. In the first place, they would protect the voter against mob violence; secondly, they would shelter him from such practices as "bottling" or kidnapping; and, thirdly, they would enable a larger portion of a constituency to vote than under any other circumstances, thus securing a fuller representation. Thus voting papers possessed advantages over the Ballot, which would not preserve a man whose political opinions were known from violence or inducements not to exercise the franchise. But he should also be glad to see voting papers introduced so as to enable the Government to consider the possibility of establishing in connection with them a system of fining electors who declined to vote. ["Oh, oh!] Some hon. Members appeared to object to such a principle; but he, for one, at all events, did not see, if a man was intrusted by the State with the right of voting, why he should shirk the duty, and he should be glad to have some system under which they would be able to exert a mild pressure on those who declined to record their votes.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobjected to both the Ballot and the voting papers as one-sided measures, but was glad the Government intended to consider the possibility of multiplying polling-places. He thought, however, that voting papers might be introduced for

  1651
  voters residing at a great distance from the polling-place, or in cases where electors were disabled by illness or infirmity from going to the poll. An hon. Member had placed an Amendment on the Paper in relation to one of these suggestions, and he hoped it would be persevered in.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought the hon. Member (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had made out a case for supporting the Amendment, which would be necessary in order to carry out his views for the use of voting papers, even to a limited extent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) assumed in the remarks he had made on this subject everything favourable to the ballot, and everything unfavourable to voting papers. He assumed, for instance, that the Ballot was certain to cure intimidation, and that voting papers would be equally certain to favour bribery; but he had overlooked the possibility of persons wishing for voting papers to enable them to vote in a quiet manner without fear of the consequence. He should be glad to see the system of voting papers carried much further. He did not believe that since 1867, when an Amendment was made with respect to voting for Poor Law Guardians, there had been the same corruption in connection, with them as there was before. He believed that a system of voting papers would, if properly carried out, not only tend to reduce the expenses connected with polling-booths and so on, but greatly lesson attempts at bribery and intimidation. The voter would be protected from those influences, because the corrupting agents usually employed would, in the absence of any knowledge as to the state of the poll, not know how to work, because the voter would be no longer under the necessity of making his way to the poll through the midst of crowds and mobs, and because under a system of voting papers they would get the opinion of the whole constituency, a thing which he believed to be impossible either under the present system or with a system of voting by ballot. As to riots, he did not see how they would be prevented by the Ballot, because all such occurrences had reference to persons whose opinions were known, and many had taken place before the election. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not propose the
  1652
  Ballot as a cure for bribery unless he believed in its efficacy; but they said it would not be a protection, and, in fact, the argument as to prevention of bribery had been given up by many supporters of the Ballot. At any rate, if voting papers were properly managed no more bribery would take place than with the ballot. Then, again, with regard to coercion, supposing the Ballot to be adopted, employers would in some instances be able to prevent persons from going to the poll unless they agreed in their views. Under a properly administered system, voting papers would be used freely by the great mass of the voters without intimidation or bribery or anything but a desire to vote conscientiously, while by bringing in numbers of respectable and orderly voters, who did not now take part in elections, they would remove much of the inducement for bribery or intimidation. He ventured to assert that there had never yet been an election in the Metropolis where the great mass of the voters had exercised the franchise; but if voting papers were introduced, the opinions of the constituency would be more fully represented. Having already advocated these papers in a Bill in Parliament, he now supported them against the Ballot as a more satisfactory means of arriving at a solution of this question, and he hoped the Committee would adopt the proposal.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, that voting papers would relieve the pressure upon the election machinery in large constituencies, and this was the more necessary as the hours of polling had not been extended. The papers would also be most useful to the important seafaring classes connected with the coasting trade, and to pilots and to fishermen, who could not at present exercise the franchise without difficulty and loss. These classes of electors took a deep interest in maritime affairs, and even if the proposal went no further he would be glad if they, at all events, were enabled to vote by means of papers. He hoped the Government would seriously consider that point.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEconsidered that voting papers were necessary for sick persons and such electors as found it impossible from weakness or other causes to make their way through crowds to the poll. If there was any reason for allowing voting reapers, the same reason

  1653
  which was applicable to the Universities was applicable to large constituencies. He thought magistrates would make the best recording officers. One of the great evils of the present system of election was that no man could go to vote if it happened that he could not face a crowd, or if for some reason he could not attend a polling-place. At present a great many voters did not, and a great many could not, attend to record their votes; but all this would be put an end to if the system of voting papers was introduced. An end, he believed, would never be put to the irregular practices complained of as occurring at elections until something like a System of voting papers was adopted. In fact, he felt convinced that a system of voting papers would allow every voter an opportunity of voting; it would enable sick and infirm voters to record their votes; it would cure a vast number of irregularities in connection with the present system, and do away with much of that coercion which it was stated had been exercised in some quarters. As to the Ballot, he, for one, did not like it, being of opinion that publicity, as was said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, was fairness, and that secrecy meant fraud.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) was fully justified in submitting to the consideration of the Committee the proposal which he had made. He had proposed it as an alternative to secret ballot, and looking upon it in that point of view he was prepared to give it his support. Voting papers would, he believed, be found to possess all the advantages which were attributed to secret voting, and would be the means of securing quiet and order during the conduct of elections, as well as of enabling persons who now from various causes did not vote to do so with facility. It was said, however, that under a system of voting papers it was easy to commit fraud; but it should be borne in mind that that fraud, when committed, had been invariably detected, while under the Ballot detection would be impossible. Under no plan, he might add, could the object be attained of securing that the whole of a constituency should record their votes as under the system of voting papers. He was aware, however, that it was idle to endeavour to change the opinions of hon. Gentlemen
  1654
  opposite with respect to the expediency of adopting the Ballot, and he should therefore consider the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for York, not as an alternative for secret voting, but as a means of affording additional facilities to voters in counties to exercise the franchise. To multiply polling-places would, after all, have but a very slight effect in the case of non-resident voters, while, if the Committee were to sanction the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), making it illegal for a candidate to pay the expense of conveying voters to the poll, it could hardly be maintained that great numbers of those who now voted would in future be practically precluded from doing so. That being so, why should not voting papers be resorted to? Why should not non-resident voters have equal facilities given them for recording their votes as those who happened to be resident? Even if the present Bill became law, there would still be half-a-dozen constituencies in the United Kingdom which would return Members to that House under a system of open voting. Persons suffering from illness, or who had the misfortune to be blind, would also have to vote openly. What objection was there, under these circumstances, to adopt a plan which had worked so well at the Universities? A large proportion of the non-resident voters in counties were men occupying a somewhat similar position to University electors, and he might also observe that if a man did not like to record his vote through the medium of a voting paper, he would always have the option of doing so by ballot. It might, however, be said that the number of faggot votes would be increased under the operation of such a scheme as that of the hon. Member for York. He, at all events, was not of that opinion. The real safeguard against faggot votes was, he believed, to be found in a proper inquiry into the ownership of the property at the time of the registration.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that this question should be considered in reference to bringing up the out-voters; especially as no one would be at the expense of bringing them up under the system of the Ballot, because they could not know how they would vote. Such persons could only be got to vote by means of some such clause as this; and

  1655
  personation would be prevented more effectuality than under the Ballot, because the voter would be identified with his vote. It was said that the voting papers might almost as well be put into the landlord's pocket. This, however, was a reflection upon the magistrates, who belonged to both sides in politics, and who, acting to a certain extent judicially in this matter, would be liable not only to severe animadversion, but to dismissal, if they attempted unduly to influence the voter.
  MR. SCOURFIELDagreed that electors who from various causes were unable to attend personally at the poll should be allowed to record their votes under some system of voting papers; and, in order that the system might not be resorted to lightly and without adequate reason, he should be willing to subject such voting papers to a stamp duty. In his opinion, it would not be improper to inflict a heavy penalty upon any person who signed another's name to a voting paper; but he was opposed to having heavy punishments for minor offences, such as giving information as to votes. As to the secrecy expected from the Ballot, it was personal appearance at the poll that was watched, and people would still draw their own inferences as to the way a man voted; the only difference being that if the Ballot were adopted, the crowd, as Sydney Smith said, would sometimes break the wrong head. If you wanted complete secrecy, you should conceal the names of the candidates, allowing voters to vote for principles only. Then you would come to a fine state of transcendental mystery, and the whole thing would be complete.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  COLONEL BERESFORDquoted the case of the preliminary ballot which was tried at Reigate to show that secret voting would not prevent bribery, while it would certainly cultivate lying; hereafter a certain sum would be offered provided the candidate were elected, and corruption would be as rife as over. He believed that it would be perfectly safe to adopt the principle of having voting papers; but he must add that, in his opinion, the Ballot was really not wanted by the people.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the use of voting papers at the elections of Boards of Guardians had been pronounced objectionable; but he instanced, as a proof to the contrary, an election for a Board of Health at Tottenham—an election which had called forth a good deal of feeling—after which one of the defeated candidates, Mr. Edwin Hill—whose services at the Post Office would be known to the Postmaster General—a strong Liberal, wrote a letter to The Times strongly advocating the use of voting papers. With regard to voters who happened to be unwell, he thought there could be no doubt that they would be placed in a worse condition than they now were under the present state of the law. As things now stood, the poll was declared from hour to hour, and as the election was often practically decided by 12 o'clock, the voters who were ill were never brought up in such a case. Under the present Bill the state of the poll would not be known while the voting was going on, and the consequence would be that every man who could by any possibility crawl to the poll would be brought up at the risk of his life. He wished, as representing a seafaring constituency, to call attention to another point.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. R. N. FOWLERcontinued. Among his constituents there was a large number of pilots, and if they were engaged to pilot a vessel on the day of election they would have no opportunity, under the Bill, of recording their votes, unless, indeed, they sacrificed the emolument offered for their services, and declined to be engaged to pilot the vessel at that particular time. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee was that of the conveyance of voters to the poll. The plan proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) would get rid of the difficulty that now existed in the way of voters who had a long way to go to the poll, and in the way of candidates who might be tempted, at the risk of incurring the heavy penalties proscribed in the Act, to evade the law by paying for the conveyance of such electors from their residence to the polling-place. People could not understand that

  1657
  it could be morally wrong to pay the travelling expenses of a man who voted for a borough candidate, when it was legal and right to pay the expenses of a county voter. Hence men's minds got confused as to what was corrupt and what was not; and this was one reason why men who were convicted of bribery were not considered to have been guilty of any grave offence. Such a man was received at Brookes's, or the Reform Club, or the Carlton, as one who had served his party "not wisely but too well," and he enlisted the sympathies of the club. The same feeling was exhibited towards him when he came back to that House. Public feeling reprobated bribery; but whilst such foolish distinctions were permitted to exist as those to which he had alluded, it would not be reprobated as it ought to be. He had a vote for West Yorkshire, and, while it was sometimes pleasant to travel at the expense of another, it would be more satisfactory both to himself and to a candidate if he could send a voting paper to the returning officer instead of travelling to Leeds. There were five boroughs in England in which, on account of their extent, payment of travelling expenses was allowed—namely, Aylesbury, Cricklade, Wenlock, Shoreham, and East Retford; and it would be a great advantage to abolish the distinction between these and other boroughs, for as long as it existed people would persist in regarding the law as inconsistent with itself. This ought not to be regarded as a party question.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONregretted the practice that had of late grown up in that House of Ministers absenting themselves when great constitutional questions were under discussion. It was not so in the late Sir Robert Peel's time. Things had greatly changed when Ministers could so absent themselves, and Government supporters were not allowed to speak for fear of expressing their true opinions, that of hostility to the Bill. The silent system was now in force, and he praised the Government for their judgment in putting the "gag" on their independent supporters. He supposed they who had been drilled to oppose this Amendment were of opinion that whatever system of voting was adopted it should be one that would most correctly represent the opinions of the voters at large, and be the most
  1658
  truthful reflex of public opinion upon public questions; and that being so, he could not conceive how they could oppose the scheme that had been proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther). The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was not condemned to silence, and from his speeches they could gather the grounds upon which this Amendment was to be resisted. He opposed it on the ground that it would produce every kind of evil, and he based that opinion upon the present mode of electing Guardians, which in no way resembled the scheme then under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to show that voting by voting papers would not obtain the free and candid opinion of by far the greater portion of the electoral body. The present limited number of hours of taking votes prevented many from recording their votes, and yet this system—which the right hon. Gentleman had condemned — would allow the aged, the infirm and sick, to record their votes in ease and comfort. And why should so many of our Mercantile Marine be deprived from exercising the franchise? There were thousands of intelligent and educated men engaged upon railways who, being unable to quit their duties, would be deprived of the franchise in the absence of voting papers. But lawyers, medical men, and other professional men could not well leave their avocations to go to the poll, and as they were men of high culture, by preventing them from taking part in elections, injury would be done not only to individuals but to the State. He contended that they were as much entitled to the privilege of using voting papers as wealthy masters of arts, and that to insist on personal voting was to give a bonus to the idle and unemployed, and to confer a special advantage on those who lived near a polling-place. He thought he had shown that the proposition of his hon. Friend could not be disposed of by a general and sweeping statement that it would do no good. They should endeavour to apply electoral facilities equally to all classes. At present the University constituencies, composed principally of wealthy classes, were allowed to use voting papers, so that they had an advantage over the poorer classes of electors. The question of municipal voting could not have any

  1659
  bearing upon Parliamentary elections, because as the latter took place only once in four or five years, the injury inflicted upon a man, who was unable to vote at them, was much more serious than that suffered by a municipal voter, who might be deprived of his annual opportunity of recording his vote. On all these grounds they should be cautious not to deprive numbers of respectable and educated electors of the power of exercising their franchise. In Ireland the polling-places were fewer than in this country in proportion to the electors, who consequently had to go greater distances to the poll, and there was a system of organized mobs for the purpose of waylaying and maltreating voters. Indeed, this system was so thoroughly established that the law of Ireland was necessarily the reverse of the law of England as regards the presence of the military at elections. Every Member of that House must deprecate the system of organized mobs, and also the massing of troops in the vicinity of the polling-places. Voting papers would remove both these evils, which would certainly never be remedied by the ballot, as it would be impossible to prevent an Irishman from announcing which way he was going to vote. It was pretty generally admitted that the Ballot would not put a stop to bribery; but it was urged by hon. Members on the other side that it would check intimidation. It usually happened, however, that charges of intimidation had failed to be substantiated before Election Committees, and more recently before the Election Judges; and he thought the House ought not, in dealing with a great measure, to lake into consideration vague and shadowy statements with respect to intimidation. He therefore invited independent Liberal Members to set aside party considerations, and assist in the application of this system to Ireland, so as to remove the two scandals he had mentioned.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Committee ought seriously to consider the question of how they were to deal with a very large class of outlying voters in country constituencies. By adopting the Ballot, they would be practically disfranchising a large portion of many constituencies, by depriving them of an opportunity of voting. He himself was once a candidate for a
  1660
  borough containing a considerable number of seafaring men who were practically deprived of the franchise if they happened to be at sea at the time the election was held, and he certainly was of opinion that they, and all electors similarly situated, ought to be enabled to record their votes without personally attending at the poll. The permissive character of the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) should recommend it to the Committee. The system might be adapted to portions of the constituencies who were prevented from recording their votes in the mode prescribed by law, and he did not believe they would get the constituencies fully polled unless by some system of voting papers.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTdrew attention to the deserted benches on the Government side of the House, and expressed his belief that the hon. Members who usually occupied them did not really care a farthing about the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite contended upon every other matter that publicity was right and secrecy wrong. He thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) deserved to be well considered, and he preferred the system of voting papers infinitely to the Ballot. He would rather, however, supplement by a system of voting papers their present system of voting, and give men who were not able to leave their business, and others who could not attend the poll, an opportunity of recording their votes. He should vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, that enormous numbers of men were kept away from the poll, and if voting papers were distributed and collected it would have a great effect in securing a voter from that fear which kept voters away or influenced their vote. If the Committee were to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), and couple with it that of the hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), for keeping secret the state of the poll on the day of the election, and if the abolition of canvass was combined with these, the Ballot would not be required. If this suggestion was carried out they would obtain peace and security on the day of the poll, an absence of bribery, and an absence of inti-

  1661
  midation, coupled with, on the other hand, propriety and purity of elections.
  MR. CHARLEYapproved of the permissive use of voting papers, which would be of great service in the case of the timid, the aged, the sick, and the infirm. The system was a supplementary, not a substitutional one, and might be worked either with the present system or any other which Parliament might see fit to adopt. Under the present system, from disinclination to go to the poll, a large number of voters were virtually disfranchised, and he observed from a Return laid before the House in 1865 that only about two-thirds of those who were entitled to vote recorded their votes. In Liverpool, for example, out of 20,600 voters, only 14,600 had voted, and in Manchester, out of 21,000 voters, only 14,900 had voted. If this Amendment were adopted the polling-place would practically be brought home to the door of every voter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that the conditions under which this debate was carried on did not conduce to the satisfactory examination of this important question. The subject was surely one that was worthy of being fairly argued out, especially as a similar proposal had been recommended by such Members of the Liberal party as Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Sidney Smith, and others. The usual course of discussion was that a Member on one side answered one on the other; but from the moment when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council sat down after replying to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment (Mr. J. Lowther), not one single word had been said by an hon. Member opposite in answer to the arguments urged in favour of the proposal. He did not ask whether such a course was treating that side of the House with courtesy, because such a consideration was quite apart from the question; but he would ask whether it was treating the question itself, or the public outside who took an interest in the arguments used, with proper respect. He would, moreover, ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether such a style of conducting a debate did, in the long run, conduce to a saving of time. In the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council it seemed to him (Sir Stafford
  1662
  Northcote) that the go-by was given to the main question that was before them. The right hon. Gentleman really confined himself to the general observation—that he supported the Ballot; that that proposition was made by those who were opposed to it, and that he would not vote for it because it reflected upon his favourite nostrum. The grounds upon which the proposition was placed were twofold—that it would be less objectionable than the Ballot, and that it would attain all the objects hoped for from the Ballot. They also said, further, that it was not open to the objections urged against the Ballot. Many hon. Members on the other side of the House, in the days when they were allowed to speak, used to object to the Ballot. On that side of the House, they contended that by voting papers they would get rid of all the evils for which the Ballot was supposed to be a remedy, while other evils would be avoided which the Ballot would create. By means of voting papers the pressure of bribery would be done away with during the day of polling, while they would afford a better remedy than the Ballot for certain forms of intimidation. If, too, as was asserted, frauds occurred under a system of voting papers, they could be much more easily detected than under the Ballot, while the consequences could be remedied—a thing which in the case of the Ballot would be absolutely impossible. Another ground on which voting papers were supported was that by their means a greater number of the constituency would poll than at present, which would in itself, he maintained, be a great advantage. He, for one, regarded the Bill as calculated to extinguish public spirit in this country; but if they were, as its advocates stated, to make a law for those weak brethren, whom it was said they had no right to ask that they should make martyrs of themselves, let the matter go a little further, and afford a similar advantage to timid and quiet persons who shrank from voting at present, and whom the proposal of the hon. Member for York would enable to exercise the franchise. Such men would not be fascinated by the Ballot to go into the midst of a mob, nor would they find that the pleasure of giving their votes in secret was any compensation for the loss of a day's work. The case of men of that description the adoption of poll-

  1663
  ing papers would meet, and it was in the interest of the country that they should be had recourse to, because it was desirable that we should have the opinions of the great bulk of the constituencies freely declared. The result of getting the whole of a constituency to vote would be to swamp that miserable clement who under the present system were able to exercise a venal and corrupt influence. And what, he would ask, was the answer made to those arguments? He could find none, unless it was contended that the power of secret voting should be made compulsory. The scheme of his hon. Friend the Member for York was not necessarily proposed as a substitute for the Ballot. He should be glad if that were so; but he asked, at all events, that it should be given as a supplement, and that no person should be compelled to vote secretly who did not choose to take that course.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was justified in complaining of Members on the Ministerial side of the House for not having taken a more active part in the discussion. The question at issue had been raised and thoroughly debated three years ago, when the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member held office, and yet it had been disposed of in a shorter time than on the present occasion. He begged also to observe that though the speech which he himself had made in the earlier part of the evening was not long, the greater portion of it had been either ignored or not listened to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The party with whom he (Mr. Forster) was associated did not blame Her Majesty's Opposition for stating their adherence to the plan proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther); but, on the Other hand, hon. Members on the opposite benches had no right to blame the Government for entertaining the conviction that it was a decidedly bad plan. He thought that the voting papers would lead to a great deal worse state of things than that which now existed. It might be that time would assist the present opposition to the Ballot, and that right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the front bench on the other side might hereafter do for the Liberal party that which they sought, but failed to accomplish. But be that as it might, he felt satisfied that the
  1664
  adoption of voting papers would not meet the demands of those voters who were of opinion that they ought to be allowed to vote as they thought right without sending voting papers to their landlord, who would send them to the returning officer, or without going before a magistrate. Such a system would also give additional opportunities for bribery, for the briber could call privately upon the voter and arrange for the filling up of his paper in return for an adequate consideration. It was said that voting papers would relieve voters from the unpleasant necessity of making their way to the polling-booths through an excited crowd. But one of the great advantages to be expected from the Ballot was quiet, orderly elections, and the experience of the Ballot in France and America, even in times of great excitement, showed that this expectation was well founded. Sick persons and persons in hospitals might find voting papers a convenience; but really it was impossible to make the law subservient to the convenience of this class of persons. He was sure that both the new and the old voters would rather be protected from the possible influence of the magistrate, the landlord, or employer than from possible intimidation by the crowds, and the result of the Amendment would be to make bribery and intimidation worse than they were at present.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, Members around him had for hours past waited patiently to hear some arguments on the other side against the Amendment, and it was "the unkindest cut of all" to taunt them with not having listened to arguments which had really never been adduced. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council said that three years ago the question of voting papers had been discussed very shortly and settled decisively by the House of Commons. Yes, but at that time neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his Colleagues proposed a system of secret voting. The conditions of the question had now entirely changed. The question here was—shall we have an odious system of secret voting, and nothing else, forced upon us under pains and penalties, or shall that system be supplemented and relieved by a system of voting papers? It was pure assertion, unsupported by a particle of proof, to say that

  1665
  voting papers would increase bribery and undue influence; and to suppose that magistrates would lend themselves to the inconceivably dirty practices suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was a libel upon that body. It was a libel, too, upon the new voters to declare that they wanted the protection of the Ballot. They had not petitioned for such protection, and in their name he protested against the statement that they required it. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely avoided the case of the out-voters in counties, some of whom had to travel 200 or 300 miles in order to record their votes. Their travelling expenses were now paid for them; but it was proposed to make the payment of travelling expenses illegal, and if that proposal were adopted these men—many of them the 40 s. freeholders, in whose behalf there was an outburst of enthusiasm a few years ago among Liberal Members—would be virtually disfranchised unless the Amendment were accepted. Mr. Sidney Smith—not the immortal Canon, but the Liberal agent for the City of London—had stated that the effect of the Government Bill would be to disfranchise 2,000 voters for the West Riding of Yorkshire now located in London. This gentleman was strongly in favour of a system of voting papers, which would give an opportunity of voting to these men, and to the most steady and thoughtful and the least excitable portion of the constituencies, who now shrunk from the noise and excitement of a contested election. He preferred the arguments of Sidney Smith, the Liberal agent for the City of London, upon that point to those that had been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) would be an enfranchising scheme, and one that ought to be sanctioned and supported by all those who wished the great body of electors to whom had recently been given the franchise to be able to exercise it without cost and without fear.
  MR. MITCHELLsaid, he was not going to answer the speeches of the two Members of the last Cabinet, because he considered them simply speeches against time; but as the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) said there was a doubt about the new voters under the last Reform Bill approving the Ballot, he must observe that the large majority on the
  1666
  Ministerial side of the House was returned with the distinct understanding that the first question to be considered after the Irish Church Bill was the Ballot question. He considered that the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) would enormously increase coercion and bribery, which he admitted had at present diminished. It would be impossible to have a more deliberate, organized system of bribery and corruption than that proposed by the hon. Member, and it would be far better to leave the whole thing to chance than to introduce such a system.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he would appeal to the last election for Mid-Surrey in refutation of the statement that the new voters had asked for the Ballot. He was chairman of a district, and from that circumstance he was enabled to state positively that he never heard a man of the new constituency ask for the Ballot.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he was the unfortunate candidate at the election just referred to. The example the hon. Member for Southwark had given was entirely beside the fact, for the new electors did desire the Ballot. The majority at the last election would have been considerably smaller if they had had the Ballot.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had stated nothing but the truth. There was not a shilling spent in bribery at the last election for Mid-Surrey.
  MR. DISRAELI: Though the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell) was short, it was significant, because he spoke of bribery and intimidation having ceased to exist. ["No, no!] One of his arguments was that if we adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) we should see a revival of those evils which he practically confessed had ceased to exist. ["No, no!] I can easily understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite, after their constrained silence, find a natural relief in those murmurs; but I would rather have my observations refuted in the course of discussion than by expressions which I listen to with respect if I do not always understand them. I have not risen to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend simply because it offers an alternative for the scheme proposed by the Government. I admit, to a certain extent, the justness of the position taken up by the Govern-

  1667
  ment, that any scheme put forward which is absolutely opposed to the principle of the Ballot, after that principle may be said to have been adopted by the House, does not necessitate upon them lengthened debate, although anything so entitled to respect as the well-reasoned proposition of the hon. Member for York, I think might command some attention from hon. Gentlemen. And here I would say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) mistook some casual observations I made at the commencement of the evening, when he supposed I looked upon the Ballot in this House as an obsolete question. I said it was obsolete as regarded the world and society, but not as regarded this House. In this House the question has never been really argued. On the present occasion, when brought forward by a Minister as a Government scheme, it has naturally excited the attention of the great body of the House; but it has not been discussed half enough. In the days of Mr. Grote, when the notice of it was classical, and in the days nearer our own experience, when brought forward by a Gentleman whose genial qualifies we all remember, but who was not so classical, it was a before-dinner theme, and was never looked upon as a part of practical politics. I have expressed my opinion that the Ballot is an old-fashioned principle in politics. It might have been adapted to 35 years ago; but it is not adapted to the circumstances in which we live. With a free Press, the great increase of population, the extension of the arts and sciences which have raised man in society, and with our enlarged constituencies, I believe the Ballot is no longer adapted to the political circumstances under which we exist. With this increased constituency corruption, on any great scale, would be impossible, even if had not already prevented it by our special legislation. As regards intimidation, of which no evidence has been brought forward, it is clear that in an enlightened age of public spirit, and with a body so numerous as the present constituency, having a general sympathy pervading it, there is no part of the country where oppression with respect to the franchise could be exercised without calling forth immediately a response of indignation. ["Oh, oh!] What, No? Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say, if
  1668
  a case were brought of oppressive landlord influence in Cornwall, that the West Riding would not at once respond to the appeal which would be made to it. We know very well that that would be the result. Everybody knows perfectly well that the corruption and intimidation that were—I will not say the bugbears of our youth, because there was no doubt foundation in those days of contracted sympathies and circumstances for their existence—but which we heard of then, do not prevail in the present day. [Cries of "Wales."] There is no one who, in the present state of the law and of public opinion, would dare to combine with others to practise bribery on an extensive scale; and we have no evidence of the existence of intimidation, except the constituent body, combining in particular forms—such as trades unions—assert perhaps, with too much spirit, the rights of the electors. Having said this much upon the question, I repeat that I do not support the Amendment upon the specific ground of its being an alternative to the Government scheme, but I think that it might be adopted as ancillary to the Ballot; and on that ground I shall support it. Nor do I see why we should not facilitate the exercise of the franchise by out-voters. Therefore it is not as an alternative to the Bill, it is as a complement to it, not inconsistent with its principle, that I support the scheme of my hon. Friend. I wish to say one word with respect to the conduct of this debate. It has been peculiar. But I do not rise to complain of it. I make it a rule in life never to complain of anything. I wish to call the attention of the House to its particular features, and to what may be its consequences. I do not think that my Friends on this side of the House have any cause to complain of the conduct of hon. Gentlemen. Some of them have in private expressed to me—I think with superfluous indignation—their view of the matter; but I have said to them, speaking as a friend, that I thought, on the contrary, they have little to complain of, for the House has given them an opportunity for exercising their powers of speech, such as is very rarely accorded—especially to young Members. I should have been very glad when I first entered Parliament to have enjoyed such a monopoly. I think my hon. Friend who introduced this question introduced it in a speech which was worthy

  1669
  of any debates; and I think, although he has not received an answer to it, he may be perfectly satisfied that he has had an opportunity of placing a great public question, in a masterly manner, before the House and the country. And I beg to say, not to notice others who have all had their advantage, that my hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has had an opportunity during the last few days of showing to the House what I think it had already more than suspected—his powers of debate, and his capacity for dealing with intricate questions. His speech on the multiplication of polling-places and his speech to-night upon voting papers do him infinite credit; and instead of lamenting that he has not received a formal answer from any Gentleman opposite, I think he should be satisfied with having shown the metal of which he is made. Well, Sir, if that be, in consequence of the conduct of the debate, the position of my friends, allow me to say one word as to the position of those whom I will not call my foes, but my opponents. They have been silent for no inconsiderable time; but has it not occurred to them that that silence may be the enjoyment of a very deleterious state of existence? Parliamentary speaking, like playing on the fiddle, requires practice. While we are taking advantage of this golden opportunity, which, we are told, will last at least for a month, recommending ourselves to the country and perfecting our powers of speech, hon. Gentlemen opposite may find when the hour arrives that they are no longer masters of that oratory which once distinguished them. No one knows how soon that day may arrive, and they may be called upon to appear before their constituents sooner than many of us imagine. We have had the period of Parliaments calculated to-night, and the sanguine estimate was that they lasted four years. Well, we are at the end of the third; and if any of their constituents ask them the reason why they were dumb persons, it will be no excuse to say that at the bidding of the Treasury they lost the art of speaking in the last Session. It is not our fault, and as elections now very fortunately do not last so long as they did in the good old times, when they extended over 14 days, they may have no opportunity
  1670
  of showing their acquirements and accomplishments, and may lose their elections from their inability to express their feelings. No doubt there are many subjects on which they will be questioned by their constituents, and I may mention this before I go into the question of voting papers. I am speaking strictly to the Question, because the most remarkable thing is, we have expressed our views to-night, and we have not got any answer, and I wish to influence the future conduct of debate in Committee by showing that the system which has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be advantageous to themselves. Suppose they may be asked about the Army Bill which is being debated in "another place" to-night ["Question!], it may not be satisfactory to their constituents that they were silent, and they may be told—"We expected we should have an efficient Army founded on an efficient Reserve ["Question!], and instead of that you have only entailed upon us the income tax." ["Question!] The hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been silent now call "Question! They may also be asked about the state of the Navy; their constituents will say—"How was it that the Captain was lost?" ["Question!] A noble Lord who was Secretary of State to the late Government (Lord Henry Lennox) had a Notice on the Paper, calling the attention of the House to the subject; and the right hon. Gentleman who was First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) had a Notice on the Paper in order that he might call attention to the administration of that Admiralty. ["No!] Yes, yes, it is so; and what satisfaction would it be if they remain silent before their constituents under these circumstances? Depend upon it that the system you have so rashly adopted in order to advance the views of the Government has gained you no advantage. Well, Sir, I say that the arguments which have been offered by my hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment, and which has been supported by hon. Friends near me, is a subject which demands the serious consideration of the House. It is no answer to say that it is merely offered as an alternative. It is not supported by me as an alternative. I should be glad to see it, as compared with the Ballot, adopted as an alternative; but it is,

  1671
  in my mind, perfectly consistent with the Ballot. I think if you have the Ballot you ought to guard the constituencies from the intimidation of the hustings. The intimidation of the hustings would equally exist with the Ballot as without it, and if you have got the Ballot you ought to adopt a house-to-house polling; and if yon have a house-to-house polling, there is no reason why you should not poll by way of voting papers. The claims of the out-voters have also been brought before you to-night, and it has been shown that there are 2,000 voters in the West Riding who are resident in the City of London, who, under the principle which has been advanced and adopted within the last 48 hours, would be practically disfranchised. This is only a sample of what the effect of the Bill would be on the country. We must consider this question seriously which the hon. Member for York has brought before our notice. It is the only scheme by which the incongruity, the inconsistencies, the grievances, and hardships which must accrue through your adopting the Bill of the Government can be prevented. Not one argument has been brought forward—that, of course, is not wonderful considering the silence which has prevailed throughout the House on that side—in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Sir Stafford Northcote), who reasoned the subject with all that ability which distinguishes him, and the only response which he had was a not very courteous remark from the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell). That is not the way to answer the question; it must be fairly argued out. What will the country think to-morrow when it reads this debate and finds that not a single argument has been brought forward, not only by the Treasury Bench, but by the great mass of the Liberal party? They are always telling us that they are so peculiarly liberal, they are always telling us that we are not to be compared with them in character or intelligence. We have certainly not the advantage of the immense majority by which they have accomplished such wonderful things. But I say, what will the country think to-morrow when this question has been placed before it, and it sees no answer whatever from the great body of the Liberal partly; and from the Ministers themselves as meagre and unsatisfactory
  1672
  a response as I ever recollect to have heard? This is a state of things which I am sure for the credit of the House cannot long endure, and I trust that as we proceed in Committee we shall have good reasons offered to us by the Government, and by the supporters of the Government, for the proposals which they bring forward, and some well-considered answers to the objections which, in fulfilment of our duty as Members of Parliament in Committee upon a great Bill of this character, we have respectfully, and I think with good temper and with good logic, offered to the consideration of the House.
  Question put, "That the words
  'The returning officer shall, on the occasion of every contested Election, provide a sufficient number of ballot,'
  stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 166: Majority 87.
  MR. LEATHAM MR. LEATHAM moved in page 3, line 17, leave out "papers," and insert "cards;" and for "paper" and "papers," to substitute "card" and "cards," throughout the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said, a card would only fold once, whereas a paper might be folded in a variety of ways, and if a voter folded his paper so as to conceal the stamp, it was very likely that he would refold it in the presence of the presiding officer and the agents, who would thus ascertain how he voted. He believed the work of the election would be carried on much more easily with the use of cards, and that they would afford less opportunity of fraud.
  Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out the word "papers," and insert the word "cards,"—(Mr. Leatham,)—instead thereof.
  MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsuggested that the cards should be so thick that they could not be crumpled up. He supported with pleasure a proposition which he himself had advocated years ago.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, that the question was one merely of mechanical convenience, and if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill would only take a ballot-box and make the experiment he would, he believed, at once decide in favour of the proposal of

  1673
  the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was, he thought, better to avoid definitions too precise, for upon their correct interpretation the validity of an election might possibly depend, and, as hon. Members might bear in mind, although "paper" would include card, "card" would not include paper. There was no doubt this was a question of practical experience, and after the matter had been once or twice tested, the plan which resulted in the greatest general convenience would be adopted.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONadvocated the adoption of colours for the benefit of voters who could not read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved, that, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) appeared to entertain such strong doubts as to the honesty of all who had anything to do with the polling-booths he should, if his proposal to use cards were adopted, have posted up a notice to beware of cardsharpers, similar to that to be found upon railway stations.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, that the nearer they approached the details of this question, the more there was reason to doubt whether they could insure secrecy. He should, however, cordially support the proposal of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham.)
  MR. KIRKMAN HODGSONreferred to the adoption of the test Ballot at the last election for Bristol, showing that the plan then adopted had resulted in securing perfect tranquillity and secrecy. Cards were used and each card was divided into three portions, coloured red, orange, and green. When a voter retired to the desk at which he was to record his vote he scratched out the names of the two gentlemen for whom he did not vote, folded the card, which was perforated, and handed it to the assessor, who put it in the ballot-box. He might add that in that case there was not a single instance of personation, and that the insignificant amount of bribery was discovered with the greatest ease.
  MR. GOLDNEYprotested against the assumption that the elections of the country would be so disposed to commit frauds that it was necessary to provide checks against them.
  MR. BOUVERIEurged as a practical objection to the scheme proposed that in many country districts it would be found difficult sometimes to get the candidates' names printed in colours.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked whether, in the event of the Amendment not being carried, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) intended to proceed with the other Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name?
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, his intention was to carry out, so far as he was able, the whole of his scheme.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not attach much importance to whether cards or papers were used; but he objected to putting the word "cards" into the Bill, because it would fix them to it, while the word paper would include cards. The Government had very little feeling on the matter, and if the House expressed any desire to use cards he would offer no objection.
  MR. J. HARDYasked whether the cards used throughout the whole country were to be of the same description?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no reason why the conditions of the subsection might not be fulfilled, though cards of different sizes were used.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the suggestion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) would be agreed to. He had had some experience of voting papers in the case of school boards, and there was great delay in ascertaining the number of votes given. By the use of cards the numbers could, he thought, be ascertained much more readily.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMreferred to what men called the mousetrap and the dagger system of secret voting; in accordance with the former of which a man put his finger in a hole, while the latter consisted in sticking a dagger into a particular colour, to show that although the question of the Ballot had long been discussed no method had yet been discovered of ensuring perfect secrecy.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that cards might be found more convenient than paper, but it would be difficult to give a legal definition of cards in the Bill. Some cards were hardly to be distinguished from paper, and it might be contended that the cards used in a particular election were not really cards, and the validity of the election might

  1675
  thereupon be questioned. It would be better to allow the matter to be worked out in practice. At the same time, if the Committee was in favour of cards on a division, the Government, not attaching much importance to the matter, would cheerfully bow to its decision.
  MR. CRAUFURDagreed that the words in the Bill should not be made too restrictive, and suggested that the words used should be "paper or cards."
  Question put, "That the word 'papers' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 166: Majority 9.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER moved that the Chairman report Progress, and promised that if there was any doubt as to whether the word "paper" included cards, he would introduce a definition clause, because he conceived that it might be found very desirable to use voting cards, though he thought secrecy would be sufficiently secured by papers. The Bill would be proceeded with at the Morning Sitting this day.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

NEW MINT BUILDING SITE (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 223.]—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. CHARLEY MR. CHARLEY moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He objected to the Bill as a most expensive and bad measure. It was a Bill to remove the site to the Thames Embankment and erect a building which would cost £180,000. He thought it improper to proceed with the Bill at that period of the Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Charley.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been in communication with the City Surveyor, and he believed the Corporation of London had no objection to it. The Bill had been sent to a Select Committee, which had taken evidence and reported in its favour.
MR. LOCKEconsidered the explanation
1676
given very unsatisfactory. The Bill had been brought in and read a second time without discussion, and was proceeded with the other night with such rapidity that all of a sudden he found the Chairman in the Chair and the House in Committee before he had time to turn round. They were going to pull down one building and substitute another, and when he asked what it was all about he could get no information. The Bill would put the country to enormous expense, and, unless this proposed Mint were to be different from all other Mints, the Bill ought not to be persisted in on sanitary grounds. All the operations of the Mint were now carried on at Tower Hill, while only half of them were to be conducted at this new Mint, and another Mint would be required elsewhere for the other half.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the nuisance of the new Mint arose from the gold refinery, and it had been provided that there should not be one on the Embankment. As a Member of the Committee on the question, he supported the Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that what was proposed was the result of careful investigation. They possessed 4½ acres of land on Tower Hill, partly occupied by the Mint and partly by the refinery, but the latter was quite distinct from the Mint, at which the gold must be delivered in a refined state. What nuisance there was arose solely from refining; there was no reason for apprehending nuisance from the Mint proper, at which no process was carried on but the simple one of melting the metal. The Mint was a large building containing a large number of official residences, which it was undesirable to continue in connection with it. The land on which it stood was exceedingly valuable and afforded no sufficient return to the public; the machinery was old-fashioned and obsolete; it was necessary that the operations of coining should be rapidly performed; and it was desirable, for the sake of cleanliness, supervision, and economy that the Mint should be in a compact rather than a straggling building. The old Mint and its site would produce sufficient to pay for the new one and now machinery, and probably leave a surplus; and if the scheme were not approved he should have to come to the

1677
House for £30,000 or £40,000 for necessary improvements. The economy of the scheme was manifest, the situation was convenient, and the new building would be no nuisance. The site was not on the Embankment at all, it was not on reclaimed land, but it was in Inner Temple Lane; it was, as it ought to be, very accessible; and it was between the Bank of England and the Treasury, which had most to do with it.
MR. PELLasked whether the surplus would provide for new official residences?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not intended to provide any except for those who were obliged to live at the Mint.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he doubted the Estimates given before the Committee, and went down to the Mint to look into the matter as a practical man. He found the machinery and the building good, and though of course it was impossible to say that it admitted of no improvement, he believed that everything that required alteration might be set right for about £8,000 or £10,000. One argument, too, in favour of the retention of the Mint on its present site was its neighbourhood to the Tower, which, when the amount of bullion always in the Mint was considered, could certainly not be regarded as a disadvantage.
MR. A. GUESTsaid, he would be glad to learn what compensations, if any, were to be proposed under this Bill?
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that as they were entirely in the dark as to the expenses which would be entailed upon the ratepayers by this Bill, the Government were not, in his opinion, justified in attempting to force it through the House during the present Session.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he would support the Motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, as it was impossible at that time of the morning properly to discuss a Bill which, in one of its clauses, involved the whole question of the rating or non-rating of Government property.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that at the proper time he should move an Amendment, the effect of which would be to render the building liable to rates.
MR. RYLANDSregarded with great suspicion the evidence laid before the
1678
Select Committee on the Bill, as all that evidence was given at the instance of the Mint authorities. The Government, he believed, would find that a better and much more economical plan might be adopted.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 95: Majority 23.
[No Report.]

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &C., BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain; to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and to make further provision concerning Turnpike Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 247.]

ENDOWED HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to continue and amend the provisions of the Act of the thirty-second and thirty-third years of Victoria, chapter thirty-nine, intituled "An Act to make provision for the better government and administration of Hospitals and other Endowed Institutions in Scotland," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 248.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.