COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 26 June 1871 vol 207 cc560-637

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [22nd June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Cross,)—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. JAMES

said, that as the subject of the Ballot had been discussed almost annually for nearly 40 years, he should have been content to record a silent vote were it not that he wished to direct attention to some practical questions connected with the matter. He admitted that there was not sufficient abstract superiority in the system proposed by the Bill over the existing method of voting to induce him to support the measure; and he made the concession that those who thought with him on that point, and supported the Bill only as a remedy for existing evils were bound to prove that there was a necessity for the change, to show what the existing evils were, and that the proposed measure was the best remedy for them. He approached the subject with mingled and varied feeling, for, to his mind, when the Ballot became the law of the land, it would be a day of humiliation, and bitter humiliation to the whole nation; not because there was anything humiliating in recording a vote in secret, but because, by adopting this measure, they as a people, confessed that from causes and conduct which ought to be within their control they were compelled to drive the electors of this country into secrecy, and were unable to permit them to record their votes in an open and public manner. He would state why, with some hesitation and doubt, he had been forced to the conviction that it was impossible to avoid adopting the enactments of the present Bill. The corrupt practices existing in the present electoral system were three—namely, bribery, treating, and undue influence; and he was ready to acknowledge that, if there was no other evil but the single one of bribery, he should not be a supporter of the present measure. He believed the Ballot would be the means of destroying that great and grievous evil of bribery; but still if that were the only evil he would leave it to the more natural remedy which had come into action, and which had done much to destroy the existence of bribery. He spoke the almost unanimous opinion of his professional brethren, whom he had consulted, when he said that there had been no General Election in the memory of man, probably none since the accession of the House of Hanover so free from bribery as the Election of 1868. Increased powers of detection were, no doubt, afforded by the legislation of 1868. Though 111 Members were Petitioned against, yet only in one English borough — Bridgwater—and only in one Welsh borough—Brecknock—were traces of the old regular system of bribery to be found; although, undoubtedly, in other instances, there were cases of individual spasmodic corruption. He believed that public opinion, which ever followed the law, would, as in the instances of duelling and slavery, in the end destroy bribery. When a Peer of the Realm stood at the Bar of the other House in practical danger of loss of property and liberty, in theoretical danger of the loss of life, duelling ceased to exist in this country. When a British merchant stood at the bar of a Criminal Court in danger of transportation for having assisted in the slave trade, we heard no more of British merchants indulging in the practice. And so he believed would it be with bribery, through the influence of public opinion. One sentence would be sufficient to dispose of the second evil to which he had referred—treating. That was nothing more than diluted bribery; and when it ceased to be encouraged by direct judicial decision, it might be hoped that, as the shadow followed the substance, with bribery it would pass away. He now came to the far more serious evil, which was increasing rather than diminishing, and on account of which he thought this Bill should pass. It was most difficult to demonstrate the existence of that evil in its full extent. In its origin it might perhaps be traced to that strong determination in the Anglo-Saxon character to reach success in any object which Englishmen had in view; but whatever its cause or origin, it had been in existence in this country from the very first day of our Parliamentary history. Parliaments were young, indeed, and Parliamentary life had been but short, when 600 years ago the necessity existed for this Royal declaration— In order that elections may be free, the King commandeth that no great man, or other, shall by force of arms or by malice or menace do aught to prevent anyone from having free election. And 40 years later it was felt necessary to "pre-ordain" that— Every elector should freely vote, and that neither prayer nor oppression should be used to prevent his doing so. That showed that at that early period undue influence existed as a great blot upon our electoral system, requiring special enactments. Time passed on, and the influence of great men somewhat passed away. But when towns increased, men became more obedient to the power of corruption, and in the reign of Elizabeth, when our commerce had grown great, money became more abundant, and bribery obtained superiority over undue influence Constituencies became contracted; boroughs were bought and sold, and the sum of money received outweighed the indirect benefits of undue influence. But times had changed. The force of money had passed away, but the malice and the menace, the prayer and the oppression, remained. The Reform Act of 1832 had increased the amount of power given to the people; the constituencies were enlarged; it became difficult to bribe, and more easy to exercise undue influence. It then sprang for a second time into strong and clear existence; and then it was that reasoning and patriotic men came to regard the Ballot as desirable. But when the legislation of 1867 still further enlarged the constituencies of the country, that which was desirable after the Reform Bill of 1832 became an absolute necessity if the franchise was to remain in its present condition. He had said that the proof of the existence of undue influence was very difficult. He was not going to be anecdotical on the subject. Anecdote, to be worth telling, referred generally to an exceptional state of things, and to found legislation on an exceptionable state of things was most objectionable. But he would appeal to the judgment and knowledge of hon. Members, not to those whose lot had fallen in pleasant places, not to those who represented the Universities, whether English or Irish, not to those having a remote traditional right to represent certain constituencies in that country; but he would appeal to every hon. Member who had fairly fought a doubtful battle in a borough constituency, whether he had not, during and after the contest, had to listen to the sad tale of injury, misery, and half starvation in- curred by an honest vote accorded in his favour? Evidence of this kind might be found by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment from borough Members near to him connected with the county he so well represented. No one could doubt that at the General Election of 1868 a strong Conservative feeling existed among the working class in the county of Lancaster; a vast number of the employers of labour entertained Liberal views; these came into conflict with those whom they employed, and what was the result? After the elections were concluded, did the Conservative opinions of the hon. Members for Staleybridge (Mr. Sidebottom), Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), Preston (Mr. Hermon), and, crossing the border, of Stockport (Mr. Tipping) remain unchanged? Confining himself to these four instances, was it not remarkable that within the small circle of one district they should be able to find so many converts to the Ballot from their own practical experience in borough elections? The hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) in effect denied the existence of undue influence, and stated that the Judges who were examined had come to the conclusion that it did not exist, forgetful of the fact that three Members had been unseated on that very ground. But he (Mr. James) would point out that the evil was one which never could be brought fully under the influence of the law, proof being almost impossible to get. No hon. Member could be unseated unless either himself or his agent had been guilty of undue influence. But the offence was never committed by a Member or his agent, but by employers of labour interested in the candidate's success or defeat. But before a Petition could be successfully presented, the persons desirous of presenting it had to show that the man guilty of undue influence was an agent, and this was the reason why the Judges had so little cognizance of undue influence. If the offence had been brought to the knowledge of the Judge, and so within power of punishment, he would hope on and trust to the law to repress it; but it was because the offence could not be reached he supported this Bill. There was much undue influence which the law could never touch or stay. If a customer passed a tradesman's shop and did not deal there he committed no crime, and if an employer conducted a candidate through his manufactory and afterwards put moral pressure on the men, who knew that they might, when an opportunity arose, be dismissed from their employment, no crime was committed. If undue influence was brought within statutory enactment, yet from the nature of the offence it would be impossible to prove it, and therefore impossible to inflict punishment; what hope, then, could be entertained that undue influence would come to a termination from natural causes? Exactly the reverse was the case, because as they diminished bribery so they increased undue influence. The man who had received money was on that account comparatively careless about dismissal; but, in the absence of a bribe, he was the easier prey to remote influence. It was admitted by the opponents of the Ballot that the influence of wealth ought not to be exerted; but they said the Ballot would deprive intelligence and education of their influence. He argued that such influences ought to exist as much as virtue should seek to control vice. The Ballot would assist such influences, for their object and end were to produce conviction and right political judgment, but they were now defeated by corruption; whereas, if we had the Ballot, no influence could come between the voter's conviction and his vote, so that the Ballot would really assist those who wished to attain their objects by conscientious conviction. If the opponents of the Ballot would be content with the influence of intelligence— With winning words to conquer willing hearts And let persuasion do the work of fear, they would have far more influence in the future than they now had. Men found it difficult to draw the proper line between persuasion and power; they did not perceive where they ceased to convince and commenced to compel, and they passed involuntarily from the exercise of persuasion to the use of force. He honestly believed that the extension of the franchise had rendered possible such an amount of undue influence on the part of employers over workmen—an amount far greater than that ever possessed by landlords over tenants, and which would be so dangerous unless it were checked and controlled—that the present opponents of the Ballot would be the first to regret the success of their opposition if it were possible it should succeed. The public trustee argument, first used by Sir Robert Peel, was fallacious. It was generally the case that a trustee was a person who had no beneficial interest in that which was the subject of the trust, but it was not worth while to go into that view of the question. That there were public duties attaching to the exercise of the franchise no one could doubt; but so there were to many other things, such as the education of their children, and the disposal of their property so as not to interfere with the welfare of the State, which had to be done in private. But if there were a trust in relation to the vote, what was it? It could not be that the voter should vote abstractedly right or wrong, for who, save himself, was to determine between the two? nor to vote according to the opinion of the majority of non-electors, for, if so, all political responsibility in the voter would be at an end—the only suggested trust could be that the voter should vote as he deemed to be right according to his own conscience; but, under the present system, he could not always do so, and it was, therefore, absurd to say to the voter—"Fulfil your trust, which is to vote according to your conscience," and yet deny him the means whereby that trust could be performed. He had never heard or read a speech which more strongly convinced him that the Bill ought to pass than that which was made against it by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). In 1838 the then Leader of the Opposition (Sir Robert Peel) in that House opposed the Ballot, because it would destroy the influence of property, and the hon. and learned Member who had been reading that speech, for he quoted it, went further, and used an argument which ought not to pass unnoticed. He said that the Members returned under the Ballot in Ireland would be far different from those who represented it now. There were now Irish Members who were returned by certain influences; the hon. and learned Member spoke of them as due influences, and no doubt, in his opinion, they were due influences; he did not refer to spiritual influence, which he detested, nor to that of intelligent persuasion, but he referred to terri- torial influences—the influences possessed by those who owned the land in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member admitted that there had been wise legislation with reference to the Irish land, and he almost allowed it to be inferred from his speech that there had been wise legislation with reference to the Irish Church; but he asserted that such legislation had been the work of those who were not the representatives of the people of Ireland, but the nominees of a class. The hon. and learned Member, calculating as if he were an election agent, told the House that if secret voting were adopted and the influence of that class destroyed, 70, 80, or even 90 of the future Irish Members would be Nationalists. Well, if those were the real opinions of the people of Ireland they had better be expressed, whatever might be the consequences. The hon and learned Member further urged that the present system should be retained until the people had been educated; and thus, while history repeated itself, Parliamentary discussion contradicted itself. Some 50 or 60 years ago there was in that House a Member who belonged to that "moderate and respectable party" over which his hon. Friend's sarcasm so pleasantly played on the last night of the debate; but he was a Member whom Irishmen revered and Englishmen respected, and whose name the hon. and learned Member himself would delight to honour, for he bore his name and was of his line and race. The Mr. Plunket of that day, in discussing a Motion upon Irish education, told the House that there were matters of even greater importance, for they must first afford to the Irish people a paternal government, and freedom of political power, or education would only enable them to count the property they did not possess, and read of the freedom that they did not enjoy. Yet the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, the Mr. Plunket of the present day, would not pass a measure unobjectionable in itself, lest it should give the Irish people power to freely choose their Representatives. Thus they might learn how it was that Irish disaffection had seldom been manifested towards the English Crown, but always towards the English Parliament. That disaffection would never be removed until an English Parliament included more than two Representatives of Irish opinions. Let Ireland send whomever it would—the most uneducated peasant or the greatest bigot of any religion—and he should be welcome as long as he really represented the Irish people. He regretted to have to pass now to some technical objections to the Ballot, but they were worthy of consideration. It was objected that the secret Ballot would prevent a scrutiny, and that a vote, however bad, would have as much effect as a perfectly good vote. Such an argument, if not affected by an alteration in the law, ought to have some weight; but he could show how this objection could be met. No one could doubt that a scrutiny was objectionable, and might be used by a wealthy man for the oppression of one who was poor. In the course of 14 years only 10 or 11 hon. Members had been seated on a scrutiny. A vote was struck off either because the elector had been bribed, or had no proper qualification. The process now was to prove that a voter had been bribed, and to strike the vote off the poll-book, whether he had voted for the bribing candidate or not. Why, then, should they not adopt a suggestion made last year, and whenever a candidate was proved to have bribed strike off one from his poll? It would be perfectly fair to adopt this proposal; for, probably, the vote would follow the bribe, and, if it did not, the candidate who had bribed ought not to complain, for he had corrupted the voter, and had done his utmost to obtain a vote by illegal means. It would also act as a deterrent, for men would grow weary of paying for a vote they may not get, and yet, using an Irishism, lose it, although they never had it. This suggestion would not go so far as that made in 1867 by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), by which a Member who had bribed would have been superseded by the next candidate on the list no matter how great might be the disproportion in the number of votes given for each. The proposition to which he had just referred, of striking a vote from the number given in favour of a candidate for every voter, he or his agent, was proved to have bribed, was the one that Her Majesty's Government had adopted in Clause 22 of their Bill from the Amendment Paper of last year. As an illustration of the working of this system, he regretted to be compelled to use the only instance the last General Election afforded, for he had to refer to a borough he did not often mention, and to a Member he but seldom referred to, for he had to speak of the borough of Taunton, and of that Member who was its least worthy Representative. He (Mr. James) was the only Member in that House who owed his seat to a scrutiny at the last General Election. In that case a Petition for a scrutiny was presented, and proof of bribery, although of a very verbal description, having been given, the votes of those who had been bribed were struck off; the Member petitioned against was dispossessed of his seat, and he (Mr. James) was placed in his present position. Exactly the same process would be applied under the Ballot system. The same proof would have been given, and the same result would follow. He had also to deal with votes without qualification, and the remedy he proposed for that was, instead of trying votes in many instances after the election before a Judge, to try them either before the revising barrister, or by appeal before the election. He would then make the register conclusive. It might be said that many persons left their residences during 12 months, or received parochial relief, but as under the present system a man might have to wait two years and five months before obtaining a vote, he did not see any harm in leaving him a vote for a few months after ceasing to occupy his house. But there was one objection which he admitted had force and weight, and which he could not get rid of so easily as the others. The opponents of the measure had a right to say that, if a bad vote was made of the same value as a good vote, there would be more inducement to personate and to place bad votes into the electoral urn, and there might be a far greater amount of personation than there was before. But it ought to be recollected that if bribery was stopped personation was also stopped. He had never yet known personation without bribery. It was necessary to bribe a man to personate, and in all our records of personation there had seldom been found a case of hostile personation without bribery. ["No, no!] Of course he was speaking under correction, but he believed that was the case. It would be well for the House to consider whether the South Australian system should not be brought into existence. Let the voter's face be seen and his name mentioned, and any personation would at once be detected. He also suggested that personation should be made felony, and if the police had the power of arresting a man without warrant that would act as a great deterrent. He had treated this as a practical question, but he could not forget the appeal that had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment—that that House would discuss this Bill without reference to party polities. He had obeyed that behest, and in return he had to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite, for on them chiefly rested the responsibility of determining whether or not this Bill should pass into law. It was given to the Parliament of 1867, but especially to those hon. Members who supported the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, to afford to the people of that country an extended and a full franchise. Upon those who commenced that work was now cast a duty, and that of no imperfect obligation, of completing what they had begun, by rendering that franchise a reality, by protecting the defenceless and strengthening the weak. To obtain that result some sacrifices must be made. They must cease to speculate upon the prospect of party gain; they must let the bonds of party ties lie lightly upon them, and they must cast aside traditions, old habits, manners of thought, and even expressed opinions. For any who hesitated thus to act let this be their reassurance, this their recompense, that in achieving this result they would be enabled to boast, and in that boast, the truth to tell, that they were of that reformed Parliament which, for the first time in the annals of this country, had afforded to its people the means and power to record a pure, free, and an unfettered vote.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

It was expected by those who are acquainted with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. James) that he would offer to us some remarks of great force upon a subject in which he is so much interested, and he has addressed himself to it in a spirit of both reasoning and argument, having a desire, as we all have, to come to a right conclusion, but I cannot say he has displayed that amount of enthusiasm which in former times made the Ballot for so many years one of the articles of belief and one of the watchwords of a portion of the Liberal party. I cannot help calling to mind the course through which this question has run, and the difference in its position now from that of some few years ago. In 1865 the Ballot was treated as an absolutely dead question, and Lord Palmerston, in a speech he then made, and which I remember, refused to take it up as a real one. The hon. Member for Bristol (the late Mr. Berkeley) said he was very willing on that occasion to hand it over to anyone, but he could get no one to take it, and he said he was willing to hand it over to the Government; but Lord Palmerston said he did not know any Government who would take it. It is singular that in a few short years that feeling, which was so cogent and so overpowering as to prevent this House from then adopting what had been put forward for many years by Mr. Grote, Mr. Berkeley, and others, should have passed away, and that a large party on the other side of the House should now be combined together upon this question as they have never been combined before. I am not going to enter into any party aspect of the matter, but it is impossible not to consider how it has come about that there should have been so complete a change, because the conversion of platoons is either by miracle or pressure. I cannot help thinking that when I see a conversion so great within a short period of time—when I see the followers of Sir Robert Peel combined with the old Whigs, and those again combined with the Liberal party below the gangway—it is impossible for me not to see that there must be some reason other than argument, because the arguments addressed to us to-night were all addressed to us before, and it is impossible to import anything new into the subject. If, then the arguments were unconvincing before, what has brought this change about? I have seen some instances of pressure even within these few days. Only the other day my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) was complaining that the Government would not give way as to the Endowed Schools Act, but in the next week, on a question of precisely the same principle—that of Harrow School—they yielded, and unanimously walked out into the Lobby with the hon. and learned Gentleman as they had walked out against him the week before. Under those circumstances one cannot help thinking that there must be some reason other than argument for this extraordinary cohesion. I quite admit that there have been a few conversions. After a closely-contested election, candidates are apt to consider that they have been ill-used if they have not attained all that they desired; they are apt to lay stress on the statements that voters make for not having supported them, and they are inclined to believe that pressure has been used. Thinking too much of themselves, they give credence to these stories, and many of them think that the only cure for what has happened would be the Ballot. But are such cases reasons why we are to have this great, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton admits, humiliating change? He (Mr. James) has not spoken of one point which has been much put forward by others—namely, that the Ballot would secure peace and order at elections. I freely confess that I think much might be done to secure greater peace and order on the day of election. I believe the publication of the state of the poll is calculated to create disorder, and that it is desirable it should not be published. I would further advocate a means by which you would ascertain more fully the opinions of the whole constituency of the country than by any other that you could adopt, and which would also be just as effectual in promoting peace and order—namely, the system of voting papers. I know hon. Members may say that pressure may be used under that system; but that is a question of time and opportunity, and if the voting papers were issued as they ought to be, objections would be obviated and peace and order preserved. You propose to get rid of nominations, and that, though a doubtful matter, would at least conduce in some degree to peace and order. As I understand the hon. and learned Member there is only one thing for which you are to have recourse to the Ballot, and that is the repression of certain kinds of undue influence. But what is your motive for abandoning the manly system of open voting? Is it to improve this House, or is it to improve the conduct of elections? Now, I wish to ask hon. Members—"Which of you it is who is the extra Member?" Three gentlemen were once driving in a cab, and one of them put the question to the cabman—which of them was the extra member—and the cabman could not answer. I do not think anyone here would be willing to admit himself to be the extra Member, or that he came into this House by undue influence, or by any undue means whatever. Either this House represents the country or it does not, and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that hon. Members should begin by maligning the House to which they belong. An hon. Member who preceded me has admitted, with respect to bribery, that there never was so little; and I may undertake to say there never was so little undue influence. With respect to Ireland, it should be remembered that there was no evidence before the Committee whatever which was of any effect in showing the existence of undue influence there. What is the meaning of the Land Bill, if undue landlord influence is to be alleged to exist in Ireland? It seems to me that a tenant is as much an owner now as the man above him; he is no longer under the possibility of oppression, and if you can arrive at this conclusion without the process of the Ballot, it is far better to bring it about by the ordinary operation of the law than by a process of this kind which is an injury in itself. The hon. and learned Member says that the great desirability of the Ballot lies in this—that you obtain an absolute secrecy of voting. I do not think this is the occasion for entering into details on a point which will come before us in Committee, but I would say in respect to his (Mr. James's) plan of striking off votes for bribery nothing could be more unjust. It may be perfectly just where the agent may have bribed, or where the candidate may have bribed; but supposing that neither the one nor the other has bribed, but some person for whom they are not responsible, are the votes to be struck off to the prejudice of the candidate at whose instance the bribery was not given? And with regard to personation, it appears from the statements of those acquainted with Australia that, even in those places where you would expect every man to know the other, personation is prevalent, in some instances, to a considerable extent; and you know that it largely exists in America, where, no doubt, the Ballot is not secret, because the American citizen would despise the notion of concealing any vote that he gave; and, voting as they do in America for as many as 30 or 40 candidates, voting by "ticket" is really the only way in which they can vote with any effect. But by the mode now proposed the Ballot is very much like bribery, because it treats every man as having in his vote a personal right—not a privilege. The vote has been called a "trust;" but in the Amendment which I ventured to move in the Committee elsewhere, I particularly avoided the use of the term "trust," and spoke of it as a public duty for which the voter was under a public responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has stated that his reason for always voting with Lord Palmerston against the Ballot was that he held the argument as to the franchise being a trust as conclusive, although the right hon. Gentleman thinks that argument now no longer applies, for a reason to be noticed presently. What is it then you are doing by the Ballot? You are changing what is a public duty—for which the elector is responsible—first to his conscience and then to his neighbours and everybody about him, into a system of distrust, and in its place you are making hypocrisy an absolute duty. ["No, no!] You are telling him that he shall not go to the poll openly—that it shall be an offence for him to tell for whom he is voting. ["No; not for speaking."] Not for speaking. No; speaking will be a matter perfectly indifferent, for you are going to set up a system of lying. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) made some amazing statements, which I made a note of at the time, giving the notion that the tribunals, and almost all the officials of this country are governed simply by penal motives, because he said that in cases in which the State does not sufficiently remunerate a man for the discharge of the public duty, it calls in the aid of secrecy for his conscience, while the man who is remunerated has to discharge his duties openly. Was there ever such an assertion made in regard to the Judicial bench as that it only gives its judgments openly because it is paid? What is to be said of all those other officers who are not paid—for instance, the unpaid magistracy, the guardians of the poor, and the mem- bers of various local boards? Then, the hon. Member spoke of the deliberations of the Cabinet being kept secret; but who ever heard of its being necessary that they should be disclosed? It is their acts which are important, and each Member of the Cabinet is held individually responsible for that which is brought forward or done by the collective body. The hon. Member also said the Press is anonymous. Well, it is generally so, though not always; but the newspaper itself is under a responsibility and has to give security. Moreover the Press seeks to affect public opinion, not by the force of a name, but by force of argument; and the influence which its articles may have depends upon the strength or the weakness of its arguments. The subject of anonymous writing may, therefore, be perfectly open to discussion, but it has no bearing on the question now before us. It seems to me that the hon. Member treated conscience—a word constantly used in this discussion—not as that which makes us firm and resolute, but as that which "makes cowards of us all." It appeared to be supposed that we are to be so low in patriotism, so degraded in feelings, as to be ashamed or afraid to do anything that involves self-sacrifice and self-denial. The President of the Poor Law Board told us, indeed, that he believed we are to arrive at bravery through cowardice, and that that is the only way of arriving at it. Then you must alter the teaching in your schools, and cease to tell the young that honesty is the best policy, because dishonesty and concealment are to become the best policy. If you teach one thing in your schools and another at your elections, you will do all you can to promote dishonesty and selfishness. The poet says— Give unto me made lowly wise, The spirit of self-sacrifice. But you say—"Give us the spirit of selfishness; let that be the ruling principle on which everybody is to act." If that is to be the rule acted upon at the elections, why is it not to be acted upon in this House? The Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck), for taking votes by Ballot in this House, caused some laughter; but there was rather more to be said for it, perhaps, than was supposed. In the French Chamber once men voted by Ballot, as they were elected by Ballot. I do not see that the practice showed any good results in the one case or in the other. But the public duty of the men who are sent here by the constituencies to discuss and pass laws, because it is impossible for the constituencies to attend here personally themselves, is to make use of their consciences and their judgments; and why are hon. Members of Parliament to have their names set down and published in a division list, if the electors are to give their votes in secret? It may be said that public opinion might not have a good effect on the voter; but any public opinion is useful in some sense, and it is far better that a man's conscience should be subjected to the test of public scrutiny, because, as Mr. Mill justly says, if the voter has to bear the test of public scrutiny, he is not likely to adopt opinions, unless he feels that there are good grounds for them. Instead of saying to him— To thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. The whole argument for the Ballot is that a man is not to be true to his opinion, but to his interest. ["No, no!] Well, if he is true to his opinion, he has the means of giving effect to it by an open vote; but by the Ballot you tell him that he is not to risk any consequences—that he is to be false to any man that he may be true to himself. A speech by Sir Robert Peel has been referred to, and it may be that speech has some lingering influence on the minds of those who heard it, among whom, perhaps, was the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who doubtless listened with delight to its classical allusions, and followed its conclusions almost with conviction. And what was the case then? Had this thing been tried? It was tried in Rome, and it is a remarkable thing that from the time of the establishing Ballot Law, whatever may have been the cause, whether or not it was the corrupt state of society which led to the decadence of Rome, things got worse and worse until we come to the time when Pliny gives a most accurate description of similar results to those likely to follow from the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. We are invited to manufacture a free elector, described by an old Whig as— The elector free, free to think one way and act another; free to profess friendship and gratify enmity; free to advocate openly certain political opinions and sacrifice them to feelings of personal friendship or personal hostility; free to consult his own selfish purposes, while loud in his praise of conscientious political integrity. That is what you want to get; and now let us see how Pliny describes these free and independent voters. He says— Poposcit tabellas, stilum accepit, demisit caput, neminem veretur, sc contemnit. Sir Robert Peel, commenting upon this, said— The reverence for authority was gone, the fear of public opinion was removed, the aspect of a grave magistrate—the living lesson (as Gibbon calls it) to the multitude—ceased to encourage or rebuke, and the voter retired from the Ballot conscious, perhaps, of the violation of a promise, with the sense of shame in his demeanour, and the feeling of dishonour and degradation in his heart. And be assured that if this feeling be introduced here, if you accustom the voter to the violation of a solemn promise, if you make him believe that a lie told to a landlord is of little comparative consequence, you will dearly purchase the advantage of a secret vote at the price of promises disregarded, truth habitually violated, the sense of honour destroyed, and self-esteem extinguished."—[Hansard, xl. 1212.] That is the description of the voter who takes the voting paper and retires to the little recess in which there is a pencil which is to be tied with a strong piece of tape for fear, as appears from the Australian reports, that he should steal it. That is the estimate the Prime Minister has of the conscientious voter; he wishes the pencil to be tied by a strong piece of tape—red tape, I suppose—for fear he should carry it away. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), like most other speakers on his side, gives up the case of bribery. He has not fully admitted that bribery will go on in the same way, and probably it would not be the case; but a comparison in this respect between England and the colonics could scarcely be permitted. They have there a suffrage which is wider than the suffrage of this country, and that makes a most material difference in the position of the two. The contests for seats in the colonies also are not so stubborn and obstinate as they are in this country, and party feeling does not there run so high; and yet still Sir James Fergusson, in a letter on the whole favourable to the Government's view, says that the system has never yet experienced a full and strong trial. Do you believe that in the contests which will arise for seats in this House, so long as a seat is valued as it now is, and so long as such great efforts are made to obtain it, that there will not be bribery and personation? My hon. and learned Friend says personation never exists without bribery. I know of many instances in which it has been proved to have occurred, especially in municipal elections, and there is nothing in the Bill to put a stop to it. It is said that it is idle to talk of clubs or secret societies as instruments for turning elections, but in Ireland, especially where the oath of the secret society is respected, this Bill would give the undue influence of such combinations full power and destroy the due influence of mental superiority. With respect to treating, I read in The Times the other day an account of an election in Melbourne, in which the treating was described as "excessive;" the treating was apparently conducted very much in the same way as in England, so that it appears the Ballot has not done much to put an end to treating. Do you imagine, also, that canvassing will be stopped by the Bill, or that people will cease to ask for votes, or trust to promises; or do you imagine that the tyrants whom you suppose to exist so generally among the constituencies will not be very much like other people; that they will not arrive at conclusions "from information which they have received?" Do you suppose that secrecy will be so absolute, even in the domestic establishment, that a landlord's agent will not arrive at what has taken place; and do you suppose that these great tyrants, as they are supposed to be, will be less scrupulous than they now are? If you do so suppose, I think that yon will be very much deceived upon this point. The truth is, with regard to the great majority of the people in England, that they do not want the Ballot, and will not have secrecy, and it will only be used by people who want to conceal what they do for motives of their own. You say that you are going to give them a choice of evils. An advocate of the Ballot says that it is "a necessary evil;" the hon. and learned Member for Taunton says that it is a choice of evils; and the Prime Minister also offers us, as he said last year, a choice of evils, and he offers us the worse. As is said by one advocate of the Bill, it is a necessary evil and a humiliation. What is the evil of the present system? The present system results in a sin against the law of the country by an individual; you offer us a legislative evil; you would do evil by the State that good may come of it; and you say that evil done by the State is better than evil done by the individual. When the State seeks to mend a breach of its law, by altering the law itself, it does a wrong to itself, and leaves the criminal unpunished. But the Bill is inconsistent in itself. It begins by asserting that every man has a right to secrecy in the exercise of his privilege as a voter; and yet, with respect to the City of London, for instance, the Bill requires over 80 persons publicly to declare their preference for particular candidates. Of course the Bill does not require them to vote according to their declaration, for, of course, they may vote differently from their declared preference if they please. Ten men upon each occasion are to come forward on behalf of each candidate, and are to deprive themselves of secrecy, and to place themselves as marks for the shots of the mob. Again, do you believe that men will keep secret their votes? An hon. Member says that after voting rioting begins; but at Chippenham houses were wrecked before the voting began, and so it was again in Monmouthshire. All the rioting also was on one side, and there was nothing but the opinions entertained which could have rendered the parties liable to the violence which they suffered. Under the present law parties who were so injured can obtain no compensation from the hundred unless the rioting is of that character that amounts to a felony, which, I think, is a very great injustice. Is it supposed that that sort of thing will be stopped by the present Bill? I have not not heard one word said as to rioting, and you are going to mark out ten persons for each candidate who shall be put forward as the victims of the party. Now, is it the fact that in the most secret of Ballot countries the secret as to voting is really kept? Candidates will always be able to know the opinions of all those who are worthy of any consideration at all. Patronage, too, will go on. The party opposite made great protestations that patronage was not to be one of their weapons; but a careful examination of their proceedings has shown me that patronage has still its old meaning, and that it has not fallen from their hands, like the dew from Heaven, upon the evil and the good; it falls upon the good only as the word "good" is construed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The question as regards undue influence in Ireland is whether under the Ballot that influence will be still brought to bear. I am firmly convinced as the result of my examination of witnesses who came before the Committee, that illegal influence will still be brought to bear in Ireland, notwithstanding the adoption of the Ballot in that country. I do not say that this influence will be brought to bear through the confessional, but there are plenty of means by which those who use the confessional—and would not, I may admit, use it for any improper purpose—might ascertain what was going on, and use their influence very strongly in support of the views which they held. I wish hon. Members would read that part of the evidence in which the Bishop of Limerick showed what was the meaning of the denunciations which sometimes are made from the altar. The Bishop stated that disobedience to an injunction conveyed in a denunciation from the altar by a priest was a mortal sin; and he said, further, that there were certain questions of such importance, and which were so clearly understood by all Roman Catholics, that persons supporting them in any way would also be guilty of mortal sin, except under very exceptional circumstances. I do not go further than to say that this presents a means of getting at the consciences of the voters, which may be liable to impressions alike from priests, and from some of the secret societies in Ireland, which the Ballot will not counteract. Where publicity exists in a country, and has existed so long a time that it may be said to have become, as in our own case, the vital breath of the Constitution, you ought not to do away with it except for the very strongest reasons. Bribery and treating are given up, intimidation is the only difficulty remaining, and even that has been proved not to exist to anything like the extent to which it formerly did. It has not been proved to exist to an extent sufficiently injurious to affect the character of this House; to render the constituencies unfit to discharge their functions, or, except in very rare instances, to press harshly upon individuals. I say, therefore, that the Ballot is bad in itself, because if you call it a choice of evils you make that admission; that it is injurious to the character of the constituencies, because a constituency being made up of units, anything which renders the units degraded, dishonest, and corrupt similarly affects the whole; and that it is injurious to public opinion, because it destroys the means by which a healthy and wholesome expression of public opinion may alone be obtained. You cannot tell with the Ballot whether the opinions which a man expresses is that which he really holds, because, by your own assumption, there are certain persons in this country afraid to express their opinions, and who will express opinions which they do not entertain in order to escape some possible punishment which they think hangs over them. I take upon me the whole responsibility to which the hon. and learned Member for Taunton has adverted, and, having contested one borough and sat for another, I say, without hesitation, that to my knowledge the circumstances to which he referred did not occur in either of those constituencies. I am convinced, therefore, that there are a great number of hon. Members of this House who, not listening to the idle tales of those voters who came to them with excuses for not having supported their candidature, would come to the conclusion that the elections in this country, as at present conducted, are as fair a reflex of the opinion of the public as could be obtained under any system of secret voting. But this Bill would, if passed, have further consequences, which cannot, to my mind, be regarded with any feelings than those of apprehension. Sir Robert Peel foretold those consequences in the speech to which I have adverted, when he said— When you have got the Ballot then will come the demand, even now plainly foreseen and foretold, the demand for extended suffrage as the necessary consequence—nay, as the only remedy, of the special evils of the Ballot, for suffrage not circumscribed by arbitrary rules as to residence on property, but for suffrage co-extensive with population and restricted only, if at all, by the age of 21."—[3 Hansard, xl. 1213.] A few nights ago something dropped from the Prime Minister which may have been thought by some to have been at the time laid hold of and commented upon unfairly, but which was, as I can convince the House, entirely in accordance with what fell from his lips in more lengthened sentences last year. The right hon. Gentleman at the time to which I am alluding said he had changed his opinion with regard to the Ballot, because the argument of Lord Palmerston that the vote was a public trust, and that the voter was a trustee, for those who are not represented, had passed away, and the right hon. Gentleman stated his reasons for this change in the following words:— When we have adopted household suffrage we have, I think, practically adopted the principle that every man who is not disabled in point of age, of crime, of poverty, or through some other positive disqualification, is politically competent to exercise the suffrage, and it is a simple question of time and convenience when this suffrage shall be placed in his hands."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 1030.] Whose time and whose convenience? Are we to wait for some new disruption, some now period of difficulty, in order to reach the period of time when it will be convenient to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman? The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the country and Parliament were placed logically in the position when manhood suffrage, and, as I will presently show, female suffrage also, must be conceded. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say— There is no longer, properly so-called, a limited constituency acting and exercising a trust on behalf of the whole people; but that the basis on which Parliament desires to found the representative system of the country is a basis not less wide than that of the entire nation. Setting aside those who may be subject to positive disqualifications; and, consequently, that the trust which is exercised by the father of a family, or by an adult male, in giving a vote for a Member of Parliament, is practically a trust which he holds mainly on behalf of his wife and children, all other persons being presumably entitled to act with him on a footing of equality in giving a vote."—[Ibid. 1031.] There is no doubt that last year the right hon. Gentleman was strongly opposed to female suffrage, for he came down to the House and assisted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to throw out a Bill which would have conferred it; but this Session he came down and said that if the difficulties of women going personally to the poll could be got rid of the franchise would well be granted to them. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] All I can say is that I am correctly stating the impression left on my mind by the speech; but if the right hon. Gentleman intimates that I have misapprehended his meaning, I will not press the matter further. Passing from that question, it is safe for me to say that, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, this Bill would unsettle the suffrage and open new questions in regard to the franchise, and that is, to my mind, an undertaking of so grave a nature as to justify me in voting against the Bill. This measure would not, if passed, confer any advantage upon the public generally, but would simply act as a cloak to the mean, the cowardly, and the dishonest among the electoral body, because unless a man is consistent in his lying the Ballot can be of no use to him. I will be no party to any such proceedings as those to which I have alluded, and as I believe the Ballot to be bad in itself, and likely to lead to renewed agitation in the country, I shall unhesitatingly record my vote against the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill before the House.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Hardy) has taunted hon. Members on this side of the House with having been very rapidly converted to the Ballot, but will he say that any single one of such conversions has been half as rapid as that of himself and of a great number of those who sit behind him upon the subject of household suffrage? In order that the House might forget the rapidity of that conversion the right hon. Gentleman quoted from a speech in which Sir Robert Peel resisted the Ballot, for this reason, among others, that it would cause a demand for extended suffrage; but he did not add that, thanks to himself, the demand for the suffrage has preceded the Ballot. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt, with all the honest energy of his disposition, upon what he thought would be the falseness and the hollowness in the electoral mind which would result from the adoption of the Ballot, but I must say that I see no reason for any such gloomy anticipations. I feel convinced that if this Bill passes many men will profess their political opinions and work as ardently as ever in their support; and, in saying that, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent enough to say that the majority did not want the Ballot, but would proclaim their political opinions as much as ever. If so, there would be no real reason for the exercise of meanness, falseness, or dishonesty on the part, at all events, of those who held warm political opinions. The question, however, which the Government had to consider was, what protection could be afforded to the large number of persons who did not hold such warm political opinions as to induce them to proclaim them from the housetop, and who at the same time wished to exercise their privilege apart from the influence of their landlords or employers. I cannot see that the Ballot will create or foster meanness or dishonesty, because men will leave off asking questions to which they know they can get no certain answer. They will be content either to accept the assurance of the voter as to the way in which he had voted, or not trouble themselves about the matter at all. Once the Ballot comes into operation in a country there is no longer such a thing as inquiring how a voter has voted; there is no longer such a thing, even, as assuming that he has voted in a particular sense. The idea of exacting a vote, or punishing a voter in any way for exercising the franchise, never enters into the head of any man; and the consequence is that ultimately voting becomes almost as open under the secret system as it was before. We have heard a great deal of voting being a trust. I have no doubt that to many hon. Members upon both sides of the House that argument is extremely interesting, but it seems to me that it is an argument of too speculative a character to have much weight upon the decision of this House. I think the House and the country will be guided far more by what they think will be the practical effect of this measure than by any argument of that kind. I do not think it at all necessary to concede that the Ballot will be an evil; but I am prepared to admit that, although we shall gain a great deal more than we shall lose by its adoption, still there are certain advantages which we shall have to relinquish. For instance, there will be so much uncertainty as to a candidate or an agent obtaining any consideration for the money that he pays that few men, I think, will be found to risk their money for so doubtful a result. That will be a very great gain. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire, in his able speech the other night, certainly put his finger upon what, as it seems to me, will be the only thing that we shall lose—the facilities given by the publication of the votes to a petitioner for putting his hand upon cases where bribery has been committed. If a voter has voted in a manner contrary to that which was expected or promised, no doubt this may put the petitioner upon the scent, but I do not believe that is the way in which bribery is usually detected. I am happy to say that I have never had any experience either of petitioning or being petitioned against, but in those cases of which we commonly hear, the operation seems to be somewhat of this kind: when money is being freely spent in a contest, it is impossible that this can be done with complete secrecy; the thing is whispered about and talked about, there is a prevailing impression—something in the air, as it were—to the effect that there is money going. After the election is over, if the defeated party thinks it worth while, these rumours are traced, and further inquiry is made; and as both the bribers and the persons bribed must be persons of extremely indifferent moral character, it is not generally a very difficult operation to find a traitor in the camp, and when once a clue has been obtained further discoveries become much more rapid. It is in that way, I believe, that petitioners are put upon the scent much more frequently than by the publication of the poll-book. Then, as to personation. I quite agree with what was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) that personation is only another form of bribery. It is impossible to suppose that anybody will expose himself to the enormously severe penalties which he will incur if detected, without any consideration other than the anxiety which he feels for the success of one of the candidates. Under the Ballot you weaken the inducements to personate, because, though the bribe may be given and taken as before, the candidate or the agent can never know with certainty that the vote has been given in the sense that is desired. Several phrases have been repeated over and over again in this discussion to which weight apparently attaches, but which appear to me to represent nothing but fallacies. We are told that the Ballot will encourage bribery and personation by making them impossible to detect. How is that shown? In the present day you must trace the money from the agent to the voter; or in a case of personation, you must prove that a certain person, A. B., voted for and represented another person, C. D. These things will be as capable of proof under the Ballot as under the present system; for it is no part necessarily of the offence that the briber or the personator shall have voted for any particular candidate. Another argument which seems to have a great effect upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen is the tremendous operations which will be resorted to for bribery by results. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy) alluded to this when he spoke of bribery by clubs. But if that be such an admirrable mode of bribery, I want to know why it is not practised now? I do not believe that there is any reason to suppose that this conditional form of bribery will be more easily practised under the Ballot than it is at present; and I have never heard of its being extensively resorted to. It is true that the candidate would not pay his money unless he were returned; but, on the other hand, what would there be to prevent the leader of a club of 300 or 400 men from making his bargain with the candidate on either side, and thus securing his money whichever was returned? One or two bargains of that kind would, I believe, soon deter candidates from expenditure of so useless and unprofitable a character. Then as to intimidation, without going into details, I think I may say that, for all the ordinary and coarser forms of intimidation—such as intimidation of tenants by landlords, of tradesmen by customers, or of workmen by trades unions—the Ballot would be a complete cure. Against all these undoubted gains, what have hon. Gentlemen on the other side to put? It is said that we shall lose the salutary effect of public opinion upon the mind of the voter. I should very much like to know what that means. I admit that very frequently it happens now that a voter who has always voted "blue," or has always voted "yellow," and whose family have always voted in the same way, does not like to vote differently, because he would be supposed to have turned his coat, and it is very possible that under the Ballot, instead of continuing to vote as he and his family had always done before, the voter might vote for the candidate he personally preferred. But I do not think that would be a very great loss. What I want to know is, how public opinion is brought to bear upon the voter so as to exercise a salutary effect upon him. I believe that a corrupt voter votes now for some corrupt motive, and under the Ballot he will probably continue to do the same. But I do not believe that the honest voter is always thinking about his being clothed with a trust for the benefit of the nation, of the duty which he owes to his country, or of the salutary effect which public opinion exercises upon him. I believe what the honest voter thinks of is, who will best represent his political opinions, and who will make, in his opinion, the best Member for the county or the borough. I should like to offer one or two remarks upon the very able and eloquent speech which we heard the other night from the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). Much as there was to admire in that speech, there were two points by which I was particularly struck. The first was, the intense admiration that the hon. and learned Member appeared to feel for his own profession. According to his view, there was nothing like leather. For admitting that the evils which had prevailed before might still continue to prevail, the hon. and learned Member dwelt upon the great change which had been made in the tribunal that was to try the offences. Formerly, he said, you used to try these cases by a tribunal which was corrupt, and which, perhaps, sympathized to a certain extent with the criminal. An investigation by an election Judge ought, no doubt, to have an extremely deterrent effect on an intelligent criminal; and, indeed, I have heard that during the progress of the last General Election the prospect of such an investigation being made did have a considerable effect in restraining malpractices which would have otherwise prevailed. There was a general apprehension that the Courts would be much more severe than they turned out actually to be, and that it would be impossible for any person to resort to corrupt practices with such impunity as he could before. Since then, however, I have heard even hon. Members of this House say it would be extremely easy to spend a great deal of money, and to use a great deal of influence at future elections, without coming within the reach of the law. Besides, I believe that no tribunal, however excellent, even if it were a great deal better than the present tribunals of the election Judges, would entirely remedy the evils which are complained of. I believe that the very worst cases did not come before the Judges at all, and that even when a Petition was presented, the petitioners did not always make out so strong a case as they might have done. There was a good reason for this. It was well known that if too strong a case were made out against the opposite side the character of the borough would be taken away altogether, and consequently the borough would thenceforth lose the right of being represented in the House of Commons. I think the fear of disfranchisement may have operated in several instances so as to prevent the strongest possible case being brought under the notice of the Judges. The hon. and learned Member indulged a great deal in prophesy, and described to us not only the inherent evils of the system, but likewise the results that would follow its adoption. First of all, he predicted the extinction of the party to which I hope I have the pleasure of belonging. Now, I need hardly say, that, with the hon. and learned Member, no one can look upon such an event as an unmitigated calamity more than I should, but I confess I do not feel myself wholly cast down by the prophesy of the hon. and learned Member. I believe that the Whigs have been always distinguished by a sincere love of free institutions, and that they have always sought to reform rather than to pull down the institutions of the country. I believe, in short, that they have been consistent and sincere lovers of freedom and popular progress. Well, if that be a correct description of the principles of the Whig party, I do not see what reason they have to fear a system which would place a large amount of political power in the hands of persons who take a calm and at the same time a liberal view of the institutions of this country and of public events. I think the politics of the large body of the people would answer precisely to the description I have just given of the politics of the Whigs, and I do not see why enabling persons to vote as they wish, and not compelling them to vote as somebody else wishes, should lead necessarily to the extinction of the Whig party. But even if the hon. and learned Member be a true prophet, I do not think I am wrong in saying that those who still call themselves Whigs do not desire to sit in this House or to take a share in the Government of the country by means of corrupt practices. The hon. and learned Member next prophesied that the most disastrous results would ensue from the adoption of the Ballot in Ireland. I think he was rather rash to touch on the subject of Irish elections, for if there be one, part of the United Kingdom where a change is required more than in any other it is Ireland. Without any hesitation, I say that the present system of Irish elections is a disgrace to a civilized community, and as an instance, I will briefly refer to the case of a county election and of a borough election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) stated that no case had been proved where intimidation by landlords was exercised in Ireland; but surely he must have forgotten the case of the Sligo election, where it was proved by a Roman Catholic priest who came before us, and who certainly was not contradicted in a single item of his evidence, that intimidation of the grossest and most flagrant character was practised at that election. This witness cited instances where tenants had received threatening letters from landlords, telling them that if they did not vote in a particular way they would have to pay increased rent, or else go to America. Then we heard that some days before the polling-day two or three resident magistrates had to be sent into the county in order to keep the peace. A large force of constabulary, and even of troops, was likewise sent there, and for days before the election, escorts were sent out in order to bring voters into the polling-places. These precautions were, I believe, absolutely necessary in consequence of the intimidation practised by the landlords and the equal amount of intimidation on the other side. We were told of armed parties going about the country threatening electors with dreadful consequences if they gave an unpopular vote. Such was the state of the county of Sligo prior to the election. It was a struggle in regard to which I cannot take upon myself to decide who was right and who was wrong—a struggle between the landlords, the priests, and the mob. In most instances individual voters had no free choice as to the way they would vote; and consequently, in most instances, only an unwilling share in the result. I will now take the description of the Drogheda election, which was investigated by Judge Keogh. It is impossible to read anything which convoys a more vivid description of what an election ought not to be than the account given by that learned Judge of the election for Drogheda. It is sufficient to say that for three or four days the town was in a state of such violent tumult that the unpopular candidate did not venture to make his appearance at all. On the morning of the election, a mob proceeded to the railway station to prevent his voters from going to the poll. I forgot, however, to mention that at the nomination the tumult was so great that the returning officer had to ask a person present whether anybody had proposed and seconded Sir Leopold M'Clintock, and if so, whether any body had demanded a poll. The riot on the following day was so serious that a large number of electors were unable to record their votes at all, and it was only by a miracle that many lives were not lost. Now, is it possible to conceive a state of things more completely removed from freedon of election than is depicted in the accounts of these two elections? And I appeal to hon. Members who are acquainted with the facts to say whether those are altogther exceptional occurrences. It appears to be a recognized practice at an Irish election to hire a mob. Both sides usually have mobs, and the peace of towns is thoroughly disturbed by their proceedings. I think the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin said that voters would be attacked under the Ballot just the same as they are under the existing system, because their opinions would be just as well known. If the Ballot were introduced, I do not believe that mobs would be made use of at elections as they are now. It seems to me that the object of employing mobs at these elections is to excite terror in the minds of the voters, and to warn them of the consequences that will happen if they give a certain vote; and if it is never known what votes the voters give, it appears to me that the motive in the employment of a mob will almost altogether be done away with. We have been told that the adoption of the Ballot has entirely removed the violence that used to prevail at elections in some of the colonies, and I do not know why we are to assume that the adoption of the Ballot in the Irish elections should not have a similarly good effect. We are told, however, that in Ireland there is one species of intimidation over which the Ballot will have no effect—and that is spiritual intimidation. Hon. Members speak on this and many other points as if the adoption of the Ballot would deprive us of all the other means which we now have of checking unfair proceedings at elections. It is not proposed to take away any of the powers which the Judges or the House now have in such cases. Bribery, intimidation, and corrupt influence of all kinds will be just as much prohibited and punishable by law after the Ballot has been established as they are now. Spiritual intimidation will be one of those classes of intimidation which it will be perfectly open to the law to take cognizance of, and if used to a certain extent such intimidation will invalidate an election. Judge Keogh laid that down very clearly in his judgment on the Galway election. Judge Keogh said that spiritual intimidation could be proved in the same way as intimidation of any other kind, and that if it were proved to exist, in his opinion, the candidate in support of whom it had been used would be deprived of his seat in the same way as the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) was deprived of his seat in 1857. I admit that the Ballot is not a specific remedy against spiritual intimidation, but if you adopt the Ballot you will not take away any of the existing powers of the law. We are told that the effect of the adoption of the Ballot will be the return of a great number of Nationalists to this House. I have some doubt upon that subject; but I do not know that even that would be as great a misfortune as allowing things to go in their present state. I cannot conceive anything that could have a worse effect on the minds of the people than their seeing that scenes of violence at every election can occur almost with impunity. The people see a large force—magistrates, constabulary, and troops—assembled for the purpose of preserving order. The people think—though I believe entirely without reason—that this force is employed in the service of one side. Of course it happens that one side needs more protection than another, and the minds of the people naturally become filled with the idea that all this force is intended for the assistance and benefit of one side. For that, among other reasons, I believe if we had the Ballot it would be much easier to put down riots. There would then be no longer any excuse that the employment of violence was necessary. At present it is said that violence is employed to meet violence on the other side. I do not know why the adoption of the Ballot would be followed by the return of a large number of Nationalists. It is not proved to my satisfaction that a majority of the Irish constituencies profess Nationalist opinions. I believe that the individual opinions of the Irish voters have very little to do with an election—that the voter votes as his landlord or his priest tells him to vote, or because he is intimidated by some violent or overbearing section of the people. But a large proportion of the Irish constituency is composed of small farmers, or small traders and small shopkeepers in country towns, and it appears to me that there is no class on the face of the earth one would naturally expect to be more Conservative than a class of that description. It is admitted on both sides of the House that some good was done last year in giving to that class some security in their tenure. They are now very much the same class as that class of small proprietors in France who have always constituted a thoroughly Conservative body in that country, and I do not know why you are to suppose that the feelings of the small proprietors or small leaseholders who regard themselves as proprietors in Ireland, are different from the feelings of small proprietors in other countries. At any rate, nothing has occurred to show that the feelings of the majority of the Irish constituencies are Nationalist. We know very well what sort of proceedings have occurred in the Tipperary and Meath elections. We know that intimidation by certain supporters of the Nationalist party was carried to a great extent, and that voters who would have ventured to oppose what they chose to call the popular vote would have done so at very great risk to themselves. If the adoption of the Ballot should lead to the return of 60, 70, or 80 Nationalists, then I can only say, although I may deplore it, by all means let them come. If they come, they will find how strong, how unalterable, is the determination of the people of this country to maintain the integrity of the Empire. They will find that our determination is just, as strong as was that of the people of that country to which we are told their eyes are always turned—the United States of America—that their Union should not be dissevered. At the same time they will find, if their minds are not wilfully prejudiced, that the people of this country are willing to do Ireland justice, if not more than justice. I do not believe that even Nationalists will permanently resist an influence of that description. I do not believe that the majority of the Irish constituencies desire separation from this country. I must, however, admit that in such a case the difficulty of governing Ireland will be considerably increased, but it will not be so great as many hon. Members appear to anticipate. Should, however, that state of things arise, we must meet it as best we can. There was neither sense, advantage, nor prudence in crying peace when there was no peace; and it would be much better to give free representation to the people of Ireland than leave it in the hands of the landlords and Roman Catholic Bishops.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I confess that I cannot accept with that great equanimity which the noble Lord who has just sat down (the Marquess of Hartington) appears to manifest at the prospect of 60 or 70 Nationalists from Ireland in this House merely that we may show them what is the united feeling of the English and Scottish nation as to the maintenance of the Empire. In the first place, the united feeling of the Irish Nationalists, met by the counter united feeling of Englishmen and Scotchmen, would be something very like civil war; and, in the second place, knowing, as I do, what the composition of the Treasury Bench is—knowing the mysterious way in which it works out its conclusions, knowing with what alacrity and even fierceness its Members can advocate, when that advocacy involves giving a rap to their own terrible left wing, opinions which they had themselves opposed, with every appearance of conviction, only a year or two before—I believe that the presence of 60 or 70 Nationalists from Ireland would lead the present men in office to take a very different view of the question from that which they at present profess. I dismiss, however, that part of the question, for I wish to take up the subject from the point of view of a former English borough Member, and not as the representative of a University. I have sat for boroughs; I have won my election and I have lost my election in boroughs; and I propose, therefore, to consider this question from a borough Member's point of view. The first charge which I bring against this Bill—and it is a very grave one—is the way in which it is made to combine two distinct issues, and to take the second stop before the first is made good. The Bill might have been a measure solely intended to enact the Ballot. Well and good. I should have respected such a Bill, though I could not have agreed with it. A Bill for improving the procedure of open elections I could have cordially welcomed. But I protest against a Bill which embodies provisions, good as far as they go, for making our elections more quiet and orderly and peaceable—provisions which contain matter enough for our discussion during the remaining Session—being overweighted, crushed, and stifled by other provisions dealing with the empirical theory or crotchet of secret voting. This is not a statesmanlike proceeding—it is not conducive to a good solution of the question of election reform. What is the reason for this policy? Where is the great cry for the Ballot throughout the country? Where have there been meetings which demand any recognition? Where is the crowd of Petitions? You cannot point your hand to any such demonstrations; and, by general admission, the last General Election was more pure than any that ever went before it. The only notable difference is that Mr. Mill, who was a great supporter of the Ballot, has become its decided opponent. With the exception of that difference we all stand on one old ground; but the truth is, that the party opposite have been sorely tried for want of a cry. There is the Army Bill, to be sure; but then it could not serve for the whole of a Session. You have pulled down one Church; but you did not yet feel yourself strong enough to attempt to pull down another. You have revolutionized the tenure of land in one country; but you did not care to venture to repeat the experiment in another. There was an ugly gap which must be filled up somehow; and so it was determined to toss in the Ballot. I have listened to appeals to the Ballot Blue Book of 1869, and much has been made of the seeming concurrence of witnesses before that Committee in favour of the change. But if we investigate that evidence calmly and dispassionately, we shall observe one remarkable characteristic running through all the witnesses. Some were Liberal, some were Conservative; but everyone of them bears testimony to a great amount of malpractices at elections—to a great deal of bribery and treating. But, invariably, everyone of them is found to maintain that these practices exist in the party to which he is himself opposed; while, upon the side of which he is the agent and the advocate, all was straightforward and virtuous. The fact is that there is a great deal in the electoral system of the country which wants to be mended—that is what every witness has said. No doubt many said also we want the Ballot. But what they intended to say was this—something is wrong; we want a remedy; we have heard of the Ballot, and we wish to try it. The plain English of such evidence is—we are very ill; we are sick; the doctors have done us little good; let us try Holloway's pills. The Holloway's pill-box of the present Ministry is the Ballot-box. Why is it that on this side of the House every speaker has as yet protested against the innovation, with the solitary exception of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane), who alleges, as the reason for his vote, that we ought to give the working man the Ballot in order to show we have confidence in him; as if the old constituencies, to whom we never thought of administering it, were not equally entitled to that confidence? Why is it that with this single difference we, who still cherish opinions which were held by all public men with just enough exception to make the real unanimity conspicuous only a few years ago, and who object to the Bill as dangerous to the commonwealth, because prejudicial to personal honour, truth, and morality, find ourselves shut out by the ingenious legerdemain of a party duel? We have now had the confession that it will be passed by those who, in passing it, believe that it will be in a great degree inoperative. ["No, no!] I say, yes; the noble Marquess says that in a few years we shall get into such a halcyon state that no man will dare to hide his opinions, and so we shall have open voting just as before. I noted his words at the time, and I now assert that they prove that the overt object of this Bill is factitious and unreal. But I thought it was an admitted axiom in politics—that to legislate merely in order to meet a cry and not to supply a real need was immoral and dishonest, and an action calculated to bring legislation into contempt. We have been engaged, during a part of this Session, in erasing out of the Statute Book an Act which, in the opinion of most of us, was the most impolitic and unstatesmanlike that ever was passed—the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. We are about to repeal that Act; and I trust it will soon be numbered with the other obsolete statutes which have successively disappeared. Take care that in passing the Ballot Bill you do not commit a still more gigantic mistake, and one still more calculated to bring the law itself into contempt by open, notorious and audacious instances of its violation. We all listened, I am sure, with the greatest sympathy and pleasure to the address of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James). But that address was tainted—like all the addresses in favour of the Ballot are tainted—by a belief in abstract theory, coupled with ignorance of, and contempt for, the delicate and manifold springs of human nature. To assume that the Ballot must necessarily mean secret voting, you must assume that men not of high education, not living in the eye of their neighbours, not accessible to those influences of public opinion which control men in a higher station in life, are to manifest a self-command which would be well nigh impossible for any of us to exercise. Those whose means of subsistence are precarious, whose position in life is humble, whose training is defective, can—if one believes you—be encouraged to avail themselves of their new political franchises, can be encouraged to attend political meetings, to cheer or to hoot as the case may be, to hold up their hands or to hold them down as the case may be, to accompany one party or another as the case may be; for you do not abolish canvassing by this Bill, as you cannot abolish canvassing by any Bill you may frame—and then each unit of this impulsive mass is to troop along with his fellow-citizens up to the very point of recording his political opinions; till, finally, at the last moment, by the legerdemain of going into a sentry box and making a few scratches on a Ballot paper, that shouting, lie-convinced, gesticulating man suddenly becomes a proud, self-reliant, self-respecting, silent citizen. The thing is ridiculously absurd—it is an insult to common sense. One of two things he must do. To be sure, a picked man may hold his tongue; but that is what such a man will not do. The mass of men are not gifted with silence. He must either speak the truth or tell a lie. If he speak the truth, what have you gained by your Bill? If he tell a lie, then your Ballot Bill is only an expedient to demoralize the people. It is true he may fence with questions that are put to him. But to put a man on the wrong scent is not a very elevating process; it has a taint of immorality about it, at the least. But even to fence with a question requires a certain amount of education; it argues an acquaintance with the science of words which the ordinary voter does not possess—for be it remembered that I am dealing with the question of the poor voter, for a voter in the higher classes the Ballot is of no value whatever. It is a poor man's question; it is a social question; it is a super-Wednesday question—it belongs to a class of questions that we agree to deal with, as not possessing a political but a social value, in the middle of the week; and though I have a great respect for such discussions, I believe that we—especially at this period of the Session—have many more important topics to discuss. But dealing with this as a poor man's question, and stripping it of all that grand phraseology which has no reference to humanity and to the rights of flesh and blood, the question comes to be—how is it possible to secure secrecy? By one way—and one way only—I reply. Make the profession of a Member of Parliament less honourable and respected; degrade the character of this House; put the representation in the hands of trading politicians and scheming lawyers; let them, as in America, be members of the ring, which makes the candidates out of its conspiracy; let no one but professed politicians sit for any constituency, and then you may work your plan. But so long as a seat in this House is regarded as a title of honour, not in this country merely, but throughout the civilized world, so long will it be an object of intense anxiety to secure the dignity, and so long will every machinery be put in motion by the man who wants to get in, and who would condescend even to the mean ingenuity of agents, whom he is compelled to employ, even while in his heart he despised them. Do you believe it would be impossible for such an unscrupulous agent to extract from a poor and uneducated voter, however averse he might be, from a little known voter, perhaps a boosey voter, the way in which he gave his vote. When I have sketched the voters' class character, you will confess that there are tens of thousands of such in the kingdom for whom this Bill is meant to work. He is not a better man than his neighbours, far from it; but he is not much worse. He is employed at a mill; his employer is an active member of the Liberal party, who keeps up his list of voters pretty sharp. But he must sleep at night. He sleeps at a cottage, which has been run up by the roadside by a bustling builder on the Conservative side. He solaces himself with beer at the "Three Jolly Pigeons," where the landlord is on the Whig side. But he cannot live on beer only, so he runs up a score at the grocer's for tea and sugar. The grocer is a teetotaller, and having strong notions on the licensing system, is anxious to return a Member of his own views. But our labourer also possesses a wife, and she does a bit of charing at the house of the squire, who is a bluff old Tory, while the squire's wife is a good-natured lady, much given to blanket distributing at Christmas. Then comes a General Election, and our typal citizen is canvassed by his employer and canvassed by his landlord, he is beset by the landlord of the public-house, and pressed by the grocer, while the squire and the squire's lady remind him of his obligations. Yet you have the effrontery to tell such a man to give his vote in secresy, and that he may step out of the polling compartment erect and noble, the master of himself and the keeper of his own secret for all time to come. Have you considered what a purgatory it must be for such a man to keep a secret? The only person in history to whom he will bear any resemblance is Samson, when the Philistines tried to worm his secret out of his Dalilah, only that our imaginary voter will be no Samson, but only a weak-kneed and rather stupid working man. You will only convert him into a mean sneak, if not into a liar. He may, under our present system, have voted openly, and yet voted from one motive or from another, all of them mean and ignoble; but at least the poor follow will have done one good thing in his life—he will have voted openly, and the truth of the vote will stand on the record. But if he votes in secret and then persistently lies about it, he will have made himself a worse man than if he had been brought dead-drunk to the poll; that would be evil, but the evil would be patent, and have its limit; the life-long falsehood has no limit to its mischievous influence. This imaginary voter is no Phœnix, he exists and is to be found at the corner of every street of every borough. Is it, then, a light thing if you demoralize tens of thousands of such men for the sake of carrying out a philosophical crotchet? I sympathise with those who hold by the Ballot as a remedy in the face of all the evils and abominations which I cannot reprobate too strongly—that exist in our boroughs at popular elections. But I hold that it is bad policy, and displays an ignorance of human nature, to try to extirpate a proved evil by the forced enactment of the extreme opposite. I will give you an instance of what I mean. In the Middle Ages the extent of clerical immorality excited the indignation of many able, strong, and stern-minded men, and so those men attempted to meet this evil of immorality by forcing general celibacy upon the clergy. Now, I hold that to force on the Ballot in order to cure political corruption is a mistake of the same kind as the enforcement of celibacy, immorality; or, if the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) will pardon me, I would say that it is a mistake of the same kind as forcing total abstinence upon a man in order to cure him of drunkenness. It is at all times bad policy to meet one extreme by another. There was, indeed, one gentleman who appeared upon the Committee—I must give his name, for he deserves not to be forgotten who defends the system of promising a vote to one man and giving it to another. That gentleman is Mr. Darwell, the Town Clerk of Windsor. The voter, according to him, would after all only be acting like Galileo, when he averred, contrary to his convictions, that the earth did not go round the sun. Well, I make the gentleman a present of Galileo, though I think that it is more likely we shall find more Gallios than Galilcos among our constituencies.

Reference has repeatedly been made to the electoral system of Australia. In fact, the Australian argument lies at the root of all that has been urged in favour of this change; and the appeal to Australia was repeatedly made by the noble Marquess opposite. Now, let me point out that the Ballot has been in existence in Australia for the enormous period of 13 years; and it has worked for that long series of 13 years without coming to a dead-lock. But yet that discovery, to my mind, contains no element of an argument on the possibility of the Ballot succeeding here. In England, society is altogether different from that of Australia. England is an old settled country; Australia is new; in England the various classes are divided, vertically so to speak as well as horizontally, by lines numerous, minute, and of old standing; in Australia there is only one class of persons who are all tolerably secure from want, and who are not possessed of much cultivation, except at Melbourne, and at Melbourne, accordingly, the evils of the Ballot are beginning to be felt. The questions that divide us here have no existence in Australia. Look, for instance, at the despatch of Sir James Fergusson, who showed how thoroughly democratic the whole composition of society was in the colony of South Australia. Take the case of that colony. What is the fact in South Australia? Why, throughout the whole colony there were only 28,000 votes—not more than might be found in one of our manufacturing borough towns in England. The questions they had to deal with were few; they had no foreign questions, no treaties to discuss, no high polities to approach—nothing of that class of business which inures us to the discussion of great questions. In fact, if I may say it without disrespect to the Australian Legislatures, they are hardly more than large Town Councils, elected for a district which spreads over a large extent of country. That, Sir, is the model which is now held up for an old Imperial State like this, with all its varied and complicated interests, national and international, to follow. One of the witnesses examined before the Ballot Committee is a gentleman whose opinion we shall probably hear to-night—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens)—who, while he was in South Australia, was several times a Cabinet Minister, and who told the Committee that in that magnificent nation of 28,000, the only question that divided them was between the "ins" and the "outs." The hon. Gentleman further stated that the average existence of a Government there was about seven months. No doubt the Prime Minister will take the opportunity of informing the House whether that among others is one of the practical advantages of the Ballot which he looks forward to obtaining by the present Bill. This evidence of the hon. Member was backed up by that of another official witness, who said that there were no party politics there, and that in consequence there was no parity between England, which was an old country, and a new colony like Australia. One statesman of considerable eminence, and who had been a Minister for the large and important colony of Victoria, gave important evidence, a portion of which I shall read. Mr. Verdon said, in reply to the question— You stated, did you not, that the Ballot had put down bribery very much?—Yes; but let me rather say that it has prevented it; it has literally come before it. There never has been any great amount of bribery in Victoria, nor will there be in any new country, especially when the franchise is very extended. It is too large a matter, even if candidates were to be found willing and able to bribe; it would be such a very costly business to bribe a sufficient number to turn the scale that it would be hopeless, even if persons were so disposed. Although men there value the honour of being elected Members of the Legislature, it is not so great an honour as to justify them in expending a very large sum of money. The fact is, that in a new country without any great varieties of social condition, one expedient is as good as another for voting. But as Sir James Fergusson wisely says, in his despatch, the strain has not come yet. In the course of 13 years, with 28,000 voters, with no great international questions to disturb their serenity, stress cannot be felt for some time. Again, Governor Du Cane says, in his despatch, that in Tasmania there is great apathy, and no desire on the part of persons whom we should call the leaders of society, to enter into politics. If the same feverish desire to obtain a seat in this House which now exists continues under the Ballot, and if candidates continue to be as reckless and unscrupulous as they now show themselves, they will bribe by results, and in order to secure the voters who will give those results, they will marshal and bring them up in squadrons; the wire-pullers will have a good time of it, and all the other baser classes of electioneering, of whom we hear so much across the Atlantic, will then be all powerful in manipulating the contest. You will find your model not in Australia but in America; and if I had no other reason than the evidence of all which is done systematically in the United States of America, it would be a sufficient reason for me to oppose this Bill. On this head, the evidence of Mr. Hankel, of South Carolina, is much to the point. He was asked— Did personation take place to any extent?—Any quantity, to an unlimited extent. Was the system of what is called in this country bottling voters known there?—Very frequently, if it was an excited election at all. Was there any corruption? Unbounded, I should say. Of what kind?—Treating and bribery in money payments, or in any form in which you may conceive bribery to be carried on. Do you know of a fact that persons often voted over and over again at the same election?—I think there is not the slightest doubt of it. The term 'early and often' is quite a common term at all elections—north, south, east, and west. You see what is the system of the Ballot in America. You may tell me that the Ballot in America is not the Ballot in Australia. I grant that, and I will tell you the reason why. The Ballot in Australia is the Ballot in a young and thinly-peopled country, which has never had an opportunity of losing its character for purity, where strong party questions have not grown up, and where the absence, arising from its natural wealth and its sparseness of inhabitants, neither the very rich man nor the very poor man makes his presence felt. America is a comparatively old country, where the suffrage has existed for generations, till under it men have grown up with as strong party feelings as here, or rather with stronger and fiercer, while the artificial distinctions growing out of the unequal distribution of property exist in almost exaggerated prominence. It would be Quixotic to expect that there will never be the same characteristics in Australia; certainly the mere fact that in 13 years such a result has not been reached is not the slightest guarantee that it will not prevail, and even sooner than any of us here have reason to expect. In a word, the state of things in Australia is the strongest conceivable reason for not now forcing the Ballot upon the mother country. It has not yet had an adequate trial; it has had no trial at all worthy of the respect of an ancient and settled country like ours. If you really wish to study the working of the Ballot in Australia, and not to use it as a debater's argument in support of a foregone conclusion, that would be a reason for postponing this Bill till a day when you can appreciate a little more accurately than you can do at present its working in this distant colony. In the meantime there is much work to our hand in which we may profitably engage. There is the abolition of public nominations—that is a reform in which I entirely concur. There are means to be devised for taking the poll without the Ballot as quietly, orderly, and regularly as any form of the Ballot would secure. In the University of Cambridge there is absolutely no nomination at all, and the voting is done by cards, on which the voter writes his name and his vote, and then hands them up to the returning officer, who reads them and then puts them into a bag. This system of no nomination cannot, of course, be applicable to ordinary elections; but it is at least a hint as to the mode of making them private and not public. Then there is the multiplication of polling places. There are, in fact, an infinity of improvements that might be carried out as a first experiment. Why, then, this hot haste for the Ballot, when there is no visible chance of an election this year, and no reason for one during the subsequent year? Why press on this peculiar crotchet of a small sect of philosophers?—why force on a question for which there is no demand in the country, merely to crowd up an already over-crowded Session? Give the electors more polling places—give them more quiet and orderly nominations—you will probably have single elections enough in the meantime to test the operation of these improvements. We are told by some of the advocates that the Ballot will make no great difference; that the same parties will come in as before. I neither affirm nor contradict the statement. Then why force on the question?—why not give the next General Election the opportunity of being an open but a quiet and orderly election, and let us see the results? The world is not coming to an end so very soon. Let us go on improving our elections without the Ballot, and if all other means fail, you will then have some colourable reason for offering to the country this nostrum, which, however, I believe to be in its essence so wrong, so degrading, and so demoralizing, that I shall never cease to denounce its introduction, if not to deplore its adoption.

MR. M'CLURE

said, he hoped the House would allow him for a few minutes to remark on the probable effect of the leading propositions in that Bill, upon that district with which he was best acquainted—the province of Ulster. He was glad that it was proposed to abolish public nomination. At the nomination for the last election for Belfast, the tumult was so great that the mayor adjourned the proceedings until the day following, so that those who took pleasure in a row had two days' enjoyment of tumult and confusion. As to the question of vote by Ballot, he would certainly prefer, if every voter were in an independent position, that he should give his vote openly and above-board; but when they had reason to believe that many dare not vote according to their conscientious convictions, without the fear of losing or diminishing the means of support for themselves and their families, the question arose—should they leave them in that most difficult and trying position? Now, what was the fact in the counties of Ulster? Was it that any person aspiring to represent the county gave consideration, or attached almost any weight as to what might be the feelings and opinions of the great mass of those electors to whom the law had confined the trust of electing hon. Members to serve in that House? No; it was notorious that the views of the great bulk of the electors were scarcely taken into account; a few large landowners were consulted, and, if they gave their adhesion, the candidate felt quite confident of success. Sometimes the virtual nomination of the county was in the hands of two or three large landowners; frequently some of those who exercise hereditary legislative power in "another place;" but in almost every case a very small room would contain all the real electors for an Irish northern county. If these electoral potentates agreed, the matter was generally considered to be settled, and there was no contest; but if they did not agree, or their decision was called in question, then the too usual course was for the landlord to intimate his will to the agent, and the agent directed the bailiff to give orders to the tenants for whom they should vote. But they were told all that coercion was now at an end, as the Land Act had given the tenants protection from eviction without compensation; but a tenant who was out of favour at the rent office might suffer in many ways short of eviction. Allowances and accommodation given to other tenants might be withheld from him. He might be the best farmer in the neighbourhood, but he would get no encouragement, if he set an example of political independence. The tenant-farmers were placed upon the county registry without any act of their own. If rated, they were put on the roll as electors; they had no option. In point of fact, they were a great jury empanelled by the laws of their country. Most of them, under present circumstances, would be glad to be excused from giving any vote; but when there was a contest, they were not permitted to escape. To most men it could not be without some feeling of humiliation that they should receive, through the bailiff, an order how they should vote; but when compliance with the command was known to their families and neighbours to involve the violation of their most cherished convictions, and, as in the case he had mentioned, their promises, it became a painful degradation to inflict upon sensitive and intelligent men. It was bad policy to break down the spirit of manly independence and moral responsibility which they should desire to see animating that great and important class who cultivated the land. He believed that the removal of the present arbitrary control, which was not consistent with the spirit of their free Constitution, would prove beneficial to the character and proper social feeling of both landlord and tenant. The man of property and station would be led to respect the views and sentiments of his more humble neighbours, and the interchange of opinion on public questions would be likely to soften down asperities and bring about a better understanding and more spontaneous co-operation. It was painfully evident to those who observed the growing jealousy and alienation of classes, that there was danger of the line of demarcation becoming broader and more marked. This was a matter deserving the attention of statesmen, as the safety and welfare of the Commonwealth required that there should be common sympathies and recognition between different classes of their mutual dependence on each other. There were hon. Members who sat for Ulster counties who were held in respect and esteem in their own neighbourhoods, and who, if they would trust themselves fairly to the popular voice, might be returned to that House, not by the nomination of a few landowners, but by the free votes of thousands of electors; and, if so, would occupy a more dignified position, and their course in that House would be entitled to carry greater moral weight, as they would be really the representatives of the people. In fact, that measure, if carried into law, might prove in Ulster an Emancipation Act not only to tenant-farmers from the political serfdom they are under, but also to the county representatives from the thraldom in which they were held by their nominees, who, from class associations and other causes, perhaps, took rather too narrow a view of general policy in public matters. He would be sorry to detract from that legitimate influence which a considerate and improving landowner should fairly exercise in his own county and neighbourhood; but he would be unworthy of the place he held, being returned by the free and uncontrolled votes of the electors of the capital of Ulster, if he did not protest against and denounce in the strongest manner possible the system of coercion in election matters too often practised on the tenants in the North of Ireland. He trusted that the result of that measure would be to give the hardy and industrious sons of Ulster the proud feeling that they were really free citizens of that great Empire, entitled to exercise an influence on its councils through their Representatives, and that all, in every part of the kingdom upon whom the Legislature conferred the franchise, would be protected in the conscientious discharge of the duty thus conferred upon them. Believing that the proposed measure was fitted to effect that object, he was prepared to give it his hearty support.

MR. LIDDELL

said, that after the many very able and exhaustive speeches which had been delivered on the subject, he was afraid that he could offer only a very few common-place remarks to the attention of hon. Members. The measure before the House came recommended by high sanction. It had been recommended by a Committee largely composed of Gentlemen formerly opposed to the Ballot, but who had become converts to the system in consequence, he supposed, of what they had heard in that Committee. The House had just listened to a very able speech of the noble Lord who was Chairman of that Committee (the Marquess of Hartington), and he (Mr. Liddell) went thus far with him—that if he thought the effect of adopting secret voting would be the extinction of that party whose principles and history he had sketched, it would be an additional inducement, if he wanted such, to make him oppose this measure. But the noble Lord seemed also to base his advocacy of the Bill on its special applicability to Ireland. Now, they had already had a great deal of special legislation for Ireland—rather too much; but it was because he thought the measure was specially inapplicable to England that he would offer it his most strenuous opposition. The Bill was not only recommended by the Committee, it had received, they were told, the unanimous support of the Liberal party. He wished to call attention to the fact that the advanced Liberals had always recommended this measure. In addressing a deputation lately, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council told them he was glad they liked his Bill, "because it was always a matter of pain to him when he found himself differing from the thoughtful men of the age." Well, it was precisely because this Bill was advocated by the advanced Liberals that he was induced to ask that House to think seriously before they adopted it. With great respect to the advanced Liberals, his complaint was that they did not think enough, and were too apt in their enthusiasm for change to forget consequences, and keep results out of view. That House was in a favourable position to judge of the results of secret voting. They had the example of America be- fore them, and it was a peculiar circumstance that the Committee forbore taking much evidence from America, although that was the birthplace of the Ballot. There was only one witness from America who had had a great deal of experience in that country and also in England, and he said that he preferred the English system. Why? Because it was carried on openly, secured greater purity of election, and afforded greater facilities for detecting political abuses. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), on Thursday night, finding that his case, resting on American experience, was very weak, found a great deal of fault with a distinguished man in this country—Mr. John Stuart Mill—unfortunately because he was dead against the Ballot; and said that with regard to any arguments against it drawn from the operation of the Ballot in America, he would make a present of them to the Opposition. Now, what was the great argument raised upon the operation of the Ballot in America? The impracticability, if not the impossibility of imposing on a free country a compulsory secret Ballot. What was the fact? It was optional with every citizen to vote either secretly or openly for whomsoever he pleased, and he preferred to vote openly. What was the case in Massachusetts? The law of that State had twice declared that voting should be secret, and twice had the people rebelled against that law, and open voting was now the practice, although the law enacting that it should be secret still remained on the Statute Book. There was but one spot on the habitable globe where the Ballot was said to be attended with success, and that was Australia. In Victoria it had been distinctly shown that the abuses which the Ballot was intended to correct had never existed, and he therefore declined to accept the case of Victoria; moreover it was not secret voting in Victoria, for every vote was ticketed to correspond with the voter's number on the register. South Australia was the only place where the Ballot was secret. The evidence showed what was the effect of secret voting on the election of Members, and also the class of persons it was likely to produce as representatives, and it was the composition of the Chamber that was really the important matter. He would ask the attention of that House to the evidence of a warm advocate of the Ballot, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens), who was asked if the political opinions of those elected remained much the same, or had been altered in accordance with the change in public opinion. He replied that their political opinions had been altered—that a man could not be consistent under such a system as he had described—that if his opinions ran counter to public opinion he would lose all his power, he would be turned out of office, and would be unable to obtain a seat in the Legislature. He supposed the hon. Member would say that that description of the operation of the Ballot in South Australia must be taken in connection with universal suffrage. [Mr. R. TORRENS: Hear, hear!] Although they had not got universal suffrage, they had a very extended suffrage, and he would be a bold man who could say that an attempt would not be made to make it universal. There were three great results obtained by a widely extended suffrage in connection with the Ballot in South Australia. One was the extinction of party; the next was the instability of public opinion, which showed itself by seven months' Ministries—that being about the average duration of a Government in South Australia; and the third was the political immorality of the representatives, who might be described simply as political adventurers. Now, he did not wish to see such men finding their way into that House. It had been argued that the Ballot was a necessity. But it had not been shown in what that necessity consisted. One of the great arguments in favour of a large and extended suffrage was that there was safety in numbers. It was said that there had been great corruption and vice amongst the small constituencies under the Reform Bill, and that if they were swept away, they would be free from bribery and corruption. But now it was stated that the Ballot was a necessary corollary. Then it was stated that there had been a vast amount of intimidation, and that assertion was backed by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board. Now, what did the Judges say on that point? Mr. Justice Blackburn, speaking not only his own opinion, but the opinions of two other of his learned brethren on the Bench, said, that although intimidation was alleged in every one of the nine Petitions which had come before them, there was only one case in which it had been made out. Now, where was it that intimidation was said to exist so largely, and to have been exercised so detrimentally? How was it that the Liberal party at the last election obtained a majority of more than 100 in that House if that intimidation had been exercised so detrimentally to their party? There was some remarkable evidence from Wales on that point. An Independent minister from Merionethshire stated that there were two great landed estates in that county where coercion had been practised at two elections to such an extent that the Tory candidate in each case was returned; but when it came to the last election there had sprung up under the Reform Bill a new class of voters—working "quarrymen"—who had acquired the vote in respect of their houses, and who had offered such a bold front to the enemy that they frightened the Tory candidate out of the field. If those independent quarrymen were honest without the Ballot, and could frighten the Tory candidate out of the field, what became of the argument that the Ballot was absolutely necessary for the protection of the working men? He believed that they were quite able to take care of themselves, and he should therefore be no party to any special legislation on their behalf. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane) stated the other night that he had such confidence in the working men that he would gladly trust them with the Ballot. Well, he (Mr. Liddell) also had confidence in the working men—he had confidence in their independence, in their hardihood, and in their straightforwardness; but he thought it was an odd way of proving one's confidence to pass a special Act of Parliament in order to protect them when they went to the poll. One witness stated before the Committee that if the Ballot were adopted in Wales it would put an end to all contests there. But what did that mean? It simply meant the extinction of political life, and the creation of a dead level of thought and opinion out of which no one would care to rise. What had been the result in other countries of a wide suffrage and vote by Ballot? The result had been to withdraw from public life those men who were most capable of doing great and good public service. That was a state of things which he should very much deprecate. His great objection to this measure—and he was not ashamed to avow it—was, that it was destructive of all influence, and that was designedly its purpose. Now such a destruction of influence was a thing to be deplored, because there were all sorts of influence—both good and bad influence. ["Hear, hear!] Perhaps that cheer meant that with the Ballot the good influence would not cease to have its effect; but it should be remembered that men themselves were of two classes—good and bad—and if a voter were withdrawn from all influence of public opinion the result was to encourage the bad motive that lay at the bottom of all political corruption. It was not to be imagined that by throwing the cloak of secrecy over the vote that men's minds would be purged of corrupt motives. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board said the other night that though, when the suffrage was restricted, this measure was a Radical one, yet now that the suffrage was widened, it was a Conservative measure. But the suffrage was still restricted, and until it reached the point of universal suffrage, the Ballot never would be Conservative, whatever it might be then. He would not argue the question as a party question, however, for he thought that one of the pleasantest features of this debate had been that the subject was discussed on higher grounds than those of mere party. He objected to the Bill because it was a democratic measure in the true sense of the phrase, involving, as the term did, the government of the country by those who were least competent to govern. He thought it was of the greatest value and importance that the lower class of voters should be left to the influence of the example, the education, and the intelligence of those above them. He knew it was said that all that would remain as it was before, but what he maintained was, that where there was a corrupt motive in a voter's mind, that motive would be encouraged and increased by enabling the man to record his vote in secret. Nobody yet had ever attempted to explain why it was that the only man to be withdrawn from the wholesome influence of public opinion was the public voter in the discharge of his political functions. But the Committee had ably summed up all the objections to the Ballot, including the statement that the vote was a public duty, and should involve public responsibility; that the adoption of the Ballot would lead to hypocrisy and dissimulation; that it would do little to restrain treating; that it would increase bribery by rendering its detection difficult; that it would be wholly inoperative against spiritual intimidation; and that it would facilitate personation. He did not wish, indeed he was unable to add anything to that sweeping bill of indictment against the Ballot, but he could scarcely understand how the Committee could come to the feeble conclusion, that on the whole they thought the Ballot possessed many great advantages. These, then, were the reasons which induced him to oppose this measure, and he trusted that they would weigh with many of those hon. Gentlemen whose minds might yet be wavering on the question. If that measure became law, he believed it would aggravate the evils in the electoral system. No doubt it would cure some, such as intimidation at the poll, and riot, but those were not all the evils of the system, and the Ballot, he believed, would be attended by much greater evils than it professed to cure. History showed that the Ballot had been accompanied by all sorts of corrupt and shameful practices from the time of Pliny downwards, and if unhappily such should be the result of the adoption of secret voting, he would say to the Prime Minister, in the words of that eminent and accomplished writer— Quo te violas que remedia conjuras ubique vitia remediis fortiora.

MR. PLATT

said, that from his own experience in a large and populous borough, he believed there were other persons besides landowners and manufacturers who brought influence and intimidation to bear upon voters. At contested elections in his own borough, for many years the small shopkeepers and tradesman, for fear of violence, had had to place in the windows of their houses the names of the candidates for whom they intended to vote, and sometimes pickets were actually stationed near a tradesman's shop to stop customers and try to induce them not to deal with them. This was what was done by those turbulent and unscrupulous men who formed a minority of the operatives in large and populous boroughs, and who were at the bottom of all strikes. The great body of the operatives were often forced into strikes by these men in opposition to their own inclinations, and to what they believed to be their own interests. Only the other day a strike occurred in the borough he represented, and it was universally admitted by every manufacturer in the borough, that if a Ballot could have been taken among the workmen, there would have been no strike at all, but the operatives would at once have accepted the arbitration which was offered by the masters. The conclusion, therefore, that he drew from the proposed adoption of the Ballot was quite opposed to that drawn by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell). He believed the Ballot would have a Conservative influence, because it would eliminate from the elections the rowdyism which now existed, and would take away the power possessed by small sections of the working classes. The Trades Union Bill, which would soon become an Act, would make trades unions legal, and the two parties which would come into competition would be their delegates and the employers of labour. If those trade societies once got into the hands of turbulent men there would be a great evil to overcome, and the Ballot would act as a protection to the more reasonable members, and help to curb the powers of those who wanted to create disturbance. At present, when a decree went forth from one of those societies, it originated with a few persons, though the great body of the members of the society felt bound to obey it, and support their executive; and it was well known that if they had the protection of the Ballot—that being the universal opinion in regard to the strikes which recently took place in the borough he represented—the mass of the artizans would prove in favour of moderation, and accept, for instance, the arbitration which in the case referred to had been offered by the employers.

MR. J. HARDY

said, that when the late Mr. Berkeley brought forward his annual Motion, he used to take up his place on the front Opposition bench, whether anticipating that it would one day become a Cabinet question or not, he (Mr. J. Hardy) could not say. Then the question was disposed of at once, and the House divided shortly after Mr. Berkeley sat down. It was truly wonderful that that question, after being despised and rejected of men, should become a Cabinet question, and that the Prime Minister should take up the crumbs and scraps of the Chartists, and make them into a sop to throw to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who were always hungering and thirsting for change. He (Mr. J. Hardy) had listened with great attention to the speeches which had been delivered, especially to that of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who was, however, obliged to admit that it would be a humiliating day for England when such a measure as the present was passed. Judging by his own experience of elections the Ballot would not put a stop to bribery, as there would always be people clever enough to manipulate the constituencies, and to give a hope to the corrupt electors that if their candidate was successful they would be rewarded. The evidence in regard to the Norwich election revealed a class of men who did not care on which side they voted, and who could not even be moved to the poll without some promise of money or drink, and such men could easily be influenced, whether the Ballot existed or not. Indeed, a cloak would only be thrown over such action by the Ballot. He believed every man should be allowed to vote according to his conscience, but that public opinion should also be permitted to exercise its legitimate influence. Why should constituencies have to bear the odium of returning a man sympathizing with Fenianism, to talk in that House treasonable sentiments such as they had recently heard from one of those benches? He was surprised that the measure should be supported—nay, adopted—by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government after opposing it throughout a long life. The Conservatives were sometimes taunted with changing their opinions; but if they changed their minds once in ten years, that was a different matter from changing them every time they changed their clothes, as was the case with hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he wanted to extend the franchise, had nothing but flattery for the working classes—they were then "his own flesh and blood;" but now, when he desired to pass this measure, to please his rest- less followers below the gangway, he had no faith in them, and was about to confess to Europe that he had no confiflence in his countrymen, so apt were they to be intimidated, so steeped in bribery, so impossible to trust. This cloak of hypocrisy should be thrown over them that they might be able to perform their duties; and in order to pass such a measure, which had hitherto been treated with contempt, all legislation was brought to a standstill, the Ballot being made the keystone of legislative procedure. He begged the House to pause before they passed such a measure, for which nobody had asked, and in favour of which no Petitions had been presented to that House, nor had there of late been any public meetings held approving of its becoming an institution of the country. All allowed the Ballot would be a doubtful good, while the evils attending it were such as to make them pause before they took a fatal stop which they could not retrace.

MR. R. TORRENS

said, he would confine his remarks to his experience in Australia. He had the honour to be elected for the City of Adelaide under the Secret Ballot, and had repeatedly recorded his vote both in municipal and Parliamentary contests, and his experience was that the Ballot was the best remedy for most of the evils which marked the electoral system in this country. It would at once put a stop to rioting, which had arisen in Australia to a height almost equal to that of Ireland. Before the Ballot he had seen, on election days, brickbats flying about, heads broken, and men carried off on stretchers to hospitals. After the Ballot the elections passed off so quietly that no stranger passing through the street at the time would have been aware that one was going on at all. Intimidation and bribery were entirely put an end to by the Ballot, though prior to its introduction there had been a great deal of bribery. When he said that elections to the House of Assembly had cost, in some cases, considerably over £2,000, though the constituency was only between 2,000 and 3,000 strong, hon. Gentlemen would understand from their own experience that the expenses were not of the most legitimate description. Since the Ballot he believed that no contested election had cost £250. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) appeared to think that a man who recorded his vote under the Ballot would walk away, after doing so, with a feeling of degradation and shame. Now, he must say, that though he had repeatedly voted under the secret system no such emotions had accompanied the act; and, further, that the many high-spirited and honourable and educated gentleman whom he had known in Australia had been equally free from them. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had asked several questions, which he would answer to the best of his power. The hon. Member had begun by saying that it was not extraordinary that persons should give evidence for the Ballot who had always advocated its introduction. He begged to say that he did not fall within that category. He had consistently opposed the Ballot in Australia, under the influence of the arguments of Mr. Mill, Lord Palmerston, and others. But he had been converted in favour of it against his previous convictions by his personal experience of its advantages. The hon. Gentleman had also asked what sort of persons would be returned under the Ballot, and had referred to some observations of his (Mr. R. Torrens's) upon Parliamentary institutions, which he had exclusively directed to the effects of responsible government, combined with universal suffrage; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman now, that if ever the question of universal suffrage—at all events, prior to the advent of universal education—was brought before the House, he should be one of the first to offer it all the opposition in his power. As to the working of the Ballot, perhaps the House would allow him to narrate his own experience. He was first elected Member for the City of Adelaide after a residence of 17 years in the colony in connection with its government. He was looked upon as the Leader of the Conservative party, because he had always opposed the introduction of universal suffrage and the Ballot, and had always been in favour of State aid being given to all Christian denominations. Those were the three great questions which separated the so-called Conservative and Radical parties. He was absent for more than six months prior to the election; and being looked upon as the opponent of the working classes—as a politician who wanted to withhold from them the suffrage and the Ballot, the odds were thought to be 20 to 1 against his being returned. His friends put him up as a candidate in his absence, and he arrived at Adelaide the night before the election; and he was returned at the head of the poll far above any other candidate by about 3,400 votes. He thought that that example ought a little to encourage hon. Gentlemen opposite. He confessed freely that he believed he should not have been returned if the Ballot had not been in existence. He thought that there was much more hypocrisy in open than in secret voting, and that hundreds of men supported him on the occasion in question who would have been ashamed in the face of the working classes, openly to vote for the candidate who was supposed to be opposed to them. Reference had been made to a statement of his, that there were no Whigs or Tories in Australia, and hence it was contended that the Ballot there might be a very different thing to the Ballot here. But that was not so. For the purposes of this argument it mattered not what the parties were called so long as party feeling existed, and upon such questions as the appropriation of waste lands, denominational rule or education, and State aid to religion, a highly excited public opinion had given its decision under the Ballot. With great respect for the experience and ability of Sir James Fergusson, he must therefore disagree in toto from his assertion, that the Ballot in Australia had not been put to any severe test to try its efficacy; for having himself gone out to the colony when it was yet a forest, and having taken a part in raising it from a handful of people to a large and thriving settlement, he might perhaps, put his evidence in competition with that of a colonial Governor who, however able, had resided there only a couple of years. He could not tell what Sir James Fergusson might deem a test of the Ballot, but if he meant that questions of a character to bring popular opinions and passions into play, and to excite party collisions, were not raised in that country and decided under the Ballot, he was greatly mistaken. Though he was unable to coincide with the main arguments in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross), he was glad to bear his testimony to the clearness and force with which the hon. and learned Member had demonstrated the utter inutility of the non-secret Ballot as practised in France and America. The truth was, that the Ballot admitted of no compromise—no middle course. It was not enough to provide measures which might possibly afford protection for the vote of the elector. It was further necessary to adopt such a measure as would afford him absolute assurance that the side on which he cast his vote could by no possibility be discovered. The proofs of personation and bribery were entirely independent of the question as to how the vote had been given, and therefore there was no necessity for tracing out the vote. It had never been argued that the Ballot would check personation although it did not afford greater facilities for the offence than the present system. The remedy for personation lay in the publicity which was given to the act of claiming the vote; and he would caution the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill against carrying the idea of secrecy in voting beyond what was absolutely necessary. Secrecy was necessary in regard to the party in whose favour the vote was being cast. To the fact that the man had voted the utmost publicity should be given, and, therefore, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment, to the effect that the voter should stand before the polling-booth with his hat off while his name and qualification were called aloud. With severe penalties for personation, proposed in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, he could not conceive that any man would run a risk of detection for any moderate bribe. He was glad to see the improvements which had been made in the Bill as it now came before the House; and it was because he saw in it a counterpart of the measure, with the effects of which he was so satisfied in Australia, that he should give it his cordial support.

DR. BALL*

Sir, it is not my intention to follow the course pursued by some previous speakers in this debate, who have discussed the question of secret voting from an Irish point of view. This is not because I dissent from the opinion expressed by more than one of them—that the measure is likely, in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, to operate disadvantageously upon its representation in this House; but because I am opposed to exceptional legislation for that country—whenever it can be avoided—as tending to foster the notion that there exists some radical and unalterable difference between the circumstances and nature of the English and Irish people, necessitating different laws and institutions, and justifying the great demand for separate Parliaments, as alone capable of dealing with the essential diversity of their social condition. Moreover, if the districts in Ireland most affected by influences calculated to render the practical working of the Ballot injurious, be compared with the remainder of the United Kingdom in wealth, population, and general progress, their relative proportion will not be found such as would justify, on their account, any peculiar provisions. One only further remark in reference to Irish affairs, I desire to make—that, if the sentiments expressed tonight by the noble Lord now Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington), discountenancing the existing mischievous agitation for legislative independence, have been correctly reported to me—for I had not the good fortune to hear them—the best Irish measure that has proceeded from Her Majesty's Government was the appointment of the noble Lord to his present office. Approaching, then, the proposition to take the votes at Parliamentary and municipal elections by way of Ballot, and regarding it irrespective of local incidents and circumstances, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who spoke with such ability and candour in favour of the Bill this evening, that discussion of the abstract question of secret voting is exhausted. It was exhausted long before this debate began. It is as old as Greece and Rome. You heard the opinion of Pliny cited to-night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. G. Hardy); and, to refer to another great writer and statesman of antiquity, Cicero, in one of his treatises, has presented the opposing views and arguments current in Roman society upon the subject. The practice, too, of secret voting is equally old, for, at Athens, Ballot was used in the judicial tribunals, and at Rome, in the election of magistrates and the confirmation by the people of laws. Coming to modern times—the political thinkers of France and England have contributed whatever illustration learning and philosophy can bring to the controversy. In this House for 40 years—ever since, in 1830, Mr. O'Connell proposed to insert in the East Retford Bill a clause providing that the votes of the new constituency should be taken by Ballot—there have been nearly annual debates upon the subject, the more important of them conducted with consummate ability. Accordingly, with the exception of two new subjects, and the topics connected with them, the present debate has proceeded very much upon the old illustrations and arguments. These two new subjects are—first, the Report of the Select Committee on intimidation and bribery appointed in 1869, and the evidence upon which it is based; and, secondly, the alteration in the character of the electoral body caused by the extension of the franchise under the recent Reform Act. Both are much relied upon by the advocates of the present Bill, to strengthen and maintain their position—the Report as giving the sanction of the majority of the Committee to its provisions; and the extension of the franchise, because it introduces into the constituencies a class less able to protect itself, and also because it is said to remove the reasoning which, so long as the right to vote was confined to a limited number, required publicity in its exercise with a view to supervision by the excluded portion of the community. With respect to the Report, it has already been pointed out that its recommendations are not unanimous; that except such of it as relates to the working of the Ballot in the Australian colonies, the balance of the evidence is doubtful; and in particular that with respect to the degree in which bribery and intimidation operated in the English constituencies at the last General Election, the testimony of the Judges of Election Petitions who were examined before the Committee tends to the conclusion that there has been much exaggeration. And, as to this last observation, I do not understand the hon. and learned Member for Taunton much to dissent from it, so far as it purports to sum up the result of the evidence before the Committee, but rather to meet its force by re-calling to our recollection that the most universal form of intimidation—the undue influence of the superior upon the inferior, is of too subtle a character to be always tangible and capable of cognizance by legal tribunals, and to assert that this particular form is most extensively and oppressively used at English elections. An assertion of that kind confined to England, made by one whose legal expe- rience gives him peculiar sources of knowledge, I do not think an Irish Member the proper person to controvert; and I leave it to be dealt with by others more intimately acquainted with the facts by which it must be tested. For that reason, and not as conceding the accuracy of the statement, I pass from it to consider another subject of evidence before the Select Committee—namely, the example of our Australian colonies, which has been pressed in support of the present Bill, by the speaker who immediately preceded me (Mr. R. Torrens), himself a high authority upon the matter, from his experience as a Member of one of their Parliaments. I think it must be conceded that the testimony from Australia, given before the Committee, established that, so far in that country, secret voting has worked satisfactorily. I admit also, that the despatches from the Governors in Australia, which have been laid on the Table of the House, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Stansfeld) referred, support the same conclusion. But granting this, what additional weight is cast into the scale in favour of the present Bill? Little or none. For who can contend that that new information suffices to annul previous reasoning, or is even of importance enough to modify it—one instance, brief in time, limited in extent, peculiar in local circumstances, to overturn the conclusions of an induction embracing the greatest nations of every age. Looking even merely to a comparison of Australia with the mother country, the social condition of each is so wholly different, that no precedent for the latter can be drawn from the legislation of the former. There yon have society in its growth—no artificial or complicated relations to deal with; questions, not of vital interest; men rather than measures; the voters independent; owners, not tenants of the soil; and workmen not seeking, but sought, for employment. Here you have old institutions; a highly artificial state of society; a competitive struggle for the rewards of labour; the owners of land and possessors of capital few; the occupiers of land and the employed of the capitalists out of all proportion numerous. The contrast has, however, been already this evening pointed out in the acute observations of the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the Univer- sity of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope), and I pursue it no further. Sir, if the assertion had been that secret voting was in all times and places to be condemned, that under no circumstances was it justifiable in principle or expediency, the precedent of Australia would be of importance in answering or qualifying it. But I do not understand this to be the conclusion of history or philosophy. Open voting is preferable—nil in suffragiis voce melius. Such I believe to be the opinion of statesmen, both in ancient and modern times. It was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister last year, nor is it now denied by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Stansfeld). Such also I believe to be the instinctive feeling of the people, whose sentiments are expressed in the sentence of the philosopher—"Everything that is secret is at least ambiguous in character." But policy and circumstances may require the adoption of a less perfect system. No uniform inflexible rule of conduct can be laid down. In like manner, it is impossible upon a historical review of the practical operation of secret voting in different countries, and under varied social conditions, to arrive at any uniform judgment. Not referring to colonies, even though they may give promise of advancing into nations, but confining illustration to three great countries—Rome, France, the United States—in all of which Ballot was adopted, the results are not the same. At Rome its introduction was a grave political error. Gibbon and Montesquieu—and when they agree, I have little faith in the dissentient—concur in reckoning it among the causes of the decline and fall of the nation; while in France and the United States, there seems no reason to suppose that the course of affairs or the current of events would have been altered by public voting. Even in the same country the period of its history, when the experiment is tried, may have no small influence upon the result. In the early stages of national progress, when habits and manners are unformed, and custom a thing unknown, it is comparatively easy to mould and fashion modes of procedure; but how different at a later, when all is fixed and hardened and, as it were, incorporated into the very frame and body of your social life. These general conclusions, the Australian example does not disturb—it adds another, but not an important item in the aggregate of instances on which they are founded. Then, if used as being itself a guide for this country, the conditions, of the experiment in each place are necessarily so dissimilar, that no certain inference can be drawn. Both before the Select Committee, and in this debate, its value has been overrated. It may, however, be said, and not unfairly said, that although in this way I may make some progress in disposing of the existence of Australia when urged to show the safety of introducing secret voting here—yet that does not meet the proof it affords, that by Ballot the evil practices attending elections such as bribery and intimidation are diminished. But, Sir, the former and not the latter is, I acknowledge, to my mind, the paramount consideration. Before entering upon details, practical benefits, or advantages, it is to be shown as a condition precedent to entertaining the proposition at all, that it is consistent with our institutions. For it is to be remembered that we are not seeking a Constitution; we are not engaged in an inquiry whether one form of government is superior to another. No, our lot has been cast under that mixed system, the dream of antiquity, realized in Great Britain alone; Monarchy with hereditary succession; a Legislative Chamber with hereditary succession; an elective Legislative Chamber; and no matter what compensating effects a measure may bring with it, if it peril the existence of that Constitution, all these advantages avail nothing to recommend it. Our primary, our immediate duty is to reject it. Sir, when I come to observe upon the recent extension of the franchise, and the present circumstances of this country, I shall offer some reflections bearing upon the tendency of secret voting to lesson the security of our institutions. But, previously, I feel called upon to notice the claims advanced on its behalf, as a remedy against prevalent evils. These have been classified by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton under the three heads of treating, bribery, and intimidation, including within the last what perhaps is more correctly termed undue influence. With respect to the two first, he seems to me not to rate highly the remedial operation of secret voting, and to rest his case in its favour, almost altogether upon its efficiency to terminate intimidation and undue influ- ence. Now that against one species of intimidation it will afford considerable protection, I think must be admitted. It will, in my judgment, largely abate, if not altogether terminate, the use of violence and force during the time of polling to compel an elector to vote according to the popular feeling. But as has been already pointed out by my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket), in instances where the violence is intended not to coerce, but to prevent a vote, and to hinder those whose opinions are known to be antagonist to the popular sympathies from coming to the poll, it supplies no motive or reason for its discontinuance. Such a case was the election for Drogheda, already alluded to in this debate; where clergymen and gentlemen out-voters, notoriously Conservative in opinion, notwithstanding an armed force accompanying, where assailed not in order to affect, but to obstruct their votes. I also am not prepared to deny that in large constituencies, if in such there existed the exercise of influence by the superior on the inferior or dependent, vote by Ballot would tend, and probably be effective, to its diminution and perhaps extinction. But I cannot extend that admission to small constituencies, because in such I believe the detection of the vote neither difficult nor improbable. Now, what is the exact value to be placed on these results. The first is not much demanded by actual occurrences; for instances of open force and violence are rare. It might, too, be attained by other precautions. The presence of an adequate force to keep the peace is generally found in Ireland sufficient. Besides, the fear of subsequent judicial proceedings and of punishment, particularly since the recent Corrupt Practices Act deters. Thus, since the masterly judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh in the Drogheda case, explaining the law and vacating the seat on the ground of intimidation, notwithstanding many exciting election contests subsequently in Ireland, there has been no repetition of similar violence, the people feeling that the law could not be violated with impunity. Then as to the second—protection against influence is more needed in small than in large constituencies, for when the electors are numerous it is more difficult to interfere with them, and they afford courage and aid to each other. There is also room for apprehension, lest with the Ballot there arise a demand for enlarged constituencies in order to give it the most effective operation; and can anyone doubt that such an increase of the areas and numbers of the electoral districts will be attended with consequences different, no doubt, in kind, but not less pernicious than any the Ballot is intended to prevent? The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Marquess of Hartington) who also spoke to-night in support of the Bill, is, however, more disposed than the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, to consider the prevalence of bribery such as to require a remedy, and to rely upon vote by Ballot as that remedy. The noble Lord thinks it improbable that the candidate will bribe, when the vote being concealed, he cannot feel certain of it. The answer has been given before. Public opinion deems a promise binding—hence promises will be asked, will be relied upon, and rewarded—further, in the great majority of instances will be kept. It was for bribery at a Ballot, preliminary to the election, and not at the open voting of the election, that recently a successful candidate for Bristol was unseated. Then there is such a thing as bribery for results, rewards for success, whereby it becomes the interest of the elector not merely to vote, but to canvass. The greatest experiment ever made of vote by Ballot was at Rome, where it was introduced about 600 years after its foundation, and continued for centuries. There it diminished the influence of birth and station, and ultimately increased that of wealth and corruption. Within 70 years after votes began to be taken in secret, six laws, each more stringent than the former, were obliged to be passed to stay the bribery universally prevailing. But they were passed in vain, for the system only became more and more perfectly organized, and was carried out not by dealing with individuals, but with the leaders and managers of combined bodies of electors. Look at the picture of society at Rome after all these laws, and with secret voting, as drawn by the hand of a master. I cite from a work of much learning and research, illuminated everywhere by a penetrating and inquiring spirit worthy of Montesquieu or Tacitus—The Life of Cæsar by the Emperor Napoleon— The elections had for a long time been the result of a shameless traffic, where every means of success was allowable. The sale of consciences had so planted itself in public morals, that the several instruments of electoral corruption had functions and titles almost recognized. Those who bought votes were called divisores; the go-betweens were interpretes; and those with whom was deposited the purchase money were sequestres. Numerous secret societies were formed for making a trade of the right of suffrage; they were divided into decades, the general head of which obeyed a supreme head, who treated with the candidates and sold the votes of the associates either for money, or on the stipulation of certain advantages for himself or his friends. These societies carried most of the elections. This, Sir, is an example more pertinent than the experience of a colony or new country. Rome at that period resembled us in extent of territory, established renown, great inequalities of rank and fortune between different classes, and was engaged with many of the social problems and difficulties that now encompass our progress. I do not, however, mean in referring to it, to deduce that Ballot of itself creates bribery; although it is true that some increased facility is afforded by the attendant secrecy, and some fresh impulse given by the removal of that influence, be it due or undue, which excludes its presence. For there is truth in the saying of Gibbon, that bribery is an infallible sign of constitutional liberty since the elector subject to control can no more sell than he can make any other free disposition of his vote. I am content should the precedent suffice to establish the more limited proposition, that if a people be corrupt, in vain will you enact laws or decree secrecy; that beans and Ballot-boxes avail nothing to prevent bribery. If one man is willing to sell what another covets, despite alike of penalties and secret voting, the traffic will proceed. On these topics, however, I delay no longer. This of all portions of the subject, has been the most discussed in the present as well as former debates. What is new now more demands our attention. Have there since the old decisions, at which this House under the guidance successively of Earl Russell, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Palmerston, by large majorities arrived, rejecting the Ballot, been alterations in our electoral system, rendering it necessary or expedient? Do the Reform Bill of 1867, and consequent extension of the franchise, as is alleged, in themselves warrant a review and reversal of those decisions, however correct, when made? The first result said to follow from the increased numbers admitted to the right of suffrage, is that it disposes of an argument much relied upon by Lord Palmerston and, if I mistake not, also by Sir Robert Peel against the Ballot. The franchise is a trust; the electors stand in a fiduciary relation to the unenfranchised portion of the community; the latter have a right to know and to scrutinize how the duties connected with the trust have been discharged by the limited portion in whom the whole community vested it. But now, when much the greater proportion of the people have obtained the right to vote, the residue, in respect of whom alone this fiduciary relation arises, are so few that the obligation to them either ceases, or is reduced in extent and amount to a degree not deserving to be taken into account. It has been shown already by my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket) that, as a fact, the enfranchised still bear but a small proportion to the unenfranchised. The number of the former has been increased, and of the latter in proportion diminished. But mere variation of number, even if it were more than has occurred, cannot destroy a relation of this kind. If there were a trust, it must continue so long as any objects, be they mere or less numerous, continue. It is absurd to talk of the addition of a million or two from the whole population to the electors, being capable of terminating the responsibility of the latter, if it ever existed. To effect this, strict logical reasoning would demand the total absorption of the whole community into the electoral body, in other words, universal suffrage. But the truth is, reasoning of this kind is fallacious, and illustrates the danger of determining great questions by arguments drawn from analogies, and the incidents of what appears analogous. Nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same. See, for a moment, where such a line of reasoning leads in respect of the subject in hand. The franchise is a trust; therefore the limited number of electors must surrender their convictions to the demands of their cestuis que trust, the masses of unenfranchised; the franchise is a privilege, therefore the elector may rise it for his own personal advantage. Accurately speaking, the franchise partakes of the nature of a trust, and of the nature of a privilege; but it is not strictly one or the other; certainly not so as to engraft into its own nature all the incidents of either, or enable its existence, or the conditions of such existence, to depend upon reasoning applicable to those incidents. Probably, if for illustration, the aid of analogy be sought, power more nearly than either trust or privilege meets what is required. But from this substitution the advocates for a secret and irresponsible vote gain nothing, for in created intelligences power must be accompanied by a sense of duty in its exercise, and accountability for its right use. It is, however, neither, Sir, from illustrations nor analogies that we can decide the effect of the extension of the franchise upon this question. As with every other political subject, so here also we must presume the inquiry among realities and practical results. From this point of view, another reason given for holding this extension to necessitate secret voting is important and requires examination. It is said that as you descend in the social scale, when fixing your standard of electoral qualification, improper influences increase in force, and the voter becomes more and more in need of protection. If only a small number had been admitted, there would be greater force in this argument. But when, as has happened, the additions from this class are numerous, the very number prevents influence being exercised, and affords a defence against it if it be. But, Sir, the truth is that in discussing this topic, as well as others connected with vote by Ballot, the error of its advocates lies in exclusively fixing their attention upon external impediments to the right use of the suffrage—on the intimidation that coerces, or the bribery that corrupts it. They overlook that there are internal impediments, of even more mischievous tendency, which secret voting not only does not abate, but, by withdrawing counterbalancing influences, promotes and strengthens. Private interests, individual advantages, local and temporary passions and prejudices, obstruct or overpower the unbiased consideration of the public welfare. But so long as the vote is open, these inferior motives of action are counteracted by the effect of example, the public opinion of the educational classes, the desire of esteem, and the apprehension of censure. This is what Gibbon pointed at, when he spoke of "the aspect of a grave magistrate being a living burden to the multitude." What Pliny, when in reference to the Ballot, he exclaimed— Multi famam, pauci conscientiam verentur. It is in the isolation of secrecy the instincts of selfishness awaken. How strikingly confirmed, if the statement of the authorities cited by the hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) be true, that but for secret voting the American States would not have repudiated their debts! To lower the franchise, it is plain, increases the application and force of these topics. The poorer the voting class, the more direct the conflict between private interest and public welfare; the less educated, the more liable to mistake the social inequalities inevitable to our condition for political grievances. The reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister from the increased number of electors to the inference, that Lord Palmerston's argument, founded on the franchise being a trust, no longer prevails, leads, if Ballot be adopted, at once to universal suffrage. Not resting upon fanciful resemblances or nice distinctions, experience and statesmanlike foresight have before induced Earl Russell and Sir Robert Peel to predict that Ballot will be followed by a much enlarged electoral body. Take it as it will on those suppositions be, or even take it as it is, and reflect what questions are now impending. Land is owned by few, occupied by many; taxation is strained to the utmost—much of it to pay obligations contracted by men of other times for the objects and interests of their own day; capital dominates over and subdues labour. These several relations, we are told by philosophers and politicians of no mean eminence, demand review and rearrangement; while the electoral power is owned by classes on whom what is complained of in those arrangements presses. Can you, in the period approaching, afford to surrender a single agency—a single influence—legitimate, of course, for what is illegitimate brings weakness, not strength—that can infuse among the people a sense of justice or a feeling of moderation? It may be said that I exaggerate the difficulties surrounding the future administration of affairs in this country. ["Hear, hear!] Have those who cheer read the remarkable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Stansfeld)—no mean authority on the powers, aims, and objects of the working classes, made so late as January last, at Halifax, to his constituents? Speaking, of course, with the caution of a Member of the Government, he pronounced that— The working people of England were only just awakening to a consciousness of their power and of the responsibilities of that power. There were men now, politicians, moving with light hearts upon the crest of that great tide, little conscious of the rate of progress at which they were moving, and of the direction in which they tended. Allowing for the imagery, is not this very much what I have been saying—that popular power has advanced and is advancing; that as it comes to the perception of its own strength, its aims, now unsettled, will take shape, and demands as yet unasserted, come to be made? And if this be true—if, to continue the metaphor of the right hon. Gentleman, there be approaching nearer and nearer, and with a still increasing flood, that "great tide"—is it in darkness or in light that we desire to meet it, ignorant of impending dangers, ignorant who aid or fail, or with all exposed to view, able to see the sources of our peril, and use every influence that can animate the exertions requisite for our safety? Sir, it has been said by Montesquieu that whatever may be thought in reference to nations with aristocratic or limited forms of government, it is a fundamental law of democracy that voting shall be open, for some such reasons, I apprehend, as I have feebly applied to our position under an extended suffrage. Following at, however remote, a distance in the footsteps of this profound thinker, I ask the House to pronounce that so far from any existing or future increase of the electoral body furnishing a justification of the introduction of secret voting, such increase supplies additional reasons and motives, of all the most irresistible, against a system which, in the language of the historian, without preventing corruption, admits mistake, excludes responsibility, and hides shame.

MR. MAGUIRE*

Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) who has just sat down, is not anxious to accept an analogy which does not suit his purpose or convenience, but endeavours, on the other hand, to establish an analogy between two states of things which have no resemblance whatever. The right hon. and learned Gentleman disdains to accept a lesson from New South Wales, yet he is quite willing to travel back even to the days of Numa Pompilius, and thence draw a picture with which to terrify this Parliament from accepting this Bill at the hands of the Government. The question, however, is not what state of society existed in Rome 2,400 years ago, or, in some centuries later, what took place under the Kings, the Republic, or the Empire; but this—Is the Ballot necessary for the present state of things in this Empire? The question is, not what was good or bad in ancient Rome, but what is absolutely essential to the United Kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, or those of them who oppose the Ballot, affect to believe there is no evidence to guide the House as to its operation and effect in other countries, because it has been tried only for 13 years in South Australia, and there in a modified form. But they have altogether forgotten Belgium, where secret voting has been in operation for 40 years; and we have never heard of it working prejudicially to the public interests, the liberty, or the progress of that country. Were one to rely implicitly on what has been asserted this night by the opponents of secret voting, one would be led to believe that once this system of voting were established, there would be an end to every useful or valuable influence—that rank, station, authority, property, even wisdom and virtue, would cease to exert any salutary influence on the voter. And why? Because with the Ballot in operation, the poor, the humble, the dependent and the helpless would be enabled to vote according to their convictions and the dictates of their conscience. Pliny has been quoted to depict the degradation of the Roman voter who quitted the polling-place after depositing his Ballot in the voting-urn. But have we in these modern days not witnessed a spectacle really degrading—the voter driven to the poll by the irresistible force of power, and there openly recording his vote against his conscience? This degrading spectacle has been witnessed in almost every borough and county of the United Kingdom. ["No, no," and "Yes, yes!] As a rule it has been witnessed, though I am willing to extend liberally the number of alleged virtuous exceptions. Hon. Gentlemen are keenly alive to the degradation of the poor man giving his vote in secret—that is, in security, and without risk to himself and his family. They revolt from the pitiable spectacle of this humble voter returning from the voting-place with the consciousness of having recorded his vote in accordance with his principles. But what say they to the voter—this proud holder of a great constitutional trust—being compelled to vote against his known feelings and principles, to his own deep humiliation, and to the contempt of those whose esteem he desired to preserve. Sir, the material quesiton is not whether the franchise is a trust, a privilege, or a right. The law gives it to the possessor of a certain qualification; and none have done more in the way of extending the franchise than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and those who act with him; but the real question is this—whether the man in an humble or dependent position can exercise the franchise freely and in safety to himself and those who belong to him? That is the real question, and not whether that which the law confers upon him is a right, a privilege, or a public trust. According to the theory of the Constitution, he is supposed to exercise this power of voting with perfect freedom; and what we have to consider is, can he do so more freely with the Ballot than without it? Now, my belief is, that for all persons in humble or dependent circumstances the protection of the Ballot is essential to their safety, and therefore I give to it my support. A strange misconception appears to have gone abroad, I know not from what cause, as to the course which the Catholic Members of this House would adopt in reference to the Ballot. I, myself, was asked by more than one hon. Member whether I had not changed my opinion on the question, and if I did not intend to vote against it, in deference to the wishes of the Roman Catholic Bishops and priests of Ireland. I said, in reply, and I now repeat, that since I entered this House, now 19 years ago, I voted for the Ballot whenever it was brought forward, though at times it has been treated as an annual farce; and I voted for it because I believed it to be necessary for the protection of the humble and defenceless. If, therefore, the Bishops and clergy of my Church had changed their opinions with respect to the Ballot, I would not on that account have changed mine. But, as a matter of fact, they had done nothing of the kind. I vote for it because I think it right and necessary, and that I do not believe it will have the effect of degrading the people of England or of Ireland. So far as I know anything of the Irish people, they are consistent supporters of the Ballot, because they have witnessed and felt the mischief and misery which has resulted from the present system of voting—from that manly, and upright, and fearless expression of opinion which so often brought ruin on those who exercised a so-called constitutional privilege, or discharged a so-called public trust. I express my solemn belief that there has been more misery and mischief inflicted on the people of Ireland by this so-called "manly" and "English" mode of voting than it is possible for tongue to describe or pen to record. It was hoped that with the change of tribunal there would be a change in the character of elections—that the knowledge of the tribunal, as it it were, following the offence and the offender, would strike terror into the evil-doer, and render elections pure and peaceable for the future. But has that been the case? Let hon. Members look to the records of the elections which have taken place since then, and they will find that violence, corruption, intimidation, and all the evils that existed before the change have been as active and as rampant as ever. Then the change must not be limited to the nature and locality of the tribunal, but must extend to the mode and manner of taking the vote. We are told that this secrecy will degrade the voter, and that he will himself regard the Ballot as an insult and an indignity. It is also said that the protection of the secret mode is unnecessary in these more improved times, in which an enlightened public opinion is exercising its benign influence on political contests. But, Sir, strangely enough, the people loudly clamour for this protection, and are most willing to endure this insult. Then it is asked, where are the Petitions in favour of the Ballot? The answer is simple—the time for petitioning is passed—the country takes the passing of the Ballot as a thing already granted. The majority of hon. Members in this House, and of candidates at the last election, were pledged to the Ballot; and surely we can have no more convincing proof of the popular feeling on this question. Sir, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) has endeavoured to alarm the House by stating, as his belief, that if you give the Ballot to Ireland you would see 60 or 70, or possibly even 90 Nationalists returned to Parliament by the Irish people. I desire to speak freely on this point, which, I admit, is one of the very greatest importance. There is at present a wonderful amount of misconception in the minds of Englishmen with respect to what is termed "Home Rule." I am myself a Nationalist, and in favour of Home Rule; but, at the same time, I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty, attached as a Monarchist to the Crown and Constitution, and I desire to see this Empire strong and flourishing, and the people of Ireland thoroughly united to the people of England. There are thousands of men in Ireland, Protestants as well as Catholics, who are Nationalists in the same spirit. The noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said to-night, in reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), that if these anticipated 90 Nationalists were sent from Ireland to this House, they would here find a strong and resolute determination to resist the separation of the two countries. With that representation of English feeling I entirely agree, and I hold the same opinion against the separation of the two countries, as strongly as the noble Marquess himself. Then the noble Marquess added, at least in substance—"Look at the people of the United States! they would not allow the Union to be dismembered; and the very same spirit which animated the American people with respect to the Union will animate the people of England in relation to Ireland." Of that I am convinced. But what is the case in the United States? There are now as many as 40 States in the Union, and each State does its own local business, and manages its own affairs; and from each State there is sent to the Imperial Congress at Washington its Representatives, to deal with all matters of general or Imperial importance. By that federal principle, which unites all in one whole, while it secures to each State its freedom and independence in the management of its own affairs, the whole of that vast Continent—for such it really is—is made stronger, more powerful, and more united. Nay, such is the vitality of the principle of this Federation that a violent and devastating Civil War has been unable to destroy the Union. The great machine was rent asunder, cut in two by the war; but once the war was at an end, once the passions to which it gave rise had time to slumber and subside, the great machine was joined again together, and has since been working in harmonious action. Then let it be distinctly understood that, Ballot or no Ballot, at the next General Election there will be at least 50 men returned from Ireland pledged to what is called "Home Rule"—or, in other words, to the policy of Ireland governing herself for all local purposes—to that federal principle which has worked well in the United States for 90 years, which we seek to promote in our Australian colonies, which we have established in Canada, and which there is a Bill at this very moment in this House for introducing into the Leeward Islands. Now, as a matter of strict fact, that principle is hourly gaining the most important converts in Ireland among the most thoughtful and intelligent of the community. The Protestant mind of the country is steadily turning in that direction, from the highest and purest motives of patriotism, and certainly in no spirit of hostility to England and no disloyalty to the Sovereign. I was lately much struck by a circumstance which illustrated the advance of this national movement in favour of Home Rule. When returning to this House after the Easter Recess, I was travelling from Cork to Dublin in a first-class carriage; and of the occupants of that carriage I was the only Catholic, and yet there was not one in it who was not in favour of the principle of Home Rule. But you are told not to give the Ballot to Ireland lest she may send you 90 Nationalists. What does that mean? That you are to stifle the expression of a nation's opinion, if you can; but if not—if you cannot do so—you must appear as if you did not hear its voice, and were not conscious of its demand. Anything more opposed to the spirit of the Constitution and to the theory of free institutions it would be impossible to imagine. If hon. Gentlemen felt such apprehension of the working of the Ballot in Ireland as to induce Parliament to deny it to that country, while conferring it on England and Scotland, that would be one of the maddest and most suicidal steps which Parliament could take. It would be a distinct declaration to the people of Ireland that they were not worthy to enjoy the same privileges as England, and that Ireland was to be treated as a conquered country. The Constitution is now suspended in a portion of that country; a Coercion Act envelopes her from shore to shore, and 40,000 armed men are kept on her soil; but if the crowning insult of which I speak were added to other indignities and grievances, it would require a far greater number of soldiers to quell the spirit which would rise in every man's breast against so outrageous an injustice. Now, Sir, in order that that question of Home Rule should be rightly understood by the people of this country, I take this opportunity of saying that I will, at an early period next Session, take the sense of the House on a Motion in favour of Home Rule—not separation—not Repeal in a technical sense, but in the restricted and limited sense such as I have endeavoured to indicate by reference to Canada and the United States. And I may add that I know, from constant communication with many English Members, that the Representatives of several English constituencies are prepared to vote for a Motion of that kind. The fact is, Englishmen as well as Irishmen feel that there must be a change, even if it were only as a matter of better arrangement and convenience. This Session the legislative Temple Bar is choked by one huge waggon with the wheels off; and until this stoppage, or congestion of Public Business, is at an end, there can be no proper legislation, whether for England, for Scotland, or for Ireland. For four Sessions one Bill, one measure, has annually choked the highway; and when, under the present system, can we hope for a better state of things? To my mind, the prospect is very gloomy indeed. For these reasons, as well as for the greater and larger reasons and motives which I could adduce on behalf of my country, I will, in the next Session, ask the House of Commons to affirm a Resolution granting the Home Rule of which I have spoken, and which contributes so much to the advantage and prosperity, the greatness and the glory, of other countries. Sir, I desire, in conclusion, to say a word in reference to the evidence given by Dr. Butler, the Catholic Bishop of Limerick, before the Select Committee that sat on the question of the Ballot; and I do so as an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who represented that there would be a certain amount of danger in the influence which would be used by the Catholic clergy in Ireland under the concealment of the Ballot. Now, the scope of Dr. Butler's evidence is strictly consistent with what I myself know to be the fact—that the Catholic clergy are sincerely desirous of withdrawing from all interference in elections, if not in political agitation, the moment they find the voters of the country can exercise their franchise—be it trust, or privilege, or right—freely and in safety. With the protection of the Ballot to the Irish voter, there would no longer be a necessity for the active interference of the Catholic priest in the turmoil of political strife; though, at the same time, there would be no reason why he should surrender his rights as a citizen, or give up his personal interest in what concerns the welfare and happiness of the people. With the Ballot as a mode of voting, coercion would cease. The landlord, for instance, would no longer be able to coerce his tenant voters; and the influence of the clergy, which had to be brought into the field to counteract that of the landlord, would cease to be exercised. The Bishop of Limerick distinctly said that if the protection of the Ballot—meaning thereby its secrecy and safety—were once conferred on the humble or dependent voter, the Catholic clergy of Ireland would be only too glad to retire from the arena, to which an overpowering necessity alone had impelled them.

MR. G. BENTINCK moved the adjournment of the debate.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday.