Sitting of 20 June 1867

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — On Paris Exhibition appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Courts of Law Officers (Ireland) [Salaries and Fees] [R.P.]
First Reading—Office of Judge in the Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Courts * [203].
Second Reading—Poor Law Board, &c.* [193]; Common Law Courts (Ireland)* [48].
Committee—Representation of the People [70] [R.P.]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [31]; Gal way Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (re-comm.) [200]; British White Herring Fishery* [173]; Lis Pendens* (re-comm.) [153]; Master and Servant* [105].
Report—Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [31]; Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (re-comm.) [200]; British White Herring Fishery* [173]; Lis Pondens* (re-comm.) [153]; Master and Servant* [204].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [187]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [191].
Withdrawn — Church Discipline Act Amendment* [124].

PRIVILEGE—MEMBERS' SEATS IN THIS HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to a question of order and privilege, as regarded the right which hon. Members could claim to particular seats in the House. By Standing Order 85 any Member present in the House at prayers was entitled to secure a place by affixing his name to a seat, and by Standing Order 86, which was made on the 6th of April, 1835, no Member's name might be affixed to any seat in the House before the hour of prayer. Notwithstanding the latter order a practice had sprung up by which Members attempted to secure places by

161
leaving their cards upon the seats, trusting that the courtesy of other Members would prevent their being occupied. That arrangement having been declared irregular by the highest authority in that House, it was suggested that a place might be secured by the hat of a Member being left on the seat before the hour of prayer, and that modification of the previous arrangement was approved by the House, as it was presumed that when a Member left his hat on a seat he was engaged in the performance of duties within the precincts of the House. He had applied to the Serjeant-at-Arms to know whether the placing of a hat in a particular seat was a sufficient presumption of the owner being in the precincts of the House; and finding that it was, he had always conformed himself to that arrangement, and when he found a seat vacant he had placed his hat on it. For doing so, with regard to a particular seat, he had been favoured with strong objurgations on the part of an hon. Friend beside him (Sir Henry Edwards), who had used expressions towards him which he certainly would not repeat to the House, and the energy of which was more remarkable than its courtesy. Having had a not very agreeable conversation with his hon. Friend on Tuesday last, he came down to-day at two o'clock to see what had occurred, and he found that a card had been laid upon that particular seat. He should, no doubt, have been justified in removing it; but he thought that if he did so he might be accused of discourtesy, and it would be better to mention the circumstance to the House. He considered that the Member who affixed his card to a seat at two o'clock in the day was not acting according to the rules of the House, and that any Member was entitled to deal with such seat as if no such card were there. It was no doubt a matter of great delicacy for private Members to interfere in a matter of this kind, and it certainly required the intervention of the Speaker's authority to settle the question. Disagreeable disputes might arise, and he was not desirous either of making use of warm language or having it used towards himself. At the same time, such language had been used towards him on several occasions, that he should be glad to be relieved of the difficulty by a declaration from the Chair as to what course a Member should take who found the privilege of retaining a seat irregularly
162
asserted by the placing of a card on it in the manner described. There were certain private Members, such as ex-Cabinet Ministers and other Members distinguished for their services or Parliamentary reputations, who were permitted by the courtesy of the House to occupy the same seats; but he was not prepared to admit the superiority of any ordinary Member over another with regard to the occupation of any particular seat.
SIR HENRY EDWARDSsaid, that as the question had been brought before the House, he would say at once that he was the Member alluded to; but he distinctly denied having ever claimed any exclusive right in the seat he occupied in the House. As a matter of courtesy it was always understood that the privilege was given to Members who were present at prayers to occupy the seat they then occupied for the night, and it had been customary for them to affix their cards to show that they were present and intended to take their seats. Nine times out of ten he was present at prayers, and recently he had found that it was necessary, if he was to have a seat at all—for he did not like to take the seat of other Members—to come down to the House half an hour or an hour before the sitting, and write his letters there instead of writing them at home. He saw Members all round him, none of whom had had a seat in the House so long as he had, sitting in the same places night after night, and he thought that it was very much for their own convenience and the convenience of the House that they should do so, and so long as he had the honour of a seat on that side he should always endeavour to obtain the one he now occupied. Any remarks that had passed between his hon. Friend and himself were best known to his hon. Friend, and he should not think it necessary to apply to the Speaker with respect to anything that might have taken place when he was not in the Chair. If any un-Parliamentary language was used when he was in the Chair he should ask for an explanation from the hon. Gentleman previous to appealing to the Speaker. There was, however, no grievance of that kind, for he appealed to his hon. Friends around him, whether, from first to last, he had said anything discourteous to the hon. Member. The fact was that the hon. Gentleman had, on many occasions, annoyed those who sat beside him by continually cheering the opposite party, while he still remained on those Benches.

163
Many other hon. Members had remarked the fact, and day after day he had annoyed them so much that they would all be very glad to see him leave his place and go over to the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had made a great deal of the matter, but he (Sir Henry Edwards) hoped that he had done nothing wrong in occupying the seat he then had.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that on a previous occasion he had to complain of another Member taking his seat, and it was a very painful thing to him to have to do so, because it happened to be one of his oldest Friends. On that occasion he had left his hat on the seat while attending a Select Committee, and it had been removed. The Speaker then kindly expressed a hope that the matter would be amicably settled, and it was so; but this was a question really worthy of the attention of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair. It must be patent to every one that as Committees could not adjourn until the Speaker was announced to be at prayers, those Members who were performing important public duties could not possibly be present at prayers, and it would be very unfair that Members who had not been so engaged should have the privilege of taking their seats. Last Session he was informed that many hon. Gentlemen actually sent their butlers to place papers and documents on particular seats at an early hour in the day in order to secure them for the evening. To be sure, a walk on a fine summer's day would not do any harm to that class of gentlemen; but that practice had been obviated, and now unless a hat was left as well, no hon. Member could claim the seat. But it was not likely that hon. Members would like to be exposed to all the cold drafts of the corridors and the Committee rooms without their hats, and many hon. Gentlemen were thus prevented from compliance with the rule of the House. He therefore thought the matter should be seriously considered by the Speaker in the recess, and that some more practicable rule should be issued by him on the subject.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Admiral who has just spoken goes a little beyond the point which has been raised when he suggests that some new rule should be laid down with reference to this subject, and I cannot enter into that branch of the subject at all, because it is for the House itself to frame rules for its guidance. Neither do I think it would be
164
right for me to enter into the question, with regard to Members being entitled to express their approbation or disapprobation of particular speeches from particular seats in the House. Upon those points, therefore, I do not propose to give any judgment. The matter, therefore, as I understand it, is narrowed to the single point whether or not a card placed upon a seat before prayers will give a claim or right to that seat for the remainder of the evening. The point has been very distinctly decided, not by myself, but by this House. The House has laid down the rule that no card placed upon a seat can command or secure that seat in the absence of the hon. Member placing it there. About a year ago it was observed that hon. Members who came down here early in the morning to attend to their duties were placed at a disadvantage, because, being confined to the Committee rooms, they could not come into the House until their seats had been secured by others. Under these circumstances a suggestion was made that any Member having come down to the House in the morning to discharge the duty of attending a Committee, who should think fit to place his hat upon a seat as an indication of his personal attendance in the performance of his duties, should be entitled to retain the seat as though he were personally present in the House. As far as I have made inquiries, that arrangement has been considered satisfactory and reasonable. The only question, however, now before the House is whether, if an hon. Member affixes his card to a seat before prayers, he is entitled to retain that seat. The House has distinctly declared such not to be the case. The Serjeant-at-Arms has directions to remove all gloves and cards placed upon the seats before prayers, and I have not the slightest doubt that if an appeal be made to the Serjeant-at-Arms he will remove any which may be improperly placed at the back of a seat with a view of securing it for the night.
MR. BRIGHT: I suppose that the difficulty to which the hon. Member has called our attention arises from the limited size of the House. I venture to say there is no other country in the world where there is a legislative Assemby the arrangements of which are so inconvenient and so insufficient for the hon. Members of it as is the case with the British House of Commons. I understand that the House will not seat within at least 150 of

165
the persons who are Members of it. [An hon. MEMBER: It only seats 400.] An hon. Member near me says that the House will not seat more than 400—and when those are sitting it is almost impossible to hear one-half of the speeches which are made. Therefore, I think this House, and everything connected with it, is an utter disgrace. I use the word House in its general sense, and not as applied to hon. Members; and, speaking of the building, I say that the House itself, with regard to the accommodation which it affords, is a disgrace to the civilization, as it is to the architecture, of our time—and I hope the facts I have stated will be borne in mind if anybody proposes to add to the numbers in this House.

NAVY—RESERVED CAPTAINS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can hold out any hopes that the Government will re-consider the Order in Council of 1851 relating to the Reserved Captains; and, whether justice will at last be done in respect to pay and promotion to those meritorious and distinguished Officers who, relying on a fair interpretation of such Order in Council, were induced to allow their names to be placed on the Reserved List of Captains?
  MR. CORRYsaid, in reply, that his hon. Friend's Question resembled the peroration of an argumentative speech, and he had some difficulty in answering it, because he should be out of order in attempting any argument in reply. He trusted, however, that he might be allowed to express his dissent from his hon. Friend's conclusions. In point of strict justice these Officers had no real case. That was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown to whom the case was referred in 1862, and in that opinion he (Mr. Corry) entirely concurred. At the same time, it was undoubtedly true that the Order in Council, or that part of it which established the Reserved List of Captains, was very vaguely worded, and he thought that a portion of those Officers had a fair claim to indulgence. He meant that portion of the Reserved Captains who, before their promotion to that rank, had served as Commanders the time required by the regulations to entitle them to active rank. He had made a communi-
  166
  cation to that effect to the Treasury, and was happy to say that an arrangement had been made which would give to that portion, and that portion only, those Officers certain advantages as regarded rank and pay, some immediately and the rest prospectively.

CASE OF FULFORD AND WELLSTEAD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the statement published in the public papers by the Rev. Richard Payne concerning the conviction of Henry Fulford and Mark Wellstead by the Salisbury Bench of Magistrates for alleged poaching on the 26th of March last; and, if he will lay upon the table all the communications that have passed upon the subject?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the letter in question. Before that letter appeared certain other circumstances connected with this case had been brought to his notice, and at the time the hon. Gentleman put his Question on the Paper the only one of the two men who remained in prison had been discharged by his (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) order. On re-considering the case, as he had been asked to do, he had again gone carefully into the facts, and on the whole it appeared so extremely doubtful whether the keeper was right in his identification of the prisoner, that he had ordered the discharge of the one in custody. He could only say that though he thought the magistrates were perfectly justified in believing the evidence before them—he did not make the least imputation upon them in respect of the conviction—the case, upon the further evidence submitted to him, appeared to be so extremely doubtful, if not more than doubtful, that he felt it to be his duty to discharge the prisoner. With reference to the latter part of the Question, it was contrary to practice to produce such communications as those mentioned by the hon. Member.

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose the appointment of an Under Secretary of

167
State to take charge of Scotch business in the House of Commons?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that as far as he could judge of the Department with which he was now connected, he did not think there was a sufficiency of business to render necessary the appointment of a distinct Under Secretary of State for this particular purpose. He quite agreed that it was a great misfortune both to himself and this House that the Lord Advocate should not have a seat in it, and he hoped that at some time Scotland would do the Lord Advocate the justice to give him one. But in the learned Lord's absence his hon. Friend (Sir Graham Montgomery) had devoted himself to the Scotch business during the Session, and Scotch Members would, he was sure, admit that he had met their wishes wherever it was possible to do so. He could not admit that the Scotch business was really in arrear. In fact, many of the Scotch Bills were more advanced than English Bills. One great measure, as they all knew, had stopped the progress of other Bills, but the Scotch business had not been kept back more than English or Irish business. With every wish, therefore, to expedite business, he could not give any pledge to the effect desired by the hon. Member.

WRECK OF THE "ETHIOPIAN."

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been directed to a report in the Sydney (N.S.W.) newspapers, that an English ship, the Ethiopian, 840 tons register, owned by Messrs. George Thompson, jun,, & Co., of Aberdeen, was seen dismasted and in distress on the 8th day of March last, four miles outside the Sydney Heads, and unable to make the harbour, and that though the attention of the Commanders of Her Majesty's steamers Falcon, Esk, and Challenger, then lying Unemployed in the port of Sydney, was called to the circumstance, this unmanagable and helpless vessel was allowed to drift to sea without their offering any assistance; and that five days afterwards she was rescued by the French man-of-war Marceau, Captain Gallache, and gallantly, and without fee or reward, brought into Sydney Harbour in safety; and, if such statement be true, whe-
  168
  ther the conduct of Her Majesty's Officers is not contrary to the tenor of their instructions received from the Board of Admiralty?
  MR. CORRYsaid, in reply, that no official information on the subject had yet reached the Admiralty; but yesterday the Commodore, whose broad pennant was flying on board the Challenger, arrived at Southampton invalided and in extremely ill health, and to-day his secretary had called at the Admiralty. It appeared that the harbour of Sydney was landlocked, so that a ship could not be seen from the anchorage. We representation, he was informed, was made to the Commodore of any ship being in distress or requiring assistance. He had, however, called for a Report on the subject from the Naval authorities on the station.

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether in the case of the 4th Hussars and other Cavalry Regiments now or hereafter to be ordered to India, the augmentation promotion will be allowed to go on in the Regiment, or whether it is his intention that Majors shall be brought in from other Corps, or from half-pay, in the manner that has lately given rise to so much complaint?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: In answer, Sir, to the Questions of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that the intention of the Government with respect to our cavalry regiments returned from India and other foreign service is that the second Major shall not be reduced. The result of that will be that the complaints which have hitherto been made on the part of cavalry officers, and which are not without reason, will for the future be avoided. As to whether the augmentation promotion will be allowed to go on in the regiments leaving England, I will not pledge myself upon that point. I think the question must be decided in each case upon combined considerations of the public interest and of the services of the officers concerned. With regard to the 4th Hussars, the promotion will be allowed, and the senior captain will succeed to the second majority. I also wish to state that I propose to make one exception of a prospective nature, and that will be in favour of Captain Harnett, of the 11th Hussars

  169
  —a regiment which went to India last autumn, and, under the present regulations, Captain Harnett had a junior put over his head. It is my intention that Captain Harnett shall be promoted to the second majority, and that Major Jervis shall return to his post in the regiment from which he came.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he wished to know whether the subalterns would receive the benefit of the promotion?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I presume the promotion will go on in the regular course.

IRELAND—THE CHARITY COMMISSIONS AND TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Charity Commissioners have introduced in the Lords a Bill already abandoned by him in the Commons, for the purpose of defeating the legal rights of Trinity College, Dublin, to the reversion of a bequest made by a certain Mr. Brown?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that the hon. and gallant General must be aware that, after in vain endeavouring to come to some agreement with Irish Members and with Trinity College, Dublin, he (Lord Robert Montagu) postponed the Bill until the 17th of June to suit the convenience of Irish Members who opposed it. He was not at that time aware of the rule of the other House that no Charity Bill would be received after the 21st of June. He therefore stated openly in the House, and in the presence of the hon. and gallant General, that he would move to discharge the Order, so that the Bill might be received in the other House, and then come down to the House of Commons at a later period.

INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAGNALLsaid, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he approves of Her Majesty's Inspectors paying their official visits to Schools during the Whitsun week, when children cannot without difficulty be collected to meet them, and masters are deprived of their accustomed holiday; and, whether the Grants to Schools will depend upon the
  170
  result of Inspections made under such disadvantageous circumstances?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that there were the usual holydays in summer of one month in towns, and of six or eight weeks in the country, for harvesting. At Easter there was a holyday of one week, and at Christmas a holyday of a fortnight, At Whitsuntide they only recognised the Church holydays of Monday and Tuesday. Inspection was very costly, for the salaries and commuted allowances were running on whether the Inspectors were at work or not. It was therefore inexpedient that sixty or seventy Inspectors should be kept idle longer than was necessary. The object of the holydays was not so much for the sake of the children, who by being kept in school were prevented from getting into mischief, and from being in the streets, but were chiefly for the sake of the masters. It was therefore better that the children should be kept in a warm and airy room at school. But a holyday was essentially necessary for the master. However, they laid down no rule for an Inspector, except to suit the convenience of the managers as far as he could.

LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the event of loss of life at sea, where there has been gross culpability or negligence, Her Majesty's Government will adopt measures in order that offenders may be made amenable to the Criminal Laws of the Country?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that by the 239th section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, breach of duty, or neglect of duty, or drunkenness on the part of the master or crew, tending to the loss or damage of a ship, or danger to those on board, was a misdemeanour. Under other clauses the Board of Trade could institute an inquiry in such cases, and punish by deprivation of certificate the master, mate, or engineer, and this had been found easier and more effectual than proceeding under the former section. When there were suspicious circumstances in a shipwreck, the Board of Trade held inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of loss, and with a view, if necessary, to the suspension or cancelling of certificates; but the Board did not prosecute criminally, though the facts which might come out in the course of

171
the inquiries might form the groundwork of criminal prosecution on the part of the underwriters or others. Fraudulent abandonment or destruction of a ship by owner or master was a crime at Common Law, by Statutes of Anne and George I., and latterly under the Act of 1837, called the Burning and Destroying Act, and the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, of 1861. The Board of Trade did not prosecute in such cases, but left it to the underwriters. "Whether it would be advisable for the Board of Trade to prosecute criminally in such cases was a question which was a fragment only of the greater question of a public prosecutor, which must be settled on more general considerations than the restricted though very important subject to which the hon. Member had referred.

LIMITED LIABILITY.—QUESTION.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he begged to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Law of Limited Liability during this Session?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that the Select Committee on Limited Liability Acts, of which his right hon. Friend and himself were Members, reported that it was highly desirable that a Bill should be brought in by the Government during the present Session to carry out the alterations they recommended. In accordance with that decision he placed the Resolutions, as well as some suggestions of the Member for Stockport, in the hands of the Government draughtsman, who was at work upon the subject, though his time was very much occupied with the Reform Bill and other matters. He (Mr. S. Cave) had refrained from moving for Leave to bring in this Bill until he could see his way to proceeding with it, in order not further to encumber the Notice Paper with Bills in respect of which no progress could be made.

INDIA—INDIAN SECURITIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, With reference to the notice recently given for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest on India Bonds from 5 to 4 per cent, on what principle a Notice was given in December last for the purpose of renewing the Indian 5 per cent loan
  172
  expiring in 1870, for another ten years at the same rate of interest, such Notice having been given gratuitously two years before it was due; and, whether he is aware that when notice of reduction of the interest on India Bonds was given on a former occasion, the experiment was unsuccessful?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, these notices have no connection with each other. The circumstances under which notice of the removal of the 5 per cent. loan was given in December last were these. It was at that time necessary to raise an additional sum by way of loan in consequence of the difficulty experienced by the Railway Companies in raising money, and as it was known that it would be necessary for the Government to renew the loan which expires in 1870, it was thought desirable at once to give notice of the intention to renew it for ten years in order to strengthen the stock and to obtain the loan which the Government desired to raise upon better terms than would otherwise have been got. With reference to the recent notice of the intention to reduce the interest upon India Bonds from 5 to 4 per cent., it was thought unreasonable that the Indian Government should be paying so high a rate as 5 per cent upon what are in the nature of Exchequer Bonds, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country gives upon Exchequer Bonds only from 2½ to 3 per cent. It was necessary that a year's notice should be given, and that notice was given in the hope and expectation that we shall, when the time comes, be able to carry the reduction into effect. Of course it is possible that that expectation may not be realised, but in that case nothing can be easier than to withdraw the notice. If the last part of the Question relates to the failure of an operation under the Government of Lord Dalhousie, all I can say is that that operation was attempted under circumstances totally different from those under which we are now acting.

AFFAIRS OF CRETE.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Omar Pasha, having been defeated at Heraclion in Candia, had burnt all the villages that had not been defended by the Insurgents, and murdered the inhabitants, and that the Consuls had reported

173
these atrocities to their respective Governments; and, whether means cannot be found during the approaching visit of the Sultan to Europe, to obtain the cessation of a conflict continuing so long, and producing results so shocking to humanity?
MR. MONKsaid, he wished, before the noble Lord answered the Question, to inquire whether there was any official confirmation of the statements contained in the Protest addressed by the Candian Committee to the Foreign Consuls on the 24th of May, according to which Omar Pasha had burnt twenty - three villages, destroyed the churches, set fire to the olive and other fruit trees, pulled down the mills, destroyed the crops, and burnt some women alive?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) not having given me notice of his Question, I shall be glad if he will repeat it to-morrow, when I shall be prepared to answer it more precisely than I can do now. With reference to the inquiry of my hon. Friend (Mr. Darby Griffith), I have to state that I have received no official report of a defeat of Omar Pasha at Heraclion. There is a newspaper statement to that effect, but whether it is true or untrue I do not pretend to decide. I observe, however, that the telegram is dated from Athens. I am afraid that there is on both sides much exasperation, and that, as will always happen in wars of this kind, carried on in half-civilized countries and in part by irregular troops, very lamentable and vindictive acts have been committed. As to the possibility of obtaining a cessation of the conflict, that, no doubt, is what we should all desire, but I need hardly say that it, is much more easily said than done. I do not think the occasion suggested by my hon. Friend would be opportune. There is a time for all things, and I do not think that the first occasion on which the Sultan will be receiving the hospitality of this country would be the proper period to inflict upon him any remonstrance or lecture with regard to his management of his own dominions.

THE BIRMINGHAM RIOTS—THE VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that the Rifle Volunteers, under the command of Major Ratcliff, had
174
been ordered to be in readiness to assist the Military in the suppression of the recent Riots at Birmingham, and if so, under what authority; and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that a proper occasion for their being employed?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had not been aware of the circumstances until his attention had been called to them by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was therefore unable to answer the first part of the Question, Assuming that statement to be true, he was not aware under what authority the arrangement had been made. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it was not, in his opinion, an occasion in which it was proper to call out the Volunteers. If such a course had been taken—and he was not then aware whether it had or had not—it was one which had not his approval. He would, however, institute inquiries on the subject.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to a reply he was reported to have given to a Question put to him by the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) on the preceding day, as to whether certain words imputed to a lecturer named Murphy should not be considered to disentitle him to the protection of the law. He had also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the words in question have not in point of fact been used at a public lecture in that sense and with the object alleged, and that Mr. Murphy, at a public meeting in Birmingham on Monday evening, had given such explanation thereof as was satisfactory to that meeting, which meeting included many Roman Catholics, one of whom made a speech in reply, in which he stated that nothing Mr. Murphy had said, could justify the conduct of his co-religionists?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) asked me privately yesterday whether I had any objection to answer a question respecting the Birmingham riots, and I expressed my readiness to give the House all the information in my possession. I stated, accordingly, that I had received a communication from the Mayor reporting that at that time all was quiet. Being further asked whether my opinion had been requested as to there being any grounds for taking criminal proceedings upon certain expressions used

175
by Murphy, I said that it had, and that, in my opinion, there were no grounds for proceeding criminally upon those words. I added that I regarded the expressions as worthy of the strongest condemnation, and that I did not wonder at their having created excitement, because they seemed to me only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers. I said nothing with respect to their being legally regarded as the cause of the riots. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) now asks me whether I think the use of such words could justify the rioters, or deprive the lecturer of the right to protection. I do not think that he is deprived; I do not think that anything I have said could justify the inference that he is to be deprived of the right of protection in a place built by him and others for the purposes of these lectures, because the words were not criminal words in themselves, or words that could be legally taken notice of. I am not in the least aware of those other facts alluded to by the hon. Member for Peterborough, except that I understood from the papers sent to me that these words were used at a public meeting, at which the hon. Member was present. It was stated that the meeting was held at eight o'clock in the evening; that a Mr. Armstrong took the chair; that the hon. Member for Peterborough made a speech; that he was followed by Mr. Murphy; and that in the course of his speech Mr. Murphy said he had been taken to task for saying that the priests of Rome were murderers, cannibals, pickpockets, and liars. He said he repeated that statement, and should be prepared to prove it on the following evening. This was on Monday night, and I did not observe that the hon. Member for Peterborough took any notice, or asked for any explanation of those words.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he trusted he might be allowed to state that the report which the right hon. Gentleman had read of what took place on Monday night was not correct—or, at least, was not complete. He was not prepared to say—["Oh!"] Perhaps the House would allow him, in order to make his statement, to move the adjournment of the debate. ["No!"] He was anxious to be quite accurate, and the report was correct so far as it went, but it was not complete. Mr. Murphy at the meeting explained what he had said in regard to the epithets referred to, of which he (Mr. Whalley) disapproved as much as any man. They were not words
176
used at a public meeting, but were addressed by Mr. Murphy to some of his friends, who gathered around him. Mr. Murphy afterwards made some explanation of the matter, not one word of which was included in the report upon which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to rely. The result of his explanation was, that a Roman Catholic who came upon the platform, and who replied to some of the remarks of Mr. Murphy on other subjects, declared his opinion that nothing Mr. Murphy had said justified his co-religionists in the conduct they had pursued.

THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, he wished to know, Whether, as there was a difference of opinion in regard to the counties proposed to be subdivided, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to refer this subject to the Boundary Commissioners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Member is doubtless aware that since the Chairman last reported progress I have laid on the Table the Clause which describes the powers of the Boundary Commissioners, and the hon. Baronet will find that under that Clause the Commissioners have the power of effecting the subdivision to which he refers. Perhaps the House will allow me to read the names of the Boundary Commissioners. We propose that there shall be seven Boundary Commissioners, whose names shall be included in the Clause. They are—Lord Viscount Eversley; Mr. Walter, recently a Member of this House; Mr. Bramston, also recently a Member of this House; Sir John Duckworth, formerly a Member of this House; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie); the Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney); and Lord Penrhyn.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Secretary Lord Stanley.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL— [BILL 79.]

  COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS JUNE 18.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 24 (Rooms to be hired wherever they can be obtained).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had laid upon the table the clauses he had promised with respect to polling places in counties and boroughs; and he, therefore, moved the omission of the present clause, which those provisions would supersede.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 25 (Vice Chancellor of the University of London to be the Returning Officer).
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he presumed that the University of London would receive the same power with respect to voting papers which had already been granted to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 26, 27, and 28, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Electors may Vote by Voting Papers).
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he would with draw the Amendment which stood in his name on the Orders, to the effect that parties absent from the places where they were registered at the time of an election, or who desired in consequence of age or infirmity to be relieved from attending to vote in person, should be allowed to record their votes by means of voting papers. He thought it was desirable that the sense of the House should be taken first of all upon the general question; but if the House decided against the spirit of his Amendment, he reserved to himself the power of re-opening the question when the Report on the Bill was brought up.
  MR. PIMcontended, in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, that, as many persons held property in counties in which they did not reside, and were entitled to votes on account of their property, it would only be a fair thing to give these persons the right of voting by means of voting papers, so as to free them from the trouble and expense of having to make a long journey in order to record their vote. It was very undesirable, for instance, that a person living in London, but who was upon the register in Yorkshire, should be compelled to travel down there to give his support to a candidate. But while it was desirable that voters resident at a distance should be enabled to give their votes in the way proposed, he thought the privilege should not be ex-
  178
  tended to persons who could give their votes in person. He thought, indeed, that the general use of voting papers in the way proposed would leave the electors open to private influence, unchecked by public opinion, and thus would render bribery more easy; and, in the case of Ireland especially, the result would be that the contest between the landlords and the Roman Catholic clergy would be carried on in secret, instead of being carried on, as at present, in a way which subjected them to the control of public opinion, and this would, in his opinion, be productive of great evil. It appeared to him that the system of voting papers was liable, to some extent, to the objections that had been so frequently made to the ballot—namely, that it withdrew the voter from the legitimate influence of the opinion of the public. The franchise was a trust held for the benefit of the whole community, and ought therefore to be exercised openly and in the sight of those for whom the trust was held. It might be said that disorder and violence sometimes attended elections conducted under the system of open personal voting, but those evils should be met by other means than the employment of voting papers. The first Amendment which he had to propose in the clause was that in line 8, after "conditions," there should be inserted "save as hereinafter mentioned;" and the second Amendment which he should wish to be adopted was, that at the end of the clause these words be added:—
  "Provided always that such Voting Paper shall only be valid when it shall appear on the face thereof, and the fact shall be, that at the time of signing the same the voter on whose behalf such Voting Paper is tendered was at least fifteen miles distant from the place where, if he voted in person, such voter would be required by law to tender his vote; provided also that if such voter shall come within the said distance of fifteen miles from his proper polling place between the time of his signing such Voting Paper and the close of the poll such Voting Paper shall thereby be cancelled, and such voter shall only be at liberty to vote at that election by attending at his proper polling place and recording his vote in person."
  In conclusion, he only wished to say that had the question to which his Amendment referred been a purely English one, he would, perhaps, not have troubled the House with it; but it was evident that if the principle was applied to England, it would also be applied in the cases of Scotland and Ireland. If, however, the opi-

  179
  nion of the Committee was against his Amendment, he would not press it.
  Amendment proposed, line 8, after "conditions," to insert "save as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Pim.)
  MR. BRIGHT: The clause which we are now considering is one of the most important clauses in this Bill. It proposes to make a change of a very remarkable character; it is entirely new, and I have never heard that anybody outside of the House has asked for it. Now it has been laid upon the table of the House by the Minister without a single sentence of explanation. I consider that to be very unusual—and not only unusual, but I venture to say that it is very improper—because I think the House has a right to hear, and Gentlemen opposite who support the Government have a right to demand to hear, that there is some ground for this change. The clause, however, is thrown upon the table, and those Gentlemen who have Amendments to it are beginning to move them, and the Committee is getting into every description of confusion. An Irish Gentleman (Mr. Pim) gives us a dissertation upon what will be the effect of the clause in Ireland, although the Bill does not refer to Ireland at all. Now, I say, that it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make out a case why this clause should be adopted—that is, if he can make out a case at all; while if he does not care about it, I shall be glad if he will withdraw it, which perhaps he would not have much difficulty in doing if he were pressed. At present, however, the House has a right to hear the grounds why a proposal so novel in its character as this is should have been submitted to Parliament.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was in line 8, after the word "conditions," to insert "save as hereinafter mentioned."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I merely wish to correct the hon. Member for Birmingham in his conception of the duties of the Leader of the House when the House is in Committee. This clause is in the Bill, and has not been newly laid upon the table by me, and it is not my duty to rise and explain every clause as it is brought forward. The Bill is in the possession of the House, and it is the Chairman who introduces this clause to our notice. At the proper time I shall be perfectly ready to vindicate this or any
  180
  other clause contained in the Bill; but it is no part of my duty to rise and explain every clause as it is submitted, and the hon. Member for Birmingham is labouring under an entire misconception in the remarks which he made.
  MR. BRIGHT: I say, if the Government had proposed to introduce the Ballot into this Bill—which is a very likely supposition, and not at all a thing not to be hoped for—if they had proposed the Ballot, it would undoubtedly have been the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the clause by which he proposed to do it. This is not an ordinary clause, like proposing an additional Member for Birkenhead or Salford, but it is a clause which embraces a principle of the highest importance. The proposal is something quite new, and enough to be a Bill in itself. I maintain, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, in justice to his own proposition, and also to the House, to explain the considerations which had induced him to bring it forward. But if the right hon. Gentleman has really nothing strong to say in favour of the clause, of course the discussion could go on.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to labour under a misconception. The question before the Committee was not whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin should be agreed to. He agreed that when the clause came on for discussion, there would be much to say upon it, and then it would be the duty of the Government to offer some explanation respecting it.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, that in moving the omission of the clause he should best discharge the duty which he had undertaken by at once stating that he would not say one word which should offend the feelings or convictions of hon. Gentlemen on either side.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin, which would require to be disposed of before any other Amendment could be moved upon the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. PIMsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee. He had always looked upon the Reform Bill as too important a measure to be made the ground of party tactics, and if it was the wish of

  181
  the majority of the Committee he should press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he must confess he had been somewhat, surprised by an observation which fell from the hon. Member for Birmingham. That hon. Gentleman was the last Member in the House who might be supposed determined to stand strictly super vias antiquas, and making so many appeals as he had lately done to the British Constitution; yet his chief objection to this clause appeared to be that it proposed something quite new. The spirit of hostility generally evinced opposite to this proposal was rather surprising; and it seemed to him (Sir John Walsh) that the clause had features which should recommend it to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. First of all, he must observe that it was essentially a great enfranchising clause. He did not mean to say it was literally, but certainly it was virtually so. It did not give the right of voting to those who had it not, but it gave the power and facility of voting to those who, having the right, would without this clause be entirely precluded from exercising it. At every contested election, notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts of the agents on both sides, a very large percentage of voters remained unpolled. Why should hon. Gentlemen who advocated an extension of the suffrage seek to preclude this large class from its exercise? Of whom did this large class consist? First of all there were the sick—those suffering from temporary illness or chronic disease. Then there were the aged, the infirm, and he might include the timid in the same category, who were more or less likely to be deterred by scenes such as too often occurred at elections. If, for instance, an election for Birmingham took place within the next few days, although the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) might himself be a great advocate for religious toleration, a good many might well be deterred from giving their votes by the scenes that had lately taken place there. There was also a considerable class of voters who, in the exercise of their calling and industry, were necessarily precluded, except at a great sacrifice of personal convenience, from being present at the time of election. And lastly there were the county voters who were not necessarily resident, and the nonresident voters were often the most independent of the whole constituency. Among
  182
  the population of 3,000,000 in this great metropolis, there could not be less than 10,000 persons, thriving tradesmen, many even artizans, and other persons, entitled to vote for counties in different parts of England; but these persons could not, without great expense, loss, and inconvenience, go and record their votes perhaps in Cumberland or Northumberland. Why should these classes not avail themselves of the facility afforded by this clause? There was another point also which was of very high importance, and on which this clause would have a most beneficial operation. He alluded to the expenses, which would be very much increased by the additional polling-places, which might be in a great measure dispensed with if this clause were adopted. Travelling expenses, too, were an evil, though perhaps a necessary evil, under the present system. These expenses, which were often in their nature bribes, might be prevented by the adoption of voting papers. If the House adopted this clause it could not have the slightest hesitation in declaring the payment of travelling expenses illegal; but it could not do so with justice unless it passed some provisions which would enable voters to vote without sacrifice of time and money. The points he now pressed had been repeatedly urged on both sides of the House, and more perhaps from the Opposition than from the Ministerial Benches. Perhaps the strongest and most important ground on which the use of voting papers could be advocated was that its tendencies would be to prevent and repress intimidation. That practice appeared to him undoubtedly to be the worst vice of our representative system, and also one of the greatest infringements on the liberty of the subject. One of the distinctions between bribery and intimidation was that the former was limited in its influence by the number of those bribed, while violence and outrage committed upon a few voters might intimidate a whole constituency. In a constituency of 1,000, 100 might be bribed directly; but if ten men were hurt, the other 990 men might all be intimidated. Election Committees had reported, where there had been intimidation, that it was not proved a sufficient number of voters had been intimidated to vitiate the election; but it was quite possible, although it might not be capable of proof, that the whole constituency might have been intimidated. He was afraid an impression was entertained

  183
  in some quarters that intimidation might be tolerated for some incidental or compensatory advantages, and the hon. Member for Dublin might be willing to set intimidation against the undue influence of landlords; but such a way of justifying one abuse by another was like a garotter justifying himself by saying he was not a pickpocket. [Mr. PIM: I never said anything of the sort.] He was glad to find he had misquoted an hon. Gentleman who never discussed great questions from a party point of view. Let hon. Members who thought that intimidation was useful, defend that position in the House. If there were sufficient reasons for adopting voting papers now and lessening intimidation, there would be still more when the constituencies were enlarged; and they should remember that intimidation might be exercised by 30,000 as well as by 3,000, and therefore they should look forward to periods when great populations might be excited in the manner in which they had been excited recently in Birmingham. Surely everything which could withdraw a man from the influence of dangerous excitement was to be welcomed, and doubly and trebly so in the state of things upon which we were entering. There was one more point, and that was the securities taken in the clause against personation and fraud. He contended that these securities were perfect, and that there could not be greater security with personal voting. A man's handwriting was as easily identified as his face, and the voting paper was to be presented by a voter who at the same time recorded his own vote. Surely under such circumstances, and with the liability to a year's penal servitude, there was as much security against personation as there was in other matters. Wills, powers of attorney, and deeds conveying hundreds of thousands of pounds, were not fenced in by more rigid precautions than was this simple act of voting. But it must be remembered that, in order to make this kind of forgery and fraud effectual, it must be done upon the greatest scale; hundreds and perhaps thousands of voting papers must be forged to produce any sensible effect on an election. On the whole, therefore, he contended that there was the greatest possible security against the abuses which some apprehended.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSrose to move that the clause be omitted from the
  184
  Bill. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have asked the House to adopt the principle which it embodied. At the time when the Bill was introduced he was under the impression that this clause was one of the inspirations that might be attributed to the constitution of the Government. He could not forget that the principle of voting papers had been advocated with great ability by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. That noble Lord was distinguished by a persistent will, and a legitimate ambition and desire to impose that will upon others. He therefore took for granted that the noble Lord's presence as a Secretary of State in the Cabinet was the cause why this clause was first introduced into the House of Commons as part and parcel of the Reform Bill. After the events, however, of February and March, when the Ministry was released from any obligation of adherence to its first intentions, he had hoped that this clause would have been withdrawn. He trusted that the House would not be prepared to change the fundamental principles of the constitution, which had always been favourable to personal and responsible voting. It had always been laid down alike by the law and by Statesmen that the proper custodee of the suffrage was the person who was to exercise it; and if they required it to be exercised by way of voting papers, or in any form in which it might be filched and stolen by landlords, agents, or any other persons, they would release the voter from that responsibility which the possession of the vote in the first instance placed upon him, and which they were bound to hold him to, because there was no doubt that until the actual hour of voting every one who discharged the function of an elector had been time out of mind—and he trusted would be for all time to come—held responsible for the mode in which he exercised the privilege of voting. He should be able to satisfy the House that if they passed this clause there would be at least half a dozen contingencies which would relieve the voter from responsibility. In the first place, the voting paper might never be properly delivered at the house of the voter; in the next, while it was in the house, and before the signature was attached, it might be mislaid or tampered with; in the third place, it might never be properly collected; in the fourth, if properly collected, it might not be properly delivered; and in

  185
  the fifth, after being delivered to the returning officer, it might be made away with and never be employed in the election. The experiment whether voting papers were best fitted to ensure a proper exercise of the right of voting by a multitudinous constituency had been tried exhaustively in the case of the voting for the poor law guardians, and had led to a complete failure in the working of the system, as he would presently show by official documents; and he would ask the Committee whether, when that system had failed in minor matters, they were prepared to risk the liberties of the country by adopting it in reference to the election of Members of Parliament? The annual | Reports of the Poor Law Commissioners showed that not two or three only, but various elections had been set aside by the Board at Gwydyr House on the specific ground of the voting papers not being properly delivered. In two instances—those of Swansea and Banbury—the voting papers, though properly delivered, were proved not to have been properly collected. Successive Presidents of the Poor Law Board, whose only object was to have inquiry conducted impartially, had reported that in certain cases they were obliged to set aside the elections on account of the improper collection of votes. It was true that in these cases the irregularities complained of might be said to have arisen from defects purely mechanical, and it might be suggested that they could be overcome by the adoption of special provisions. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) cheered. But why had not the remedy, in a course of thirty years, been applied? He (Mr. Torrens) and the noble Lord had argued that question before; and in the year 1857, when he ventured to propose a negative to the Motion brought forward by him and supported by all his great abilities, he had succeeded in convincing the House that the proposition was not a safe one. [An hon. MEMBER: That only applied to counties.] He would be glad to hear what distinction the hon. Member would draw between counties and boroughs in this matter. How did the system work in cases in which strong personal or party motives led to the improper interference of other individuals in the exercise of the vote? How was it carried out under the Poor Law system? He held in his hand some very remarkable cases, occurring in different years and in various parts of the
  186
  country, where elections had been set aside, not because voting papers had not been properly delivered or collected, but because every variety of fraud had been used, and it was discovered that the voting papers had been tampered with both before and after they were signed by the voter. In 1855 a friend of his, Mr. Doyle (than whom a more justly valued public servant the public service did not contain), an inspector under the Poor Law, was commissioned to inquire into the proceedings of the election of guardians at West Bromwich. He found that the proceedings were wholly unsustainable, and that in a variety of ways 340 votes had been tampered with by altering the voting papers in the houses of the voters. They were now going to create large constituencies. The setting aside of elections was part of the prerogative of the House, and all who had sat on Committees knew that unless there was a very grievous deflection from justice a Parliamentary Committee was exceedingly loth and unwilling to set aside an election. In the case of West Bromwich, although 340 frauds were proved to have been committed, they were not considered sufficient to set aside the return, and the wrongful guardians were allowed to remain in office and disburse the funds of the parish. They might say that that was an exceptional case; but what occurred the following year in Lambeth, under the very eave of the House? It was proved that agents went about tampering with the papers in the dwellings of the electors, and the magistrates were obliged to visit some of the offenders with fourteen days' imprisonment for their violation of the law; but such was the sympathy excited, and so strong were the party feelings enlisted on their behalf, that the Home Office was besieged by the churchwardens, the officers of the parish, and others, praying for the release of the persons who had been found guilty. That was ten years ago, it was true; but what happened at Cheltenham last year? Here was a case in which the Liberals were said to have been the offending parties, and therefore it might be thought to be the more deserving of consideration by Gentlemen opposite. The names of several clergymen of the Established Church, the masters of the College, and above nil, that of Colonel Taylor, a man, they were told, of unquestionably orthodox Conservative politics, were actually forged by the so-called Radicals, and those who forged them

  187
  were found guilty of having deposited the false votes. In order to show the House that exposure afforded no cheek to the evil, he would read a letter from Mr. Doyle on the subject. That gentleman said, speaking as a Poor Law Inspector, that his experience was that "wherever a sufficiently strong motive existed, he did not see how fraudulent practices under the voting paper system could be controlled or even discovered." He (Mr. Torrens) had never yet found any one who had had practical cognizance of the working of the system who did not say that it was honeycombed with fraud and falsehood. It was no answer to say that, for anything that appeared to the contrary, the majority of the elections of guardians were pure. That might be so, and it might also be said with regard to the majority of returns to that House, because the majority were made without contests; but they always provided against abuses that might arise, though they did not every day occur; and experience had shown them that under this system, as applied to the elections of guardians, there was a temptation to yield to the practice of personation, bribery, falsehood, fraud, forgery, and, worst of all, to the grossest intimidation. It was no answer to say that they could not adduce the proofs of these practices in all cases. Twice within the last twenty years the town of Leeds had become notorious for its malpractices in this respect, and twice it had become apparent that forgery had been resorted to in numerous cases in order to obtain votes on one side or the other. He himself, some years ago, presented his lamented friend Mr. Talbot Baines, then President of the Poor Law Board, with a memorial from certain of the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth, where it was believed that illegal practices in the election of the guardians had prevailed. No man was more anxious to do his duty than his late right hon. Friend, who studied to the utmost every case of hardship and grievance that came before him; but he (Mr. Torrens) well recollected his explaining to him the difficulties that beset any attempt to repair the injustice done, or in getting primâ facie proof of neglect and fraud sufficient to justify a special inquiry. He (Mr. Torrens) tried to procure that proof in the case of Yarmouth, but failed to do so from the reluctance of persona to undertake the odious task of coming forward to give evidence, and he gave it up with a full conviction that all his
  188
  efforts to procure a successful inquiry would be unavailing. Impunity led to the recurrence of the same evils at Yarmouth year after year, and at length investigations were directed to be held. He had before him the report of Sir John Walsham, who had presided at both these special inquiries. He stated that although there was evidence that there had been every description of tampering and deceit, yet, after setting aside a great many votes, there remained a sufficient number still, unsifted, through lack of positive proof, to prevent the election from being set aside. The consequence of impunity was, that the malpractices went on, and became still worse than before, and in the end, although the next election was set aside, it was only after sitting again and again for weeks to obtain the necessary evidence. The election for Poor Law guardians generally took place in April, and he found, looking at the Reports of the Courts of Inquiry, that even where they had been set aside on the ground of fraud and malversation, they were not set aside till months after the return, and in one case as late as the month of November. Taking into account the fact that there was rarely sufficient motive to induce persona to incur all the expense and odium of prosecuting these inquiries, they might safely infer that for every ten cases in which the Commissioners set aside the election there were one hundred which escaped, and where the inquiry, if held, did not touch the marrow of the case. When they were conferring on the people of this country a great extension of the franchise, it was their bounden duty not to lead them into temptation at the moment they were offering them a privilege, and it would be a very sad thing if, without designing it, they gave over the people for a prey to all the arts of electioneering agents and to all the temptations of deception and corruption which might be brought to bear upon them. It would be far better to throw out the Bill altogether than to expose the people to such misery and mischief as would result from its adoption with this clause. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford could not have forgotten the memorable speech made in 1857 on this subject by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, who on that occasion expressed his opinion of the system of voting papers in the following terms:—
  "I object to adopt this system because I believe it will greatly increase the practice of personation.

  189
  I object to it because it will infinitely aggravate the practice of intimidation. I object to it because it will still more increase bribery by milking it safe. Up to this time there has always been a doubt that either the briber or the bribed may play false. By the system of voting papers the thing will become safe. The poor man will receive his £5 note, and the bribing agent will receive not the promise, but the thing itself, the vote."
  Such was the language of the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and it was therefore on no light ground that he (Mr. Torrens) ventured to express his belief that all the Members of the Administration would not be found upon a division supporting this clause. He asked them to consider the case of the humbler classes of voters. He had no wish to treat the question ad misericordiam, but he thought they were bound not to place them in a situation in which temptation would be easy and detection difficult. Was it right that the agent should be able to find the voter at home with his voting paper, and be able to appeal to the wants of his children and perhaps the fears of his wife? Was it just to leave the voter exposed to all the baneful influences to which, if the voting paper system were adopted, he would undoubtedly be exposed to the very last hour of polling? It was neither fair nor in accordance with the theory and practice of the Constitution that the control of a man's vote should be given to him in such a form as to make it a marketable commodity, which he might sell like a bill of exchange or a pawn ticket. In such a case it would be wholly different to a promise made to an agent, because the voting paper, after being signed and the consideration given for it, would be doubled up and carried away in the pocket of the agent. It had been argued by some hon. Members that this was a step towards the Ballot. Never was there a greater mistake. So far from its being a step towards it, it was in reality a step away from it. The Ballot might be right or it might be wrong, but, at all events, it professed to be a neutralization of influences of a private and personal kind, which were often made oppressive, and which voting papers would make more oppressive still. He should never hesitate to reject the system of voting papers, because he was convinced that such would be the magnitude of the evils that it would give rise to, that within seven years of their adoption they would be condemned alike by the nation and the House, and the Legislature would be
  190
  obliged to retrace its steps. In conclusion, he would urge on both sides of the House that they ought, to discuss this question free from party feeling. He was sure that hon. Members who sat below the gangway upon that side of the House might appeal to the Ministers of the Crown whether they had not given proofs that they were willing to support the present measure at the cost of party feeling, and he implored the Government now, when they had approached so nearly to a conclusion, not to undo all that had been done by the adoption of a Clause so fatal to the efficacious working of a Reform Bill as this would be.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made so pointed a reference to me, that, though it was not my intention to trespass upon the indulgence of the Committee, I can hardly allow his remarks to pass without some reply. I beg, in the first place, to remind him that this is not the first time a proposal for the use of voting papers has appeared in a Reform Bill. It was a feature of Lord Derby's Bill in 1859; and as I was not a Member of that Government, the hon. Gentleman is not warranted in attributing its presence in this Bill to my having been a Member of the present Government at the beginning the year. But there is another mistake of the hon. and learned Member, which is of a far more vital character; and I cannot but think that the hon. and learned Member, having heard the words "voting papers," has come to argue the matter without having ever inquired into what the provisions of the Bill are. He has made a most elaborate and able attack upon the system of voting papers under the Poor Law, and, without apparently having the faintest conception that there is the slightest difference between that system and the provisions of this Bill, he has applied bodily to the one all the objections applicable to the other. But what is the real state of the case? Under the Poor Law system the paper is left with the voter, he fills it up in private, and, without any precaution for its authenticity, it is afterwards collected by some subordinate official who calls for that purpose. Now, the provisions of this Bill are of as different a character as it is possible for them to be. All that this Bill does is to carry the poll into every magistrate's drawing-room. Well, that is a principle which I will justify presently; but let me

  191
  remind the Committee of this,—that the precautions which are taken are such as absolutely to prevent the practices to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as occurring under the system of the Poor Law. The papers must be signed in the presence of a magistrate, and in the presence of a magistrate who can personally speak to the identity of the voter. He must attest that identity by his own signature, and the papers so signed and so attested must be presented at the polling booth by another voter who can also testify on oath to the voter's identity. I cannot imagine any proceeding of ordinary life which would not be thought to be made sufficiently secure by such precautions. Will any hon. Gentleman who knows what the magistrates of this country are, tell me that it will be an ordinary practice for a magistrate to be an accomplice in bribery, and to allow a £5 note to be handed over to the voter in his presence? ["No, no!" from the Opposition.] Do you mean to cast such a slur on the magistrates of this country? ["No, no!"] Well, but if you do not do that your whole case breaks down. ["No, no!"] It is perfectly true that the agent may bribe the man before he goes to the magistrate or afterwards, but so he may before or after he goes to the polling booth. The cases are exactly the same; the only check under your present system is that the bribe cannot pass at the moment the vote is given, and under the plan proposed by this Bill that check retains precisely the same force. The bribe cannot pass at the moment the vote is given, unless you are prepared to believe that Justices of the Peace will be open accomplices of bribery. I am rather sorry that the term "voting paper" has been used, because it is associated with the system under the Poor Law, which has failed. Voting, let us remember, consists of two parts. There is the declaration of the vote, and there is the registration of the vote. But for the registration of the vote, which is an expensive operation, you would make polling places so numerous that everybody would be able to vote with the greatest ease; but on account of the expenses of registration, you are obliged to confine voting places to a comparatively limited number. Now, the proposal of this Bill is to separate the declaration of the vote from the registration of it, but it takes the precaution that the declaration shall be made before an equally responsible person; for, while
  192
  the registration must be made before the polling clerk, it insists that the declaration shall be made before a Justice of the Peace, and I cannot understand on what possible pretence it can be contended that the vote is less secure before the magistrate than before the polling clerk. I ventured to give a vote the other night against a proposal of Her Majesty's Government, because I believed it would expose us to two great dangers—one being the increase of illegitimate expense, and the other the practical disfranchisement of the more educated classes in the great towns. For precisely the same reasons I shall vote for this proposal. I believe those two evils to be the greatest with which we have to contend, and I believe this provision will be to some extent a safeguard against them. Everyone acquainted with county elections knows that the difficulty of getting the voter to the poll is the main burden of expense. If you insist on the voter going to the poll, you must allow expenses of some kind; for you could not sanction anything so outrageous as to say that a man, a poor man, shall travel twelve or fourteen miles at his own expense in order to enjoy the privilege of exercising the franchise. Such a measure, if enacted, would fall immediately before the common sense of the country. You must, then, allow expenses to be paid. Now, you are about to increase the county constituencies very largely by lowering the qualification from £50 to £12. I never contested a county myself, but I believe the average expense at present ranges between £3,000 and £10,000, and if that is the case it is a simple rule of three sum for anybody to ascertain what the expense will be under this Bill; for, if the main burden of election expenses arises from conveying voters to the poll, the expense of elections will be obviously increased in precisely the proportion that the number of voters to be conveyed will be increased. Here, however, is a proposal which will enable you to get rid of this enormous burden of expense, and will proportionately diminish one of the great hindrances to the entrance of poor talent into this House. It is a great evil that our election expenses should be so great. It is a great evil, not only in the interest of poor talent, but in the interest of the landed class to which I have the honour to belong, because at the present day wealth is not with them. The greatest wealth is with a very different class, and the increased

  193
  expense of county elections will operate to our disadvantage. But there is also a greater evil. Everybody knows that where money passes from the candidate to the voter it carries other money with it. If there are payments of any kind to be made, illegitimate payments will be made as well as legitimate, and the system of travelling expenses is, I believe, fruitful in illegitimate expenses which are hardly to be separated from bribery. On these grounds, and for the sake of purging our elections of illegitimate expenses, I earnestly recommend the proposal now before the House. There is likewise another consideration. There are the more educated classes in the great towns. Now, I remember in 1857 an hon. Gentleman opposite objected to my Motion, and taunted me with proposing the woman's plan of voting, because I had urged that it would enable timid persons, people who did not like to face the row and bustle and sometimes the danger of pushing their way to the polling-booth, to exercise the franchise, I hope the lapse of time has altered his opinion. One of the most remarkable things in large constituencies is the way in which the people who are fastidious or timid, or who are much engaged, habitually abstain from voting. We know it in this metropolis. There is the borough of which I am a voter, Marylebone, which, with 21,000 voters, has never polled more than 10,000. So with the City of London; everybody knows that a great number of the wealthiest and most important men in that the most important constituency of the Empire never approach the polling-booth at all. You may rail at those men, and say they ought to be bold enough not to mind righting their way to the poll and being bonneted and spat at, or having a brick heaved at their head here and an orange there, and that they ought to face these things for the sake of their country. But they will not. Say what you will to press these men to undertake this patriotic duty, yon will be met by the stern fact that they will not come. The truth is, that, except on very extraordinary occasions, the feeling of patriotism is not sufficiently strong to make a man care much for a fourteen-thousandth part in returning a metropolitan Member. But whether these men ought to come or not, it is your interest, now that you are trying to get at the mind of the whole nation, now that you are trying to make this House the representa-
  194
  tive of every class, neglecting none, to do all you can to encourage these men to express their opinions. Considering what the greatness of this country rests on, and what the class of merchants have done for it, I should be inclined to test the efficiency of any system of recording votes by asking whether the votes of those who are practically interested in commercial affairs, and other analagous classes who are well qualified to give an opinion upon the most important questions which agitate this community, are collected at the hustings. It does seem to me that the fact that in this great metropolis the more cultivated classes abstain from the polling-booth is the most fearful condemnation of the system you are trying to change. The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked of the present proposal being new. It is very strange, but the objection to anything being new comes now entirely from Gentlemen of his extreme opinions. I venture rather to say that when you choose to introduce anything that is new you must have a great deal that is new. It does not do to innovate a little. You must innovate a great deal, and this is one of the last things which I should have thought an advocate for progress would resist. Why did not people 500 years ago send their votes through the post? Why, because there was no post, and therefore they went to the poll. But this disability imposed upon them by the backwardness of the age is dear to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he erects it into one of the institutions of the British Constitution. We ought to take advantage of every convenience of science and art, and to use every contrivance that can aid to gather together the opinions of all, whether feeble or strong, whether poor or rich, whether sick or healthy, whether distant from the polling-booth or near it. And the system that professes to do this is one which in the solitary instance in which it has been tried has exhausted the opinions of the constituency to which it has been applied. Such a system ought not to be lightly rejected by the House, and if the House obstinately adheres to the old system, which has been tried and a hundred times found wanting, it will be guilty of a conservatism from which I recoil—a conservatism of all that is barbarous and inconvenient—a conservatism of what I may be pardoned for saying is stupid and absurd.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: It appears

  195
  to me that this is eminently a practical subject, and it is not possible to deny that much may be said on both sides of the question. The noble Lord has presented, with his accustomed ability, the reasons in favour of this proposal. After the best consideration that I can give to the subject, it appears to me that the reasons against its adoption greatly preponderate. The Act for taking voting papers at elections for the Universities has been tried under circumstances most favourable to its success. They are constituencies which no one for a moment can suppose to be open to corruption or intimidation, and there is every guarantee for the sound judgment and integrity of every officer who is called upon to administer the Act. I can give the Committee some information as to the practical working of the Act, because I happen to be legal adviser to the University of Oxford, and I can assure the Committee that a multitude of questions of practical difficulty arose at the last contested election for the University of Oxford. Every post brought me questions from the Vice Chancellor and others concerned in the election, and sometimes I received them by telegram as well as by post. I believe that the questions which would arise under the system of voting papers in elections for boroughs and counties would be still more numerous, and more difficult of practical solution than those at the elections for the Universities. If there were no other objection to the present Motion, this would be worthy of attention, but there are many important considerations winch connect themselves with the practical working of the system. There must be a person to collect the voting papers; and, either by hook or by crook, he must be able to say that he is personally acquainted with the voter. Now, there are a great variety of ways in which a person may do this. He may have a real knowledge of the voter, or he may speak at second-hand—say that some one whom he trusts and knows enables him to authenticate the identity of the voter. The result is that the statement must too often degenerate into a mere matter of form. Even in the elections of the Universities, where the election agents are men of the utmost honour and integrity, they are obliged to speak of personal acquaintance with the voter in some such way as this—that they know that there is such a voter on the books of the College, and that they have some sort of knowledge that
  196
  satisfies them that he is the individual who signed the voting paper. But if there is this difficulty of attesting a vote in the case of the comparatively select constituencies of the Universities, it may safely be assumed that in other places you could never rely on getting a real, trustworthy, practical knowledge of the voter. Again, when all these voting papers are collected together in one man's hands, what security have you that they will be used? This Bill does not provide against the suppression of voting papers, and there is danger lest the election agents should make them the instruments of negotiation. They may be kept back; there may be a bargain for withholding them; and they may become mere instruments for managing difficult elections. They may be given in during the whole interval which elapses from the time when the returning officer declares the day of election and the day on which the election takes place; so that those who are interested in getting promises and bringing their influence to bear upon voters may take them at once before the nearest magistrate; or the magistrate may himself take part in the canvass, and may come to them. They will strike while the iron is hot. The voter must declare that he has signed no other paper, and the Act literally interpreted may be held to take away any power of retracting the voting paper when it is once given or giving another to nullify its effect. The only way in which this can safely be done is by the voter going and voting in person. That opens the widest door to every kind of undue influence, and you are by this proposal giving a machinery for putting the screw upon voters which will create the greatest public discontent. This proposal of voting papers is the exact antipodes of the ballot. That is intended to withdraw the voters from influence, but the effect of this system is to bring the voter under the pressure of the utmost possible influence, and then to take away the power of retracting his promise. If the voter wrote to the agent to say he was not to deliver the voting paper, and the agent set him at defiance and gave it in, the voter could not help himself except by going to the poll and giving his vote in person. Such a system will to a great extent aggravate all the evils of canvassing. Persons supposed to have influence over the voter will get hold of him privately, either in his own house or theirs, and will bring all their influence to bear. The man may

  197
  say, "I would rather not promise now." But all sorts of pressure will be used. The man may be urged to give his promise, and, if it be not a magistrate who urges him, and who can himself do the business, he will be taken at once before the nearest magistrate. With regard to personation, the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords on the working of the Municipal Corporation Act shows that the use of voting papers at municipal elections leads to a very great amount of personation. These voting papers, under that Act, are given in by the voter himself, who swears that he is the person whose name appears on the voting paper; he is required to answer all proper questions put for the purpose of identification; and he is liable to the penalties of misdemeanour if he answers falsely. Yet all this does not prevent the evil of personation. What are the checks against personation provided under this Bill? As far as I can see, there are only two. The first is, that the magistrates before whom the paper is signed must state that the voter is personally known to him, and the person who delivers in the proxy must say the same I wonder it has not occurred to the authors of this Bill that a common form prescribed in an Act of this kind will be interpreted by those who carry it out in the most lax way, even without any intentional absence of conscientiousness. I do not impute it to them as anything blamable, but many magistrates would look upon the words referring to a personal knowledge of the voter as a mere matter of form, if there was no reason to suspect anything wrong in the case. If the voter was introduced by a person whom they knew, they would say to their friend, "Do you know this to be the person whose name is signed?" and if he said, "Yes," the paper would be signed without further inquiry. I do not say that nine out of ten of them; but, even amongst ourselves, a very large proportion of hon. Members would regard the personal introduction to them of a man by another who was known to them as a sufficient ground for saying that they personally knew him. There would, therefore, be no effectual check whatever against a large amount of personation, and the experience of the Municipal Corporation Acts proves that that evil is not sufficiently guarded against by making the persona guilty of it subject to the penalties of misdemeanour. But in
  198
  this Bill there are no effective penalties provided against personation. Its penalties are levelled merely at the parties who may actually fabricate or palm off a falsified voting paper. There is no penalty applicable to any man, other than the person actually making a declaration prescribed by the Act, who wrongfully says he has a personal knowledge of the voter; the penalty is confined simply to the forgery of the voting paper, and to wilfully false declarations by the justice or the proxy: and, of course, the person using it might not know that it was not genuine. Thus the various instruments in the transaction might escape the penalties altogether. This, therefore, is the very machinery you would use if you wanted to facilitate the intimidation of the poorer voters. There are one or two other points on which I wish briefly to touch. It has been said that we ought to make it easy for people at a distance to vote. Now, I am not sure of that. We have rejected the principle of plural voting at the same election. But at present a species of plural voting exists in favour of the wealthy classes which would be greatly increased if this provision is adopted. I hope I may be pardoned if I take my own case as an example; but on counting over the number of votes I am now entitled to give I find they amount to seventeen or eighteen in the whole, for seven different constituencies. Practically speaking, I cannot use them all, because I cannot be in so many different places; yet I am generally able to give my vote at more elections than one. But by the proposed system I should be able to give every one of those seventeen or eighteen votes. Now, I confess I think the influence of the wealthier classes is sufficient already, and I believe it will I continue to be sufficient under this Bill in whatever form it is passed, and it does not seem to me a recommendation of this proposal that it would tend directly to multiply that influence. At the same time, I can understand that different views may be taken by the noble Lord and others on that point. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Stamford that it would be a desirable thing to bring about a diminution of the expenses of elections—but I think that may be done by less objectionable methods than the proposal now before the House — such, for instance, as multiplying the polling-places, so as to enable the electors to vote as near as possible to their own homes. On the

  199
  whole, I repeat that the balance of argument appears to me greatly to preponderate against the clause.
  MR. BERKELEYsaid, he had been all his life an advocate for the protection of the elector; he had therefore carefully looked into this measure, with a view to see whether it would afford any protection to the voter, and he had arrived at the conclusion that it would have decidedly the contrary effect. It would greatly facilitate bribery, because the voter would go to the agent for corrupt practices, make his bargain with him, and could obtain the money at the same time that he handed over the paper. Those whom it would really protect were the men who wished to intimidate the honest voter and to corrupt the needy or the venal one. On this subject he might quote the opinion of a right hon. Baronet now no more, whose memory was held in honour in that House—the late Sir James Graham, That right hon. Baronet, in the debate on the voting papers in the Bill of 1859, in a graphic sketch described how the landlord would issue his instructions to his agent to see that the tenants all signed their papers; that the forms were correctly observed; that they were correctly attested before a magistrate, and then all the votes on the estate might be obtained without the cost of a breakfast. The same high authority expressed his firm conviction that the adoption of voting papers would so increase both bribery and intimidation that after the first general election the demand for absolute secresy of voting and the ballot would become universal. When the University Act was passed, Sir James Graham said that the Tory Government, having ceded the right of voting by papers, must eventually yield the ballot. To that opinion, he thought, some importance ought to be attached, and if the present Bill were passed with the obnoxious clause under discussion, it would be found—the suffrage having been extended to the lower orders, who, though they might be honest, were more open to be influenced than those who occupied a more independent position—that at the next general election a state of things would prevail which all lovers of their country must greatly regret; intimidation would become stronger than ever, and bribery would be found in every corner of the country.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I, for one, am very anxious to see this clause adopted, and as reference has been made to a speech
  200
  which was in 1857 delivered by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs [Mr. BRIGHT: In 1859.] No, in 1857. I beg to remind the Committee that that speech was made before the clauses providing for security of voting were adopted in the Bill of 1859, and before that Act of Parliament was passed, of which we have this evening heard so much from the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, introducing this mode of voting into the University of Oxford. I will upon that point only add that my noble Friend is a party to the proposal which we now make. As to the debate generally, I may say that I have observed its tone with great satisfaction. It has been truly stated that this is not a party question. It is entirely one of a practical character. What we have to determine is whether or not we are likely, by the adoption of this system of voting papers, to improve the conduct of our elections. As one of those who were responsible for the Bill of 1859, I have always felt very strongly that such a system would be productive of the greatest advantage provided due precautions could be taken against its abuse. I admit that a great deal may be said on both sides. The first consideration that presents itself to the mind of every one is, whether or not there is danger in the introduction of the system. I admit that there is great weight in what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us the result of his experience with respect to the late election for the University of Oxford; but it appears to me that he overrated the practical difficulties which he says arose in that instance. I would beg his attention to the language of the declaration which is to be made by the person who represents a voter at the poll. It is this:—"I solemnly declare that I am personally acquainted with A. B."—the voter. Now, am I to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman as having stated in the face of such words as these that members of the University of Oxford, gentlemen of high standing, did not hesitate to make such a declaration with respect to persons of whom they knew nothing?
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: Certainly not. What I meant to convey was that there might be an introduction to which faith might be attached, though the person introduced might be unknown to him to whom the introduction, was given.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Well, I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will at once admit that the case of the University of Oxford is very different from that of other constituencies. The long distances which many of the University voters have to come to tender their votes would in itself constitute a reason why greater laxity of practice should exist than would probably be the case with regard to voters in boroughs. But as in place of a single security the Bill provides a double security. I think this may fairly be held to be sufficient. I would, besides, appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether he did not to a considerable extent meet the objections which he has urged against the proposed mode of voting when he stated that if it were admitted great care would be necessary in revising this Act of Parliament. Now we have no objection that that revision should take place, and there would, I think, be very little practical difficulty in adopting a machinery which would prevent personation or any of the other abuses which the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out. The hon. Member for Finsbury, too, dwelt at great length on the experience to be derived from the working of the Poor Law; but his observations have been so well answered by my noble Friend the Member for Stamford that I need not advert to them at any length. The experience derived from the Poor Law is really no experience at all, because the whole system of giving votes under its operation is entirely distinct from that which we propose in this Bill. In the first place, in the case of the Poor Law, there is no alternative, inasmuch as there is only one mode of voting, a man having no power to go up to a hustings and to give his vote; and, in the second, there is far greater opening for abuse. But if there be some difficulty in the way of adopting the proposal which we make, let me ask the Committee to consider its advantages. It will, as has been forcibly pointed out by my noble Friend the Member for Stamford, greatly tend to diminish expense, one of the admitted evils attendant on elections; and one which, unless some steps are taken to check it, will, I am afraid, be increased under the operation of this Bill. As to intimidation, I do not apprehend, notwithstanding the quotations from the speeches of Sir James Graham made by the hon. Member for Bristol, that the power of landlord to
  202
  coerce his tenants would be greater under the system of voting papers than under that of open voting. There is no doubt that if the landlords wish to exercise the power they possess they can do so to a large extent, but I cannot think that power will be in the least degree increased in consequence of the facilities which we propose to give, while, upon the other hand, that sort of intimidation which consists in personal violence and in the difficulty which many persons find in obtaining access to the hustings will be entirely done away with. I am not sanguine enough to think that it will have any great effect in the way of diminishing bribery; but I believe, so far as it goes, it will tend to diminish it. The case put by the hon. Member for Finsbury as to one party giving the money and the other signing the paper I consider a purely imaginary one. The hon. Member forgets that the transaction will not be between the candidate and the voter at all; the party must go before the magistrate, and there the voting paper must be signed. The real question seems to be, first of all—will not this give great facility in the exercise of the franchise; will it not avoid intimidation; will it not greatly diminish expense; and will it not extend the power of voting to many who, from one cause or another, are practically prevented from exercising their votes? These, in my opinion, are the advantages that will arise from the adoption of this clause. On the other hand, there is the question whether the machinery is or can be made such as to prevent the possible evils that may arise. I do not deny the existence of these evils; but if the law is as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, there can be very little difficulty in amending it to protect the voter from any of those evils which he anticipates. I cannot I therefore help thinking the balance of advantages is in favour of adopting the mode of voting proposed by the clause.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I am not one of those who would be deterred from giving my support to any measure because it was a new one; but I cannot help thinking that the question brought before us is rather in the nature of a tentative reform. I do not recollect any Bill in which such a clause has been introduced. It introduces a totally new principle in the taking of votes, both in counties and boroughs. The clause says that—
  "Any elector may give his vote by a voting

  203
  paper in the same manner and subject to the same conditions in and subject to which an elector of any of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge or Dublin, may give his vote, and all the provisions of the Acts—quoting them—shall, with the requisite variations, apply accordingly"
  to counties and boroughs. "Requisite variations!" What can this House know about "requisite variations?" I say under these "requisite variations" the House is rushing into alterations of the whole system of taking votes which will give facility, not to the voters, but to fraud. The right hon. Baronet has talked of our inexperience in these matters. It is true, we are totally inexperienced. An University franchise is no fair parallel to establish. It is an educated constituency, where all can read and write; but you are going to apply the mode of voting at an University election to the great mass of the constituencies, a great portion of whom cannot write. Yet, even in the case of the Universities I believe the greatest difficulty has been found in connection with the voting papers; and if mistakes have been made there, what may we not expect in the case of unenlightened populations containing many who are unable to write at all, or who can only write with very great difficulty? We have heard something of transferring the poll to the magistrate's drawing-room, but that is one reason why I should oppose this clause. This transference to the magistrates' drawing-rooms — what does it mean? We know very well how magistrates are made in this country. Is it not notorious that batches of them are made at, a time? How is it? If a Conservative Lord Chancellor comes in he makes a batch of Conservative magistrates; and if a Liberal, or what is called a Liberal, Lord Chancellor comes in, he makes a batch of Liberal magistrates, not because they are wealthy or influential, but because they have been useful to their party. ["No, no!"] Oh, but it is so. We have had that subject canvassed in this House repeatedly, and only the other night a question of that sort was raised. Suppose a voter should go before a Dover magistrate. What would his scruples be, do you think? Whatever the House does, do not let it make the great mistake of transferring the whole of this business to the magistrate's drawing-room. We know what would take place in this country under such circumstances, and I would ask the House what would be likely to take place in the magistrate's drawing-room in the sister country. Party feeling runs
  204
  very high there. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to get up and quote great sentences from Acts of Parliament to show that gentlemen cannot do this and cannot do the other. They would not do it in cold blood; but in the excitement of a contested election, and under great pressure—with a Conservative party, it may be, to bring into power in order to pass a Reform Bill—what would be done then? Let us avoid as much as we can this transference to the magistrate's drawing-room. I do not say there may not be many conveniences in voting papers in certain cases, and with regard to absent voters, but the House should regard not merely the convenience of the people who lived at a distance from the polling-booth, but the probable effect of such a measure as this on the great masses of the people in promoting fraud, corruption, and intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has quoted from a speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn who certainly made one of the strongest speeches on principle against a proposal of this nature; but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the noble Lord was now a member of the Government. The fact of being a member of the Government certainly did involve some monstrous changes. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that this is a leap in the dark when he talked of the inexperience of the House in regard to it. The Government had taken one of the greatest possible leaps in the dark in introducing this Bill at all. The noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) had also been against a scheme of this kind, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War himself, in one of his confidential meetings with his constituents at Droitwich, had deprecated this system of voting papers before he joined the Government in 1859. The question may not be discussed in a party sense, but how will it be used? For party purposes. They would be having every borough magistrate—selected not for his great respectability or wealth, but for his great exertions on behalf of one party or the other—continually straining a point or two when poor trembling John Thomas was taken into the drawing-room and asked how he meant to vote. Away with the fallacy of supposing that because you are bringing the poll into the magistrate's drawing-room you are advancing freedom of election to the people of England! This

  205
  may become a very serious question. I never heard so large a question brought forward in such a manner. The hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire was the mouthpiece of the Government. He made the only explanation the House has yet received of the clause. Nothing was said on the second reading about voting papers. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have been appealed to, but the character of the constituency there is very different from that of the country at large. In the case of the Universities the constituency is to a great extent non-resident; the character of the other constituencies consists in the localism of the voters. But even the experience of Oxford is not in favour of the new system, because the resident voters by a considerable majority polled for the candidate who was turned out, while the non-residents brought in the sitting Member. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is at all anxious for the adoption of this clause. It is only another instance of the bucolic pressure put on the Government, and the more enlightened minds on the Treasury Bench dislike it. Had it been otherwise the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself have explained it. I have always noticed as a remarkable fact that those clauses which the right hon. Gentleman does not like he never says a word about and never attempts to explain; but he generally puts up either the Secretary of State for War (Sir John Pakington) or the Home Secretary (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) to do the work for him. Let us do our work, however, consistently, and for once give a vote which shall destroy in the bud this endeavour to debauch and defraud the constituencies of the country.
  MR. KARSLAKEsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Nottingham was justified in saying that the House were about to take a jump in the dark, for voting papers had already been tried at Oxford and Cambridge with great success. They had heard most important testimony as to the working of the new system from one of the best authorities—his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond—as he was not only a University man, but University Counsel. They had been led to expect that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond would say something new which would have an important bearing on the clause, and that he would give instances of personation and misconduct such as had been suggested, but all
  206
  he said was that the Vice Chancellor for the time being had stated to him, as Counsel for the University, a number of cases on a variety of minute points on which he (the Vice Chancellor) required assistance. If all the objection that could be adduced to the working of this system of voting papers in connection with the Universities was that from time to time he had been troubled with difficult cases, there was not much to fear from its adoption in other constituencies. It was not to be expected they could adopt any new system without encountering difficulties for which a solution must be found. He listened with surprise to the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that there had been no request out of doors for the introduction of voting papers, The borough which he had the honour to represent (Colchester), long before it was known that the Government would propose this clause and long before it was known there would be an election in anticipation of the general election, had urged upon him that as regarded that borough and others similarly situated, there was hardly anything of more importance than the adoption of voting papers; and no such "bucolic pressure," as that referred to by the hon. Member for Nottingham, had been applied to produce that conviction. The advantage of the system was manifest. There really could be no difficulty in the matter. He did not see that there could be any distinction drawn between Oxford and Cambridge and other parts of the country. What possible good could there be in bringing a man, at an inclement season of the year, more than seven miles over hilly roads in order to record his vote? He had had to canvass a man over ninety years old, and stone blind, and finding that he was seven miles off the polling-booth, was inclined to say, "Although I have come to ask you for your vote, as I shall have plenty of votes without yours, I would rather lose it than put you to the trouble of coming." [An hon. MEMBER: But did you say it?] He did. [Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS: That blind man could not fill up a voting paper.] Most blind men, even those who had been blind from birth, could make a mark, and might be permitted to do so in the presence of respectable magistrates. If the country at large would benefit by the introduction of voting papers, the objections ought not to prevent the adoption of the

  207
  system. The effect of not adopting it was to put money in the pockets of the proprietors of vehicles which brought voters to the poll. The opinion was entertained on both sides of the House that election expenses ought to be curtailed. They must necessarily be large in a borough with a radius of seven miles, and the expenses in question ought to be got rid of unless it could be shown that proportionate advantages depended upon their continuance, The hon. and learned Member for Richmond was hardly as qualified as others to express an opinion on the subject, because for many years it had been his good fortune to escape a contested election; and therefore he did not regard the matter of expense as many other Members did. He was by no means prepared to admit it was an objection that a man might have seventeen votes, for the possessors of such a number would generally be men of education, and if the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had so many, and gave one in the borough of Colchester, he should expect, as a Conservative, to receive the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was described in Dod as a Conservative, although he sat on the opposite side of the House. He believed this clause was a step in the right direction, and he believed that this clause, instead of increasing bribery, corruption, and intimidation, would, beyond all doubt, sensibly diminish those evils. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to consider it a grievance that a man should be compelled to make up his mind ten days before an election; but he (Mr. Karslake) suspected that the man who insisted on waiting until the last minute to make up his mind was very likely to have a sinister reason for doing so. The objections which had been urged against the clause did not go to the principle, they only applied to details; and if the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) could make the clause more stringent and more effective, he would be listened to with attention. It was hard to understand how intimidation could possibly be increased by enabling men to stay away if they chose, and only if they chose, to avoid the turmoil of an election. It seemed to him that you thereby saved men of weak physique from the chance of intimidation by mob violence, and that both corruption and intimidation must of necessity most materially decrease if this plan were adopted. There was no reason to
  208
  suppose that the provision would be carried into effect in any cases except those in which it would be almost impossible for people to appear at the polling-booths; for they might depend upon it that Englishmen would be Englishmen still, and would continue to present themselves wherever there was a chance—he would not say of a row, but of a crowd, and there was a duty to be performed. But there were persons whom it was desirable to protect from the excitement of a contested election; and let it be remembered that the public peace was frequently in danger of being disturbed upon those occasions. Such a danger had arisen in the case of the last election for the borough (Colchester) which he himself had the honour of representing; and he appealed in justification of that statement to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Rebow), from whom he differed in politics, but for whom he entertained the highest personal respect. If voting papers were used candidates would clearly be saved a heavy expenditure in the conveyance of voters to the poll. Moreover, this was no mere experiment, but a tried system, which might, he believed, with the necessary changes, be extended with advantage from the Universities to the constituencies at large, and he hoped the Committee would adopt the proposal as a remedy for admitted evils in our electoral system.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken on this question principally with reference to borough elections; but the chief aim of the clause was in another direction. The hon. and learned Gentleman could hardly have looked into the Act on the subject of the University voting papers, or he would have found that it could not be applied in the same way to borough elections. The Act required that the voting papers should be dated after the day fixed for the election. Now, in the case of University elections which lasted for eight days, there would be ample time for filling up the papers after the day of election was fixed; but in the case of boroughs where the return came so quickly after the day of election, the use of voting papers would be a very different thing. He did not, indeed, believe that there was any such practical difficulty in the use of voting papers as might not be overcome. But, nevertheless, it did happen that a great many educated gentlemen going before educated magistrates did not know

  209
  how to comply with the requisition, and that he could state from his own experience. If, then, many Masters of Arts were unable to fill up the voting papers properly, how much more reason was there to apprehend that ordinary electors would often fail to conform to the conditions of the clause? But it was in counties principally that it was supposed that these voting papers would make a large number of votes available. Under the law as it stood a 40 s. rent-charge on the land would give a vote, although, under present circumstances, the landlords, who could create them, did not much abuse their privilege, If, however, this clause were to pass, there would be the greatest possible temptation to landholders, whether Conservative or Liberal, to coin their land into votes of this kind. Five or ten thousand gentlemen, living in London, who could be trusted, might thus be provided with votes in every county in England. Believing, then, that the clause was nothing more than an insidious proposal for the creation of paper voters, he would certainly vote against it.
  MR. REBOWsaid, that his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Karslake) appeared to think that a riot would have taken place at the last election for Colchester had it not been for the presence of the county police. But he (Mr. Rebow) believed that it was in consequence of the imprudent introduction of the police into the borough that any such danger had arisen, and the moment they were removed the proceedings were conducted as quietly as on former occasions. He believed that polling papers would open the way to great intimidation and corruption, and be should therefore vote againt the clause.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that the practical way of looking at the question was to consider the time fixed by law for recording votes at elections, which was between the hours of eight and four. If regard were had to this fact no one could fail to see that the use of voting papers would enable large numbers of people to exercise the franchise who were at present virtually debarred from that privilege. The House by this Bill was about to make a greater extension of the franchise than ever had been made before; but unless voting papers were allowed, a very considerable proportion of those who were to be admitted would be shut out from exercising it. Let them take the case of the ordinary working man. He went to his work at six o'clock in the morn-
  210
  ing, and did not return till pretty late in the evening. If he happened to be employed in the neighbourhood where he was entitled to vote, he might record the vote during his dinner hour. But a large proportion of mechanics being obliged to work at some distance from the places where they resided, it was impossible for them to exercise their electoral privilege. Voting papers, on the other hand, would enable them to do this when taken away by their ordinary employment. Medical men were another class that had frequently to spend the greater part of the day at places distant from the districts in which they resided, and it would be a great boon to them as a body if some such means as was proposed in the clause were afforded them for recording their votes. One of the Members of the City of London had stated, on a recent occasion, that not fewer than 750,000 persons connected with the metropolis would be in effect disfranchised if they were not allowed the use of voting papers, because during the greater part of the day they were away from the place of their residence. How could persons like these, who were all engaged in business, be sure of an opportunity of going to a polling-booth? In the borough of Marylebone, for instance, on a recent occasion only 10,000 persons voted out of 20,000 electors, and the reason of this was that they had to follow their avocations in the City, and could not go to the polling-place between eight and four o'clock. The same remark applied to many of the middle classes of Brighton who came up to London during the day. The whole argument against the use of voting papers was that they would foster bribery and intimidation. He did not believe that; on the contrary, he thought they would rather tend to discourage such misdemeanours. They had an example in the case of the Municipal Corporation Act. All the objections now urged against voting papers except that of personation were equally applicable to that Act, and yet it had been found to work admirably. One of the clauses contemplated the case of a voter who had already signed a voting paper presenting himself in person to vote, and there were altogether five checks against the improper use of the papers. He was therefore of opinion that the advantages and facilities which would be conferred by the voting papers would be very great, and that the number of persons who would be practically enfranchised through the medium of

  211
  the voting papers would prove an advantage that would much more than counterbalance the anticipated evils of corruption, and he hoped the Committee would not reject the clause.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he hoped that on this occasion hon. Members on the Government side of the House were open to reason and conviction, and that they would not by giving a party vote introduce into the English constitution a new and most mischievous element. A good deal had been said with reference to the Universities, but when, a few years ago, the Oxford and Cambridge University Bill was before the House, he voted for it upon the ground that it was an exceedingly exceptional case, and entirely different from that of all other constituencies in the Kingdom. Owing to the scantiness of means of some of the most worthy and highly educated members of those Universities, and to the great distances at which they resided from the polling-places, the normal state of things was that out of about 4,000 Masters of Arts whose names were upon the register, only some 1,500 or 1,600 came to the poll. When that Bill was before the Committee, one of the points most insisted on was that every conceivable safeguard should be devised, and he believed they did eventually arrive at a plan which, upon the whole, was not open to much abuse. If, however, he had had the slightest idea that the carrying of that Bill would have been made a precedent for such a proposition as was now before the Committee, he never would have been a party to it. He believed this clause was open to all the objections which were removed in the case of the Universities Bill, from the fact that the persons who had the vote there were persons whose education and position in society gave a guarantee that they would not be operated upon by sinister means. Let them observe how the clause would really operate. One thing was clear — namely, that immediately upon the nomination of the candidates an election agent would appear an active, busy, intelligent, unscrupulous man, who would hunt up doubtful voters in every part of the kingdom, offer them all sorts of inducements, provide them with voting papers already drawn up, and take them to some magistrate, who would only have to ascertain that the man was a voter on the register, and the agent would then be able to make what use he chose of the votes. That surely would greatly facili-
  212
  tate bribery, corruption, undue influence, and that intimidation which came from undue influence. With regard to the expense of bringing voters to the poll, he took it for granted that the Government really intended to have additional polling-places, and therefore that argument for the clause was entirely gone. There would be certain advantages, no doubt, in voting papers; but looking at the evil consequences certain to result the balance was entirely against the system. Every lawyer knew that when an Act of Parliament provided strict machinery for the exercise of a right, carefully as the law might be framed and well selected as the officers might be to carry it out, mistakes were sure to be made, and if they adopted such a plan in the case of poor and ignorant persons those mistakes which occurred even in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, would be immensely multiplied. Magistrates were not infallible, and if questions were to be raised before them upon these voting papers there would be quite as great a disfranchisement of honest voters as there would be an enfranchisement by the clause. It must also be remembered, in answer to the argument that it would lessen the cost of elections, that to lessen the cost of elections was likely to render contests more frequent. This was therefore an important but rash step, which might act practically as a measure of disfranchisement, and entirely change the aspect of election proceedings, and if the House regarded the subject on its merits, and not from a party point of view, he believed there would be a general agreement that the proposal should not be accepted.
  MR. PACKEsaid, that as the second county Member who had spoken on this clause, he wished to state his reasons for thinking it one of the most useful in the Bill, and one for which there was an absolute necessity. Elections, which were now limited to one day, were very different to those which lasted for fifteen. At present electors in counties frequently found that they had engagements at fairs and other places on the one day set apart for polling, whereas at the Universities the choice could be made of any one day in five. It had been said during the debate that a considerable portion of metropolitan constituencies did not vote at elections. At the election of Mr. Edwin James for Marylebone it was stated that 11,000

  213
  voters did not vote; and when the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) obtained his seat it appeared at the declaration of the poll that 10,000 voters did not vote. He claimed the vote of the hon. Member for Westminster in favour of the clause, because if women were to be admitted to the franchise they ought not to be under the necessity of facing a violent mob, say at Covent Garden, for the purpose of recording their votes. Feeling that every one entitled to vote ought to have the opportunity of voting, he most heartily supported the clause.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would not have taken any part in the discussion, but that the proposition before the Committee affected Ireland, With reference to a remark made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he hoped that the clause would never be passed until the proposition of the hon. Member for Westminster for the enfranchisement of women had become the law of the land. The ballot was resisted on the ground that the vote was a trust which ought to be exercised under a responsibility which could only be discharged in the open day and under the eyes of the public; but they cut away that constitutional principle when they enabled a man to vote privately, and transferred the polling from the public booths into the magistrate's office. If voting papers were posted there would be no means of knowing whether they were ever received and recorded, and the clause would place absolute power over the election in the hands of the returning officer. The proper remedy for the expense of elections was to make all expenses illegal, and not to change entirely the system of voting. It had been said in the course of the debate that out of 20,000 voters in the borough of Marylebone, only from 8,000 to 10,000 recorded their votes; but was there any Member of the Committee who believed that every elector in that borough could not have voted if he liked? Voting papers would increase the gangrene of intimidation, which, at all events, was now checked by public opinion to some extent. In country districts the peasant would be taken to the drawing-room of a magistrate, and be subjected to influences which it would be impossible for him to free himself from. What public opinion would then be there to protect him from the influence of wealth and power? None. At present the voter was protected by public opinion, although, no doubt, that public
  214
  opinion was sometimes exhibited in too strong a manner—but by increasing the polling-places, and by many other means, all that evil could be prevented. He was glad the experiment of voting papers was proposed to be tried first in England, where he believed it would be resisted successfully, instead of in Ireland, where it might be forced on the people.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that though he was a Liberal, he should not treat this as a party question, and should therefore vote with the Government. On every question there must be advantages and disadvantages, and it was only by balancing these that a reasonable conclusion could be arrived at; and it appeared to him that there were many and great advantages in favour of the system of voting papers. The payment for the carriage of voters would at once be done away with, and, as stated by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, the carriage of voters involved many indirect methods of giving money to electors. Money could not be given to the electors themselves, therefore means of conveyance must be provided for the whole constituency, the practical effect of which was that to secure the votes of owners of carriages large sums were paid for the hire of vehicles, many of which were never used at all. It was certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not vote for doing away with the legality of paying the carriage of voters to the poll unless voting papers were allowed. In some districts, though not in the metropolis, there were such disturbances at the poll that people were prevented from coming to tender their votes, and it was obvious that if Parliament limited the number of people at the poll they would lessen the rioting at the booths. It was undeniable that a good many quiet people were afraid of going to the poll, and when it was found that, owing to the machinery of elections, these persons could not be induced to vote, it was the duty of that House to try a change in the machinery. He was at a loss to see how the use of voting papers could increase intimidation. One would suppose that there was no such thing as intimidation known at present. But did the opponents of this clause imagine that a man always voted now without thinking of his landlord or those who had influence over him? These persons knew very well how the man voted at present, and if they wished to intimidate him they could do it equally well without voting papers. The

  215
  arguments against voting papers were still weaker in boroughs than in counties, for in boroughs it was known how every man would vote. In small boroughs there was often a doubtful class to be found who were influenced by money, and when a candidate or his agent was not prevented by conscientious scruples he went into the market and bought them up. He thought it would be a great advantage if these persons could be induced earlier to state how they meant to vote, and that they should be unable to change their mind. The presumption was that when the small householder changed his mind at the last moment of an election he had very good reason for so doing. An hon. Member had contended that these voting papers were not good for Ireland. He had never been to Ireland; but he had read accounts of Irish elections, and he thought they might be better conducted. He could not help thinking it was better to even go before a magistrate in his drawing-room than to be escorted to the poll by the military and bombarded by bricks and other missiles. The salutary influence of public opinion may eventually mend matters; but the real remedy for all this was the ballot. If the House adopted the ballot they would do away with all sorts of intimidation. It was said that the clause would give vise to mistakes, and that some of the lower class of voters wrote so ill that the names of the candidates would be illegible. If so, it would act to a certain extent as an educational test. He was a Liberal; but, at the same time, he held that if a man could not write the name of the candidate he wished to vote for distinctly and legibly he was not a fit person to be intrusted with the suffrage. There was, he believed, a strong feeling on the Liberal side that many of these quiet persons who staid at home and did not now vote at elections, but who were likely to do so under the proposed system, were Conservatives. ["No, no!"] That feeling was, he believed, at the bottom of the opposition to this clause, and therefore every impediment was thrown in its way. From the arguments he had heard that night he should really be tempted to suppose that the opposite (the Ministerial) was the Liberal and his the Conservative side of the House. He should vote in favour of the clause, because he thought voting papers would afford greater facility for voting than at present existed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the hon.
  216
  Member who had just spoken might have contented himself with differing from Liberal Members on this question without imputing motives to them, which, however, it was easy to show had no existence. The Government by this clause asked the House to change the entire system of voting without laying any distinct proposal before them, but by attempting to carry out the provisions of a very special and exceptional Act passed for a particular case. This Act arose out of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices at Elections. That Committee had very curious views on the subject of voting developed before them, and they were decided in opinion against the introduction of voting papers; but they arrived at the conclusion that a University stood upon different grounds from other constituencies, and that what might be very bad for other constituencies might be very good for a University. They made a recommendation to that effect, which was adopted by the House; but in order that it might not be drawn into a precedent, they passed a Resolution in which they based their recommendation upon the fact that the franchise of the University was essentially a non-resident franchise for the electors. The right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Chair took up the question and brought in a Bill, but it embodied the vicious principle of making a voter give his vote through the intervention of another voter. In a Committee of the Whole House a strong feeling declared itself against this vicious principle, and the right hon. Gentleman, now the Secretary of State for India, joined in the protest. All the anticipations of the evil consequences of the Act had been fulfilled by the result, for the voters had thus been brought under influences of the most prejudicial character. That system was adopted by the House entirely on the faith of the fact that it was to be confined to a body of educated gentlemen in very exceptional circumstances as electors, because they did not reside at the place of election, and their position in society rendered it possible to carry out the system. But if it had been proposed to apply it to the mass of the constituencies the House would never have entertained it. It was a remarkable instance of the sagacity of the late Sir George Lewis that in discussing that proposal he said he would not consent to its passing for the Universities, lest, perchance, it should become a

  217
  precedent for wider legislation. He hoped the House, by rejecting the present proposition, would prevent the fulfilment of Sir George Lewis's prediction. It was said the proposal would be useful to a certain limited class—namely, the sick, the aged, or the absent voters; but why were they, in order to meet the case of that limited class, not comprising 5 per cent of the whole constituency, to subvert the entire electoral system throughout the country? If the proposal were extended to the whole constituency, instead of being economical it would be a most costly arrangement. During the last twenty or thirty years they had been passing laws for curtailing various excesses for the expenditure of money at elections, where the most simple acts and things were made a fertile source of expense. Even so small a matter as a cockade became an affair of hundreds of pounds at elections, because it opened the door for a lavish outlay of money. If therefore every elector might vote by means of a voting paper, a trade would immediately spring up at every election. There would be recognised agents for collecting the voting papers, and every vote would be the subject of a traffic and barter—not by the voter, but by an agent who would make it his business to go about gathering up the voting papers, Talk of the expense of bringing the voter to the poll! Why, it would be trifling compared to the cost of sending an attorney after the voter to get his voting paper. Indeed, everybody would be employed at large expense in collecting voting papers; and every elector, instead of giving his own vote, would go and obtain somebody else's voting paper. Thus, instead of A and B each going to the poll and giving his vote, A would undertake to get B's vote if his expenses were paid, and B would repeat the process with regard to A. Outside the House payment was regulated by Act of Parliament; but under this Act expenses would have to be paid to attorneys travelling in a sumptuous electoral manner; and all those charges for loss of time and the like would have to be met upon the scale common at electioneering times. He remembered an agent for the small Devonshire boroughs coming to him and setting forth the advantages which they supplied. He (Mr. Ayrton) did not concur in those representations; but he was informed, in reply to his protestations, that these matters were consonant with the principle of supply and demand. Hon. Members were
  218
  acquainted with the class of people who hang about committee-rooms for the purpose of making a harvest at elections; and if this mode of voting were adopted, it would degenerate into such expense as to create the greatest evil of the electoral system. The plan might work very well for clergymen, barristers, and country gentlemen, whose identity might be easily established; but the case was very different when it was proposed to extend the system to householders in general. There still remained the grave objection to the system that it would be the means of introducing the practice of manufacturing votes, which would end in pulling down the whole of the existing electoral system. To avoid giving offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite he would give this illustration of how the principle could work. If the wealthy members of the Reform Club were to form themselves into an association, and were to qualify in a body to be counted by hundreds, as they could do, as electors for every county and division of a county in England, what would be the effect of their voting papers then upon the electoral system of the kingdom? Why, such a wide door would be open to wholesale abuse that the House would have soon to ratrace its steps. He should begin to think that hon. Gentlemen on his side had become the protectors of the British Constitution when he saw such fantastic schemes as that emanating from the Conservative Benches, and he thought the mode in which the proposition was made ought to receive indignant rejection on the part of the House. They were attempting to undermine that which had been practised with success for ages; and they had no guarantee for the safe working of the project embodied in that clause. They were called upon to vote en masse every clause in the Act referred to; he was convinced that if the clauses of that Act were offered seriatim for their consideration in connection with the Reform Bill they would not be passed, and inasmuch as the Committee was not properly treated in having such a wholesale proposal thrust before it, he recommended the rejection of the clause. The more he thought of the matter the more he was convinced that the plan was of an impracticable character. With respect to an observation personal to him which had fallen from an hon. Member opposite, asserting that he had not been elected by a proper majority, he replied that he never knew

  219
  of a case yet in which an unsuccessful candidate was content with the method of the election. His case, however, was easily explained. When it was found that he was 1,500 ahead of his opponent, those voters who would have favoured him saw that all was going on right and accordingly refrained from voting, as was customary under such circumstances. County voters, on the contrary, were in the dark as to how the voting was going and polled out. And inasmuch as voting papers were not needed in the boroughs because polling-booths were numerous, and were not needed in the counties because they already polled out, he saw no reason for subverting a practice which had hitherto worked well.
  LORD ELCHO: I had originally no intention of speaking upon this question; but I think I can suggest a mode for arriving at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that this is a most important question, and concur with the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton in expressing a hope that the Committee will not regard it in the light of a party question. I do not think there is much difference of opinion with regard to the principle involved in the question. In giving a wide extension of the franchise we all desire that the newly-enfranchised persons should exercise the privilege conferred upon them; and I have no doubt we would all agree to the clause under discussion if we felt certain that it would largely facilitate the exercise of the franchise without bringing in its train abuses greater than the advantages it conferred. The question of abuse, however, turns entirely on the machinery employed, and the question arises as to whether the machinery provided by the University Act is such as to guard against abuse. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets has said that the Act establishing voting papers in the case of the Universities resulted from an inquiry before a Committee which dealt with the question exceptionally and provided exceptional means for meeting a special case; now it so happens that there is a Committee of this House at the present time considering the Bill for preventing corrupt practices at elections, and I would suggest, instead of our coming to a final decision upon this clause to night, to allow it to be negatived on the understanding that the clause and the Act providing the machinery should be referred to the Committee on the
  220
  Bill for preventing corrupt practices at elections. If the question is pressed to a division I shall give my vote with the Government. [Ironical cheers.] I can see nothing deserving of any ironical cheers in what I have said. Having listened candidly to the debate, I think, upon the whole, that the arguments are rather in favour of the Government proposal, and therefore, if pressed to give my vote, I shall give it with the Government; but, at the same time, I do not think the case strong enough to justify me in voting with the Government if I have an alternative, and the only alternative I can think of is that I have suggested. If my suggestion is accepted it will be for the House, when the Committee have reported, to decide finally on the bringing up of the Report whether a clause should be inserted in the Bill to give effect to the proposal now under consideration.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he considered that the franchise being a public trust ought to be exercised by the electors in the face of their countrymen, as the fact of electors abstaining from the vote virtually placed non-electors in a position of suffrage. A vote given in private was given as if it were the private property of the elector and not as the exercise of a function in the nature of a trust. He therefore objected to the proposition now under consideration. He remembered a warning given by the late Sir James Graham that if the principle of secret voting were adopted it would be followed by a claim for universal suffrage. He felt the temptation, which every county Member must feel, offered by a proposal which was likely to diminish the expenses of elections, but its adoption on the ground of mere personal convenience would, he thought, be a boon secured at the expense of vitiating our entire electoral system.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would support the proposition of the Government, believing it would have the effect, to a great extent, of doing away with bribery and intimidation at elections. They were about to extend the franchise to a large body of working classes, and he thought this proposition, if carried, would confer upon them a great benefit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to make a few observations on this clause before the Committee comes to a decision upon it. I have listened to this discussion with great interest, but it seems to me that a very erroneous view

  221
  has been taken by some hon. Members of the proposition under our notice. The hon. Member for Finsbury, who addressed us in a very effective speech, has, I think, greatly misapprehended the circumstances with which we have to deal. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, too, has argued the case as if we were inviting the Committee to introduce some violent change into the constituencies of this country. I must, however, remind the Committee that the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Finsbury referred do not apply to the proposition of the Government. On the contrary, the conditions under which the franchise is to be exercised under the operation of this clause are quite the reverse of those to which the hon. Member for Finsbury referred as drawn from his experience of the Poor Law. Our conditions and safeguards have, in fact, been devised and adopted from our experience of the practice of voting papers under the Poor Law. I do not therefore believe in the occurrence of evils such as those to which he has called our attention. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, I may add, has treated this as if it were a compulsory clause, though I can scarcely suppose that a Gentleman so well informed could for a moment make a mistake as to its real nature. The whole of his argument tended to show that we were about to introduce some violent change into the constituencies. That, however, I would beg to remind him, is purely a permissive clause. Like all permissive legislation, it will, I have no doubt, exercise a moderate influence; but then, I think, the great mass of the constituencies will be prompted, as Englishmen always have been, to exercise a public trust of which they are proud in the eye of their neighbours. There are, at the same time, many persons upon whom the franchise devolves under the existing system, and upon whom it will devolve under this Bill, who may with advantage avail themselves of the privileges which this clause would confer. The hon. Member for Finsbury seems altogether to have misconceived the character of our proposal. He looks upon it as a retrograde proposition. He has been at the trouble to father it on my noble Friend whose services in the Cabinet we all regret to have lost some months ago. The hon. Gentleman has even expressed his surprise that after the unfortunate secession of my noble Friend from our ranks we should still adhere to such a scheme. The noble Lord, however, very
  222
  properly reminded the Committee that this proposition was first made in 1859, when he was not a Member of the Government, and had only for a very short time been a Member of the House. It was then introduced, not as a leading proposition, but as one of a tentative character, in deference to the opinion of many enlightened speculators—not Members of this House, though some of them have since become Members—but to whose opinion society very much deferred: their opinion being that this was a mode by which purer and more effective representation could be obtained. Under these circumstances, we were of opinion in 1859 that a clause of this nature should be inserted in our Bill. Has anything since occurred which should cause us to shrink from repeating the experiment? On the contrary, the House of Commons has in the interval adopted and applied this principle in a very memorable instance. A Bill was brought forward by a distinguished Member of the Liberal party—the Gentleman who sits in the Chair on this Committee—and was supported by very eminent Members of that party. The success of that measure has, I believe, been not only satisfactory, but complete. Under these circumstances, there is nothing remarkable, I think, in the fact that we have deemed it right to include a similar proposal in the present Bill. I admit with the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question. The point, however, is on which side does the preponderance of advantage lie, and, in my opinion, the great preponderance rests with the permissive exercise of the right conceded by this clause. I confess, for my own part—I may, no doubt, be influenced by selfish considerations—that I have always thought a great benefit would accrue to the representatives of counties from the adoption of such a proposal. It would very effectually deal with an immense expenditure which cannot by any misrepresentation be placed under the head of corruption. It would, it appears to me, be a great advantage, seeing the grout cost of county elections, as proved by recent Returns, that they are in general as pure as popular elections can be expected to be, and bearing in mind also that the constituencies are about to be greatly increased, that we should sanction some proposition such as that under our consideration. I confess, for my own part, that if I had simply followed my indi-

  223
  vidual feeling in the matter, I should have been disposed to confine the operation of the clause to counties. If, however, the proposition had been introduced in that way, it would have been looked upon as but a partial application of our principle. It would be said that we had some sinister object in view for the purpose of benefiting the counties, and we should be asked why it was that we did not admit the boroughs to the advantages of this new scheme. We, under those circumstances, deemed it the wisest and best course to pursue to place the proposition absolutely before the Committee, and to let them deal with it as they thought fit. If, upon the whole, they were of opinion that the scheme should be only partially adopted, then it could be modified; or they might entirely reject, or the reverse, as appeared to them to be the wisest course to pursue. My own opinion is that the system of voting papers would be found to operate very beneficially in reducing the expenditure at county elections, and, though the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets gave us a very lively description of the disadvantages which would arise from its adoption, they are, I cannot help thinking, like many other descriptions for which practical men of the world know there is, in reality, no foundation. The county Member who finds that he has spent £4,000 or £5,000 in bringing voters up to the poll is well aware that if he employs a few attorneys, he may, with the aid of these voting papers, set down those thousands as represented by hundreds. I may say it would be the best security for purity of elections. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I now come to the question of corruption, with respect to which the cases have been stated somewhat in extremes on both sides of the House; and certainly the Reform Club, whose riches have been announced to us to-night in an almost menacing tone, may be able to purchase all the county constituencies of the country. I have often heard those stories of the accumulated treasures of political societies, but my impression is this, that whatever club, be it the Reform, or any other lays out its funds in this way, will find in the end that it has wasted its money. The only persons benefited are the attorneys employed by both sides. One club would be sure to emulate another in the sanguinary and disastrous contest, and there can be no doubt that it would very soon cease.
  224
  But there are other reasons why it would be well that we should calmly consider whether some important benefits may not be derived from the adoption of this proposal. We have to a great extent reduced to the lowest point the time that is allowed for polling a large constituency, and by that I mean now a large county constituency. It is not very difficult with a capital organization, and with the population of a great town, consolidated as it were together, to poll many thousand voters in six or eight hours; but it is a very difficult thing to effect this in a county, and at the present day, far from supposing that the county constituencies are exhausted on the day of polling, as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets has argued, if he looks into the statistics he will find it quite the reverse. There may be numbers unpolled in a metropolitan, constituency, but the cause he has explained, and as he has had considerable experience in heading the poll, I have no doubt he speaks with special knowledge of the subject. But in county contests, which are fought with more equal fortunes, there is an impossibility of fairly polling the constituency. It is almost impossible for any elector who has more than one or two qualifications to exercise his franchise under the present system. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond has seventeen votes, but I must say he is a remarkable man. I am sure that I never saw in the flesh before a man who really had seventeen votes, and I can easily understand that at a general election the hon. and learned Member would feel greatly embarrassed. But a great many of us who have not seventeen votes would wish to exercise the franchise; and even a person with seventeen votes ought, I maintain, to be secured by the law of his country in the right of bestowing them. These seventeen votes are the representatives of his property in seventeen localities, and it is right that his property should have its due influence. Now, it is well known that a great hardship is felt in the county constituencies, because it is utterly impossible for a gentleman to record his votes in more than one or two counties, and that is a state of affairs which should not be permitted to continue if a remedy can be provided. I cannot but believe the principle of this clause to be sound. That principle was first proclaimed and developed in the writings of political philosophers. It was adopted in this House for a practical pur-

  225
  pose and it has been applied with success. I think myself that its application on a much wider scale would be of great public benefit. If any Gentleman opposite proposed any modification of the clause which respected its principle, if he proposed to apply it in a limited manner, say to counties, I should be perfectly ready to adopt that modification. If it be proposed to confine the measure to counties and out-voters, I shall be satisfied to adopt such a suggestion. But I hold that the principle is founded upon truth and justice; I believe that by the public mind of this country it has been received with favour, and that, too, after due thought and reflection, and I trust, therefore, that the Committee will not by its vote to-night terminate at its commencement what I hope may be considered a very great improvement in the exercise of the electoral rights of the people.
  MR. BRIGHT: I think the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech with perfect fairness, and left the decision to the House in a way worthy of the position he occupies. The debate has been one of considerable satisfaction to me, because, however evil I may think the proposition is as it now stands, I cannot conceal from myself the fact that the arguments both on this and on that side of the House lead us a great deal further than this proposition, and should end after this wide extension of the suffrage in a change which in almost every other country has long ago been made—namely, in establishing the vote by ballot. Now, Sir, there are two divisions of this question, and to one of them the right hon. Gentleman has applied himself; and other Members also touched upon the same—that is, with regard to out-voters. I believe if we were establishing a system of representation for the first time, we should do in counties what we do in boroughs—we should take care that all the electors of the counties should be resident in the counties. A different system prevails, and I do not recommend that it should be interfered with; but I suggest that you should not, for the purpose of extending the present system of non-resident voters, make a great change for which no substantial and sufficient reason has been given. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets has made a speech, which I think one of the most conclusive that I ever heard delivered in this House on any question. He referred to what might be done by certain
  226
  persons at certain clubs. The Reform, Club is very near the Carlton. If a man wants to go to one he is now driven, not invariably, but occasionally, to the other. What the hon. Gentleman says might be done at the Reform Club might also be done at the Carlton. But what has been done? Take the case of a small Scotch county in which there was a contest at the last election. Every Scotch Member will know to what I refer. The losing candidate had a decided majority of the resident voters in the county, and yet he did not take his seat in this House through the influence of non-resident voters—strangers whose votes might be called into question as contrary, if not to the letter, to the spirit of the law. These voters overruled the votes of the resident constituency, and the candidate who had the majority of the resident votes was de feated, and his opponent is, I presume, at this moment sitting somewhere in this House. ["Name!"] Let any Gentleman who wants to know the name ask the Scotch Member that sits nearest him. Now, this House is, I believe, in hopes that the discussions of this Session, and the passing of this Bill, will lead to a more satisfactory representation of the country. I therefore hope that there is no Member of the House who would wish to see the system I have just described indefinitely extended. And I am not speaking as against the in fluence of landed proprietors alone; there are other influences that can play this game. I recollect some years ago, during the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, that the friends of the Anti-Corn Law League resolved to purchase freeholds in some counties, and threatened to change the representation of those counties. In a case like that it would be a great bar to such a movement, that every voter, at the time of an election, should travel to the county where his freehold was situate. It is not the true policy of the country—it is contrary to the interests of the country—it is opposed to the purity and reality of our electoral system, that you should give even to an eminent lawyer like the hon. and learned Gentleman on the front Bench, or to any landlord or club, any greater inducement than now exists, to obtain votes in counties where people do not reside, for the purpose of interfering with the real and honest representation of the residents of the county. There are many small counties—some in England, some in Wales, and several in Scotland, in

  227
  which there will be no difficulty, under this system, of placing as many persons on the register as would utterly defeat the honest rights of the electors of those counties. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the success of the system as tried in the Universities; and some Gentlemen smiled because they thought he meant—what I am sure he did not mean—that it had proved successful because it dislodged the recent Member for the University of Oxford. But that is a small matter; and if England were appealed to, England would say that it is of great advantage to the country that that dislodgment has taken place. But while the right hon. Gentleman defends the measure on account of its success at Oxford University, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich admitted, with the frankness I have often seen him exhibit in the House, that the cases were so entirely different that he would not base his argument in favour of the Bill on anything that had happened, or could happen, in connection with the learned Universities of the country. The Committee on which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets sat, had the whole of the matter before it; and that Committee saw a wide difference between the circumstances of the Universities and of the great constituencies of the country; and they entirely—I know not if they were unanimous—rejected the proposition in regard to the country at large, and decided on special grounds that the plan might only be safely adopted in regard to the Universities. I now pass to the other branch of the subject, to the general effect of this measure. My own belief is that its general effect will be bad. It seems to me that it will not have the good effect—and I have never denied that there is some good in the system—of open voting. It escapes from that which you have always claimed as the great advantage of open voting, that is the general publicity and influence of public opinion, and what you call the salutary effect of a man performing a great public duty and object in the face of his fellow men. It is clear that the whole of that is got rid of by his system. It is clearly got rid of so far as this system will work. The right hon. Gentleman calls this a permissive clause. Of course, to individuals it is permissive, but with reference to the whole country it can hardly be so styled. Wherever, being permissive, it is employed, it will entirely secure the voter from that public opinion
  228
  under which every man in some degree acts when he goes to the poll and gives his vote in the face of his fellow electors and townsmen. On the other hand, I complain of it very much, on this ground — that altogether it shelters him from public opinion, yet it does not in the least give him the advantages of real and secret voting. ["Oh!"] The advantages of the really secret vote are these — you may estimate them at less than I do, but I think they are these—a man when he votes knows there is no power on earth to interfere with him but his own conviction as to what he ought to do, and he has a perfect freedom to carry out those convictions in his vote. Now, a proposition which is so great a change that it repudiates all that which you have said is good in the open voting, and does not accept a single particle of what we have said belongs to secret voting, at least is not a proposition which should be accepted hastily by the House. The right hon. Gentleman, following the example of many hon. Members, dwelt upon the expenses of county elections. I think those expenses are most deplorable, and in many cases are hardly a tolerable burden. I was speaking to a Gentleman, in this House the other day who said he was a candidate for ten days for a county which is neither very large nor very populous, and in these ten days his expenses were £4,000. I know another candidate—I think I am not mis-stating the facts—who polled 2,000 votes, and they cost him £8,000. But that expenditure is by no means all connected with the carriage of voters, a very large portion is connected with that hateful and intolerable system of legal agency, which is, I believe, all but universal in the counties, and which unfortunately prevails to a very large extent in a great number of boroughs. But there cannot be the smallest doubt that it is possible to cure that evil without adopting the remedy proposed in the clause. I do not say you will cure the expenses with regard to non-resident voters, who have a long way to come, but with regard to the resident voters of a county, you might establish—and establish cheaply—pollingbooths in so many districts that no man will have to go further than he has to go every week to market, and very often he would have to go no further than he goes on Sunday to Church. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne), who made as good a speech, to-night as

  229
  could be made in favour of this clause, spoke of persons who could not get to the poll—rich people and nervous people. I am not speaking of the sick, because we ought not to make special laws for a comparatively small portion of the people, and those who are sick are much better at their homes and in bed, than taking any part whatever in the excitement of a contested election at a time when they are suffering mental and bodily depression. The noble Lord said there are many electors who do not go to the poll at all. I think he is entirely mistaken. I have had several contests in the course of my political career. Two contests in the city of Durham, two or three in the city of Manchester, and one at least in the town of Birmingham. I do not believe that any appreciable number—I cannot say that I ever heard of ten, not even five, in the whole of these three constituencies, who could not go to the poll for any of the reasons stated by the noble Lord. There is not the slightest doubt his argument does not apply to the metropolitan boroughs, because if there are any boroughs which are free from confusion and riot at election times, it is those boroughs. Therefore, I hold that as regards that there is nothing in it. But there is this in it. The noble Lord appears to be wishful—I will not impute that, but I will say that it will be understood that he would establish a system which would very nearly give the security of the ballot to the rich people, and that it is for them that this system is mainly devised. I must leave hon. Gentlemen opposite to imagine that if once an idea established itself in the public mind that that was the object of the measure, how long would it be before the ballot itself was demanded and obtained for all other classes. Now as regards the poorer electors. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ayrton) described what would take place with agents. There is a wonderful fertility of invention at election times—and clever agents would busy themselves in the streets of our boroughs, and in some parts of the counties, with a view of obtaining these polling papers. And what happens when they have been signed and sent in? Why, you establish one of the most hateful and most unheard of things that can be imagined, which is the giving of votes by proxy. I understand that lately there has been a discussion in "another place" on the subject of voting by proxy—and there is a general impress-
  230
  sion that that system—which no man defends upon any principle—will not last long. Therefore, I hope the House of Commons will not now attempt to establish in any shape anything so unprincipled and hateful with regard to our Parliamentary elections as this would prove to be. If the proposal contained in this measure were to be adopted, when any person has received a number of voting papers from any borough or part of a county, it is quite clear that he can either poll them or not, as he thinks fit. He can hold them back, or make a traffic of them. They are not exactly bank notes; but as he holds them in his hand, he may traffic with them as if they were bank notes. Now, I think it—
  "Better to bear the ills we have
  Than fly to others that we know not of."
  I think the noble Lord, or, at all events, some hon. Members, have spoken of the character of magistrates. I am not a magistrate myself, and I should be sorry to depreciate or lower their character in this House or in the country; but there is nothing that stands, as I can see, between the present system of voting for Poor Law Guardians and the system proposed by this clause but the magistrates. The magistrates are not infallible. I have known many magistrates who were not at all too acute to be taken in—and I think the security is not sufficient to justify the House in making the great change proposed. The noble Lord made another observation, which was a very unfortunate one for him to make; and, indeed, I am greatly surprised that it should have escaped his lips. He went so far as to say that the drawing-room of the magistrate would be the place of the pollingbooth. If I am not very much mistaken in the opinion of my countrymen, I think that observation will sink very deep into their minds and hearts, and if they thought such a thing were possible—and we have the authority of the noble Lord that it is possible, and that he admires it—I say that is enough to condemn the Bill. The question is this—whether our whole system of polling should be changed to what is right, or whether it should be a general system of voting through the Post Office. My own impression is, that every man who gives a vote should appear before the recognised authority by whom that vote should be recorded—whether he give it openly, by saying, "I am So-and-so, and I have voted for A., B., C, or D.,"

  231
  or whether he should vote as Englishmen do in the Australian colonies, by depositing a card or ticket in the ballot-box. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] I saw one hon. Member anticipating what I was going to say by the radiant smile which came over his countenance. But I am not now asking for the ballot. What I say is this. I prefer what now exists to what you propose. Either let us have the open voting which we have, and which we all understand, and which we have had from time immemorial, so that we understand the good and evil of it, or let us go to that more excellent way of polling by the ballot. At least, do not let us make a change, the results of which would, in my opinion, lead to very great danger to the free and uncorrupt exercise of the franchise throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex has to-night made a curious speech, and he treated very lightly the argument which had been used, that if a man had given his voting paper seven days before an election in the county, and three days before in the borough, that he should not be at liberty to change his mind. No doubt in the borough the elector might attempt to outwit his proxy, by being at the poll when it opened at eight o'clock in the morning, and then it would be a scuffle between him and his proxy as to the vote to be given; but, generally speaking, there are many persons who honestly change their minds between the time when the election is proclaimed and the time that it takes place. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite do not appear to believe that there is any honest change of opinion. I differ from them very much, and if Members of the House of Commons in great numbers can change their opinions at once on a question, there can be no doubt whatever that electors are equally open to proper arguments. Take a case. Between the time when an election is proclaimed and the day fixed for the polling a new candidate very often comes into the field. Then there is often something found out about a candidate in the field which makes him unpopular with the constituency; or some person comes into the field, and by a speech of great power affects the votes of many electors. Yet by this system a man may have within seven days of the election in the county, and three days of the election in the borough, signed this fatal voting paper; he is committed to it, and he is not even open to the discussion for which
  232
  I understand your hustings are erected and maintained. I say hon. Gentlemen opposite by their ancient principles ought not to support this proposition; and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded his speech in a tone which showed that the Government would receive with no great dissatisfaction the decision of an adverse majority. I hope the House will take him at his word, and relieve the Government of the responsibility of the clause altogether. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often said that they do not like anything un-English. I shall not use that phrase, although if I were to reiterate it I might say with great force that hardly anything can be more un-English than a system of this kind, which is to be permissive. Some have argued in favour of the permissive ballot. I must say that I have always been opposed to the permissive ballot. Let a question of this kind work in the public and Parliamentary mind, and do not change until you are determined to do the thing honestly and well. Then let it be made legal and imperative, and do not let us have anything like permissive action on a great and solemn question like this, The noble Lord below me (Lord Elcho) made a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—and I should be very glad to see the clause negatived, and I should not be opposed at any future time to the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question of our electoral system. There are many alterations which might be made in that system, and to which I think the House might agree with very great advantage. At present, however, it seems to me quite clear and beyond all doubt, that in this Bill we ought not, and I believe we shall not, insert a clause which will make this great change, with reference to which there has been no inquiry except that in 1860, which inquiry resulted in an emphatic condemnation of the system, I say that the country has not asked for this. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks that it will be received with very great favour. He is so fond of his own children that he supposes everybody will admire the political offspring he introduces into this House. But I think I have met a good many persons during the past four or five months who know something about Reform, and I declare that I never met with a single person outside this House who did not speak of this proposal—I am afraid to use the term, because I do not wish to deny that

  233
  the clause has been very fairly introduced—but they have spoken of the proposition with contempt; and I believe if it were adopted, it would be received with amazement and consternation by the electoral body throughout the country. Now, Sir, I shall say no more. I said that the right hon. Gentleman has argued the question fairly from his point of view, and has put it before the Committee in a manner that became him. The matter is one of very grave importance; and hon. Members must bear in mind that if they reject this clause the only result will be, that the question will stand where it is, and it will be open to the Government, or to any Member of the House who differs from me, to propose, either this Session or next Session, a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question. In conclusion, therefore, I beg the Committee not to commit itself to a thing which nobody asks for, which is entirely novel with regard to the great constituencies of the country, and which I oppose from no party view whatsoever—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—for I do not think there has been a single argument or fact used to-night to show that it would be advantageous to hon. Gentlemen opposite more than it would be to this side of the House; therefore I declare solemnly I have no feeling of that kind; but I believe the clause would introduce a very evil system into what is now, in some respects, very good; and therefore I entreat the House to reject the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted to them.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he would not detain the Committee many minutes. He would not enter into the question which had been already amply debated; but he rose to call attention to a remark which had been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham. That hon. Gentleman had thought proper to make some observations relative to the Scotch county which he had the honour to represent, of which he felt bound to take some notice. On this occasion, and also last year, the hon. Gentleman had said that he was returned entirely by non-resident voters who had been created by a certain nobleman, whose name would be well understood. Now, that was not the case. It was perfectly true that a large number of non-resident voters had assisted in his return; but it was not the fact that they alone returned him or that they were created by the nobleman referred to, All who knew the
  234
  county knew that it was a very small constituency; it had become an arena for keen political contest; many gentlemen in the neighbouring counties had taken an interest in it, and had come forward and by bonâ fide votes supported him. He could therefore only suppose that that was owing to the interest they took in the cause rather than to any of a personal nature. He was quite sure the House would excuse him for offering these few remarks in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he hoped in future the hon. Gentleman would not think it incumbent upon him to take up the grievances of every rejected candidate.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 272: Majority 38.

  AYES.

  Adderley, rt. hn. C. B.

  Corry, rt hon. H. L.

  Annesley, hn. Col. H.

  Courtenay, Lord

  Anson, hon. Major

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Cubitt, G.

  Arkwright, R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Baggallay, R.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Dick, F.

  Bagnall, C.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Baillie, rt. hon. H. J.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Barnett, H.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Doulton, F.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Du Cane, C.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Duncombe, hon. Col.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Dunne, General

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Bective, Earl of

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Earle, R.A.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Benyon, R.

  Eckersley, N.

  Bernard, hn. Col. H. B.

  Edwards, Sir H.

  Bingham, Lord

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Bourne, Colonel

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Bowen, J. B.

  Elcho, Lord

  Brett, W. B.

  Fane, Lt.-Col. H. H.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Brooks, R.

  Feilden, J.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Floyer, J.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Forde, Colonel

  Bruen, H.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Buckley, E.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Campbell, A. H.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Capper, C.

  Galway, Viscount

  Cartwright, Colonel

  Getty, S. G.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Chatterton, rt. hn. H.E.

  Goldney, G.

  Clive, Capt. hon. G.W.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Graves, S. R.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cooper, E. H.

  Greenall, G.

  Corrance, F. S.

  Greene, E.

  235

  Griffith, C. D.

  North, Colonel

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  O'Neill, E.

  Gwyn, H.

  Packe, C. W.

  Hamilton, rt. hn. Lord C.

  Paget, R. H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hamilton, Viscount

  Parker, Major W.

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Peel, rt. hon. General

  Hardy, J.

  Percy, Majr.-Gn. Ld. H.

  Hartley, J.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Pugh, D.

  Heathcote, hon. G. H.

  Read, C. S.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Henniker-Major, hn. J. M.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Herbert, hon. Col. P.

  Rolt, Sir J.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Royston, Viscount

  Hesketh, Sir C. G.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Sandford, G. M. W.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Schreiber, C.

  Hogg, Lt.-Col. J. M.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Holford, R. S.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Selwyn, H. J.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Severne, J. E.

  Hotham, Lord

  Seymour, G. H.

  Howes, E.

  Simonds, W. B.

  Hubbard, J. G.

  Smith, A.

  Huddleston, J. W.

  Smith, S. G.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Jolliffe, hon. H. H.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Jones, D.

  Stanley, Lord

  Karslake, Sir J. B.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W.

  Karslake, E. K.

  Stopford, S. G.

  Kavanagh, A.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Stuart, Lt.-Colonel W.

  Kendall, N.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.

  Knox, Colonel

  Surtees, C. F.

  Labouchere, H.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Sykes, C.

  Laird, J.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Langton, W. G.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Lanyon, C.

  Torrens, R.

  Lascelles, hon. E. W.

  Tottenham, Lt-Col. C. G.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Treeby, J. W.

  Lefroy, A.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Turner, C.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Vance, J.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  Verner, E. W.

  Lindsay, Colonel R. L.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Lowther, Captain

  Walker, Major G. G.

  Lowther, J.

  Walpole, rt. hn. S. H.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Walrond, J. W.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Walsh, A.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Meller, Colonel

  Welby, W. E.

  Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.

  Williams, F. M.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Wise, H. C.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Morgan, O.

  Wyld, J.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Wyndham, hon. H.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Naas, Lord

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Neeld, Sir J.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  TELLERS.

  Newport, Viscount

  Taylor, Colonel T. E.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Whitmore, H.

  236

  NOES

  Acland, T. D.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Adam, W. P.

  Duff, R. W.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Dundas, F.

  Akroyd, E.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Allen, W. S.

  Dunlop, A. C. S. M.

  Amberley, Viscount

  Edwards, C.

  Antrobus, E.

  Edwards, H.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Eliot, Lord

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Ellice, E.

  Bagwell, J.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Baines, E.

  Erskine, Vice-Adm. J. E.

  Barclay, A. C.

  Esmonde, J.

  Barnes, T.

  Evans, T. W.

  Barron, Sir. H. W.

  Ewart, W.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Eykyn, R.

  Bass, M. T.

  Fawcett, H.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Fildes, J.

  Bazley, T.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  FitzGerald, rt. hon. Lord O. A.

  Berkeley, hon. H. F.

  Biddulph Colonel R. M.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.

  Biddulph, M.

  Foley, H. W.

  Blake, J. A.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Blennerhasset, Sir R.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Forster, C.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Forster, W. E.

  Brady, J.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C. S.

  Bright, Sir C. T.

  Fortescue, hon. D. F.

  Bright, J.

  Foster, W. O.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Gaselee, Serjeant S.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Gilpin, C.

  Bryan, G. L.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Butler, C. S.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Buxton, Sir T. F.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Calcraft, J. H. M.

  Goldsmid, J.

  Candlish, J.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Carington, hon. C. R.

  Gower, Lord R.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Graham, W.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Gray, Sir J.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Greville-Nugent, A. W. F.

  Chambers, M.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Chambers, T.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Cheetham, J.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Grove, T. F.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Hadfield, G.

  Clay, J.

  Hamilton, E. W. T.

  Clive, G.

  Hankey, T.

  Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Harris, J. D.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Colvile, C. R.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Cowen, J.

  Hayter, Captain A. D.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Headlam, rt. hn. T. E.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Henderson, J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Cremorne, Lord

  Henley, Lord

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Herbert, H. A.

  Dalglish, R.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Davey, R.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Dent, J. D.

  Holden, I.

  Devereux, R. J.

  Holland, E.

  Dilke, Sir W.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  237

  Hughes, T.

  Pelham, Lord

  Hurst, R. H.

  Philips, R. N.

  Hutt, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Pim, J.

  Ingham, R.

  Platt, J.

  James, E.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Potter, E.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Potter, T. B.

  Kearsley, Captain R.

  Price, R. G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Price, W. P.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Pritchard, J.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Rawlinson, Sir H.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Rearden, D. J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Laing, S.

  Robertson, D.

  Layard, A. H.

  Rothschild, Baron L. de

  Lamont, J.

  Rothschild, Baron M. de

  Lawrence, W.

  Rothschild, N. M. de

  Lawson, rt. hon. J. A.

  Russell, A.

  Leatham, W. H.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Lee, W.

  Salomons, Alderman

  Leeman, G.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Samuelson, B.

  Lewis, H.

  Saunderson, E.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Scholefield, W.

  Locke, J.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Seely, C.

  Lusk, A.

  Seymour, H. D.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  M'Kenna, J. N.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  Mackie, J.

  Smith, J.

  M'Laren, D.

  Smith, J. A.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Smith, J. B.

  Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.

  Speirs, A. A.

  Martin, C. W.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Martin, P. W.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Stock, O.

  Mill, J. S.

  Stone, W. H.

  Miller, W.

  Stuart, Col. Crichton-

  Milton, Viscount

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  Mitchell, A.

  Synan, E. J.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Moffatt, G.

  Tite, W.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Tomline, G.

  Monk, C. J.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Moore, C.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  More, R. J.

  Vanderbyl, P.

  Morris, W.

  Vernon, H. F.

  Morrison, W.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Neate, C.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Waring, C.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Warner, E.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Western, Sir T. B.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Whalley, G. H.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Whatman, J.

  Oliphant, L.

  White, hon. Captain C.

  Onslow, G.

  White, J.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Whitworth, B.

  Osborne, R. B.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Owen, Sir H. O.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Padmore, R.

  Wyvill, M.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Young, R.

  Parry, T.

  Pease, J. W.

  TELLERS.

  Peel, A. W.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Peel, J.

  Otway, J. A.

  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  PARIS EXHIBITION.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider and report on the advisability of making purchases from the Paris Exhibition for the benefit of the Schools of Science and Art in the United Kingdom, and any other means of making that Exhibition useful to the manufacturing industry of Great Britain and Ireland."—(Mr. Layard.)
  And, on June 21, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Lord ELCHO, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. HUNT, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. BRUCE, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR, Sir PHILIP EGERTON, Mr. OTWAY, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER, Colonel HOGG, Mr. AYRTON, and Mr. LAYARD;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunacy (Scotland)* (163); Bridges (Ireland)* (164); Drainage and Improvement of Lands, (Ireland) Supplemental* (165).
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (192).
Committee—Bunhill Fields Burial Ground *(105).
Report—Houses of Parliament* (170); National Gallery Enlargement* (169); Bunhill Fields Burial Ground* (105); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (167); Policies of Insurance now Policies of Assurance* (85).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Police* (171).
Royal Assent—Army Enlistment [30 & 31 Vict. c. 34]; Criminal Law [30 & 31 Vict. c. 35].

RITUALISM—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
EARL RUSSELLaddressed some remarks to the House in reference to the constitution of the Royal Commission on Ritualistic Practices in the Church of England, but his Lordship was quite inaudible.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentle man the late Secretary of State for the Home Department wrote to me to ask whether I would consent to act as a Member of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Ritualism. I took the liberty to reply to Mr. Walpole that I thought no person who held extreme opinions, or who in the view of the country was regarded as holding extreme opinions, ought to be placed upon the Commission. I said that I was considered to be a man of extreme opinions—and I do not, indeed, deny that I entertain very strong feelings—so strong, indeed, that I am inclined to doubt whether I could act impartially. I went so far as to say that other gentlemen had taken up such a decided attitude that in my opinion they ought not to be on the Commission; and I further ventured to name the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Oxford. At the time the offer was made to me I knew nothing of the gentlemen who were to serve on the Commission, nor did I know anything of the terms of the Commission; and therefore my decision was given without reference to the persons who were to be appointed, or to any other circumstances connected with it. Since the Commission has been issued I must say that, with all the respect I bear to the name of every gentleman upon it, I am notwithstanding in duty bound to state my opinion that it would have been far better if other names had been put upon the Commission—if certain persons who were so decided in all their views and practices had not been placed there, and if persons in whom the country reposed confidence had been allowed to conduct the examination, I am satisfied that if any adverse decision is come to by the Commission it will be unanimously rejected by the one party or the other.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I entirely dissent from the view which has just been expressed by my noble Friend in reference to the constitution of the Commission. I was so far from thinking it undesirable that persons holding strong opinions should be placed upon it, that I thought it was
122
only by having the fairest and fullest representation of all opinions upon it that the Commission could hope to come to a decision which would be satisfactory to the country, and fair to all the parties concerned. I can assure your Lordships that both the late and the present Home Secretaries considered with me most anxiously the manner of framing that Commission so as to give a fair and full representation to all parties. It was not, however, our intention—as seems to have been the wish of my noble Friend—to frame the Commission, not for the purpose of judging and deciding, but for the purpose of condemning one set of opinions and approving another. [The Earl of SHAFTESBURY: No, no!] What, then, does my noble Friend mean by saying that he is satisfied from the names appointed on the Commission that the Report of the Commission can give no satisfaction to the party which he immediately represents? I say that that party is fully represented on the Commission by able and distinguished men, and men who perhaps hold opinions as strong as those of the noble Earl himself. It was not the intention of the Government, nor did we think it desirable, that the Commission should be so framed as to represent only one set of opinions, but that, as in the case of the previous Commission respecting Clerical Subscription, it should be so constituted that all parties might be fairly heard, and that by the conflict of opinion—and I trust it will be a friendly conflict in the present instance — there might be elicited a fair, a reasonable, and a moderate Report which would be satisfactory to all moderate men.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: In reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, allow me to say that all that may be perfectly right, but there is no justice in the charge which the noble, Earl has thought fit to bring against me—namely, that my only view was that the Commission should be so framed as that it should condemn the opinions to which I am opposed. What right has the noble Earl to say that? What have I ever said to lay myself open to such a charge? I venture to say that the noble Earl has made a statement which is not justified by any one consideration. What I said is this—that there were two or three Gentlemen on the Commission who ought not to be on it. I have not the names before me, but I think I am not going too far when I say that it is somewhat extraordinary to

123
find on the Commission the name of the founder and builder of that Church of St. Alban's—which is the head of offence in all this matter—Mr. Hubbard, who at this hour is churchwarden of that church. He is a most respectable and excellent man in every possible sense of the word; but still he is a man who has taken up so decided an attitude in regard to these Ritualistic practices, that he cannot be considered an impartial judge to be placed upon the Commission. I do not for one moment doubt that the Members of the Commission mean to do their duty; but what I argue is that they may be biassed by their very strong feelings, and may not be able to act so impartially as could be desired. I must again protest against the noble Earl rising in his place in this House, and, in the presence of the whole country, charging me with a degree of baseness which would render me unfit to sit in this House.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I shall be extremely sorry if I have done any injustice to the noble Earl, and I am glad to hear that he disclaims what I attributed to him. But certainly when I heard what fell from my noble Friend I thought I was perfectly justified in making the observation I did, in regard to having no persons on the Commission except those of undecided opinions. I would venture to remind my noble Friend that in almost every Commission some persona have been appointed who hold strong and extreme opinions. For example, there sat on the Commission on the Punishment of Death, Mr. Ewart, a Gentleman who, year after year in the House of Commons, had perseveringly advocated the abolition of that punishment. Yet nobody thought of objecting to the appointment of Mr. Ewart on this occasion to serve on the Commission. In the same manner I proposed to my noble Friend himself that he should serve on the Commission, and I should have been glad if he had consented to do so; though, if he had declined, that was a matter for his own discretion. It was our wish that all opinions should be fairly represented on the Commission in order that its decision might not be a one-sided one.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has done me the honour to specify my name as one to which he objected, on the ground that I am a person of extreme opinions. This Commission has been appointed mainly to examine, report upon, or, if possible, adjust the difficult questions which have arisen as
124
to the extreme Ritual. Now, I challenge the noble Earl in the face of the House to produce one single element of proof for the assertion that he has just made—that I am, or ever have been, an extreme man in the matter. My actions and words are before the Church. I have done all in my power to repress these extremes, and I have given in my Charges, and have published, the reasons why I endeavour to repress them. I have done more. I have been successful in repressing them; for, whereas in other dioceses they have broken out, in the diocese of Oxford there has been a remarkable absence of them. It is very easy for the noble Earl to attack me because I do not take an extreme view. He himself confesses that he is an extreme man. I am not an extreme man. I am one who holds that middle position of doctrine in the Church of England which Richard Hooker held, and for which, while living, he was beset by the Puritan faction, and for the holding and maintaining of which he has, since his death, been universally esteemed in the Church of England. These are my opinions, and I challenge the noble Earl to make good, if he can, the words he has so rashly thrown out in your Lordships' presence.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think we must all feel that it is inconvenient to discuss the characters of the Members of this Commission; but I must say that I think the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has made an attack upon my noble Friend which appears to be not well founded. I did not understand the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) to mean what the noble Earl has imputed to him. I do not wish at this moment to give any opinion myself upon the constitution of the Commission. There are many Members of it with whom I am personally unacquainted; but judging, not only from the tone of the public press, but from all that I have heard on the subject, I must conclude that the composition of the Commission is not generally considered a perfectly fair and judicious one. There can be no doubt that a Commission ought to be composed either upon one principle or the other—either of persons perfectly impartial, or it should be a representative Commission, representing adequately and fairly the different shades of opinion. If I understood the objection of my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) rightly, it is that he does not think that the Commission, taken as a representative Commission, is not so constituted as

125
fairly to represent all opinions. I do not doubt but the noble Earl and Mr. Walpole have most conscientiously desired to come to a proper conclusion on the matter. But I should like to know whether they consulted any other persons before settling it. I know, as a fact, that neither the Archbishop of York nor the Bishop of London were consulted. I believe that there is no doubt that the Archbishop of York refused to serve on the Commission, and I believe the Bishop of Durham did so also.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am not able to say whether the Bishop of London was consulted in the first instance or not; but I know that the Archbishop of Canterbury was consulted in regard to the names of the Members, and I believe he communicated them to the Bishop of London and other Prelates. The Archbishop of York refused to serve on the Commission—for what reasons it is not for me to say.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As my name has been mentioned, I may now state that, at an early stage, the list of the proposed Members of the Commission was presented to me; and among them, at that time, were the names of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and Sir Roundell Palmer. I then thought that the Commission was fairly constituted; but I have not seen it since, and I can therefore give no opinion respecting it. At the same time, I must say I believe that all parties are fairly represented, and it only remains to be seen whether the country will be satisfied.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Though it is not usual in the case of Royal Commissions, I will move an Address to the Crown for a copy of this Commission.
THE EARL OF DERBYthen moved an Address for Copy of the Commission of Inquiry into the difference of Practise in the Conduct of Public Worship in Churches of the United Church of England and Ireland.
Motion agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD, in moving for Returns relating to members of Friendly Societies, said, there were four classes of these societies. The first were societies established for the purpose of providing assistance for the members in time of sickness, and payment of certain sums on their
  126
  death. These societies were generally established for local purposes, were managed by persons living in the district, and, as a rule, were very well managed. But as, under the last Act relating to Friendly Societies, there was no legal obligation that the rules of these kinds of societies should be properly certified, he thought that an amendment wag required in that respect; and he also thought that some more practical arrangement for the settlement of disputes was required. The next class presented several of the advantages of the first class, but it contained a number of members who were merely depositors. This class of societies were not even obliged to keep their accounts separate—a state of things in which it was impossible for any society to be sound; but, upon merely depositing their rules, were entitled to claim the advantages of the 44th section, and were invested with the privilege of sueing and being sued. He did not object to their having this privilege, but he thought it most objectionable that any society should receive recognition from the Registrar of Friendly Societies unless its accounts were returned and kept in such a manner as afforded a guarantee for its soundness. There was a third class of societies which he thought the Legislature ought to do everything in its power to discourage—he meant the large burial societies established in the large towns such as Liverpool and Manchester, which sometimes consisted of 150,000 to 200,000 members. These societies conducted their business by means of collectors and agents employed to collect subscriptions in different localities throughout the country. In this way the expenses of management were swollen to 25 or 50 per cent, and members residing in the more distant localities frequently found themselves without any possibility of redress as against the central society. Collectors and agents, he thought, ought in such cases to be held responsible to those whom they induced to join; and, remembering the public statement made some years ago by Mr. Gladstone, calling attention to this subject, it was surprising that some legislation on the subject had not taken place. A fourth class, who, on depositing their rules, were entitled to the protection provided by the Act, were those trade societies which were connected with trades unions. Without going into the question of the legality or illegality of any of the rules of these societies, he thought it would be clear to their Lordships that

  127
  the proper time to ascertain whether the rules were or were not legal was before they were deposited with the Registrar General. If before the rules of these societies received the recognition of the Registrar General they were certified by some competent authority as legal or illegal great advantage would result, and many cases, such as had been brought before the Law Courts, in which the rules were declared to be illegal, would have been prevented. The noble Earl, in conclusion, stated that he had given close attention to this subject, and that it was his full intention to lay a Bill on the table of the House. The Returns, however, for which he asked, in the first instance, would have the effect, when produced, of calling public attention to the subject, and rendering apparent the necessity for legislation.
  Return of the Number of Paupers in each Union Workhouse who have been Members of Friendly Societies which have been dissolved or broken up: And also,
  Return of the Number of Friendly Societies in each County in England and Whiles enrolled and certified since June 1793 (33 Geo. 3. c. 54.) to 31st May 1867; and also of the Number of such Societies which have been dissolved or broken up.—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that having taken an active interest in the change which was made in 1827, he would venture to suggest that his noble Friend should not carry back the scope of his inquiry to 1793, but should begin with 1827, at which period the Registrars of Friendly Societies were first appointed. As to the contemplated inquiry in the union workhouses, he had no objection to offer, but he did not think his noble Friend was likely to gain in those establishments much useful information concerning the state of friendly societies. In 1827 the question was very carefully considered whether it was possible to have tables framed so accurately that the Registrar might certify the tables as well as the rules; but it was found that it would be most unsafe to give Parliamentary sanction to any tables of this description. The difference in the value of life in large towns and in the rural districts was immense, and calculations respecting friendly societies must be based on the minimum number of contributing members. It should be remembered that the Carlisle and the Northampton tables differed considerably, and both varied from tables constructed subsequently. In fact,
  128
  no tables could be framed that would be applicable to friendly societies generally. The noble Earl desired to have rules so framed that no question upon them could afterwards arise in a Court of Law; but hitherto it had been found impossible to frame any rules or laws upon which litigation did not afterwards arise, and he feared that in aiming at too much the noble Earl might defeat his own object. It was impossible that any subject more important to the comfort and welfare of the lowest classes could be taken up; and if the noble Earl needed any assistance he should be happy to afford him the benefit of any information or experience which he himself had acquired with regard to this question during the last forty years.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had understood that Mr. Tidd Pratt had said that out of 25,000 friendly societies that had come before him, he could not satisfy himself of the soundness of twenty.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, there was no objection to furnishing the Returns referred to in the first part of the Motion, and he would endeavour to secure that the information was supplied as fully as possible. The latter part of the Motion referred to a department with which he was not connected.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDbelieved there would be no difficulty in obtaining the Returns as far back as 1793, for although the whole of the Returns necessary were not in the hands of the Registrars, they were in existence. With regard to the proposal to frame tables, he did not believe any actuary in London would be able to frame a rate of payment for a place with which he was not well acquainted. The noble Lord (Lord Portman) had said that it would not be desirable to lay down rules for all cases indiscriminately; but it seemed to him (the Earl of Lichfield) that arbitration was so good a thing that a rule now in force in some societies, requiring that cases of dispute should be settled by the arbitration of certain persons neither directly nor indirectly interested in the funds of the society, might be insisted on as security for the members.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that under present circumstances there was nothing members of friendly societies objected to so much as arbitration, because, although arbitrators might be appointed, they could not be made to act. Courts of Law were open to all, and if arbitration were to be really serviceable some provision should be

  129
  made compelling the arbitrators to act when required.
  Motion agreed to: Returns ordered to be laid before the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD LYVEDEN, in moving for Returns relating to the Business of the House—the number of Peers who have attended each sitting, the measures passed, the number of divisions, the number of times proxies have been called and their effect upon the result of the divisions—said that in the first place he must apologize for introducing a subject which would more properly have originated with one of much greater experience. In doing so he in no wise desired to speak in the way of reproach of the manner in which the business was managed in their Lordships' House; he simply desired to make clear to their Lordships, and through their Lordships to the public, what amount of business was actually transacted in their Chamber. He did not consider that their Lordships' House ought to be regarded as a drag upon the wheel of progress, or as merely a weight on the machinery of the State. On the contrary, he thought their Lordships should transact a large amount of business of great importance. Wherever representative assemblies exist an Upper Chamber had always been deemed a necessity, as was shown by the fact that a double Chamber always formed a feature of every new Constitution framed by the Legislature for the Colonies. The only distinction between the Upper Chamber of the mother country and those of the Colonies was that the one was hereditary and the other elective; and no doubt the colonial Upper Chambers were elective, because it was impossible satisfactorily to form a colonial Upper chamber purely after the model of their Lordships' House. He did not indeed believe that in any country in the world such an assembly of men could be brought together as formed their Lordships' House. In it were to be found the descendants of the ancient nobility. Lawyers who had raised themselves by their learning and talents to the highest rank in their profession, eminent diplomatists, distinguished military men, and a bench of Bishops no less remarkable as scholars than as divines — some men eminent in commerce, others beloved for their philanthropy—so that among them were many
  130
  of the most highly educated men in the kingdom: with experience gained by many in the more active arena of the House of Commons, and by nearly all in the local tribunals of their country, their Lordships' House was formed of those whose education peculiarly fitted them to fill the office of legislator. Nor were they without great rhetoricians. The noble Earl behind the gangway (the Earl of Ellenborough) was almost alone in his emphatic eloquence. The noble Earl at the head of the Government was, as a debater, not excelled by anyone in this or any assembly in the world; and generally their Lordships brought to that House an independence of action not always possessed by Members of the House of Commons. Still, with all these advantages, it was constantly asked why their Lordships' debates were not more ample, and why they were regarded with so little interest by the public? In answering this he contended that the House of Lords wag not to be considered by the same standard as the House of Commons. The main reason, of course, was to be found in the position which the House of Lords occupied in the constitution, while it was notorious that the Government of the country rested mainly with the House of Commons. Ministers were naturally desirous not to bring forward in the House of Lords measures which might appear more appropriate to the House of Commons, and they were anxious first to ascertain the opinion of the Lower House upon their Bills. There had, indeed, always been a tendency not to originate measures in their Lordships' House—so much so that the subject had led to a great deal of discussion in a Committee which sat in 1861. For his own part he thought that there were several directions in which the present arrangements might be altered, and that legislation might safety be commenced in that House to a much greater extent than was the case at present. He confessed, however, that his experience did not lead him to put much faith in leaving the matter to be dealt with by a Committee; he believed that the evil might be much better remedied by their Lordships themselves taking the matter in hand. That section of the Return for which he proposed to move, relating to the attendance of Peers during the present Session, would, he believed, show that the attendance in their Lordships' House was much more constant and much larger than was generally supposed. And on this arose the question,

  131
  whether they should not adopt some such course as was in practice in the House of Commons — that of requiring a certain number of Peers to be present in the House in order to the transaction of business. He did not know that such a rule would tend to expedite the public business, but it would certainly be more satisfactory to the country. The practice, which was not one sanctioned by the House of Commons, of any Peer bringing forward in a long speech a subject after giving private notice to the Minister, also damaged their Lordships' debates, for many noble Peers who would otherwise have been present, and whose opinion on any given subject was of great weight, were absent owing to the fact that they knew nothing of its being brought forward. Again; there certainly was in their Lordships' House an absence of order in the conduct of business, such as did not exist in the other House of Parliament, owing to their having no president to whom reference could be made for decision. But his chief object in bringing forward the subject was to disabuse the public mind as to the small amount of business supposed to be transacted by their Lordships' House. It was no doubt startling to read in the newspapers that the House met at five o'clock and adjourned at half-past five, leading to the inference that the Lords have done nothing, forgetting that they have nothing to do by no fault of their own. In opposition to this short sitting he would take an evening when some great question came forward. Unless a division is expected, which is seldom, the attendance diminishes at seven, and altogether disappears at eight. As the House does not meet till five, and does not begin business till a quarter past, just two hours and a half are left for the debate, the whole of which, or at least two-thirds, are engaged by the Leaders of the House, so that no young Peers have that opportunity for practice which is quite necessary to make accomplished speakers. Another reason for the diminished attendance of Peers at the sittings of the House was the mode in which private business was conducted. He thought that in spite of the able manner in which the Chairman of Committees performed his duties, the practice of selection for Committees on Private Bills at present in vogue was one which it was, at all events, advisable in Borne way to modify. Instead of noble Lords being canvassed for their attendance
  132
  on Committees as was now done, he could not understand why a circular similar to the one adopted by the House of Commons should not be sent to every one of their Lordships, asking at what period of the Session it would be most convenient for him to attend. The present practice was most objectionable; and, as the nature of the work was of itself extremely irksome, the only plan by which it could be made tolerable would be one which would secure a regular and fair division of labour. He might, perhaps, add that he had no objection, if the noble Earl at the head of the Government thought it desirable, that this subject should be referred to the Committee which would probably be appointed in consequence of the Motion which his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had placed on the Paper for to-morrow. The next point to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention was the question of proxies, in which also he felt a very deep interest. And here, too, he believed the general opinion over estimated the extent to which they were employed. The use of proxies was one of the oldest institutions of the House of Lords. The first instance of the use of proxies occurred, as far as they could learn, in the time of Edward I.; but the proxies of that period were of a very different character to that used at present, for a Peer had to state the reason why the Peer whose proxy he held could not attend. According to a Return obtained by Lord Brougham in 1849 it appeared, that in the ten years previous proxies only had been used on twenty-two occasions, and of that number four measures or questions only were carried by these proxies. Owing to the diligence of one of the officers of their Lordships' House he learnt that, during the ten years subsequent to 1849, proxies had only been used nine times, and on only three occasions was the result determined by their influence—namely, the Ministers Money Bill, the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, and, thirdly, the Motion made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) for a vote of censure on the Government of the late Lord Palmerston for their conduct in connection with the Danish Question. He believed the system itself, however, to be so anomalous that it was incumbent on the advocates of the present practice rather to offer a defence than for those who attacked it to make out their case. The impression out of doors was, that Peers held many

  133
  proxies which they could use as they thought fit, and by so doing, of course, carry any measure; but since the time of Charles II. no Peer had held more than two proxies, and on certain questions they could not be used. The great mistake, however, was their use on votes of censure; but their use on those occasions did not produce any popular victory, because the fate of a Ministry did not depend upon a vote in their Lordships' House. Their Lordships' House never stood higher in public estimation than at present, and to a great extent it was the guide of public opinion in this country. It was the duty of their Lordships so to improve the conduct of business in that House as to continue to merit that good opinion, and if possible enhance it. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Returns.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House:
  Return of the Number of Lords who have attended the Sitting of the House on each Evening since the Commencement of the Session; the Time each Evening during which the House has sat; the Measures passed; whether brought up from the House of Commons or originated in the House of Lords; the Number of Divisions, and the Number of Lords who voted: Also,
  An Account of the Instances in which Proxies having been called the Result of the Division was such that the Majority of the whole Votes was different from the Majority of the whole Votes present and Proxies, distinguishing the Date of each Instance since 1849: And also,
  An Account of the Number of Times in each Year which Proxies have been called since the last Return in 1849.—(The Lord Lyveden.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I can find no fault with the noble Lord for introducing this Question. I think it is very important that the public at large should be satisfied that this House is not a mere drag upon the other House of Parliament, and that it should not think, on the other hand, that this House systematically abandons the consideration of all important measures a small proportion of its Members, and neglects those duties which should engage the attention of those who occupy seats in this House. With regard to the particular object of the noble Lord's Motion I confess that I am of opinion that some of the information he seeks is not very valuable or important. It is not necessary, for example, to show the number of Peers who attend each particular evening, or the number of hours—or of minutes in some instances—we sit on each particular evening, because that information, taken without any explanation of the amount of busi-
  134
  ness transacted, would give a false impression of the manner in which the House discharges its duties. I venture to say that, whenever any really important business comes before the House for consideration, looking to the difference of ages of the Members of the two Houses, and the number of Members of your Lordships' House who are unfortunately unable to attend in consequence of infirmity, there is a full proportion of attendance in this House compared with that given in the other House. It cannot be expected that Peers will come down to the House in large numbers in the early part of the Session, when there really is nothing before the House but mere questions of routine and minor importance are to be discussed, and nothing comes before the House attracting public attention. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has a Motion on the Paper for to-morrow, which he believes will have a tendency to encourage the attendance and speaking of the younger Members of your Lordships' House on ordinary occasions. Now, if that object can be attained, it will be very desirable, because I think that it is a great inconvenience and loss to your Lordships' House that the younger Peers, from whatever motives, abstain from taking part in the debates, leaving the main business to be done by the older stagers. I am not quite certain that the course which the noble Earl suggests is one calculated to have the effect he desires to produce; neither am I sure that there may not be other objections taken to it; but it is, at all events, worthy of your Lordships' consideration. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyveden) has stated that he has no objection to refer the subject of his Motion to the Committee to be moved for by the noble Lord opposite, if granted. As far as the Government is concerned we shall not offer any objection to the proposal of the noble Earl, nor to that of the noble Baron. On the contrary, I think it is very desirable that we should take this opportunity of inquiring into the mode of conducting business in this House; but I think that it can be more advantageously done by moving for a Committee, than by moving for certain Returns, which, unaccompanied by explanations, may lead to false and unfair impressions as to the real merits of the case. With regard to the time spent by your Lordships, irrespective of the measures brought forward, I confess I am not one of those who measure

  135
  the value and importance of the duties performed by the two Houses by the time occupied in the discharge of them. I am happy to say that the cacoethes loquendi does not prevail in this House to the extent that it does in the other House of Parliament. There are not so many of your Lordships who are anxious to give your opinions upon every subject which is brought under discussion; neither are there so many, I am happy to say, who suggest Amendment after Amendment in Committee. Were we to follow the example of the other House we should find that passing one Bill through Committee would probably absorb the greater portion of the Session. I do not think that the time spent on a particular debate is a measure of its importance. Therefore, a Return of the number of hours occupied and the number of measures passed between February and June would give a false and erroneous impression of the amount of business done by this House, because, as the noble Lord is aware, during the early part of the Session we are waiting for measures from the other House and have nothing to do, whereas, at the end of the Session, we are overwhelmed with business which has to be got through very hastily; and I am sorry to say, that, owing to that circumstance, our duty is often very superficially performed. It is much easier, however, to point out the inconvenience than to suggest a remedy. It may be said that we might in the earlier part of the Session proceed with measures which might fitly occupy the other House at a later period. Now, it does so happen that this Session we have sent down to the other House a greater number of measures than have been sent up to us. The Bills relating to the Metropolitan Traffic, to the Public Schools, and to the Amendment of the Law, which were originated in this House during the present Session, have been sent down to the other House, where they are all tied up, and will have to remain there until July or August; when perhaps the measures which we sent down from this House in March may have to be laid aside in consequence of the other business of the House of Commons occupying their whole time. It is no encouragement to your Lordships to devote your time and attention in the preparation of measures with the perfect conviction in your minds that they will be thrown over, and that you will have to recommence your labours the following Session, Besides this,
  136
  the greater proportion of the Bills winch pass through Parliament contain provisions with regard to taxation or other money matters which the rules of the House of Commons — whether reasonably or unreasonably I do not pretend to say — prevent us from exercising any control over. At the same time I think it is quite desirable to ascertain whether, by any mode we can adopt, we can secure a more regular and a larger attendance of Members of this House, and whether we can take upon ourselves a larger share of the duties of Parliamentary legislation. I confess I do not see any hope of altering the existing state of things as long as the rules of the House of Commons prevent measures being brought into this House in the early part of the Session. In taking into consideration the proportionate attendance in this House and in that of the other House of Parliament, the greater age of the Members of this House—a much larger proportion of its Members being above the age of sixty than is the case in the House of Commons—should not be overlooked. And this is not unimportant with regard to the question of proxies, the greater age and the increasing infirmities of the most valuable Members of this House preventing them from attending to give their votes in person upon all occasions. I am not going to argue the question of proxies; it is, as the noble Lord says, a very ancient right of the House; but it is never used except upon very rare occasions. Indeed, proxies have only been used in two instances in the course of the last nine years.
  LORD LYVEDENremarked that there had been nine occasions within the last ten years.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: There were several instances in 1857–8, when proxies were used, but within the last nine years they have only been used on two occasions. It is supposed out of doors that a single Peer can hold an unlimited number of proxies, but actually no Peer can hold more than two; and, so far from your Lordships being taken by surprise by their use, all proxies are entered in a book, with the names of those who are to use them, such book being open to inspection to all Members of the House before 4 o'clock of the day previous to that in which they are to be used. Again; on this subject it should be recollected that they can only be applied to questions of principle not of detail. Proxies cannot be used in Committee. It is no doubt most important, that on all subjects

  137
  the arguments should be carefully weighed; and there is no doubt that on many great and important questions of principle your Lordships' judgment is delivered when many have not been present to hear the arguments used on that occasion; but these arguments have been probably used over and over again, and year after year. I cannot think that the use of proxies on such occasions is an improper use. It certainly is not more unreasonable than the power of pairing acted on in the other House, and according to which Members are pledged to abstain from voting until a particular hour, and then they went down to the House to give their votes without knowing the particular questions to be brought forward at the particular moment, and without having heard the arguments—or perhaps for a portion—it may be the greater portion—of a Session, by which Members pledge themselves to a particular course of action in matters of which they have at the time not the slightest conception. Again, I say, there are many most valuable Members of their Lordships' House, who, from age and infirmity, are unable to give their attendance, but whose opinions on subjects which have been discussed over and over again would be most valuable to the House, and who are enabled by the system of proxies to record their votes on such subjects. That is a very legitimate occasion for the practice of voting by proxy; and, though I do not think it of great consequence if it should be done away with altogether, yet I think there are reasons for it as applying to your Lordships' House which would not apply to such a practice in the other House. I will not enter further into the discussion of the merits of this question. I think I understood from the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) that he would have no objection to have the whole matter referred to the Select Committee. Perhaps, then, the noble Lord will consent to withdraw his Motion for the present upon the understanding that not only his Motion, but that of which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has given notice for to-morrow, and the addition to be moved by another noble Earl (Earl Granville) will, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, be referred to the same Committee. That Committee will have a full opportunity of discussing the various questions comprised in the two notices.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was glad to hear that the Motion of the noble Earl
  138
  (the Earl of Shaftesbury), together with the extension, of which he (Earl Granville) had given notice, would be acceded to by the Government. There was no doubt that there were two things upon which the public had formed erroneous notions—the attendance of their Lordships in the House, and the amount of business transacted. No doubt, the amount of business to be transacted by their Lordships must have some effect on the attendance of Peers in the House. With respect to attendance, no one could speak with more authority than the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), not only on account of his being the Leader of the Government, but because there was no Peer young or old who attended more assiduously than he did, whether in or out of office. The attendance in this House had been above the average this year, partly owing to the pressure which it was understood he (the Earl of Derby) put upon all those connected with his Government, The attendance of their Lordships depended very much upon the interest attached to the Question upon the Paper, On the one hand, if a large number of Peers came down to the House, and found nothing to do, they were not encouraged to come down the next day. On the other hand, if a noble Lord came down to the House with the intention of bringing forward some question of interest or importance, and found on his arrival only a scanty attendance of Peers, he could not feel the same desire of dealing with the matter as he would have if there were a large attendance. This year one subject alone absorbed the attention of the public—that subject could only be discussed when the Reform Bill came before the House. On other subjects, there was a desire on the Liberal side not to show any party spirit; and it would not add to, but diminish the reputation of the House, if Peers were to debate questions of no practical interest to the public at large. It was never the interest of a Government to raise discussions; it was their business I to get their business done as quietly and promptly as possible. The noble, Earl (who was imperfectly heard) deprecated the use of proxies, answered the reasons given for their use, and strongly recommended that the further exercise of them should be considered in the Committee. The words of reference which he had proposed were purposely vague, in order that the Committee might inquire into the various suggestions which have been made for the

  139
  more satisfactory transaction of the business of the House.
  LORD REDESDALEtrusted that the House would not make any change in the mode of conducting the private business of that House, which, from his long experience, he thought he could say worked admirably. He believed that the mode of conducting it in connection with opposed Bills gave very general satisfaction, and he believed that that satisfaction would not arise unless the Peers who served on Committees served voluntarily. He did not think that the same service could be obtained by a system of rota as by the system of Peers serving voluntarily. It was absolutely necessary, in consequence of the great territorial connection of the Peers, that great care should be taken in the formation of Committees on Private Bills. With regard to the business of a public nature transacted by their Lordships in the present Session, he would mention among other measures one of very great importance — the British North America Bill; and, as had been already remarked, their Lordships had already sent down more business to the other House than the other House had sent up to their Lordships. He must remark that one great impediment in the way of legislation by their Lordships' House was by reason of the privileges claimed by the other House of Parliament. No one was more sensible than himself of the extreme importance of leaving all measures relating to taxation to the other House. It was true that the powers of this House were thereby limited; but still he thought it was a principle which was right in itself, and in regard to which he should not think of asking for any change to be made by the other House of Parliament. With respect to the question of rating, however, it appeared to him that it involved no principle whatever; and there were certainly many measures of local importance which might with advantage be originated and dealt with in that House; and yet even when such Bills came up from the other House they were crippled with reference to Amendments by this claim of privilege. That question had nearly been given up by the House of Commons a good many years ago. A Committee passed a Resolution in favour of relaxing the rules on the subject; but, unfortunately, they reconsidered the Resolution, and the result was that it was not inserted in their Report. The House of Commons had, however, relaxed their
  140
  privileges in order to enable that House to commence a portion of the private business; and no objection had since been raised in the other House on the subject. He hoped that the House of Commons would take into consideration their privileges respecting local taxation and rating in a manner which would tend to improve legislation in both Houses. As to proxies, perhaps, nobody had had more experience of them than himself, he having been "whip" throughout the stormy political period which followed the passing of the Reform Bill. He confessed he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of proxies, and that what had been said against them proceeded in great degree from theory and not from a practical knowledge of the conduct of business in the House. People were in the habit of talking about decisions being come to by Peers who had not heard the debates; but, as a plain matter of fact, did not everybody know beforehand how every Peer would vote on questions of importance? As an example of this he might refer to the question of foreign policy raised by the noble Earl who had just sat down. They might depend upon it that every vote given by proxy upon that occasion—which was a party occasion — would have been precisely the same if every Peer had heard the debate. There were, indeed, a certain number of persons who did not hold very decided views, and whose decision might be influenced by a discussion. Some, perhaps, would call them crotchetty and others undecided. Well, this was the very class of Peers who gave their proxies only upon condition that they should be used very carefully, and they usually placed them in the hands of some Peer in whom they reposed confidence. Another point concerning proxies deserved consideration. If a Member of the other House obtained an appointment abroad, he vacated his seat, and his place was at once filled up. In the House of Lords, however, the state of things was altogether different. If a Peer were appointed to a foreign mission, his party would be deprived of his vote altogether unless he were allowed to give it by proxy. Suppose, then, that proxies were abolished, it might possibly happen that the best men would not be appointed to important offices—such as that of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or of Ambassador at Paris—on account of the Government being unwilling to lose their vote in that House. He thought,

  141
  on the whole, that voting by proxy was a very useful arrangement. As, however, there appeared to be a great desire that the subject should be investigated, he should be glad if it were referred to a Committee, although he thought the discussions of questions of that kind in the House itself was of more importance than a discussion before a Committee. The real use of any inquiry was to enlighten the public mind in regard to the way in which the business of their Lordships' House was conducted. He thought that a little discussion would be productive of much good, and was glad, therefore, to have had this opportunity of making known his views on the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he paid great deference to the large experience of the noble Lord (the Chairman of Committees) in matters of this kind, but it certainly appeared to him to be not consonant with the dignity of their Lordships' House, or conducive to the proper transaction of business, that the attendance of Peers on Committees should be entirely voluntary. It would be invidious to mention names, but he might remark that some noble Lords scarcely ever attended that House who were just as able as other noble Lords to take a part in the transaction of business. It was not right that those noble Lords should entirely absent themselves. The noble Lord who had just spoken seemed to think that the attendance of noble Lords on a rota would not secure the efficiency of Committees. He, however, would suggest that at the commencement of every Session, as was done in the other House, an "Excused List" should be made out, and that the names of all Peers who so desired should be placed upon it. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if any noble Lords desired to be excused, their wishes ought to be taken into consideration. They might be excused on account of great age and other reasons. And he might here remark that Members of the other House not unfrequently obtained leave of absence. He hoped that this question would be discussed by the Committee, and that his suggestion should be adopted. In speaking of proxies he thought the noble Lord had overlooked the moral effect produced by the system in the mind of the public out of doors, who had become impressed with the idea that questions were decided in that House without debate, and by the votes of absent Members. The existence of such an idea obviously tended to lower
  142
  that House in the estimation of the public, and he thought therefore that it would be exceedingly desirable to abandon the ancient practice of voting by proxy.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONdesired to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that in former times a very large proportion of their Lordships' House was composed of ecclesiastics. No doubt considerable jealousy existed as between the spiritual Lords and the Lords temporal; and while, on the one hand, the spiritual Lords were anxious to bring their numbers to bear on the deliberations of the House with respect to matters in which they felt interested, it constantly happened that the temporal Lords were absent by order of the King for the discharge of duties in other parts of the kingdom and elsewhere. In that way voting by proxy commenced, the object being to enable the spiritual Lords to express their opinions, and that the Lords absent on the King's service should be able to record their opinions in Parliament. But if their Lordships looked back through the Journals he thought they would find that the proxy system had been regarded by the House in the interest of the House itself, and not in that of the individual. There was a rule that the proxy of a temporal Lord must always be held by a temporal Peer, and that the proxy of a spiritual Peer must always be held by a spiritual Peer. The great principle which underlaid the proxy question was this—that the use and exercise of the proxy was the privilege of the Mouse, and not a privilege of the individual. But in the course of time that which had been the privilege of the House became absorbed in the consideration of the personal convenience of the individual. Various Motions and Orders had been made on the subject. In the reign of Elizabeth a Motion was made by the Lord Keeper that the Gentleman Usher might be sent to such Lords as were absent from Parliament, and had not sent their proxies, "to admonish them thereof." They were not to be admonished because they had been absent from Parliament, but because they had not sent their proxies. Several Motions were made during the 17th century, all of which bore more or less the same character as that to which he had just referred. At the end of the 17th century these questions were raised—"First, whether proxies of Peers absent without leave of the House or of the King be allowed; second, whether proxies of Peers absent

  143
  without the King's leave, but with leave of the House, be allowed; third, whether proxies of Peers absent without leave of the House be allowed." All those questions were resolved in the affirmative. He concurred in what had been said as to the direct importance of proxies being very much overrated. Of late years they had been used only very sparingly. But he thought their indirect influence had a very prejudicial effect. They had a prejudicial effect on the opinion of the public out of doors, who did not very well understand the character of the proceedings in their Lordships' House. The use of proxies gave rise in the public mind to the idea that their Lordships were in the habit of deciding matters, not on the merits, but on grounds of previous prejudice, and that proxies prevailed against the views and votes of the Peers who were present at divisions. Again, the system was unfortunate as regarded Members of the House. It tended to create in the minds of young Peers the belief that their presence in their places there was a matter of indifference. He knew there were several Peers who, had they attended that House habitually and taken part in their Lordships' deliberations, would have become valuable Members; but they thought they saved their consciences by placing their proxies in the hands of some noble Lord in whom they had confidence, and having done that they absented themselves. He need not point out how certain it was that if the first few years of a Peer's life were allowed to go by without his attendance in their Lordships' House, the habit of non-attendance became fixed. In that way their Lordships lost the services of men who would be most useful. A great many changes had been made in respect to their proceedings within the memory of living men. It was only within the last five-and-twenty years that the Minutes of that House were first printed. It was within a shorter period the agenda paper had first been drawn up and circulated. It was only within a very few years divisions in their Lordships' House had been taken on the present plan. Before that time the votes were taken on a division just as the Peers sat, and much confusion had frequently resulted from that system. The late Earl Stanhope induced the House to alter their practice so as to make it in accordance with that of the House of Commons, and he believed no one regretted the change. He felt convinced that a
  144
  change from anything that was unsubstantial and unreal would be of service to that House and to the country. Nothing appeared to him to be so fatal to efficiency as a sense of want of reality. If they made it clear to the Peers of England that there was a real obligation and responsibility attached to their position as Members of that House, he was sure that in the spirit which actuated Englishmen generally they would come forward and do their work well and effectually.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to a very important treaty in reference to Luxemburg, and very important papers in conection with that treaty which have been presented to Parliament. It appears to me that there are recorded in these papers facts of great importance, for, as your Lordships are aware, a war was on the point of breaking out in Europe, but that that war has been prevented by the diplomatic efforts of the neutral Powers in a conference recently held in London, that I think it is fitting that in your Lordships' House, two or three Members of which have held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, we should take some notice of the circumstances to which I have just alluded. I will not make any particular Motion on this subject, nor will I trespass long on the attention of your Lordships, being warned by the fact that the attendance is not now so full as it lately was, that the present moment is certainly a critical one. There were two subjects which must have engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government in connection with this question of Luxemburg. One was, whether it was so much for the interests of this country that the peace of Europe should be preserved as to induce Her Majesty's Government to interpose its diplomatic offices; and the other was, whether, to maintain peace in Europe, we might not have to pay a higher price than the product was worth. With regard to the first question it has always appeared to me that it is the peculiar and very great interest of this country to preserve the peace of Europe. In the first place, as a commercial country it is of the greatest possible interest to us that peace should prevail. Not only would our com-

  145
  merce be interrupted by the blockade of ports, but many difficult questions must necessarily arise relating to our ships and commerce, which might endanger our neutrality. Again, if war had broken out between France and Prussia, there was every probability that before any long time had elapsed other questions would have arisen in which our honour was so far pledged that it would have been impossible for us not to have intervened. For these reasons I think Her Majesty's Government were quite right in deeming it their duty to offer such advice as lay in their power, with a view of preserving the peace of Europe. The question itself was one peculiarly for conference and arbitration. No one, I think, will find fault with the Prussian Government for saying that Luxemburg was by the treaty of 1839 assigned to Germany, not because there was a German Confederation, but because it was a German interest; and I find in the course of the negotiations which took place in 1839 that there was one moment when Belgium having threatened to seize Luxemburg, the German Confederation, with the consent of the Conference of London, declared their intention to send an army to Luxemburg for the purpose of defending and preserving that country to Germany. It was therefore obviously impossible for Prussia, without some advice from the neutral Powers, to accept worse terms than the German Confederation had accepted with regard to Luxemburg. On the other hand, there was, I think, a just susceptibility on the part of France at seeing Luxemburg about to be transferred from the German Confederation, which, as a body, was so inert and pacific as not to excite any apprehension, to a great military power like Prussia, from which there might, perhaps, be fear of aggression. Therefore, both in one case and in the other, there was very great need of some interposition of a friendly Power, and if possible that some terms should be agreed upon which both parties could adopt with honour. I happened this morning to be looking at some old despatches of M. Barillon in the time of Louis XIV., which are very characteristic both of that monarch and of Charles II. Louis XIV. declared his wish to seize Luxemburg, and Charles II. consented to the transaction on condition that a million of livres should be transferred to the Royal Treasury. The terms proposed at the recent Conference were, that the fortress of Luxemburg
  146
  should be abandoned by the Prussian troops; and, further, that the territory of Luxemburg should not only be assured to the King of the Netherlands as his property, but that its neutrality should be guaranteed, and the fortress demolished. These are conditions which were, I think, very properly supported by the present Foreign Minister, in view of the dangers which it was sought to avoid. I cannot consider that we have entered into a treaty which is likely to be infringed, or that any great danger has been incurred by our entering into an additional guarantee. I do not consider that we have entered into any new guarantee which is likely to prove onerous. I believe there is every probability that the peace of Europe will be continued. But even if Prussia and France were at war I do not think that either of them would be disposed to violate the neutrality of Luxemburg, because they would have to consider that by doing so they would provoke the interposition and hostility of the great Powers who have consented to give this guarantee. I am therefore of opinion, and I venture to state that opinion to your Lordships—in the first place, that it was most desirable to maintain the pence of Europe; and next, that we have not made too great a sacrifice to maintain that peace, and have not entered into any guarantee involving probable danger, or into any engagements that can be blamed or found fault with. I will say, and I am most happy to say, that the ability, the judgment, and the temper with which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has conducted this correspondence and the manner in which he behaved in the Conference will give to Parliament and to the country great confidence in his conduct of foreign affairs. In the next place I desire to express my satisfaction that the Government has not listened to theories which last year I was somewhat apprehensive that they might have entertained, under the name of a new foreign policy — that however great our interest might be, we were not to interfere in the affairs of foreign countries. I am happy to find, on the contrary, we have continued, in the diplomatic correspondence which has lately taken place, the great work and the great policy with respect to Luxemburg and Belgium, in which, from 1830 to 1839, Lord Palmerston displayed such extraordinary ability, and by which he obtained so important and glorious a result. These are the only observations that I feel to be necessary.

  147
  I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at such length; but it seems to me that this House should take some notice of a matter of such very great consequence; and, for my part, I am ready to commit myself to an entire approbation of the policy that has been pursued.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that he was on the Continent at the time when the Conference met, and on all sides he heard gratitude expressed for the English intervention. That gratitude was expressed not only by persons in high position, but by others who might be considered exponents of public opinion at large; and the expressions were as earnest and deep as their Lordships could desire. The satisfaction felt at the conclusion of that Conference was real and profound, and most honourable to the character of the statesman who conducted the negotiations. He had, indeed, been somewhat amused at hearing it said on all sides, that at last our foreign policy had undergone a complete change—that England no longer abstained, as she had done, from taking part in European affairs, but had resumed her place in the councils of Europe; for, remembering the frequent charges which had been brought against his noble Friend who had just sat down, of continued meddling in the affairs of Europe, it was somewhat strange that those allegations should now be made. He did not say that in any hostility to the course which had been pursued by the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for he must admit that throughout the whole of these negotiations his noble Friend had exhibited talents equal to the distinguished position which he occupied. At the same time, it was not wise for their Lordships to conceal from themselves or the country that a serious responsibility had been undertaken. He did not think with his noble Friend (Earl Russell) that the contingency was so remote. From the geographical position of Luxemburg it was almost impossible for hostilities to break out between France and Germany, and for the integrity of Luxemburg to be absolutely preserved. These considerations formed so large a part of the Luxemburg question that they inclined both parties to be anxious for a material guarantee. When the Prussian Minister found that the feeling of the German people was so strongly roused on this question of Luxemburg that he would have had very great difficulty in carrying out what were alleged to be his own views—namely, the cession of Luxem-
  148
  burg to France by the King of Holland—a Committee was appointed, consisting of the ablest of the Prussian military men, to report upon the matter. He believed the report they made was to the effect that the position of Luxemburg was so important that the Prussian generals could not undertake to defend the left bank of the Rhine if the fortress of Luxemburg were in the hands of France. On the other hand, a well-founded impression existed among French strategists that the position of the fortress of Luxemburg, if occupied by a hostile force, would be most dangerous to the arms of France. Under these circumstances he believed that, though Her Majesty's Government had undertaken a very serious responsibility, they were right in so doing. They had now the satisfaction of knowing that both France and Prussia were anxious for the neutrality of Luxemburg, and he believed that in expressing their anxiety in this respect they were simply the exponents of the desire of the people of France and Prussia to avoid occasion for future hostilities. In this lay their Lordships' hope for the future well-ordering of this matter. It was evident that no French or German statesman believed that a Continental war could be undertaken without causing an amount of misery and mutual loss which could never be compensated for by any territorial gain. He was happy to say that he found that feeling prevailing in the States of both countries. With regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to this matter, he wished to express his entire satisfaction, and he hoped the Government would carry out what he believed to be a really sound foreign policy. He would not have us retreat from our great mission in the councils of Europe; but, whenever it was necessary to interfere, we should interfere with the full sense of our own responsibility and resources, and in the meantime talk as little as possible about non-intervention.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have to return to the noble Earl (Earl Russell), on behalf of myself and Colleagues, our most sincere thanks for the manner in which he has confirmed the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and also my personal thanks for the manner in which he has spoken of the conduct of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It must be gratifying to Her Majesty's Government to know that on both sides of this and the other House—and he thought that in say-

  149
  ing this he was entitled to add in this country and in Europe—that the course pursued with reference to the Luxemburg question has given general satisfaction; it must be much more gratifying to me personally to know that a great portion of the praise which has been bestowed upon the Government has fallen upon one to whom I am as nearly connected as to Lord Stanley. The question we had to decide was naturally difficult. As the noble Earl has said, there were two questions we had to consider—first, whether it was desirable that we should take measures to avert a war; and, secondly, whether, the peace of Europe having been secured, we have paid too great a price for it. As to the first of these points I can only say, that if any hope existed two months ago of securing a peaceful settlement of the Luxemburg question by our interference, we were not only justified in interfering, but should have been absolutely unjustifiable if we had not done everything in our power to do so. Undoubtedly, the peace of Europe was at that time threatened. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) has stated that the grounds of dispute were reasonable on both sides. On the one hand, there was a reasonable apprehension that the transfer of Luxemburg to Prussia might have been a source of menace to France; and, on the other hand, Prussia was naturally reluctant to part with a fortress which was not only valuable for defensive purposes but for offence also, and which, as it was not now under the control of the German Confederation, might be used as an instrument for preventing an inroad upon them from France. And we must recollect that the feelings of both countries were greatly excited by the extraordinary and almost unparalleled success which had so recently attended the Prussian army. On the other hand France felt that she had a dangerous neighbour in her front, and it was to be feared that the successes of Prussia would lead her people to be ambitious of still further aggression. Consequently, there was very little hope of preserving the peace of Europe if hostilities were once commenced between the two countries; and in prosecuting our anxious task of concerting with other neutral Powers to secure peace we met with serious difficulties—for we did not feel justified in entering into a Conference unless we saw some basis on which to treat. But when we had once found a basis we entered into the Conference,
  150
  having great hopes that the peace of Europe might be maintained. I must say that the moment France saw the danger to the peace of Europe, which she was most desirous of avoiding, she at once withdrew from her position, and disclaimed a desire to enforce the purchase of Luxemburg; and Prussia, though at first hesitating, finally assented to withdraw her garrison on the condition that the fortress should be demolished and that the territory should be declared neutral. Thus the great calamity of a European war was stayed for the time, and still stronger hopes were entertained of the ultimate success of the neutral Powers. A proposal having been made which was accepted as satisfactory to the honour of both parties, we felt that it was incumbent upon us not to shrink from any responsibility which might attach to an additional guarantee on our part if that would secure the final acceptance of the proposal—especially when we knew that if we had refused nothing could have prevented war. The collective guarantee of the neutral Powers was made a sine quâ non, and if England had refused to join, upon England would have rested the heavy responsibility of a European war. The noble Lord who last spoke (Lord Houghton) seems to think that the guarantee goes much further than it really does. I do not entirely agree with the noble Earl (Earl Russell) as to the extent of our responsibility, even supposing it to be of the character he has described. If it had been a continuance of the guarantee first given, I should think it a very serious matter, because the guarantee of the possession of Luxemburg to the King of Holland was a joint and several guarantee similar to that which was given with regard to the independence and neutrality of Belgium; it was binding individually and separately upon each of the Powers. That was the nature of the guarantee which was given with regard to Belgium and with regard to the possession of Luxemburg by the King-Duke. Now a guarantee of neutrality is very different from a guarantee of possession. If France and Prussia were to have a quarrel between themselves, and either were to violate the neutrality of Luxemburg by passing their troops through the duchy for the purpose of making war on the other, we might, if the guarantee had been individual as well as joint, have been under the necessity of preventing that violation, and the same obligation

  151
  would have rested upon each guarantor; but as it is we are not exposed to so serious a contingency, because the guarantee is only collective—that is to say, it is binding only upon all the Powers in their collective capacity; they all agree to maintain the neutrality of Luxemburg, but not one of those Powers is bound to fulfil the obligation alone. That is a most important difference, because the only two Powers by which the neutrality of Luxemburg is likely to be infringed are two of the parties to the collective guarantee; and therefore, if either of them violate the neutrality, the obligation on all the others would not accrue. I thought it right to point out that we had not incurred so very serious a responsibility as some have supposed; but I will say no more, except to repeat the thanks I owe to the noble Earl opposite, and express the extreme satisfaction with which I view the probable result of our interference. I refer to the prospect of long-continued peace between two Powers so formidable as France and Prussia.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I cannot, my Lords, allow this discussion to close without expressing my cordial concurrence in what has fallen from my noble Friend (Earl Russell) with regard to the part which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has taken in the conduct of this matter. No one, perhaps, in his position could have a greater personal interest in averting war, and he best performed the duties attached to his office, as I think, in not proffering the services of this country too hastily, and I think his judgment and caution in not entering into a Conference before he had a good assurance that the decision arrived at would be accepted as final by the parties concerned were remarkable. It was through the instrumentality of the Conference that France and Prussia were enabled to make those mutual concessions and sacrifices which would probably not have been made without. Now, the apprehension which has been expressed with regard to these guarantees is, I think, a perfectly just one; because such obligations are naturally viewed with fear and mistrust by the people of this country. They are sometimes lightly undertaken and are generally intended to tide over a difficulty; while there is at the same time generally a mental reservation founded on the belief that no demand will ever be made for their performance. I hope, however, that the time
  152
  is far distant when from motives of cynical indifference this country will hesitate to incur the smallest sacrifice which may be necessary for securing such great advantages, and I think my noble Friend was perfectly right in the course he took after weighing the infinitesimal risk which England would incur by the course which has been adopted against the certain injury which would be inflicted upon this country by war between France and Prussia. Besides, had that war broken out it would have been extremely difficult—or rather it would have been almost impossible—to make these two Powers believe that we honestly carried out the neutrality we profess, and there can be little doubt that the blame would by these two Powers have, to a great extent, been thrown upon England. With regard to the guarantee, I will go somewhat further than the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and say that if we had undertaken the same guarantee in the case of Luxemburg as we did in the case of Belgium, we should, in my opinion, have incurred an additional and very serious responsibility. I look upon our guarantee in the case of Belgium as an individual guarantee, and have always so regarded it; but this is a collective guarantee. No one of the Powers, therefore, can be called upon to take single action, even in the improbable case of any difficulty arising. I cannot help regarding this guarantee as a moral obligation, a point of honour—as an agreement which cannot be violated without dishonour by any of the signing Powers; and I believe that an agreement of that nature may be more binding than the precise terms in which a treaty is couched, for it is a characteristic of these times that when formal treaties are found inconvenient, they are disregarded. It was probably for this reason that Prussia preferred an arrangement of this kind. The Conference itself has, I think, proved in one more instance the soundness of the principle laid down at the Congress of Paris—that nations between whom any serious difficulty has arisen ought always before resorting to arms to appeal to the friendly offices of neutral States. The success in this case will, I hope, lead to a more general adhesion to that principle. In the case of Denmark the war had already commenced before a Conference was held. An armistice and a reference to the neutral Powers were agreed upon, and even in that case the result might have been an advantageous

  153
  one but for the conduct of Denmark herself. No one has since regretted more than Denmark that she refused the friendly advice offered to her. In the same way, too, after great preparations had been made between Austria and Prussia for a struggle, which it was generally believed would be a very protracted one, it was by Austria that the offers of mediation were rejected. War actually broke out, with what result your Lordships are all aware; and it may not be uninstructive to note that the two Powers which suffered most were those whose conduct rendered the Conferences abortive; whereas, on the other hand, by referring their differences to arbitration the monarchs of France and Prussia have not only been able to adjust their disputes in an honourable and satisfactory manner, but have shown that they are fully alive to the obligations of Sovereigns not to plunge their people unnecessarily into war, while they have, at the same time, earned for themselves the gratitude of their subjects without the assistance of any territorial aggrandizement.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to say one word with regard to a difficulty which has suggested itself to my mind in the course of this discussion, and which I think may also occur to the unassisted mind of the public. I certainly agree with the greater part of what the noble Earl has said; but I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl rather over-proved his case with regard to the liability of this country, although the view which he takes of it has been entirely adopted by my noble Friend behind me. If Her Majesty's Government instead of increasing our liabilities have actually diminished them, it appears to me, as it will appear to most people, that there has been the most complete mystification of some of the most distinguished diplomatists of Europe ever heard of.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: We have diminished our liability as regards the Duchy of Luxemburg; but this treaty does not diminish our obligations under the treaty of 1839.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Still the explanation we have heard this evening is scarcely in accordance with the interpretation generally given to a guarantee of this sort; and after the statement of the noble Earl it appears to be so utterly free from danger, that it is difficult to understand the importance which Prussia attached to it. That she did attach that importance to it is certain, else why on earth should she regard
  154
  it as a sine quâ non without which she was prepared to go to war with the greatest military nation in the world. And I cannot also understand, if the increase of our liability be so infinitesimal, why a Secretary of State, of so good and sagacious a mind as that possessed by the noble Lend at the head of the Foreign Department, should inform the House of Commons that the decision at which he had arrived was a more painful one to him than any previous decision which he had ever made. What could there be painful in deciding to do that which secured the peace of Europe at no cost, or at an infinitesimal cost to this country? I merely refer to this because I do not see how the public at large are to understand this explanation. Having very carefully read the papers, I believe that an undesirable increase has taken place in the liabilities of this country, and, in spite of these rather fanciful interpretations as to how far we are bound by treaties, it is possible that we may have rendered ourselves liable at some future time to practical inconvenience, or the risk of being considered unfaithful to our agreements. I have read the papers with care, and I am bound to say that I see nothing in them which I do not approve, I should be glad, however, to learn from the noble Earl at the head of the Government whether there is any truth in the report, which to my knowledge has gained considerable currency in the diplomatic circles on the Continent, that the British Government has not acted in this matter so firmly as might have appeared; that although at the beginning of the negotiations they agreed to the guarantee, they afterwards withdrew from that position, and that it was only at the last moment and under a threat of a very peculiar character, they consented to the guarantee again. He was glad to see the noble Earl shake his head authoritatively in reply to that statement. He admitted that there was nothing in the papers that justified the rumour, but it was generally credited upon the Continent.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDthought that the Government had acted quite right in accepting the responsibility of the collective guarantee; but he had heard with equal surprise and pain the attempt that had been made to fritter away that responsibility; for, if they were to accept literally the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, which also had been confirmed by the noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, England

  155
  had really incurred no responsibility at all. But, in that case, it was clear that Prussia had been misled, for she had declared in express terms that nothing short of a European guarantee would reconcile her to the proposal of the Conference; and it was somewhat unexpected now to be informed by the noble Earl that no engagement carrying with it any real responsibility had been entered into. He desired to express his approbation of the labours of the Conference, and of the eminent ability with which they had been conducted by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that the unfavourable opinions which he had always entertained respecting guarantees had been amply confirmed by what he had heard that evening; but at the same time he was under the impression, which seemed to be general, that whatever responsibility we had incurred was incurred upon good and sufficient grounds. If he were to enter into any argument respecting the grounds on which the outbreak of hostilities between Prussia and France was anticipated, he should feel bound to Bay that the causes alleged were neither just nor necessary; but, however insufficient these grounds, the general opinion was that hostilities were imminent, and the fact that this belief prevailed, and that it was based upon good grounds, completely justified the English Government in taking part in the Conference. He must also say that the praise was well and justly earned which had been so liberally bestowed upon the Minister by whom England was represented in that Conference. For his own part, indeed, the success of the noble Lord was no surprise to him. It was only the realization of what he had always anticipated from the noble Lord, and it was a most gratifying circumstance that, among the young men of the time who were distinguishing themselves in public life, there was at least one who showed the elements of statesmanship, and at whose hands the country might reasonably hope, in years to come, to receive eminent service. And upon one point there could be no doubt—namely, that by the prevention of the war which threatened to break out, England had conferred upon Europe an obligation of the first magnitude.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was of great importance, not only to England but to the Continent generally, that the
  156
  interpretation put by the English Government upon the engagement entered into should be accurately known. The whole difficulty and danger to avert which the Conference met, arose from the jealousy between France and the united German nation, represented by Prussia, in respect to Luxemburg—a district which, independently of its fortress, would always be a strong military position. Each of those Powers was afraid that its antagonist might seize that position. Now, in the event of a quarrel between these two Powers, and supposing that France were to invade Luxemburg, he desired to know whether or not Prussia would have the right to call upon the other Powers, parties to the guarantee, to drive France from that position? According to the interpretation given by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, no such right would exist, because, according to the noble Earl, France being one of the guaranteeing Powers, and herself creating the wrong, would release the other Powers from their engagement. But, if this were the fact, did it really amount to an engagement at all? And what was the explanation to be given of the language of Prussia as expressed in the printed correspondence on the table? Their Lordships who had read the papers would remember that our Foreign Secretary had, in the first instance, prepared the draft of a treaty not strictly in the nature of a guarantee, but rather a recognition of a moral engagement or understanding between the great Powers of Europe that Luxemburg should be neutral territory; but Count Bismarck, when he saw it, objected that it was not a guarantee, but only an implied moral engagement that each of the contracting Powers would for its own part respect the neutrality of Luxemburg. It was on this specific ground that Prussia insisted upon an European guarantee and the British Foreign Office gave way, consenting to convert the stipulation into a guarantee; but, if he rightly understood the observation of the noble Earl, the demand of Prussia had, after all, been successfully evaded, and England had taken no obligation upon her. It was obvious that, as all the great Powers were parties to the treaty, Luxemburg, if attacked at all, would be invaded by one of the guaranteeing Powers, and in that case none of the other guaranteeing Powers could be called upon to secure her neutrality. But this reduced the whole thing to a sham, and a farce; it was not a guaran-

  157
  tee at all, and it ought to be clearly understood, both by England and by the Continent, that we did not consider ourselves bound to interfere with the military possession of Luxemburg unless it was attacked by some Power not a party to the treaty. As such a contingency was impossible to be anticipated, he must congratulate the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office with having obtained an important object with the minimum of sacrifice; but he was of opinion that the fact should be clearly stated to the House, He did not object to such an interpretation of the force of the guarantee which the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that he took three days to consider before assenting to. Generally speaking, guarantees were dangerous and entangling, but in such a case as this the distant and contingent danger might be well incurred in order to avoid an immediate European war.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not think that Prussia would feel particularly complimented at the suggestion of the noble Duke, that the members of her diplomatic body are quite ignorant of the difference between a several and a collective guarantee. In fact the difference between these two forms of guarantee, in respect of the obligation imposed upon the co-guaranteeing Powers, is quite well understood. The reluctance which my noble relative expressed in the House of Commons, was to enter into any engagement which even in appearance threw an additional responsibility on this country; for he knew how much this country dislikes the idea of guarantees, and he shrunk from making use of that expression, lest it should arouse a hostile feeling to the proceedings of the Conference. The noble Duke is quite correct in his interpretation of the treaty, except as regards the demolition of the fortress. It is quite true that, if France were to invade the territory of Luxemburg, the other Powers, though they might be called upon to resist the invasion, would not be bound to do so. They might or might not think it proper to defend the neutrality of Luxemburg, but no individual Power could be compelled, under the treaty, to render assistance.
  EARL RUSSELL: I just rise to say that I do not put the same interpretation upon the treaty as the noble Earl does. My belief is that if France were to violate the treaty and invade the territory of Luxemburg, the other Powers who are parties
  158
  to the treaty would feel bound to call upon France to retire.

THE INSURRECTION IN CRETE.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any further Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments, or any of them, of the great European Powers, in reference to the existing Insurrection in the Island of Crete? A statement had appeared in the public journals to the effect that the English Government had been requested by the other Powers to unite in a joint-representation to the Porte, respecting the insurrection in Crete, and that Her Majesty's Government had not thought proper to accede to the request. He wished to know if this was correct. In the course of the day, a; later telegram had arrived, to the effect that a representation of this nature had been made to the Porte, though without Great Britain taking any part in it; that it included a proposition for the suspension of hostilities, and that the Government of the Porte had consented to this request of the united Powers. He should be extremely glad to know that, this statement was true. In consequence of some observations he had made on this subject in the early part of the Session, he had received from many sources, both at home and abroad, and even from Crete itself, abundant information as to the progress of affairs in the island; and he was convinced, after making every allowance for falsehood and exaggeration, that the war had been carried on with great cruelty and brutality on the part of the Turkish troops. Individual stories of atrocities might be unfounded; but he had good reason to know that many acts of gross cruelty and barbarity had unquestionably been committed; and, unfortunately, the inevitable horrors of war were stimulated, in this instance, by the animosities of race and religion. Among other things, the systematic devastation of the country had been carried on contrary to the humane practice of civilized warfare, and the olive and mulberry trees, the produce of which formed a principal article of commerce to the inhabitants, had been designedly cut down, thus exposing to ruin and starvation, not only the present generation of islanders, but also their innocent posterity for years to come. The European Governments

  159
  naturally felt that they were under some special responsibilities in the case of Crete, which did not apply as regarded the other dependencies of the Turkish empire. It was natural, therefore, that they should unite in an attempt to bring these calamitous occurrences to a close, and he should be glad to hear that a joint representation had been successfully presented, even though this country had taken no part in it. If this statement was true, not only the Turkish soldiers, but their officers, must be responsible for their destruction.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid that in some instances great excesses have been committed by the Turkish troops: but from accounts which we have received from various quarters respecting the whole transactions of the war, we think that the Cretans keep up very much the character which they gained 2,000 years ago for want of veracity. It is actually impossible to give the slightest credence to any account of any transaction, or supposed murder, massacre, or burning, which I believe have no origin except in the imagination of those who relate them. The noble Duke does Her Majesty's Government no more than justice when he says that they are desirous of putting an end to a war which threatens such disastrous consequences. It is true, however, that her Majesty's Government have not felt justified, in their present relations with Turkey, to take the same active steps as have been taken by the other Powers with regard to the representations which they have made to the Porte. Her Majesty's Government have never ceased in a friendly manner to recommend to the Porte measures of amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte in all parts of the Turkish dominions, and they have urged upon them various reforms—I hope not unsuccessfully. Her Majesty's Government have even represented to the Turkish Government that it would be much more for their advantage if they would grant to Crete an autonomy. To that recommendation Turkey has not seen fit to accede, and Her Majesty's Goverment did not feel justified in making propositions to Turkey in the form of an identic Note, unless they had reason to hope that the Porte would be disposed to receive those recommendations favourably. I believe a Note has been sent in; but up to five o'clock this evening we had received no information, by telegraph or otherwise, as to whether an answer to it had been returned. The
  160
  last information we had was that no answer had yet been received from the Porte to the identic Note which had been sent in.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enlarge for the present Tear the Time within which certain Certificates regarding Lunatics in Scotland may be granted—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 163.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.