Sitting of 6 July 1871

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Patrick James Smyth, esquire, for Westmeath.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa), appointed and nominated.
Thirtieth Report—Public Petitions.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Board* [230].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Royal Parks and Gardens* [217].
Select Committee—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [203], nominated.
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.; New Mint Building Site (re-comm.)* [223]—R.P.; Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* [188]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [204]; Sewage Utilisation Supplemental (re-comm.)* [218]; Dean Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels (re-comm.)* [190]; Election Commissioners Expenses* [220].
Considered as amended—Railway Regulation Amendment* [195].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [187], and passed.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Diplomatic Committee?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Lord Granville highly appreciates the attention which the Committee bestowed on the important questions connected with Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, and he
  1216
  will not fail during the Recess to consider how far it may be possible to give effect to the valuable suggestions in their Report. Some of those suggestions, however, and specifically those relating to increased expenditure, and the alterations in the time from which length of service can be taken into account in awarding pensions to retired or unemployed diplomatic servants would require the assent of Parliament, either in voting the money required to carry them into effect or in modifying the Act of Parliament by which diplomatic pensions are now regulated; but in regard to other points which the Secretary of State is free himself alone to deal with, the House may be assured that the recommendations of the Committee will receive from Lord Granville the most attentive and respectful consideration, and he believes that he has already had occasion to act in the spirit of these recommendations.

MINISTER AT STUTGARDT.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is correct, as stated in "The Times," that it is intended to fill up the appointment of Minister at Stutgardt; and, in that case, whether Her Majesty's Government will postpone such appointment until after the Civil Service Estimates (Class 5, Diplomatic Services) have been voted in Committee of Supply?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Lord Granville has submitted to the Queen that, under existing circumstances, the rank of the British Representative at the Court of Würtemberg may be reduced, and that in place of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary a Chargé d'Affaires shall be appointed to reside there.

ARMY—REVIEW AT BUSHEY PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any men and horses, over and above its existing establishment, marched from Aldershot with the Field Battery, which took part in the recent Review at Bushey Park; and, if so, how many; whether such men and horses were supplied by any, and what reserve; and, if not, from what source they were obtained; and, whether he is willing to give a statement

  1217
  in detail of the reserve, which according to a statement by the Financial Secretary will suffice, after filling up all the batteries to a war strength, to leave a residue of 5,000 men?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the field battery that marched from Aldershot to Bushey Park had no men over and above its existing establishment, but took 21 horses over the peace establishment of a field battery, for the purpose of horsing extra carriages which accompanied the battery. These horses were lent by another field battery for reasons of economy. With reference to the third part of the Question, the organization of the Artillery at home is such that all the batteries of horse and field artillery at home—that is, 16 batteries of horse artillery and 40 batteries of field artillery, can be put upon the home war footing, and 12 batteries additional of field artillery formed upon the same footing, and there would still be left 5,000 gunners of garrison artillery for the defence of the fortresses.

THE ORDER OF THE BATH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the principles which direct the selection of officers of the Civil branches of the Navy for the honour of the Military branch of the Order of the Bath; and, whether it is intended that the head of the Medical branch is always to be recommended for appointment as Knight Commander of that Order; if so, whether the head of the Paymaster's branch is to be recommended for a similar distinction; and, if so, why not?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that the principles which directed the selection of officers of the civil branches of the Navy for the honour of the military branch of the Order of the Bath were embodied in the Statutes of the Order. There was no intention of giving any distinction connected with the Bath permanently in virtue of an office; no such distinction could be gained except by meritorious service. As to whether it was intended that the head of the medical branch was always to be recommended as Knight Commander of the Order, and, if so, whether the head of the Paymaster branch was to be recommended for a similar distinction, he was
  1218
  not aware that there was a head of the Paymaster branch; there was no office corresponding to that of the Medical Director General; and if there were, he should venture to submit that these comparisons were odious.

IRELAND—MAGISTRATES OF DUNGANNON. —QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government has received any Memorial from the Inhabitants of Dungannon charging the local magistrates with partiality in the discharge of their duty, and sympathy with certain drumming parties, and praying for an inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates; and, if so, whether the Government has forwarded a Copy of such Memorial to the magistrates accused; whether Captain Ball, R.M., stationed at Dungannon, has communicated to the Government any facts in support of a charge made by him at a late police investigation at Dungannon against the said magistrates of partiality in the discharge of their duties, and sympathy with the aforesaid drumming parties; and, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has informed the Government that he had received an application from the magistrates so inculpated asking for an inquiry into their conduct, and requesting that Captain Ball should be ordered to supply the facts and circumstances on which he founded his most serious charges, and whether the Government have received any communication from the magistrates themselves?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied that the Government had received a memorial from the inhabitants of Dungannon charging the local magistrates with partiality in the discharge of their duty, and that a copy of that memorial would be forwarded to the magistrates for their consideration. It was inaccurate to speak of a charge being made by Captain Ball, for he simply made a statement, on oath at an inquiry into the conduct of the constabulary, but he had not communicated to the Government any facts in support of that statement. They had received a copy of the correspondence between the magistrates and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and a communication from those magistrates, requesting an inquiry into the facts of the case. He had not had

1219
time to consult the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject, but he should do so, and as soon as any decision had been arrived at he would communicate it to the noble Lord.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HERBERT CROFTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the case "Lancashire Justices v. the Treasury," and whether in future the Treasury will pay all costs in criminal prosecutions as taxed by the appointed officers of the courts of quarter sessions and of assizes; and, whether there would be any objection to the half-yearly return of costs in criminal prosecutions being made up to the 25th of March and 29th of September, instead of to the 30th of June and 31st of December, as at present?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, my attention has been called to the case of the "Lancashire Judges v. the Treasury," in which a Rule was made absolute, by consent, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, for payment of a larger sum than the Treasury had intended to pay. As to the second part of the Question, whether I am about to give up altogether the control the Treasury has hitherto exercised over those payments made in aid of county and borough expenditure in this matter, I have to say that such is not my intention. These payments are made by the Treasury under Rules which were settled with great care at the Home Office in the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). To give them up, and to pay whatever costs are taxed in the different Courts, would be to surrender £100,000 a year, and that is a surrender I am not prepared to make. I do not think my opinion is worth much; such as it is I give it to the House; but I do not believe the Court of Queen's Bench would, after argument, make a Rule absolute against the Treasury for the payment of these sums. Until it has done that, and until I have exhausted every means of resistance, I shall not consent to a measure involving such a large sacrifice. As to the Question whether the half-yearly Returns could be made up to the 25th of March and the 29th of September, instead of to the
  1220
  30th of June and 31st of December, as at present, I have made inquiries from those who collect the information for the Returns, and I am informed that the adoption of the periods suggested would involve the division of the Spring Assizes, which would be very inconvenient, and therefore objectionable.

HOLIDAYS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to direct the closing of the Custom Houses, National Debt Office, &c., on the days named as holidays in the Bank Holidays Act?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It appears, Sir, to me that this Act was not intended to apply to persons in the service of the Government, but to bankers' clerks and other persons in private employments. Persons engaged in the Public Offices already have a liberal allowance of holidays, ranging from one month to two months, and I do not propose to increase such allowance, as it would also increase the expense to the public.

TURKEY—CASE OF MR. JOSEPH WILLIAMS.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Joseph Williams, who having been imprisoned for some time by the Turkish Government, was sent out of the country without trial, or without having had an opportunity of defending himself against the charge alleged against him, and who in consequence of his imprisonment has sustained heavy pecuniary losses?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, Mr. Williams was arrested in March, 1870, at Galata, on a charge of killing a watchman, and sentenced by the local Court to 15 years' imprisonment for manslaughter. The watchman, who survived the attack for a time, stated that, hearing a cry for help, he proceeded towards the defendant, who shot him without provocation. Mr. Williams, on the other hand, declared that the watchman tried to rob him, and that he was ignorant at the time of his official character. The sentence had to be confirmed by the

1221
High Court of Justice, which did not try the case until the following February. In the interim, Williams, whose health was suffering, was placed in charge of the British authorities. The sentence was confirmed; but although, from his being a British subject, there were circumstances attending the trial which made it technically invalid, it cannot be said that he was not tried, or that his trial would not have been quite fair in the case of a Turkish subject. Her Majesty's Consul thought it advisable to accept an offer made soon after by the Turkish authorities to release him if he would leave the country at once. The delay in the proceedings was all in his favour, owing to the strong public feeling against him at the time, and his claim for compensation could not properly be raised against the Turkish Government. His affairs were carefully arranged during his confinement by Her Majesty's Consulate, and a balance remitted to him.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Magistrates at the Hammersmith Police Court to put in force the Sunday Observance Act against tradesmen supplying Kensington Palace with salmon and ice on Sunday last, while for months past small traders and costermongers have been continually punished for similar offences; and, what steps he proposes to take in regard to the refusal of the Magistrates to put in force the Sunday Observance Act? He also wished to ask whether, if it should be discovered that the prosecution of a number of poor people under the same Act has been carried on under some misapprehension, the right hon. Gentleman will not take some steps to restore to them the little earnings of which they had been deprived?
  MR. BRUCE: I have received, Sir, from the Hammersmith magistrates an explanation of their conduct. On Monday last Mr. Ingham, on the return of his colleague from his holiday, consulted with him as to the propriety of checking certain prosecutions which had caused much angry feeling in the district without producing any countervailing advantages.
  1222
  They determined to check all such prosecutions unless they were instituted by some public authorities, such as the churchwardens and overseers, or the police. Whether they were right or not in taking that course it is not for me to say, nor is it my duty to compel magistrates to hear cases. In case of a refusal the proper course to be pursued is for the party aggrieved to apply for a mandamus to compel them to perform their duty. As, however, my hon. Friend has, according to his usual practice, interpolated in his Question a reference to the distinction made between the poor and the rich, I am bound to say, on behalf of the magistrates, that from whatever source the application for a summons had come the answer would have been the same. The object of the magistrates was to put an end to what they believed to be a very oppressive and mischievous application of the Act of Charles II., and had an application been made by Mr. Bee Wright or anyone else against poor persons the answer would have been the same as it was in the cases referred to in the Question. I have no reason to believe that any of these convictions were illegal. In the greater number of cases the magistrates, exercising their discretion, have announced that they would grant no costs, and I believe the effect of that announcement has been greatly to discourage these prosecutions. Some of the magistrates considered, however, that they were not empowered to do so, and that the costs ought always to follow a conviction. But whatever the decision arrived at, it was, at all events, a legal one, on a matter within the discretion of the magistrates, and therefore it is impossible for me to interfere with the proceedings.

  ARMY—FIELD ARTILLERY.—QUESTION
  COLONEL GILPINasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, What number of guns and new field batteries, together with waggons, were horsed, harnessed, manned, fully complete and ready for the field on the 1st of July instant?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: In reply, Sir, to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state as follows:—The number of guns and new field batteries horsed, harnessed, and manned, on a peace establishment at

  1223
  home, on the 1st instant is—old batteries, 10 horse artillery, with 60 guns, and 20 field batteries, with 120 guns, fully horsed and manned, and ready for the field, after being made up to a home war establishment from the depôts, which could be done at a moment's notice; new batteries, 6 horse artillery, with 36 guns; and 20 field batteries, with 120 guns. These batteries are all complete in their establishment of non-commissioned officers and men. Six are fully horsed, five nearly so, and the remainder are being completed as rapidly as horses can be purchased. As regards matériel, the guns, carriages, ammunition, stores, and harness have all been issued to the augmented batteries. So far, therefore, as matériel is concerned, the following is the result:—Old batteries—10 horse artillery, 60 guns; 12 field batteries, 120 guns; new batteries, 6 horse artillery, 36 guns; 20 field batteries, 120 guns; 5 depôt smooth-bore, 30 guns; making a total of 366. I have to add that rifled guns, to replace the 30 smoothbore guns in the depôts, are ready to be issued at a moment's notice.

EPPING FOREST ENCLOSURES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Report in the public journals of a meeting held last Tuesday at the Shoreditch Town Hall, on the subject of an enclosure of a part of Epping Forest, at which some of the speakers advised the public (at a meeting to be held next Saturday on Wanstead Flats) to take the Law into their own hands, and destroy the enclosure; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for the maintenance of order and the protection of property on that occasion?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the chairman of that meeting had informed him that the meeting was very large and orderly, that the suggestion referred to had been made by a single individual in a jocular spirit, and that what was said was that if the persons who should attend the proposed meeting on Wanstead Flats were to press their shoulders against the fences they might probably give way. That expression of opinion was not approved by the assembly, and
  1224
  the chairman warned them against any illegal conduct. Of course, the usual precautions would be taken for the maintenance of order and the protection of property.

BLACKWATER BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has come to any conclusion as to the propriety of sanctioning, by means of a Private Bill, an alteration of the terms prescribed by a Public Act of Parliament for the composition of the debt due to the Exchequer upon the security of Blackwater Bridge; and, whether he has ascertained whether there was any foundation for the charge made by him on more than one occasion in 1868 against the conduct of the late Government in respect to the composition of this debt?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, with respect to the latter part of the Question, which was of a personal nature, as far as he could recall the circumstances of 1868 he believed he was entirely in error as to the criticisms which he offered upon the conduct of the late Government on the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He both regretted that circumstance and likewise that from accident he was never aware that explanations had been offered by the right hon. Gentleman which would have enabled him to say at an earlier period what was entirely due to the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the former part of the Question, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be expedient that the House should assent to the insertion in a Private Bill relating to Blackwater Bridge of an alteration of the terms prescribed by a Public Act for the composition of a debt. Whether those terms were quite correct or not he would not trouble the House at that moment to say; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the two subjects should be kept separate.

TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. SEYMOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When it is his intention to introduce the Bill which he had promised to enable the Courts of Law to sit during the Long Vacation, and when the Second Reading

  1225
  is likely to be taken? He also wished to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to relieve the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from attendance at the approaching Central Criminal Sessions at the Old Bailey?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had already announced that the Bill would be introduced by the Lord Chancellor in "another place." It was now in the hands of the draftsman, and, he hoped, would soon be ready. He should be quite prepared, should the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas apply to be relieved from attendance at the Central Criminal Court, to consent to the application. There would be no difficulty whatever in finding a substitute.

DIPLOMATIC CHANGES.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to take the opportunity of answering a Question put by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) two or three days ago. A paragraph had appeared in the newspapers containing statements about Lord Bloomfield being about to retire from the Embassy at Vienna, and certain other diplomatic arrangements, and his hon. Friend asked if they were correct. The paragraph in question was premature; but, at the same time, it was probable that within some moderate period Lord Bloomfield would retire from the Embassy at Vienna. He was very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding on the subject of that retirement. It would be a voluntary resignation on the part of Lord Bloomfield, who would retire with a mark of Her Majesty's favour which would entirely obviate any misconstruction as to the high place which Lord Bloomfield held in the estimation of the Government.
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE, having referred to the circumstance that his speech on Tuesday last had been interrupted by the adjournment of the debate at 7 o'clock, said, that it was necessary that
  1226
  he should put himself in order by renewing the Motion of the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. J. Fielden), "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair;" the hon. Member also explained that he was in error in stating that his conversation with Lord Palmerston occurred before, not after, the speech from which he had quoted. The hon. Member then resumed his address:—Before proceeding further, I wish to advert to an allegation that has proceeded from the First Lord of the Treasury, to the effect that we, who desire to discuss the principle of this great measure, and take such an opportunity, as that in which I am now addressing you, have pursued a most unusual course with the view of protracting these debates. Now, Sir, I think I can have no better precedent for the course we have pursued than the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was in Opposition. I own that I was rather surprised when I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that we ought to be content with three or four nights' debate on the principle of this measure, and speak of the Opposition as having during this Session pursued an unprecedented course, because we have sought opportunities of debate upon a measure which would change the constitution of the Army, and now upon a measure which is calculated quite as much to affect the constitution of this House. Sir, I have been in this House many years with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and he has several times alluded to the discussions that occurred upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Act in 1851. It was no new subject. The relations between the Government of this country and the Papacy had been discussed in 1848 on the Diplomatic Relations Bill, and again in 1849 and 1850, so that the subject was not then new; but let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee to the details of the discussions on that Bill. Beginning on the 7th of February, 1851, on leave to introduce the Bill there were four nights' discussion. On the second reading of the Bill, which was proposed on the 7th of March, there were eight nights' discussion. On the Motion for going into Committee there were four nights' discussion. In Committee there were eight nights' discussion. On the Report there was one night's discussion: and

  1227
  on the third reading there was one night's discussion, making twenty-six nights' discussion in the whole. The right hon. Gentleman was then acting with what he has called a small minority, never exceeding, I think, 90 Members at the most. Well, then, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will judge us more charitably when, having lost the opportunity of discussing this measure on the second reading, the Opposition avail themselves of the legitimate opportunity afforded by the Preamble of the Bill for claiming the right to inform the younger Members of the House of the substance of the discussions which have taken place on the subject long before they were in the House to hear them. This question of the Ballot has been discussed over and over again on the Motion of the late Mr. Berkeley; but those discussions were never full until 1864, because no one expected that Mr. Berkeley would ever be able to bring in a measure, and pass it into law, founded upon the principle of secret voting. The case is now totally changed. Under the pressure of the hon. Members below the gangway—["No, no!]—the Government have taken up this question, and it has been announced to the House that it is the legitimate sequel of the extension of the franchise, carried in the Reform Act introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under the operation of which the present Parliament has been returned. I have lately been informed that the advocates of the Ballot are already so tired of this discussion—some of them having probably keenly felt the point and force of the able speech made on Tuesday by the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton), that they have come to a resolution among themselves, which may be briefly stated in these words—"the least said the soonest mended." I should, perhaps, if in their position, agree with those hon. Members; but is it not singular that the representatives of popular constituencies, who declare that this measure is essential to the free action of those constituents, should come down to this House, and, after three short nights' of discussion, beg not to be further questioned on the subject? Is it not singular that we are about to have a repetition of the tactics of the majority, when they were first returned
  1228
  to this House at the commencement of the present Parliament, and when, as was stated by the hon. Member for Berwick, their conduct was so strange, their reticence so great, and their silence so little, that it was commented upon in "another place," and commented upon throughout the whole of the country? Their conduct on the Land Bill for Ireland, during the next Session, was equally remarkable. It seemed that those who aimed at being the representatives of democracy came here not to represent the intelligence but the will of their constituents, however ill-informed; and that instead of treating this House as a legitimate arena for debate, as a deliberative assembly, they have entered into a conspiracy to treat it as a legislative machine, a ballot-box on a large scale, into one end of which we are to put the materials of their votes, expecting some legislation to emanate from the other end adapted to their purpose, however unfitted it might be to undergo the ordeal of fair discussion. I trust, and believe, that hon. Members will reconsider their position, for I would beg to inform hon. Members that I am in the habit of communicating with men of all ranks and all descriptions. They must not suppose that I am ignorant of the feelings of the working classes; and the conduct of the Government on the occasion of the Irish Church Bill and the Irish Land Bill, its reticence and fear of discussion on the principles of those measures, produced a very strong effect on the minds of the intelligent working classes. I hold in my hand a pamphlet written by a most intelligent artizan in 1869, and widely circulated, and it ought to satisfy some of the cravings of hon. Members opposite. It is entitled—The Democracy of Reason; or, the Organization of the Press, and on the cover there appears the motto—"Wise men learn from reason, men of less understanding from experience, fools learn from necessity, and brutes by instinct." This pamphlet is written with an ability worthy of the most accomplished scholar. The writer deprecates that this country should be governed by mere popular impulse and the will of ignorance, instead of what he property terms the democracy of reason. The author proposes that the writings which appear in the newspapers should be collected by a commit-

  1229
  tee of the writers themselves, digested, and furnished to the House as materials for legislation. It was thought that by such an organization of their own, instinct as it would be with life and thought, they would be capable by thus communicating among themselves under certain conditions to promote useful legislation. But I consider it somewhat significant that yesterday the leading organ undertook to silence this House and to make it a dumb assembly. It seems as if the Press had taken a hint from The Democracy of Reason, and felt that we were invading a monopoly of their own by venturing to insist upon our right to debate this question. If the House of Commons is to be a mere delegate of the popular will and impulse; if the Press finds it inconvenient and inconsistent with its arrangements to discuss these great subjects, the writer of this pamphlet asks why do not the House of Lords appoint a Committee to receive written and printed contributions upon great subjects, so that there may be something of philosophical discussion and close reasoning applied to the legislation to which we are hereafter to be subjected? Put the writer of the pamphlet to which I have alluded has been in communication with myself, and he expresses the opinion, which I believe to be well founded, that among the intelligent working men, as well as among the middle classes, if the House of Lords choose thus to gather from the country the opinions, which one section of this House refuses either to express or to discuss, they will find themselves so strengthened, that they need fear nothing in correcting the crude legislation to which the House of Commons is impelled by a dumb majority. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has forgotten his own antecedents in opposition, or that he would condemn others for endeavouring to rise as he has risen and to occupy his position, when it should become vacant. I can scarcely believe that he would lend himself to a contrivance for converting the House of Commons from a deliberative assembly into a mere legislative machine. But I will now revert to the speech of the late Lord Palmerston, though I will not read the passage again. Lord Palmerston spoke of the Ballot and of secrecy in voting as a mistake everywhere, as a perversion of representative government, even where there
  1230
  was universal manhood suffrage, and as totally inconsistent with the whole frame of the Constitution of this country. I believe, Sir, that it is so; because, what has the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself said? I am about to quote his words, and will not forget the qualification which he afterwards attempted of their purport. I am about to show this—that, whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it will fall to his lot, and to that of the present Government or not, if you adopt this measure of secrecy in voting, you cannot stop short of manhood suffrage at least; and we have already had indications that womanhood too will claim the franchise, and I hesitate to say they ought not to have it if this system of secrecy is to come into operation. In the debate on the second reading of the Bill for establishing the Ballot, which took place in this House on the 27th of July last, the right hon. Gentleman used these expressions—
  "When we have adopted household suffrage we have, I think, practically adopted the principle that every man who is not disabled in point of age, of crime, of poverty, or through some other positive disqualification, is politically competent to exercise the suffrage; and it is a simple question of time and convenience when this suffrage shall be placed in his hands. To draw a distinction between household suffrage and lodger suffrage, provided the lodger be a person who has a certain permanence in his residential tenure, would be, in my opinion, wholly impossible; to draw a distinction between boroughs and counties is, I think, equally impracticable. I do not enter into the question now, though it is a very important question, whether, over and above the personal franchise, property franchises should be retained."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 1030.]
  Last year, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that if the Ballot—this system of secret voting which he now proposes—were adopted, the establishment of manhood suffrage, at least, is only a question of time; and in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the only qualification which the honesty of the right hon. Gentleman could allow him to make was, that he did not contemplate such a change as likely to be made by the Government of which he was the head. But we have the authority of Lord Palmerston, that secret voting so changes the very nature of the franchise from being, as it ever has been in this country, a "trust," or if you like a "privilege," with public

  1231
  duty and public responsibility attached to it, that it becomes a "property." Take what definition you please, once enact that the voter shall vote in such a manner as to ensure secrecy, and the vote becomes his property; and, as Lord Palmerston said, you have no justification in enacting laws against a man selling his property; for the voter would under the new system exercise his vote, not according to public principle, or public interest, but according to his own private convenience, as property which he had a right to dispose of as he liked. I have heard it argued in this House—indeed, it was so argued in the last discussion by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Stapleton)—that the personal wish and the immediate private desire of the voter at the time of voting would, in the aggregate, afford the best security for the public interests—a rash hypothesis. But I will not stop here. The late Mr. Cobden is a high authority with Gentlemen opposite; and what said Mr. Cobden on this subject? In the year 1852 he said—
  "On the occasion of the introduction of the late Reform Bill, a considerable amount of discussion arose in the manufacturing districts. It was proposed to create a franchise of £5. Now, they all knew that in the manufacturing towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire that would extend the franchise threefold, and would give a vote to a very large proportion of the operatives employed in the mills and in other establishments in those counties. Well, this naturally caused, as he had said, considerable discussion amongst that class of persons. But what was the result? A crowded public meeting was held in Stockport, and those who were present passed an unanimous vote, that if they could not have the protection of the Ballot, they would not have the franchise. They did so on this principle …. what he had just been saying of landlords might probably be suspected to be true with regard to a good many millowners. Well, but he stood there—he had said this in the face of a large body of millowners in Manchester—he stood there to protect people who had votes against influence of all kinds—against all undue and coercive influence, whether it was that of landowners, that of millowners, that of customers, that of priests, or that of mobs; in all cases he was for protecting the voter. These operatives were right in saying, as they did, that if they only gave them the vote, parties might go to Bolton or to Stockport, find out the tall chimneys, and allot the votes to the owners, as was done by the Earl of Derby in the case of land."—[3 Hansard, cxx. 428.]
  Therefore, Mr. Cobden also affirms the principle that the mill operatives were right in refusing the franchise, if they could not with it have the Ballot. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President
  1232
  of the Council followed in the same strain. That right hon. Gentleman is a pupil of the late Mr. Cobden; and what did he say? He said this—that he prepared the measure now under discussion, because it would correct and prevent all undue influence. Well, it has not been found to do so in the United States. It has not been found to do so when adopted in France. Why, who can forget, particularly in the case of Savoy and Nice, that the plébiscites, which were conducted under the Ballot, became a by-word, and that the Ballot was known to be the mere means of procuring the expression of the will of the Imperial Government. Notwithstanding this, however, the Vice President of the Council says that he proposes this Bill in order to prevent the use of illegitimate influences, particularly upon the operatives in the manufacturing districts; and then he went on to say, this measure will not interfere with the exercise of wholesome influences, with the weight derived from character, the power of persuasion, and the promptings of educated intelligence. I want to know why not? If this is effectual against one form of influence, why should it not be as effectual against another? I say, upon the authority of operatives who have emigrated from my district, have lived in the United States, and after years have returned to tell me, what the Minister, who is the author of that very necessary measure of education which we passed last year, ought to know, that the institutions of the United States are not suited to the people of this country owing to their deficient education. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted as much, and acted upon the conviction; and yet, because it is at the end of the Session, and because the Government seem to be in want of a great measure to enable them to continue, uninterruptedly, their revolutionary course, this very Minister who has proclaimed the deficiency of education among the operative classes, has brought forward a measure which I will show you must, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), inevitably lead to universal suffrage, and to placing in the hands of a still larger proportion of the uneducated classes the power of dealing—the necessity of dealing—with the great interests of this country, which the right hon. Gentleman himself declares they do not understand.

  1233
  I do not like to refer to an absent Member, my right hon. Colleague in the representation of Birmingham, without giving his words. And this is his opinion. He was speaking on the 19th of July, 1867, in Birmingham, and he said—
  "But when it (the Reform Act, 1867) is passed, when your householders of Birmingham are unfranchised, when the householders in all the boroughs in the kingdom have votes, when the £12 occupiers in the county enjoy the franchise, what then? Everybody must see at once that the whole question of good to the country is still a future question; that the Bill itself is but a weapon, but an instrument, but a means by which, if there be anything good in legislation to be had, you may obtain it if you use your new powers with wisdom and fidelity."
  Then he tells how the franchise should be used, and says that the only value of household suffrage is to carry the Ballot, and the Prime Minister admits that, if you adopt the Ballot and secret voting you cannot stop short of manhood suffrage. For my part, I believe that you will not stop at manhood suffrage. I believe that the ladies will claim to share, and if it is merely a personal right, I do not see how you can resist their claim. I think that, possibly, minors too will have reason to complain; and I know not where you are to assign the limit. But, at any rate, you have this limit now—you have the limit that, throughout the boroughs, every elder, every head of a family, is invested with a public duty, as he was in years long gone by, with the right to express the conclusions of his own intelligence and will, and not his own alone, but the collective opinion of his district, for he is unlikely to dissent from it. And in the counties, how do we stand? There you have not household suffrage, but the £12 occupation qualification, and freehold qualification. Do you mean to allow the voters in counties to vote in secret; to vote as if they were not representing a trust? Do you mean to treat as serfs all those who are not freeholders, or who do not live in £12 houses? I say that the condition of the population not enfranchised, when the voters have a right to conceal under the secrecy of the Ballot their opinions on public matters, is that of slaves. Think you that the majority of the people who live in counties, and who are not enfranchised, would submit to such a state of things as that? No; pass this measure, and the very men who now
  1234
  resist you will be compelled to drive you on until you approximate but too closely to the institutions of the United States, which cannot thrive here, as they thrive on that vast Continent, with its boundless expanse for human labour, and the result will be that the situation of this country will have a parallel only in that of France. I have the greatest faith in the character of the English people, and in their capacity for self-government; but I say that if you give to the agitator, the Fenian, the Democrat, and the Jesuit, such a hold as this Bill will give them, if they can go to the counties and say—"Parliament has decreed that the electors shall hide their votes, and you are condemned to the condition of serfs," it will raise a clatter, of which you will not hear the last for many a year. I am confident that many hon. Members who have heard the Ballot discussed as though it were merely a fit subject for a debating club, have never understood the full meaning of Lord Palmerston's dictum that secret voting is inconsistent with and adverse to the whole principle of our free institutions in this country, and if adopted must tend to subvert the whole. I see the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) sitting on the benches opposite. The hon. Gentleman is a man of advanced opinions. I believe that the hon. Member wishes that Ireland should govern herself throughout, in Parliament, in the counties, in the boroughs; and I ask him if he is afraid to trust his fellow-countrymen with an open vote? Must they hide their opinions before he will intrust them with power? What did freedom ever gain from secrecy? Has it not created tyranny in the United States? I have been there. I was there when a young man. I was admitted into all kinds of society, and I learned more in the four months I was there than in the rest of my life in reference to this subject. I went there to learn, and I did learn; and I should like to read to the House at length the details of the corruption which I witnessed there. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) has given the substance of Mr. Lawrence's Report to the Congress on the New York election in 1869; but I will trouble the Committee with reading this passage, which I find at page 5, chapter 1—
  "Many hundreds of persons voted in New York City from 2 to 40 times or more, each under as-

  1235
  summed or fictitious names, fraudulently registered for the purpose."
  And it is impossible to detect them. I remember myself once travelling on a railway with 50 or 00 Irish platelayers, who boasted to me that they were living the jolliest of lives, and I saw they were living well. They told me they had voted in every State they had passed through two or three times; and this Report to Congress confirms the truth of their statement. I went to see them vote; but I did not vote myself—and I suppose they thought me rather slow because I did not. Again, this Report says—
  "Extensive frauds were committed in canvassing tickets, and names of voters were entered on the poll lists, and democratic tickets counted as if voters representing them voted, when no such persons voted at all."
  There is no doubt that "extensive frauds are committed in canvassing tickets"—that is, in stuffing the Ballot-box, which is habitual in some of the States, particularly in New York. These frauds are concealed by the Ballot; and at this moment the Congress of the United States is endeavouring to devise the means of preventing them. This is after 30 years' experience of the Ballot! "Well, it may be supposed that there is some corrective power in the United States; that the Government there is not so corrupt as to be without some such power. I will tell the Committee what is the corrective power; and I ask you whether you would like to entail upon this country the necessity for resorting to that species of correction, because its influence upon the institutions of the United States is only skin deep. That corrective is found in Vigilance Committees and Lynch Law. I myself have seen a little of it. True, it was only in a trifling degree. Nevertheless, I saw enough to let me know what it meant. I went out to the United States and Canada with letters from my kind old friend Sir Francis Head. The hon. Member then read a letter from Sir Francis Head, published in The Morning Post and other London newspapers in January, 1859, narrating the dreadful death of a negro under Lynch Law—and the extraordinary charge of the Judge to the Grand Jury. The circumstances were briefly that—Some years ago, a black man named M'Intosh, residing in the county of St. Louis, in the United States, not only killed Deputy
  1236
  Sheriff Hammond, who was in the act of arresting him, but also wounded Deputy Constable Mull. The American people in the vicinity, incensed at the conduct of the black man, chained him to a tree, and then surrounding him with dry wood, deliberately burnt him alive. The address of the American Judge to the Grand Jury, whose duty it was to investigate the act, was so admired for the sound democratic doctrines which it promulgated, that, at the request of the Grand Jury, the Judge caused it to be printed. In this address, Judge Lawless charges the Grand Jury of the county of St. Louis, that although this Vigilance Committee, this self-constituted authority, had seized this man and deliberately burnt him to death without trial—this Judge, I say, of the United States declares that, because these lynchers represented what he believed to be the mass of the people, they were above and beyond all law, and had the right to adopt this corrective process; lest he himself should have fallen short of his duty by condemning these men for murder. That is the real power which enables the Government of the United States to exist. I can cite instances in which those Vigilance Committees, excited by religious feelings, have burnt as many as 30 families in their shanties. I could produce instance after instance of the exercise of tins power. This is the despotism of democracy, not that true freedom which is influenced by a sense of responsibility. It was but the other day that I told a large body of my constituents that they would find me always ready to stand stiffly and sternly for English freedom, and I say that freedom can only be secured from the despotism of democracy where the elections represent the opinion, not of an indefinite mass of men, without the means of intercommunication, without sufficient understanding of each other's thoughts, but the public opinion of the inhabitants of localities, formed by consultation among neighbours. Let every Member of the House bear in mind that we, each of us, represent an opinion which is public in the respective districts which form our constituencies—an opinion corrected by a sense of the responsibility enforced upon every man by the supervision of those from whose observation he cannot escape who live in his own immediate neighbourhood. That

  1237
  is true freedom. That is the Government of public opinion; and I say that a Government founded upon universal suffrage and the Ballot is but the representation of the bias of each individual at the moment that the vote is given, uncorrected by any sense of personal responsibility or the influence of public opinion. Universal manhood suffrage and the Ballot have produced in America a state of things which has for years rendered necessary not the permission, but the recognized existence, the habit of resorting to Vigilance Committees and Lynch Law in order to preserve the very existence of the State. If such consequences were inevitable, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in condemning—for he has condemned—the measure for household suffrage upon which this House is returned supposing that he is right in asserting that this extension of the suffrage has rendered the resort to secrecy of voting inevitable, which I deny; but I admit that secrecy of voting does seem logically to entail manhood suffrage. I do not say that must necessarily follow at the next election; but I am convinced that the experiment of elections with a restricted constituency and the Ballot will fail, and then the right hon. Gentleman will be avenged on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire for having ventured to extend the suffrage to householders, because if he were to succeed him in office after the measure, now being considered, is passed, the right hon. Gentleman would have no choice but to adopt manhood suffrage, as the consequence of the secrecy of voting by Ballot, and thus encounter and entail upon the country the evils of democracy. I would, but that I feel I should be trespassing upon the time of the House, appeal to the latest writings of Alexis do Tocqueville and to those of Lord Brougham. Both of them contemplated the changes which have taken place in our electoral system as dangerous upon one ground only—that they might lead to the establishment, as M. de Tocqueville said, of the most irremediable of all forms of Government, that democracy which always forbades, if it does not constitute a despotism. And, Sir, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, supported by the frequently expressed opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1238
  Birmingham, I assert that the silence of that right hon. Gentleman confirms the declaration of the Member for Birmingham—that the certain consequence and the direct inference from this Bill must be so palpable to the Legislature, if it gives consideration to the principle and its consequences, that there is but one hope of its being passed, and that is of its passing without debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member who had preceded him had vindicated the rights of the House of Commons. The House had been told the other night that there was no understanding anywhere as to when the debate should close, and they were bound to accept that assertion; but he confessed he had never greater difficulty in accepting any assertion. Having already had an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject of the Ballot, he would confine his observations for the present to answering certain remarks made in the course of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, in his speech the other night, made an attack upon those Members who presumed to criticize the conduct of the two front Benches. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the persons to whom his remarks applied were very few in number. Now, as one of those Members who had ventured to advance to that pitch of presumption, he (Mr. Bentinck) might fairly consider himself included in that category. Those remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were somewhat curt, and not very over-strained by courtesy. He (Mr. Bentinck), in his reply, would endeavour to be as curt, and not less courteous. His reasons for venturing on more than one occasion to criticize the conduct of the two front Benches was because he was strongly opposed to political tergiversation and political apostacy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire seemed hardly to be conscious of the position in which he was placed—he did not seem to understand that a long career of political tergiversation had placed him in a position which subjected him—["Order!] He was answering the remarks of the right hon. Gentle-

  1239
  man. ["Question!] He considered that he was perfectly justified in so doing. He wished to defend the rights of those to whom the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  COLONEL BERESFORD: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, if that is the Question before the House?
  MR. G. BENTINCK: said, he was sorry for those interruptions, because he might be obliged, in consequence, to dwell longer upon the subject than he otherwise should have done. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire attacked those who found fault with the conduct of the two front Benches he seemed to place himself in a position above all criticism or reproof in respect to his public conduct. The right hon. Gentleman told the House many years ago, in speaking of the Government of the day, that it was an "organized hypocrisy." But if the late and the present Government were to be properly described with reference to their proceedings, it occurred to him that it should be by the term "disorganized hypocrisy."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He understood the hon. Member to say that he was answering the observations that were made in the debate upon this question. But up to this time it did not appear to him (the Chairman) that he had been answering those observations.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he would abide by the decision of the Chairman; but, unless he ruled to the contrary, he (Mr. Bentinck) must maintain that he was in Order in answering the remarks of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which he held to be offensive to himself and others. ["Question!] That was the Question. He was answering the attacks which had been made upon those who had presumed to criticize the conduct of the occupants of the front benches, and endeavouring to explain the grounds upon which they had dared to do so. He had another ground of objection to the proceedings for many years past of the occupants of the two front benches. He held it to be the first duty of a Member of that House to attend to the interests of his country; but next to that his duty was to uphold the interests of those who sent him there. The strong objection which he (Mr.
  1240
  Bentinck) entertained to the whole career of the front Bench on each side of the House was this—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Bill before the Committee was a Bill for Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. Upon the Order of the Day on that Bill an hon. Gentleman moved "That the Chairman do leave the Chair." Now, the Motion was undoubtedly consistent with the Rules and Privileges of the House, although it was somewhat unusual. Of course, it was open to the hon. Member, in speaking upon that Question, to refer to what had fallen from any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman during the preceding debates upon the question. He (the Chairman) was always unwilling to interfere with the right of discussion; but he must say when an hon. Member proceeded to discuss the conduct of different Governments during a long series of years, it appeared to him that it was not quite relevant to the Motion now before the House. He (the Chairman) felt he would not be fulfilling his duty if he did not call the hon. Member to order.
  MR. G. BENTINCKasked whether he was to understand from the Chairman that it was not competent for an hon. Member of that House in Committee to reply to the remarks made by another Member of that same Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: On the contrary; the hon. Member must have entirely misunderstood what I said, because I declared that it was competent for an hon. Member to reply to observations made in the course of the debate; but the hon. Member must confine himself to those observations and to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he would bow to the decision of the Chair, and would proceed to refer to some observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government at an earlier stage of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the time that had been wasted in the discussions, and uttered a long didactic oration on the bad habit of imputing motives; but the right hon. Gentleman himself had fallen into that bad habit in imputing motives to the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton) and to others, whom he accused of making long speeches for the sole purpose of delaying the pro-

  1241
  gress of the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Bentinck) asked the right hon. Gentleman upon what grounds did he prefer that charge? All he (Mr. Bentinck) would say in reference to that observation was that during the many years he had had the honour of a seat in that House, if any one Member more than another had delayed the business of the House by the number and length of his speeches, it was the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman had also made a strong attack upon the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone for having committed an unchivalrous act in naming a gentleman not in the House, without giving notice to a relative of that gentleman of what he intended to do. But that was a complete misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. What the noble Lord did was to call in question the conduct of an hon. Member of the House—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who was then in his place, and fully prepared to defend himself. The charge against the noble Lord of being wanting in chivalry or in courtesy therefore fell at once to the ground. Having said this much, he was so sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield was anxious to exculpate himself, and that the House were anxious to hear the exculpation, that he would no longer intervene between him and the House.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, there was a great misapprehension, especially outside the House, that in order to obstruct the progress of this Bill an attempt had been made to talk against time. It was highly desirable that this misapprehension should be removed. He would, therefore, briefly recount the facts of the case. By a wise arrangement, made for the general convenience of the House, there was no debate on the second reading, because it would have been a most unwise proceeding to have commenced the debate just before Easter, and have been compelled to continue it after the holidays had intervened. That arrangement was made with the general consent of both sides of the House, and the debate was taken on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, when it only lasted three nights, which was by no means a long period considering the magnitude of the subject. And even now, with the present debate in Committee, the question would only have received four and a
  1242
  half nights' discussion, which could not be regarded as excessive, especially considering the interminable debates which had taken place on the question of Purchase and Army organization. He believed that this measure would vastly increase the power of the purse, and extend bribery, for nine out of ten electors who were bribed would vote for the person who gave them the money, as the least return they could make for the gift; and as the House of Commons was the great avenue to social distinction, men would always be found who would be ready to buy seats in it. No doubt the Bill might have a wholesome effect in regard to intimidation; but he believed it would tend to increase rather than to check bribery.
  COLONEL BERESFORDlooked upon the Bill as an exceptional measure and a leap in the dark, and would therefore prefer to see it passed as a merely temporary measure until they could see how it worked. After another General Election Parliament would have had an opportunity of gauging the effect of such a Bill, and on that ground its duration should be limited. He did not see why hundreds of thousands of honest citizens should be compelled to vote secretly, because hundreds of other citizens were corrupt; but he admitted that those who had not the courage to vote openly should be protected, and therefore he would like to see the two systems—the Ballot and open voting—in concurrent operation. No doubt the Bill before them provided an excellent mode of carrying out a system of secret voting; but he would prefer the better and more honourable way of accomplishing the same end by means of voting papers, as proposed by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he did not think the Bill was a good one, and saw no necessity for the House to be precipitate in dealing with it. He believed its main object was to keep a party together, and he himself was not afraid of the consequences of any party falling to pieces. The question, at all events, was not an urgent one, and hon. Gentlemen were quite justified in expressing their opinions upon it. One of the clauses of the Bill contained a proposition so monstrous as to justify every opposition that could be given. By the 31st clause, if a returning officer, presiding officer, clerk,

  1243
  agent, or candidate offered an opinion or afforded any information to any other person as to the vote which he know, believed, or suspected any person to give he would be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years. He never before heard of an Act of Parliament imposing a punishment for the offering of an opinion. The days of the Inquisition would be revived with ten-fold force if a man were to be imprisoned for two years with hard labour for offering an opinion as to a person whom he suspected to have done something. Very much had been made of the authority of Mr. Grote on the question of the Ballot. But what did Mr. Justice Maule say? He said he thought the Ballot might have done some good, and therefore he had voted for it; but he owned he was very much shaken in his opinion by Mr. Grote's perfect demonstration in its favour. In the "Memoirs" of Mr. Nassau Senior a conversation with M. Beaumont was given, in which that gentleman said—
  "We are not good balancers of inconveniences. Nous somme trop logiqucs. As soon as we see the faults of an institution nous la brisons. Unless we greatly improve, we shall never have any permanent institution; for as we destroy every institution as soon as we discover its faults, and no one is free from them, nothing can last."
  One point which had been very much debated in regard to this Bill was as to whether the franchise was a trust or not. One of the highest authorities among the Liberal party—an eminent Chancery barrister, who had filled the highest position in his profession—he referred to Lord Westbury, late Lord Chancellor—speaking on the introduction of a penal measure for the disfranchisement of voters in Canterbury, and, therefore, speaking almost judicially, said, on the 20th of March, 1854—
  "It was a measure which enabled the Legislature to deal with a species of property which must always be distinguished from private properly, over which a man was held to possess absolute control—namely, a great political and public trust, …. Members would do well to remember the distinction which existed between the use which might be made of private property, for which the possessor could not be held accountable, and the use which might be made of a public trust for the proper exercise of which the holder was morally responsible."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 1045.]
  That was Lord Westbury's opinion. With regard to intimidation, everyone admitted that it was declining. Wales
  1244
  had been referred to by a gentleman who said he had acted as treasurer of a fund raised to compensate persons who had suffered injury in consequence of having voted in a particular way. But the injury done could not have been very great, for the amount of the fund was only £4,000. He was not sure that the elected did not require some protection from intimidation as well as the electors; and if they wanted to do away with intimidation to the latter, they must do away with personal attendance at the poll. He would conclude with an extract from a speech delivered by a late Member of the Government, and a staunch Liberal, Mr. Moncreiff, who said—
  "They would never advance the interests of a nation by calling upon men to exercise the most important function with which a citizen of a civilized State could be charged, in impenetrable darkness; and they might be assured that they could never turn a knave into an honest man by making it impossible to distinguish an honest man from a knave."—[3 Hansard, cxxviii. 215.]
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, they had had an illustration that evening of the evil of Americanizing our institutions. In consequence of the caucus which had been held that day, they saw the Liberal party abandon its functions, and Members belonging to the Opposition speaking against the measure from both sides of the House! The fact that the question had been on several occasions before the House was no reason why it should not be fully discussed now that it had become a Government measure, and was in danger of passing into law. If the Ballot would prove advantageous to anyone, it would be so to himself, as the constituency which he had the honour to represent was just such a constituency as the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had referred to—the employers of labour were chiefly Liberals, while the working men were largely Conservatives. He had not received any intimation from his constituents as to what their opinions were on this subject. They knew that he was opposed, on principle, to the Ballot, as they knew that he was opposed to the Permissive Bill: but while he received no letters regarding the Ballot, numerous communications crowded on him with respect to the Permissive Bill—some entreating him to vote for the measure, others threatening that if he did not vote for it he would lose his seat. There was a strong feeling in the country in

  1245
  favour of abating intemperance by any measure, however Utopian and unworkable; but there was no feeling in the country in favour of abating intimidation by the Ballot. What did that prove? That while intemperance was unhappily increasing, intimidation was happily decreasing. The Prime Minister mentioned three classes of electors, the independent and honest electors; the bad men, including liars; and the honest, but weak and dependent electors. The first class, according to the Prime Minister's own admission, did not need the Ballot; the second, the Prime Minister also admitted, would be enabled by the Ballot to gratify their hatred and spite; the third class could only be protected by passing into the same category as the second. It was alleged that the Liberal employers of labour called up their workmen and asked them how they were going to vote, and that if they did not pledge themselves to vote in favour of the Liberal candidate, or if, having so pledged themselves, they voted in favour of the Conservative candidate, they got their congé. The only difference between the present state of things and that under the Ballot would be, that now interrogatories were put to the workmen before, then they would be put after the election. If the landlord or employer of labour asked his tenant or workman how he had voted, and the tenant or workman declined to say, or hesitated, or stated that he had voted for the opposition candidate, what would prevent the landlord or employer dismissing him, if he could do so now? But then he might call Heaven to witness that he voted in favour of the Liberal candidate. The moment, however, he made that statement he ceased to belong to the third class—the class of honest but weak and dependent voters—and became a member of the second class—the class of liars, whom the right hon. Gentleman did not seek to protect. Thus the Ballot would have a demoralizing influence. The Bill would enact that a Member should lose his seat in case personation had taken place—this being the only novel provision with regard to personation. But the chance of personation being discovered would be very slight, and the scheme of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), if adopted, would not meet the difficulties of the case. When the voter presented himself,
  1246
  and the agent had reason to believe that he was not the person he assumed to be, then the agent, according to the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, would have power to cause his vote to be put into a separate packet, and not into the ballot-box, the agent being liable to a penalty of £20 if his suspicions proved groundless. This scheme would put a premium on rich men. Besides, the agent would have no motive for objecting, as the whole design of the Ballot was to prevent his knowing the political views of the voter: and even if the scheme were equal to dealing with the case, the scheme was not adopted by the Government. They might expect that personation would be rife under the Ballot. When they had universal suffrage it would be time enough to have recourse to the Ballot; in America, and the colonies, wherever they had the Ballot, they also had universal suffrage. Uncertainty and suspicion would, however, always attach to the Ballot, as was shown in France, where 8,000,000 votes were recorded for an Emperor, who was almost the next day hurled from power; and in Rome, where 50,000 votes were recorded for Victor Emmanuel, and hardly any for Pio Nono, yet the Catholic world had never ceased to challenge the result. It was often said that the Ballot was un-English, and in this he agreed; he understood the expression to signify that the English people were against what was mean and underhand, being, in the words of the Prime Minister, "a high-spirited race."
  MR. GREENEsaid, he felt it his duty to protest against the species of tyranny attempted to be enforced against that House. It was well known that there had been a preconcerted plan on the part of the Prime Minister and his supporters that none of the latter should speak. He had also observed a sort of telegraphic signal proceeding from one hon. Member to another, intimating that all the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side should leave the House. That proceeding was disgraceful, and calculated to bring the House into ridicule.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. GREENE: If the Prime Minister, whom he now saw in his place, had come down to that House with that spirit of conciliation which characterized Lord Palmerston, and asked them to limit their remarks, he, for one, would not have troubled the House with any remarks; but when the right hon. Gentleman attempted with his followers to coerce the House into a division, he would find that he had got the wrong set of men to reckon with. The subject was one to which another evening might well have been spared. Having listened to the debate throughout, he declared that his opinion against the Ballot had not been changed. How would the Ballot reduce expense unless they went to another stage of tyranny, and prohibited canvassing? He did not see how a Gentleman's election who sat on the opposite side who had to pay £14,000 would be returned for a penny less under the Ballot. People would express their opinions, and therefore the way they voted would be known. There were grave questions ahead, which might affect the English nation at large, and therefore they should be cautious what they did. Bribery under the Ballot would still be carried on, and without fear of detection, the briber paying according to the result. The Conservative party were accused by the Liberals of exercising intimidation and coercion; but if that were so, how could it be accounted for that there was a majority of 110 or 120 on the Ministerial side of the House? He wished to know how bribery could be proved if the votes were not to be traced. Generally a nomination was a good ordeal to pass through; and the knowledge that he had to face the hustings made a man careful in his political conduct. He certainly thought before such a Bill as this was passed the constituencies should be consulted upon it. There was no analogy between the system of balloting for members of clubs and the voting for Members of Parliament. The one involved only social considerations of a comparatively limited range; the other involved the highest national interests. At the same time, he confessed that even in club elections he would prefer not secret but open voting. It had been said that tenants were coerced by their landlords; but he altogether denied the charge, and he challenged any hon. Member to prove that a single
  1248
  case of that kind had occurred in England. It would be far better to keep to open voting than to pass this wretched measure. Only on the previous day a staunch supporter of this measure had, in speaking of the registration of partnerships, remarked that publicity was honesty and secrecy was fraud. Because he agreed in that view, and believed that secret voting would not succeed, he should oppose this Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that when his hon. Friend (Mr. Greene) referred to the somewhat anomalous line of action pursued by hon. Members opposite, in absenting themselves from their places at the commencement of the debate, he should have made some allowance for the fact that their political labours commenced at a somewhat earlier hour than usual, and that they probably needed some repose after the labours they had gone through not very far from that House. Ever since this Bill was in print there had been a bulky list of Notices of Amendments which had now assumed the form of a separate Paper distinct from the ordinary Paper. A rumour had gained ground this afternoon, which he could not believe possessed any real foundation, that with respect to a great number of those Amendments, although appearing on the Paper, it was not the intention of those whose names were appended to them to proceed with them. He hoped a speedy contradiction would be given to this rumour, for he believed that the object of one of the customs of the House would be set at nought if such a scheme were carried into effect. He had always been under the impression that Notices of this kind were placed upon the Paper for the convenience of Members, in order to avoid a multiplicity or repetition of Amendments. Therefore it would be for the convenience of the Committee that any intention of removing Amendments should be at once announced, so that in respect of Amendments which commended themselves to other Members an opportunity might be afforded of supplying those places which would be left vacant by withdrawals. Without wishing to carry on this discussion, he must enter his humble but emphatic protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government the other night that the Motion of the hon. Member for the

  1249
  West Riding (Mr. J. Fielden), that the Chairman do leave the Chair, was most unusual and almost un-Parliamentary. The hon. Member for the West Riding rose simultaneously with the right hon. Gentleman on the night of the debate on going into Committee, but was prevented from moving the adjournment, and he thought they were all indebted to him for enabling the discussion to be continued in Committee. On the same night the hour generally devoted to dinner had hardly expired when a Member of the Cabinet rose, and although there arose with him an hon. Member whom a great portion of the House desired to hear, the right hon. Gentleman insisted on his right to address the House. It was the Vice President of the Council who rose before 10 o'clock. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, it was a quarter to 11.] That would not affect his argument, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should not complain of the humbler Members of the House seeking to continue the discussion when that portion of the evening had been taken up by Members of his Cabinet. But the putting of the Question that the Preamble be postponed was a proper opportunity for stating objections, and the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair was a mere variation of that form. The second reading of the Bill without discussion could not be avoided, because the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to take the second reading on the Monday in Passion Week; and it would have been impossible to have concluded any debate raised at that time by the Thursday in the same week, while even if that could have been achieved the House would have been sitting two days longer in Passion Week than was its custom. In fact, the habit of the right hon. Gentleman of constantly addressing arguments to the House which appealed either to the personal hopes or fears of Members was scarcely consistent with the dignity of Parliament, while it recalled to the recollections of hon. Gentlemen at any rate their school days, if not a still earlier period of their existence. As, however, they had waived their right to debate on that occasion, he considered that they were justified in the course they had since pursued. Without entering into the details of the measure, he might state that he dissented from the views expressed on that (the Opposition) side
  1250
  of the House with regard to nominations and declarations of the polls. A nomination was a senseless and idle farce, degrading to all who took part in it; and he should welcome any measure which relieved candidates from participation in them. He did not, however, approve of throwing the expenses upon the ratepayers, because that would tempt persons from motives of vanity to offer themselves as candidates. But his object in addressing the Committee now was to protest against the manner in which the whole subject had been treated by the Government, and to point out that any delay or protraction of the debate was the result of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government.
  MR. WARD JACKSONproposed to defer expressing any opinion upon clauses until clauses were under consideration; but he would say, in passing, that he thought it desirable to do away with declarations of the poll, although he was not quite so decided in his view of nominations. He wished to call attention to an important part of the Preamble which had never been discussed—namely, the municipal part of the measure. The alterations affecting the constitution of the corporations were embodied wholesale in the clauses relating to Parliamentary elections; but he was sure the provisions of the Bill never could be carried out in that form, and he would suggest that the Government should divide the Bill into two parts. He had heard no objection on the part of corporations to the election of aldermen and councilmen according to the present law. He cited the case of Hartlepool to show how practically inoperative the Bill would be. Hartlepool was divided into two parts; one was governed under a law dating from the time of Elizabeth, and the other was under Town Improvement Commissioners. Now, this Bill did not provide any rules for the election of the Town Improvement Commissioners. According as the Bill was drawn, Liverpool, Manchester, the ancient City of York, and many other large corporations, would all, in fact, be disfranchised, so far as the mode of electing members of the corporation was concerned. Parliament was not at this moment prepared to legislate on the question of municipal corporations. The Bill would require

  1251
  very great alterations, and he submitted that it should be divided into two parts, one part being made applicable to Parliamentary elections, and the other to municipal corporations. The provision in the 17th clause that any rules made in pursuance of that clause were to be laid before Parliament within three weeks after they were made, if Parliament was sitting, and if it was not sitting, within three weeks after the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, was a fatal objection. He also took exception to the clause which required that a municipal candidate for the office of alderman and councillor should have a proposer and seconder, and that his nomination should be assented to by eight electors. Again, many important towns in this country were regulated by Improvement Commissioners, and he had to ask why were they not brought within the scope of the Bill? As to the Ballot, he was opposed to it, except as a mere experiment; but as the time had arrived when that experiment must be tried, he was not desirous that it should be tried in the first instance as a permanent measure. It would be far easier to make the Act expire after a specific period, if it was found not to work satisfactorily, than to repeal it if passed unconditionally as to time. Looking to the whole circumstances of the case, he recommended that the Bill should be withdrawn for this Session, that it should be split into two parts, and that Government should take into consideration before next Session all the Amendments, nearly 300 in number, which had been proposed. He recommended this course to Ministers, as he did not believe the Bill could be passed this Session, and in order to give the municipalities time to consider its effect on their present constitutions. It would be well for Ministers to adopt the well-known maxim "Stoop to conquer," and also to remember bis dat qui cito dat.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was anxious that his constituents should know what his opinions were in reference to this question of secret voting. As to the abolition of nomination, he thought that it was but scant justice that the candidate should not have the opportunity of openly and publicly stating what his principles were, and that the electors should not be able to question him upon any doubtful point. In his opinion,
  1252
  both the candidates and the electors had a right to their privileges in that respect. He quite agreed that candidates should not be pledged to details, but what were his principles should be distinctly understood by the electors. The electors also should have the opportunity, on a second appearance, of ascertaining how far the candidate had carried out his principles. The candidates had also a right to know, by public nomination, who his opponents were, and to judge from what took place at the nomination whether he would be justified in incurring the expense of a poll. The only objection raised was that there were frequent disturbances at elections. The remedy for this was in the hands of the candidates themselves; if they forbade the payment of money to induce persons, very often non-electors, to be present at the nomination ostensibly to secure the prestige of a good show of hands, but too often for the express purpose of creating a disturbance, nomination days would cease to be characterized by noise. He would not go into the details of the Bill; but he believed that secrecy as to voting would be a delusion and a snare. He did not think that secrecy could be maintained. Many hon. Gentlemen might be aware of the circumstances under which he sat in that House; and all he would say was that straightforward conduct was the right course to pursue. Though in the first instance he was only elected by a small majority, yet because people came to know that he had certain opinions and was not likely to change them, he had been re-elected without difficulty or opposition in every election that had occurred during the last 28 years. He fully advocated the principle enunciated on the other side of the House, that publicity was honesty and secrecy was fraud.
  MR. HEYGATEobserved, that the conduct of Members on that side of the House, in desiring a full expression of opinion on this measure, had been vindicated more than once by reference to the course which the present Prime Minister had formerly taken, when opposing the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and the Divorce Bill, which were supported by the vast majority of the House; but they need not go so far back as that, for during the present Session of Parliament they had the experience of the Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland Bill. On that oc-

  1253
  casion a minority which only numbered 11 on division, discussed the Bill hour after hour and day after day, and the Prime Minister had not a word of reproach for them; and now they, who represented an important part of the House and of the country were asked suddenly to change their opinions, or agree with those who had so recently adopted the principle of the Bill. Was it very extraordinary that they should wish to hear the question thoroughly discussed, and to hear some satisfactory reasons for assenting to the Bill before the House? There must be sitting on the other side of the House 150 hon. Members, at least, who had hitherto opposed the principle of secret voting for years, and who the other night voted for the measure for the first time; and this, he thought, bore out the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that the measure would be carried by what he called a mechanical majority. What new reasons, then, were there for such a wholesale conversion, and for submitting to what the advocates of the Bill allowed was an "humiliation" and a "choice of evils?" It had been urged that the argument of trust for the non-electors had been removed by the large extension of the franchise which had taken place within the last few years; but Lord Palmerston had shown that this would not arise from any extension of the franchise which was not universal, for that there would still remain the trust to be exercised in favour of the women and children and all the other unenfranchised. The facts were these—before the last Reform Bill about 1,000,000 persons performed the trust on behalf of the rest of the community, and that number had by the late extension increased to more than 2,000,000; but there still remained a vast majority for whom the comparatively small body of electors still exercised the trust. The argument that we should be guided by the conduct of foreign countries and our Australian colonies on any such question had been demolished by the Marquess of Salisbury in "another place," who, on another occasion, denounced the notion of being so guided, and gave to this mode of reasoning the nickname of "the intelligent foreigner argument." It was clearly not for us to take our opinions from intelligent
  1254
  foreigners. It must first be shown that in foreign countries there was a more intelligent mode of conducting public business, and that law and order were better maintained there than at home. As far as France and America were concerned there was no analogy, as it was admitted that there was no secret voting in either of those countries. As to the practice in our colonial possessions, he might remark that the Ballot might be very well in the colonies, and still not suitable to the mother country. It would be unfair for us to be guided by the opinions of the Governors of Australia. Even their opinions in favour of the Ballot were given with so many modifications, and the difference of circumstances was so great that they ceased to be an argument in its favour. One important difference between the mother country and her colonies was the value set upon membership in the two places. The value of a seat here might, by-and-by, be depreciated; but so long as there was a desire on the part of those whom the hon. Member for Waterford called the "successful capitalists who sit around him" to enter the House of Commons, the weight of the money-bag would tell, and he believed it would tell with increasing force if the Ballot were adopted. No new argument worthy of the name of an argument had been used to induce the House to change its policy with regard to the Ballot. The Premier had admitted that the adoption of the Ballot was only "a choice of evils," and the House had a right to look for something more than the miserable apologies for arguments which had been set up in favour of the measure. With reference to the question whether bribery had increased of late, he believed it would be admitted on all hands that there never was a fairer election, as far as regarded bribery and treating, than the last General Election, and he could see no reason why a violent and uncalled for change should now be made in the electoral system of the country. As far as intimidation was concerned, that was a question on which hon. Members would differ; but he could find no evidence of a great increase of intimidation. He did not know that even the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) held that intimidation had increased, although he based his argument in favour of the Ballot on the existence of

  1255
  intimidation. On the other hand, they had the emphatic testimony of the Judges who had tried the late Election Petitions to the contrary. There were many cogent reasons that might be advanced in favour of the proposition that the Ballot was not required for the protection of the voter; but he need only mention that the increase in the number of electors had rendered bribery difficult, and, as everyone knew, it was now capital which was seeking labour, and not labour in search of capital, so that the growing independence of the working classes decreased the chances of seducing the voter from electoral purity. On the other hand, the inevitable result of the Ballot would be that there would arise a system of hypocrisy greater than ever existed in this country. If a man was not to become a hypocrite there would be no use in giving him secret voting. He must tell a lie in order to make secret voting any protection at all, and this was what an Englishman would not do. It was not in the nature of an Englishman to conceal his vote; and eventually his opinion would be as well known as it was at present. Then, again, the detection of bribery and personation would be rendered more difficult, if not absolutely impossible, if, as under this Bill, there was no means of tracing the vote when once given; and, what was even worse, elections would be reduced to stump oratory, and many of the best men—the sober and the thoughtful—all, in fact, who were not prepared for political agitation, would be excluded from that House. There were two points in the Bill of which he approved; and those were the abolition of nominations, and the rendering it illegal to issue hourly returns of the poll, a practice which had in times past caused much rioting and disturbance of the peace. Entertaining, then, the opinion that this measure was against every reason which had hitherto been adduced, and that there was no new reason adduced which could justify them in registering a decree at the instance of a dictator on the Ministerial bench, he, for one, should refuse to follow him in the course which he had proposed.
  COLONEL JERVISsaid, he had been requested by his small but varied constituency of farmers, commercial men, shopkeepers, and mariners to vote against the present Bill, and for this, among other reasons—they failed to see
  1256
  why, having only recently, so far as the majority of them were concerned, been placed upon the electoral roll, they should not be treated with the confidence that had been reposed in the former voters, who were allowed to record their suffrages openly in the sight of their fellows. As to the operation of the Ballot in Ireland, he would remind the Prime Minister that the Irish were now comparatively a united people, and would return the men they wanted, as the experience of the last few months proved, whether they had the Ballot or not. He (Colonel Jervis) had seen the working of the Ballot in most parts of the world where it was in operation, and could bear testimony as to its utter inefficiency. In regard to America it was well known that no man went to the poll whose vote was not known months beforehand. In fact, the results of elections were always known some time previous to the Balloting, and the funds in Europe rose and fell accordingly. When the Prime Minister went to the Ionian Islands he found the Ballot in operation. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman reproved the whole population, including the Bishop and clergy, for their want of allegiance to British authority. It was in consequence of the Ballot that the English Government had lost their influence of the people, who came in consequence under the control of the Greek priests and the Russian Government. Again, it was well known that in France the Government controlled the Ballot, and in Greece whenever the elections went against the Government, the Government party seized the Ballot-boxes and burned the voting papers. Her Majesty's Government were trying to burke this question by carrying a mere Ballot Bill—a measure which was a direct insult to the population of this country. If what rumour said that day were true, the proceeding referred to was most discreditable to the party connected with it, and the English people before long would lot the Government know what they thought of it. It was reported that a meeting of Members took place that day at the official residence of the Prime Minister. If it were true that the Prime Minister induced the Members at that meeting to pledge themselves not to discuss this question, and not to proceed with any of the Notices which they placed on the

  1257
  Paper respecting this Bill, the people of England would very soon let the right hon. Gentleman know what they thought of such conduct. If such a proceeding had taken place it was a direct violation of the solemn pledge which the right hon. Gentleman made before Easter, that in the event of the House assenting to the second reading without discussion, ample opportunity should be afforded for discussing the Bill afterwards. They (the Opposition) were twitted for the course they were pursuing in respect of this Bill, which was described by the right hon. Gentleman as a factious and disorderly opposition; but he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure (Mr. Forster) was one of about 30 Members who had perseveringly opposed the Cattle Bill some few years ago, ultimately succeeding, after weeks of opposition, in their object, that Bill having then been withdrawn. It might also be remembered that the present Prime Minister opposed the Divorce Bill on the ground that in the month of July it was impossible for a Bill of such magnitude to be considered by the House, much less carried, and he was bound to admit that the right hon. Gentleman was quite justified in making that assertion. Well, he (Colonel Jervis) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could expect to carry such an important Bill as the present this Session? Individually, he did not care whether the Ballot was established or not, as he felt convinced that a vast majority of the people would vote rightly and conscientiously; but he believed that if the Government dissolved Parliament and appealed to the country on the subject they would fail to carry their Bill at the hustings. The change which had taken place within the last two years amongst the working classes was very great. They no longer skulked into holes and corners for the purpose of expressing their political sentiments, but proclaimed them openly at meetings held in Hyde Park or Trafalgar Square. He hoped that before they came to a definite resolution upon this question the Government would re-consider the great changes which had taken place in the country since they came into office, and would appeal to the people upon this question of the Ballot.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEreminded the Committee that some 25
  1258
  years ago, when he was in the House, the then great Conservative Government and a large portion of their political party changed their opinions upon a most serious question of public policy. The explanation which that Government, gave for such a change was, to his mind, satisfactory. Having heard that evening so many speeches on the one side, he should express a hope, as an independent Member, that the Government would be allowed to proceed at once with the clauses of the Bill, and to explain what they had to say in respect to them. After the animadversions which had been made upon the occupants of the two front benches that evening, it was scarcely to be expected that any of them would intervene at the present moment.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTappealed to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to withdraw his Motion—that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. If, however, any blame were to be attached to any one Member in regard to the proceedings of that House, it was to be attached to the Prime Minister himself, who fixed the second reading for a time that was most inconvenient for hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman persisted in fixing the second reading of the Bill in Passion Week, when there could be no discussion. He hoped that what had happened would be a lesson to him not to depart from the usual course pursued with reference to important matters, and that hon. Members might always be allowed to express, both on the second reading, and in going into Committee, the opinions which they entertained, particularly with reference to a Bill that they believed to be unnecessary. Discussion having now taken place, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he feared that he violated a maxim of that distinguished Diplomat, M. Tagleron, who in the choice of his employés said—Sourtout point de zete, for he (Mr. Newdegate) was in earnest; a feeling which seemed wanting on the other side of the House, where no zeal existed except to keep together. For his part, he regarded this great national measure as one that was pregnant with future changes, and he thought it right to take the opinion of the House upon his Motion, for he was opposing the Bill, not from any

  1259
  fancy of his own, but in belief that it was at variance with the feelings and interests of the people of this country. He based his opposition, not upon his own authority, but upon that of the late Leader of the party on the other side—one of the greatest men who ever occupied the position of Prime Minister. The conduct of the supporters of the Government represented either the apprehensions of the plutocracy, that want of courage which was the curse of wealth, or that subordination to party objects which wholly ignored national interests.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 154: Majority 91.
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that this clause should be postponed as well as the Preamble, because it only related to the title of the Bill, and on the next clause he proposed in line 12, after "every," to leave out the words, "Parliamentary and," with the view of confining the operation of the Bill to municipal elections.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hardly thought the hon. Member seriously meant that this clause should be postponed. Of course, the hon. Member was perfectly aware, as the whole Committee were aware, that the Bill was introduced mainly in reference to Parliamentary elections.
  Clause agreed to.
  Nomination and Election.
  Clause 2 (Regulations as to election and nomination of Members.)
  MR. FLOYERmoved in page 1, line 11, after "this Act," leave out to "such Elections," inclusive, inline 13, and insert—
  "All nominations for Members to serve in Parliament shall continue to be held as heretofore provided by law, save and except where any riot or serious disturbance shall take place, or may reasonably be expected to take place, at the nomination; and in every such case the returning officer shall, at his own discretion or upon the representation in writing of any ten electors of the place for which the nomination is intended to be held that a riot or serious disturbance may reasonably be expected, adjourn the nomination to a future day to be by him appointed, so, however, that such day be not more than (two) days later than the day originally fixed for such nomination; and on such day he shall proceed with the nomination of candidates and the Election of Members
  1260
  according to the regulations, and in the manner following."
  The hon. Gentleman said, the question involved in this Amendment had received scarcely any attention in the course of the recent debates, and it was one which might be considered without any reference to party views. It had been said that those hon. Gentlemen who supported public nominations made an unnecessary profession of courage—the inference being that such hon. Gentlemen were not likely to be exposed to much riot or disturbance at their election, while others might be exposed to very unpleasant occurrences. But, for his own part, he disclaimed the appropriation of any courage of that sort—he was as fond as any man of a peaceful and quiet life, and he hoped he was quite free from the imputation of any desire to expose candidates unnecessarily to riot and disturbance. The object of his Amendment was to preserve for the future public nominations of Members to serve in Parliament: but his proposition was accompanied by the provision that in case of serious riot or disturbance, or apprehension of riot or disturbance, the returning officer should have the power of adjourning the nomination, and should then proceed in the manner pointed out in the clause. He had desired that his Amendment should proceed on the lines of law and precedent as already laid down and acted upon. The 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36, provided that in case of riot or disturbance at a nomination or at a poll, the returning officer should adjourn the nomination or poll to the following day, and, further, if necessary. In a few instances the provisions of that Act had been carried out; but as it provided only for an adjournment it was necessary that the proceedings should go on, and the result was that those who desired to cause a disturbance had only to wait until the nomination was resumed, when they could again cause a tumult. He proposed to obviate that difficulty by providing that in such a case the election should be held in accordance with the Bill. He, however, desired to extend the application of that provision to cases in which there was only the apprehension of riot. It might be said that the object of his clause was indefinite; but in his Amendment he followed the provisions of an Act that had already been put in force—namely, the Special Con-

  1261
  stables Act of 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 41, which referred to cases where it was made to appear that there had been a tumult or might be reasonably apprehended in any parish, the only difference being that he placed the power in the hands of the returning officer (either at his own discretion or on the representation of any ten electors), instead of with the justices, who did not stand very high in the estimation of some hon. Members. This plan, he believed, would give real discouragement to disturbances at elections, if it did not lead to their total cessation; because when it was found that an end could be put to riotous proceedings, candidates might, perhaps, be allowed to express their political opinions on the hustings. This part of the subject had been well-considered by the Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, who, in their Report, pointed out the various advantages of public nominations, which they were decidedly in favour of retaining. Nor was this a qualified expression of opinion on their part since that portion of the Report was carried in opposition to a Motion which would have recommended the abolition of nominations. The clause in favour of their being retained was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and it was carried by the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). Was it not most unjust to the large number of boroughs and counties where elections were conducted in an orderly and decorous manner that they should be deprived of the privilege they had enjoyed for centuries of hearing those who aspired to represent them express their political opinions on the matters on which the public welfare depended before they confided such an important trust to them? That part of the Bill proceeded on the principle which was the radical fault of the whole measure—namely, that of condemning in penalties large numbers of unoffending men and unoffending constituencies merely because certain other men and certain other constituencies had disgraced themselves by their conduct. It would compel honest men to give their vote secretly, because a certain number of dishonest voters had turned open voting to a bad purpose. He was aware that other reasons had been alleged in favour of doing away with nominations.
  1262
  The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) had spoken of candidates having to pay for the show of hands; but experienced judges of those matters thought the candidate who got the show of hands was most likely to lose the election. The same hon. Member also told them that he had to pay for an audience to listen to his oration; but that, too, was rather a foolish expenditure; it could not be regarded as necessary, and formed no good ground for abolishing nominations. For himself, when he hired a servant, he liked to see him, and fancied he could detect a difference between the look of an honest man and that of a rogue, and was it less important that the electors should see those who sought to represent them in Parliament? Voting by Ballot might be carried on in the dark; but he liked men to stand on the hustings in the open light of day. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said he had never canvassed and never would, and perhaps his great abilities enabled him to dispense with a process which less able men were fain to adopt; but if candidates were not to canvass and not to appear on the hustings, when were the constituents to see them? True, at the last Election in some cases letters recommendatory, written by men of high authority, were despatched from London in favour of particular candidates; but he had never heard that those letters were very successful, although perhaps that might be one of the modes resorted to if canvassing were done away with. It was, however, far better that a man should speak for himself, and should state his views not in any hole-and-corner meeting, where all present were, perhaps, of one way of thinking, but on the hustings, where there was that conflict of opinion by which alone they could hope to get at the truth. Again, the hustings was the proper place for the opposing candidates to meet each other face to face and clear up those little misunderstandings which often grew out of the heat of an election contest. The hustings enabled opponents to bring their differences to a final issue, and as an hon. Member had said, on the hustings the victor and the unsuccessful competitor should shake hands and be friends. Again, at the nomination questions were often asked that elicited useful answers, and decided doubtful voters.

  1263
  Further, it should be remembered that at the hustings, and on nomination days, the non-electors—still a numerous body—were able to take part in the proceedings. But the strongest ground on which he supported the continuance of nomination days was the broad one of their publicity. If there was one thing which he had hitherto admired more than another in the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite it was their consistent belief in the power of public opinion; but this Bill endangered the confidence he had in their views in that respect. This was a Bill for the suppression of public opinion, and put a penalty on a man for saying how he was going to vote. How, then, was he to discuss public questions? This furnished another reason why he advocated the retention of the nomination. How were the political opinions of candidates to be communicated to constituencies if they were not to be expressed vivâ voce on the hustings? By an address? If a candidate wrote a short address it would be read, though not very widely. But were it a long one it would share a different fate. Thousands of men would go a long distance to hear a speech from the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne). They might read a speech of his reported in the newspapers; but if he wrote a long address, the number that would road it would be very few indeed. He (Mr. Floyer) had attempted to treat this subject in a Conservative spirit, for he liked to preserve what was good and wholesome and real in our constitutional observances. The right hon. Gentleman appeared in a very different character now from what he did last year, when he with so many others were only too glad to give him their warmest support. Then he appeared in a Conservative character. He was preserving the good, sound institutions of the country. But now he came before the House as a destructive, as a total abolitionist. It might be said this was a small matter. But he could not think anything a small matter which was connected with the national customs, the political life, and the national character of the country. Few things, he believed, had exercised more effect on English character than our political institutions, especially those connected with the mode of electing Members to serve in Parliament, and he feared that attachment to the Constitution would be seriously impaired by the measure.
  1264
  Even if secret voting should be carried some portion of that spirit might yet be preserved by retaining public nominations. If secret voting was introduced and nominations abolished, how could they enlist the sympathies of the people on the side of the institutions of the country? It was with these feelings that he ventured to place the Amendment on the Paper. He hoped he would be supported from both sides of the House, and with some confidence of success he begged to offer his Amendment for acceptance by the Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he regretted the introduction into the Bill of the clause at present before the Committee, because it was not at all necessarily mixed up with the question of secret voting, and a matter of so much consequence as the immediate question might have been discussed more dispassionately and with greater advantage if there had been an opportunity of dealing with it standing alone. The Amendment was intended to raise the question in as unobjectionable a form as possible. So far as candidates, electors, and expenditure were concerned, he believed the present system was better than the one proposed by the Bill. It was hard upon the electors, who had most right to be considered in the matter, to deprive them of the opportunity of meeting candidates for their suffrages face to face, and of putting questions to them. Anyone who had his experience would know that when a man came on the hustings very many questions were asked him, and it was a great comfort to be able to answer them. It would be the greatest possible discomfort not to have an opportunity of meeting everybody face to face, answering everything they had to say, and thus not only keeping oneself straight with one's constituents but preventing what would be ten thousand times more mischievous than any disturbance to everybody—one's character being whispered away behind his back without an opportunity of knowing what was said, or any opportunity of making an answer. It was no exaggeration to say that men of experience could very often tell from the show of hands whether it was worth while to go to the poll, even though half of those who attended were non-electors. Expense had been saved in this way; but if public nominations were abolished, there would be absolutely no

  1265
  opportunity of forming any opinion as to what might be called the "trim" of the public on the occasion. The only reason he heard assigned against nominations was that now and then there was a row, and no doubt they were a little lively sometimes. But that did not do much mischief to anyone. Mischief, doubtless, did occur at times in some places where roughs were hired. But it was a great hardship to punish constituencies generally—for he regarded it as punishment—because in a few places such practices obtained. These were some of the reasons why he thought the existing law much better. One serious objection to the clause was that it left a discretion to the returning officers to fix the day on which the poll should be taken. If there was one thing more desirable than another with regard to the conduct of elections it was that the returning officer should be free from suspicion of bias in favour of either candidate, and this would be impossible if the clause were allowed to stand in its present form. It often happened that a day made all the difference to the candidates, whether the day was fixed early or late. If two days were not sufficient, it would be far better to fix the number of days in the Bill, for in many cases the fixing of a day by the returning officers would turn the scale in favour of one candidate or the other. In counties especially it was most important that the constituencies should have afforded to them every reasonable opportunity of meeting and hearing the opinions of gentlemen seeking to represent them, or otherwise, they might be ridden over by some wealthy person who sought by his riches to overshadow the county, or by the mere nominee of some London club sent down to snatch the representation for the advantage of the political party to which he belonged. If hole-and-corner meetings were held the electors would be powerless, because they would know nothing of the party, and the election might be over before the news spread over the county. A great deal had been said about rows and excitement in connection with election meetings; but he thought there was more danger of rows, and a succession of them, at meetings held in the "Pig and Whistle" than at a public nomination, where the candidates would come face to face with the electors, and, after perhaps a gentle breeze, all persons concerned
  1266
  would have an opportunity of becoming acquainted, and the opinions of the candidates would lie open before those whose votes they sought. Instead of giving this publicity to electoral proceedings, it was sought to shut up the candidates in a box, where they would be perfectly safe from all cross examination by the electors. He hoped that the clause would be withdrawn, and that the nomination would be allowed to be taken in the old way.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could not support the Amendment, the effect of which would be to retain in the electoral system a relic of a time when all the circumstances of social and political life were different from those of the present day. It had been said that it was desirable that candidates should face the electors, and submit to be cross questioned. Now a candidate would be open to all sorts of cross-examination by his constituents at the meetings which must be held prior to the election, and there would be ample opportunities of buttering them in the Journal, lampooning them in the Gazette, and placarding them in different colours over all the dead walls in the town before the election came on. What occasion, then, was there to have a last day of row and rioting among the free and independent electors? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) would remember the nomination day in which he (Mr. Hope) and that hon. Member took part. The first exhibition of playfulness which took place was a rush of the mob, which swept away the reporters, who had to take refuge on the hustings. The hon. Member made some charge against him, of which he could not hear one word, and when it came to his turn to speak he simply stood gesticulating for about 20 minutes. At intervals of a few minutes he contrived to whisper something into the ears of the reporters, who stood near him, and it was stated in the newspapers that the confusion was so great that only a few scattered sentences could be heard. Such exhibitions tended to create a great deal of ill-blood, and he should be glad to see them put an end to. As one of the representatives of the only two constituencies in the United Kingdom where nominations were unknown and elections perfectly orderly, he should oppose the Amendment with a clear conscience.
  MR. A. EGERTONadmitted that there were objections to open nominations, and said the only question was, whether they were strong enough to induce the House to abolish the system altogether. The Committee must remember that in a majority of the constituencies no complaints of the existing system could in reason be made. In Scotland, where nominations were held in closed buildings, there were abominable practices, and candidates were obliged to go clothed in macintoshes, though he could hardly state for what reason. But there was a great advantage in a man appearing before his constituents, so that he might answer their questions, and if open nominations were abolished the constituencies would not be satisfied without seeing their Members. Then the system of holding meetings at which a Member could meet his own supporters with, perhaps, a sprinkling from the other side, as followed in Lancashire, would come to an end, for there would be a fight at the doors for admission. Thus, instead of one confused meeting there would be a large series of them, where nothing sensible could be done. He did not believe that they would gain at all from the abolition of public nomination, which had many recommendations, and would be improved by the qualifications proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Floyer).
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYobserved, that every Member worthy of a seat in that House ought to have the courage of his opinions, and supporters of the Ballot would require no apology from one who wished to act with freedom, and he must say he had not the good fortune to agree with his own party with regard to this clause, for he could not think it was a wise proposal to abolish nominations. He feared that it would have a tendency to lower the character of the House. Suppose, for instance, a man came from the colonics, or from the East, with £20,000 a-year, but with a character which was not too good. Nobody would know anything about him; and, by going to a solicitor, he might secure arrangements by which he would gain a seat in that House, on condition that a sum of money should be paid after his election. As no opportunity for inquiry was given at the election, a person of no character might thus get into the House, and as Members would naturally be inclined to
  1268
  treat a new comer kindly, he might be enabled to rehabilitate himself. He was surprised that his hon. Friends should allow hon. Members on the other side to outdo them in supporting one of the most open of our election proceedings. In constitutional matters everything should be as plain, simple, and perspicuous as possible. He found fault with this measure in several respects. One serious objection to this clause was, that the returning officer might be subject to local pressure in an inconvenient manner with regard to the mode of conducting the election. For example, he was to have a discretion as to the number of persons to be admitted to witness a nomination. Would not the local newspapers complain of him, if persons favoured by editors should be excluded? If the clause acted at all it would be imperfectly and unfairly, and unless he heard some good reason from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council he could not support it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member (Sir John Trelawny) could not support the clause, but he thought the hon. Member's reasons insufficient. He (Mr. Forster) thought the power of the rich man to get into Parliament was greater under the present system than it would be under the new one contemplated by the Bill. If a man had £20,000 a-year, he might easily secure at a public nomination that nothing he said need be heard, and that nothing said against him should be heard. Nor was the nomination day a time at which the candidate was subjected to any real and effectual questioning. With regard to the Amendment which the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Floyer) had brought forward, in a fair, candid, and able manner, he thought its terms were open to some objections which could not have been urged againt a mere negative of the abolition of open nominations. The hon. Member left it partly to the returning officer and partly to the representations of a small number of electors to say whether there should or should not be nominations. That was a discretion which, notwithstanding the precedents he produced, would be most inconvenient to the returning officer. It was also desirable that the constituencies should know how an election was to be conducted, and that the question of an open nomination should not be left to the re-

  1269
  turning officer or any of the electors. The real issue before the Committee, however, was whether open nominations should be abolished or not. The chief argument in favour of maintaining the present system was that it was necessary to secure publicity for the candidate's opinions. But that might be fully secured through the Press, and by means of advertisements. Then it was said that it was desirable that the candidate should be seen by the electors, and some hon. Members seemed to suppose that a candidate would be prevented by the Bill from meeting his constituents. But there would be no prevention whatever. The fact was that for the future very few would have a chance of being returned unless they did meet their constituents. Open nominations were in reality public meetings of the worst kind, because they were more noisy and disorderly than any other public meetings. The hon. Member for the West Riding and himself had attended many meetings in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and, with the exception of nominations, he had scarcely ever known a disorderly public meeting. At the hustings the general experience was not the gentle breeze spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), but a stormy breeze, arising from the simple fact that nomination meetings were not really held for hearing opinions or obtaining information, but for the purpose of obtaining the show of hands. That took away from it all its intelligent character, and was a great temptation to the candidate and his friends to try to obtain the show of hands. The nomination, too, was generally a public meeting of a very partial kind. How was it possible that in a county the electors of the different divisions should be represented at the nomination in proportion to their numbers. It was the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood that were present. One great reason why the Government had brought in this Bill was to make elections as orderly as possible, and to induce the peaceful portion of the voters to take as large a part as possible in the return of their representative. But it was well known that quiet people had the greatest objection to the disorder of nomination days, and were very likely to stop away.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he moved the Amendment in Committee to which his
  1270
  hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Floyer) had referred. The objection to the wording of the Amendment would be entirely removed if the Committee adopted the first part of it—namely, that—
  "All nominations for Members to serve in Parliament shall continue to be held as heretofore provided by law."
  That commended itself to his view, and he hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with it. He had a very strong feeling in favour of publicity at nominations. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had said that the day had gone by when they should trust to speeches at nominations for explanations of candidates' opinions, but that they were to have recourse to the expensive process of printed addresses and advertisements, instead of the simple process that had for so many years satisfied their forefathers. He (Mr. Hunt) would give an illustration of the utility of the present system. At the last Election he never addressed his constituents except at the nomination. On that occasion he went fully into the question of the Blackwater Bridge, with respect to which he thought an attack had been made upon himself and the late Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he believed he fully satisfied every elector and non-elector who heard him. Every elector should have an opportunity not only of hearing the sentiments of the candidate, but of putting to him any questions that he chose. Then, under the new system, it was said that canvassing would cease. In that case the electors would not have an opportunity of colloquial communication with the candidate. Then, candidates were to content themselves with private meetings of the electors, to which admission, for the most part, would be by ticket. ["No, no!] Hon. Members might say, "No, no." He did not say it was universally so; but he believed it was a common practice now to hold meetings and admit by ticket. ["No, no!] He had always declined to attend ticket meetings himself, and always made it a condition, when asked to attend a meeting, that there should be no tickets. At all events, where tickets were used the meetings would be one-sided. With regard to printed addresses, it was well known that many of them emanated from kind friends; but

  1271
  the electors had a right to know not only what were the candidates' opinions, but what were his powers of expressing his and their opinions, and it might be they would not return him to Parliament unless they had some knowledge of his power of oratory. Under the proposed plan constituents would not have the opportunity of forming an opinion of his oratorical power. One of the sentences in the Report of the Select Committee was, that though the evidence of the majority of the witnesses that came before them was in favour of a change, no practical substitute was proposed by anyone. In order to get a sufficient security for the bonâ fide nomination of candidates, the Government were obliged to violate the whole principle of their Bill, which was secrecy from beginning to end; secrecy during the poll, which he approved, and secrecy after the poll, which he disapproved. If they compelled ten gentlemen to declare in the face of the world that they would give their votes in favour of one particular candidate, what became of the principle upon which the Bill was supposed to be founded? So far he had been treating of electors only; but he had to say a word on behalf of non-electors, who had a perfect right that their feelings and opinions should be given publicity to; and it was quite a proper thing that a candidate should run the gauntlet of the expression of opinion on the part of electors as well as non-electors. He did not see because a few constituencies had been guilty of default that that was a reason for doing away with the advantages of public nominations. He thought it probable that this proposal was due to the reminiscences of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but on the occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman was, to the great regret of all who knew him, so ill-treated, it should be remembered that he went down as the private friend and nominee of the patron of the borough. Such a thing could scarcely occur again, although if the right hon. Gentleman presented himself to a popular constituency, a few lucifer matches might, perhaps, be burnt in his honour. He hoped the Committee would not, for the sake of a very few constituencies which had disgraced themselves, and whose manners were in process of reform, consent to part with the present system of public nominations.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he had, unfortunately, had some experience in nominations, and could only say that it was a remarkable mistake to suppose that they in any way tended to diminish the expenses of candidates. In boroughs they might possibly add but little to the expense; but in counties it was quite different. A candidate living near the town where the nomination was to be held usually attended, accompanied by a large body of his friends and supporters, and his opponent, who might live many miles away, was compelled, at the instance of those who managed his affairs, to bring a large body of his supporters, at great expense, for the purpose, if possible, of securing the show of hands. It was urged that to do away with the nomination, as at present conducted, would be to do away with the opportunity which now existed for the electors to ascertain the opinions of the candidates; but there was no doubt that the candidates would make it a point to be in the town on the day of the nomination, and that they would address the electors from the windows of their committee-rooms or elsewhere. The alternative proposed would substitute for a very lively proceeding one of the dullest ever invented by human ingenuity. A candidate would go into the town-hall, accompanied by 10 or 12 friends; they would sit there for two hours, waiting to see if any fresh names were proposed, and at the end of that time would march solemnly out again. At present it was the practice at the declaration of the poll for the candidates to speak a few words of thanks to their supporters, and it might, he thought, be as well if at the conclusion of the nomination as now proposed the doors were thrown open and the candidates permitted to address a few words to those present. At all events, such a plan would do away with the complaint that the collective constituency had no opportunity of hearing the opinions of candidates.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMobjected to a proposal to abolish the mode of nomination which had prevailed for more than a thousand years. There was a great distinction to be drawn between mere noise and dangerous riot, and when the former developed into the latter it was usually due to the inefficiency of the police arrangements. The real remedy, he believed, lay in the Amendment be-

  1273
  fore the Committee, and he, for one, saw no reason for so violent a change in a mode of election well suited to the people of this country.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved to report Progress.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, that he should not object to retaining nominations as they now existed; and if it was thought desirable, he would adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and would so alter his Amendment that it should stop at the word "law."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "Elections," in line 13, inclusive, and insert the words "all nominations for Members to serve in Parliament shall continue to be held as heretofore provided by law."—(Mr. Floyer.)
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, he thought that, as a rule, nominations might be allowed to proceed under the present system, and that, under certain circumstances, they might be conducted privately.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council argued that because when the show of hands was taken the meetings became disorderly, therefore nomination days should be abolished. He thought that argument most extraordinary, because the Bill abolished the show of hands.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that nomination meetings for counties were frequently held in boroughs which returned Members of their own, and the decisions really did not express the public opinion of the county. If this were so, the sooner the nominations were abolished the better.
  MR. J. HARDYwished to know how they were to compensate the non-electors for the loss of the opportunity of expressing their opinions by the show of hands, and asked whether, as it was stated by the Prime Minister that household suffrage led to the Ballot, the abolition of nomination days would lead to universal suffrage?
  MR. J. FIELDENobserved, that he had not found that the ordinary candidates' meetings were as quiet as could be wished. They were considered mere
  1274
  party meetings, and the only meeting at which the public was fairly represented was that for nomination. He objected to the abolition of nomination meetings. The importance attached to them was shown by the fact mentioned by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) that the candidates brought up their supporters to the nomination meetings.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought there might be some reason in what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had said why they should get rid of nominations in counties; but there was no reason why they should get rid of nominations in boroughs, where Members might be "turned inside out." If they did away with nominations in boroughs, especially in large boroughs, where the constituency had no means of seeing or knowing the candidate when he submitted himself to them for examination, they could not have what he considered to be the real English freedom of election. He had been anxious to hear hon. Members opposite on this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had held a "caucus" at his official residence to-day; his supporters had been struck dumb, and the multitudinous Amendments of which they had given Notice, occupying some 29 pages of print, were to be withdrawn. Was the freedom of public opinion thus to be stifled? It would be necessary that other Members should take up those Amendments which were withdrawn, and argue them before the Committee.
  Words of Amendment after "law," by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the words 'the following regulations shall have effect' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 296; Noes 113: Majority 183.
  Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  MR. PELLsaid, there was a rumour that certain Amendments which stood on the Notice Paper might be withdrawn. He did not wish to ask the Vice President of the Council whether he was cognizant of the arrangement; but he hoped those Gentlemen who had entered into this plan—he would not say conspiracy—would take the earliest op-

  1275
  portunity of formally withdrawing their Amendments, in order to give other hon. Members an opportunity of replacing those which they approved. In the name of common honesty and straightforward dealing, he appealed to them to take that step to night, in order that hon. Members might know how the matter stood in the morning.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he felt in candour bound to support the view just expressed on the other side of the House. He tried to express that opinion that day in another place, but did not succeed. He was not going to commit any breach of private progress; but what he did in one place he was prepared to do in another. Advice had undoubtedly been given and largely accepted on this side of the House that the Amendments which stood on the Paper in the names of Liberal Members should be withdrawn. ["No, no!] If what he stated was considered incorrect, he must say that that impression was distinctly produced upon his mind. What he now wished to say to the Chairman was this—that the Notices of Amendment which stood on the Paper were distinctly and clearly the property of the House. ["Order!] With regard to some of them—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Notices which are on the Paper are in no sense the property of the House. They are simply Notices that on a future day hon. Members intend to make certain Motions; but that by no means binds those Members to make them. They are in no sense the property of the House, and they cannot be discussed by anticipation.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he quite understood the Chairman's correction, and he would try to speak in order. Those Amendments, no doubt, according to the interpretation which had been given, were not the property of the House. But the point which he wanted to put was this—supposing an hon. Member had an Amendment on the Paper, and did not move it, 20 other Members might be prepared to do so. What he wished to ask of hon. Members who had charge of these Amendments was that if they did not intend to propose them they should give fair notice to the House. If that was not done the Bill never would, and never could pass, because everyone of the Amendments to which the House attributed importance, if withdrawn,
  1276
  would undoubtedly be brought up on the Report or as a new clause. Some of the Amendments on the Paper were quite as important in the estimation of many as the carrying of the Ballot Bill itself; he, therefore, earnestly appealed to those who had placed Amendments on the Paper to withdraw them at once if they intended doing so.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, it appeared to him that there was nothing less involved in the subject under discussion than the honour, the credit, and the dignity of Parliament. He understood that certain Amendments which had been put on the Paper were about to be withdrawn ["No, no!]—were not going to be proceeded with; and he contended that, although they might not be formally in the possession of the House, they were virtually so, and that the House should be put in a position to deal with them.
  THE CHAIRMANstated, in explanation of his former ruling, that the fact of an hon. Member having given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment did not bind him to move it, nor did it prevent any other hon. Member from placing a similar Notice on the Paper.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the same Amendment had been placed on the Paper by several Members as it was, and the process could be repeated if hon. Members wished. The appeal made by Gentlemen on the other side had not been addressed directly to the Government, but had been made under the supposition that some influence had been used by the Government with their supporters for the withdrawal of Amendments, and likewise to secure the reduction of the Amendments on the Paper at the time when the discussion was about to arrive, so that their withdrawal might have the effect of a surprise. Now, seeing that there were 173 Amendments on the Paper the Government need not, he thought, be at all ashamed of being anxious for a diminution of their number, and they did not shrink from saying that as far as was consistent with the respect of Members of this House, they should be glad if it should be their pleasure to reduce that goodly list. With regard to the appeal made to Members on that—the Liberal—side of the House, that that withdrawal ought not to have the effect of a practical surprise, he was not concerned in that ap-

  1277
  peal, because he had no Amendment on the Paper; but he must say that, as coming from those hon. Members, it was a reasonable appeal, and he presumed it would be fairly considered.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill for constituting a Local Government Board, and vesting therein certain functions of the Secretary of State and Privy Council concerning the Public Health and Local Government, together with the powers and duties of the Poor Law Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 230.]

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
  Select Committee on Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill to consist of Seventeen Members:—Mr. AYRTON, Viscount SANDON, Mr. BIRLEY. Mr. ARTHUR GUEST, Mr. HINDE PALMER, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. CAWLEY. Mr. CANDLISH, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, Mr. FREDERICK STANLEY, Mr. Alderman CARTER, Mr. SHERRIFF, Sir MASSEY LOPES, Mr. CHARLES TURNER, Mr. DODDS, Mr. HOLT, and Mr. LEEMAN:—Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That all Petitions in reference to the Bill be referred to the Select Committee.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment* (241); Statute Law Revision* (242).
Second Reading—Union of Benefices Acts Amendment (219).
Committee—Burial Grounds (231); Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* (195–243): Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (162–244); Owens College* (211–245).
Committee—Report—Tramways (Ireland)* (203); Prevention of Crime* (207); Bath City Prison* (80); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (201).
Third Reading—Judicial Committee of Privy Council* (233–246), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 219.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
UNION OF BENEFICES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 219.)

  SECOND READING
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill enacted that where two or more benefices, or parts of benefices, were united and held by one incumbent, and there were more than one church within the limit of the united benefice, it should be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese, upon application and consent in writing of the incumbent and patron, and with the consent of the parishioners in vestry, to direct that one of such churches shall be constituted the parish church; and that the disused church might be either pulled down, or left for use as a chapel of case or as a mortuary chapel. The site, however, of the church and churchyard was to be preserved and kept from desecration. All rights possessed by the parishioners in the church to be taken down would be transferred to the other, and the maintenance of tombstones and monuments was provided for. He had withdrawn the clause inserted at the instance of a right rev. Brother last Session, facilitating the union of parishes which could not at present be united, as this then prevented the passage of the Bill in "another place." The Bill would not warrant the alienation of the churchyard or site of the church, and it would be attended with, great convenience in some cases.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(Nos. 181–231.)
(The Earl Beauchamp.)
BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(Nos. 181–231.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Person objecting to burial service entitled to decent interment).
  LORD DYNEVORobjected that Dissenters should be precluded from celebrating
  1198
  any burial service in the churchyard—such a prohibition seemed to him an unjust stigma upon our co-religionists. There were thousands of good and devout Nonconformist ministers who were capable of performing a service reverently and properly; and though the permission to do this would be liable to abuse, it was no more than was the case with every good thing. As a clergyman he felt it to be a sacrifice to allow Dissenters to celebrate a burial service in the churchyard; but he had felt that it was a sacrifice which he ought to make—and having conceded Dissenters the right of burial their Lordships should go a little further, and allow them, under proper safeguards, such as restricting the service to hymns, a portion of Scripture, and prayer, to celebrate a burial service. He thought it would be better to wait until the Bill which was now passing through the other House should come up to their Lordships, when he hoped some satisfactory measure might be devised.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Bill, as he originally introduced it, had been amended by the Select Committee, in accordance with the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester). As to the noble Lord's proposition for the introduction of safeguards, he (Earl Beauchamp) had found that "safeguards" were usually of an unsubstantial character, and that to leave anything to a person's discretion was to leave it to his indiscretion. Even hymns might be made the vehicle of an unpleasant feeling. The subsequent clauses of the Bill would enable persons to convey not more than an acre of ground for the purpose of a Nonconformist burial-ground, and this facility, coupled with the permission to bury in the churchyard without any service where the deceased person had expressed his wish in writing to that effect, or where his relatives entertained the same objection, would remedy any hardship which at present existed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought it would be satisfactory to their Lordships to learn from the noble Earl or from the Government whether the Bill was likely to satisfy those whom the House would be anxious to conciliate.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he could not undertake to say whether the Bill would satisfy the Nonconformists, and, seeing the variety of opinions which existed among them, it would be difficult for anyone else to do so. He looked

  1199
  upon the matter in this light—that there was a grievance, and this was an honest and conciliatory attempt to remove it; and therefore he believed the Bill would satisfy the reasonable portion of the Dissenters, and those who had no ulterior designs in raising this question. Their Lordships ought to be anxious, whatever the opinion of the Dissenters might be, to redress a substantial grievance—especially as it was one which had excited a feeling against the Church not warranted by the extent of the grievance.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERremarked, that had his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury) been present on the second reading he would have felt and sympathized with the general desire of their Lordships to remove a real grievance, without attempting to satisfy every dissatisfied person. The noble Baron who spoke first (Lord Dynevor), so far from putting the Dissenter and the Churchman on air equality, would give the former a liberty which no Churchman or clergyman enjoyed. To do more than remedy the actual grievance and go further would be unjust to the Church:—and it was, at all events, worth trying whether this Bill would not gradually heal any irritation which at present existed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he rejoiced to hear the kind feelings expressed by the right rev. Prelate towards the Dissenters; but he thought their Lordships should remember that they were almost to a man Churchmen, and that it was very important to use great care and circumspection when they undertook to legislate on questions affecting Nonconformists. He could not say how far the Bill would be satisfactory to Dissenters; but as it had been settled by a Select Committee, he should not, without compromising himself as to the future, interfere with its present progress.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKremarked, that unless they had some reason to believe that the Bill would be acceptable to those who represented the Nonconformists in the other House, the discussion could at best be a piece of amusement and might possibly be mischievous. Unless it satisfied the Dissenters it would be mischievous, because the effect of the 1st clause was to make the use of the burial service merely optional, and might lead to irreverence and ill-feeling.
  LORD BELPER, as a member of the Select Committee, was convinced that the Bill, in its present form, would not satisfy the great body of the Dissenters.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not look upon the Bill as simply a relief to Dissenters. On the contrary, it was notorious that on the subject of the burial service very unpleasant and acrimonious disputes arose among Churchmen. Therefore, it seemed to him desirable, as some persons, through exaggerated scruples, objected to particular expressions in the burial service, that Churchmen as well as Dissenters should be able to dispense with it. Even, therefore, if it failed to satisfy Dissenters, the Bill would not be useless. Moreover, where there was a grievance partly real and partly fictitious, the House should not wait for the question to be thrust upon them, but should at once lay down the policy which they thought just, both to Churchmen and Dissenters. He hoped that when the Bill went down to the other House the Dissenters and their representatives would consider it in a conciliatory spirit; but in any case their Lordships would not be wasting labour by showing their anxiety to remedy a substantial grievance.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND, as another member of the Select Committee, explained that they had modified the Bill in the sense suggested by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester), which appeared acceptable to many of their Lordships. To attempt to prescribe a form of service acceptable to Dissenters would have been hopeless, and he believed the Bill would satisfy many of the promoters of another measure in the House of Commons—though, of course, it would not satisfy persons of extreme opinions.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, as another member of the Committee, pointed out the abuse to which permission to pronounce any discourse in a churchyard would be open; but he was ready to accept any suitable form of service on which the Dissenters and their representatives in the House of Commons might agree.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYfeared, from the proceedings in "another place," that the Bill was not likely to satisfy any considerable proportion of the Dissenters.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, be should move that their Lordships do agree to the Commons' Amendments in this Bill. Two only were of importance. One of them permitted the use of the present Lectionary until the 1st of January, 1879—the intention being to give time for the gradual withdrawal of the present Prayer Books from churches; and another specified more distinctly the occasion on which the Bishop might direct a change to be made in the Lessons.
  Earl of CARNARVONIn answer to a Question of the Earl of CARNARVON,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he saw no reason why the old Tables of Lessons and the new Tables should not be printed side by side, if there should be a wish to have both.
  EARL STANHOPEobjected to the Amendments; but seeing the difficulty with which the Bill had escaped the "Massacre of the Innocents" in the House of Commons, he should be unwilling to send it back thither. He understood that the use of the present Lectionary until 1879 was to be optional in deference to the scruples of certain clergymen as to the use of the new Tables. It was strange, however, that those scruples should be respected for seven and a-half years and then cease to be so.
  LORD CAIRNSasked which of the two reasons assigned for the Amendment was the correct one. If the object was to respect scruples, it must be thought that scruples, like vaccination, lost their efficacy in seven years. He had been told that the extension of time was adopted at the suggestion of the right rev. Bench. But he did not see that the people ought to be left in doubt which Lectionary was to be in use during the next seven years. He saw no risk of the loss of the Bill by disagreeing to the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKexplained that a proposal being made in the House of Commons to make the use of the old Table optional for all time, and that the two Tables should be printed side by side, it was suggested by some right rev. Prelates that the question might be met by leaving it optional for a longer
  1202
  time than had been intended. He thought seven and a-half years a needlessly long period; but a considerable number of the clergy had scruples as to the use of the new Table. The Amendment would give them time to consider how far those scruples were valid, and when they saw the working of the new Table in adjoing churches they would, if reasonable men, abandon their scruples.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it had always been felt that some time must be allowed before the use of the new Tables became compulsory, and how long that period was was of little importance. Seven years might be too long a period; but it was not worth while to imperil the Bill on that account. He trusted, with his most rev. Friend, that the general convenience of the new Tables would secure their general adoption. The more distinct definition of the occasions when the Tables might be departed from would, he believed, be acceptable to the clergy generally. He was thankful that the Bill had reached the present stage, and thought it a good omen that a measure of ecclesiastical reform was likely to become law. He regretted that the Bill had not been made part of a more enlarged scheme of ecclesiastical reform. It was his impression that the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners should have been embodied in a more enlarged scheme, of which this Bill would have been part. Having while at a distance addressed the clergy on the importance of sundry ecclesiastical reforms, he was thankful to say that four out of the six or seven measures which he then recommended was likely to become law this Session—namely, the Sequestration Bill, the Union of Benefices Bill, the Registration of Benefices Bill, and the present measure. This was a happy omen, for there had been a general impression that all measures of ecclesiastical reform were likely to be thwarted, owing to the feeling existing in the country with regard to an Established Church. He had often heard it stated that a large number of persons being opposed to an Established Church on principle wished the Church to have as many faults as possible, and were determined that it should be in no way improved. Now, he had never believed that the common fairness and common sense of Englishmen, whether Churchmen or not, would allow them to acquiesce in such a mode of opposing the

  1203
  Established Church. He rejoiced, therefore, at the practical refutation of the supposed impossibility of carrying ecclesiastical reforms through the House of Commons, and hailed it as a proof, not only that the members of the Church were anxious to improve it, but that they had the sanction and good feeling of the whole of their fellow-countrymen in making the Church as effective as possible for its great purposes.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he should have rejoiced to see effect given to others of the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners; but he thought that to have embodied them in a Bill without the concurrence of the Convocations of Canterbury and York would have been disastrous to the Church.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdisclaimed any such intention in the remarks he had made.
  Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL—(Nos. 212–233.)
  REPORT. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

    THIRD READING.
    Adjourned debate on the Amendment moved on Report—[which Amendment was, in Clause 1 (Appointment of additional Members of the Judicial Committee), leave out from ("salary") to ("and") in page 2, line 1]—resumed (according to Order).
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, their Lordships were now proposing very wisely to make a selection from the existing Judges of the Superior Courts, and to offer to them a position of paid members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but in order to demand the services of those whose services it would be most desirable to have, it seemed to him that their Lordships must be enabled to offer to them an appointment equal in respect of duration and salary to that which they now held. It was for that purpose he had moved the Amendment now before their Lordships.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment pointed to a difficulty; but he thought that with a slight modification it might be adapted to meet his noble and learned Friend's views. In a Bill of this kind, framed for the purpose of meeting an immediate emergency, it
    1204
    would scarcely be right that it should provide for the assistance of those four learned Judges without their being members of the Privy Council. Position in this case was of much more importance than salary. It would surely not be right to make a disparaging difference between those Judges and the other members of the Privy Council. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposed that, although the Judges might be removed from the Privy Council by the Crown, they could not be deprived of the office to which they had been appointed. This would produce an anomaly, for, according to the words of the Amendment, it appeared that, after the removal of one of the Judges from the Privy Council, in which case he could not act, he would receive his salary for nothing, unless it were stopped by a concurrent Vote of the two Houses of Parliament. The Amendment might be altered so as to provide that—
    "Every such person shall, so long as he shall continue to be a Privy Councillor acting under this Act, but no longer, have the same title to continue to receive the salary hereby provided for him as if he were a Judge of one of the Superior Courts holding office during good behaviour, but removable by Her Majesty upon Address of both Houses of Parliament."
    LORD CHELMSFORDpointed out that the Judges to be appointed under this Bill would occupy a totally different position from that held by the other Privy Councillors. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if adopted, would place those Judges on a lower footing than that occupied by the Judges of the most inferior Court in the kingdom, because they would then be removable by a mere stroke of the pen.
    LORD ROMILLYsaid, this was professedly a temporary Bill, introduced to meet an emergency until the Legislature should be enabled to pass a measure regulating the whole course of the appellate tribunals, and its object was to leave the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council very much as it stood, but with the addition of certain members to be appointed at certain salaries. It would not be difficult to find qualified persons to accept that position without interfering with the rights of the Crown in respect to Privy Councillors; and he hoped the point now at issue would be arranged without the necessity of going to a division.
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had no doubt that if the terms held out were even less advantageous than they were there would be no difficulty in obtaining persons to take these appointments. The only question was whether they would secure the services of the best men. The difference, however, between the words which he himself proposed and those proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was not such as to induce him to press for a division.
    Amendment amended, and agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEproposed an Amendment, with a view to render the Irish and Scotch Judges eligible, as well as their English brethren, to hold the appointments contemplated by that Bill. It was an undeserved slight upon those Judges to omit them from the measure. He therefore moved, in page 1, line 10, after ("Westminster") to insert ("or Dublin or Edinburgh.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLORassured the noble Marquess that no slight was intended upon either the Scotch or the Irish Bar. He had only to remind their Lordships that this was but a temporary measure, framed for the removal of the accumulated appeals which now clogged the cars of justice. The noble Marquess's proposition would properly come under consideration when the general measure of law reform was brought forward. The Bill followed, as much as possible, the present formation of the Judicial Committee; but the whole question would remain open for future consideration, when it would be competent for their Lordships to introduce such changes as had been suggested. The Bill was brought in to meet a pressing emergency which would arise in November when the Committee renewed its sittings after the Long Vacation, and consequently it was thought necessary to ask for the assistance of the Judges. He hoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment.
    LORD REDESDALErose to call the attention of their Lordships to a point of Order. The Amendment of the noble Marquess could not now be put, as it referred to a part of the clause which had just been amended. It could not now be moved until the third reading.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
    Amendment made, in page 2, line 9, leave out from ("him") to ("a") in line 10.
    Amendment made, in page 2, line 19, after ("determine") insert
    ("it shall be the duty of every person appointed to act as a paid member of the Judicial Committee under this Act to attend the sittings of the said Committee when summoned thereto unless he shall be prevented by reasonable cause; and every such person shall, so long as he shall continue to be a privy councillor, acting under this Act, but no longer, have the same titie to continue to receive the salary hereby provided for him as if he were a judge of one of the superior courts holding office during good behaviour but removable by Her Majesty upon an address of both Houses of Parliament.")
    Clause 2 (Continuous sittings of and attendance of Members of the Judicial Committee).
    LORD CAIRNSsaid, he objected to this clause, and he should take the opinion of the House on it. The Bill was said to be introduced for a temporary purpose, yet if this clause were carried it would alter the whole constitution of the Committee in a manner which in many cases would be most prejudicial. The Lord President derived his position and authority in the Council from the will of the Sovereign, and not from Parliament, and the power therefore proposed to be given to the Lord President resided, in the Crown, and could be exercised by the Crown. It was unnecessary to create a power that existed at the present time. His second objection to the clause was that it would give power to the Lord President to summon not only the paid, but the unpaid members of the Judicial Committee, and to compel their attendance. A third objection was that the existence of such a power would give occasion to a suspicion—which already existed in a certain degree, though without any ground whatever—that in a certain special class of cases those members only might be summoned whose opinions were known to tend in a certain direction—in short, that the Committee would be "packed."
    LORD ROMILLYsaid, he understood the clause proposed to give to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the same power that was enjoyed by every tribunal, of making rules and regulations for the disposal of its own business, and therefore he suggested that it should be done by the Lord President

    1207
    with the consent of the Crown—that was by the Queen in Council affirming them. He admitted that many persons interested in ecclesiastical cases might be under the impression that by the power of issuing summons for the attendance of particular members for a particular class of cases, a Committee holding particular views might be brought together. He had made a suggestion on a former occasion that the Queen in Council should draw up a rota for the attendance of the members, so that no suspicion could arise that particular members were summoned to deal with a particular case. He thought that the clause might be altered on the third reading.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as he read the clause it was proposed that Parliament should give authority to the Queen in Council to manage the business of her own Council. That would be an unseemly proceeding, and it would be better to let the law remain as it was. The best course would be to omit the clause altogether.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had not been the practice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to act under any general orders, but to sit in a desultory way, according to the convenience of the members. Now, however, that it was proposed to appoint paid Judges to sit on the Judicial Committee, he thought it would be well that a regular table of sittings should be drawn up, in a manner somewhat similar to that adopted for regulating the sittings of the Superior Courts. Unless some such course were adopted, there would be some risk that the scheme would fail, and that the arrears of business would not be cleared off after all.
    After some further conversation,
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 3 (Salaries to cease on omission of Members to attend sittings of the Judicial Committee without reasonable excuse) struck out.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert a clause repealing the 16th clause of the Church Discipline Act, which had reference to the hearing of ecclesiastical causes before the Judicial Committee. By that section it was required that the Queen should summon to the Judicial Committee, whenever such causes were to be heard, either the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, or the Bishop of London.
    1208
    But, beside the other great and important duties which these eminent persons had to perform, it generally happened that one or more of them was disqualified from sitting from their having been previously engaged in these cases in the Courts below, and those appeals had to be deferred until such time as one of the three could attend who was in no way connected with the case. This was his first reason for desiring to repeal the clause against which his Amendment was directed. Another and a stronger ground was, that for persons not learned in the law to occupy the position of Judges in the last resort was a very anomalous proceeding. It was undoubtedly true that every Member of their Lordships' House had the prerogative right, though a layman, of sitting and deciding questions of law as a Court of final Appeal; but this state of things had been felt to be such an anomaly that for generations none but law Lords, who had received a legal education and training, had ever taken part in appellate Business of the House. The public would think it a very strange thing for the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) to sit on commercial cases because he might know more about mercantile transactions than the lawyers, or that other noble Lords should insist on sitting on land questions because they were possessed of large landed possessions, and he could see no reason why the Bishops, because they were Bishops, should sit in the Committee on ecclesiastical cases any more than those he had mentioned in these particular cases. The ecclesiastical cases that were brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were often cases between Bishops and clergymen, and the consequence was, as clergymen were not members of the Judicial Council, that the Church was represented on one side of the question only. A more serious objection was that the Bishop might be deciding on his own case, and it might be that in questions of doctrine and ritual that he was a committed man to certain opinions, having by his previous writing and preaching pledged himself before the world to a particular opinion, and that his views were well known on disputed questions of doctrine which agitated the Church. In fact, those opinions were taken into consideration when he was made a Bishop. It was impossible for such a man to resist the

    1209
    tendency of his thoughts, and of its giving some colour to its judgment; in fact, he could not be an impartial man. It was of the utmost importance that all the Courts of this country should be—as they generally were—above suspicion. The ecclesiastical questions that were brought before the Judicial Committee were frequently of a character which excited men's feelings and passions to the highest degree, and that being so more external precaution should be taken to preserve the impartiality of the tribunal before which they were brought; because, when every precaution was not taken to clear the highest Court in the realm from the faintest suspicion of bias, their decision would not be treated by the excited disputants with that respect which attached to the decisions of other Courts of Law. He had no wish to press his Amendment against the will of the Government, but rather that the Lord President should take the matter into his consideration, with a view to an amendment in that respect; and at the same time he wished it to be understood that in what he had stated he had no wish to throw discredit on the Episcopal Bench.
    Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
    "The sixteenth clause of an Act of the third and fourth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter eighty-six, intituled 'An Act for the better enforcing Church Discipline,' shall be and is hereby repealed."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, there was no doubt that at the present moment there existed in some minds a strong feeling against certain decisions of the Judicial Committee; but it might perhaps happen that when men's minds were cleared of heat and passion, those who entertained the adverse feelings would look upon the decisions in question as the only ones possible under the circumstances. But the objections of the clergy to the Judicial Committee as a tribunal was not so much the presence of the episcopal element as to its deciding ecclesiastical questions as a lay tribunal: and the effect of removing the Bishops would leave the Judicial Committee a mere lay tribunal, without any training as to matters on which they might be called upon to decide. The objections made against this tribunal would not be remedied by the proposal of the noble Marquess. He had then in his possession a Memorial urging in
    1210
    strong and far from courteous language that the clergy would refuse to be bound by the decisions of a lay tribunal. The simple answer to the question—"What would be thought of lay Lords sitting as Judges of Appeal from the Courts of Law?" as applied to the present case, was that the Bishops were already Judges constituted by law for the trial of causes in their own Courts; and that as the causes coming before the Judicial Committee belonged almost entirely to the regions of theology and Church history, a lay tribunal might find itself in a difficulty in dealing with matters relating to doctrine and practice, unless it had the assistance of some persons who by profession and training were acquainted with such subjects. A Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes had existed in England ever since the Reformation, and must continue as long as there was an Established Church in this country.
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he could not agree with much of what his right rev. Brother had stated. He believed that the mass of those who were now discontented would be far more satisfied if the decisions given by the Committee were purely legal, and that the discontent with the decisions of the Committee to which he alluded arose from the fact that a pseudo-spiritual character was imparted to a tribunal which was in fact nothing more than the highest Court of Appeal as to the proper legal value of certain words and terms, and these lawyers, in consequence of their legal training, were far better qualified to decide than ecclesiastics. His opinion was that the best means of improving the tribunal, and procuring respect for its decisions, would be to enable its legal members to call in the Bishops as assessors in ecclesiastical causes rather than to have them sitting as permanent members of the Court. If the Church of England were disestablished at once there would still be the appeal to the Privy Council upon questions respecting the holding of its property, just as the Court had jurisdiction at the present time over the endowments of non-established religious bodies in the colonies: and what he desired was that the Privy Council should not undertake to decide on the teaching of the Church as the Established Church, but should deal with matters of the kind in their strictly legal signification.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought his right rev. Brother who had just addressed the House was in error with regard to the last branch of the subject on which he touched. There seemed to be some confusion in reference to this matter. A Court of Appeal was one thing, a Court of Review another. A man who conceived he was wronged in law might appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench and have the question of law settled; but there could be no such appeal on a question of theology or doctrine. The Privy Council received ecclesiastical appeals in exercise of the prerogative of the Queen as head of the Church. Before the Reformation these appeals went to Rome; after it, they lay to the Crown. It had been said that because the Privy Council was a Court of Appeal for the colonies, it was a Court of Appeal for the Church "as by law established." But that was not so. The Judicial Committee had jurisdiction over the property of non-established religious communities in the colonies, just as it had over all other matters upon which an appeal from the colonies lay in law. It was, on the other hand, only in virtue of the Church of England being by law established that ecclesiastical appeals went to the Judicial Committee. Disestablish the Church, and the appeal would be to the Court of Queen's Bench or one of the Courts of Common Law. He maintained that there was no analogy between the cases of appeals to their Lordships' House in civil matters and those which were made on matters ecclesiastical to the Privy Council as representing the prerogative of the Crown. In the administration of that prerogative it had always been part of the constitution of this country that there should be both a spiritual and a temporal law, and he should consider it a great evil if, in order to satisfy any theory that might arise, the old constitutional principle should be entirely set aside. At one time it was urged that there ought not to be any lawyers in the Court; but, while the Church could not dispense with the lawyers, no sudden change of public opinion ought to induce a departure from the constitutional principle that the clerical element should also be represented. A number of persons who reverenced the episcopal office were never satisfied with the embodiment of it which they saw; but it should be remembered
    1212
    that a Bishop was a Judge in his own Court, and it was now proposed to abolish those functions. All that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said would apply to those duties as well as to the position of the Bishops in the Judicial Committee. With the deepest respect to the decision of the lawyers in the Privy Council, he must be allowed to say that in some matters that came before them they required ecclesiastical assistance. It had been suggested that there should be clerical assessors; yet they must be judges if their opinion was to be heeded, and if it was not, they would not attend. No three people who could be brought together would be found to be in accord as to an alteration of the present system; but when there was some agreement as to a substantial scheme, he should be glad to support it.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that he was inclined to support the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), not that he had ever heard any valid reasons to his conviction urged against the present constitution of the Judical Committee of Privy Council in such matters. The objections seemed to be rather theoretical than practical, and the objections seemed to fail in accordance among themselves as to a remedy, even if the grievance were established. But for himself he had never been able to see why the Church should be unwilling to intrust the interpretation of her documents to the same high tribunal to which the interpretation of the documents of every other religious body, where properly was concerned, were confidently intrusted—as well as the final disposal of all our highest temporal interests. It would be impossible to intrust such questions to an ecclesiastical body, or to ecclesiastics, or to Judges chosen by ecclesiastics. The decisions would cease to be interpretations; they would become declarations of opinion. They must become the decisions of partisans. To get rid, therefore, of the very suspicion that such might be the case under the existing system, he was inclined, if a change was to be made, to favour the suggestion that the Judicial Committee of Privy Council should consist solely of laymen, without any mixture of ecclesiastics. It was, however, remarkable to observe the change of opinion upon this matter, which had come over certain parties.

    1213
    Some years ago an attempt was made to get rid of laymen altogether in these matters.
    THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERexplained that the scheme which he then advocated was that in all matters which involved the doctrine of the Church of England an issue should be sent to ecclesiastics, who should return an answer to the lay members of the Privy Council, and they should not be bound to do more than receive that answer and give their judgment.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it would be impossible for those laymen to oppose the decision of such authorities on points of Church doctrine, and therefore all such questions would have been virtually decided by ecclesiastics. The views which were now declared by those who were represented by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) were therefore wholly different from those which were entertained a few years ago. He did not, however, believe that anything would satisfy those members of the Church of England who were now disclaiming all control, and who would equally resist it whether it rested in the hands of clerk or layman, if it were at variance with their own individual views, the decision should rest in clerical hands.
    EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the question had been greatly complicated by the use of inaccurate language. The popular impression was that the Queen was Head of the Church; and even the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), though he carefully qualified the phrase, had not refrained from using it. In fact, however, there had been only three Sovereigns who had been Heads of the Church—namely, Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary. In no sense, and by no monarch, with the exception of those three Sovereigns, had the title "Head of the Church" been enjoyed by the Sovereigns of England. Queen Elizabeth expressly repudiated it; and the claim therefore of the Privy Council to spiritual jurisdiction, so far as its maintainers founded it upon this erroneous notion, was without foundation.
    THE ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: The appeals which before the Reformation went to Rome went after the Reformation to the Crown; that is the sense in which I spoke.
    EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Sovereign
    1214
    was supreme over all causes, civil as well as ecclesiastical; but, having declared that doctrine, as no one could maintain that the Queen was supreme in civil matters except, according to known rules of law; so in ecclesiastical matters her supremacy was limited by the law of this Church and Realm, according to which, as temporal matters were to be decided by the temporal Courts, so spiritual matters were to be dealt with by spiritual persons. It would be absurd to refer to a mixed tribunal composed partly of spiritual persons and partly of lay persons questions purely temporal, and it was equally absurd to refer to a mixed tribunal questions purely spiritual. Spiritual matters were for the clergy, and matters purely temporal were for the temporal Courts. The supremacy of the Crown ever since the Reformation was exercised by the Court of Delegates. In questions affecting the clergy no doubt civilians were called in to aid that Court; but in questions affecting doctrine the matter was decided by the spiritual members of that Court. As regarded the observations of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), that those persons who formerly advocated the removal of all lay persons from the Court of Final Appeal, were now urging the removal of the spirituality, the reason for the change of position was obvious. Till about 1850 it was supposed that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council enjoyed some spiritual inheritance, if he might say so, from the Court of Delegates; but that had been repudiated by the Judicial Committee, who claimed nothing more than the construction of legal documents—a task for which lawyers were clearly the best fitted. It was therefore not inconsistent on the part of those persons who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the Privy Council in 1850 to abandon, on further investigation, the plan of reform which they previously advocated, and say that the more legitimate and more constitutional method was that suggested by the noble Marquess.
    On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill had been fully discussed on two previous occasions, and he thought there was no reason for delaying the third reading; but he would not press for a third reading if any noble Lord had a further Amendment to propose.
    Then Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 246.)

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 242.)
    House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.