:^* Sir, I rise to call the attention of the House to the Report of a Select Committee, which was ap- pointed on my Motion, in the Session of 1849—

"To inquire into the practicability of providing, by means of the commercial steam marine of the country, a reserve steam Navy, promptly available for the national defence, when required."

And I propose to conclude by moving the following Resolution, namely—

"That it is the opinion of this House, that in order the better to provide for the public safety, to economise the public resources, and to preserve peace, it is desirable that measures should be adopted, with a view to render the commercial steam navy promptly available for the national defence, in case of emergency."

Sir, in bringing forward this Motion, I feel it to be necessary to state to the House some practical facts in support and explanation of it. And, although I feel that I have but slight claims on the notice of hon. Members, from any ability which I possess for addressing them, yet I trust they will favour me with their indulgent attention to these facts, because, Sir, I think they will show that the object to which they relate is scarcely second, in public and national importance, to any question which can be submitted to the consideration of this House. Sir, the recent violent and extraordinary political changes which have occurred on the Continent of Europe, but more particularly in France, have led to considerable apprehension and solicitude in the public mind as to our means of defence, in the possible event of a hostile aggression or invasion of this country, by our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. Hence, we have a Militia Bill introduced into this House, proposals for establishing associations called Rifle Clubs, and other measures for resistance, should the French land upon our shores. Now, Sir, without wishing to raise a question, on this occasion, as to the expediency or otherwise of these measures, I consider that, in adopting them in the first instance—while, as I propose to show, we have overlooked means which are in our power to prevent any hostile force from landing—we have begun, as it were, at the wrong end. I submit, Sir, that we ought to direct our attention, first and foremost, to meeting our enemy on that element on which we have always been accustomed to conquer, and by those means which have ever been considered our best bulwarks of national defence—our Navy and our maritime resources. An opinion has been broached, and pretty widely circulated, that the introtion of steam navigation has divested us of the advantages which we previously derived from our insular position—that we are how more exposed to invasion. But, Sir, I consider that nothing can be more fallacious than such an opinion, I maintain that we are more invulnerable, if we only choose to make use of the means at our command, to any army landing upon our shores, than we ever were at any period of our history. Why, Sir, assuming, as I have a right to do, that after the enormous expenditure which has been made upon our regular Navy, it is at least equal, and ought to be superior, to the French navy. Look at the contrast which the commercial steam navies of the two countries present. For every private or commercial steam vessel possessed by France, we have twenty. The United Kingdom has now about 1,300 steam vessels, of all classes, in her commercial steam navy, amounting to about 300,000 tons, and 100,000 horse power of machinery. There is scarcely one of these vessels but what can carry an armament fit to render it efficient for coast defence. In support of this assertion, I beg to quote the evidence given before the Select Committee to which I have alluded, by no less an authority than Captain Chads, of the Royal Navy, commanding the Excellent, gunnery ship, that ship forming, indeed, the school of naval gunnery for the Royal Navy. He states thus:—

"Is it your opinion that some of the smaller vessels might be made capable of carrying a long 24 or a long 18-pounder amidships, that is, what is technically called a 'Long Tom,' and might, in some events, be made useful?—I would have no armament under a 32-pounder, and I believe there is no steamer that we have that cannot carry a 32-pounder of one description or the other.

"The smallest that we have?— The very smallest steamer. I do not think that there is a steamer upon the river, of any kind, that will not carry a 32-pounder."

In the suggestions, however, which I am about to submit to the House, I do not propose to extend the arrangements therein contained to anything like the whole of our commercial steamers; a small proportion of them, I consider, will suffice for the object in view. Steamers of from 400 up to 800 or 1,000 tons, have been stated, on competent evidence, which I will presently quote, to be able to carry the heavy traversing or pivot guns used in Her Majesty's steamers. Now, if the Government were to make arrangements with the owners of 100, 150, or 200 of these vessels, in the manner I am about to point out, and to the effect that they should have the fittings requisite to enable them to receive a heavy armament, immediately they were required to do so; also that they should be replaced at the disposal of the Government whenever required—the owners, in such case, to be indemnified for their being so taken and used, by the award of competent arbitrators to be mutually appointed by the Government and the owners of the ship—a means of coast defence, so far as ships are concerned, would be provided, sufficient to meet any possible attempt at invasion of our shores. In short, I wish to apply the same arrangement to the steam vessels employed in our coasting and short over-sea trade, as the Government already have with the private steam vessels employed in the Ocean don tract Packet service; and I may here also state that the steam vessels which I now have in view are exclusive of the Contract Packets. These vessels will be, and, in many instances which I could mention, have been, most valuable auxiliaries in hostile operations; but a great number of them being on distant foreign stations, and engaged in a service which a state of hostilities would render more important than ever, they could not, at least the greater number of them could not, be made available for coast defence. Now, Sir, the mode in which I think the arrangements in question might be most readily effected, would be something like this: I would suggest that the Admiralty should issue notices to the Steam Companies, that they (the Admiralty) Were prepared to receive tenders from such owners of steam vessels as might be willing, for a consideration, to fit their vessels for receiving guns, and to place them at the disposal of the Government, if they should at any time be required for the national defence. On receiving such tenders as might be considered eligible, the fittings would be placed in the vessels under the direction of a competent person. And here I may observe, that since 1849, when my Committee sat, the progress of mechanical science has been such, in fitting these heavy guns, that the ordinary class of merchant steamers, which it was then estimated would cost from 500l. to 600l. in additional strengthenings to enable them to carry these guns, require now no strengthening, except a post to receive the socket for the pivot of the carriage, and two very small beams, technically called carlings, which, together with the eye-bolts and traversing sweeps on the deck, will cost only from 50l. to 150l., or for the very largest class of ship and gun, 200l. I can, indeed, find a private tradesman, who will undertake to fit any number of vessels on these terms; and considering the trifling amount of it, I consider it would simplify the arrangement, if the Government were to fit the vessels at the public expense, instead of paying the owners an annual premium for the outlay, especially when it is considered that from 10,000l. to 20,000l. would probably fit up from 100 to 200 steamers. Now, the vessels being thus prepared, I propose that armaments should be selected for them from the Ordnance Stores, from whence, I assume, there would be no difficulty in providing them; that they should be marked with the name of the auxiliary steam vessels to which they correspond, and be placed either at the ports to and from which the vessels usually ply, or under any other arrangement which would best facilitate the prompt arming of the vessels. Well, Sir, we have here the materiel in ships and armaments of an Auxiliary Steam Navy. The next question which naturally arises is, how is this auxiliary fleet to be manned? I answer to this, that you will get the most important part of their manning—the skilled portion of their crews, required for the navigation of the vessels—with the vessels. Their mercantile officers, engineers, and crews, there is evidence to show, would volunteer to serve in the vessels; and thus, if you were to select, say two hundred vessels, you would have with them from eight to ten thousand men, engineers, and officers, all skilled in their navigation. The remainder of their crews, which might be required to make up a war Complement, might, I think, be supplied, first, from the Coast Guard, in which there are about six thousand men. These men would not be required on shore, in case of the contemplated emergency, as the steamers themselves would form a coast guard against smuggling. A corps of sea fencibles might be formed out of the fishermen or maritime population of our coasts. But, Sir, even failing these two sources, where would be the difficulty in finding a sufficient number of men to man this auxiliary fleet out of the 230,000 seamen which our merchant service now employs? With the offer of a bounty and good wages, no difficulty would be experienced, especially for a temporary service, as this would necessarily be. I have omitted to advert to another class of the skilled portion of the crews, namely, the gunners. Two trained gunners would be required for each of the heavy guns to be carried by these vessels. These, I believe, could be readily furnished from that very useful corps, the Marine Artillery, and also from the school of Naval Gunnery in the Excellent, at Portsmouth. For what I may call the fighting part of the officers, our half-pay Navy list, I think, furnishes ample room for selection. Such, Sir, is an outline of the plan which I would suggest for forming out of our commercial steam marine a reserve force for the national defence, in case of emergency. I will now ask the attention of the House to one or two short extracts from the evidence taken before this Committee of 1849, on two points, which I consider to be of much importance, namely, the capability of merchant steamers for carrying and using heavy armaments; and the willingness of the mercantile officers and crews to serve in them, in the event of their being required for the national defence. Before reading these extracts, I feel it to be necessary, however, at this stage of my statement, to detain the House, for a moment or two, on a matter which, although personal to myself, I consider of some public importance. When, Sir, I moved for the appointment of the Committee referred to, it was rather industriously insinuated and circulated, that I had some private interest of my own to serve in doing so; and that impression remains on the minds of many, whose attention has been drawn to the subject, I believe, to this day. Now, I consider the statement of one fact will suffice to remove such an impression. That fact, Sir, is, that I have no direct or indirect personal interest in any steam vessel, or steam navigation company, except the extensive enterprise with which I am publicly known to be connected—the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The vessels of that Company are already, by the terms of the Company's Charter of Incorporation and Contracts for the Mail Service, under similar engagements, as to their liability to be appropriated for the public service in case of need, to those which I now propose to be extended to the coasting steamers. After this statement, even were the arrangements I suggest calculated to involve any very lucrative benefit to steam-shipowners, —which they certainly do not—I trust I shall stand acquitted of anv sordid motive in bringing forward this subject; and I as- sure the House that I should not have thought it worth while to trouble it for a moment with this digression, had it not been that I was unwilling that the due consideration of so important a public object should be exposed to any prejudice, by the supposition that it had been put forward for the purpose of subserving some private interest of its advocate. I now, Sir, beg to read the extracts from the evidence taken by the Committee. That of Captain Chads, which I have already quoted, established, I think, the fact that there are scarcely any of our commercial steam vessels that are not capable of carrying pivot or traversing guns. There is the evidence of another very competent person, with regard to a larger class of steam vessels, namely, Mr. Engledue, formerly gunnery-lieutenant of the Excellent, and to which post he was promoted, for his efficiency in naval gunnery, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, when First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Engledue has also the advantage of an extensive practical acquaintance with the capabilities of mercantile steam vessels, having commanded several of them, of different classes, and being now naval superintendent at Southampton of the Oriental Company's fleet. He states that he considers nearly the whole of our sea-going steamers capable of armament, and that, according to their sizes and scantlings, guns of a certain size, weight, and bore, may be placed in them; and subsequently, that second-class sized steam vessels, namely, from 500 to 800 tons, are capable of carrying 68-pounder guns in addition to the 32-pounders; and that with very few additional fittings, Coasting steamers, 200 to 400 tons, can carry heavy 32-pounders pivot guns. Another witness, Mr. Andrew Lamb, superintendent engineer of the same Company, and who has, during nearly his whole life, been practically and extensively acquainted with the habits and feelings of the engineers and others employed in merchant steamers, says that there would be no difficulty whatever in the engineers entering Her Majesty's service, in the event of their steamers being converted into vessels of war; they would require nothing but an understanding that in the event of their receiving any bodily injury they shall receive the same consideration as is granted to the service generally. And subsequently, Mr. Lamb addressed a letter to the Chairman, stating that he had had a meeting with all the engineers in a certain port, and they had unanimously expressed their willingness to act under Government orders in the case of emergency. I will not fatigue hon. Members by reading any further extracts, although I may observe, that the blue book which I now hold in my hand would repay a perusal by any hon. Member who may desire to be more thoroughly acquainted with this question, inasmuch as it contains, in its rather unpretending bulk, I venture to assert, as great a number of valuable practical facts as any book of its' size which has been, like it, consigned to the shelves of the Library. I will now, Sir, come to the verdict pronounced by the Committee, after a full and careful investigation of the facts submitted to it. The Committee, I think it right to state, was obtained with the consent of Her Majesty's late Government. The Members of it were nominated consequently by themselves, or with their concurrence. And here are the names of the Members who served upon it:—

Mr. Arthur Anderson.	Hon. Francis Scott.
Capt. the Hon. M. F. Berkeley.	Right Hon. T. Milner Gibson.
Lord John Hay.	Mr. George Duncan.
Admiral Bowles.	Mr. Matthew Forster.
MR. T. A. Mitchell.	Mr. R. J. Tennent.
Right Hon. H. T. Corry.	The Earl of Shelburne.
Mr. Richard Cobden.	Mr. W. A. Mackinnon.
Captain Fordyce.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lymington kindly consented to preside, as I considered I could better assist the inquiry by being out of the chair than in it. The House will observe that there were no less than four ex-and-present Lords of the Admiralty on this Committee; that it contained four naval officers, three of them of high rank—a circumstance, I will remark, which subjected my suggestions, in regard to the fitness of mercantile steam vessels for purposes or war, to the advantage of a severe scrutiny. For any one who will look into the evidence will see that the esprit de corps, which I know (having myself been in the service) to be somewhat prevalent in the Royal Navy, was rather reluctant to admit that a vessel constructed for commercial purposes, could ever approach in capability for warlike purposes a vessel constructed for Her Majesty's service, and intended to have a pennant flying at her masthead. The evidence, however, which that feeling necessitated, will, I think, be found to negative satisfactorily the assumed unfitness, by crankness, weakness, bad sailing qualities, and otherwise, of merchant vessels for the object of the inquiry. And this, Sir, is the Report of the Committee, drafted by the gallant Admiral the Member for Gloucester, and lately First Naval Lord of the Admiralty (whom I do not now see in his place), and unanimously adopted:—

"Your Committee are of opinion, which is corroborated by the evidence taken before them—

"That mercantile steam ships, of the size and strength necessary for the reception of such guns as are in use in the Royal Navy, would be a most useful auxiliary force for national defence; and your Committee do not foresee any difficulty in carrying out such a measure.

"That the prompt development of the whole available maritime resources of the country, in the event of threatened hostilities, is most desirable, as a means for the preservation of peace.

"That the steps necessary to render such mercantile steamers available for the purpose, and the remuneration to be given by the public for fitting them and holding them liable to be called into the public service, must be matter of arrangement between the owners and the Government, upon which your Committee do not deem it necessary to offer an opinion."

I have thought it necessary to advert to these particulars in order to show, as they do, that, this important proposition does not rest on the opinion of so humble an individual as myself, but is supported by the unanimous recommendation of a Committee of this House, eminently well qualified to investigate it. That recommendation, in so far as the adoption of any practical step for carrying it out is concerned, has remained a dead letter for three years, notwithstanding that I have, on several occasions, both publicly and privately, drawn the attention of Her Majesty's late Government to it. And now, Sir, that public attention has been so much excited as to our means of national defence, I consider I could render no more useful public service, within my humble ability, than to bring this question under the notice of the House. It will be seen, I hope, from what I have stated, that this proposal is not intended to supersede (as has also been insinuated against me) the Royal Navy. That best branch of our national defence, I trust, will always be kept in a state of efficiency and adequate force; although, with such an organised auxiliary force as I propose, much expense may, I think, be saved to the country by not extending it, especially in times of public alarm and panic. And here, Sir, I may briefly advert to a statement made by the gallant Admiral, the late First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, a few evenings since, in this House, namely, that he could, in twenty-four hours, have lined the Channel—and which he has since explained to mean, from the Channel Islands to the North Foreland—with steamers of the Royal Navy, within signal distance of each other: a statement which was commented upon by another naval officer with apparent incredulity. Now, I think, on the contrary, that it would have been very discreditable to the gallant Admiral, and his colleagues at the late Board, not to have been able to do something more than this. Why, Sir, thirty vessels would form a line within signal distance, for that extent. Even the private Company with which I am connected, could do that. But to effectually prevent invasion, we must do much more than that. We must have a Hue of steamers within hailing distance of each other, that could in a few hours be concentrated upon any part of the French coast where a large force might be required, and that could hermetically seal up every channel, port, and creek in France, against the entry or departure of even a fishing boat. And this, such an auxiliary reserve Steam Navy as I propose, would undoubtedly enable us to do. And now, Sir, I will advert shortly to some other advantages which I consider this proposal to possess. First, for its preliminary organisation it will entail no expense on the country, inasmuch as the comparatively trifling cost of it may well be balanced by curtailments from other branches of naval expenditure which its adoption would render necessary. Secondly, it would in no manner interfere with the trading occupations of the vessels, which would continue in their usual employment. Thirdly, they would form a force which would never be used, except for national defence; and in the event of their ever being required for the national defence, little or no permanent burden, such as would be caused by the increase of a regular navy, would be entailed upon the country, inasmuch as the vessels and their crews, when no longer wanted, would return to their ordinary trading occupations. Fourthly, it would give us a description of maritime defence, which already far exceeds that of all Europe combined, which is increasing in a ratio far beyond any similar progress in other countries; and the very knowledge, by other Powers, of our possessing such an enormous and increasing means of national maritime defence, would deter such Powers from the contemplation of any hostile aggression on our shores; and it would consequently prove the most effectual, as well as cheapest, instrument for the permanent maintenance of peace. This, Sir, is the mode of national defence which ought, in my opinion, to be adopted by the. Government of this country, and I find I cannot express my sentiments more clearly or forcibly on the subject, than by quoting a passage which I have only this morning seen in one of the public prints. The writer says—

"It cannot be too often or too emphatically repeated, invasion must be made impossible. If ever a foreign army seta foot on our shores, a wound will have been inflicted on security, on credit, on the common weal and the commonwealth, which no pecuniary saving, past or future, can heal or can atone for. If ever a foreign army sets foot on our shores, either our naval service must have been awfully and most criminally remiss in the performance of that duty which 'England expects' from it, or our Ministers must have been guilty or incapable beyond the reach of pardon."—Economist, 27th March.

In this, Sir, I fully concur; and having, I trust, shown how invasion may be rendered impossible, I leave the question with the House and the Government. I beg to thank the House for the attention with which it has listened to me, and to move the Resolution in your hands.

Sir, having been Chairman of the Committee moved for on this subject in the Session of 1849, I feel myself called on to say a few words on the subject. The Committee, which agreed unanimously to the Report quoted by the hon. Gentleman who has brought this Motion before the House, was of a most impartial character: it consisted of the Members of the late Admiralty, of the leading Members of the Admiralty that preceded them, also of the Member for the West Riding, and of some Gentlemen connected with the shipping interest: this Committee agreed that it would be desirable in case of war to use our mercantile steam vessels. For this purpose it appeared, before the Committee, that the number of vessels of sufficient tonnage to be made war steamers, amounted in Great Britain to 320; that these steam ships could be made effective for carrying guns, if strengthened by (I will not use technical terms) beams from the deck to the keel, by which the decks could bear an additional weight; that this mode of strength could be made effectual in about three weeks. It appeared, also, that the immense mass of guns and ammunition in our several dockyards and arsenals being ready, these ships might he equipped and made ready for active service in a short time. The next question was, how were they to be manned? The evidence of the owners and officers was, that the crews by whom they were now navigated were willing to continue in them if allowed the same wages and enjoying the same advantages as the men in the Royal Navy. In reference to the working of the guns, eight or ten men to each gun, either from the dockyards or the preventive coast guard, would answer the purpose. By these means you would have 320 steam vessels of war in less than six weeks; to which, if you added the steam and other ships in the Royal Navy now in commission, or that might be put in commission, you would raise such a force as would render the chance of an invasion hopeless. Now the only difficulty that arose in the Committee was, in what manner were the owners of these vessels to be indemnified for the expense attendant on preparing their steam vessels to carry heavy guns, and be fitted? out as ships of war? It was suggested in the Committee, that an exemption from the light-dues might be an equivalent to the owners for the additional expense to which they would be liable. The House was aware that the light-dues was a tax levied under an Act of Parliament on all vessels, by the Trinity House Board, to keep up the light-houses on the coast, and it was asserted by some that the receipts of the Board were greater by 100,000l. a year than the expenditure, and therefore that part of this surplus sum might be allowed by a remission of the dues to the owners of vessels fitted out as already mentioned. Before he sat down, he (Mr. Mackinnon) would observe that the apprehension of invasion from France appeared a sort of bugbear that had more or less at different periods of our history haunted the imagination of the English people. In the early part of this century, the Emperor of France had made formidable preparations to invade this country. Napoleon was then the master of the Continent of Europe; his army was deemed invincible; he had, as tributaries, Spain, Holland, and nearly all the maritime States, except Russia, on his side; his ambition was to invade England. Had he done so, had he ever made the attempt? He was too wise; he was aware of the danger, of the difficulty, of nearly the impossibility, of crossing the Channel in face of a superior opposing force; of landing artillery, ammunition, and cavalry, either in a fog or gale of wind. If this man in the height of his glory and fame could not succeed, was it likely that any other person could make the attempt? He (Mr. Mackinnon) was aware it might he answered, that steam power was now in use, which was not the case at the period before mentioned; but he would beg of the House to bear in mind, that if steam was of service in means of attack, it was equally so in means of defence; and with a fleet of steam vessels such as this country could bring out to line our coast, an attempt at a successful invasion was quite an absurdity. The crossing of the Channel in a gale of wind or a fog would be impracticable for an enemy; and if he made the attempt in fine or even moderate weather, in face of an opposing force, it was unnecessary to predict the result. For these reasons he would support the Motion.

said, he must do the hon. Member for Orkney, who had brought forward this important subject, the justice to say, that whatever decision the House might come to with regard to this question —whether favourable or otherwise — his course had been not only plain and businesslike, but entirely removed from all party considerations. The hon. Member had turned his attention to the subject, not as a partisan, but as an Englishman; and he (Mr. Stafford) must say that he had never known a Committee which had paid greater attention to a subject or conducted an inquiry in a more fair and impartial manner than the Committee of which the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) was chairman. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) considered that when the attention of the country was intently fixed on the question of our national defences, it was an opportune period for discussing this subject, and in that opinion he (Mr. Stafford) entirely concurred. If he understood the hon. Gentleman aright, his proposal was, that as we had already a reserve of seamen, we should carry the principle further, and have also a reserve of steam vessels. He was consistent in making that proposal, and no better opportunity could have been taken for bringing the question before them. As the Board of Admiralty had not yet found an opportunity of laying any lengthened statement before the House relative to the Navy, it was thought desirable that he should, on the present occasion, bring before them a few particulars, and to those he called the earnest attention of the House. He would first proceed to lay before the House the state of our naval force as compared with that of foreign Powers. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department stated last night in his speech on the Militia Bill, the following to be the number of vessels of war on the home station and ready to serve—nine sail of the line, five frigates, one sloop, nine screw steamers, and eight paddle steamers. There were fifteen other vessels nearly completed. The whole of our naval defence on the home station stood thus:—

	Vessels.	Men.
Woolwich	9	530
Sheerness	7	1,544
Portsmouth	16	6,642
Devonport	11	2,822
Cork	5	368
Total	48	11,906

To these add Hecate (cruising), 160 men; Pluto, 55; Antelope, 55; Vulcan, 152; making in all 52 vessels and 12,328 men, exclusive of 4,500 marines on shore, and coast-guard and dockyard battalions; being altogether 29,648 men. In addition he had to mention the Simeon and Vulcan, large screw steamers, each capable of moving a regiment; and several small steamers besides. The whole of Her Majesty's ships in commission were—

East Indies and China	19
Cape of Good Hope	9
Coast of Africa	22

Subsequently to the dismissal of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), a notion had arisen amongst foreign Powers that England was inclined to abandon her efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade. Whether it might be wise or unwise to keep up the African squadron he would not stop to inquire; but he must be allowed to say, that with regard to the number of vessels on the coast of Africa, so long as they were allowed to remain there, the Admiralty would feel it their duty to keep them in an efficient state. He would now proceed to state the number of foreign ships in commission, and wished to call the attention of the House to this curious document, which had been prepared with great care and attention. To begin with Russia. The number of Russian line-of-battle ships in commission were—in the Baltic, 27; Black Sea, 18; making together 45. Of frigates and corvettes there were—in the Baltic, 12; the Black Sea, 12; together 24. Of brigs, sloops, and schooners there were—in the Baltic, 15; the Black Sea, 19; together 34; making a total of 103. Then, with regard to steam vessels, Russia had in the Baltic 8, and in the Black Sea 6 frigates; of small steamers there were in the Baltic 5, and in the Black Sea 15; in all 34—the entire naval force of Russia being 137. He would next take French ships in commission. The French had—of line-of-battle ships, 7; frigates, 11; corvettes, 10; brigs, 11; small vessels, 12; transports, 22; in all 73. Of steam-vessels of 600-horse power and upwards they had 2; between 500 and 600, 1; between 400 and 500, 8; between 300 and 400, 1; between 200 and 300, 15; between 100 and 200, 31; under 100, 8; in all, 66. The naval forces of the three great maritime Powers of Europe were: line-of-battle ships —Great Britain, 72; France, 45; Russia, 45. Frigates—Great Britain, 83; France, 45; Russia, 10. The total sailing force was—Great Britain, 236; France, 257; Russia, 174. Coming to large steamers —Great Britain had 37; France, 61; Russia, 8. Of steamers under 200-horse power, Great Britain had 97; France, 57; Russia, 24. But it should be remembered that we had also the large Transatlantic steamers; and it was shown in a letter from Mr. Turnbull, our Consul at Marseilles, that one of these steamers, the Montezuma, carried, in 1848, from Oran to Port Vendres, from the 20th to the 24th of April, 1,818 men of the 6th Light Infantry and 56th Regiment of the Line, and 195 officers and crew of the ship—making 2,013 men altogether. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) had compared our present position with that of 1807; but to compare the two periods appeared to him to be idle. There were many additional circumstances now to be considered on the supposition of an invasion. The truth was, that what formerly would have taken a month to do towards invasion, might now be done in a night. At the first outbreak, all depended on our naval supremacy in the narrow seas. Naval defence was requisite for our great arsenals. The Channel Islands were now without any vessel of war, and they could not overlook the state of the undefended towns on our coasts, Brighton, Yarmouth, Harwich, Hull, Newcastle, Leith, Aberdeen, and Dundee. Then they must consider the effect of railways. On the outbreak of a war France might send her sailors across that country from the south to the north; but our fleet was cut in two, divided by the Gut of Gibraltar, while, Malta and Alexan- dria having become the outports of our Indian trade, our interests in the Mediterranean must be protected. He did not bring these things forward to cause alarm; but he felt that they had a close bearing on the subject before them; and he feared that the statement of the greatest general of the age, in 1847, though not forgotten by the people of England, had been too much lost sight of by the Members of that House. Writing in 1847, the Duke of Wellington said—

"We have no defence, no hope of defence, excepting in our fleet. … But, as we stand now, and if it be true that the exertions of the fleet alone are not sufficient to provide for our defence, we are not safe for a week after the declaration of war."

Then he added—

"I am bordering upon 77 years of age, passed in honour. I hope that the Almighty may protect me from being the witness of the tragedy which I cannot persuade my contemporaries to avert."

Now, certainly, since 1847 a good deal had been done; but the question was, had enough been done for security? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) came forward backed by the unanimous report of a Committee, and by the opinions of many most eminent witnesses. Among others the hon. Gentleman had named Captain Chads, a naval officer, for whose character all must feel the highest respect. Captain Chads being asked—

"In the event of a war, France would send out a number of armed steamers to intercept and annoy our trade. Would it not be very important to have our own mercantile steamers prepared to watch the ports and protect our trade?" answered, "I think they are highly necessary as auxiliaries. I do not think you ought to have less than 150 to 200 of your most powerful vessels, because you cannot expect that they would be all in port at a time; you will not have half available.

Captain Henderson, also in reply to the question—

"In case of war, the first effort would be, I suppose, directed to the destruction of the enemy's steam vessels, as being their essential arm?" answered, "In the first of the war we ought to have a number of light fast steam vessels for the Channel to protect our trade, and to cripple the enemy's vessels; in the event of a war the enemy will always have numberless privateers; they would always have those vessels as fast as they possibly can, with a small quantity of fuel on board, be on our coast during the night picking up and destroying our merchant vessels, and in the morning they can be over on their coast; that is the way we shall suffer most in the case of another war, in my opinion."

Not only were these witnesses favourable to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but the principle was conceded by the Admiralty in almost all their contracts with steamers. He held in his hand a note of the contract steam packets fit for the purposes of war, and from that it appeared that they amounted to fifty-one vessels, with 18,791 horse power, and 52,343 tons. All those vessels were, or ought to be, unless the contract were in some way violated, fitted to carry arms for the purposes of war. The hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying, that nothing had been done on this subject since 1849. Perhaps not so much had been done as ought to have been done; but the present Admiralty Board, without waiting for the Motion of the hon. Member, had, as soon as they came into office, communicated with those persons who might enable them to carry such contracts into effect. Under these circumstances, the present Board of Admiralty acquiesced in the Motion of the hon. Member; but the Navy Estimates having been passed, there was, of course, no funds available for carrying into effect the proposed Resolution, and he must also observe that to naval men the main difficulty did not appear that of expense, though that of course must be a great consideration; but the question was, whether the naval and mercantile crews would work well together, and whether the latter would like to be placed under martial law—and it was here the chief difficulty lay. The question was one of detail and not of principle, and the present Admiralty Board would rejoice most heartily if every vessel now belonging to a company could be rendered subservient to the purposes of national defence. In consenting to the Motion, the Admiralty would endeavour to carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman in the most fair spirit; and he would read one extract more, which would encourage the House in proceeding in the course suggested. Mr. Laing being asked—

"Have you had any means of knowing, by conversation or consulting them (merchant seamen and engineers), what are their views on that point?" answered, "The only proof that I could give is this, that last year, at the time there was a little disturbance, and no one know what the result might be at the time, I received orders from the Board to have so many ships in readiness, as they might be required. It never entered into my mind to ask them a question about it. I told them the ships were wanted to go at a moment's notice, and we did not know where, and they never asked me any question about it."

He felt great pleasure in expressing the full concurrence of the present Admiralty in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped that not only would the defence of the country be thereby promoted, but that also another link of connexion might be created between the naval and mercantile marine.

said, the facts stated to the House by the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty were very satisfactory, and went far to show that the country was in a perfect state of naval defence; but he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman ought to have preceded the debate of the preceding night, and if it had, it would have dissipated a great many of the doubts and hesitations which had been expressed with regard to the mode of defending the country. Though a steam navy gave greater facilities of attack, it afforded an equal power of defence; and it was hard for a landsman, much less for a soldier, to understand the precision with which steam vessels were now managed. But the force on our coast ought to be so managed that they could be, at any given time, concentrated at any given point. As for invasion, it ought to be borne in mind, that the invaders, if they attempted to effect a landing in rough weather, would find it to be almost impossible; for the landing of soldiers, and ammunition, and artillery, in a troubled sea, was attended with the greatest difficulties; and in fine weather, our cruisers must be very negligent indeed if they did not prevent it. The hon. Gentleman said, there were nine vessels of the line on the home station; but he asked, was there any one of them, except the Rodney, ready to obey a message sent by electric telegraph? And yet, the arguments of the Government last night all went upon the supposition of an immediate available force to meet a sudden and immediate danger. None of the vessels of war, except two or three, were fit to go to sea before seven or eight days' preparation, and during that time the enemy might have landed. Many of the vessels to which the hon. Gentleman alluded were now in dock, and in course of being fitted up. It was not enough to count the names and number of vessels; they must be maimed and ready. But it was upon the steamers they must chiefly rely. In a strong easterly wind they could not get a large vessel of war from Portsmouth to the Downs for several days; therefore, if the coast was to be defended it must be by steam vessels, perfectly manned and ready. As for that moveable squadron, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) had spoken, it was by no means clear that it was in a state of preparation. A great point for us to keep in our eye was, what number of vessels any nation was ready to go to sea with—whatever number they kept, we must always exceed that number. We must keep the supremacy of the sea—we must not lessen our squadron—we must not have fewer ships than foreign nations; and if there be any apprehension of an invasion, we must keep such a force upon our coasts as would be morally certain to overpower any enemy who would come down upon us. A matter lost sight of in these discussions was the time it would take 100,000 men to embark; it could not be done in less than two or three days. It was very easy to transport troops if our enemy had the superiority at sea; it was very easy to effect such a transport where there was no opposition. When the French sent their troops to Rome there was nothing to impede them; they sailed like a batch of pleasure yachts; they went there under sham colours—they went there as friends, but it would be a very different matter if there was an enemy on the water: that would alter the whole case. Look at our own Walcheren expedition, and the difficulties it met with. As to the Motion before the House, he was rejoiced to find the Admiralty had acceded to it. They would then have to trust not only to our men of war and to our war steamers, but also to an innumerable fleet of mercantile steamers, which would back up our Navy, and protect the country. The French naval force had been much spoken of, their line-of-battle ships, and their large war steamers; but they had not a harbour, except Cherbourg, into which a large steamer could enter—not one. It was a very different thing when Napoleon threatened an invasion with his flat-bottomed boats, when there were no steamers to contend against him. In fair weather they might have slipped through a squadron of men-of-war, but our numerous ports gave us a great advantage. Look at our shores, indented with such harbours as Dungeness, Portland Road, Torbay, Plymouth, and Falmouth. He gave his hearty assent to the Motion.

said, that on this his first attempt to address the House, he would not long trespass on their patience; but he wished to make a few remarks upon the question now under discussion. He hoped that no such idea would be for a moment entertained as that there was any feeling of jealousy on the part of the Navy with respect to the mercantile marine. Nothing could be more silly or puerile than for any naval officer to entertain such a feeling towards that navy to which the glory, strength, and commerce of Great Britain owed its existence. He agreed in all that had been said as to the expediency of employing the mercantile marine as a means of defence in case of emergency; but he did not shut his eyes to the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, that in a mixed crew, partly composed of new men, great difficulties might be experienced, and that they could not take the precaution of testing or experiment-talising upon how such a force would work until the emergency came; but he also hoped and believed that if ever such an emergency arrived, so good a spirit would pervade every part of the force that all minor differences would be sunk, and that all would pull together for the sake of their homes and their altars. He cordially agreed in the feeling expressed by the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, and sincerely hoped, with him, that no endeavour would be wanting on the part of that House and the country to encourage and promote that cordiality of feeling between Her Majesty's Navy and the mercantile marine. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken on that subject, and especially the hon. and gallant Officer who had last addressed the House, seemed to forget that vast advantages were now to be derived from the application of the screw to vessels of war; and although some time might elapse before such improvements were fairly worked out, yet he hoped they would all live to see the day when no line-of-battle ship would be sent to sea without a screw to her keel, or a steam-tender in attendance. The great advantage of the screw was, that the vessel had within herself the power of steam. If a ship of war took a tender with her, there might be difficulties in taking her in tow, or they might be separated by stress of weather; but if she had the steam power within herself, she would be armed and competent to act in all emergencies. The screw need not be applied until the emergency arose; only a small part of the stowage might be given up, and abundant opportunities would be afforded for a plentiful supply of water. He would not say the late Board of Admiralty had solved the two great problems of naval administration —first, how to keep the active list efficient, and the other with respect to the manning of the Navy, but he would say that the late Board of Admiralty had made a step towards the removal of the difficulty. It was easy to say that the active list should consist only of effective men; but when they looked at the large number of officers who had worn out the best of their days in the service of their country, he thought it would he hard to say to them, "You are no longer efficient, you must leave the service; you are too old, go about your business." He (Admiral Stewart) at least would not like to be the man to give this intimation. It was very difficult to fix the age at which an officer ought to retire. Lord Duncan fought one of the best battles in our naval history when he was 70 years of age. The late Board of Admiralty instituted a rule that not more than seventy-five young gentlemen should enter the service each year, and that a certain number of elderly officers should go upon the retired list: this was a step in the right direction. As to the other problem—the manning of the Navy, this difficulty had been seen by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), when he brought forward his Registry of Seamen Bill. But it must be recollected that the raw materials alone could be supplied to the Navy from the mercantile marine, and the qualifications of a seaman for the Navy were not now the same that they used to be. Gunnery afloat at the present day differed as much from what it was at the time of the war, as a blunderbuss differed from a rifle. It was said that merchant seamen were not willing to enter the service of Her Majesty, because there were tyrants among the naval officers. He (Admiral Stewart) would not acknowledge the truth of that doctrine. He denied the existence of tyrannical officers in Her Majesty's Navy at the present time. That class of men was now extinct, and everything was now done in a proper and just manner, every man being held responsible for his acts. There was no naval service in the world in which the men were better fed or so well treated as in Her Majesty's Navy, and he had no fear but that the Navy would do it3 duty in the day of need. But, as the means of transport were now 80 much increased, he did not think that the defence of the country ought to be left to the Navy alone, but that we should be prepared to meet an enemy on shore; so that, as the old song said—

"If their flat-bottoms in safety get o'er,

Why let there be Britons to meet them on shore."

said, it must be apparent to the House that in the many discussions that had taken place with reference to this subject, the speeches of the Members belonging to the Financial Reformers all partook of one type, containing an essential contradiction in itself—a wild theory and a perversion of facts in every possible way for their own argument. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the people of this country should be in possession of the real strength and condition of our naval armaments and of those of Continental Powers. He recollected that in 1845 the late Sir Robert Peel, when the Government were called upon to state to the House the resources of the country for defensive purposes, said it was the duty of the Ministry to withhold that information, and that it was wrong to supply foreign countries with it; but the fallacy of that argument was exposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who showed that Russia and every other nation were as completely aware of our resources, both by sea and land, as we ourselves, and at all times there came foreign officers visiting our dockyards, and acquiring that information. He felt grateful, therefore, to the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty for his statement. He was glad to find that his opinion as to manning the Navy was now entertained by others; and he hoped the House would think that the Board of Admiralty, in the particular vote for the reserve force, ought to be allowed some margin, so as to enable them to adopt a more general and efficient plan.

wished to make one or two observations on the statement of the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty, which he thought ought to have been made when the naval estimates were introduced. He (Mr. Hume) called upon the country carefully to read the hon. Member's speech, for it would, he thought, be found to contradict the alarms which had been circulated on this subject. It showed that our coasts were not denuded of ships, though the men-of-war belonging to this country had not been summoned from foreign stations. There was one point to which he hoped the Government would pay attention; it was the manner in which our ships of war had been employed in different parts of the world. He (Mr. Hume) quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Peehell), that the conveyance of specie in British men-of- war was a disgrace to the country, and ought to be done away with; and he hoped the present Board of Admiralty would take care to put an end to the practice. It was quite true, as had been stated in that House, that the officers of the English Navy were superior to those of any other navy in the world; but he could not concur in the view of the hon. and gallant Admiral who had last spoken, that they entertained very friendly feelings towards the commercial marine. Was the extortion of salvage from ships in distress an evidence of kindly feeling? The late Government deserved the thanks of the country for having put an end to the system of salvage; and he hoped that the present Government would co-operate with the late Government, and render it an imperative duty on the officers of the Navy to afford at all times every assistance in their power to ships of every nation when in distress. No American or French captain of a man-of-war ever demanded a single shilling for saving a vessel from shipwreck; but officers in our service had taken most offensive measures, by proceeding in courts of justice to obtain great payments for salvage. The naval officers in all foreign services were called upon to give assistance to any vessels which they found in distress, without the smallest claim to or idea of salvage, in any form or degree. There was no service in the world in which greater improvements had of late years been made than the British Navy, especially in the treatment of the men, their pay, and accommodations. But if there were any difficulty in manning the Navy, the Government should offer bounties, as other countries did, and the difficulty would soon cease. They were going to maintain a reserve of 5,000 seamen. What was to be done with them? He very much doubted the wisdom of the measure. He thought the Government had shown a wise discretion in yielding to the suggestions contained in the recommendations of the Committee; but he would remind them not to act hastily in carrying out those recommendations. Let them examine the question well, and, above all, let them inquire most carefully into the question of expense. He wished the House and the country to read the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty in connexion with the speech delivered in Paris the day before yesterday. The President of the French Republic had herein expressed his great desire to main- tain peace with all nations, and he (Mr. Hume) thought they might now dismiss the Militia Bill altogether, as unnecessary and uncalled for. When the hon. Gentleman laid before the House that statement, with reference to the navies of foreign countries, he had entirely omitted to mention whether the ships were in commission, or whether they were ready for sea. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that Russia had forty sail in the Baltic, from which some might run away with the idea that we ought to have forty sail in the same waters to watch them. But it was very plain that the Admiralty themselves believed that there was no danger in that quarter, because they had not sent so much even as a single sloop of war to the Baltic; so that the fact of this Russian fleet being in the Baltic could be no argument for increasing our naval armaments. We had no reason whatever to fear this parade of ships on the part of Russia, because there could never again be a coalition of all Europe against England; and besides, we had plenty of ships at our colonies, where three out of every four were perfectly useless, and totally unnecessary for any purposes of protection. It was not the naval force of Russia or of France that we need be alarmed at. He would tell the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty that the first competing Power we could have to contend with was the United States of America, which had a commercial marine almost equal to our own. Yet the hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to adduce any statistics of the naval power of the United States. Was he not aware that, as soon as the recent hostile ties between the United States and Mexico ceased, the United States arrested her shipbuilding operations, put her line-of-battle ships out of commission, and reduced the number of her captains and other officers from 400 to 350, and every other grade of seamen in proportion. And her reason for taking this course was, that having no difficulty in time of war in getting the requisite number of men, in a time of peace she ought to reduce her establishments, and husband her resources against any recurrence of hostilities. He thought we ought to adopt a similar policy, and, above all, let us encourage our mercantile marine, and by extending the principle of free trade promote the intercourse between England and every part of the world. By that means we should be enabled to man our Navy whenever it was called for. In conclusion, he would acknowledge that the speech of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty was, perhaps, the most satisfactory statement he had heard for some time past, because it showed that the Government were desirous of doing what they could to give efficiency to the maritime resources of the country.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not shown his usual good nature in the blame he had cast on the officers of the Navy. Whatever they received for salvage was awarded to them by Courts of Law; and whatever might be the propriety of altering the law, while it remained unaltered they were not to be reproached for claiming that to which they were entitled. One case had lately come to his knowledge in which a claim had been improperly made, and it had led to the order of the Board of Admiralty which had been alluded to; but, generally speaking, there had been no deficiency of that generous and liberal spirit which was the characteristic of British sailors. He (Mr. Cowper) regarded the system of reserves as a most economical means of having available for any emergency a force which was not necessary in times of peace, but which, if not held in reserve, would have to be regularly paid as part of the permanent establishment. He could not, like the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), blame the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty for comparing our naval strength with that of other nations, because he thought it necessary to consider by what amount of force we were likely to be attacked when we were determining the extent of our own establishments. Now, by a return, he found that the French navy consisted of about 40,000 men, including 15,000 marine infantry and marine artillery; whereas the Estimates now on the table of the House gave England only a total of 39,000 men. The expense of the French Naval Estimates for the home and colonial service last year amounted to 4,276,000l. which was more than was spent for effective service in the British Navy. The amount of our Estimates was 5,600,000l., and if from this were deducted half-pay, and civil and military pensions and allowances, it reduced the amount to 4,140,272l., or less than the amount of the French Naval Estimates, which had not to provide, like our Estimates, for a large number of veterans who had served in the last war. He thought that we ought to have a large preponderance of naval force over our war- like neighbours, to render ourselves safe; for though an hon. Member had ridiculed the idea of invasion, yet when nations went to war they attacked one another; and if we were dragged into a war, we must expect an attempt to attack or invade us. It must be remembered that the attacking Power had advantages, in the choice of the time, the place, and the mode of attack, over the defenders. A large number of steamers would be requisite to cover all the points that were assailable. If the attack was conducted according to the views lately published by a foreign officer, and was made in three different directions, unless the English naval force were strong enough to cover all the points attacked, the expedition that was most weakly resisted would be the most vigorously prosecuted. An attack by sea was no doubt a very difficult military operation; but did it follow, because the operation was difficult that it would not be attempted, or might not be successful? In war, those who were the most audacious, and ran the greatest risks, were often the most succesful; and the best general was the one who made the fewest blunders. All operations of war were uncertain, and particularly those that depended on wind and waves; and we ought not to leave out of calculation the chances that might be against us. He was glad to hear that the measure contemplated by this Motion was to be carried out. There would be no difficulties in carrying it into effect, unless with respect to the question of the light-dues. The reason, in fact, that the Report of the Committee had not been acted upon before was, that the compensation asked—exemption from the light-dues—was thought too much. But if any other compensation could be hit upon which would be agreeable to the owners of the vessels, and which was not excessive, there was no reason against the measure, and it would be attended with great advantage to the country.

said, he understood that in his absence from the House the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Navy had referred to the town of Brighton for the purpose of supporting his argument. Now he begged, as the representative of that borough, to deprecate the supposition that it was favourable to the expenditure of any more money upon the defences of the country. It was in vain to think that that town could be defended by placing guns at the end of the chain pier, or at the end of every street. They could not thus prevent ships from throwing their projectiles into the town, and to plant these guns there would only be to give the enemy an excuse for firing upon the town as a fortified place. Did they mean to fortify that town, like Paris? [Mr. STAFFORD: No!] If the Admiralty made a proper distribution of the naval force on the coasts of Kent and Sussex, they might defend them in a proper and efficient manner. But they must not think that that House would vote money to erect fortifications on the coasts, or that the people would submit to them. He recollected the time of the erection of the Martello towers, and the jobbery that was then carried on in connection with them. Then, too, was made that military canal, thirty miles long, by which, although only a few yards wide, it was thought they could stop that French army which had crossed the Rhine and the Vistula! The fact was, the money of the country was then expended for the purpose of keeping out what were called revolutionary principles; just as hon. Gentlemen opposite, in order to keep out reform, were protracting that discussion, to prevent the Motion for the ballot coming on.

, in reply, said, that after the very satisfactory assurance, on on the part of the Government, which had been given by the hon. Member the Secretary of the Admiralty, he felt that it would be unnecessary, as well as unbecoming, for him to press the matter further; and therefore, with permission of the House, he would withdraw the Resolution.

said, that he would just suggest that it might be expedient to exclude iron steam vessels from the arrangements now in contemplation; for he apprehended that they would not be found to be fitted for the purposes of war.

said, that this subject had already engaged the attention of the Board of Admiralty.

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the cause of the decline in the Revenue derived from the Import Duties on Wines. The terms of his Motion demanded some explanation. He was willing to admit that, if the Revenue of the present year were only to be compared with that of one or two years immediately preceding, if would not be correct to say that there had been a decline. What he meant was to present a comparison between the present revenue and that derived from the wine duties at any former period, when the rates were lower in amount. If the Committee were granted, he should endeavour to satisfy them that a very great additional revenue could be obtained by the equalisation and reduction of these duties. He would show them, by a reference to former times, that when the duties were high, the amount of the revenue derived from them was low, and vice versâ; and that under the present rate of those duties, consumption had declined, frauds had increased, and revenue, instead of progressing with the population, had dwindled. He would first call the attention of the House to the years 1788–90, as compared with the present period. The Wine trade was then comparatively free, the genius of Mr. Pitt having freed it from many restrictions which the prejudices of former times had imposed upon it. Mr. Pitt, on laying before the House on the 6th May, 1786, his proposal to reduce the duties on wine from 9s. 2d. to 4s. 6d. on French, and 3s. on Peninsular wines, and to give effect to the French treaty of 1786, said, that the reduction of the duties would increase the consumption of wine, and would add largely to our exports of manufactured goods, and to the amount of the revenue, and would greatly diminish those frauds by which not less than 280,000l. was then annually lost to the country on a revenue of 848,509l. The prediction was fulfilled. Such was the effect of the reduction, that whereas the consumption of wine in the two years previous to the reduction, had been only 3,350,130 imperial gallons, it rose in 1788–90 to 5,742,660 gallons, and the increase in the consumption was accompanied by an increase of 88,556l. to the revenue. The population of the United Kingdom was then less than 14,500,000, but although it had in 1851 increased to nearly 30,000,000, the consumption of wine, which was 7,851,707 gallons in 1791, had in 1849, the last period to which the official returns extended, fallen off to 6,437,222 gallons; the population having more than doubled itself in the same time; and property, which even in 1812, produced only 21,500,000l. chargeable with income tax, yielding, according to the returns in 1849, no less than 57,000,000l. so chargeable. To go back to a still earlier period: the duties in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. were 4d. and 8d. a gallon. Now the population at that time, exclusive of Ireland, was about 5,000,000, and there was actually then a consumption of 9,000,000 gallons, of which not less than 4,000,000 gallons was French wine, a larger amount than had ever been consumed since 1703, the period known as that of the Mcthucn Treaty. The duties on French wines had been increased about that time to punish the French king for the encouragement he had given to the Stuarts, and the treaty further stipulated that they should always be 33½ per cent more than the duties on Peninsular wines. Mr. Pitt reduced all the duties, and the result was a rapid increase in the consumption. In 1788, the duties were further reduced, and so they remained until the revolutionary war; when they were again raised. He would not follow up the subsequent changes, but the fact was, that from 1786 the duties had been altered no less than twenty-two times. At one period there was a minimum duty on French wines of 4s. 10d.; at another a maximum of 19s. 8d.; and the rates had similarly varied with respect to Peninsular wines, from 3s. 1d. to 9s. 1d. per gallon. In 1825 Mr. Robinson reduced the duty on French wines from 13s. 9d. to 9s. 1¼d. per gallon, and on Peninsular wines from 7s. 2½d. to 4s. 9¾d. The result was that the consumption suddenly increased from 5,030,091 gallons to 8,009,542 gallons; and the revenue, which under the high duties had been 2,153,112l., even in the year after the change, reached to the sum of 1,955,790l. In 1831, all other wine duties were equalised; but, contrary to the original intention of the Legislature, a retrograde step was taken by the imposition of a differential duty in favour of Capo and Colonial wines—the duties then imposed being on all foreign wines 4s. 6d. per gallon; on Cape and Colonial wines 2s. 9d. The effect of this was seen in the fact that whereas up to 1831 the imports had been hardly 1,000,000 gallons annually in excess of the wine entered for home consumption, they rose subsequently to an annual excess of 2,000,000 or even 3,000,000 gallons on an import of 9,000,000 gallons. And it was asserted that since 1831 a new fraud had made its appearance in the trade, which was clearly traceable to the differential duty in favour of the low-priced and inferior wines of the Capo. It appeared that these low wines, having been imported at the low duty, were mixed with other wines and exported to obtain, in fraud of the revenue, the high drawback of 5s. 6d. receivable in respect of those wines. These wines were also used for the adulteration of the foreign wine consumed in this country, which now went on to such an extent that he believed the people of this country consumed double or treble the quantity which appeared to be imported; the balance being made up of the stuff employed in adulteration by the vintner or licensed victualler. In 1840 a most impolitic enhancement took place, and these duties were again increased to 5s. 9d. 6-20ths. per gallon on foreign, and 2s. 10d. on colonial; and at these rates they had ever since continued. Now, a duty of 5s. 6d. per gallon amounted to 33l. per pipe, and when they considered that if the monopoly of the Oporto Wine Company were removed, the cost of a pipe of Portuguese wine would not exceed 10l., and that even so long as that company (which defrauded our revenue of 350,000l. annually) remained in existence, the cost of that high-priced wine should not exceed 20l., he thought they would be of opinion that a rate of duty was imposed which was justly objectionable on all sound principles of commercial policy. If this was the case with respect to the costliest wine, how much stronger was the objection to such a duty as applied to the low-priced wines of France and Germany. Even the rate of duty upon these wines, which he should propose to the Committee, would amount to not less than 50 or 60 per cent upon the price of many foreign wines; while, since 1846, that House had laid down the principle that in no case should the duty upon articles imported exceed 10 per cent upon its natural value. He had already mentioned that the duty had been increased in 1840 from 5s. 6d. to 5s. 9d. 6-20ths., and he found that that increase was again attended with a reduction both in consumption and in the revenue; for while in 1839 there was a consumption of 7,000,486 gallons, with a revenue of 1,849,698l., there was in 1840 a consumption of only 6,553,922 gallons, with a revenue of 1,791,636l. A summary of the returns from 1787 to the present time, taking five years as representing five different periods and rates of duties, gave the following results: In 1787, prior to the reductions of Mr. Pitt coming into force, the revenue was 848,509l. The effect of those reductions was to increase it in 1792 to 1,148,755l.; the reduction in 1825 made it 1,955,709l., being a diminution of only 197,000l., as compared with the previous year, although the duties had been diminished one-half; and, after the reductions and equalisation of duties by the Act of 1831, the revenue amounted, in 1839, the year previous to the new increase of the duty, to 1,849,698l.; whilst, in 1850, it had fallen again, under the enhanced rate of duty, to 1,679,980l. So that the revenue was now, in 1850, about 210,000l. less with a duty of 5s. 9d. than in 1839 with a duty of 5s. 6d. But what he proposed was not merely to go back to the policy of 1831 and the eight following years, any more than to that of any of the periods to which he had referred, but to advance much further. He thought that it was impossible to impose an ad valorem duty on wine. He believed, to settle this question satisfactorily, they must adhere to the great principle laid down, first of all in 1825, arid afterwards in 1831, for the equal assessment; but to make that a just assessment they must assess the duty at the lowest price, and not to take the highest duty for their standard. The plan which he intended to submit to the Committee, if his Motion should be agreed to, was, that there should be a duty of 1s. per gallon imposed upon French wines, answering as nearly as possible to the octroi duty of I franc per gallon, which was at present imposed upon the wines which entered Paris. He believed that, if this plan were adopted, the consumption, not of what is called wine, but what was really wine, would be very much increased; that it would put an end to the present system of adulteration, and largely benefit the revenue. According to the latest return, the proportion of wine at present consumed in this country was 1 l–5th bottle per head. That was supposing no wine was drunk but what paid the duty; whereas in Hamburgh, where a moderate duty was long established, the proportion was 29 bottles per head, and in Paris no less than 216 bottles per head. Now, assuming that the amount of genuine wine imported into and consumed in the United Kingdom would increase under the reduced duty which he proposed, to the extent of only twelve bottles per head, we should have a revenue of nearly 3,000,000l., where we at present raised with difficulty 1,500,000l. But if, as was most reasonable to suppose, the increase should amount to eighteen bottles per head, or little more than one-half of the consumption at Hamburgh, the revenue would be increased to upwards of 4,000,000l. This would enable them to dispense with the House Tax of last year, and many other taxes which still oppressed the lower classes, and prevented them from acquiring those habits of cleanliness which were indispensable to their health and comfort. Or, if they wished to gratify the British farmer, it would enable them to reduce, if not to look forward to the abolition of the malt tax. Such was the nature of his plan, and his object was to have a Committee to consider it; but he begged to say that hon. Members were pledged to nothing in agreeing to this Motion. There was one other point upon which he wished to say a word before concluding; and that was with reference to the Oporto Wine Company. The hon. Member then stated some facts to show that the Company's monopoly (established in 1754, in defiance of the Methuen Treaty of 1703), and revived in 1843, in defiance of that of 1842, had had the effect, in the first place, of gradually driving out of the market the cheaper wines, which, up to the middle of the last century, used to be imported into this country under the Methuen Treaty; and, in the next place, of materially debasing the quality and enhancing the price of port wines consumed in this country. If, however, we reduced our duties on other foreign wines, as he proposed, the effect would be to let in the whole world into competition with the Portuguese Government, who would then, in self-defence, be obliged to abandon the monopoly, and to take off their export duties in proportion as we took off our duties on imports. He believed that the House would entertain the proposition in a proper spirit. He did not fear to be met with a repetition of the exploded prejudices of other days, in which, however, the existing system of high duties had its origin. It was too late in the day for Parliament to return to the narrow-minded policy which, in 1703, dictated a Methuen Treaty, or in 1688 an "Act for prohibiting all trade and commerce with France." The country would laugh to be told now in the language of the preamble of the Act of the 1 W. & M. c. 34, that—

"It hath been found by long experience that the importing of French wines, vinegar, brandy, and other the commodities of the growth, produce, or manufacture of France, or of the territories or dominions of the French King, hath much exhausted the treasure of this nation, lessened the value of the native commodities and manufactures thereof, and greatly impoverished the English artificers and handicrafts, and caused great detriment to this kingdom in general."

It would be vain to enact, as then it was enacted, that—

"None of the commodities aforesaid, or any any other whatsoever of French growth, product, or manufacture, shall be brought in or imported, and that all and every importation and importations, vending and selling, or uttering or retailing of any French wines, vinegar, brandy, or other commodities, shall be adjudged to be a common nuisance."

A proposition which, within less than two years afterwards, even the Parliament that made it was obliged to confess (by the 2 W. & M. sess. 2, c. 14) to have lamentably failed, for that such commodities "were still imported." Trusting that a reduction of the import duty on wines would tend to promote commercial intercourse between this country and France, he proposed this Motion. The adoption of it would contribute more than any legislative measures which could be devised to the preservation of peace with all countries; an extended wine trade would become the best guarantee of amity with Europe, as our cotton trade was of amity with America; and it might go far to render unnecessary those gigantic schemes of national defence which were now agitating the minds of our statesmen.

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman who has brought forward this question has entered into a long and, as far as I could collect, an accurate narrative of the history of the wine trade, sketched from the period of the Methuen Treaty to 1787, and even going much further back. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I entirely sympathise with the policy that was pursued by Mr. Pitt—a policy founded upon the true commercial principles on which a country should he governed. I rejoice at the great advantages to both countries from what took place; but I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the principle adopted by Mr. Pitt was a principle of reciprocity; and though we have at several periods reduced the duty on French wine, I do not find on the part of the French Government that reciprocal inclination that Mr. Pitt was more fortunate in meeting with. The hon. and learned Gentleman has also entered into some general principles of taxation on which I am inclined to agree with him in opinion. He has said that the reduction of taxation will lead to an increased consumption; but at the same time you are bound to take into consideration to what danger that decreased taxation will lead. I cannot but remember that there was a considerable reduction of the duty on wine in 1831, and that it was not until 1844 the loss sustained by the revenue in consequence of that alteration was regained. It is therefore necessary in dealing with those questions to look to the revenue of the country with considerable caution. The Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is, in my mind, incorrect in expression. It is a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the decline in the revenue derived from the import duties on wine. Now it is not correct to state that there has been any decline in the revenue received from the import duties on wine. I shall put before the House a return I have just received of the state of the wine trade for the last four years, and in forming an opinion of the state of the revenue derived from the import duty on any branch of commerce, the more practical mode is to look to the times we live in, and not to the time of the Methuen Treaty, or the French treaty of 1787. Here is a return of the quantities of wine retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom, in the year ending the 5th of January, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852, with the amount of duty received thereon. I shall first refer to the amount of duty received, because it is to the decline in the revenue the hon. and learned Gentleman particularly calls attention. The amount of duty received on wine taken out for home consumption in the year l849, was 1,732,282l.; in the year 1850, 1,767,516l.; in 1851, it rose to 1,821,123l.; and in 1852, there was a slight decline to 1,777,259l. The House will observe that there is a slight decline in 1852, but that is entirely attributable to the large quantities that were taken out of bond by the vintners and licensed victuallers, in anticipation of a great consumption of wine at the congress of strangers in the metropolis during the Great Exhibition. It is a curious circumstance, however, that all the arrangements then made by the trade appear to have been very ill-judged, and the wine trade consequently has met with very great disappointment. Not only our own countrymen who congregated in the metropolis, but more especially the foreigners, instead of drinking wine drank beer, and particularly porter, in enormous quantities. It has been represented to me officially that the foreigners drank nothing but London porter. The consequence is, that the large increase of wine taken out for home con- sumption was not used, and that having occurred, there appears a diminution on the return with which I have just concluded. But in the year 1851 there was not a general decrease in the revenue derived from wine, the diminution was only in one article. The trade, specially anticipating a consumption by foreigners, took, with very little foresight, out of bond, port wine, and it is only on port wine there is in 1852 a diminution of revenue. In comparison with the year 1849, there is in 1852 an increase, and the decrease appears on a comparison with the revenue received in 1850 and 1851. With regard to French wines, the amount taken out of bond in 1851 was 341,748 gallons, and in 1852, 447,559, showing an increase of 105,811 gallons. There is also an increase in Spanish wine. The amount taken out of bond in 1851 was 2,469,000, and in 1852, 2,533,000, so that there is an increase in the year just ended of 64,000 gallons. The great diminution has been in the wines of Portugal. In the year 1849, the amount taken out of bond for home consumption was 2,446,813 gallons; in 1850,2,648,242 gallons; in 1851,2,814,979; in 1852 there was a diminution to 2,524,720 gallons. But if we compare the year 1852 with the year 1849 there is an increase, and it is only in comparison with the years 1850 and 1851 that a diminution appears to have taken place in consequence of the amount taken out for home consumption in 1851. Comparing the revenue of 1852 with the revenue of 1849, there is no diminution; but, on the contrary, an increase of the revenue derived from port wine. The hon. and learned Gentleman, then, must see that the terms of his Motion are not correct, and to say there is a decline of a revenue that is not declining, is hardly what the House will sanction. I will trouble the House with a return of the entire quantity of wine on which revenue has been raised during the last four years, and which even includes Cape. In 1849, the quantity was 6,136,547 gallons; in 1850, 6,251,862; in 1851, 6,437,222— that was the great year; and in 1852, the year just finished, 6,280,587; exceeding not only the amount of 1849, but the aggregate amount of 1850, and nearly equalling the great year of 1851. The hon. and learned Gentleman will therefore see that it is quite erroneous to say that there has been any decline in the revenue derived from wine. Now if the hon. and learned Gentleman really wished for a Committee to inquire into the revenue derived from wines—knowing very well that the hon. and learned Gentleman will with that assiduity and intelligence that distinguish him, no doubt bring out a great deal of information for the House—I certainly will not oppose it; but it appears to me, having followed with great attention the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he is perfectly master already of all the facts of the case. And I may also say, with the greatest respect, that those facts are also known to many Gentlemen in this House. With regard to the principle of political economy he would apply to those facts, this also is very well understood. And if a Committee were appointed, the hon. and learned Gentleman could scarcely give us results more accurate than those he has already conveyed to us; and hon. Gentlemen on both side of the House will be able from those facts to draw their own inferences respecting the taxation and revenue of the country. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really wishes for the Committee, with a slight but necessary alteration of his Motion, I will consent to it; but I hope he will recollect that the Members of the House are very much taxed at present by their attendance on Committees. A representation was made to me the other day that it is difficult to get Members to attend on the most necessary Committees; and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will, on second thoughts, be satisfied with having laid an accurate and able statement before the House, and with having called the attention of the House to a subject that necessarily engages the attention of all concerned in the taxes of the country; he will consider that he need not trouble the House further with the question, because it must appear to him that the subject of the wine duties must necessarily engage the attention of any one who is responsible for the collection of the revenue of the country. But at the same time there are many other duties which I myself certainly feel have a very superior claim to the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no question but it is very possible that we might alter the duties on wine, and might diminish those duties, and not permanently injure the revenue; but that is always a hazardous project, and must be done with very great caution. Not to mislead the House or the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is certainly my opinion that if import duties are to be diminished, there are many arti- cles that have superior claims to that of the different wines imported into this country.

Sir, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) may not now be able to answer a question in connexion with the statement that has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, (Mr. C. Anstey) which I wish to put to him, but he may be able, on another day, to inform the House how the matter stands to which my question refers. The hon. and learned Gentleman has adverted to the great abuses practised by the Oporto Wine Company, in regard to the trade in wine between Portugal and this country. Her Majesty's late Government had many representations made to them that the regulations established by the Portuguese Government in regard to the Oporto Company, and the practice of the Oporto Company itself, were inconsistent with the stipulations of the treaty of 1842. It was the opinion of Her Majesty's late Government that those representations were well founded, and that impediments and restrictions were imposed upon the exportation of wine from Portugal, and its importation into this country, which were at variance with the stipulations of the fourth article of that treaty. We made a strong representation to the Portuguese Government on the subject; and when I ceased to hold the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, an understanding had been established between the two Governments, that after the general election, which was then about to take place in Portugal, the Portuguese Government would remedy the abuse of which we complained, and that either by an alteration of the Executive Government, or by some new law that was to be proposed to the Cortes, the practice of the Oporto Company should be placed in harmony with the stipulations of the treaty. I am bound to say, however, that the Portuguese Government did not admit our argument that the regulation was at variance with the stipulations of the treaty, notwithstanding our case was completely established; but the Portuguese Government, without admitting the force of our argument, engaged to remedy the evils of which we complained. I wish to know therefore from Her Majesty's Government, either now or at some future day, what is the state of the communications between the two Governments on that point, and whether the Portuguese Government have taken any steps to redeem the pledge I consider it has given to us to set right the; matter to which our complaint relates?

The question to which the noble Lord has referred, is one he has correctly stated so far as I am able to judge. He has correctly stated that communications were going on at the time he ceased to be connected with the Foreign Office with regard to this question. Those communications have been carried on to I the time at which the late Government left office. They are at the present moment going on, and the present Government will not lose sight of the subject. They feel its importance, and it will not be through want of attention on their part if it shall not be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his courtesy, and would take the Committee in the way he had pointed out, omitting in his Motion the words "causes of the decline." Select Committee appointed "to inquire into the Revenue derived from the Import Duties on Wines."

then rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice with respect to the Ballot. He said they had before them the prospect of a general election. [A laugh.] He did not know whether his hon. Friends laughed for joy at that prospect, but, at all events, it was a prospect which was full in their view, and in that election all the glaring faults of their electoral system would be brought into play, and when the electors of the country would be exposed to all those inveterate evils which he had from time to time brought before that House with a view to legislation. He was now about to ask the House to give him permission to bring in a Bill to alleviate those evils. They had last year had a great influx of foreigners into this country; persons from all parts of the globe had visited this island; they found us a grave and sedate people, firmly attached to order. But let them visit us a few months from this time, and in place of order they would find most admired disorder; they would find us engaged in a kind of electoral saturnalia, and when they witnessed the riot and confusion, the drunkenness and debauchery, the tyrannic intimidation which accompanied these orgies, they would imagine, not that they had visited a mere maison des fous, but a nation of madmen. And if ever there was an election which bid fair to be marked with those attributes, it was the election which was now about to take place. A rich and powerful party, after a lapse of years, had just obtained power. They had just got the honeyed bowl to their lips; and it depended upon the ensuing general election whether they were to be allowed to drain it to the dregs, or whether it was to be rudely snatched from them almost before they had tasted its sweets. A fearful struggle was, therefore, about to take place. Already the note of preparation had gone forth; herds of low attorneys had crept from the police courts and the low bankruptcy courts, where they had wrung fees from the hands of poverty and vice, and they had become the electoral agents of the rich and powerful. Their agency was a searching inquiry into the misfortunes and liabilities of electors; and the devilish ingenuity with which they created screws to force from the electors a dishonest and unwilling vote, was almost beyond belief. If such was their agency, what was their trade? Their trade, the electors' conscience — their means, the electors' misery—their employers, the House of Lords—the result, the House of Commons. If hon. Gentlemen were bold enough to deny this description, he would refer them to their own knowledge—to the common knowledge of the country— above all, he would refer them to the excellent and intelligent work of Mr. Dod, in which they would find that ninety-eight borough Members were returned to that House through the direct interference of Peers. If further evidence were wanted, he would refer them to the Committee which sat in 1842, on the Motion of Mr. Ward, and which laid before the country an account of the screws used at elections, from thirteen canvassing books taken indifferently from counties and boroughs. If he were charged with exaggeration, he was provided with evidence to put down such a charge in an analysis of the evidence taken before the Committee that sat in 1835, to inquire into the malversations that took place with regard to the franchise. The original evidence extended over 700 folio pages; but the perusal of this analysis alone would lead the House to the conclusion that the enormities committed were not at all exaggerated. They would be led to this conclusion also, that it was not the aristocracy alone who were guilty of such conduct, but that the demo- cracy were to the full as tyrannical as the aristocracy, and that between these two parties the electoral world were found to suffer great hardships. He prayed permission of the House to quote one case, and only one. It was not the case of an intimidated Reformer—it was not the case of a wretched Radical—it was not the case of a despised Dissenter—it was not the case of that dreaded Guido Vaux, a Roman Catholic—but it was the case of a man who would be dear to Protectionist hearts —it was the case of a regular tough Tory, one of the die-hard, never-to-be-convinced sort; and withal, it was the case of an honest man who had been put under the ban of proscription. [The hon. Gentleman then read, amidst much laughter, the case of a Mr. James Gilbert, a licensed victualler and wine-merchant in Birmingham, who had taken an active part in canvassing the town for Mr. Spooner. It was in the form of question and answer, as follows:—]

"Where do you reside?—At Birmingham.

"What are you?—I am a licensed victualler and wine-merchant.

"Did you take an active part in the last election for the borough of Birmingham?—Yes, and canvassed for Richard Spooner, Esq.

"Was any extensive system of intimidation in practice at that election by which the votes of a considerable number of electors were influenced?—Yes, there was.

"You are a partisan on the Tory side?—Yes; I have taken a part, and have always been proud to do it. It has been a hobby all through my life; I have done it for forty years.

"Can you give any instance that came within your own knowledge by which a vote or votes were influenced?—The witness then cited three very strong cases, those of two landlords and a pork-butcher.

He was then asked—

"Do you think the system of political union contributes to the system of exclusive dealing?—Yes; and if there had never been the Political Union, Mr. Richard Spooner would have been now in the House.

"Do you think that there are many men as strong partisans as you are who would rather not have a vote?—I'm sure I can't say; I never heard them say so; I have heard their wives say so; but a good Tory never flinches.

"Do you think a good Whig would flinch?—I'm sure I can't say. I never keep company with such gentry.

"Did the clergymen in, and of the neighbourhood of the town of Birmingham, come in to canvass at or previously to the election?—I never saw one canvass, and I never saw a clergyman of the Church persuasion there all the time.

"Have you known Dissenting ministers canvass?—I have been informed they have, but I never saw them; particularly one, Mr. East, laid great stress on his congregation.

"And the Catholic clergymen?—Yes.

"Did the Dissenting ministers take an active part in the election?—They did, indeed; and one Catholic man was very active.

"Have master manufacturers much influence over the votes of the operatives?—Yes, very great influence. I have heard of their making speeches to them, and telling them (which is a very great stroke of deceit), this is the reason why we have to pay you such low wages, and if the reform were got we should pay you better wages."

He (Mr. H. Berkeley) thought they had heard something like that at their Protectionist meetings:—

"There are clergymen and manufacturers, probably both Whig and Tory, acting this way?—No; the Tory side never preach up about reform, for it does no good.

"Though they do not preach about reform, they preach about something else, perhaps, in order to influence votes?—I believe that the chief that they preach is about the Church being in danger.

"According to your evidence, the man who is not independent in Birmingham, is the tradesman whose custom lies among the populace?—Yes, they are all dependent upon the populace."

Mr. Berkeley proceeded: After this reluctant and prejudiced, but honest, witness, had thus testified to the evil, he was questioned as to the remedy:—

"Do not you think it would be a good thing if men could give their votes without being subjected to lose their custom?—I can never bring my mind to do anything in secret.

"Do not you think that those who are not able to give their votes openly, without ruin, would be benefited by giving their vote secretly?—It would be a benefit at the time, but if it got wind, it would cause a worse jealousy.

"Supposing that it never did get wind?—Then it would be a benefit.

"Supposing that you contrived, as the gentlemen in the clubs in London contrive, to vote so that it can never be known how you voted?— Though I should never be an advocate for that, it would be of vast benefit to me.

"Do you think that if a man had voted in secret, he could not keep that secret?—I cannot say; I think they would be able to get it out of him, unless he were a man of strong nerve.

"What, if he knew that his ruin would follow?—I can't say.

"Would not the welfare of honest men be increased by that secret voting?—It might do away with that violent party spirit after a time, perhaps.

"That would not be the case for many elections, you mean?—Yes.

"You think it might after a time?—It might do it away.

"Do you think it would do that away when there was a contest?—Yes; it is the seeing a man going up to vote, and knowing how it must be, that rouses the spirit. Father and son often will hardly speak to one another.

"You have suffered yourself severely from your vote?—I have.

"Do not you think that it is very hard to suffer for an honest vote?—Yes; they have come and said, you have been a Tory long enough; if you will turn to us we will bring you a house full of custom.

"That is a form of bribery, is it not?—They have said, you will be ruined by sticking to that party. I have said, I have been brought up as a Tory, and I will go to the workhouse as one, sooner than change.

"Your opinions, in consequence of your being an active partisan and a bold man, are well known; but take the case of a person who has never taken an active part, and is quite nervous about these matters, would it be better for him?—Yes, it would, I believe. If it had been done in that way that nobody knew how they voted, Spooner would have been returned.

"Therefore, many voted against their opinions?—Yes.

"Would it not be a great point to have their votes agree with their opinions?—Yes.

"Do not you think it would have been a great thing for the pork butcher, you just now mentioned, to have been enabled to vote as he wished?—Certainly.

"Do not you think that it is very hard that an honest man should be injured for conscientiously exercising his will.—Certainly."

Now, he (Mr. H. Berkeley) thought that was a tolerably fair specimen of the manner in which elections were conducted at Birmingham nearly twenty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared the other night, in the debate on the national representation, that corruption at elections could not be stopped by law—that it must be done by elevating the tone of the community. Now it struck him that that was rather a novel position, and that if it were correct, the noble Lord the Member for London and other Gentlemen who were legislating to put down bribery, were all going in the wrong direction. But as to elevating the tone of the community, let them see how they had elevated the tone at Birmingham during the last twenty years. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham told them a short time since that at every election at Birmingham there were at least one thousand electors who dared not go to the poll. And how many more were there, he would ask, who refused to be on the register altogether, though perfectly qualified to be so? Join the number of those who refused to be on the register with those who, though on the register, refused to vote, and they would see a great curtailment of the franchise at once established, owing to the system of open voting, and that curtailment affecting those best qualified to take a part in the political affairs of their country. At Bath there were 430 electors who dared not go to the poll because, to use their own homely but graphic language, they might shut up shop if they did. And would the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who affected to be anxious for the elevation of the tone of the people, tell him how this was to be accomplished? It struck him that the only way to do it was by education. But, unfortunately, they found that it was men who were superior in their education to any class in any part of the World—the noblemen and the gentlemen of the country—it was they who depressed the tone of the community by the practices which they carried on at elections. To tell the electors, under such circumstances, that they must wait for the elevation of the tone of the community, was a mere farce; and he should not be surprised if the honest but rough men who were so treated turned round, and, in the words of Lord Duberley, said, "Fine words butter no parsnips." He hoped, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bestow his advice upon those noblemen and gentlemen who at the last election for South Notts hunted the tenantry out of their haystacks like vermin, and sent them like caged rats to the poll. The case of St. Albans had engaged the attention of the House during the present Session, but there was probably as much corruption in the following boroughs as at St. Albans. He would enumerate a list of boroughs and counties respecting the corruption or intimidation practised in which the clearest evidence had been given, namely, Bridport, Bristol, Birmingham, Coventry, Cambridge, Carlow, Clonmel, Cashel, Denbigh, Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Halifax, Ipswich, Leicester, Leominster, Lichfield, Lyme Regis, Marylebone, Norwich, Newry, Ripon, Westminster, Westbury, Youghal. For counties, let him cite Cheshire, Clare, Devon, Denbighshire, Essex, Kerry, Limerick, Meath, Waterford, Wexford, and Warwickshire. And how the elevation of the moral tone of the community was going on might be shown by recent exposures at Sudbury, St. Albans, Aylesbury, Harwich, the Falkirk Burghs, and Gloucestershire. He had hitherto dealt with arguments as they rose from time to time against the ballot. He had now, however unwillingly, to deal with the speech of a right hon. and much valued Friend of his the Member for Perth, in which he gave one reason for his voting for, and another for his voting against, the ballot. The reason for his voting for the ballot was, that though he thought it a bad measure, yet, as there was a number of fictitious votes in Perth which he had in vain tried to get rid of, he voted for the ballot by way of curing the evil. Now, he thought it was a most extraordinary mode of legislation to force a bad measure upon the whole of Great Britain and Ireland in order to cure rascality that was going on at Perth. But then came the argument against the ballot, when the right hon. Gentleman said if they crossed the Channel did they hear no warning voice against the ballot there? Had it established liberty, or protected the freedom of the people, or maintained a free press, or defended or maintained the law? Now, what man of sane mind ever imagined that the ballot would protect freedom beyond giving every man an opportunity of exercising a free and unfettered vote? Who ever thought that the ballot could protect the press or the authorities and constitution of a country from armed autocracy? Who ever thought that the ballot would put down an unscrupulous tyrant with 400,000 neat young gentlemen at his back, all armed to the teeth. But did the right hon. Gentleman forget that the deputies who were put down by the President were elected by the ballot? and that the ballot formed part of that constitution the upsetting of which by the French Ruler has placed all the press of England in mourning? For his part he thought that the working of the ballot in France under the late constitution had been highly in its favour; and the conduct of the neighbouring country, Belgium, afforded a splendid instance of the good working of the ballot. There they found that the aristocracy of birth and of talent, respectability, and landed property, were strongly represented. He said, lastly, that in America the working of the ballot was perfectly satisfactory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that extraordinary ability and ingenuity which marked all his speeches, had dwelt upon the fact of a disturbance at New York during the late election, where open bribery was attempted, the electors were assaulted, and even the ballot-box, that object of wrath to the intimidators and bribers, was smashed to pieces—and, with extreme plausibility, he had laid the fault of all this upon the ballot. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) had resided for six years in America, and he had never seen the elections conducted there but with order and tranquillity. The Americans had always held to him this language—"We scarcely need the ballot, because there is an absence among us of bribery and intimida- tion; you want the ballot in England, because, in consequence of the law of primogeniture and entail, property belongs only to a few persons, and, in consequence, the tyranny of classes is felt." But be asked, how did these disturbances prove the fact that the ballot produced them? Would intimidation and bribery have been more checked by open voting? The truth was that the Governor of New York, in advising the Legislature to adopt some measures to check bribery, did not say one word about the insufficiency of the ballot. In confirmation of that he would read a letter written by an American gentleman. He says—

"The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt substantially correct, but I have great doubts whether any American will consider that his inferences are the same. That intimidation has been resorted to, and that bribery has been partially successful, is I believe incontestable; but that the taking of the votes by way of ballot had anything to do with the difficulty, is clean out of the question. You will find that the Governor of the State of New York called the attention of the Legislature to the prevention of these disturbances at elections, but not one word was said by him on the subject of the ballot. The destruction of the ballot-box was accounted for I by saying it was held in no great estimation by I the advocates of bribery; but I believe it will be found to have arisen from not having been stationed in a place of safety; and we shall find that our local legislature will pass some stringent law on the subject, and will in future recommend our voting-urns to be located in a place of greater security."

But he (Mr. H. Berkeley) said, it was highly probable that they might hear at no distant period that disturbances had arisen, and that the ballot-boxes had been broken—in Carolina and Alabama, for instance, or in Maryland or Virginia—for in those States the ballot-box was the protection of those who wished to do away with slavery. In the ballot-box the enemy of slavery found protection from violence; in the ballot-box the friend to emancipation found security from Lynch law; in the ballot-box the benign principles of Christianity had taken root; and from the ballot-box rushed forth the glorious truth, that of whatever colour our skins may be, our souls before God are of but one hue. When they saw the enemies of the abolition of slavery desiring to put aside the ballot-box in America, and when they saw those who wished to keep Englishmen in a state of serfdom declining to give them the protection of the ballot, it formed a very strong case, and that case entirely for the ballot. He complained that the arguments used against the ballot were merely colourable, and that, instead of opposing the measure because the House doubted its efficacy, they opposed it because they believed it to be perfectly efficacious. He was brought strongly to that conclusion by reading an account of a large Conservative meeting which took place the other day in the city of Bristol. At that meeting there was a very influential body of Conservatives present, and their object was to select a candidate to fill the place of his hon. Friend and colleague, who had expressed his intention to retire. The chair was taken by a Mr. Vining, a gentleman of great respectability; and the sentiments which fell from the worthy chairman were strictly Conservative, but full of candour, and redolent of the most Arcadian simplicity. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) would read a short extract from Mr. Vining's speech, which he had taken from the Bristol Gazette. Mr. Vining thus attacked the vote by ballot, which both of the two candidates for Bristol considered an excellent measure. He said, "What is the use of registration, if a man is to vote by ballot?" and "what is the use of inquiring how a man is going to vote, when he may conceal that vote by ballot?" "Why, a man may register one way, and vote another." Now, perhaps, hon. Members were not quite au fait in that expression. It meant that partisans paid the rates of defaulters, and so secured their being put upon the register, which was a mode of bribery beforehand. "Thus," says Mr. Vining—

"A man may vote one way, and register another. Suppose you give a man five pounds; he may receive the money, and vote another way. That goes to make a man disguise his real sentiments and meaning. If even I purchase a man I may not be able to know how he is going to vote; he may vote against me after he has said he will vote for me."

And then voices were heard to say—

"That is what we want; you will not then have us under your thumb." "Gentlemen," said Mr. Vining, "I feel the majority of you are in my favour. Now, all I ask is this: Let us co-operate cordially in supporting true Conservative principles, and in promoting the welfare of the State, and our own interests."

There was a candid gentleman! Mark the faults found with the ballot: they would ruin his politico-commercial transactions. Poor injured gentleman! When he had bought his man it was quite doubtful whether his live bale of goods would be delivered. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) wished Mr. Vining had extended his remarks to intimidation; they would have been most edifying. He would certainly have told them how he had threatened to turn out his tenant at No. 5, if he did not vote for Mr. A.; and how the rascal might go to the ballot box and vote for that terrible Radical, Mr. B. The fact was, the House refused to trust the people. They believed that their tendencies were democratic. He put it to hon. Members who had such feelings, whether they did not very much resemble a man who supposed that under the foundations of his house there was a subterraneous fire, and that at some future day, by some convulsion of nature, a crater would burst forth in his kitchen? When the noble Lord the Member for London recently moved for leave to bring in his Reform Bill, he said he thought the people deserved some reward for their exemplary conduct; yet the noble Lord was one of those who refused to do the people an act of simple justice. They who had refuaed to trust the people had good reason to know how the people might be trusted on the 10th of April, 1848. On that occasion they appealed to the people pro arts et focis, and they stood on their thresholds armed for their defence. They stood by their firesides, among their household Penates, cherished guests. He asked the House to trust them with the franchise it now denied them. In conclusion, he would say that though he was in favour of the principle of the ballot, he was not equally wedded to its details. All he asked was for a fair trial of the ballot. If the House liked it, let them make the ballot permissive. If they liked it, let them allow a certain number of electors who might demand the ballot to have the ballot. Do not let the House meet him with the statement that the ballot would do this or that in small constituencies. Let that be no bar to the Bill. If they liked the ballot, let them try it in constituencies above a thousand voters. He, therefore, said once more, that he was not wedded to the details, but he was to the principle; and he asked the House to permit him to bring in a Bill to give the electors the protection of the ballot. If the House gave him that permission they would do a great act of abstract justice to the people, who had merited it by the love of order, by the high moral tone of the community, by their reverence for the law, and loyalty to their Queen.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was rather unfortunate in having alluded to the last election for South Nottinghamshire; for the fact of his (Mr. Barrow's) standing in the House of Commons at that moment was the best possible proof of the absence of intimidation on the occasion to which he referred. He knew, that in part, he owed his success at that election to the assistance of some Gentlemen who were themselves friends of the vote by ballot—not because they sought it for their own sakes, but because they believed it would be a protection to their friends and neighbours. They were well aware of his sentiments with respect to the ballot when they gave him their votes; and he felt perfectly satisfied that they would give him credit for the honesty of his principles at least, in venturing as he did now to declare that he was not a convert to the necessity of the ballot, and that, so far from believing it would deliver the people from a state of serfdom, he believed it would increase bribery and demoralisation to such an extent as would be positively frightful to contemplate. Allusion had been made to the advantage of the ballot in the clubs. But, for his part, he confessed that a large portion of his objections to the ballot were the result of the ill feeling he had witnessed in clubs in cases of blackballing. He had seen so much mischief arise from it, that even in those cases where, through the honour of the scrutineers and members, perfect secrecy was observed, he had come to the conclusion that the system had better be abolished. He was rather surprised to hear the secrecy of the ballot assumed as a matter of necessity. In proof, however, of the fact that it did not secure secrecy, he might refer to that country which had already been referred to so often, and in which the ballot had been in operation for the greatest length of time. He did not believe that secrecy ever had been or ever would be obtained by means of the ballot; for he found that in Massachusetts, one of the oldest States of the American Union, the Legislature appointed a Committee last year with the express object of considering in what manner they could secure secrecy under the ballot. And, surely, with such an example as that before him, he might be allowed to doubt whether that secrecy which was assumed as inseparable from the ballot really did exist. With re- gard to the ballot as a cure for bribery, he thought he heard the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) say not long ago, that he did not believe it would diminish bribery in small constituencies, at least; and if it would not diminish bribery in small constituencies, then he (Mr. Barrow) wanted to know how it was likely to do so in large constituencies because a large constituency was, after all, only an aggregate or mass of small constituencies, and bribery might be carried on in one as well as in the other. Upon this point too, he would again refer to America, where the Legisla-lature of the State of New York had declared that bribery had increased, and was carried to a fearful extent under the ballot, and that it was necessary to take steps for providing a remedy. Being convinced then that neither intimidation nor bribery had diminished under the operation of the ballot, he must frankly admit that he was still opposed to the measure. He believed it would be productive of an amount of hypocrisy and demoralisation perfectly frightful to contemplate; and that the best remedy for the evils complained of would consist in elevating the moral tone of the people, and allowing them to record their independent votes freely and conscientiously in the open light of day, "owning subjection to no human vassalage, save to their Queen and the law."

said, he was quite willing to admit that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a remarkable instance of the people having exercised their own will against the influence of the aristocracy. But let the House recollect the circumstances which took place just prior to that election. The tenant-farmers, who felt strongly in favour of protection, and who not trusting, perhaps, the aristocracy of the country, were determined to bring forward some man themselves for the purpose of carrying out that object; and they chose the hon. Gentleman who now represented them, though it did not appear that the hon. Gentleman had done anything, or had a wish to do anything, in furtherance of that object for which he was specially elected by the tenant farmers. When the election to which he had referred took place, the noble Dukes and noble Lords in that county, by their agents, brought up their tenants to the poll just as they would have driven a flock of sheep. ["Oh, oh!"] He said it was a fact, and if they looked in the papers of that day they would see it stated; nay more, the agents of the landed proprietors were present at the poll to see how the tenants voted. But although the yeomen of South Nottinghamshire came forward on that occasion and defeated the aristocracy, that was no reason why voters in other parts of the country should not have the protection of the ballot. It was said that they must elevate the tone and feeling of the people. That was a very fine phrase, always brought forward on these occasions. Why, they knew very well that when an election took place, men of high character, or rather of high station, went round to tradesmen, and said, "You must vote for this person or that." There was scarcely a tradesman in Regent-street or Bond-street who was not canvassed in this way by his customers. Intimidation, however, was by no means confined to the aristocracy. There was an election now going on in the north part of the country; Millowners had been canvassing the small tradesmen, who were almost compelled to vote in favour of the millowners; and what was the result? Why, that the lower classes had banded together, and had gone round to the tradesmen and said, "You shall vote for our candidate." And these persons were in that unfortunate condition that they did not know whether to oblige the millowner or the lower classes. He thought this was a case for the ballot. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) had enumerated several boroughs which, he said, were guilty of corruption, and to his (Sir B. Hall's) great surprise, the borough of Marylebone was in that list. The hon. Member had, however, said that corruption existed there many years ago. Now all he (Sir B. Hall) could say was, that he had represented that district of the Metropolis for fifteen years, and he could safely assert that the hon. Member must be in error; and it was a fact that the return of the two Members at the dissolution previous to his own first election for that borough, did not cost more than 300l. It was ridiculous to suppose that bribery could take effect in a constituency of nearly 400,000 people and 20,000 electors; and not all the wealth of the Rothschilds and the Barings combined could effect a return in that constituency by bribery. It was said that the ballot created disorder in America. The disorder did not arise from the ballot, but because the elections were not properly conducted. As a proof of this, he might mention that they had an annual parochial election by ballot in three of the largest parishes in the metropolis, namely, in St. George's, which was rated at 800,000l.; Marylebone, which was rated at 1,000,000l.; and St. Pancras, which was rated at 800,000l. These parishes had a population of 500,000, and the number of ratepayers varied from 15,000 to 19,000 in each. Now, the greatest order, regularity, and tranquillity prevailed at these elections; and though they were not second even to the Parliamentary elections, not a policeman was present. These elections take place annually in the month of May, and it would he well worth while for those Members who doubted the efficiency of the ballot to witness those elections. He would not further take up the time of the House on this subject, particularly as the next Motion on the paper was intimately connected with the present one, and he was anxious that it should be discussed before a dissolution took place, in order that the constituencies of the country might know the feelings and opinions of hon. Members with regard to the three great questions brought forward: the one by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume); the other that which they were now discussing; and the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), which stood next.

said, that there were 214 boroughs, with 161,500 voters, which returned 329 Members to that House, being a majority of the entire number. The two great parties who contended for power in this country were so nicely balanced, that it depended on the amount of money spent at elections which of them held the reins of Government. The Committee of 1835 stated in their Report that bribery, corruption, intimidation, and coercion prevailed to an enormous extent at the preceding election. The Committee of 1841 stated in their Report that 8,300l. was spent at the Harwich election, though only 178 persons voted: and that 16,000l. was spent in Nottingham, though only 673 persons voted. The remedy for this state of things was the ballot. He had been in America, and was present during the election of General Harrison, which was conducted with the greatest propriety; and notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barrow), he defied the hon. Gentleman to produce an instance where any of the thirty-one States of the American Union had complained of the ill working of the system. The people of America had this advantage of the ballot, for whilst the cost of Government in this country was 26,000,000l., in America it was only 6,500,000l. These were facts which proved incontestably the value of the ballot.

said, it had been the practice, when great innovations were proposed in the institutions of the country, to introduce an imaginary foreigner to the contemplation of things as they existed. The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), when he proposed the Reform Bill, introduced this fictitious gentleman into the country, and conducted him round to Old Sarum, Gatton, and East Retford; and, as the hon. Gentleman who brought on the present Motion, in accord-snce with custom, had introduced this distinguished foreigner during the general elections, he (Mr. B. Cochrane) thought that if a foreigner came amongst us to be initiated into the mysteries of our elections, he would certainly need a cicerone, and under all the circumstances, he imagined that the best cicerone he could have would be Mr. Coppock. But now, to come to the real question, what would hon. Gentlemen say if they had what he might call reciprocity of the ballot? What would be said if they, the Members of the House of Commons, were to give their votes by ballot? He had heard of such a thing as pledges which some of the constituencies were in the habit of exacting—strong and binding — from the candidate upon the hustings, as to the course which he meant to follow. Whatever the distinguished foreigner might think of such pledges, in case the system of secret voting were introduced into the House, he rather thought the people would not be disposed to concur in the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Berkeley) of the advantages of the ballot. The hon. Gentleman, upon this subject, referred to America—so often referred to, on many subjects, by the Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He wished now to point out one great difference between the use of the ballot in America and this country, which had hitherto escaped observation; he wished to remind them that America was a republic, and we had the happiness to live under a Constitutional Monarchy. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see the result of the difference as it affected the Parliaments of the two countries, and who eulogised the American system so much, he would recommend the perusal of what appeared in the papers the other day relative to a pleasant conversation which had lately occurred in Congress between a Mr. Brown and a Mr. Wilcox—not the hon. Member for Southampton. He would not go through the details of the scene, but it was concluded by Mr. Brown calling Mr. Wilcox "a vagabond," and swearing that "he would knock his head of." But another circumstance deserving attention with regard to America, was, that in order to nave permission to propose any essential change in the Constitution, it was necessary to obtain the consent of a majority of two-thirds of the States; and that, even when proposed, yet, in order to its being carried into effect, a majority of three-fourths of the States was required; whereas all that was necessary in this country was a bare majority. But, when they referred to Prance, he asked the Gentlemen of the Manchester school whether they were satisfied with the result of universal suffrage in that country, or with the proceedings of the 2nd of December, and the Constitution proposed for that country? If they were satisfied with the operation of universal suffrage and the ballot in that country, they must remember that they had been established there ever since 1793. But if he were to describe the effects of the ballot on those who wish to use it, he would seek no other than the language of a right hon. Gentleman, he meant the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham). He would quote his opinion, not, indeed, his present opinion, but his former opinion of the ballot when the subject was brought on by Mr. Ward, in 1842. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"The whole system of secret voting was inconsistent with the English character. If he be an honest man and a firm friend, he will not want the ballot—if he skulks, he will not avail himself of it. The only persons to whom the ballot would be valuable, would be dirty and hypocritical cowards." [3 Hansard, lxiv. 404.]

He thought he had heard of the right hon. Gentleman at Carlisle, very lately, when he made a speech not precisely in favour of the ballot, but of a nature such as convinced him he saw the dawn of a different opinion upon this important question. Well; the right hon. Gentlemen went on—

"Those dirty, hypocritical cowards—men whose faces belie their purpose—men who pretend to be your friends only to deceive and betray you—who flatter you with vain hopes of support which they have no intention to realise—men who talk of intimidation, but seek the opportunity of gratifying their sordid envy, their revenge, and that bitter hatred which, combined with their cowardice, mark them as the most contemptible of man- kind. Those are the men who demand a measure that is a mere recipe—

"To lend to lies the confidence of truth."

[3 Hansard, lxiv. 404.]

One could not possibly improve upon that language, and he confessed his objections to the ballot were precisely those of the right hon. Gentleman. They could not prevent, they might as well think of preventing, the east wind blowing at this time of the year, as of preventing the influence of the proprietors over their tenants; yet, by introducing the ballot, they might succeed in making them false and hypocritical; men who made a show openly of voting otherwise than they did, and, consequently were "contemptible cowards." He would also remind the House of the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman who was one of its ornaments, but was now no more, yet he must say he quoted his opinion with awe. The late Mr. Sheil, in 1842, in speaking upon the question, after admitting that men would go to the poll and break their promise, said of that conduct, it was yet a principle to be upheld under the circumstances. That was the doctrine of Mr. Sheil, and he must confess he could go no such length with him. But if that was the effect of the ballot, let them consider what a principle they were introducing into the country, what an amount of demoralisation—on the ground of which he ventured to charge the proposal as one that was most vicious. Yet they were going to introduce it to give men an opportunity of making promises and of breaking them. But why, he asked, was the subject not introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London into his late Reform Bill? He confessed he was not convinced in his own mind that the noble Lord would not yet support it; and he was upheld in that view of his intellect and consistency by a friend of the noble Lord's Government, who in a late publication had described the Whigs out of power as demagogues, and in power as oligarchs. He looked upon this as one of the most objectionable measures that could be brought forward. It was no use going back to discuss theories, and point out anomalies which were to be found in all the writings of all the Socialists, from Robespierre downwards. He preferred pointing to history, both as it referred to this country and to other countries, such as France, and when he found that no one could compare this country with that without feeling a doubt upon such a question as this, that doubt led him to arrest, if possible, the progress of this popular Motion, which, if carried into effect, would be of the greatest detriment to the best interests of this country.

said, he would promise to be very brief on a subject which had been more nearly exhausted in argument than any proposition which had ever been brought before that House. It was an undoubted historical fact that Mr. Grote, in the course of his remarks on the ballot, brought to it an amount of logical power and mental acumen which gave to his advocacy the character of an intellectual triumph. He did not intend, therefore, to expose the fallacies of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did not intend to point out to him the difference between a Member of Parliament who came there voluntarily to represent the opinions of others, having his votes made public—and the votes of the electors who nominated him, being made public: that had been abundantly proved before. Nor should he go into the discussion of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer's thousand-time refuted objection, that if you gave the ballot to a limited constituency, you constituted that constituency an oligarchy. That had been met with this unanswerable argument: if you think that the unenfranchised are fit to lead the enfranchised, and to dictate how they shall vote, then give the unenfranchised votes themselves. Those who urged this objection, were the very people who would not do that In the intellectual mode of dealing with it, this question had been triumphantly settled; but, he thought, there were moral aspects of the question which might be better argued then, than they could be when Mr. Grote dealt with it seventeen years ago. They had had opportunities of witnessing the efficacy of the ballot in the elections of a neighbouring country, carried on under the most exciting circumstances, and these showed what an immense gain the ballot would be to this country, by putting an end to the frightful demoralisation and violence which were seen at almost every one of our own elections. Now, he said, the example of France at their own door, upon this view of the question—it was only a very limited view of the question, but it was its moral aspect—the example of France was conclusive. They had had 6,000,000 of people in France all voting in one day, they had had three or four general elections all over France with universal suf- frage, and under the most exciting circumstances, and he said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that there had been less of tumult, of violence, and of discord at the polling in France—[Ironical cheers] —yes, he repeated it, but hon. Gentlemen, probably, had not read the newspapers. These general elections in France, he said, had been carried on without a tumult at any of the polling places. Now, he asked the House to consider what had been the condition of things in our own country? Why, if he went back only for a year or two, he could point out half-a-dozen little polling places where very different scenes had been witnessed. Take, for instance, the Isle of Wight, where the last county election resulted in the death of a respectable individual. He went to Boston, and what did he see there? An hon. Gentleman imprisoned by the mob in his own house, and not able to get to his dinner. At Harwich, again, the hustings were pulled down; and the other day, at Enniskillen, where there were only about 150 voters to poll, the police had to charge the mob with drawn sabres. These were only a few specimens of what occurred at the elections of even the smallest constituencies. They had been directed to the working of the ballot in the United States, and mention had been made of America—a tumult in New York. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say when he mentioned that fact? Why, that a newspaper of New York—not the Courier and Enquirer, a newspaper read by the wealthy classes, but the New York Tribune, which was read by the masses—the very paper, too, from which he quoted—was so horrified at the fact of there being any violence or tumult, that it declared that those who thus interfered with the most sacred rights of American citizens ought to be shot down down like dogs. Was that the kind of language which such proceedings called forth here? Why, Boston and Harwich were laughed at, Enniskillen did not excite a remark, and, instead of having one governor to censure his fellow-citizens for having committed such outrages, they had a hundred Acts of Parliament to put down bribery; and at that moment they had a Bill passing through the House, the object of which was to erect a distinct tribunal for the trial of future cases of corruption. Against all this they had only the isolated fact which he had mentioned. Now he said that the effect of the ballot would be this. It would repress all those outward demonstrations of opinion which led to these collisions in public meetings; it would put an end to their flags and banners, and ribbons and brass bands, and general disorder. He ventured to say that that was the view of the question which was now sinking into the public mind. And the reason why the ballot had gained ground in this country during the last few years was this—the friends of order, the lovers of temperance, those who wished to see moral power prevail over brute force—had come to the conclusion that in the ballot they would find a remedy for the evils and abuses which had so long disgraced our elections, particularly on the nomination day and the polling day. But another question was raised now, namely, whether the ballot would be effectual? It was stated that in New York it had not been effectual. It was true that in America, in former times at least, such was the equal condition of the great body of the people, that every little pressure was put by one person on another in order to coerce him to vote in conformity with his wishes, and that the people were very indifferent as to whether their votes were concealed or not. But he could tell the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that a very effectual remedy had been provided for this defect in the mode of voting. Two years ago the Legislature of Massachusetts—not only one of the oldest, but in every respect one of the most moral, intelligent, and religious communities in the United States, or in the whole world—appointed a Committee to devise means for making the ballot more effectual. Did the Committee contemplate giving up the ballot in order to adopt open voting? No. He held in his hand the Report of the Committee, and also the text of the Act of the Legislature for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Committee. It was observed that the right of suffrage was the most sacred of all political rights, and should be most carefully guarded—if a juryman required to be free from all abuses, and to act without favour, fear, or affection—the same thing was requisite in the case of the voter, and the ballot was the surest safeguard of public liberty. The plan recommended by the Committee was this: That the Government should provide adhesive envelopes of a certain form for all the electors; that those envelopes should be given to the electors on application at the proper offices; that the voter, after writing or taking a printed ticket, with the names of the can- didates for whom he wished to vote, should place it in the envelope, seal the envelope, and deposit the envelope in the box in the presence of officers appointed for the purpose. Now, this was a perfect security for secrecy, if the voter wished to be secret, and it was at the same time a perfect security against fraud. All the officers had to do was to see that the voter placed one envelope in the ballot box. If he deposited more than one, or if there were any attempt at fraud, it would be discovered when the votes were counted, and that vote would be cancelled. No one need be under the apprehension that such a system would not be effectual; and he admitted that in this country it would be absolutely necessary to take precautions. It was formerly a part of the law of Massachusetts that the electors should deposit their votes openly. The consequence was, that any one who liked could see for whom parties voted, and could tell how the poll was going on. It was found, too, that under that system, many parties were able to coerce their servants, or others who were dependent upon them; and no doubt that would be the case in this country if the same mode of voting were adopted. In fact, he held in his hand a proof furnished by a distinguished statesman of the present day, who held a most important post, that the landlords of this country were not very scrupulous about exercising their power, and they could do so in spite of the ballot unless care were taken to render it effectual, He would read an extract from a speech delivered by the Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, in that House, on the 2nd of June, 1835, showing what was the idea of a landlord in this country as to the right to coerce his tenant. Lord Stanley said—

"If we had the ballot, I would say, as an English landlord, I would not only see whether the elector dependent on me voted, but I would see him put the ticket into the balloting urn. I do not mean to say that this would be a desirable course of proceeding, or a course which ought to be adopted by landlords, unless forced to it by expediency; but I, as a landlord, should be driven to that expediency, if the ballot were employed, in order to satisfy myself."—[3 Hansard, xxviii. 458.]

Now he (Mr. Cobden) must say that he thought a more unabashed act of despotism than that—a more scandalous outrage on the rights of citizens, there could not be. That a landlord, forsooth, because he inherited certain acres upon which men of skill and intelligence were employed in producing what was essential to human existence—that he should coerce these men, probably as intelligent as himself, as honest as himself, as competent as himself to exercise the suffrage, appeared to him most extraordinary; and yet, in spite of this declaration, the Earl of Derby was at that moment at the head of the farmer's friends. The system adopted in Massachusetts would, however, protect the farmers from the prying eyes of the Earl of Derby or any other landlord. He must say that he had seen other sentiments of the Earl of Derby which in themselves would justify the adoption of the ballot. On another occasion the noble Lord distinctly told them that he considered the tenantry to be the political capital of the landlord. [Cheers.] Yes, he begged hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to this, and let them answer it if they could. It was the business of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer it, for the sake of the character of his leader. On the 22nd of February, 1841, Lord Stanley, speaking on the Parliamentary Voters Bill, said—

"It is a matter of pride and satisfaction to the landlords of England that their tenants usually feel a desire to comply with the landlords' wishes. I neither seek to deny nor to apologise for it, while I condemn the exorbitant or undue exercise of the power; for if it were pushed to the extreme, it is known that when any man attempted to estimate the probable result of a county election, it is ascertained by calculating the number of large landed proprietors in the county, and weighing the number of occupiers under them."—[3 Hansard, lvi. 806.]

Well, but did the House think it right that a body of men, numbering upwards of 100,000, and carrying on the operations of farming, should be altogether deprived of their political rights, and that in making them electors, the Legislature should, in fact, be giving a bundle of faggot votes to the landlords? If any hon. Gentlemen opposite had any faith in the farmers, they ought to be the first to protect them against such compulsion. Now, he would tell the House candidly that he did not think they would find a body of electors in this country who would be willing to subject themselves to the humiliating farce, fraud, and deception of being supposed to possess political power, while, in fact, they were not free to exercise it. If the farmers were so lost to all sense of British pride that they would consent to occupy that position, he would tell them candidly that the operatives of this country would not do so. He was now going to mention a fact, which was, he thought, as honourable to the operatives of this country as anything he had ever heard. 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 5l. 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—[Cheers from the Ministerial benches]—well, nothing puzzled him so much sometimes as to understand what was the triumph which hon. Gentlemen opposite obtained when they cheered so much—he thought these parties were quite right, and for this reason, that 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 mill-owners, 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 chimnies, and allot the votes to the owners, as was done by the Earl of Derby in the case of land. There were employed in these manufactories men off all descriptions of opinions, both political and religious. A candidate comes forward who has been an advocate of the Bill against Papal aggression, who denounces the Maynooth grant, and stands upon the No-Popery cry. Well, there are some honest Roman Catholics working in a mill belonging to an anti-Popery gentleman—he insists that all his men shall vote for the No-Popery candidate—the man then risks the loss of his employment, and the bread of his children, unless he violates the dearest rights of his conscience. Another man may be one of that numerous and respectable body in Lancashire and I Yorkshire, the teetotallers. There may be some of these men working in a mill of a man who has no objection to gin, and who is supporting a candidate who deluges the borough with drink, and who insists upon his workpeople supporting a man whom they believe to be demoralising the community, and outraging what they consider to be the best interests and rights of their fellow-workmen. They say, "Before we will be subject to coercion like that, we will refuse to have a vote;" and I honour them for it. And this is a difficulty that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) will encounter, not merely in Stockport, but there will be the same in Blackburn, in Halifax, Huddersfield, Bolton, and Wigan, and all towns of that description. It will not be experienced so much in Manchester or Leeds, because there you have a large middle class of shopkeepers, and there is a mercantile community. But in the description of manufacturing towns to which I have referred, to give the franchise without giving the ballot would be an unmitigated curse to a part of the population. And as at present advised, looking to that view of the question, he would vote against any extension of the franchise, such as had been proposed, unless he thought it was certain to lead to the ballot. Let not hon. Gentlemen opposite commit themselves on this question. They were now going through that terrible process of acting against all they had been saying and voting for years, as recorded in Hansard against them. For two months they had now been compelled to act in opposition to all they had been saying on the question of protection during their lifetime; and within a few months more they would be obliged to renounce as heretical what they had hitherto held as a prime article of their political creed. Argument had already decided this question: let the Government not commit themselves against it. The moral aspect of the question would carry it; and then they would be in the same dilemma as they were now with regard to protection. Let them only wait till the general election, if they dared dissolve on the bread question, but he strongly suspected they were trying to shuffle out of it. He would not believe that they would dissolve Parliament on the bread question till he saw the writs issued; and he understood something had been said in the other House that night, showing that they had not got to the end of their evasions and trickery yet. But he hoped there was spirit enough in that House—if not, he was sure there was in the country—to bring them to book on that question. What awaited them? Suppose they were to dissolve on this most exciting question—this question of the cupboard, the bread-basket, the sugar-basin—there would be no tumult in Manchester, or Glasgow, or Birmingham, or the West Riding of Yorkshire, with its 1,200,000 inhabitants, and its 800,000 of rural population. ["Hear, hear!"] For the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the House a few days ago that he represented 800,000 of the rural population. But in those points where the two opinions came into collision, there would be such scenes as had never taken place at any former election. The result would be, they should come up to Parliament with a certain prospect of a short-lived Parliament; and immediately on their assembling, that would take place which had been pointed out by Mr. Grote as always occurring after an election—there would be thousands of petitions for the ballot, whilst the wounds were green, and the sufferings of the people were fresh in their memory. The whole reform party would throw itself on this question; they would never leave it; and no Government would be able to carry on that did not adopt that proposition. Let hon. Members, therefore, not put themselves in a false position. He would advise them not to do it, especially the young men. Old men only changed upon compulsion; but he entreated hon. Gentlemen, if they could not give an honest vote on this occasion, to avoid voting at all. This would soon be like the protection question, one on which there would be very little difference of opinion.

said, he would only detain the House a short time. The hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. B. Cochrane) had referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, in which he had referred to what had occurred in New York between two representatives at Washington. The hon. Gentleman did not see he was playing with edge tools. There were a great many points in that hon. Gentleman's speech which ought to be set right, if the House would allow him only five minutes more. He represented a constituency which sighed—which longed for the ballot. And, therefore, in fairness, the House ought to give him a few minutes. He would remind the hon. Member for Bridport, who had east reflections on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), that "they should not throw stones who lived in glass houses." If he was not misinformed, that hon. Gentleman had on one occasion advocated the ballot on the hustings.

Sir, the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), in arguing this question with his usual ability, has rested his support of the ballot on two grounds. The hon. Member did not condescend to discuss the question in its political bearings, but invited us to look at it in its moral aspect; and, viewing in it that light, he contended that the introduction of the ballot would prevent certain evils, and elevate and improve the moral condition of the people. Now, I think, Sir, I shall he able to show that the ballot, instead of preventing the evils to which the hon. Member has referred, might possibly leave them as they are, but would more probably augment them; and that, instead of advancing morality, it would be very detrimental to it. Before entering upon this part of the subject I will take the liberty of referring to two observations which fell from the hon. Member in the course of his speech. The hon. Member declared that the extension of the franchise, for which he is so anxious, would be an unmitigated evil, unless it were accompanied by the ballot. I trust the Members of this House will bear this declaration in mind when they come to give their votes upon the next question which will be submitted to their consideration. It is for leave to bring in a Bill "to make the franchise and procedure at elections in the counties in England and Wales the same as in the boroughs, by giving the right of voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value of 10l." Seeing, then, that in the opinion of the hon. Member the extension of the franchise without the ballot would be an unmitigated evil, if the House, as I trust it will, should reject the present Motion, I think I am entitled to claim the vote of the hon. Member against the Motion of his hon. Friend which follows. The other passage of the hon. Member's speech to which I am about to refer, I cannot pass over so lightly, and indeed he must permit me to say that it was not worthy of him, because it was not an accurate representation of the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The words which the hon. Member used were very remarkable; he said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made use of the expression, that the landlords of England looked on their tenantry as political cattle. [Mr. COBDEN: No, I did not.] I believe I am not misstating what the hon. Member said. [Mr. COBDEN: I read a quotation from the Earl of Derby's speech.] I believe the words which the hon. Member attributed to the Earl of Derby were, that the tenants of England were the political cattle of their landlords.

I did not say so. The right hon. Gentleman is only wasting his own time and ours in arguing on an unfounded hypothesis. I quoted the Earl of Derby's words from Hansard, and I said, after some other remarks interspersed, that he claimed the tenants as his political capital.

I should be very sorry to misrepresent the hon. Member. [Mr. COBDEN: "Capital" is an American phrase.] The hon. Member shall not put me out by these interruptions. That the hon. Member used the words I have stated, and in the manner I have stated, I firmly believe, because they were taken down at the time. If not, let him retract them. The hon. Member unquestionably went on to quote the exact language used by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but does that language contain the expression attributed to the noble Lord by the hon. Member? On the contrary, it pointed to this, that the occupying tenantry of counties and the landlords of counties entertained feelings of mutual regard and goodwill towards each other, and in that way landlords exercised influence over their tenants. That was the effect of the passage quoted by the hon. Member, and it contained nothing to justify him in asserting that the Earl of Derby said, or ever intended to say, that the farmers of England were the political capital of their landlords. Having corrected what I think an unfortunate misrepresentation, I will now advert to the two principal arguments of the hon. Member in favour of the proposition before the House. The hon. Member said that the ballot would prevent bribery, and also the influence exercised by employers over the employed, and landlords over tenants. I deny in toto that the ballot would have those effects, and for these reasons: In the first place, it is admitted that the ballot can only produce these results by means of absolute secrecy. Now, when hon. Members assimilate the ballot used in political elections with the ballot used in private clubs, they forget that in the one case the voters having personal considerations to deal with, conceal the manner in which they vote, while, in the other case, that of the political election, men's political opinions are usually well known, and it would be impossible therefore that the requisite secrecy could be observed. That, I think, is a complete answer to the statement, that undue influence would be prevented by the use of the ballot. We all know that much canvassing takes place before an election as to this or that person's political opinions. The feelings and intentions of voters would be collected at public-houses, clubs, and other associations. It is said that if a shopkeeper does not vote as his customers wish him, he is deprived of their custom, and that if a farmer votes against the desire of his landlord, he is ejected from his farm; but introduce the ballot, and the only difference would be, that, instead of these things taking place in consequence of what is known, they will take place on suspicion. Again, it is said that the ballot will prevent bribery. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night of the working of the ballot in New York, is, to my mind a conclusive answer to that assertion. [An Hon. MEMBER: No!] The hon. Member who says "No" could not have been in the House when the hon. Mover, in his able and temperate speech, read a letter from an American gentleman, which began by admitting that the observations of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer were substantially correct.

The statement of facts, not the inferences drawn from them.

The hon. Member's American correspondent admits the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of facts to be correct, but denies his inference. Then I put aside the inference drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as that drawn by the American, and I leave the House of Commons to draw its own inference from the statement of facts admitted to be correct. The New York case appears to me a complete answer to the assumption that the ballot would prevent bribery. Then, if it will not prevent bribery, I ask those who maintain that inviolable secrecy can be maintained under the system, how can bribery be punished—how can it be detected? Suppose an election to run very close, and to be determined by one or two votes, if corruption be practised ever so extensively on this occasion, how will you be able to detect and punish it if votes be taken by means of the ballot? Look at the elections recently in France under the ballot, where so many votes were enumerated—more than could actually be given—that it was wittily remarked by an able writer in this country—that that was the first practical illustration of two negatives making an affirmative. Supposing the ballot were introduced, how could you obtain proof of frauds committed, and how could you do justice to the party who ought to be the representative, should the election run close, and should votes have been given fraudulently against him? But I own that there is another reason, in a moral aspect, which makes me more anxious to resist the introduction of the ballot. Now, I broadly contend that in this country, whenever a person is empowered to exercise any trust whatever, he ought to exercise it under the influence and control of public opinion. There is no reason why the voter should be more irresponsible than the representative to that high tribunal. Nay, more, the regresentative has as much right to ask what are the opinions of the constituents he represents as the constituents have the right to ask in what way the representative exercises his duty within these walls in pursuance of the choice those constituents have made. I think, too, that the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. B. Cochrane), quoting the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), are not entirely to be forgotten; and, though those observations are somewhat stronger than any I am inclined to use-though I should not be tempted to state that everybody must be a scoundrel and hypocrite when he exercises the franchise by the ballot, yet I say that this practice may have, in a moral aspect, a material influence on the character of the people, for the opportunity of concealment will give the opportunity for fraud, and for the indulgence of malicious and revengeful feelings, which could not be attended with advantage to the country. Hon. Gentlemen who were in this House at a former period, when great debates took place on this subject, may recollect the pointed quotation made by the late Sir Robert Peel, when he adverted to the effect of the ballot on the people of Rome. He quoted that admirable passage from Pliny descriptive of the Roman voter, who had lost all sense of dignity and all consciousness of right or wrong when exercising the franchise contrary to the pledge he had given or intimated:—Tabellas poposcit, stilum, ac-cepit, fidem abjecit, caput demisit, neminem veretur, se contemnit. In a moral aspect, I maintain that the ballot would be found seriously detrimental to the character of the people of this country; and my firm belief is that, though by the introduction of the ballot you may by possibility prevent some undue influence of bad over good, yet you will not allow that legitimate influence to have the operation which it ought always to have—the influence of good over bad.

thought it was high time that our representative system ought to be placed upon a more just basis, in order that the democracy might be relieved from the burthens imposed upon them by the aristocracy. Hon. Gentleman spoke of that House being the representative of the people of England, but it was no such thing; it was merely a representative of the landowners, landlords, millowners, and rich men, who did not represent the people. Whenever a man went to the hustings to give his vote, he felt what a gross deception he was obliged to endure; he knew that he could not freely exercise the franchise; he was compelled to vote for red or white as some rich man might dictate. In times past he (Lord D. Stuart) was opposed to the ballot, and, in fact, had voted against it in that House. That was immediately after the Reform Bill. He thought it only just that that Bill should be fairly tried before they decided on the introduction of the ballot system of voting. At that time (1833–34) an address was submitted to those whom he had the honour to represent, advocating in the strongest terms the necessity for an immediate enactment of the ballot and triennial Parliaments, and to that address was appended the name of Benjamin Disraeli. It was of course quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to change his opinions, as indeed he (Lord D. Stuart) had himself done upon this subject, but they had come to very opposite conclusions upon the question. Probably at that time the right hon. Gentleman was sowing his wild oats, a species of grain which he (Lord D. Stuart) supposed was to pay no duty. Now, after a long experience of the workings of the Reform Bill, he (Lord D. Stuart) found that bribery and intimidation still prevailed at the elections in this country. Some remedy, therefore, ought to be proposed. He believed the ballot would be found to be such. It was said that bribery and corruption could not be prevented by the ballot. Most likely not; but if it would go a great way in that direction, it would prove to be as efficacious as some of our laws against burglary or other crimes. If the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were good for anything, we should be acting wisely if we discharged our police force, because they did not succeed in effectually removing robbery and other crime. Was it not worth while to try to check or mitigate the evils of bribery, corruption, and intimidation? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night that an extension of education was the most effectual way to prevent bribery and corruption at elections; but he (Lord D. Stuart) might make the same objection to that plan which the right hon. Gentleman did to that of the ballot, namely, that it could not effectually, although it might in great measure, remove the evils complained of. If the ballot were adopted, he believed it would tend to elevate the community more than any other measure which could be adopted. There could be no doubt but that the ballot was now the favourite question of the people; and the settled and determined demand of the nation must, in a free country like this, be complied with. He believed the ballot was founded upon truth and justice, and felt satisfied that, so far from promoting demoralisation, it would promote morality among the upper as well as among the lower classes. He would sit down, expressing a sentiment which had been enunciated by the noble Earl at the head of the Government on a former occasion:—

"God forbid (said the noble Earl) I should not have sufficient trust in the wisdom of the country, judging not from the mob, but from the opinion of the nation, to prevent me from repairing our institutions, and declaring against the necessity of a change which few men deny—from complying with the demands of the people—which there was danger in delaying compliance with, and which must finally succeed."