said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to the proceedings of the National Board of Education in Ireland; and in order that the question might be fully understood, he begged to call attention to the eighth rule established by the Commissioners:—

"The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture Lessons, Lessons on the Truth of Christianity, or book of Sacred Poetry, being read in any of the National schools; nor do they allow them to be read during the time of secular or literary instruction in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to their being so read. In such case the Commissioners prohibit the use of them, except at the times of religious instruction, when the persons giving it may use these books or not as they think proper."

Hitherto, the construction put upon the rule was this—that the parent of any child might object to his being taught a particular book which was sanctioned by the Commissioners of National Education; but it was not the practice that the objection of the parent of a single child should amount to an objection to that book being taught to other children in the schools. It was now reported, and apparently on authority, that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had come to two resolutions, whether formally or not he could not say; the one was that Archbishop Whately 's Evidences of Christianity should be expunged from the list of books taught in the National Schools in Ireland; and the other was, that if any child's parent objected to the use of any single book, that objection was a sufficient reason for excluding that book, not from that child only, but from the whole school. Without wishing to give any opinion on the subject, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have rejected or expunged from the lists of books to be used in the national schools, the Evidences of Christianity, by the Archbishop of Dublin; whether they have determined that if any child's parent should object to the use of any single book, it is a sufficient reason for excluding such book, not from that child only, but from the whole school?

said, he was obliged to confess that it was extremely difficult to give anything like an explicit answer to the questions just put to him by the right hon. Gentleman, at that moment, He believed, however, that the practice obtaining had been pretty much in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman had stated; and he thought that there would be a general uniformity of opinion as to the importance of the subject brought under the notice of the House. No doubt it would be very unfortunate indeed if it were found that any portion of the Commissioners' arrangements, which had been organised with a view to the promotion of a united system of education, had been so disturbed as to impede that unity of action which was so desirable. The House must, however, recollect the basis upon which this system was built. When the Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, established it, it was intended that it should afford the means of a combined literary, but separate religious, instruction for the people of Ireland. So early as the year 1842, the resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted was established. In answer, however, to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, he was enabled to inform the House, that though no formal decision had been as yet come to by the Commissioners, means had been taken to ascertain the deliberate opinion of the various members of the Board upon the point at issue. The rule, then, upon which the Commissioners acted was this: they did not insist upon the Scriptural lessons being read in any National school, nor did they allow them to be read during the hours of secular instruction in any school where the parents or guardians objected to their being read; and in such cases the Commissioners prohibited their use, except at the times of religious instruction, when persons giving the instruction might use them or not, as they thought proper. He (Sir J. Young) would not offer any opinion upon the merits of that rule, though of course every hon. Gentleman was allowed to draw his own conclusions from it. Nor would he say whether, if the parents or guardians of a single child objected to any particular book, that according to the proper interpretation of the rule, the book in question ought to be wholly excluded from the school. At any rate the rule was not a new one; but it was proposed to alter it, and that the child should not have the power of relegating such book to the hours of separate religious instruction. A resolution to that effect was moved, and he (Sir J. Young) believed it would have been assented to by a majority of the Board, provided only the lessons taken from the Evidences of Christianity were omitted from the list. Now, with reference to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, as to whether the Evidences of Christianity, by Archbishop Whately, had been expunged, he might say that the Roman Catholics, and many others, had taken objection to that work on the ground of its character being polemical; and on that account he hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who were prepared to give an opinion upon this question would not come forward without having first read the book. On the work he would not pronounce any opinion; but though it was a very short one, barely containing 140 small pages, he did not believe that any one could read it without pleasure, or without being struck at the admirable condensation of Scriptural knowledge and logical acumen which it presented. On the main question, however, he was not prepared to give any decided opinion until the Commissioners had placed before the public their decision. Still it should not be supposed that any very great alteration would be made, even if the book were withdrawn from the Commissioners' list. For he saw, from a report which had been published of the various works supplied by the Board's contractor, an estimate of the number of copies required for a single year of each book. Thus he found, that of the First Book of Lessons, 260,000 were required; of the next 152,000; of the third, 76,000; of the fourth, 41,500, and so on; while, when he came to this book, Easy Lessons upon Christianity, he saw that only 1,200 numbers were called for, that was, about one of those books to every four schools.

said, the first question had been answered in this way—though not formally—the Evidences of Christianity are expunged. He wished to have a distinct answer to the second question—if the parent of a child object to a single book being used in a National school, is it a sufficient reason to exclude that book, not merely from the instruction of that child, but from general use in the schools?

said, the practice would appear to have been, if an objection were made on the part of the parent of a single child, the reading of the book objected to was relegated to the hours of separate religious instruction in the way he had described.

said, that before proposing that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill should be postponed, he begged to make a statement in reference to an alteration which he proposed to make in the Bill. He was in great hopes that the question had reached the point at which they might hope for a settlement that would be satisfactory to all parties. Communications had been made to him on the part of gentlemen who had hitherto opposed the views he had taken on the subject of the University tests, for the purpose of seeing whether, in the present state of public feeling, and after the amount of discussion the question had undergone, they might not find some middle arrangement in which they could agree. The present test excluded every person who did not profess the faith that had been established in Scotland, and conform to the worship of the Established Church in that country; and the Bill which he introduced, while it did away with that test, provided a declaration by which every professor on his admission was to declare that he would not exercise the functions of his office to subvert or prejudice the Church of Scotland as by law established. Two views were taken of this proposition. On the one hand, some hon. friends of his thought that such a declaration was almost as bad as a test; but he owned that he had no sympathy for that opinion, because he could not see it was imposing on any party anything of which he could complain to require of him not to do that which, as an honest man, he was bound not to do. It was suggested, on the other hand, to propose a test that would exclude parties professing certain religious opinions; to that proposition, however, he could not agree. As regarded the declaration made by the professor, he had always held it open to insert in that declaration anything which only implied a course of action right in itself, and did not imply a statement of belief. Accordingly, he now proposed, and, he believed, it would be agreeable to a very large portion of the representatives of Scotland, to vary the declaration in the Bill in these terms:—

"I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely declare, that as professor of—, and in discharge of the duties of the said office, I will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures or the Westminster Confession of Faith, ratified by law in the year 1690, and that I will never exercise the functions of the said office to subvert or prejudice the Church of Scotland as by law established, or the doctrines or privileges thereof."

He also proposed to introduce into the Bill a provision, under which, if a professor should wilfully violate that declaration, a complaint might be made to the Lord Advocate, and, upon a representation being made by the Lord Advocate to Her Majesty in Council, a Commission might be issued to inquire into the complaint, and, if it were well founded, such measures should be taken for the dismissal of the professor as might be deemed necessary. He was anxious to make this statement, not for the purpose of raising a discussion at present, but in order, if the Bill should not come on in the course of the day, the House and the public should be aware of the course he intended to follow.

Do I understand that this question is considered to be decided by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend?

If the other Order of the Day is finished in time, I will move the second reading to-day.

said, he wished to move an Amendment extending the jurisdiction of the Court from 12l. to 25l.; and as he had understood the chief objection against the extension to be, that it was considered hard to compel a man to go into Court to dispute so large a sum without allowing him any legal advice, he would also, if his Amendment was agreed to, move to add, at the end of the clause the words—

"Provided always that the parties, or any of them, shall be entitled to appear and plead by a procurator of court; but no such procurator shall be entitled to have or recover any sum of money for so appearing and pleading for any party unless the debt or damage claimed shall be more than 8l. 6s. 8d.

said, he considered that the principles of this Bill had already been sufficiently discussed, and he must take the liberty of saying that this was the first time within the memory of the present Parliament that a Bill relating to Scotland, after having passed through the ordeal of a Select Committee, in which the clauses were gone over and agreed to without division, had again to be discussed clause by clause in a Committee of the whole House. The House would be aware that a Select Committee, having the advantage of the best assistance which could be procured, would be more competent to consider the clauses of this Bill, than a Committee of the whole House. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the Committee were not in a position to judge of this matter—[Mr. CRAUFURD: Hear, hear!]—but, he would say it with great respect, he thought that was because he had himself not served on it. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that everything belonging to the County Court system was good. Now, he must say that he considered the system as yet to be in a very crude state; but the present measure was not a measure for extending the County Court system to Scotland; it was a measure for the improvement of the Sheriff Courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Judge must decide the case upon the spot, whether he had materials for his decision or not; while his (the Lord Advocate's) Bill declared, that if the Judge wanted further materials to enable him to come to a decision, he was to have the opportunity of procuring them. He considered this one of the most essential parts of the Bill. If the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were carried, it would be useless for him (the Lord Advocate) to attempt any longer to reform the Sheriff Courts in Scotland, and it would be almost unnecessary for him to proceed further with the Bill, which he believed, as it stood, would be a great boon to the people of Scotland.

said, that in accordance with the profession he had made upon the hustings, he was an earnest advocate of law reform, and it was as an earnest advocate of law reform that he supported the Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate). He believed the reform proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to be inexpedient and unsafe, and he should therefore give his support to the clause as it stood in the Bill.

said, it was unfortunate for the people of Scotland to have a Lord Advocate whose views on law reform seemed to be so limited as those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the Committee there were eleven hon. Members against four—eleven pledged to refuse discussion on the point upon which the people of Scotland looked with more interest than upon any other—and that was, whether the sinecure sheriffs should continue or not. Some of his hon. Friends had declined to serve in consequence of the constitution of the Committee; but he had attended it with the view of effecting what improvements he could. He had moved in the Committee the following Resolution:—

"That, inasmuch as no reform of the Sheriff Courts can be satisfactory to the people of Scotland which does not abolish the office of Sheriff Depute, and so do away with the system of double sheriff, it is the opinion of this Committee that application should be made to the House for leave to take evidence, and to send for persons, papers, and records with reference to that question."

The division upon this was three to five—two voting with him in favour of the Resolution, and five against it. There were four other divisions in the Committee on different points, all showing the animus of the Committee, which was, therefore, far from having been unanimous. Parliament had abolished sinecures of all kinds, except the office of sheriff-depute in Scotland, and that ought in its turn, assuredly ought, to be abolished. He was certain that a measure might be introduced on this subject much better than that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. He would not attempt to deny that, to a certain extent, it did effect an improvement, but not the improvement they ought to have had; and persons who were capable of giving information on this subject rather wished to take evidence, and not to begin to legislate this year. This Bill did not, he thought, do the Lord Advocate any credit as a law reformer, and he regretted the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have proposed a measure which the mass of the people in Scotland disapproved of.

said, he could not think that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had really addressed himself to the only point now under discussion, which was whether the words "twelve pounds" should be struck out of the Bill, and the words "twenty-five pounds" inserted. That involved the question of the extension of the summary jurisdiction in Scotland. Now, having attended the meetings of the Committee, and having taken some interest in this subject, he thought that, upon the whole, this Bill was really a great improvement in the law of Scotland, and he was quite prepared to support the measure as it stood. Though there were a variety of Amendments, of which notice had been given in the Votes of the day, not one referred to the points upon which the Committee decided in the four or five divisions which took place; and he thought he might assume from this that there was a general acquiescence in the opinions of the Committee on the points which had been mooted during their meetings. The Committee went through clause after clause, entertaining the objections made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd), and they had taken great pains to make the Bill a good one. Hon. Members would bear in mind that the jurisdiction exercised under this Bill divided itself into three heads—cases in which the amount in dispute was above 251.; cases in which it was between 251. and 121.; and cases in which it was between 1L. and 121. The principle of the Bill with reference to this was, that where the sum exceeded 251., there might be an appeal to the Court of Session; where it was between 121. and 251., it was to be argued by advocates before the Sheriff Substitute, and might be taken by petition to the Sheriff Principal; where it was under 121. there were to be no procurators, as they were called in Scotland, to appear before the Sheriff Substitute. In a system characterised by the most perfect administration of justice, there ought, as a general principle, to be always an appeal from the Judge in the first instance. The limit to the adoption of that principle in the Bill was this—that where the amount involved was so small as not to suffice to pay the costs attending the first hearing and the appeal, there you must dispense with that appeal. This sum was fixed in the Bill at 121.; and he believed that this was, upon the whole, as good a limit as could be fixed upon. As a matter of experience, it was generally conceded that this principle had worked well in Scotland, and, as in cases where the amount was under 81. 6s. 8d., the principle had been successfully tried, he thought it might with safety and prudence he extended to cases involving 121.; hut it ought not to be extended beyond that sum. The effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Craufurd's) Amendment was, that the Sheriff Substitute was to exercise jurisdiction in a summary manner in cases up to 251., and to exclude advocates, except in special cases, from arguing the question before him. The want of appeal was one great fault in the County Court system in this country, and he should be sorry to see the power of appeal restricted in Scotland. Seeing that the Small Debt Court jurisdiction had worked well there—seeing that this Bill extended the principle of summary jurisdiction to a point to which they could prudently and safely carry it, he hoped the people of Scotland would feel that they had got in this measure a cheap and speedy jurisdiction, which would not be much more expensive than in the County Courts in England. He considered that the way in which the Lord Advocate had settled the Bill was one calculated to administer justice as cheaply and expeditiously as it could be administered consistently with the maintenance of a uniform system of laws throughout the country, which, to his mind, was even of more value than a cheap and speedy administration of justice.

said, he was one of those who had voted for the hearing of further evidence before the Committee, and he regretted that that course had not been taken, believing that it would have been more satisfactory to the people of Scotland. As, however, the Committee had reported, he considered himself bound by the labours of that Committee, and he felt great difficulty in making any attempt to disturb the arrangement to which they had come. The effect of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) was, that in place of extending the summary jurisdiction to 121., he would extend it to 251. He confessed that he should hesitate to adopt this plan, because he had heard from those well acquainted with the proceedings of this Court, that, in its present condition, the summary jurisdiction of the Court was anything but satisfactory. He quite agreed in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) as to the want of appeal in the County Courts in this country: and, as the effect of this Amendment would be to ex- tend the system of summary jurisdiction without appeal, he felt that he could not consistently support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.

trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) would not divide upon the Amendment he had submitted to the Committee. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken, with respect to the want of appeals as affecting the County Courts, which was a defect in the present system. Taking the Bill as it stood, and believing it to be an immense improvement upon the present state of the law, he trusted the Committee would pass the clause without going to a division. He must protest, however, against the limitation in the amount of salaries paid to the Sheriffs, which he considered was not worthy of this country, or of the duties required of men who must have received the best legal education in order to make them capable of filling the situations to which they were appointed.

said, it was his intention to vote against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had made an unmerited attack upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, whom he believed to be most sincere in his wish to introduce a measure of ample reform.

begged to express the great obligations under which the Scotch Members lay to the right hon. Member (Mr. Walpole) for his attendance upon the Committee, and the attention he had given to this subject. It would, however, be an injustice to the Lord Advocate not to state that, although the Bill contained many features to which he felt a strong objection, yet that he viewed the Bill as a great improvement upon the present law.

said, he could not feel justified in departing from the decision of the Select Committee.

said, he placed too high an estimate upon the right of appeal to accept the Amendment, and thereby limit its application as regarded Scotland. He thought the people of Scotland were under very great obligations to the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, the Lord Advocate, and he hoped the Committee would receive the Bill in its entirety.

said, he must confess, notwithstanding what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that the Bill had come out of the Select Committee greatly improved, and that it effected a considerable improvement in the present state of the law.

said, he was bound to give the flattest contradiction to the statement that this Bill had been referred to a packed Committee. The Committee considered that the question of the double sheriffs had already been decided by that House, and that it was unnecessary to take evidence upon that point. They then determined to go through the Bill clause by clause, and to take evidence upon any clause upon which further information seemed desirable. After having made considerable progress with the Bill, it seemed unnecessary to take any evidence, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) himself acquiesced in that opinion. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that he (the Lord Advocate) would not earn the character of a legal reformer by this Bill. He intended to do his duty to the best of his ability, and that was all that any one need be very anxious about. That duty he should continue to perform by refusing to yield to what he knew to be an ignorant, although it might be a popular, clamour.

said, it was his intention to move an Amendment to the effect that no such retiring allowance should be granted to the sheriff depute, inasmuch as he was in many cases a practising barrister.

said, he thought it was eminently for the advantage of the country that gentlemen holding the office in question, many of whom had attained an advanced period of life, should have a fair retiring allowance after a full period of service, more especially as on being appointed to the office, they generally ceased from practising as advocates. He would therefore cordially support the clause as it stood.

said, he was of opinion that the clause in effect gave a man 500l a year only because he was a bad barrister.

said, he thought it would be the most impolitic thing in the world to exclude a sheriff-depute from a retiring allowance.

said, he should not detain the House very long whilst he introduced a subject which he believed would be found of a simple and practical nature, and to which he thought no objection would be made. He proposed to ask leave to bring in

"A Bill to provide that whenever a Commission to inquire into the corrupt praetices at any election for any county, division of a county, city, borough, university, or place, in the United Kingdom, shall have issued, under the provisions of the Act of the 15th & 16th years of Her present Majesty, the votes at the two elections next subsequent thereupon in any such place shall be taken by ballot."

He made this proposal upon general and special grounds. No one who had paid attention to the subject could fail to have observed the singular course which the question of the ballot had taken since the Reform Bill. Every one hoped that when that Bill became law, it would have the effect of enabling those inhabitants of the country who were endowed with the electoral franchise to give their votes fairly and freely; but it was soon found that it did not put a stop to intimidation, bribery, and other corrupt practices; and the opinion began to spread that the ballot would be the only remedy. Mr. Grote, therefore, introduced the question of the ballot at an early period, and in the year 1835 it was discussed. In 1838 the great debate took place to which all subsequent debates upon the subject referred; and in 1839 it might be said that the ballot had reached its culminating point, for upon the division there were nearly 550 Members in the House. On that occasion 333 voted against the ballot, and 216 for it. But from that time the interest felt on the subject appeared somewhat to decline; and between 1842 and 1847 it seemed almost to fail. In 1839 Sir Robert Peel introduced the Bill which modified the formation of Election Committees, that being one of the measures by which it was hoped purity might have a fair trial. The ballot, therefore, was not so strongly pressed whilst that measure was in course of trial. But in the last Parliament a triumph was to a certain extent obtained; and a warning was then given which it was thought both candidates and constituencies would accept How that warning had operated was proved by the results of the last election. At that election the contest was carried on under the exciting circumstances of a stronger party struggle than we had seen for many years. All the means and resources which strong party feelings could adopt were brought into action; and in the petitions that arose out of it there were allegations of all sorts of corruption, bribery, and intimidation. The result, however, proved that bribery had not prevailed to the extent that was supposed; but upwards of thirty members altogether were unseated for bribery and corruption—fourteen on one side, and twenty upon the other—thus showing that the means hitherto taken to repress such practices had not been productive of much effect. Under such circumstances the House need not be surprised at finding that, after 225 contested elections, upwards of 100 petitions followed; and that the hopes of the friends of the ballot should revive. The division in 1852 showed that there were 246 Members against the ballot, and 144 for it; but in 1853 there were only 232 against it, whilst 172 voted for it, showing an increase in the number of the supporters of the question, and a diminution in the number of those who opposed it. The last division, indeed, proved that the strength of the question in the House was nearly as great as it was in 1839; and, looking at the constituencies of the 172 Members who gave their votes in favour of the ballot this year, it would be found that they expressed the sentiments of upwards of 500,000 electors—the constituency of the whole country being about 1,100,000; while of the 232 Members who voted the other way. there were not above fifty or sixty who sat upon his (the Government) side of the House, and more than 113 were county Members, who could hardly be good judges upon such a question. Finding that there was such a large number of Members in that House ready to support the application of the ballot, and seeing that a considerable number did not present themselves at the division, knowing probably that their constituents were not unfavourable to the measure, he had thought it right to give an opportunity to hon. Members who might be doubtful as to its application generally, to try the experiment upon a scale which would afford a favourable means of testing its merits. There was another reason why such an experiment should be tried at this time. It was expected that a great measure of electoral reform was intended to be proposed to that House, if not next year, certainly the year after. Such a measure must come sooner or later; and, come sooner or come later, it was quite clear that, whether it was an extension of the franchise alone, or a modification of the constituency, the result must give a great accession of strength to the friends of the ballot. He, therefore, thought it would be a wise step to prepare for this change, and to withdraw the ballot from the domain of mere abstract debates and reasonings, in order, if possible, to try it practically upon such a scale as would enable Parliament to judge of it by practical experiment. The Lords had not signified their assent to a Commission for Maldon; but he proposed it should be one of the boroughs in which the experiment should be tried. It contained 845 electors, and 5,888 inhabitants. Last night the Address was sanctioned by the House of Lords for Barnstaple and Tynemouth. Barnstaple had a constituency of 869 electors, and Tynemouth 1,169. For Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Cambridge, there were Commissions sitting. In Cambridge there were 1,984 electors, in Canterbury, 1,874, and in Kingston-upon-Hull upwards of 5,000. These constituencies were of a variable character, and afforded a fair opportunity of trying the experiment. The ballot applied to these towns, would prevent any small knot of voters in any of them from ruling over the other electors, and securing a return by union among themselves. But there were in these towns, also, a large proportion of electors who were not swayed by corrupt motives. These, the respectable portion of the constituencies, ought not to be overwhelmed and swamped by the corrupt bodies which still remained, supposing the franchise was not withdrawn from them. The proposed Bill would afford an opportunity of interposing between these classes; it would step in between the corrupt and the corrupters, and pre- vent the next return from remaining in the hands of a body which did not rightly value the nature of the franchise. He would now briefly indicate the provisions of the Bill he proposed to introduce. The returning officer might, from the notoriety of the Commission, easily take steps for taking the votes by way of the ballot. As to the mode of polling, he should be ready to accept suggestions; but he apprehended that the simplest plan would be that when the elector presented himself at the booth, he should be identified by an authorised clerk. Upon being identified, he should receive an authorised card, with the names of the candidates printed upon it, with distinguishing marks for those who were unable to read; and that then, instead of the clerk taking his name down in writing, there should be a sufficient screen or boarding to prevent overlooking, and the man should put the card folded up with the name of the candidate whom he preferred into the box. He did not suggest this as by any means a perfect scheme; it was only an experiment, and he only proposed to apply it to a few constituencies. He offered it, in fact, as a contribution on his part towards a settlement of the question which had hitherto been debated only upon abstract grounds. Such a measure, he believed, would enable the electors of the country to express an independent opinion; and, believing the House would regret if it let the present opportunity pass without taking a step of this nature, he asked leave to bring in the Bill, the provisions of which he had briefly explained.

said, that in the absence of other Members of the Government, whose attendance was required elsewhere, the duty had devolved upon him of asking the House not to consent to the introduction of this Bill. His noble Friend the Member for the City of London {Lord J. Russell) had spoken to him upon the subject of this measure; and he would endeavour to state one or two reasons which occurred to him as objections to the proposal, and which he hoped would pre- vail with the hon. Member so that he would not press this Motion. No discussion could have been more full and complete than that which the general question of the ballot, and its applicability to the election of Members of Parliament, had undergone in the present Session; it had been decided upon, and he (Mr. Peel) considered that it had been fairly disposed of for the remainder of the Session. But the hon. Gentleman brought it forward again with the view of obtaining a trial for the ballot in particular cases. A question, however, of such magnitude ought to be dealt with upon general grounds, and not treated in a partial and exceptional way. If the ballot was a sound measure, and was calculated really to suppress' the anomalies and corruptions of the electoral system, it ought to be applied universally. On the other hand, if it were possible that it might lead to injurious or doubtful consequences—if, as many persons believed, though it might check evils in one direction, it would produce greater evils in another—then he questioned the justice of applying it to a particular district for the purpose of teaching a lesson to other parts of the country. If a particular place or locality only was intended to be affected by a Parliamentary Act, the measure should be put in motion only at the suggestion of those who were interested; and he remembered a very fair proposition of that kind having been made. It was suggested that if the majority of any constituency requested that they might return their Members by way of the ballot, their request should be complied with. He gave no opinion upon such a proposition; but, in the present case, the hon. Gentleman proposed that, with or without the concurrence of the parties interested, they should be called upon to return their Members by way of ballot, although it might be their firm conviction that by such a mode public opinion could not obtain a fair representation. It appeared to him, therefore, that the House should not consent to the introduction of this Bill. It had, he thought, been admitted that the ballot would be inoperative to check bribery, though it might throw considerable obstructions in the way of intimidation. Where intimidation was rife, and parties were disposed to exercise undue influence, whether from property or numbers, it might fairly be contended that the ballot would prevent the repetition of those practices. But the hon. Gentleman did not propose to apply the ballot under this Bill to any such cases, but only where corrupt practices prevailed. This meant bribery. But it was admitted that the ballot would not check bribery. Under these circumstances, if the Bill became law, it would not be effectual, whilst it would be inconsistent with the measure to which the hon. Member proposed it as a supplement, namely, the Act under which Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the state of any particular borough. There might, if it became law, be an election going on in any place at the same time that the Commission was pursuing its investigation. So that there would be Commissioners, armed with extensive powers of inquiry, doing their best to throw light upon what had taken place at elections, whilst there was actually one proceeding at the same time, shrouded in all the mystery of secret voting. Such a result, he thought, would tend to paralyse the Commissioners' inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had not exactly described the plan under which he proposed the votes should be taken, but said he was open to suggestions. He should, however, have proposed some clear and tangible plan. There were many persons who did not object to the ballot on principle, but who had not made up their minds as to the mode in which the votes should be taken, that was, whether it should be compulsory or optional that they should be so taken. The hon. Gentleman had failed to enlighten the House upon these matters. For these reasons he (Mr. Pee!) must oppose the introduction of the Bill.

said, he greatly objected to have the ballot treated after the fashion proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He objected to such home opathic treatment—he objected to such infinitesimal doses. He should merely refer to one observation of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He could not permit the observation to pass that it had been ever admitted by any friend of the ballot that it was inoperative against bribery; for they all stated their belief that in any fair-sized constituency it was the best preventive of that practice. As to intimidation, which used to be disputed, that ground was given up long since. The ballot was a perfect cure for intimidation, and it would be a decided preventive of bribery. He should not vote against the Motion, and he certainly could not vote for it; therefore he should take the middle course of walking out of the House.

said, he believed that the House had no disposition to go on with this debate. Seeing there was not a Minister of the Crown present, from a cause which they all knew, and as they were aware that Mr. Speaker had also a call elsewhere [the hon. Member was understood to refer to the Royal christening], he thought they should not proceed further, and he, therefore, moved that the House do now adjourn.