said, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Blair) had lately put to him a question with reference to a return moved for by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Cumming Bruce) some weeks ago, and he had told the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion that he was not aware in what stage this return was. He had now brought down these papers, which had just been placed in his hand, in order that the House might see the bulk of this return, and might have some idea of the time, labour, and consequent expense which were occasioned by the custom now pursued of moving for returns to obtain information which was already within the reach of Members of that House. [The hon. Gentleman here placed on the table a large mass of MS.] He was informed that the whole of the information to be derived from this return was to be found in the Census papers, which had already, as the House knew, cost the country many thousand pounds. He was further assured that the hon. Member who had moved for it was informed at the time that he could obtain all the information he sought for in the pages of the Census Returns. As this was a habit which was really becoming rather a nuisance, and as the country was liable every year to enormous expense for the production of returns, which, in many cases, did not contain information of vital importance, he did hope, before the next Session of Parliament, that means would be devised by which some check might be put to this practice. Perhaps he might be allowed to refer to some particulars of a return moved for in 1852, and which had only been laid before the House this Session with respect to local rates. This return was subdivided into so many heads and comprised so much detail that the cost of the paper alone and the number of different persons employed in procuring that return were really almost incredible. With the permission of the House, he would read a short statement which had been prepared on the subject. To obtain this return upwards of 34,500 circular letters were sent out from the Poor Law Board and the Home Office, and returns were received in accordance with those letters. These returns, having been received, had to be made up into 328 tables, and 260 distinct calculations were made in order to reduce them into their proper form. The paper alone required was seventy-two reams of foolscap, and the weight of the paper, together with the envelopes, was 1,388 pounds. He was told that that return, which had never yet been added up, because no office could be found to undertake the task with its present staff, would require two clerks during at least one year, in order to add up the separate items, and that, when completed, they would afford the House no information whatever beyond what it already possessed. He hoped this was a subject which would not be thought unworthy the attention of the House, and that some means would be devised by which the enormous expense entailed upon the country in this way might be prevented.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that new writs be issued for Canterbury, Cambridge, Maldon, Barnstaple, and Kingston-upon-Hull. The wording of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had put upon the paper would appear rather to indicate a wish on his part that the House should delay indefinitely the issue of those writs than that they should adopt the ballot. There were a great many Members in that House who had great faith in secret voting. He confessed he (Sir W. Jolliffe) was not one of those gentlemen, for, on the contrary, he had the greatest faith in publicity. He was not there in any way to defend those delinquent boroughs; he regretted their delinquency extremely—it was most lamentable; and he thought it was the province of that House to apply itself to remedy the evil, and if possible to remedy it effectually. He might, however, remind the House that the issue of the writs in question had been delayed of late in order to enable the House to pass the Bribery Bill; and that Bill having now become law, it would come into operation immediately in the boroughs for which he now moved the issue of new writs. That being the case, it appeared to him the House had no other course left but to issue the writs. Besides, a constitutional question arose in the matter. It had always been held that that House should consist of 658 Members. Now, the effect of the course which had been taken with regard to these boroughs had been to deprive the House during the whole of the present, and part of the last Session, of ten English Members, and this, in addition to the four Members whose seats were not filled up, in the case of the disfranchised boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury. That made altogether fourteen English Members of whose services the country was deprived, in addition to those who were absent from England in consequence of the war. Now, a limit should be put by the House to proceedings of this kind, and he hoped, therefore, the Motion of which he had given notice would be adopted. In conclusion, he would ask what would be said if the House were to attempt to keep vacant for any considerable period a large number of Irish seats or seats for the metropolitan boroughs? Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of two Citizens to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Canterbury, in the room of Henry Plumptre Gipps, esquire, and of the Honourable Henry Butler Johnstone, whose Election has been determined to be void."

said, his hon. Friend (Sir W. Jolliffe) had exercised a wise discretion in not saying much in reference to these boroughs; for the least said respecting them was soonest mended. He would, however, endeavour shortly to supply the omissions of his hon. Friend. He had been asked by his hon. Friend if he would make such a Motion in the case of the metropolitan boroughs. He would tell his hon. Friend that should the occasion arise he would deal with them in the same way as the five delinquent boroughs. He wanted to have the experiment of the ballot tried upon these five cases, and he was certain it could never be better tested than by them, He would not go over the able arguments which had been used by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), in favour of the ballot. The House knew perfectly well how the question stood. Two Cabinet Ministers had spoken on the question of the ballot when it was last under discussion in the House. The one of them, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), said the ballot was a nasty, dirty, mean, and un-English proceeding—and declared it was all nonsense. The other said it was the only cure for the evils of which they had to complain. His hon. Friend (Sir W. Jolliffe) might have added to the list of Members of whose services the House was now deprived the name of one of the Members for the City of London (Baron Rothschild), who, owing to the bigotry and intolerance of hon. Gentlemen on the other side and the House of Lords, was obliged to take his seat under the gallery. He was like a person sitting in the porter's hall till my Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite asked him to come in. This was an insult to the citizens of London—it was degrading to the individual, and humiliating to the House of Commons, The Commissions for conducting the inquiry into these delinquent boroughs cost the country 30,000l., and all they were to have for the money was a trumpery Bribery Bill. The issue of the writ for Canterbury was the Motion now before the House. Canterbury was an archiepiscopal borough. The sooner the Archbishop changed the name the better. He would recommend to him the name of one of the metropolitan boroughs—Finsbury, for instance. Cambridge was an ancient seat of learning, and bribery "systematically prevailed" there for a long period. The same was the case with Hull. The ballot might be the means of recalling to the electors of Hull the times when they elected Andrew Marvel. It was the electors who paid his expenses. They "treated" him, and not he them—for they made him a present of a large barrel of ale, "of a quantity and quality enough to make a sober man neglect his duty in the House." It was a perfect farce to send these writs to these boroughs under the Bribery Bill. He had received a letter from the town clerk of Barnstaple, who said that the

"issuing of the writ would infallibly disfranchise the borough, the representation of it being in the hands of those who did not appreciate it except as a saleable commodity."

One of the hon. Members for Devonshire presented what he called "a respectable petition" from 600 or 700 persons in favour of the issuing of the writ to Barnstaple. Now he was informed that of these only 317 were electors, and that 215 out of the 317 were in the Commissioners' schedule. Even though he should not carry his Amendment, he would oppose the issuing of the writs till they had an amended Controverted Elections Bill. He regretted that Her Majesty's Ministers were not present. He understood that the ballot was an open question with them. But there was a strong feeling growing up that this open-question system was but an ingenious device for screening what were called placemen. He supposed they left the question to be fought by his hon. Friend and himself. He should conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—

"Whereas Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of an Act passed in the 15th and 16th of Her Majesty, c. 57, intituled, 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' and in compliance with the prayer of the joint Addresses of both Houses of Parliament, did appoint, under Her Royal Sign Manual, certain persons to be Commissioners, the the purpose of making such 'more effectual inquiry' into the corrupt practices alleged to have existed in the Election of Members for Canterbury, Cambridge, Kingston upon Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple. And whereas the said Commissioners have reported to Her Majesty—That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the City of Canterbury, and at previous Elections: That Bribery, Treating, and other corrupt practices have for a long period systematically prevailed at Elections for the Borough of Cambridge: That systematic corruption has uniformly prevailed at all the Elections in Kingston upon Hull to which their notice had been called. That corrupt practices in various forms had long prevailed at Elections for Maldon, and that open and direct Bribery was practised, at the last Election, to a greater extent than at any which preceded it; that the Bribery Oath was tendered to each voter as he came to the poll, and that it was freely taken by all, however recent, open, and unquestionable the bribe to them may have been, and this shamelessness was in some cases increased by their becoming witnesses before the Commission of the double fact of their own bribery and perjury; that a large portion of the Electors, consisting chiefly of the poorer class of freemen, had, in giving their votes, been influenced by considerations of money and other benefits to themselves, and that such influences had been habitually employed to corrupt them, hut that the blame of such corruption did not rest so much with them as with their superiors, by whom the temptation to it was held out: That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for Barnstaple; that, of the 696 voters who polled, 255 received bribes; that, in the majority of cases, those who received bribes came forward and admitted their delinquency, but in some instances the efforts of the Commission to elicit the truth were met with gross evasion, prevarication, and even perjury, but these instances were not confined to the lowest class of voters—men whose position in life ought to have placed them beyond the reach of corrupt influences attempted to screen their venality by denying it upon oath; and apparently decent and respectable tradesmen were induced to commit the crime of perjury, in order to preserve their position in the eyes of their fellow townsmen, and thus to hide the shame of their electoral corruption: It is expedient that, previous to the issue of any New Writ to either of the aforesaid places, provision be made to enable the Electors thereof to give their votes by way of Ballot,"—

instead thereof. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 33: Majority 7. Main Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 32: Majority 13.

said, he would now move the issue of the writ for Cambridge. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Cambridge, in the room of Kenneth Macaulay, esquire, and John Harvey Astell, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

said, he had never, as had been asserted by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), on more than one occasion, put forward the ballot as a panacea for bribery and corruption. What he had said was, that the ballot was a perfect remedy for intimidation, but he had never said it was as regarded bribery. On the contrary, he thought that so long as one man was willing to purchase a vote and another man pleased to sell his vote, and so long as they could come to an arrangement between themselves, and could trust each other, there would be no possibility of getting rid of bribery by any known means, He had always said so; but then lie had likewise stated that the ballot would destroy the confidence between the buyer and the seller, which was one way of putting down bribery and corruption. As regarded Mahlon and Barnstaple, the Government had distinctly pledged themselves to increase the constituencies in those boroughs; and he hoped they were not so far lost to all sense of propriety as not in some way or other to redeem that pledge. With an increase of the constituencies he thought that the ballot would prove the best means of repressing bribery which could be adopted. In regard to the borough of Cambridge, he had only to say that wherever there was a University there was intimidation. The intimidation carried on by the University of Oxford was a Palpable, notorious, and crying evil. The same observation applied equally to Cambridge, which was as corrupt a place as any in the kingdom. He should have been delighted to have seen the ballot tried upon Cambridge; but, as it seemed to be the determination of the House that that should not be, it was with the greatest possible pleasure that he should oppose the issuing of the writ for the borough of Cambridge.

said, he must express his deep regret that the Government had not thought fit to make an experiment of the ballot on this occasion, and he likewise thought they were highly to blame for not coining down to the House to state their reasons for refusing their assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe). It was true that the House had heard from the Treasury bench one good speech in favour of the ballot, and one bad speech against it; but the opinion of the Government ought to have been stated upon the present occasion, and he hoped the country would not forget the small majority against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury. For his own part, if the Government did not fulfil the pledges they had given with respect to measures of reform, he did not know how far he would be able to support them in their present position.

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite might depend upon it that, so long as the franchise was in the hands of men who were in such distressed circumstances that they could not resist a bribe when it was offered to them, it would be impossible by the ballot, or any other means, to put a stop to corrupt practices at elections. The Cambridge Commissioners stated, in their Report, that of the 111 persons who received bribes at the last election, no fewer than 108 were householders who voted upon very low rentals. It appeared that the number of freemen who had been bribed in that borough was 1 in 7; of householders rated at not more than 10l., 1 in 8; at above 10l. and under 15l., 1 in 11; at above 15l. and under 20l., 1 in 16; above 20l. and under 30l., 1 in 30; above 30l. and under 40l., 1 in 55; and above 40l. none. One of the witnesses declared that if the franchise were limited to rentals of 20l., instead of descending to rentals of 10l., it would be entirely useless to attempt to buy the votes of the electors. In these circumstances, he would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be better, instead of trying the ballot, to devise some scheme by which the elective franchise might be elevated, or, if kept at its present level, by which there might be something like a graduated scale of voting.

said, he would also refer to the Report of the Commis- sioners, who said that the price generally paid for a vote in the borough was 10l., although some of the electors were so dishonest as not to vote at all, notwithstanding they had received the money beforehand.

said, he begged to explain that he had not stated what had been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), that secret voting would not protect persons against oppression. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 31: Majority 15.

said, he would now move that the writ be issued for the election of two Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Maldon. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town of Maldon, in the room of Charles du Cane, esquire, and Taverner John Miller, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 31: Majority 16.

said, he would next move that the writ be issued for the election of two Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Barnstaple. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Barnstaple, in the room of Sir William Augustus Fraser, baronet, and of Richard Bromridge, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

said, he thought it was time that he should ask where had all the subordinate Members of Her Majesty's Government been during the last two divisions? He could not see his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty nor his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Where, too, was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), who had described the denial of these writs as the panacea both for bribery and intimidation. The noble Lord the President of the Council had been attending Her Majesty in Council, and therefore his non-attendance at an earlier period was excusable. Now that he had arrived, he (Mr. Duncombe) would like to hear his opinion upon the question of issuing the writ for Barnstaple. The noble Lord had presented a petition from certain voters of that place, in which they complained of the mal-practices at previous elections, and said that, rather than such things should be renewed, they would desire to remain unrepresented. Did the noble Lord think that the measure which had recently been passed would prevent a recurrence of such mal-practices? The noble Lord, when he moved, on the 2nd of June, that seven days' notice should be given of any Motion for issuing these writs, stated that Barnstaple was a very bad case, and that at once to issue the writs without taking any notice would be almost a direct inducement to bribery. The noble Lord then went on to declare that, in his opinion, the only way to deal with the matter was to disfranchise those voters who had been guilty of receiving bribes. This, said the noble Lord, was better than a system of pecuniary penalties. But he (Mr. Duncombe) would now remind the noble Lord, that the measure which had lately been passed only imposed a system of penalties. Hence he hoped—whatever might have been the decision of the House as to the other writs—that hon. Members would unite in opposing the issue of a writ for Barnstaple.

said, he also hoped the House would not issue writs for a borough which was so utterly profligate and lost to all sense of what was right.

said, he regretted that he had not been present at an earlier period of the discussion, but he had been obliged to attend Her Majesty in Council. With respect to the question before the House, he much regretted that the Bills which had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to disfranchise electors of these boroughs who had accepted bribes, owing to the objection that some pledge of immunity had been given by the Commissioners, could not be proceeded with. He had felt that it was a matter of some difficulty to decide whether the writs should issue or not, but as they had passed a Bill with respect to bribery and treating, he thought it was desirable that they should not any longer keep these places from exercising their legal right of returning Members to Parliament. It was very true that that Bill had been passed only for a limited period; still it contained a clause that the names of persons who had been convicted of bribery might be sent to the revising barrister, who could strike them out of the list of voters. They would be placed in separate lists, so that every one might see that they had the stigma of bribery affixed to them. He conceived that this would be a considerable discouragement to bribery, and it would likewise be necessary for a candidate to give an account of all his expenses, and, if any of them had been Unduly incurred, investigation would take place. He conceived, therefore, that a good deal had been done to check bribery, and he should be glad to see whether bribery would take place on future occasions at Barnstaple and other places to the same extent as formerly. The Select Committee upon Controverted Elections would be again appointed next year, and that question would be fully gone into.

said, he must beg to express his great satisfaction at hearing that the noble Lord intended to introduce next Session a Bill for the amendment of the law for the trial of controverted elections. He was disappointed at the declaration clause having been thrown out of the Bribery Bill; but it must not be forgotten that a candidate might be called upon to answer upon oath, on the trial of an election petition, as to all the matters which were the subject of the declaration. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 31: Majority 16.

said, the last Motion he had to bring forward on this subject was, that a new writ should issue for the borough of Kingston upon Hull. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town of Kingston upon Hull, in the room of James Clay, esquire, and George Frederick Samuel Robinson, esquire, commonly called Viscount Goderich, whose Election has been determined to be void."

said, he begged to ask the noble Lord whether, if the Bribery Bill failed, he would consider all had been done that could be done by legislation, and be prepared to try the ballot.

said, he did not think the ballot would be a remedy, and could not admit that the question of further legislation was affected by the failure of this Bill, because parts of the Bill recommended by the Committee had not been agreed to, and the Controverted Elections Bill had been withdrawn. He supposed his hon. Friend would give ten or twenty years for this experiment. At all events, he did not think the trial of the ballot in these isolated cases would be a fair experiment, because if these places, having been made notorious, intended to regain their character, whatever the mode, the elections would be pure.

said, he thought this a most painful and humiliating discussion, and that the majority of the Government was disgracefully small, considering the period of the Session, when independent Members generally were gone out of town. In his view, they committed a great injustice if they issued these writs and refused to restore the franchise to St. Albans and Sudbury. He expected much, however, from the promised Reform Bill of the noble Lord next Session. He trusted it would give an extension of the franchise; but, with the infusion of new blood, he hoped there would also be improved conduct. He regretted that he should have to trouble the House by taking one more division.

said, he wished to give notice that it was his intention in the next Session of Parliament to reintroduce the Bill which he had this year presented to Parliament, for enabling voters to give their votes by written declaration before the magistrates in every parish, which would at once and for ever dispose of the perplexing questions of travelling expenses and expenses of refreshment, and render resort to the ballot unnecessary.