could assure the hon. Gentleman, that with regard to the principle of this Bill he was not prepared either to affirm it or otherwise. He was in favour of the Bill only in so far as it promoted a direct railway communication between London and Dovor. The hon. Gentleman has talked of the impatience of the gentlemen of Kent inducing them to come forward in 1853 with a line of their own; he (Mr. Rice) supported that line as a step towards a direct line from the metropolis to Dovor; and, indeed, he repeatedly told the promoters that, the line would be of no use unless it were carried on to Dovor. The hon. Gentleman has also spoken of the bonâ fides of the proceedings of the South Eastern Company. Now, he recollected perfectly well, that in 1848 it was proposed by an independent company to construct a line to Dovor, and he had always regarded the rejection of that Bill as a most unfortunate circumstance. It was thrown out at the instance of the South Eastern Company, who brought forward a rival project, which he believed, however, they never had the slightest intention to carry into effect. He had no hostility to the South Eastern Company. He wished them to afford every accommodation they could to the county of Kent, and having spent so much money in the district, he thought it would be desirable to see the railway communication in their hands, provided they adopted a more direct line, for he thought they could construct and manage it better than any other parties. But, in the absence of any such scheme, he was prepared to support the East Kent line on public grounds, with the understanding that it is to be carried on to Dovor.

said, that so long as the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. MacGregor) was chairman of the South Eastern Company, he had never lost any opportunity of opposing any Bill which had for its object the extension of railway communication in Kent; and when the hon. Gentleman came down here to say, that in opposing the passing of this Bill he had no other than a public object in view, he was obliged to look at his antecedents, and at his past connection with railways in Kent. It was well known that he had uniformly opposed the contemplated extension, and when he stated that the South Eastern Company had pledged itself to complete the railway communication in Kent, and that the Government ought to have negotiated with that company, and not with the landowners of the district, he could not help observing that the South Eastern Company has, on every occasion, eluded its obligations in that respect. When the Bill of the South Eastern Company was so suddenly withdrawn in 1847, it was understood that the Bill was to be taken up at the same stage in the House of Lords in the Session of 1848; but the hon. Gentleman, from that day to this, had never re-introduced the measure. Under these circumstances the East Kent Company's Bill was passed in 1853. That company had experienced great difficulties in the carrying out of its project, and it now came to Parliament to ask for the release of the money deposited in the Court of Chancery, in order to enable it to complete the construction of I the bridge over the Medway at Rochester, I which it was compelled to make within a certain time. The Bill for that purpose was taken before the Standing Orders Committee. It passed that Committee, It was then referred to a Select Committee of this House, and that Committee had reported in favour of their application. The hon. Gentleman, however, now moved, that the third reading of the Bill should be postponed till the 4th of June, which was, in fact, till after Whitsuntide. It was important that the House should know that there was another Bill coming before the Standing Orders Committee this day for an extension from Canterbury to Dovor, and he had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman thought, if he can get the East Kent Bill postponed till after Whitsuntide, it will be of some use to him in raising a further opposition to the Canterbury and Dovor Bill. He hoped that the House, for the public reasons he had stated, will reject the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

As Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the East Kent Bill was referred, he must trouble the House with a few observations. He thought the Motion of the hon. Member for Sandwich was a very judicious and prudent one, because the House, before passing the Bill, should have an opportunity of seeing the printed evidence. He was of that opinion, because the question now raised was a very important one, and it was a question, moreover, which the House alone was able to decide. This was the first application that had been made to suspend this portion of the Standing Orders of the House. The whole object of the Bill was to release a sum of money which the House of Commons had judged it desirable should be held impounded to enforce the completion of a certain railway, the plans of which have been deposited in Parliament. Now, he thought that was a question of such importance that the House ought to be called upon to express an opinion as to the circumstances under which such a deviation from the usual practice of the House should be allowed. The object of the 136th Standing Order, was to ensure to the public the completion of lines of railway. He had no doubt that the Government were very anxious that the bridge over the Medway at Rochester should be constructed; he had not the slightest doubt that they wish their dockyards and arsenals to be brought into immediate communication with the metropolis; but still it was not shown to his satisfaction in the Committee that the promoters of this Bill were unable to complete the bridge at Rochester without the assistance of the Government. They had raised only an insignificant portion of the capital which they were authorised to raise under the provisions of the Act of 1853; they had laid out little or no money upon the construction of the bridge at Rochester; and, therefore, it was for them to consider whether, under the circumstances, they should agree to the proposed deviation from the usual practice of this House, amounting, in fact, to the abrogation of a Standing Order, which heretofore had been found to work beneficially, and which he was quite sure had, at all events, prevented the passing of many crude and ill-devised schemes of railway extension. I think, moreover, that the parties should not be called upon to pay for the printing of the evidence, but that the expense should be borne by Parliament, and that the House should at once deal with the question, and for the guidance of its Select Committees, should lay down under what circumstance, if any, the 136th Standing Order should be dispensed with.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford had been in his place, he would have told the House that the object of the Standing Order which it has now proposed to repeal was to secure that those who brought forward railway schemes had the requisite means for carrying out their projects, and that that object has been attained up to the present moment. Now, however, certain parties come forward and ask Parliament to abrogate that rule, and to establish what he might venture to call a very bad and dangerous precedent. If the promoters of the East Kent Railway had exerted themselves to carry out the objects of the Act of 1853—if they had exercised all the due diligence to fulfil their covenants—then, perhaps, they would have been entitled to ask the House to consider whether or not it should relax the Standing Order with the view of enabling them to execute their engagements; but it was notorious that they have not complied with the conditions of their Act, and he thought it would not be fair or just to extend an unusual indulgence to a company placed in such circumstances. The company had, however, disregarded every one of their covenants; and was that a state of things in which any company should be allowed to come before this House and ask to have a Standing Order relaxed, which was specially meant to enforce the fulfilment of contracts? If the House would have a little patience, and wait until the evidence was printed, they would find ample reason to suspect why no calls were made after the month of September, 1853, and why the call made at that time was not paid up. These have been what are called "bubble schemes." When the evidence is printed he was afraid the House would find it might have to apply to the East Kent Railway an epithet which he would not now use. It would find, for example, that of the whole capital to be raised by the company, one individual in London was liable to the amount of 100,00l.; that a stock-broking firm was engaged for the sum of 80,000l.; and that the contractor who was to make the railway was engaged by himself or his agents to the amount of 72,000l. The Chairman of the Select Committee having declared his opinion that the evidence should be printed before the House came to a decision, he thought it would be an act of injustice to the county of Kent, as well as to the other railway companies in the district, and a violation of its own duty, if the House were to pass this Bill without seeing the evidence upon which the opinion of the Chairman and of the Committee was founded.

opposed the Amendment.

said, that the question before the House was a very simple one. Two propositions had been made by the hon. Member for Sandwich, both of which appear to him to be rather novel in character, and certainly most objectionable in principle. The first was, that this House, instead of referring private Bills to a small body upstairs, who would be able to take evidence and consider the matter dispassionately, should itself deal with such concerns and decide them according to the chance attendance of Members in this room. Such would be the result if the House, after exposing Members to the inconvenience and labour of attending a Committee upstairs, were to set aside their Report either against or in favour of a private Bill as of no value, and then proceed, as now proposed, to reverse their decision altogether. The Motion of the hon. Member, if it were carried, would lead to no practical end, for no one would trouble himself to read the evidence if it were printed? He hoped that the House would abide by the Report of the Select Committee, and decline to take such matters into its own hands.

said, that the previous clause relating to the appointment of the chairman of the Metropolitan Board had already been postponed, as a suggestion had been made that, instead of the members of the Board sending in three names to the Secretary of State for him to select from, they should elect their chairman themselves. Under these circumstances, he proposed that Clauses 27 and 28, which had a connection with the appointment of the chairman, should likewise be postponed.

inquired whether the members of the Board were to have any qualification?

thought it would be best to leave the Vestries and District Boards to elect such persons as they thought proper. He proposed to bring up a clause to provide that the election of the members of the Board should take place in great parishes by wards, which should be framed in conformity with the Municipal Corporation Act.

in reply to an observation from Viscount EBRINGTON, said, it was impossible for him at present to say what should be the exact number of the members of the Board; but, whether it was fixed at thirty or at forty-five, he thought nine members, as proposed by the present clause, would constitute a fair quorum.

thought the clause had better be postponed until the number of the members of the Board was decided on.

said, that he had promised, after the Bill passed through Committee, to introduce a measure for the purpose of amending Hobhouse's Act; but it had been suggested to him to insert in the present measure such amended provisions from that Act as might be necessary. Adopting that view, he proposed to strike out Clause 35.

trusted that full opportunity would be afforded of discussing the amended provisions from Hobhouse's Act, proposed to be incorporated in the present Bill.

said, that all parties were agreed as to the principle of Hobhouse's Act, and no difference of opinion really existed between the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet.

expressed an opinion that the clause gave too much power to a committee, composed, it might be, of only three persons. He thought the committee should be required to report to the Board, and have their proceedings confirmed.

said, he thought the powers of taxation conferred by the clause were far too large. It was very dangerous to give great taxing powers to a committee of not more than three members, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would take care to give security against abuse of such power.

said, he would take care that such security should be given, and he would bring up the clause again for reconsideration.

thought some protection should be given to owners of property as well as to ratepayers, by enabling them to inspect the books.

suggested that this would be done by inserting the words "owner of property," along with "churchwardens, overseers," &c. as entitled to inspect books.

said, he should agree to the Amendment.

said, he looked upon this as one of the most important clauses of the Bill. It had not been inserted without due consideration, and in the firm belief that it was absolutely ne- cessary for the good working of the measure. It was, in short, an essential feature of the Bill, and he hoped the House would at once determine the point which it raised, as that point materially affected other parts of the measure.

wished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what the definition of a main sewer was?

said, the main sewers to be dealt with under the Bill were all mentioned in a Parliamentary paper, which had been laid on the table of the House. That document would be included in a schedule.

wished to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience that he feared would arise from the operation of this clause. In the Fleet valley, for instance, there were nine separate districts; and, when it was considered that the sewers would require to be constructed on one system, it became obvious that the arrangement proposed in the clause would be very inconvenient. He knew it was said that everything done by the District Boards would be under the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of' Works. Now, that sanction would be either a matter of course, in which case it would fail to secure efficiency; or, else it would involve double toil and trouble, and be equivalent to doing the work twice over. The central Board was to interpose, where necessary, for the purpose of securing harmony of co-operation among the different districts; but, he contended, that just as much correspondence, just as much heartburning and contention, would be the result of such a control, as would be experienced if the whole works were placed under the direct management of a centralised authority. It was almost impossible to conceive that the thirty districts included in the Bill could rightly carry out the works intrusted to them, considering the differences in the natural position of the parishes, and other circumstances that would stand in the way. He objected, also, to the multiplication of officers and engineers that would be required under this provision of the Bill. For these reasons, looking at the inconvenience arising from the different forms and shapes of the parishes, at the manner in which their boundaries stood, with the natural "lay" of the ground, and also at the enormous multiplication of offices, and the increase of taxation that would be unnecessarily imposed on the ratepayers, he would sug- gest that, at first, at any rate while the great works of drainage were going on, the whole management of the sewers should be placed under the General Metropolitan Board. His experience led him to think that by the appointment of a paid chairman, who would devote his time to these duties, the works would be much more efficiently done than they were likely to be under the management of thirty-six independent clashing and conflicting authorities. He therefore pressed the Committee to place the whole management in the hands of the General Metropolitan Board.

did not think the system proposed in the clause would involve those conflicting interests that his noble Friend seemed to apprehend. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient if persons in a particular district were to be compelled to wait on a central Board at a distance whenever a sewer was to be constructed, instead of having the matter settled by an authority to be found at their own doors. If this provision were rejected, and in its place a central Board appointed, the Act would, in his opinion, become unworkable. Besides, the noble Lord might depend upon it, that the inhabitants of the metropolis were determined to have the management of their own local works, and, unless the management of the sewers was intrusted to the vestries and local Boards, the Bill would never be carried into effect.

agreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that the inhabitants of every part of the metropolis were anxious to have the charge of their own district works. He did not see that such difficulties attended the operation of the clause as the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) seemed to imagine. The system would soon work itself into shape, and the different parishes would be found going on in a most amicable and practical spirit, the different parish surveyors, of course, acting with a knowledge of the rules laid down by the central Board.

did not see why the General Metropolitan Board should not have the management of these works? The power given to the District Boards by this clause was enormous.

never expected to hear a Member for Marylebone in that House endeavouring to supersede a system of local government by one of centralisation. The noble Lord was not content with throwing the sewerage into the hands of a central body, but he suggested that the whole system should be vested in one individual. If the power of local management were taken out of this Bill, a storm of opposition would be raised to it in every parish of the metropolis.

said, the question was, whether the local sewerage should be entrusted to one central body or to smaller bodies in the several districts, and he must say he was inclined to prefer the plan laid down in the Bill to that proposed by the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington). He thought the Committee would do wisely in adopting the system that was most consonant with the wishes of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and he could not believe that the difficulties which lay in the way of working that system were so great as the noble Lord seemed to think. At the same time, he should have been satisfied if the districts had been fewer in number.

said, that the question with respect to the division of localities into districts had been fully considered. The Bill had to deal with large areas already divided, and he had adapted, as far as he could, the new legislation to the existing divisions. The large drainage of the metropolis had failed under one Board, and he had endeavoured to make the existing divisions of the metropolis as useful as possible for the purpose. Considering that the population of the metropolis amounted to 2,500,000 persons, and was increasing every year, he did not believe that the number of the District Boards would be found too many. It had been asked why such large powers were given to them; but if he threw on them the duty of certain drainage he must also give them sufficient powers to execute that duty, and those powers were not more arbitrary than existed in the City of London. There were about 1,500 miles of streets in the metropolis, not reckoning little courts or alleys; and there were only 934 miles of sewerage; so that there were 566 miles of streets without any sewerage whatever. That was under the system of centralisation. Taking the number of houses at 306,000, he calculated that there were 150,000 houses without sewerage in front or back, into which the refuse of those houses could possibly be drained. That was a fact startling enough to induce him to press the clause under consideration, in order that the local districts might do that which the centralised authority had not been able to effect. He could say that, in one of the large parishes of the metropolis—in the borough, for example, which he represented—there was a particular street consisting of first-class houses, from sixty to 100 in number, where only two houses had a drain into the sewer. There ought, therefore, to be given powers to make drains into the common sewer, and to do away with the abomination of cesspools. Not only the great landowners in the metropolis, but the intermediate persons who held under them, desired to have this power taken from a central Board, and vested in local authorities, so that this town, the greatest city in the world, might not be left in the disgraceful state he had mentioned.

said, the right hon. Baronet placed the House in this dilemma—that they must either submit to be governed by a central Board, or adopt a far too great number of minor Boards calculated upon far too small area limits. Both these systems were evils, but he thought one central Board the lesser evil of the two. If the right hon. Baronet would constitute seven or eight minor Boards of reasonable dimensions and within reasonable limits, he would be quite willing to vest in them powers even greater than those the right hon. Baronet proposed to give to the minor Boards in the Bill. He would not, however, press the matter to a division.

regarded the present as a doubtful scheme, and conceived that it would have been better to have established two, three, or four bodies exercising supreme power in their several districts than thirty-six, each of which, having separate staffs, would occasion enormous cost, and lead to every possible sort of collision.

wished to know whether, if any of these District Boards desired to run a sewer under a public building, the Metropolitan Board would have a distinct power to prohibit a work of that kind, which might be dangerous to the safety of the building; and he also wished to know why this particular number of thirty-six districts had been selected?

explained that the districts had been selected in this way—he first of all took the parishes sole, being large parishes with a population of about 70,000 each, as districts; and next he took other divisions, where parishes had been incorporated for Poor Law pur- poses, having in each incorporation a population of about 60,000 persons. He had thought it better to take these divisions than to make others of his own. He conceived that under the 109th clause the Metropolitan Board would have the power of controlling the District Boards.

wished to know whether there was any clause in the Bill to prevent rivers and watercourses being contaminated by sewers running into them?

said, if that was done, the question would arise where the drainage was to go. The matter carried away by the drains was no doubt of a most fertilising nature, and means ought to be taken to turn it to account for the purpose of fertilising our fields; but, under present circumstances, he thought the least mischievous mode of getting rid of it was by turning temporarily the drainage of towns into the streams, taking care that it reached the streams below the points where the water was taken for drinking or domestic purposes.

quite agreed with the noble Lord that the sewerage should be carried away from the metropolis, but he was quite opposed to the pollution of the Thames, or any other streams and rivers. The sewerage could be carried away by arterial drains to an outfall provided in lands for the purpose.

explained that in the observations he made he had reference to more distant watercourses than the Thames.

observed that it was an important question where the outfall of drainage should be. They had been for years saying that no drainage ought to go into the Thames; and he thought that a clause should be brought up, if there was no provision already in the Bill to the effect, declaring that after a certain date no drainage should be allowed to go into the Thames between certain limits.

said, that he would propose a clause tending to carry out the views of the noble Lord. It would be difficult to fix a date at which the drainage of sewage into the Thames should cease, but a clause might be introduced to provide that works should be commenced for the purpose, and that they should be finished as soon as possible.

said, he should have no objection to introduce a clause to provide that where District Boards were not inclined to do certain works, it should be in the power of the General Board, if it was thought necessary, to carry them on.

Sir, I avail myself of this opportunity of making a few observations without having given any notice, a custom which, I think, ought never to be abused. I confess it appears to me that the present position of affairs is very critical, and that the honour and reputation of the House of Commons are concerned in not passing them by without notice. This House will, perhaps, anticipate me, but I more particularly allude to what took place in this House last night. Upon that occasion the language of Government was, to my mind, so equivocal, and their demeanour so discouraging, that I confess I myself shrunk from the responsibility of acceding, under these circumstances, to the Resolution of the House to adjourn for the recess, for an unusual period, without some means being taken by which—I may use the term—the heart of the country may be reanimated, and by which may be obtained some more clear and explicit information of what the position of the country is with regard to the great question of peace and war than they at present possess. Sir, I say that I think that this is a question which principally affects the honour and reputation of this House. The House will, perhaps, recollect that in the year 1853 there were, as we were informed, negotiations of great moment then taking place, on the issue of which the question of peace or war depended. Now, under those circumstances, great and natural as was the curiosity of the country to know in what position it really was placed with reference to a contingency so awful—ready as many Members of the House were, in the fulfilment of unquestionably their highest duty, to obtain information from Government during that Session of 1853 on that important question—the House will recollect that it was totally impossible to obtain any opportunity to discuss that important question, because, upon all occasions, those who were anxious to obtain information, and to invite the opinion of this House on those important circumstances, were always informed that negotiations were going on, and that any remarks in this House might have an injurious effect on the course of our diplomacy. Well, Sir, the House will recollect in what that forbearance ended. There was silence in this House during the whole of that Session, notwithstanding the anxiety of the country, and the result was, that the country "drifted into war." The country found itself engaged in a vast and perilous war, without the satisfaction of knowing clearly for what object we had entered into war; and, humiliated and oppressed with the feeling that its representatives in its own House had never made an effort to obtain that necessary information. Well, Sir, the year—I may say even years—have rolled on. We find now that we are involved in a struggle of the largest dimensions. We find that at the same time that we have again, and for a long period, been engaged in negotiations for peace—we find that these negotiations are carried on by the same characters, in the same city, and under the influence and the inspiration of the same Court. The result of the negotiations of 1853—that covered the whole Session of Parliament; that muzzled the expression of the opinion in this House; that lowered, on account of this conduct, the character of this House in the opinion of the country. The result of that silence was not that we assisted Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to secure peace, for war was the consequence—the character of this House was lowered, and the object of Her Majesty's Government was not attained—the consequence of the conduct of this House then was, that we drifted into what I must call a disastrous war. Sir, it appears to me that there is a great probability, now that the negotiations are still proceeding—the same circumstances being in existence, the same characters in employ, the same Court the scene of action—that, if the consequence of our former forbearance was, that we drifted into a disastrous war; the consequence of our prolonged forbearance now may be that we may drift into peace—perhaps an ignominious peace. Now, Sir, we are on the point, in a few days, of adjourning for a period of relaxation of unusual duration at this time of the year, and, under the circumstances, I think full of danger to the country. We were told last night, amongst the many ambiguous declarations which were made, that the Conferences at Vienna were closed, but had not ceased to exist; that they might at any moment be opened; may they not be opened in the Whitsuntide recess? may we not assemble then to hear that peace has been obtained on terms which may not be satisfactory to the country? What will be the feelings of the people of this country when they learn that the forbearance, again repeated, of their representatives has led to consequences which, in their opinion, are disgraceful and degrading? Sir, it is impossible to deny that there is in the country a feeling of dissatisfaction and distrust at the ambiguous conduct—I would rather say the ambiguous language and uncertain conduct—of Her Majesty's Government with respect to these negotiations for peace. I believe that this feeling of dissatisfaction and distrust exists also in this House; and I am persuaded that it is our duty, before we adjourn for the recess, to take means that it shall not be laid to the fault of the House of Commons any longer that this uncertainty and ambiguity prevail. Sir, it is for this reason that I have felt it to be my duty to take the first opportunity that is available to me to ask the opinion of the House on this subject—to ask this House to give its opinion on the conduct and language of Her Majesty's Government with respect to this great question of peace and war, about which so much ambiguity prevails; and as there have been so many alarming and often equivocal phrases and conduct, that this House should take some step to show that there is no uncertainty in its conduct, that there has been no change in its opinion, and that it is prepared to continue to support Her Majesty in this war, until she obtains for herself and her Allies a secure and honourable peace. Sir, I think it is my duty to this House, after what occurred last night, and as there is a very short time intervening, that I should give the present notice of my intention to submit a Resolution to the House, the terms of which I will lay on the table of the House during the course of the evening, which I hope the House will adopt, and which will embody the views I have attempted to express. Sir, I know that to obtain the opportunity I desire I must appeal to the indulgence and kind assistance of hon. Gentlemen who have a previous right to the opportunity which I understand Her Majesty's Government have announced they will give to them on Thursday next. I understand that the House will on Thursday next go into a Committee of Supply, not for the purpose of voting public money, but for the purpose of enabling hon. Gentlemen who wish to do so to have an opportunity of calling attention to important subjects. I believe the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) has given notice of a Motion which he intends to bring forward on that occasion. Of course I have no right to express a wish that that hon. Gentleman should give way to me, nor can I presume for a moment to press it; all I can say is, that if I have an opportunity I will make the Motion of which I will give notice on that occasion; and if the Motion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury is brought forward and disposed of on Thursday, I still shall attempt, before the House adjourns for the recess, to bring forward my Motion, and to ask the House to adopt the Resolution which I hope to have the opportunity of submitting for its acquiescence.

I cordially agree in all the sentiments which have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that the question is one of such vital importance that, although I consider the notice which I have given also of some importance, I shall undoubtedly give way to the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise on Thursday.

Sir, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, a scene was enacted here last night—[cheers and laughter]—if it be true that a scene was enacted in this House last night, the scene which has been enacted at this moment far exceeds anything which then took place, and it most certainly does great credit to all the actors concerned. Now, Sir, Her Majesty's Government can have no objection whatever to meet the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has stated his intention of bringing before the House on Thursday, and if he had simply announced his intention I should have thought it unnecessary to say anything whatever on the subject. But the right hon. Gentleman has complained that the language of the Government upon the present position of affairs has been equivocal and ambiguous. Now, I must entirely deny the justice of that assertion. If the right hon. Gentleman means that we have not thought it consistent with our duty, when asked to do so, to detail the precise condition of communications that are passing, or have passed, between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments with which we are in communication, my answer is, that I think it would have been a great breach of public duty if we had answered the calls made upon us, and if we had not observed that necessary reserve which it is the duty of the Government to maintain upon matters of international communication between itself and the Go- vernments of other countries. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that in consequence of the silence of this House in 1853 this country drifted into war. Now, I beg leave to say that I think the forbearance which this House manifested in the year 1853 very much increased the chances of preserving peace, and that, so far from this House having anything to reproach itself with for that silence having contributed to cause the war in which we are now engaged, the charge may sit easily upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen who pursued that course, inasmuch as any imprudent interference in the negotiations then going on might have prevented those chances of accommodation which, to the last moment, were thought within the possibility of our reach. So far, therefore, from its having been a reproach to Parliament, I think this House ought to congratulate itself upon not having prevented those chances of peace being taken advantage of which the nature of things placed within the reach of the Government. Now, what is the present state of things? It is made a charge against the Government, that we have pursued negotiations in that form, and under the same auspices, as the negotiations in 1853 were conducted, which, unfortunately, proved unavailing. Why, Sir, would it not have been a reproach—a great and just reproach—to the Government, if, while we believed so great a Power in Europe as Austria was disposed to afford us its assistance in our endeavours to bring about an accommodation with that Power with which we are now engaged in war—would it not have been a great reproach to us if we had refused its assistance—if we had refused its advances—if we had said to Austria, "We will have nothing to do with you. We choose to conduct our negotiations without your assistance, and we will do what we please?" I say that Government would have much to reproach itself with, if we had not availed ourselves of the good offices of Austria, and if we had not endeavoured by the assistance and intervention of Austria to obtain from the enemy, if possible, satisfactory and honourable terms of accommodation. Therefore, so far from thinking that we are liable to blame for having continued our negotiations under the auspices of the Government of Austria, I think we should have much neglected and deserted our duty if we had refused or declined to do so. But, Sir, I can quite understand that we might be open to blame, if it could be justly said that, relying upon the prospects of peace—that, trusting entirely to the good offices and friendly intervention of Austria, we had neglected to pursue those other means by which a war is likely to be carried on to a successful and honourable termination. But that reproach cannot be laid to our charge. We have, it is true, endeavoured to avail ourselves of the good offices of Austria for the purpose of obtaining from Russia terms of peace which we might think safe and honourable to this country. But we have not relapsed for one moment in the carrying out of those measures which, if there had been no negotiations going on, we should have felt it our duty to make for the purpose of an energetic and vigorous prosecution of the war; and, therefore, while on the one hand we have not thought it right to shut the door to overtures for accommodation, on the other hand we have acted in regard to the prosecution of the war as if no negotiations had been going on, as if we had no chance but by our own means, or those of our ally, of obtaining a settlement of the question at issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that the reason why he thinks it necessary to call for an expression of the opinion of the House before we separate for what he calls an unusually long period, for the Whitsuntide recess, but what is in reality only some two days more than has sometimes been the period of adjournment—the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gives is, that during that eventful week the country may find itself, by the misconduct of the Government, bound up by a disastrous and ignominious peace. Now, Sir, I do assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that so long as those persons who now are charged with the conduct of the affairs of this country shall remain in the trust which the House has reposed in them, he need be under no alarm—this House need be under no alarm—the country need be under no alarm—that any peace will be made which shall not be honourable to the country, which shall not give safety for the future, which shall not accomplish the objects for which we have entered into the contest. It is not from those who sit on these benches that ignominious terms of peace will proceed. I trust there is no man in this country, however much he may wish for peace—and Heaven knows every reasonable man must wish for peace, if it can be properly obtained—I trust there is no man who calls himself an Englishman—no man whom the country would not thrust forth as a degraded outcast—who would give his name or sanction to such a peace as that which the right hon. Gentleman has seemed to indicate.

said, that his hon. Friend having called the attention of the Committee to the financial part of the question, he (Mr. Ewart) would direct their attention to that part of it. He meant the importance of establishing an educational test for candidates in this branch of the public service. If he were asked to define the duties of an ambassador, he should say they consisted in endeavouring either to maintain peace or to restore it. He was sorry to say that at the present day our preliminary education for the diplomatic service was inferior to that instituted in other European Governments. We did not, equally with these, pursue the study of international law. Even the Americans were Beginning to devote more attention to this branch of jurisprudence. Storey and Wheaton had directed the course of American education into this channel. Our Universities seemed to be slumbering on the subject. Nay, we might be said to have degenerated in the education of our ambassadors since the days of Elizabeth and James. He might cite in those times the name of such a man as Sir Henry Wotton. He (Mr. Ewart) feared that of raw modern ambassadors it might be said as Cowley said of Sir H. Wotton—

"So many languages he had in store,

That only Fame shall speak of him in more."

Cromwell, too, was distinguished by the energy of his diplomacy abroad. He carefully studied the character and qualifications of those whom he sent to represent this country at foreign Courts, Such men as Whitelock, Doreslaus, and St. John, represented this country at foreign courts. In recent times, exclusiveness of choice had limited the diplomatic service. Ambassadors and members of legations had been principally chosen from what was now (somewhat vulgarly) called the aristocracy of the country. For his part he recognised in the English constitution no artificial distinction. At all events, titled families bad received more than their share of legation appointments. These changes were required—1. That the Diplomatic Court should be thrown open. 2. That there should be at our Universities, Professorships and courses of study like those instituted long ago abroad (even in the year 1787) by such men as Koch and Von Marbreus. 3. An examination of Candidates, and of aspirants for promotion, should be established. This change alone would exclude titled incompetency. Another important question was the state of our consular establishments. Of our consuls also a preliminary examination should certainly be required. This importance every year increased with the increasing commerce of the world. In no case ought persons engaged in trade to be employed. He would remind the House that Mr. Canning had insisted on the principle that no consuls should be allowed to trade. The French and American consuls were prohibited from trading; and it was the opinion of Mr. M'Culloch, and other persons conversant with the subject, that the appointment of commercial men as consuls materially interfered with the efficient and important discharge of the duties of the office. He regretted to say that our consuls in the East, where our extended commerce, amounting to 8,000,000l. or 10,000,000l. a year, rendered it important that they should be especially efficient, had not generally done much credit to the country. The Eastern consuls possessed enormous powers. They acted as arbitrators; they were consignees of goods; in some cases they possessed, he believed, the power of imprisonment. The greater caution ought therefore to be exercised in the selection of men to discharge such important duties. From the time of Louis XIV. to the present day, the French Government had always subjected the qualifications of their consular agents to a severe test. The consuls general passed through a previous diplomatic or consular education. They must be Frenchmen. They could not trade. There was a preliminary school for consuls among what was called the "Elevé Consuls"—even their Oriental Dragomans must be educated in France. The Americans had recently effected considerable reform in their consular as well as their diplomatic establishments; their consuls were paid by fixed salaries, and no ambassador or consul was allowed to be absent from his post for more than ten days without special permission. If he was longer absent without leave of the President, he forfeited his salary. He must be an American by birth. For the consular services the reforms required were—1. That our consuls, as well as our ambassadors, should prove their competency before appointment. 2. That they should be of British birth. 3. That they should not Trade. Consular fees should generally be abolished. With these reforms our diplomatic and consular services would be elevated and improved. The noble Lord at the helm of the Government would confer a general good by adopting them. They had been urged on him in former years by himself (Mr. Ewart) and others. So to improve these departments would confer honour on the Government and advantage on the country; he might add even benefit on the whole world, since no two professions could be more important to mankind than those whose duty was to maintain the peace and extend the commerce of the world. The reforms which were requisite were simple, and could readily be effected; and if the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, he believed, was himself fully sensible of the propriety of effecting these improvements in this portion of our public service, would look into the subject with a view to their accomplishment, he would secure for himself the gratitude of the country.

I entirely concur in the observations of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ewart), that the diplomatic and consular representatives of the Crown are most important agents of the public service. Upon them frequently depend not only the commercial but the political interests of the country they represent, and they therefore deserve the attention and support of Parliament and of the country. At the same time I must be allowed to say, that the tendency of the observations of the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion was not precisely in harmony with these sentiments. The hon. Gentleman quoted some old and trite censures from writers of past centuries with reference to the diplomatic body, which were certainly calculated to cast very unmerited obloquy and opprobrium upon diplomatic servants in general. He talked of their being spies—of their being persons whose business it was to deceive and not to be deceived—of their being persons whose want of veracity was proverbial. Now, I think it was hardly consistent with the opinions which I am sure the hon. Gentleman entertains, and which he expressed, of the high honour and integrity of the diplomatic servants of the Crown, to rake up these bygone, proverbial, and trite accusations, which—if they were ever true—applied to a state of things which has long since ceased to exist. When we talk of spies, I am sure, that in these days of newspapers and electric telegraphs a Government would throw away any money which it employed in the payment of spies. So far as spies of any foreign Power in this country are concerned, I believe it is perfectly true that every article of intelligence in The Times is reprinted at St. Petersburg by means of the electric telegraph, within twelve hours of the time when it appears in London. The spy system, therefore, is now gone by. My hon. Friend, in referring to the consular service, seemed to suppose that our consuls were inferior in capacity, in intelligence, and in the performance of their duties to those of other Powers. Now, I had the honour of being for many years at the head of the Foreign Office, and my attention was constantly directed to the consular establishment; every day in the year almost I was occupied in sending despatches to, or in in reading despatches from, our consuls abroad; and I am bound to say, in justice to a most meritorious body of public servants, that, so far from believing that they are less efficient than the consuls of other countries, I believe them to be fully equal, in the performance of their duties, to the consuls of any other Power whatever. With regard to consuls in the East, my hon. Friend is perfectly aware that peculiar qualifications are requisite on the part of consuls in that part of the world, and among those qualifications is a knowledge of the habits and customs of the people, and, if possible, a knowledge of the language of the countries to which they are accredited. It is not every man who is fit to be appointed; but the Government have certainly had no reason to think that any of those who have been appointed have failed to possess the qualifications required. I could mention one or two gentlemen who were particularly well qualified for their posts, but I refrain from naming them, because, were I to do so, less praise might be implied to those who were not mentioned. I can only say that, in performing the delicate and arduous duties imposed upon our consuls in the East, I have every reason to believe that the persons employed have met with the approval of the Government. With regard to an assertion made by my hon. Friend in reference to the conduct of some of our consular agents, I may say that, if any consul were accused, or supposed to be guilty of practices or conduct unbecoming his station, a representation of the circumstances of the case might be made to the Secretary of State, who would no doubt feel it his duty to give the most anxious and attentive consideration to the complaint that might be made, and that no mere personal interest possessed by the person accused could prevent justice from being done to parties preferring a complaint. So far, however, as my own knowledge goes, I have every reason to believe that our consuls have performed their duties in a manner honourable to themselves, greatly to the advantage of the country, and to the satisfaction of the British residents within their jurisdiction. In regard, therefore, to the consuls, I really am not aware that any improvement could be effected in the consular system. The duties of our consular agents are entirely different from those of diplomatic servants; they are chiefly confined to seaports, and have no reference to diplomatic relations between two Powers. With respect to the diplomatic service—it is perfectly true that all the recommendations of the Committee of 1850, relating to the diplomatic arrangements of the country, have not been carried into effect; but my hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) himself admitted that several of the suggestions of the Committee had been carried out. For instance, the salaries of the Ambassadors at Paris, Vienna, and other places, have been reduced in compliance with one of the recommendations made. At the same time, it is perfectly true that the Committee recommended that no salary should exceed 5,000l. a year, and it has not been thought right to carry that recommendation invariably into effect. The salaries paid to the Ambassadors at Paris, Vienna, and Constantinople, exceed 5,000l. a year, and the hon. Gentleman appears to me to have incidentally mentioned a circumstance which shows that salaries of a certain amount are really essential in order to enable our Ministers to live in a manner creditable to the honour and dignity of the country they represent. The hon. Gentleman said, that an unpaid attaché could not live in a foreign town unless his family were prepared to give him 600l. a year. Now, if a young man without a house, without family, without being required to keep up an establishment, and simply liable to those personal expenses which a single man has to meet, cannot live without an allowance of 600l. a year, what must be the expenses of a man with a family and with an establishment, and requiring to keep up that appearance necessary for the representative of this country? Measuring by that standard, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the salaries paid to our Ministers abroad are not beyond what the necessities of the case require. In point of fact, the real truth is that, generally speaking, the salaries paid are under what it is desirable they should be. The hon. Member admits, and with great fairness, that, with regard to Paris and Constantinople, political advantages are derived from retaining there the services of Ministers having the rank of Ambassador. What the hon. Gentleman states is perfectly true. There are privileges of access to the Sovereign and other advantages connected with the rank of Ambassador which give to the officer holding that rank political consideration which is of service to his country which is not enjoyed by a mere Minister. But Paris and Constantinople are the only places where the rank of Ambassador is retained. It is perfectly true that the Russian Government, some years ago, abolished the rank of Ambassador; but that change arose, not from economical motives, but in consequence of a diplomatic dispute with the then Government of France. So far from the change having resulted from economical arrangements, I can undertake to say that the Ministers of Russia in the different Courts of Europe receive much higher salaries as Ministers than are given to diplomatic agents of England possessing the higher rank of Ambassador. With regard to Paris and Constantinople, it is undoubtedly true that the residences of the embassies have occasioned considerable expense, in purchase in the one case and in construction in the other. At the same time, I am sure that every one who has been at Paris must know that it is of great advantage to the public service to provide a suitable residence for the representative of England. I do not believe that any real economy would have been obtained by disposing of the house at present provided, and hiring another suitable for the residence of our Ambassador. With respect to Constantinople, I admit that the expense of building the Ambassador's residence has greatly exceeded the original estimate. The explanations which have been given of the increase are, that materials for building the residence have been brought from a distance far exceeding what was originally imagined; that the expenses of bringing over and maintaining workmen have been greater than were calculated upon; and that, in short, from various unforeseen causes the expenditure has been considerably increased. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not think the explanations which have been given are altogether as satisfactory as they might have been; but unfortunately it has been out of the power of the Government to prevent the large expenditure that has been incurred. I may add, that the house which has been built is, I believe, hardly large enough, nor is it as handsome and commodious as the houses provided for the Embassies of France, Russia, and Austria. But everybody knows that in Constantinople a house must be built, inasmuch as it is impossible to hire one, and as we had the misfortune to have the house of the British Ambassador twice on fire, it was considered essential in constructing a new building, to erect it of materials calculated to secure it from a similar accident in future. The hon. Gentleman has recommended that there shall be no diplomatic salary above 5,000l. a year; but I think that in some cases it is important to the political interests of this country to pay our Ambassador a sum that will enable him to maintain the dignity of the country. In such cases a salary of 5.000l. would certainly be too small. The hon. Member has referred to what has been said by Sir Hamilton Seymour, in reference to the social expenses of a Minister. Now while this evidence is open to the remark, that diplomacy seems to consist of dinners, hon. Members will be aware that, in order to enable a diplomatist to perform his duties in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of the country of which he is the representative, it is necessary that he should maintain a social intercourse with the Government to which he is accredited, and with the diplomatic agents of other countries. If you were to send a Minister to a foreign Court without giving him the means of maintaining a social intercourse with that Court and with other diplomatic agents, you would compel him to bury himself in solitude or to receive hospitality which he was unable to return; and, in either case, the interests of this country would materially suffer, and the settlement of many matters, which would be very easy between persons who are upon a friendly footing of social intercourse becomes much more difficult when the business has to be transacted by men who have no sort of social relationship. It is consequently necessary, in order to maintain the dignity and promote the honour of the country, to give to your Ministers, not extravagant salaries, but such salaries as will enable them to live like gentlemen in the places to which they are accredited. My hon. Friend wishes that we should adopt the recommendation of the Committee, and send only one mission to Germany. It may be very true, as Napoleon I. stated, that Frankfort is the window of Germany; and it is undoubtedly the fact, that at Frankfort an intelligent Minister acquires a great deal of information which is useful as explaining the policy and future inten- tions of the German Powers. But I apprehend that Napoleon I. did not act upon his maxim to the extent of confining his agencies to Frankfort alone. He had Ministers at other Courts of Germany; and it is impossible for a person living at Frankfort to give you that full information which it is essential that you should have with respect to the different Courts of Germany. Germany is divided into a certain number of independent States; they are smaller and of less importance, no doubt, than Austria and Prussia, but they are essential elements in the general policy of the compound of Germany. Unless you have a diplomatic agent, therefore, at those Courts in constant communication with the Governments of those States you would be cut off from sources of information which are of the utmost importance to you in regard to those States themselves; you would also be deprived of that most valuable information which you gain through those States with reference to the views and policy of other larger countries; and, moreover, you would have no opportunity either of making representations where representations are required, or of receiving communications which may be of importance. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Wurtemburg, and he said, "Wurtemburg has no Minister here, and why should we have one at Wurtemburg?" I think that is the very reason why we should have a Minister there, because otherwise we should be cut off from all communications with Wurtemburg. If Wurtemburg had a Minister here we might more easily dispense with a Minister there; but, as Wurtemburg is an independent element in the system of Europe, it is essential that there should be a medium of communication between you and Wurtemburg. So far, then, from any advantage accruing from dispensing with ministers in different States of Germany, I am convinced, from long experience in the Foreign Office, that very serious injury to the public service would be the consequence. My hon. Friend states that he is not aware what the information is which is received from those quarters. Of course no one but the person who is reading from day to day the despatches received, or who is dictating those that are to go out, can be aware of the various reasons which may render such communications useful and even absolutely necessary. I can assure him, from my own experience, that it would be a great injury to the public service if the missions in those States of Germany were withdrawn, and we centred all our diplomatic agency in Frankfort alone. What is Frankfort? It is a place where the delegates from the different Courts assemble. Those delegates have a power which is of great importance with respect to the policy of Germany, but they are not the Governments of the different States, and communications made to them are not communications made to their Governments. No matters of complaint, therefore, could with propriety be addressed to the Diet at Frankfort, and it is quite essential that we should have organs at those States for the purposes of intercommunication. The same observations apply to Italy. We have Ministers at Turin, at Florence, and at all the Italian Courts, and if you had not, you would be cut off from those communications which from day to day are necessary, and the necessity of which you cannot well appreciate until the time arrives when they are required. It has been often said, "You ought not to have permanent missions; but, when a question arises, send a person and he will do your business." It is plain, however, unless your agent lives constantly in the country, knows the Government of the country and the habits of the people, and follows up the thread of events, that it is impossible for him to perform the duty satisfactorily; and the expense of sending special missions, if they frequently occurred, would be much greater than that of permanent residents. We have been told to follow the example of the United States; but the United States have recently been compelled to revise the whole of their diplomatic and consular establishment; and how? not by reducing them either in number or salary; but they have greatly augmented both the salary and number of their agents. In some cases, although the salary has been doubled, still I fear that the representatives of the United States will not find that the sum awarded them is such as will relieve them entirely from the painful position in which, to my certain knoledge, many of them have been placed. The United States, however, give outfits, travelling expenses, and large extra allowances; and, in some instances, I believe, it will be found that the missions of the United States have been more expensive, within a small period of time, than the corresponding missions of the British Government. I can assure the House that the subject of our diplomatic and consular establishments has really not been overlooked by the Government—but on the contrary, that it has been very seriously considered. There was no desire on the part of the Government, when the Report of the Committee was considered, to omit any reduction which really was thought to be consistent with the public interests. Several reductions were made, and if we did not go further, it was because it was felt that, as diplomatic agents were persons who were charged with the great and paramount interests of the country, it was not worth while for the sake of a small annual saving to deprive them of the means which were essential to a due performance of their duty. With regard to their capacity, I think that my hon. Friend who made the Motion seemed to be of opinion that seniority ought, in some cases, to be the rule. On the other hand, it is considered by many that merit ought to be the rule of promotion. It has been well observed that the prospects of advance in the diplomatic service are generally slow indeed; that there is but little temptation for young men to look to it as a profession, that vacancies occur so seldom and the opportunities for promotion are so few that it is a very unpromising career for a young man; but it is a great mistake to suppose, when vacancies do arise in the higher offices, where great attainments are required from the individual appointed, that the selection is not made with a view to efficiency. It is, I assure the House, much more to the interest of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to appoint an efficient man than to oblige either political or private friends. My anxious desire always was to find persons fitted for the situation, because it is clear that the credit of the Secretary of State is at stake on the conduct of the person whom he appoints, and even in the narrowest point of view, considering what is for the benefit of the Government of which he is a Member, it is clearly preferable to put a fit man into the situation than to oblige two, three, or half a dozen persons who may apply to him in favour of a less deserving man. That is the course which I pursued, and I am sure that it is the course which will be pursued by every one who holds that situation. With respect to the question of promotion by seniority or merit, the moment that you depart from the principle of seniority, which would be wholly misplaced in the system of diplomacy, you are exposed to the charge of favouritism and undue par- tiality. It is clear that there will be in all cases of vacancies a certain number of candidates between whom there may be no very great distinction of qualifications; and if you must choose one out of six, the friends of those who are not successful naturally impute to the person who makes the choice improper motives for having passed over cousin Tom, or brother Dick, or friend Robert, whom they declare to be quite as fit as the person selected, and who possibly might have been as fit, or nearly so; but they forget that you had to choose one, and that you could not appoint all. You may find even that persons complain occasionally of what they call the "height of injustice." They say, "Here is a man who was so many years secretary of legation, or unpaid attaché; now comes a vacancy, and a young man who has not seen half his service is appointed in his place; isn't that gross injustice?" It is my confident belief that it will always be for the advantage of the person who has the disposal of these appointments to choose that candidate whom he may think, whether rightly or wrongly, best qualified for the post. The hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion complains that we have no writers on international law in this country; but I must say that our diplomatists have far too much to do, their duties are too constant, and their correspondence too perpetual, to be able to devote any leisure time to writing books. They are, however, sufficiently conversant with what has been written on these subjects to be able to discharge with ability all the duties which devolve upon them; for, from an experience, not now very short, I can confidently assert that the British Crown is as well served by its diplomatic agents as the Government of any other country in the world. I never did and I never will allow for a moment that the diplomatic servants of any country have performed their duties with more efficiency than those of this country. They may not publish books, and they may not, perhaps, be able to pass so good an examination as some gentlemen who have more leisure to store their minds with rules and lore, but they discharge the duties intrusted to them as well as any men. The functions of a diplomatic servant are to furnish his Government with full and accurate information as to what is passing around him; to conduct with courtesy the communications passing between his Government and that of the Government to which he is accredited; to preserve peace, and to prevent little differences from growing into quarrels; and these duties our diplomatic servants have ever, so far as my experience goes, discharged with credit to themselves and advantage to the country. Hardly six months ever elapse, almost in any country, without some little difference arising, which by friendly communications and by prudent and careful management may be settled to the satisfaction of both parties, but which, if left to take its course, might end in an absolute quarrel. If you have no diplomatic agent present at such a place, the diplomatists you must employ must be your admirals and generals; and I am sure it must be far better that such matters should be settled by your regular diplomatic agents than that you should have recourse to anything in the shape of force. With reference to the Motion before the House, I really feel there is no special ground for consenting to a Motion which seems to cast a censure on the Government, of which, I am sure, neither the present Government, nor the Governments which have preceded it, are deserving. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government, after due and deliberate consideration, made those changes and reductions which they thought could be made without detriment to the public service, and I think nothing has been brought forward to show that any reductions which could safely have been made have been neglected. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with raising a discussion on this subject, and will not press his Motion to a division. With regard to the subject of examinations for the diplomatic service, there was a Council held yesterday, at which an order was passed having reference to a general system of examination of persons appointed to different branches of the public service. I know that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has had this matter of the diplomatic service under his consideration, but I am not aware that any plan has been settled in reference to it. I will not fail now to bring this matter under the notice of my noble Friend, who, I am sure, will be anxious to give it his earnest attention, and I have no doubt, so far as arrangements can be made for bringing the system into operation, my noble Friend will make those arrangements.

said, the noble Lord had entirely failed to explain why the recommendations of the Committee of 1850, with regard to the salaries of consuls and diplomatic agents, had not been carried into effect. Neither had the noble Lord explained how it was that we retained no less than seven Ministers at the German Courts. No doubt it might be necessary to have Ministers at Berlin, and Vienna, and Frankfort, but there was no reason in the world why we should retain Ministers at such Courts as those of Wurtemburg, Bavaria, Saxony, and Hanover. The noble Lord said, indeed, that he got more information from the Ministers at these petty Courts than he did from those at the more important ones; but, in that case, how was it that these latter Ministers, who apparently were of least use, were paid the largest salaries? The truth was, that the whole system was nothing but a waste of public money to create patronage for the Government, and he knew too well that when a Government once got hold of a piece of patronage it never willingly relinquished it. He was sorry, however, to see a professed Liberal Government defending such a system as this, and if the hon. Member for Stafford pressed his Motion to a division he should certainly divide with him.

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, but would be satisfied with having produced a very interesting debate, and a very interesting statement from the noble Lord. He (Mr. Phillimore) only wished to make a remark with regard to our consular establishment. That establishment might deserve the eulogium passed on it by the noble Lord, but still it would be conducive to the public service, and for the advantage of the consuls themselves, if a rule was laid down that they should not at the same time exercise the functions of public officers and engage in private commercial speculation. No one who practised in the prize courts of this country but must know that in time of war conflicts must often arise between the duties of a consul as a public officer and his private interests as a merchant; and if a rule forbidding such a junction of duties was established, even if it was accompanied by increase of salaries, it would be a great advantage to the country.

entirely subscribed to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) on this subject, and considered that the hon. Gentleman had done the country good service by bringing the matter prominently forward. He would suggest that a little more care should be taken in the choice of persons filling the office of consul or attaché, who, if they were to grow up into Ambassadors, ought to have the advantage of a better education. He once heard it said that some were sent out who were alike ignorant of the laws of nature and of nations, although the duties of the office were such that it was utterly impossible to transact them unless the officer were acquainted, not only with international law, but the laws of those countries to which he was sent. It would be in the recollection of the House that some time ago the imprisonment of Miss Cunninghame in Tuscany gave rise to a dispute. He forgot what her offence was, but he believed the code of that country contained—unless the Jesuits had abolished it—a very good law of bail. That law, no doubt, extended to English subjects, and, perhaps, if the gentleman appointed to take care of the rights of British subjects there had been well acquainted with it, no dispute would have arisen, and the lady would not have been detained a moment longer than was necessary after the circumstance had been brought to the knowledge of the consul.

said, that a consul employed by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had negotiated with great success a valuable treaty with France with regard to the fisheries—a subject which had caused disputes between the fishermen of the two countries. That gentleman was the consul at Brest.

said, that it was highly important to establish a test of the fitness of public officers; but while he tendered his acknowledgment for the service the noble Viscount had done the country by so doing, he wished to advert to one or two topics mentioned in the speech of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount had said that it had been always his desire, and the desire of other Ministers for Foreign Affairs, to give the various diplomatic posts to the men most fitted for them. Had that statement been borne out by the facts, he (Mr. Otway) would not, for a moment have intruded any observations on the House. Reference had been made in the course of the debate to a most interesting work published by a gentleman in the Foreign Office, and styled the Foreign Office List, and from that work he had culled a few extracts, which might truly be called "ele- gant extracts." He would not go through a long list of cases which every gentleman might see for himself by purchasing a copy of the List for a shilling; but he would read to the House one or two which had reference to the promotions that had taken place in the diplomatic service, and he thought, when he did so, that it would be obvious to them all that it was a most remarkable fact that those promotions should be confined exclusively to the sons and relatives of Peers and Members of Parliament. Nothing could be more illiberal or more unworthy of a Member of that House than to desire to put a barrier between a man and the fair promotion he had earned, merely because the individual was the son or relative of a Peer; but it was equally worthy of remark that in this department of the public service—a department of great extent, involving questions of much importance and requiring the employment of men of superior education and of great talent, those alone who obtained any rank or promotion should invariably be the sons or relatives of Peers or Cabinet Ministers. There were two cases in the list to which he had referred of so striking a character, exemplifying so large an amount of injustice done to the individuals to whom they referred, that he could not refrain from bringing their case before the House somewhat in answer the statement of the noble Viscount. The first to which he would allude was the case of Mr. Lettsom, now Secretary of Legation at Mexico. That gentleman was appointed attaché at Munich in 1831, he was removed in 1840 to Washington, in 1849 to Turin, in 1850 to Madrid, and in 1854 he was made Secretary of Legation at Mexico. After a service of twenty-three years, for nine of which he was unpaid, Mr. Lettsom, who had invariably conducted himself to the satisfaction of those who employed him, was appointed Secretary of Legation at Mexico—certainly no very desirable appointment. But what was the case of the hon. H. G. Howard? He was attached to the Embassy in Paris in 1838; in 1841—three years afterwards—he was made first paid attaché, his salary being equal to that of a secretary of legation; and two years afterwards he was made Secretary of Legation at the Hague. He had therefore filled two of the most agreeable posts in Europe, and three years only of his services had been unpaid. Nothing could offer a stronger contrast than his case and that of Mr. Lettsom. He had looked through a number of other cases, and had inva- riably found that those gentlemen who had done the most service—who had crossed the Atlantic or the Pacific—were constantly relegated to small posts, while men who had the advantage of being connections of Cabinet Ministers or Peers, and who passed their time pleasantly in Paris or Vienna, were placed over the heads of men of longer service. Take another case—that of Mr. Alison, a distinguished Oriental scholar, who had been a paid attaché in Turkey before Lord Napier entered the service. But Lord Napier had been made Secretary of Legation over his head, and those of Mr. Doria and others, most unjustly. Heaven forbid that one should be so prejudiced or so unworthy as to object to gentlemen receiving employment because they were the sons of Peers or men of influence in that House; but it was absurd to contend before them or to attempt to impose upon the people that the fittest men for diplomatic offices were always to be found in that rank, while the sons of medical men and others, who had accidentally crept in, were invariably found to possess the least capacity. Now, here was the case of the hon. H. E. J. Stanley, son of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade. In 1847 he entered the service as précis writer to the noble Viscount; in 1851 he was made second paid attaché at Constantinople; and only six days afterwards he was promoted to be first paid attaché; and then, in January, 1854, this young gentleman—the son of the President of the Board of Trade, but by no means because he was his son, but because he was the best and fittest man—was made Secretary of Legation at Athens. Then, again, with regard to the unpaid attachés, it was suprising how the noble Lord could sleep in his bed at nights when he thought of these unfortunate gentlemen, who had been receiving no salary since he was at the Foreign Office before, and who were still likely to remain in statuquo, it was to be presumed, until some one or other of their relatives was considered the fittest person to be appointed President of the Board of Trade. Here were one or two of the cases of these attachés. In the book above described there was the name of Mr. Lonsdale, who was appointed in 1842. There was also that of Mr. Petre, than whom a person more competent to fill the office of attaché could not be found. In 1846. Mr. Petre was at Frankfort during the disturbances that occurred there, and now he had been removed to Paris; and though he had done his work well for nine years, he had not received a single shilling from the country. Then there was Mr. Lytton, the son of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire, who was appointed in 1849, and was not a fashionable young gentleman spending his time idly in Florence, but had been in the United States and in Paris, where he had done good service, and yet he received no pay. Next, however, there came the name of Lord Hubert de Burgh, who was first appointed an attaché in 1852, and in less than three years' time he jumped over the heads of all these other gentlemen, being made a paid attaché at Turin in 1855. Still stronger cases might be adduced, but it was unnecessary to trouble the House with them, more especially as they would all be found in the little book to which he had alluded. It was, therefore, astonishing that the noble Viscount, knowing so well as he did what were the real facts, should get up and declare to the House of Commons that, in conferring diplomatic situations, the Government selected men solely for their fitness. Why, on the contrary, it was notorious to all the world that in the diplomatic profession a man was selected for one of two reasons, and one of two reasons only—namely, either because he was related to a Cabinet Minister or to some Peer or gentleman of very high standing; or because he had some Parliamentary influence through which he managed to obtain his promotion. It was sincerely to be hoped that the noble Viscount would interfere to put a stop to proceedings of this nature, which were bringing much discredit upon the country. It was not that the country or the House objected to a man who was a nobleman receiving an appointment, for they had reason to be proud of the noblemen and gentlemen of England; the objection was, that a man should receive an appointment because he was a nobleman or a gentleman. The person who had shown himself to be the fittest man, whether he was the son of a Peer or of a tailor, should be chosen; but, beyond all controversy, men were now selected solely on account of their connections, and not, as they should be, because of their superior qualifications.

said, that the noble Lord having promised to give the question further consideration, and having undertaken that the candidates for the diplomatic service should undergo an examination into their fitness and ability, he was disposed to be satisfied with having ventilated the subject and to leave the Government time to revise the system. He did not feel that the cause he advocated would be promoted by a division, and if the House assented, it was his intention to comply with the request of the noble Lord, but with the reserve that if an immediate reform were not carried into effect, he would press the Motion again at the earliest opportunity.

objected to the withdrawal of the Motion, and said he would divide the House.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to cause the votes of the electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot at Parliamentary elections. He had been told, on more than one occasion since his notice had been on the paper, that he was bringing forward this question at a most disadvantageous time, when the thoughts of all were deeply interested in the vast war in which the country was, as he thought, rightly engaged, and their minds were perplexed and suffering from the effects of a series of victorious disasters. But he considered, on the other hand, that there never was a time when it was more needful that the people's House should be composed of Members freely and indifferently chosen by the people, and that this was not, nor ever could be, the case under the present electoral system. To those who hated the name of Parliamentary reform this war had charms, and to those who only assumed the garb of Reformers for expediency's sake and to please their constituents; the preoccupation of the minds of the people and rousing to arms this warlike nation was a seasonable relief; to many true and sincere reformers the mismanagement of the war, its fatal errors, its waste of blood and treasure, present so shocking a picture that they can think of no other reform than of the evil immediately before them. To this last-mentioned class he particularly addressed himself, and would endeavour to convince them that no better state of things could be reasonably hoped for or expected under the present representative system. He wished to impress on all true Reformers, and on the country—for it was almost useless to impress it on that House—that the blunders, disasters, and failures which had occurred in the various departments having the management of the war had mainly arisen from several perceptible causes. Among the first of these causes was this—because the Government of the country had become hereditary in, and the property of, a class, and because the House of Commons, being returned by that class, is no check upon it. And, even in the case of a change of Ministry, what did the people know about it? All they knew was this—that one set of aristocrats, 'squires and lawyers, tristes et afflicti, went out of office, and that another set of aristocrats, 'squires and lawyers, magnopere gaudentes, groped their way into office. Of the proceedings that afterwards took place they knew this—that the aristocrats on the Opposition bench railed against the Treasury bench, and complained of jobbery, red tape, and routine, and said—"Only let us get in, and you shall see what you shall see." Now, when they did get in what was seen? Why, that they inherited, by the political death of their opponents, the sacred edifices in Whitehall and Downing Street, and with them took possession of jobbery, red tape, and routine—embalmed in those sacred edifices and consecrated to aristocracy. Well, taught by disaster, the people were now fully alive to the evils of this system, and were desirous of inquiring into the cause. Could anything be more apparent? It was because the advisers of the Crown were only selected from a few great families who monopolised place and power, and who, not contented with the exclusive possession of the Upper House, monopolised a majority in the House of Commons; and the consequence was, that not only the Ministers of the Crown, but the leaders of the army and the heads of departments, were chosen not for their ability or merit, though they might possibly possess both, but because they belonged to families so powerful and possessed of such political influence that they could either make or mar a Ministry; and because the strength of this influence lies in the power which the aristocratic factions exercise over the votes of the electors—it is this malversation of the franchise that makes them omnipotent in Parliament. The aristocratic factions had desperate fights for place, differing on speculative points, but on the points affecting monopoly of government they were united as one man. He believed if places could be found for both of the aristocratic factions that the House of Commons would become one vast cage, and Whigs and Tories would become the happy family—political cats fraternising and reciprocating friendship with political rats. The people had grown sick of a system which had been the cause of the late disaster, which had rendered this country all but contemptible in the eyes of Europe—they were sick of generals selected from the Red Book, and of a Ministry selected from Burke's Peerage—of seeing middle-class merit give place to upper-class imbecility forced upon them by aristocratic influence, and of seeing the tried bravery of our soldiers in the East thrust aside by the courtly interests of the soldiers of the West. All this had perplexed them, and they would have an inquiry into the cause. He might be told that they had a Committee which had concluded its labours and was about to bring up its Report, but what assurance had he that this inquiry would not go the way of all others? That Committee would do its duty as other Committees had done before them—they would amass a vast amount of evidence in a blue book, and would, no doubt, come out with a stinging Report, upon which a measure would be framed that would find its way to the House of Commons. But if that measure interfered with the influence, the appointments, and the patronage of the peerage and the upper classes, it would either not pass through the House, or else it would be so mutilated in Committee as to become worthless and inoperative. Instances of this sort occurred daily. We had lately a splendid instance of how to get rid of popular clamour. After the last general election a cry arose throughout the country against the abominations of our electoral system; every one was, or pretended to be, shocked and ashamed at the Saturnalia the country had just passed through, our orgies having been more abandoned than usual. Even good Lord Aberdeen cried out for a change, and every Member of the Government had a pocket-handkerchief at his eyes, weeping over the depravity of the land. To be sure matters were very bad; intimidation, bribery, bargaining for seats, and perjury had done their worst for the creation of a Peer-packed House of Commons. Ministers were ready with a Reform Bill, which proved abortive—it was impossible to get hon. Gentlemen who represented small boroughs to vote for the destruction of those boroughs and for turning themselves out of Parliament. Something, however, must be done, as John Bull was not satisfied, and the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) determined upon the appointment of a Committee, which might act as a kind of safety valve. The Committee was composed of very able men—Tories, Whigs, and Radicals—and did its duty, and a Bill founded on its recommendation purporting to put down bribery and undue influence, called the "Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill," was introduced. Now observe this, whatever that Bill contained calculated to put down bribery was carefully erased in Committee, but the pretence it made of dealing with undue influence was so transparent and absurd that the House was perfectly charmed with it, and it passed not only through this House, but also through the House of Peers, with a flourish of drums and trumpets. The old Gentlemen in that House were quite delighted to see that they were able to pass a Bill which pretended to be a Reform Bill, while in reality it in no way interfered with their undue influence. He had before him a very clever letter upon the subject of that Bill, said to be from the pen of an eminent Parliamentary casuist. After going through the Bill clause by clause, the writer concluded by observing that the effect of the new Bill would be to render direct bribery and the direct use of undue influence more difficult and dangerous, but indirect and circuitous bribery by means of payment for fancied services, notices to tenants to quit without reason assigned, and secret influence would not be affected; that the penalty for giving or paying for treating attached only to a candidate and a stranger—a friend or a body of people might give meat, drink, and entertainment to any extent; that the Committee would have to decide in each case whether a voter had received such treating "corruptly" before he could lose his vote; that the prohibition to give a refreshment ticket to a voter on the days of nomination or polling was confined to those two days and to the voter; that although by the Standing Orders no election could be questioned later that fourteen days after the return, the election auditor was not to have the bills of expenditure until three months after the return; that the notification by the candidate to the auditor of his agent or agents, who alone had authority to expend money on his behalf, was the most cunning device to shield the candidate and cover corruption ever propounded; that the whole fry of election agents in a borough would work for the benefit of the candidate, who had secured himself from the penalty attaching to their acts by artful disclaimer; that every attempt had been made to damage the Bill in the House of Commons, and that after Members of Parliament had declined to make a declaration "that they will not knowingly hereafter make any illegal payments on account of being elected to Parliament," they might call the Act by any name they pleased, but all the world knew what they intended it to prove. The editor of The Times observed, with regard to that letter, as follows—

"If this estimate of the honesty and power of this Act be correct, and we have no doubt it is, the Act is one of those pompous professions meant to be inoperative."

This pompous profession, this miserable, emasculated Act, a fit type of Ministerial and Parliamentary insincerity, represented the extent of the interference of Lord Aberdeen, of the noble Lords the Members for London and for Tiverton, and of the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary at War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a majority of Whigs and Tories of the House of Commons, in order to check the scandalous abuses of our electoral system against which one and all had expressed so much virtuous indignation. All that indignation, however, was invested in this emasculated Act of Parliament—fit type of Ministerial and Parliamentary insincerity. If such were the results of the Committee that investigated the evils of the last general election, they might fairly assume what would be the effect of the labours of the Committee which had lately been inquiring into the abuses and crying evils of the war. In the case of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act every clause hitting at the undue influence of Peers or the corrupt practices of the wealthy classes, was carefully erased by a House of Commons returned under that influence. Need he ask what would be the fate of any measure devised by that Committee now sitting on the mismanagement of the war which would in any way interfere with the monopoly of power enjoyed by the Peers and the upper classes in a House of Commons, the majority of which was returned by the Peers and the upper classes? He might just as well ask what would be the fate of the criminal at the bar if he were allowed to change places with the Judge and to pass sentence upon himself? He therefore came to the conclusion that before a healthy state of the executive departments of the Government could be produced, the rottenness at the heart of the House of Commons must be destroyed, and for that purpose a reform of our representative system was necessary. The first step of that reform was to give every elector the use of his legal and constitutional right of freely electing a Member of Parliament—a right which was now wrested from him by the aristocracy, the 'squirearchy, and the moneyocracy, and turned, as the nation must feel, to the worst of purposes. Now, as regards the working of this celebrated "Corruption Practices Prevention Act," so far as it has been tried, the result was precisely what was predicted by the writer in The Times, and so happily described by the Editor of that paper as a "pompous profession meant to be inoperative." There was a society in that metropolis called the Ballot Society, which had been at some pains to collect evidence as to the operation of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and he ventured to say that if the House required evidence of the luxurious crop of corruption which still flourished in our counties and boroughs they would have ample means of judging of it from the statement now before him—evidence as strong—it cannot be stronger—than that produced by Mr. Grote's Committee, which sat twenty years ago; the labours of which Committee went the same way as the labours of all Committees hitherto had gone which attacked the unconstitutional influence of the upper classes; blighted—to use a fashionable phrase—"under the cold shade of aristocracy." The society sent out queries, and received replies from boroughs where elections had taken place since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. The queries were as follows—

"1. Is there any reason to believe that money, bribery, treating, or any other corrupt means took place at the late election for——: and if so, to what extent? 2. Have any tenants, tradesmen, or other parties, whose votes at former elections have been controlled by their landlords, customers, &c. voted against them at the late election for——? 3. If so, do you think the new Bribery and Intimidation Act enabled them to vote more independently? 4. Was the election 'screw' used as usual in the canvass?"

The first return he would read was from the borough of Abingdon.

"1. Bribery to a considerable extent. Many voters promised who never voted at all.

"2. Intimidation. Landlords and customers controlled as usual.

"3. The new Act caused no perceptible difference.

"4. The screw was used in several places; especially where there were debts."

Then came the following boroughs—

"LIVERPOOL.

"No. 1. Bribery.—Certainly not by the Liberals, and no proof of any by Tories.

"No. 2. Intimidation.—In so large a constituency can give no reply as yet. After an analysis of the voting, now in preparation, we may, perhaps, give an opinion.

"No. 3. The new Act, of course, can in no way touch undue influence, change of tradesmen, exclusive dealing, &c.; but, as regards the sale of votes, we imagine the fear of its operation acted beneficially.

"No. 4. The Screw.—There was little or no canvass on either side. The parties were not prepared with books, which form the necessary machinery for putting on the screw."

[An hon. MEMBER: Who are the writers of these returns?] If the hon. Member would call upon him, he would give him all the information in his power; or if he would move for a Committee to inquire into the truth of these allegations, the Motion should have his support. He would now go on with the replies.

"NORWICH.

"No. 1. Bribery.—Yes; in sums from 5s. to 20s. No competitor; hence the market dull.

"No. 2. Intimidation.—None that I am aware of, unless by the screw.

"No. 3. New Act.—As far as intimidation goes, mere waste paper.

"No. 4. The Screw.—Yes; by both parties. The whole science of electioneering rests upon the knowledge of 'influences.'"

"PORTSMOUTH.

"No. 1. No treating or bribery.

"No. 2. Intimidation.—Government influence so powerful that there has been no contested election for the last eighteen years.

"No. 3. The Last Act.—No trial of it. No man in his senses would resort to it for intimidation.

"No. 4. Screw.—The Government people gave it just one turn when a contest was threatened."

When he last had the honour of addressing the House on this subject, he gave illustrations of the folly and danger of the theory, that the elective franchise was a trust, and for that reason refusing to protect the voter on the plea that the non-elector had a right to stand by and see how the elector discharged his trust. He on that occasion instanced the case of the Cork election, and showed how the non-electors put their trustees to the martyrdom of St. Stephen for what they considered a breach of trust. They had now bad another brilliant specimen from Ireland of the pleasures and advantages of open voting, at the election for the county of Cavan. The non-electors did not here do much violence to their trustees with stones, but they rather took a leaf from the martyrdom of Ridley and Cranmer, and actually roasted one gentleman until his ribs appear to have been well done—though they failed to roast his vote out of him. As for digging graves before the doors of recusant electors, that was a jocular mode of proceeding which was thought nothing of. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read an account of various outrages perpetrated at this election.] There was another peculiarity attending this election—300 tenants of Sir John Young came to the rescue of the Derbyite candidate. Query—Would those 300 tenants have gone to the rescue of the Derbyite candidate if Sir John Young had been in office under the Aberdeen Administration? He thought any one could easily answer that question. There, again, was a specimen of the unerring influence of the landlord over his tenantry, by which 300 men were moved as so many automata, and suddenly became converted from one opinion to another, and voted as if they were one man. When the string or wire was pulled by the landlord, they were perfectly passive in his hands. Sir John Young, like all other landlords, was the political monarch of his tenantry. He said—"Go to the poll, and vote for Derby." To hear was to obey. He said—"Go to the poll and vote for Aberdeen." "Aberdeen and Derby, Derby and Aberdeen"—

"Whiche'er your Majesty may please to name;

Long cut, or short, to us is all the same."

There was no man in that House who was not perfectly aware that there was no remedy for this but secret voting. He was not aware whether the hon. Member for Cavan was present or not. If he were present he invited him to stand between his constituents and oppression, and vote for the ballot. These men who had been roasted, ill-treated, and almost suffered martyrdom, deserved something at his hands. But if he would not give them the ballot, let him rise in his place and say—"If not, why not?" It was not his intention to repeat those arguments which have never been refuted. It was I not his present intention to show that there was cowardice in oppressing the poor unfortunate elector and making him violate his conscience under pain of ruin and no cowardice in seeking the safety of the secret and silent vote—the mode of voting provided for every kind of election except Parliamentary election. Neither was it his intention to prove the self-evident assertion, that voting in secret could not be cowardly in the poor man, since it was not cowardly or unmanly in the rich man. He should spare the House any reference to that weak line of defence to which the opponents of the ballot commonly resorted, and which he had demolished so often, simply reserving to himself the right of replying to them, if worthy of reply. He was happy to say the question of the ballot steadily progressed, though some few hon. Members had ratted from it; but it was very remarkable that they quitted the ballot when they changed from a large constituency to a snug borough or to a county where they were returned by the intimidation of the landlords. There have been two remarkable seceders from the ballot, both now Ministers of the Crown. Lord Panmure gave no better reason for voting against the ballot than that it was an unworthy institution since it had elected Louis the Emperor of the French. The right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) said it was no longer necessary from the increasing virtue of the upper classes. I think Lord Panmure is answered by the noble conduct of the ballot-elected Emperor. Where the increasing virtue of the upper classes was to be found he could not very clearly understand. If he were to judge by the details of the last election, certainly no symptom of increasing virtue among the upper classes was to be found there—on the contrary, they distinguished themselves greatly by intimidating tenants and spending large sums in the purchase of votes. But he had some hope of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because when defeated in Northumberland he began to cast a longing eye upon his old love which he had deserted, and loudly accused the Northumberland party of intimidation. The noble Lord who unseated him (Lord Lovaine) retorted upon him, "Do not talk of our Northumberland intimidation; look at home, what you Greys do." It seemed to him an interchange of civilities between the pot and the kettle; and as to the electors of Northumberland, what between a Grey and a Percy, they would certainly be none the worse for protected voting. Among those who had always been consistent in opposing the ballot was the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, now at the head of the Administration. Although until the end of the last Session he had never heard the noble Lord speak on the question; and certainly the noble Lord's effort to reply was a great triumph to the cause of the ballot; for when he reflected upon the skill in debate which the noble Lord possessed, his powers of argument, of wit, and of satire, and compared them with the weakness of his speech last Session, he came to the conclusion that the case for the ballot was very strong indeed. Now, although the noble Lord was consistent in his opposition, he was not very consistent in the arguments he used. His noble Friend did not enter into many arguments which could be met, but declaimed generally against the ballot. "Oh!" he said, "the ballot won't do; the hon. Member for Bristol has brought forward all cases of 'exaggeration'—all cases of intimidation, but my hon. Friend exaggerates these things." That was the general tone of the noble Lord's speech; but, with the experience of the election of 1852, he could not very well tell how he could exaggerate. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who were amused at his mistake, in using "exaggeration" for "intimidation" would tell him. Would his noble Friend allow him to call his attention to the time when he was defeated for Hampshire? Did he not think that some little intimidation was used on that occasion? Did he think the Hampshire' squires were perfectly innocent when he took refuge in the arms of snug little Tiverton? At the nomination at Tiverton on the 23rd of July, 1837, his noble Friend expressed himself in this manner—

"My belief is founded not merely on what I have heard from others, but my own observations. My belief is, that a system has been extensively pursued to deter the electors, by fear of injury to themselves and their families, from doing that which we heard read this morning—to elect freely and indifferently the person whom they may think fit to represent them in Parliament. Now, gentlemen, this is not a solitary case, it is the regular Tory practice; and you will hear, when you see the proceedings of the different elections, that the same thing has been practised whenever a Tory candidate has opposed men of liberal and reforming principles."

If such was the opinion of the noble Lord in 1837, he wanted to know what change had come over the spirit of his dream to make him venture upon a charge of exaggeration after the election of 1852?—that election which could even shock Lord Aberdeen into becoming a Parliamentary reformer. He would now proceed to point out to the House some of the great authorities who from time to time had given their sanction to, and testimony in favour of, protected voting—and he would commence with one whose pithy sentence might well he inscribed on the ballot-box wherever that institution existed. Cicero said—"Tabella vindex tacita libertatis." [The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote observations in favour of the ballot from David Hume, Blackstone, Bentham, Mill, President Jackson, C. Buller, Lord Althorp, Macaulay, and also the opinion of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, that the "exercise of a vote is not merely a political right; that expression of his opinion is a moral and religious right to the elector, in the discharge of which he should be protected,"] He found also an opinion which hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House would perhaps be inclined to respect. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had stated as follows—

"I am desirous of completing the machinery of the constitution by two measures, which will invest the people with what was once their birthright. These measures are triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot, and, unless these measures be conceded, I cannot apprehend how the conduct of the Government can ever be in harmony with the feelings of the people."

Again, he found the same right hon. Gentleman saying—

"It is true that I avowed myself a supporter of the ballot, because a number of little towns are enfranchised with the privilege of returning as many Members to Parliament as the shires, and the nomination of these Members is placed in a small knot of hard-hearted rulers, opposed to everything noble and national, and exercising a usurious influence over the tradesmen, who are at once their slaves and their victims."

He now had to thank the House for its kind indulgence; but, before sitting down, he was anxious to enter a caveat against being misquoted or misinterpreted, of which he had on former occasions too often had to complain. He had referred to the aristocratic element which so unconstitutionally pervaded the House and the army. It was sometimes very handy to avoid the true question by talking and vulgar abuse of the aristocracy; but he called upon every Member to bear witness that he never denied the valour or the abilities of the upper classes. He was ready to admit that our Royal and aristocratic soldiers had displayed the greatest gallantry at Alma, at Inkerman, and at Balaklava—gallantry equal to that displayed by the soldiers of the middle and lower classes, but not one jot more. It would be folly to deny the ability of the aristocracy, and if he were foolish enough to do so, he would be met immediately by a reference to a Palmerston, to a Russell, or to a Derby. But he thought it was a matter quite susceptible of proof that the army and the Ministry were monopolised by a class to the great detriment of both. He was unfashionable enough not to believe that my Lord Foppington, the hon. Tom Shuffleton, or Sir Charles Easy, who were placed in the army to keep them out of mischief, would make as good officers as men selected from the middle classes. He said that the sympathies of such men, their amusements and pursuits, did not lie in the direction of field days, early drills, and the economy of their regiments; but would rather be found in the London season, at Melton or at Newmarket. He could not consider such men so likely to make good soldiers as Brown, Jones, and Robinson, of the middle classes, who entered the army with no view beyond making it their study, their amusement, their bread. Let them not forget that this had been tested—God forbid that it ever should be so again! Let them not forget that an army led by princes, and officered by the flower of English nobility, proved no match for an army led by a brewer and officered by men of low degree. That Cromwell's Ironsides were superior to Charles's Life Guards—not because they were braver, but because they were more professional. He trusted, also, that because he had dwelt on another phase of the ballot question, he might not be accused of attributing to the ballot miraculous powers, or of its being the panacea for all evils; he said nothing of the sort, but had endeavoured to point out that without a change in our electoral system, we could hope for no permanent improvement in our Government Departments. Emancipate the elector, and he would do his duty; continue him in his bondage, and you would entail on the country its present evils and disasters. He asked for the ballot because it was the only key which could unlock the fetters of the elector and give him that weight in the administration of public affairs which the constitution of this country intended and the laws have guaranteed.

seconded the Motion, and said, that he had long been an advocate for the ballot. Having been in Belgium, in America, in France, in Sardinia, and in Switzerland, in all of which countries the practice of secret voting prevailed, he had uniformly found order, peace, and propriety prevailing at the elections there; while in this country, he was ashamed to say—and he spoke from experience—he had observed disorder, violence, and intimidation prevailing to an extent which was a disgrace to the nation. At his own election for Blackburn, large bodies of bludgeonmen from other towns were brought into the borough, who maltreated his supporters, and their violent conduct deterred many of the electors who had promised him their votes from going up to the polling booths. He was, therefore, desirous that the ballot should be established in this country, and would give his cordial support to the Motion. Major Feilden then read extracts from depositions and evidence taken immediately after his election, from parties prosecuting for damage to person and property in the borough, and for which he complained that there was no remedy, but at such an expense as to deter most men from encountering it. Investigation and punishment seldom followed upon such acts, and even when they did, the crime was rarely brought home to the real perpetrator and instigator of the misdemeanor. If perfect freedom of conscience was un-English, then perhaps it might be said that so also was secret voting, but not otherwise; and if every secret act was unmanly, then voting by ballot at clubs might be said to be such also. In the case of his own election, in a small constituency of about 1,300 electors, only 631 had recorded their votes in his favour, though he had promises previously from between 700 and 800; and had it not been for the undaunted heroism and determination of his friends, in the opinion of the great majority of the electors, Blackburn must have been misrepresented by the return of his opponent. He concluded by saying, that he looked upon the elective franchise as a trust, of which conscience alone was the test of its being honestly discharged, which could not be the case when the voter was subject to control and punishment. No Act of Parliament, such as the Corrupt Practices and Bribery Bill, would be of the slightest use where there was no sincere desire on the part of the Legislature to remedy the evil; and he accounted for their resistance to the Motion, in their fear to give the people what the law professed to bestow upon them; at present they enjoyed but a nominal elective franchise, without the real privilege of popular representation. He considered this question ought to be the test of Liberal principles in every constituency, as it was as much the elector's birthright as his right to vote at all.

said, he had listened with attention to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), and, as his hon. Friend always succeeded in dressing up his case with great ingenuity and novelty, he had not been surprised to hear him introduce questions which it would be difficult to see had any connection with the ballot—such, for instance, as the state of the army in the Crimea and administrative reform—combining the various subjects together much as an advertiser in the newspaper, who headed his advertisement "War in the Crimea," and ended by a panegyric upon the merits of the article he wished to sell to the public. The hon. Gentleman had said much against the aristocracy of both sides of the House. Now, he (Lord Seymour) had listened to his hon. Friend with great surprise, because he had always considered that the House of Berkeley had been somewhat mixed up in certain proceedings of the aristocracy with regard to elections. He remembered the time when they were called "the Ameers of Scinde," and when it was said that their mode of conducting the elections in their county was characterised by so much aristocratic arrogance, that it was not to be tolerated by the freemen of England. The hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing of either party, and called them "pot and kettle," but what the hon. Gentleman was between the two he (Lord Seymour) was unable to say. Following the example of the hon. Gentleman, he would not enter into the old arguments upon this question, but he would give his vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend chiefly because he considered that publicity was the main essence of the representative system. At present the conduct of the highest personages in the realm was open to be canvassed by the public and by the press; even the most insignificant were not exempt from criticism, and who were the persons whose conduct the hon. Gentleman proposed to free from public examination? The hon. Gentleman said, there was one particular class of persons, and one particular action that ought to be concealed—that particular action being the production of a Member of Parliament. He was to be hatched in the dark; nobody was to know how he was produced, and everything connected with his production was to be conducted with secrecy, until he made his appearance from the ballot-box. Going in as one of the people, he would come out a Member of Parliament, and that would be all that anybody would know of the matter. And who were the parties whose conduct was to be exempted from examination? They were the 10l. householders—the retail dealers of the country. Latterly it had been the custom to attack various classes of society. The aristocracy had been attacked, the army had been attacked, and the navy had been attacked, and now he wished to say a word about the retail dealers. Without attacking them himself, he would call into court a gentleman who was no opponent of the retail dealer, who was neither a Conservative nor a Whig, but who was a strong Radical—namely, the editor of The Lancet—who told the public that every article of food, every article of medicine, of clothing, and of furniture, obtained from the retail dealer was contaminated, and corrupted; that wherever there was the possibility of concealment there was the practice of fraud. These were the class of persons with respect to whom the hon. Gentleman said "Let them have complete concealment and secrecy; veil their proceedings with mystery, and of all the various classes throughout the country let them alone have the benefit of secrecy and freedom from examination." And why were they to be exempted from the exposure to which all classes were subjected under the present representative system? It was said that they were forced into dishonest measures by the pressure placed upon them; but he wished to ask who it was who forced them to corrupt everything they sold and to adulterate all their drugs This was what was said of them by a great Radical authority—the writer in The Lancet—who said, further, that their proceedings had reached that disgraceful pitch that there must really he a law to alter the existing state of things. Competition and the attempt to undersell one another were said to be the causes which breed the retail dealer to adulterate his goods; but was there no competition for seats in Parliament? The hon. Gentleman had read a memorandum obtained from some Ballot Committee in which an opinion was given that bribery took place at every election, though there was not in all cases legal proof; but it was very well known that at every election the unsuccessful candidate said he had been defeated by unfair means, and regretted that he bad no legal proof that bribery had taken place. Now, what was the position in which the adoption of the principle of secret voting would place the honest and independent voter? Under the existing system a man of character and consistency carried with him great weight, and his vote was of considerable value in an election; but, if the measure of the hon. Member for Bristol was successful, that man would be reduced to the same level of degradation as the corrupt and dishonest voter. At present the great difficulty was to bring the electors to vote. They would not go to the poll—not because they were afraid, but because they did not think it worth while, and because they took no interest in the contests. At the last general election that was very generally the case; and if the hon. Members were really desirous of raising the character of the voter, they would endeavour to show him that the proper way to enforce his opinions would he for him to come forward and have the manliness to avow them. It was not by secrecy and concealment that the liberties at present enjoyed by the country had been obtained, and he did not think that the philosophy of Bentham, which had been quoted by the hon. Member in support of his proposition, had been so powerful and successful that it ought to be adopted on all occasions. On the contrary, he thought that the frippery of Bentham's philosophy had been torn to rags, and that there was but little of it left that was worth anything. The memory of Bentham had almost faded away, and he was now considered as a writer of perplexed philosophy, whose doctrines with regard to religion were hostile to Christianity.

said, he felt the reluc- tance which every new Member must experience in presenting himself to the House for the first time; but he should only trespass on their attention for a few moments, while he stated the reasons which induced him to give his vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He was unwilling to give a silent vote on this occasion, because he did not entirely agree in the sentiments of the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, but he shared in a still less degree in the opinions that had been expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down. He voted for the Motion, not so much because he thought it was likely to prove a panacea for the evils that existed in our electoral system, but in the hope that it might tend to eradicate, or at least materially to diminish, those evils of which they were all aware, and which they all professed, at least, to deplore. He did not believe that the most perfect system which it was in the power of man to devise—he did not believe that any amount of safeguards, of checks, of balances, of elaborately contrived systems of voting—would be entirely sufficient to check bribery, so long as human nature remained what it was. So long as there were venal voters, so long, he thought, would votes be sold. But at the same time he believed that a measure such as that now proposed was very much calculated to check corruption in its grossest form. He thought that it would check the direct and scandalous traffic in votes that at present existed, though, perhaps, it would not altogether remove it. But there was another evil connected with the electoral system which appeared to him to be far greater than that of direct bribery—he meant the evil of intimidation;—because, while he had no sympathy whatever with the man who trafficked in his vote as a piece of merchandise, and sold it to the highest bidder, he had great sympathy with those persons who, entertaining conscientious convictions, and desiring honestly to exercise the privileges which had been given to them by the laws of the country, were yet afraid to do so from the circumstance that they knew that their own prosperity in life, and the prospects of their family, might be ruined by a conscientious adherence to that which they believed to be their duty. With those men, he repeated, he had much sympathy—for their present difficult position he felt deeply—and it was for their sake chiefly that he supported this Motion. On former occasions when this point was discussed, it had been stated that intimidation had been much diminished, and that it might be looked upon as one of the evils of the past; but surely there was no Member of that House who had any experience, however slight, in contested elections of late years, but must know that such practices still existed, and were now in as great force as ever. It would be useless to multiply instances; but here was a letter, written by a landlord during the last general election, for the purpose of influencing the voter to whom it was addressed:—"I understand you are doubtful which way to vote, and I desire you to vote for Mr. So and So; for if you do not do that, you leave my farm." [Cries of "Name, name."] He was not at liberty to give the name, but he could state that the letter he held in his hand was the original, and no copy. The noble Lord who had just addressed the House had told them that it was not his intention to repeat the arguments that had been used against the Motion on former occasions, and he was glad to hear it, because, with all his respect for the persons who had used them, he must say the arguments they had brought forward in reply to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol appeared always to him to be most weak and inconclusive. The noble Lord had to-night given them new arguments, and said that this was a Motion to protect retail dealers. He (Mr. Gordon) was sorry to hear any class attacked in that House by any Member, whether they were high or low; but he must say that the terms in which the noble Lord had spoken of a large and important, and he would say honourable, class of the community, were at the least as offensive as the terms in which the hon. Member opposite was said to have spoken of the aristocracy. He did not believe the retail dealers in this country were systematically the corrupt body the noble Lord had described them to be; but if they were so, a measure which removed from them much of the existing temptation to those external influences would be all the more beneficial. The noble Lord also told them that publicity was the essence of representation; and he granted that publicity was essential to it. In that House they represented the constituencies of the United Kingdom, and he thought it was most desirable that every vote they gave, and all they said and did, should be published in the most distinct and unequivocal manner, in order that their constituents should know how they had discharged the trust they had committed to them. But whom did the electors represent? It might in some part be said that they represented the country; but that was not a trust which was delegated to them by election. It was wisely said that certain persons should exercise the right—which was the right of the country at large—of electing the representatives of the country to Parliament, and it was the duty of their representatives to do whatever they did publicly, but he could not see how the same argument applied to the electors. The noble Lord spoke incidentally of the difficulty of getting up the voters at elections, and of Course those difficulties would always exist so long as this system of intimidation was carried on. People told him they would be glad to give him their votes, but were afraid to do so, and accordingly they did not vote at all; and he believed that would be found to be the case at every election. The real cause did not arise from the indifference of the people of England to exercise their political privileges, but was occasioned by the difficulties thrown in their way when they desired to exercise those privileges according to their conscience and sense of duty. He should give his support to this Motion, then, because he desired to relieve a large number of his fellow-subjects from that intimidation under which he believed they now suffered, and because he saw no constitutional objection to the measure and thought it would be productive of great practical benefit.

thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have been in the position to give the name of the party who had written the letter he had quoted before he ventured to read it to the House; because, as the matter at present stood, they were left in doubt whether the writer was one of the "bigoted Tories" who had been described by the hon. Member for Bristol, or one of the pure Liberals who sat on the other side of the House. The noble Lord the Member for Totness had talked of the difficulty of inducing voters to go to the poll, and the hon. Member for Beverley had ascribed that difficulty to a system of intimidation which prevented them giving their votes. He was satisfied that if the matter were inquired into it would be found that intimidation was not the cause which induced the people to abstain from recording their votes; and as several cases had been instanced on the one side, he would give them an instance on the other. A remarkable thing occurred connected with the last election for the populous city of Norwich. A few days subsequent to the last election, an article appeared in a Liberal newspaper in that city complaining of the result of the election, and ascribing the return of the Conservative candidate to the Liberal electors of the lowest class, who could not be persuaded to go to the poll because there was no one to pay them for their votes. That hardly tallied with the statement of the hon. Member for Beverley. He gave the hon. Member for Bristol credit for the ability with which he had advocated the ballot, but he believed that the hon. Member was an exception to his class, and was one of the very few clever men who believed that the ballot would effect the purpose ascribed to it. He believed the whole question of the ballot lay in a nutshell; and it was this—whether they would pass an enactment by which the system of bribery should be perpetuated in this country for ever, without the possibility of detection. That was the whole question of the ballot in two words. He defied any one to say that any electioneering agent concerned for Gentlemen on either side could not be found who could tell the price in pounds, shillings, and pence of every borough and county in the kingdom if they would only give him the ballot.

said, he could satisfy the curiosity of the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) as to the position of the hon. Member for Bristol between the pot and the kettle—the hon. Member was the steam; he represented the force of public opinion, which must be brought to bear strongly upon the House before they could hope to carry the measure. But he rose to call attention to the fact that no allusion had been made to the effect which the proposed measure might have on Ireland, where intimidation at elections was practised to a far greater extent than in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. Under a late arrangement the registration of voters in Ireland was compulsory, and whether a man attended at the registration sessions or not he was placed on the list of voters. Formerly a man might escape the consequences that would follow if he exercised the franchise in a manner conducive to his interests and in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, by declining to register his vote, but he was now obliged to do so, and was thereby exposed to an ordeal which it was impossible for any man unacquainted with Irish constituencies to understand. In the county which he represented one man had, within six months, six distinct distresses levied upon him for rent. [An hon. MEMBER: Why did he not pay his rent?] He would answer that question; it was subsequently found, when an ejectment was brought at quarter sessions, that the man did not owe a half-year's rent when the ejectment was brought, and the ejectment was dismissed. In another case a lease had been purchased which was granted by Lord Norbury with a covenant that the tenant should not assign without the consent of his landlord. The tenant, not being aware of the covenant, underlet; and because the party had voted for him (Mr. O'Brien) an action of ejectment was brought, the covenant was declared to be broken, and the lease was forfeited. He should be sorry to say that landlords in Ireland had recourse to intimidation on all occasions, but he defied any man to stand up and say that landlord influence was not exercised in every county in Ireland. He was informed that acts of the kind had taken place at the late election for Cavan, and though the Gentleman returned was, he believed, a man of the highest character, he was told that men in that county had received notice because they had honestly acted in accordance with their political opinions. He believed if the franchise was more extended freedom of voting would be the best possible thing, but under present circumstances he did not know of any other protection than that suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol.

read a letter addressed by an hon. Member of that House (Mr. O. Gore) in answer to a memorial which had been forwarded to him by an Irish tenant of his, refusing to retain him any longer as a tenant, in consequence of the vote which the tenant had given at the last election for the county of Sligo. He had also been informed that since the last election for the county of Cavan a great number of notices to quit had been served by Lord Farnham and Mr. A. Nesbitt, on tenants of theirs, in consequence of the votes which they had given at that election. These, he believed, were intended as ex post facto threats, with a view to future elections. Such instances as these proved, he contended, that Irish electors needed some such protection as was proposed by this Bill to preserve them from the effects of exercising the electoral franchise according to their own convictions.

said, in reference to a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Bristol in regard to the late election for Norwich, that if the hon. Member had been informed that he (Sir S. Bignold) had gained his election by bribery or by intimidation, he had received information which was totally without foundation, and he felt quite sure that there was not an inhabitant of Norwich with the slightest claim to veracity who would have returned any such answer to the questions which the hon. Member said had been sent down to Norwich on the subject. He had polled 3,720 votes; his majority had commenced in the first half hour of the election, and had continued increasing till the close of the poll. He had been an active citizen of Norwich for 40 years, and he believed he owed his election to the fact that during that period he had obtained the confidence of his fellow-citizens.

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, which would widen its scope and greatly increase its efficiency: the effect of it would be that in all divisions in that House the votes of Members should also be taken by ballot. There was a great talk in the country just now about administrative reform; but he was convinced that the very best administrative reform which could be adopted would be to do away with the necessity of having a patronage-feeder in that House. That would be the effect of adopting vote by ballot in the divisions of that House. There would be no more places to be given away then for voting for this Member or that Member, and constituents would find it of little use making applications to their Members; for, if they did, there would be nothing for them. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) would then be able to do away with more of those nice liltle jobs which he was I always assaulting,—commissions, for instance, with large salaries attached—head commissioner 2,000l. a year, second commissioner 1,000l., and so on. He was not an old Member of that House, but from what he had seen, that House required the application of the ballot far more than any borough he had ever seen, and, he believed, more than any constituency in the kingdom, for the whippers-in could always obtain a majority as long as they went about with their pockets full of places. The manner in which the Government patronage was exercised was disgraceful, and to that he attributed all the horrors of the Crimean campaign. The proper men were not put into the proper places, but those only were chosen to fill offices who had Friends in that House to vote for the Government. The hon. Member for Bristol deserved little credit for the manner in which he lectured the aristocracy of the country, for, although he (Mr. Michell) was not connected with the aristocracy, he believed that, were it not for the House of Lords, the country would soon be in a state in which no patriot would desire to see it. Their gallant commanders, their Wellingtons and Hardinges, who were the glory of the country all over the world, sprang from the aristocracy, and it ill became the hon. Member for Bristol to condemn it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, the insertion in the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, the words, "and of Members in divisions in this house."

supported the motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol on the ground that the ballot was required for the protection of the voter.

Sir, I should be sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol were to imagine it possible, which he might do from what he has said, that he had convinced me by the amusing, though I think not very argumentative speech which he has made to the House this evening. In the very short address which I shall make to the House, I shall expose myself, no doubt, to the reproach which I have often heard made by the advocates of the ballot, that those who oppose it do nothing but reproduce old arguments; but believing that the arguments upon which the ballot has been resisted are conclusive in their nature, it seems to me you might as well complain that there is nothing new in the demonstrations of Euclid. Now, my objection to the ballot is that which has been stated by my noble Friend, viz., that publicity or responsibility for public opinion is an essential principle of our representative constitution. I hold, in opposition to the hon. Member for Bristol, that the right or privilege of election is a trust confided by law to a certain portion of the community, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the community at large. I hold, therefore, that every person who is invested with a public trust ought to discharge that trust in the face of the whole country, and that every man should have an opportunity of knowing how the trust has been executed, and be enabled to inquire how the individual entrusted with it has acted, and why he has so acted, in the discharge of his trust. It has often been proved that though there may at present be bribery in some cases, and intimidation in others, that secret voting would not be a cure for either of those grievances. Now, we have been told, as we have often been told before, that we ought to follow the example of the United States, and that in the United States votes are given by ballot. But the example of the United States is a complete mistake as bearing upon the proposal now under consideration. It is perfectly true that in the United States votes are given by ballot, but they do not profess to be given in secret; secrecy is not the object in view there, but the mode of electing by ballot is a short and simple method of giving votes for several elections going on at the same time. It is not, therefore, for the purpose of secrecy that the ballot is adopted; it is for the purpose of convenience; and so far from voting being secret, it is well known that in the United States every man who votes is as proud of his vote as are the men who vote in England, and would scorn to have their votes recorded in secrecy. But is it proposed to make it compulsory that voting shall be carried on in secret? Because if that were the law, it would be degrading to the national character, and I say no Englishman would submit to it. I say that no law you could pass would compel the majority of electors of England to vote in secret, no law could compel the people to suppress the political opinions they entertain. Sir, the majority of the electors would evade the law and give their votes in public; and it would be only the few who would go sneaking to the poll for the sake of screening themselves, from some personal inconvenience, but who would thereby become objects of obloquy and degradation in the eyes of their fellow-countrymen. Then, Sir, I say these are the short reasons why I think this proposal of vote by ballot is one which Parliament ought not to adopt. I think it would be ineffectual for the purpose for which it is proposed, and I think also it would become a great public evil. The House was much amused by the proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) but I think there was much more logic in that proposal than in the original Motion. You want to secure the elector from personal inconvenience; you want to secure the carrying out of a public object more effectually by enabling every man to act according to his own feeling; but if you want to screen individuals from such inconveniences in the discharge of their public duty, why are not Members of this House entitled to the same protection. If you intend it as a public measure for the purpose of enabling men more freely to perform a public duty, I would ask you whether the duty which is performed by the elector can for an instant be put into competition with the important functions exercised by Members of this House? Well, then, will any man tell me that Members of this House always act according to their own opinions. Will any man tell me that votes are not constantly given here in deference to the pressure of constituencies rather than from the sense the Member entertains of what is best for the public interest. Why, we all know that it is so; and if you require that the elector should be allowed to record his vote in secret in order the better to perform his public duty, I say that the argument has tenfold force as applicable to Members of this House. But, Sir, I should be sorry to see such an innovation introduced. The same principle upon which the elector is bound to perform his duty in the face of the public, becoming thereby liable to public responsibility, has also a tenfold force with regard to Members of this House; and therefore, whatever may be the advantage in point of logic of the proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin over that of the hon. Member for Bristol, I say that the argument is brought to a reductio ad absurdum, and only proves that according to the principles of the constitution of this country we ought not to adopt a measure which tends to withdraw from public responsibility the public or political acts of any person intrusted with any right which that constitution vests in him. On these grounds, Sir, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion.

, amid loud cries of "Divide," expressed his intention to support the Motion.

replied: In answer to the allusion made by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) to elections in Gloucestershire, in which certain members of his (Mr. Berkeley's) own family were concerned, he begged to state that he had never interfered personally in the proceedings in question, and that if he had refrained that night from touching on those proceedings in the course of his argument, it only was from a feeling that the House would have considered it bad taste on his part to refer to them.