said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on the return of the British army from the Crimea, to bring home, at the public cost, the regulation number of chargers belonging to officers; or, if all the horses were not brought home, whether they intended to make up to all officers the amount of allowance to which they would have been entitled if the horses bad been lost in Her Majesty's service? He intended his question to cover the case of cavalry, infantry, staff officers, and, indeed, the case of any officers who were bound to have chargers with the army in the field.

said, he had stated on a previous occasion that General Codrington had not sent home any despatch explaining the reasons which induced him to issue the General Order upon this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman would probably agree with him that it was right that the Commander of the Forces should have a large discretion left to him in this as in other matters. Lord Panmure had, however, sent a telegraphic message to General Codrington, instructing him that where officers were desirous of having their chargers brought home to this country they should be allowed to do so at the public expense; and, he might add, that it was the desire of the War Office to act in a liberal spirit with regard to the claims of the officers in this respect.

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that this order emanated from the Commander in Chief?

Yes; and a similar arrangement will be made with respect to the chargers of English officers attached to the Turkish Contingent.

said, he begged to ask whether any, and what, measures were being taken for the disbandment and return to their own country of the German mercenary legion embodied for the purposes of the late war?

replied, that the German Legion was only one of several corps embodied during the late war which would have to be disbanded now that the war was over. More than one-half the German Legion was in the East, and of course the regiments there would have to wait their turn, in common with the other portions of the British army, before they could be brought home. The troops composing those Foreign Legions were entitled to be sent to their homes on the Continent, or to the Colonies, according as they might elect, and orders had been sent that the men should state where they wished to go.

Am I to understand that the men belonging to these legions are entitled to be sent to our Colonies?

Yes; not as soldiers, but as emigrants.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the advisers of the Crown, in recommending a commutation of the sentence of death lately passed on Celestina Somner, at the Central Criminal Court, for the murder of her child, had obtained the Report and taken the opinion of the Judge by whom she had been tried; and, if so, whether there was any objection to laying them before the House?

said, the Secretary of State was solely responsible for the advice given to Her Majesty on these matters, and it would be contrary to all precedent, unless very sufficient grounds could be shown to the contrary, that the opinions of Judges, confidentially communicated to the Secretary of State, should be laid before Parliament. No doubt it was usual, when petitions were presented stating facts which had not appeared on the trial, to refer those petitions to the Judge who tried the case. That course was taken in the present instance, but he did not feel himself justified in laying the opinion of the Judge before Parliament.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War if it was intended to retain the services of any of the Scotch militia regiments; and, if so, whether the selection of them will depend on the reports which have been made with respect to their comparative strength, efficiency, and discipline, or on what other principle the selection would be made?

said, that it was not intended to maintain in an embodied state any of the Scotch militia regiments, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to make any selection.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question, of which he had not been able to give him notice. He wished to know if it was true that a secret treaty had been entered into between England, France, and Austria, with respect to the territorial arrangement of Europe?

Sir, if there were really a secret treaty, the noble Lord would excuse me from giving him the secret. I recollect my late Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) making a Motion for a Return of the way in which the secret service money was expended. There had been no concealed treaty, nor any besides the one laid upon the table.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, in the absence of the Clerk of the Ordnance, a question on a subject of very melancholy importance. A dreadful accident had occurred on Saturday, at Woolwich Arsenal, by which six men had lost their lives. Two different statements had been published, the one stating that the men were employed in making percussion powder for percussion caps; and the other, that they were employed in preparing fireworks. It was desirable that an official investigation should take place into the circumstances. He wished, therefore, to know whether the men were employed in the manufacture of percussion powder, or of the ingredients for fireworks?

said, he was unable to say whether the late explosion at Woolwich, which was attended with such melancholy consequences, was caused by the manufacture of percussion caps or of fireworks.

Sir, Pursuant to the notice I have given, I rise to renew my entreaties to this House to be allowed to bring in a Bill to relieve the Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland from the deplorable and humiliating condition to which they are reduced, entirely through the instrumentality of open voting. It is, indeed, a hard and unwelcome task to press this great question on the House, year after year, and I deeply feel the kindness which has been extended to me. I almost fear, nevertheless, that many hon. Members to whom this question is obnoxious may apply to me the words of the poet, and say, "that I cleave the general ear with horrid speech." The task I have imposed on myself is almost a Sisyphean labour; but I know that the stone I roll ought to reach the summit of the hill, and that knowledge makes me contented with placing it half-way—confident in the belief that, if I fail to carry it further, that I am yet assisting the labours of those who, at no distant period, aided by the progress of education, the diffusion of knowledge, and a more just appreciation of the value of the franchise, will be enabled to demand that, as a right, which I entreat as a boon. Before I proceed to deal more directly with this great question, I will venture to point out the position it at present holds. When I last had the honour to address the House on this subject, I quoted the names of a vast number of distinguished gentlemen, both in and out of Parliament, who had supported the ballot at various times, and whose arguments and evidence must remain, though they might secede from the support of the measure. A great majority of these still maintain their conviction, unshaken. A few have deserted their former opinions; but this fact deserves notice, that those who have changed their opinions will be found, for the most part, to have changed their politics, and those who have recanted their opinions, and who have not deserted their politics, will, for the most part, be found to have changed their constituencies, and instead of being returned for large boroughs, they will have been returned for counties where protection to the voter is reckoned an heresy to the landowner, or they will be returned for those rotten boroughs which were allowed to blur the fair face of the Reform Bill to please the Whig nobility, and from a participation in which they were unable to exclude the Tory nobility, and which are just as much their property as their houses in Belgrave, Berkeley, Grosyenor, or Portman Squares. The ballot ought not to be made a party question. I cannot argue it as such; but it is made so by the Tory party. The opposition which I meet with from the Tories I in no way complain of; to say the truth, it is manly, open, and decided. I cannot say so much for the Whig opposition to the measure. The leading Members of Whig Governments are just as bitterly opposed to the question as the Tory party; but they make it an open question, not for love of the ballot, but for love of their places, which they could not retain if they were to make it a close question, so marked and decided is the majority of their supporters in favour of the ballot. This must be to the select body of recusant Whig Ministers an exceedingly disagreeable question to cope with. When they attempt to reply to our arguments they are rewarded by Tory cheers, and they march into the lobby deserted by their friends, over whom they obtain a victory by pinning themselves to the tail of their foes. There are other circumstances which must be unpleasant to a Government calling itself Liberal. A careful analysis of the voters on this question shows that a vast majority of the great city constituencies, which have a will of their own, return Members who support the ballot, while the opposition to the measure is composed of Members representing counties, and nomination boroughs, where the electors have no will of their own. Now, while the majority of the Members of this House who are opposed to the ballot is considerable, the number of electors by whom they are returned is ridiculously small in proportion to their majority. Add to this, that the non-electors of the country are decidedly in favour of the ballot, and actually deprecate an extension of the suffrage without it; then, the fact stares you in the face, that if you were to ballot for the ballot throughout the length and breadth of the land, the majority in its favour would be enormous. I refer to these facts to show that no dismay need attend the position in which this great question stands. There is in this House a phalanx of 224 hon. Members, having at their back the flower of the electoral strength of this country, determined to win this boon for the people, and when we look back to, antecedents, are we not encouraged to hope for success? How few years have elapsed since the attempt to abolish the corn laws was termed by the then first Minister of the Crown madness? And when, year after year, we followed Charles Pelham Villiers into the lobby, were we not viewed as a select body of hopeless lunatics, much pitied by sensible Whigs and sagacious Tories? Why, the country Gentlemen who counted us at the lobby doors used to look as if they feared we should bite them. All this passed away like a dissolving view, and then we were fated to see that celebrated race run by Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, to try who could first be in at the death of the corn laws. Would they ever have run that race if the people, booted, spurred, whip in hand, had not mounted on their backs and urged them to their speed? Then, I say of this question, nil desperandum. The same paucity of argument, and the same amplitude of votes, attended the question of the corn laws, as now attend the ballot. So completely one-sided is the argument of our present question, that there is not a puny editor of any petty paper, whether published in some village situated in some Irish bog, on a Scotch moor, on a Welsh mountain, or on an English plain, who, on this question, is not able to master the mighty weapon of The Times, with its Briarean power, and its host of talent. What new argument can I urge upon your attention? I can but refer to those arguments which I inherit from Mr. Grote, and which stand in the pages of Hansard unanswered, and unanswerable. I know what we must expect to be told—that the ballot is cowardly and un-English. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle is fond of saying so. Then I tell you that such assertions are a mockery to common sense, since it is plain that the army, the navy, the nobility, and commonalty of this country, being in the constant use of the ballot-box, according to your opinion, must be a pack of cowards. Before you deal again in this bold and bald assertion, be pleased to point put why it is cowardly and un-English to elect Members of Parliament by the ballot, and brave and British to elect every other possible functionary, to every other possible office in that way? The Duke of Somerset, who returns a Member for Totness, is violently opposed to the ballot. The noble Lord, who is returned for that family borough, is, of course, in the family way on the subject of the ballot, and tells us, from the hustings, that it is cowardly and un-English. The speech of the noble candidate (Lord Gifford), was so remarkable, that I hope that the noble Member will, if present, favour us with an appendix to it. The noble Lord, it appears, is an advocate for open voting, it is so manly—it reminded him of a boxing-match between a couple of his constituents in a twenty-four foot ring. Now, I think the noble Lord has hit upon a most unlucky simile when he compares a manly, fair, stand-up fight in a twenty-four foot ring to a contested election, carried on by open voting. No doubt the noble Lord is a manly Englishman, and would like to see fair play, a fair stand-up fight, not between a heavy man and a light man, not between a weak man and a strong man, but between equally matched combatants. Then I tell the noble Lord that anything redolent of fair play is no type of open voting; but let me invite the House to take a look at the ring of open voting. What equally matched combatants have we there? There you have the thirteen stone landlord squaring away at the eight stone tenant at will. There you have the six foot high customer giving it left and right to the five feet high tradesman. There you have the strong creditor getting the weak debtor's head into chancery, and there you find the employers of all sorts fearfully outmatching the employed. And this is the ring in which the noble Member for Totness aspires to carry the lemon and sponge. In this ring my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton is a judicious bottle-holder; my noble Friend the Member for London, the great umpire, holding the watch and calling time; and at Totness may be found the Duke of Somerset throwing up his hat and challenging all comers, well knowing in his valorous discretion that no one will approach that ring but tenants at will and puny tradesmen. I wish the whole bevy of these noble Lords joy of their brave pursuit. It is English, I blush to confess. It is aristocratic and primogenitural, I acknowledge; but equally certain am I that it is cowardly, tyrannical, and unconstitutional. The noble Lord has missed the only true point of comparison between the boxing ring and open voting, and that is the tendency of both to brutality and demoralisation. There is another topic equally contrary to common sense and sound argument upon which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton continues to dilate, and the noble Lord the Member for London to rejoice in. It is that the electors hold the franchise as a trust for the non-electors—ergo, you must have open voting, in order that the non-electors may ascertain for whom the electors vote, and so become aware whether their trutees have discharged their trusts properly, or have been guilty of a breach of trust. Now, Mr. Grote dealt with this argument successfully. Two years ago I endeavoured to demonstrate its insufficiency, and I got no reply. Sir William Molesworth, in, that luminous speech which he made in support of this question, shortly before his lamented death, put an extinguisher upon it—not a bit. Last Session it was up again, fresh as ever. Now, I invite you to meet the question as I put it. I will take your own position, and fight you on your own grounds. In the first place, I accept your interpretation, and will admit the elective franchise to be a trust delegated to the electors, to be used for the benefit of the non-electors. Here it is necessary that we should bear in mind the definition, of the electoral trust. On this, I presume, we cannot differ. We agree, then, that if an elector vote freely and indifferently for any candidate or candidates, unbiassed by intimidation and uninfluenced by reward, that he faithfully discharges his electoral trust. Now, you say, that in, order that you may know whether the elector be guilty of a breach of this electoral trust, you must have open voting. I put it to, your common sense, that open voting can furnish you with no information of the sort. Open voting can inform you whether an elector vote for A, B, or C, but not the motive which impels him to vote. The mere voting for A, B, or C, constitutes no breach of trust,—the motive which impels an elector to vote may form a breach of trust, but that fact you cannot arrive at by open voting; consequently open voting cannot do that which you pretend it can do, discover to the non-elector whether the elector have or have not discharged his trust faithfully, and therefore open voting renders no service to and confers no benefit upon the non-elector. Here, then, I have shown that the advantages of open voting are negative. Now, permit me to reverse the picture, and show you that the evils of open voting are positive—instead of conserving the electoral trust, it leads to a direct breach of it. Bribery is facilitated by open voting. If you have the courage to wade deep into those foul annals of election profligacy, of which we have so unwholesome a collection, you will find that the purchaser of votes stands by the polling-booth and sees the vote delivered before he pays the price of it. The suborner will not trust the suborned. Take away the knowledge of how the elector votes—let there be no better security for the vote than the elector's honour—you upset the confidence of the dealer and destroy the very spirit of the market. So much for the breach of the electoral trust by reward. Now mark the breach of trust caused by intimidation. Intimidation lives by open voting; open voting is the breath of its nostrils, its vitality, its atmosphere; remove it out of that atmosphere, and it collapses and dies. The knowledge of how the elector votes enables punishment to follow the threat; take away that knowledge, and the threats of the intimidator become a bag of wind. I have now argued this point of the question on your own grounds, and I submit most respectfully that I have proved that, so far from open voting being a check upon a breach of electoral trust, that it is the direct means of that breach of trust taking place. I now venture to call the attention of the House to the existing state of the Ballot in America. I have the honour to belong to an association called the Ballot Society, which is in direct communication with gentlemen of high worth and respectability in America, Members of the Legislature, and others; and on their authority I have, in a former debate, shown the true state of the Ballot in America, yet the most vague, crude, and untrue statements continue to be thrown out. In the speech made by the noble Member for Tiverton, only last Session, the noble Lord asserted that—

"It was a great mistake to suppose that the Ballot was adopted in the United States to ensure secrecy,—it was only used as a convenient mode of taking votes for a good many officers at once."

Where the mistake rests, it is my duty to prove. It may be a startling assertion to many, yet I assure the House that the circumstances attending the Game Laws and the circumstances attending the Ballot in America, are extremely similar. In some States, Game Laws existed as early as the institution of the Republic; but in the early days of that Republic, the population was sparse, the aboriginal wilderness was slightly encroached upon. Cultivation was not general, and consequently the protection of game was unnecessary; but as the country became more densely populated, and cultivation more general, it became necessary to pass laws for the protection of game, and the American Game Laws, in several States, are more stringent than the English Game Laws. Now, so it was with the Ballot. When the Republic was first instituted, the Ballot was the general mode of election; open voting in some States, indeed, existed, but this is worthy of attention, that where the Ballot originally existed, it has been adhered to invariably, whereas, the States which originally had open voting have, with very few exceptions, adopted the ballot. But, like the game laws, in the early days of the republic the ballot was not needed—no malversation of the franchise was attempted; but as America increased in wealth and importance, as she became not only a growing but a manufacturing country, as mighty cities arose, as great corporate bodies came into play—as her monied interests became varied, the franchise began to be regarded, and intimidation quickly took its stand by those voting urns where the ballot was loosely observed, and brought with it its concomitants, tyranny, suffering, and undue return of candidates; while in those States, such as Michigan, where the ballot was used in its integrity, the exact reverse was to be found. I will now call my witnesses, and then leave the House to judge who is mistaken, my noble Friend or myself. The first testimony I shall cite is that of Mr. Pierce, a gentleman of consideration residing in Massachusetts, with whom I have had the honour to correspond on the subject of protected voting. Mr. Pierce thus writes in a paper called the Dedham Gazette:—

"In Massachusetts and the manufacturing States intimidation is constantly practised; the manufacturers are more interested in the financial policy of the General Government, than the landlords of England were interested in the maintenance of her Corn Laws. A high tariff adds several per cent to their dividends, and the votes of their operatives may elect or defeat the advocates of a tariff. Many of them boldly avow their right to discharge those who vote against their peculiar interests; such operatives are sometimes retained, but they soon find that their wages are diminished by their political opinions. Recusant operatives are the first to be docked, and the first to be cut short or discharged when there is not work enough for all."

He then gives particular instances of this general practice—

"In the autumn of 1850, the Chairman of the Whig State Central Committee of Massachusetts, sent a circular to prominent Whigs in the contested towns, to use all the influence in their power over the men in their employ, or in any way under their control. The superintendent of the Boott Mills, Lowell, when called upon by two gentlemen, candidates for the Legislature, and asked whether he intended to discharge the operatives who voted the ten hour coalition ticket, replied, 'that the Corporation would discharge every man who voted that ticket.' A statement of the interview was published by these gentlemen, under their signatures, and its truth has never been denied or questioned."

Mr. Pierce adds the following paragraph taken from The New Bedford Mercury, a Whig paper in Massachusetts—

"Inspectors, be sure and attend early and late at the polls, so as to obtain each and every name of those Locofocos who vote the Locofoco free-trade wages' ticket for the selectmen and other town officers. It is of the greatest importance that a true and faithful list should be preserved and published, in order that the public may know them. It is not proper or right, that any one who is a friend to this town's prosperity, should aid, trade with, or employ men who will vote at once against its best interest, its only interest, the whaling business."

"At the time when the intimidation at elections, of which the above are instances, was practised, the system of voting in force in Massachusett's was this—'All votes were given by written or printed tickets containing only the names of the candidates voted for. These tickets were, by special enactment, required to be presented for deposit in the ballot-box open and unfolded. By standing at the polling place, any one wishing to know for whom the electors were voting, might ascertain the fact with the greatest ease.'"

The next document I propose to quote, is a letter from the Hon. Amasa Walker, ex-Secretary of State, who moved for a committee in the Legislature of Massachusetts, to consider of the malversation of the franchise. This committee was granted, and upon its report an Act passed the Legislature to cause the votes to be taken by a strictly secret ballot. Let Mr. Walker speak for himself; his letter is addressed to the Secretary of the Ballot Society in England, who had been instructed to obtain information from so high a source. Mr. Walker thus writes:—

"In Massachusetts corporations, formed for various industrial and financial purposes, give a peculiar character to the State. Individuals die; the corporation never dies. Individuals are, by the force of public sentiment, held morally responsible for their acts; corporations have no moral responsibility. They have no souls. Whatever the extent of their wealth, often amounting to many millions of dollars, and having the power of controlling the destinies of multitudes who hold their places, and even their very dwellings, as tenants at will, these corporations are always placed under the management of a small board of directors, who, in turn, transfer their power to the hands of a single agent, or superintendent, for the time being vested with all the attributes of sovereignty which such corporations can confer. These companies, so organised and managed, scattered all over the commonwealth, united in sympathy and interest, form a sort of moneyed feudalism, and sway a mighty influence whenever they choose, as they often do, to enter the political arena. Many thousands of voters are in the service of these bodies, and up to the year 1851 were constantly exposed to their dictation at the ballot-box. In that year the law for 'the better security of the ballot' was enacted. Its history is as follows—

"The great struggle against the slave power, which first manifested itself in 1848, excited a strong interest, and caused the friends of freedom to feel how much their efforts were paralysed by the controlling influence which the Conservative Pro-slavery party was able to exert upon the masses by their power of intimidation at the polls. Hence they began to look with new and increased anxiety for some means of relief. Having the honour of a seat in the Massachusetts Senate in the year 1850, my mind was particularly directed to the subject, and I earnestly sought to devise some means by which the desired independence of the voter might be secured. While thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to me (for I had never heard it suggested) that the true method was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then, having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box. As soon as the idea presented itself to my mind, I felt assured that it was the true one, and accordingly, without an hour's delay, offered an order in the Senate, 'to inquire what measures could be taken for the better security of the ballot. In compliance with the Motion, a joint Committee of two from the State and five from the House of Representatives was appointed. Notwithstanding a majority of this Committee belonged to that party in the Senate which has always manifested the greatest hostility to a free ballot, the plan proposed commended itself so much by its simplicity and efficiency, and the evidence presented before the Committee of the great pvactical evils of the old system was so conclusive, that a majority of the Committee agreed upon a Report and Bill, a copy of which I send you herewith. I believe, Sir, I have now answered, however imperfectly, the various inquiries proposed to me, and, in conclusion, have only to add that I feel a dee interest in the object for which your society is organised. I earnestly hope you will succeed, and that speedily. The ballot will be an inestimable boon to the people of Great Britain. It will infuse new force and vitality into the Government—it will aid in every popular reform—it will tend to elevate and improve the condition of the people, and when once established, will be regared with favour by all who feel an interest in the welfare and happiness of the country. That you will have the sealed ballot whenever you have a ballot at all, I have no doubt. You will, I am sure, insist upon it, and not be put off with any half-way measure. Our whole experience leads us to feel that the sealed ballot is what the people are entitled to, and what they must have if they would secure their greatest good. Such a ballot has bitter enemies—here, as I suppose it has with you. All who wish for exclusive privileges, for class legislation, for the rule of the aristocratic few, are, without exception, opposed to it, while all who wish that the people should govern, that all should have equal privileges and rights, that legislation should be general, instead of special, and for the benefit of the whole, instead of a part, are the active friends of the new mode of voting. It is the surest test of political character we have ever had in this country, and I presume it will be found so in yours. Should any further information be needed, I shall be happy to furnish all in my power, and any additional documents that may be wanted. Hoping to hear of the continued progress of your excellent society, and of its final and triumphant success, I have the hour to be, your obedient Servant,

"AMASA WALKER."

I now trouble the House with the report of the committee obtained by Mr. Walker, which is to the following effect:—

"The ballot in this Commonwealth, in its true character, is but a name. Yet your committee are confident that this is not, and never was, the wish of the present or any past Legislature of Massachusetts. They feel assured that it is, and ever has been, an object of sincere desire, to secure to each citizen the free and unbiassed exercise of his elective franchise, and that the present system was adopted, only because no other at the time seemed feasible. The progress of events, however, has at length brought to our minds a mode by which the rights of the citizen may be fully secured, and yet the most effectual guarantees against fraudulent voting obtained. The use of letter envelopes, which has within a few years been introduced into this country, has, it is believed, suggested a very simple, cheap, and efficacious remedy, for all the evils which have heretofore been complained of. If each voter be required to place his ballot in a sealed envelope, and in that manner deposit the same in the ballotbox, no one can know, unless he chooses to announce his vote, as he has an undoubted right to do, the character of the ticket or the persons for whom he has voted. No man acts irrespective of surrounding influences. Some are more independent of circumstances than others, but there are none, whatever their condition, who do not sometimes act under more or less constraint, in giving an open and easily recognised ballot. This will, we think, appear probable if we take into view the following considerations:—In the first place, almost every individual is attached to some political party. He feels that, on the whole, his party is nearer right than any other party, and wishes to act with it. But if he be a true man, he will never give up his conscience to the dictation of others. He will always reserve to himself the right of deciding upon men and measures, and if either are presented which he cannot approve, he will wish, silently, at least, to refuse his concurrence. But this he cannot now do. Nothing can be more imperious, more absolute, than the dictation of party spirit. It knows no mercy; it permits no disobedience to its behests; it is satisfied only with the most entire submission to its mandates. This is the character of all parties; there is no difference. If a candidate be presented, no matter how obnoxious, how unsuitable, every man of the party must give him his vote under the pains and penalties of excommunication.

If party feelings run high, the polls are narrowly watched, and the unfortunate individual, who would fain obey the dictates of his own breast, must deposit his vote,—for it can scarce be called a ballot,—under the espionage of party leaders, whose eagle-eyed vigilance he can hardly hope to escape, and whose angry frowns he may feel quite unwilling to encounter. Is it not so? And, if so, shall we hesitate to provide, if we can, an easy and effectual remedy,—a remedy by which the peaceable and retiring citizen may be allowed to express his sincere convictions at the ballot-box, without incurring a merciless storm of party denunciation? Is it any reflection on such a man, to suppose that he would gladly avoid, if he could, so unpleasant an alternative? And ought he not to have the privilege of doing so? Shall a man, in the exercise of his elective franchise, be obliged to meet obstacles of this nature, if there is no necessity for it? Again, in a community like ours, no inconsiderable portion stand to each other in the relation of employer and employed. We need not suppose that the employer utters any threats; we need not suppose that there are any overt acts of intimidation, but will not an influence, greater or less, be exerted over the minds of persons thus situated? Is it unreasonable to suppose that some, at least, under such circumstances, choose to forego the right of suffrage, rather than exercise it contrary to their own convictions, or the well-known wishes of their employers? Again, many persons are placed in the relation of tenants, tenants at will often, others that of debtors. Will neither of these clauses ever be likely to feel embarrassment in the expression of their political preferences at the polls? In addition to all these influences, there are others of a general nature, from which no one, whether high or low, rich or poor, are wholly exempt, the influence of social life. No man ordinarily wishes to offend a neighbour or make an enemy, and rather than incur the hazard of doing either, how many will be induced to forego, in some degree, their real preferences and opinions? The right of suffrage is the most sacred of all political rights, and should be most carefully guarded. If the juryman, in the exercise of his functions, be required to be free from all bias, and to act without fear, favour, affection, or hope of reward, how much more ought the citizen, in the discharge of his highest duty, that of electing his rulers, to be equally free from all bias whatever? If we are bound to guard the jury-box, are we not still more bound to guard the ballot-box, that fountain and source of all political power, and surest safeguard of public liberty? In view of these considerations and facts, your committee, regarding the subject as worthy the attention of the Legislature of this Commonwealth, respectfully report the accompanying Bill.

"AMASA WALKER,

WILLIAM KIMBALL,

JOHN M. BLISS,

GEORGE COWDREY,

CHARLES F. BATES."

Now, then, I submit to the House, that in this plain unvarnished tale we have reflected back to us a picture of intimidation perfectly English. The intimidation of the aristocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a pro-slavery feudalism in America. The intimidation of the landocracy in England is rivalled by the intimidation of a mercantile confederacy in America. Corrupt corporate bodies in England may shake hands with corrupt corporate bodies in America, and a monied oligarchy is the electoral bane of both countries. The Americans put their shoulders to the wheel to drag themselves out of this moral mire; you, on the contrary, prefer to stick in the mud, and to wallow in corruption, rather than part with the power of intimidation. You cannot deny the scandalous state into which England is plunged at every general election; and when these evils come before you, then, indeed, you produce some miserable abortion in the shape of an Act of Parliament, and pretend that it is a remedy. Take, for instance, your Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. It has done just that which you intended it should do—nothing! Look to the accounts of contested elections since that Act has been in force. Bribery rampant, intimidation roaring through the land. I invite the House to listen to a few light details of our amended electoral system. Take the following description of the scenes discovered at the last Boston election, from a London paper of March 6th of this present year:—

"Will it be believed, after all our Acts upon bribery and corruption, and the pains and penalties held in terrorum over the heads of the free and independent, that in the borough of Boston there exists, at the present moment, a confederacy of freemen and electors, known as the 'Rock Club,' who march through the town with a green banner and a fife and drum, making known to the rival candidates that there they are, ready to be purchased, and to sell their votes to the highest bidder? No later than Tuesday morning last, a deputation from this body, numbering some twenty voters, waited upon the agent of Colonel Sleigh, and requested to be informed how much per head that gentleman was willing to pay for their votes. Disgusted at such corrupt and abominable proceedings, with a spirit which is deserving of all praise, Colonel Sleigh spurned the aid of such myrmidons, and withdrew from a contest in which honour was not to be achieved even by a candidate who goes in first at the head of a Boston poll. When it was announced that the Independent candidate would withdraw, his committee marched into his rooms, and each formally presented bills thus worded—'To attendance upon Colonel Sleigh, in committee and canvass, £1 10s.' And these are 'free and independent voters,' who have a voice in returning to Parliament one of the representatives of the country. The more we see of the present electoral system the more we are satisfied that no Act now in force has the power to check bribery and corruption."

I now take Bath, and give you the evidence of both candidates as to intimidation:—

"Mr. Tite said: He would come now to another screw, and connected with it was the ballot. He was a man who could always hold up his hand and vote as he pleased, caring for no man; but it was a very different thing with many amongst the constituency of Bath, where the screw was put on. His learned friend had suggested that he knew of one case in which a supporter of his was the victim; he could name five or six distinct cases where the screw had been put on his friends. Mr. WHATELEY: And I know of ten or twelve cases since I have been here. Mr. TITE: If that were so the greater was the necessity for the ballot on both sides. I have learnt a lesson at Barnstaple, where exclusive dealing is carried on so far that the names of all who voted for the Whig candidate were entered in the blue-book; and 'so they are here.' A poor man yesterday said, when I asked for his vote; and told him it was a mere question of voting—'No, sir, it is not only my vote, which I would willingly give, if I dare; but the bread of my family is dependent upon it.'"

Before I quit the west of England, pray let me present you with the, chaste and immaculate borough of Wells; it sets an edifying example.. It has been said that when Greek meets Greek then is the tug of war. But I say, when Whig meets Whig then is the tug of war; and depend upon it that when that happens, the constituency is sure to be well double-thonged between them. I give you an account of the proceedings of the Government whipper-in from the London Standard, and of the Opposition whipper-in from the Globe. The Standard says—

"About a fortnight before Mr. Tudway's death, when all hope of his recovery was at an end, this little city was visited by its other representative, the right hon. W. G. Hayter, the patronage secretary of the Treasury. For ten days successively the right hon. gentleman drove punctually into the city from the friend's house where he was staying, three miles distant, and remained until late in the evening, perambulating the streets, calling upon various electors, accosting them, and making the most affectionate inquiries into their welfare. Singularly enough, while he was here, a rumour got into circulation that still more patronage was to be placed at the disposal of the Wells electors, notwithstanding the astounding published list of seventy places already bestowed, and, by way of an earnest, an odd berth or two was given to deserving applicants. The mayor has issued a notice containing various clauses of the 'Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' to warn the electors against the consequences of bribery and treating. The clause having reference to the promises of place, office, and employment, to procure votes, has an especial bearing upon the recent visit of Mr. Hayter."

The Globe, a Government paper, of the 26th November, 1855, has selected the following article from the Bath Journal, and thus describes the Tory doings:—

"There remained, in the evening of the day of nomination, some twenty undecided voters. The majority of these, it was believed, would vote for the Liberal candidate. During the night it oozed out that two important personages, well known at a notorious club in London, were doing an extensive business at the 'Swan,' and when the morning came, by some mysterious process of persuasion, these 'independent electors' all went to the poll for the Tory candidate. The disgraceful scenes which occurred during the poll are almost beyond description. The 'dab-in-the-hand men,' as they are termed, were marched to poll guarded by an escort, like deserters to the guard-room—or felons to their cells. The Tory landlord might be seen dragging up his refractory tenant, and the patroniser of some small tradesman in close attendance upon his helpless and unfortunate victim. We saw one 'hanging-back' freeman pulled, pushed, and carried to the hall by four independent voters of the immaculate order, and, of course, having had so much kindness and attention bestowed upon him, he had no alternative but to vote for the Crimean hero—or rather absentee. The clerical influence, strange as it may seem, was used to a great extent. Men who were pledged to the Serjeant were almost pestered to death by their impertinent annoyances; and threatened with the loss of their favours if they did not regard their promise as a joke, and vote for their 'darling Captain.' 'The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act' of 1854, is a mere farce, and of no more value than so much waste paper."

Well, Sir, at Leominster there has been; an election, and of so little use has been the corrupt practices prevention Act, that the electors petition for the ballot. There has been an election for Rochester, and the hon. Member just returned stated on: the hustings, that the proceedings he had witnessed had made him an advocate for the ballot. There has been an election, too, for the borough of Midhurst. Now this borough is an appurtenance to the Cowderay property. An auctioneer in describing the advantages of that estate, might say, with truth, the woods abound with game, the rivers with fish, and at the disposal of the proprietor are wild rabbits and tame electors. The present owner of the borough, Lord Egmont, has evinced great judgment and good taste in the selection of his Members. He has replaced his own nephew, one of the most popular Members who ever sat in this House, now the worthy representative of the University of Cambridge, by another hon. and learned Member whose literary talents are known to fame. It is not with these hon. Members that I am at war, but I am at war to the knife, with the system which they uphold and the abominations thereof which they conceal. Take, for instance, the speech of the late candidate for Midhurst, Mr. Warren, made upon his election and reported in the papers.

"I never read such playful irony. The hon. and learned Gentleman actually told the electors of Midhurst that he canvassed them for eleven successive days in an easterly wind. The result was, that after enduring more than Crimean hardships, he had arrived at the conclusion that all their votes were unfettered. He then threw up his hat—I mean Lord Egmont's hat—and challenged all and sundry to do battle with him; and when nobody came, he told the electors that he was a proud man, and their affectionate brother. I really cannot account for this speech, otherwise than by supposing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been studying his own pleasant novel, called "Ten Thousand a-Year," and was giving the electors a strong touch of his favourite character, 'Oily Gammon.'"

Sir, I know not how my Motion may be met, but as my opponents seldom attack the vanguard of the argument, assailing its flanks and looking out for unguarded points, let me inspect my defences. Perhaps I may be accused of making an onslaught on the aristocracy. To that I reply, that I cannot in one speech embrace the wide field of argument and instances which the ballot presents. As certain aristocrats have thrust themselves lately into the melée, I have repelled their attacks. It may be said then, you would exclude the Members of noble families from the House of Commons. I would do no such thing. I would merely take from the heads of noble Houses, the unconstitutional power of commanding seats in this House for their nominees. Now, I utterly disbelieve that the scions of the aristocracy would be excluded from Parliament. I believe that the names of Villiers, Stanley, Walpole, or Duncan, represented as they are, would find their way into the Roll of the Commons House, ballot or no ballot; but, I would take from Clarendon, Derby, Egmont, or Camper-down, the power of forcing them there. In former speeches, I have placed before the House the tyranny of the democracy and their unconstitutional interference with the franchise. In short, Sir, I have attacked the malversation of the franchise wherever I have found it, without reference to party, rank, or station. One word in conclusion to administrative reformers. You had a Committee, I warned you how it would end. It resulted in the complete; exculpation and glorification of Mr. Russell, the Times correspondent; any other result was impracticable in a House of Commons which carries the peoples' purse, but is compulsorily elected by the House of Lords. I call upon all administrative reformers, then, to vote for this question. By giving protection to the elector, you admit the genial sun of the people to shine into the Commons House, and thus, and thus only, can you prevent salutary measures of reform from being blighted by the cold shade of aristocracy.

seconded the Motion.

said, he thought that there was a great discrepancy between the general terms in which the hon. Gentleman had addressed the House and the terms of his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward not one single individual case in support of his general statement. In spite of the connection of the hon. Gentleman with the Ballot Society, in spite of his sympathy with the grievances of oppressed voters, he had not been able apparently to furnish the House with a single instance of intimidation. It was not enough for the hon. Member to come down to that House and say intimidation is carried on which should not be carried on, and therefore give us the Ballot; for no conclusion could be more illogical. The hon. Gentleman ought to prove that the Ballot would be a protection to conscientious voters, and to prove that, he apprehended would be rather difficult. Suppose an election had taken place, and afterwards the landlord went to his tenant, or the wealthy manufacturer to his tradesman, and asked him what way he had voted—if the tenant or tradesman had voted for the friend of his patron the Ballot would be superfluous; if he had not, and confessed the fact, the Ballot would be no protection, nor would it be if he refused to answer, so that, in point of fact, it would only be a protection to the man who having voted against the friend of his patron denied that he had done so, that was to say, it would be a protection only to the liar, the hypocrite, and the knave. Was that portion of the community so deserving of protection that for their interests alone the House ought to consent to introduce a system of secret suffrage? Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that those persons who fancied they had a right to influence the conduct of voters would allow themselves to be defeated by the Ballot-box or by sealed envelopes? No. They would seek to exercise the influence in spite of all enactments, and they would be the more excited to do so by a gauntlet of defiance being thrown down to them by the Legislature. Gentleman men who at present would reject the idea of espionage as discreditable would, in that case, hardly hesitate to stoop to any means within their reach in order to baffle and defeat the attempts of a Legislature which sought to deprive them—vainly as he believed would be the case—of that influence to which, as they imagined, their position legitimately entitled them. A tenant would then be whispered out of his holding, and while, at present, he only ran the risk of losing his farm if he voted against the wishes of his party, he would, under the uncertainty engendered by the proposed measure, be equally opposed to that risk if he voted with them. Harassed by the spy and maligned by the informer, he would then sigh for the time when every vote was recorded in open day, and when he could point to the vote-book in his favour. He (Mr. Peacocke) would appeal to the real friends of purity of election—and he was doubtful if he could class hon. Gentlemen opposite among them—to say whether they could regard the passing of the Ballot with any other feelings than those of alarm. You might then be certain that there existed in any particular locality a perfectly organised system of corruption, and yet you would he powerless to defeat it. You would then have electors disposed of, he supposed, according to the most approved principles of political economy—bought in the cheapest and sold in the dearest market. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) had declared that there would be no corruption, because, if vote by ballot prevailed, the candidate could not trust to the promise of the elector, and because no one man could put trust in the promise of another. He would pass over this optimist view of human nature taken by the hon. Member for Bristol, but he would appeal to experience to say whether, in practice; that had been found to have been the case. Why, the first instance of organised corruption, discovered was at Shoreham, in 1771, which place was bought and sold by the Christian Club, a club conducted on such strictly Evangelical principles that they would have been dear to the heart of even the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor). Later on they learnt that the highest sense of honour pervaded the electors of Sudbury, and that at St. Albans the electors adhered to their plighted word with a chivalry which would have done honour to a Talbot or a Peterborough. But the hon. Gentleman had alluded to the United States. Now, he would take leave to rend an extract from the New York Herald, Written immediately after the election of 1852, to show the hon. Member for Bristol that, at all events, an organised system of corruption was consistent with a system of secret voting:—

"Look at the proceedings on Thursday last in the Nineteenth Ward—voters carried to the ballot-box in scores of waggons from various lacalities, and in other wards hundreds of Democrats voting for Scott or for Fillmore—men ignorant and steeped in crime—picked up in all the purlieus of the city, and purchased at a dollar a head, and some, it is said, as low as fifty cents, to deposit in the ballot-box a vote they had never seen. This demoralising process is playing fearful havoc with our institutions, rendering them, to a vast extent, not only a nullity, but perverting them to mischief, to a bad and corrupt legislation, and to the maladministration of public justice. The judicious grieve at these results, but what can they do to arrest the progress of the evil?"

And he was told that the friends of purity of election in the United States so far differed in opinion from the hon. Gentleman that they believed the only system which would remedy the evil would be the introduction of open voting. If secret voting were established in this country his belief was, that our electoral system would be exposed, not only to the danger of an organised corruption, but to an organised system of fraud. How could you insure that the number of votes would rightfully correspond with the number of voters? He was told the other day of a case in which the members of a Horticultural Society in the north of England were called upon to vote, and when the ballot-box was opened forty-nine votes were found recorded, though only thirty-seven persons were entitled to vote. Now, if a system of fraud such as he had described prevailed in so small a matter as this, to what an extent might it not be expected in the exciting case of an electoral struggle and under the maddening influences of party conflict? But he would go further than this and would ask—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How was it proposed to prevent fraud on the part of those Who received the votes, guarded the ballot-boxes, and declared the result of the election? How were they to guard against the corruption of the returning officers and their deputies? The ballot, however, would in one way check corruption among the constituencies, because it would then be cheaper and far more certain to bribe the officials and returning officers. But even in the most improbable contingency that you would have a pure election under a system of secret voting— would the losing side ever be brought to think so, much more to acknowledge it? When the Emperor of the French was elected by an immense majority, was it not everywhere proclaimed and believed that that election Was the result of unfair means? Did the House suppose that it would be otherwise here? Would not the losing side always say that the victory had been gained by fraud or achieved by corruption, and did they think public opinion would be uninfluenced by such clamour? Would the public be disposed to place confidence in hon. gentlemen as being the real exponents of the opinions of their constituents? Would the public even place confidence in that House itself, when composed of members elected under such a system? He did not believe any system could he devised which was so calculated to bring Representative Government into general odium and contempt. He had heard of invectives hurled against the Emperor of Austria because His Majesty had denied Representative Government to his subjects, and the Emperor of the French had also been exposed to an immense amount of vituperation on the same grounds, but neither the bayonets of the Austrian nor the artillery of the French Emperor would, he believed, more entirely subvert Parliamentary Government, and destroy its reputation and authority; than the measure which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol now proposed in the pseudo-interest of popular government. When, too, the hon. Member did not purpose to extend his proposal to voting in that House, he (Mr. Peacock) could not help regarding it as a measure inconsistent upon the very face of it. That House was placed, with reference to its constituencies, precisely in the same position as the constituencies were placed with reference to the nation at large. Perhaps he should be told that Members of that House were not subject to the influence of corruption and intimidation. Now, he did not mean to say that hon. gentlemen were open to the vulgar influences of a bribe in the shape of a £5 note; but he would appeal to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) to know if hon. gentlemen were indifferent to all the social influences which could be brought to bear upon them, and whether votes in that House were always given under the influence of the purest patriotism? Moreover, was not the intimidation practised by constituencies palpable and undenied? Were the votes of that House always a fair reflex of the opinions of its Members? He could give many instances in which one language was used in the lobby, while the vote was given in an opposite direction. But it would, perhaps, be said that, whereas the influence exerted by landlords over their tenants was an illegal one, that exerted by constituents over their representatives was in harmony with the spirit of our constitution. Now, he thought that any one who used such an argument had much to learn—had to learn that they were not sent to that House as delegates to reflect the passing opinions of their constituents, and to vary like a barometer with the state of the weather but that they were here to legislate according to what they believed to be for the welfare of the whole community; and if, therefore, secret voting ought to be conferred upon the electoral body, they also had a right to claim the same immunity from intimidation and the same security from pressure from without. If the Ballot were conferred on the electoral body, and not on that House, they would establish an oligarchy of £10 or £8 householders, as the case might be, who, wielding an irresponsible authority by exercising a secret suffrage, would be enabled to fashion legislation in a form favourable to their own class interests, and in course of time doubtless shift the national burdens from their own shoulders. Against the possibility of such a danger it was the duty of the Legislature to guard. Those with whom he acted did not oppose the Ballot upon anti-liberal principles. They opposed it in the name and interest of the unrepresented and unenfranchised classes, who were entitled to know in what way the suffrage was exercised by those to whom that sacred trust had been delegated. They opposed it because they were unwilling to sow the seeds of a general feeling of suspicion and distrust, which would render the constitutional form of Government a curse instead of a blessing. They opposed it because they were unwilling to expose the national representation to a system of universal lying and organised hypocrisy.

, in reply, said, the cause of the riot in New York, which had been referred to, was open and not secret voting.

said, he rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill "to take away from all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Persons in England and Wales, all power of appointing Judges and Chancellors, and vesting such powers in the Lord Chancellor." The abuse which the Bill was intended to remedy had been repeatedly admitted as leading to the mal-administration of justice. Indeed, many instances of persons being completely ruined through the ignorance of those before whom they had to plead in the Ecclesiastical Courts had occurred. At present, if anything were to happen to one of the Ecclesiastical Judges, the person upon whom the appointment of his successor would devolve was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, however estimable for his attainments, could scarcely be held a fit judge of purely secular qualifications. Had he thought there was a chance of a comprehensive measure of ecclesiastical reform being carried, he never would have brought forward a Bill dealing only with a small detail of the question; but as the Session was likely to pass away, owing to the collision of interests, without the Government being able to carry such a measure, he felt bound not to let the opportunity pass without attempting to overthrow an abuse so universally recognised.

, in seconding the Motion said, there were several Bills relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts now before Parliament, and he could wish to be informed in what position they stood. They appeared to be all at a deadlock. He should like to know the cause which obstructed their progress. There was at present an absolute failure of justice in the Ecclesiastical Courts. He trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give some explanation on the subject.

said, that with respect to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, he did not believe it was the intention of the Government, any more than it was, he apprehended, the wish of the House, to offer any opposition to it. To himself it was a matter of deep regret, that a crying evil which existed in this particular department of justice had remained as yet ineffectually remedied; as, indeed, it would have been, if the Bill introduced into the House of Lords had not met with an opposition that proved fatal to it there. He thought that the evidence collected upon the subject had proved in the most the appointments hitherto made of Chancellors and other judicial persons, and nominated by the Archbishops and Bishops had been in many instances most unsatisfactory. The Government had, therefore, hoped that a measure framed in accordance with the opinions of a great number of gentlemen on both sides of the House would have been successful and passed into a law. However, for the moment that measure had been delayed. The Government, therefore, would be the last persons to oppose the introduction of a measure which went at all events to settle a branch of the question; and the more particularly as it would come under consideration simultaneously with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill and the Divorce Bill. Besides, it was really absolutely necessary that something should be done to regulate such appointments for the future; because, by the passing of those measures, the source of revenue of those judicial officers would be altogether taken away. He should, therefore, not recommend any opposition being given to the introduction of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend. With respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), he certainly thought that if the hon. Member would turn over the record of their proceedings, he would find abundant reasons why the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill had not been proceeded with. He could undoubtedly testify that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had been always most anxious to facilitate the discussion of that measure. But the House would recollect how it had been occupied—let him hope it was in a manner unexampled—for the last two Sessions. It was, indeed, to be desired, that the House would now at length apply itself to useful legislation, instead of spending so much of its time in what he would venture to designate, unprofitable talk and discussion. It therefore lay with the House itself to determine whether, at the close of this Session, it would present to the country the same wretched catalogue of measures, only introduced to be abandoned, or whether it would address itself seriously to the work of legislation. At the same time he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) that their time had not altogether been unemployed, for he was happy to say his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), who had charge of another Bill—he could not call it a rival Bill, as it only differed from his own in one or particulars—had held repeated discussions with him, which resulted in to an their coming to an understanding with regard to, a measure, and that with a perfect unanimity of opinion, save in one or two particulars, as to which the House would have to determine. He believed, therefore, that the moment had come when they were about to consolidate those institutions, and remove the great abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts—a measure that had been desired for now upwards of thirty years. He hoped to carry a Bill to that effect during the course of the present Session.

Sir, I must confess that I have listened with some regret and some surprise to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. My hon. and learned Friend has lectured the House upon its habit of permitting its time to be wasted in idle talk upon matters of no general public interest, and gravamen of the offence of the House is, that it has not received with sufficient favour the Bills introduced by my hon. and learned Friend, or, what is really more to the purpose, that my hon. and learned Friend's conduct of those measures has not been received with sufficient favour to give an opportunity of bringing them under discussion. If this House will waste its time in idle talk and neglect the public business, I certainly do not know what right any one Member has to take upon himself to be the corrector of its faults and follies. In that respect it rather becomes us to recognise ourselves as joint sharers in the offence, and by no means to assume a position of such marked superiority, such exemption from common failings, and such distinction from the ordinary feelings of mankind, as is implied in the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has laid the blame upon the House because the House has not passed his Bills with reference to Ecclesiastical Courts and Testamentary Jurisdiction, but I venture to put it to my hon. and learned Friend that the duty of the Government to this House and the country is not discharged by the simple introduction of Bills into this House, and that there is nothing by which a Government does more damage to the public service than when it consents to the introduction of Bills without any rational chance of their passing. Now, Sir, if there really be any one subject more than another upon which this observation is applicable it is the subject of these Ecclesiastical Courts, for the proceedings in one year after another have taken a form so nearly identical that one can almost stereotype the speeches delivered there. Some hon. Gentleman gets up in the early part of the Session and declares that the Ecclesiastical Courts are no better than an Augean stable, and, in answer to him, either the leader of the House or one of the Law Officers of the Crown rises and, amid the most enthusiastic cheers, says they are no better than an Augean stable, and that it is time the Augean stable was swept. And certainly if any stable, Augean or otherwise, could be effectually swept by means of a torrent of abuse the Ecclesiastical Courts would have been swept long ago. But when the Bills come to be discussed, the Gentlemen who are so fond of introducing them immediately fall foul of one another. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General says the jurisdiction ought to become a Chancery jurisdiction. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No!] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman is understood to say so. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) says it ought to become a Common Law jurisdiction. Others say it ought to become a County Court jurisdiction. Others want a separate Court of Probate; in point of fact, quot homines tot sententiœ, there are about as many remedies as there are legal Members in the House, and that number in, it must be admitted, not a small one. What I really would point out is, that the case of the Ecclesiastical Courts for legislation is a very strong one. It is a case urgently calling for the attention of this House, but no good whatever can result from the annual introduction of Bills, some by private Members and some by the Government, until some Administration shall have applied its mind seriously to the subject, and, having determined that the question is a question to be dealt with seriously, and as a matter of urgency, shall endeavour to use the power it possesses in this House to carry some measure into effect. I do not think the present Administration—I am bound to say I am not aware the last Administration, or the Administration before the last, or the Administration before that, or any Administration before those, within my recollection—has ever seriously set its shoulder to the wheel in this matter; and really it is passing off delusion upon the country when you allow these speeches to be made, and make these speeches, and talk of an "Augean stable," and the determination to sweep it, when in point of fact there is no such determination, and the whole view of the Law Officers of the Crown, or at any rate of those who direct the business of this House, is to earn some popularity by throwing Bills upon the table, to be pitilessly hustled and jostled amid the crowd and cram which we know our votes present as soon as the Session is at all advanced, without any rational hope of their being passed. Sir, I do sincerely hope that a serious resolution will be taken upon the subject of these Bills—that either the Government, if it cannot press them to an issue, will say so, or else take up the questions, present them in a form which contains the result of their mature deliberation, and obtain the judgment of the House. I certainly cannot avoid saying that my hon. and learned Friend has shown courage, though unfortunate courage, in referring to a Bill which I hoped had passed to its last repose—I mean a Bill which was introduced into another place for the purpose of amending Church Discipline. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has acted with his usual judgment in passing a eulogium upon that Bill. At any rate the primâ facie appearance of the facts is not favourable to the measure. Now, how stand the facts? It was introduced and recommended by the authority of the Government. Upon the other hand, it was not made the subject of any party opposition. The opposition to that Bill was conducted in part by the Bishops, who form a very insignificant fraction of the House of Lords, and as to all the rest of that opposition it represented the opinions of Independent Members. The Bill received the organised support of the Government, but, notwithstanding the strength of the support and the weakness of the means of resistance, it was summarily rejected upon the second reading. I think it was a courageous act, therefore, for the Solicitor General, under those circumstances, voluntarily and gratuitously to pass a eulogy upon that Bill. I am afraid he would not accept my congratulations, or otherwise I should offer them to the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his having fortunately escaped, through that early destruction of the Bill, from the task which might have fallen to him of defending it if ever the fates should have decreed it to come down for discussion in this House. I must say, if I can at all estimate the state of opinion as to the views which would be taken in this House with regard to the creation of four Chancellors, each to dispose of a cause and a half, at a moderate annual salary of £3,000, with a train of registrars, clerks, secretaries, and other officials, to aid in the discharge of that onerous business, the hon. and learned Gentleman has reason to thank his stars, because it is ordained that he shall not have an opportunity of proposing such a measure to the British House of Commons. One word upon this measure. The hon. and learned Member for Leominster has told us that there are three Bills already before us, none of which have got to a second reading, and that seems with him the main reason for introducing a fourth. I do not like making predictions, but as the three Bills already introduced have not got to their second readings, in all probability the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) will never get to its second reading. If it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be introduced, I do not feel it my duty to resist the introduction of it. At the same time I am bound to say it is a Bill to the principle of which I hope this House will object entirely to give its concurrence. The hon. and learned Gentleman founds his Bill upon the fact—that temporal causes and matters are adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts, and adjudicated by persons appointed by bishops. Surely, the natural remedy is to take temporal matters out of ecclesiastical courts. In that way you pass from confusion to order. But the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes no such thing. He proposes, by way of mending matters, to thrust temporal judges into ecclesiastical courts, and thereby make confusion worse confounded. I believe the practice of this House is to give leave for the introduction of Bills, and the hon. and learned Member for Leamington delights in their multiplicity, as each supplies him with a separate grievance. I should be very sorry to stand between my hon. and learned Friend and his enjoyment. Therefore, by all means, let the Bill be introduced. But though I have been a long time coming to the point, the main reason for my rising was, that I did not gather from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—although I studied hard all that fell from him—what view Her Majesty's Government take of the principle of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said he should be very sorry to offer any opposition to the introduction of the measure. Now, I want to know whether he assents to the introduction, from that courtesy which is often extended to professional men of allowing them to present their thoughts to the House in the form of a Bill, or whether he thinks the principle really sound and proper, that the cure for the evils of the ecclesiastical courts is to put temporal judges into them. [Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE: They are in them already.] I do not want to raise a technical question with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question we have to consider is, whether we will put in as judges persons appointed by spiritual authorities, or by the Lord Chancellor, the chief political law adviser of the Crown. I hope we are not to infer that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to adopt this left-handed manner of initiating ecclesiastical reforms. If we are able to get a serious issue taken, and a serious judgment upon these Bills, by all means let us proceed; but, if we cannot take that issue, let us be content to wait until we have the opportunity of doing so. At all events, I hope something will be done to prevent this incessant introduction of Bills without any adequate sense of their importance, which, whatever may be our intentions, has the effect of deluding the country, and, with regard to the ecclesiastical courts, raising hopes which are doomed to be disappointed.

I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has deserved the animadversions of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. My hon. and learned Friend did not rise in his place to lecture and admonish the House upon its proceedings, but to defend himself against the accusation brought against himself by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), who desired an explanation why my hon. and learned Friend, having brought in certain Bills, had not made further progress with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield seemed to intimate some doubt of the earnestness of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and of the Government in the cause of legal reform. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has however, put words in the mouth of my hon. and learned Friend which he did not use. Now in the first place my hon. and learned Friend did not say that the House passed a great deal of time in idle talk. But he did say that the House passed much time in unprofitable talk, in which opinion I certainly beg leave to concur. If any one will recollect the number of hours passed in conversation which leads to no result, there is, I think, nothing offensive to the House or unduly severe with regard to its proceedings in the statement of my hon. and learned Friend that a great deal of time is passed unprofitably in the discussions of this House. It is not the fault of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that these measures have not passed, and one observation made by my right hon. Friend accounted entirely for the want of success with regard to the measures that have been produced. My right hon. Friend says that when hon. Members got up and complained of the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and while those Courts are spoken of on all hands as "Augean stables" which ought to be purified, yet, that when measures are brought in, there is such diversity of opinion in the remedy to be applied that no progress is made in the correction of universally admitted evils. Why, Sir, that is precisely the state of the case, and that diversity of opinion is a sufficient reason why the measures to correct these evils have not been carried to a successful result. Now, I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is the earnest wish of Her Majesty's Government that these evils should be corrected. My right hon. Friend says, with great candour, that not only the present Government, but the Government to which he belonged and former Governments laboured under the same difficulty of finding measures of correction which should meet with the concurrence of all parties, and that was the cause why no practical amendment of the law has been carried. But it must also be recollected that the time of this House is occupied with a diversity of subjects, and that it is difficult for the Government, however anxious they may be to put forward a particular class of measures, to find an opportunity of urging on those measures. With regard to the measure of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) I am prepared to concur in voting for the introduction of the Bill, but in so doing I reserve the free discretion of the Government to judge of the provisions of the measure at a future stage. We do not pledge ourselves to anything further. But, with regard to the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that this Bill tends to reverse the evil, and not to correct it, and that, while you have at present the appointment of Judges with temporal functions, but with ecclesiastical authority, the measure of my hon. and learned friend provides for the appointment of Judges of ecclesiastical functions with temporal authority, it must be borne in mind that the Judges of these Courts at present are not ecclesiastics, but are persons selected from the profession of the law. It is not unfair, therefore, to state as a primâ facie conclusion that the selection of persons to be taken from the legal profession should be vested in those who are conversant with the legal profession, rather than with those who cannot be supposed to be acquainted with the talents of the Members of that profession. There is nothing in that proposition which at the first blush seems unreasonable, and therefore I acquisced in the introduction of the Bill of my hon and learned Friend.

said, he should be very sorry to misrepresent the hon. and learned Solicitor General, but he thought he had used his exact words. He had, perhaps, said too much. He had no doubt his hon. and learned friend had exerted himself with great zeal, but the subject seemed to have been played with for a considerable series of years.

said, he was very glad to hear the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and would have heard them with the more pleasure if he had followed them up by objecting altogether to the introduction of the Bill. Now, his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General had complained most gravely that the several measures which he had introduced for the reform of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction had not met with the attention which they merited at the hands of the House; and that, although he had introduced a Bill in 1854, and another in 1855, and now a totally different one in 1856, he had never got to a second reading with any one of them.

I never introduced such a measure until this Session.

His hon. and learned Friend said he had never, until the present Session, introduced such a measure. He, however, spoke of him as a Member of the Government, and he did not care whether it was to the hands of his hon. and learned Friend that the Bills he had alluded to had been actully entrusted. Could he deny, then, that the Government of which he was a member in 1854, introduced a measure of reform, in reference to which he (Mr. Malins) gave notice that upon its second reading being brought on, he should move as an Amendment, that the Bill "be read a second time that day six months." That Bill, however, was never put to the test of a second reading. He thought, too, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that in 1855 a Bill was introduced of a totally different character, and upon that occasion also he (Mr. Malins) gave notice of a similar Amendment, and that Bill likewise never came to a second reading, The plan of 1855 was to engraft everything upon the Court of Chancery. But what did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose this year? Not to engraft the jurisdiction upon the existing Court of Chancery, but to create a minor Court of Chancery for the transaction of the business of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Well, he rose now for the purpose of pointing out the gross inconsistency of his hon. and learned Friend in giving even the semblance of his sanction to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster. The Government had now before the House a Bill which it was proposed to read a second time to-morrow. That Bill proposed to abolish all the Ecclesiastical Courts of a testamentary nature. In addition to that there were two other measures now before Parliament, altering the law as at present administered by the Ecelesaistical Courts, the main object of all being wholly to abolish those Courts. A Bill had been introduced into the other House upon Church Discipline, and another Bill was to be brought in to-night in the other House, relative to matrimonial causes. If the Government had confidence in their own measures, what did they mean by giving their sanction to the introduction of a Bill which took away from the Archbishops and Bishops the power of appointing Judges and Chancellors in their own courts, and vesting it in the Lord Chancellor? Had his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) no confidence in being able to pass his own Bills? He believed that the difficulties which had always attended this question arose from the fact that, although measures had been introduced by a Member of the Government, they were not Government measures. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had spoken as if the Bill before the House was a Government measure, and he should be glad to hear from him an assurance to that effect. He believed that this important subject had never been properly deliberated upon by the Government, but that it had been left to the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown to deal with, and each had taken different views of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had, with very little candour, endeavoured to trip, him up by impugning the accuracy of his statement that the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought in the Bill of 1854. He admitted that that statement was not quite correct, but the hon. and learned Gentleman might have remembered that that Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor of the Government to which he himself belonged. The fact he believed was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the Bill of the Lord Chancellor in 1854, while the Lord Chancellor disapproved the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman in 1855, and, for all he knew to the contrary, it was possible that both the Lord Chancellor and the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the present measure. No satisfactory adjustment of this important question could be arrived at until it was taken into the deliberate consideration of a Cabinet, and that it had not been thus treated at present was shown by the course, adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman, although he sanctioned the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster, could not be very confident of its success, for it was most inconsistent to give to any one the power of appointing Judges to Courts which were about to be abolished.

I wish, Sir, to remind the House of the very great difficulty in which we are placed with regard to Bills of this nature. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to complain of unprofitable talk, for we are told that he did not say idle talk, but there are various subjects introduced into this House which must take up more less time, and, according to the feeling of hon. Gentlemen, one Member will regard the discussion of a subject as interesting while another may consider it to be idle. In the first place we have the Estimates for the year. It is the duty of the Government to bring forward those Estimates, and they naturally take up a great deal of time, and this year the Civil Service Estimates especially occupied many nights discussion. Then, again, it is the natural and constitutional part of the Opposition to consider whether the Government have shown themselves in any way unworthy of confidence, and if they see any ground for so doing it is their constitutional duty to bring forward some Motion inculpating the conduct of the Executive. These undoubted functions of this House must and will be performed, and they naturally take up a great portion of our time, so that at the end of May or the beginning of June we come to the consideration of questions of great importance, of questions involving vast changes, and when we attempt to deal with all the details of those measures we find, in the House of Lords, as we naturally expect to find, some diversity of opinion existing with regard to details, and the result is that we come to the end of the summer and find that the only solution of the difficulty is, either to pass an incomplete measure which will have to be amended, or perhaps repealed at the commencement of the next Session, or else to give up the measure altogether. Now, Sir, I must say that this is a very unsatisfactory state of business. I do not mean to say that the time of the House is uselessly taken up by discussing matters like the present, but I think some alteration might be made in our mode of transacting business. The only serious proposition of that nature which I remember was made by Lord Derby, who, a few years ago, proposed a measure by which a Bill when it had arrived at a certain stage in this House, at the expiration of the Session should be permitted to advance from that stage in the following Session. That plan was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, and was generally unpopular, I was almost the I am quite sure, however, that there are other plans which we might adopt to avoid the difficulty of taking up important measures at the end of the Session, and endeavouring to settle intricate details between this and the other House of Parliament, at a time, too, when we are deprived of the assistance on legal questions of hon. and learned Gentlemen of the long robe, who are absent on circuit, and when the general attendance of Members is thin. As I have before said, we were at present driven to pass an important measure in an imperfect form, or throw it over altogether. I do not make these observations with a view of deprecating discussion upon the subject now before the House, but because I am convinced that we must come to some other mode of conducting business. I do not see any objection to the introduction of this Bill, but I do not think that it will afford a complete remedy, for when Judges are appointed, the question will arise what functions are they to perform, nor do I think that it will make much progress. I trust that my noble Friend at the head of the Government will seriously consider the difficulties under which we discharge our legislative functions, with the view of preventing the introduction of measures of importance at a time when it is almost useless to attempt to consider them.

said, he concurred with the noble Lord as to the disadvantage of introducing important measures late in the Session when so many of the Members of that House were engaged on circuit. He regretted to hear the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) upon a question of such importance as the Bill now under consideration. They ought to know that the combination of all reformers was required to do away with what was truly described to be the "Augean stable" of the Ecclesiastical Courts. They were not Courts of justice but Courts of injustice. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had, however, the obstructive power of stopping the progress of a good measure, as he had done last Session. Now he (Mr. Watson) believed the Government to be sincere in wishing to reform those Courts. All the lawyers in that House, with the exception perhaps of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, were of opinion that those Courts were the greatest nuisance in the country, and should be abolished. They were a portion of a wretched worn-out system which ought to be swept away. He would cordially support the Bill, and join heart and hand in devising an efficient remedy for the existing evil.

said, he must deny that he had ever been an advocate of the Ecclesiastical Courts. On the contrary, he said let them be abolished by a Government Bill, founded upon the report of the Chancery Commission.

said, he was sure that but one wish existed on all sides with reference to this subject; and the reason why such delay had arisen in the correction of the evil was, that the Government of the day had, as it seemed to him, most unwisely and unnecessarily thrown over the excellent Report made by the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the matter. In the members of that Commission the profession reposed the greatest confidence, and if their Report had been accepted the improvement of the Ecclesiastical Courts would not have met with opposition from any branch of the profession, and he believed that by the present time a measure on the subject would have passed. Next Session he hoped that a Bill founded on their Report would be brought in, and, if so, he believed it would be carried without any serious opposition.

, in reply, said that in the absence of any larger and more comprehensive measure, the Bill he wished to introduce would remove the great anomaly now existing by which spiritual persons could appoint temporal Judges. He did not mean to say that this was all he wished to effect, but the removal of such a gross and flagrant anomaly would be a great step in advance. The nepotism of the Bishops was at the root of most of the evils complained of. To that system of nepotism he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was hostile; and he believed the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sophistry of which he was master, was endeavouring to deceive and mislead the House on the subject.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act, said that seven years' experience had proved that there were certain deficiencies under the existing law which required to be supplied, some Amendments to be made, and some ambiguities to be removed. At present local Boards of Health had no power to remove accumulations of filth and refuse from the back yards of houses, but in the Bill which he asked leave to introduce that omission would be supplied. A most important duty of the local boards was to establish such a system of drainage and sewerage as would remove the sewage to a distance from the towns; but difficulties had been experienced in making arrangements for its final disposition. Great advantages had been derived in some districts from the application of the sewage to grass lands, and it was desirable to allow it to be similarly used whenever practicable, but it had been found that local boards had no power to construct reservoirs for the sewage beyond the limits of their own jurisdiction. He proposed to supply that defect by a clause enabling local boards, under certain restrictions, to secure an outfall for their sewage even beyond their own boundaries. There were other points in the existing Act which required amendment, and which the Bill proposed to rectify, and also doubts which it would clear up. He also proposed to alter the existing law, which prescribed the same machinery to towns possessing municipal corporations as to towns not enjoying that privilege. The Bill contained the practical portion of a Bill which had been introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), and which had been referred to a Select Committee. He believed it would meet almost every objection that had been raised to the existing Health of Towns Act, except the main objection of the expense it entailed, and of that he would only observe, that if the good it had done was compared with the money it had cost, the Act, even upon the lowest ground of economy, had been a most beneficial one, by preventing disease, and consequent pressure upon the poor rates.