said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. Its principle had already been affirmed by the last House of Commons, and he trusted it would also be affirmed by the present House. He would say a word at the outset with respect to the present state of the law. They were all aware that for a long time a question perplexed lawyers, whether or not it was lawful to pay the travelling expenses of voters. In this uncertain state of the law, the celebrated case of Cooper v. Slade was decided in the House of Lords. The precise point in the case was that a promise to pay the expenses of a voter, in consideration of his vote, was evidence upon which a jury would be authorized in finding bribery, although the expenses paid were fair and reasonable, and were paid bonâ fide, and under no corrupt motive. After that decision, and probably in consequence of it, an Act was passed declaring that it should be lawful to pay travelling expenses under some circumstances, unlawful in others. It was rendered lawful to provide conveyances for voters, but unlawful to pay voters to provide their own conveyances. So that if they gave half a crown to a cabman to carry a voter to the poll, it was a lawful act; but if they gave the voter half a crown to pay the cabman, they would be guilty of a misdemeanour. The general opinion of the House was that that state of the law was not satisfactory. It was not only absurd but discreditable to the Legislature that the distinction between a lawful act and a crime should rest upon so nice a distinction as that between money and money's worth. In this case the House had not the usual three courses open to it. It must either allow or prohibit altogether the payment of travelling expenses. The object of his Bill was to prohibit such payment, and he hoped he might be forgiven if he recurred for a moment to first principles, because they had been frequently lost sight of in such discussions, and the only argument he had ever heard against his Bill was one founded upon a total misconception of them. If the object of an election were to confer an office of profit and honour upon a candidate, and every vote given became a personal favour or benefit to him, it would no doubt be quite right that the candidate should pay in some shape for the vote. But if a vote were a high constitutional privilege to be exercised on public grounds, and if the choice of the representative were for the benefit of the constituency, not the candidate, then the constituents ought to bear whatever expense it entailed. He could conceive no better proof of a man's fitness for the franchise than that he was prepared to take some trouble, or even to incur some expense, for the exercise of it. It was right that the Member elected should represent the earnestness and the intelligence, not the apathy and ignorance of the constituency. The only argument urged to the contrary effect was, that many voters lived so far away from the polling place, and were so poor that they could not incur the expense of exercising the franchise; and further that, in such circumstances, the candidate was the proper person to enable them to do so. He contended that that principle was altogether unconstitutional and pernicious. The poor voter might with, equal reason and justice, claim to be paid for his loss of time in going to the poll and the expenses of refreshment on the way, and might, indeed, with no less logical propriety, declare that as he was unable to pay his poor rates and thus maintain his vote, it was the duty of the candidate to pay them for him. If such expenses were to be paid at all by any other than the constituents themselves, there was far more reason for suggesting that they should be paid out of the borough rate, or the county rate, or the Consolidated Fund than out of the purse of the candidate. He admitted that hitherto the State had only inadequately performed its duty of bringing the poll as near as possible to every voter; and therefore he had included in his Bill a provision for the multiplication of polling-places. Some hon. Members might prefer the provisions upon that subject which was contained in the Reform Bill of the late Government. That was a point for consideration in Committee, and he should be willing to refer this Bill to a Select Committee if such a course was thought desirable. The most obviously pernicious effect of paying travel- ling expenses was that pointed out by the Earl of Derby, that it kept up the enormous cost of elections, and thus increased the influence which the purse had unfortunately obtained, and which it ought to be the object of legislation to diminish instead of increasing. It was said that the Act now in existence did not compel, but only permitted, the payment of travelling expenses. Practically, however, its operation was compulsory, because as the payment was permitted a notion had obtained in many boroughs that it was perfectly unconstitutional and un-English to walk to the poll. If a candidate did not hire all the omnibuses and cabs he could lay his hands on he was considered a mean-spirited individual, utterly unfit for a seat in the House of Commons. The House had repealed the old property qualification, which was merely nominal, but by legalizing the conveyance of voters they had re-enacted a property qualification, and one which was infinitely more onerous. His was no party measure, and he commended the Bill to the consideration of county Members, Conservative as well as Liberal. The Motion was to have been seconded by a county Member, now unfortunately no more, whose great abilities and amiable qualities were recognized by all, and whose untimely death they all deplored, Captain Leicester Vernon. The expenses of conveying voters in large counties unquestionably prevented many country gentlemen of moderate fortunes from seeking seats in that House, which they were perfectly well qualified to fill, and had brought the representation, in a great measure, into the hands of manufacturing millionaires—a class whom nobody could welcome to that House more cordially than he did, but whom he desired to see placed there by virtue of the great abilities and merits which they possessed, rather than by the length of their purses. His observations so far applied only to the payment of expenses which were legitimate, but the Wakefield Commission had expressly shown how such a system had been, and would be, used, as a cloak for every species of bribery and corruption. He trusted that this measure would receive the support of every member of the Earl of Derby's Government, whose Reform Bill was so far superior to that now before the House, that it made the payment of travelling expenses illegal. For the reasons he had stated, he trusted the House would repeal an enactment, which for the first time legalized the payment of travelling expenses; an enactment which, in his opinion, was one of the most mischievous of modern times. He hoped they would affirm a principle which was approved by a Committee of that House more than twenty years ago, that Members should be elected, as far as possible, free of expense; and, above all, that the exercise of the franchise was the privilege of the voter, and not the business of the candidate.

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, Mr. Hunt, he begged leave to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His firm conviction was, that the practical effect of the Bill would be to disfranchise a large class of voters. The Reform Bill introduced by the late Government was rejected mainly because it would have disfranchised the non-resident voters in counties. The present Bill assailed the rights of the very same class of men. He believed that the freeholders were the most important element in county constituencies, in which they were not only the representatives of property but in many cases of smaller freeholds, the sole representatives of the working classes; and for that reason he was desirous to preserve their franchises. He had no doubt that a remedy might be found for any abuse which the existing law might have occasioned in boroughs, but the case of counties was totally different. It was inevitable that many of the resident freeholders and other electors should traverse considerable distances in order to vote, while the non-resident freeholders had of course still further to travel. He might add, that in the constituency which he represented, a committee had been formed for the purpose of returning himself and his colleague in one district, where the landowners were opposed to them, totally independent of his hon. Colleague, of himself, and of their general committee, from whom this local committee would not accept a shilling towards the most legitimate expenses, and yet, because of travelling expenses paid by them, if a petition had been presented against the return, he and his colleague would have been unseated.

said, he thought the House must feel that there was considerable difficulty in coming at that time to a conclusion upon any one point of the law connected with the conduct of elections. He was disposed to concur with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) as to the operation of the existing law in boroughs, but he saw some difficulty in the way of an absolute legal prohibition of the conveyance of voters in counties. Nevertheless, he was prepared to give his vote for the second reading of the Bill; but before the debate proceeded further he wished to call attention to the fact that the question now under consideration was virtually before a Select Committee of that House. A Committee, of which he had the honour of being a member, had been appointed to inquire into corrupt practices at elections, and that Committee had already taken a good deal of evidence upon the conveyance of voters, together with other subjects connected with the expense of elections. It was impossible to discuss one of those questions apart from the rest. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth thought he would accomplish his object by simply prohibiting the payment of the expense of conveying voters to the poll; but the Select Committee had taken evidence which showed that where prohibition was absolute it was evaded with the greatest facility. The friends or relations of a candidate, without his knowledge, might advance money for the conveyance of voters, so as to enable him to make with truth and sincerity any declaration which might be required of him, and then at the proper time, by throwing themselves upon his honour, they might place him in a position in which he would feel himself bound to repay the sums they had advanced. Unless means could be found for preventing arrangements of that sort, simple prohibition would prove practically ineffective. He observed, among the Orders of the Day, another Bill relating to the conduct of elections—the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Amendment Bill. It appeared to him desirable either that the House should agree to read both measures the second time without further debate merely for the purpose of referring them to the Select Committee to which he had alluded. If the House, however, should not agree to adopt that course, at all events he trusted they would wait until the Committee had reported, and they were in possession of the evidence taken upon the general question, in which evidence they would find much light thrown upon the present subject. The Report of the Committee would be shortly laid upon the table, and he thought that to go on discussing those measures at the present moment would be a mere waste of valuable time.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would assent to the reasonable suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and postpone the second reading of his Bill until the Select Committee had reported. That Committee was considering the subject in all its branches, and it was evident the House could do nothing before the termination of the inquiry now in progress. He concurred with the Home Secretary in thinking that any law simply prohibiting the conveyance of voters might easily be evaded. People could not be prevented from carrying voters to the poll in their own private carriages. He believed, indeed, that any change such as that now proposed would merely have the effect of increasing the expense of elections. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had taken his stand upon the principle that candidates should not be put to any expense whatever. That might be right or it might be wrong, but why not begin with the expense of agency, which was much greater than the expense of carrying voters to the poll, and which possessed the additional disadvantage of being productive of undue influence? Why, upon the same principle, should candidates have to pay the expense of hustings and polling booths? The question of the conduct of elections was much too large to be dealt with by such a Bill as the present, which touched only one small portion of it; and he trusted, therefore, that the debate would be adjourned. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he wished to express his willingness to withdraw his Motion in favour of that suggested by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire.

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to suggest, not that the debate should be adjourned, but that the Bill should be read the second time and then referred to the Select Committee. He thought that was the best course which the House could pursue. He agreed, how- ever, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that if the House was sincere in wishing to reduce the expenses of elections and to give every candidate a fair chance, without reference to the length of his purse, the best thing would be to enact that, where agents were absolutely necessary, one alone should be employed. It usually happened that a rush was made for all the solicitors in a borough; retaining fees were given to them; and whoever was lucky enough to get the majority of solicitors had the chances of winning in his favour.

said, he thought by far the wisest course they could take would be to adopt that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), and to adjourn the consideration of the Bill before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) would lose nothing by that course, and the House would not tie its hands by affirming the principle of the Bill before the Select Committee had made its Report. The whole subject might very well be left in the hands of the Committee which was now considering the question of corrupt practices at elections, and it was not impossible that the Committee might already have taken evidence solving the question in a contrary sense to that of the Bill.

said, it was at the request of several Members of the Select Committee that he proposed to move the second reading of the Corrupt Practices Act Amendment Bill, with a view to its being afterwards referred to them. The same course ought to be adopted in the case of the present Bill. As it was very desirable that all the Bills on this subject should be treated similarly. There was a new mode of corruption used; where a man had a horse and cart, both were hired, and the voter too.

said, he believed the more regular course would be to adjourn this question altogether, and in the meantime to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; but he did not believe that any Resolution of the House was necessary to enable the Committee already sitting to take all the Bills into consideration.

said, he was not aware that any Bill had been formally referred to the Committee.

—Yes; the Election Petitions Bill, after being read the second time.

said, he knew nothing of that Bill, but the most important measures which the Committee had had under their consideration were those of the hon. and learned Member himself and of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk, neither of which had been read a second time. Neither of those Bills, therefore, had been formally referred to the Select Committee, for it was the rule of the House that a Bill must be read a second time before it could be so referred. The Members of the Select Committee, however, were in possession of copies of them, and in conducting the investigation their inquiries had turned much upon their contents and provisions. The practice of reading a Bill pro formâ was always thought an objectionable one, though under stress of business it was sometimes resorted to. If the House entertained any considerable objections to the principle of the Bill now before them, its second reading could hardly he pressed, and though not formally referred to the Select Committee, it would be practically in the hands of its Members. The best and most convenient course would be to agree to the adjournment of the debate.

said, that having attended for a day or two before the Committee upstairs, he was informed that the Committee had no official knowledge whatever of the two Bills just now alluded to, and did not feel hound to take them especially into consideration. The subject had been so frequently completely discussed by the House and the public, that he believed a Committee of the whole House would be more competent to deal with it than any Select Committee. The compromise which had been made on the clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Continuance Act of 1858, which attempted to draw an impracticable distinction between travelling expenses and expenses of maintenance, bad proved quite inoperative. The Huddersfield Committee had ignored that provision, as well as the judicial decision in "Cooper v. Slade," and they had held that although the payment of these expenses might be illegal, and constitute a misdemeanour for which the candidate could be prosecuted, it did not amount to bribery for which he could be turned out of his seat.

said, he had the strongest doubts of the expediency of the Bill now before the House. He agreed that there was danger in the practice of paying voters' expenses, but he was not yet convinced of the possibility of preventing it. Two or three years ago he himself had to pay a tremendous Bill, about £1,400, which he should have been glad to save; but if he had been tied down from paying these expenses he would have been placed at a great disadvantage against the powerful opposing interests, and he feared that a great number of poor voters, unless the expense of conveying them to the polling place was paid, would be unable to vote at all. He was not prepared, however, before he knew the result of the inquiry in progress, to affirm the principle of a measure of the expediency of which he entertained the gravest doubts. Nor did he think that the multiplication of polling places would have the effect of curtailing the expenses of an election; because he believed that every additional polling place would entail a great additional expense, so that the remedy would be as bad as the disease.

said, that a recent precedent might be found for the adjournment of the debate in the case of the Coroners Bills, both of which were referred to a Select Committee. But if they passed the second reading of the Bill before them they would affirm the principle recognized in the preamble of the Bill, which he believed, from the feeling displayed in the House, was looked upon with much disapprobation. The law as it stood simply put poor and distant voters upon the same footing as rich and near ones. Some change might be required in boroughs, but his objection to the present Bill was that it was applicable to both boroughs and counties. At present the law simply stood in this way, that if a man had no carriage of his own he might hire one to convey voters to the poll; but the present measure would go to the extent of making it bribery if a man put job horses to his own carriage with the view of carrying electors to the polling-booth. It was reasonable in every respect that the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) should be adopted.

conceived that in the present state of circumstances it would be impossible, more especially in reference to counties, to do away altogether with the payment of the carriage of voters to the poll, but he thought the second reading of the present Bill might be assented to without further discussion, with the view of sending it to the Committee upstairs, and upon the distinct understanding that its principle was not affirmed. Though abuses might exist under the present law, he very much doubted whether such a Bill as the one under discussion would operate advantageously. At the same time it would be necessary for the House to consider what regulations would be necessary in consequence of the enormous increase, in certain districts, of voters under the new Reform Bill, whose conveyance would vastly add to the expense of elections. This evil might, however, be obviated by the use of voting papers, and, unless some such means were adopted, a great number of persons would undoubtedly be disfranchised if it were made illegal to convey them to the poll. He repeated the suggestion, that the Bill should be read a second time, merely for the purpose of referring it to the consideration of the Committee upstairs.

said, that the more convenient way of dealing with the Bill was to adjourn the present debate, for to call upon those who objected to the Bill to read it a second time pro formâ was simply to ask them to vote black to be white. If the debate were adjourned, the House would have an opportunity of learning from the Report of the Select Committee whether any other means than the payment of the conveyance of voters could be devised for preventing poor men from being deprived of the power of exercising their franchise. It was not very creditable to the House of Commons that a subject, which they had been discussing and deciding differently year after year, was not yet disposed of. He was quite surprised to hear it argued that the payment of the conveyance of voters gave an advantage to the longest puree, for it was evident, if that were prohibited, the advantage in an election would be given to the great landlord, who by means of his own carriages and those of his friends—which, of course, he might use for the purpose—would enjoy great facilities for conveying his voters to the poll; and the practical disfranchisement of the poorer class of voters on the other side would thus give an enormous influence to the longest purse. He spoke from some experience in contesting a county against a great landlord.

said, he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and thought it should be read a second time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion for the Adjourn- ment of the Question, and that the House would be allowed to take the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). That was the only fair course to pursue, and the one that would better test the feeling of the House on the main question.

said, it was perfectly disgraceful that the House had not long since passed such a measure as this to get rid of the monstrous nuisance of the conveyance of voters. The borough in which he lived was twenty miles long and ten miles wide, with only two polling places; and the inconvenience was that the Justices of the Peace were not empowered there, as they were in counties, to establish additional polling places.

said, he thought the most convenient course would be to read the Bill a second time, and then to refer it to the Select Committee. However, he was in the hands of the House, and he would not oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate if it were the general feeling that that should be acceded to. He rather collected that the feeling of the House was in favour of the second reading of the Bill.

said, he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He had done everything in his power to dissuade the hon. Member for Finsbury from pressing the Bill upon the consideration of the House; but he regretted to find that his efforts had proved ineffectual. The measure would invalidate the great settlement of the Jewish question to which both Houses of Parliament had come only two years ago. They all remembered the long and painful difference which had prevailed between the Lords and the Commons upon the subject before that settlement; and they must all feel that it was a state of things which no lover of constitutional Government could wish to see revived. The House of Lords had made a concession in the matter which was extremely painful to a majority of its Members, and if the question were reopened a controversy must be renewed which the whole country had lamented during its continuance. Was there any- thing in the present state of the law of which the hon. Member for Finsbury, or those whom he appeared to represent, had a right to complain? Members of the Jewish persuasion were readily admitted on their election to seats in that House. But the House of Lords had insisted that it should be open to either House, and open to the electoral body through their representatives, as far as regarded the House of Commons, to decide whether persons who did not profess "the true faith of a Christian" should sit and vote in either House of Parliament. The Act gave the largest possible freedom to each House and to the country upon that subject; and the fact was that the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to impose a restriction upon the action of that House, which was entirely unfettered under the existing law. No complaint of any grievance was made in that case, and he had even reason to believe that some hon. Members of the Jewish persuasion did not wish to see that Bill introduced and the former controversy revived. He had never been animated by any feeling of animosity to Gentlemen professing the Jewish faith; but he had certainly been anxious to see the Christian character of the British legislature maintained. He believed that the power which we possessed of appealing in every case of dispute to Christian morality, as the basis of all our law, afforded the best security for the continuance of that freedom which England had so long enjoyed. The Act which it was now sought to repeal, though giving a discretionary power to either House of Parliament, preserved this principle. He was ready to admit that he had seen nothing in the conduct of Jewish Gentlemen in that House to disqualify them from taking part in its deliberations; but be claimed for the people of this country the right to decide at any time, by the election of their representatives, whether Jews should occupy seats in the House of Commons.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he would beg to tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that so long as any test applied to the admission of Members to that House, there could be no settlement of the question.

said, that it was true they admitted the Jews, but they did it in a manner unworthy of a Christian assembly. It was a most unconstitutional doctrine to contend that an Act of Parliament was an agreement between the two Houses, and that upon a question of civil and religious liberty a future Parliament could not discuss or alter it. When Lord Lucan introduced his Bill, one of the arguments in its favour was, that if the House of Lords did not allow the Jews to be admitted by Resolution the House of Commons would do it without them. It was also urged that, as a general election was pending, the Bill might be passed and the whole question submitted to the country, when, if the people objected to the arrangement, they might instruct their representatives at the hustings to alter it. The general election took place, and such an instruction was not given on any hustings, not even to the hon. Members for Warwickshire, but, on the contrary, three more members of the Jewish persuasion were elected by large constituencies. It was said that no inconvenience had occurred, but inconvenience might any day occur. The result of the Committee appointed on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire to consider the best mode of carrying into effect the Act for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion was to make it impossible for a Jew to take his seat in a new Parliament until the fourth day of the days appointed for taking the oaths appointed by law. They could not take the oaths as a Christian Member; they must wait four days. It was all very well to have that rule for the first Parliament after the Bill passed, but the public having answered the appeal to them in favour of the Jews the House was bound to place them in the same position as other Members. He therefore asked the House nobly and generously to remove the great stain, not on the Jews, but on themselves, and to act on the Christian principle of doing unto others as they would that others should do unto them.

said, he should have been well content to let the question rest where it was, although he thought that it would have been much better if the House of Lords had adopted the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) proposition when they gave up the whole principle of their opposition to the admission of the Jews. He thought also that the present law was extremely cumbrous and objectionable, but he did not deem it expedient to reopen a long vexed and troublesome question by sending up this Bill, when they were sure the House of Lords would reject it. After all, the only inconvenience the Jews really suffered from the present state of the law, was having to wait a few minutes in the lobby while a Motion was passed for their admission.

said, he opposed the Bill. For any possible inconvenience which might occur under the present state of the law it was scarcely worth while to reopen the question and renew all the heart burnings and disagreeable feelings which had been connected with it for so many years. The Bill would introduce much greater inconveniences and anomalies than that which it was intended to remedy. If it passed, an hon. Gentleman of the Jewish persuasion elected a Member of that House might come to the table and take the oaths in the usual manner, but if the Crown were pleased to confer a peerage on a gentleman of that persuasion, he would not be able to take his seat in the other House, except by a special Resolution. That was placing this House in an inferior position, and introducing a state of things infinitely more inconvenient and anomalous than the present.