said, that although he did not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill, he begged to say he reserved to himself the right of opposing it on a future occasion, if it should turn out that the Commission which Her Majesty's Government had appointed should recommend by their Report a scheme different from that proposed by this private Bill. He had now several times raised his voice, apparently in vain, against this system of piecemeal legislation on this subject. They would find railways running under their feet, and possibly over their heads; and after some years Parliament would be blamed for its inattention to the general question.

said, he objected to this Bill on principle, which purported to allow a railway company to take possession of what they all hoped would be a great public thoroughfare. He also objected to it because this company proposed to take a large sum of public money in order to effect their operations. He was willing that the Bill should be considered by the Commission and compared with the other schemes; but he could not agree to its being read a second time that day. He, therefore, begged to move, by way of Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day fortnight.

said, that as he had charge of the Bill, he had no objection to postpone the Motion for a fortnight.

said, that a Bill which required public money ought to be a Public Bill. It was most objectionable that a Bill of this kind should be carried through as a private measure. He hoped that the plan of embankment should be carried out on the south side of the river as well as on the north.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If there is any truth in the report that the Royal Agricultural Society are about to hold a Cattle Show in Hyde Park; and, if so, to explain the reason why the Government have consented thereto?

said, that the Royal Agricultural Society had for some time been intending to place their exhibition of implements, or the chief portion of it, in the great building which was to be erected for the International Exhibition of the year 1862; and it appeared to many supporters of that society that a desirable opportunity would at the same time be afforded of exhibiting animals in some part of the Metropolis that would be within a convenient distance of the same edifice. The Exhibition of 1862 would no doubt bring to London a large number of people, not only from England, but also from every portion of the civilized world, and a favourable opportunity would thus arise for showing our own countrymen and foreigners what our farmers could do in improving the breed of agricultural stock, while some amusement would be placed within the reach of the inhabitants of London, many of whom probably had never seen a bull, or a prize ox or a well-bred sheep, except on the hooks of a butcher's shop. He believed that such an exhibition in some central part of the Metropolis would be an advantage and a boon to the public. But, of course, in affording that gratification to a vast number of people it was right to take care that it did not interfere with those purposes of recreation to which the parks were chiefly devoted; and all that had been done up to the present time was that it had been determined the Royal Agricultural Society should be at liberty to exhibit their animals in one of the Metropolitan parks; but no selection had yet been made of the precise spot which was to be employed for that purpose.

said, he would also beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has any plan for making a road across Hyde Park, to connect Paddington with Brompton; and, if so, whether there is any intention of carrying it out?

said, he felt very much the great convenience it would afford to a large portion of the inhabitants of this Metropolis to have a communication opened between the north and the south sides of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; but the noble Lord, he trusted, would agree with him that it would be undesirable to introduce any traffic in the Park, which would interfere with that primary object of recreation and amusement to which the Sovereign had devoted the parks; and, therefore, he thought that the way in which the convenience of the people of Brompton on the one side and those of Paddington on the other could best be served, without an unnecessary interference with the comfort of the public generally, would be by making an underground road or tunnel. At the commencement of the Session notice was given of a private Bill, by which the Metropolitan Railway Company proposed to carry a tunnel under Kensington Gardens, and if that Bill had been proceeded with an opportunity would have been afforded of supplying an underground carriage road in addition to a railway. That Bill, however, had not been pursued, and at the present moment he did not exactly see his way to attaining the object which the noble Lord desired without unduly interfering with the amusement and recreation of those who were in the habit of frequenting Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to grant an inquiry into the state, discipline, studies, and revenues of the schools, commonly called Public Schools, as well as of those Endowed Schools in which the Latin and Greek languages are taught; and whether he would object to state generally what steps the Government means to take in the matter?

, in reply, stated that Parliament had already recognized a difference of principle with respect to places of education which enjoyed endowments created by founders in former times, and proprietary or private schools which did not possess such endowments. Places of education of the former kind had been treated as subject to the supervision both of Parliament and of the Government, Royal Commissions had been issued for inquiring into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and there bad also been subsequent legislation with respect to those Universities. The principal class of endowed schools had likewise been brought under the jurisdiction of Parliament, and especially of the Charity Commissioners, whose powers were created by Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances the Government could not refuse to recognize the public endowed schools of England as a fitting subject for a public inquiry; and they were not unfavourable to the principle of such an inquiry as the hon. Member had indicated in his question—namely, an inquiry into the public endowed schools in which the Latin and Greek languages are taught. But a further question arose with respect to the manner in which that inquiry should be conducted; whether it would be most conveniently and efficiently conducted by means of a Royal Commission, or through some other machinery—for example, under the authority of an Act which might be passed by Parliament. Before the Government came to a final conclusion upon that point they were desirous of communicating with the heads and managers of the principal public schools, for it was clear that such an inquiry would be most effectively conducted if it were carried on in an amicable spirit with respect to these great foundations, and therefore he would ask the hon. Member to consider whether he would not postpone for a short time the Motion of which he had given notice for that evening, in order to enable the Government to communicate with the heads of public schools in the manner he had described?

said, that seeing that Winchester College had been already dealt with under the Act relating to the University of Oxford—an Act which empowered the Commissioners to treat it as one of the Colleges of Oxford for the purposes of the Act; seeing that the Commissioners had issued an Ordinance revising the whole Statutes of the College, and seeing that the College was now engaged in carrying into effect the new regulations so made by the Commissioners, he would beg to ask the Home Secretary, whether he be disposed to exempt it from any inquiry which might be contemplated by the Government?

said, he had been partially aware of the facts stated by the hon. Baronet, but one of the objects which he had, in suggesting to the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. G. Duff) the propriety of postponing his Motion, was that he might be able to ascertain more exactly the nature of the regulations which had been issued at Winchester, and whether it would be desirable that any special exemption should be made in the case of that or any other public or endowed school which might recently have been subjected to an inquiry conducted under the authority of Parliament.

said, he would postpone until that day week the Motion which stood in his name for that evening.

said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Statue of Sir Henry Havelock has been erected in Trafalgar Square with his consent; and, if so, whether, before such consent was obtained, the cast or a model of the statue, and the design for the pedestal, were duly submitted to and approved by him?

said, that if he were to answer the words of that question in their strict grammatical sense he should state that he doubted exceedingly whether that illustrious individual would have given his consent to the erection of such statue. But as his hon. Friend probably wished to know whether the statue had been erected with the consent of the First Commissioner of Works, he was happy to be able to inform him that that consent was given at the end of the year 1857, and that the model of the statue and of the pedestal had been approved by his predecessor in the beginning of the year 1858. All he could say for himself was that when he was asked to give the necessary orders for placing the statue he strongly objected to the form of the pedestal which had been adopted. He took the liberty of representing to Mr. Behnes, the sculptor, and the committee of subscribers that the pedestal was much too high for the position it was to occupy. Not only was the pedestal not very good in form, but from its extreme height it placed the statue in a position where it was not very well seen, and, when viewed in front, it diminished in proportion the height of the National Gallery, which was already quite low enough. Mr. Behnes, the sculptor, did not agree with him in those views, neither did the committee. They were perfectly well satisfied with the work and with having had the consent of his predecessor that the pedestal and statue should conform to that of Sir Charles Napier. Therefore he had himself no part whatever in the erection of the statue and pedestal to which his hon. Friend referred.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any previous steps were taken by the Government of India with a view to meeting the distress arising from the expected famine; whether there is now any general organization of the means at the disposal of Government for that purpose; whether the Government stimulated subscriptions by offering to contribute a sum equal to that which was subscribed; and whether it is intended to leave without assistance all who cannot be provided for by these means if they should prove insufficient?

Sir, I am not in a position to give more than a general answer to the questions put by the hon. Gentleman. The attention of the Government of India had been for many months directed to the probable effects of the drought in that country, and measures were taken on their part to obviate, as much as possible, the evils resulting therefrom. Work has been provided to a considerable extent, and also, in some districts, contributions have been offered in addition to the subscriptions. I cannot, however, give any explanation as to the precise mode in which the measures have been directed for that purpose. I know that measures have been taken on a very large scale, in some shape or another, and that the estimate of the sum to be given in relief by the Government is of very considerable amount.

said, he rose now to ask leave to bring in a Bill to protect the voters of Great Britain and Ireland in the discharge of that most important duty—the electing those Members who were to make the laws for the protection of life and property. Under ex- isting circumstances they had not that protection, nor could they evade the law which required them to vote free and without intimidation. The Bill which he sought to lay before the House would prevent all intimidation of electors, and would, he believed, put an end to bribery and treating. He might have paused in bringing forward the question on account of what had taken place lately: but he could not understand why there should be some mysterious influence in the year 1861 which should prevent any hon. Member of the House from bringing forward the question of electoral reform. He had found the arguments used against such a course totally without sense or reason. He saw reforms of all kinds brought forward. When he saw legal reforms of a most extensive character carried through the House by the Attorney General; when he saw hon. and gallant Members rise on all sides to propose reforms in military affairs; when he saw the Admiralty subjected to the attacks of reformers of all grades, and crumbling away under the combined assaults of knowledge and ignorance; when he saw the civil service of the country open to reforms, and reforms proposed in the diplomatic service, he wanted to know why electoral reform was to be tabooed in that House. He saw no reason. It might be for the convenience of certain hon. Gentlemen, right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that it should be so; it might be for the satisfaction of the Opposition that it should be so; but he could see no valid reason why any hon. Member should not approach the question of Reform, and proceed with it as he had hitherto done. As regarded the arguments used by the noble Lord the Member for Loudon, in bringing in his Reform Bill in 1860, and the arguments used by him why he should not bring in one in 1861, he (Mr. Berkeley) thought there was the greatest possible discordance between them. They were as unlike each other as two things could possibly be. In 1860, when the noble Lord, backed by a message from the Crown, brought in his Reform Bill, he said the country was tranquil and prosperous, that there was no excitement, and that, therefore, then was the time for hon. Gentlemen to approach the subject dispassionately. The same thing was said by those who followed in the wake of the noble Lord. They pointed out that there was no Joseph Parkes with 100,000 men at Birmingham threatening to march upon London—that Bristol was not in flames—that the country was quiet, and that then was the time to settle the question for a quarter of a century. Well, he need not follow that Reform Bill to its grave. Of it he should say no more, on the principle de mortuis nil nisi bonum. But the reason why the noble Lord refused to bring in a Reform Bill this year was of a precisely dissimilar character to that put forward in his arguments the previous year. This year the noble Lord said the country did not want reform, that there was no excitement in the country. He had a shopfull of reform on his hands at the service of the country; but what he required of the people was that they should knock in the door and break the windows before he would give it to them. So, having decided that it was necessary to bring in a Reform Bill because of the want of excitement in 1860, he would not bring in a Reform Bill because the country was not excited in 1861. The argument which seemed to be adopted by the noble Lord, and by other hon. Members, was, that now the noble Lord's Reform Bill had not been carried, no other Reform measure, however needful, should be passed. That argument, however, did not weigh with him in the least, and he should proceed as he had hitherto done. He felt that to attempt to persuade the present House of Commons to accept the ballot was a hopeless task; but it was not useless, for the sake of Reform to argue the question. He could not get rid of the fact that 160 of the largest constituencies in England had bound their Members to get for them the protection of secret voting; and that thirty-eight of those constituencies comprised more than 10,000 electors. Amongst those constituencies was the City of London, and all the metropolitan boroughs; and of all the metropolitan Members, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was the only one who refused to give the voter protection in the exercise of his franchise. He would venture to say, that were it not for the gratitude which the country entertained to his noble Friend for giving them the largest Reform measure they had ever had, and for the confidence that the administration of the foreign affairs was safe in the noble Lord's hands, the noble Lord would not be able to hold his position as Member for the City. The subject he brought forward had been so often and so completely sifted, and the arguments against it had been proved over and over again to be so futile, that he should not attempt to travel over the whole ground again. He looked upon the principle of the measure as sufficiently proven. He knew perfectly well the danger he incurred by taking that course. If he left any point unguarded that point would instantly be attacked. He had not brought the question so often before the House without knowing the various "dodges" which were put in force to get an answer of some sort. If he said little on the subject of intimidation he would be taunted with having given up that point, if he said little of bribery, that would be claimed as a point yielded. Then, there was his noble Friend the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), that expert wrestler, fresh from his triumphs at Tiverton, dragging the unhappy Rowcliffe at the wheels of his chariot, and he knew perfectly well that any one who contended with his noble Friend as a wrestler in that House, if he left any point unguarded, straightway would find himself on his back with the Parliamentary knees of the noble Lord well into the pit of his political stomach. He knew what he had to expect from his noble Friend. If be found that a Government, comprised of noble and hon. Members from cither side of the House, really would apply themselves in earnest to put down the evils of intimidation and bribery, he might pause in his humble endeavours to call the attention of the House, and of the country through the Press, to the subject. But nothing of the sort had ever been done. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1852 had been found utterly ineffectual. After the last election the subject was referred to another Committee, under the particular care of the late Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James). He certainly thought that his name would have been placed on that Committee, but he was mistaken. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) proposed to add his name; but the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) objected on the red-tape plea that there were already enough Members on the Committee; and so he was left out. The next thing he expected the Committee would have done, considering it had to try the ballot question, was to call for the evidence of some of the gentlemen connected with the Ballot Society; but here again he was mistaken. The Committee, however, proceeded to take evidence, and the result was that they handed back the old Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill, and recommended it to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis), who, getting behind the Report of the Committee, proceeded to construct a new Bill out of the old materials. That was the history of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill. He had before him, however, an analysis of the very short evidence the Committee took on the subject of the ballot. He had nothing whatever to do with the getting up of that evidence; neither had any other sinners of the Ballot Society with which he was connected; but short as was the evidence it was impossible to shut one's eyes to its force. He begged to call attention to the evidence of a few of the witnesses. Mr. James Vaughan, the chairman of the Gloucester and Berwick Commissions, was asked if there would have been any security against corruption if the ballot-box had been employed. His reply was, "I should say there would;" and he added that he could not conceive that any person would be disposed to give a bribe if he did not know whether the vote would be given. Mr. Welsford, another of the Gloucester Commissioners, said that in almost every instance in which he found that an elector had been bribed, the bribed was not trusted with the money before he voted, and that in a great many instances he was watched to see that he performed his promise. In answer to the question whether a system of secret voting would have prevented bribery in Gloucester, both witnesses answered in the affirmative. Voters, they said, were suspicious as well as canvassers, and many who took bribes would not vote until by some means they ascertained that the bribe they were to receive was safe. Mr. Serjeant Pigott, the chief Commissioner of the Wakefield Inquiry, referred to the system of intimidation by means of local committees at elections, and said he thought that undue influence would be put a stop to if the ballot were introduced. Mr. Edwin James, in his character of witness, assured the Committee that the ballot would not prevent bribery in small constituencies, but would, at any rate, be an effectual preventive of intimidation. Mr. Phinn, a St. Albans' Commissioner, and who had a largo Parliamentary practice, was also of opinion that the ballot would be the best preventive of bribery, and stated that the late Mr. Coppock had expressed to him a similar opinion; and a person named Edwards, largely engaged in bribery at St. Albans, said that if the ballot existed his occupation would be gone. "Either," said he, "you must trust the corrupt or they must trust you; if you pay them before they vote they will probably not keep their promise; and if the payment is to be dependent on the event of the election, those who vote against you as well as for you will claim a reward." Mr. Rose, the agent for the Carlton Club, who managed the elections for the Tory party—while he had no particular regard for the ballot, bore witness that the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act had proved almost a nullity. Mr. Childers, formerly a member of the Legislature of Victoria, and now a Member of that House, gave his experience of the working of the ballot in that colony, and said there were now no means of ascertaining how the constituents voted, and that consequently that information was substantially a secret. He added that before the ballot came into operation corruption prevailed in the constituencies, and that in one constituency, which had been particularly notorious before the ballot system, bribery soon afterwards became almost extinct. Being asked by Sir FitzRoy Kelly how he came to the conclusion that bribery and corruption had ceased, he said that he did so from the notoriety of the effect produced by the ballot, and also by the absence of petitions against successful candidates. In reply to the Chairman the witness stated that the working of the ballot system had given universal satisfaction in Australia. In answer to Sir George Grey he said, he saw his way perfectly clear to the adoption of the Australian ballot in England. Till he went to Australia he was not an advocate of the ballot, but had been convinced of its utility by seeing it in practical operation there. Mr. Philpot, of Gloucester, was of opinion that the Australian ballot would be the most effectual mode of remedying the existing evils in this country arising from bribery and intimidation. Sir Frederick Slade, a Parliamentary counsel, doubted the efficiency of the ballot; but Captain Clarke, formerly a member of the Australian Legislature, said he entirely agreed with Mr. Childers as to the effect and usefulness of the ballot. In New South Wales it had been adopted without a dissentient voice. Captain Clarke said, that he did not think voters generally talked afterwards of the way they had voted. Mr. Wise, election agent of Norwich, who was examined, was not in favour of the ballot, but still he thought there should be some system of secret voting as a protection to the voter. That witness remarked that tenants of large estates did not want the ballot. They liked the landlord to know which way they voted; at all events when they gave their votes to the candidates favoured by the landlords. Such was the evidence, fairly quoted, that was given before the Committee on the subject of the ballot; but why the ballot formed no portion of the subject of their Report was not for him to explain. He would now proceed to quote a considerable number of cases of positive intimidation practised by landlords upon their tenants in England and in Wales. Farmers, householders, and tradesmen, had received notices to quit their holdings, and had lost custom entirely and directly for the reason that they had voted according to their own principles and consciences. In all the cases he had quoted on former occasions, he had given his authorities, and he was prepared to do the same if required that evening. He had an analysis of the elections at Cirencester, drawn up by Mr. Wakefield and confirmed by Mr. Cooke, a solicitor, and secretary to the Liberal Registration Association of Cirencester. In 1834 the hon. Mr. Ponsonby, now Lord do Mauley, stood for the borough upon Liberal principles, but, being the nominee of Earl Bathurst, he did not advocate the ballot. In 1852 the hon. A. Ponsonby announced himself as a ballot candidate, and was returned, beating Earl Bathurst's nominee. After the election notices to quit were given to tenants of Earl Bathurst who had voted for the Liberal candidate. In 1854 the Tories were successful, and no evil results followed; but in 1859 the Tories were beaten, and then again followed a number of notices to quit. Direct evidence on this subject they could not obtain; they must rely only on circumstantial evidence, but the conclusion post hoc sed propter hoc was irresistible. The hon. Member then read a letter from the county of Merionethshire, addressed to the Secretary of the Ballot Society, stating that tenants had been turned out of their holdings for the votes they had given at the election, and that eleven tenants of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn had had their rents raised for the same reason; yet he admitted that hon. Baronet was one of the most amiable of men, as he could testify from having enjoyed his friendship. He related the fact to show the essential viciousness of the system, and the necessity there was for the adoption of the ballot. The writer of the letter, a Dissenting clergyman, the Rev. Michael Jones, of Bala, had been removed from the register of voters by trickery, common in Registration Courts; and his mother had been given notice to quit her habitation, although aged seventy. The rev. gentleman's chapel which was the property of Sir W. Wynne had been sold, but was bought back by his congregation. Simply, because he had exercised his right to vote for whom he pleased had he been thus visited. At the Pembrokeshire election Colonel Owen was defeated, and in his speech to the electors after the election he asserted that the landlords had used their influence against him unfairly, adding, "They will pull the ballot down upon them." This prophesy was not made by an advocate of the ballot, but by one who spoke of it as of an avalanche that would descend and smother them all. The intimidation that at present existed converted the English elector into a mere Toting machine—an automaton—or it consigned him to ruin. If that was a state of things the poor man rejoiced in, he (Mr. Berkeley) had no right to stand there; if not, he should persist in doing his duty in spite of all the opposition he might meet. He might now point out the importance of the ballot as a preventive to bribery; but he would not dwell upon this part of the subject, even at the risk of being chided from the Treasury bench when some hon. Gentleman rose to speak, because there was abundance of evidence before the House of the existence of bribery at elections throughout the land. He was told that he must be mad to bring forward this subject at the present time, when, in consequence of the state of Europe, so many of their countrymen had felt it necessary to fly to arms. But, instead of looking upon the Volunteer movement as adverse to the cause he advocated, he would point to it as one of the strongest arguments in his case. In the year of the Great Exhibition, when all the world was trembling lest something should happen amongst the masses of the people, he called on them to observe their order, steadiness, and loyalty, and as a test of their knowledge, to compare the conduct of those who attended on the shilling day with the conduct of those who attended on the five shilling day. The difference was most remarkable and extraordinary. He found that while on the five shilling day the visitors paid attention to the carriages, the silks, and the productions of fashion, the attention of the visitors on the shilling day was attracted to works of science. Were they afraid to trust that people with the exercise of their own franchise? Were such men as the Volunteers, who had laid such a tax upon themselves, and had taken so noble an attitude, to be so treated? They were not afraid to trust those men with rifles, why should they be afraid to entrust them with votes? He appealed to the House on behalf of a body of loyal men, many of whom were now deprived of their rights, but he might as well appeal to the floor on which he was standing. They might boast of it, but it was little to their credit. Again, in conclusion, he would ask the House to allow him to bring in this Bill. It was a measure which was not understood; and the House took especial care that they would not understand it. They would not read it a first time, they would not have it printed, they would not extend to this Bill, supported as it was by so many English constituencies, that courtesy which was extended to measures of not half so much importance. He repeated that a lamentable ignorance prevailed with regard to the Bill, and he would cite as instances of this ignorance the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) and Mr. Stuart Wortley. Those gentlemen believed that the ballot would introduce to the constituencies nothing more than a box into which electors would drop blue, black, or red balls; that those balls would be afterwards counted, and that so the poll would end, there being no possibility of providing an appeal against an undue election, and no means of detecting improper practices. Could anything be more unfounded than such an opinion? If such men fell into such errors, why not print this Bill in order to enlighten them a little? Why was he, who was put forward by some 230 Members to occupy no very agreeable position and to urge this question on an unwilling audience—why was he to be treated with less courtesy than was shown to other Members? Such conduct was neither respectful to the constituencies which they represented, nor was it respectful to themselves. It showed that the House was determined, right or wrong, to oppose the proposition to protect the voter, whenever it was made, and to put a stop to the measure at the earliest opportunity. He could not say what answer would be given to him that evening. They all knew there was an intimate connection between the Treasury bench and Printing House Square, and that in Printing House Square there were certain hon. Gentlemen who would scorn to give the protection of the ballot to the voter at the polling booth, but who did not hesitate to avail themselves of the irresponsibility of protected writing. If such a man were on the Treasury Bench he reflected no credit on it. It was, to say the least of it, an improper act for any hon. Member of the House to wait until he heard a speech, and instead of manfully getting up and confronting the Member who delivered the speech, to sneak away to a back place and write an article. He would say to that Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, if there be such a man amongst you get rid of him—he does you no credit, and the country believes that to be the ease. He now thanked hon. Gentlemen who, though they disagreed from him, had heard him fairly, and he left the question with the House, only observing that he proposed fur the elector a measure of justice, but feeling sure, at the same time, that he might just as well appeal to the Pope at Rome as to the present Parliament.

, rose to second the Motion, and said he was well aware how fully and how often the question had been discussed, and how impossible it was to throw any new light upon it. But other measures had been more frequently debated over and over again before they were carried. Such was the case with regard to Catholic Emancipation, Reform in Parliament, and in later days, with Free-trade, which was for years supported by a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench (Mr. C. P. Villiers) against an unwilling House and defeated by immense majorities; at length, with the assistance of another hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) who was truly right honourable, though he refused to accept that title, that question was at last triumphantly carried. These instances encouraged him not to despair, and the question of the ballot would again and again be brought forward in that House, and sooner or later be equally triumphant. It was not worth while at that time of day, when so many eminent men on both sides of the House had changed their opinions on so many other great questions, to occupy the time of the House respecting any change on his part with regard to this. He (Sir Charles Douglas) had changed his opinion, because his reason was convinced. He had not done so from any interested motives nor even concurrently with any advantage to himself, and, therefore, he was not justly liable to any taunt whatever. It was no sudden change. Nineteen or twenty years ago he had voted against the ballot; during ten years he had not voted on it at all; and eleven years ago he had voted for it. He last year repeated that vote, and he now in compliance with the request of his hon. Friend was about to second this Motion. The question was whether forced publicity or the option of secresy was the better security for the exercise of the franchise? He should endeavour to show that influence which was the bane of all elections would be prevented by the ballot, and by so preventing it they would act fully and entirely in accordance with the feelings and practice of the people of this country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that the franchise was a trust and not a right, for if the latter a voter could justly sell it; but it appeared to him (Sir Charles Douglas) that it was a trust to which every man had a right, but that no man could sell that right for no one could sell a right, the exercise of which he could not transfer. But be it a right, or be it a trust, all men were satisfied that it was an immoral act to sell it; or to attempt to influence it. He could not understand how any one could lay down the proposition that a man was not to be ensured the free exercise of that which he by law possessed. No influence, good or bad, ought to be exercised upon a voter; that influence which resulted in spontaneous action was the only influence that could be defended in that House. If hon. Members would consult that valuable book, Dod's Electoral Facts, they would see what was meant by the term "influence." According to that authority Bridgnorth had been represented by a Whitmore since James I.; Calne had been under the influence of the Marquess of Lansdowne since 1762; at Huntingdon the influence of Lord Sandwich was predominant; at Hertford Lord Cowper's influence was all powerful; and so on with other places—such as Leominster (where, however, it was said that a candidate's financial capabilities were highly valued). Newark, the Duke's influence returns one Member; Colchester, influence is money; in a short period five candidates were bankrupts after contests, and one fled the country; North Leicestershire, the Duke of Rutland returns one Member; in Droitwich, Sir John Pakington's influence returns himself; and, lastly, Tiverton, which, returned the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in the hands of Mr. Heathcote. [Cries of "Warwick, Warwick, "from the Opposition.] He had not intended to refer to Warwick; but he was not ashamed of it, and what was more, he believed the men of Warwick were not ashamed of him. He would say, moreover, that men of all parties in Warwick expressed their earnest hope for his success at Banbury. And, therefore, when hon. Members asked him about what had occurred fifteen years ago, he could tell them that he then made a sacrifice, one of the greatest which he could make, from no paltry motive—he made it in support of the great principles of free trade—he rejoiced in being one of those who were called at that time "renegades" and "janissaries." The book said of Warwick, that

"The influence there was possessed by the Ear of Warwick and Brooke, but it was not of a stable or permanent character, and since the Reform Act money influence had been more than once successful."

That such things should exist and be defended was a libel on the British Constitution; for according to Judge Blackstone—

"It was essential to the very being of Parliament that all elections should be absolutely free, therefore, all influences upon electors are illegal and strongly prohibited."

And that learned Judge

"Regretted that the depravity of mankind did not permit such influences to be sufficiently guarded against."

Now, it appeared to him (Sir Charles Douglas) that the arguments against the ballot were imaginary and speculative, whereas the evil to be remedied was positive and undeniable. From his own experience he knew of no place for the last twenty years in which the ballot would not be hailed by the people with satisfaction. He remembered hearing it said by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that if the ballot was established they must give up canvassing. But who that knew what canvassing was did not feel that it was degrading to both electors and elected? If the ballot would put a stop to the practices which took place when the candidate entered the borough and went round attended by the clergyman, or an influential banker, or the steward of the landlord, or any one who could exercise influence over the voters, that would be an additional argument why it should be established, and it would at least prevent such intimidation, the necessary consequence of canvassing, which, if possible, was a worse evil than direct bribery. In answer to the hon. Member who called out "money." He (Sir Charles Douglas) could declare that he had never bribed any man; but of the tyranny of influence he had many proofs. He, of his own knowledge, knew a small borough in the north, in which he had heard himself from the lips of many voters, that they dared not vote as they desired, because the agent had been round, and threatened expulsion from their holdings if the family candidate were not returned. In 1853, when a Committee of that House declared the seat for Durham vacated, it was determined that he (Sir Charles Douglas) should be the candidate, and that the election should be conducted on principles of purity. It was true that he lost the election, and it was equally true that he might have gained it if money had been spent. At an election, ten years previously, Mr. Bright had been defeated by the same means, for it was recorded that in 1843,

"Without any other influence than that of principle upon the minds of the constituency, the free trade candidate headed the poll from first to last, and was returned by a majority of seventy-eight."

The Morning Post of August, 1843, at that time the Protectionist organ, stated—

"That had the Marquess of Londonderry exerted his power the result would have been to defeat Mr. Bright."

Well, when he (Sir Charles Douglas) stood at the same place in 1853, it was decided that no money was to be spent by him, nor was there to be any canvass. At all previous elections it was usual that the expense of the hustings should be borne by the candidates; but on that occasion when it was understood that none of the expenses were to be borne by the candidate, the people of the place went to the mayor and said, "Why have hustings at all?" "Why not have the town-hall?" And so they got the town-hall. Thus, the moment it was proposed that the people should bear the expenses themselves, they resolved that the election should be conducted at the smallest possible outlay. Well, he was in a majority at about twelve o'clock; but about one, a body of 100 men, almost all miners, came in together—and the result was he was beaten, as he believed, by 108 or 110 people who were driven into the town, exactly as had been done ten years before to defeat Mr. Bright. He would read an extract from a letter which he had from Durham, dated the 12th of April, in answer to his inquiry if his recollection of what had occurred was correct—

"My dear Sir Charles.—No real representation of the feelings and opinions of the voter can be made manifest without the ballot. I am glad to think you look back with satisfaction to your visit to Durham in 1853, when you enabled us to demonstrate what could be done by spontaneous action and perfect purity of election. The interest was and is to this day overwhelming. You are certainly within the mark when you say 108 electors came in at twelve o'clock, and voted for your opponent to a man. You would be within the fact if you name 120. The usual practice with these voters is this: they are collected together from their different localities, have a liberal breakfast given them at some public-house, and then taken into the city, each lot having some subagent or overman with them. The head, and all the other, agents of the property are in the city during the day of election. The band of music of the property is in attendance to cheer and keep up the spirits of the party. You may not know the fact, but it is notorious, that a considerable number of freemen are placed at the collieries, within legal distance, many of whom are nearly worthless in point of labour value, but their votes tell thus on the day of election, and that is sufficient. You ask me what were the expenses of that election? They were very trifling, consisting only of two items:—The charge of the returning officer, and for printing your speeches, and the bills advertising when you would address the constituency. There were no paid agents, no tally or committee-rooms, no band, and no runners; £60 paid everything. It is greatly to be feared we shall not see the like again."

Let them not tell him that influence was exercised over only miners and persons of that class. A gentleman asked him one day if he could find out why it was that a friend of his (Sir Charles Douglas) in another borough had voted in a particular way? He wrote and got this answer. His friend was in a good position of life, with ample means made by the sweat of his brow, and as independent a man as any in that House; but what answer did he give? This was his reply—

"My dear Sir—I voted for Mr.—. My vote was given irrespective of politics, for in the circumstances I am placed I dare not show any; but, had I followed the bent of my own inclination I should have gone straight for the Liberal side; but as every client and almost every friend I have are the other way, I know that would extinguish my professional prospects for ever, so I am compelled to act with duplicity and smother my opinions.

"For two or three years prior to the election I had not exchanged six words with Mr.—on politics; but when the struggle came, he like others, tried to secure both my vote and services—the latter was entirely out of the question, as I did not hesitate to tell him; but as to the former, I told him, equally without reserve, that as my friend had withdrawn, and as neither Mr.—on the one hand, nor Mr.—on the other, had any right to force a stranger upon us to his exclusion, in need I would vote for him, without regard to the way it might tell against either of the other candidates "

"I confess to you that if admiration of the man, or of his qualifications for Member, were necessary to determine a vote, then the poll would have closed without mine.

"I did not intend to vote at all; I never took the slightest part in the election in any way; but at the last moment, just as the poll was closing, Mr.—came to me, and said that his friends had alarmed him by assertions that the last ten minutes would throw him over, and begged me to vote, and I plumped just before four o'clock. The vile lot who supported his colleague have done all in their power to ruin me. If I had yielded to their repeated solicitations (and thrown my friend overboard previously), I should have been the finest fellow in the creation; but, for the crime of refusal, I have been the object of their bitterest hatred, and my name has been held up by them to public execration through the length and breadth of the town and neighbourhood. A Tory friend, who has always taken much interest in my welfare, states that 'I have given deep offence to this party, and have lost brilliant opportunities of success.' "

How was it possible to defend open voting when its result was that a gentleman's professional prospects would be extinguished unless he acted with duplicity and smothered his opinions? He (Sir Charles Douglas) knew the case, could answer for its truth, and he called for a remedy for such a scandalous electoral grievance. [The hon. Member's speech was now so much interrupted by cries for a division as to render it difficult to follow his argument. He was understood to say.] It had been said that they were never to look to France, to any part of the Continent, to America, or anywhere else for examples to guide them. To a great extent he agreed, for it was true what might be good in France or America would be ill-suited to England. There was no denying that through the agency of the ballot peace and good order had been secured to France. If a despotism had been established it was because it was in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the people. He was not one of those who thought we differed so entirely in feelings, opinions, habits, and customs from other countries as to preclude referring to them for reasons why the principle of the ballot should be in- troduced. He could not forget the fact which had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, that they had just recognized in Italy a kingdom established by universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Surely some good inferences might be drawn from this. But, if the feelings and affections of the Italians differed so much from their own, let them go to their own colonies, where the people were of their own flesh and blood. He would remind the House that in our colonies the ballot had been found to answer. With the permission of the House, he would read a short extract from the Sydney Morning Herald with reference to the introduction of the ballot into the colony of New South Wales—

"One thing is clear, that there has been much less importunity. Men have felt indisposed to ask what many have thought proper to conceal; and it has been deemed useless to purchase support, or to demand pledges, since the class of men who would give promises under pressure are just those who would avenge themselves by breaking them. The working classes have enjoyed the benefit of the ballot, not in relation to their employers, but in reference to each other. There are everywhere noisy, dogmatical, and oppressive men, who, by force of will, domineer over their neighbours. Thus many, rather than incur the opposition and contempt of people with whom they have daily to work, have often voted against their inclinations and their conscience. From this necessity they are now relieved. That surveillance by which men were forced almost to set in regiments is broken by the secrecy of the ballot."

The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), in opposing a Motion of this kind some three or four years ago, used these words—

"If absolute secrecy could he obtained, I might almost say I would not object to the ballot. In my opinion intimidation and bribery would he best prevented by an alteration of our electoral districts, and by such an increase in the number of voters as would prevent these two evils. I think three things are required for the voter—intelligence to decide between candidates, property to give him an interest in the franchise, and independence to make him a free agent."

It was to confer that independence upon the voter that the House was asked to extend to him the protection that was afforded by the ballot. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—

"I advocate publicity because I regard secrecy in respect of public functions un-English, and opposed to the habits, customs, and feelings of the people."

He (Sir Charles Douglas) differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the ballot was un-English. He could show that the reverse was the case. Its use pervaded every class of society. He had made wide inquiries, and he asserted the fact that the ballot was universally practised in England—in no sense, therefore, could it be called un-English. He could, in detail, quote 150 societies of one kind or another in all of which recourse was had to the ballot in the election of officers. He would mention to the House a few of the names of those corporations and institutions, schools, and colleges, by which election by ballot had been adopted. The Metropolitan Vestries Boards of Guardians, Burial Boards, Astronomical Society, Public Libraries, Geological Society, Natural History Society, Royal Society, Royal Society of Antiquaries, Royal Linnaean Society, Clubs of all kinds—Political. Social, Military, Literary, Commercial, Theatrical, &c., &c.—Mechanics' Institutes, Young Men's Christian Association, Elocution Society, Literary and Scientific Institute, Benefit Societies, Freemasons, Odd Fellows, Foresters, Friendly Societies, Freehold land Societies, Accident and Burial Society of Labourers, All Soul's College, Oxford; Royal Masonic Schools, Christ's Hospital, Proprietary Schools, Lincoln College, Oxford; British and Foreign Unitarian Association, Wesleyan Conference, Methodist Free Churches, Baptist Churches, Christian Knowledge Society (Established 1698), Church Missionary Society, and London Congregational Board of Ministers. That practice, which the right hon. Gentleman said was un-English, was adopted in all these societies. In social, religious, educational, and all other societies—in the management of all local affairs and in all the great corporations managing millions of money the ballot prevailed. There was one very remarkable case in the City of London of the good effects which were experienced from the adoption of the ballot. They had all heard of a class of men called the "Longshore men," who were considered as amongst the most venal and depraved of the electors of this country. The following extract bearing on this case had been communicated to him:—

"There is in the City of London a fraternity called the Fellowship Porters' Company. At every contested election for M. P., these men are generally brought prominently before the public as the most corrupt voters, being no other than the notorious 'Longshore men.' They are about 3,000 strong, and very many being liverymen, have votes for the City. They are governed by a court of rulers, selected from their own body, consisting of twelve men, and presided over by the deputy of the ward of Billingsgate. These rulers are elected by ballot for three years, and go out by rotation; therefore, there is an election every year, besides those caused by death or otherwise. Any member of twenty years' standing is eligible. Candidates announce their intention by placards, cards, handbills, &c, &c, setting forth their pretensions, but they have no public-house meetings for discussing merits of different candidates, but each party have canvassers. On the day of nomination, candidates and their supporters, and as many of the members as can cram themselves into their hall, attend, and the proceedings are conducted with an order and decorum that would astonish those who see these poor men under other circumstances. No drunkenness, brawling, or shouting—no open public-houses—not a penny given or taken for a vote! As party spirit runs high, no candidate walks over the course. After nomination, speeches, show of hands, a poll is demanded, and the votes taken by ballot.

"I have described this body of men (who are notorious for their venality under open voting for Members of Parliament) in their own every-day life, as orderly citizens when apart from temptation; and, notwithstanding the great interest they take in elections of their rulers, there is an absence of all drunkenness, rioting, and debauchery, and they immediately return to their ordinary daily labour after the election by ballot. Now, take the 'Longshore men' under other circumstances—that of open voting for the City Members. A great many are liverymen; so many that at a contested election no candidate can consider his seat safe till the 'Longshore men' are polled. On these occasions they have their regular organized staff of agents and canvassers amongst their own body, who receive their instructions from the various candidates' committees, and then follow the demoralization and corruption which are notorious at these elections by open voting. The severer the contest for the City the greater the harvest to the 'Longshore men,' and it is at such times that all the corruption of 'the free and independent voters' is brought to perfection in the persons of the 'Longshore men.' But who is to blame? Surely those above them who advocate the present system of open voting for Members of Parliament, which directs the minds of these poor men to the two objects—drink and money."

He felt much obliged to the House for having listened to him so long. He was, however, under no obligation to hon. Gentlemen opposite to whose demand for division without debate he now yielded. He had had a seat long enough in that House to know that when Gentlemen came down to the House determined by noise and clamour to cut short a debate, in order to get away to dinner, it was in vain for any hon. Member attempt to address the House. He knew there was a combination to prevent discussion of this question, but he did trust that the scene would not be repeated on this occasion which occurred last year, when the question was treated by the Go- vernment in a manner which reflected no honour upon them; and, considering the great support which the ballot met with from the people of this country, he must add that it was discreditable to a large portion of the Members of that House.

, in rising to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for a copy of any correspondence with Foreign Powers that had taken place relative to certain arms conveyed at the close of the last year under the Sardinian flag from Genoa to the East, and seized by the Moldo-Wallachian Government; also, all orders and correspondence for bringing back in Her Majesty's ship Banshee from Galatz to Genoa all or any portion of the said arms, said, he had received an intimation from the noble Lord that these papers could not be furnished. He was totally at a loss to conceive what reasons had induced the noble Lord to oppose this Return, and he would postpone many of his observations until he had heard them. Nothing could be more absurd than for the British Government to refuse Parliament information that had been supplied to all other countries. With a free Italian Parliament a new era in diplomacy was about to commence, and he thought the sooner the noble Lord forsook the old paths of diplomacy and swept away the cobwebs from the Foreign Office the better. There was published in The Times of yesterday a despatch addressed by Count Cavour to the Italian Minister in London, in which the following allusion was made to a despatch from the noble Lord:—

"About the end of January the Minister of Her Britannic Majesty at Turin communicated to me a despatch from Lord John Russell, of which I annex a copy. In that despatch the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, attributing but slight value to the vote by universal suffrage given at Naples, in Sicily, Umbria, and the Marches, declared that he reserved the examination of the question raised by the political transformation of Italy for the period when the true intentions of the Italian nation might be manifested in' a regular and solemn manner by the legitimate representatives assembled in a freely elected Parliament."

Correspondence up to the 1st of March last had been printed, but the despatch referred to did not appear in in it. He warned the noble Lord that if he refused to produce it he would obtain it from another source, and then what sort of a figure would England cut? The fact he supposed was that the papers would not bear the light of day, or the noble Lord would he ready enough to produce them. He wanted to know why the noble Lord had interfered, as he had done, in the Principalities. If Italy was to be allowed to settle her own affairs, why should not Hungary do the same? Why should England interfere to keep Hungary subject to Austria? It would be shown by the papers for which he was about to move that the noble Lord had violated every principle of non-intervention which he had laid down with regard to the affairs of Italy. The noble Lord had no right to interfere in order to keep Hungary in subjection to Austria. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.

seconded the Motion, and said he wished to impress on the noble Lord at the bead of Foreign Affairs the necessity, at this time, of his giving all the information he could with reference to Italian affairs. He agreed entirely with the hon. Mover, that important despatches had not, on several occasions, been communicated to that House. One despatch there was especially which ought to be published—namely, one containing reports from Mr. Hayter with regard to the state of feeling in South Italy. The papers, if fairly published, would show that the noble Lord was pursuing a truckling policy to Austria, and yet if Austria ever found herself in difficulties the noble Lord was among the first to kick her while she was clown.

The hon. Member seems to think that it is the duty of the Foreign Secretary to lay upon the table of the House all the Correspondence which passes with Foreign Powers. I cannot assent to that view, or allow that the Foreign Secretary is not justified in withholding despatches when he sees fit. It is not and never has been the custom to publish the whole of our Correspondence with Foreign Governments. Such a practice would be very inconvenient, and a fruitful source of quarrels. With respect to the despatch which the hon. Gentleman says ought to have been included in the Correspondence up to the 1st of March, it had not been answered by Count Cavour at that date. A reply has since been received, which, together with the original despatch, was yesterday laid on the table of the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury may think it very wrong on my part that I should endeavour to maintain the peace of Europe; but I do endeavour, as far as I can, to maintain peace, because I believe it to be of great importance not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe. I should, therefore, be very sorry to give any papers which would at all tend to disturb the peaceful relations of any of the Powers of Europe. As to the papers demanded I might content myself with saying that, as the hon. Gentleman has not shown that any useful purpose would be obtained by their production, it would be injurious to the public service to publish them. I will only add that the Correspondence which has passed arose in consequence of arms being sent from Genoa to Wallachia and Moldavia without any desire on the part of Prince Couza, and very much to the annoyance of the Sultan. Neither the Sultan's dominions nor the Principalities were in any way connected with Hungary. Now I have not desired to interfere in any way between Austria and Hungary. It is my wish that the Government of Austria and the Diet of Hungary may come to an agreement; that the promises of liberality which have been given by the Government of Austria may be amply fulfilled; and that the Hungarians on their side may find that such freedom of discussion and of the press and such guarantees for personal liberty may be given to them that they may continue to live under their present King. But that is merely a wish which I have formed. I have never interfered in any way whatever between the Emperor of Austria and the Diet of Hungary. It is for the Hungarians to consider whether their interests will be promoted and their rights secured by the Constitution which is offered by the Sove- reign. It is for them to say whether they will be content to enjoy their rights and liberties in conjunction with Austria; but far be it from me to control their desires in the least, or to throw any obstacle in the way of their establishing their independence. But it is a totally different thing to collect arms in a neighbouring country for the purpose of disturbing the dominions of the Emperor of Austria. However unreasonable the hon. Gentleman may deem it, when the Sultan found that his dominions were being made the rendezvous of a great number of exiles who entertained designs against Austria, and when the Emperor of Austria became aware that arms were being collected in that quarter for an attack upon his dominions, both those Sovereigns felt a great dislike to those operations. No one could find fault with them for that. No Sovereign is bound to foment or even to permit the fomentation of an insurrection in the dominions of another; on the contrary, he is bound to prevent it by every means in his power. Our only interference has been to state to Prince Couza, whose position mainly depends on the Treaty of 1856 and the Conventions which have been made accordingly, that it was his duty to the Sovereign to send away the arms. Prince Couza replied that it was contrary to his wishes, as it was, he believed, contrary to the interests of his people, that the arms had been introduced into the country; that he had no objection to send them away, but that he did not see how he could do so. At last Sir Henry Bulwer informed the Government in a despatch that he had been requested both by the Sultan and Prince Couza to take away the arms, we gave him permission to send the Banshee to bring back the arms to Constantinople on their way to Genoa. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Hungarians ought to be permitted to do whatever they pleased, not only in their own country, but in the dominions of any other neighbouring Sovereign. I do not think we ought to give them assistance in any such matter. With regard to these papers, I cannot consent to their production. It would not be convenient to the public service to do so. I should say, moreover, that really the Foreign Office is already overtaxed by the preparation of papers to be laid before this House. I constantly hear in the Foreign Office that almost everybody is employed upon the immense mass of papers already ordered. The production of these papers would do no good. They would be in- jurious to the public service, and I cannot consent to produce them.

said, he was quite aware that the Danubian Principalities did not, as the noble Lord said, belong to Hungary. But the Danubian Principalities did not object to these arms passing through them. They were seized at the mouth of the Danube and confiscated by Prince Couza, and thus prevented from passing into Hungary. No doubt they were intended for Hungary, whose people were arming against Austria, and there were only two roads by which they could receive them—one by the Adriatic and through Dalmatia, the other by the Danube. But England completely prevented ingress by way of Dalmatia, by keeping a strong fleet and strong fortress at Corfu; and the Danube we had blockaded as effectually by means of Sir Henry Bulwer. The noble Lord, in the ease of Hungary, was violating every principle of nonintervention as laid down in relation to the affairs of Italy. He had formerly stated that England must watch with a careful eye on the Adriatic; but no Court in Europe could find out what those interests were which the noble Lord had to watch there. The noble Lord, he understood, wanted Austria as a counterpoise to France; but if his policy were pursued for twelve months longer he would involve us in a war with France. What was he doing in regard to Hungary? He repeated it, he was violating every principle of nonintervention. The noble Lord said that his object was to maintain peace. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) firmly believed that if the policy of the noble Lord were pursued a twelvemonth longer he would involve them in a war with France. No party at present wished to go to war. Sardinia was not ready—Fiance was not ready; but let another year pass over—let the noble Lord carry out the policy of setting up Austria as a counterpoise to France—and nobody could say how long the alliance between England and France would last. What was his conduct in regard to Kossuth? He wrote to Sir James Hudson ordering him to keep a watchful eye on Kossuth. The noble Lord, when reminded of this on a former occasion, said he did not recollect having done so; but the matter was talked of openly at Turin. He wondered if the noble Lord recollected it now. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: No, I do not.] The policy of the noble Lord with regard to Hungary and Kossuth was most contemptible. As to the notes Kossuth had proved that he never intended to use them for the purpose alleged; but, at the instigation of Austria, the Government had interfered, exposed the Messrs. Day to great expense, and, in all probability, to a certain extent damaged the trade of a very respectable lithographic establishment. The noble Lord said that Prince Couza did not know what to do with these arms, and, therefore, he volunteered to carry them back to Genoa in the Banshee. That was a direct interference. The noble Lord might refuse to produce these papers; but they would get most if not all of them by hook or by crook, as they had succeeded in getting those dated the 31st of August. The noble Lord, since his visit to Vienna, had shown a great predilection for Austria; but he could assure him twelve hours' misunderstanding with France would be worse than twelve months' misunderstanding with Austria. He should insist on the production of these papers, and if they were refused the English Parliament would be loft in the absurd position of having refused what would be granted elsewhere.

entirely differed from the view taken by the hon. Gentleman. He thought it much more in the interests of Europe that the policy of the noble Lord should tend more towards Austrian alliance than had yet been the case. As he read the papers on the Italian question he certainly did not discover that the noble Lord had shown any predilection to Austria. At the same time he thought, if papers were laid on the table, they should be so complete as to enable the House to form a clear understanding as to what the conduct of the Government had been, With respect to the Italian papers there had not yet been a full discussion. There was an important omission in the papers relating to the affairs of Naples. He had mentioned to the noble Lord that there had been an important omission—namely, of the despatch by which Mr. Elliot was instructed as to the conduct he was to hold in regard to General Garibaldi, written long before he entered Naples. The noble Lord admitted the importance of the despatch, but said it could not be given, the whole of the despatch having been sent by telegraph, and if it were produced the cypher of the Foreign Office would be discovered. The other night he asked for papers about the events that were happening at Warsaw. It was important that the Mouse should know what the Government thought of those events; but again the noble Lord said that he could not produce those despatches. The House were thus precluded from expressing an opinion on the conduct of the Government while the events were passing, and when they attempted to do so six months hence, when the papers were produced, they were told that it was too late.

confessed that he entertained doubts as to the policy of the principle on which this Motion was founded. That principle, as he understood it, was that the mode of appointment and the proceedings of Public Committees should be as much as possible assimilated to those of Private Bill Committees. Now, there was a wide difference between the nature of the questions referred to Private Bill and Election Committees and that of those referred to ordinary Public Committees. The duties of the two former classes of Committees were essentially of a judicial character. Their members, few in number, were chosen by the Committee of Selection, and required as far as posposible to be impartial on the question they had to decide; which was, moreover, generally a definite one. It was requisite also that they should have formed no previous opinion upon it. They were, likewise, called upon, in respect to private Bills referred to them, to declare that they had no interest in the matter of controversy. Under Standing Order 96 they were required to attend from day to day until they had made their Report, and could only absent themselves through sickness or by an Order of the House. Their position, in fact, was like that of jurymen impanelled to try an issue before a Court; the inquiry before them was conducted by counsel, who called and examined witnesses to substantiate their opening statements, the members acting merely in a judicial capacity. The same was the case with Election Committees, whose members would be entirely helpless, and could come to no conclusion but for the assistance of counsel. That was the basis of the elaborate, coherent, and, as it appeared to him, convenient code of rules which the House had established in regard to private Bills and the trial of controverted elections, and which was certainly a great improvement on their previous practice. The hon. Gentleman asked, however, why that system which worked so well was not extended to Public Committees. The answer was, that the two cases were wholly dissimilar. The business before Public Com- mittees was conducted entirely by the Members themselves, who had to call and examine witnesses, sift their evidence, and, in short, perform all the functions which counsel performed before Private Bill Committees. If, therefore, Public Committees consisted wholly of impartial men their investigations would be most unsatisfactory. Strong partisans on each side were knowingly and advisedly chosen, in order that truth might be elicited from the conflict of opposite, and it might be interested opinions. Indeed, in forming such Committees the avowed object often was to have different interests represented, and complaints were sometimes made that a Committee was unfairly constituted precisely because conflicting interests were not duly represented in it. It was also frequently alleged that Scotch and Irish Members were excluded. The practice, further, was to have some members of the Government and likewise some leading Members of the Opposition on every important Public Committee—an usage in favour of which obviously a great deal might be said. But if all these different elements were to be incorporated into a Public Committee, in order to secure its proper composition, how could the unhappy Committee of Selection attain that object if they were restricted to the choice of seven or nine Members? It appeared to him, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, with the very best intentions, had confounded two things that were perfectly distinct. For these reasons, it was impossible to agree to his Motion.

thought it would he a decided improvement in the practice of the House, and would prevent a good deal of unseemly squabbling, if the Committee of Selection were left to choose the members of Public as well as of Private Bill Committees.

, in replying, said that he thought the effect of his Motion would he to invigorate Committees and improve their machinery.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control and management of Her Majesty's naval yards; and to move—

"That it is not expedient to entrust the Board of Admiralty with the expenditure of the whole of the large amount proposed for the Naval Services in the Estimate for the current year according to the existing system of conducting and controlling the Naval Department."

The hon. Member said he did not wish to cast any reflections upon the present Admiralty Board; he thought the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had done much service both as a witness before the Royal Commissioners appointed last year and by the information which he had afforded to the House towards investigating the state of our naval affairs. It had been shown that great mismanagement existed. He referred to the Report of the Commissioners and to the evidence taken before them. No fewer than 12,000 questions had been asked by the hon. Members who sat on that Commission, and it had been clearly proved that great mismanagement had existed in the conduct of our naval affairs. He would not trouble the House with a discussion on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, as that subject was under the consideration of a Committee now sitting, and of course the House would in some degree, be guided by its Report. But he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that it was called upon to vote four millions of money to be expended under an inefficient management. The evidence taken before the Commissioners established the facts that there was a defective organization in the subordinate departments of the Admiralty and no satisfactory control. Upon these points he referred the House to the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker and the Accountant General. It was also established that there was a want of a well-defined responsibility. Sir Baldwin Walker had told the Commissioners that the Comptroller was ignorant of what passed in the dockyards, for which he was responsible, and that it frequently happens that he only knew that there was a deficiency of material when there was an actual want of it; and it also appeared in evidence that delays had arisen in consequence of contradictory orders having been given by the various authorities. The Reports of the Commissioners also showed how the Comptroller's department was conducted, and its relation to the Accountant General's department, from which it was evident that there was a want of harmony and uniformity between them, and au ignorance on the part of the subordinates of the Department of the Comptroller of the Navy of the wants of the service. The hon. and gallant Member was proceeding, when—