said, he found himself in an unwonted position with respect to the measure, inasmuch as that was the first occasion on which it was his duty to ask the House to read the Bill a second time. Much had been said about the late division, in which the supporters of the ballot achieved a victory by a very considerable majority in a small House. He would assure the House that it was not his desire to have pressed the question hastily forward to a division, or to take any advantage of hon. Members, but he found himself compelled to do so from the conduct that was pursued towards him. There were certain hon. Gentlemen present who had determined to count the House out; and finding there was a great desire to shorten the discussion on the Bill, he went to a division, which resulted in a victory to the friends of the ballot. It was not his intention to trouble the House with a very long argument on the question, because he considered that the arguments which had been urged in favour of the ballot had never been refuted, and in that respect the supporters of the measure stood perfectly triumphant. But it would be his duty to remove a load of dust and of cobweb which had been industriously thrown over the question, and in which a part of the press took the lead. Although he bowed with submission to all fair criticism which might come from the press, yet there were cases in which licence became licentiousness. He would give an instance. There appeared in The Times newspaper the following: —

"Whoever wishes to see the low condition to which a once great Parliamentary question is reduced, has only to refer to our Parliamentary proceedings to observe that Mr. Berkeley could only assemble eighty Members."

At the time that that passage appeared in The Times the editor had 112 pairs for dinner in his possession, in addition to those who voted. Upon such wretched capital was an opposition got up in that paper against the ballot, and those were the means used. Much dust had been thrown on the measure, with the intention of blinding the people to the real consequence of it. It therefore became his duty to lay before the House the exact condition in which the question stood. He held in his hand a table of statistics, in which were enumerated the constituencies of England, with their population and the number of electors. As first in place and consequence he would take this great and enlightened metropolis; and taking the eighteen members returned for the metropolitan boroughs, he would venture to say that whether as to their social position or their talent they were second to none in that House. The city of London had a population of 112,247; it contained 18,562 electors, and returned four Members who walked in the steps of George Grote. "Westminster had a population of 253,985; it contained 12,826 electors, and returned two Members both voting for the ballot. The Tower Hamlets contained a population of 647,585, and 29,799 electors, returning two Members, both voting for the ballot. Lambeth contained 298,032 inhabitants, 22,387 electors, and returned two Members, both voting for the ballot. Marylebone had 436,298 inhabitants, 21,022 electors, and returned two Members, both voting for the ballot. Southwark had a population of 193,433, and 11,278 electors, returned two Members, and both voting for the ballot. Finsbury contained a population of 386,844, with 22,230 electors, and returned two Members, both voting for the ballot. Middlesex contained a population of 2,205,771, with 15,328 electors, and returned two Members, and both voting for the ballot. Manchester contained 357,604 inhabitants, 19,410 registered electors, and returned two Members, both voting for the ballot. Salford contained 102,414 inhabitants, 4,490 registered electors, and sent one Member to vote for the ballot. Birmingham had 295,955 inhabitants, 9,697 electors, and sent two Members to vote for the ballot. Bristol contained 154,093 inhabitants, 12,837 electors, and sent two Members to vote for the ballot. Sheffield had 185,157 inhabitants, 7,602 electors, and returned two Members, both voting for the ballot. Wolverhampton contained 47,646 inhabitants and 4,110 electors, and both Members voted for the ballot. Stoke-on-Trent contained 101,302 inhabitants and 2,350 electors, and both Members voted for the ballot. Plymouth and Devonport united contained 127,621 inhabitants and 5,395 electors, and the four Members returned for those places voted for the ballot. Bradford contained 106,218 inhabitants and 3,770 electors, and both Members voted for the ballot. The West Hiding of Yorkshire contained 1,507,511 inhabitants and 39,645 electors, and the two Members voted for the ballot. Glasgow contained 394,857 inhabitants and 18,711 electors, and both Members voted for the ballot. There were other great constituencies he could mention in favour of the ballot—for example, Brighton and Gloucester — but the table alone showed an area containing 8,014,573 inhabitants and 283,246 electors, returning forty-one Members who are strong supporters of the ballot. In that table he had included only boroughs containing upwards of 2,000 electors, and excluded all boroughs in which the electors did not amount to 2,000, or in which the Members were divided in opinion. He thought, therefore, that he was perfectly able to draw the conclusion with safety, that the ballot was a question that had some consideration with the country — that the ballot was supported in a way which no other question of reform was supported—and that the ballot had infinitely a stronger chance of success than other successful questions of reform had at their commencement. He should say one word or two as to the part he had taken in reference to this question. Twenty-five years ago he was sent to the House of Commons by the constituency of Bristol, pledged to the support of two great questions. One was the abolition of the Corn Laws—a question then under the charge of Charles Pelham Villiers; the other was protection of the electors by ballot under the charge of George Grote. All he (Mr. Berkeley) could say was, that he had followed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton into the lobby, and that he had graduated under George Grote. It had been said to him by some friends of his, "Why should you bring forward this question of reform in the present Session? A general apathy has fallen on the House; they will entertain no question of reform; her Majesty's Government do not even bring forward that little duodecimo of reform which the noble Lord (Earl Russell), when he was created a Peer and retired from the House of Commons, left to them; our Conservative friends, who are likewise reformers, think it unnecessary to bring forward the question of reform, and have let it fall to the ground; there are your own particular friends, the hon. Members for Surrey and Leeds, they have not gone on with their Reform Bills; why do you go on with the question of the ballot?" That was said to him frequently; but he might say, in reply, that there were two kinds of example, good and bad, and he did not think that the giving-up of all those questions of reform was a good example. He would not consent to stigmatize the House of Commons as a body of political Lazzaroni, rather indulging in the dolce far niente than in making wholesome laws, and upsetting unwholesome abuses, but would endeavour, as far as he could, to remove the stain on their reputation. If there was a question of reform that had a distinct character, it was the ballot. The question of the ballot, as brought forward by him, resembled none of the Bills laid upon the table. In all the Reform Bills brought forward, and recommended to the House there had been always an interference with the rights and privileges of the electors. There had been an alteration of the franchise of some sort or other. Either it was very much increased or moderately increased, or, perhaps reduced in one way and increased in another. Although hon. Members agreeing with him were inclined to support a great extension of the franchise, they kept the question of the ballot totally distinct from any question that interfered with the qualification of the electors. They were willing to take the electoral code as they found it, and all they desired was to carry out that electoral code in its integrity, by enabling the electors qualified by law to vote in the language of the law, "freely and indifferently." He was at a loss to know what there could be revolutionary in asking to do that; and yet when a motion for the ballot was made, it was declared that revolution was at the bottom of it. These were the reasons why he refused to accede to the suggestion to lay the ballot aside with all other questions of reform. He remembered when the abolition of the Corn Laws was met with fiercer opposition, and extended over a far longer period of years, than the question of the ballot, from the time when there was a protest signed: against the obnoxious law by certain Peersand a distinguished Prince of the blood; royal. There was the fiercest opposition to the abolition of the Corn Laws; and; when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton led his small body of supporters into the lobby, he was described by the head of his own party as a lunatic leading a body of madmen. But who were the madmen now? There were around him hon. Members who opposed the abolition of the Corn Laws, but they were now as good free-traders as himself. The chief objection taken to the ballot in the present day was generally couched in language such as this, "Oh, the ballot is gone; democracy is at a discount; republicanism has been upset. Why, the great Republic of America has failed. Don't talk to us of annual Parliaments, equal; electoral districts, vote by ballot; all are gone together." Now, let them pause for a moment and see how that was? So, then, republican institutions were at a discount, and the ballot had been tried and found wanting, because their American brethren had the great misfortune to fall into civil war. In the first place, he met that assertion with a direct denial, and he should divide his denial into two parts. Was a civil war to be the test of institutions? What became of monarchies if that were the case? If a civil war were to damn a republic, what were they to say to the monarchy in this country, where within two hundred and fifty years there had been three civil wars? The first ended with the decapitation of a king; the second ended by turning a king out of his dominions; the third by placing the heads of sundry English and Scotch nobles on the spikes at Temple Bar. If a civil war were to be the test of institutions, what became of monarchy in Naples — where a man in a red shirt, with a volunteer rabble, turned out of the kingdom eighty thousand disciplined troops, with a monarch at their head? Republics had not been put on their trial, but Republicans had. Republican institutions had not been found wanting, but the inhabitants of a country where a republic existed had been found wanting. Monarchy was not at a discount because civil war had taken place in Italy. They knew that in England monarchy was not at a discount. They all appreciated the blessing they enjoyed in living under such a monarch as Queen Victoria. The ballot was condemned as a republican institution, but there never was such a mistake. What was the chief attribute of the ballot? He held the ballot to be the barrier against the unconstitutional usurpation of political power. He did not care where the usurpation came from. He cared not whether it came from an aristocracy—or a monied oligarchy—or a fierce democracy; the ballot was a protection against all. That was the real definition of the ballot. Hon. Gentlemen talked loudly on the hustings of the democratic influence of secret voting. Let any Gentleman, however, point out to him any single country on the globe whore votes were taken by ballot, and where the tendency or action of the ballot had been democratic? When they talked of the ballot being a democratic institution, they were bound to answer that. He was convinced that no hon. Member could point out such a place. He would not let the matter rest there; he would carry the war into his opponents' country, and show that the action of the ballot in America was distinctly and decidedly conservative. He would tell them that the tendency of the ballot was directly opposed to the action of universal suffrage. Through universal suffrage a democracy frequently dwindled into a mob, and what was done by that mob? In America it acted with the bowie knife, the revolver pistol, the tar-brush and the feathers—and what had the ballot done in that state of wild democracy? It gave protection to the man in trade—to the man of property and education—to the man of sound and good feeling. Without the ballot-box such a man could not express his opinion or do his best in the election of members to the Congress of his country. He would put the matter hypothetically. They were all aware of the Trent outrage, as it was called, when an American officer violated the law of nations. Hundreds of thousands in America, hurried on by a profligate press, were resolved, if they possibly could, to have a war with the old country, and to stand by Captain Wilkes of the American navy. He (Mr. Berkeley) would not do their American brethren the injustice of supposing that the feeling was universal. Far from it; he believed there were hundreds of thousands of men in America who deprecated a war with the old country. Suppose there was an election, and that Captain Wilkes was put up for Congress, and there was open voting, what man dare record his vote against Captain Wilkes? But, with the ballot, any man could do so with safety and without the least apprehension. Observe, then, what vast results must depend upon protected voting. So far, he thought he had shown that the ballot did not deserve the aspersions thrown on it, of having a democratic or republican tendency. If they wanted to have a contrast between open and secret voting, he need not go further than America. There was one State always called the Old England State—the State of Virginia. In that State there were numbers of old families who boasted of being connected by blood with the old families in this country. They boasted of preserving English customs and English manners, and it was no boast to say that they extended generously the old English hospitality to strangers. Amongst the English institutions which they were particularly proud of was open voting. They said they would have nothing underhand; they took the word from the Earl of Derby, who said that the ballot-box was the lurking-hole of political cowards. [Cheers from the Of position.] Of course, hon. Members cheered. The Virginians agreed with the Earl of Derby. "Stand forth," said they, "like manly Englishmen; record your votes openly and in the face of day; and then if you vote for a sneaking Abolitionist, why, we will tar and feather you." Where were the cheers of hon. Members then? They knew that the key to the fetters of their slaves lurked in the ballot-box, and they would have none of it. Such was the state of things in Virginia, and he might ask if there was any similarity between the state of things in Virginia and in England. Though they bequeathed the social evil of slavery to the Virginians, they had it not in this country. They could not in England flog or fetter men, or put men's lives at the mercy of any one; but if they had no social slaves, had they no political slaves? If they had not a set of men that were flogged, and tarred and feathered, in case they disobeyed the mandates given to them at the polling-places, were there not men in England ejected from their houses and sent upon the world because they voted conscientiously? Such power did not pertain to one class in England: it was exercised by the landlord, by the aristocracy, and, he believed, it was exercised to a great extent by the millocracy. Did it follow that the ballot must be opposed to the aristocratic classes? On the contrary, if the ballot were the law of the land, the Conservative candidates would get in for many places where, without it, they were defeated. He did not treat that as a party question, but stood there on behalf of the people to obtain for them redress. He held in his hand an extract from the evidence of a witness examined before a Committee that rendered much service at that time—he alluded to Grote's Committee. He had not the slightest doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) would have been returned for Birmingham if he had had the advantage of the ballot. Evidence to that effect was given by a witness, named John Gilbert, before Grote's Committee. He said, that but for intimidation he thought Mr. Spooner would have been returned. The witness described the intimidation as being that of the mob acting upon the lower order of tradespeople. The following was the report of his further examination:—

Q. "Then you think that Birmingham is not properly represented?—Certainly not."

Q. "Do you think that some change is required that will prevent intimidation?—I do."

Q. "You are an active partisan and a bold man. Your opinions were well known; but take the case of a person who has never taken an active part, and who is quite nervous about these matters, some change would be better for him, perhaps?—Yes, it would I believe if it were done in that way that nobody knew how people voted, Spooner would have been returned."

Q. "Therefore, you think many voted against their opinion?—No doubt of that."

Q. Would it not be a great point to have men's votes agree with their opinions?—-Yes, surely."

Q. "Are you in favour of vote by ballot?— A pause.…

Q. "Are you in favour of protecting the elector with the ballot?—I don't know that. I am too good a Tory for that."

It was also said that in Nottingham the ballot would have a Conservative effect. A very large proprietor in Yorkshire told him that he believed the ballot would act more in favour of the Conservatives than it would in favour of the Liberals. It signified nothing to him whether it would or not; he only wished that people should have the right to vote according to their consciences. In Australia the ballot had worked to perfection. There was the strongest possible evidence of the fact; and there was an hon. Member present who could give such evidence. In this country, unfortunately, there had been of late a prevalence of strikes among the working class; and he had heard many honest reformers doubt the propriety of giving an extension of the franchise or the ballot to people who appeared so little able to govern themselves. As regards the franchise, he excluded that from present consideration; but as to the ballot, he (Mr. Berkeley) would give them a proof of its beneficial effects in putting down strikes. In a letter respecting strikes at Bolton, Mr. J. H. Raper said—

"The strike at Bolton has been one of a peculiar character. Both spinners and power-loom weavers have been on strike for six weeks rather than stand a reduction of 5 per cent on their wages, which the masters stated was necessary to keep them right. The Spinners' Union officers advised the men to accept, and ask for a rise when trade improved. Their prudent counsel was clamoured down by many of the younger and more thoughtless hands. A week or so ago a proposition was made that each mill should vote by ballot whether the negotiation should be settled by the committee. This was really whether they should go in or not, and was understood to be so, as the whole body knew what the secretary's opinion was. A decided majority voted in the affirmative, and the strike was virtually at an end with the spinners. Negotiations with the employers only remained, and they resumed work this morning. The weavers who have been out the longer period also balloted on the question direct—'Going in' or 'Stopping out;" and the majority, under protection from clamour and abuse, voted for going on with their work rather than begging from the public. They, also, resumed this morning. Here we have an instance of the power of the ballot which aristocrats may comprehend. It is protection from mob rule as well against an oligarchy."

That was tolerably conclusive proof of the benefits that might result from the adoption of the ballot. "When the ballot was first adopted in Australia, the qualification of electors was high—higher than it was in England—yet it was found to act perfectly well. Then the Legislature altered the qualification, and adopted that which was tantamount to universal suffrage—-manhood suffrage. Disturbances took place in the colony, but not at the elections, which led The Times newspaper to insert some very strong articles against the institution of manhood suffrage and equal electoral districts; and, of course, with these The Times mixed up the ballot. He would not argue with The Times, but would leave it to its correspondent, "J. F. P.," who appeared to have the editor's confidence, as he always commanded a large space of the paper. He wrote thus—

"I have only one more observation to make in reference to a remark made by you in a former number of your journal, in which you bracket the ballot in the same category with manhood suffrage and equal electoral districts. I am able to assure you that the ballot has worked most harmoniously in Victoria. It is Conservative in its tendency, and is not practically open to abuse; but its chief excellence and characteristic virtue is the noiseless manner in which it accomplishes its object."

He had a statement from a well-known gentleman, Mr. Button, one of the Commissioners for South Australia at the Exhibition, and lately a senior Member of the House of Assembly of South Australia. He had returned the following answers to questions that were put to him:—

Q. 1. "Had you any experience of open voting in the colony prior to the introduction of the ballot? —stood two severely-contested elections for the city of Adelaide before the ballot came into operation."

Q. 2. "Had you, before the ballot was adopted, drunkenness, fighting, treating, intimidation by mobs, or undue influence by customers or tradesmen?—-Drunkenness, riot, and great disorder invariably prevailed at elections under the open voting. On one occasion in particular the mob, frantic with drink, and armed with bludgeons, had possession of the street leading to the polling-booth, and it was as much as a man's life was worth to cross the street wearing the colours of the candidates to whom the mob was opposed. The whole of the police, foot and horse, had to be called out, to enable electors to get to the polling-booth. Treating prevailed very generally. The election of some of my friends cost, to my certain knowledge, several thousand pounds. I have heard tradespeople complain that they have lost custom in consequence of the way they have voted."

Q. 3. "What has been the effect of the ballot on such malpractices?—A total cessation of all the above evils."

Q. 4. "Has the ballot diminished the expense of elections?—Most decidedly. Any candidate can now be returned free of expense, except a few pounds for advertisements, or his own necessary travelling expenses to reach the electoral district to address the electors before the nomination day."

Q. 5. "Does the ballot prevent a man's vote from being known? — It is utterly impossible for a man's vote becoming known, unless he himself chooses to say which way he has voted."

Q. 6. "Has there been an increase in the number of persons recording their votes? — Certainly; for this simple reason: that now the elections go off so quietly that not more than a dozen idlers think it worth their while to loiter about the polling-booths, and the most timid person can comfortably and securely go to poll his vote. People go and record their vote, and in five minutes go about their own business affairs."

Q. 7. "Have you had any petitions for undue returns on account of bribery or other causes since the introduction of the ballot?—I only recollect one petition for undue return on account of intimidation on the part of a large employer of labour, but the allegations were proved to be unfounded."

Q. 8. "Has there been found any practical difficulty or inconvenience in conducting elections by ballot?—None whatever. The whole machinery works as smoothly and is as perfect as anything can be."

Q. 9. "Is the ballot generally popular in the colony after its nine years' trial?—Very popular. And I believe those who were formerly opposed to it (except, perhaps, a very few old Tories, whom nothing will change) are now quite satisfied with it."

Q. 10. "Has the assent of the Queen been given to any Act of your Legislature establishing the ballot?—Repeatedly; and what is more, it has never been objected to in any despatch from the Colonial Office. The Ministers for the Colonies, of both sides of the House of Commons, Liberals and Conservatives, have repeatedly had to submit to Her Majesty our electoral Acts, which by our Constitution are always reserved for the Royal assent, and such assent has invariably been given."

If each. Member of the House would only be prepared to record every malversation of the franchise which had fallen under his own observation, there would be in Hansard a valuable record which would facilitate the passing of the ballot at a future period. He would adduce some evidence as to the state of the boroughs which had been recently contested. An eminent solicitor, partner to the Town Clerk of Lincoln, who had taken part in, he late election there, said—

"I am in favour of vote by ballot as a measure if sound polling, and my experience of the recent election has more than ever confirmed my views on the subject. The present system of conducting elections is one of our greatest national stains, a system which lays prostrate all those moral and religious considerations which ought to have weight and influence in the exercise of the elective franchise,"

Another letter from Lincoln, from Mr. Craps, stated—

"That the late election has been one of the most venal and corrupt that has been experienced n this city for a long time. The intimidation and bribery were fearful. I give you a specimen of the former, which might be multiplied ad infinitum. A voter was desirous of voting for Mr. Hinde Palmer; but being under obligations to a certain wealthy man of the opposite party, his landlord, he feared to vote as he desired, and intended not to vote at all. Consequently, on the day of election, he got out of the way. About two o'clock, the landlord called at the house, and asked the voter's wife where he was? She replied, "Not at home." "You are a liar," was the polite rejoinder; and walking straight to the man's bed-chamber, he loudly called to the voter. "If you do not come directly, and vote for Mr. Bramley Moore, I will sell you up to-morrow." Now, the elector considered it a great evil to vote for Mr. Bramley Moore, but a greater evil to be sold up and reduced to beggary; so he went to the poll and recorded his vote as commanded."

Mr. H. J. Raper, of Manchester, whom he had already quoted in reference to strikes, took an active part in the late Grimsby election. He was on the other side, for he opposed Mr. Heneage. He wrote—

"And now for the lesson which this election has taught. It is a simple one that the Reform Bill which is needed is the Bill you proposed last Session, to take votes byway of ballot. This would amend the representation of the people. Whether more tories or more Whigs would be returned is another question. The opinions of the people arc not now obtained. The Tarborough influence, conjoined with that of Heneage himself, fixes 300 votes to a dead certainty, who have no will of their own whatever as to the choice of a candidate. At every step I had ample illustrations of the great necessity for protection. As a great moral reform, I long for the ballot. As a counteraction to the venal, I beg you to press it on."

The Grimsby election was inquired into by a Committee of that House, and he would quote one passage from the evidence—

"James Hardy, a well-to-do man, goes down in his dog-cart to vote for Mr. Heneage. On the road he meets with the seducers, who give him £11 to vote for Mr. Chapman. He assents. They go to the booth, the poll is closed. The seducers have interest enough to get it opened, and to insert into it £11 worth of rascality in favour of Mr. Chapman."

He had interesting cases from the Green Isle, relating to the Longford election; but he would not speak of the election, which had been so much discussed. Some parties insisted most fiercely that there was great intimidation and violence; and others denied this assertion. It was, however, useless to conceal the fact, that in Ireland great influence was exercised by the landlords and by the priests; and he did not know any unhappier animal than an Irish elector, with both these parties at him. One of the most mischievous doctrines that had been insisted upon by the noble Lord the Member for Tivorton was, that the electors were trustees for the non-electors. That argument was used at Cork many years ago; and the priests said to the non-electors—"Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell tell you the electors are your trustees; now you know that all those who vote for the Tory candidate are guilty of a breach of trust, and you know what to do with them." The consequence was, that the non-electors stoned them most sufficiently. Another practical illustration of that argument had been furnished by an election at Kidderminster, where Mr. Lowe was so stoned that he might be called the St. Stephen of the House of Commons. In short that right hon. Gentleman was not only stoned out of the borough of Kidderminster, but he actually was stoned into the borough of Calne. Although he and his friends had been fiercely assailed for bringing forward this measure—although they were told they were supporting a rotten cause, and that they were republicans—he was certain the good sense of the country at no distant period would come to the right conclusion. It was for the people out of doors and not for the Members of the House, who weakly spoke the voice of the people, to carry the question. At the present time they could be at no great distance from a general election, when the people would be plunged in the vortex of that abominable saturnalia which disgraced the country on those occasions. It was the duty of hon. Members to raise their voices to warn the people; and why might not he, as an humble individual, warn the Government, who were in a minority with their own party on this question? Why might not he point out to the Government that the time was coming when, through the passing of bad laws, which did not and would not prevent corruption, or through the apathy they showed touching the corruption which stood so prominently before them, they would see borough after borough snatched from their hands? And, perhaps, when they found themselves in a minority, or found themselves on the Opposition side of the House, they would regret that they had not extended their protection to the unfortunate elector.

seconded the Motion.

said, his objection to the Bill was a practical objection — that, in a great measure, it would be ineffectual in carrying out the object which the hon. Member had in view. Instead of being a check on bribery, it would facilitate it by preventing detection in many cases. He believed that it would be quite impossible to prevent the great bulk of Englishmen from avowing openly the part which they might take in an election. In his opinion, the elective franchise was both a trust and a duty; and, without affirming that the electors were trustees for the whole community, he would say that they ought to be subject to the ordinary rule of letting the public know how the trust was fulfilled and the duty was discharged. The hon. Gentleman, who was a very consistent and able advocate of the Ballot, had stated that the Bill was supported by every large constituency. However that might be, he (Sir G. Grey) doubted whether the general opinion of the country was in its favour, and he, for one, when the division took place, would vote against the second reading.

said, he rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Homo Department for the manly manner in which he had rejected the artful argument which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill. It was his firm conviction that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman would meet with a satisfactory response from the country. One plain fact was stated by the hon. Member for Bristol, that his proposal was supported by a small minority in that House; and he (Mr. Newdegate) believed also by a small minority in the country. The best proof of this was the conduct of the House; and if the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol was worth anything, it was this, that the House expressed the opinion of the majority, but that the majority constituted a tyranny over the minority. The hon. Member had cited the rejection of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner) by the representation of Birmingham as an instance of intimidation. He (Mr. Newdegate) fully believed that his hon. Colleague had been rejected through intimidation; but an antidote was immediately discovered, for the electors of North Warwickshire, many of whom were also electors for the borough of Birmingham, returned him at once, and he had retained the seat for seventeen years. No argument in favour of open voting could be more clear than his hon. Friend's return for North Warwickshire, and his retention of his seat for so long a period. The whole constitution of the country was based on the system of trusts openly exercised and governed by public opinion; and the reason why the Motion of the hon. Member met so little favour was, that the people of England demanded that they should have a public opportunity of exercising the influence of public opinion upon every one intrusted with any share of power in regulating their government. The attachment of the people and the country to open voting rested on their determination that public opinion should govern them. That public opinion formed the base of our common law, which common law constituted the safeguard of our freedom, and the people would not part with the controlling power which they exercised over every man intrusted with even the smallest amount of political power. The measure now proposed proceeded upon an unpopular basis, and therefore did not meet with the public favour. The hon. Member had asserted that the ballot was a Conservative measure, and that it would produce Conservative votes. He (Mr. Newdegate) was a Conservative, but he never desired to see one seat rescued from the people for the sake of placing a misrepresentative of public opinion on the benches of that (the Opposition) side of the House. He was as strong a Conservative of the free expression of Radical opinions as of Tory opinions. He and those with whom he acted were not there to defend despotism. The essence of despotism was secrecy, and they were opposed to the introduction of the system of secrecy in any shape, because as Conservatives of a free constitution they were the deadly enemies of despotism in every shape.

said, the object of Parliament in granting the franchise was that the electors should give their votes freely and according to their consciences. They had all heard of cases in which undue pressure had been put upon debtors to influence their votes at elections. He congratulated the House on having one of its Members—a member also of a noble family —who stood up for the rights of the people. He thought that the question for the House really was, whether the people were satisfied with the present state of things; and believing that they were not, he should give his vote for the second reading.

said, he could not allow the statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner), having been rejected by intimidation at Birmingham, was at once returned by the county as a compensation, to pass without a remark. If such were the case, it was a very solitary instance; but the fact was that the counties were too well accustomed to intimidation, that they took it as a matter of course, and called it by another name; for they simply regarded it as following their leader, or rather their landlord. In Ireland, when a man was asked how he was going to vote, he always replied either for his priest or his landlord; and in England it was a well-known fact—it was all to be found in Dod—that if they had the names of the chief landed proprietors of the county, they knew the opinions of its representatives. Now, that was a most disgraceful state of things, which ought to be no longer tolerated. It was said that the opinion of the people was not favourable to the ballot; but no answer had been given to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, who had enumerated the names of the boroughs, containing an aggregate population of 8,000,000, which returned gentlemen in favour of the ballot to Parliament. Why was that the ease? It was not because those persons themselves had been subjected to intimidation, for he would undertake to say that there were no constituencies less subject to influence than those constituencies which returned members who were in favour of the ballot. He would speak with respect to his own constituency—namely, Southwark, of which the great bulk of the electors were working men. No employer in that borough attempted to interfere with the vote of the persons working for him. But what was question which amongst them was the most popular, and what the necessity which they considered the greatest? He unhesitatingly answered that it was vote by ballot. They did not want it themselves; but they knew full well that the country could not be governed by those Members who were returned by certain large constituencies, and that in the case of the great bulk of the Members of that House they were returned by constituencies amenable to intimidation; and therefore they believed that it would be for the benefit of the country at large that the ballot should be established.

said, the object of the Bill was to put down intimidation and bribery; but, in his opinion, it would not succeed in doing so. Landlords and others who possessed influence would find that freedom of voting would in the end redound more to their advantage than intimidation. The Bill, so far from affording a remedy for bribery, would do exactly the reverse, for it would put a man in a position to take a double bribe. A friend of his who had once been a Member of that House had last winter returned from America, where he had been introduced to many persons who held the most advanced opinions in that country, and he told him that nine out of every ten of the thinking men there were agreed that universal suffrage and vote by ballot must be got rid of. He had the greatest possible confidence, that if the measure were passed, it would spread a great amount of demoralization among the electors of all small and wealthy towns, and he should therefore feel it his duty to vote against it.

said, he rose to propose that the Chairman do leave the Chair, with a view of withdrawing the Bill. He regretted to have to do so, but it was impossible that the Bill, if it passed that House, should receive due consideration in the other House of Parliament at so late a period of the Session. It was quite clear that a Bill of such magnitude could never be satisfactorily carried through by a private Member; and he therefore hoped that the Government, having admitted more than once that there were many things in the marriage law of Ireland which required a remedy, would introduce a similar measure next Session; and if they did, he should be prepared to give them every assistance.

expressed his regret that the measure should be withdrawn, especially as Ireland was ripe for legislation on the subject.

said, he hoped that the Government, before introducing any Bill on the subject, would consult the heads of the Church in Ireland.

said, at the close of the last Session he called the attention of the Chief Secretary to the state of the marriage law in Ireland, and strongly urged him to introduce a Bill upon the subject. The Yelverton marriage case had shown that the Roman Catholic clergy were labouring under penal disabilities, because if they celebrated a mixed marriage before the ceremony had been performed by a Protestant clergyman, they would be liable to punishment for felony. He hoped, then, the Government would turn their attention to the subject.

said, the object of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was to give the ratepayers at large the right of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, instead of the vestry being intrusted with that power. He (Mr. Locke) should support the proposal. The Metropolitan Board of Works had the power of taxing the whole metropolis; and he thought, as taxation and representation should go together, that the election of the members of that board should be in the hands of the whole body of ratepayers, and ought not to be confined to vestries and district boards, who, practically, always sent to the Metropolitan Board of Works members of their own bodies. The Select Committee who considered the subject came to the conclusion that direct election by the ratepayers would strengthen the position of the members of the board, and many witnesses gave it as their opinion that under a system of direct election the members elected would be of a higher class and better calculated to discharge the duties of the situation than the men now on the board. Why, then, should there be a deviation with respect to these elections from the general rule prevailing throughout the country? It was not denied that there was upon the board a number of highly intelligent men; but, unfortunately, they did not, on account of the mode of election, possess the confidence of the inhabitants of the metropolis, That confidence could only be secured by direct election. No doubt that under the system of election which he advocated many of the present members would be re-appointed to office; but, no matter what might be the result, the change was necessary.

explained that the present system, according to which the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted, arose out of the deliberations of the Royal Commission of 1853; and, notwithstanding all that had been said, the board was not unpopular, and performed their duties zealously and faithfully. Every district board and vestry had petitioned against an alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The appointment of members to that board was not the result of any close system of nomination, but the members were chosen simply because they enjoyed the respect of the inhabitants of their different localities, and were considered the proper men to represent them. The board was now engaged in the construction of the largest works ever committed to the management of any body of men, and he trusted that it would not be interrupted in its proceedings at such a moment by a change in the mode of electing the members on a mere suggestion. If, however, the change were necessary, it ought to be effected by a special measure, not by such a clause as that which it was proposed to insert in the Bill before the Committee.

said, he agreed that the principle of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the great mass of the ratepayers was a just principle; but he felt its operation would be attended with a vast deal more difficulty than seemed to have been anticipated. It would be especially unwise to make the alteration at the very time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was engaged in a vast and important undertaking.

said, he would admit that the board had well and faithfully performed their duties; but it could not be denied that great complaints had been made against them, and that they had been characterized as the "Board of Words," instead of a Board of Works. He deprecated any attack on the board, and he believed that the more their proceedings were inquired into, the more satisfactory would they prove. But he at the same time thought that direct election by the ratepayers at large would ensure for them greater confidence, and he should therefore support the proposition to that effect.

observed, that the clause under discussion was one of a series which proposed to make a great change in the constitution of the board. He believed that it would be unwise to make such a change at the present moment; but if it were necessary, it ought to be accomplished by a special measure brought forward in a future Session, and not by the addition of clauses to a Bill which had already passed through Committee.

said, he did not think, that if the proposed alteration wore made, it would be likely to place more efficient men upon the board than at present. It would be a most unfortunate thing if a great change were made in the constitution of the Board of Works by a clause at the fag-end of the Bill, especially in so thin a House. He therefore concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped it would be accepted by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said, that ever since he had had the honour of a seat for the borough which he represented, he had heard the Board of Works found fault with by Members in that House, but he had no evidence either public or private that his constituents or the inhabitants of the metropolis were discontented with that board the absence of petitions was at least a proof that the Board of Works were not the unpopular body described. If they talked too much already, he did not see how the evil would be abated by the addition of forty more metropolitan members to it. The members of the board had proved themselves to be good men of business, and had carried out the important works intrusted to them in a manner creditable to themselves and advantageous to the public. The proposition of his hon. and learned Friend was, he believed, right in the abstract, but he could not vote for it till he had better evidence that the people of the metropolis were discontented with the Board of Works.

said, he should support the clause, as he thought that the members of the Metropolitan. Board should be elected directly by the ratepayers. Some of the proceedings of the board, as constituted, had created great dissatisfaction in the metropolitan districts, and there was an almost unanimous feeling in favour of an alteration in the mode of election.

said, he rose to express his concurrence in the views expressed by his noble Colleague. Neither in public nor in private had he received any communication from his constituents expressing a desire to have the constitution of the board changed. He believed that the object of the clause was to defeat by a side-wind an important and useful Bill. He did not believe that, even if carried into effect, it would make any material alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would exercise a wise discretion in bringing it forward as a separate measure.

said that Marylebone stood in a different position from the rest of the metropolis, for it had its own particular council, which assumed to itself most extraordinary powers. Still he was surprised that the inhabitants of a constituency which identified itself with the progress of the country should assert, through the mouths of their representatives, that nomination was preferable to election. He did not think that opinion was shared by any of the metropolitan community. Everywhere else the conviction, was entertained that the ratepayers should have a direct voice in the election of Members to the Metropolitan Board. Surely there was nothing very extravagant in the proposition that the Metropolitan Board should be elected under the same conditions as the House of Commons. It had been said that the board was entitled to public confidence, but the Thames Embankment Bill was neither more nor less than a declaration that the board was only fit to do the work of bricklayers and masons. His object was to elevate the members of the board, but it was far from his intention to cast pearls before swine; and, since his clause was opposed by the representatives of the board, he was disposed to act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, reserving to himself the right to bring forward his proposition on a future occasion as a substantive measure.

said, he proposed after Clause 109 to insert a clause providing, that in compensation cases, where the parties felt themselves aggrieved by the ruling of the assessor or by the finding of the jury, it should be lawful to apply to one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts in Westminster Hall for a new trial or rehearing of the case, or for the reduction or increase of damages. He only wanted that the same rule should apply to compensation cases as applied to all other cases. It frequently happened that very nice points of law arose upon these compensation cases, which it was desirable should be determined by a superior court of law.

said, that a proposition which made so extensive an alteration in the law of the land should not be introduced in a Bill of the kind under consideration. He could not believe that the Committee would listen to it for a moment. It might or it might not be right to give such an appeal, but so important a question ought to be discussed on its own merits and as a general principle.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press the Amendment on that occasion. He could at a future time turn his attention to the question of compensation.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, as the feeling of the Committee seemed to he against it, though nothing had been said against the justice of his proposal.

said, he wished to move a clause to follow Clause 10, to the effect that vestries might have the power of including in the sewers rate precepts of the Metropolitan Board.

said, he had to move a clans repealing Section 6 of the 18 & 19Vict., c. 120, and enacting in lieu thereof that the vestry elected under the Bill in any parish should consist of persons rated or assessed to the relief of the poor in respect of the occupation of any house, lands, tenements, or hereditaments in such parish.

said, that judging from his experience, he thought it would he undesirable to alter the qualification for vestrymen. He must oppose the clause.

said, he could not but express his surprise at the opposition of the hon. Member for Bath. He would do better to carry out the wishes of the parent of the Bill, Mr. Bristow, and support the clause.

said, that on behalf of his hon. Friend Sir J. Paxton, he had to move a clause for re-apportioning the sum of £28,111, charged on the late Fulham and Hammersmith districts, among the parishes in that district.

said, that he saw no reason why a measure should be passed in favour of two districts only, which had been rejected on behalf of the metropolitan districts generally.

said, he wished to move a clause rendering persons in receipt of fees or poundage, or other emolument by way of salary, out of the rates and taxes, ineligible to be elected as vestrymen.

said, he was sorry to oppose his hon. and learned Colleague, but he had received very strong representations from many of his constituents against the clause. Its effect would be to exclude many most competent persons from the board.

said, he hoped that the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) would not be pressed as it: stood, although it might be valuable in a modified shape.

said, he did not think sufficient grounds had been stated for making a change in the law on the subject.

said, he should take the sense of the Committee on the clause.

said, he wished to propose a clause repealing Clauses 30 and 41 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which provided that the chairman of the board should be elected only for the day, unless in the case where a clergyman or churchwarden, otherwise qualified, was present; and enabling a vestry or district board to elect its chairman, who should continue in office for one year.

said, he knew very little about the practice of the vestries and district boards, but he thought it would be undesirable to change the existing practice, without cause shown.

said, that the practical working of the clause would relieve the rectors of parishes, who felt themselves bound to preside over vestry meetings, from a very unpleasant duty.

said, he saw no ground for the innovation, and he should oppose the clause.

said, he must oppose the clause.

said, he wished to move the addition of a clause giving power to vestry and district boards to contract for the removal of manure from stables and cowhouses.

said, as the clause was entirely permissive, he would not oppose it.

said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. He proposed, in case the House assented to the second reading, to go into Committee pro formâ on the following day, with the view of making in it certain alterations.

said, that under these circumstances he would not oppose the second reading, but he had objections to the Bill as it stood.

said, the Motion was unprecedented. The Bill had been before a Select Committee, and the evidence taken before it had not been printed, and it was unusual to press a Bill on in the absence of the evidence. The Government officials, who had put forward the hon. Member for Wexford, were anxious to push on the Bill unfairly. The measure affected property in Ireland to the value of nearly £100,000,000 a year, the owners of which had not had an opportunity of being heard before the Select Committee. He contended that there was a good case for sending back the Bill to the same Committee for further inquiry, or submitting it to a new Committee. The measure was a mere job, for the purpose of enriching a few private owners of fisheries in Ireland.

intimated his intention to postpone his Motion.

objected to the postponement. Charges had been made against the members of the Committee which they ought to be allowed to answer. The Bill was an important one, and every opportunity of pressing it ought to be seized.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of stating to the House, that in consequence of the very late period of the Session at which they had arrived, together with the difficulty that bad arisen as to the persons who should undertake the duties to be created by the measure—a great difference of opinion existing as to the propriety of intrusting them to the constabulary, or to the medical officers of districts—and seeing also that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir II. Cairns) had withdrawn his Bill on the Marriage Law of Ireland, the Government did not intend to proceed fur- ther with the measure for registration during the present Session. He therefore begged to move that the order be read and discharged.

said, that as the Bill stood for discussion on the following evening, he wished to point out to the First Commissioner of Works that hon. Members had not received the plans and papers, without which it was impossible for them to comprehend the bearing of the evidence that had been taken by the Select Committee.

said, he had been assured by the printer that the documents would be in the hands of hon. Members on the following morning. A rapid glance would enable hon. Gentlemen to understand their bearing.