The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-10 00:00:00

tendon of her Majesty's Government to introduce, in the present session, any measure founded thereon ? Sir G. C. LEWIS said the report was printed, and he thought hon. members should be in possession of its con tents before the Government, introduced any. reference to it. . EXPEDITION TO CHINA. Kr. S. FITZGERALD moved the adoption of an address for a return of the military forces of all arms under orders to proceed or on their way from this country to her Majesty's East Indian territories, or the colonies, to China, and similar return as to the naval forces. The return having been moved for as "unopposed" was passed without remark, when Lord J. RUSSELL, asked whether the sanction of the Government had been asked and received ? Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that the Secretary to the Admiralty had agreed to his portion of the returns moved for, and he understood from the Secretary to the Treasury that there was no objection to the rest of it. Lord J. RUSSELL —I must say I think it is entirely without precedent that such a return should be moved for without the Secretary of State for War being asked whether lolled no objections. (Hear, hear.) Mr. S. FITZGERALD said he was quite willing to defer the returns as to the military forces, so that the Secretary of. State for. War might be consulted, if it were desired. The return for the naval forces had been assented to, as he had before stated, by the Secretary to the Admi ralty. Mr. S. HERBERT, who arrived while the conversation was going on, said holed no objection to the hon. member having the information he desired; but it was obviously in expedient to make apublic return of the strength of a hos tile expedition. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had seen the general order giving the number of regiments pro ceeding to China, and he must say he thought it would be very inconvenient to publish the return asked for. (Hear, hear.) ILLNESS OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER. In reply to Lord W. LENNOX, Lord PALMERSTON said that he hoped if his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not suffi ciently recovered his strength to be enabled to enter on his financial statement, which must necessarily be of consider able length, te-morrow evening, that the house would indulge him by allowing its postpenement until Monday. ; (Hear•) However, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to bring the budget forward. to-morrow evening, his noble friend the Secretary - for Foreign Affairs would lay on the table the commereial treaty with France. (Hear, hear.) . - • BRIBERY. AT_ ELECTIONS Sir F. KELLY moved for leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery, and to amend the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts (1854). The hon. and learned member having referred to the defects of the existing law, con tended that the payment of expenses through an elec tion auditor would remedy the evil at present complained of, if properly carried out. He proposed in the present bill to introduce provisions so stringent as would effectually pre vent any corrupt practices on the part of election agents or election auditors. In, order b render the measure more efficient ho would propose that revising banisters should be the election auditors. The reports of the recent bribery commissions showed that large sums, which were intended to be applied for other purposes, were used for bribery, but if this measure had been in operation it would have been almost impossible that money could be so applied. The re port showed that, a candidate placed a sum of £l,OOO or £2,000 into the hands of an unknown person, who went down from London,to an election under an assumed name, and the money passed through different channels into the hands of those who were ready to receive payment for their votes ; but the individuals named in these reports—and it appeared that they were individuals of high character and position—would be unlikely to expose themselves to the consequence of a violation of the law if they found that they were subjecting themselves thereby to a disgraceful punishment. The first provision of the bill was introduced with the intention that every candidate should make a de claration that he never had paid, and never would pay, directly, or indirectly, any sum of money for any purpose of the election, except through the election auditor. It had been suggested that to discountenance bribery it was neces sary to turn against it the current of public opinion, and to make it a disgraceful crime, and this could not be more effectually done than by rendering it impossible for a candi date to be a party to bribery without incurring the punishment and disgrace of perjury, and, in addition to the ordinary penalties for bribery; this bill provided ',that any candidate guilty of a violation of the declaration should be held for ever after incapable of sitting in the house, or of holding any Government or municipal office. There was also a provisionin the bill calculated to meetcases'of the ap plication of money which, thoughapplied without the know ledge and sanction of the candidate, passed from the hand of some relative or friend, or of a member of some political club to be applied for the-purposes of bribery. This clause made it a misdemeanour for any person to pay or apply any money whatever for the purposes of an election, except through the election auditor, and he believed that this would effectually meet the case. He as sumed that the candidate was incapable of violating his oath, and he assumed also that no person pretending to any position would be a party, after the passing of the bill, to the application of any money for election purposes ex cept through the election auditor. Bat it was possible, no doubt, for some member of the family of the candidate to apply his own money,. unknown to the candidate, for thu purposes of bribeiy. They must remember, however, that the offence was now often committed by a person who ap plied his own money to the purpose, and sent in his claim to the candidate, when the time forlegal inquiry had passed away, and many gentlemen under such circumstances Alt themselves bound in honour to Make the payment, so that at last the money of the candidate was paid for the purpose of bribery: But he need not say that if a candidate had made oath that he had never paid, and never would pay, money for the , purpoee of his election, except through the auditor, the answer to the claimant would be that he could not pay the amount without being foresworn. They would net, he believed, find these zealous friends when there was no prospect of repayment, and when by application of money for purposes of bribery the penalties of misdemeanour were ineurre , l -There•wae, no doubt, another way in which this act might be evelled. It might be that the agents ap pointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act might put down certain sums as payable to themselves for election expenses, contenting themselves with a small portion of the money, and applying the remainder to bribery or some other species of coeruption. Such a case had happened, but he would endeavour to frame a provision giving larger powers to the auditor to examine carefully every item, and .0 see all the vouehers, and providing a declaration for agents for election expenses, which would render it impos sible for them to leave applied one shilling of money in an illegal manner without subjecting them to the penalties of perjury. The aft Of 1854 had not been altogether a failure, but there was no'kenalty imposed Sufficient to deter per sons from violating the law. He had provided that re vising barristers shOuld'be the election auditors; provision was also made for a complete and systematic investgatiou of accounts, and he believed it would be impossible, wfth the machinery of this measure in operation, that money could be illegally applied. The only point to which he had t, refer was, as to the means of ensuring the prosecution and punishment of otetiders:' From a variety of muses, bribery was concealed in some cases, perhaps from fear of retalia tion, and in others on account of the expense of prosecuting. Now, what he prop o i e d was th a t the e l ec tion auditor should, within a certain time after every election, if he thought fit, upon any information he might have received, or upon facts that had come before him in the discharge of his duties, if he saw any reason for supposing that 'corrur' t practices had been resorted to, hold a court, to whi c h he might v summon candidates, their regents, gents, and friends, a n d an y personin investigation. He giving evidence upon the subject under ti He might make a special report whi c h wou ld come un l . r the eyes of the Attorney-General and the Speaker. Under those circumstances it would be impossible for an election auditor n trot to he aware of the prevale nce of bribery at an e lection, and then, of course the Attorney-Ge nera l would be able to prosecute even without instructions from that house. The bon. and learned gentleman concluded by for mally moving for leave to introduce the bill. - Sir F. GOLDSMID was of opinion that the bill was not calculated to suppress bribery. To put downbribery by the application of some punishments was to return to principles half a century old. The penalties inflicted by this bill went beyond public opinion. The More effectual way of proceed ing would be, where bribery was proved and there was no recriminatory case, to give the seat to the defeated candidate. In that way they might secure having honest men as can didates without the chance of their being implicated in bribery. (Hear, hear.) Mr. E. JAMES pronounced the provisions of the bill im practicable, and hoped they would be reviewed. One fatal objection to the bill was that it adopted the plan of election auditors, a plan that had entirely failed.. It had failed be cause no time was fixed when the accounts should be sent in, and the consequence was many election petitions were disposed of before the auditor had sent in his report. The revising barrister of the district was to be the election audi tor of the borough. Well, then, he must be übiquitous, for there might be several boroughs in his district, the elections for which might be proceeding simultaneously. By another provision, the revising barrister, generally a young man, was constituted a grand inquisitor, and power was given to him to grant a warrant which might run over the whole of the United Kingdom in cases where he had to decide whether the law had been infringed. What an apo theosis for a young barrister to find himself appointed a grand innuisitor.to sit over electoral corruption. (A laugh.) Mr. CROSS declared that bribery would never be done away with until the employment of paid messengers and canvassers was got rid of. (Heir, hear.) Mr. G. DENMAN thought it was premature to discuss the bill, but deprecated the notion of postponing legislation by a reference of the several bills on the subject of electoral c'erenption to a select committee. In every bill brought for ward there was some provision thatwas pertinent ; and why, then, 'elect it because it happened to contain others not so generally acceptabl e 9 Mr. pointed to the employment of professional gentlemen at elections,Those gentlemen might say they received retainers, that is to say, remuneration for the exercise o f their tnvn franchises and for inducing others to ;7 h e e rc ( , i ee lou th e e es ire ter ; called them bribes. (Hear, hear.) profess,'onel men at elee"til o on had placed the employment of trusted provision would oa In a most glaring light. He gentlemen, into the bill prohi biting p refeeeioree n evheee services were. rentu. iterated. from voting at elections, u, except under the heaviest petaittes., (Hear, heAr.) Mr. CI :A V ivoiddei squire from every candidate and front e very tw. .. 1 ,; ,er derlar it ion that neiti.v-r 1-,ef,re e. after the , 4.1; ( rvi s ts Ityr iy(tireet iy, hau he'lnit•lo Jit,l' Make. re3 p o llN:6l l t ii' 7 elf 1.1 7( M .r 11":14 hilt legal, :tad . :r is beets b 'fore the election - auditor.lf tltnt - flut ei cc t it)Tl :1;I(1 it Or would secs r te dung, the tle a reality. a -; then cis (ei. to mtreduce the bill. - I N DI A N ;FINANCES. fizn(tti., "SITAILT rose to wove the apv,intinent of ' . e t t coniu dace for the consideration of certain questions• of India. The' first question had referen co h. the civil •2rvice of India ; and his object was to ascerraf I I -bother it was still practicable to introduce a new civil se rv i e , - t upon a cheaper footing. Ho was unwilling, of course,, ten leddle with the salaries of existing incumbents, and, in 'deed, the practidabflity of placing the civil service at any tin 11 upo. a a cheaper footing was exceedingly doubtful. TO dr odr would give rise to d iscontent and bitterness; .and I ew on d venture to say that if the reductions were made, r cler ewe re no t fifty Indian civilians that w ould not p ray for kshi ps at home. Already they failed to p rocure candi da+ xs fo r the medical service; and it was easier to procure a Aotail tation to the civil service in India than to a clerk- to the firtan ship at home. At the same tune, inquiry would serve to set things in a right light, and would place the civil service upon a better footing for the future. By his next question he asked whether it was not desirable to aboiish the Legis lative ,Council at Calcutta and the Supreme Councils of Bombay,—Madras, and - Benial, and substitute for them a Legislative Council for each Presidency. These councils had failed to produce any practical good, and since their creation, by the act of 1853, no one had succeeded in ascer taining for what object they had been created, except it was to draw large salaries. The necessity of his proposal had been recognised by the evidence before the colonisation committee. Mr. Waller said the Supreme Councils were wholly useless, while the Legislative Council of Calcutta possessed the confidence of neither the Europeans nor the natives. Several meetings had taken place at Bombay and Calcutta to denounce the lamentable indifference of the Legislative Council to matters of finance. No public con fidence could be placed in men who took especial care to exempt themselves from the taxation which they were anxious to extend to the rest of the community. Now that India was annexed to her Majesty's dominions there was no real occasion for two courts. The resolution would also effect a considerable saving of expense besides the union of the Supreme and Sudder Courts, serving as a fine example for the administration of justice in India. As re garded the fourth resolution, he thought it was of suffi cient importance to be submitted to a select eommittee. He thought the power of raising loans on the revenue of India ought to be modified, and that all future India loans should be subjected to the deduction of 1 per cent. for the purpose of sweating a sinking fund. On the Ist of May this year the Indian debt would amount to 96 millions, and other loans could not be avoided ; while the means of meeting the inte , rest on these loans was not adeq uatel y increased. He had no intention of embarrassing Mr. Wilson by this motion, but he was anxious that the house should aid h im in establish- ing a system of economy. Sir C. WOOD said no advantage would be derived from the appointment of a committee ; at the same time he ad mitted the questions brought forward were of the utmost m i portance, and brought forward in a most temperate man ner. As regarded the first resolution, the return of 1854 would show that though the number of civil servants in a yearhad inCreased,the salaries had diminished one had been still lf mono and that those of C 3,000 a year and upwards diminished. In 1854 he (Sir C. Wood) had advised the re visal of salaries, and Mr. Ricketts was appointed to revise them. His report proposed a considerable reduction in sala ries, and he (Sir C. Wo od), having received the strongest remonstrances on the subject, had appointed a commission under the Indian Council to go through the subject again, and to report upon it. They were now engaged on it,. and would soon make their report. At the same time, consider ing the responsibility of the civil servants in India, he (Sir C. Wood) was bound to say that, as a body, he did noticon ' Bider them at all overpaid. Reductions might be made by equalising salaries and abolishing Offices ; but he did not think that a sweeping reduction was at a.ll desirabl, con sistently with a due administrat ion of Public affairs e . The civil service was thrown open to competition, but there was every probability that there wobld not be too many candidates in the course of time ; for if reference were made to railroad salaries in India, it would be found that they were much higher than those paid to civil ser , vents, and moreover entailed lees responsibility. Under these circumstances, he (Sir C. Wood) did not think the appointment of a select committee would be of any advantage. As regarded the second reso lution, he (Sir C. Wood) would not say that some member of the Supreme Council might not be dispensed with ; but it would be unjust to state that these bodies were without any duties. All the papers relating to the government of India had to be considered by them • and no doubt they did their duty conscientiously, but at the same time it was ob vious that much delay was created. A great deal of the business was, however, transacted by the secretaries of the supreme Government, and the Supreme Councils of Bombay and Madras were sometimes annoyed at being overruled by inferior officers. He thought the duties of those councils, in the greater number of cases. might be transferred to the secretaries, and that the number of the merlebers might, by this means, be considerably reduced, no member of council hereafter being of a rank above the rank of secretary in the principal and minor presidencies. This would give reduced expenses, less delay, and more efficiency in the transaction of the public business. As regarded the Legislative Colin— ells proposed to be substitutd for the Supreme Councils, he (Sir Charles Wood), thought the proposer of the Supreme Council of Bengal, was bound to say that he did not think the substitution would be an advantage. The Legislative Councils at present in India had not certainly succeeded in conciliating public opinion in India. The difficulty of creating a Legislative Council in India, however, was very great—a difficulty arising chiefly from the inevitable con struction of such bodies in that country. It was, in fact, impossible to constitute in Calcutta a Representative Coun cil which could act satisfactorily far the interests of all India ; and he (Sir Charles Wood) believed that the civil servants of the Crown in the provinces were better calcu lated to represent the interests of India than any body which could be assembled in Culcutta as a Representative Council. He was of opinion, therefore, that a Legislative Council for India, to which should be admitted strangers not servants of the Crown, would be of no use to that country. There was no doubt that the Licensing Bill was unfavourably received by the English popuation of Calcutta • but it should be borne in mind that it was a usual mode of raising revenue in India, and he believed that a moderate licensing tax would be the least:objectionable and the most effective to meet the case of the whole population of that country. It was not, however, necessary that an uniform system of taxation should be ap plied to allparts of India, and despatches had been received from Lord Canning, and the three questions under discus sion were now before committees. Much had been done to give increased power t o the Central Government as regarded the public debt. With respect to the amalgamation of the Supreme and Sudder Courts, he agreed very much with his hon. friend. He had arrived at that conclusion so long ago as 1853, and in the following year the measure was ordered to be carried into effect ; but somehow or another the Go• vernmeat at Calcutta reeea (wee-reties in the way, and the consequence•was that in 1850 that which he thought would have been done in 1854 yet remained unaccomplished. Ile thought, however, that effectual progress had now been made towards that end, and he was glad to perceive that the judges in Madras had reported that the union of the two courts was both practicable and desirable. He quite concurred with his hon. friend in thinking that that would be a most valuable measure. The legal knowledge :of the Enadish judges would be thus united to the local knowledge of the Sudder judges, and the result would be a great.im proveraent in the' general practice and procedure of the courts. It was hardly necessary to follow his hon. friend through the question, which had been so often discussed, of the guarantee for the Indian loan. It was sufficient, pro bably, to state that the loan had been very successful, that the credit of India in this count! y stood very high. that he hoped that reductions were at last being brought into prac tical operation in India, and that when he made his finan cial statement this year ft would prove of a more encourag ing character than that which he had last presented to the house. For these reasons, and considering that the first three subjects alluded to in the motion were already under investigation, he did not see that any a dv anta g e would be derived from the appointment of a select committee, and he should therefore oppose the motion. (ilear, hear.) Mr. BAILLIE did not believe that any unprejudiced person who had paid much attention to the subject under discussion, could come to any ;other opinion than that the present state of the Indian administration was anything but creditable to those who were responsible for it. Possessed of one of the finest districts in the world, with a most indus trious and numerous population, we had, nevertheless, a Government which was practically in a state of insolvency, and which for many years past has been living from hand to mouth, on the credit of its past reputation—a reputation which would long ago have disappeared but for a belief that the Government of this country must, sooner or later, take upon itself the responsibility of the Indian debt. Nor was this his opinion alone, for he was fully corroborated by Sir H. Frere in his report upon the reorganisation of the Indian army. Bad as was the financial state of India, the condition of the people was even worse. Immerse tracts of fertile land had been thrown out of cultivation, and we had done nothing to reclaim those lands, or to remedy . those evils which we had done so much to create. It might be said; perhaps, that this was the result of former admini strations, and that from the new Government of India dif ferent consequences would flow. But the new Government of India was only new in name. There were the same men in different offices performing the same duties as before ; and although he would not exactly say of them that they had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, he could not admit that they had effected any great improvement in the Administration of Indian affairs. He thought, however, 'that the practice of sending despatches direct to the Secre tary of State, instead of through the Indian council, was an improvement upon the old system. The Government had discovered what they seemed toimagine would prove a golden remedy for the unsatisfactory state of Indian finance, and they had sent a gentleman of greet ability over to India to control that branch of the subject. But he thought that a mistake had b een com mitted in making Mr. Wilson a member of the council. If he had been made a special commissioner, with full power to deal with the finances of India, he might have devoted the whole of his time and at tention to the object for which he had been sent tiler?, and some good might h ave resu l te d f rom his mission. Various reasons had indeed b een g i ven f or appo i n ti ng Mr. Wilson a member of council, and amongst others the cogent one that it would have been impossible i to have given him 08,000 knew not what powers ha ( ei a year if he had not been. ar, hear, and a laugh.) He h be a y d o a n u d tb th eri os t e y o t f e an de o a r l d w in it a h tryi,been entrusted to Mr. Wilson n t e a rt fi nous mil member e of council—whether he establish ments, or was strictly confined as was most cal and financial mat itary o ra mted an extraordie mat tars. If the latter,probably the case, the Go vernment might just as well hav n ary Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw up ie s?heme for the payment of the National Debt ; believed that the plan would be just as likely to be successful in as iu the other. He said this, not because he toutet the one case f i nanc i a l ability of Mr. Wilson , but because h e did i n° think that the real difficulty f India was t o b e traced to causes of a fiscal character. It arose rather from the sys tem of administration which had been of late years adopted there, and which was hateful alike to the great body of the people, and to the native chiefs and nobles of the country; and hence it followed that it was impossible to carry on the government of India without those enormous military establishments which were altogether out of proportion to the revenues and resources of the country. (Hear, heare There was the ereat Indian difficulty. The statesmen who had founded th'at empire, and who had governed it down to the Marquis of Welleelev, had nod 13v lwava the assi laid down stance o f the the prin ciple that India must be govern native chiefs and nobles. All that had since been changed and the practice now was to treat those chiefs and nobles with contempt, and to carry on the government by a centra lized system emanating from Calcutta. It was that system which had become so hateful to the count! y. In illustration ,of this he referred to the case of the Punjaub, which he said was the mostlavourable that could be taken, because Sir J. Lawrence was always regarded as the pheeuix of governors and the Punjaub was considered to have been well governed, When Sir .1. Lewrsnce was first sent to the Punjaub, he went as the assistant of his brother, Sir Henry , Lawrence, sr lie was 1113 chief commis gimlet.. The views ef the . two brothers, however, catirely . , Il %Ted, anti he believed that both wrote to Lord Dalhousie, stating that eine or other of them must ha recalled. The views of Sir H. Lawrence were those generally which had 1 ,..; 1 r en entertained las the earlier governors, whilst thosO of they fails John were that; they should earry out in the Punjaub the system which heel been adoptea in the North-We , tern len. .. vin :l t e , d tp t i 7 e)s d eo I ( : a t'l' t tnees—tbet et ill say, that the WAility should be called Pl:eduee the written titles to their estates, veld where for the pee before Lord Dalhousie, of o so r ,!hattlte , . estatea should be confiscated eplt melung an exhausted exchequer, in a curtailed e a ee ctual holders of the estates some life interest rence,them. These views being laid with full powers to who was sie, he decided in favour of Sir J. Law. consequently established in the Punjaub them out, and to succhrriT. out his opinions, He did carry Mangles, the confiscation of extent that, as stated by Mr. property hi the Punjaub was gfater than in any othe r this conduct soon manifested pa irttsoefllhe country. The effect of the continued demand for troops. From every station in In na British l troops were m arched into the Punjaub, so that when the t t a rebellion broke Punjaub, Sir whilst J. Lthaewre rence had 30,00 0 British troops in the run*tit the extraordinaay fact was discovered poro.t THE, 'SUN, LONDON, PRIM"( EVENING, FEBIIIJARY 10, 160. of weight, against the enjoyment of that indulgence which is now conceded to hon. members on Friday evenings. were only 1,300 between Delhi and Calcutta, a distance of upwards of 1,000 miler,. This policy in the Punjaub was undoubtedly the cause of the temporary success of s tiee mutiny, and in fact, the standard of rebellion never world have been raised ut all had it not been for the absence of European troops: When Sir J. LaWrence, Brigadier Chant: - berlayne, and Col. Edwardes were appointed a commission, and the Governor-General asked how many troops were in , their opinion essential for the Punjaub, the answer was 22,000 European and 52,360 native troops. The whole of her Majesty's troops in India, previous to the rebellion, was 22,000, and here these distinguished persons gave it as their opinion that 22,000 were required for the Punjaub alone. The fact was, that we governed India just as Austria go verned Lombardy—contrary to the wishes of the people, and by the force of our bayonets and battalions. That was a system that could never last, and the people of England would soon find even the honour and glory of governing India too expens ve a luxury, if it could only be attained by those means. (Hear, hear.) There were one or two ques tions to which he wished to call the attention of the house. In the first place, with regard to the Indian debt, a general feeling had got abroad, and he was told- that it had had some influence even on the Stock Exchange, that sooner:or later the Government would take upon itself the responsi bility of the Indian debt. It was quite clear, if any such intention existed, that it ought to be done at once, because then the Government of India might be able to derive some some advantage from it ; but if, as he hoped and trusted, the house woud not consent to place such a burthen upon the people of this country, at all events for past debts, what ever it might do with regard to the future, the Government ought to snake an explicit declaration on the subject, so that the public who had invested their money in Indian se curities might be acquainted with the nature of their gua rantee. (Hear.) Another question of still more serious import was to the necessity to which we appeared to have become liable of maintaining one hundred thousand British troops in India. The point to be considered was, whether it would be possible for us, even in time of peace, to provide such a force whilst we attended to the wants of other colo nies, and kept a sufficient army in this country to give so curity to the people that their hearths should not be in vaded, and that we should be enabled to maintain as of old the honour of the country. There could not be a doubt that the uneasiness which had prevailed owing to the military preparations of France proceeded from a knowledge of the fact that we hadiloo,ooo of our best soldiers in India, and nothing but raw recruits in England. If those 100,000 trained soldiers were upon our southern shores, we might laugh at all the naval and military preparations of France; but the Government should state at once that they were not able to maintain that force in India, and to provide for all other purposes under the present system of recruiting. What ho wanted to seewasaction on thepart of the Govern ment, but ho looked for it in vain. As had been stated by the hon. member for Birmingham last year, the Go vernment of India was too unwieldy ; despatches remained for months and even years unanswered, and this was a fruit ful source of difficulty and annoyance. [ln illustration of this the hon. member alluded to the well-known case so often referred to in Indian debates of the Rajah of Dhar.] It had been suggested by the hon. member for Birmingham that the Government of India should be divided into four or five different governments, each with its own legislative council, system of public works and finance. That question had been fully considered by several leading men in India, but more esaecially by Mr. Campbell and Sir 11. Frere, to whose opinions he might refer. He firmly believed that if a different system of government was to,:be adopted in India we might dispense with one-half of our troops in that coun try. (Hear.) Sir J. Lawrence had stated that there should he a force of 22,000 European troops kept in the Punjaub. He hoped the Government would follow his advice, for if they allowed the European force in the Punjaub to be too much reduced, another rebellion might be the nsult. (Hear.) He would recommend the hon. member who intro duced this question not to press the motion to a division. Col. SYKES directed the attention of the house to the state of the Indian finances in 1800 and at the present time. In 1800 the debt was 1:14,000,000, at an interest of 8, 10, or 12 per cent. In 1857 the debt was £60,000,000, but the in terest had been reduced to 4 per cent. In 1800 the pressure of the interest on the debt was 131 per cent., while in 1857 it was only 7 -per cent. In 1800 the revenue was £10,000,000. In 1857 it was £33,000,000; but in April of that year, after a loan cf £2,000,000, and after meeting all charges in India and in this country, there was a balance of £82,000. Now that the people of India had been disarmed, and when there was scarcely a fortress for us to besiege, 100,000 troops would surely not be required for that coun try. Half that number, he should say, would be amply sufficient for all purposes. At the present moment the pressure of the interest on the debt was not more than 12i per cent., while in 1807 it was 15t per cent. He saw no urgent necessity for the system of taxation which had been proposed in India, and would suggest to the right hon. gentleman to get his money here, an leave in creased taxation for a future period. If the hon. member pressed the motion to a division, he should feel bound to vote for it. Col. P. HERBERT hoped it was not the intention of the Government to make any large reduction in the salaries of the civil servants of India. He was glad to learn that they intended to give increased powers to the local govern ments. He believed, in spite of all that had been said to the contrary, that much progress had been made in the ge • vernment of India of late years. He did not agree with the hon. member in thinking that India would be as a millstone round the neck of this country. In all its wars India had defrayed the charges out of her own revenue, and in this country there was a direct expenditure of nearly £6,000,000 .out of the revenue of India. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KINNAIRD hoped the hon. member would with draw the motion. He rose to express his regret at some of the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness. He re gretted that the hon. member, when the question of the Punjaub was not under consideration, should have made an attack on Sir John Lawrence, a man whom they all had rea son to honour. (Hear.) very one who knew Sir John Lawrence, and was aware of his services, could not but re gard such an attack as uncalled for as it was ungenerous. (Hear.) It was Sir John Lawrence's influence with the n.aidvee that had prosorvail tnne the Pnnjenh timing: the late disturbances in India, and, almost everyb - idy knew it. (Hear.) . Mr. EWART regretted that the hon. member for In verness had not limited his remarks to the question before the house. He so far agreed with the hon. member in be lieving that the time•would come when our army in India might be greatly diminished - . He was glad to learn that the Government of this country were favourable to extend ' iug the powers of the_ Legislative Council. He should, however, like to hear whether the licensing system was to be abandoned or modified. He believed that by good laws, wisely administered, the connection between England and India would be of the most beneficial kind. Mr. BARING, in answer to the hon. member who spoke last, said he was not aware in what position the licensing bill at present stood. The measure was first introduced asn licengng bill, but was changed into an income-tax bill. The Legislative Council had adjourned, but though it had re cently met, it had not at the date of the last accounts, taken the bill into consideration. It was not the license tax, but the income tax that had incited opposition in India. In the Punjaub a system of taxation, including the license tax had been introduced without any opposition on the part of the people. The remarks made in the course - of' the discussion would show that it was the intention el the Government to relieve the Supreme Council of India of a part of its control over minute local matters. Ho thought that that alteration Would lead to a better control of the expenditure of the coun try. He regretted that the hon. member for Inverness had introduced the question of the Punjaub into the discussion, and that ho had made an attack—of which he had given ao notice—on so distinguished a public servant as Sir John Lawrence. (Hear, hear.) Sir John Lawrence had no more power over the disposal of the troops at Delhi or Cawnpore than the hon. member had. It was the policy of Sir J ohu Lawrence that had saved India. It was owing to the love of the people and the affection of the native princes towards him that he was enabled to send a force to the assistance of our troops at Delhi. (Hear, hear.) Considering the posi tion which the hon. member had occupied, it was something extraordinary that he should complain of the India Act of last year. The hon. member had attacked Europeans for their conduct in India, but in answer to the hon. member he could not do better than refer him to the speech which the noble lord the member for King's Lynn made, when Secre tary for India, on the subject. Mr. DAN BY SEYMOUR referrei to the petition pre sented by Mr. Ewart from Calcutta, complaining of the exemptions which were made in the Income-tax Bill of all public officers connected with the Government from the operation of that tax. It was quite true that that bill had been withdrawn and another one substituted for it within fiv e days, with the obnoxious clauses omitted ' • but this was only after public attention had been directed to the unjust ness of that measure. He thought it most important that all matters affecting the progress and government of India should be well considered at home, and that the officers Of the Government in Leadenhall-street should have a perfect knowledg) of what was going on in reference to the admi nistration of the affairs of India, and hoped that very shortly the Secretary of State for India would be able to give some satisfactory answer respecting this license bill, which was exciting . so much interest throughout India. Mr. TORRENS deprecated the passing of such a mea sure for licensing trades and professions as that which was complained of in the petition Irons Calcutta. The experience which he derived from a somewhat lengthy residence in India led him to believe that the attempt to carry out any measure of the kind would lie attended with very great dif ficulty. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. VANSITTART to the effect that he was satisfied with the discussion which his motion had elicited, and with the statement of the Secretary of State for India that the first three of his resolutions had been submitted to a select committee iu India, the motion was withdrawn. THE FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS. Mr. A. STEL Ala moved the following resolution:— "That it would tend to the re g ularit y of debate, on the motion for adjournment on Fridays, if the clerk were in structed to place: in their order on the paper, one after an other, all questions to be addressed to each particular mem • ber of the Government." He thought if the plan pointed out in this resolution were adopted it would go far to esta blish some sort of order in the discussions which took place o (l n ,F:nel F aor r : id ari a n y ht e a v ii, e 4e n lni in .h g . s ) , and prevent this house from Icing obliged to travel from India to county rates iu Ireland. The SPEAKER having put the question , Mr. DISRAE LI said•—l had supposed, sir, that some n oble gentleman, in some manner responsible for the conduct of the business of this house, wouldj have to favour us no tw giveni h hi the opinion ho m oti this o o n n of nimr hon.at ter. . friend (1 (Hear, r ) rih th ega a a t rn. conehlerati on which, perhaps, it deserves. I hive obliged to form lay opi n i on o f it from t i nq, and while you, sir, wsre giving it to u it apneas to me that thi4 boos© h '(Hear.) I have always suppo r t e d thoeusapneasrs g : r 'r it o N t i raiictitgth to pt e e chair,, enjoyed cd bat hon.. members on Friday of bringing tinder the considera tion of the house all questions of pressing and general inte rest, which privilege I think it i s f or th e public advantage not to subject to those general regulations which are so con venient for the management of bur ordinary discussions. Bat I have always understood that a grave objection to the continuer('' of that indulgence was that the inquiries made on Fr i,l :iy e venings were assuming the form of debates ; and I have aiway , : thought that they should not take that form dtchbeatitie amongsts; ft.,r should , t , h ul e d b y;n c —that they should not interfere with the business of the evening. (Hear, hear.) The proposal of my hon. friend is, sir. by an ar • ;f the linuee we shonld have a number of debates ar reed in which hon. members might all deliver their hOwevcr, thatiefit,chileiVesolutot'alri should a b nTp m u e t opinions. (fie~i, should tend to h ea r.) The object of my lion. friend's rear,. lution is that management which he opo taking the of formal quiries addressed , to Governm.ent ta t ' hon. friend would discussion, which the resolution of my t f the regularity of debate but I act ?u p!' " ly ses verse to the in dvanta e should be conversazione, which it is for the public a g t. pave the for. We have on Friday tolerated.—(laughter)—but we should be very cautious not es enin e 's a sor o those objections of my hon. friend would aggravate all to allow it to deviate from that charaeter. which I which may be fairly urged against the privilege call on the he resolution have always advocated. I would, therefore, _ house to fauit before they adopt a course which, it adopted, would lead to still greater inconvenience than tlielA now felt, and which would still further strengthen those al objections, which are not at present by any menus' tonrOlv Sir G:I4ENVIS concurred in the observations made by the right' hon. gehtleman the member for Buckinghamshire, And - said he should himself have risen to exprtss his opinion on the motion if he had net felt it might be considered invi dious for arty member of the Government to speak upon such a subject before any other gentleman had spoken. An im pression seemed to prevail in that house that the members of the Government had a sort of personal interest in shortening debates on Friday night, and dedicating that night wholly to "Government business," as it was called, but this was not so. On the contrary, the members of the Government were the last persons who would be likely to have an interest of that kind. There was no doubt the effect of the resolution, if carried, would be to render the interrogatories and their re plies more intelligible ; but it would also, by classifying all the different subjects under heads and bringing them on to gether, produce ,o many distinct debates, and therefore make the notices of motion take precedence of the orders of the day. Ile should, therefore, give his vote against the reso lution. — Mr. A. STETJART said, of course, after such an expres -r mon of opinion, he should not attempt to divide the house upon the question ; but he desired it should be understood that his object in moving the resolution was not that attri buted to him by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and he did not see how putting two questions together could possibly render it likely that they would change their character of interrogatory and assume that of debate. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. GLOCESTER AND WAKEFIELD ELECTIONS.— VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to provide that at the next elections for the boroughs of Wakefield and Glocester the votes of the electors might be taken by ballot, commenced by presenting a petition from the Ballot Society, and another signed by 700 electors of Glocester, in favour of the motion, adding that he was au thorised to say that if the house agreed to the second read ing of the bill the signature of 1,000 out of the 1,600 elec tors of Glocester would be procured to a similar petition His object in making this motion was to endeavour to con vince the house, as he himself was convinced, that secret voting was the only remedy for the corruption which had been shown to exist. Last year that house thought proper to address her Majesty, praying her to issue a commission to inquire into the corrupt practices supposed to prevail in these two boroughs. The commissions had been appointed, had inquired, and had presented their reports. In 1854 similar commissions were appointed for the boroughs of Can terbury, Hull, Cambridge, Maldon and Barnstaple. In 1854 he pursued the same course as that which he was now pur suing—he had meved that the issuing of the writs for those places be deferred until provisions had been made enabling the electors to give their votes by ballot. The motion, how ever, was rejected. The commissioners for Canterbury re ported that "corrupt practices had prevailed there at the last election and at previous elections"—and one gentleman said the only way he could account for if was that Canterbury was a cathedral city. (Laughter.) In the case of Cambridge the commissioners reported that "bribery, treating, and other corrupt practices had systematically prevailed for a long period" in that borough. This was accometed for by an other gentleman by the fact that Cambridge was a univer sity town, where there were a number of young gentlemen being brought up for the church. (Laughter, and cries of " Question.") The commissioners for Hull reported that "systematic cerruption had uniformly prevailed at all elec tions for the borough of Hull, to which our attentionhasbees directed." At Maldon they reported that corrupt practices in various forms had prevailed, and in the case of Barnsta ple the commissioners reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last election, and that out of 696 voters 295 received bribes: Yet the house allowed these boroughs to go on returning members and the reports to lie on the table unheeded. Here were two more reports—was the same course now to be pursued with regard to them ? When he last made his motion, what was called the " Cor ruest Practices Prevention Act" had just passed, and the noble lord the member for the city, who seemed very proud of it said, " Let us grant the writs and see what this act will do." It had been tried, and had it proved successful? Barn staple, one of the boroughs in which delinquency from time immemorial had been established, was again about to be tried, notwithstanding the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. But the noble lord, he thought, must admit that the reason which he had given on the last occasion was un doubtedly bad; and he hoped he would inform the house as to the nature of the remedy which he had now in store. (Hear, hear.) Two commissions had been issued last year and had made their report; that of the Gloucester commis•• sion extended over 33 pages, and that which had made in quiry into Wakefield consisted only of three pages, but these were very much to the point, and reflected great credit on the commissioners by whom it had been drawn up. In the Gloucester case it was reperted that bribery had been prac tised in that borough from time immemorial—(" hear," and laughter)—and that with regard to all the accounts of expenses which went before the auditor, "the auditor and the agent only existed to deceive and delude the Legiilature and the public." The commissioners also stated that in 1816 Colonel Webb spent £27,000, and in 1818 Admiral Berkeley spent £16,000 in contesting elections at Glouces ter; but it was to be observed that elections at that time were capable of being protracted for eight days. £3,000 a-day was still about the rate of expenditure. (Laughter.) A. Reform Club . was formed in that city, and on the retire ment of Admiral Berkeley they came up to London to look fur w ronriianto. 21St. Prico '71,1231 one of the member. who was chosen, and Mr. Monk was the other. The orders given by the city of Gloucesteron that occasion were that the can didate, whoever he was, must be an advocate of the ballot. This, he thought, proved that the electors generally were in favour of vote by ballot. (Ironical cheers and laughter.) That their feeling was such, and that they were actuated by a desire to prevent corruption—(renewed cheering by the OppoSition)—would be proved by a petition which was to be presented to the house, signed by 1,000 out of the 1,500 electors of the borough, declaring that the ballot was the only means of .putting an end to the corruption which pre vailed. (Hear, hear) He had received a letter from one of the inhabitants in forwarding the petition to him, in which it was stated that,- - If two or three days further had been allowed we might have strengthened our case. We are not inherently cor rupt--(laUghter)—the Conservatives are in a large minority, and if, for the sake of carrying their candidate, they will re sort, as they do, to extensive bribery, the Liberals consider themselves morally, justified (peals of laughter) —in slightly resorting to the same practices, and this is the true solution of our present unfortunate position." (Laughter.) He had also received a letter from Mr. Monk, in which he said, — "I am convinced in my own mind that if the votes had been taken by ballot at the late election myself and my colleague would at this moment be the representatives of that city, instead of the victims of hypocrisy on the one side and of misplaced confidence on the other. (Renewed laughter.) I will not offer any remarks further than by stating that the result of my experience at the last election leads me to the conclusion that no amount of vigilance on the part of the candidate can prevent bribery, but that the best safeguard that can be devised against it is the ballot. By getting in the thin end of the wedge in the cases of Gloucester and Wakefield, I believe you will do more for it than would be accomplished by ten years of agitation, and most heartily do I wish you success. ' It appeared that Sir R. Carden was the Conservative can didate. He knew nothing at all about corruption, bribery, or anything of that sort. It was true that through his means St. Alban's had been disfranchised, and that at a former election he had spent a very large sum of money at Glouces ter, and had succeeded in gaining his election. But, as was stated by the commissioners,— " Experience upon a nature so unsuspicious as Sir R. Carden's was wholly thrown away. He had been a candi date for St. Alban's, the constituency of which he stigma tised as the most base and de p rav ed probably in the whole of England, and was there made, as he told us, 'the victim of the hypocrisy of other people ;' but the knowledge which he had acquired at St. Alban's was, in his judgment, applicable only to St. Alban's. The knowledge that St. Alban's was venal afforded, he said, no reason why he should suppose that Gloucester was venal, nor did his experience of the cor ruption of St. Alban's suggests the necessity or the pro priety of making any inquiries as to the character of the expenditure at his election. The report went on to say that Sir R. Carden denied all knowledge of the expenses of his election in 1857, as dis tinguielsed from the expense of the petitions, though he ad mitted having seen the election auditor's account, which represented his expenditure as £6lO 12s". Id., the fact being that it exceeded £1,703. Mr. Lovegrove, his agent, when questioned upon the matter, stated that Sir R. Car• den did inquire how much had been expended upon the election, and how niueli upon the petitions in 1857 • that he supplied him with the information, and that Sir R. Car den—of whom I,lr. Lovegrove said, "Heis a man of busi ness, and I should say understood figures as well as any man in England"—had the opportunity of seeing the sub joined account, which Mr. Lovegrove produced on the occa sion of its tine' settlement in August, 1857. After this very candid evidence, given by a gentleman who, as ex. Lord Mayor and a member lot the Stock Exchange, must be supposed to . know something of figures, the commis sioners still gave him a certificate of indemnity; but in summing up they found that W. P. Price and Charles J. Monk were not privy to or cognisant of the corrupt prac tices which they declared had prevailed extensively at the election of 1859. 'With regard to Sir 8.. Carden they were altogether silent. Finally, they reported that "Corrupt practices have for a long period prevailed at contested elec tions for members to serve in Parliament for the city of Glocester." (Hear, hear.) 'What was the remedy which ware proposed for this state of things by the Government, or by gentlemen on the opposite side of the house? (Hear, hear.) The proposals which they had as yet heard were confined to making the Corrupt Practices Act more strin gent. One hen. and learned gentlemax, the member for Nottingtrun, proposed to make bribery a misdemeanour, snottier imprisonment m a and io r opo hard se d labour;that thisand were insufficient the sentence should be changed to penal r a lion.e withan learned gtle servitude. Tho ease of Wakefield likewise went to show that some step on the pert of the Legislature was impera tively called for. The freemen, to the extent of some 300 or 460, had been greatly blamed in the Glocester report— he strongly suspected that the freemen were very often 'made the scapegoats for the iniquities of ether persons— (hear, hear)---but ill the case of Wakefield there could be no such allegation, that borough having been called into exis tence by the Reform Act of 1832. (Opposition cheers ) The Commissioners stated that at the last election Mr. Le:Alta:in the Liberal candidate, spent at least £3,900, of which only .f.;178 passed through the auditor's account, and the rest was disbussed in illegal payments ; that Mr. Lea them provided the money with the intention that part of it at least should be employed in bribery and corruption, and that at least between £l,BOO and £1,900 was expended in bribery. They found that Mr. Charlesevorth, the Conser vative candidate, spent X. 4,150, of which only £652 passed eras a h t i h e :e; f ' a t u ls n: a d through the auditor's hands, and that £1,009 at least was oxpiindrd in feet, s ion t u a i t h c oi stated that v, t t l e ha hi Mr. h e C crib-'r}}', i r j a b r 21 designedly which alf, thatun emanner o f f u it n a d d w is a p s os b al e , ing T e h n e ip e l o oy rn e gi d, is h s a io v n in: before abstaiued up to the election from inquiring as to the man tnpheeecrteiniteh;ion the means of knowing and good grounds to sus that 98 persons were guilty of bribery in respect of the votes of other persons, that 86 persons were guilty of bribery in respect of their own votes, and that 12 others WPIV guilty of Bribery not on one side only, b a t on both, (fSausrl'er.) They found that it was generally anticipated by the-parti sans on both sides, for some time before the election, that q, being carried, of be had to b r ib ery b y th e i r reeneetiye oppo.e. nents ; and they added, " the fct thee bribery' we; on 04 ieoth !es Vas before the electio4 matter of common notoriety throughout the borough, and ' excited but a scanty measure of disapprobation even on the part of those whb t actually join in the work of cor ruption." (Hear.) That was the state of things at Wakefield just before the election; and he (Mr. Duncombe) wished to know, when it was stated that the fact that bribery was being committed on both sides " excited but a scanty measure of disapprobation" among the upper and middle classes of the innabitants, how it could be any matter of surprise that the humbler orders should have accepted bribes. (Hear, hear.) The Commissioners found, lastly— " Having regard to the length of time before the election at which the preparations for the work of corruption were commenced, to the large proportion (142 out of 866) of the whole constituency engaged in corrupt practices and guilty of bribery, to the number of persons (including .56, them selves electors) who voluntarily joined in the work of offer ing and giving bribes, to the zeal and skill they exhibited, to the readiness with which their services were received and their acts ad opted,to the open way in whichbribery was carried on by the canvassers and discussed among all classes, and to the manner in which the voters received and bargained with the canvassers on both sides—that large numbers of the electors were then not for the first time engaged in the like operations of gross corruption." Wakefield was a borough that was called into existence under the Reform Act. The house would probably think, with him, that the electors had made up for lost time in not being sooner admitted to the exercise of the franchise, and that in the matter of corruption, they were snore than a match for some of the older constituencies. (A laugh.) He wanted to know what was the remedy of the house for such a state of things. Were they going to snake the Corrupt Practices Act more stringent, when they found that, in places such as Wakefield, open' and notorious bribery ex cited but a scanty measure . of disapprobation." (Hear, hear.) He submitted that the house ought to have recourse to a measure such as he was now asking for leave to introduce. They might limit its operation to one, two, or three elec tions ; but let them at all events make the experiment. (Hear, hear.) If it failed, they would be only just where they were. (Cheers.) But if it succeeded, they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they had checked, if not altogether crushed, that system of bribery and intimi dation which was a disgrace to our representative system. (Cheers.) He therefore begged leave to move for leave to bring in a "bill to make provision that atithe election of members to serve in Parliament for the city of Glocester and the borough of Wakefield the electors thereof give their votes by way of ballot." Sir G. LEWIS.—A short time ago I had occasion to ask the house to agree to a motion for not issuing writs to these I two boroughs of Glocester and 'Wakefield without seven days' notice being previously given. That motion was agreed to by the house, and the effect of it was that the writs for those two boroughs were to be suspended without due notice was given of the intention to move that they bo issued. Upon that motion some debate ensued. The hon. gen ' tleman the member for Birmingham addressed himselfgene rally to the corrupt practices reported to have taken place in those boroughs, and expressed an opinion that it would be desirable to punish the electors there with the suspension of their electoral privilege for a certain number of years. I did net express avy opinion on that proposal ; but the hon. gentleman the member for Finsbury now makes a motion which in its tendency is diametrically opposed to the sug ' gestion then made. His motion contemplates the imme ' diate issue of these writs. It assumes that the provisional measure taken by the house should not be acted on: ' that the writs should be issued ; that when the elec- ions take place an exceptional mode of ♦oting should be introduced into those two boroughs, and that the votes should be taken secretly, and by way of ballot. lam not prepared immediately—even if I were favourable to the general plan of voting by ballot—to'give my vote in favour of this narrow and exceptional measure. If the system of secret voting be good, why is it to be applied as a penal measure to those two boroughs ? (Cheers.) By the motion before the House it is distinctly applied as a measure of punishment. (" No, no," answered by counter cheers.) I won't quarrel about the word " punishment ;" but what is the effect of the motion ? It teas proposed a short time ago to visit those two boroughs with suspension of the electoral privilege. The hon. gentleman says, " Don't do that, but apply to them as an exception—not as a general measure, or leading to a general measure—vote by ballot." If that be not a punishment, it is at all events a visitation upon theta. (Laughter.) Thereis a great difficulty in dis tinguishing between this and a geaeral Measure. If the measure of vote by ballot is good let it be applied simulta• neously all over the country.' (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, it is to be regarded, as something exceptional and penal, do not apply it at once to those two boroughs. Let them be the subjects of a more deliberate investigation, would, _ met, ce filet a punishment. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BONHAM-CARTER thought that the measure now proposed was a moderate and judicious one. As to the Home Secretary's argument upon the result of the ballot in America, the voting there was entirely devoid of secrecy, and you could draw no analogy between that which was an epen act and that which his hon. friend (Mr. Dun combe) was trying to render a secret one. (Hear, hear.) The Home Secretary had not once alluded to the suc cessful operation of the ballot in Australia, where he (Mr. Carter) was assured that it had, at all events, tended greatly to preserve quiet and good order at elections. Nor was this a small matter. It was in the afternoon, to wards the close of the poll, when the numbers were pretty equal, that excitement was most rife and corruption was most perpetrated. The ballot, however, would keep secret the state of the poll, and would thus prevent tke knot of electors who now held back from disposing of their votes at the last moment, perhaps for £4O or £5O a piece. In considering the remedy proposed, the house ought not to forget the number of those electors who gave their votes ho nestly and fairly, and who sincerely regretted the existence of this corruption. Parliament should loose no opportunity of preventing the corrupt minority from overriding the opi nions of the honest majority,amilehould put every difficulty in the way of their receiving bribes. He did not believe that the ballot was a panacea for every possible evil that ex isted ; but it would be of use in restraining both intimi dation and bribery, and the house would do wisely and safely in giving leave to introduce this bill. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to state, in a very few words, the reasons why I shall not be able to vote for the motion of my hon. friend, I have always opposed the harlot on general principles. • (Cheers.) Upon former occasions T have stated at sufficient length the ground upon which I think that, instead of being an improvement in our electo ral system, it would, on the contrary, tend to demoralise and to degrade our national character in the performance:of important .constitutional functions. (Cheers.) I cannot, therefore, agree with my hon. friend in applying as a re medy that which I think is in itself an evil. We know very well that a poison administered in very small doses some times cures disease, but I don't think this kind of applica tion will be at all adapted to the evil which my hon. friend wishes to correct. And if I were disposed to acquiesce in any plausible proposal for the partial and local application of that to :which upon general grounds I objected, any such disposition would be removed by the candour, or the indiscretion of my hon. friend, who, in reading that valuable communication received by him from one of the candidates upon this occasion, said he was told that if he could only now introduce the thin end of the wedge it would do more to forward the cause of the ballot generally than 10 years of agitation. (Cheers.) That forms a perfectly good reason why my hon. friend, who is a sin core advocate of the ballot, should recommend the motion which he has made to-night ; but he will admit that it forms an equally good reason why I, entertaining different opinions on the general principle, should resist his motion. (Hear.) Again, with regard to the effect which this measure would be calculated to have in the prevention of bribery, I must «i x +hat in rny arisen ilacro io arb.oti.ow my hon. friend mentioned which shows that, so far from cor recting the evil of which he complains, the operation of this bill would be to generalize it. My hon. friend in the coarse of his speech read an extract from the report of the commis sioners, which stated that eight electors had been bribed by both sides. [Several hon. members.—Twelve.] Well, that makes my case so much the stronger—(a laugh) —for if under a system of open voting, which compels every elector to declare fer whom he desires that his vote should be re corded, 12 men are found who are bribed by both the oppo sing candidates, you would, under a system o f secret voting, have 100 electors who would bewhinfithfotbhhreiiom opposing by osig means bribed. (Hear, hear.) In fact, all these electors who were di spose d to take bribes would ecuansdiodfat an a w t o a u u ld e p le r e e t s t e o n u t , tohreemomsemlvaesnitcoaree went , wty, a t, wouldt the sameofaecept time, aibtri, in promisingandbefromhiaii, would fo h r a b v o e t n h o . to vote (Hear, hear.) No w , i n th e case of open voting, the bad faith of those 12 electors to whom my hon. friend alluded became notorious, and thus far a cheek was imposed upon others their numbe r m i g ht b e I,2oo—who, if a systeraof secret — voting were established, would be quite ready to accept bribes from both parties. I shall not now enter into the general question of the merits or demerits of voting in se cret ; but, as the subject of the mode of voting in America has been alluded to in the course of the discussion, I may be per mitted to observe, that frequently as the expediency of adopt ing the ballot has of late years been pressed upon the consideration of the House of Commons, the example of America in this respect has not been very par ticularly relied upon by the supporters of the measure. (Hear, hear.) The truth is that the system which prevails in Anaeriea of voting by ballot is not secret voting, and the advocates of the ballot have thrown overboard that system, and call upon us to establish in this country one of a diffe rent character. I am, however, prepared to maintain that you cannot establish here a system of secret voting unless you make a man liable to a penalty who discloses the way which he happens to have voted. (Hear, hear.) Any such proposal, therefore, as that which my hon. friend has made, in order to bet effectual, must not be simply permis sive, and would therefore deserve to be characterised — as my right hen. Mend the Secretary for the Home Depart ment has justly said—as a penal measure. It is, at all events, perfectly clear that if a vote given in secret may— and, as a matter of course, does—become matter of general notoriety, the arguments in favour of secret voting at once o fall to the ground, and that in resorting to the ballot you are only taking a roundabout way of securing that Publicity which now exists. F or th ese reasons I feel it to be my duty to oppose the motion under th e c o nsideration of the house. (Cheers.) of the Mr. CHILDERS s a id th a t he had in the coarsebe wee t discussion been appealed to by the hon. mem b er for t Riding (Mr. Crossley). He might be Per mitted briefly to state to the house the result of his experience o work in;f th of' the system of secret voting which had neista hlished in Australia. The ballot ba d been introduced into that t that country, as the best means o f preventing at bribery, corruption, and treating w hi c h at ono time had b een exceedingly prevalent, and he might add, carried out was,di different from that by whi c h lay a species of machinery electors rather th an vo tes of rapidity in recording - the d in America. It was, in short, a modified secrecy was secure un der the operation of which ev er y man's of vote by ballo t, man's vote was k ep t s ecret until a committee composed of members of s c ru tiny of the votes a at particular election, and th en t h e way in which any elector had voted might, if his vote wer e objected to, b e ascertained. The machinery by which th at end was attained was as follows :—After the nomination of the can didates the clerk of the peace sent to the severa l re turning o fficers a number of voting papers, having the name of each of the candidates who had been nominated written in order, and containing instructions by which the elector was directed to erase the names of those candidate,' for whom be did not mean to vote, leaving untouched the names of those whom he desired to support. Each of the voting papers was signed on the back by the returning officer him self, and as each voter came up on th e polling-day h asked such questions as were usually put i n this country e was untry in such eases, while the returning officer wrote down his num ber on the electoral roll. The voting paper was then handed to him, from which ho erased the names of h t ose candidates for whom he did not intend to vote, and that h av i ng b een done the paper was pl ace d , i n the officer, in the elector a l urn. At the presence of the returning close of the election the returns were made, and front that moment until an election committee was appointed— if such should be the case—to enter into a scrutiny of the voter—when the manner in which every e l ec t or voted might be secrecy in the matter was observed. If a petition were pre sented to the house cla . • of bribery or • claiming a scrutiny e ith er on th e groun d personation, it was as easy to Tree' . for whom the challenged voterhis tn a d c e gave vote as r the sys tem prevalent in this country. And what had beep the re sult of the ballot in Australia ? That wets the main ques tion. It had been in operation nearly f' • , He years. was himself elected under its provistee ue The whole elec tions Victor i in • • a since 1833 ap p" d to 200 ; how many o f Australia there h a d b een i n the whole,,cooed lee did not know. In the wbcd thus +ll t ° there had been only two cases of anY eg appro.l rities in this niug to the electoral mega country—r,- had a been sent e e -ay two cases in which petitions . pre • -; end it was as easy to prosecute a petition lender the Australian ballot as here. One of these petitions com plained of treating, and in that case the member was un seated. Another complained of bribery. Three voters wore bribed; the charge was brought home with the greatest ease, and that member also was unseated. There had also been a case of intimidation, but that was a case of religious difference ending in animosity. lie must admit that the Australian ballot was not perfect. It had unques tionably its weak point; and he-would state it candidly. It was this, that where there were more than ono member t, be returned by a constituency the fact of the votes not being known till the end of the poll led those who Were de cided partisans to vote for their own friends in preference and let us consider whether some other means may not be found of subjecting them to penal consequences. Further, if we consider it as a local and limited remedy, instead of a punishment, is secret voting, even in the view of its more strenuous advocates, fitted for this particular mode of elec toral corruption f (Cheers) I have always understood that the particular electoral vice to which the ballot has been ap plied, and for which it is now propounded as a remedy, is not bribery but intimidation. (Cries - of " Both !") If the voter could effectually maintain his secret—a point about which I confess I entertain the greatest doubt—(cheers)-- the system might lay claim to the merits ascribed to it by its advocates ; but we know in .that country where the system of voting by ballot has been in operation for the longest time, —(cheers)--where it has had the widest trial, and where the character of the people most resembles that of the people of this country-7 me an the United State.—has not led to the practical preservation of the secret of the voter. It has often been the subject of discussion in this house, and I repeat that the testimony of all whose opinions and statements are worthy of any consideration, and who have described the State or mime* fu Ause,iss., nee sesseo..eo end does concur in affirming that the mode of voting in that country is not a system of secrecy. (Near, hear.) I defy any member of this house to produce any valid testimony in contradiction of that position. It 'may get rid of some of the incidents of our system ; it may get rid of our poll ; it may get rid of the authentic register of votes ; but it does not preserve the secrecy of the . voter. (Hear, hear.) If it does not do this, can it be contended, with any plausi bility, that it will render bribery impossible, or even diffi cult ? We know that in the United States, notwithstand ing their larger constituencies, bribery does prevail to a considerable extent. How far the ballot would prevent intimidation, by far the most plausible ground on which it can be defended, is a question we are not now called on to discuss. Intimidation is not reported as ono of the preva lent vices at the Wakefield and Gloucester elections. The evil pointed out by the reports of commissions was bribery, and I cannot understand, nor did I collect from the speech of the hon. member for Finsbury, how the ballot would furnish any effectual remedy for bribery. It might, on the contrary, 'he argued with considerable plausibility that secret voting would render bribery not more difficult, while it would insure impunity to the persons by whom it was committed But without going the general question, I think this experiment is inexasediesit. If the ballot is a preservative against bribery and intimidation, are you jus tified in stopping at two boroughs ? If you deal i n an exceptional manner with them and inflict some penalty for their abuse of their electoral privileges, it will preclude us hereafter from any proper consideration of the subject, and anticipate the decision the house might come to oil this difficult question. I shall give my-vote against the motion. Mr. CIIOSSLEY said. when the ballot was proposed as a general measure the right hon. gentleman opposed it. Now they had proposed to limit it to the two worst boroughs among the cases that had come before them, and the right hjn. gentleman said, Do not try it on those two bad bo roughs alone ; apply it generally. Why not let them try it in this small vo.y, and see if it would not answer ? (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was illogical in his argument. If the ballot were tried on a small scale and did not answer, it would be a stronger argument against applying it gone rally. Why, these was a gentleman, a member of the Go vernment, who had actually been once elected by the ballot. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, some time ago, re turned for an electoral district in one of the Australian elections. (hear, hear, and laughter.) Another hon. mem ber, who was connected with Australia (Mr. Childers), could tell the right hon. gentleman that it was possible to vote by ballot with perfect secrecy., and if a scrutiny should be demanded, it could be shown hove every man had voted, (Laughter and oh :) lie could assure those who received this statement with some degree of incredulity that till a scrutiny took place the ballot vote was quite secret; if a scrutiny was required the secrecy was at an end, and it was known how every man had voted. If hon. gentlemen were in earnest in condemning bribery and intimidation they could have no objection to vote with the hon. member for Finsbury. Mr. A. MILLS doubted if the evidence given before the Wakefield and Glocester Commissions justified them in try ing this experiment. The impression he had derived from those reports differed widely from that of the hon. member for Finsbury. The conclusion he drew from the evidence was this, that as long as there were gentlemen ambitious of becom ing members of Parliament, and yet contented to represent nothing but strong beer and bank-notes no possible law, enactment, or machinsry that could bei devised by the House of Commons would prevent bribery and corruption. No fact disclosed by the reports of the commissions appeared to share this conclusion. So long as public opinion sanctioned the present system all attempts to slop bribery would be utterly futile. (Hear, hear,) The experi ment proposed by the motion had been tried; not long ago there was a contested election for - the borough of Reigate. There were four or five Liberal candidates, and it was agreed that they should submit their claims to a sort of pre liminary ballot. They did so, and one of the candidates who was rejected by it afterwards published an address to the electors, in which he distinctly stated that irregular and improper means had been resorted to to influence the result and secure the election. The ballot had been for 24 years propounded to Parliament, and had been the subject of 18 or 20 divisions in the house. It was now sought to apply it in a hem, eopathic form—ho did not know whether as a remedy or a penalty, but professedly for the purpose of trying whether it would succed on a large scale. They knew that it had been tried in other countries. The ballot had . produced an iron despotism in France . —(cries of Noh-!tn had not put an end to intimidation and bribery i n the United' States. (Hoar, hear.) lie had been informed by i a noble lord not then in the house (Lord Bury) that whilon Ame rica a member of Congress had shown him his Poll -book, containing the names of 25,000 electors, witha statement of how each man had voted during that, p That was the system which it was propoeeld only say that if this country. (No, and hear.) ! ei to l i n troduce in d. (Hear.) a any one would point out to him lainey:i as ouunatrpyreinvethhteatwivoeroldf where the system of the ballot had act,- bribery andintimitlation he would supptoret iht,ebstutreumnteidlythfeonr he should continue to bel ieve that the these evils was to be found in a more elevated condition of public opinion. (Hear, hear.) personally cognizant of Mr. ROt;PE LL bein g t exper' had Reigate to which the last the traneactions at the ttrs y iment speaker had referred adn ii nt e ; that so the right sstem not had been unsuccessful b t " 11 4 nd hear.) The ballot meant Ikea r . 1 . 1 s '' secrecv were insured it wes not the ballot "(sve-X.)-- dud unites experiment made r atp il igatie law to send ‘ a card to each elector with na n v ,e 0 a the eau_ the elector to stria clidates inscribed thereon, leaVialg ea (lidate, BAtito out all tpit 0.004, 3 : , __.sequence was file wea4lliPs.t P;kwAl(la'u v - .11 ; 11 " t most of the tickets. (Lond lau.O; l 2sier:L _ That sn s not the ballot, it was ticket ycii ing. 4 quite eifferent thing. A better system was then rele-;, e a, that whieh had been successful in Australia. (hear t lunar',) f l ash . eantor upon entering an water h a d 4 card oven to him upon which h e wro t e 0.4 nano of the candidate he preferred, and that systemavo perfect satisfaction to all partie s . (H ear. ) X TENTINCIi thought the speech of the hon. mem leer for Viasbury had done . much to damage the cause which ho was advocating, for he said if the house wished to screen s to the men who were somewhat neutral. In the first elec. bribery and corruption it would reject his motion. Ile (Mr. 1 tion, for instance, there were five to be returned, and though Bentinck) contended that the adoption of the hon. mem- ' there were 50 candidates, the average number voted for wets ber's motion would be really screening bribery and corrup- only two or three. The ballot worked best at single elec tion. (Hear, hem) * The hon. member said his plan would tions ; and it had this strong point, that it put a stop prevent a repetition of the late bribery and perjury. It altogether to afternoon bribery, which prevailed to a great might, indeed, prevent perjury, because there would be no extent. (Hear, hear.) That was entirely stopped by the means of detecting the bribery. The hon. member for Fins- ballot for this simple reason, that it was just as easy to bribe bury also said that the electorsof Gl ouces t er an d W a k e fi e ld a man a t h a lf-past eight in the mornin g a s a t half-past were in favour of the ballot. Of course they were. They three ; and the numbers being unknown till the end of the had been proved to be guilty of th e grossest vena lit y an d po ll, there was no temptation to raise the price on the pre corruption, and as a penalty the new writs had been sus- tence of a close run. (Hear, hear.) The house had now the pended ; but the hon. member wished to give them a period opportunity of carrying out an experiment which might, of 10 years' uninterrupted enjoyment of their favourite indeed, be - doubtful, but could at any rate do no harm. amusement at the expense of any candidates that might offer Wakefield and 6 locester were pretty much in the position themselves. (Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member said, if of political suicides. They were dead bodies lying on their his plan succeeded it would prove the success of the ballot. table • it was for the house to deal with them as they It would be sure to succeed, for once the ballot system was thought proper. They were the surgeons, with power to applied to "Wakefield and Gloucester the bribery could be make an experiment which could not hurt dead bodies, but carried on without detection. The right hon. gentleman the might be of the greatest use to society and to the political Secretary of State for the _Home Department was wrong in institutions of the country. He hoped the house would agree saying that the hon. member for Finsbury wished to inflict to give practical application to a principle which was dear punishment upon those venal electors. On the contrary, it to the great majority of the people and to hon. members was a reward which he would bestow upon them. (Bear, who sat on his side of the house. He would assuredly sup hoar.) Upon a former occasion he (Mr. Bentinck) had ex- port the motion of his hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) pressed a conviction that the only resulf of the ballot Sir J. SHELLEY (amid loud cries of " Divide") appealed would bo to prevent the detection of bribery, and the noble to the Government, after the speech they had just heard, lord, now Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had concurred in showing the entire success of the ballot in Australia, to that opinion. He would like to knew whether the house withdraw their opposition to a motion which was supported was dealing with this matter with clean hands ; who- by the Liberal party in that house. Everything said by the ther the more guilty party was the comparatively poor Home Secretary had been contradicted by what had fallen and ignorant man who took £5 for his vote, or the from the hon. member for Pontefract• gentleman of distinction who abandoned his poli- Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied, he was sure the houses tical principles, and was guilty of gross political ter- felt exceedingly indebted to the hon. member for Pont.- giversation in return for a place and perhaps a fract for the very able and interesting statement he had salary of £5,000 a year. (Laughter, and cries of " Name !") made in reference to the ballot—(hear)—and he personally The name was legion. (Cheers and laughter.) The poor begged to thank him for the valuable support he had given man who accepted a bribe merely added his unit to swell to his motion. With regard to the argument of the noble the majority or the minority at a contested election; but the lord at the head of the Government, he had only to say distinguished public character who was guilty of such con- that he put this forward as an experiment, and nothing diet deceived and betrayed millions of his fellow-men, who else. He wanted the experiment to be tried, and he used had placed him in the position 'he occupied on account of the expression of one of the candidates for Glocester when. the principles he professed. (Hear.) 'Was such a man fit he said that he wanted to get in the thin end of the wedge, to sib in judgment upon the poor fellow who got £5 for his hoping that he would soon be able to drive it home. (h vote ? It was very much as though a tiger after destroying laugh.) Great measures were not carried in a day. They human life and ravaging flocks and herds were called upon must proceed by slow degrees. It was thus they carried to pass judgment on the predatory habits of the mouse ; and Jewish emancipation. It was by taking Baron Rothschild in this case so long as tigers abounded he trusted the mouse froth behind the bar and placing him in one of their corn would be leniently dealt with. (A laugh.) The hon. mem- teittees end to meet the peers in conference that they were ber (Mr. Duncombe) seemed fond of experimental legisla- enabled to convince all rational men that the contest was at tion. Now, if they were to exporimentaliso on this ques- an end, and the result was that they had now four hon. and tion it would be better and more just first to try the process distinguished members of the Jewish persuasion represent on themselves. For example, by way of testing the advan- ing is that house large and important constituencies, while taxes of secret voting, the house might decide in that way the British constitution and the Established Church, which whether it was advisable or not to deal in the present year it was said would perish the day a Jew took his seat, stood with the question of reform. (Laughter.) Possibly the exactly where they were ; and so it would be with their results of such an experiment would somewhat startle the repr esentative system after the ballot was introduced, hon. member for Birmingham and his friends. (Hear.) , 'he house then divided ; the numbers were— The proposal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) was so monstrous that the house could not entertain it, for it Ayes Noes -ould, in ft 'onfer a reward where the wish was to in- _. . . . _ Majority against the motion -3/ The announcement of the numbers was received. with 'beers by the supporters of the motion. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and said that perhaps it would be convenient that he should inform Vile house that he had that evening received a communication from his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stated that he felt perfectly competent to be in his ?lace to morrow and reeks his financial statement. (Hear, hear.) CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS, Sze., BILL. Mr. COLLIER obtained leave to bring in a bill to pro. hibit the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to the poll, and to facilitate polling at elections. i'PIRITS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. V. SCULLY moved the second reading of this bill, htn. while he was explaining its provisions, at the request of Col. Dr NNa, An lIoN. MEMBER moved that the house be counted, and there being only 27 members present, the Speaker left the chair, and the house adjourned about 10 minutes after 12 o'clock. Ttt et it'? Ct PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 9. GLOUCESTER CITY AND WAKEFIELD ELECTIONS. Motion made, and question put, " That leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision that, at the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for the city of Glou cester and the borough of Wakefield, the electors thereof give their Votes by way of Ballot:"—The house divided; ayes 118, noes 149. AYES—M 3. Adam, W. P. Goldsmid, Sir F. Peto, Sir M. Alcock, T. Gower, F. L. Pilkington, James Atherton, W. Hadfield, Geo. Pollard UrquhartW Baines, E. Mulkey, Thomson Redmond, J. E. Bass, M. T. Ilanmer, Sir J. Robertson, D. Baxter, W. E. Hennessy, J. P. Roebuck, J. A. Bazley, Thomas Ingram, H. Rothschild,Baron L Beale, Samuel Jackson, W. Rothschild Baron IL Bellew, R. M. James, Edwin Roupell, W. Biddulph,;Col. R.M. Kershaw, J. Russell, A. J. 11. Biggs, John Kinglake, A. W. St. Aubyn, J. Black, Adam Kinglake, Serj. J. SalomonA,Alcleasas Bonham-Carter, J. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Salt, Titus Brocklehurst, John Knatehbull-Hugess Scholefle. d, W. Buller, Sir A. Laing, S. Scott, Sir W. Campbell, W. F. Langston, J. H. Scully, V. Childers, H. C. E. Lanigan, J. Seymour, Sir M. Clay, James Laslett, W. Seymour, Digby Clifford, C. C. Lawson, W. Shelley, Sir J. V. Clive, George Leatham, E. Smith, J. B. Collier, R. P. Lindsay, W. S. Smith, A. Craufurd, E. H. J Locke, Jos. Stansfeld. J. . Crawford, R. W. M'Cann, J. Sullivan, R. Crook, Joseph McEvoy, E. Sykes, CoL W. U. D Cr a o ig ss i l i e si y i: Tollemache, Hon.P. Davey, R. Martin, r. W. Trelaway, Sir J. B. Mellor, John Deasy, Richard l'troableikrt Marjoriba nks, 3farsall, w Merry James Villiers, Rt. Hon. C.. Douglas, Sir C. Mitchell, T. A. Vivian, H. 11, D. C. Talbot. m C.. IL M.. Duke, Sir James Ellice, E., Pin. Monson, W. J. Watki ns, J . L . V . de, John Morris, D. Westhead, B . 11?,,,r„, H. ic. c. Napier, Sir C. Whalley, G. H. Ferguson, R. Noble, J. Wickham, H. W. Fitzgerald, J. D. Norris, J. T. Williams, W. .-. Foley, Hon. 11. W. North, F. Wyld, James Forster, Charles O'Brien, P. , . • Freeland, 11. W. Osborne, Bernal TELLERS. Gavin, Major Paget, C. . Gibson, T. M. Paxton, Sir J. Duncombe, T. S. • Gifford, Earl of Pease, H. Ayrton, A. B. NOES-234. Archdall, Capt.M.E. Haliburton, Justice Papillon. P. 0. Millie, H. J. Hardy, Gathorne Parker, Major W. Baring, Thomas Hartopp, E. B. Patten, J. W. Barrow, W. H. Henley, J. Paull, H. Bathurst, A. A. Herbert, Col. P. E. Peacock, G. M. Beecroft, G. S. Hervey, Lord A Philips, J. H. Bentinck, G. W. P. Hood, Sir A. Powys, L. P. Bentinck, G.C. Hope, G. W. Puller, C. W. , i • Blackburn, P. Hopwood, J. T. Quinn, Peter Bottleld, Beriah Horsfall, T. B. Re ton, G. W. J. B'd Sir 8., B. Hotham, Gen. Lord Ridley, Sir H. W. ri ges, Brooks, R. Howard, Hon. C. R ogers , J o h n Browne, Lord J. T. Ho u w in e e s , , W Ed . ward Selwyn, Slater-Boot.. J. . G. Bruce, C. L. C. Hume, . j li e u r n m t y , 1 G ,, . E TV .. . l Seymer, H. K. Shirley, E. P. Johnstone, Hon. H. Sibthorte G. T. W. Cartwright, Col. rioidi:Bilt. Jolliffe Si W. Smith, I.' T. Cave S. Smith, Abel Smith, S. G. Kendall, N. Srnollett, A. Clinton, Lord R. ~ , Ring, J. K. Spooner. R. Close, M. C. ton Sir W. Knatchbull, W. Stanhope, J. B. C a Cecil,ve n L I los Lord Lord rd G. K lie e k ll e y 7' s iqh r , l S ,. . Codring , Cole, J. L. Knox, Major W. S Steuart, A. Stewart, Sir M. H. Sturt, H. G. Lefroy, A. Dickson, Col. ,3,..iun. Lacon, Sir , B. Taylor, Colonel Tempest, Lord A.Y. Du Cane, Chas. Leighton, Sir B. Thompson, H. S. Duncoinbe, W. E. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Thynne, Lord E. Collies,Di Disraeli. rael Liddell, lion. H. G. Thynne, Lord H. Dunne, Col. Denman, rr i Edwards, Major H. Longlield, Robert Totlemache, J. H. E holey, Viscount Lopes, Sir IL, Bt, Torrens, R. Elphinstone, Sir J. Lovaine, Lord Trefusis, Hon. C. M. Estcourt, S. Lyall, G. Valetort, Lord Ferguson, Sir R. A. Lygon, Hon. F. Vance, John Filmer, Sir E. Macaulay, K. Vandeleur, Col. Finlay, A. S. Mackie, J. Vansittart, Wm. Forde, Lt.-Col. W. Martin,J, Vernon, L. V. Forster, Sir G. Matheson, A.. Walker, James R. Foster, W. 0. Miller, T. 1. Benjamin LLecekhe:w.Si: H. Walsh, Sir J. B. Garde It. S. M ontagu, Lord . Watlington, 3. W. Gtt, W. J. Morgan, C. 0. S. Winn in gton, Sir T. Gaskell, J. M. Mowbray, ltt. ILL J. Wise, J. A. George, John Mure David Wood, Rt Hn. SirC. Gladstone, Capt. Naas, Rt. lin. Lord Wyndham, Capt. H. Golf, Captain Nortlicote, Sir S. H. Wynn, Col. Gordon, C. W. Packe, G. 11. Gore, J. R. 0. Pakington, Sir J. S. TELLEZS. Gray, William P a lk , L . Mills, A. Grogan, Sir Edward Palmerston, Viset. Gurdon, B. --- PAIRS ON MR. DUNCOMBE'S MOTION FOR THS BALLOT. For Against P. Bouverie .. Sir F. Heygate Mr. Waldron..Mr. Dawson Mr. Locke Mr. Davison Sir 11. F. Davie Sir M Farqnhar Mr. 0. Ricardo Ld Holmesdale Mr. Woods... .Mr. W. Long Mr. Bowyer ..Mr. Bond Mr. Maguire „H. Wyndham Sir R. Levinge Sir 11. Cairns K. Hodgson ..Mr. A. Baring .1. A. Turner • .Mr. R. A. Cross; Col. Greville ..Col. Lindsay J. L. Ricardo.. Sir W. Verner Mr. W'emyss ..Maj. Hamilton Mr. ConinghamCol. Forester For Against '.3lr. G. Duff —Mr. 3titford }Mr. Monsen ..Sir W. Miles iMr. Gregeon ..Major Knox Sir J. Ogilvy.. Mr. Kolt Mr Cobbett ..Mr. Whitmore Mr. Bristow ..Gen. Upton Mr. Butler.... Mr. Matins Mr. Bright.... Mr. Kennard Mr. Caird ....Capt. Jervis Mr. J. Greene Mrltichardsou Mr. Adair ....Mr. Slaney Mr. Diliwyn ..Mr. Goddard Mr. Copeland .Mr. Somes Dr. Lyons ....Mr. J. Wynne Mr. O'Connell Col.Pakenhana Colonel KNox paired against the Church-rates' Abolition Bill with Sir W. Scott for. Mr. DUDLEY FORTESCUE was prevented being in his place in the House of Commons on Wednesday to support Sir John Trelawny's motion on church rates, being con fine I to the house by indisposition. [ADVIRTISEMENT.]—EPPB' 8 (FlolloBopatitie Chemist) COCOA.—This esteemed preparation is sold by the prin.. oipal grocers at is. 6d. per lb., ix llb., Ob., and ills packets. Each packet is labelled " James Eppe, Montan pathic chemist, London." BIRTHS. BATL-01 the 7th inst., at Barnard's-green, Great Mal• vent, the wife of Charles J. Bate, Esq., of a Boa. CAIMIBLL.—On the Bth inst., at 11, Bloomfleld-terraoe, Paddington, the wife of Jolla Campbell, Esq., of s daughter. CUAPLIN.—On the sth inst., at Chilton Rectory, Barks, tho wife of the Rev. Edward Morland Chaplin, of • daughter. MARRIAGES. ASIIBURNIIAM—FoLzY.--On the Sth inst., at St. George's Hanover-square, Major-General the Hon. Thomas Aahburnhare, C. 8., to the Hon. Adelaide Georgian Foley. DOUGLIS-13AxTrAt.--On the ith inst., at the prick church, Mancetter, Stephen Francis Douglas, J&sq., Commander R.N., to Mary Louisa, eldest daughter of Stafford S. Baxter, Eq., of Mancetter Manor. DEATHS. AloccoLL.—On the Bth inst., at Hostmonceaux, Sasser, Thomas Arkeoll, Esq., aged 77. BanmAN.—On the 4th inst., at Wells, Somerset, Mr. J Badman, aged 72. CRourrox.—On the 7th inst., at Duffield Hall, neer Derby, John Bell Crompton, Esq., aged 7.5. ELwoon.---On the Bth inst., at Clayton Priory, Suenegro Colonel Charles William Elwood, aged 79. LAWTON.—On the 7th inst., at Lawton Hall, Cheshire! Charles Bourne Lawton, Esq., aged 89 years and 10 months. ,oxpoN : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUN G of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, Na. 112 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the eouati 0 Middlesex, Friday, February 10, 1860. The et the to thei Ruh ?tray wed tries, 1 the In The' Wlneti stoma, A sa Vlll bo 6 4, or DF boweT reamu the and a Prise ; 0 -I AXD p I F, IT your ( 3s. 6d. your CUM •r in 1 Hair 1 the of bottle (this elude! la 4s. towel Asir Ateii SON 1 01 Com rter'l A Ban( Prim Past kiss' T' Thi. eleQ•a wlth EVE Ir. appn thilli 2 , .i (posit i'ebr ry BU aura Mit al:4(1 So eke be l ik ia et S Mob Post- Make tioni to th P.R. w ini Cu Ve