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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.) EXPEDITION TO CHINA. Mr. S. FITZGERALD moved the 'adoption of an address '`fora 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, askcd'whether the sanction of the Government had been asked arid. 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 he had 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 asset to, as he had before stated, by the Secretary to the Acme_ ralty. Mr. S. HERBERT, who arrived while the conversation was going on, said he had no objection to the hon. member having the information he desired; but it was obviously in expedient to•make a public 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 PALkERSTON 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 postponement 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 commercial 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 elee 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 to render the measure more efficient he would propose that revising barristers 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 aunt of money for any impose 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 fora 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 meet:cases'of the ap plication of money which, though applied without the know ledge and sanction of the candidate, passed from the hand of some relative or friend, or of a member of soms 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. But it was possible, no doubt, for some member of the family of the candidate to apply his own money, unknown to the candidate, for the purposes of bribery. They must remember, however, that the offence was now often committed bra person who ap plied his own money to the purpose, and bent in his claim to the candidate, when the time for legal inquiry had passed away, and many gentlemen under such circumstances felt themselves bound in honour to make the paym'mt, so that at Oast 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 purpose of his election, except through the auditor, the answer to the claimant would be that he could not par the amount without being foresworn. They would not, he believed, find these zealous friends when there was no prospect of Fepayment, and when by application of money for purposes of bribery the penalties of misdemeanour were incurred. There was, no doubt, another way in which this act might be evaded. 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 corruption. 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 to see all the vouchers, and providing a declaration for agents for election expenses, which would render it impos sible for them to have applied one shilling of money in an illegal manner without subjecting them to the penalties of perjury. The act of 1854 had not been altogether a failure, but there was no penalty imposed sufficient to deter per sons from violating the law. He had provided that re -wilting barristers should be the election auditors ; provision was also made for a complete and systematic investgation of accounts, and he believed it would be impossible, with the machinery of this measure in operation, that money could be illegally applied. The only point to which he had to refer was, as to the means of ensuring the prosecution and punishment of offenders. . From a variety of causes, 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 proposed was that the election 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 corrupt practices. had been resorted to, hold a court, to which he might summon candidates, their agents, and friends, and any person capable of giving evidence upon the subject under investigation. He might make a special report which would come under the eyes of the Attorney-General and the Speaker. Under these circumstances it would be impossible for an election auditor not to be aware of the prevalence of bribery at an election, and then, of course, the Attorney-General 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 pnt down bribery by the application of softie 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 catise 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 , ge nerall y a young man, was cons tituted 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 a theesis for a young barrister to find himself appointe d a grand inquisitor 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. (He tr, 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 corruption to a select committee. In every bill brought for ward there was someprovision that was pertinent ; and why, then, reject it because it happened to contain others not . so generally acceptable ? Mr. MALINS pointed to the employment of professional gentlemen at elections. Those gentlemen might say they .slly received retainers, that is to say, remuneration for the 'exercise of their own franchises, and for inducing others to .exercise theirs; but he called them bribes. (Hear, hear.) 'The Gloucester Commission had placed the employment of refeesional men at eloctions in a most glaring light. He trusted a p rov i sion would be introduced into the bill prohi tfi g professional gentlemen, whose services were remit , I voting- at electio ns except under the heaviest penalties. s. (Hear, hear. ) ' Mr. CLAY would req . ' e from every candidate and from every member a declaratipn that neither before nor after the e I ee tio. 1, dir ec tl y nor indir,vtlY , had h e ma d e himself respon sible. nut,: vtluld he make himself responsible, f penal titre tvOth was not :legal, andwhb o_r antyex no been brought &fore he election auditor. If t litor woind becOm w e hat had functions of the e:ection au, a a s reab dou t e y ,.the Leave was then g iNen to introduce the bill. INL'IAN :FINANCES. ' Mr. VANSYTART L 'lse ti ) move the appointment of a ideration of c er t a i n questions select committee for the Cons relating to the lift. Th e fi rst question had finances of .:nt reference to the civil service o. v . - Tndia ;and hi s o bj ect was to . 5 , ,, lticable to intr o d uce a new ascertain whether it was still pi civil service upon a cheaper footirg •He was u nwilling,incumbents, of course, to meddle with the salariew of existing and, indeed, the practicability of plat in.- the civil service a t anytime upon a cheaper footing was exceedingly doubtful. , To do so would gi+e rise to discomtent and bitterness; and .he would venture to say that if the ra luctions were made, i here w e re no t fifty I n di a n civilians th would not pray forld clerkships at home. Already they fail. % Ito procure candi dates for the m edi ca l serv i ce; and it w. I& t easier to procure Hi i than to a clerk a nomination t o th e c i v il serv i ce in Int. u- ■•••••••• ship at home. At the same time, 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 abolish the Legis lative Council at Calcutta and the Supreme Councils of Bombay, Madras, and Bengal, and substitute for them a Legislative Council for each Presidency. Those councils had failed to produce any practical good, and sine° their creation, by the tuft of 1853, no one had succeeded in ascer taining for what object they had been created, except it was Ito 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 milled: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 committee. He thought the power of raising loans on the revenue of India ought' to be modified, and that all future India roans should be subjected to the deduction of 1 per cent. for the.purpose of creating a sinking fund. On the rat of May this year the Indian debt would amount to 96 millions, and other loans • ;:tldnot be avoided ; while the means of meeting the inte- I Vaeten these loans was not adequately increased. He had no. haieeltion of embarrassing Mr. Wilson by this motion, but he was anxious that the house should aid him 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 im 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 incre-ased,the salaries had diminished one half ,; and that those of £3,000 a year and upwards had been still more 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. Wood), 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 not con sider them at all overpaid. Reductions might be made by eimalising salaries and abolishing offices; but he did not think that a sweeping reduction was at all desirable, con sistently with a due administration of public affairs: 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; forif reference were made to railroad salaries in India, it would be found that they were much higher than those paid to civil ser vants, and moreover entailed less 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 members 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 Coun oils 'Proposed to be substituted 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 Ceun cil which could act satisfactorily for 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 population 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 l 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. vernment at Calcutta found difficulties in the way, and the consequence was that in 1860 that which he thought would have been done in 1854 yet remained unaccomplished. He 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 English judges ,would be thus united to the local knowledge of the Sudder judges, and the result would be a great im provement 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 creiNt of India in this country stood very high. that he hoped that reductions were at last being brought into prac tical operatiorr in India, and that when he made his finan cial statement fhis year it would prove of a more encourag ing character than /hat 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 advantage would be derived from the appointment of a select committee, and he should therefore oppose the motion. (Rear, 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, nevertheleg, a Government which was practically in a state of insolvefity, 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 th 3 Indian army. Bad as was the financial state of India, the condition of the people was even worse. Immense 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 net admit that they had effecterany great improvement in the adniinistration 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 to imagine would prove a golden remedy for the unsatisfactory state of Indian finance, and they had sent a gentleman of great ability over to India to control that branch of the subject. But he thought that a mistake had been committed '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- ' tentien to the object for which he had been sent there, and some good might have resulted from his mission. Various reasons had indeed been given for appointing Mr. Wilson a member of council, and amongst others the cogent one that it would have been impoSsible to have given him £B,OOO a year if he had not be en . (H ear , h ear , an d a laugh.) He knew not what powers had been entrusted to Mr. Wilson beyond those of an ordi nar y mem b er o f co unc il— w hetherh e had authority to deal with the enormous military establish ments, or was strictly confined to. fiscal and financial mat ters. If the latter, as was most probably the case, the Go vernment might just as we ll h ave app extraordi nary Chancellor of th e E xc h equer to d raw o up . app ointed a a n scheme for the payment of the National Debt ; and he believed that the plan would be just as likely to be successful in one case as in the other. He said this, n o t b ecause he dou bted the financial ability of Mr:Wilson but because he did not think that the real difficulty Of India was to be traced to causes of a fiscal character. It arose rather from the sys tem of administration which had been of late y ears adopted there, and which was hateful alike to the great body of the people, and to the native chiefs and nobles of the country ; a nd hence it followed that it was impossible to carry on the government of 'lndia without those enormous military establishments which were altogether out of proportion to the revenues and resources of the country. (Hear, hear.) There was the great ludian difficulty. The statesmen who had founded that empire, and who had governed it down to the Marquis of Wellesley, had always laid down the prin ciple that India must be governed by the assistance of the 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 Caleglta. It was that system which had become so hateful to the country. In illustration of this he referred to the case of the Punjaub, which he said was the most favourable that could be taken, because Sir J. Lawrence was always regarded as the elicenix of governors and the Punjaub was considered to have been well governed, When Sir J. Lawrence was first sent to the Punjaub, ho went as the assistant of his brother, Sir Henry ' Lawrence, who was the chief commis sioner. The views of the two brothers, however, entirely differed, and hp believed that both wrote to Lord Dalhousie, 'stating that one or other of them unlit be recalled. The views of Sir H. Lawrence were those generally which had been entertained by the earlier governors, whilst those of Sir John were that they should carry out in the Punjaub the system which had been adopted in the North-Western provinces —that is to say, that the nobility should be called t on to produce the written titles to their estates, and where they failed to do so, that the estates should be confiscated for the purpose of replenishing an exhausted exchequer, leaving t) the actual holders of the estates some life interest with e in a curtailed occupation of them. These views being laid before renc Lord Dalhousie, he decided in favour of Sir .1. Law them out, and to carry -out Law rence, was consequently established in the Punjaub Mangles, the out his opinions, He did carry to such an extent that, as stated by Mr. this conduct soo a n a r y n greater 12n in a ny of property in the Punjaub was other part of the country. The effect of for troops. From nifested itself in the continued demand marched into the every Punj a u b , so in India British troops were naay taz u t , W so ee tha die t e w ev h e e r n ed th th e artebesilrli J. broke cut the extraordi Law rence had 30,000 British troops in the Punjaub whilst there THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY . EVgNIII6, FEI3RIJA.RY 10, IE I 6O. • ......mm••••• * were only 1,300 between Delhi and Calcutta, a distance of upwards of 1,000 miles. This policy in the Punjaub was undoubtedly the cause of the temporary success of the mutiny, and in fact the standard of re6ellion never would ' have been raised at all had it not been for the absence of European troops. When Sir J. Lawrence, Brigadier Cham 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 lisped and trusted, the house would not consent to piece such a burthen upon .the people of this country, at all eventafor past debts, what ever if might do with regard to the future, the Government ought to make 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 se 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 hadlloo,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 he wanted to see wasaction on thepart of the Govern ment, but he 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 full y considered by several leading men in India, but more esrecially by Mr. Campbell and Sir H. Frere, to whose opinions he might refer. He firmly believed that if a different system of government was tce: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 be is force of 22,000 European troops kept in tho 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 result. (Hear,) He would recommend the hon. member who intro duced this question not to press the motion to a division. Ccl. SYKES directed the attention of the house to the state of the Indian finances in 1800 and at the present time. In MOO the debt was £14,000,000, at an interest of 8, 10, or 12 per cent. In 1857 the debt was L 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 cant. In 1800 the revenue was £10,000,000. In 185 . 7 it was £33,000,000; but in April of charges in India and in this country, there was a balance of that year, after a loan of £ 2 , 000 , 000 , and after meeting all £82,000. Now that the people of India a 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 s. Half that number, he should say, would be amply ufficient for all purposes. At the present moment the pressure of the interest on the debt was not more than 12± per cent., while in 1807 it was 151 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, and 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.) Every 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 natives that had preserved to us the Punjaub during the late disturbances in India, and almost everybody knew its (Hear.) Mr. ENVART 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 ing 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. membor whospoke last, said he was not aware in what position the licensing bill at present stood. Theineasure was first introduced as a licensing 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 crate 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 dart of the people. The remarks made in the course of the discussion would show that it was the intention of the Government to relieve the Supreme Council of India of a part of its control over minute local matters. He 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 he had made an attack—of which he had given no 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 John 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. DANBY SEYMOUR referred 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 five days, with the obnoxious clauses omitted ' • but this was only after publi c a tt en ti on h a d b een di rec t e d to the unjust ness of that measure. Ile thought it most important that all matters affecting the progress and government of India should be welt considered at home, and that the officers of the Government in Leadenhall-street should have a perfect knowledg3 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 surelor licensing trades and professions as that which was complained of in the petition from 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 be attended with very great dif ficulty. (Hear, hear.) After a few weds 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 aelect committee in Ist/lia, the motion was withdrawn. of weight, against the enjoyment of that:indulgence which is now conceded to hon. members on Friday evenings. (Hear, hear.) 'Sir G. LEWIS concurred in the observations made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, and said ho should himself have risen to express his opinion on the motion if he had not felt it might be considered invi dious for any 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 riot so. On the contrary, the members of the Government were the last persdns 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. He should, therefore, give his vote against the reso lution. . ZMr. A. STEUART said, of course, after such an expres sion 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. DUNCOMBR, 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 similarcorninissions were appointed for the boroughs of Can terbury, Hull, Cambridge, Maldon. and Barnstaple. In 1854 be pursued the same course as that which he was now pur suing —he had moved 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 accounted 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 attentionhasbeert directed." At Malden they reported thattorrupt 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 rupt Practices Prevention Act" had just passed, and the noble lord the member for the city, who seemed very proud of it said, " Let Is 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 p o i n t, an d re fl ec t e d great credit on the commissioners by whom it had been drawn up- ' In the Gloucester case it was reported 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 Legislature 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 for a candidate. Mr. Price was one of the members who was chosen, and Mr. Monk was the other. The orders given by the city of Gloucester on 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 puffing 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 easel. 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 oar 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 colleaguo 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 depraved 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; ho 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 tinguished from the expense of the petitions, though he ad mitted having seen the election auditor's account, which represented his expenditure as £6lO 12s. ld., the fact being that it exoeeded £1,700. Mr. Lovegrove, his agent, when questioned upon the matter, stated that Sir R. Car den did incefirs how much had been expended upon the election, and liow much upon the petitions in 185/ • that he supplied him with the information, and that Sir R. Car den—of whoni Mr. Lovegrove said, "Heis a man of basi 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 °ces sion of its final settlement in. August, 1847. After this very candid. _evidence, given by a gentleman who, as ex- Lord Mayor and a member of the Stock Exchange, must be supposed to know something, of. figures, the commis sioners still gave him a certificate of indemnity; bat 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 R. 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 was proposed for this state of things by the Government, or by gentlemen on the opposite side of the house P (Hoar, hear.) The proposals which they had as yet beard were eonfinod to making the Corrupt Practices et more strin- 4 gent. One hon. and learned gentleman, the member for Nottingham, proposed to make bribery a misdemeanour, punishable with imprisonment and hard labour; and another hon. and learned gentleman proposed that if this were insufficient the sentence should be changed to penal servitude. The ease of Wakefleld_liketylse went to show that some step on the partof the Legislature was tively called for. The freemen, to the extent of some 300 or 400, had been greatly blamed in the Oloeester report— he strongly suspected that the freemen were very often made the scapegoats for the iniquities of other persons— (hear, hear)—but in 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. Leatherll, the Liberal candidate, spent at least £3,900, of which only £ll7B passed through the auditor's account, and the rest was disbursed in illegal payments ; that Mr. Lea thern 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. Charlesworth, the Conser• yatiye candidate, spent £1,150, of which only £652 passed through the auditor's hands, and that £1,600 at least was expended in bribery. They also stated that Mr. Charles worth, having provided the fund out of which the bribery, in fact, was afterwards carried on in his behalf, designedly abstained up to the election from inquiring as to the man ner in whlen that fund was being employed, having before the election the means of knowing and pod grounds to sus pect the manner of its disposal, The Commissioners added that 58 parsons were guilty of bribery in respect of the votes of other persons, th a t FO persona wor t ) guilty of bribery in respect of their own votes, and that 12 others were guilty of bribery not on one side only, but on both. (Laughter.) They found that it was generally anticipated y partii sans en both sides, for p tir ri p 1 3@ k ti V4p F @cc oR, tMt recourae he lrf; tt Wore? by Oleic , respective oppo nents; and they a clod, "that the fact that bribery was being carried on on both sides was before the election a matter of common notoriety throughout the borough, and excited but a scanty measure of disapprobation even on the part of those who did not actually join in the work of cor ruption." (Hear.) That was the state of things at Wakefield just before the election; and he (Mr. Duncombo) 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 inhabitants, 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 fur 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 which bribery 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 more 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 make 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 even t s ma k e the experiment. (Hear, hear.) If it failed, they would be only just where they were. (Cheers.) But if it succeetied, 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 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 duo notice was given of the intention to move that they be 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 not express asty 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 tions take place an exceptional mode of voting 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 was 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 them. (Laughter.) Thereis a great difficulty in dis tinguishing between this and a general measure. If the measure of vote by ballot is good let it be applied simulta. steously 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, and let us consider whether some other means may not be found et' 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 ? (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 I") 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)—whore it has had the widest trial, and where the character of the people most resembles that of the people of this country—l mean the United States—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 aro worthy of any consideration, and who have described the state of things in America, has concurred and does concur in affirming that the mode of voting in that country is not a system of secrecy. (Hear, 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 d 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 floe 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 one 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, be argued with considerable plausibility that secret voting would render bribery not more difficult, while it would insure impunity to the persona by whom it was committed. But without going into the general question, I think this experiment is inexpedient. If the ballot is a preservative against bribery and intimidation, are you jus tified in stopping at two boroughs ? If you deal in an exceptional manner with them and inflict some penalty for their abuse of their electoral privileges, it will preclude us hereafter front any proper consideration of the subject, and anticipate the decision the house might come to on this difficult question. I shall give my vote against the motion. Mr. CROSSLEY said. when the ballot was proposed as a general measure the right loon. 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 hen. gentleman said, Do not try it on those two bad bo rougris alone ; apply it generally. Why not let them try it, in this small way, and see if it would not antiwar Q (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was illogical in his are/trams. If the ballot were tried on a small scale and did not answer, it would be a stronger argument against applying it gene rally. Why, there was a gentleman, a member of the Go vernment, who load 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 how every man had voted. (Laughter and oh l) He could assure those who reeeived this statement with some degree of incredulity that till a scrutiny took place the ballot vote was quite septet; if a scrutiny was required the aeorecy 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 imptession he had derived from those reports differed widely from that of the hon. menthes. for Finsbury. The conclusion he drew front the evidence wad this, that as longas there were gentlemen ambitions caleezra. ing members of Parliament, and Vet Kuteuted to represent nothing but strong beer and bankenotsS, no possible law, enactment, lie machinery that could be devised by the House of COMUIOII6 would prevent bribery and corruption. No fact disclosed by the reports of the comniissiono appeared to share this conclusion. So long aa public opinio n sa nctioned the pres en t s y s t em a ll attempts to step bribery would be utterly futile, (Hear, hear.) The experi ment proposed by the motion had been trieele; not long ago there was a contested election for the buroug,h of iteitgate. There were four or five Liberal candidates, and it was agreed that they should submit their *jute to a sort of pre liminary ballot. They cli(lsio % Lind one of the candid a t es w h o was rejookod Icy it ofiarw4rda published an address to the elsetur§, irk which 140 distinctly stated that irregular and improper Moans 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 honiceoputhic form—he 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 OPlAAllili. The ballot had produced an iron dedpciti4o in Fmnee—(cries of No)--41 had not put all end to intimidation and bribery in the 0 ,4 ,1 0 Statci, (dear, hear.) He had been informed by. a noble lord not thou in ~he house (Lord Bury) that while on _k k rica a member of Congress load shown hint his pull-book, containing the hattleaa 211,000 electors, with a statent of how erl(tli naafi had voted during the; troduee in 'That was the system which it was tosspooe4 pol l o d, (Hoar. to . in say that if this country. (No, and hear,) Ile " al ,, d tr on ,, l r st the world any one would point ant to him .; ° ", - " rovon t a ti vo o f where the s ystem (tithe ballot had aotect bribery and intineidatkm he would support it, ot P lait until then ho should continue to believe that the best remedy for these evils wee to be found in a more elevated condition of public; opinion. - (lleac, hear.) Mr. ROUPELL Lein , * personally cognizant of the transactions at Reigate to which the last speaker had referred admitted that the first experiment lord boon unsuccessful because the right system had not boon adopted. (Laughter and hear.) The ballet meant secret voting, and unless secrecy wore insured it was not the ballot. (Hear.) The first experimout made at Reigate was to send a card to Oaoh e•lookar with the names of all the can didates ihaoribed thereon, leaving the elector to strike out all but his C.IAWT4 eandiaate. But; the consequence was the wealthiest candidate bought up most of the tickets, (Loud laughter.) That was not the ballot, it 'yak ticket voting, quite . a different thing. vot er 4kystelli Was then adopted, that \still Arti . 11441 4kU(..%,)isksful in Au s t ra li a. *),V .1t os. upon entering an outer room lyo 4 err given to him upon whi c h he Top t h Q nAra e. of the candidate he Fq crre d that system gave perfect satisfaction to. ,?4114trt1eS:' Mr. BENTINCK thought tip sPpO) 'her* mem ber for Finsbury had draeirill i ) s cb.:WO ,,, ri , j , , 1 • or-ithe =Se which he was advocating, for he said if the house wished to screen bribery and corruption it would reject his motion. He (Mr. Bentinck) contended that the adoption of the hon. mem ber's motion would be really screening bribery and corrup tion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member said his plan would prevent a repetition of the late bribery and perjury. It might, indeed, prevent perjury, because there would be no means of detecting the bribery. The hon. niember for Fins bury also said that the electorsof Gloucester and Wakefield were in favour of the ballot. Of course they were. They had been proved to be guilty of the grossest venality and corruption, and as a pen a lty th e new wr i ts had been sus pended.; but the hon. member wished to give them a period of 10 years' uninterrupted enjoyment of their favourite amusement at the expense of any candidates that might offer themselves. (Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member said, if his plan succeeded it would prove the success of the ballot. It would be sure to succeed, for once the ballot system was applied to Wakefield and Gloucester the bribery could be carried on without detection. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was wrong in saying that the hon. member for Finsbury wished to inflict punishment upon those venal electors. On the contrary, it was a reward which he would bestow upon them. (Hear, hoar.) Upon a former eccasion he (Mr. Bentinck) had ex pressed a conviction that the only resulf of the ballot would be to prevent the detection of bribery, and the noble lord, now Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had concurred in that opinion. He would like to know whether the house was dealing with this matter with clean hands ,• whe ther the more guilty party was the comparatively poor and ignorant man who took £5 for his vote, or the gentleman of distinction who abardoned his poli tical principles, and was guilty of gross political ter giversation in return for a place and perhaps a salary of £5,000 a year. (Laughter, and cries of ' Name I") The name was legion. (Cheers and laughter.) The poor man who accepted a bribe merely added his unit to swell the majority or the minority at a contested zlection; but the distinguished public character who was gushy of such con duct dceived and betrayed millions of his fellow-men, who had placed him in the position he occupied on account of the principles he professed. (Hear.) Was such a man fit to sit in judgment upon the poor fellow who got £5 for his vote ? It was very much as though a tiger after destroying human life and ravaging flocks and herds wore called upon to pass judgment on the predatory habits of the mouse ; and in this case so long as tigers abounded he trusted the mouse would be leniently dealt with. (A laugh.) The hon. mem " her (Mr. Buncombe) seemed fond of experimental legisla tion. Now, if they were to experimentalise on this ques ' tion it would be better and more just first to try the process on themselves. For example, by way of testing the advan tages of secret voting, the house might decide in that way whether it was advisable or not to deal in the present year with the question of reform. (Laughter.) Possibly the results of such an experiment would somewhat startle the hon. member for Birmingham and his friends. (Hear.) The proposal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) was so monstrous that the house could not entertain it, for it would, in fact, confer a reward where the wish was to in flict 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 open act and that which his hon. friend (Mr. Dun corube) 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, and should put every difficulty in the way of their receiving bribes. Hesclid 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 ballot 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 'lon. friend wishes to correct. And if I were disposed to acquiesce in any plausible proposal for the partial and local applice!,ion of that to :which upon general grounds I objected, any such disposition would be removed by 4 1 0 can d our, 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 cere advocate of the ballot, should recommend the motion which he has made to-light ; 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 say that in my opinion there is another circumstance which 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 syste m o f o p en vo ti ng , w hi c h compels every elector to declare for 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 of secret voting, have 100 electors who would be so bribed. (Hear, hear.) In fact, all those electors who were disposed to take bribes would present themselves to each of the opposing candidates at an election, or communicate with him by means of an agent, would accept of a bribe frees him, and would have no difficulty, at the same time, in promising to vote for both. (Hear, hear.) Now, in the case of open voting, the bad faith of those 12 elootom to whom my hon. friend alluded became notorious, and thus far a check was imposed upon others— their number might be I,2oo—who, if a system of secret voting were established, would be quite ready to accept bribes from both particle. 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 fre quen tly as t h e expe di ency of adopt ing the ballot has of late years been pressed upon the conaideration of the House of Commons, the example of America in this respect has not been very par ticularly relied upo n by th e supporters of the measure. (Hear, hear.) The truth is that the system which prevails in America 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 hero a system of secret voting unless you snake a man liable to a penalty who discloses the way in which he happens to have voted. (Hear, hear.) Any such propo sa l, th ere f ore, as t h at which my hon.i friend has made, in order to be effectual, must not be simply permis sive, and would therefore deserve to be characterised—as my right hon. friend 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 fall to the ground, and that in resorting to the ballot you are only taking a roundabout way of securing that publicity which now exist s . F or th ese reasons I feel i t t o b e my duty to oppose the m o ti on un d er t h e cons i derat i on o f the house. (Cheers.) Mr. CHILDERS sa id th a t h e h a d i n the con rse of the discussion been appealed t o by th e h on . me mber for the West Riding (Mr. Crossley). He m i g ht be permitted briefly t o ~,e work . - state to the h ouse th e resu l t o f hi s ex perience ea 7.1 1. ad been ing of the system o f secre t vo ti ng which introduced intohl A esta blished in A us t ra li a . Th e b a ll o t had 3. that bribtrv, that country, as the best means bt preventing tone time had been corruption, and treating -; , , , hich h : might add, carried out exceedingly prevalent, machinery andwa i s frerent from that by which r tl a y pi a dit s y pe i i n es r o sc f ordiiegthe i It was, in short, a modified votes d ca. of electors rather than secrecy was secured in under d u e n r t i t l h a e operation coutmit te e o f composed which every t system of vote by ballot,A wan'e vote was kept . s Legislature had been appointed to make a lumbers of th scrutiny lector had voted might, if his vote were of theevLoteegsisat a particular election, and then the 7b 4 T ec ta w t h o i , eh be ed a a n s y Crtained. The machinery by which that was as follows :—After the nomination of end was attained the candidate the n e u le m r k be o r f e t f h v e e p ti e n a g ce pa se p n er t e, t b o a t r h i e ng se t v heerna l atnre turningf e - of eac h o 7 liee the r c s a a ndidates who had been nominated written in or d er , and containing instructions by which the e l ector Wasdirected to erase the names of those candidates for whom be did not mean to vote, leaving u n t ouc h ed the names of those whom he desired to supp or t. E ach of the voting Dpaperswas signed on the b ac k b y th e returning officer him el,, e, and as each voter cam e u p on the polling-day he was as ked v- such questions as we re usua ll y put in this country in such oases, 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 those candidates for whom he did not intend to vote, and that having been done the paper was placed, in the presence of the returning offloer, In the electoral urn. At the close of the election the returns were made, and from that moment until an election committee was appointed—if such should be the case—to enter into a scrutiny of the votes—when the manner in which every elector voted might be ascertained—the utmost secrecy in the matter was observed. If a petition were pre sented to the house claiming a scrutiny either on the ground of bribery or personation, it was as easy to ascertain for whom tho challenged voter gave his vote as under the sys tem prevalent in thist country. And what had been the re sult of the ballot ustralia ? That was the main ques tion. It had been in operation for nearly five years. Ile was himself elected under its provisions. The whole elec tions in Victoria since 1855 approached to 200 ; how many there had been in the whole of Australia he did not know. In the whole of flew 200 there had been only two cases of anything approaching to the electoral irregularities in this country—only two cases in which petitions had been pre sented ; end it was as easy to prosecute a petition tinder tho 1 Australian ballet as here. One of these petitions com plained of treating, and in that case the member was un- i . sealed. An o th er complained of bribery. Three voters i were bribed ; the charge was brought home w ith th e greatest ease, and that member also wall unseated. There had also been, 4 case of intimidation, but that was a case of religioea difference ending in animosity. He must admit that tho, Australian ballot was , not perfect. It hadunques- i liably ita \mak point, and he would state it candidly. It j Wt) , S %Vie, that where there were more than one member to be returned by Oft end ef t the pea led those who w ere de a co- o4uency th,o feet of the vot es not being k nown t o' eided partisags to 'etc f 43 their own friends in preference (to the men who were somewhat neutral. In the first elec. tion, for instance, there were five to be returned, and though there were 50 candidates, the average number voted for were only two or three. The ballot worked best at single elec tions ; and it had this strong point, that it put a stop altogether to afternoon bribery, which prevailed to a great extent. (Hear, hear.) That was entirely stopped by the ballot for this simple reason, that it was just as easy to bribe a man at half-past eight in the morning as at half-past three ' • and the numbers b e i ng un k nown t i ll the end of the poll, there was no temptation to raise the price on the pre tence of a close run. (Hear, hear.) The house had now the opportunity of carrying out an experiment which might, indeed, be doubtful, but could at any rate do no harm. Wakefield and Glocester were pretty much in the position of political suicides. They were dead bodies lying on their table • it was for the house to deal with them as they thought proper. They were the Burgeons, with power to make an experiment whi c h cou ld not hurt dead bodies, but might be of the greatest use to society and to the political institutions of the country. He hoped the house would agree to give practical application to a principle which was dear to the great majority of the people and to hon. members who sat on his side of the house. He would assuredly sup port the motion of his hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. SHELLEY (amid loud cries of "Divide") appealed to the Government, after the speech they had just heard, showing the entire success of the ballot in Australia, to withdraw their opposition to a motion which was supported by the Liberal party in that house. Everything said by the Home Secretary had been contradicted by what had fallen from the hon. member for Pontefract. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied, he was sure the house felt exceedingly indebted to the hon. member for Ponte fract for the very able and interesting statement he had made in reference to the ballot—(hear)—and he personally begged to thank him for the valuable support he had given to his motion. With regard to the argument of the noble lord at the head of the Government, he had only to say that he put this forward as an experiment, and nothing else. lie wanted the experiment to be tried, and he used the expression of one of the candidates for Glocester when he said that he wanted to get in the thin end of the wedge, hoping that he would soon 'o able to drive it home. (A. laugh.) Great measures were nit carried in a day. They must proceed by slow degrees. It was thus they carried Jewish emancipation. It was by takln Baron Rothschild from behind the bar and placing him 1L one of their com mittees and to meet the peers in conference that they were enabled to convince all rational men that the contest was an end, and the result was that they had now four hon. and. distinguished members of the Jewish persuasion represent ing ie that house large and important constituencies, while the British constitution and the Establish e d Church, which it was said would perish the day a Jew took his seat, stood. exactly where they were ; and so it would be with their representative system after the ballot was introduced. The house then divided ; the numbers were— Ayes Noes Majority against the motion ---31 The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers by the supporters of the motion. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and sail that perhaps it would be convenient that he should inform the 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 place to. , morrow and make his financial statement. (Hear, hoar.) CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS, &c., 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. t•PIRITS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. V. SCULLY moved the second reading of this bill, but while he was explaining its provisions, at the request of Col,DuNzin, An HON. MESIBER 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. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. 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 Glott cester and the borough of Wakefield, the electors thereof give their Votes by way of Ballot:"—The house divided; ayes 118, noes 149, AYES-263. Adam, W. P. Goldsmid, Sir F. Peto, Sir M. Alcock, T. Gower, F. L. Pilking - ton, James Atherton, W. Hadfield, Geo. Pollard UrquhartW Baines., E. Hankey, Thomson Redmond, J. E. Bass., M. T. lianmer, Sir J. Robertson, D. Baxter, W. E. Hennessy, J. P. Roebuck, J. A. Bagley, Thomas Ingram, 11. Rothschild,Baron L Peale, Samuel Jackson, W. Rothschild Baron II Bellew, R. M. James, Edwin Roupell, W. Biddulph,;Col. R.M. Kershaw, J. R usse ll , A . J . R . Biggs, John Kinglake, A. W. St. Aubyn, J. Black, Adam Kinglake, Scrj. J. Salomon.A,Alderinan Bonham-Carter, J. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Salt, Titus 13rocklehurst, John Knatchbull-llugess Scholofie.d, W. Buller, Sir A. Laing, S. Scott, Sir W. Campbell, W. F. Langston, J. 11. 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 Lsatham, 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, M. Crook, Joseph McEvoy, E. Sykes, Col. W. H. Crossley, Frank Marjoribanks, D. C. Talbot, C. R. M. Dalglish, Robert Marshall, W. Tite, Wm. Davey, It. Martin, P. W. Deasy, Richard Mellor, John Douglas, Sir C. Merry, James Duke, Sir James Mitchell, T. A. Ellice, E., jun. Monson. W. J. v l T N r ° ll iv e l I ; l i w nr. c f a, Watkins,l y i h t , J. e :S ..i i lf il L r l. 0. 3 ... :. 4 5 . it e.. . • Westhead, B. Esmonde John Morris, D. Whalley, G. H. Noble, J. Wickham, H. W. Ferguson, R. Norris, J. T. Williams, W. lion. H. W. North, F. Wyld, James Foley, F }l: r :Nt t zi e gi l iegtriil H. .1 ' 11. E. 1 (1; V ..• °lNapier, Osborne, riens l pi Bernal r C n . a l Forster. Charles TELLERII. Gavin, Major Paget, C. Gibson, T. M. Paxton, Sir J. Duncombe, T. t Gifford, Earl of Pease, If. Ayrton, A. IL NOE 4-234. Arelidall, Capt.M.E. Hallburton, Justice Papillon, P. 0.,,,, 1 Baillie, H. J . Hardy, Gathorne l'arker, Majot W. Baring, Thomas Hartopp, E. 13. Patten, J. W. Barrow, W. H. Henley, J. Paull, H. Bathurst, A. A. Herbert, Col. P. E. P eacoc k , G. I. Beecroft, G. S. Hervey, Lord A Philips, J. IL Bentinck, G. W. P. Hood, Sir A. Powys, L. P. Beutinck, G.C. Hope, G. W. Puller, C. W. Blackburn, P. Hopwood, J. T. Quinn, Peter_ Bottleld, Beriah Horsfall, T. B. Re ton,. G. W. j. Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Ilotham, Gen. Lord Ridley, Sir M. W. • Brooks, It. Howard, Hon. C. Rogers, John Browne, Lord J. I'. Howes, Edward Selater-Booth, (I. Bruce, C. L. C. Hume, W. Selwyn, C. J. Burghley, Lord Hunt, G. W. Seymer, H. K. Caruac, Sir J. It., Bt. Jermyn, Earl Shirley, E. P. Cartwright, Col. 11. Johnstone, Hon. 11. Sibthorpe, G. T. 'W: Cave S. Jolliffe, Sir W. Smith, M. T. Cavernlish, Lord G. Kekewich, S. Smith, Abel - • Cecil, Lord R. Kelly, Sir P. Smith, S . G. .. Clinton, Lord B. Kendall, N. Smolien, A. • - • Close, M. C. King, J. K. Spooner, It. Cochin. -ton, Sir W. Knatchball, W. S tan h ope, J. B. ~ Cole, J. L. W Knox, Major W. S Steuart, A. Collins, T., jun. Lacon, Sir E. Stewart Sir M. IL Denman, G. Leeke, Sir 11. Stull, H. G. I L . e cfg h h ' t l o l u F. , Sir B. Thompson, H. 3- Dickson, Col. Lefroy, A. Taylor, .Colonel. ', Tempest, Lord lA . ; Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Thynne,.Lord R. TutD isr ico a ao e l l i. ebe, I C l: ili rd va,..s a .B in . i n Dunne, Col. tsco i li ir nt J. Lopes, Liddell, Hon. H. G. Thynne, Lord It Edwards, Major H. Longlield, Robert Tolletnache, J. 11, , Sir H., Bt. Torrens R. ~.. Estcourt, Se, Lyall, G. Lord Trefusis, Hon. C. IL Valetort, Lord Ferguson, Sir It. A. Lytton, Hon. P. Vance, John Eilmer, Sir E. Macaulay, K. Vandeletit, Col. Finlay, A. S. Mackie, J. Vansittart, Writ. Forde, Lt.-Col. W. Martin,J. l E : l lp in h l i e l Y is * to l' Vernon, L. V. Forster, Sir G. Matheson, A. Walker, Jameit, IL. Foster, W. O. . Miller T. Walsh, Sir J. I. Gard, R. S. Montagu, Lord , Watlington, Garnett, W. J. M cO. S. Winnington, Sir T. organ, C. Ga rn e tt, W. M. George, John Mowbray, Rt. Hn. J. Wise, J. A. Gladstone, Ca ~ Mure David Wood, lit H. Bir_c. Goff, Cat pt. Naas, lit. Hn. Lord Wyndham, Capt. IL Gordon, C. pain Northcote, Sir S. H. Wynn, COL W. Gore, J. It. (:), Packs, G. H. Gray, Pakington, Sir J. S. TILI,Ellti. . , Gro William Palk, L. Mills, A. gan, Sir Edward Palmerston, Vint Gurdon, B. • PAIRS ON RR. DUNCOMBE'S MO TION FOR THE' BALLOT. For Against • .1.). Ilouverie „Sir F. Heygate Mr. I Valdron—Mr. Dawson Mr. Locke Mr. Davison Sir 11. F. DavieSirM Farquhar, Mr. 0. Ricardo Ld Holmesdale Mr. Woods.... Mr. W. Long , Mr. Bowyer ..Mr. Bond Mr. Maguire . . H. Wyndham Sir It. Levinge Sir H. Cairns K. Hodgson ..Mr. A. Baring J. A. Turner ..Mr. It. A. Cross Col. Greville ..Col. Lindsay J. L. Ricardo.. Sir W. Verner Mr. Wemyss ..Maj. Hamilton Mr. ConinghamCol. Forester , nnell Colonel KNOX paired against the Church-rates' Abolithill. Bill with Sir IV. Scott for. Mr. DUDLEY FORTESCUE was prevented being iiY place in the House of Commons on Wednesday to supo Sir John Trelawny's motion on church rates, biting finel to the house by indisposition. [ADVIIRTISMIINT.]—EPPS'S (Honaceopathie Chet - 40 COCOA.—This esteemed preparation is sold by the pn"- oipal grocers at 1 8 . 6d. per lb . , i n 11b ., ilb., d packets. Each packet is labelled " James Epps, Ilotaaie• pathic chemist, London." ..~ BIRTRI3. Bion.-011 the 7th inst., at Barnard'a-green, (hint • Teri, the wife of Charles J. Bate, Esq., of aeon. Calarnma..—On the Bth inst., at 11, Blootntiuld-ttin'art Paddington, the wife of John Campbell, Esq., daughter. CHATLIN.—On the sth inst., at Chilton Rectory, bit the wife of the Rev. Edward M or l an d Ch ap li n, daughter. • MARRIAGE 8. • Asintuirsitia—FOLEY.—On the Bth inst., at St. 0e6112 Hanover-square, Major-General the Hen. Tito Ashburnham, C. 8., to the Hon. Adelaide Georgiitill Foley. , at DOUGLAS—BAITER.—On the 7th i ns t., a t the pan . e& • church, Mancetter, Stephen Francis Douglas, 2144 Commander R.N., to Mary Louisa, eldest daughtai Stafford S. Baxter, Esq., of Mancetter Manor. DEA.THIC. a laxcoLL.—On the Bth inst., at Herstmoneeaux, Stibi Thomas Arkeoll, Esq., aged 77. 13-tDMAN.—On the 4th inst., at Wells, Somerset, Mr. Ji Badman, aged 72. ig CROMPTON.—On. the 7th inst., at Duffield Hall, d Derby, John Bell Crompton, Esq., aged 75. Et.wooD.—On the Bth inst., at Clayton Priory, Sag", Colonel Charles William Elwood, aged 79. 4 LAWTON.—On the 7th inst., at Lawton Hall, Chee, Charles Bourne Lawton, Esq., aged 89 years anfl. months. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Bun Office, No. L 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count/ 9. Middlesex, Friday, February 10, 1860. Tor . ' AMICK, Mr. G. Duff Mt..MittOr4l. Mr. Monsell „Sir W.,M110 Mr. Gregsou Major . Xtiat !Sir J. Ogilvy Mr. Bolt, Mr Cobbett .. Mr. WbitAiiotb Mr. Bristow —Gem liotita Mr. Butler. —Mr. Mr. Bright.... Mr. Ktut d Mr. Cal rd .... Capt. „tei ~ Mr. J. Greene 31r Richard/Wit Mr. Adair ....Mr. SlalL • Mr. Dillwyn ..Mr. God !Mr. Copeland Mr. Soli ev Dr. Lyons Mr. J. Wfit ,Mr. O'Connell Col.Pakeni THE FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS. Mr. A. STEUART moved the followinc , resolution: — "That it would tend to the regularity oedebate, on the motion for adjournment on Fridays, if the clerk were in structed to pima in their order on the paper, one after an other, all questions to be addressed to each particular morn • ber of the Government." He thought if the plan poirted out in this resolution were adopted it would go far to esta blish some sort of prder in the discussions which took place on Friday evenings, wad prevent this house from being obliged to travel from India to county rates in Ireland. (Hear, and a lauh.) The SPEAKER having put the question, Mr. DI SR AELT said—l had supposed, sir, that some noble lord or right hon. gentleman, in some manner responsible for the conduet of the business of this house, would! have risen to favour us with his opinion on thip matter. (Hear, hear.) I have not given the motion of my Iron. friend all that consideration which, perhaps, it deserves. I have been obliged to form may opinion of it from. his few observations. It t nd while you, sir, were giving it to us from the chair, but P (Hear.)aPe to me 1 have that tawa h l t su i ;po hou rted se al o e ug p h ri t vi n le o g t to privilege jaodoycdpt, by hon. members on Friday of bringing under the considera tion of the house all questions of pressing and general into tldl r ot e l aurt ordinary en w a, h ,rb i yj c: d t a i Is. r oc e nu s st o soi c o o tnh n se: B n r y e ti o u s a t tt inte rest, it i yo l re subject a P t lh r at :::iymitehsgaoei:ligeteehrra:ineenrk9, it is for the public advantage continuance of that indulgence was that the inquiries made on Friday evenings were assuming tha form of debates ; and I leave always though: that they should not take that form —th a t tia,y should not interfere with the bustuuss of the evening. (H. r, hear.) The proposal of my hon. friend is, However, that they should become debates; for should you, sir, by an artificial contrivance put them amongst the busi ness of the house we should have a number of debates ar ranged in whi‘h lion. members might all deliver their opinions. (Hear, heat.) The object of my hen, friend's reso lution is that management which he proposes shoult,itend to quiries addressed to government talcingtke shape of formal the regularity fir debate ; but are , entirely ave tr r o se 4 t i o i t m h . e ota in d , pave e us th sir 4d vantage should be th4 ay fir, We g t 14) e an F if rid m a y y h ev °ll ening's a sort of c to on le u r e a r t s ed a: — i very cautious not on o e a , u w g h h i te ch o_ it is for r w r e he sh pub ouid to to allow it to deviate from that character. The resolution of my lion, friend would aggravate all those objections which may be fairly urged against the privilege which I have always advocated. I riotdd, 'therefore, call en . the house to pause before they adopt a 4014 fie WhiPh, if adopted, would lead to still greater inconvenience than that now felt, and which would still further strengthen those objections" w)4,l i c) aye not at present by any means devoid 0 .1.41110iir, 111 10. 11. 12. 13. ti ta ►ur! 1$• 1 4 7 b stir will 6t, are ■tna win stre TI van the aakr. laeu Ti eat tt Al P in d of V. bear ter, man Mai 1 )11?4 the i and P 3 RAI I ton tt }..1; Dr. riot Inn ; mad ton T ilk