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

THE, 'SUN, LONDON, PRIM"( EVENING, FEBIIIJARY 10, 160.

of weight, against the enjoyment of that indulgence which
is now conceded to hon. members on Friday evenings.

were only 1,300 between Delhi and Calcutta, a distance of
upwards of 1,000 miler,. This policy in the Punjaub was
undoubtedly the cause of the temporary success ofstiee
mutiny, and in fact, the standard of rebellion never world
have been raised ut all had it not been for the absence of
European troops: When Sir J. LaWrence, Brigadier Chant:-
berlayne, and Col. Edwardes were appointed a commission,
and the Governor-General asked how many troops were in ,
their opinion essential for the Punjaub, the answer was
22,000 European and 52,360 native troops. The whole of
her Majesty's troops in India, previous to the rebellion, was
22,000, and here these distinguished persons gave it as their
opinion that 22,000 were required for the Punjaub alone.
The fact was, that we governed India just as Austria go-
verned Lombardy—contrary to the wishes of the people, and
by the force of our bayonets and battalions. That was a
system that could never last, and the people of England
would soon find even the honour and glory of governing
India too expens ve a luxury, if it could only be attained by
those means. (Hear, hear.) There were one or two ques-
tions to which he wished to call the attention of the house.
In the first place, with regard to the Indian debt, a general
feeling had got abroad, and he was told- that it had had
some influence even on the Stock Exchange, that sooner:or
later the Government would take upon itself the responsi-
bility of the Indian debt. It was quite clear, if any such
intention existed, that it ought to be done at once, because
then the Government of India might be able to derive some
some advantage from it ; but if, as he hoped and trusted,
the house woud not consent to place such a burthen upon
the people of this country, at all events for past debts, what-
ever it might do with regard to the future, the Government
ought to snake an explicit declaration on the subject, so
that the public who had invested their money in Indian se-
curities might be acquainted with the nature of their gua-
rantee. (Hear.) Another question of still more serious
import was to the necessity to which we appeared to have
become liable of maintaining one hundred thousand British
troops in India. The point to be considered was, whether
it would be possible for us, even in time of peace, to provide
such a force whilst we attended to the wants of other colo-
nies, and kept a sufficient army in this country to give so
curity to the people that their hearths should not be in-
vaded, and that we should be enabled to maintain as of old
the honour of the country. There could not be a doubt that
the uneasiness which had prevailed owing to the military
preparations of France proceeded from a knowledge of the
fact that we hadiloo,ooo of our best soldiers in India, and
nothing but raw recruits in England. If those 100,000
trained soldiers were upon our southern shores, we might
laugh at all the naval and military preparations of France;
but the Government should state at once that they were not
able to maintain that force in India, and to provide for all
other purposes under the present system of recruiting.
What ho wanted to seewasaction on thepart of the Govern-
ment, but ho looked for it in vain. As had been stated
by the hon. member for Birmingham last year, the Go-
vernment of India was too unwieldy ; despatches remained
for months and even years unanswered, and this was a fruit-
ful source of difficulty and annoyance. [ln illustration of
this the hon. member alluded to the well-known case so
often referred to in Indian debates of the Rajah of Dhar.]
It had been suggested by the hon. member for Birmingham
that the Government of India should be divided into four
or five different governments, each with its own legislative
council, system of public works and finance. That question
had been fully considered by several leading men in India,
but more esaecially by Mr. Campbell and Sir 11. Frere, to
whose opinions he might refer. He firmly believed that if a
different system of government was to,:be adopted in India
we might dispense with one-half of our troops in that coun-
try. (Hear.) Sir J. Lawrence had stated that there should
he a force of 22,000 European troops kept in the Punjaub.
He hoped the Government would follow his advice, for if
they allowed the European force in the Punjaub to be too
much reduced, another rebellion might be the nsult.
(Hear.) He would recommend the hon. member who intro-
duced this question not to press the motion to a division.
Col. SYKES directed the attention of the house to the
state of the Indian finances in 1800 and at the present time.
In 1800 the debt was 1:14,000,000, at an interest of 8, 10, or
12 per cent. In 1857 the debt was £60,000,000, but the in-
terest had been reduced to 4 per cent. In 1800 the pressure
of the interest on the debt was 131 per cent., while in 1857
it was only 7 -per cent. In 1800 the revenue was
£10,000,000. In 1857 it was £33,000,000; but in April of
that year, after a loan cf £2,000,000, and after meeting all
charges in India and in this country, there was a balance of
£82,000. Now that the people of India had been disarmed,
and when there was scarcely a fortress for us to besiege,
100,000 troops would surely not be required for that coun-
try. Half that number, he should say, would be amply
sufficient for all purposes. At the present moment the
pressure of the interest on the debt was not more than
12i per cent., while in 1807 it was 15t per cent. He
saw no urgent necessity for the system of taxation which
had been proposed in India, and would suggest to the
right hon. gentleman to get his money here, an leave in-
creased taxation for a future period. If the hon. member
pressed the motion to a division, he should feel bound to
vote for it.
Col. P. HERBERT hoped it was not the intention of
the Government to make any large reduction in the salaries
of the civil servants of India. He was glad to learn that
they intended to give increased powers to the local govern-
ments. He believed, in spite of all that had been said to
the contrary, that much progress had been made in the ge •
vernment of India of late years. He did not agree with the
hon. member in thinking that India would be as a millstone
round the neck of this country. In all its wars India had
defrayed the charges out of her own revenue, and in this
country there was a direct expenditure of nearly £6,000,000
.out of the revenue of India. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KINNAIRD hoped the hon. member would with-
draw the motion. He rose to express his regret at some of
the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness. He re-
gretted that the hon. member, when the question of the
Punjaub was not under consideration, should have made an
attack on Sir John Lawrence, a man whom they all had rea-
son to honour. (Hear.) very one who knew Sir John
Lawrence, and was aware of his services, could not but re-
gard such an attack as uncalled for as it was ungenerous.
(Hear.) It was Sir John Lawrence's influence with the
n.aidvee that had prosorvail tnne the Pnnjenh timing: the
late disturbances in India, and, almost everyb-idy knew it.
(Hear.)
. Mr. EWART regretted that the hon. member for In-
verness had not limited his remarks to the question before
the house. He so far agreed with the hon. member in be-
lieving that the time•would come when our army in India
might be greatly diminished-. He was glad to learn that
the Government of this country were favourable to extend-
' iug the powers of the_ Legislative Council. He should,
however, like to hear whether the licensing system was to
be abandoned or modified. He believed that by good laws,
wisely administered, the connection between England and
India would be of the most beneficial kind.
Mr. BARING, in answer to the hon. member who spoke
last, said he was not aware in what position the licensing
bill at present stood. The measure was first introduced asn
licengng bill, but was changed into an income-tax bill. The
Legislative Council had adjourned, but though it had re-
cently met, it had not at the date of the last accounts, taken
the bill into consideration. It was not the license tax, but
the income tax that had incited opposition in India. In the
Punjaub a system of taxation, including the license tax had
been introduced without any opposition on the part of the
people. The remarks made in the course-of' the discussion
would show that it was the intention el the Government to
relieve the Supreme Council of India of a part of its control
over minute local matters. Ho thought that that alteration
Would lead to a better control of the expenditure of the coun-
try. He regretted that the hon. member for Inverness had
introduced the question of the Punjaub into the discussion,
and that ho had made an attack—of which he had given ao
notice—on so distinguished a public servant as Sir John
Lawrence. (Hear, hear.) Sir John Lawrence had no more
power over the disposal of the troops at Delhi or Cawnpore
than the hon. member had. It was the policy of Sir J ohu
Lawrence that had saved India. It was owing to the love
of the people and the affection of the native princes towards
him that he was enabled to send a force to the assistance of
our troops at Delhi. (Hear, hear.) Considering the posi-
tion which the hon. member had occupied, it was something
extraordinary that he should complain of the India Act of
last year. The hon. member had attacked Europeans for
their conduct in India, but in answer to the hon. member he
could not do better than refer him to the speech which the
noble lord the member for King's Lynn made, when Secre-
tary for India, on the subject.
Mr. DAN BY SEYMOUR referrei to the petition pre-
sented by Mr. Ewart from Calcutta, complaining of the
exemptions which were made in the Income-tax Bill of all
public officers connected with the Government from the
operation of that tax. It was quite true that that bill had
been withdrawn and another one substituted for it within
fiv e days, with the obnoxious clauses omitted ' • but this was
only after public attention had been directed to the unjust-
ness of that measure. He thought it most important that
all matters affecting the progress and government of India
should be well considered at home, and that the officers Of
the Government in Leadenhall-street should have a perfect
knowledg) of what was going on in reference to the admi-
nistration of the affairs of India, and hoped that very shortly
the Secretary of State for India would be able to give some
satisfactory answer respecting this license bill, which was
exciting. so much interest throughout India.
Mr. TORRENS deprecated the passing of such a mea-
sure for licensing trades and professions as that which was
complained of in the petition Irons Calcutta. The experience
which he derived from a somewhat lengthy residence in
India led him to believe that the attempt to carry out any
measure of the kind would lie attended with very great dif-
ficulty. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. VANSITTART to the effect
that he was satisfied with the discussion which his motion
had elicited, and with the statement of the Secretary of
State for India that the first three of his resolutions had
been submitted to a select committee iu India, the motion
was withdrawn.
THE FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS.
Mr. A. STEL Ala moved the following resolution:—
"That it would tend to the regularity of debate, on the
motion for adjournment on Fridays, if the clerk were in-
structed to place: in their order on the paper, one after an-
other, all questions to be addressed to each particular mem •
ber of the Government." He thought if the plan pointed
out in this resolution were adopted it would go far to esta-
blish some sort of order in the discussions which took place
o(ln,F:nelFaorr:idarianyhteavii,e4enlniin.hg.s), and prevent this house from Icing
obliged to travel from India to county rates iu Ireland.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. DISRAE LI said•—l had supposed, sir, that some noble
gentleman, in some manner responsible
for the conduct of the business of this house, wouldj have
to favour us
no
tw giveni h hi
the
opinionho m otithisoonnof nimr
hon.at ter. .
friend (1 (Hear,
r
)
rihthegaaatrn.conehleration which, perhaps, it deserves. I hive
obliged to form lay opinion of it from
t i nq,
and while you, sir, wsre giving it to u
it apneas to me that thi4 boos© h
'(Hear.) I have always supported thoeusapneasrs g:r'ritoNti raiictitgth to pt
ee chair,,
enjoyed
cd bat
hon.. members on Friday of bringing tinder the considera-
tion of the house all questions of pressing and general inte-
rest, which privilege I think it is for the public advantage
not to subject to those general regulations which are so con-
venient for the management of bur ordinary discussions.
Bat I have always understood that a grave objection to the
continuer('' of that indulgence was that the inquiries made
on Fri,l:iy evenings were assuming the form of debates ; and
I have aiway,: thought that they should not take that form
dtchbeatitie
amongsts; ft.,r should ,t,huledby;nc
—that they should not interfere with the business of the
evening. (Hear, hear.) The proposal of my hon. friend is,
sir. by an ar
• ;f the linuee we shonld have a number of debates ar-
reed in which hon. members might all deliver their
hOwevcr, thatiefit,chileiVesolutot'alri
should
abnTpmuet
opinions. (fie~i, should tend to
hear.) The object of my lion. friend's rear,.
lution is that management which he opo
taking the of formal-
quiries addressed, to Governm.ent ta t
'hon. friend would
discussion, which the resolution of my t f
the regularity of debate but I act ?up!'" lysesverse to the in
dvanta e should be
conversazione, which it is for the public a g
t. pave the for. We have on Friday
tolerated.—(laughter)—but we should be very cautious not
es enine's a sor o
those objections
of my hon. friend would aggravate all
to allow it to deviate from that charaeter.
which I
which may be fairly urged against the privilege
call on the
he resolution
have always advocated. I would, therefore, _
house to fauit before they adopt a course which,
it
adopted, would lead to still greater inconvenience than tlielA
now felt, and which would still further strengthen those
al
objections, which are not at present by any menus'tonrOlv

Sir G:I4ENVIS concurred in the observations made by
the right' hon. gehtleman the member for Buckinghamshire,
And- said he should himself have risen to exprtss his opinion
on the motion if he had net felt it might be considered invi-
dious for arty member of the Government to speak upon such
a subject before any other gentleman had spoken. An im-
pression seemed to prevail in that house that the members of
the Government had a sort of personal interest in shortening
debates on Friday night, and dedicating that night wholly to
"Government business," as it was called, but this was not so.
On the contrary, the members of the Government were the
last persons who would be likely to have an interest of that
kind. There was no doubt the effect of the resolution, if
carried, would be to render the interrogatories and their re-
plies more intelligible ; but it would also, by classifying all
the different subjects under heads and bringing them on to-
gether, produce ,o many distinct debates, and therefore make
the notices of motion take precedence of the orders of the
day. Ile should, therefore, give his vote against the reso-
lution.

—Mr. A. STETJART said, of course, after such an expres-
-r
mon of opinion, he should not attempt to divide the house
upon the question ; but he desired it should be understood
that his object in moving the resolution was not that attri-
buted to him by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and he did not see how
putting two questions together could possibly render it likely
that they would change their character of interrogatory and
assume that of debate.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
GLOCESTER AND WAKEFIELD ELECTIONS.—

VOTE BY BALLOT.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in moving for leave to bring in a
bill to provide that at the next elections for the boroughs of
Wakefield and Glocester the votes of the electors might be
taken by ballot, commenced by presenting a petition from
the Ballot Society, and another signed by 700 electors of
Glocester, in favour of the motion, adding that he was au-
thorised to say that if the house agreed to the second read-
ing of the bill the signature of 1,000 out of the 1,600 elec-
tors of Glocester would be procured to a similar petition
His object in making this motion was to endeavour to con-
vince the house, as he himself was convinced, that secret
voting was the only remedy for the corruption which had
been shown to exist. Last year that house thought proper
to address her Majesty, praying her to issue a commission
to inquire into the corrupt practices supposed to prevail in
these two boroughs. The commissions had been appointed,
had inquired, and had presented their reports. In 1854
similar commissions were appointed for the boroughs of Can-
terbury, Hull, Cambridge, Maldon and Barnstaple. In 1854
he pursued the same course as that which he was now pur-
suing—he had meved that the issuing of the writs for those
places be deferred until provisions had been made enabling
the electors to give their votes by ballot. The motion, how-
ever, was rejected. The commissioners for Canterbury re-
ported that "corrupt practices had prevailed there at the last
election and at previous elections"—and one gentleman said
the only way he could account for if was that Canterbury
was a cathedral city. (Laughter.) In the case of Cambridge
the commissioners reported that "bribery, treating, and
other corrupt practices had systematically prevailed for a
long period" in that borough. This was accometed for by an-
other gentleman by the fact that Cambridge was a univer
sity town, where there were a number of young gentlemen
being brought up for the church. (Laughter, and cries of
" Question.") The commissioners for Hull reported that
"systematic cerruption had uniformly prevailed at all elec-
tions for the borough of Hull, to which our attentionhasbees
directed." At Maldon they reported that corrupt practices
in various forms had prevailed, and in the case of Barnsta-
ple the commissioners reported that corrupt practices had
extensively prevailed at the last election, and that out of
696 voters 295 received bribes: Yet the house allowed these
boroughs to go on returning members and the reports to lie
on the table unheeded. Here were two more reports—was
the same course now to be pursued with regard to them ?
When he last made his motion, what was called the " Cor-
ruest Practices Prevention Act" had just passed, and the
noble lord the member for the city, who seemed very proud
of it said, " Let us grant the writs and see what this act will
do." It had been tried, and had it proved successful? Barn-
staple, one of the boroughs in which delinquency from time
immemorial had been established, was again about to be
tried, notwithstanding the Corrupt Practices Prevention
Act. But the noble lord, he thought, must admit that the
reason which he had given on the last occasion was un-
doubtedly bad; and he hoped he would inform the house
as to the nature of the remedy which he had now in store.
(Hear, hear.) Two commissions had been issued last year
and had made their report; that of the Gloucester commis••
sion extended over 33 pages, and that which had made in-
quiry into Wakefield consisted only of three pages, but these
were very much to the point, and reflected great credit on
the commissioners by whom it had been drawn up. In the
Gloucester case it was reperted that bribery had been prac-
tised in that borough from time immemorial—(" hear,"
and laughter)—and that with regard to all the accounts of
expenses which went before the auditor, "the auditor and
the agent only existed to deceive and delude the Legiilature
and the public." The commissioners also stated that in
1816 Colonel Webb spent £27,000, and in 1818 Admiral
Berkeley spent £16,000 in contesting elections at Glouces-
ter; but it was to be observed that elections at that time
were capable of being protracted for eight days. £3,000
a-day was still about the rate of expenditure. (Laughter.)
A. Reform Club .was formed in that city, and on the retire-
ment of Admiral Berkeley they came up to London to look
fur w ronriianto. 21St. Prico '71,1231 one of the member. who
was chosen, and Mr. Monk was the other. The orders given
by the city of Gloucesteron that occasion were that the can-
didate, whoever he was, must be an advocate of the ballot.
This, he thought, proved that the electors generally were in
favour of vote by ballot. (Ironical cheers and laughter.)
That their feeling was such, and that they were actuated by
a desire to prevent corruption—(renewed cheering by the
OppoSition)—would be proved by a petition which was to
be presented to the house, signed by 1,000 out of the 1,500
electors of the borough, declaring that the ballot was the
only means of .putting an end to the corruption which pre-
vailed. (Hear, hear) He had received a letter from one of
the inhabitants in forwarding the petition to him, in which
it was stated that,-
- If two or three days further had been allowed we might
have strengthened our case. We are not inherently cor-
rupt--(laUghter)—the Conservatives are in a large minority,
and if, for the sake of carrying their candidate, they will re-
sort, as they do, to extensive bribery, the Liberals consider
themselves morally, justified (peals of laughter) —in
slightly resorting to the same practices, and this is the true
solution of our present unfortunate position."
(Laughter.) He had also received a letter from Mr. Monk,
in which he said,—
"I am convinced in my own mind that if the votes had
been taken by ballot at the late election myself and my
colleague would at this moment be the representatives of
that city, instead of the victims of hypocrisy on the one
side and of misplaced confidence on the other. (Renewed
laughter.) I will not offer any remarks further than by
stating that the result of my experience at the last election
leads me to the conclusion that no amount of vigilance on
the part of the candidate can prevent bribery, but that the
best safeguard that can be devised against it is the ballot.
By getting in the thin end of the wedge in the cases of
Gloucester and Wakefield, I believe you will do more for it
than would be accomplished by ten years of agitation, and
most heartily do I wish you success. '
It appeared that Sir R. Carden was the Conservative can-
didate. He knew nothing at all about corruption, bribery,
or anything of that sort. It was true that through his means
St. Alban's had been disfranchised, and that at a former
election he had spent a very large sum of money at Glouces-
ter, and had succeeded in gaining his election. But, as was
stated by the commissioners,—
" Experience upon a nature so unsuspicious as Sir R.
Carden's was wholly thrown away. He had been a candi-
date for St. Alban's, the constituency of which he stigma-
tised as the most base and 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, he said, no reason why he should suppose
that Gloucester was venal, nor did his experience of the cor-
ruption of St. Alban's suggests the necessity or the pro-
priety of making any inquiries as to the character of the
expenditure at his election.
The report went on to say that Sir R. Carden denied all
knowledge of the expenses of his election in 1857, as dis-
tinguielsed from the expense of the petitions, though he ad-
mitted having seen the election auditor's account, which
represented his expenditure as £6lO 12s". Id., the fact
being that it exceeded £1,703. Mr. Lovegrove, his agent,
when questioned upon the matter, stated that Sir R. Car•
den did inquire how much had been expended upon the
election, and how niueli upon the petitions in 1857 • that
he supplied him with the information, and that Sir R. Car-
den—of whom I,lr. Lovegrove said, "Heis a man of busi-
ness, and I should say understood figures as well as any
man in England"—had the opportunity of seeing the sub-
joined account, which Mr. Lovegrove produced on the occa-
sion of its tine' settlement in August, 1857. After this
very candid evidence, given by a gentleman who, as ex.
Lord Mayor and a member lot the Stock Exchange, must
be supposed to . know something of figures, the commis-
sioners still gave him a certificate of indemnity; but in
summing up they found that W. P. Price and Charles J.
Monk were not privy to or cognisant of the corrupt prac-
tices which they declared had prevailed extensively at the
election of 1859. 'With regard to Sir 8.. Carden they were
altogether silent. Finally, they reported that "Corrupt
practices have for a long period prevailed at contested elec-
tions for members to serve in Parliament for the city of
Glocester." (Hear, hear.) 'What was the remedy which
ware proposed for this state of things by the Government,
or by gentlemen on the opposite side of the house? (Hear,
hear.) The proposals which they had as yet heard were
confined to making the Corrupt Practices Act more strin-
gent. One hen. and learned gentlemax, the member for
Nottingtrun, proposed to make bribery a misdemeanour,
snottier
imprisonmentm
aand
io r
opo hardse d labour;that
thisand
were insufficient the sentence should be changed to penal
ra lion.e withan learned gtle
servitude. Tho ease of Wakefield likewise went to show
that some step on the pert of the Legislature was impera-
tively called for. The freemen, to the extent of some 300
or 460, had been greatly blamed in the Glocester report—
he strongly suspected that the freemen were very often
'made the scapegoats for the iniquities of ether persons—
(hear, hear)---but ill the case of Wakefield there could be no
such allegation, that borough having been called into exis-
tence by the Reform Act of 1832. (Opposition cheers )
The Commissioners stated that at the last election Mr.
Le:Alta:in the Liberal candidate, spent at least £3,900, of
which only .f.;178 passed through the auditor's account, and
the rest was disbussed in illegal payments ; that Mr. Lea-
them provided the money with the intention that part of it
at least should be employed in bribery and corruption, and
that at least between £l,BOO and £1,900 was expended in
bribery. They found that Mr. Charlesevorth, the Conser-
vative candidate, spent X. 4,150, of which only £652 passed
eras
ahtihe:e; f'atulsn:ad
through the auditor's hands, and that £1,009 at least was
oxpiindrd
in feet,
siontua
ithcoi stated that
v,ttlehahi Mr.h e C
crib-'r}}',
ir
jabr 21
designedly
whichalf,
thatun emanner
o ff uitnaddwisapsosbale,ingTehneipelooyrnegid,ishsaiovnin: before
abstaiued up to the election from inquiring as to the man-
tnpheeecrteiniteh;ion the means of knowing and good grounds to sus-
that 98 persons were guilty of bribery in respect of the votes
of other persons, that 86 persons were guilty of bribery in
respect of their own votes, and that 12 others WPIV guilty of
Bribery not on one side only, bat on both, (fSausrl'er.)
They found that it was generally anticipated by the-parti-
sans on both sides, for some time before the election, that
q,
being carried, of
be had to bribery by their reeneetiye oppo.e.
nents ; and they added, " the fct thee bribery' we;
on 04 ieoth !es Vas before the electio4

matter of common notoriety throughout the borough, and '
excited but a scanty measure of disapprobation even on the
part of those whb t actually join in the work of cor-
ruption." (Hear.) That was the state of things at Wakefield
just before the election; and he (Mr. Duncombe) wished to
know, when it was stated that the fact that bribery was
being committed on both sides " excited but a scanty
measure of disapprobation" among the upper and middle
classes of the innabitants, how it could be any matter of
surprise that the humbler orders should have accepted
bribes. (Hear, hear.) The Commissioners found, lastly—
" Having regard to the length of time before the election
at which the preparations for the work of corruption were
commenced, to the large proportion (142 out of 866) of the
whole constituency engaged in corrupt practices and guilty
of bribery, to the number of persons (including .56, them-
selves electors) who voluntarily joined in the work of offer-
ing and giving bribes, to the zeal and skill they exhibited,
to the readiness with which their services were received and
their acts ad opted,to the open way in whichbribery was carried
on by the canvassers and discussed among all classes, and to
the manner in which the voters received and bargained
with the canvassers on both sides—that large numbers of
the electors were then not for the first time engaged in the
like operations of gross corruption."
Wakefield was a borough that was called into existence
under the Reform Act. The house would probably think,
with him, that the electors had made up for lost time in not
being sooner admitted to the exercise of the franchise, and
that in the matter of corruption, they were snore than a
match for some of the older constituencies. (A laugh.) He
wanted to know what was the remedy of the house for such
a state of things. Were they going to snake the Corrupt
Practices Act more stringent, when they found that, in
places such as Wakefield, open' and notorious bribery ex-
cited but a scanty measure.of disapprobation." (Hear, hear.)
He submitted that the house ought to have recourse to a
measure such as he was now asking for leave to introduce.
They might limit its operation to one, two, or three elec-
tions ; but let them at all events make the experiment.
(Hear, hear.) If it failed, they would be only just where
they were. (Cheers.) But if it succeeded, they would
have the satisfaction of knowing that they had checked, if
not altogether crushed, that system of bribery and intimi-
dation which was a disgrace to our representative system.
(Cheers.) He therefore begged leave to move for leave to
bring in a "bill to make provision that atithe election of
members to serve in Parliament for the city of Glocester
and the borough of Wakefield the electors thereof give their
votes by way of ballot."
Sir G. LEWIS.—A short time ago I had occasion to ask
the house to agree to a motion for not issuing writs to these
I two boroughs of Glocester and 'Wakefield without seven
days' notice being previously given. That motion was
agreed to by the house, and the effect of it was that the
writs for those two boroughs were to be suspended without
due notice was given of the intention to move that they bo
issued. Upon that motion some debate ensued. The hon. gen-
' tleman the member for Birmingham addressed himselfgene-
rally to the corrupt practices reported to have taken place
in those boroughs, and expressed an opinion that it would
be desirable to punish the electors there with the suspension
of their electoral privilege for a certain number of years. I
did net express avy opinion on that proposal ; but the hon.
gentleman the member for Finsbury now makes a motion
which in its tendency is diametrically opposed to the sug-
' gestion then made. His motion contemplates the imme-
' diate issue of these writs. It assumes that the provisional
measure taken by the house should not be acted on:
' that the writs should be issued ; that when the elec-

ions take place an exceptional mode of ♦oting should be

introduced into those two boroughs, and that the votes
should be taken secretly, and by way of ballot. lam not
prepared immediately—even if I were favourable to the
general plan of voting by ballot—to'give my vote in favour
of this narrow and exceptional measure. If the system of
secret voting be good, why is it to be applied as a penal
measure to those two boroughs ? (Cheers.) By the motion
before the House it is distinctly applied as a measure of
punishment. (" No, no," answered by counter cheers.)
I won't quarrel about the word " punishment ;" but what
is the effect of the motion ? It teas proposed a short time
ago to visit those two boroughs with suspension of the
electoral privilege. The hon. gentleman says, " Don't do
that, but apply to them as an exception—not as a general
measure, or leading to a general measure—vote by ballot."
If that be not a punishment, it is at all events a visitation
upon theta. (Laughter.) Thereis a great difficulty in dis-
tinguishing between this and a geaeral Measure. If the
measure of vote by ballot is good let it be applied simulta•
neously all over the country.' (Hear, hear.) If, on the
other hand, it is to be regarded, as something exceptional
and penal, do not apply it at once to those two boroughs.
Let them be the subjects of a more deliberate investigation,

would, _ met, ce
filet a punishment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BONHAM-CARTER thought that the measure
now proposed was a moderate and judicious one. As to the
Home Secretary's argument upon the result of the ballot
in America, the voting there was entirely devoid of
secrecy, and you could draw no analogy between that which
was an epen act and that which his hon. friend (Mr. Dun-
combe) was trying to render a secret one. (Hear, hear.)
The Home Secretary had not once alluded to the suc-
cessful operation of the ballot in Australia, where he
(Mr. Carter) was assured that it had, at all events, tended
greatly to preserve quiet and good order at elections. Nor
was this a small matter. It was in the afternoon, to-
wards the close of the poll, when the numbers were pretty
equal, that excitement was most rife and corruption was
most perpetrated. The ballot, however, would keep secret
the state of the poll, and would thus prevent tke knot of
electors who now held back from disposing of their votes
at the last moment, perhaps for £4O or £5O a piece. In
considering the remedy proposed, the house ought not to
forget the number of those electors who gave their votes ho-
nestly and fairly, and who sincerely regretted the existence
of this corruption. Parliament should loose no opportunity
of preventing the corrupt minority from overriding the opi-
nions of the honest majority,amilehould put every difficulty
in the way of their receiving bribes. He did not believe that
the ballot was a panacea for every possible evil that ex-
isted ; but it would be of use in restraining both intimi-
dation and bribery, and the house would do wisely and
safely in giving leave to introduce this bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to state, in a very few
words, the reasons why I shall not be able to vote for the
motion of my hon. friend, I have always opposed the harlot
on general principles. • (Cheers.) Upon former occasions T
have stated at sufficient length the ground upon which I
think that, instead of being an improvement in our electo-
ral system, it would, on the contrary, tend to demoralise
and to degrade our national character in the performance:of
important
.constitutional functions. (Cheers.) I cannot,
therefore, agree with my hon. friend in applying as a re-
medy that which I think is in itself an evil. We know very
well that a poison administered in very small doses some-
times cures disease, but I don't think this kind of applica-
tion will be at all adapted to the evil which my hon. friend
wishes to correct. And if I were disposed to acquiesce in
any plausible proposal for the partial and local application
of that to :which upon general grounds I objected, any
such disposition would be removed by the candour,
or the indiscretion of my hon. friend, who, in reading
that valuable communication received by him from one
of the candidates upon this occasion, said he was told that
if he could only now introduce the thin end of the wedge
it would do more to forward the cause of the ballot
generally than 10 years of agitation. (Cheers.) That forms
a perfectly good reason why my hon. friend, who is a sin
core advocate of the ballot, should recommend the motion
which he has made to-night ; but he will admit that it forms
an equally good reason why I, entertaining different opinions
on the general principle, should resist his motion. (Hear.)
Again, with regard to the effect which this measure would
be calculated to have in the prevention of bribery, I must
«ix +hat in rny arisen ilacro io arb.oti.ow
my hon. friend mentioned which shows that, so far from cor-
recting the evil of which he complains, the operation of this
bill would be to generalize it. My hon. friend in the coarse
of his speech read an extract from the report of the commis-
sioners, which stated that eight electors had been bribed by
both sides. [Several hon. members.—Twelve.] Well, that
makes my case so much the stronger—(a laugh)—for if
under a system of open voting, which compels every elector
to declare fer whom he desires that his vote should be re-
corded, 12 men are found who are bribed by both the oppo-
sing candidates, you would, under a system of secret voting,
have 100 electors who would bewhinfithfotbhhreiiom opposing
by osig
means bribed. (Hear, hear.)
In fact, all these electors who were disposed to take bribes
would
ecuansdiodfat
an
awtoauuldeplereetsteonut, tohreemomsemlvaesnitcoaree
went,wty, a
t, wouldt the sameofaecept time, aibtri, in promisingandbefromhiaii, wouldfohrabvoetnho.
to vote
(Hear, hear.) Now, in the case of open voting, the bad faith
of those 12 electors to whom my hon. friend alluded became
notorious, and thus far a cheek was imposed upon others
their number might be I,2oo—who, if a systeraof secret—
voting were established, would be quite ready to accept
bribes from both parties. I shall not now enter into the
general question of the merits or demerits of voting in se-
cret ; but, as the subject of the mode of voting in America has
been alluded to in the course of the discussion, I may be per-
mitted to observe, that frequently as the expediency of adopt-
ing the ballot has of late years been pressed upon
the consideration of the House of Commons, the example
of America in this respect has not been very par-
ticularly relied upon by the supporters of the measure.
(Hear, hear.) The truth is that the system which prevails
in Anaeriea of voting by ballot is not secret voting, and the
advocates of the ballot have thrown overboard that system,
and call upon us to establish in this country one of a diffe-
rent character. I am, however, prepared to maintain that
you cannot establish here a system of secret voting unless
you make a man liable to a penalty who discloses the way
which he happens to have voted. (Hear, hear.) Any
such proposal, therefore, as that which my hon. friend has
made, in order to bet effectual, must not be simply permis-
sive, and would therefore deserve to be characterised—as
my right hen. Mend the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment has justly said—as a penal measure. It is, at all
events, perfectly clear that if a vote given in secret may—
and, as a matter of course, does—become matter of general
notoriety, the arguments in favour of secret voting at onceo
fall to the ground, and that in resorting to the ballot you
are only taking a roundabout way of securing that Publicity
which now exists. For these reasons I feel it to be my duty
to oppose the motion under the consideration of the house.
(Cheers.)
of the
Mr. CHILDERS said that he had in the coarsebe
wee
t
discussion been appealed to by the hon. member for t
Riding (Mr. Crossley). He might be Permitted briefly to
state to the house the result of his experience o work-
in;f th
of' the system of secret voting which
had neista
hlished in Australia. The ballot bad been introduced into
thatt
that country, as the best means of preventing
at bribery,
corruption, and treating which at ono time had been
exceedingly prevalent, and
he might add, carried out
was,di different from that by which
lay a species of machinery
electors rather than
votes of
rapidity in recording- the
d in America. It was, in short, a modified
secrecy was secure
under the operation of which every
man's of vote by ballot,
man's vote was kept secret until a committee composed of
members of
scrutiny of the votes a
at particular election, and then the
way in which any elector had voted might, if his vote were
objected to, be ascertained. The machinery by which that
end was attained was as follows :—After the nomination of
the candidates
the clerk of the peace sent to the several re-
turning officers a number of voting papers, having the name
of each of the candidates who had been nominated written
in order, and containing instructions by which the elector
was directed to erase the names of those candidate,' for whom
be did not mean to vote, leaving untouched the names of
those whom he desired to support. Each of the voting
papers was signed on the back by the returning officer him-
self, and as each voter came up on the polling-day h
asked such questions as were usually put in this
country e was
untry in
such eases, while the returning officer wrote down his num-
ber on the electoral roll. The voting paper was then handed
to him, from which ho erased the names of h t ose candidates
for whom he did not intend to vote, and that having been
done the paper was placed, in the
officer, in the electoral urn. At the presence of the returning
close of the election the
returns were made, and front that moment until an election
committee was appointed—
if such should be the case—to
enter into a scrutiny of the voter—when the manner in
which every elector voted might be
secrecy in the matter was observed. If a petition were pre-
sented to the house cla. •
of bribery or • claiming a scrutiny either on the ground
personation, it was as easy to Tree'. for
whom the challenged voterhis tnadce
gave vote as r the sys-
tem prevalent in this
country. And what had beep the re-
sult of the ballot in Australia ? That wets the main ques-
tion. It
had been in operation nearly f' • , He
years.
was himself elected under its provisteeue The whole elec-
tions Victori in • • a since 1833 app" d to 200 ; how many
of Australia
there had been in the whole,,cooed
lee did not know.
In the wbcd thus
+ll t ° there had been only two cases of
anY eg appro.l rities in this
niug to the electoral mega
country—r,- hada been
sentee -ay two cases in which petitions . pre-
• -; end it was as easy to prosecute a petition lender the
Australian ballot as here. One of these petitions com-
plained of treating, and in that case the member was un-
seated. Another complained of bribery. Three voters
wore bribed; the charge was brought home with the
greatest ease, and that member also was unseated. There
had also been a case of intimidation, but that was a case of
religious difference ending in animosity. lie must admit
that the Australian ballot was not perfect. It had unques-
tionably its weak point; and he-would state it candidly. It
was this, that where there were more than ono member t,
be returned by a constituency the fact of the votes not
being known till the end of the poll led those who Were de-
cided partisans to vote for their own friends in preference

and let us consider whether some other means may not be
found of subjecting them to penal consequences. Further,
if we consider it as a local and limited remedy, instead of a
punishment, is secret voting, even in the view of its more
strenuous advocates, fitted for this particular mode of elec-
toral corruption f (Cheers) I have always understood that
the particular electoral vice to which the ballot has been ap-
plied, and for which it is now propounded as a remedy, is
not bribery but intimidation. (Cries -of " Both !") If the
voter could effectually maintain his secret—a point about
which I confess I entertain the greatest doubt—(cheers)--
the system might lay claim to the merits ascribed to it by its
advocates ; but we know in .that country where the system
of voting by ballot has been in operation for the longest time,
—(cheers)--where it has had the widest trial, and where the
character of the people most resembles that of the people of
this country-7 mean the United State.—has not led to
the practical preservation of the secret of the voter.
It has often been the subject of discussion in this house,
and I repeat that the testimony of all whose opinions and
statements are worthy of any consideration, and who have
described the State or mime* fu Ause,iss., nee sesseo..eo end
does concur in affirming that the mode of voting in that
country is not a system of secrecy. (Near, hear.) I defy
any member of this house to produce any valid testimony
in contradiction of that position. It 'may get rid of some
of the incidents of our system ; it may get rid of our poll ;
it may get rid of the authentic register of votes ; but it
does not preserve the secrecy of the. voter. (Hear, hear.)
If it does not do this, can it be contended, with any plausi-
bility, that it will render bribery impossible, or even diffi-
cult ? We know that in the United States, notwithstand-
ing their larger constituencies, bribery does prevail to a
considerable extent. How far the ballot would prevent
intimidation, by far the most plausible ground on which it
can be defended, is a question we are not now called on to
discuss. Intimidation is not reported as ono of the preva-
lent vices at the Wakefield and Gloucester elections. The
evil pointed out by the reports of commissions was bribery,
and I cannot understand, nor did I collect from the speech
of the hon. member for Finsbury, how the ballot would
furnish any effectual remedy for bribery. It might, on the
contrary, 'he argued with considerable plausibility that
secret voting would render bribery not more difficult, while
it would insure impunity to the persons by whom it was
committed But without going the general question,
I think this experiment is inexasediesit. If the ballot is a
preservative against bribery and intimidation, are you jus-
tified in stopping at two boroughs ? If you deal in an
exceptional manner with them and inflict some penalty
for their abuse of their electoral privileges, it will preclude
us hereafter from any proper consideration of the subject,
and anticipate the decision the house might come to oil this
difficult question. I shall give my-vote against the motion.
Mr. CIIOSSLEY said. when the ballot was proposed as a
general measure the right hon. gentleman opposed it. Now
they had proposed to limit it to the two worst boroughs
among the cases that had come before them, and the right
hjn. gentleman said, Do not try it on those two bad bo-
roughs alone ; apply it generally. Why not let them try it
in this small vo.y, and see if it would not answer ? (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman was illogical in his argument. If
the ballot were tried on a small scale and did not answer, it
would be a stronger argument against applying it gone-
rally. Why, these was a gentleman, a member of the Go-
vernment, who had actually been once elected by the ballot.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, some time ago, re-
turned for an electoral district in one of the Australian
elections. (hear, hear, and laughter.) Another hon. mem-
ber, who was connected with Australia (Mr. Childers),
could tell the right hon. gentleman that it was possible to
vote by ballot with perfect secrecy., and if a scrutiny should
be demanded, it could be shown hove every man had voted,
(Laughter and oh :) lie could assure those who received
this statement with some degree of incredulity that till a
scrutiny took place the ballot vote was quite secret; if a
scrutiny was required the secrecy was at an end, and it was
known how every man had voted. If hon. gentlemen were
in earnest in condemning bribery and intimidation they
could have no objection to vote with the hon. member for
Finsbury.
Mr. A. MILLS doubted if the evidence given before the
Wakefield and Glocester Commissions justified them in try-
ing this experiment. The impression he had derived from
those reports differed widely from that of the hon. member
for Finsbury. The conclusion he drew from the evidence was
this, that as long as there were gentlemen ambitious of becom-
ing members of Parliament, and yet contented to represent
nothing but strong beer and bank-notes no possible law,
enactment, or machinsry that could bei devised by the
House of Commons would prevent bribery and corruption.
No fact disclosed by the reports of the commissions
appeared to share this conclusion. So long as public
opinion sanctioned the present system all attempts to slop
bribery would be utterly futile. (Hear, hear,) The experi-
ment proposed by the motion had been tried; not long ago
there was a contested election for-the borough of Reigate.
There were four or five Liberal candidates, and it was
agreed that they should submit their claims to a sort of pre-
liminary ballot. They did so, and one of the candidates who
was rejected by it afterwards published an address to the
electors, in which he distinctly stated that irregular and
improper means had been resorted to to influence the result
and secure the election. The ballot had been for 24 years
propounded to Parliament, and had been the subject of 18 or
20 divisions in the house. It was now sought to apply it in
a hem, eopathic form—ho did not know whether as a remedy
or a penalty, but professedly for the purpose of trying
whether it would succed on a large scale. They knew
that it had been tried in other countries. The ballot had.
produced an iron despotism in France.—(cries of Noh-!tn
had not put an end to intimidation and bribery in the United'
States. (Hoar, hear.) lie had been informed byia noble
lord not then in the house (Lord Bury) that whilon Ame-
rica a member of Congress had shown him his Poll-book,
containing the names of 25,000 electors, witha statement
of how each man had voted during that, p
That was the system which it was propoeeld only say that if
this country. (No, and hear.) !ei to l introduce in
d. (Hear.)
a
any one would point out to him lainey:i as ouunatrpyreinvethhteatwivoeroldf
where the system of the ballot had act,-
bribery andintimitlation he would supptoret iht,ebstutreumnteidlythfeonr
he should continue to believe that the
these evils was to be found in a more elevated condition of
public opinion. (Hear, hear.)
personally cognizant of
Mr. ROt;PE LL being
t exper'
had
Reigate to which the last
the traneactions at
the ttrsyiment
speaker had referred adniinte; that
so the right sstem not
had been unsuccessful b
t "114nd hear.) The ballot meant
Ikea r.1.1s ''secrecv were insured it wes not the
ballot "(sve-X.)-- dud unites
experiment mader atpiligatie law
to send‘ a card to each elector with na nv,e 0 a the eau_
the elector to stria-
clidates inscribed thereon,
leaVialg
ea (lidate, BAtito out
all tpit 0.004,3: , __.sequence was
file wea4lliPs.t P;kwAl(la'u v -.11;11"t most of the tickets.
(Lond lau.O;l2sier:L _ That sns not
the ballot, it was ticket-
ycii ing.4 quite eifferent thing. A better system was then
rele-;,ea, that whieh had been successful in Australia.
(heart lunar',) flash
.eantor upon entering an water
had 4 card oven to him upon which he wrote
0.4 nano of the candidate he preferred, and
that systemavo
perfect satisfaction to all parties. (Hear.)
X
TENTINCIi thought the speech of the hon. mem-
leer for Viasbury had done. much to damage the cause which

ho was advocating, for he said if the house wished to screens to the men who were somewhat neutral. In the first elec.
bribery and corruption it would reject his motion. Ile (Mr. 1 tion, for instance, there were five to be returned, and though
Bentinck) contended that the adoption of the hon. mem- ' there were 50 candidates, the average number voted for wets
ber's motion would be really screening bribery and corrup- only two or three. The ballot worked best at single elec-
tion. (Hear, hem)* The hon. member said his plan would tions ; and it had this strong point, that it put a stop
prevent a repetition of the late bribery and perjury. It altogether to afternoon bribery, which prevailed to a great
might, indeed, prevent perjury, because there would be no extent. (Hear, hear.) That was entirely stopped by the
means of detecting the bribery. The hon. member for Fins- ballot for this simple reason, that it was just as easy to bribe
bury also said that the electorsof Gloucester and Wakefield a man at half-past eight in the morning as at half-past
were in favour of the ballot. Of course they were. They three ; and the numbers being unknown till the end of the
had been proved to be guilty of the grossest venality and poll, there was no temptation to raise the price on the pre-
corruption, and as a penalty the new writs had been sus- tence of a close run. (Hear, hear.) The house had now the
pended ; but the hon. member wished to give them a period opportunity of carrying out an experiment which might,
of 10 years' uninterrupted enjoyment of their favourite indeed, be -doubtful, but could at any rate do no harm.
amusement at the expense of any candidates that might offer Wakefield and 6 locester were pretty much in the position
themselves. (Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member said, if of political suicides. They were dead bodies lying on their
his plan succeeded it would prove the success of the ballot. table • it was for the house to deal with them as they
It would be sure to succeed, for once the ballot system was thought proper. They were the surgeons, with power to
applied to "Wakefield and Gloucester the bribery could be make an experiment which could not hurt dead bodies, but
carried on without detection. The right hon. gentleman the might be of the greatest use to society and to the political
Secretary of State for the _Home Department was wrong in institutions of the country. He hoped the house would agree
saying that the hon. member for Finsbury wished to inflict to give practical application to a principle which was dear
punishment upon those venal electors. On the contrary, it to the great majority of the people and to hon. members
was a reward which he would bestow upon them. (Bear, who sat on his side of the house. He would assuredly sup-
hoar.) Upon a former occasion he (Mr. Bentinck) had ex- port the motion of his hon. friend. (Hear, hear.)
pressed a conviction that the only resulf of the ballot Sir J. SHELLEY (amid loud cries of " Divide") appealed
would bo to prevent the detection of bribery, and the noble to the Government, after the speech they had just heard,
lord, now Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had concurred in showing the entire success of the ballot in Australia, to
that opinion. He would like to knew whether the house withdraw their opposition to a motion which was supported
was dealing with this matter with clean hands ; who- by the Liberal party in that house. Everything said by the
ther the more guilty party was the comparatively poor Home Secretary had been contradicted by what had fallen
and ignorant man who took £5 for his vote, or the from the hon. member for Pontefract•
gentleman of distinction who abandoned his poli- Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied, he was sure the houses
tical principles, and was guilty of gross political ter- felt exceedingly indebted to the hon. member for Pont.-
giversation in return for a place and perhaps a fract for the very able and interesting statement he had
salary of £5,000 a year. (Laughter, and cries of " Name !") made in reference to the ballot—(hear)—and he personally
The name was legion. (Cheers and laughter.) The poor begged to thank him for the valuable support he had given
man who accepted a bribe merely added his unit to swell to his motion. With regard to the argument of the noble
the majority or the minority at a contested election; but the lord at the head of the Government, he had only to say
distinguished public character who was guilty of such con- that he put this forward as an experiment, and nothing
diet deceived and betrayed millions of his fellow-men, who else. He wanted the experiment to be tried, and he used
had placed him in the position 'he occupied on account of the expression of one of the candidates for Glocester when.
the principles he professed. (Hear.) 'Was such a man fit
he said that he wanted to get in the thin end of the wedge,
to sib in judgment upon the poor fellow who got £5 for his
hoping that he would soon be able to drive it home. (hvote ? It was very much as though a tiger after destroying laugh.)
Great measures were not carried in a day. They
human life and ravaging flocks and herds were called upon
must proceed by slow degrees. It was thus they carried
to pass judgment on the predatory habits of the mouse ; and
Jewish emancipation. It was by taking Baron Rothschild
in this case so long as tigers abounded he trusted the mouse froth behind the bar and placing him in one of their corn-
would be leniently dealt with. (A laugh.) The hon. mem- teittees end to meet the peers in conference that they were
ber (Mr. Duncombe) seemed fond of experimental legisla- enabled to convince all rational men that the contest was at
tion. Now, if they were to exporimentaliso on this ques- an end, and the result was that they had now four hon. and
tion it would be better and more just first to try the process distinguished members of the Jewish persuasion represent-
on themselves. For example, by way of testing the advan- ing is that house large and important constituencies, while
taxes of secret voting, the house might decide in that way the British constitution and the Established Church, which
whether it was advisable or not to deal in the present year it was said would perish the day a Jew took his seat, stood
with the question of reform. (Laughter.) Possibly the exactly where they were ; and so it would be with their
results of such an experiment would somewhat startle the representative system after the ballot was introduced,
hon. member for Birmingham and his friends. (Hear.) ,
'he house then divided ; the numbers were—
The proposal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) was
so monstrous that the house could not entertain it, for it Ayes
Noes
-ould, in ft 'onfer a reward where the wish was to in- _. . . . _

Majority against the motion -3/
The announcement of the numbers was received. with
'beers by the supporters of the motion.
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and said that perhaps it
would be convenient that he should inform Vile house that
he had that evening received a communication from his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
stated that he felt perfectly competent to be in his ?lace to-
morrow and reeks his financial statement. (Hear, hear.)
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS, Sze., BILL.
Mr. COLLIER obtained leave to bring in a bill to pro.
hibit the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to
the poll, and to facilitate polling at elections.
i'PIRITS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. V. SCULLY moved the second reading of this bill,
htn. while he was explaining its provisions, at the request
of Col. Dr NNa,
An lIoN. MEMBER moved that the house be counted, and
there being only 27 members present, the Speaker left the
chair, and the house adjourned about 10 minutes after 12
o'clock.