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

THE 'SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, -FEDREARY 10, IF6O.

were only 1,300 between ...Delhi and Calcutta, a distance of
upwards of 1,400 miles. This policy in the Punjaub was
undoubtedly the cause of the temporary success of the
mutiny, and in fact tho standard of rebellion never would
have been raised at all had it not been for the absence of
European troops:, Wheat Sir J. Lawrence, Brigadier Chain-
berlayne, and CoL EdwAudes 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
22,900, -and here these distinguished persons gave it as their
opinion that 22,000 ware requtired for the Punjaub alone.
The fact was, that we governed India just as Austria go-
verned Lombardy—coistrary 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 t o the Indian debt, a general
feeling had got abroad, and he was told that it had had
some influence even on the Ste ck Exchange, that sooner or I
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 ludia might be able to derive sonic
some advantage from it ; but -if, as he lisped and trusted,
the house would not consent to place such a burthen upon
the people of this. country, at all eventsfor past debts, what-
ever it 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 povible for us, even in time of peace, to provide
such a force whilst we attended to the wants of other colo-
thee and kept a sufficient army in this country to give se
cu 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 nowledge 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 andomilitary 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 was action on the part 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 forrßirminghaii
that the Government of India should be divided into four
or five different governments, each with its own legislative
coulee% system of public works and finance. That question
had been fully considered by several leading men in India,
but more eseecially by Mr. Campbell and Sir H. 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
be 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 result.
(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 £14,000,000, at an interest of 8, 10, or
12 per cent. In 1857 the debt was £6O 000,000, but the in-
terest had been reduced to 4 per cent. In 1800 the pressure
of the interest on the debt was 13} 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 of £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 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 iu the go •
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 16,000,000
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 Lawrance, 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 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-
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 eonnection between England and
India would be of the most beneficial kind.
Mr. BARING, in answer to the hon. member whospoke
last, said he was not aware in what position the licensing
bill at present stood. The measure 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 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 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 abetter control of the expenditure of thecoun-
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 so
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 net 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 referral to the petition. pre
rented 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
fivedays, with the obnoxious clauses omitted • but this was
only after public attention had been directed 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
knowledge of what was going on in reference to the admi-
nistration of the affairs of India, andhoped that very shortly
the Secretary of State for India would be able to give some
satisfactory enewer 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 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 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 in India, the motion
was withdrawn.
THE FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS.
Mr. A. STF.UART 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 iii their order on the paper, one after an-
other, all questions to be addressed to each particular mein •
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 order in the discussions which took place
on Friday evenings, and prevent this house from bang
obliged to travel from India to county rates in Ireland.
(Hear, and a laugh.)
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. DISRAE LI said—l had snvposed, sir, that some noble
lord or right hon. gentleman, in some manner responsible
for the cceeduct of the business of this house, would; have
risen to favour us with his opinion on this matter, (Hear,
hear,) I have gait given the motion of my hon. friend all
that ecazwideration wich., perhaps, it deserves. I have been
obliged to form my opinion of it from his few observations,
and while you, sir, were giving it to us from the chair, but
it appears to me that this ,house ought not .to adept it.
(Hear.) I have always supported the privilege enjoyt.d by
lion. member,. on Friday of bringing under e 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 genet4 regulations which are so con-
venient for the management of our ordinary discussions.
But I have always tavierstood that a grave objection to the
euntinuano of that indulge ace was that the inquiries made
on Friday evenings were assaszing the form of (I.rbatcs ;and
lave always thought that they should not ta}re that curio
—that they should uoig interfere with the business of the
evening. (Hear, hear.) Tilia proposal of my hon. friend is,
however, that they should become debates; fur should you,
sir, ley an artificial contrivance put the;,; amongst the bugi-
, tress of ti«,-; house we should have a numbee of debates ar-
t ranged in hon. Inenti*rs might all deliver their
opi
f debate' but, I ant entirely to the in-
quiriesluttoit js that managen.4l t which he ro •.1 p saould tend ts
Etricogntst
the
ad dressed to Government 44:king the se of foinia
a(
::solution of iny hon. apen would
discussion, which hill. f:s •d • • '
We have on ri ay es er.,l4g s a sort of
pave Ole way for.
the übhe advantage elsonld be
;•;• (Bear,t
v o
conrerseur,47o, which it is for
P b
we should very CA"iliow not
tolerated—(lang4;ter)—but
to allow it to deviate loin that character. The resolution
of my hon. friend would sezravate all those objections
rivile e which I
which meg pe fairly urged againg qa
gcall on the
have always .aei,vocated. I would, t eret,
ww;it
if
hope to pause befoeo they adopt a course
inconvenient than thnt
adopted, would lead to stillgeeater
strengthen those
now felt, anti vis,ich would still fu48.1. A
objection ne.4 s, which are presentipy .1. t br4.FP,5 99P

of weight, against the enjoyment of that indulgence which i
is now conceded to hon. members on Friday evenings.
ear, hear.) •
Sir G. LEWIS concurred in the observations made •by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire,
and said he should himself have then 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 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 a 150,17 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 rm-

luiion.
Mr. 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. 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 bo

taken by ballot, commenced by presenting a petition from

the Ballot Society, and another signed by VW electors of

Glocester, in favour of the motion, adding that he was an-

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 tho 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, Malden and Barnstaple. In 1854
be pursued the same course as that which he was now pur-
suing—he had moved that the issuing of tie 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 accointed for by an-
other gentleman by the fact that Cambridge was a univer •
sity town, where there were a number of young gentlemen
being brough up for the church. (Laughter, and cries of
Question.") The commissioners for Hull reported that

systematic corruption had uniformly prevailed at all elec.

tious for the borough of Hull, to which our attentionhas bee's
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
boroighs 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-
rut 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 sominise
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 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 putting an end to the corruption which pre-
vailed., (Hear, hear) He had received a letter from one of
the inhabitants inforwarding 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. Ho 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
1700. Mr. Lovegrove, his agent,
thl the matter, stated that Sir R. Car-
dwehn beinge when
questionedt
daitnigtueixreed uponehd oewd i
much'had
been expended upon the
election, and how much upon the petitions in 1857 • that
lie supplied him with the information, and that Sir R. Car-
den— of whom Mr. Lovegrove said, " He is 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 final settlementin August, 1857. 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 ; 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 R. Carden they were
altoget her 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? (Hear,
hear.) The proposals which they had as yet heard were
confined to making the Corrupt Practices Act more strin-
gent. One hon. and learned gentleman, the member for
Nottingham, proposed to make bribery a misdemeanour,
punishable with itnprisonment and hard labour • And
another hon. and learned gentleman proposed that if this
were insufficient the sentence should be, changed to penal
servitude. The case of Wakefield likewise went to show
that souse step on the part of the Legislature was impera-
tively called. for. The freemen, to the extent of some 300
.or 400, had been greatly-blamed in the. Glocester 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.
Leathern. the Liberal candidate, spent at least £3,900, of
whidi only £l7B pasted 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 is bribery and corruption, and
that ei lvist• between £l,BOO. and £1,900 was expended in
bribery. They found that Mr. Charlesworth, the Conser-
vative candidate, spent £4,100, 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 provilled the fund out of which the bribery,
in was afterwards curled un hi his behalf, designedly
abitairled 14i) to the election from Inquiring as to the mane
nor in which that fund was being employed, having before
the election the means of knowing and good grounds to sus-
pect the manner of its disposal, The Commissioners added
that 98 persons were guilty of bribery in respect of the votes
of other persons, that 86 persons were guilty of hriboll in
re; set of their Own votes, and that 12 others were guilty of
bribery not on ono side only, blit On bOtll. (Lang/16119
They found that it was generally anticipated by the parti-
sans on both sides, for some time before the election, that
recourse Ivoilld be had to bribery by their respective oppo-
nenta ; cinsi fey a, deg, ,f that the fact that briberz Wtta
b
being carried on off,etb, sides *as Were the eTection it

~+~, y

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 tkings 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 disapprohation " 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 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 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 events make the experiment.
(Hear, hear.) If it failed, they would be only just where
they were. (Cheers.) But if it succee(ied, 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. LE WIS.—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
due 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 himself gene-
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 may 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 t
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 bo 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 i'3 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•
aeously 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.
Lot them be the subjects of a more deliberate investigation,
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? (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—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 are 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. (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 one of the preva-
lent vices at the 'Wakefield and Glmicester 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 impimity to the persons by whom it was
committed. But without going into the general question,
I think this experiment is inexpedient. If the ballot is a
preservative agamet•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 on this
difficult question. I shall give my vote against the motion.
Mr. CROSSLEY said. when the ballot was proposed ae 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
hen. 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 wee-, 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 gene-
rally. Why, there was a gentleman, a member of the Go-
vernreent,!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 how every man had voted.
(Laughter and oh !) He 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 longas 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 be 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 stop
bribery would be utterly futile. (Hear, hear.) The experi-
ment proposed by the motion had been tried ; not Ion; 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 tho candidates who
was rejected by it afterwards published an address to the
electors, in which be distinctly stated that irregular and
improper means had been resorted to to-influence the result
and secare 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 hoinceopiithic 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 countries. The ballot had
produced au iron despotism in France—(cries of No)—and
had not put an end to intimidation and bribery in the United
States. {Hear, hear.) He had been informed by a noble
lord not then in thehouse (Lord Bury) that while in Ame-
rica a member of Congress had shown him his poll-book,
containing the names of 2:5,000 electors, with a statement
of how each man had voted during that period. (1i04r,)
That was the system,. which it was proposed to introdgee in
this country. (No, and hear.) He could only say that if
any one would point out to him any country in the world
where the system of the ballot had acted as a preventative of
bribery and intimidation he would support it, but until then
ho should continue to believe that the best remedy for-
these evils was to be found in a more eleYated gohilition of
public opinion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROU PELL being personally cognizant of
the transactions at Reigate to which the last
speaker had referred admitted that the first experiment
lied been unsuccessful because the right system had not
been adopted. (Laughter and 14014 r.) The leillat meant
swot vol log, atilt 11111 Pee opeocy were inenred it W,is fiat the
ballot. (Hoer.) VIP first v*1)04114044 mach) at Reigate was
to send a 0.111 to figUil ClOPtOr WWI the names of all the can-
eattee hp:o4l4oa theeeon, leaving the elector to strike out
all but his chosen candidate. Butt the consequence fee
the wealthiest candidate bought up inoel, Al, vh. 44
(Loud laughter,) Tl)at 'tTi,32 ligt thp 14(41 It vas ti6tzt.
Totii)g% fitetB 4 fliiirpl4 o,m g, 4 tPtWe Nystern w.- .-
entell;:11
' alloptceli t!iflt willPil Ilfia Mb filieeiteec.-, ;
A. es then
AanitSteraaltiear.
(If !elle hnu'.) tall ~.1...,±:A. upon
whfch
e. . A
room ....- a card given to him 7,41,04
1
the name of tile, 4Aciiclaiil L - he wrote
fleet vertnit gaye pe,rfect a and
a.aoafaefion to 01 parties. preferred,
11Ir. 113*TINCX 'thought the speede of the lion, (Hear.)
her }sir Vii:isbury had doile urge 4 to d
- . -CPACtge the capes 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. member for Fins-
bury also said tkat 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 penalty the new writs 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 wr,uld 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 occasion 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. lie 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 abandoned his poli-
tical principles, and was guilty of gross political ter-
fiversation 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 election; but the
distinguished public character who was guilty of such con-
diet deceived and betrayed millions of his fellow-men, who
had placed him in the poeition he occupied on account of
the principles be professed. (Hear.) Was such a man fit
to sit in judgment upon the poor fellow who got £5 for his
vote P It was very much as though a tiger after destroying
human life and ravaging flocks and herds were 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-
ber (Mr. Duncombe) 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 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 the 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 cugkt 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. 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 ballot
on general principles. (Cheers.) Upon former occasions I
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
care 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
ray 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 system of open voting, which 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 from 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 electors 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 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 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
yon cannot establish here a system of secret voting unless
you make a man liable to a penalty who discloses the way
in which he happens to have voted. (Hear, hear.) Any
such proposal, therefore, as that which my hon. 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 exists. Por these reasons I feel it to be my duty
to oppose the motion under the consideration of the house.

(Cheers.)
Mr. CHILDERS said that he had in the coarse of the
discussion been appealed to by the hon. member for the West
Riding (Mr. Crossley). Ho might be permitted briefly to
state to the house the result of his experience of the work-
ing of the system of secret voting which had been esta-
blished in Australia. The ballot had been introduced into
that country, as the best means of preventing that bribery,
corruption, and treating which at one time had been
exceedingly prevalent, and was, he might add, carried out
by a species of machinery different from that by which
rapidity in recording the votes of electors rather than
secrecy was secured in America. It was, in short, a modified
system of vote by ballot, under the operation of which every
man's vote was kept secret until a Committee composed of
members of the Legislature had been appointed to make a
scrutiny of the votes at a particular election, and then the
way in which any elector had voted might, if his vats 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, hating theneme
of each of the candidates who had been notninated written
in order, and containing instructions by which the elector
was directed to erase the names of thov.e candidates f
be did not mean to vote, leaving untouched th n4lor whom
e
those whom he deaired to support. Each of the votin"t
papers Was signed on the back by the retarnin' g" of ter --
eels, and as each voter came up on tl,e pt in this country in
polling-day he was
down
asked such questions as were nsnailY il
such cases, while the retnottug officerwuroti
The voting paper ewaos,wilantallihsa num-
bernced on the electoral
to him, Lout which ho erased the narues those candidates
fur whom he did not intend to vote, and that having been
done the paper was placed, alt the presence of the returning
officer, in the electoral ill. At the close of the election the
returns wept:o,44e, and from thath moment until an election
committ4O such W Appointed—if should be the ease—to
et_iter 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, ore pre-
sented to the horse eleiming it scrutiny either on the ground
,Nofilob,rlillbetrhe challenged voter
It was as easy to "ascertain for
tco voter gave his vote as under the eye-
prevalent in this country. Al,el what had been the re-
sult of the ballot in Australia `that the main ques-
tion. It had been in operi\ki.ezt for nearly five as. He
Nyas himself eleir.tql under.. Ata provisions. The \whole elec-
tions in slate 1544 approached to 200; how many
theli tlqfl Mien iR AU whole of Australia be did nut know.
;P, tiW 1111.0,15 ef these 200 there had been only two eases of
enythiug approaching to the eleeto.el irsegulerities in this
country—only two cases in s-Xe,-,ls. petitions had been pre-
sented ; and it wa.F, eft, tyssy to Pro*co'uto Ruder the
Australier;'.eeVe),4 /wit" th”* 0-5 these petitions eom-
that case the member was un-
Seeteq. ' of bribery. Three
complained voters
- " ...,eu; 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
religions difference ending in animosity. He 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 one member to
be returned by a constituency the fact of the votes not
being known till the end of the poll led those who were de-
' oided partisans to vote for their own friends in preference