they would see borough after borough snatched from their hands? And, perhaps, when they found themselves in a minority, or found themselves on the Oppo- . sition side of the House, they would regret that they had not extended their protection to the unfortunate elector.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

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

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

artful argument which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill. It was his firm conviction that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman would meet with a satisfactory response from the country. One plain fact was stated by the hon. Member for Bristol, that his proposal was supported by a small minority in that House; and he (Mr. Newdegate) believed also by a small minority in the country. The best proof of this was the conduct of the House; and if the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol was worth anything, it was this, that the House expressed the opinion of the majority, but that the majority constituted a tyranny over the minority. The hon. Member had cited the rejection of

his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner) by the re- had all heard of cases in which undue presentation of Birmingham as an instance pressure had been put upon debtors to inof intimidation. He (Mr. Newdegate) fluence their votes at elections. He confully believed that his hon. Colleague gratulated the House on having one of its had been rejected through intimidation; Members-a member also of a noble family but an antidote was immediately discover--who stood up for the rights of the ed, for the electors of North Warwick- people. He thought that the question for shire, many of whom were also electors the House really was, whether the people for the borough of Birmingham, returned were satisfied with the present state of him at once, and he had retained the seat things; and believing that they were not, for seventeen years. No argument in favour he should give his vote for the second of open voting could be more clear than his reading. hon. Friend's return for North Warwickshire, and his retention of his seat for so long a period. The whole constitution of the country was based on the system of trusts openly exercised and governed by public opinion; and the reason why the Motion of the hon. Member met so little favour was, that the people of England demanded that they should have a public opportunity of exercising the influence of public opinion upon every one intrusted with any share of power in regulating their government. The attachment of the people and the country to open voting rested on their determination that public opinion should govern them. That public opinion formed the base of our common law, which common law constituted the safeguard of our freedom, and the people would not part with the controlling power which they exercised over every man intrusted with even the smallest amount of political power. The measure now proposed proceeded upon an unpopular basis, and therefore did not meet with the public favour. The hon. Member had asserted that the ballot was a Conservative measure, and that it would produce Conservative votes. He (Mr. Newdegate) was a Conservative, but he never desired to see one seat rescued from the people for the sake of placing a misrepresentative of public opinion on the benches of that (the Opposition) side of the House. He was as strong a Conservative of the free expression of Radical opinions as of Tory opinions. He and those with whom he acted were not there to defend despotism. The essence of despotism was secrecy, and they were opposed to the introduction of the system of secrecy in any shape, because as Conservatives of a free constitution they were the deadly enemies of despotism in every shape.

MR. POTTS said, the object of Parliament in granting the franchise was that the electors should give their votes freely and according to their consciences. They

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

He unhesitatingly answered that it, required a remedy, would introduce a simiwas vote by ballot. They did not want lar measure next Session; and if they did, it themselves; but they knew full well he should be prepared to give them every that the country could not be governed by assistance. those Members who were returned by certain large constituencies, and that in the case of the great bulk of the Members of that House they were returned by constituencies amenable to intimidation; and therefore they believed that it would be for the benefit of the country at large that the ballot should be established.

MR. HADFIELD expressed his regret that the measure should be withdrawn, especially as Ireland was ripe for legisla tion on the subject.

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

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

MR. LYSLEY said, the object of the Bill was to put down intimidation and bribery; but, in his opinion, it would not succeed in doing so. Landlords and others who possessed influence would find that freedom of voting would in the end redound more to their advantage than intimidation. The Bill, so far from affording a remedy for bribery, would do exactly the reverse, for it would put a man in a position to take a double bribe. A friend of his who had once been a Member of that House had last winter returned from America, where he had been intro-to the subject. duced to many persons who held the most advanced opinions in that country, and he told him that nine out of every ten of

House resumed. [No report.]

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.

the thinking men there were agreed that ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—[BILL No. 11.] universal suffrage and vote by ballot must be got rid of. He had the greatest pos sible confidence, that if the measure were passed, it would spread a great amount of demoralization among the electors of all small and wealthy towns, and he should therefore feel it his duty to vote against it.

Question put.

Consideration of Clause proposed by Mr. Ayrton on 30th April resumed.

MR. LOCKE said, the object of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the

The House divided:-Ayes 126; Noes Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayr211 Majority 85.

MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL NO. 69.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. House in Committee. SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he rose to propose that the Chairman do leave the Chair, with a view of withdrawing the Bill. He regretted to have to do so, but it was impossible that the Bill, if it passed that House, should receive due consideration in the other House of Parliament at so late a period of the Session. It was quite clear that a Bill of such magnitude could never be satisfactorily carried through by a private Member; and he therefore hoped that the Government, having admitted more than once that there were many things in the marriage law of Ireland which VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

ton) was to give the ratepayers at large the right of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, instead of the vestry being intrusted with that power. He (Mr. Locke) should support the proposal. The Metropolitan Board of Works had the power of taxing the whole metropolis; and he thought, as taxation and representation should go together, that the election of the members of that board should be in the hands of the whole body of ratepayers, and ought not to be confined to vestries and district boards, who, practically, always sent to the Metropolitan Board of Works members of their own bodies. The Select Committee who considered the subject came to the conclusion that direct election by the ratepayers would strengthen the position of the members of the board, and many witnesses gave it as their opinion that under a system of direct election the

2 U

members elected would be of a higher class | admit that the board had well and faithand better calculated to discharge the fully performed their duties; but it could duties of the situation than the men now not be denied that great complaints had on the board. Why, then, should there be a deviation with respect to these elections from the general rule prevailing throughout the country? It was not denied that there was upon the board a number of highly intelligent men; but, unfortunately, they did not, on account of the mode of election, possess the confidence of the inhabitants of the metropolis. That confidence could only be secured by direct election. No doubt that under the system of election which he advocated many of the present members would be re-appointed to office; but, no matter what might be the result, the change was necessary.

been made against them, and that they had been characterized as the "Board of Words," instead of a Board of Works. He deprecated any attack on the board, and he believed that the more their proceedings were inquired into, the more satisfactory would they prove. But he at the same time thought that direct election by the ratepayers at large would ensure for them greater confidence, and he should therefore support the proposition to that effect.

in a future Session, and not by the addition of clauses to a Bill which had already passed through Committee.

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

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

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

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

in the abstract, but he could not vote for it till he had better evidence that the people of the metropolis were discontented with the Board of Works.

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

election.

board, he was disposed to act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, reserving to himself the right to bring forward his proposition on a future occasion as a substantive measure.

Clause withdrawn.

Clause 109 to insert a clause providing, MR. LOCKE said, he proposed after Clause 109 to insert a clause providing, that in compensation cases, where the parties felt themselves aggrieved by the ruling of the assessor or by the finding of the jury, it should be lawful to apply MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, he rose to one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts in to express his concurrence in the views Westminster Hall for a new trial or reexpressed by his noble Colleague. Neither hearing of the case, or for the reduction in public nor in private had he received or increase of damages. He only wanted any communication from his constituents expressing a desire to have the constitution of the board changed. He believed that the object of the clause was to defeat by a side-wind an important and useful Bill. He did not believe that, even if carried into effect, it would make any material alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would exercise a wise discretion in bringing it forward as a separate measure.

that the same rule should apply to compensation cases as applied to all other cases. It frequently happened that very nice points of law arose upon these compensation cases, which it was desirable should be determined by a superior court

of law.

MR. TITE said, that a proposition which made so extensive an alteration in the law of the land should not be introduced in a Bill of the kind under consideration. He

could not believe that the Committee

It

would listen to it for a moment. might or it might not be right to give such an appeal, but so important a question ought to be discussed on its own merits and as a general principle.

sation.

MR. AYRTON said that Marylebone stood in a different position from the rest of the metropolis, for it had its own particular council, which assumed to itself most extraordinary powers. Still he was surprised that the inhabitants of a constiSIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he hoped tuency which identified itself with the his hon. Friend would not think it necesprogress of the country should assert, sary to press the Amendment on that octhrough the mouths of their representa-casion. He could at a future time turn tives, that nomination was preferable to his attention to the question of compenelection. He did not think that opinion was shared by any of the metropolitan community. Everywhere else the conviction was entertained that the ratepayers should have a direct voice in the election of Members to the Metropolitan Board. Surely there was nothing very extravagant in the proposition that the Metropolitan Board should be elected under the same conditions as the House of Commons. It had been said that the board was entitled to public confidence,

but the Thames Embankment Bill was neither more nor less than a declaration that the board was only fit to do the work of bricklayers and masons. His object was to elevate the members of the board, but it was far from his intention to cast pearls before swine; and, since his clause was opposed by the representatives of the

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

Clause withdrawn.

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

Clause agreed to.

MR. COX said, he had to move a claus repealing Section 6 of the 18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, and enacting in lieu thereof that the vestry elected under the Bill in any parish should consist of persons rated or assessed to the relief of the poor in