hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) upon which the ballot has been resisted would then be able to do away with more are conclusive in their nature, it seems to of those nice litle jobs which he was me you might as well complain that there always assaulting,-commissions, for in- is nothing new in the demonstrations of stance, with large salaries attached-head Euclid. Now, my objection to the ballot commissioner 2,000l. a year, second com- is that which has been stated by my noble missioner 1,000l., and so on. He was not Friend, viz., that publicity or responsibility an old Member of that House, but from for public opinion is an essential principle what he had seen, that House required the of our representative constitution. I hold, application of the ballot far more than any in opposition to the hon. Member for Brisborough he had ever seen, and, he believed, tol, that the right or privilege of election is more than any constituency in the kingdom, a trust confided by law to a certain portion for the whippers-in could always obtain a of the community, not for their own benemajority as long as they went about with fit, but for the benefit of the community at their pockets full of places. The manner large. I hold, therefore, that every perin which the Government patronage was son who is invested with a public trust exercised was disgraceful, and to that he ought to discharge that trust in the face of attributed all the horrors of the Crimean the whole country, and that every man campaign. The proper men were not put should have an opportunity of knowing how into the proper places, but those only were the trust has been executed, and be enabled chosen to fill offices who had Friends in to inquire how the individual entrusted that House to vote for the Government. with it has acted, and why he has so acted, in The hon. Member for Bristol deserved the discharge of his trust. It has often been little credit for the manner in which he proved that though there may at present lectured the aristocracy of the country, be bribery in some cases, and intimidation for, although he (Mr. Michell) was not in others, that secret voting would not be connected with the aristocracy, he believed a cure for either of those grievances. Now, that, were it not for the House of Lords, we have been told, as we have often been the country would soon be in a state in told before, that we ought to follow the which no patriot would desire to see it. example of the United States, and that in Their gallant commanders, their Welling- the United States votes are given by ballot. tons and Hardinges, who were the glory But the example of the United States is a of the country all over the world, sprang complete mistake as bearing upon the profrom the aristocracy, and it ill became the posal now under consideration. It is perhon. Member for Bristol to condemn it. fectly true that in the United States votes The hon. Member concluded by moving, are given by ballot, but they do not profess as an Amendment, the insertion in the to be given in secret; secrecy is not the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, object in view there, but the mode of electthe words, "and of Members in divisions ing by ballot is a short and simple method in this house." of giving votes for several elections going on at the same time. It is not, therefore, for the purpose of secrecy that the ballot is adopted; it is for the purpose of convenience; and so far from voting being secret, it is well known that in the United States every man who votes is as proud of his vote as are the men who vote in England, and would scorn to have their votes recorded in secrecy. But is it proposed to make it compulsory that voting shall be carried on in secret?

The Amendment, not being seconded, fell to the ground.

SIR JOHN FITZGERALD supported the motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol on the ground that the ballot was required for the protection of the voter.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I should be sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol were to imagine it possible, which he might do from what he has said, that he had convinced me by the amusing, though I think not very argumentative speech which he has made to the House this evening. In the very short address which I shall make to the House, I shall expose myself, no doubt, to the reproach which I have often heard made by the advocates of the ballot, that those who oppose it do nothing but reproduce old arguments; but believing that the arguments

Because if that were the law, it would be degrading to the national character, and I say no Englishman would submit to it. I say that no law you could pass would compel the majority of electors of England to vote in secret, no law could compel the people to suppress the political opinions they entertain. Sir, the majority of the electors would evade the law and give their votes in public; and it would

On these grounds, Sir, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion.

MR. DILLWYN, amid loud cries of "Divide," expressed his intention to support the Motion.

MR. H. BERKELEY replied: In answer to the allusion made by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Sey

which certain members of his (Mr. Berke-
ley's) own family were concerned, he
begged to state that he had never inter-
fered personally in the proceedings in
question, and that if he had refrained
that night from touching on those pro-
ceedings in the course of his argument, it
only was from a feeling that the House
would have considered it bad taste on his
part to refer to them.
Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 166; Noes 218: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.

be only the few who would go sneaking to which tends to withdraw from public rethe poll for the sake of screening them-sponsibility the public or political acts of selves, from some personal inconvenience, any person intrusted with any right which but who would thereby become objects that constitution vests in him. of obloquy and degradation in the eyes of their fellow-countrymen. Then, Sir, I say these are the short reasons why I think this proposal of vote by ballot is one which Parliament ought not to adopt. I think it would be ineffectual for the purpose for which it is proposed, and I think also it would become a great public evil. The House was much amused by the pro-mour) to elections in Gloucestershire, in posal of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) but I think there was much more logic in that proposal than in the original Motion. You want to secure the elector from personal inconvenience; you want to secure the carrying out of a public object more effectually by enabling every man to act according to his own feeling; but if you want to screen individuals from such inconveniences in the discharge of their public duty, why are not Members of this House entitled to the same protection. If you intend it as a public measure for the purpose of enabling men more freely to perform a public duty, I would ask you whether the duty which is performed by the elector can for an instant be put into competition with the important functions exercised by Members of this House? Well, then, will any man tell me that Members of this House always act according to their own opinions. Will any man tell me that votes are not constantly given here in deference to the pressure of constituencies rather than from the sense the Member entertains of what is best for the public interest. Why, we all know that it is so; and if you require that the elector should be allowed to record his vote in secret in order the better to perform his public duty, I say that the argument has tenfold force as applicable to Members of this House. But, Sir, I should be sorry to see such an innovation introduced. The same principle upon which the elector is bound to perform his duty in the face of the public, becoming thereby liable to public responsibility, has also a tenfold force with regard to Members of this House; and therefore, whatever may be the advantage in point of logic of the proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin over that of the hon. Member for Bristol, I say that the argument is brought to a reductio ad absurdum, and only proves that according to the principles of the constitution of this country we ought not to adopt a measure

Acton, J.
Adair, H. E.
Adair, R. A. S.
Alcock, T.
Anderson, Sir J.
Atherton, W.
Ball, J.
Barnes, T.
Baxter, W. E.
Bass, M. T.
Bell, J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.
Biddulph, R. M.
Biggs, W.
Blake, M. J.
Bland, L. H.

De Vere, S. E.
Dillwyn, L. L.
Duffy, C. G.
Duke, Sir J.
Duncan, Visct.
Duncan, G.
Duncombe, T.
Ellice, E.
Esmonde, J.
Ewart, J. C.
Fenwick, H.

Ferguson, J.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

FitzGerald, J. D.

Forster, C.
Forster, J.

Fox, W. J.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Fortescue, C. S.
Brady, J.
Bright, J.

Brocklehurst, J.
Brockman, E. D.
Brotherton, J.
Brown, H.
Byng, hon. G. H. C.
Challis, Mr. Ald.
Cheetham, J.
Clay, Sir W.
Clifford, H. M.
Cobbett, J. M.
Cobden, R.
Coffin, W.
Cowan
Cowan, C.
Craufurd, E. II. J.
Crook, J.
Crossley, F.
Currie, R.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Deasy, R.

Freestun, Col.

Gardner, R.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Glyn, G. C.

Goderich, Visct.

Goodman, Sir G.

Gordon, hon. A.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Grace, O. D. J.

Gregson, S.

Grenfell, C. W.

Greville, Col. F.

Hadfield, G.
Hall, Sir B.

Hankey, T.

Hastie, Alex.
Hastie, Arch.

Headlam, T. E.

Henchy, D. O'C.

Hindley, C.

Horsman, rt. hon, E.

for a long period by Mr. Barrow, and the office has since been filled by Captain (now Admiral) Hamilton and other naval officers. The late Government considered that that office should not only be nonpolitical, but that it should be held by a naval officer. It would, undoubtedly, be a very great inconvenience to the public service that this secretaryship, as well as the other secretaryship to the Admiralty, should be made a political office; for both be

The House adjourned at a quarter before the secretaries would, in such a case, One o'clock till Thursday.

profession, he would not take care that letters addressed to naval officers should be written in a proper style of courtesy. I may also say, that the secretaryship was offered to a naval officer before it was offered to and accepted by the gentleman who has been referred to, and who, I believe, is likely to discharge his duties very efficiently.

In reply to a question from Lord COLCHESTER,

Admiralty was a Parliamentary office; the other was not; and he believed Mr. Phinn had already resigned his seat in Parlia ment in consequence of having accepted the appointment.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.

civilian to that office. In the case of Captain Hamilton, it might have been accidental that a naval man had been appointed to the post, but I am quite sure that the appointment of a naval officer to such a situation ought to be the rule, and not the exception. The person who occupies the position of Second Secretary to the Admiralty has to transact a great deal of very important business, and, as far as I can recollect, he has to revise the letters which are addressed in the name of the EARL GRANVILLE said, it was very deAdmiralty to naval officers. That is a sirable that noble Lords should give notice duty which requires tact, courtesy, and of their intention to put questions to the knowledge of the profession, and an ac- Government bearing upon subjects of this quaintance with the feelings of the pro-kind. One of the secretaryships to the fession. I recollect perfectly well, when I was for a short time at the Admiralty, that I happened accidentally to see one of the letters addressed in the name of the Admiralty to a naval officer, and I said it was not couched in language in which any naval officer ought to be addressed. In. deed, it would not be proper to address a gentleman in such style. I mentioned the circumstance to Captain Hamilton, who was much pleased with the observations I made, and asked if he might have authority to correct the language of such communications in future, so as to bring it more into conformity with the gentlemanlike language adopted in the army, and which was always practised by the late Duke of Wellington. It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that any one who fills the office of Second Secretary to the Admiralty should be thoroughly acquainted with the feelings of the service. It is desirable that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have an opportunity of communicating confidentially with a gentleman fully acquainted with the naval profession; and to place in such an office as that of Second Secretary any civilian, whatever his abilities may be, is, in my opinion, decidedly detrimental to the public service.

EARL GRANVILLE: I have nothing to add to my former statement, except, in expressing my full concurrence in the testimony borne by the noble Earl who last addressed your Lordships to the services of Admiral Hamilton, to say that, for a long time past, that gallant officer has been most desirous to retire from the office he has held with so much credit to himself and so much advantage to the public. I cannot, however, agree with the noble Earl that, because a gentleman belongs to the legal and not to the naval

Order of the day for the second Reading read.

VISCOUNT CANNING, in moving that the Bill be now read the Second time, said, that although the subject which he was about to bring before their Lordships was one that came before their eyes every day, and although of late years it had been frequently a matter of discussion in the other House of Parliament and out of doors, he believed a long time had elapsed since the question had been brought in any shape before their Lordships' House. Not that any imputation could rest upon their Lordships for not having taken the initiative in considering a question which so materially affected the intelligence, education, and social condition of their fellowcountrymen; for he apprehended that the initiative had been left to the other House of Parliament because the question could not be dealt with without interfering more or less with a source of revenue. whatever might be the reason which had prevented the question from being brought before their Lordships in late years, it might perhaps be convenient, before he proceeded to describe the provisions of the Bill, that he should state to the House the present condition of the law upon the subject, the manner in which it had operated, and the reasons which made it not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that some change should take place. The early history of the stamp upon newspapers might be very shortly told; but in mentioning its principal features, he would

But,