House of Commons are not the exponents of the public feeling of this country. I cannot help thinking that in adopting such a doctrine your Lordships will be setting an example to others who feel disposed to deny the authority of the House of Commons. Moreover, I entirely repudiate the notion that the House of Commons does not represent the popular feeling on any given question, because that question does not happen to be the one important cry at the General Election. I entirely differ from the opinion that there is any degeneracy in the House of Commons of the present day; but it is certainly, if anything, a little too much inclined to act and vote according to the present feeling of the constituents it represents; but taking that criterion it affords unmistakable proof that the large majorities in favour of the Ballot were not arrived at without communication with its constituents, and without a full knowledge of their feelings on this subject. I do not presume to dictate to your Lordships, or to offer advice as to the wisest course your Lordships should adopt; but I must say that I can hardly conceive that, on the plea that your Lordships' House ought not to be a mere copying machine of the House of Commons, your Lordships can be prepared to take your stand on a great question of this kind, unless your ground is much firmer than I believe it to be in this instance. not heard a single argument in favour | doctrine that large majorities in the of the course you are now asked to take, except from the noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Harrowby). I have not heard the slightest answer attempted to the speech of the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), who urged reasons of the greatest importance why your Lordships should considerand deeply consider the course to be taken to-night; nor have I heard the slightest answer attempted to the speech of the noble Duke, who gave what I believe to be sound advice, and who is not a friend of the Ballot any more than the noble Earl to whom I have alluded. I cannot conceive that your Lordships are going to put yourselves in deliberate opposition to the decision of the House of Commons in this matter, and on a great question which, important as it is to us as well as to the general public, in a particular degree affects the procedure adopted at elections for the other House of Parliament. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) made an excellent speech on the subject of the Ballot, but a speech which would have been an excellent one against the second reading of the Ballot, for it did not contain a word in favour of the Amendment for which we are now asked to vote. The statements made by the noble Earl were not in every respect accurate, for the colony of Victoria, where he says there is no Ballot, has not only a Ballot but the very form of Ballot provided in this Bill. Adopting the laudator temporis acti tone, he appealed to the example of the late Lord Grey in that great historical question upon which a majority of your Lordships were opposed to his views, but the inference to be drawn from what passed at that time appeared to me to be in great opposition to the views which he recommended at present to your Lordships. It is far frommy wish, however, to enter into any argument either for or against the Ballot, for upon the second reading your Lordships have already decided in favour of the Bill. I have not heard one reason assigned to-night for this curious admixture of secret and open voting, which would engraft the most aggravated disadvantages of the one system upon the other. I will only add one word about the feeling of the country on this subject. I doubt whether it is in consonance with real Conservative feeling that this House should sanction the On Question, Whether to insist? Their Lordships divided: Contents 138; NotContents 157: Majority 19. Resolved in the Negative. Beaufort, D. Rutland, D. CONTENTS. Bandon, E. Cadogan, E. Abercorn, M. (D. Aber- Doncaster, E. (D. Вис corn.) Abergavenny, E. cleuch and Queensberry.) Ferrers, E. Feversham, E. Gainsborough, E. Graham, E. (D. Mont rose.) Harewood, E. Hillsborough, E. (М. Downshire.) Roden.) Clinton, L. Colchester, L. Colonsay, L. Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.] Sondes, L. St. John of Bletso, L. Strathnairn, L. Talbot de Malahide, L. Templemore, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Water ford.) Wemyss, L.(E. Wemyss.) Wigan, L. (E. Craw ford and Bulcarres.) Wynford, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L. Somerset, D. Sutherland, D. Ailesbury, M. Anglesey, M. Lansdowne, M. Lismore, L.(V.Lismore.) Londesborough, L. Lurgan, L. Lyttelton, L. Lytton, L. Leinster, V. (D. Lein- Meldrum, L. (M.Huntly.) Meredyth, L. (L. Ath ster.) lumney.) Lifford, V. Methuen, L. Ossington, V. Powerscourt, V. Minster, L. (M. Conyng ham.) Chichester, Bp. Mont Eagle, L. (M.Sligo.) London, Bp. Manchester, Bp. Oxford, Bp. Monteagle of Brandon, L. Mostyn, L. O'Hagan, L. Panmure, L. (E. Dal Balinhard, L. (E. South- Petre, L. Conyers, L. De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Denman, L. De Ros, L. NOT-CONTENTS. Hatherley, L. (L. Chan- Saint Albans, D. [Teller.] cellor.) York, Archp. Devonshire, D. Manchester, D. Northumberland, D. Annaly, L. housie.) Penzance, L. esk.) Beaumont, L. Blachford, L. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery) [Teller.] Brougham and Vaux, L. Calthorpe, L. Carrington, L. Poltimore, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess borough.) Portman, L. Ribblesdale, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rose- Rossie, L. (L.Kinnaird.) Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) Gosford.) Sundridge, L.(D.Argyll.) Wrottesley, L. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, he supposed the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would not, after that expression of their Lordships' opinion, object to the other Amendments to the clause being inserted. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND agreed that, after the division which had been just taken, the proper course would be for their Lordships not to insist on their Amendments, but to agree with the Commons' Amendments in the rest of Clause 2. Then several Amendments not insisted on; and Commons Amendment agreed to. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved that their Lordships do not insist on their Amendment to Clause 3, relating to the property in the voting papers being vested in the Returning Officers. LORD CAIRNS said, the House of Commons had made the appropriation of documents a much more serious of fence when committed by the Returning Officer than it was when committed by an inferior officer at the election. As, however, the property was vested in the Returning Officer, it would be impossible to convict him. On Question? Resolved not to insist. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved that their Lordships do not insist on the Amendment they had made in Clause 6, with reference to the use of schools as polling-places. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH strongly objected to their Lordships abandoning this Amendment. He thought it was unjust that schools should be seized for the purposes of elections. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK said, it was a great public convenience that additional polling-places should be provided at very little expense; but he wished to point out to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) that while the clause provided compensation for any damage done to the school rooms, no compensation was provided for the loss the managers might suffer through an interruption of the attendance of the scholars. He hoped the noble Marquess would take care that the Bill should be amended in that respect. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY supported the view of the most rev. Primate. EARL GREY said, the use of schoolrooms one day in three day or four years would cause very little damage to the managers of schools. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND differed entirely from the noble Earl (Earl Grey) when he stated that schoolrooms would be occupied only one day for these purposes. As he understood, a schoolroom was to be converted into a polling booth, and, if there was to be secret voting, compartments for that purpose must be built. They could not be built on the day on which the polling was to be taken; and another day would be required for pulling them down. As to the attendance at school, if it was known that there was to be a broken week not a single child would go to school that week. Compensation, therefore, ought to be made to the managers of these schools for the damage they might sustain in respect of fees and grants. THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND supported these arguments. LORD DUNSANY said, the clause as it now stood would apply to every part of a school-house, even to the bed-rooms. LORD DENMAN objected to schools being invaded for election purposes. On Question? Resolved not to insist. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in Clause 6, page 5, line 30, after ("expense") to insert (" and make good any loss of fees or Parliamentary grant"). THE MARQUESS OF RIPON urged the difficulty there would be in ascertaining any loss from the use of the schools. There were other holidays, and the grant might be lost through other causes. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, the clause as it stood would induce the owners of schools now receiving the Parliamentary grant to forego that grant in order to prevent the use of them for this purpose. The parishioners would thus be put to the expense of building schools. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY offered to withdraw his Amendment if care in the Parliamentary grant that schools were not damnified by the proposed use of them. That would be a fair compromise. the Government would undertake to take | Beauchamp), the effect of which was to THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, he could only undertake to submit the question to his Colleagues on the Committee of Council. He would remind their Lordships that the privileges of the other House would be infringed by any Amendment which would impose a charge on the public Revenue. On Question? Their Lordships divided: -Contents 117; Not-Contents 67: Majority 50. Resolved in the Affirmative. Clause 24 (Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments) considered and agreed to. render the Bill a temporary measure, terminating in 1880. That was a most unusual course of proceeding. The other House disagreed with it, and he concurred in their decision, inasmuch as it would be better to leave Parliament free to consider the question of the Ballot whenever, in their judgment, the period arrived for doing so; whereas if this Amendment were put in the Bill, they might be compelled to deal with the question at a time least convenient to them and the country. Mored, not to insist on the Amendment made by the Lords at the end of Clause 33 to which the Commons disagree. EARL BEAUCHAMP said, that what had occurred within the very last few minutes supplied a strong argument in favour of the revision of this Bill by Parliament at no distant date. The remarks of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in commenting upon the speech of the noble Earl on the cross-bench (Earl Grey) had strengthened the case in favour of that Amendment. The noble Earl on the cross-bench rested his whole argument against the optional Ballot, on the ground that he was in favour of the Amendment now under discussion; and that Amendment ought to receive the support of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, since he had so much commended the speech of the noble Earl on the cross-bench. In their Reasons for disagreeing with that Amendment the Commons urged that it affected the constitution and the privileges of their House, and that it was neither expedient nor according to precedent that a measure to which they had given such attention should be made temporary. He had every respect for precedent; but thought it the height of superstition to invoke the chimera of precedent when, as in this case, it did not really apply. Moreover, it did not lie in the mouths of those who were imposing on the people of this country a measure so novel in its character as a secret Ballot that that particular provision was without precedent. Again, there was not a single word in the Bill which affected the constitution or the privileges of the House of Commons. What it really affected was the manners and habits of the people of this country; and their Lordships ought to take efficient security that the Bill should receive adequate consideration when it had been tested by the light of experience. He must therefore ask their Lordships to insist on that Amendment. On Question, Whether to insist? Their Lordships divided: - Contents 117, NotContents 58: Majority 59. Resolved in the Affirmative. Page 24, lines 25 and 26, moved to insist on the Amendment made by the Lords to which the Commons disagree. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON proposed that the House do not insist on the Amendment. LORD CAIRNS said, he could not understand what object would be served by any man making a false declaration before the presiding officer, and certainly no reason could be assigned in support of the presumption that the voter would make a true declaration before a magistrate, and a false one before a Returning Officer. Unless the voter were permitted to make the declaration before the Returning Officer a working man would be compelled to lose half-a-day in making his declaration, besides another half-day in voting. He trusted their Lordships would not allow the Commons to make that a disfranchising Bill. On Question, Whether to insist? Their Lordships divided: -Contents 88; NotContents 57: Majority 31. Resolved in the Affirmative. Several amendments insisted on; seve ral not insisted on; and Commons' amendments agreed to; and a Committee ap pointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reasons; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with amendments and reasons. SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.] A Bill to amend and facilitate the application of the Law relating to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction-Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 200.) House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] SUPPLY-considered in Committee Resolutions [July 5] reported. PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First Reading-Grand Juries (Middlesex)* [235]; Basses Lights (Ceylon) [234]. First Reading - Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment [227]: Debtors (Ireland) * [228]. Second Reading-Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment [216]; Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension * [219]. Report of Select Committee - Pawnbrokers [No. 288]. Committee-Report-Railways Provisional Certificate Confirmation (re-comm.) * [192]; Municipal Officers Superannuation (re-comm.) * [154]-R.P. Report - Victoria Park * [201-232]; Pawnbrokers [173-233]. Third Reading-Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [171]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2) [218]; Baptismal Fees * [209], and passed. Withdrawn-Admiralty and War Office Rebuilding * [200]. IRELAND-GALWAY ELECTION INQUIRY -MR. JUSTICE KEOGH. QUESTION. SIR THOMAS BATESON: I wish, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the Irish Government annually takes stringent measures to prevent the burning of the effigy of "the traitor Lundy" at Derry, and, in order thereto, periodically moves to that city, at the expense of the nation, large forces of military and constabulary; and that since the recent decision on the county Galway Election Petition, the effigy of Mr. Justice Keogh has been publicly burned at various places in the cities and counties of Dublin, Cork, Wexford, Waterford, Drogheda, and in particular at Derry, without any active attempt by the Government, or police force under their orders, to obstruct the same; whether he is prepared to extend to the effigy of Judge Keogh the same protection which has been afforded to the Lundy effigy; and, whether, at this late period, he will take proper steps to protect this learned Judge from further insult and outrage, |