The grand object of Mr. Forster's Bill was to substitute for tumultuous practices, disgraceful to our national character, an orderly method worthy of the occasion. The choice of men fit to represent the people in the great council of the nation is the most important public business which Englishmen have to do, and it may fairly be said that, so far as the course of procedure is concerned, there is no piece of public business so ill-done.

Another set of valuable provisions in the Bill related to the increase of the number of polling-places, so that, as far as practicable, electors might be able to record their votes at places within easy distances from their residences.

In the original Bill there were also clauses casting the official expenses of elections upon the borough and county rates, but at a late period of the session these clauses were rejected.

The opposition which the Bill encountered was nearly of the same character as that to which the Army Bill was subjected; that is to say, a band of devoted partisans executed a concerted design of delaying the Bill by prolix speeches and various dilatory manœuvres which are practicable under the present Standing Orders.

The discussion upon the general principles of the Bill was taken upon the motion for going into committee. This debate was commenced on June 22, and occupied three nights. On June 29 the motion for going into committee was carried by a majority of 326 The discussion in committee commenced on July 4. As soon as the chairman had taken his seat, Mr. Fielden moved that he should leave it, and renewed the discussion upon the general principle of the Bill. In the course of the very animated debate which followed, Mr. Gladstone said:

to 232.

The privileges of this House have been strained during the present session to a degree altogether without example; and if the same course of conduct is persevered in, either the House must renounce its duties, or it will be compelled to do that which I consider a serious though lesser evil-to reconsider its rules.

On the 6th of July two hundred and sixty members of the Liberal party assembled at Mr. Gladstone's official residence to confer with him and Mr. Forster with reference to the Bill. In order to expedite the progress of the measure, many of the members agreed to withdraw amendments of which they had given notice, and there was a general understanding that the supporters of the Government would not take part in a debate which was prolonged by their opponents with the obvious purpose of delay. The speeches delivered at the ensuing evening sitting of the House were so manifestly of this character that there was no attempt at reply. Most of the Liberal members left their seats and the few, who remained, sat in silence. About 10 o'clock the flood of oratory abated. A division was taken upon a motion for adjournment, and, the Liberals having hurried back to their places, the motion was defeated by a majority of 154 to 63.

The character of the subsequent proceedings in committee is sufficiently indicated by the following brief notes of some of the incidents and subjects discussed on the several days mentioned:

وو

20. Angry discussion on the waste of time over the

Bill.

July 27. Other clauses to Clause 11.

وو

Mr. Forster an

nounced that certain clauses relating to corrupt

practices would be abandoned.

28. Votes of mariners and licensed pilots.

31. Clauses casting official expenses of electors on the rates were rejected by a majority of 256 to 160. Aug. 1. Corrupt practices; hire of rooms at public houses. The sitting extended over eleven hours, and there were five divisions.

وو

3. The Bill passed through committee after nine hours' further discussion.

After a discussion in committee of almost unparalleled length, the Bill was reported on August 7, and the next day was carried to the House of Lords. There Lord Shaftesbury, on August 10, moved the rejection of the Bill, solely on the ground that, as it was introduced into the Upper House near the end of the session, there was not sufficient time allowed to the Peers for duly considering it. Lord Shaftesbury's motion was carried by a majority of 97 to 48 votes.

The Government has been severely censured for persevering with the Ballot Bill during the last two months of the session, and for continuing an almost hopeless struggle to get it passed in the present year. There were, however, two or three potent reasons for this perseverance. In the first place, the resistance in the House of Commons was that of a minority relying, not on strength of argument, but a shameful abuse of rules of procedure. The great majority constantly and unequivocally manifested an earnest desire to pass the Bill. By yielding to the scandalous opposition, the Government would have allowed the minority to have vanquished the majority, and would have established a baneful precedent. In the second place, the Lords are not likely to reject the Bill more than once. Next year the Bill will be presented again with such improvements as the late Parliamentary discussion has sug

gested. Almost every subject connected with the Ballot has been amply discussed, and consequently the argument next year will be greatly abridged. Members have compared their views, and the points of agreement and difference are now ascertained. It may be anticipated that the progress of the measure next year will be comparatively rapid, and that the Upper House will not reject again a measure which has twice passed the House of Commons. The consideration of the Bill in both Houses during the present Session has advanced the enactment of the Ballot by a whole year.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ADMIRALTY AND NAVY.

NAVAL affairs and the management of the Admiralty had their full share of consideration during the session of 1871. Mr. Childers resigned his office of First Lord of the Admiralty in March on account of severe and long continued illness. He had previously effected material changes in the constitution of the Board. For many years it consisted of six Lords-the First Lord, who was usually a Cabinet Minister, four Naval Lords, and a Civil Lord. The four Naval Lords were nominally of equal rank, but the first of them had the more important office, performing some of the functions of a naval Commander-in-chief, and superintending dockyard business. There was no Lord or Secretary charged with the finance of the department, and the continuous supervision and control of expenditure. With regard to the Controller of the Navy, Mr. Childers thus expressed his opinion in a memorandum of December 1868, transmitted to the Treasury:—

The position of the Controller of the Navy is the most anomalous feature of the present system. He acts under the supervision of the First Naval Lord, that is to say, of the officer who is specially concerned with the efficiency and strength of the fleet, and no civilian can be said effectually to control his expenditure. Hence, practically, the only member of the Board in a position to enforce economy in shipbuilding is the person most interested in increased expenditure.1

Mr. Childers recommended that the number of Lords

1 Appendix to Report of Lords' Committee on the Admiralty, 1871.