The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 12, 1858. of Commons might have to resume the co ns id era ti on o f this question, when, instead of discussing an ab stract resolution upon the narrow ground of this bill, the house might approach the discussion in a spirit of conciliation. If it did so, he felt convinced that the house would have its reward in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Sir J. TRELAWNY having replied, upon a division, the amendment was negatived by 266 to 203, and the bill was read a third time and passed. In the evening, in reply to Mr. Win, Mr. S. FITZGERALD explained the circumstances under which the Minister of Tuscany had permission to leave his post. check bribery, but that it would be more effectual in putting down intimidation ; and he attributed the opposition to the measure to a belief that the ballot would be an obstruction to intimidation. The ballot proposed by Mr. Berkeley was totally different from that of America; it would secure, not only secrecy, but accountability. Lord PALMERSTON could not concur in the motion. Mr. Berkeley, he observed, bad not explained whether the mode of voting by ballot was to be compulsory or permissive; if compulsory, it would impose a restric tion upon electors incompatible with the national feeling and the vital principle of the Constitution. The law must go further, and make it penal for a man to tell how be voted. He maintained that the franchise was a trust, and should be exercised, like all our parliamentary functions, in a manner open to the criticism of the public. The ballot would not accom plish the object of secrecy, and, if it did, it would convert electors into hypocrites, and put an end to public and party sprit in the country. Mr. BRIGHT would not go to the United States or to Australia. lie would have this measure con sidered with reference to the conditions of our own society, and he insisted that this country, where there were so many incentives to undue influence, and so little power of resisting it, was of all countries that in which this question ought to be fairly con sidered, and if the remedy was good, it should be applied. lie described the secret operation of in fluence in our electoral system, and cited evidence of what he termed the intolerably working of the screw spoken of by Mr. Berkeley. To masses of the popu lation the franchise would be of no use without the ballot. Was it not a fact, he asked, that in every petition for Parliamentary Reform the house was asked to include the ballot, and that at almost every public meeting held for years past the establishment of secret voting by the ballot was made a cardinal point? Would the house disregard this? As the ballot was no sacred principle, but a mere matter of ma chinery, no member, he observed, could be charged with inconsistency in consenting to try this great ex periment; and he appealed to both sides of the house to lay aside their fears, to have a little faith, and not to be misled by the flimsy arguments of Lord Pal merston, but, for the sake of morality and. the tran quillity of the couutry, to give a candid and favour able consideration to Mr. Berkeley's preposition. Mr. WALPOLE observed that the fair way of testing this question was by considering whether opt.n or secret voting was most successful in putting down bribery and intimidation; and he contended, from known facts and the history of late yearF, that there could be but one conclusion,—namely, that in order to prevent the corrupting intimidating influences exerted during elections there must be the means of detection and punishment. For this purpose, as well as for the sake of public responsibility and bringing to bear upon it the control of public opinion, there must be publicity. If the secret system of voting were once established, there would be great danger that engines would be used in the dark which could not be employed in the light. He could not consent to the introduction of the bill. ---- Lord J. Itt7ssm. replied to Mr. Bright, who had represented truly, he said, that this was a change in only the machinery of our electoral system ; but he (Lord John) considered that the change would be not for the better, but for the worse. It was strange, he remarked, that the advocates of the ballot were not able to show a completely satisfactory example that where the ballot was established there were more facilities for discussion and greater liberty of choice than under our own imperfect system. He was therefore not willing to make a change, which, he repeated, would, in his opinion, be a change fur the worse; aa.l if anything could prevent the serious mischief of such a change, it would be the open truth-telling character of the people. Mr BERKELEY having replied, the house divided, when the motion was negatived by 294 to 197. Mr. PAULL obtained leave to bring in a bill to encourage and facilitate the erection and improve• ment of piers and harbours in Great Britain and Ireland. A discussion arose upon a motion of Sir J. ELPEIIN STONE for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the law by which the property of Government, in the boroughs of Greenwich, Chat ham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, and other boroughs is rendered exempt from local rates and taxes. Colonel Bor.hEio moved an address to her Ma jesty to appoint a Roysl Commission to inquire into certain matters which had come to the knowledge of the Committee on Contracts in Public Departments, with reference to alleged misdoing 4 at IV.•edon. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the ExcuE quEn, the debate was adjourned. Lord NAAS obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the office of Petty Sessions Clerk in Ireland. Colonel W. PATTEN moved for a select committee to inquire into the best mode of securing the public interests and diminishing parliamentary expenses in reference to railway end canal legislation, which was agreed to. Mr. HUNT obtained leave to bring in a bill to abolish freedom from arrest in the case of members of Parliament; and Mr. ADAMS a bill to amend the Act of 186, to facilitate leases and sales of settled estates. The remaining business having been disposed of, the house adjourned at a quarter piti,t one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY. TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL. The adjoi - irn - eddeitteOUilieSeoond reeding of the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill was resumed by Mr. Sergeant DEASY, who supported the bill, arguing that, although the legislation it pr posed was excep tional, Parliament was bound to legislate exception ally for Ireland in this matter, to remedy the abuses which sprang from the possession of irresponsible power, and which, by creating a sense of insecurity, obstructed the flow of capital for the employment of labour. Jr. DOBBS, considering that the effect of this and similar measures would be to interfere with the rights of property, and to transfer property from one man to another, declared his decided opposition to the bill. Mr. Moroni, in supporting the bill, stated the reasons why this legislation was, in his opinion, ne cessary. Practically, the relations between landlord and tenant were different in Ireland from what they were in any other country in the world. The debate, which was almost entirely restricted to the general principle of making compensation to tenants for improvements, was continued by Irish members, the arguments pro and con. varying little from those repeatedly employed in former discussions of measures of a similar character. Mr. WHITESIDE reviewed the whole question in its different phases and bearings, and, with reference to this particular measure, declared that, in his opinion, it would be impossible to carry it out prac tically, and if carried out it would be unjust, and more mischievous to the tenant than to the land lord. He could not therefore assent to the second reading. Mr. MAGUIRE having rep'ied, and the house having divided, the amendment of Sir J. Warsu, that the second reading he deferred for six mouths, was carried by 200 b 63 ; so the hill is lost. The other orders were gone through, and the house adjourned at six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS--TucasnAY. PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL. Earl FORTESQUE moved the second reading of the Property Qualificatioa Bill. He approved the objec t of the measure on the general principle that re quiring a property qualification from members et Parliament limited the freedom of choice, and was an infringement on the rights of the people. In practice the present law was constantly evaded ; of the facility with which it was broken through he gave a striking illustration in the case of an Irish mem ber, who marked out an estate on the map in a wild region of the country, and on that qualification sat through two Parliaments. The present bill was supported by some of the principal members of the Government in the other house, and would not, he believed, now be opposed. Earl GREY thought the bill of itself was unimpor• tant, and he should not offer any opposition to it. He saw nothing unreasonable in requiring such a property qualification from members as would guarantee their independence ; but the law as it stood was evaded, and the guarantee was weakened. The measure, however, in another point of view was im portant ; he considered it only one of • series put forward by a party that desired to effect a total change in the representative system, a change that woald bring it closer to a Democracy ; that party knew it was hopeless to propose all they contem lated in any one great scheme ; but they were obtaining their object by degrees, and in detail. They should beware how they were drawn into those changes step by step. Lord Emmy approved the measure, which might be dealt with on its own merits; he could not con sider it as part of any great plan. The Duke of RUTLAND protested against the bill, as the present law had never excluded any one from Parliament. The Earl of DERBY thought there was no occasion for the solemn warning Earl Grey had given against sweeping changes ; no one would resist such ulterior measures more Tenuously than himself. He dill not see how the present bill was connected with them ; sod it did nut follow that because the House of Commons had passed this measure it would agree to the changes Earl Grey had alluded to. The House of Commons was at that moment, he believed, con sidering a bill effecting the 101. franchise in counties, and that bill be should strongly oppose. So each change should be dealt with by itself, not in reference to others not before them. As to the question of a THE BALLOT. Mr. 11. BERKELEY repeated his annual motion for leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes of parlia mentary electors to be taken by way of ballot. He founded his advocacy of the ballot, he said, by which he meant emphatically secret voting, upon one sound atioin—that Parliament had no right to create a functionary without giving to that functionary ade quate protection in the discharge of his office. He reiterated most of his former arguments, founded upon principle and upon successful experiments, in favour of this mode of taking votes, contending that under the present mode elections went for nothing, and the nation was not fairly represented. The first step to a reform of Parliament, he said, was to free the electors, who were now bound hand and foot, and there was no other way of doing this than by giving them the ballot. He illustrated his arguments by familiar examples of the application of what he termed the " screw." The motion was seconded by Mr. W. P. MAnTlx, who expressed his belief that the ballot was not only a just, but, as it appeared to be in Australia, a Con servative measure. Mr. HUNT explained an allusion made to him by Mr. Berkeley. Mr. S. ESTCOURT, in resisting the motion, urged, among other reasons for desiring publicity, that secrecy in the discharge of a public function was un- English—that is, it was directly at variance with the habits, customs, and notions of Englishmen. He maintained that the franchise was a public trust, and that all public trusts ought to be openly exercised. In his opinion, the ballot would not put down intimi dation and bribery, while it would introduce evils of its own; the principle would work ill for the public, and cause misunderstandings, jealousies, and heart burnings. Sir A.. Euros supported the motion. There should, he said, be no artificial restraint upon the free action of the voter. The ballot would enable him to act independently of all influence, and was the only means of securing his independence, whereas open voting counteracted the natural intention of the Reform Bill. Mr. BENTINCK remarked that Mr. Berkeley must know as sell as he did that the proper title of a bill for introducing the system of the ballot ought to be " a bill to prevent the detection of bribery." lie defied any one to show that there would be any other result from the ballot system except that it would he per:ectly impossible under it to detect systematic bribery•. - _ General THoMpSON endeavoured to remove a mis apprehension upon this question, by observing that there was no wish to prevent a voter from making his vote public; all that was desired was that the act of voting should be such that the vote could not be known unless the voter pleased. Mr. HOPE denied that success had attended the experiment of the ballot, which had been tried re peatedly in France, and the result did not justify Mr. Berkeley in saying that the cause of the ballot was the cause of liberty. It wag in the cause of liberty and progress he (Mr. Hope) protested against the ballot.. If introduced into England the first stone would be laid of that edifice of oligarchy and despotism which existed in America. Sir G. LEWIS remarked that this question had been argued on both sides on the supposition that the ballot would produce a system of secret voting ; but the position he wished to see established was that the ballot would produce a system of secrecy. He contended that in the United States the ballot Was not a system of secret voting. With the excep non of one State, the votes taken by ballot were P r actically as public as in England ; the real dine rence was that in the United States the ballot, being a piece of paper, is put into a box, and there is no authentic and official record of the vote, so that there Could be no indictment for bribery. In other re hpeets, voting in the United States and in England was Practically identical. Unless universal secrecy Were secured, no effectual protection would be given, and the ballot did not secure universal secrecy in the Lulled States. Mr. Msesit described the working of the ballot in Australis where, he said, it had produced not good but harm, and read reports of strange proceedings 10 a colonial legislature. Mr. AVETON supported the motion. He argued that the baUot, if it would not extinguish, would I