The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-06 00:00:00

U . JUNE 6, 1857. Vroct6ings zn Varlinintnt. Both houses reassembled on Thursday after tho Whitsuntide recess. HOUSE OF LORDS—Turnsmr. SALE OF POISONS BILL. Lord GRANVILLE moved that the house go into committee on the Sale of Poisons Bill, a measure which contained some very useful provisions, though it was not, perhaps, as perfect as it might be. The noble earl, in detailing the provisions of the bill, remarked that 16,000 persons were at present engaged in the sale of poisons, and that 500 deaths annually occurred from poisoning. After a short discussion, in which Lords CAMPBELL, HARDWICKE, and TALBOT DE MALAHIDE took part, Lord REDESDALE proposed that the bill be referred to a select committee, which was agreed to. DIVORCE AND MATRIMGNIAL CAUSES BILL. The report having been brought up, Lord BROUGHAM expressed his objection to the substitute proposed under the Bill for the Action for Criminal Conversation ; and with regard to the amendment, as it was called, which forbade the marriage of the wife, lie declared that a greater blot had never been attached to a useful measure than by this amendment. Lord REDESDALE defended the amendment, on scriptural grounds—" Whosoever married a woman that was divorced committed adultery." Lord BROUGHAM said he was well aware that his noble friend (Lord Redosdale) held that the passage of Scripture he had quoted was absolutely pro hibitory; but his (Lord Brougham's) answer to that was, that his noble friend had propounded that doc trine 150 years too late, for their lordships' house for a century and a half had gone on missing divorce bilk and allowing the guilty party to marry again. The report was received. THE OATHS BILL. Lord CAMPBELL brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Administration of Oaths to Witnesses, and moved— That select committees in future shall examine witnesses without their having been previously sworn, except in cases in which it may be otherwise ordered by the house. And— That all committees on private bills shall examine wit nesses on oath, except in cases in which it may be other wise ordered by the house. The resolutions were then put and agreed to nemine contradicente, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-THURSDAY. THE OATHS DILL. Sir F. THESIGER rose to state the course which he proposed to pursue with regard to the Oaths Bill, the second reading of which is fixed fur Monday next, And to which he would offer no opposition : What I propose to do. is to offer no opposition to the second reading of the hill, but in committee 1 shall pro• pose the insertion of certain words which will preserve the Christian character of these oaths. In that manner 1 shall raise the simple question without the admixture of any foreign matter, whether this house is prepared to admit to the Legislature persons who do not profess the Christian faith? PAPER DUTY. ThA CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. G. A. Hami!ton, said ba had no intention at present of introducing a measure for the reduction of the paper duty. CHURCF. PATES. Sir J. TRELAWNY put the following question to Lord Palmerston : I wish to ask the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment whether it is his intention to introduce a bill this session on the subject of church rates'? Lord PALMERSTON : The Government have a measure upon the subject in course of preparation, and we hope to be able before long to submit it to the consideration of the honse. Sir J. TRELAWNT : The answer of the noble lord does not appear to me to be satisfactory, and I fear I shall there fore be under the necessity of bringing forward this eve ning the motion with regard to church rates which stands on the paper in my name. Sir J. PAKINOTON : The noble lord says it is his inten tion to introduce a bill before long." I wish to know whether he means by those words during the present session ? They might very well mean next session. Lord PALMERSTON : Next sessian is a very long time to look forward to. I meant, of course, that Government intend to introduce the bill during the present session. Sir J. TRELAWNY said that, after the noble lord's last answer, he should withdraw his motion. VOTING AT ELECTIONS. Lord R. CECIL moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the expediency of taking the votes at elections for counties and univer sities by way of voting-papers. The plan would, he maintained, possess many practical advantages, in diminishing the cost and trouble attending the elec tions in question, and in a political point of view THE PRESS. would accomplish many of the objects proposed by the advocates of parliamentary reform, inasmuch as it would enable multitudes to exercise the franchise who were now prevented from voting by distance, infirmity, or business avocations. The voting paper system had been adopted in the election for poor-law guardians, and had in his belief worked well. Mr. SPOONF:R seconded the motion. Mr. 'l'. M‘CuLLAdit objected to increase the number of select committees at a period when there was no time or opportunity for any satisfactory com pletion of the inquiry, and opposed the motion on principle. Lord STANLEY objected to mixing up the cases of universities and counties. If the proposal had been limited to the universities—the academical consti tuency differing from all others insomuch as it was non-resident—he did not know that he should have opposed the motion ; but by extending it to counties, the noble lord had either gone too far or not far enough : He could easily understand why his noble friend dis tinguished the case of university from other elections, but he did not understand why a distinction was drawn between the case of counties and of boroughs. Granting that the area of counties was far more extensive and the population more scattered. this was an evil which might be remedied by an increase in the number of polling places ; and if the principle were once laid down that every person to whom it was not convenient to attend personally at the place of voting should be enabled to vote, he did not see on what principle of justice or expediency you could exclude that large number of non-resident voters who were always to be found in the case of seaport and mercantile towns. But what were the abuses mainly existing in the case of elec tions? They were, as he conceived,lthe risk of rioting, of intimidation, of bribery, and of impersonation. As regarded rioting, he admitted that, to a certain extent, his noble friend had some plea for his measure. Voting by papers would tend to diminish the number of persons gathered together in one place, and would consequently lesson the danger of disturbance. That danger, however, might be equally diminished by increasing the number of polling places: and,after all, wherever there were nomina tions, wherever there were hustings, wherever candidates came to address the constituencies, there masses of men would be gathered together, often in a state of excitement, so that though you might diminish the temptation to riot you could not altogether remove it. When he passed from this part of the question to the danger of intimidation, he confessed it appeared to him that this abuse would be infinitely aggravated by the proposition of his noble friend. What could be easier, under any system that could be devised of voting by papers, than for the agent or any person who had power over another to go to the voter and to insist upon his signing the voting litter in his presence ? Supposing it to be admitted, then, that intimidation might exist under any system of open voting, it seemed to him that the proposition of his nale friend was calculated not to ttimir.ish, but to increase that practice. But when he came to look at the area of the proposition upon bribery, he thought that the evil of that practice would be increased in a still greater degree. At present, whenever bribery took place, one party or the other ran some risk of being deceived. If the bribe were given before the voting paper was signed there was a risk that the voter who had received it might not fulfil his part of the contract, while, if the bribe were promised to be given after the vote, the voter was exposed to the risk of losing that by the promise of which he had been bribed. But the proposition of his noble friend made the thing quite sate—the voter received his money when he handed over the signed voting-paper, and the agent for the candidate obtained, therefore, not security for the vote, but the vote itself. Next as to per. sonation :—At present it was a difficult and a dangerous thing for a non•elector to personate an elector; he could not do it except by appearing in person at the poll, and h put himself thereby in peril of the law. It was evidently much easier to sign a paper than to personate a voter. It might be said that a person signing a paper in the name of a voter would be liable to be charged with forgery ; but the forgery would be committed by a person unknown, Limn would be no clue to the guilty person, and, practically, he believed that it had been found, in elections under the Poor Law, that personation had gone on to a very great extent. But even if it had been shown, as it bad not, that in Poor. Law elections the system of voting by papers had worked satisfactorily, he should still refuse to admit that that afforded any guarantee that it would work satisfactorily in the case of parliamentary elections. There was an immense difference between the amount of temptation in the one case and the other; and the difficulties of detail moreover were such as to make elections carried on in the manner proposed almost impossible. With respect to the particular motion for a select committee, he thought that there would be great practical difficulty in the way of carrying out such an inquiry. Sir F. KELLY observed that Lord R. Cecil asked only for the committee to inquire into a question of general importance in relation to the election of members to Parliament. He pointed out the ad vantages attending a system of voting by papers— the saving of expense, the protection against in timidation, and the putting an end to treating ; and lie considered that the frauds and forgeries committed under the defective machinery of the Poor Law offered no valid objection to the system of voting-papers under a more perfect machinery. Sir G. GREY said, the reason urged by Sir F. Kelly for consenting to the motion—that it was not for leave to bring in a bill, but for inquiry—chiefly weighed with him in resisting it. He thought that this question, not limited to the machinery of 549 the system, was one which the house ought to decide far itself, and not delegate to a committee upstairs. 'lo the proposal to abolish the system of open toting he, at present at least, entertained great objections. Lord R. CECIL, then withdrew his motion. BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. HORSFAI.L moved for a select committee to inquire into the origin, the past and present consti tution, and the powers and duties of the Board of Trade, with the view to its better adaptation to the requirements of the country. The hon. member described in much detail the various duties which were ripw assigned to the Board of Trade, contend ing that the nature of these functions was hetero genous to an extent far beyond its competence to execute : It had been truly said by Mr. Thomas, of the Record office, that the duties of the Board of Trade were of the most miscellaneous character. A part of the duty of that board was to advise the Colonial Secretary on questions affecting the commerce of the colonies. Another part of its duty was to advise the Lords of the Treasury on matters affecting the customs and excise ; and a third part of its duty was to communicate with the Foreign Secretary upon commercial treaties. He should have imagined that these three duties were almost sufficient for one board. But beyond those duties the Board of Trade had to supervise every order in council, to report upon every local bill, every dock bill, and every railway bill. The board also had a sort of general superintendence of agriculture, of corn statistics, of manufactures, of commerce, of navigation, of railways, of the departments of science and art, of Marl borough•house, of the Mining Record-office, of the Geologi cal Survey of the United Kingdom, of the Museum, of Irish Industry, of the registration of science, of the registra tion of designs, of joint stock companies registration, of the metropclitan supply of water, of the Coalwhippers'•office, and, to make its duties comple'e, he did not see why it should not have the control of the medical department, of the industrial school department, and the aggravated assaults on women. The hon. member mentioned instances of what he con sidered to be the injurious exercise of legal powers by the board, and their grasping at power which they did not possess, under the Merchant Shipping Act, cha racterising some of these as inquisitorial proceedings and an interference with local self-government. He strongly censured the board's mode of action with reference co local bills—to the obstruction to com merce at Liverpool—to their corn statistics, which were "worthless "—to their neglect of the interests of trade in maintaining the monopolies of guano— and to railways, complaining that the board inter fered sometimes too much and sometimes too little, and declaring that it was the feeling of the commer cial community that a peer and a lawyer were not fit persons to be placed at its head. Mr. BASS seconded the motion. Mr. LABOUCHERE submitted that no charge of magnitude had been substantiated against the Board of Trade. That department had fulfilled very im• portant functions, and had aided in accomplishing the great changes in our commercial system by which the prosperity of the country had been so vastly enhanced. The only foundation for the pre sent complaint consisted of local grievances and trifling controversies with the board, chiefly urged by persons connected with trade in Liverpool. Sir J. GRAHAM was surprised that an attack upon the Board of Trade should emanate from a repre sentative for Liverpool, which was so deeply indebted to the services of a former member and president of the department, Mr. Huskisson. He bore testimony to the admirable organisation of the board, and to the talents displayed by successive functionaries, including the distinguished names of Huskisson and Ashburton, to whose administration it had been intrusted. Sir James then detailed the principal steps accomplished during the past thirty years to carry out the principle of free trade, in all of which the Board of Trade had taken a prominent part. . . Mr. BENTINCK believed that some change in the constitution of the Board of Trade was desirable. He censured the practice, which seemed to have become habitual, of appointing to the department Ministers who had no acquaintance with trading affairs. sir G. PECHELL commented upon the recent blunders and negligences committed by the Board of Trade in continuing the existing restrictions upon the oyster fisheries. He strongly supported the motion. Mr. LowE remarked that the attack on the board in no way implicated its constitution, but consisted merely of a mass of minute complaints, all of which it was impossible to answer without previous notice. All the functions which the hoard exercised were assigned to it by Acts of Parliament, and the fre quency with which new duties were allotted to the department showed the confidence its administration had inspired in the Legislature. That confidence, he urged, was well earned and judiciously bestowed. The only argument used by Mr. Horsfall for the re construction of the board was that it had too much to do; if so, the remedy was a very simple one—to relieve it, of some of its duties. But the board itself was endeavouring to cure this defect, and had ~""~