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

THE PRESS, JUNE 12, 1858.

of Commons might have to resume the consideration
of 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