The Press.
London, England, 1854-06-17 00:00:00

LODGING-HOUSES.

Tin report lately issued by Captain HAY upon
lodging-houses deserves all the publicity that jour-
nalism can give it—a duty the more acceptable to the
performers because the general tenor of the docu-
ment is satisfactory in a high degree. The Lodging-
houses Act has worked well, and it has remedied a
class of evils for which, except in legislative provisions,
no cure existed. The occupants of the poorest class
of houses had grown used to the state of things which
they found there ; most bad not the power to help
themselves : where the power existed the will was
often wanting; nor could they rely on the forbear-
ance or humanity of the owners. These latter, like
their tenants, had ceased to perceive the filth and in-
decency which surrounded them—the few reforms
which they had tried to introduce were met with op-
position or neglect. In many cases they were them-
selves tenants under the control of other persons, and
often their sole object was to receive as large a return
as possible for a profitable but hazardous invest-
ment.

Under such circumstances legislative intervention
seemed desirable. The law, in its amended state,
reaches both occupier and owner; and especially
provides for the speedy removal of nuisances,
whereby, if left alone, a whole neighbourhood may
be poisoned. Here a defect in the act may be noted.
Power is given to remove any nuisance "in or about"
a lodging-house, but these words do not extend be-
yond the actual premises, and the necessary access
thereto ; the result being, that in cases of great
urgency the police find themselves powerless. There
is a legal remedy, indeed, by application to the magis-
trate ; but the fine imposable Lis low, the process
tedious, and evasion of the law easy, especially where
a large pecuniary profit is involved iu the mainte-
nance of the abuse complained of. This applies
specially to dustyards, and various kinds of unsavoury
manufactures in which a considerable capital has
been invested. But where the nuisance is confined
to the actual lodging-house ample facilities exist for
dealing with it, and herein the law, under Captain
HAY'S superintendence, has worked well. Numerous
instances are cited with which we do not disgust our
readers. Not less than 500 nuisances have been
abated since the passing of the act, and a host of
medical witnesses is adduced to show the improve-
ment thus effected in public health and comfort.
The chief difficulty seems to consist in the want of
drains: in a court or alley a single obstinate pro-
prietor may defeat all the rest, by refusing to allow a
drain to be carried through his property. Captain
HAY'S concluding statement is too remarkable to be
omitted. He thinks that the mere prevention of filth
and indecency will not suffice: some active steps must
be taken to supply respectable accommodation to
the labouring class. He suggests that special in
quiries should be made on this subject through the
agency of the police. It ought to be ascertained how
many of those who complain of the want of lodging
are temperate, well-conducted people ; how far in
dulgence in drink and dissipation has left them
houseless ; and at what cost cleanly lodging can
really be provided. The model lodging-houses, ex-
cellent in their way, are too dear : they assist artisans
in regular employ, but not labourers, who are often
out of work, and who cannot afford to pay, at the
outside, more than Is. or is. M. weekly for rent. It
is reckoned that 80,000 persons live in 4,717 lodging
houses, of which 0n1y11,441 are permanently regis-

555

tered, while the remaining 3,270 remain still under
the observation of the police, requiring improve-
ment before they can be brought within the regula-
tions.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP.
(From a Correspondent.)
Wn have received many communications—some in
the shape of pamphlets, others in that of notices
from our contemporaries of all opinions—on the sub-
ject of the stamp duty. None of these, we confess,
have shaken our faith in the justice of the views
lately set forth in the PaEss. Indeed, the majority
tend greatly to confirm them, by the exclusive per-
tinacity with which the writers harp on objections
long ago anticipated, and on arguments wholly beside
the matter in hand. What must be the case of those
who support the tax, when one respectable journalist
gravely assures us d the number of newspapers is
not susceptible of increase, owing to the impossibility
of obtaining paper in sufficient quantities ; and,
"therefore,"—for the argument is as remarkable as
the discovery on which it rests,—that an arbitrary
fiscal limitation of the price at which newspapers
may be published is no injustice, but, on the whole,
a convenient arrangement?
Another writer more plausibly ccntends that,
though a certain injustice is done by taxing journals
which do not use the Post-office for the benefit of
those which do, yet that, striking a balance, the
public is more benefited by the power of multiplied
gratuitous transmissions than individuals are in
jured by the inequality of the tax. The morality of
the argument here employed we shall not stop to
scrutinise. It is a curious principle in legislation,
and not a safe one, to say that one person may be a
little wronged in order that another may be greatly
advantaged. But in truth the two things here
jumbled together—the compulsory imposition of the
stamp upon all journals, and the free transmission of
journals once stamped—have no necessary connec-
tion. It cannot, we think, be argued as a matter of
RIGHT that whereas a letter weighing half an ounce
can only be sent through the post once for a penny,
a newspaper, weighing considerably more, shall be
transmitted six or seven times for that same sum.
If, in consideration of the public convenience, and of
the value of the press as an educational instrument,
Parliament chooses to continue to us this privilege,
we accept it with thanks, and we believe the conces-
sion to be a wise one. But we cannot shut our eyes
to the fact that it is a concession—a privilege, a
boon, call it what you will—not a mercantile transac-
tion between individuals and the Government, in
which a certain sum is paid as equivalent for service
rendered. For this privilege we are thankful ; but
let it not be made an excuse for taxing unfairly those
journals which, by the local character of their circu-
lation, do not require it, while they sutler far more
than we do from the penny tax. Justice first ; con-
venience or generosity afterwards. Relieve the
newspaper which is not posted from the postal
charge, and then consider the propriety of charging,
or of leaving uncharged, the conveyance of journals
which have already passed once through the post.
A third objection is raised, which seems so futile
that nothing except its appearance in a Times lead-
ing article would justify our noticing it in reply. It
is to the effect that the "manufacture " (we quote
the phrase) of newspapers is of necessity carried on
chiefly in London, because of the advantages which
a central position gives for the collection of news.
Consequently, so runs the argument, a tax which in-
creases this tendency to centralisation cannot be un-
just. Now, we deny both the premises and the con-
clusion herein contained. It is true that London is,
and must always continue to be, the centre and focus
of political information. But politics do not consti-
tute the whole range of subjects with which jour-
nalism is conversant, though political partisans are
very apt to think so. Local news, local controver•
sies, local advertisements, are interesting to astral
and provincial residents. These, of course, find no
place in metropolitan organs. A farmer in an agri-
cultural district who wants to sell his stock does not
think of advertising in the Times. Why should he
go to the expense of telling the whole civilised world
that which it only concerns him that his neighbours
within twenty-five miles round should know ? What
he wants is a local organ, and this is exactly what
the Legislature tries to prevent him from having ; it
would be difficult to say on what ground. We dis•
pute, therefore, the sweeping assertion of the Times,
"that newspapers can only be produced profitably in
London or the great towns." But, even were we to
concede the fact, what does it prove? That because
the competition is unequal, therefore the weight of
taxation should be thrown on the weaker competitor ?
Strange justice ! It may be doubtful political
economy, but it is at least intelligible to say "coun-
try journals cannot compete with those of the towns,
therefore we will impose upon them a proportionally
,fighter load of taxation." But for a directly con-

~..

f-

556

trary process we know not what plea can be put
forward : never before did selfishness go the
length of saying, " Tax my neighbour, for he is
almost bankrupt ; but spare me, for I am
getting on well in business." Yet this, and nothing
else, is the argument by which the stamp duty is
defended by its most able, if not most zealous, apolo
gist. But it is said, and the cry is too popular not
to be readily taken up, that an unstamped press must
be a licentious press. We only ask in return, why ?
Are all existing and flourishing journals pure from
this taint? Does the stamp duty act as an enforce-
ment of public or private morality ? Doubtless a
Arent change has taken place of late years—a change,
not due to the operation of any law, but solely to
the improved taste of the people. Of this no man
can fail to be convinced who compares the political
writing of fifty years ago with that of the present
time. But the plea here put forward destroys itself
by its very exaggeration. Some cheap newspapers
may be abusive and violent, therefore all cheap
newspapers are to be forbidden. As well contend
that, because some men abuse their freedom, there-
fore all should be shut up in gaols; that., because
some apply the power of reading and writing to bad
purposes, therefore popular instruction should pot
be encouraged. This is the old, exploded cry about
the dangers of knowledge. Admit that the press
may be employed by demagogues—will none except
demagogues employ it? If so, the fault rests with
those who might be, and who will not be, the teach-
ers of the people. But we believe that political agi-
tation is the last subject to which, in ordinary times,
the labouring class are likely to apply themselves.
They have not leisure—they have not the wish—to
meddle with affairs of State. And, if they possess
strong political sympathies—which, as a rule, we
doubt—is it not well that those who govern England
should know something of their feelings ? Macaulay
said, wisely, " It is not that which comes out of the
public mind, but that which stays in it, and finds no
vent, that is dangerous." Working men are unrepre-
sented. It is not easy to see how, as a class, they
can ever be represented without swamping, by the
weight of uneducated numbers, every other order in
the State. We cannot, therefore, gather their opinions
at the hustings, except when a drunken mob breaks
the head of a candidate or sets fire to a polling-
booth. They are debarred from political action. Is
it not wise to provide some means by which those
who have to act may understand their wants? In all
societies there must be some real and many fancied
grievances. And these will find exponents. Are
they likely to be set forth less temperately, or with
more admixture of personal bitterness, in the de-
liberately-written exposition of the journalist than in
the passionate improvisation of a Chartist orator?
Those who object to working-men's newspapers
ought to interfere for the prevention of such meet-
ings as those lately held at Preston. Yet the Lan-
cashire millowners themselves did justice to the good
temper and moderation displayed by the thousands
out "on strike."
We have so far accepted our opponents' view of
this question as to assume with them that the point
in dispute is, whether cheap political writing shall
exist or no. But in truth this is not at issue. No
law prohibits the periodical appearance, unstamped,
of comments on political topics, no matter how
violent, false, or foolish. Atheism, Red Republicanism,
or gross immorality, may be published weekly
almost without restraint or danger ; for political
prosecutions are notoriously an unsafe expedient to
resort to, tending, as they do, to increase the no-
toriety, and thus the influence, of the offender. We
do not choose to dwell on this topic, which is, more-
over, obvious ; but to any one who has a curiosity to
look into the subject we could offer abundant evi-
dence that the stamp duty does not prevent the
diffusion of the most extravagant political specula-
tions ; none the less mischievous for being extra-
vagant. What the law does, is to impede the
publication of facts and passing events,—that is to
say, of those practical realities which are at least
harmless, and the knowledge of which may act as
some check on purely fanciful ideas of government.
But enough on an exhausted theme.

The Right Hon. Henry Tufnell died on Thursday
at Catton hall, Derbyshire, thus closing a long official
and parliamentary career. Mr. Tufnell was private
secretary to Sir It. Wilmot Horton, the governor of
Ceylon, and afterwards to Lord Minto, when that
nobleman was First Lord of the Admiralty. He was
one of the Lords of the Treasury tthder Lord Mel
bourne's Administration, and on the formation of Lord
John Russell's Government in 1846 became Secretary
to the Treasury, which office declining health obliged
him to resign in 1850. Mr. Tufnell represented De•
von port from 1840 up to the present session, when he
resigned his seat.
Caoss POSTS IN IRELAND would seem capable of much
improvement. According to the Carlow Sentinel, a letter
putin at Carlow addressed to Nevrtownhary, seventeen miles
distant, is first sent to Dublin—fifty six miles ; then by
coach to Ferns—seventy miles further; and thews to
Newtownberry—seven nules ; . all. 133 miles.

THE PRESS.

Vrotttbings xn arlianunt.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. H. BERKELEY, unwearied by a succession of
annual defeats, or by successes in preliminary
divisions, which led to nothing practical, and were,
perhaps, still more tantalising, renewed on Tuesday
night his efforts to persuade the House of Commons
to get itself hereafter elected by ballot•voting. His
proposition this year took the form of a motion for
leave to bring in a bill for his desiderated object.
It was supported by the hon. member with his well.
worn arguments, with which the Legislature for
many a session past has become thoroughly
saturated, but nevertheless consented to listen to
their repetition with somewhat more complacency
than usual, because Mr. Berkeley judiciously con-
trived to enliven his " old saws " with a copious cita-
tion of " modern instances." His anecdotes of elec-
toral corruption and intimidation were numerous and
piquantly told, and were highly relished by the
members around him, even though they failed to in-
fluence probably a single vote in favour of the
conclusion at which they were pointed. Mr.
Berkeley, it may be remarked, spoke on this occa-
sion from the front Opposition bench. His chain of
argument consisted of the usual links. He first
combatted the argument against the ballot founded
on the assertion that the electoral franchise was a
trust, and not a right. That privilege, he urged, was
in truth a personal attribute appertaining to every
voter, and limited only by two conditions—that it
should be unpurchased and unforced. These con-
ditions he then went 'on to contend could be fulfilled
in the best, if not the only, manner by the con-
trivance of the ballot. He strengthened this con-
clusion by quoting a multitude of examples offered
in America, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and
France, which, he said, testified to the success
attained by the ballot system wherever it was
adopted for the purpose of rendering elections peace-
able, orderly, and honest. To the ballot, he ob-
served, France owed the first choice of her present
Emperor and the existing stability of her throne and
government. The circumstance that the Ministerial
Reform Bill was postponed afforded, he said, no
reason why the ballot should not be conceded at
once. That bill held out no promise of protection
to the voter. Arguing that the opposition to the
ballot originated in an extreme reluctance to forego
political power, however acquired, Mr. Berkeley
quoted the opinions of Defoe and Macaulay in its
favour, and then proceeded to show by many
instances the utter inutility of penal enactments,
bribery oaths, or other legal machinery, designed for
the suppression of corruption and intimidation at
elections. Open voting, he argued, resulted in an
array of horrors, and he called upon the house, with-
out considering it a party question, to vote for the
ballot as being the sole means of securing to the
electors of the country perfect freedom of consience.
Mr. Berkeley concluded his speech with an anec-
dote, which he had evidently reserved for his climax,
in illustration of the "horrors" consequent upon the
present system :
" The case was one of the moat frightful intimidation,
which no law could reach. The transaction occurred at
the general election in 1841, but he bad never been able
to make it public until this moment, having bound him-
self not to do so until the death of one of the parties. He
might be permitted to say that he believed also that
neither of the candidates knew anything of the transaction,
and he was sure they were such honourable men that they
would have looked upon it with indignation. It appeared
that a master tradesman, an active Conservative, in a cer-
tain borough, voted for the Liberal candidate, and influ-
enced his tenants and workmen to do the same. That
tradesman did not hesitate to say that he had been intimi-
dated into so doing by a man of property to whom he owed
a large sum of money. But the strangest part of the case
was this, that the creditor, who was a country gentleman
residing in a distant county, was also a very strong Conserva-
tive. He would now point out the kind of screw by which the
Conservative was compelled by another Conservative to
support the Liberal candidate. The creditor had a sister,
well married and settled in the borough where the debtor
resided. One day previous to the election an attorney
called upon the lady and produced a packet of letters,
saying By the death of a client of mine these letters have
come into my possession ; you know them to have been
written by you previous to your marriage—look at them—
if they fall into your husband's possessior, ruin and dis-
grace will attend you and your children. I know that your
brother has advanced large sums of money to a man in
this town. I must have that man's vote and influence for
the Liberal candidate, or your husband shall have these
letters.' (Hear, hear.) That base election agent applied
to that unhappy lady the screw of ruin—the sister had
recourse to the screw of compassion—the brother applied
to the debtor the creditor's screw—the debtor applied to his
workmen the master and landlord's screw—and thus an
atrocius ramification of election screws was made use of
to violate the consciences of five electo►s, and to compel
them to betray the interests of their country and tell a lie
before their God. (Hear, hear.) When .hon. members
reflected on the wear and tear of conscience, the excess of
mental anguish involved in that horrible conspiracy—when
they knew that it had been carried out under the system of

SATURDA

open voting, and that it could not have happned u sys.
tern of secret voting—he thoughtit would secarcelynder bea pee.
sible for them to hesitate between the two systems. ( Hear.)
It might be said that this was an extreme case. A wee
abhorrent case it certainly was---so abhorrent that it must
be perfectly condemnatory of the system under which it
could take place. But it was useless to talk of the case
which he had mentioned as an extreme case, when it could
be matched by cases of tenants ejected, and their families
starving—of tradesmen discharged and their business
shattered—of debtors consigned to prison—and of an array
of other horrors which had at different times been brought
forward in evidence, leading to the conclusion that the
most gross tyranny existed under the system of open voting,
and that the poor voters were too frequently brought
into an abject state of misery and humiliation under its
withering influence. (Hear, hear.)"
Lord DUDLEY STUART, who seconded the motion,
expressed his persuasion that no reform could be
complete which did not include the ballot, and no
Reformer sincere who did not advocate its adop-
tion.

Mr. WARNER also believed that the ballot was the
only true specific against intimidation.
Lord PALMERSTON was not insensible to the ad.
vantages which would accrue from any system that
would provide an effectual remedy against intimida-
tion, bribery, or the employment of undue influence
at elections. But his first objection to the ballot
was, that it would utterly fail in ensuring its main
result—namely, secrecy :

"No contrivance could be devised that would prevent
the opinions and votes of a great majority of electors from
being as fully known under the ballot as under the system
of open voting. In the United States the votes at elections
were not only well known but ostentatiously avowed.
Electors were too honest and too manly to refuse to de-
clare the names of those candidates who were identified
with their own political views. To some shopkeepers and
others, apprehensive that their votes might injure their
interests, the ballot might seem to be a security ; but the
ballot would not prevent solicitation, and the application
of what was termed the screw, to extort a promise. The
promise in such cases would be either given or withheld.
If given and redeemed, what was the use of the ballot?
If broken, what improvement would this effect in the mode
of voting ? If the voter refused to promise, the inference
would be that he meant to vote the other way ' • the condi•
date would then act as he now did, and the ballot would
be a perfect nullity."
Upon abstract principles, also, he objected to the
secret-voting system. It would destroy the open
enunciation of opinion, the public discussion of men
and measures, which formed the vitalprinciple of our
political constitution. The vote, he contended, was
essentially a trust; its use was at once the exercise
of a right and the performance of a duty; it was
given to each individual, partly for his own benefit,
partly for the benefit of the nation, and should be
recorded in the face of the public and under a full
sense of responsibility. Members of Parliament
could as reasonably require the shield of the ballot
as the electors who returned them :

has"
altpoislitsiurecallfyunnoettiotonotompueerfhotorm,saoyr tahpoatleitviecari m
ought to do it, subject to all the responsibility
to it (Hear, hear.) lam told that there is no responsi-
a attachinga nt
t od
billy attaching to this vote, and am asked who is to be tie
judgec in such
higs,andthe case.hi AretheTorithees
?Tolrie say,
syto condemn,
in
answer,
that
there is a responsibility which every man of sense undel-
stands—a responsibility to public opinion. That is tl
governing influence in the mind of every honest man, ea
1, for one, would never deprive him of that rudder to keep
him in the right course. (Hear, hear.) It is said that
every man ought to be protected from discovery. Ido
not admit that I say that if a man uses his right of
voting he ought to make up his mind to bear all that may
be attached to it. (` Hear, hear,' and laughter.) If this
system were applied to voting for members of Parliament.
why should not Parliament itself adopt the same plan?
(Hear, hear.) The principle would be the same although
the members were different. No man will tell me that a
member of this house, who has a proper feeling of his oon
position, would feel it a grievance that he was not re-
elected because of the votes which he had given in a fie'
vious session. As to the amount of injury which has been
done to persons giving their votes conscientiously, I believe
that great exaggeration has prevailed on that point. 1
think that in many of these instances the parties in gum
tion have been men whose fortunes were decayed, and that
they have cast upon their vote that which was caused
by their own imprudence. The truth is, that in these casts
what a man loses by his enemies he Ginss by his friends,
and in the end the account was prety early balanced.
Not to detain the house longer than necessary to state in
generdl outline the grounds of my vote--which I never
have had an opportunity of doing before-1 will conclude
by stating that my objections are in short these :—I think
that the ballot would not be productive of secrecy, that it
would not prevent the voter from the consequences of his
political acts, and that, if it did produce secrecy, and so
protect the voter, it would involve consequences resulting
m serious injury to the British constitution."
Sir J. WALMSLEit replied to the arguments offered
by the Home Secretary, and emphatically denied the
assertion that the ballot was "un•English."
lie
declared that every extension of the franchise which
did not include that system would prove a mockery.
Mr. FORSTER also supported the motion, illustrating
the advantages of the ballot system by the results A
had produced at the elections in frapee, of whicli
had been a frequent spectator.

JUNE 17, 1854.

Sir J. FITZGERALD pointed to the disgraceful
scenes which had occurred at many Irish elections,
and especially on the occasion of his own return, in
proof of the necessity of providing protection to the
Toter.
Mr. BRIGHT remarked that the existence of undue
influences at elections was undeniable and universal.
In the boroughs there was bribery, the electors having
sufficient independence to enable them to sell their
votes. In the counties intimidation prevailed, or,
rather, the landlords possessed such full control over
their tenants as to form practically the sole con-
stituency. In Irel.r.Rl the predominance was divided
Or dispatei beLwce., t.t. Boman Catholic priests and
the Protestant landowners. That the ballot would
furnish a barrier against these various influences all
the constituences of the country were fully convinced.
Two hundred of them had returned advocates of the
measure to that house, and the rest would have fol-
lowed the example if their free expression of opinion
had not been repressed and thwarted by parties who
wielded the very powers which the ballot was de-
signed to destroy. Adverting to the personal bearings
of the question, Mr. Bright then remarked upon the
inconsistency between the Ministerial professions of
liberalism and their opposition to the ballot. He
then alluded by name to many members of the Go-
vernment who had in former years supported the
principle of secret voting by their speeches and
'votes :

"I have here," he said, "a list of the opinions of what are
called generally subordinate members of the Government.
(' Hear,' and a laugh.) I ought to state that one is not a
subordinate member, because he sits in the Cabinet. Now,
take first the law-officers of the Crown. I have got the
name of Cockburn down here—(a laugh)—and the name
of liethell—and names more eminent cannot be found in
the roll of existing English lawyers. is this a foolish or
absurd proposition that we make, that men so distinguished
have always been consistently its advocates ? Next there
is the member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), the Chair-
man of Ways and Means, who, if he is not a Government
official, is at least an eminent officer of this house ; then
Colonel Boyle, the Hon. Mr. Fortescue, Mr. Keogh (the
Solicitor-General for Ireland), Mr. Osborne—(Hear, hear)
--a gentleman who could make an admirable speech on
this question if he happened to sit below the gangway—
(laughter)—Lord Alfred Paget, Mr. Charles Villiers, and
a right honourable gentleman whom, perhaps, I ought not
to reckon ; and yet the occurrence which has changed his
pition is so recent—l mean the Right Hon. E. Strutt.
{Laughter.) Now, it is an unfortunate thing for us who are
in favour of the ballot that the noble lord the late member
for London, whilst in a very kind manner, as I understood,
he invited the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to
leave the Government, has taken into it the right honour.
able gentleman the late member for Morpeth ( Sir G. Grey),
who, when he was member for Devonport, was also an ad-
vocate of that measure, but who, since he became member
for Northumberland and afterwards for Morpeth, has turned
round and voted against it. A ballot-man is shut out of the
Government, and also a quondam ballot-man ; but one
whose inconsistency is glaring is taken in as part of the
Cabinet. Then there is the right honourable baronet the
member for Southwark ( Sir W. Molesworth ). ( Hear.) I
observed that he, in a speech to his constituents, adhered
to his ancient opinions in favour ofthe ballot, and he voted
last year in support of it ; and I have not the slightest
doub. .3 this moment that on all future occasions he will do
the same. And when the noble lord the late member for
London stands up, and when the noble lord the member for
Tiverton gets up—as he has done to-night—and in a very
showy manner appeals to honourable gentlemen opposite
with whom his sympathies always seem to go, and makes a
speech against this pmposition which has the support of
200 members of this side of the house, and almost the
unanimous support of the constituencies of the country
where they can speak out--I say the right hon. baronet the
member for Southwark is a man whose opinion on a ques-
lion of this nature is as much worth taking as that of any of
his colleagues; and I have some confidence that parlia-
mentary and even official etiquette will not on all occasions
prevent his expressing his free and honest opinion to this
house."

Mr. Bright then commented sarcastically upon
the conduct of the Liberal members whose votes had
brought over the present Government from the Op-
position benches, whose support enabled them to re-
main Ministers, although their policy was essentially
more Conservative than that of the late Adminis-
tration, and who still followed them as leaders even
after having been deserted by them on many occa-
sions when reform measures were in question, and
seen them court the votes of their opponents on the
Tory side of the house in order to frustrate the en-
deavours of their friends. For his own part he re-
pudiated such leadership. The Liberal constituen-
ties would, he hoped, hereafter make the ballot a
test for the representatives they returned, and the
Liberal members make it a sine pal non in the Go-
Ternment they supported.
Mr. WHITESIDE commended the speech of Lord
Palmerston, and declared that his arguments bad
received no answer from Mr. Bright upon the point
that the political franchise was a trust to be exercised
for the benefit of the whole community, whose every
member had a right to know bow it was discharged.
He declared that the charges of intimidation brought
against the landlords were much exaggerated, and
that public opinion would provide a sufficient check
upon their conduct. The ballot would offer no pro.