The Press.
London, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS, jutY 4, 185'

which, added to the 237,00 )1., produced the 2,000,0001. re-
quired; and Exchequer Bills for that amount were handed
over to the commissioners. If instead of doing so they
had bought stock with the cash balances in hand the
Savings-sank Commissioners would have had 2,278,0001.
stock instead of the 2,ooo,oool.2.lchequer Bills. Now,
the interest on 2,273.0001. stock would have been 98,0001.
a year, whereas the interest on the 2,00(1,0001. Exchequer
Bills was 70,0001., showing a gain by the transaction of
POOOl. a year. Nor was that all. The Government had
the power without going to Parliament of funding Exche-
quer Bills purchased by the Savings-bank Commissioners—
a power which greatly excited the hon. baronet's indigna-
tion, but which he (Sir G. Lewis), unlike some of his
predecessors, had never yet exercised. But if those two
million Exchequer Bills had been funded they would have
been replaced by 2,332,0001. stock instead of 2,273,0001.,
showing thus a clear gain of 59,0001. on the capital. So
that, whether they looked at the operation solely as it
affected the savings•bank funds, or whether they regarded
it as bearing upon the interests of the public by saving
them from the necessity of throwing 2,003,0001. Exchequer
Bills on the ma►ket at once, the house would see that it
had been in every way a highly satisfactory one.

Mr. GLYN and Mr. MALINS thought that some
limitation should be placed upon the power of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to go into the Money
Market with a fictitious transaction for the purpose
of raising the price of particular securities.
On going into supply,
Mr. RICH brought. under notice the report of the
commissioners on the Superannuation Act, recom
mending an immediate increase of 70,0001. a year to
the salaries of the civil servants, with a prospective
increase of 30,0001. a year more. Against this
recommendation Mr. Rich argued at considerable
length. The employes in the public offices were,
since the abolition of sinecures, mostly of a higher
class than their predecessors, and they seemed to
occupy their ample leisure in carrying on an agita-
tion against abatements of which they were fully
aware when they entered the service. Many of
them were connected with the daily, weekly, and
monthly press, and these vehicles they endeavoured
to make subservient to their selfish ends. He trusted
the house would resist their unreasonable demands,
and thus protect the public purse.

The house then went into committee on the Civil
Service EAimates, and after several votes, chiefly
connected with Ireland, had been agreed to, the
house resumed.
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved the second reading of the
Election Petitions Bill, which, he said, would present
a check to the collusive presentation and withdrawal
of election petitions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
bill, which he moved be read a second time that day
three months.

Sir J. SHELLEY moved the adjournment, which was
lost o►► a division by ?? to 55.
Mr. WYLD mentioned, as an instance of the neces-
sity of the bill, that a petition which had neer' pre-
sented against his return had been that day with-
drawn, and that the person who signed it had
admitted that he had done so for the purpose of
advertising his name as a boot and shoe maker.
The motion for adjournment was then negatived,
and the motion for the sec..nd reading of the bill
was carried without a division amidst laughter from
the Opposition benches.
The house adjourned at a quarter past two
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

Lord BROUGHAM adverted to reports which, he
said, had attained considerable currency, that tho
importation of free negroes from Africa was to be
permitt-d or encouraged, under various pretexts, not,
only into the Spanish and French, but also into the
British colonies in the West Indies. This proceed.
ins be considered to be little short of a disguised
slave trade, and declared that the rumour had
occasioned much disquietude to the friends of negro
emancipation.
The Earl of CLARENDON was unable to speak po-
sitively as to the intentions of foreign Governments,
but did not believe that any purpose was entertained
in any quarter for the revival or the traffic in slaves,
either avowedly or surreptitiously. Lord Palmers-
ton he knew, had received a deputation on the
subject of free negro labour in the West India
colonies, but he was quite convinced that no plan
involving the slightest approach to the old system of
slavery would be countenanced for a single moment
by the Prime Minister.
THE SECOND READING of the Oxford University
Bill, which prolongs the existence of the commission
appointed to examine into the system of that univer-
sity for another year, was moved by the Earl of
HARROWEY, and agreed to, after some discussion, in
which the Earl of DERBY called the attention of the
house to an ordinance recently proposed for Oriel,
by which the original intentions of the founder, who
desired that the pecuniary circumstances of appli-
cants were to be considered so that indigentes should
profit by the advantages of the foundation, were set

at nought by the University Commissioners, who in
the new ordinance had decided that the circum-
stances of birth and parentage were not to be Laken
into consideration.

The Turnpike Trusts Arrangements Bill, and the
Insurance of Lives (Abatement of Income Tax)
Continuance Bill, were respectively read a second
time.

The County Cess (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Their lordships adjourned at half-past seven
..'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TUESDAY.
At the morning sitting the adjourned discussion
upon the Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Bill
was resumed in committee. The remaining clauses
having been agreed to, the house adjourned until the
evening.

THE BALLOT.

On resuming at six o'clock.
Mr. H. BERKELEY, pursuant to notice, moved for
leave to bring in a bill " to cause the votes of the
parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland
to be taken by way of ballot." Lord Palmerston, he
observed, had told the house to wait, for that be
had a Reform Bill in prospect that was to swallow
up all other Reform Bills; but he ( Mr. Berkeley)
declined to wait without knowing what they were to
wait for. He, therefore, asked whether it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to adopt the
ballot as a part of their Retorm Bill next session.
If the answer was in the affirmative, he had nothing
to do but to sit down ; but if in the negative, he
must submit his case to the house. There being no
audible response to this inquiry (although the
Chancellor of the Exchequer rose from his seat),
Mr. Berkeley said he must take silence to express
dissent, and presume that it was not their intention
to entertain the vote by ballot; he should, there-
fore, pursue the course he had taken on former
occasions, and reply to the objections offered to the
ballot. He then reviewed the leading arguments
employed by the opponents of secret voting and by
the advocates of open voting ; and, drawing his
illustrations from Belgium, Holland, and Sardinia,
and from America and Australia, expatiated upon the
advantages of that mode of voting in those countries
where the ballot was in operation. Mr. Berkeley
concluded by entreating the Government to give the
people the ballot, which they would now receive as a
boon, rather than wait until they should be compelled
to surrender it to them as a right.
Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion.

The CxexcELLOR of the ExcaegUEß would con-
sider this question, he said, in a practical view—
whether the mode of voting proposed was adapted
to the wants and circumstances of this country. He
adverted, first, to the ballot as practised on the con-
tinent of Europe, arguing that the different state of
things existing here destroyed all analogy between
the case of continental countries and England. He
next examined the principles of this mode of voting
in the United States of America, where the votes, it
appeared, wert not secret, but by tickets; and all we
could understand from the American practice was
that if a voter chose to conceal his vote he might
do so ' • but secrecy was not, as Mr. Berkeley
seemed to assume, an essential part of the vote by
ballot in America. In Massachusetts, where the
ballot had bees practically open, a system of com-
pulsory secrecy was introduced, and continued in
force two years, when the old system was reverted
to, and there was now no S ate in the Union in
which the votes wire compulsorily secret. In con-
sidering what would be the effect of acceding to this
motion, the house must ask what was the system Mr.
Berkeley recommended. Was the secrecy to be
optional or compulsory ? The experience of the
United States was against compulsory secrecy, and
his (Sir G. Lewis's) conviction was that the attempt
to introduce it into this country would be to row
again-t as irresistible current, and that such an
institution would be repugnant to the nature of the
people. If a system of optional secrecy was ad.ipted,
which some regarded as a panacea tor all the evils
of our electoral system, it was his confident opinion
that the great majority of the electors were ready and
even desirous to avow their vote. In order to pro-
tect all voters, secrecy of voting must be made
compulsory, winch was not done in the United
States. In his opinion we must look to moral in•
fluences, and not, to laws, for an amendment of the
practices complained of.
Mr. GREER supported the motion.
_ _

Lord J. Bussei.t, observed that Mr. Berkeley
rested his case upon three assumptions, all of which
he believed to be erroneous ; first, that at this moment
there prevailed so much intimidation that it was
impossible that the opinions of those who were in-
trusted with the elective franchise could be fairly
ascertained ; secondly, that the voter had an inde-
feasible right to give his vote without reference to
any one but himself, and without being brought
before any tribunal to answer for his vote; and
thirdly, that there is a very general and prevailing

Nll

W

646

opinion throughout the country in favour of becret
voting. Admitting that there were cases of intimi-
dation, he denied that, in general, tenants voting
with their landlords voted against their will and
their conscience. He protested against the doctrine
that freeholders and ten•pound voters were to be
accounted infallible, and that in their hands was to
be left a free and despotic power of voting as they
pleased, without that responsibility, control, and
criticism to which the highest functionaries in the
State were subject. This was a doctrine contrary to
the principles of the British Constitution. He in-
sisted that the country had a right to know how the
franchise was exercised by those who wore intrusted
with it. As to the last assumption, although there
were many persons who advocated the ballot, yet he
did not believe that the general opinion of the
country was in favour of secret voting. In America,
the ballot was not synonymous with secret voting.
You might know by the form or colour of the ticket
a man took in what way he voted. " A man may
take a blue ticket or a yellow ticket, which repre-
sents the interests of particular candidates, and then
there is an end of secrecy and of security against
intimidation." In fine, there would be no resource
under the ballot but compulsory secrecy, no man
being allowed to state what his vote was. Did any-
body believe, he asked, that this would take piece in
England more than in America? In conclusion, the
noble lord observed :

For my own part, I will only further say that, if Parlia-
ment should decide that the ballot is to be the law of the
land, 1, like others, must bow to that decision ; hut until
that is made the law, so long as I am permitted to give a
vote on this subject, that vote will be recorded against
secret voting, and in favour of the ancient mode of open
and deliberate voting.

Mr. BERKELEY replied, and the house having di-
vided, the motion was negatived by 257 to 189 ;
majorit against, 68.

TATION FUND.

Lord NAAS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to repeal the' 7th section of the Superannuation Act
of 1834, called the attention of the house to a case
which involved the interests of a large body of her
Majesty's servants, and which demanded, he said,
the immediate interposition of tha house. He gave
a short history of the Superannuation Acts and regu-
lations, pointing out the inequalities of the system,
and the hardships inflicted by it on the civil service.
He adverted to the two bills introduced by the Go-
vernment upon this subject last session, and to the
report of the commissioners to whom the whole
matter was referred, and upon whose recommenda-
tions (whioh he read) he rested his whole case.
They recommended the abolition of the deduction,
and he proposed to bring in a bill to repeal the section
in the Act of 1834 which authorised the imposition
of the tax.

The motion was seconded by Mr. HAWKEY.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcneQuEs objected, on
the ground that the Government cou'd not add
60,0001. or 70,0001. a year to the burdens of the
country. "He did not think that the civil servants
had any equitable claim, and it was fcr the house
to consider whether they would at once unsettle a
system which had worked so long."
After an appeal from Sir F. BARING, the CHANCEL•
LOR of the EXCHEQUER consented to postpone his
opposition to a late stage of the measure.
The motion was then agreed to, and leave given to
bring in the bill.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY.
MEDICAL PROFESSION (NO. 1) BILL.

Mr. HEADLAN moved the second reading of the
Medical Profession (Se. 1) Bill. The main feature
of this bill which distinguished it from Lord
Elcho's with the same title (the next upon the
orders of the day) was the institution of a General
Council of Medical Education and Registration, to
consist of persons chosen by the medical and surgical
colleges of the United Kingdom, certain medical
societies, and the Universities, with six persons to be
named by the Queen ; the regulations of this council
in respect W examination of candidates and registra•
tion to be carried out by branch councils.
Mr. CRAUFURD moved to defer the second reading
for six months. He contended that this bill sacri-
toed too much to the interests of the medical corpo-
rations, perpetuating an objectionable system ; and
that it was impossible that the proposed General
C tuncil could work satisfactorily. Lord Elcho's
bill (which proposed to establish a Medical Council,
to consist of the President of the General Board of
H !filth and twelve members to be nominated by the
Crown for a term) did not sweep away the corpora.
!ions, but provided that the giving a title to practise
should not be confined to these bodies, and that the
to indidates should be subject to approval by examiners
n minated by the Medical Board ; the framework of
t is bill being similar in other respects to Mr.
H sadism's bill.

The debate which ensued turned chiefly upon the
comparative merits of what were considered to be
she principles of the two bills,—the one proposing

16,