The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-22 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Canal and North Staffordshire Rail-
way Companies, Garstang and Knot End Railway,
Wallasey Improvement, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gates-
head Gas, and Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway.
ADMIRALTY WORKS AND LANDS BILL,

This bill was read a third timo and passed.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This bill passed through committee.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS REMIINERA•

TION BILL,

The LORD CHANCELLOR. moved the second read•
ing of this bill. It was, he thought, a very important
measure, because the mode of remuneration at present in
practice was thoroughly objectionable, and quite irrespec-
tive of the labour to be performed. The skilled practitioner
was paid in precisely the same way as those of very small
ability, and neither party were able to make contracts for
certain work. Such an arrangement was very inconve-
nient, as it led to many evils, and he thought the time
had now arrived when such a state of things
should be put an end to. The system of copying and
drawing deeds by folio led to verbiage, the very parent of
litigation; and the object of the present bill was to enable
a lawyer to make a contract with his client to any given
work for a certain price, The present object was to eman-
cipate the lawyer—to emancipate the client, and the result
would be, that business would be facilitated, and what was
done would be accomplished much quicker than was now
the practice, with fewer faults and with more certainty.
Lord BROUGHAM, though he saw some objections to
portions of the bill, believed it contained some valuable
provisions.
Lord ST. LEONARDS opposed the measure, which he
contended was uncalled for, and would produce mischievous
consequences by destroying all confidence between attorney
and client. To the other provisions of the bill he objected
that they would deprive married women of a just protec-
tion they now enjoyed as to acquired property, and would
restrict the power of disposing of estates by will. The bill
struck at the relations that ought to subsist between hus-
band and wife, and at the true interests of the public.
Lord CHELMSFORD thought the measure ought not
to have included so many subjects having no connection
with each other. The bill had no leading principle. It was
impossible to discuss such proposals on a second reading,
and he hoped the bill would be referred to a select com.
mittee.

Lord CRANWORTH gave the measure a qualified ap-
proval, but thought that the discussion on the changes pro-
posed should not be taken at that stage.

The bill was then read a second time and referred to a
select committee.

Their Lordships adjourned at ten minutes to eight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
In consequence of there not being 40 members pre•
sent till half-past twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER did not
take his seat till that hour.
THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Lancaster Canal Transfer—London and North Western
Railway (Additional Powers)—London (City) Tithes—
North Staffordshire Railway (New Works;—North Staf-
fordshire Railway (Silverdale, Madeley, and Drayton)—
Sheffield Waterworks (Bradfield Inundation)—South Wales
Mineral Railway—Swansea Vale and Neath and Brecon
Junction Railway—Tunstall Railway—Wellington and
Drayton Railway—Wilts and Gloucestershire Railway.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and clauses
from 1 to 11 were agreed to without amendment.
On clause 12
Mr. GEORGE objected to the manner in which the bill
was being pressed forward.
Mr. WHITESIDE complained of the manner in which

the bill was being forced throughout parliament, and said

he thought it of great importance that a bill making such
extensive alterations should not be dealt with in a house
so thinly attended (there being no more than 18 or 20 mem-
bers present.) He was in attendance previous to the Speaker
taking the chair, and only left the door to obtain a book in the
library, and on his return he found that a house had been
made, and in about four minutes nine of the most important
clauses had been smuggled through the house. He thought
it highly unseemly in a Government, that narrowly escaped
censure the other night by a majority of about half a dozen,
and who met with a distinct defeat last night, to go on
with this measure in such an objectionable manner, and at
a day sitting. He again asked, was it at all seemly to press
the bill forward under such circumstances. He should
like to know if there was any mode by which the clauses
already passed could be reconsidered.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Massey) said the only course
open to the hon. gentleman was to move that he (the Chair-
man) report progress, and then on that being agreed to, to
mo'e that the bill be referred to a select committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said
ho had been in the house since 12 o'clock, and if hon. mem-
bers having objection to the bill were not in attendance, he
could not help it. He had had to wait for half an hour
before he could proceed. There was no desire on his part
to press this bill forward with undue haste, or without the
fullest discussion, but it was absolu,ely necessary, in order
to dispose of the public business, to take this bill into con-
sideration at a morning sitting.
Mr 'WHITESIDE then having formally made a motion
to the first effect, went on to state his objections to many of
the provisions of the bill.
Sir It. PEEL rose to order. He thought it quite in-
competent for the right hon. gentleman to persevere in his
extraordinary speech which had lasted already two hours
and a half in the manner in which he was then proceeding.
His motion was for the chairman reporting progress, and
he was entering into the details of the bill, when
The CHAIRK.AN ruled that the hon. gentleman was
quite in order.
Mr WHITESIDE then resumed his observations on
the effects of the bill.

Mr VANCE thought it highly objectionable that a bill
of such importance should be considered at a morning
sitting, especially as many members Interested in the
matter were unavoidably absent. He put it to the
right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland
whether the bill was one that ought to be considered in go
thin a house. When the most important clauses had
been passed there were not more than eight or nine mem-
bers present.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND con-
sidered the right hon. gentleman had abused the atteation
of the house by occupying it with matter as much relevant
to the Great Mogul as to the provisions of the bill. He
was amazed at many of the statements of the right hon.
gentleman, and he could hardly reconcile himself to the
belief that the hon. gentleman had any other object but to
obstruct and defeat the bill. Instead of being opposed to
the measure, the entire bar of Ireland approved of it. He
was not to blame because the subject had not been fully
discussed. He had been in his place at 12 o'clock, and
although it was well known that the bill was to come on
for discussion, there appeared to have been an arrangement
between some parties to prevent its consideration.. If the
bill was not carried it should not fall through by any want
of exertion on his part, especially as he believed it was cal-
culated to benefit Ireland very largely.
Mr B UTT objected to the bill being sent to a select com-
mittee.

The committee then divided on the motion that tho Chair-
man do leave the chair, when there appeared—
Ayes
42
Noes
41
.......

Majority
—1 .. ,
The result was received with cheers and much laughter.
The CHAIRMAN accordingly left the chair and it being
past 4 o'clock the sitting of the house was suspended.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.

THE DIVISION AT 4 O'CLOCK.
Sir COLMAN O'LOUGHLEN told the Speaker,
that by accident he voted with the " ayes " instead of
the Noes. He was tol(1 he was bound to vote. He did so,
and then reported the circumstance to the chairman. He
(Sir Colman) thought his vote ought to be placed with the
" hoes."

The SPEAKER said the hon. member having gone into
the lobby with the Noes after the question had been put
from the chair, he was bound to vote with the " Noes,"
therefore his vote must remain undisturbed.
THE ASHANTEE WAR.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE asked the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty whether it had been taken into consideration that a
sailing ship leaVing Cape Coast six weeks or two months
hence, and bound to the West Indies, would be obliged to
adopt the " middle passage ;" and, in that event, whether
the effects of a protracted voyage in such a climate on offi-
cers and men already debilitated might not be attended by
disastrous effects.

Mr C. BERKELEY said that, before the noble lord an-
swered the question. he wished to put another of which he
had given notice—What number of °Meets and men nos v on
the Gold Coast the Admiralty had been requested to prof ride

passages for—and to call attention to the statement made
by the noble lord on Friday last, (Cries of " order," and
" move, move.") To put himself in order he c uld move
the adjournment of the house. The hon. g-ntl: man was
proceeding with his remarks, when
The SPEAKER reminded him that the eh cumstance of
his moving the adjournment of the housa did not authorise
him to refer to past debates. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET, in replying to the question of the hon.
baronet, said the middle passage was necessarily taken by
vessels going from that portion of the coast of Africa to the
West Indies. This transport would be towed into the
offing, where she would probably meet with the south-east
trade, and by making a western course, she would get into
the south-east trade wind, and in all probability would make
her passage to the West Indies nearly as quickly as a
steamer. Everybody acquainted with that part of the world
knew that in summer-time a ship might run from south-
east into the north-east trade with very little delay, and he
thought the troops would be more comfortable and better
off than they would be in a steamer. In regard to the se-
cond question, he should be very happy to give the number
of the troops on which the original requisition was founded,
and also the number in the subsequent requisition from the
Horse Guards. In the first instance there were 480 men
and a certain number of women and children, and they were
to go from Cape Coast Castle to the West Indies. Subse-
quently the War office decided to send about 200 men from
Cape Coast Castle to Lagos, where they would relieve a si-
milar number, which would be taken to Sierra Leone.
THE BALLOT.
Mr H. BERKELEY, who spoke from the Opposition
side of the table, and was received with cheers, moved the
following resolution :—" That, as a general election is im-
pending, and it is notorious that our electoral system is
defective and corrupt in practice, and as we have no law
which can put down the intimidation of voters nor prevent
bribery, it is therefore expedient that a fair trial should be
given to the vote by ballot." The hon. member said, in
asking the house to agree to the resolution, he took a dif•
ferent course from that which he had usually taken, because
it appeared to him that the approach of a general election
gave him an opportunity of making some remarks which
were certainly called for, and hon. members might take
them or not. They had heard very much of Lord Russell
climbing an exceeding high mountain, and finding on the
top of that mountain an inscription which advised him to
"rest and be thankful." No doubt he did rest and was
thankful. He could understand the noble lord asking
Reformers to be thankful, and Reformers were thankful to
the noble lord for his brilliant exertions in the cause of
Reform. (Hear, hear.) But when the noble lord asked
the Reformers of that house to rest, it seemed to him to
savour of an absurdity. Were there no longer any abuses
to redress—no evils to be got rid of ? Were they become
so perfect and so pure that no reform of their political
system was required? Had they arrived at the Ultima
Thule of reformation ? Had England become 'Utopia ?
Was nothing left to be done but to enjoy themselves and
be happy? He thought that an examination of the
existing state of things would prove diametrically the
contrary. Had they an Act of Parliament at the
present moment which interfered with intimidation,
which put down bribery, or prevented treating ? He
would be a bold member of Parliament who would say
they had such an Act. They had an Act called the Cor-
rupt Practises Prevention Act. Did that Act put down
any of those evils? That Act was laughed at from one
end of the country to the other by every attorney's clerk.
That act, founded on the report of a committee, was laid
hold of by the Home Secretary and converted into an act
of Parliament. That was shortly after an election of more
than ordinary enormity, during Lord Aberdeen's admini-
stration. The committee which produced the report was
composed of Attorney-General and Solicitor-Generals, and
the most experienced men on both sides of the house. After
a short time this committee, which was a kind of mons legis,
did as other mountains did, fell into labour and produced a
mouse—a most insignificant little vermin—as its offspring.
The Rolle Secretary took hold of this report, franied it into
a law, ana said, "Now, there is an end of all your griev-
ances." In this bill there were certain provisions which
enlisted the sympathies of a great many members of that
house. It did away with processions, ribbons, bands, and
ether expenses which fell upon candidates and accordingly

meeebers swallowed the rest of the bill, which from end to
end wag inadequate, if not mischievous, because it guarded
candidates' at the poil and placed the punishment upon the
electors. To Prove the inadequacy of the act the hon. mem-
ber referred to ad analysis of it which had been made by
the late Mr Copapock, who had been intimately conversant
with election business,
in the case of the late Duke of
7
Newcastle, who had turned ot:t0 of his tenants, and claimed
the right to do what he liked his own, the late Sir R.
Peel, although he did not approve o: the propriety of the
act, said it was impossible to prevent it b; law. Lord Ma-
caulay expressed a similar opinion when a4lreasing his
constituents at Edinburgh, remarking that to supe:gee a law
could be made to render it impossible for a man to turn out
a tenant at will, or discharge a servant, was an absolui,'
uosurdity. As they were approaching a general election
the house would permit him to point out what had been
done, could be done, and would be done again under that
Act. He would first sketch the state of a large commercial
or manufacturing borough, and describe a few of the facts
which occurred at a contested election, The first thing to
be done was to secure a certain person, a man from the
moon, known to nobody, who came, and went, and disap-
peared. The man from the moon descended on the borough,
and took up his position in some hotel. The next morning
he paid a visit to some licensed victualler, and said to him,
" On this day week I will require forty breakfasts." Gene-
rally this man from the moon was accompanied by some
person who was well known to the licensed victualler, but
who said nothing. The man in the moon visited every other
licenses victualler in the borough and gave a similar order,
until he ordered breakfast to the amount of £4OO or £5OO,
and then he retired from the busy scene. What happened
on the polling day ? In this borough there was a vast num-
ber of establishments employing a great many hands, among
whom were some 20 or 30 voters. On the morning of the
polling day those voters went to breakfast, and from break-
fast they went to the poll where they joined the crowd, or
assisted in bringing up electors to the poll. About the
middle of the day those men proceeded to certain unfinished
houses, where provisions, beer, and spirits had been con-
veyed over night. Everybody knew that those men feasted
at the expense of the candidates, but who could prove it.
At the end of the week those men received their full wages
as well for the day they were absent at the poll, as when
at their work, The breakfasts were not paid by the same
man in the moon, but by another man who descended upon
the borcugb, and was equally unknown ; but he deferred
the payment until the time for presenting petitions against
the return had expirei. Let him now suppose the ballot
in operation, and apply it to the case of the same
borough he had described. In the first place, no man
from the moon would be needed. No breakfasts would
be required, because in giving breakfasts a can-
didate could not tell but that his opponent's voters might be
devouring his tea and toast. (Laughter.) In like manner
no candidate would pay wages for a holiday when he did
not know but his opponent's voters might be enjoying it at
his expense. He contended he had shown how the ballot
would supply defects in the existing law—and all he asked
the house was to give it an opportunity of being tried.
(Hear, and divide.) He knew ho should be met by the
contradiction, " But the ballot will not do this." To this he
replied that assertion was no argument. Let them turn to
the Australian colonies, where a perfect reformation had
taken place in the system. When the ballot had first been
introduced in Australia it was met by all the arguments
used in this country. They would also find that the former
opponents of the ballot in Australia were now its warmest
supporters, and that the only class opposed to it were
Roman Catholic priests. In Ireland, on the contrary, the
Roman Catholic priests were to a man in favour of the
ballet, and it had been objected to over and over again as
an argument against the; ballot that, although the voters
could conceal how they voted from them, the secret would
be communicated to the priests, The hon. member having
still further referred to the experience of Australia as evi-
dencing the successful working of the ballot, and having
read an extract from Mr Erbkine May's work to prove the
x extent
in this lied been practised at recent elec-
tions asked the house whether 'that was a
with which it ought to rest and be thankful,
e t t o which
e o country,
bribery
tr
y
Tatahteetoimf tehiwnagsa fast approaching when the great election
saturnalia would be celebrated with all their filthy orgies.
Intimidation would produce its reign of terror, bribery
atthe
coming
election
which, he
form
would be let loose, and the briber and the bribed would be
c
equally demoralised. Indeed,
venturedstat e of things i ns
agys wouldhad
never be
before produced
been in e
a seen
in thistion this
coun-
try. Seeing, then, that they were without any other re-
medy, seeing that the present act of Parliament was a dead
letter, and that there was no other act on which they
could rely, it was not too much for him to ask that a
mode of treating voters which had proved so effectual
elsewhere should be tried in cur country. The hon. mem-
ber concluded by moving the resolution of which he had
given notice.

Mr. J. LOCKE, in seconding the motion, said that at no
distant period gentlemen opposite would have an opportu-
nity of experiencing those evils which his hon. friend had
so ably iiescriked. He thought the thanks of the house
were due hc. his hon, friend for having afforded to each of
them an opportunity of ascertaining whether or not they
had retrograded on the question of the ballot. It was just
as well, having reference to the day which was not far die.
tant, that they should register their opinions upon such a
question for the consideration of the British public. (Hear.)
The usual objection to the ballot was its impracticability;
but the hon., member for Pomfret (Mr Childers) had de-
scribed the iuode in which it was carried out in Australia,
and had shown that an election scrutiny could take place as
effectually as in a committe-room of the House of Commons.
There was no doubt the ballot did prevent a vast amount of
bribery, intimidation, and drunkenness, He had therefore
much pleasure in seconding the motion. (Bear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTO N—Mr Speaker. I can assure the
house there are many suggestions in the warning hand of
the Block which lead me to be short. But I am anxious to
state in as condensed a form as I can the reasons which
induce me as usual to oppose the motion of my hon. friend.
I can only say, as personal to himself, that I hope the result
of his motion will not make my hon. friend feel so comfort-
able in his present situation—[Mr Berkeley addressed the
house from the front Opposition bench]—as to induce him

to make it a permanent one. (Laughter.) I should be
extremely sorry to see my hon, friend always where he is
now. No doubt, nothing can be more honourable to
any man than steady adherence to the cause which
he has adopted; and the more that cause is going
down in public opinion—(cheers on the Opposition
benches)—the more honourable is a steady adherence on the
part of its champion. but I think my hon. friend will him-
self confess that the feeling in favour of this motion is not
as strong as it used to be in former times. I object to this
motion because it is founded upon an erroneous assumption.
It deals with the right of voting as if it was a personal
right, which an individual is free to exercise free from any
responsibility; whereas I contend it is a trust to be exercised
under responsibilities to chose on whose behalf it is held.
(Hear, hear.) Even if the franchise were ever so extended
it would still only be a trust, because there would be a large
portion of the community, as, for example, women and
minors—whose interests would be affected by the vote thus
given. Our legislation admits that it is a trust, and not a
right. If the franchise were a purely personal right, would
not the voter be entitled to ask upon what principle of justice
you rrevent him from exercising that right in a manner
which he chooses for his own individual advantage ? But
you attach a penalty to a man who employs that right of
voting in a manner you think at variance with the public
interest—that is, for a bribe or c msideration. Then I say
the vote is a trust, and, like every political trust, ought to
be exercised subject to responsibility to public opinion,
The whole political framework of cvilised nations is founded
upon the principle of trust, The interests of the community
are in various degrees, more or less important, committed

to a selected view, who are charged in regard to those par-
ticular things to act for the welfare of the community at
large ; and their action ought to be subject to responsibility
to those whose interests are committed to their charge.
Then I say that the ballot is intended to withdraw the
voter from the exercise of the trust confided to him, and in
that respect it is a political evil. The hon. member has
talked about America, but everybody knows that in Ame-
rica ballot voting is not secret voting—it is what is called
ticket voting, where every man votes for a great number
of candidates at the same time; and so far from the vote
being concealed. he goes to the poll with his ticket in his hat,
to vote for the governor or other officers who are to be elected.
__ .

Therein I say the ballot is founded upon a mistaken prin-
ciple, and is at variance with the fundamental principles on
which our political institutions are based. Then would it

be effectual for the purpose proposed ? I deny it. I main-
tain that in this country men are proud of their party, They
may be thought wrong or right by their neighbours, but a
man who has enlisted under the banners of one candidate or
another is proud of the party to which he belongs ; and, in-
stead of seeking to conceal his vote in the ballot box, he
would tell all his friends what he was going to do, and would
rather be anxious that the whole community with which he
was connected should know how he voted, But if you adopt
this principle you must also prevent canvassing. You must
make it penal for any roan to tell beforehand how he is going
to vote. Every man in general has a political bias—a par-
tiaMy for one party rather than another—which makes it
impossible that a majority of ♦oters should vote by ballot
without their votes being known. Who, then, would have
their votes concealed by the ballot ? Why, those whom my
hon. friend describes—men who are afraid of losing their
farms, who are afraid of being turned off by their landlord,
or tradesmen who are afraid of being cast adrift by their
customers. Would that be so ? In the first place, the land-
lord or the customer who intended thus to visit his tenant
or his tradesman for giving a vote against his wishes would
canvass him beforehand ; he would expect a promise, or he
could apply for a promise, and if that promise were refused,
he would know what was meant, and would act accordingly
—or, if he chose to wait until the election was over, he would
ask the man how he voted, and if he did not wish to tell an

untruth, which would be demoralising; having voted against
the wishes of the landlord or the customer, they would deal
with him just as if voting had been open. Therefore, as far
as the tenant and the tradesman are concerned, I say the ballot
would be totally ineffectual as a protection. Then, with regard
to treating, the hon. member has told us how an election is

conducted—that public-houses are open, that men belonging
to each party go to those houses which are in favour of their
candidate. But would that be prevented by the ballot ?
First of all, you would not prevent bribery, because a man
would go to an elector and say " Here is £5 or £lO, and I
will trust to your honour to vote for so and so, but I will
not give it to you unless you make that promise." Well,
the man being without any particular partiality would be
tempted to make the promise, and he would probably keep
it; because I entertain the opinion of the electors of the
country that generally speaking they do keep their promises.
Then as to your public-houses. It is very easy for a man
in the manner described by the hen. member to make ar-
rangements that these public-houses shall be accessible only
to those who brought signs or emblems by which it could
be known that they intended to vote, or had voted for a
particular candidate. Well, I say that the ballot would be
wrong in principle and that it is adverse to the habits Of
Englishmen. The hon. member takes exception to the
.qxpression I used upon a former occasion—that it is un-
En6?ish. Then I will vary that expression, and say that it
is advei,,e to and inconsistent with the habits of English-
men. Englishmen are proud of their opinions, and are
anxious to manifest them ; and therefore I say that a system
of secrecy is at variance with tho opinions, practices, and
habits of the English people. It would be ineffectual too
for its purpose, and for these reasons I shall vote against the
motion of my hon. friend. (Cheers.)

Mr BERKELEY would not attempt to answer the
noble lord, because such an attempt would involve abun-
dant reference to Hansard. The noble lord had said no-
thing as to the state he had shown his boasted Act of
Parliament to be in—nothing as to his boasted constituen-
cies—not one word had the noble lord said. (Hear, hear.)
He asked the house to support that which the example of
other countries had shown to be a success in preference to
that which failed. In short, there was not one reason which
the noble lord had brought forward which had touched upon
his (Mr Berkeley's) arguments. Ile should take a division,
with a view of eliciting the expression of opinion of honest
reformers, who were driven to a point, and were prepared to
express that view which was their honest opinion.

The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against it.. —B9
Mr D. R. Mills was accidentally shut out from voting in
favour of Mr Berkeley's motion.