The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-03 00:00:00

BALLOT BILL.

Mr. BERKELEY rose to move the second reading of
this bill. He said he found himself on the present occa-
sion in the unusual position of asking the house to read the
bill a second time. He was aware that there was a majo-
rity in that house against the bill, 427 being opposed
to it, while there were only 330 gentlemen who
had recorded their votes in favour of it. He had
little hope, therefore, of the bill being passed in the
present Parliament, unless the people outside the house
took the question up with determination. He then pro-
ceeded to remove the load of dust and mass of cobweb
which had been thrown in the eyes of the public, in refer-
ence to the question of the ballot. In the first place, he
complained of the attacks made in the limes, and other
portions of the press, on the question of the ballot, and the
statements made relative to the division which had taken
place when the question was last before the house. He
said that eight metropolitan members, second to none in
talent and position, were in favour of the ballot. Having
cited a number of statistics, to show the necessity for the
adoption of the ballot, the hoe; member said there was no
doubt a great deal of apathy in the house in regard to the
question of reform. He was prepared to support an exten-
sion of the franchise, but at the same time he reminded
hon. members that he had always kept this subject from
any connection with the reform measures that had been
brought before the house, and which in some way or the
other proposed to make an alteration in the franchise.
But, notwithstanding that, when the question of the
ballot was mentioned, by a large class of politicians, re-
volution was considered to ba at the bottom of it.
The civil war in America was quoted as an illustration of
the failure of democracy, which he denied. A civil war
was not a proof of the merit of domestic institutions, for
the same might be said in regard to monarchy in this coun-
try, for there had been no less than three civil wars in this
country within a comparatively short period. He utterly
denied the notion that the ballot was in any way a com-
ponent portion of democracy. He contended that the bal-
lot was in reality a barrier between the usurpation of politi-
cal power whether of aristocracy, moneyocracy, or demo-
cracy. (Hear, hear.)

Sir G. GREY and Mr. NE WDEGATE opposed the bill.
Mr. POTTS supported the bill.
Mr. LOCKE supported the bill, and referred to his con-
stituency in Southwark, who were in favour of the ballot,
although no attempt was made by their employers to in-
fluence their vote.

The house divided on the motion that the bill be read a
second time.

Ayes
Noes
blajorit- --55

.aj
The announcement was received with some cheers,
MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and re-
sumed at clause 45.
Sir H. CAIRNS rose to move that the bill be withdrawn,
as it was impossible to carry a measure of such magnitude
through Parliament this session. He hoped a similar bill
would be introduced next session, to which he would give
all his support.
After a short discussion the bill was withdrawn, and the
house resumed.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS
AMENDMENT BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. LOCKE referred to the clauses which had been pro-
posed by Mr, Ayrton, which provided for the repeal of cer
tain sections of the act of the 18th and 19th of Victoria, cap.
120, which related to the election of members of the Me-
tropolitan Board. The clauses altered the constitution of
the Board as regarded the election of members which it
proposed to transfer to the inhabitants at large the selection
of a representative on the board.

Mr TITE said that it would be very impolitic to disturb
the constitution of the board, who were at present engaged
in works of perhaps greater extent than any other city in
the world,

Mr. WILLIAMS agreed with the last speaker, and con-
tended that it would be most undesirable to transfer the
elections of members to serve on the Metropolitan Board to
so large a a constituency as that proposed by the hon. and
learned member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). He
said that he had never heard any complaints against the
Metropolitan Board.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that he was surprised to hear the
hon, member for Lambeth state that he had never heard
any complaint against the Metropolitan Board, what had
been called a board of " words" instead of " works." He
did not agree in the censure that had been cast on the body,
and he was ready to support them to the best of his ability.
He was desirous that the board should stand well with the
public, and therefore he wished to see the principle of
general election adopted, as proposed by his honourable
and learned friend (Mr. Ayrton). The adoption of the prin-
ciple for which he contended would in no way affect
the works which the board had in hand, and the present
members would be secure of their office for three years
longer.
Sir J. GREY considered that an alteration of such im-
portance as that proposed by the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets should not be proposed at the present stage
of the bill, but embodied in a bill which could be fully dis-
cussed on the second reading.
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the clauses.
Lord FERMOY said direct election, no doubt, was very
popular in theory, but looking at the subject from a prac-
tical point of view, he did not see the necessity for the alto-
ration proposed by the hon. member for the Tower Ham-
lets. There was no application en the part of the public
through their representatives in Parliament, or through
any other source, for an alteration in the constitution of
the Metropolitan Board. The members of this board
were certainly a very well-abused body, still t.d
abuse did not proceed from the people outside'
but from members of that house. That body had been
cused of talking too much, but he did not think thealtteharaa;
tion proposed would introduce any beneficial change in
respect.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN supported the aa.
Mr. H. LEWIS said he had heard no
iiu
sati
con
by dissatisfactionstu ay,s
regarded the constitution of the board his
and considered that the clause proposed to get rid of the bill
by a side wind. to
the clause, said it was
in opposition
Mr. AYRTON, was superior
contended that the
opinionprinciple t nominationof
fpeol ita h re
rt
btohdey Mi
ne
thetrtoo
that of election, an
country. (Hear., -
politan Board, and not shared h
in tby was
any
The board was entrusted with enor-
mous powers, and he thought it only just that, such being
the case, the ratepayers should have a voice in the election
of those to whom such powers were confided. The present
bill extended these powers, and gave great authority in
dealing with the comfort of the inhabitants. He did not
wish to join in any outcry against the Metropolitan Board,
but he could not help regarding the Thames Embank-
ment Bill as an indictment against the capacity of this
board, for it transferred the power of dealing with that
work from their hands to foreman bricklayers and masons.
His object was to elevate the board from their degraded
state, but if they preferred that state, he did not see why
he should interfere With their state. It would be like
throwing pearls before swine. (Laughter.) He would
therefore withdraw his clause, with the understanding that
he would introduce the subject again.
The clause was tben withdrawn.
Mr. LOCKE 'moved a clause to follow a clause 109, the
object of whidi was to provide for persons being enabled to
applyto one o't her Majesty's superior courts for the rehearing
of competysation cases if parties conceived themselves
aggrieved by the ruling of the assessor or other officers who
presided at the hearing of these cases. He merely pro-
posed t o extend the law that prevailed in other trials to
these disputed cases of compensation. He mentioned
certiVin instances in which persons had been treated very
unj, astly by assessors and were at present without redress.
Mr. TITE said that this clau;se would alter the exist-
i'ng law altogether and open a new source of litigation.
Sir J. SHE LLEY said that if any alteration were made
to any extent, it ought to by general legislation and not be
brought before the house in a clause which interfered with
the Land Consolidation Clauses Act.
Mr. LOCKE said that if the house agreed with the lof
cgame,
t
speaker he would withdraw the 1 but the justice °
which had not been impugned.

The clause was then withdrawn .
Mr. LEWIS moved a clause er .abling vestries to include
iu the ewers rate precepts of tlw getroNlitall 13Qarda