The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 10, 1870.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—MONDAY.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at

five o'clock,

THE IRISH COLLEGE AT PARIS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE called attention to the
claim of the Irish college at Paris, under the Treaty with
France, upon the British Government,, and moved for
copies of the award made in the case of the Rev.
Paul Lory as Administrator-General of the College
of the Commoners appointed for liquidating British
claims out of funds received from the French Govern-
ment, and of the judgment of the English Privy Council
in 1832 on the appeal from that award, and also for a
copy of the judgment in 1825 in the appeal case of the
English College at Douay.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said there would be no ob-
jection to the production of the papers moved for by the
noble marquis.

%with on. The Spanish Government had expressed
its confidence in its own power to put down
the insurrection, and certainly the insurgents had not
occupigd_ any place of importance. It would, under the
circumstances, be inopportune to interfere. His hon.
friend might rest assured that the Government would
gladly avail themselves of any opportunity of rendering
such services to humanity as he suggested.

the nomination or election, as the case might be, of
members to serve for the county or borough ; that he

will; between a certain number of specified hours, say
between the hours of one and five, or any other
hour, during which he will receive nominations. Candi-

dates, he proposed should be nominated by the de-
livery—personal delivery—not sent in, of nomination

papers. These papers would have to be signed by a pro-
poser and a seconder and eight other electors of the county

or borough. The House would see the object of reclaim-
ing the proposer and seconder. The delivery of these
nomination papers would be made either by the candidate
himself personally or by the prOposer or seconder. The
candidate would be permitted to withdraw his nomination
paper, or in his absence the proposer or seconder might
withdraw the candidate at any time within the two

hours which were specified. If at the conclusion
of the two hours any more candidates were made
in nomination than there were vacancies to be

filled, the returning officer would announce the result, and
publicly advertise it in the manner which would be pre-
sented in the bill. This operation would take place, not alto-

gether but comparatively speaking, in private.

The per-

sons who would be present at these nominations would
be the candidate, accompanied by one friend, who might

be his legal adviser, the proposer and seconder, or those
electors who signed the nomination papers. No other person
would have the right to be present unless by the special
permission of the returning officer. The advantage which
would result from this plan in contradistinction to others
which had been adopted in places where the system of
public nomination was adopted were these, that it would
be necessary that the candidates and their pro-
posers and friends should meet face to face. They
should know before the expiration of the specified
period who were their opponents who were nominated,
and they would have the opportunity of saying whether
they would make up their minds to go to the poll, or
whether they would withdraw in favour of some other
candidate who had been nominated, and whether they
_ _ _

thought it worth while to incur the expense and trouble of
going to the poll. He could not see that the choice of a
constituency could be fettered by this plan, seeing that
any ten electors could bring forward a candi-

date of their choice, and that ample opportunity
was afforded of demanding a poll on behalf of their candi-

date. He did believe that there was some advantage in

certain cases in public nominations, which enabled the

candidate to meet face to face the whole of the constitu-

ency, and to challenge his opponents, and to refute
what might have been said of each other. But
hon. gentlemen would admit that where such explanations
__ _.

were necessary or desirable the opportunity practically did

not exist. Where reckless and unfounded assertions had
been bandied about during a time of great excitement the
House must be perfectly well aware the candidates might
just as well talk to the winds: He believed that the system
of requiring personal attendance would prevent persons
being put forward as candidates merely for purposes of an-
noyance. The Government did not intend to propose an alte -
ration in the existing law as to the incidence of the necessary

expenses of elections. The candidate, or failing the can-
didate, his proposer and nominator, would, according to
the present proposal, be liable for the necessary expenses
of the election, and that, in his opinion, would act
'as a considerable check to the putting forward candidates
for the mere purpose of annoyance. Of cource corrupt
compromises might be made between candidates, but
such compromises were not now made upon the
hustings. They were made, and must always
be made, in private, and if candidates and their
supporters were so disposed corrupt compromises could be
effected. According to the Government plan, if there
were not more candidates than vacancies, the return would
be made and completed on the day of nomination. It was
hardly necessary to say that if there were more candidates
than vacancies, it would be the duty of the returning
officer to announce that the poll would be taken, to name
the day of the poll, and to make the necessary prepara-
tions. He believed that there had only been three reme-

dies proposed for the evils complained of in regard to
election procedure—the use of voting papers, an increased
number of polling papers, and vote by ballot. As to the
use of voting papers, he would dismiss that remedy
as shortly as the committee dismissed the subject
in their report. A remedy which aggravated the
evils appeared to him to be no remedy at all.
An increased number of polling places might be
very desirable ; but he did not think any member would
pretend that such a plan would be anything like an ade-
quate remedy. In fact, there did exist a power of in-
creasing them if it were thought necessary. The third
remedy, as he had said, was the ballot, and the principal
objection to the adoption of the Ballot was that
an act of voting. was a public duty, and involved
public responsibility ; that it would not restrain the
practice of treating ; that it would increase bribery
and afford facilities for personation. As to the act of

voting being a public duty he freely admitted, and there
was no finer spectacle in a free and constitutional country
than a constituency returning its members to Parliament
by an open, tranquil, pure, and, above all things, a free
election. The essential character of an election ought to
be freedom, and he quoted a passage from the judgment of
Baron Martin in the Beverley election petition trial,
in which he laid it down that when Government gave a
man the right to vote it imposed upon him the obligation
of using it honestly, and without undue influence. Baron
Martin proceeded to say that if it were proved before a
judge that a considerable number of votes had been under
undue influence, there was absolutely at common
law, without reference to any particular statute
whatever, no legal election. The right hon. gentleman
then went on to speak about the ballot, and
said in our own colonies where the ballot had been in
operation some time when the necessity for secresy disap-
peared, the secresy itself disappeared. He did not see
the necessity that a system of secret voting should encourage
bribery or personation. There must be under any
system an open system or a secret system. In
order to establish bribery or personation proof that
there had been a corrupt payment by one person to
another, or that a certain individual had voted,
fraudulently representing himself to be another
person. These were facts which must be established before
some legal tribunal, and the proof he proposed would not be
more difficult than it was now. The returning officer, on
the opening of the poll, would have to provide a sufficient
number of polling stations, and he would appoint a deputy
returning officer to presidelat each station. He would also
have to provide a sufficient number of polling papers for
each presiding officer. An agent might be appointed by
each candidate to watch over his interest at each
polling station. The polling papers would somewhat re-
semble the cheques iu a banker's cheque book. They would
have a counterfoil, and numbered, and every paper would
bear on its face the same number as it would bear on its
back. The presiding officer would give to each voter on
establishing his claim to vote a polling paper, entering at
the same time the number of the voter on the register upon
the counterfoil. The voter wonldtheu enter a private room
for the purpose of marking the polling paper. Having done
that he would fill it up in such a way that the names of the
candidate would not be visible, but the number on the back
would, and would place it in the ballot box. At the close of
the poll the presiding officer, or the friends and agents of
the candidates, would open the ballot box and take out the
ballot papers. He would then unfold the papers which did
not slur the names of the candidates. He could unfold them
and place them on their face in such a way that neither he
nor those who were assisting him would see the names. In
that way he could seal them in the presence of the agents,
who would also affix their seals, and transmit them to the
returning officer. When the latter had received all the pac-
kets of voting papers he would in the presence of the
agents of the candidates proceed to open them and
place them exactly the reverse way, with the face up-
ward. He would then count the number of votes, and at
the conclusion announce the result of the poll. At the
close of the poll the presiding officer would at once seal up
and send to the Clerk of the Crown the counterfoils of the
papers that had been used, and it would be the duty of the
returning officer, having counted up the packets, to reseal
them and send them to the Clerk of the Crown. They
proposed that no Note should be identified until it had been
proved to be a bad vote. There would be a clause in the
bill providing that no room shall be hired at a public-
house for the purpose of the committee room, or any pur-
pose connected with the election except for the holding
of a meeting at which the candidate himself
should be present. There
ovided that payments was also another ver
of
y
stringent clause, which pr
whatever description, if not included in the return pre-
scribed by law, should be regarded as corrupt payments,
and be sufficient to invalidate the election, In conclusion,
the right hon. gentleman said he should not deal with muni-
cipal election procedure until the next session.
Mr. LEATHAIL rejoiced that Government had decided to
deal with the subject of the ballot. He regretted, how-
ever, that they had complicated the consideration of
the question by combining with it other subjects,
which, however important, were more or less irrelevan t
Surely the ballot was a question large enough for a bill
to itself.
Mr. NEWDEGATE protested against the bill as described.
Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE inquired whether it was proposed.
to interfere with the procedure of election in the univer-
sities. _

Mr. FAWCETT complained that after Mr. Gladstone had
expressed himself in favour of the constituencies bearing
the election expenses, the bill did not propose to alter the
incidence of Parliamentary expenses. He believed that

the country would welcome the abolition of nominations,
the adoption of the Ballot, and the proposal as to public-
houses and election expenses.
Mr. WHITBREAD expressed his satisfaction with the

measure.

Mr. GLADSTONE, in answer to Mr. Hope, said there was
a clause in the bill which relieved the minorities from its
operation. With regard to the absence of a provision for
relieving candidates of election expenses and transferring

the burden to the constituencies, he said the reasons why
the Cabinet had refrained from making any such proposal
were of the simplest character. They had got a crowded
session, and they were very anxious to proceed with
important matters contained in the bill. They felt
that in order to give the bill a fair chance of success it was
necessary not to overload it with matters which, although
theoretically perfection, would in this practical age
nigh the chance of carrying the measure.
Mr. HENRY JAMES regretted that the ballot proposed by
the Government was to be deficient in its true virtue,
perfect and inviolate security.

Lord CLAIM HAMILTON moved the adjournment of the
iebate, but subsequently withdrew his motion.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
The House adjourned at two o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

MIDNIGHT BETTING AT THE WEIST END.
CHESTER OUP.
5 to 2 agst Sabiuus (offered--55 to 20 (taken freely)
11 to 2 agst Muster (taken —after 6 to 1 laid to £5O)
8 to 1 agst Cherie (taken to £150)
10 to 1 agst Wild Flower (taken and offered)
100 to 7 agst Bonny S ,‘ ell (taken and offered)
100 to 7 agst Miss Sheppard (taken and offered 100
to 6 taken)
15 to 1 agst Paul Jones (taken)
100 to 6 agst Cecil (taken and offered)
25 to 1 agst Formosa (taken to £80)
40 to 1 agst Ventnor (taken)
50 to 1 agst Cap-a-Pie (taken and offered)
50 to 1 agst Newsman (taken and offered)
2 to 1 agst Cherie 1,2, 3 (taken to £75 and offered)