The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-21 00:00:00

THE WAR IN CANDIA.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs whether it was true that Omar Pacha, having
been defeated at Herselion in Candle, had burnt all the
villages that had not been defended by the insurgents, and
murdered the inhabitants, and that the Consuls had reported
these atrocities to their respective Governments ; and,
whether means could be found during the approaching
visit of the Sultan to Europe, to obtain the cessation of a
conflict continuing so long, and producing results so
shocking to humanity.
Lord STANLEY said ho had received no official in-
formation of the defeat of Omar Pacha; the only intelli-
gence received was that which had come by telegram
from Athens. With respect to the burning of villages
he was afraid it would turn out true, as there was
much ill-feeling on both sides. With respect to procuring
a cessation of hostilities, of course it was much to be de-
sired, but it was a matter easier said than done. He did
not think that the approaching visit of the Sultan to this
country would be the proper time to lecture or importune
him on the matter. (Hear, hear.)
THE BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
_ _

Mr. HORSMAN asked the Secretary for War if his at-
tention had been drawn to a paragraph in the Times rela-
tive to the employment of the Volunteers 0 suppress the
disturbance, and whether he could inform the house of
the regulations under which the commanding officer
acted, and whether he thought it a proper employment of
the Volunteers?

Sir J. PASINGTON said he had not had his attention
drawn to the matter, and therefore he would ask the hon.
member to repeat his question on another opportunity. His
own individual opinion was that it was a,proper occasion
for the employment of the volunteers.
THE MEETINGS IN THE PARKS BILL.
In reply to Mr. NEAT;

Mr. HARDY said with respect to the bill before asking
the house to read it a second time he intended to introduce
certain amendments which would modify many of its pro-
visions. Ample notice would be given when it was pro-
posed to go on with the bill.
THE REFORM BILL—THE BOUNDARY COMMIS-

SIONERS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was in a position to communicate the names of the Boun-
dary Commissioners, they wero as follows :—Vis-
count Eversley, Mr. Walton, formerly a member of
the house ; Mr. Bramston, also a former member
of the house ; Sir John Duckworth, the hon. mem-
ber for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) ; the
Recorder, and LorkPenrhyn. (Hear, hear.) He would
take that opportunity of saying that he proposed to strike
out clause 24 out of the bill.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

The house went into committee on the bill.
Clauses from 25 to 28 wore agreed to.
On clause 29 being proposed, which related to voting

papers,
Mr. TORRENS moved the omission of the clause.
Lord CRANBORNE reminded the House that the
proposal was not a new one, but had been contained in the
Reform Bill of 1859, and that the system of voting papers
was in operation at university and municipal elections.
He gave his support to the clause, feeling convinced that
it would purge elections from illegitimete expenses, such
as the cost of conveying voters to the poll. Vast numbers
of persons who never recorded a vote under the present
system would hereafter do so with the help of the voting
paper. It would assist in gathering together the opinions
of all, whether rich or poor, sick or well, living at a dis-
tance from or near to the polling booth ; and he held that
a system which would do this ought not to be lightly re-
jected. The old practice of going in person to the poll
had signally failed over and over again, and if the House
determined to continue it they would be guilty of a con-
servatism from which ho recoiled, for it was as barbarous
as it was inconvenient, stupid, and absurd.
Sir R. PALMER cited his observation and experience of
elections for the University of Oxford against the clause,
and contended that the use of the voting paper would en-
courage a great increase of personation—an offence for the
commission of which the bill provided no penalty.
Mr. H. BERKELEY condemned the clause, believing
that if the system of voting papers were in operation at
the next general election intimidation would be stronger
than over, and bribery would be found in every corner in
every borough in the land.

Sir J. PAKINGTON had always been of opinion that
the introduction of voting papers would be a great con-
venience and a decided improvement in our electoral sys-
tem, provided only that it could be protected from abuse.
The system, he believed, would afford great facilities for
the exercise of the vote, avoid intimidation, considerably
diminish expenses, and extend the power of voting to large
numbers of persons who through various causes were now
practically prevented from recording their votes.

Mr. OS BORNE argued, on tho other hand, that tke

Voting paper would offer facilities not to the electors but
to the perpetrators of fraud. In the case of the 'Univer-
sities the voters could all write their names ; but even
they had difficulties in filling up the papers correctly ; but
the clause proposed to apply the system to a class of whom
very many might not be able to write. If it were adopted
it would be used for party purposes by every borough
magistrate, and he called upon the committee to reject it
as another example of the bucolic pressure which had been
put upon the Government, and as an endeavour to de-
bauch and divert the constituencies.

In the subsequent discussion the clause was supported
ty Mr. Karslake, Mr. Goldney, Mr. Macke, Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Wyld, the two latter being Liberals; and opposed
by Mr. Neate, Mr. Denman, Mr. Synan, Mr. Ayrton, and'
Mr. Newdegate.
Mr. AYRTON remarked that voting papers were all
very well for a nrm-resident constituency like that of
either university, but they would not do for boroughs.
The first effect of their use would be to open a regular
trade in them, and everybody would be employed in
getting everybody else's voting paper. Another evil
would be the generation of enormous expenses. And,
lastly, the foundation would be laid for an extensive
manufacture of votes, which, once allowed to begin, would
end in pulling dcwn the whole electoral system.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that if the elector did not re-
cord his vote in the presence of the non-elector the pos-
session of the franchise wculd cease to e a trust, and the
last barrier would thus be removed to Le introduction of
manhood suffrage and the ballot.
Lord UCH() recommended that the clause should be.