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

STONERS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho
was in a position to communicate the names of the Boun-
dary Commissioners, they were as follows :—Vis-
count Eversion 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 Lord Penrhyn. (bear, hear.) lie would
take that opportunity of saying that ho proposed to strike
out clause 21 out of the bill.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

The house went into committee on tl'e bill.
Clauses from 23 to 28 were agreed to.
On clause 29 being proposed, which related to voting
papers,
Mr. TORRENS moved the omission of tho 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 illegitimate 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 hold that
a system which would do this ought not to be lightly re-
jected. Tho 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. 11. 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, ho 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 wore now
practically prevented from recording their votes.
Mr. OSBORNE argued, on the other hand, that tko
voting paper would offer facilities not to the electors but
to the perpetrators of fraud. In the case of the Univer-
sities tho 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 bo able to write. If it were adopted
it would be used for party purposes by every borough
magistrate, and ho called upon the committee to reject it
as another example of the bucolic rressure 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. Packe, Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Wyld, the two latter being Liberals ; and opposed
by Mr. Neste, Mr. Denman, Mr. Synan, Mr. Ayrton, and
Mr. Newdegate.
Mr. AYRTON remarked that voting papers were all
very well for a non-resident constiluency like that of
either university, but they would not do for boroughs.
The first effect of their use would 1y.3 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 I e a trust, and the
last barrier would thus be removed to :he introduction of
manhood suffrage and the ballot.
Lord ELCIIO recommended that the clam bhonld be