6 JUNE 1857, Page 3

VOTING BY PAPERS.

Lord ROBERT CECIL, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of collecting votes at elections in Counties and Universities by means of voting-papers, remarked that the question of the Ballot would not be at all affected by the success of his motion. Ho did not call on the House to legislate, but simply to inquire ; and the objection that all questions referring to the electoral franchise should be postponed until next year did not apply to his motion. If his proposal were adopted, it would remedy many defects of which reformers complain.

A very small body of electors take part in elections. In 1847, out of

90,400 voters in thirteen counties, only 24,136 voted. In 1852, only 65 out of every 100 voted in the large constituencies. The reason was, that voters could not spare the time or incur the expense of attending the polling-places. If the payment of travelling-expenses be made illegal, there will be a still stronger reason for the adoption of his plan, as otherwise a large number of voters will be disfranchised. It will also diminish the expense to the candidates, absolutely put an end to treating, and relieve us from the scandal of election-riots. Voting-papers would prevent any one from knowing the state of the poll, and therefore prevent that form of bribery which is induced by the temptation to buy votes at the last moment in a close race. The plan has been tried in parish elections, and has worked well. Where it has failed—where frauds have been committed—it arose from defective machinery and under-paid officers. If they did not adopt -the plan in reference to counties, he trusted they would at least consent to apply it to universities.

Mr. M'Cuereeon said it would be unreasonable to add to the Commit

tees now sitting, at this period of the session. The mover had founded his arguments upon expectation rather than experience. Tested by its working, the system recommended has failed. At Swansea, 75 persons who belonged to "the enemy" were not supplied with voting-papers ; at Banbury, the same thing occurred ; in Marylebone, an agent had been convicted of forging votes ; in Lambeth, two candidates were convicted of constructive forgery ; at West Bromwich, an inquiry showed that in one election no fewer than 342 papers had been tampered with, The same thing was done at Bridport and Bridgend. The greatest objection to the proposed plan was that it would facilitate forgery and fraud. If it should be applied to counties, why not to boroughs ? On the whole, he considered that in working the plan had failed; and that it was inapplicable to Parliamentary contests. He moved the "previous question."

Lord Enamel-ore supported the motion ; and referred the failure of the plan in action to the " cheapness and consequent inefficiency of the Poorlaw machinery for the collection of votes." There could be no more appropriate time for the inquiry than the present ; and the mode of preventing fraud would be a proper question for a Committee.

Lord STANLEY stated a variety of objections to the scheme as applied to either counties or boroughs, but not as applied to universities. Ho showed, that although voting by papers would to some extent diminish rioting, it would infinitely increase the abuse of intimidation and bribery, and facilitate personation—which in the Poor-law elections has gone on to a very great extent. As to the motion for a Committee, there would be great practical difficulty in carrying it out, and at this season it would be impossible to have a full and complete investigation. Sir Frrznov KELLY supported the motion for an inquiry, and spoke in favour of the plan recommended by the mover. Sir GEORGE GREY took fra opposite view. This is not one of the questions that the House should refee to it Committee, but which it should decide itself. If Lord Robert Cecil would introduce a bill, he would not oppose its introduction ; but he would not commit the House to its principle by referring the matter to a Select Committee. Mr. HENRY BERKELEY congratulated the Opposition on its approach to the footpath of Reform, although he could not regard the measure proposed even as an instalment of reform. Lord Joux MANNERS objected to the plan, and referred to an "ingenious" one of his own, which he said he had in his pocket; but he did not produce it Lord ROBERT CECIL, having intimated a desire to withdraw the motion and to bring in a bill, the previous question and the motion were both withdrawn.