On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    ha proportion to the evil that it does to society , and the pain that it inflicts upon individuals ; the evil to society from an elector voting against lis convictions , is the same whether he does so for the sake of gaining a five-pound note , or from the fear of losing one—whether he is seduced by a bribe or intimidated by a threat ; but to the individual elector the difference between seduction and intimidation is very great , all the difference between pleasure and pain . An elector seduced by a . bribe feels that he is a free man , for he does what he likes ; an elector who is intimidated by a threat feete that he is a slave , for he acts under compulsion . Therefore . I repeat , in the eyes of the poorer classes ,

    intimidation is a far greater pffence than bribery . " In fact "the grosser and more outrageous forms of intimidation have become less common , ana , in fact , they are condemned bypublic © pinion ; but that the milder , more decent , and not less effective forms are practised to a great extent : and t doubt very much whether the real influence of intimidation on the votes of electors has much diminished , it is notorious that if in an agricultural district you know the opinions of the chief landowners—if , in a manufacturing district , yon know the , opinions of the chief mttlowners-r-you can tell very nearly what candidate will have the majority of votes in tie district . ™

    JSfow it is obvious that penal enactments won't { stop intimidation even if they could be devised , and there is nothing that will but the ballot . In the con * chiding part of hi * speech Sir William neatly replied to the arguments used by jLord Pahnerston , that the franchise is a . trust , and that if "votes are taken by ballot at elections they should also be taken by ballot in Parliament . - ; : " An objection has been frequently raised to the ballotit was stated by my noble friend the Secretary of State for the-Home Department —< m 4 J » e ground that the elective franchise , isY a . trra ^ confided to an elector for the Xhio

    ^ public bene ^ t : ; trost being to choose" a representative . It" is said tibat ; the elector - is , responsible for the exercise ^ « f his t tnut ^ and ther efore , that he , ooght to . vote openly , in © rd 6 r . ih ^ Vto ;^ public i ^ ay ^ judge of and pronounce a judg-< iaent ^ p ^ il ^ r 0 ^ oice . o | i ( a represen tative . -Why so ? ; To jaffinn that an elector ought to vote openly in order that the ;^ Wic : < may ; pronQunce . v a judgment upon his choice of a re ^ ; preBentat 4 ve means , if it meansi anything , that ; the elector ^ Bj ^^^ h ^ JnflgencedJn his . choice of ^ representative by ^ l ^^ p ^ on ^ oC the public . ^ Bat for what ; ureason ought an . « lectcsr 4 o , , b % s ^^ fiitaeaped ;? v ' Xhe only reason that can be ^ sjtenea , nra st be $ 5 bat the . public > are better judges of who jpnghtjo ^ chosen than , the , elector , is- . But if the public , are better iadees . if thev ^ are fitter to choose a irenreflentatiro .

    au < L if they are fit to- choose , they ought to choose , and , . Iherefpre , they ought to have . votea . ( juheers firom th&snintstendnfc ) But who are thepibhc whom you consider dot to ^ boosea representative ?! ' . The Whole community , or a portion of the community ? If the whole community ought to choose a representative , then they ought to have yojtes 4-fc * e ^) --aTid ; the suffrage should ! . be universal ; for to vote far , a caiid * date ; jia . i 8 o simple anact ^ that there is no reason . ^ y at sh ould ,. bej done by a delegate , or representative . If , on the other hand , you consider that onl y a portion of the v community are fit to choose ' a representative , then you faffirm . thub the ^ tlier . r portion f « r « [ unfit ta choose . It is i , evident , 'tbat j only ^ tb «» e who-are fit , to choose ought to

    iiave-sthe iranchis ^ , andt they ough . t to ; , be able to choose freely . Therefore they ought to be protected in their choice . © £ « representative , from the influence of those who are unfit to choose ; and the only means by which , they can be so protected > the 'ballot . ' ( Chfscra . ) Therefore , the argurnehts upon which the doctrine ox the responsibility of the elector is brftedinay ' lesdtb an eitertsion of the suffrage , or to universal suffrage J but they are not inconsistent with secret suffrage ^ On the contrary , ' they show the us ^ of the ballot in protecting'those who are fife to choose a representative from being influenced in their choice by those who are unfit to choose one . My "nohlo friend ( Lord Pahnerston has used an argument which has been so often answered , ihat I hardl y dare trespass on . the attention of the House by mentioning it . He savs that if the eWfom am In have + Ik >

    ballot , we ought to have the ballot in ihis House . Really , t ¦ cannot discover any analogy whatsoever . When an elector chooses a representative , what does he do ? He selects the man whom , on account of his political opinions , he considers most fit to sit in this House . The elector has therefore a right to know whether tie person whom he has selected acts or does not act up to those opinions ; and if after a man has taken his seat in this House his opinions change on _ any important question upon which he has declared his views to the ejectors , it is his duty to resign his seat and leave the electors to choose some other person . The . Re ctor himself , however , has , promised nothing , and it ia his duty simply to select , without party bias or hope of reward , the man whom he considers the fittest person to represent him in Parliament . "

    The debate now languished . Mr . Butt opposed , and Mr . Phinn supported the motion . Mr . Berkele y replied , and then the House went to a division . For the motion , 157 ; against it , 194 ; majority against , 3 7 . , So the motion was lost .

    I ^ GISLATIVE COUNCIL ( CANADA ) BILL . The Duke of Newcastle moved the second reading of thia bill . For a long 1 time , he said , it hagbeea -felb by many connected with Canada that the constitution of the Legislative Council , nominated by the Crown , did not fulfil those objects for which a second house of Legislation exists in this and other constitutional countries , as well as in many of our coloqics . - "It ia an iindoninble fact that those who arc most distinguished in the colony have frequently expressed their great repugnanooand unwillingness and in many instances their positive refusal , to go into the Legialative Council The

    statement of this single fact might almost be considered as conclusive against any determination on the part of the Legislature of this country to encourage or continue the existing system . The course which I propose-to take to remedy the present state of things is this—I propose to repeal those clauses in the Union Act of Canada which prevent the Colonial Legislature from reforming its own constitution , to refer to it the . question of changing the Legislative Council from a nominative to an elective body , and to leave it either to effect the vroposed alteration or to pass such other

    measures as it niay think fit . I propose , in short , to remove those hindrances to the free action of the Colonial Legislature which at present exist . That is the sole object of the present bill , with the exception of the last clause but one , the-effect of which is to do away with the necessity of ordinances passed by the Colonial Legislature being laid in future upon the table of this House forty days before they are confirmed by the Crown ; and likewise to render valid each measures as may have been passed , and have received the confirmation of the Crown , without having fulfilled the obligations which they ought to have fulfilled , of being laid upon our table . "

    Lord Dbsart asked the Duke of Newcastle to postpone the motion for the second reading , to afford Lord Derby an opportunity of expressing bis feelings respecting the bill . —Lord Wharncliffe Was understood to b © also in favour of delay . The Earl of Eixenbobough said he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the bill . They had in the course of the last few years , been making so many concessions to Canada , that the question now - was , not whether they should attempt to go forward or to go back , bat whether they should not , in the most friendly Spirit towards Canada and the other provinces of Uorth America , consult with the [

    Legislature of those provinces on the expediency of takingmeasures ior the complete exemption of those colonies from all dependence on the Grown and the Parliament of this country . He recollected , in 1828 , during the time : that Mr . * Huskisson held the seals of the Gploni » l-ofBce , having , a conversation with him , in which that gentleman ' intimated most distinctly that ; he thought the-time ; had already arrived for a separation between Canada ; and this country , and that he had even so . , thoroughly considered the matter , that he mentioned to him the form of government which lie thought it was for our interests to * , leave to Canada when our

    connection with it ceased * . During the last few years a ; 'complete changes had taken place in our relations with the iNorth American provinces . We had established what was called responsible Government , or , to speak more intelligihly , we had given them practically an independent Government ; and he could really hardly imagine a situation more inconvenient than that of " a representative of her Majesty in Canada . What , he would ask , were the practical advantages of continuing our connection with Canada ? There might be some advantages in it to the colony in times of peace ; but , on the other hand , let tleir lordships consider the great dangers

    to us and to them arising from that connection in matter ' s relating to war . There could be no doubt whatever that the chances of a collision between Ithis country and the United States were greatly increased by pur connection with the North American colonies . On the other hand there could be no doubt , in the event of a war taking place between this country , and the United , States , on grounds totally unconnected with Canada , ' that Canada and the other North American provinces would oi necessity fce exposed to the greatest calamities , from the extent of their frontier , which could possibly befal them . Under these circumstances it appeared to him

    a matter of almost serious consideration whether we should not endeavour in the most friendly spirit , to divest ourselves of a connection equally injurious to us and to them . He thought that at n very early period her Majesty ' s Government should endeavour to communicate with the leading persons in the legislative councils of all the different colonies of North America , with the yiow pf ascertaining their opinions on this subject . Everything should bo done in reference to it without compulsion , and in the most friendly spirit . We should consult with the North American provinces as we should with the members of our own families in whose interest and welfare we took the deepest concern . It would be to him a matter of satisfaction if the result should l > 2 to relieve us from a possible danger which ho could not

    contemplate -without the greatest apprehension . The Duke of Newcastle expressed not onl ^ his deep regret but his astonishment at the doctrines propounded by Lord Ellenborough , and asserted without fear of contradiction that all out legislation on the suttjeot of trade had only the more endeared Canada to the people of England , and England to th « people of Canada . If this country were to be invaded at the present moment , when our armies were making war on another soil , he should have no fear for th « result ; imd just so he should have no fear for th « result if any nation should invade Canada . IIo deprecated such discussions aa this , ( Hear , hear . ) II « knew that Lord Ellenborough ' s words would sinlc deep into the heart of many a Canadian and sting him with regret .

    Lord BitouaHAM entirely approved of the bill , and also expressed his agreement with Lord ICllenborough in thinking that , after a certain period of time , tlio

    best thing that could happen to the colonial connexion was what might be called its euthanasia—a separation without any quarrel , without any coldness even , but with perfect amity and good-will , so that the relations prevailing between two independent states might be substituted for those which had prevailed between the mother country and its dependency . Lord Habeowbt believed that there was no measure by which the question of separation would be more thoroughly removed from the minds of the Canadians than by the bill before the Souse . The bill was then read a second time .

    OTEW DIVORCE BILL . The L . OKD Chancellor moved the second reading of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill , on Tuesday . In hia speech on the occasion he traced the history of the law of divorce from an early period . In Roman Catholic times marriage was held to be indissoluble ; and then divorce was obtained by declaring the marriage null and void from the beginning . In the reigrt of Edward VI ., a commission , with Cranmer at its head , investigated tae subject , and they recommended that marriages might be set aside for adultery , cruelty , and other causes ; but their recommendations never lecame kw . Early in

    the 17 th century divorces did , however , take place ; and before its close it became understood that the ecclesiastical courts could only grant a separation from bed * and board ; and the hardships of this led to the practice of granting a complete divorce by act of Parliament . When Lord LoughbourgTi held the seals certain rules had been introduced , requiring , in every case of an application for a divorce , that the person seeking it should go armed before their lordships with the double evidence—first , that he bad obtained a verdict at law in an action against the adulterer ;

    and next , that he had obtained a divorce in the ecclesiastical court , so faras that court was competent to give a divorce . The matter was tlieu completely investigated over again at the bar of the House of Lords , and he need not say that the inquiry was conducted with great rigour , both in order to satisfy their lordships that the adultery hadTaeen made out , and that there was ^ no collusion or connivance between any , of the parties . The bill then went down to the other House , and the divorce was enacted . Those divorces had occurred in the course of the

    present century , at the rate of ab < rut two a year . But this was an unsatisfactory and unbecoming state of the law ; because , however desirable it Might be to prevent divorces , and to compel persons , if possible , to settle their differences , and to live together , yet , if there were cases of adultery , where it was impossible that that should b& the case , and where relief was to be afforded , it was quite improper that that relief should be granted , not by virtue of any law which gave it to the party ; but by reason of their lordships feeling that the want of the law was so grievous that in each particular case they would make a law for the occasion .

    That discreditable state of things It is proposed to remedy . It was proposed to confine the ground of divorce to adultery , excluding cruelty , desertion , great criminality , and incompatibility of temper . But it is not proposed that the wife should have the same remedy on account of the adultery of the husband as was given to the husband on account of the adultery of the wife . He knew that primd facie this seemed a very unjust distinction , but let their lordships observe what it would lead t » if adultery on the part of the husband were to entitle him . to a divorce . If he wished to obtain a di vorce , he -would only have to multiply acts of adultery in order to attain Ms object . It was the fact that a husband scarcely lost caste at all , or , at any rate , only to a Very slight degree , by committing adultery , while

    t * he wife who committed that offence entirely lost her station in society , and , although in point of morality and religion the criminality were tile same , if adultery on the part of the husband was made the ground of divorco-a profligate husband might get rid of his wife when he pleased . He , therefore , thought the commissioners had come to a right conclusion upon this point . But there were some extreme cases in which their lordships had given relief to the wife —when the husband , for instance , luud been guilty of bigamy or incest—for the reason that in such cases it was impossible for the wife to purdon her husband . These were cases of extremely rare occurrence , but he had introduced a clause to the effect that when they occurred the wife should be entitled to the same relief as the husbnnrl—viz ., a divorce that would entitlo her to nrmrry ngnin .

    Now by the bill before the llor . se It is proposed ta constitute a tribunal , composed of five members , ol whom the Lord Chancellor , the Lord Chief Justice , and the Master of the Rolls shall l > o three , having entire jurisdiction over cases whero a divorce a vinculo mcttrimonii is prayed , and empowered to grant a divorce , subject to appeal to the Mouse of Lords . All other matrimonial causes he proposes to send before the Court of Chancery . Evidence will be taken before the Court of Divorco in open court and viva vuce ; and will be taken duwu . by a shorthand writer so us to form a record .

    Untitled Article

    S 56 T H E L E A D ; E R . ^ Satxtrday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), June 17, 1854, page 556, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2043/page/4/