Saturday, June 15, 1872.]

T H E T A B L E T .

735

the ballot

b ill .

On Monday night Lord Ripon moved the second reading of the Ballot Bill, arguing that it would stop intimidation and diminish bribery. . e spoke of the intimidation of trades unions as likely to increase, though that of landlords was diminishing, and oited the Australian colonies and the elections for the London School Board as instances to prove the advantages of the system. He read extracts from reports of Mr. Uu Lane, Governor of Tasmania, and Sir J . Fergusson, Governor of South Australia, witnessing to the popularity of the Ballot, and the tranquillity which it secured at elections. Another Conservative testimony was that of Lord Belmore, ^ho has recently retired from the Governorship of New oouth Wales, and who, though not enthusiastic about the ballot, was, at least, “ not afraid of it.” In New South 'Vales, as he explained, the voting was absolutely secret, and scrutiny was impossible ; while in Victoria there was very little real secrecy, and there was a scrutiny. Personation was not, therefore, by any means unknown in Australia. This is the veal difficulty with which the Lords have to grapple, and the Duke of Richmond, who shrunk from voting against the second reading for fear of a fresh agitation against the Upper House, announced that in Committee he should introduce amendments to render secrecy entirely optional, and to secure the power of tracing a fraudulent vote. The second reading of the Bill was carried by 86 votes to 56.

ITS OPPONENTS.

Lord Grey, who led the direct opposition to the Bill, founded his objection on the belief that the House of Commons did not truly represent, and for some time past had not truly represented, the people, and that the Lords were therefore not bound to give in to it. Moreover, that if it was badly constituted now, the ballot, detached from the kindred measures of further alteration in the franchise, and a redistribution of seats, would tend to make it worse instead of better, and would be an obstacle to such a reform of the Lower House as he wished to see, as it would throw the elections, as in America, into the hands of “ wire-pullers.” Lord Carnarvon and Lord Salisbury both regarded the argument from Australia as worthless, by reason of the wide differences between the condition of the.two countries, and Lord Salisbury alluded to the numerous instances in which the ballotboxes had been violated on the Continent. He maintained that the measure involved “ a fearful constitutional danger,” as it would lead to a demand for separation from Ireland, and he voted against the second reading, intending, however, to support the Duke of Richmond’s amendments should he fail to keep the Bill out of Committee. ’ Lord Lyveden, •another Whig opponent of the Bill, twitted the Duke of Richmond and Lord Shaftesbury for their “ inconsequence” in not voting against that which they had so vigorously assailed. Lord Shaftesbury, indeed, who abstained from doing so for the same reasons which influenced the Duke, was the most prophetically denunciatory o f all. He read reports which he had obtained from the manufacturing districts, stating that many workmen, advocates for the ballot, did not wish for it as protection for themselves, as their employers had never interfered with them ; but “ because the aristocracy “ and the landowners drive their tenants to the voting

THE DANGER

OF PERSONATION.

But throughout all this opposition the conviction was constantly cropping up, that with the Bill, as it stands, personation is singularly facilitated— a belief for which nobody can say that there is not a good deal to be urged. A thousand men whose votes are fraudulently recorded may, as the Tim es points out, swear an a lib i, and prove that they never voted at all, but there is no remedy. And surely, if compulsory secrecy is broken down in the interest of the Jews or illiterate persons, it is only fair to ask for some precautions by which such an offence as this may be traced to its perpetrators. It is no more fatal to secret voting in general to empower a high official to scrutinize a fraudulent vote than it is to enable the returning officer to fill up the paper o f an elector who cannot read. On the contrary, the latter provision is a piece of complaisance on the part of the law— a help which might possibly be dispensed with ; whereas the former would be a protection against a direct wrong.

In the French Assembly, General Trochu

th e f r e n c h ;ntroduced at the end of last week a whole a r m y r i l l . ser¡£s jntended to carry out a plan of a three years instead of a five years service. He maintained that the latter would end in a return to the system of substitutes, and argued that if the present legislation was to be definitive, as it ought to be— the nation having frankly accepted the principle of compulsory service—the shorter term was the only practical and final settlement. On Saturday M. Thiers himself made an elaborate reply, which was much cheered by the Right. He began by protesting, on his honour, on the honour of the Assembly, and of the country, that France desired peace, and desired it for as long as possible. The only object of the Bill was to secure to France her permanent strength, and to restore to her the rank among nations which she had always held, and which she deserved. He insisted that it was not the superior excellence of the Prussian military system, but a better Government, better statesmen and better generals, which had vanquished France. It was a delusion, he said, to imagine that even Prussia was a nation in arms, the peculiarity by which its, army is distinguished being that it is regional, and easily mobilized. He resisted the application of this principle to France as tending to derogate from her unity and reawake the provincial feeling— and he argued that it was impossible to create a soldier in three years. He would himself have preferred six, or even eight, but as that was impracticable, he stuck to five, being strongly opposed both to universally obligatory service and to the shorter term. The peace effective would thus amount to 472,000 men, and the war effective to 1,100,000, which would be amply sufficient if the country did not commit the “ senseless” folly of going to war without allies. General Trochu’s reply in favour of universal compulsion and short service reproached M. Thiers for not accepting the sacrifice which the country was ready to make, and argued the matter from the economical point of view. It was not the army, he said, but the nation and its military institutions which had to be reorganized, and this was compatible with a large reduction of military expenditure, for taking which line he was loudly applauded by the Left. The Assembly however rejected his amendment by 462 votes against 228, thereby maintaining the Government scheme of a five years service with provisional exemptions.

M. THIERS’S

THREAT.

On Monday, however, a fresh attempt was made to upset the five years. There were two motions for four years, of which General Chareton’s obtained the precedence. The object of the mover was to augment the reserves, “ the want o f which,” he said, “ lost the Empire.” General Guillemant supported him with the arguments that a five years’ obligatory service was a practical impossibility, and that it would only allow of a reserve of 210,000. whereas four years would give one of 350,000. The committee, through M. de ChasseloupLaubat, maintained the five years’ clause, and General Changarnier implored the Chamber not to abate an hour of the term. But M.fThiers clinched the matter. He said, firstly, that the increased reserve would give them 570,000 men in all— 100,000 more than they could affford to p a y ; and, secondly and lastly, that i f the Assembly did not vote the five years, and vote it that day, he should resign. The effect of the menace was complete : the clause was voted by 554 to 58, but the next day the majority is said to have manifested considerable disgust. They naturally ask themselves what would have happened if the President actually had resigned ; and in the Centre at least there is a strong party for putting forward the Due d’Aumale as his successor. The Union and the Ordre and P a y s have entered into a kind of temporary coalition to oppose the more pressing danger—a resuscitation of the Ju ly regime.

M. ROUHER AND THE MARCH TO

SEDAN.

M. Rouher has been giving some important evidence before the Commission of Enquiry into the events preceding the 4th September. I t was known that he paid a hurried visit to Chalons towards the end of August, and the Committee seem to have thought that an examination of him might furnish some clue to the pressure supposed to have been exercised on MacMahon by the Emperor or the Council of Regency. M. Rouher, however, deposes that his journey was undertaken on his own responsibility at the suggestion of M. deSaint-Paul, who thought that a conference between the President of the Senate and the Emperor might be useful. They started accordingly together on the same evening, the 20th of August, M. Rouher merely