any election, the votes at the next two elections
for the locality affected should be taken by Ballot.
He should be happy to receive suggestions as
to the mode of taking votes; but his own plan was to
adhere as nearly as possible to the present practice, and
that, when the voters had been duly identified, he
should be presented with an officially issued card, to be
deposited in a box. He suggested this measure as a
contribution towards settling a much agitated question.
—Mr. F. PEEL, in the absence of members of the
government whose attendance was required elsewhere,
said that the question had already been fully discussed
this session. The subject ought to be treated on
general grounds, and not in an exceptional way, and it
was not fair to inflict the ballot on particular places as
a warning to others. Nor would the ballot receive a fair
trial unless it were taken universally.—Mr. H. Berkeley
objected to the proposed homœpathic treatment
of the ballot. He could not vote against the motion,
but should walk out of the house.—Mr. French, under
the circumstances of the evening, moved that the house
should adjourn.—The motion was instantly agreed to.

On Wednesday, June 29, Mr. Vincent SCULLY, in
moving the second reading of the Transfer of Land
Bill, made a long speech on the whole subject of land–
tenure legislation; going back as far as 1830, when the
attention of parliament was first seriously called to the
subject. He said he had arrived at the conclusion that
there should be complete free trade in land. To this
the people of the Channel Islands attributed their
prosperity; and it had received the assent of the French
people. He was not, however, going to propose that we
should imitate France by adopting their compulsory
system. He simply wished for perfect freedom. By
the first clause of his bill (he said) it is proposed to
allow, upon the application of the owner of property to
the land–tribunal constituted by the act, that the
tribunal may direct a full investigation of the title to be
made, and, if found good, may order that the land
should be brought under the operation of the act. The
second cause explains the effect of such proceeding to be,
that no person should be at liberty to embarrass the
land with any future settlement or new estate; but if
the owner desire to raise money on the land, he may
only do so by a land–debenture, though he may grant
leases of the property. By the third section it is
enacted, that after any land is brought under the
operation of the act, the land–tribunal may, after a full
investigation of title, make an order declaring all
existing estates and interests in the land, and all
encumbrances thereon, and cause such order to be entered in
the books of the tribunal. Such entry will, as regards
any estate, interest, or encumbrance appearing thereon,
be conclusive evidence against all persons whomsoever;
and the tribunal may grant to the person so entered as
entitled to any such estate, interest, or encumbrance,
a certificate of his title thereto. The fourth clause is
one of the most important in the bill: it authorises any
person entered as owner of any estate to transfer his
estate by simple entry in the books of the tribunal; and
that entry, without any deed or other assurance, will
suffice to vest in the person named in the transfer all
the estate and interest in respect of which the prior
owner has been entered in the books of the tribunal.
Mortgages and all other charges upon land will be
converted into one—land–debenture. The land–tribunal
might charge an estate with land–debentures to a
limited extent—they will bear a small interest, and
form good securities. The debentures, in sums it may
be of £100 each, will be registered in the books of the
tribunal, and, being subject to a stamp–duty, will produce
an enormous revenue to the country, and will be
negotiable by simple delivery, like a promissory note payable
to bearer. He aid not expect to carry his bill this
session, unless government would take it up; and he
should rest content with having it referred to the select
committee on the Registration of Assurances Bill, after
the second reading.—Sir John YOUNG made no
objection to the second reading, and he thanked Mr. Scully
for his speech. He announced that government
intended to appoint a commission to inquire into the
whole subject; and he hoped that next session, at any
rate before the Encumbered Estates Court should
expire, a general plan for a permanent settlement
would be prepared.—The bill was read a second time,
and referred to the select committee on the Registration
of Assurances Bill.

On Thursday, June 30, the adjourned debate on the
Government of India Bill was resumed and concluded.
In a very thin house, Mr. RICH made a speech not
only against the bill, but against the past government
of India under the East India Company, and gave his
support to the amendment. The discussion, until near
its close, had the same monotonous characteristics as
preceding discussions; and following Mr. Rich, long
speeches of the same character, on either side, were
delivered.—Mr. Cumming BRUCE defended the Company;
criticised the bill; but opposed the amendment.
He also went into the details of a plan for the government
of India, based on an independent constituency of
persons in this country who have property in India; the
disposal of patronage by the Governor–General, the
Directors, and our academic institutions; and providing
for government in the name of the Queen. Mr. Bruce
strongly objected to the mode of disposing of patronage
laid down in the bill.—Mr. MARJORIBANKS defended the
Court of Proprietors, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. NAPIER felt bound to give his honest support to
the amendment: but he did not repudiate the bill—he
only said that delay was necessary.—Mr. John
MACGREGOR advocated the bill.—Mr. Digby SEYMOUR
supported the amendment in a long discourse; which
however, consisted of materials already used on
previous nights, put into a new shape; closing with a
sentimental allusion to the India of the future, coming
up out of the wilderness "leaning on the arm of British
sympathy and guided by the genius of British reform."—
—Sir C. WOOD hoped they might be able to come to a
decision on this important subject before the evening
closed. The bill for the government of India expired at
the beginning of next year, and it was incumbent on
the house to provide a plan of future government.
Agitation was not a proper mode of determining a
question of this importance. The question of what the
future government of India was to be was second in
interest to none that could be discussed by the deliberate
wisdom and calm judgment of the house, and he hoped
the house would not abdicate its judgment on the
subject, and be led away by popular opinion. The hon.
member for Manchester (Mr Bright) wished to appeal
to what he called public opinion, but by that he meant
public opinion agitated by such speeches as he had
delivered, not only where they could, but also where
they could not, be refuted. Sir C. Wood proceeded to
take a review of the debate, and answered in turn the
objections of the hon. members for Manchester, the
West Riding, Newcastle (Mr. Blackett), Montrose, and
others who had expressed their intention of supporting
the amendment. He fully admitted there were defects
in the present system, but those defects the government
had taken every means in their power to remedy, so far
as could be done by home legislation; such questions,
however, as land–tenure and improvements in public
works, could not be dealt with here, and ought not to
be attempted, as the best machinery for the purpose
could not be obtained.—Mr. DISRAELI assured the
house that, in endeavouring to consider the all–
important subject now before them, he hoped to imitate
the temperate spirit which characterised the statesmanlike
speech by which the amendment was introduced
by Lord Stanley. They had been told frequently
during the debate that the subject should not be treated
in a party spirit; as if a question considered in a party
spirit must necessarily be considered in a partial and
unjust spirit. Now, they were all members of a house
of party, which, if it were not a house of party, they
might depend upon it would not be tolerated by the
country. There had been some controversy as to the
exact subject which was under discussion. But there
could be no mistake whatever as to the question before
them. It was accurately, completely, and precisely
expressed in the title of the bill which was on the
table of the house:—"A bill to provide for the
government of India;" and an amendment had been
moved which in effect said this—that the ministerial
plan of providing for the government of India, while