to be allowed to pass unimproved. Votes of censure were, therefore, proposed in both chambers of the legislature. In the upper House ministers triumphed by the narrow majority of two, in the lower by twenty-seven. Perhaps no question whatever had been so much or so often before the House of Commons as that of vote by ballot. None had been more earnestly pressed_by_the Radical party, or more strenuously resisted by the Conservatives. Addison, in a letter dated February 2, 1708, mentions that the House of Commons was then engaged in a project for deciding elections by balloting. The question then went under, to emerge again soon after the peace of 1815, when it attracted so much public sympathy and support, that, as we have already seen, Lord J. Russell, in bringing forward the Reform Bill, deemed it necessary to apologise for the absence from it of any provision relating to the ballot, on the ground that it was desirable to consider the two measures separately. During the first session of the reformed parliament in 1833 it was embodied in a bill brought forward by Mr. Grote, the historian of Greece, then member for the city of London, and was the subject of a long series of annual motions proposed by him, and after his withdrawal from parliament by Mr. Berkeley. It was one of the points of the people's charter, and the one, perhaps, of all others to which the Chartists attached the greatest importance, and it met with a large amount of support from the Liberal party generally. Lord J. Russell generally opposed it; but when provoked by the intimidation and corruption practised at elections, he sometimes used language which led some to hope and others to fear that he would become a convert to it. On the other hand, Sydney Smith had strongly condemned it in one of the ablest, wittiest, and most argumentative of all his writings. However, the question slowly but steadily made way in public opinion. Mr. Gladstone had formerly opposed it; but the evidence taken on the elections of the year 1868 before a committee of the House of Commons, of which Lord Hartington was chairman, and which made converts of many who had formerly been opponents of the measure, convinced him that the time was come when legislation on the question should not be any longer delayed. Accordingly, in 1871 the ques 1872.] THE PERMISSIVE BILL. 411 tion was referred to in the Queen's speech, and a bill for its settlement was brought forward by the government, which, after having passed the Commons, was rejected by the Lords, on the ground that it was brought before them at a period of the session too late to admit of its being duly considered by them. This year it again went through the lower House, and was read a second time by the peers; but an amendment was carried in committee making secret voting optional. This amendment would evidently have nullified the object of the bill, and was rejected by the Commons; the Lords yielded, and the bill was eventually adopted nearly in the form in which it had been originally introduced establishing that system of secret voting with which we are all familiar, and abolishing public nominations of candidates and declarations of the result of the polling, formalities which had become quite useless, but were fruitful causes of riot and disorder. A proviso had been introduced by the Lords, enacting that the bill should only remain in force to the close of the year 1880, unless parliament should see fit to continue it; and there can be no doubt that, after the experience we have had of its advantages, all parties will agree in perpetuating the system thus introduced. Another question, not inferior in importance though very different in character, was also dealt with by the legislature in the course of the present year. The agitation carried on by the United Kindom Alliance for the total and immediate suppression of the liquor traffic had indeed failed to attain its object, but it had made a deep impression, and effected a great change in public opinion with regard to the use and utility of alcoholic liquors. It had also drawn general attention to the enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and misery they produced, and the prodigious expenditure they caused in police, prisons, workhouses, &c. The Alliance had collected and diffused through the land an immense amount of evidence, and had asked for and obtained the large sum of 100,000l. to enable it to agitate with greater vigour. The publicans, who, in the first instance, had treated its efforts with derision, were now becoming seriously alarmed at the progress of the agitation. On the other hand, the leaders of the Alliance, without bating one jot of their demands, readily lent the influence of their powerful organisation to any measure tending to restrain that drunkenness which they hoped radically to cure. The publicans professed to desire measures tending to discourage drunkenness: the men of the Alliance wanted to get rid of the drink. The publicans pleaded the interests of their trade: the Alliance men urged the interests of the public. The publicans sued for compensation: their opponents demanded retribution. It was impossible to devise a compromise which would be accepted by two parties so diametrically opposed to each other. But the agitation had so far prevailed, that it had become needful that the question should be dealt with by the government. Accordingly Mr. Disraeli's administration had framed a measure on the subject, which their defeat at the last election had prevented them from producing. Their successors in 1871 brought forward a measure dealing with the question, but being unable to carry it during that session they passed a temporary measure, giving the home secretary a veto on all licences granted by the magistrates, and reintroduced their bill in the session of 1872. Though not prepared to go the lengths of the Permissive Bill of the Alliance, nor even to admit the principle which that measure embodied of giving the public, in some way or other, the control of public-houses, they were fully aware of the evils that attended the liquor traffic. They left to the magistracy the power of granting or withdrawing licences under certain regulations; they protected publicans from vexatious appeals, they directed that a register should be kept of offences committed in public-houses, increased the penalties for drunkenness, provided securities against the adulteration of intoxicating liquors, and shortened the hours during which publichouses were to remain open both on Sundays and week days. The bill was carried notwithstanding the opposition of the publicans. The enforcement of its early closing regulations led at first to disturbances, chiefly directed against hotels for the entertainment of travellers, which necessarily remained open after the other public-houses were closed but these disorders were not of a very serious character, were confined to one or two places, and were easily suppressed. The law was enforced without difficulty, though not without giving bitter offence to the : 1872.] TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 413 publicans, whose resentment was afterwards manifested in a manner very disastrous to the ministry by which the measure had been carried. The treaty of Washington and the proceedings to which it gave rise constitute an important era in the history of the world. We have already had occasion to refer to the ill feeling produced in America by the ravages which the Alabama and other privateers that had escaped from our ports had committed. That feeling had become so strong that the United States government, which from its constitution is peculiarly accessible to every impulse of popular feeling, could not disregard it, and sensible men on both sides of the Atlantic desired to see something done to allay it. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who came to this country as the representative of the United States, commenced a negociation for the settlement of the question, which seemed likely to lead to the desired result. Unfortunately he accepted a great number of invitations to banquets in the chief towns of England, and used language at them which was intended to express the sentiments of friendship and good will which he felt towards England, but which gave great umbrage to his countrymen, and caused him to be recalled. The treaty he was negociating shared the unpopularity of the negociator, and was rejected by an almost unanimous vote of the United States Senate. His successor was Mr. Motley, the historian of the Netherlands, who, in conjunction with Mr. Fish, the foreign secretary of the United States, renewed the interrupted negociations. As the constitution of the United States required that everything relative to them should be referred to the Senate, it was thought best that they should be carried on at Washington, and that commissioners appointed by our government should go thither. It was understood on both sides that an effort should be made to settle the questions at issue between the two governments on broad principles applicable to disputes that might arise at any future time. Our government was blamed here for being over-eager to entertain the claims of the American government, and for not pressing more strongly counter-claims that were raised for damage done in Canada by Fenian raiders, who, it was alleged, had been rather encouraged than checked by the United States government. These censures were altogether groundless. It was of the utmost importance to England not to leave unsettled a claim which was sure to be pressed at the moment which would be most inconvenient for us, and there was not a shadow of foundation for the assertion that the American government had violated international obligations in dealing with the Fenians. Our government therefore displayed a wise moderation in not urging unsustainable claims, and providing for the settlement of the question at issue between the two governments by arbitration, thus establishing a precedent applicable to all future disputes between civilised nations. The English government facilitated the conclusion of the treaty by a hearty and unreserved expression of regret at the escape of the Alabama and other privateers from our ports, and at the ravages committed by them on the American merchant shipping. The commissioners on both sides agreed that the decisions of the arbitrators on the cases to be submitted to their judgment were to be governed by the following rules of international duty, which the American commissioners submitted as a fair expression of the recognised law of nations: 1. That a neutral government is bound, first, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on a war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use. 2. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. '3. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. 'It being a condition of this understanding, that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.' |