The Express. — London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

which it had heretofore existed • and long after the disturb ances bad commenced the who le object of the course taken by her Majesty's government, bath previous to the mission of the noble earl (Minto), to which the noble lord had alluded in somewhat contemptuous terms, but which he could prove to him t o have been a most important and useful one—(hear)— both previous and subsequent to that mission the object of the government and of the noble earl, who had been invited by the King of Naples, was to maintain the relations between that kingdom and Sicily upon the same footing se that upon which it had existed, and by counsel and advice to promote the adoption of those principles which offered the only chance of that relation being maintained. And not only were those counsels tendered, but they were also received iu a spirit ol amity ; and there was rennin to hope that the first and favourite object of our interference would have been *nom plithed, and that Naples would have retained at this moment her rule over Sicil. Bat changes took place i n the councils of hi. Majesty's Neapolitan advisers which rendered it im possible to carry on the airangement which was then almost completed. But up to the moment when there appeared to be the slightest practical difficulty in maintaining the union which had existed —up to the period of the sucrose, the almost complete success, of the Sicilian arms, the advice and acts of her Majesty's government had been directed but to one object, the con tinuance of that union. There had been no want of skill on the part ot the Napless nobl lord wlio had been chareed with au thonty at and as the noble lord (Stanley) had alluded to the individual character of the noble lord who had been entrusted with the Britifth authority at Naples, he begged to say that his absence commenced l ong before the troubles there had broken out; and if ever the noble lord opposite should see the whole of the papers and the com munications which bad taken place upon there matters, he would find that no country had been represented with more ability, assiduity, and !kill than England had been at Naples by Lord Napire. (Hear, hear.) From the time it became manifest that Sicily would no longer remain a part of Naplee, the feelhog of the British government had been in favour of the family of the Kiag of Naples ; and it then did not cease, fur their anxiety was that a prince of the house of Naples should be chosen as the sovereign of Sicily—(hear, hem)—and ne effort was spared to induce the Sicilians to make that choice. But when it be came manifest that h oecple of Sicily—combining every branch—front the aristocracy down to the lowest order — were so united, and had displayed such military power as they did, in the maintenance of their iodependence, the cionasel and advice of her Majesty's government was given as to the form of government, but it was unaccompanied by anything like a condition. (Hear, hear.) They certainly did think it =OA advisable, as (or as any opinion as to a form of government might go, that it should be in favour of a monarchy rather than of a republic. (Hear, hese.) And assuming that advice would be successful, the British government added nothing to it ; but they certainly did think it desirable that a monarch should be selected from one of the Italian states, and not that a foreign interest should be introduced into Sicily. (Hear, hear.) Looking back to the different stages of the counsel which her Majes ty's government had given in this matter, he distinctly and advisedly raid that there was not one word which they has had occasion hi regret. (Hear, hear.) The noble le rd was mistaken in his chronology of the different events to which he had adverted as in other particulars, but that did not affect the ins re important question. He might, however, my that he was entirely wrocg in supposing that a communi cation had been made to Sicily and the King of Sardir ie that the British government required an insurance that the Duke of Genoa should be elected, and that they annexed any sort of promise as to their future conduct. They had said that if a monarchical govcrr.ment was chosen they would re eognise the prince who 'nicht be elected by the people. With reference to the British fleet, he could only my that Admiral Parker had not appeared in the Bay of.liaples in consequence of any instrwtions which he had received with reference to the bostiiitid between Naples and Sicily. (Hear, hear.) The closing don-ration. of the noble marquis, as well as other portions of his speech, were quite inaudible. Lord STANLEY thought the answer of the noble marquis was not at all satisfactory. Ile had admitted that when the couple between Naples ar.d Sicily was not over, when the King of Naples bad not :is gned the hope or intention of effecting a restoration of his authority in Sicily, the British government had thought fit to enter into communication with, and offer advice to, hie revolted subjective to the mode in which they should form their government. Such a course was quite inconsistent with the friendly feeling which we ought to maintain with an ally. It was encouraging the people to arm against their sovereign. He was aware that Sir W. Parker's thoo had app. seed in the bay of Naples in consequence of a complaint which they believed themselves to have against a Neapolitan vessel. It appeared that in the open sea a Neapolitan ye sad whilst chasing a Sicilian vessel fur the purpose of coming sothin shot hoisted British colours —but previous to her fitirg she lowered them and hoisted Neapolitan colours. He doubted whether this formed any jos: ground of complaint, but certainly it was not sufficient to justify the presence of the whole British II et in the bay of Naples, and the menacing attitude which they had assumed: and he had a right to know whether the British government did intend to maintain a strict neutrality; and whether they would think the British admiral would h: justified in offer ing any eeithitance to any naval force which the King of Naples might send to Sicily. The Earl of MINTO said it was understood that a Neapo litan steamer had hoisted the British colours, and em barked a large number of Sicilian refugee., and brought them to Naples, acd the the admiral had demanded access to those persons to ascertain their cause of complaint, but that demand was refused. H-re, as it appeared to him, was a sufficient ground for a per. mptory demand for an explana tion. The admiral acted upou his own judgment, and in this, as in every other instance, be was sure it would be found that that distinguished officer hod acted with fairness and prudence. The Duke of ARGYLE regretted that her Majesty's government should have 90 early concluded that the con nexion between Sicily an.. Naples should he established on another basis. (Hear, hear.) Earl GREY said :het the noble duke was premature in delivering no decided an opinion benne he was informed on the subject. When the time arrived at which her Majesty's government could produ e 1111 the information he had no doubt whatever it would show that they had not acted with out due cause. The Earl of MALMESBURY thouebt the roble earl's rercarke unsatisfmtory, and is no degree answer to the second question of his nohlo friend (Lnrd Stanley). He therefore asked her Mejesty's government this plain question in plain English : " Iv toe fleet of Admiral Parker to inter fere with any expedition which his Nesoolitan laisjesty may 'end against his devoted subjects in Sicily ?" The Marquis of LANSDOWNE refused most distinctly to answer the question. CORN MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in movine the third readino of this bill, took t sea-ion to contradict most directly a statement mently mode by Lord Brougham, ti the effect that Mr. Lobouetiera had s'a'c l in a circular letter that the people of Ireland were juitifie lin carrying arms. He held a copy of that letter in his hand ; and so far from that, it stated directly the reverse; for it warned the people that the earning of arms, except 1 r lawful pietas..., was illegal. TITLES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC PRELATES. Died RE DESDALE moved for • " Copy of a despatch, dated Downing-street, November 20, 1847, relating to the titles by which prelates of the Roman catholic chinch in the colonies are in future to be addressed in all e fficial com munications." He concluded that this despatch must have been hastily written, for it attributed to the Charitable Bequests Act an operation respecting the titles of Roman catholic prelates which it did not penes—that of recognising the precedenee of the. oionitanee by giving them certain titles. Giving a Roman cotho'ic the title of "y our grace," where thee was no Brit ,h p:elate, c.-nferred upon him the prece. donee which belong• d to the protestant prelate, and this h. objected to. He moved for this despatch, because the ques tion was one which nught to be clearly explained. Earl GREY had no oh ection whatever to the production of the despatch, and admitted it Lail been hastily written It was perfectly true that the Bequeets Act did not expressly recognise the rank of the Rennin catholic prelatee ; but since it poised their rank had lo en recognised in this country, tool the effl et of not rec.ognising it in the colonies would give greet dissatisfaction . Although that act did not in form re cognise the rank of these prelates, it gave authority to her Majesty's ministers to create a commission which did m, at distinctly recognise it. So in the Dublin Cemeteries Act Roman catholic bishops were styled " most reverend," and Dr. Murray, the Rumen catholic itichbishop, was styled "hip Grate " Tlio lave, th. ref 're, although it d i d net profres to roofer rat k. re. ognM . d the rank already rocketed, and thi , wet all that he instructed to be done in his drapsteh, which 11(44 addressed to all the colonies, in ma.y of widish alto great majority of the coloniets were Roman catholic., where, it appeared to him, it would be contrary to all jus ice and, reeeen for her Msjesty't minis ters to prey, rat the ti Is! rev. co.prt.:ates front he,rig recog nis el. Ile was net 'led any complaint er difficulty ha i an on in coro ept• to. of the despech moved for by the ' noble for I. Lied STANLEY thou tht the noble earl would have done better in simply acknowledging that the despatch had been founded in error. He therein stated that parliament had, by a recent act, rece.tnieed the precedence of the Ro man catholic prelate, toed that it was the duty of her Majesty's government to conform to the rule thus laid down by the legislature. But parliament hod laid down no such rule, and granted no such precedence. There was not one word to that effect in the Charitable Bequasta Act. As for the a muniesion alluded to by the noble earl, it could give no precedence else whet— than at its own sittings. The motion was thrr, agreed to, EMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA Earl Gutty postpone! tall Thursday his notice on this subject. SUPPRESSION OF ILLEGAL SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Lord Corranitow, a bill with this title, and having (as lit bbstrYed) special clauses relating to club', was read a fi-st tine. Their lordships ad; arned at a quarter past 7 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY, Avo. 8. the Sr ail= took tha chair at 12 o'clock. P RIVATE B U SIN ESB. SECOND READLNGS.—M..rquiaeI Londonderry's Estate (Nos. I and 2); Wohninster Improvements; Bill.. THIRD READINGS.-51r1),.cough College Chapel; Walsall provement; Witlpi' AMENDMENTS CONSlDERED.—Birkenhead Dock Oommiesion-rs (transfer of powers to new commisnionen, effecting arrangements with the mown, awl amendment of acts), (No. 2) ; Fur nessßailway; Londonderry Improvement ; Thorne Moor Drainage and improvement; Bide. PUBLIC BUSINESS. SECOND READlNG.—Weattousster Improvement 818. COMMITTED.—The Exchange of Adrowauns (counties of Warwick sad Stafford) BILL REPOltTS.—Churches ; Proclamations on Funs (Court of Common Pleas); Poor Law Cuion Charges (No. 2); Bills. THIRD READINGS.—Turopine Roads (Leland); Canada COMO- Mint ; Militia Baia Susperui , n; BlUs. 240 , nes Of I.lollo:4.—Ltaiww. LAND OMANI BILL—M. 3. WILLIAM on Friday neat, to ask O'Connor whether he swans to woceed with this snd some other etwetkme relative to MR. W. S. O'BRIEN. The SPEAKER rose and said—l have to acquaint the house that I have received this morning the following letter from the Lord Lientelent of Ireland: Dublin Castle, Aug. 6, 1646.--81r,—It ia my painful duty to Inform you, that Mr. W. 8. O'Brien, a member of the 'louse of Commoss, nap yaserdhy arrested at furies on • charge of high treason, and u DOW in the gaol at Kilmainbam.—l hare the honou to be, olz, yJur of obedient .errant, CIAIONDON.—To the It'pht Hon r . the Speaker the House of 00017120116 POOR LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL. Mr. BERNAL brought up the report on the Poor-law Union Charges (No. 2) Bill. Mr. C. BULLER moved the addition t o the bill of th e following elikase And be it fhrther enac'ed, that if any person bercintefore made chargeable upon the common fund of the union .hull be convicted be. fore any justice of say offence committed to any workhouse white maintained therein, or of deserting or running away horn any work. home, and carrying away cloth, or other property therefrom, and be liable to be committed to any gaol or house of correction, the justice before whom such person shall be convicted, may commit such person In the gaol or housed correction of the county r p olace contng Me parish In which such peroon, if chargeable to the cam aini mon fund ,by reason of being exempt from removal antler the statute bereinbefore mentioned, shall have been residing, when admitted into the workhouse, or to that of the county or place comprising the major part of such union, In the case of any other person basks rendered chargeable on the said common fund, not withstanding each workhouse may not be situated in such county or place, or that such justice may not he a justice of such county or place, and the charges of the conveyance of such person to such gaol or house of Correction, end all other charge. consequent upon such committal, shall be borne by such county or place, in like manner ea the charges of persons rionamitted in the ordinary ankle to the gaol thereof, shall be borne. Ante • • fees words from Capt. PECHELL the motion was agreed to, and the clause added to the bill. Col. TiIOmPSON mows d the following clause: And be it further enacted, that the guardians of any union or parish mar, with the order of the mid oomm iesioners, and in conlurmity with such regulations as they shall diroct, procure, or waist in procuring, the emigration of any pour person chargeable, or who would, if re lieved, be chargeable, upon the common fund of such union, or in the carte of any parish not comprised in • union, who may, though not settled thereto, be exempt from liability to removal therefrom : and such guardians shall, in the case at a union, charge the costs and ea pens, incurred in such emigration upon the common fund; sad in the ease of a peridl net in a union, upon the mooeys in their hands for the relief of the poor. Mr. HENLEY hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Duller) would not accept this dance. He (Mr. Henley) objected to paupers being sent out as emigrants at the cost of the unions on which they had become chargeable, as would be the Caw if this clause was adopted. It was monstrous to saddle the unions with a charge of this kind. Mr. C. BULLSR supported the clause, on the ground that it would enable parishes which might think it the best employment of their tunda to assist paupers to emigrate to do so. Col. THOMPSON also supported the clause, and was sure its:promoters had no wish either to increase their own burdens or those of their neighbors, but to reduce them by promot- ing emigration. After a verbal amendment, the object of which wu to ex clude vagrants from the operation of the clause, the cause wits agreed to, and ordered to stand pert of the bill. On the question that the bill he engrossed, Capt. PLCIIELL said that, owing to the construction put by :he law officers of the crown on the Settlenr , nt Act of 9 and 10 Vic., great inconvenience had been c►used to parishes, and great hardship to the poor. Mr. BULLER said he had not thought it necessary to issue any fresh instructions to guardians. Sir W. JOLLIFFE congratulated the house that this was only a temporary measure. The motion that the bill be engrossed was then agreed to. Mr. Ald. SIDNEY complained of tile Increase of cases of vagrancy, which had augmented from 300 to 400 in 1843 to 41,000 in 1847. The greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining accommodation for this logs of paupers, and the results must be very serious if next winter were anything like the last. A circular on this subject hsd been issued by the poor law commissioners to the guardians, which seemed to imply that those who bad been committed to pi ieon should not he received afterwards in any workhouse. If this were so, he did not see how the peace of society was to be pre- served. Mr. DULLER said he had merely suggested to the guar dians that it might he very useful to appoint police °dicers all relic vine officers to ' , wants, whereby many who were con scious of being known to the police might be deterred from applying under ordinary circumstances. lle had never lawn to sanction the principle that a man in distress ought he be refused relief hetet/at he had had the misfortune at one time to be imprisoned, It might be true that the accommo dation in the London workhouses was very limited, but with this the commissioners could not interfere. Mr. HENLEY said that the only result of refusing relief would be that the applicants would be talon to the station house, arid would receive it there. He hoped the laws re lating to vagrancy would soon be made more stringent. Mr. C. LEWIS said the existing act was sufficiently stringent. Tat greet difficulty lay, not in the law, hut in the unwillingness of magistrates, both in the City end throughout the country, to give it effect, and in the diffi• culty of obtaining evidence as to an act of vagrancy bang committed. The bill was ordered to he reed a third time (to-morrow) this day. POOR LAW UNION DISTRICT SCHOOLS BILL. On the question that the house should go into e.ommit.ee on this bill. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the bill would involve the compulsory education of the poorer classes of this country. It was also obtecionahle as increasing parochial burdens, already too heavy. As the law stood children were better educated in workhouses than the children of the poorer class of mechanics; and theestahlishment of districts of fifteen miles radius would have the effect of separating the children from the parents. He decideuly objected to the mode of meeting the cost of these new establishments —namely, out of the poor-rate. In the present session three extra charges had been attempted on the poor-rate, which had no legal con nexion with relief of the poor: one was connected with the repair of the highways; another was imposed by the bill they had just been discussing; and the pre , ent measure went to authorise a third. After the repeal of the corn laws he held it most unjust to impose any additional burden on the occupiers of the soil, through the medium of the poor rate. Mr. BULLER said the eon. gentleman ss as under some misapprehens'one as to the provisions of the tell, which he was glad to have this opportueity of removing. At this period of the session he should not have ventured to bring forward any measure which would really increase the pres sure of the poor rates. It would, in fact, diminish that bur den, by producing a wise and economical expenditure of money. There was nothing whatever in the bill to compel any increased expenditure. By the act of 1844 children in workhouses were taken from their parents and placed under proper care. He had no tsar of their tieing over. educated ; but the legislature was bound to take care •hat they received some education, otherwise a constant succession of paupers was growing up ; for those who had none of the attrecions or associations of home to deter them from the workhouse were too apt to return there. It was obvious that the expense of education was greatly increased by having a schoolmaster and schoolmis tress in every workhouse ; and this bi'l provided that four unions might be formed into a district, to the school of which the whole of the children in %Voce uoione would be sent, and the commissioners might form such districts, but they could do nothing more ; the erection of the school and every other outlay would have to he determined on by the guardians. The act of 1844 had been rendered inoperative, both in Lendon and the country, by the limitation of the districts in the country to 15 miles, and by the limitation of the cost to one-fifth of the annual outlay of the union in London. Another limitation which had operated unta i.er Oily was the consent of the parents being reqUi-ed to the children being placed inthe schools. Tnesc limitations the present bill removed ; and to this there could be no ohj .c. tion, as the euerdiane would have the en'ire power of decid lag is every case whether the additional expense should be incurred or not. The total number of children in the work houses was 51,237, of whom not more than 11,000 were with their parents ; so ;hat, under any circumstances, the evils of separation could not be great. Many unions in Hampshire and Berkshire were prevented from establishing schools by the limitations he had referred to. The workhouses were greatly overcrowded—an evil of molt serious magnitude ; but, it schools were provided, the workhouses would be suffi cient for the adult paupers. But the main ground on which he proposed thin bill was the welfare of the children them selves. As the law stood they were placed in wards op rt from their parents, who had no control over them. Constant communication between the children and the adult paupers was absolutely unavoidsble, and nothing could be more demoralising. The girls, in particular, by their inter course with the women paupers, were exposed to almost cer tain corruption. In the u• ion of Penesnee, in Cornwall, the least psuperistd district south of the Trent, the average rates were 10d. in the pound ; in the adjoining union of Falmouth, they were 24. 3d. In the former union there was no separate esteldishnaent for the chit! fen ; and the girls, as soon as they r. ached the age of le, and wale admitted t' the women's ward, invariaNy turned out ill, arid their his.ory .as most deplorable. The Falmouth union had a separate school; and the results to the juvenile paupers were most beneficial. Mr. Galore the insistent commissioner, declared the school was a model to all others; and he attributed this en tirely to the children being wholly removed from the ordinary pauper influences and associations. The parish of Lambeth had else a separate establishment for their pauper children at Norwood ; and the results had been most favour able. It was desirable that the pauper children should rather be taught to do useful work than to spend much of their time in what was usually called book-learning. (Hear, bear.) But instruction in useful arts could only be given where large numbers of children were brought together. At Norwood some were taught gardening, some agricultural occupations, some tailoring, some shoemaking, and other useful trades. By enabling unions to combine for this pur pose great good would be effected ; and if the limitations were removed the schools would only be establithed where the exeen.e might properly be incurred ; and the results to the children themselves, in rescuing them from vice, and putting them in possession of useful knowledge, would be most valuable. Sir W. JOLLIFFE, admitting the kindness and benevo- lence which had dictated this measure, disapproved of the means by which it was proposed to be carried out. He believed the education in workhouses was not below the general average of education ; what was moat wanting was some assistance in their superintendence. This bill proposed to incur the expense of providing for the education of be tween 30,000 and 40,000 children ; but the right hon. gen. apeman seemed to forget that in nine-tenths of the unions the necessary provision had already been made for the purpose. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent not to press the bill further at t is advanced period of the session. Mr. HENLEY believed that the bill dealt with a much larger subject than was generally supposed. The old law only applied to a very limited CUM of children ; the present bill might be construct to include all. Another objeo tion to the bill was, that it made no provision for the soli- THE EX! WE: xiAir gloat Instruction of the altll ; die, that the etdui... would be mwated from their te.. ViseountRBRINGTON Rio expense likely to be in curred under this bill appeared to excite peat alarm; but were hon. gentlemen opposite aware of the great expense in =mod at present in elsuification, and is the constant theis tical required in workhouses for this purpose? Every week plans were sent up from the country for the approval of the poor law board, relating to alterations which might he dis pensed with if the children were removed from the work houses. The expense of providing fever wards wss also gnat. It was obvious that, by a combination of unions, the necessary accommodation for the children might be provided more cheaply. He denied that schools was better managed where the number of children was small ; their different ages offered obstacles to classification, which was much easier in large schools like those of Norwood, Licashouse, or those connected with the hospital at Green wich. As to there being no provision in the proposed schools for religious instruction, it would be observed that, the former act, whose provisions this bill extended, gave power to appoint a chaplain, and also made special provision for the children of dissenters. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY moved, as an amendment, that the committee should be postponed for three months. Mr. BULLER hoped the house would be allowed to go into committee, with the view of agreeing to some of the provisions of the bill, without removing the restrictions he had alleded to. Alter a conversation the committee was postponed till Thursday. TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. On the order for the third reading of this bill, Mr. C. E LAW said it was perfectly hopeless to paw this bid this session, and considering its importance he propelled it should be postponed until anoth,e year. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said he would bring the bill on the first thing upon Thursday next. The SPEAKER vacated the chair at a quarter after 3. The house r..surned at 5 o'clock. bIONTIILY REPORTS 01 , TRADE AND NAVIGATION. Mr. LABOUCHERE in presenting the monthly accounts of trade and navigation, stated that in order to prevent un due preference being shown in obtaining these documents, he had endeavoured to arrange fortbeir being printed by the printer of the house, but there being some difficulties in this respect, he had arranged that Mr. Hansard should print them and distribute them with the parliamentary papers, which would remove ill grounds for complaint in future. CRIMINAL LAW. Mr. ANSTEY begged to ask the First Lord of the Trea• awry when her Mmesty's ministers intend to move for leave to bring in the bill for consolidating and amending the criminal law of England, prepared by the present criminal law commissioners, and F isted at p. 70 of 'heir fourth report, recently laid on the table of this house ; or whether her Majesty's ministers intend to take any other and what measures for carrying , into effect the suggestions of that report. as ! Sir G. GREY said that the hon. and learned member seemed to think that the draft hills contained in the report of the law commis/limier; were sanctioned and approved of by the government, which was not the case. All he could say was, that the government would pursue the saute course it had done in respect to the former recommendations of the law commissiont re, and adopt such of them as they thought themselves justified in doing. SCOTCH MARRIAGES. The LORD ADVOCATE said that it was not his inten tion to proceed with this bill, buthe would,st an early.period of next session, introduce a similar one. COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENTS. Sir G. GREY, in answer to Mr. THORNELT, said th.e the Lord Chancellor did not think the bill for compul sorily enfranchising copyholds row in progress in the upper house would be in time to come dews to that house to be passed during the present session, but next year his noble and learned friend proposed to bring in a unedited bill, which he hoped would become law. WEST INDIES. Lord J. RUSSELL, inllll;44t,obir. H. BAILLIR, stated that the government had received some despatches from Governors Grey and Lord Harris, respecting the state of Jamaica and Trintdsd, but u he had not bad time to read them, be was notable to say whether he was prepared to lay them before parliament. CHANCERY BUSINESS (IRELAND). . Sir W. SOMERVILLE stated that nest aru ion he hoped to be able to introduce a hill establishing a permanent body of receivers of B the Court of Chancery in Ireland. USINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the standing order re specting Wednesday sittings, pawed on the 24th of No vember last, be suspended during the remainder of the ses sion, M order to enab'e the government to go on with com mittees of supply after five o'clock. Lord G. BENTINCK asked the noble lord when he pro posed to move the third reading of the Sugar Duties Bill 7 Lord J. RUSSELL said that on Thursday neat his right hon. friend ( Mr. Labouchere) proposed to take the sense of the committee of the whole house on the resolutions fur altering the navigation laws, after which he should proceed with the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, and then he proposed to take the third reading of the Sugar Duties Bill. ' Col. SUITHORP protested against any alteration in the ' 1 standing orders affecting the Wednesday sittings. COLONIAL REFORM. Mr. V. SMITH asked the noble lord what course the government intended to pursue with respect to the adjourned debate on the resolution propos , d by the hon. baronet the member for Southwark who bad leg town, though his mo tion stood op the paper for that evening ? Mr. BROTHERTON hoped that the arrangement by. which Wednesday evenings were secured to members for their private engagements would not be disturbed, and that the present motion would not be drawn into a precedent for so doing. Mr. COBDF.N, in answer to Mr. V. SMITH, said that his bon friend the member for Southwark had asked him to take charge of the resolution which he had moved, and, there fore, the observation lespecting his havirg left town was un called for. His hon. friend considered that by the manner , In which the eovernment had answered his observations the limotion was disposed of. But he was prepared, if necessary, to move that resolution when it came on. NAVIGATION BILL. Mr. LABOUCHER N., in answer to Mr. Thornily, stated that his intention in takicg the sense of the committee on the navigation laws was expressly to have the oppor'unity of printing the bill that hod been prepared, fur members to study during the recess. Mr. F. SCOTT was of opinion that the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Southwark ought to be resumed, and he would be proud to do so if no other hon, member did. Lord J. RUSSELL said that when the: resolution of the hen. baronet the member for Southwark was moved he should not oppose it. Mr. HUME opposed the suspension of the standing order for Wednesday's sittings. The question was put from the chair that the standing order of November 24, 1847, be eusp which was agreed to. LEGACY DUTIES ON CHARITABLE BEQUESTS. Mr. RAPHAEL ruse, puntuent to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to exempt trent the legacy duties all charitable bequests, not to private individuals, but to public bodies. The hon. member said when he last tat in parlia ment he hail the honour to in•roduce a similar measure, in the preparation of which he had been assisted by two mem bers of the legal provesion—Mr. Pryme, then member for Cambridge, and period Lynch, one of the Masters in Chan cery ; but at that pe he was met by the thee Chancellor at the Becht quer, now Lord Monteagle, who stated that be could not afford to lase the amount which those duties charged upon charitable bequests produced to the TtV(lll.O.. The bill lie now sought leavo to IntrOdllee was identical with the former measure, and hr hoped he should not meet any objection to it from his right hon.iriend the present Chancellor of the. Exchequer. The question embraced four points: first, with reference to the granters of tee boon; next, the boon itself; third. its objects; and lastly, its results. The granters of the boon must he the governor-at—at premed a liberal Whig administration—to which he looked with confidence for tbis c.:neession. The boon itself was a mire surrender tf from 12,000/. to 15,0)01. per annum, a turn too insignificant to be cunitidered iii this great and wealthy commercial country. The objects of toe boon were the members ul all creeds, atilt sexes, of all na tions, and of all elates, from the intent in its swaddling clothes to the greyheaded tract-an. The result of the concession would be to increase the funds applicable to gelieve the dieeme, the destitution, the want, and the distresses of all clauses, and with these considerations he implored the government (and, if to censer, , he would do so on his befitted knees) t yield the boon—an act which would immortalise them. Lord R. GROSVENOR seconded the motion, and ea peewit his hope that it would be acceded to by the government, and that thereby they ww..111 thew, before the house ser rated, that they were anxious to do something t o rai t m the tax payers ot the cowry, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saio, if he could take the advice of his noble friend and 01 other hon. members who sought from him a tenth:4 n of various taxes, he had no doubt he should be much more popular. With regard to the proposal now before the house, while he appreciated highly the motives which had induced the hon. member for St. Alban's to bring it leeward. he feared he must billow the example of his predecessor, and say to the hon. member he could not afford to part with the revenue arising from that source. The amount had been much under-rated at 15,0001 ; it was considerably above that sum ; but, whether it was large or small, he asked, when it was notorious that the eeneediture this year exceeded the revenue, if he should bo justified in yielding this source ? Indeed, he doubted whether the concession would be of such un mixed benefit as the hen. member seemed to suppose, for it was well known that many charitable bequests of the most absurd and ridiculous character were made to institutions, and many of which were prejudbial to the public interests. Hence the value of the duty as a check upon such bequests. However, if the hon. member only wished to lay his bill on the table, he (the Chancellor of the Exchrquer I would not object, provided it was with the understandiug tt at be did not thereby assent in any way to the surrender of this branch of the public revenue. Mr. DUNCAN supported the motion for the introduction of the bill, and mentioned a circumstance which had occurred to himself a few weeks ago. A merchant lately died at Dundee and had left the whole of his property, to the value of 10,0001. to the Dundee Infirmary. The duty claimed was between 8001. and 1,0001 , and though a memorial had been addressed to the Treasury for a remission in favour of the infirmary no answer Lad yet been remit( d from the Trea sury, and this sum had been taken out of the resources of a rt ost valuable institution, which some time since, but fur the assistance oh a noble lord nearly cotutected with the right hen. gentleman the Secretary at War. would have had to close its doors. He trusted that the government would hold out some hope that this tax would at some future period be abolished. Lord G. BENTINCIi entirely concurred with the Chan- ; . • EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1848. Zeller of die Embalm* in Ms undewination of the system of lavishly throwing away revenue when MOMS didhon.ot n meet expenditure; but he to;.k leave to ask the rig ht baronet whether se did not think that 15,0001., or even 60,000 1 . per annum would no have been better bestowed, had it bee po naared in order to relieve charities from the tar now ins on them, than the 60,0001. flung away on the copper duties ? lie also took leave to ask the right bon. berenet whether he did not think that 16,0001. a year raised from the charitable bequests in the country could not have been better spared from therevenue than the 40,0001. or 60,0001. remission of the corn duties which the right hon. baronet had made in violation of the law at a time when parliament was sitting, without asking its consent or advice The existing duties on bequests operated unquestionably as a great discoursement to charitable disposed individuals. Sir 1) L. EVANS supported the motion, and said he could enumerate 150 charitable inetitutions which could neither be described u absurd nor ridiculous Mr. HL ME said that in Scotland there prevailed a strong feeling in favour of some such measure as that now proposed by the hon. member for St. Albsti's. After a few words (rem Sir C. liviutett, who was wholly inaudible, Mr. W. P. WOOD cautioned the house not to adopt rashly and without due deliberation the principles of a mea sure which involved the most serious considerations. The Statute of Mortmain and the whole of the legacy duties ought to be revised before any step of this kind was taken. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated that he had no objection to the bill being laid on the table with the understanding that he did not give in hie adhe. fence to its principle. Lord It. GROSVENOR was understood to say that the object of its introduction was that its principles might thereby be affirmed by the house. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said if such was the avowed object, he should divide the house against the intro duction of the MIL Sir G. GREY said that it was unusual to consider the leave to bring in a bill u an affirmation of its principle. After a few words from Mr. DUNCAN in explanation, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend the mem ber for Oxford (Mr. W. P. Wood). Sir R. PEEL could not assent to the euitcestion that the acquiescing in the tint reading of a bill implied an approba tion of its principle. He had known many absurd bills to be brought in and read a first time, and afterwards rejected at a subsequent stage. The principle of &measure was always dioesesed on its second reading ; and if it were now asked to aMrea the principle of this bill on its first reading, he should decidedly give his vote against its principle. He did not de• sire to encourage parties to neglect the clsims of their families and to dispose of their wealth its charitable bequests. (Hear, hear.) The first claim upon a man was to provide fur his family ; end, generally speaking, this was done unostenta tious!), : while, in some instances, to gratify personal vanity, tome men forgot thou claims ' and sought to be advertised as having bequeathed his 10,0001. to some charity. If that were the object of any man he (Sir R. Peel) had no respect for the motives by which that man was actuated. (Hew, hear.) Alter a few words from Mr. Rice, Lord It. GROSVENOIt intimated that, as the seconder of the motion, he should not object to the hon. member for St. Alban's accepting the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow him to lay the bill on the table. Mr. RAPHAEL acquiesced, and leave was then given to bring in the bill. THE BALLOT. Mr. 11. BERKELEY rose to move, " That it is expedient in the election for members to serve in parliament that the votes of the electors be taken by way of ballot." He ob served that, after the able scanner in which the ballot had been advocated by Mr. Grote and others, he might perhaps be accused oft t t ty and presumption in meddling with so important • subject, of which it might truly he said, in the language of Cicero—" Tabelks, clocks tacite liber [alit." But the ballot was one of that class of questions which had always succeeded more by the force of their own merits than by the ability of their advocates ; and on this ground he tnisted for the house's indulgence for a few momenta while he trespassed on their attention. Since the passing of the Reform Bill, such had been the onward march of public opinion that the ballot seemed only a very minor question. From recent concessions made to free trade by the leaders on both sides the house, he was not without hopes of mewing them come forward as the advocates of this question. The baltit had been already affirmed by this house in 1810, but had been rejected by the upper house. Assuming that the merits of the ballot were fully known to the country at large, he would address himself to some of the more prominent objections. It was said that secret voting would be an innovation on the present electoral system; that it would not prevent bribery, if it prevented intimidation; that the ballot box would not secure secrecy; that it was un-English, and calculated to produce immorality, lying, and deceit. Fired, as to its being an innovation, he denied that such was the case. The franchise was originally uncontrolled; but persons of influ ence gradually undertook the control of the opinions of those beneath them, and then bribery and corruption crept in. The ballot was a most conservative measure, as tending to protect the franchise, and convert it from a mere nomints umbra, a mockery, a delusion, into a real and a substantial right. At present, the franchise kept the word of pro mise to the ear and broke it to the hope. Tbe arguments by which it was contended that the ballot would not prevent bribery were very sophistical. Would any one purchase goods without the certainty that they would be delivered) Look at Great Yarmouth—see the agents there with howls of sovereigns before them ; the voter entering at one door, receiving his bribe, and going out at the other door, to vote as he was expected to do. But would any one invest a sum of money—would the Duke of Richmond send down Lord A. Lennox—or would the monster ' , peculator, Mr. Attwood himself, undertake such a traffic if there was no certainty of the result being obtained ? He could not believe that such would be the case. Even if the evil were not cured in small constituencies, the good effected in large boroughs and counties, by the ballot, would be a eufficient counterbalance. (Hear.) The small boroughs would not be in a worse state than they . now were, and pub is opinion might operate bene ficially upon thesis. He could not believe that the ballot box would fail to ensure secrecy. America had been referred to, hut in America there was no reason for concealment, for property was generally diffused, and tyranny was scene. In America they had the ballot, and needed it not. Here we nto ded it, hut had it not. In answer to the allegation that the ballot was un-English, he would refer to the practice of the clubs, where were assembled valour, learning, and wealth. These all weight protection— from what? Perhaps from ill-will, intimidation, or tyranny. No one would accuse these men, members of parliament, and others, of unmanliness. But they sought protection from the bully, from the Sir Lucius O'Trigger of society, who, if excluded from • club, would consider it "a very pretty quarrel as it stood." (Hear, hear.) But was there not a bully of politics, as well as of society ? Undoubtedly ' • and he eschewed equal arms, and sought to wound in the dark. If the victim was a trades man, his credit and custom were assailed ; if a tenant, let him look for ejectment; d a servant, for his discharge. (Hese, hear.) He accused not hon. gentlemen of unmet• li nes because they adopted the ballot ; but he asked them to extend the game protection to other,. But it was said the ballot-box would destroy the legitimate influence of pro. perty. To this objection, he could not reply better than in the eloquent words of Mr. Grote, who, in 1836, said—" I mono fearlessly that, under a system of secret voting, the legitimate influence of property will be preserved unim paired; nay, more, that it will be even exalted beyond what it is at present. Ther_e is only one species of influence which the ballot will withdraw bom a rich man ; it will take uway the power of rewarding or putt filling electors ac cooling to the manner in which they vote." Now, Sir, I would ask, and I hope the question will be plainly an. veered, whether it he really this power of rewarding or punishing electors which gentlemen mean, when they talk of the legitimate influence of property ? Dies the house in tend to recognise is any one citizen of this c immunity, peer or commoner, titled or untitled, a legitimate authority to reward or punish electors for their votes? If we ,10, Sir, the sooner in all consis.ency we repeal our statutes against bribery, the better; the sooner we drop the farce of affecting to condemn intimidation the better. For what is this privilege of giving to an elector a reward for hi. vote, in plain and unvarnished English, except brit 1,4 him ? And what is the privilege of punishing him for his vote, except a license of intimidation ? But I, sir, deny the position entirely. I maintain that this influence which arises from the power of rewarding or punishing voters, is renticli at. dby the law and by the constitution. I maintain that a matt is no mere warranted in employing his legal powers as a landlord for the purpose of reducing and coercing his tenants' votes, then in employing his funded property to die tribute among them bribes in hard cash. P. is the ancient decirine et the constitution that elections ought to be per- Petty tree ; and the hallo. cue have no other effect than that of realising this strictly constitutional end. But all legiti m tae influence co property consists fully with freedom of elec. tioti ; and therefore it consists fully with vale by ballet. Few hon. members, either in that house or on the hustings, would assert their right to dictate how the elector* should axe rise their trust ; but in some instances this unconstitu tional sentiment had been boldly avowed. It was said by the opponents of the ballot that the statements of the de plorable degradation of constituencies wi re exaggerated. No one would believe this who had read the evidence before the committee of 1835. The noble lord the member for London, the right hon. baronet the member for Ripen, and the right h o n. member for Northampton, had professed scepticism on this head. He would, therefore, quote from the evidence he had referred to as to the evils existing in 1835, and would then show that those evils mid existed in lull force, all at. tempted remedies having proved failures. Lee islation had been directed, not to the prevention of secret in fluence, but to the punishment of bribery when discovered ; and the law of agency had been so extended that almost any hon. member might be committed by an indiscreet agent, without any' remedy whatever being provided against the sail itself. Be-' tore the committee of 1835, Mr. A. Cockburn stated that the only method of detecting bribery, mutually agreed upon, was by making it uncertain whether the agreement would be carried out. A number of witnesses connected with West minster stated that much influence was exercised by the go. vernment offices, end by persons of wealth ; so that the tradesmen were much more influenced than those in a small borough would be by direct btibes. Out of 13,000 registered electors in Westmin-ter, only 4,500 had voted at the pre ceding election; and a great number of others avoided being placed on the register. Such was the character of the elec tion in Westminster in 1837. In 1841 the election turned on the question of free trade, and was hotly contested. The exertions of the aristocracy in support of Capt. Roue were most energetic • there were lar:e bodies of lady canvassers. ( Hear, hear.) One tradesman at the west end of the town, who was strongly in favour of tree trade, and had always been • liberal, stated that, en the day before the electi-L, no fewer than al: carriages with coronets encomaively drew up before Ida icor ; from these descended parties of ladies, who so warded him with threats of withdrawal of custom and denounaisty him to others that he consented not to vote. (Hear, hear,) So far from (Rios) A few month s after, Ca p t. Roue turned rouad e p inu v le tr u nt i o u n f al g oo ly th i w em i a tli n d . b r u y e al w thw iy t . h f er o r m u c ne us t i t o e m fou ; with his leader, heedlem of all this wear and tear of the exercise anuddh e o t f hh a this slu t ff y f ae r m a r e n idl n i s y a . consciences of eleetors, and voted for free trade.. " t s hadows we are, and what shadows we pursue' (Cheers. Wha ) Another case to which he would call the attention of the house was that of a publican in Westminster, in reference to whom aristocracy and democracy had both combined in doing what was wrong. Shortly before the election he was waited u pon by a lady, who s aid to him in effect. " You su me us • pply with beer ; my servants are in the habit o fing yourhouse. If you give your vote against Capt Rous, I shall not only withdraw my custom hut shall forbid any one of my fer ventn ever again to enter your house ; but if you vote for us I will see what can be done fur your son in the customs." ((dieat laughter.) The poor man was overcome by argu ments so forcible, and he voted for Capt. Ronk At the house of this same man, twelve tailors, all tierce democrats, regular "Uuffeys,"who were to • man supporters of General Evans, held their weekly orgies. (Laughter.) At the neat m e eting -night after the elect ion, when they heard how the poor man had voted, they summoned him before their tribunal, denounced him, not only as a publicao, but a sinner and an apostate, celled fur their reckoning, and quitted the Louse. (" Hear" and laughter.) Three were but two cases out of 50 similar ones which he could adduce. At the election co the noble lord (J. Rumen) for the City in 1847, he (Mr. Berkeley) was on his committee for the west end ; and was contim.ally met with declarations from tradesmen that th. y hat no votes ; they had suffered from having the franchise, and were de•ermined to have it no more, unless accompanied with the protection of the ballot. (Hear ) At Birmingham, a conservative tradesman, named Phillips, had attributed the loss of Mr. Sp, onei's election to the intimidation of the other party, but said, he was too good a tory to ask for the ballot. (Laughter.) In helm', priests and landlords seemed to vie with each other in intimidation. The evidence of 1835 contained some remarkable die. closures as to the conduct of two magistrates in Tipperary, who, while strongly denouncing the intimi dation of the priests, maintained that their own was per fectly allowable. One of these, Mr. Wilcox ' avid he thought the 'landlord had a legitimate right to the votes of his tenants. (Laughter.) Col. Bruin roundly maintained the right of landlord . to discharge servitets or eject tenants for not voting as they wished, menoioning instances where he had exercised that power " for punishing the refractnry." (Laughter.) Two clergymen described the disastrous affects which open voting produced on the tenantry, and stated that the ballot was absolutely necessary. The same state of things had prevailed in 1837, 1841, and 1847. A stronger case of landlord intimidation could not bs conceived than that whico was proved before the late Kinsale election anm mittee; and the conduct of a Father Murphy hod also been very reprehensible. No stronger case could be adduced for the necessity of protection. To say that these evils were exaggerated was a weak invention of the enemy. The last objection was, that the ballot was productive of lying and deceit. The right hon. member for Northampton V. Smith) had said the ballot would con vert the habits of the 'teeters into one continued lie. Surely, then, there was something in the present system which en couraged truth. So far from this, he maintained that the existing electoral system was one vast lie, and might be summed up in that comprehensive term "humbug." (Laughter.) Standing orders were passed every session soainst the interference of peers at elections ; but the moo extraordinary illustration of the way in which these orders were attended to was furnished by Mr. Dodd. in his " Par lismentary Companion." He gave, in a tabular and alpha. betical form, the list of boroughs in which peers exercised influence in the return of tee members—in all no fewer than 62, in England and Wales, containing 43,000 in habitants, and returning 98 members. Of these, 57 were returned by the direct influence of the aristocracy. In all there were 49 peers and 25 wealthy commoners who exercised a direct influence in the return of members of pariiament. (Hear, hear.) In the face of such • etatement as that what a farce were the sessional orders ! (Hear, hear.) Under the present so-called open system of voting the can didate addressed his constituents as free end independent electors, well knowing that they were all slaves, and slut having obtained his return by the pressure of every screw knows to unscrupulous agents he thanked the elector for their " free and independent suffrages." (Cheers.) Then having taken his rest in the house, such a candidate was sure to be foremost in acting the British lion, and in declaiming against the " nu-English " practice of secret voting. (Laughter.) The hon. member having read a long extract from a speech of Mr. Giote's in disproof of the assertion that the ballot would tend to produce habits of lying and deceit among the electors, proceeded to quote a case which had oc curred to himself in 1841. He (Mr. Berkeley) had +slimmesd a populousparieh and had taken every pains to arrive at a cor rect r, sult as to undtubted promises. After the election, how ever, he ascertained that sixty volunteer promises had been broken. His friends calculated that of these forty had bees intimidated and twenty bought. Which, then, was the worse lie—that which: was told to the constitutional can- MOW, or that told to the base suborner of briber, and per jury? With reference to the antiquity of the ballot he might, with all respect, remind the house that the very fine Christian election that took place was one by ballot. Between the death of our Saviour and his ascension a vacancy occurred among the Apostles, and the ballot was the mode adopted for filling up the vacancy. Was there not a strong probability that that mode of selection had been adopted under divine inspiration ? He feared the opposition of the noble lord the member for London ; but be prayed that noble lord, who was a strong advocate of education, to recollect that the more enlightened the people became the more acutely would they feel any unconstitutional coercion respecting the exercise of their franchises. (Hear.) He trusted that the noble lord would in Vile, as in other cases, discard the doctrine of finality, and look at the question with that care and rpenness to conviction which its merits and importance deserved. He did not hope for the support of the chartists, w..om he had always looked upon as the propagandists of violence, but he hoped for success from the growing influence of enlightened public opinion. He iaa plored the house to emancipate the con•titnencies who had gent them there, and who, by their recent conduct in meet excited times, had deserved so well at their hands. ( Hear, hear.) Give the people the ballot, and they would have in their gratitude the hest security fur the stability and security of the national institutions. (Hear, hear.) Col. THOMPSON, in supporting the motion, wieheel to call the attention of the house to one objection which had been urged against the ballot. It had fr. quently been urged that the exercise of the franchise was a duty, and should be performed openly ; but it should be renumbered that the members of • court-martial, assembled as th. y were to perform most solemn duties, yet were bound by • solemn oath, equivalent to the teensy of the ballot, not to disclose the votes or opinions of any member of the court. Why should not the poor man:have the same protection ? (Hear, hear.) Did he not deserve it ? Had not his conduct on the 10th April entitled him to the consideration of that hou e ? (Hear, hear.) Had not his conduct then, arid in the so called rebellion sin e, which had gone off like a summer cloud, proved that there was its rooted dissension between him and his leaders ? (Hear, hear.) Why then should he be left behind the people of France in obtaining privileges which h. asked tor in so different a manner? (Hear, hear.) He (Col. Thompson) believed in his heart that there was no hostility on the part of the people to the hereditary srieto eerie), of the country, and that therefore these was no reason for keeping from them a concession which was essential to the freer exercise of their most sacred privileges. With these few obeervationidhe begged to second the motion. Mr. FAGAN, amid loud cries of "divide," vindicated the Bev. Mr. Murphy from the charge of intimidation as r carded the Kinsale election, or subsequently in the com mittee. He was quite convinced, from his knowledge of the high character of that rev. gentleman, _that he was lee ipable of the conduct which had been imputed to him by the hon. member for Cheltenham. Mr. P. HOWARD, while acknowledging the ingenuity with which the motion had been advocated, could not feel himself justified in departing from the old constitutional practice of open voting. C 1... SIBTHORP said that on this question he did not intend to give a vote one way or the other. He should leave the noble lord the member fer London to tight the ha'tle with his own mutinous troops. He (Col. Sibthorp) had never practised bribery or intimidation, and, therefore, be took no interest in the question. Lord D. STUART suppornd the motion. The state of i things at present existing n some metropolitan boroughs should be put en end to, although he had som • doubts as to whether the ballot would prove an efficient remedy. How ever, when they saw toe system which was going on throughout the country, it was full time that the house adopted some measure fur the protection of the people. Mr. URQUHART protested needn't the time of the house being mkt nup with such idle motions (Ironical cheers.) He held to the old fashioned opinion that the ballot was an un-English practice. Mr. TANCRED, having been a member of the Kinsale committee, felt bound to state his belied that no intimidation had been practised by the rev. gentleman who had been alluded to by the hon. member for Bristol. The fact was that the committee, thinking that the witness under ex- amination felt embarrassed by his presence, requested him to w , and noo e e ß t e r om: S :m m : S o.to ItovahLnue considered—and have r , as I hw te. I can hhdme ye i abua t tippoup o d frt ete n e eht ot ene t m a dgyv t to r h oot w e , iu:wnhenmid:yat grounds novelty supported which s e lep oltinl m yt ryu b ii ohcini much 111.1 motion—to in my Le:C T I I nilt jolioa;m y lv:i Ear:e V i a—ue°ecujdt e mahest se by the hon and gallant member who seconded the motion—that this is a proposal to make the exercise of the right of voting an act in contradiction to the usual heNdicih:thwo:appe'ennecera nd ry fr ee mili s l p a i ry rit obe cf dien o c u e; policy and principles of this government and constitution, (Hear, hear.) The hon. and gallant gentleman says, that in courts.martial the members of the court take an oath that they will not reveal the opinions which they and their fellow jurors have given in the court. It has been thought re quisite for the due management of courts-martial, and for the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule, but it att rt , i b s nuplc a tere variance military todd l bi e : F oindoceif i an t l dy e p h , l fbdl h a r ff e Ltri e hc g c riie t n e h ia n gst e pe g r ad al ci th nuad !l n e p e :: : :di 7 7 :lo e.ffo n t b ro s: d t h i te t t i h u h e : d t e i i o ps o ci n cu n , hrp ly ip. ! n aoin d a f tli s n i . r e , h, : ot i f t l bLlt ri d nd e g n h y me i r n iel g itafu t ry b r a iso t b s : u nd c e h i-t t in h a c in arm tain y in an g d . t t o hos in e t s ro pe d pc u ve ce .rurv in i to e : ayt s a wth ry. the general practice of the constitution to English constitution. (Hear.) Therefore, looking at those examples, I do not find there is any instance with respect to those political institutions in which eecresy is made the rule. 1 find that in our courts of Arrive, though we hare autdor;,:thkboele:dhoitwtihnse: bye7"deehr:rtfth..rUsll4 it is thought sary for the due administration of justice—that fee t „ e eeee shouti be open—that the wenekes should eeries t . e e e eee t ni the trial byjury, end give their testimony in public—that the Jud ge deliver his opinion openly betore the court and th e m ekee , - uPelisP;lean' with d it w h i re th P : ' :e r g e ar rs d p to re* tre t j secret, their vote must be known, for the vertect emu ee e e _ l4 unanimous verdict of the whole twelve men who es t ee. e 7 it. Therefore is our courts of justice publicity is the ""eee (Hear.) I ran understand the argument used to tbis 'l se ' ee e e —end if you are to introduce this principle into the es ee , nistnitien of justice it would have force and tfh e it would be better if witnesses w- re not eule s. c" intimidation for telling the truth ; end that the judge, k b impartial, should not be pia rte to public calumny 41 — e r sure for taking that course which his conscience eio e l e I and that, therefore, trials should he secret, and p eg That would he a fair argument ; but it would b eu i . e. p merit opposed to the genius and spirit of our colutioe ee I (Hear.) And again, with retard to the deinerstie.7 this house ; it was thought for a long time that we s , e ! not to admit strangers; and for a long time they erie... admitted, and the deliberations of the house were o we". tially known to the country ; vet, u the spirit of (4 gained ground, and our lute uti became mere the principle was insisted upon, and asserted, a t iM obtained, that all our deliberations , and the deli • the other house, ehould be public. '1 lien it me ne e e xactly known, from the private memoread e ea notes of members, how the representatives o f ",,, people voted on particular questions, sod it proposed by an hon. friend of mine that the ban es ,' 7 . members who voted and the way in which they voted she s ei be printed and published, and after a strugels my sae friend succeeded M hie attempt, aridnow the votes el, bers on all questions that come before the house are e known to the whole country. It might be ceteod e de tt ; the decisions of the house would be more impar•de members have better opportunities of consultime their ;. A .7 ments and consciences, if they were not liable to the sin; from their constituents, and imputations as so their De, to which they are now subject, and which are the re:: quence of their votes being known. But you have dense and decided rightly that publicity shall be the rule, Le whatever may be the inconvenience atteuding it, in on e that every man should be able to stand tip sod 4. • tend his vote, you require that the vote &ea he openly and publicly given. Then, sir, ee , I think, fa;rly say, that what is now proposed least at variance with the spirit of our instituti ne. I me m the popular spirit of our institutiens is, that all their pee doing.—the exercise of every political trust—ehould be e s , ried on openly in the face of the country and of the wok But we are called upon now to say there shall be an eutp Lion, and that exception shall be with regard to the tuna of the electoral privilege by the constituent body of e s kingdom The hon. gentleman who brie gs leeward them e position makes no proposal for aey alteration in the coulee of the electors. lie admits the statement of the hon. nee* for hlentrose, that only. one in seven of the adult male pew lation of the country have the right of voting, and to thisiel in 'even he proposes still to give the power of dietin g ere. leers of parliament unrestrained by the check which a know ledge of their proceedings would impose, or by any elm' of public opinion, thus giving to this one in seven all the weight which the constitution of Venice gave to thir pad inquisitors, a secret and despotic power over the whole ads 4 kingdom; for be it observed the electors are the ultimate judges in regard to all political changes and vlitical met, .urns. Whatever may be the wislu s of the errs. or the wishes of the House of Lends, such are the powers vested it this house that the crown would have no re.eurce, ia the event of a difference with this house, but to dieseve pea. meat, and appeal to the great body of the electors; and iEther shout 2 send beck representatives in favour of some earnests: change or some particular ,r ensure, there is no force in thecae stitution of the countryso long as the House of COIIIMOMStattIie whole power of granting the supplies—the control of the public purse in its hands, that can resist the will of the eke tors, as expressed by a large and decided majority of the House of Commons. (Hear hear.) In proportion unit power is great and supreme, it is necessary that we shoed have the security of puolicity in its exercise ; and wheelie say everything should be open and public, and that operas and publicity is the great rule of the constitution, and teal which distinguishes the modern constitution at this coney from ancient republics—so long as we say this, we should be cautious how we make • charge, by which this supreme, di irresponsible and despotic powsr should be exercised secret, without any public means of reviewing it. Is a purely democraec constitution I can well undying that with so many millions of male adults in the coastty, each having a direct voice, it would be for thtm to dues whether they should exercise their privileges secretly a openly ; but !heti!, not the nature of our constitution. let ' great fault which the hon. member for Montrose imputed to it was that only a pillion of the people were in possetioe the elective franchise, therefore the right to vote is a Ina reposed in them which they ate required to exercise for the benefit of the whole community. lilt got vim , . then is, how will they best exercise it, and In the manner most fat the public good ? I hold they will best exercise it by Ririe their votes eublicl7—(hear)—by every man being obliged when he votes to give his name openly and say who he van I for, and by being obliged to stand and abide by the vote. I do not deny that there Is force in the eke tion made by the honourable gentleman, who Ia with great justice to his own argument laid stress on the scenes of intimidation and corruption that occasionally tat place under the present mr de of voting. Undoubtedly ea is a great defect in the system ; but it would not be for tie sake of defects or on account of abases treat I woi. surrender a great principle—(bear,hear)—and that prisote an essential and rite! principle of the constentiou. Tte hon. gentleman says that at a recent election at Bristol la had many more promises than at previous elections, and the his opponent told him that he would take 100 of those vo:m who had so promised from him, and that by means of camp lion and intimidation he did actually succeed in taking flea him upwards of 60 votes which had been promisee:lmb' (Mr. H. Berkeley). That was no doubt a great loss to th hon. member, arid was disgraceful both to the parties ses resorted to such means and those who permitted themselves to be influenced by them. But another question ocean, whether the change you propose would remedy the erl! IC you say, these abuses are so great and odious ma will try to remove them by some new mode of utile, you will try whether secrecy will not d•,, and whether there may not be a certain piece of mechanimb called a be lot-box, contrived by some carpenter, which shall meant' lug all the benefits of purity and freedom of voting. lis not believe, practically, you would attain the effect you elpate by this means: but , further, I do not believe yet lcould make the change. I believe, in the first plane ife was understood that large sums would be paid to tartan voters by the opponents of the hon. gentleman if they reed against him, and they accepted those brit,es, that they wall vote for him afterwards, even though tr.e mode of vain were secret. Ido not think it follows at all, as is ovally argued by the advocates of the ball it, the because aam receives a certain sum of money and has the power of voting secretly, that he would there fare vote a. nio.t the person from whom he has received, or expected to receive, suit money. I do not think that it at all follows ;tor as, accniat to the old proverb, there is honour among thieves, I be lieve there would be the same kind rot honour automata , bribed and the bribers, and that when men r. ceired their S. or their 101. each for their votes, they would say—l have rei ceived this money as wages for a certain work, and I Drag behave honourably to the person who has paid me toped= that work. This would be the result, generally speskee; and I believe there is no contrivance of the kind suggested , no ingenious method of taking votes by which you cis c tonne the habits of the people. Ido eot think you would find that a man would endeavour to dec. ire his lendltrd or his customer for a fortiiieht by satin • that he inter,:ol give his vote to one candidate, and then, at the last moment. voting for another, and against all he had said. That is not, I think, any part of the 'English character; sad hut eta meaning of the argument, when people say the ballot isnot English. It is not in the English character that in s fist of excitement, during a contested election, when mss seta openly and warmly on political en .tees, and scow their musette publicly in the ma: Let place in brow why they think the candidate Ciey prefer is to hest, that they should profess what they do not nely feel, and afterwards go and vote in direct contra•licties to all they have profe-sed. (Conservative cheering.) I belie* therefore, that those who choose to tithe any mitre in due NO might easily find out how each elector meant to 1e bi the same intimidation, the same undue ;retie mu, wane used at elections for members of perhameet were rote taken by ballot as are used now. I sup, then, that wha you would have sacrificed the great co satiation') priori! of publicity and substituted secretor ter it, yr u woalc. that you hail not t.brained the object you had in new — (hear)—and that with a great deal ot cootrivance and the same influence, the lame corruptatu, the same ID timidation would prevail at e l ec tions es you cornea, biguity you would come to much th , s ant rt. sult, and Ma . of now. (lie r, hear.) 1 know it was the opin;us !ti the late Lord Spet err —vr ust d tu vote t iii ballot, because lie thought that forth' the people wishei . ballot they should have it—(hear, and a Idudh) — t hst result of election under that system would be much the , as at present—(hear, hear, from the reform pie t y ) ; hot so there is no sufficient ground for this change in o ,co o lotions. But, air, I think those who argue that w e sitto , +' adopt the ballet as an advisable charg e in our inatitiorte should show us an instance of some c ountry where the . 1 . 1 . e1,;?! has been adopted and found useful (bear, belt) t it! example of some country in which it has prod d e° u effects they say are so adeantageous--aed thus giveri example or precedent to guide us in this chum'. have never been able to find in ancient Mao/ e . ancient writers any good authority in layout t a l l ballot. It would be pedantic to refer to w. 21; been said on this subject by various authors —the er re ., a,, all that could be advanced has been said in the vane _ cussions which have taken place on this reiestion.nre was the ballot—and in a better and more completefo in any other country — in the rep uoiic of Ve.io; every security was taken to ensure its efficiency e'er the 3 5 five or six different elections ; first, 4.5 chose 33, a to: ra . eee . chose 9, and the 9 chose 16 ; and thus the eleetirm ducted in such a way that no one could say how ttletetere been given. But that was s governmeut of tieese _ne 9 . and aristocratic despotism, and cannot ire takes .. ?f t ; pie in favour of the present proposition as pPb_e! b w in r country. You have another examp le in en , D ,,da experience of that is not tech as I t,_ . that encourage us to adopt it. We know , the ballot exists combined with universal etsW is secret or free from corru ption there, and , above. see:ese s ee from that disgraceful system of combined a an d an dtere e el thC'e v i ng ! ti United States ; but I apprehen d nobo.l y will mi by means of whit .r a few persons control w te n e el et multitude. We have heard of i nstances fee eight persons have induced 40,000 or 50,000 P e 5 Does according to their views, and from all the knoeseeee veile d i wilier' ' 4 7, 0 0 of that oountey, see nothing in the exempt oltee c ZiTes. States which induces me to th i nk we should ma