The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

150 creditor, and prevent him from putting his debtor either into the polling-booth or into prison. Thmugh every grade and phase of society they could make no law to com pel the employer to keep on the employed. ven voting exposed the voter to the influence of persons who, by the knowledge they obtained, were able to deal out punishment or reward to the elector. The elective fnutchise was thus wrested front the class that was legally entitled to it, and was usurped by others who had no right to it itt all, more particularly by peers of the realm, who were tOrbidden by law front interfering in elections for members of Parliatnent. Secret voting wait the only mode of preventing this evil, and he 'should not trouble the house on the subject of inti midation, further than to sold two pithy sentences—one by the best authority of the olden time, the other by the tiEst authority of modern days—" There is no way to step this evil, it is so engrained in the people, but by the way of bal loting,' said Daniel Hefei.. "Own , is no way of steeping intimidation, but my making intimidation mechanically im possible,' exclaimed George (:rote. t ('hrem ) His com plaint was that, though intimidatien was raging through the land like an epidemic, and though they leul as certain a remedy for it as vaccination was for the smallpox, they denied to the country the cure. (Hear, heur.r. Following up this argument, Mr. Berkeley quoted passages from various speeches delivered by members of the present Ministry, though in most cases at times when they were not ministers. Sir .lames Graham at Carlisle showed himself at his wits' end —and that was a lung way Mr—for reasons against the ballot. Lord John Russell had protuised a large measure of reform, which still loomed in the distance, and was visible only through Ministerial telescopes, but in which, since the noble lord had resumed his seat on the Treasury bench, they were informed that the ballot would not Sind a place. Mr. Bethell, Sir J. Itomilly, and Sir l'age Wood had all pledged themselves to the principle of secret voting. Ad verting to the example set in other assemblies, where members sheltered themselves under the ballot, he remarked that hon. gentlemen of that house indi vidually used the system snore than any other assent. Maw in the world ; lint, though they could blackball the social Sir Lucius (rfrifiger, they refused the voter the right to dose by the much more mischievons political Sir Lliciiir. He denied the force of the argument that the ballot would be no security because no Englishman could conceal his sentiments, awning that we had not been shown to be a garrulous people; and he, as a Forester and an Odd Fellow, could testify to the fidelity with which the secrets of those orders were kept ; and, in further proof of mu. national taciturnity, quoted the declaration of a Freemason's wife, that if there had been any masonic secret she should have extorted it front her spouse in his softer moments. lie asserted that the polities of the people were at present not known, for numbers dared no more assert their political opinions than vote as they desired to do. The open-vote system was so truly British that it existed nowhere but in Britain, and we might well take a lesson front foreigners in that respect. At present we excited their amusement, and gained for John Bull a reputation for a love of beer, bribery, and boxing, which were tar front being desira ble. In conclusion he called on the house to restore to the electors of this country their ancient and char tered privilege—that of recording an unfettered vote. Sir .1. V. SHELLEV, who seconded the motion, added to the illustration given by Mr. Berkeley that atfiirded by his own constituency—Westmitist tic. Their numbers were happily large enough to ensure practical independence, Ind still great inconvenience was caused to tradesmen in its inure fashionable neighbourhood by ottempts to "put on the screw " especially .by ladies. With regard to the general question. lie denied that the ballot would place any cheek upon the legitimate influence of landed pro petty ; and quoted the opinions of Sir E. 11. Lytton, put forward in 115214, in support of that belief. On those grounds he asked the country gentlemen, if they would not bring the representative system into contempt, to " hack up " himself and his friends in their present attempt. Mr. E. BALL disputed the doctrine that the ballot could in practice dry up the source ofeomipt influences. He anticipated better results from an extension of the electoral basis, and to accomplish that end sug gested that all borough electors should have votes for the counties, and all county electors votes for the boroughs. Mr. 1 ) 1111.11.131onE, without expecting from the bal lot a perfect cure. hoped to Lind in it. a specific remedy for a specific evil—t hat of intimidation. It. might not secure complete honesty at elections, but it would take away one motive from the dishonest and confer some protection upon the honest. In England it would be useful ; and in Ireland, as the facts he cited from the late election histories proved, it was almost indispensable. Mr. Bitstor also advocated the ballot, as offering. if not a eure, at all events it palliative to a general and crying evil. Mr. S. HeittitotT discovered that the advocates of tto called secret voting had I•onsitlerahly modified their tone. They spoke of it now as a merely partial remedy, and l i mited its effect to the discouragement of intimidation. Now. intimidation, as he showed, was a ditniubthing evil, while corruption, against THE PRESS. which it was allowed that the ballot would be in operative, had become the chartered epidemic of the time. Indeed, the ballot would foster bribery, be cause it would atfitrd additional security both to the corruptor and the voters. From the club analogy there was no fair inferA'ice to be drawn. The black balls at a club signified only a social prejudice or individual disapprobation; but. the franchise at au election embodied a public duty, and should lie excr • eked in public view. in the discharge of a public trust of this nature, the object was to make the weight of responsibility as much felt as possible. Universel suffrage and the ballot were more closely allied than hail been admitted, for, the moment you gave secret voting, those who hail not the franchise had no longer un interest in its exercise. Unless the voting were secret the ballot was a sham; but it was not in the nature of the Englishman's character to submit to its being made compulsory on hint to con ceal his vote or his opinions. He doubted whether a man so successfully trained to hypocrisy as con tinuously to conceal his votes would be tit to be trusted with the franchise at all, and he dreaded the effect of such a system on the national character. How was public opinion, which was an aggregate of individual opinion, to be formed under such cireum stances ? He doubted whether the ballot would produce any great effect upon election returns, and objected to a course tending to destroy the system of educating men for the exercise of political pri vileges. Lord A. Lux sox believed that the ballot was utterly objectionable in every point of view. Mr. Cuomo' denied that intimidation had dimi nished. Its apparent decrease resulted only from the cessation of all attempts to resist it. For bribery he confessed that the only certain cure was to make the constituencies universally too large to be bribed. He disclaimed any intention of preventing a man's vote or opinion being known if he pleased to record them, but he wished to put down brutality and black guardism, which were practised in one single English contest more than in an entire election for the American Union. Alluding to the differences of opinion in the Cabinet on this subject, he reminded Government that this was the electoral question which the large constituencies considered most im portant, and were pressing their members to attend to. Why could not a trial be given to Bentham and Grote? He looked upon the ballot as promising to change the (diameter of the elections, and enable voters to reeord their opinions as quietly as if they were going to church. He asked at any rate that the experiment should be made, and that each particular place should have the choice given to it of voting one way or the other. We were threatened with a reform bill, for a reform without the ballot wits a threat, and he declared that he would sooner have no extension of the franchise than an extension of the existing corruption. Sir It. Peet. advocated the ballot, on the ground that secret voting was freedom of opinion. He was convinced that it would not interfere with the legiti mate influence of property ; and had had oppor tunities of observing the admirable working of the system in foreleg' countries which bore the reputation of being more despotic than our own. He then pro ceeded to criticise the course of the Government, as represented by Mr. Herbert, and speculating upon the difference of opinion which lie presumed to exist between its members, promised himself the pleasure of going into the same lobby with, at any rate, " the glorious Radical of Southwark" and "the eccentric member for Middlesex." The LORD ADVOCATE considered that the secret system was appropriate only in a despotic Govern ment. It was utterly opposed to the principles of a free constitution, and destroyed the best virtues of the franchise, which, being entrusted to the holder for the public good, should be performed under the public cognisance. Mr. BIUOUT drew from recent discoveries a picture of the evil which corrupt and illicit influences were creating at every general election. Thirty members had been unseated since the last elections; and even since the Reform Bill the average number of peti tions against returns had been tOrty-seven at every election. Ile afterwards read a variety of documents to show the influence of landlords upon the elections, and. having thus depicted the wrung, maintained the efficacy of the ballot as a remedy. lie answered some of the erguments on the other side, especially with regard to America, in order to show that the objeeti made to the practical working of the system were altogether unfounded. And he finally declared it to be the duty of the house to adopt that or some other measure for the cure of the monstrous evil of which he complained. After some observations on personal topics from Mr. Knox and Lord A. But., Lord J. Russet '. vindicated his own consistency in relation to the question, and added his authority to the doctrine that the franchise was a duty conferred on the voters for the benefit of the general commu nity, and that to reduce it to a private right or privilege was absurd under any system which did not include SATURDAY, also universal suffrage. Secret voting would, he be lieved, be hostile to the spirit of liberty in the coun try. Neither front America nor from history could support be drawn for the system : " The ballot was not established in Mtussachusets until within about two years or so since. The former mode of voting, though dissimilar' from °um was not secret. About two years ago,the democratic party, being in power, intro. duct:d the secret ballot but within a short time a bill for repealing that system was passed by a majority, which in eluded the most eminent patriots and statesmen in Massa. chases. That old patriot of Am erica o lohn Randolph, had even said that if yon wish to make the inhabitants of a state a set of t‘coundrels von had only to give them secret voting. (Hear, hear.) As for history, instead of proving the advantage of secret voting, it had done the reverse. Take the case of Venice, where it had led to tyranny and despotism. If that be the OM', the house should pause until it had some better foundation for adopting this mea sure. At present, the only proof which existed showed that it was hostile to all that was noble, to all that was maulv, to all that was free in the institutions of this country." Lord D. STUART ntoved the adjolumment of the debate. On a division the motion for the adjournment of tho debate was lost by 65 to 339 ; and that for leave to bring in a bill was lost by 172 to 232. THE KEOGH EXPLANATIONS. Mr. Keoun, on Thursday, excused himself for in troducing some personal explanations into the House of Commons, on the plea that he was not the assailant but the assailed, and spoke under the con straint of liming to defend his honour. The story of his wrongs he thus recounted :—Lord Westmeath, and the Earls of Derby and Eglinton, had, on the previous Friday, criticised an election speech of his delivered in Ireland, and one of them—Lord Derby —had appended the remark that his (Mr. Keogh's) appointment was the most unfortunate, and least reputable, nomination made by the present Govern ment. Being at the bar of the Peers at the time, he heard the words, and therefore made some commu nication to the Duke of Newcastle, which resulted in his grace retorting upon the Opposition that they should not disparage a man to whom they had them selves offered office. Since then much had been said in the house and out of it on the subject. The allegation of having made the offer of office was ap plied to Lord Naas; and, in his lordship's name, a positive denial of ever having done such a thing, or been authorised to do it, had been given in " another place," and through various channels. Under this assault upon his veracity, he (Mr. Keogh) felt com pelled to enter into an elaborate detail of circum stances, and justified in intruding on the house a number of written communications which had passed between himself, Lord Naas, and other hon. mem bers. He began by remarking upon the notoriety of the fact, at the time, " that the noble lord, who then held the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, had sought me with eagerness im mediately upon the formation of his Government—had purmted me from street to street, from house to house — had inquired after me, not of one or two, but of friend after friend of mine, in his eager haste to place himself iu communication with me. I thought it was likely that some of those eirctunstauces must have reached the ear of the noble earl who was Viceroy of Ireland ; I thought it likely that these things could not have been done without the knowledge of the noble earl the late Minister of the Crown ; and I authorised and asked the noble duke (New castle), therefore, to state the fact to the house—the fact upon which 1 now rely—the fact upon which the noble lord has joined issue—that, when he was already named as Chief Secretary for Ireland, the noble lord sought an interview with me, and at that interview asked me if I would accept office under Lord Derby. (Cheers.)" Detailing the incidents of this pursuit, Mr. Keogh related bow Lord Naas sought for him first at the Reform Club : " The noble lord went to the Reform Club, and, having been informed that I was not a member of the club, in• quired for other friends of mine there, and being informed that one of them was in the house, he waited in that great hall which, when ministers are changing, is a sort of poll. tied encampment. I need scarcely say that the noble lord's presence there excited some small surprise. (Laughter.) Ido not suppose that lam stating any very grave charge against the members who surround me when I say that they exhibited a justifiable curiosity in ascertain ing his business. In fact the noble lord was the observed of all observers; and it became perfectly well known that his business in having recourse to that club was to ascer tain where 1 was to be found, and to see me upon the busi ness upon which he was then engaged." Passing over to the events of the previous Friday, Mr. Keogh told how, immediately on leaving the bar of the House of Lords, he wrote to Lord Naas, recapi tulating the circumstances which had occurred in the ' preceding February twelvemonth, seeking to rouse his lordship's memory into a corroboration of his own statement touching the offer. To that letter, sent on Friday night, he waited for an answer vainly until Monday, when he despatched another " reminder," and on Tuesday received a reply to this brief effect "4, t iro.venorplaee. Tuesday.—Dear Sir.-1 only received your note last night on my return to town, after an absence of some days. 1 distinctly deny that. either directly or indirectly, I made an offer of office to yourself or to any of your friends, or that 1 had, or that 1 assumed I had, authority from any one so to