The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. :HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD 'CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the. usual hour. BENGAL MILITARY FUND. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved for returns relative to the Bengal Military Fund. MILITIA ARTILLERY. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY beg-ged to ask a question of the noble earl tile Under-Secretary for War, the nature of which he had given him notice. A very general rumour prevailed that the whole of the militia artillery were to be dis embodied, and he begged to ask if such a rumour was cor rect ? The Earl of RIPON said the rumour was certainly not true to the extent the noble earl had stated. It was intended to disembody four of the regiments, but it was not intended to carry out the disembodiment this year. It was, how ever, intended to carry the disembodiment on so that, by the time the act expired next year, the whole would be dis 'barged . The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII asixed whether it was intended to reduce the streng Oa of the Royal Artillery. He had heard such was the intention of the Government, and he thought such a step was very unwise at the present mo ment. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said there was no truth in the report of a reduction of the strength of the Royal Ar. tillery. The Earl of MALMESBURY did not quite under stand the noble lord the Under - Secretary for War. He did not nirk. the Government would exercise very great prudence if they thought they could rely on the -volunteers. However much he valued their patriotic spirit, he did not think they could be compared for efficiency with either the line or the militia. Earl GREY said it would be a great mistake to reduce the strength of the Royal Artillery. The Earl of RIPON said that in the course of next year the act under which the militia were embodied would ex . pire, and the Government did not think it would be expe dient to renew it. The subject then dropped. NICE AND SAVOY. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he intended that evening to have given notice of a resolution on this sub ject -, but in consequence of the declaration of a noble lord of the danger of such discussions, he shouldfor the present abstain from carrying out his intention but on another occasion he should most certainly do so, believing that the view of the question he entertained was the correct one. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he did not intend to enter into a discussion of the resolution the noble marquis had given notice some day or other to move. He rose for the purpose of complaining of a personal imputation on his noble friend the Lord President of the Council, whom the noble marquis said had returned an evasive answer to a question respectfully put to him on the affairs of Savoy. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he did not intend to make any personal imputation on the noble earl. PRIVATE BUSINESS. - . The following bills were read a third time and passed : Auchterarder Common Muir, Cork and Limerick Direct Railway, Inverness and Ross-shire do., and Dover Gas. PACKET SERVICE BILL. This bill passed through committee, and was reported without amendments. CONSOLIDATED FUND (£4,500,000) BILL. This bill also passed through committee. The Earl of DERBY said it would be for the convenience of their lordships if the noble lord would state the time it was intended to adjourn for the Easter recess. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he would gire the noble earl an answer on Thursday next. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Glasgow Corporation Water Bill, and the North London - Railway Bill were read a third time and passed. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Disley and Hayfield Railway, London and North- Western Railway and St. Helen's Canal and Railway Companies, Manchester Corporation Water, and Oswestry and Newtown Railway (Branch Railway, &c.) The South London Railway (No. 3) Bill was read a se cond time. ARTILLERY. Captain JERVIS moved for certain returns in connec tion with the commanding officers of artillery at home and abroad.—Ordered. GRANTS OF PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION. Mr. E. JAMES asked the Attorney-General whether executors and other persons interested in obtaining grants of probate and administration can at present obtain them in the principal registry of the Court of Probate by per sonal application, as they are able to do in the several dis• trict registries; and, if not, what impediment exists to their ability to make such personal application without the inter vention of professional assistance ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the want of accommodation. to the public in regard to obtaining the grants in question had been the subject of frequent com plaint on the part of the head registrar of the Probate Court, but he understood that the grievance complained of would be remedied. TOLL GATES. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure during the present session on the subject of toll gates in the neigh bourhood of the metropolis, in consequence of the report of the Royal Commission thereon? Mr. CLIVE was understood to say that it was not in tended by Government to introduce any bill on the subject this session. THE GREAT TASMANIA. Colonel HERBERT asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been drawn to a very pain ful account of the state of the soldiers, or discharged sol diers, on board the hired transport The Great Tasmania, lately arrived from India ? Sir C. WOOD said that every attention had been paid to the sufferers in question, and the subject was now being inquired into. THE BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY, in introducing his annual motion on the ballot, said that he rose to make that proposition which he had often made in vain, and which he expected then to make in vain again. But nevertheless it was a duty imposed on him to keep the question alive, and never was it more imperative than at the present moment, when they had a Reform Bill, so called, but without the only feature which could give adequate protection to the working classes in the exercise of the franchise. He must ask the house to permit him to go back to 1852, when there was a very severely contested general election. Both parties sought then to obtain possession of Downing-street, and great corruption was practised at every hustings. States men of all shades, including Lord Aberdeen, condemned the state of the electoral system, and a committee of inquiry was appointed. Shortly after its appointment, he (Mr. Berkeley) met Mr. Bright, one of the members, and that gentleman told him he had left the committee because) it was doing nothing. That committee made a report, and from that report resulted a bill, called the Corrupt Prac tices Prevention Bill, in which bill the great principle of how not to do it was most effectively carried out. In the House of Lords it was received with open arms, their lord ships, finding it likely to do nothing, being of course de lighted with it. (A laugh.) Whenever it was sought to be put in operation it was met by a yell of execration ; in fact it was worse than useless, it was positively mischiev ous. When they met in 1859 every one said that some thing should be done with the Corrupt Practices Act, and he had expected that a grand fetish was to take place, that the Sergeant-at-Arms would be empowered to burn the bill in Palace-yard, whilst the bells of St. Margaret's tolled a funeral peal—(a laugh)—when the member for Marylebone and thirteen other lawyers got hold of it, and they crowded about it like so man y crows over carrion. He hoped that as the noble lord the member for London -would not include the ballot with his bill, be would give him (Mr. Berkeley) some chance of introducing it. This bill was founded on the principle which ho thought best calculated to give to the electors of Gr e a t Britain and Ireland that protection at the polling. booth which they so eminently required, and the security of which he felt•would procure in time purity of election, and wipe away a foul blot from our national system of representation. When he enu merated the names of noble lords and hon. gentlemen who had opposed this question, the house would at once see how fearfully overmatched he (Mr. Berkeley) must be. Among those who had opposed the ballot were the honoured names of Lords Palmerston and J. Russell, Sir J. Graham, Sir G. Grey, the Right Hon. S. Walpole, the Right Hon. S. Est court, and Sir G. C. Lewis. These were men of undoubted talent, great logical powers, and accustomed to take advan tage even of the slip of a word; and yet, although he had employed himself lately in looking through Hansard and reading their speeches, he had been unable to find one single valid argument. (Laughter.) He said this with much satia tion, but it was with regret he felt obliged to add that he rose from the perusal of those speeches under the painful conviction that they were disengenuous, and that the thoughts of the distinguished speakers were apart from their words. In fact they appeared to stand in the position of some eminent counsel defending a prisoner, for they took up any argument they could find in the hope of convincing a jury. They reminded him of a case which was defended by one of the most eminent counsel at the bar—an hon. gen tleman then near him (Sir F. Kelly). That learned counsel defended a man who had murdered a woman, and the wo man was murdered with prussic acid. The hon. gentleman endeavoured to persuade the jury that the woman had died from an over-eating of apples, the apple pips having gene. rated prussic acid; but the jury of course scouted the idea out of court. Now, it was just such a sort of apple argu ments which were used against the ballot. (Laughter.) The only difference between the opponents of the question and the learned counsel being that he addressed an honest and unbiassed jury, while they a dd r e sse d a n honest,of coursobut not an unbiassed jury. Among those whose great talents he had to oppose was the noble lord the member for Tiver ton. He had made c are f u l notes from the noble lord ' s speeches in Hansard, but had been unable to find anything beyond the commonest platitudes. H e cou ld di scover no thing like serious reasoning. The n o bl e l ord told them that it was unmanly to vote in private—(hear, hear)— a lth oug h he voted in private himself in many quarters. His noble friend also said that it was un-English. The word " un- English" meant something contrary to the manners and customs of Englishmen; but how could the ballot b e sa id to be un-English, when it was the established mode of vot ing in every place but the election of members of Parlia ment? (Hear, hear.) Among other arguments the noble lord stated that the elective franchise was a trust, but dur ing the debate there was a very powerful and logical speech made by t.ir R. Bethell, in which he declined the term "trust," and said the elective franchise was a right. The noble lord replied to that argument with a speech only re markable for its dictatorial tone and petulance, and con tended it had always been a trust, and that the whole world knew it to be a trust. This style of argument reminded him of a certain argument in Dean Swift's " Tale of a Tub," where Peter strove to convince Martin and John that the brown loaf was a shoulder of mutton. " Look you, gentlemen," said Peter, "to convince you what a couple of blind obstinate puppies you are"—quasi himself (Mr. H. Berkeley) and Sir It. Bethell. (Laughter.) I will use but this plain argument. This is as good na' ural mutton as ever came out of Leadenhall-market, and you don't say it is so, I'll turn you both out." (Laughter.) The argument of the noble lord might be put in the same category as this of Peter's. (Hear, hear.) But even supposing the elec tive franchise to be a trust, what were the conditions of that trust ? They were that the elector should vote freely and indifferently without the fear of punishment "id with out the hope of reward. How could they tell by standing at the polling booth and watching how an elector voted, whether he discharged his trust faithfully or not ? In his opinion open voting completely marred the effect of the trust. Through open voting tens of thousands were de- barred from going to vote at the poll at all because they found they could not discharge their trust according to their consciences, and many of those who did go, only voted according to the demands of others. (Hear.) He would now turn to another of his formidable opponents—Sir G. Grey. (Cries of " Order.") The SPEAKER said it was contrary to the rules of the house to speak of a member by name. Mr. H. BERKELEYbowed with submission to the cor rection, but he was only referring to a debate which had taken place nearly fifteen years ago, in which Sir G. Grey was one of the principal speakers. (Renewed cries of ' Order.") The SPEAKER—I have reminded the hon. mereber what is the rule of the house, and I am sure he is perfectly well able to keep within the rule. (Hear.) Mr. H. BERKELEY said he would refer to the right hon. gentleman as his right hon. friend who had been op posed to him some fifteen years ago, when a motion with re gard to the ballot was brought forward by Sir H. Ward. The right hon. gentleman had previously voted for the bal lot, and then he voted against it, and the reason he assigned for that was, that his first constituents were in favour of the ballot, and his second constituents were opposed to the bal lot. This, however, appeared to him (Mr. H. Berkeley) to be a strange foundation for legislation. (Hear.) Next in order came the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), but there was nothing very particular in his remarks, since he merely recapitulated the arguments which had been used by the noble lord the member for Tiverton and the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey). But at the same time he was bound to say that the right hon baronet had done good service to the cause of the ballot, for he had stated his belief that it was a growing question, and of great popularity amongst various constituencies; and lastly, the right hon. gentleman had shown up one of the most atrocious cases of intimidation which could possibly be conceived, namely, the case of intimidation by a Whig Lord Chamberlain among the royal tradesmen. The argu ments used by his right hon. friend the Secretary for War (Mr. S. Herbert) consisted chiefly of exploded jokes and witticisms taken from the writings of the Rev. Sydney Smith. He was perfectly willing to make the right hon. gentleman a present of most of Sydney Smith's arguments, and would only retain one which appeared in a letter ad dressed to a lady who had congratulated him on his writings against the ballot. In his reply the rev. gentleman said with respect to the ballot, "Ay, it will come let me write ever so wisely." (Hear, hear.) He would now turn to the long speech recently made by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary (Sir G. C. Lewis) who set about establish ing his case by proving that the ballot was open in Ame rica. The right hon. gentleman built up his walls, but he forgot the fouidation. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) had often shown the house that in many states in America the elec toral system was different with regard to the ballot, and he had never drawn but one inference from that, namely, that whatever system might succeed in America, one ballot only would succeed in England—the ballot adopted in Austra lia. (Hear, hoar.) The noble lord the member for the City of London was at one time opposed to the ballot be cause it would not keep a secret, and at another time the noble lord was opposed to it because, he said, it would keep a secret. In 1832 Lord John Russell was an advocate of the ballot, for he said that in the plan for reform which he submitted to Earl Grey's Cabinet in that year he submitted that vote by ballot should be adopted, and that the dura tion of Parliaments should be five years. That plan was discussed in the Cabinet, and those two suggestions of the noble lord were rejected by, he believed, a majority of one. At the general election in 1833 the noble lord, having been in favour of the ballot in 1832, stated at a public meeting that much as he apprehended the inconveniences which would attend the ballot, yet he would come round to the ballot if he thought it would prevent igti midation. And in 1839 the noble lord, when proposing Mr. Heathcote for Huntingdonshire, was himself a witness to the existence of intimidation at elections. There fore he (Mr. Berkeley) thought he was justified in saying that the noble lord's ballot barometer varied very much, and that he scarcely now appeared to have made up his mind. One of the most bitter opponents of the ballot was the Times newspaper, but the result of its writing on the subject was highly satisfactory to the friends of the ballot. The other day ho was in Yorkshire, and he there met a Conservative gentleman possessed of large property who had recently become a convert to the ballot. He asked him how the happy change in his opinions had been effected, and he said by the Times, whose stupid articles against the ballot, which were entirely devoid of argument, had con vinced him that if nothing better could be said against the ballot he was satisfied there was much which could be said in its favour. The hon. member then referred to a quota tion from the Times, in which he said it answered itself, as it stated that at the Shropshire election the " screw" was put so ruthlessly upon the farmers by the great landlords that the popular candidates had to succumb. He did know thousands of men who were in want of the ballot, and so was the editor of the Times, He had no doubt as to the existence of the "screw," nor, it was clear, had the editor of the Times. Mr. Berkeley then referred to the evidence given by Mr. Thos. Gilbert before the Wakefield commis sion, to show the modus operandi of a borough election agent upon the model of the late Mr. Coppock. An election agent, by virtue of his office, became the huntsman of a pack of local attorneys—(a laugh)—who knew the weak side of their clients, with their liabilities and difficulties, and how to apply upon those weak places the manly, the glorious, and the thoroughly English screw, the employment of which was so essentially English, and which was unknown to any other nation. He would venture to quote one agtho - rity to which the house would listen with respect, and that was the late Lord Macaulay. Lord Macaulay said that cor ruption, when proved, rendered the parties liable to severe punishment, and that penalties for it had been awarded to the extent of £3OO, but they could not punish the inti midation by penal laws, because by doing so they would in fringe the most sacred rights of property. " How could they," that eminent authority added, " require a man tc dea l with a tradesman who had voted against him, or prevent him ejecting a tenant who had done the same ?" Lord Macaulay further said, that the only preventive ever suggested for in timidation of that nature was the ballot, which protected the voter, and loft the landlord to do what he liked with his own. He had to congratulate the friends of the ballot upon the fact that in her Majesty's Australian dominions secret vot ing had worked a quiet and bloodless revolution, for in place of anarchy and confusion in those colonies they now' found peace. Intimidation, which formerly prevailed, could not exist in the atmosphere of the ballot. But he would say very little about Australia, because there was an hon. gentleman in the house, the member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who could give them the benefit of his own• personal observation respecting the ballot in that country. But let the hon. member beware of one great opponent, his hon. friend the Conservative member for Bath (Mr. Way). His hon. friend made a most remarkable speech at his last election. He com menced by doubting whether the ballot had succeeded in Australia, and being met by the assurance that it had been completely successful, ho proceeded to say that even if it had succeeded that would be no argument with him, as everything went by contraries in Australia. (Laughter.) " In that country," he said, " the laws of nature are com pletely reversed. (Laughter.) The flowers which bespangle A us tralian meads are d evo id o f scent, though beautiful to the e 3 e ; the trees shed their bark, but obstinately refuse to shed their leaves. (Laughter.) The cherry -stones persist refuses i in groing outside the fruit, and oven th e n ote of the cuckoo —which in this co untry is the harbi nger of spring—is only h e ard in those (tregionsaughitne (Laughter.) middleEvei natu r e i of winter, and t nthe repro duce dead o herf hL i es (Laughter.) • At l eas t , they are red before they are boiled." (Continued l aug ht er.) rneisgpdeyc species, (an d the very lobsters c ome out of the water Passingfroth the lowe r to the higher species, h e said, " How many thousands of our countrymen, who have been exiled to Australia for their country's good, have become virtuous citizens in that land ; so that the moral laws of nature as well as the laws of creation are opposite in that country." _Ergo, Mr. Way added, "If the ballot does all you expect it to do there, I set my face against it here." (Hear, hear.) But he (Mr. Berkeley) would hand over his hon. friend to the hon. member for Pontefract, as he was totally unable to cope with him. (Hear, hear.) They found that under the electoral system as it existed in Aus tralia the colonies were flourishing to an unprecedented extent, in proof of which he might quote the authority of the Times itself. Some time ago that paper published the balance-sheet of the colony for 1858, the result of which was that the receipts amounted to £3,000,000 sterling—the import duties being £1,315,000 ; the export duties, £316,000; sales of public lands, £628,000; rents of ditto, £331,000; and postage, £9,ooo—this amount of revenue having been raised by taxes imposed by an assembly elected under the ballot. That same assembly voted out of the revenues so raised £143,000 for education, £24,000 for scientific pur poses, £25,000 for sanitary improvements, £765,000 for use ful public works, £25,000 for the relief of the sufferers by the Sepoy mutiny, £7,000 for a public library, and £B,OOO for a secular university.; Such a state of prosperity, and such a course of public expenditure, he was entitled to say, ought to dispel all the fear and all the alarming prog nostications of those who contended that the ballot was a republican institution inapplicable to monarchic institu tions, and could not be adopted without bringing with it confusion, difficulty, and danger. He trusted that he should be permitted to introduce the bill, that it would be read a first time, and placed side by aide with the measure of the hon. member for Nottingham and the hon, and learned PNember for Suffolk, (Divide, divide.) He would THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1860. not trouble the house longer, for he knew the topic was one that was not agreeable to many hon. gentlemen, certainly not to the Ministerial leaders. Whenever this question was under discussion the majority of the Ministerial leaders were fain to take shelter under the gaberdine of Toryism. As the poet said, "Misery made men acquainted with strange bedfellows." (A laugh.) But, although he could not hope for the support of those who claimed to be at the head of the Liberal party, he knew that he was supported by the majority of the Liberal members in Parliament, and also by the great body of the people of Great Britain and Ireland, in a proposition the object of which was to enable electors of all classes to carry out freely the condition which the possession of the electoral right imposed upon them. The hon. gentleman concluded, amidst loud cries of "Divide," by moving forleave to introduce the bill. Lord HENLEY rose to second the motion, and by ap pealing to the indulgence of the house as a young member who very rarely intruded upon them, succeeded in partially silencing the impatient calls for a division which, from the Conservative side of the house, met his attempt to address them. He said there were two great evils in the working of the existing electoral system which he believed the ballot would effectually meet—intimidation and bribery. Bribery was confined within narrower limits than intimidation, and would, he believed, before long, if not put en end to, en tirely be confined to a few small boroughs; but intimida tion he feared would continue in a greater or less degree as long as the electoral system existed. The species of intimi dation which it was most difficult to cope with was that which was called landlord's influence. He was a landlord himself, and confessed that there was a kind of influence which it appeared to him any landlord might fairly exer cise, and which he himself had not hesitated to use. When a tenant said, " My landlord is an excellent and honourable man, I know he has given up his mind to political affairs and knows more of these matters than I can pretend to do, I will follow him to the poll," that is a feeling which I would not discourage, for I regard it as honourable to both parties, and it is an influence which the ballot would in no way affect. But when the influence of the landlord wasim properly exercised, see how powerfully it might be brought to bear to coerce the tenant. Take the case of tenants at will. The tenant had perhapslived all his life in the locality where he held his farm, and could not remove to another part of the country with any hope of success, consequently at every contested election, if the landlord chose to inter fere, he was at his mercy. It had been said that the lased lords of the present day were so improved in their moral notions that they would not have anything to do with inti midation. He knew that was true with regard to many, but in too many cases the landlords, if they did not interfere, ft their agents to do what they would shrink from doing personally. He had in his eye at that moment a case where the agent ran about among the tenants whenever a con tested election arose, directing how they should vote, threatening them if they did not vote according to the views of the landlord, and, in short, using the influence of the landlord in a most improper and tyrannical manner. (Cries of "Name, name.") If he quoted instances in support of his argument they must be taken upon his personal credit, for he had no wish to create ill-feeling by mentioning names of persons closely connected perhaps with members of that house. (Hear.) He believed that in such cases as he mentioned a tenant who voted against the order of the agent, though he might not be actually dis possessed of his farm, would find himself after the election much worse off than the other tenants upon the same estate—for the agent had many ways of annoying and in juring a tenant which it would be difficult, if not impossible to guard against. Therefore he held that the landlord's influence, though it might in some degree be mitigated, was still great, and, he feared, was not diminishing. It was notorious that the influence of the landlords was so widely extended, by the possession of estates in various parts of the country, that they were able by their power over the tenants to turn almost all the county elections in their favour. What was the ordinary course of proceeding when a gentleman intended to offer himself as a candidate for a county ? The first thing he did was to write letters to all the great landed proprietors in the district, asking whether he might canvass their tenants. Were those tenants prisoners, or were they children, that a man must ask the permission of their landlord before he might even canvass them for their votes. (Hear, hear.) Yet he could quote a case in which the landlord having been applied to actually refused to allow the candidate to ask his tenants for their votes. He was sorry to say that the landlord to whom he now referred was a nobleman who called himself a Liberal. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The letter con taining the refusal was addressed to an honourable gen tleman now sitting on the other (the Opposition) side of the house, who would confirm him if necessary. The noble lord to whem he alluded, having been written to, replied that he did not intend to support the intended candidate, because he differed with him in political opinion ; and he added, " without intending any personal disrespect to you, I must request that my tenants may not be canvassed in your behalf." (Hear, hear.) And this in the nineteenth century I (Hear, hear.) It would seem that some landlords looked upon the act of can vassing their tenants without permission as almost as great a crime as that which they regarded as next to murder, viz., shooting their pheasants. (" Oh," cheers, and laugh ter.) At all events it was well known that upon the an swer to the application to the landlord to canvass his tenants depended the chances: nfauseess, and it that answer was unfavourable the candidate must either retire at once or gird up his loins for a contest, his only hope in that case resting upon the votes of those independent freeholders whom the Reform Bill of last year would have shut out from the representation. (Hear, hear.) Such a system could not be considered a good one, and he was sorry to say that it was one that had increased since the Reform Bill of 1832. (Conservative cheers.) He believed that until that time this great influence on the part of the landlords was unknown. But that bill let in a new class of voters who were especially susceptible of such influence, and he thought it a great defect in the bill of 1860 that it would admit no less than 100,000 more of those dependent elec tors. (Hear.) If the evil was unknown until the Re form Bill of 1832, surely they might apply a remedy that was also unknown to the constitution at present, viz., the ballot, which would to a great extent, he believed, be effec tual. With regard to the influence of the ballot in putting a stop to bribery in boroughs, he did not think any can didate would be likely to purchase votes that might never be given in his favour any more than a man would be likely to set up a business upon the principle of buying goods and paying for them when he was not certain that they would ever be delivered. He was told that the motion was strongly objected to by the Protestant county members of Ireland, on the ground that the ballot was not applicable to a country where the Roman Catholic religion obtained. He, on the contrary, thought it was peculiarly applicable, (Hear, hear.) They were told there were two influences at work in Ireland in reference to election matters —the influence of the landlord and the influence of the priest. Ho could not conceive a more difficult position for a voter to be placed in under the system of open voting, than when the landlord insisted upon his voting one way under the threat of dispossessing him of his holding, and the priest made it a matter of conscience, involving present and future punishment in case of disobedience, that he should vote the other. In such a case the ballot would be an effectual protection, and therefore was, he contended, especially suited to Ireland. (Cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. MARSH said he should not have addressed the house had it not been that a challenge had been held out for any one to speak who had any knowledge of the working of the ballot in Australia. In this respect he must give way to his hon. friend, the member for Pontefract, who had had per sonal experience of the working of the ballot in Australia, whereas he (Mr. Marsh) had not, but he had correspondents there, and his knowledge was of New Sonth Wales, whereas the hon. member spoke of Victoria. He held in his hand a pamphlet purporting to be a speech of the hon. gentleman, in which he said that the ballot was not in Victoria as in England, exclusively advocated by the Liberal party, and opposed by the Conservatives. He (Mr. Marsh) never eould conceive why the ballot was considered to be peculiarly a Liberal measure. On the con trary, it struck him that on the whole it might have another tendency. It was stated that the great evil in Australia was not so much intimidation as bribery. The greatest evil in this country he believed to be intimidation, and not bribery. It was stated by the hon. gentleman that in Australia out of 200 elections there had been two con victed cases of bribery. That was not so very strong a re commendation of the ballot. The ballot was a new thing in Australia, and they knew that all new things worked .well at first. Besides, there was not the same inducement to bribe in Australia that there was here. The inducement to become a member there was not so great ; the debttes were not so interesting, the subjects not so important, and the company not so agreeable. (Laughter.) In America they had had the ballot for a long time, though in every case it was not a secret ballot, and yet the system of bribery was carried on th ere t o an ex t en t w hich was unknown here. Everything was decided by " caucus," and voting by ticket was the rule. He b e li eve d t h at even if th e vo t e were k ep t secret, in nine ca ses out of ten a man would vote as h e was them h n oe u d that t h causea Thereth hegreatest ei m t aote that dos t sort of honour among thieves that so. corruption Australia existed heeT wcould en a after assureer the ballot was introduced. It was a subject of great debate in the legislature, and the theme of discussion in every news paper. It was stated that certain persons had been ap pointed magistrates entirely because they were election agents of a particular party. He knew an instance where a most illiterate man was made a magistrate because he was an active electioneering agent, and his friend, whose ser vant this person was, considered himself rather elevated in society because he had a justice of the peace for his servant. No doubt the country was prosperous, because it annually produced ten millions worth of gold and three millions of other produce. Now, with regard to the secresy of the ballot in Australia, the machinery seemed to have been contrived with considerable ingenuity, but at the same time it seemed to be very far from perfect. The tickets were marked on the outside with the number of the vote ; they were then unfolded by the returning officer and placed on their back. It seemed to him to be very easy to tamper with the tickets. Besides, it was necessarily provided that in the case of a petition, the tickets were to be opened so as to ascertain how each voter voted. Consider what a pain ful position a man must be in who had promised to vote for one person, and who had voted for another, (Laughter.) So far as secrecy was concerned the ballot would certainly be I a failure in England, for an Englishman seldom kept a se cret, and an Englishwoman still more seldom, and as a man would be sure to tell his wife how he voted, then the secret would be out. It was also stated in the pamphlet he had referred to, that at the last elections in Victoria there was scarcely a case of intimidation. Now he held in his hand a letter from a candidate who had been successful, and who therefore did not write under angry feeling, and he com plained that the servants of his opponent were driven up like flocks and herds to the poll. One great evil of the bal lot was that where a man had no responsibility ho was care less about giving a vote at all. At the last election for Syd ney, though the Prime Minister was one of the candidates, not more than one in seven of the voters came to the poll. He maintained that this was a great evil. Nor was he much struck by a recent case in which kingdoms had been given away by the ballot. It seemed to him strange that the vote should be so nearly unanimous, though he thought that in Romagna they had acted wisely in voting for the annexation. (Cries of" Question.") His belief was that we should never get rid of bribery till we treated it as a moral crime. He had no hesitation in saying that if the system of intimidation were increased, or even continued as it was now, the ballot would some day or other be applied in spite of all the arguments that could be brought against Mr. C. FORTESCUE said it so happened that during the several years he had been in Parliament he had never given but one vote on this question, and that was in favour of the ballot. He was a party man enough to feel consider able reluctance at voting against those with whom he ordi narily acted ; but since he gave that vote he had thought a good deal on this subject, and the more he had thought of it the less he had liked the ballot. That feeling had not been lessened but increased by his Australian experience in the Colonial-office. He spoke with a perfect recollection of the speech of the hon. member for Pontefract; but in spite of that speech, his strong conviction was that we had nothing to learn from Australia on this subject. He had seen many private letters, and had had many Australian papers, and his belief was that the last general election which took place in Australia was marked by the same electoral evils which disgraced this country. Corruption, intimidation, and bri bery were at least as rife as they had ever been in the old country. But without going into that, it was enough to say that the circumstances, political and social, of the Austra lian colonies were so entirely different from those of the old country, that it was impossible with any safety to draw a conclusion from one to the other. It was admitted by the hox. member for Pontefract that the evils to be met by the ballot in Australia were of a different nature from those that existed in England, that the influences were from above, and not from below, from masses and not from indi viduals. The question was not whether the ballot might succeed in Australia or in the United States. In some re spects he thought it might lead to the more orderly and peaceful conducting of elections in such communities ; but the question was, would it meet the evils that were preva lent here. His belief was that the ballot would be futile against the landlord, the agent, the attorney, the banker, or whoever it might be who possessed the influence, and that the safety and the secrecy, if they were obtained, would be obtained at a price which they were not worth, the price of the voter's honesty and uprightness. Mr. LAWSON, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said he should not have thought it would have been neces sary to appeal to the house for that courtesy which they usually extended to a member who addressed them for the first time. He thought the house ought to be much obliged to the hon. member for Bristol for bringing this subject forward. He agreed with him when he stated last night tha be thought his bill a much better bill than that of the noble lord the member for London, and he believed that the majority of reformers would rather have the ballot than the noble lord's bill. A great deal had been said about the merits and demerits of the act of 1832. His own opinion was that that measure had conferred a great benefit upon the country, but that it had not yet had a fair chance. (Hear, hear.) And the proof of it was that a general election had never yet taken place since the Reform Bill became law when the table was not covered with petitions complaining of undue returns. If a better machinery had been devised in 1832 for taking votes he believed that the cry for reform at the present moment would be much less loud. Many attempts had of late been made to diminish corrupt prac.• tices, but there was no reason to think that those endea vours had met with any considerable success. The house had, however, the remedy in their own hands. Let them only adopt the principle of secret votes, and the impossi bility of knowing whether value could be obtained for the money expended would act as a great check upon the scan dalous practices that now prevailed. It had been said that the ballot would be totally ineffectual in small boroughs. It might very probably prove less efficient in those consti tuencies ; bn.t he trusted that in the supplementary Reform Bill that must sooner or later follow the bill of the noble lord small boroughs would be totally extinguished. The hon gentleman went on to argue that there was no part of the liberal programme upon which the people had more set their hearts ; but the increasing impatience of the house was so loudly manifested that the concluding portion of hi speech did not reach the gallery. Viscount PALMERSTON—Sir, I shall not treat the house with so much disrespect as to " Go on refining, And think of convincing when they think of dining." (Loud cheers and laughter.) But I wish to assure my hon. friend opposite that there was nothing in the speech which he has given us this evening, and which I cannot say was more argumentative than his speeches generally are, which in any degree tended to alter the opinion that I have pre viously expressed with regard to this measure. I was in hopes that when he began to quote my speech he would have had the goodness to go through it, because though it had not convinced him, I was in hopes that the arguments which it contained—the sound arguments as I believe them —would have convinced other persons if they had heard them read. (Hear, hear.) My hon, friend, however, merely told us that his mind was impenetrable, and that no argu ment directed against the proposal, which is the hobby horse he is now riding, would have the smallest effect. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman finds fault with an ob servation of mine, namely, that the franchise is not a right but a trust ; and that it is in accordance with the practice of this country that every trust of that nature should be exercised in the public view and under a sense of public responsibility. (Cheers.) But I wish my hon. friend to consider a little the consequences to which the oppo site doctrine would inevitably lead. If the franchise is a right, then a man is entitled to do what he likes with it. (Cheers.) My hon. friend's doctrine goes in fact to legalise bribery; because a voter might justly say, " If my vote is a right, I ant entitled to dispose of it as I please ; and to make any profit of it that I can." (Cheers.) On the other hand, so long as the franchise is held to be a trust, it is clear that a man is guilty not only of a moral but of a political offence, when he parts, for the sake of profit to himself, with that which was given him only in trust for the benefit of the community. (Cheers.) I say that the franchise would be a trust even if you had universal suf frage—that is, if every man of full age and sane intellect was entitled to a vote—because even then he would have to exercise the function of voting in trust for the benefit of that other portion of the community, the women and chil • dren, whose interests i ird be deeply affected, but who would not themselves titled to go to the poll. Every political function which is vosted in any man in this country is exercised in the eyes of the people. Why, my hon. friend has himself instanced the municipal elections ; and both these and all other political acts are done in public. My hon. friend tells us that it is untrue to say that secret vot ing would be an un-English proceeding, because he says at the clubs you vote by ballot. But does he mean to say that the voting by ballot at the clubs is secret? (Hear.) Did it never happen to my hon. friend to be asked to go down to his club and vote for the election of some good fellow ? Did he never know a party got together after dinner to go down at 10 or 11 o'clock to the club in order to bring in some friend ? or was henever asked to go down in the same man ner to keep out some disagreeable bore ? (Cheers and laugh ter.) Is it not generally known who puts in the white balls and who the black ? or at any rate, is it not known among the circle of a man's friends how he votes ? There is, in truth, no secrecy ; and consequently my hon. friend is not borne out by the example of the clubs when he attempts to prove that secret voting is not abhorrent to English prac tice. (Cheers.) Then I maintain that if the bill of the hon. gentleman were carried, and if the ballot were enjoined by law, you would degrade and demoralise the people of this country—you would turn your electors into law breakers or hypocrites. (Cheers.) They would be law breakers if they made known their votes, and if they kept their secret they would be hypocrites, because they would probably have been canvassed—they would have been asked to promise their votes, and:many of them would no doubt have promised them, and would have voted in violation of their promise. (Cheers.) If they kept their secret they would probably be exposed to exactly the same results as those from which it was the object of secret voting to secure them. Well, then, the measure would entirely fail of its purpose. (Hear, hear.) We have heard in the course of this evening of the way in which the ballot operates in Australia ; and we have been shown that it does not prevent bribery and intimida tion, the two things to guard against which we are told that it is necessary to adopt it. It is somewhat singular that the advocates of the ballot, who for a long time plumed themselves upon the example of the United States, have been compelled to quit the opposite shores of the Atlantic and to take refuge at the antipodes of the British Isles. (Hear, hear.) We are told that everything in Australia is the N ery reverse of What it is in England ; and I believe that my hon. friend has caught the infection from that colony. In this country we inculcate upon our children the propriety of bowing to the wisdom and experience of their parents, but the hon. gentleman calls on the parent to imi tate the errors of the child. (Cheers and laughter.) He quotes to us an indiscreet act on the part of Australia; and then he asks the mother country to depart from her own old, time-honoured, and established custom. (Cheers.) I do not, however, think that the hon. gentleman is likely to succeed. (Hear.) I shall not intrude upon the house by repeating the speech which I was in some hope the hon. gentleman would himself have read to you, and of which I think the arguments are very good. (Laughter.) I congratulate and I really compliment my hon. friend on the devotion he has shown to this subject, which he has pursued through good report and through bad report—sometimes, meeting with evil success, and sometimes with a success somewhat less evil. His perseverance does him great honour, and I hope that when the day comes—and long may that day be de ferred—when a public memorial shall be raised to my hon. friend—the monument which he has so well deserved may be erected, in the shape of a ballot-box. (Loud laughter.) Mr. BERKELEY, in reply, pointed out the inconsis tency of the arguments which had been adduced with re gard to the case of Australia ; it being urged on the one side that bribery could not be detected, whereas it was main tained on the other side that it was both detected and pun ished. He had not heard one single argument adduced against the ballot that night. His noble friend, who really took away his breath—(laughter)—said that by the ballot they would make voters liars and degraded slaves ; but the noble lord did not say how many degraded slaves were already bound to the chariot wheels of the country gentle men ; and as for lying, the present system made men to lie to God and for the detriment of their country—as he supposed it would be admitted was done when a man voted against his conscience. (Cheers.) His noble friend complained that he (Mr. Berkeley) had not read his speech to the house ; and he hinted that if he had done so his own Attorney- General would have disappeared into a greasy spot. (Laughter.) The noble lord's speech was in fact totally opposite to that of his Attorney-General ; and he (the hon. gentleman) would read both. (Loud cries of " No, no," and laughter.) Well, the two speeches were as different as possible ; the one being replete with argument, and the other containing nothing but delightful audacity. (Laugh ter.) If the house had had its dinner he would read the speeches, and it would be seen whether it was the Attor ney-General or the noble lord that would be knocked into a greasy spot. The hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Chil ders) was looking wide awake, to answer anything that might have been said against the precedent of Australia, but there had been nothing to answer. (Cheers.) Aus tralia had in fact proved the case of the ballot, for it had demonstrated the possibility of detecting and punishing bribery, even if secret voting were adopted. The noble lord sneered at the ballot as his (Mr. Berkeley's) hobby. Let the noble lord take care the time did not come when he would be glad to get up behind him. (Great laughter.) In spite of that placid manner of his noble friend, he thought there could be no more unpleasant object of contemplation than the voting list must be to his noble friend on the morning after a ballot debate—(hear, hear)—showing how it separated and divided the very party by the aid of whom he held his power. (Hear.) The house then divided, and the numbers were— For the motion .. Against it The metion was consequently lost. JEWS ACT AMENDMENT. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Act of the 21st and 22d years of Victoria, chapter 49, intituled "An Act to provide for the Relief of her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion." He said he believed no objection would be entertained to the introduction of this bill, which was substantially the same as that which he introduced last session. He thought the time had fully arrived when the alterations whit), he proposed should be established. They had now four dia.. tinguished and honourable gentlemen amongst them re turned by four large constituencies, and who were honoured and respected by all. At this period of time there ought xis longer to be any distinction drawn. He now simply wished to remove from the former act those words by which a distinction was placed between persons professing the Jewish religion and others ; but at the same time he wished to confine the measure entirely to that house ; leaving it to the other house to indulge in any prejudices they might entertain upon the subject. (Hear, hear.) Lord R. CECIL said that he did not intend to oppose the motion for the introduction of this bill, but he thought it threw a rather strong light upen the philosophy of Parlia mentary settlements. When this measure was first brought forward, the house was told that this was to be a final set tlement of the question. (No, no.) Sir G. GREY said that the noble lord was quite wrong in supposing that there had been any compromise on this subject to which members of the Jewish persuasion were parties. No one member of the Jewish persuasion ever thought that this measure was to be a final arrangement. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the noble lord was quite right in supposing that this measure was a compromise be tween the two Houses of Parliament. It was accepted by the House of Commons in that light. He had sat upon the committee on this subject, of which the hon. member (Mr. T. Buncombe) was also a member, and he remembered that the hon. member was in a very small minority on the ques tion of the expediency of disturbing the law on this ques tion. Mr. ROEBUCK said he had only a word or two to offer on the observations which had fallen from the noble lord the member for Stamford. He complained that a settlement had been disturbed. He (Mr. Roebuck) affirmed that there could be no settlement of a question relating to the onward progress of mankind. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord was a Conservative, and was doomed to frequent disappointment. If he wore standing still, the world was moving on around him, and he must be prepared for repeated changes and amendments. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, leave was given to bring in the bill ; the house having resolved itself into a committee to move a resolution, authorising the in troduction of the bill. PORTPATRICK & DONAGHADEE HARBOURS. General UPTON moved for a select committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in the petition of the Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway Company, pre sented in August last, and printed in the 11th report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, appendix 202, relative to the application of the grant for Portpatrick and Donaghadee Harbours. The honourable and gallant member stated that the grant had been madeby a Treasury minute of August, 1856 ; and one condition was that the lines of railway necessary to connect Donaghadee with the main line at Belfast, and Portpatrick with Glas gow, should be completed by the proprietors before any money was advanced. After a 'Retracted statement from the gallant general, An HON. MEMBER moved that the house should be counted. At that time there were barely 30 members pre sent ; but in the interval which is allowed to elapse before the counting takes place, upwards of a dozen members en tered, and the requisite number was, of course, found to be present. General UPTON proceeded to read a lengthened corres pondence which had taken place between the directors of the railways and the Treasury. Before he had got through it, The motion for counting the house was renewed, and there being now only 31 members present, the house was counted out at half-past eight o'clock. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—LEwEs, March 20. The commission for • the county of Sussex was opened in this town on Monday, and yesterday both courts proceeded to dispose of the business, Lord Chief Justice Erle presiding on the Crown side and Mr. Justice Wightman at Nisi Prins. The gaol calendar is very heavy, there being 58 prisoners for trial, and there are three charges of murder and several other serious cases contained in it. On the civil side three causes only are entered, one common and two special jury cases ; but one of the latter was withdrawn in the course of the morn ing,. Mr. Justice Wightman disposed of the com mon jury cause, and was engaged the remainder of the day in trying prisoners. (Before Lord Chief Justice Erle.) Anne Stephens, 35, a good-looking woman, was charged with bigamy. Mr. Itoupell prosecuted ; the prisoner was de fended by Mr. Pearce. It appeared that the first marriage took place in the year 1854, but the prisoner did not seem to have cohabited with her first husband for some reason or other that did not transpire. She was married a second time in December last year to aperson named Bennett, at Brighton, and they seemed to be living happily together, when the first husband appeared and preferred the present charge. When the pri soner was apprehended she frankly admitted that she had been married to Stephens, and it was evi dent she thought that, under the circumstances, the first marriage was not binding upon her, and that she was at liberty to contract the second. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and Mr. Justice Erle ordered her to be further impri soned for one day, the effect of which sentence was that she was at once discharged, and she left the court with her second husband apparently on the most friendly terms. Just before the sitting of the Court it was dis covered that one of the prisoners—a man named William Charles Atkins, who was committed upon two charges of obtaining money and goods by false pretences—had destroyed himself in the gaol. He had been placed in the cell, as usual, and was visited several times during the morning, and appeared quite calm and collected, and not the slightest sus picion was entertained that he meditated doing himself any mischief. Upon the officer going to his cell the last time, however, he found him sus pended by his neckerchief to the gas burner, and quite dead. NORFOLK CIRCUIT, CAMBRIDGE, March 19. The commission was opened on Saturday by Mr Justice Williams. Both the learned judges ar rived at Trinity-lodge on that day. There are seven causes entered for trial, one by a special jury, which is to be taken to-morrow. The calendar contains the names of seven prisoners only ; 1 charged with arson, 1 with burglary, 1 with forgery, 1 with bigamy, and 2 with felony. Mr. Justice Williams, in charging the grand jury, remarking upon the light appearance of the calendar, said that he had intended to congratulate them on the number of prisoners being considera bly below the average at these assizes, but that he had been informed that there was reason to doubt whether the decrease was really due to any actual diminution of crime in the county, or whether it was not in truth attributable to a deduction in the allowance made to prosecutors and witnesses, and the consequent disinclination to prosecute. Ile of course had no means of judging whether the sug gestion was or was not well founded ; but it was of a nature deeply to be deplored, and ought to be made known in the proper quarter as soon as pos sible. With reference to the learned judge's remarks, it has been stated on reliable authority, and the statement can easily be verified by a reference to the local newspapers and other sources, that no less than 20 alleged offences, including three charges of arson and one of house-breaking, have occurred since the last assizes in the Isle of Ely alone. Those who profess to be well informed on - - this matter attribute this not to any remissness on • I the part of the police, but to the disinclination felt by private individuals to incur the expenses they entail upon themselves in prosecuting the offenders.] William Mitchell was indicted for forging and uttering a certain certificate with intent to defraud. Mr. Abdy prosecuted ; the prisoner was not de fended by counsel. The prisoner, on his liberation from Lewes Con vict Prison, received a paper form in blank, re quiring the signature of a clergyman or magistrate of the district where he might be residing, certify ing that for two months after the time he had been set at liberty he had been gaining his livelihood by honest means. This document, signed by a clergy man or magistrate and forwarded to the Convict Prison, would have entitled the prisoner to £2 17s. 3d. The prisoner, at the time of committing the offence, the subject of this indictment, was an in mate of the Union Workhouse, and signed the name of the chaplain, the Rev. William Bonner Hopkins, to the certificate. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, The learned Judge doubted whether the offence of forgery as charged in the indictment was made out by the evidence, and directed that a bill charg ing the prisoner with fraud at common law should be preferred. The prisoner was subsequently found guilty on this charge, and sentenced to six months' hard .abour. NISI PRIUS COURT. Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Common Jury. KITTERIDGE V. CROW. Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Naylor were coup. sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Keane, for the defendant. This was an action for breach of promise of mar riage ; the defendant pleaded that he did not promise. The plaintiff's father was a farmer, bricklayer, and publichouse keeper at Ashton, in Essex, the latter business being carried on by his wife, with whom their daughter Emily, the plaintiff, lived. The defendant, a young man of 27 at the time of action brought, was described as hav;ng good prospects, though while paying his addresses to the plaintiff he was foreman to his uncle, a master builder. The plaintiff was 30 years of age, and in November, 1858, had a child, of whom it was alleged the defendant was the father. As soon as the plaintiff's mother ascertained that her daughter was in the family way she called on the defendant, and gave the following account of her interview with him on that occasion :—" I told him that Emily was in the familyway, and that I intended to know what he meant to ao. He said, he could not help it. She got into trouble, and she must get out of it ; he was ill then and could do nothing." I said, " You must do something, or I will give you all the law will allow." He was offended, and did not visit again after that. My daughter has not been to church since; she used to go regularly before. On being cross-examined she denied that her daughter kept company with other young men, or that she had ever had a • child before. " She couldn't think it, and she wouldn't think it. Ill will have a wide mouth." The plaintiff's sister was also called, and swore that the defendant had told her "he should stick to his text, and that Emily should be his wife before the sheep ate the turnips off his father's land." This was said shortly after, it was dis• covered that the plaintiff was in the familyway. Mr. Keane addressed the jury for the defendant, and in the course of his speech read the following, which he said was the only love letter which had passed between the parties : " To Mr. Thomas Crowe, builder, Ashdon, Essex. "Take notice that I intend, under advice, not to prow cute the summons I have issued against you for the main tenance of your child, to be heard on Saturday next ; Bad that I intend to commence an action against you for broach of promise of marriage. "EMILY KITTERIDGE." He asked the jury, if they should think there had been anything like a promise, to give "con temptuous" damages. Mr. O'Malley replied. The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, observed that he did not at all concur with the notion that this description of action ought not to continue to form part of the law of this country. Cases might frequently occur where the prospects of a woman being fatally blighted, her only compensation would be the damages obtained in such an action. How ever, it was not for him or for the jury to approve or disapprove the law. With regard to the absence of letters, which had been relied upon on the part of the defendant, the jury would consider the rank of life of the parties in the present case, and the opportunities they seemed to have had for personal communication. A well-known French sentimen talist was said to have left his mistress in order that he might have the pleasure of writing to her. The parties here would probably be satisfied with meeting each other. The question for the jury was—Did the evidence show an understanding and engagement between these people that they were to marry ? If such engagement could be inferred by them, then the question would be as to the amount of damages. They would on this point consider the conduct of the defendant, the heartless ness of his answer to the mother, and the line of defence persisted in at the trial in imputing to the plaintiff that she had been intimate with other men, of the truth of which imputation there was not a shadow of evidence, and whether these considera tions would not enhance the sum they might think it right to award. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damagee £l6O. NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, March 19. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.) The early part of the day was taken up with the trial of a charge of rape, the particulars of which are unfit for publication. Joseph Holdsworth, Benjamin Holdsworth, David Gill, and Josiah Hird were indicted for a robbery, with violence, at Kildwick, on the 7th of August last, and stealing from Joseph Smith £2 16s. Mr. Blanshard and Mr. Maule appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Campbell Foster defended the two Holdsworths ; and Mr. Price the other two prisoners. It appeared that Sunday, the 7th of August last, was a very wet Sunday, and that on that night the prosecutor (according to his own statement) was returning home about ten o'clock at night, and when near a gate called Stake-hill-gate he heard some men say together, " Here he comes." On getting to the gate he was suddenly attacked by four men, thrown down, and his throat " nipped" till he bled at the nose and ears, and from his pockets were taken £2 in gold, 16s. in silver, and his tobacco-box. The men then left him, and on going away threw him his tobacco-box, saying, " Here, old devil, here's thy 'bacca-box." The pro secutor swore that the four prisoners were the men who had attacked him ; he had known all of them before. It appeared on cross-examination that he had not charged them with this felony till five days afterwards, and that he did not call at his uncle's house, which was not far from the place of robbery, and ;in his direct way home, and state what had happened to him. He said he had saved the money by 3s. at a time, and chanced to have it all about him. He had before charged people with robbing him. For the defence it was shown that three out of the four prisoners were farmers, and the fourth a gamekeeper, and that all bore characters agai ns t which there was no stain. It was shown that the prosecutor had said he did not know who the men were who had robbed him, and that he had ac cused a brother of the prisoners Holdsworth, Thomas Holdsworth, with being one of the men ; and distinct alibis were proved regarding each of the prisoners. Before the case for the prisoners was concluded, His Lordship asked the counsel for the prosecu tion if they could hope for a conviction, after the evidence given. The jury said they had all unanimously made up their minds. The learned counsel for the prosecution said, in that case, they need not go on. A verdict of acquittal was accordingly taken re garding all the prisoners. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill.) lIAWKESLEY V. REYNOLDS. This was an action for a malicious prosecution, in giving the plaintiff into custody on a charge of felony and s u b sequent l y prosecuting him at the sessions at Hull. The Plaintiff, it appeared, is an auctioneer at Hull, and the defendant a saddler. They had some transactions together in the purchase of some sad dlery which had been Government stores, the de fendant advancing the money, and ultimately tak ing the property as security for the money advanced. The saddles were taken to a room in the possession of the defendant, and there locked up, and were afterwards removed by the plaintiff, who had ob tair ed a key of this room ; and thereupon the de fend int charged 11;m with felony, and he was pro secuted at the Hull sessions, and the case broke down. For this prosecution and imprisonment the present action was brought. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff— Damages £7O. Mr. Overend, in the afternoon, sat for the trial of prisoners. RAPACITY OF ARCTIC DOGS.—One dog is miss ing, the remaining 29 devoured their two days' allows= of seals' flesh (60 or 651b5.) in 42 seconds. It contained no bone, and had been cut up into small pieces, and spread out upon the snow, before they ware permitted to r us h to dinner ; in this way the weak enjoy a fair chance, and there is no time for fighting. We do not allow them on board. —Capt. diTlintock, B.& LL,D, iGENcE.—March 20. POLI CE INTELL7 m, kicsioN_HOUSF .—Henry enry Francis Richard son wk's again broil? ,ht up for ex am i na ti on on a charge having, nile acting a s secre t ary to t h e counc il of the lor don Volunte er Rifl e B r i ga d e , ----- embezzled val. vzill ' sums of money belonging to his employ •ers. Mr. liumphreV ; again appeared for the prosecu tors,and Ar. Sle . ' .gh for the defence. lence was given, but three points. l he wished . to cross-examine Col. I got . into the . witness-box, and in Hicks on two or o furtb er evu N Alr. Sleig 11 salt him . in 1858... He was the first :urination said that the prisoner ition of the _London Rifle Bri gade,most energetic on its behalf. was introduced t o a a to l Col.e s l u l g g t g hl e yi s t i ectkrh°s'es crow: - or ?x r i' t n: /idly terms together until April, 1859, when he b& .ca'a. to lose confidence in him, is which . he had heard. £3OO 'They were and on he Erie we e prisoner, but he had never o h w ad in b g ee t n o s v o o m te e d re to po t t h received it to his kilo wledge. . _ Alderman Rose, in cross-examination, sa id th a t he had received a lotto. r from the priso ner , s t a ti ng that as he should be ent raged for a few days, he had thought it better to han d the books and keys over to Mr. Jeffery; but that was after the warrant had been granted. Mr. Sleigh attempted t 0 show that a considerable sum of money was owing to the prisoner. Sir R. Carden said tht A , even if it were so he had no right to appropriate a ny moneys which he had received to his own use. Mr. Sleigh (to Alderm an Rose)—l believe that in the letter which he sei it you he stated that he was prepared to adjust h is accounts, and if then were any errors, through the hurry and bustle of business, it was quite wit L tout any guilty intention on his part ? Alderman Rose—Yes, he did. Mr. Sleigh—And did yoi t then take any ateps to stop these proceedings ? ; Alderman Rose—Not at aa Mr. Humphreys said he ha d not been able to com plete the cases which he had. before mentioned ,• but if the prisoner were again revnanded he should be able to bring at least fifty additional cases against him. The prisoner was then rigain roman ded, a slight reduction being made in the amount of his bail. John Mahony, 20, costermonger., wax charged with stealing four brass plates value, together, L 8 ss. _ _ Edward Stewart Hart, hosier , King William street, said, about half-past ten Monday night he heard a curious sort of " click," which he at once knew as proceeding from tlie hr ass plate just out side the shop windows. Ille !rnmediately ran out and saw the prisoner in the private doorway in the act of covering a long bask :et up with a piece of green baize. Witness said " Hallo, what have you got there ? take that piece ( a baize off and let's see." The prisoner said, " Oh, is any on 'em yourn ?" Witness said, " Yes, I ra Ither think they are ;" and the prisoner immediately ran off. He was pursued and caught by the collar, when he said, " Let me go ; I'll walk along very quietly ;" but in crossing tl ie road he attempted to push witness under the wh eels of a passing omni bus, and it was with greatt difficulty that he was brought back to the shop • On looking into the basket, the two plates, valu:e £5, which were safely fixed in front of the shop a few minutes before, were found, together with two others. Edward Halston, shopm an to Mr. M'Grath, boot maker, King William-street, identified one of the plates produced as the property of his master. It was missed about eight o'clock at night. The value was £2. Thomas Buck identified the other plate as hie property. He missed it about eight o'clock. Police-constable 528 said he took the prisoner into custody and went to the address given by him, and found that he had not slept there since Christ mas. He was accustomed to go out with a basket similar to the one produced. The prisoner said as he was coming along King William-street he observed a basket in a doorway v.nd he was only going to have a look at what was in it, when the gemman came up and catched him 137 the collar. He was as hinnocent as a hunborn babe. Mr. Alderman Abbiss said he must try to con vin a jury of that. Committed for trial. V - ORSHIP-STREET.—William Winning, 21, was charged before Mr. Mansfield with assaulting Charlotte, his wife. The complainant, a pretty-looking young crefA ture, said—l live in Gibraltar-walk, work at silk trimming, and my husband is employed at Billings gate ; on Monday night he struck me and. used threats. Mr. Mansfield—Did he hurt you much ? Wife—Not a great deal last night. Mr. Mansfield—How long have you b ees wedded ? Wife—A fortnight to-morrow. Mr. Mansfield—A fortnight—how long have you known him ? Wife—Between four and five years. Mr. Mansfield—Has he ever knocked you about before this. Wife—Oh yes, he used to beat me before our mar riage, that was because I refused to have him ; he promised not to do so afterwards and I believed him, but he does. Mr. Mansfield—Well, yours is a most extraordi nary marriage ; it would seem that you rather liked this treatment. What am Ito do with him ? Wife—Bind him over to keep the peace, that's all. Defendant, who denied the assault, was bound in his own recognisances of £25 for six months. COUNTRY MARKETS. BRISTOL—MARcH 20. At our market to-day wheat was is per qr. dearer on the week. Oats and barley about the same. A fair attendance of the trade. LIVERPOOL—MARcH 20. The arrivals from Ireland and coastwise during the put week have been moderate. From foreign ports there have been received 3,13.5 qrs of wheat, 03 qrs beans, 2,297 qrs of peas, and 4,209 sacks of flour. The exports in the same time comprise 820 qrs of wheat, 2,872 quarters of Indian corn, and 312 loads of oatmeal, and 2,517 sacks of flour. With a fair attendance of millers and dealers this morn ing, wheat met a good inquiry, and prices were 2d to 3d per 100 lb. dearer than last week. Flour in more request. Indian corn still moves slowly without change in value. and barley had eac h a good demand, at fully former Oats steady, and oatmeal held for th e l a t e i mprovement. Scans, rates. SLEAFORD—MAnex 20. Tha supply of wheat was pretty tolerable ; with a mid dling demand, and no alteration in prices. SHEFFIELD—MAncn 20. A smaller supply than usual of wheat, and an advance of 6d to is per load must be noted. Barley scarce. A dull trade. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...l7s Od to lls Pd White 1) t) ...18s Od to 20s 6d New red ...17e Od to 18s Od .)f _ _ _ _ New white ~ 11 lBs Od to 19 s 64 Beans 71 If l6s Od to 20 s Od Peas, per qr 42s Od to 50s Od Grindinn• b barley, per qr 3 33 Od t o 35 s Od Malting ditto, „ 3Bs Od to 43s Od Oats )1 2ss Od to 34s Od Millers' prices for flour—ls 7d, is 9d, and is lld per 141 b. LEEDS-MARCH 20. We have a fair demand for wheat, at an advance of Is on the prices of Tuesday se'nnight. Barley in request, at full prices. Arrivals this week : Wheat 2,260 qrs. Barley Oats Rapeseed Beane 4l Linseed 275 Flour Averages for the week : Wheat 3,776 qrs., at 46s na Peas .. 9 — 39 s NI Beans 248 — 43 s Old 8ar1ey......... 1,416 42s sfd Oats 227 — 2 st Rye 24 — 33 s 9d BIRTIIS. DE SALIS.—On tho 19th inst., at Fringford Rectory, Bi caster, Oxon, the wife of the Rev. H. J. De staff, of son. ELCHO.—On the 19th inst., Lady Elcho, of a son. MoNita —On tho 19th inst., at 1, Connaught-place we° , the wife of Hector Monro, Esq., of Edmondsham, D" - sot, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. THORNTON—ROBSON.—On the 24th ult., at Kingstl' i Jamaica, Robert Thornton, Esq.. Staff Surgeon, third.,, 6° of the late Lieute nan t-C o lon e l Thornton, of Thorufw* , co. Carlow, to Mary, daughter of the late W.W.Robsonf Esq., of Sunderland. DEATHS. ADAMS.—On the 19th inst., at Tower House,Woodch ester J. S. Adams, Esq., aged 80. AUBUSSON.—On the 16th inst., at 15, Southampto n- C. W. F. Aubusson, Esq., aged 76. DOVER.—On the 17th inst., at Dover House, GeorgialB, Lady Dover, aged 56. i-t e Of lIANKINS.—On the 16th inst., Richard Flanking' m• her Majesty's Treasury, aged 66. Wake' TEnrEsT.—On the 19th inst., at Newland -park, field, Henry Tempest, Esq., aged 64. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N° . 1/2 i Strand, in the Precinct of the Sa voy , in the oostati ° Middlesex, Wedneeday, March 21, 1860. ackni fac•uli 7ro of the RUE charg, for 13( 6 0, Mc Car( "tote p stamp forwai GP AND P 1R TI and Di otVAs beantif ter, u r Inanuf E lifejast ...Xi.. INE the int, end G I PRA RALO Just r VII It3PER3 DISEA EYSTE age, r( ET11)0 tans an Why the they e a , tozethei fection. By A Medical street, boner, of tl to tl purl led; trieF the] Tf Win sten will 6d., are t atom wines often Thi valid the I)