The Sun. — London, England, 1858-06-09 00:00:00

THE SITN I _ LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 1858. complain that 'Lord Tom Noddies' are pushed into of while other men of equal and perhaps better pre tensions, but not of such high birth, are excluded. Far be it from him to endorse that opinion of the hon. mem ber for Middlesex, now thehon. member for Dover; and he doubted if the hon. member for Dover agreed in the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex. (Laughter.) The ballot, like other questions, has suffered from the se dative and soporific effects of office. He should be un grateful, however, if he had forgotten the able speech of the late Sir W. Molesworth when in offioein favour of the ballot. He felt how much he wanted the able aid of Mr. Cobden aud other older supporters of the question when the name of Gibson was not yet among their ranks. He had read the evidence of Sir A. Cockburn when Mr. Cockburn ; but when in office he was as silent as if he had been under the influence of a dose of morphia. (Laughter.) Again, where were the dulcet notes of Bethell—(laughter)—who discoursed such eloquent music to the men of Aylesbury? He could only apply to him the words of the poet, "Cold is Cad waller's tongue." (Laughter.) Bat now that the great Whig leader was overthrown perhaps the time was come when his Liberal friends might make themselves advantageously known to their constituents. (Laughter.) It was not his inten tion on the present occasion to enter into a theoretical discussion of the ballot, for the arguments in its favour had never been answered. Nothing could be more lucid thaa the arguments for the ballot ; and nothing more delusive than the arguments used against it. They, far the most part, consisted of guesses, loose assertions, and baseless surmises. He had challenged, and he then chal lenged, any hon. gentleman to show that the operation of the ballot had not been perfectly successful wherever it has been tried. By the ballot he did not mean a mere box and polling-booth, but emphatically secret voting. That veteran reformer Gen. Thompson, in one of his able pamphlets on this subject, ridiculed the idea of any thing like publicity being introduced where the ballot was concerned, which be compared to a young girl who bad no objection to play blind man's buff provided holes were left for her eyes. Purity of election, peace, order, and the choice of the most respectable. men invariably accompanied the ballot. Mr. MAINWARING rose to order. He wished to know whether it was not out of order for the hon. gen tleman to read his speech. (Oh, oh.) It was very much like it. (Oh, oh.) Mr. BERKELEY said that if the hon. gentleman lent him a pair of glasses he might be able to do that, but without holding the paper close to his eyes he was not able to do it. Attempts had been made to show that the system of voting by ballot had been abused in America, but he defied any hon. gentleman to point nut a Stat e in the American Union which abandoned that system foi open voting. Mr. Nicholson said that it had been entirely successful in Australia. He was much struck by the argument of a working man at a meeting in fa weir of the ballot, who said that the working men al ways elected persons above themselves in education and in position of life to fill offices in their clubs and associa• Cons, and that it was not likely they would.do other wise if they had the ballot in respect of political elec tions. He would ask hoe. gentlemen to compare the 18 Presidents selected by the ballot in the United States with any 18 successive monarchs of England, and he was sure these who were elected by ballot would not suffer by the comparison; He was not opposing a hereditary monarchy, but he was opposing a hereditary ministry. The Ambassadors of the American Union contrasted fa- Tourably with the Ambassadors of this country, who were chosen, not for their merit, but because they were Court fates urites, or had influence in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. The Americon Ambassador never met our Ambassadors that they had not the best of it. In gunnery and naval shipbuilding the Americans were our superiors and models. Why was this ? Because the people of England were not represented in that house, which bore the purse of the nation, but an aristocracy and a moneyed oligarchy ; because our executive was not filled by men of talent, but by a fat and overweening ne potism, which crushed all the inventive power of the country. The Australian papers - , from which he had full extracts, admitted that the ballot had been successful there. He met an Irish gentleman of a Tory family who had been long resident in Australia, and on inquiring of him whether any class in Australia were dissatisfied with the ballot, he replied, "Only one—the Roman Catholic priests, and they oppose it because it lessens their influ ence over the Roman Catholics. (Hear, and laughter.) He recommended this fact to those gentlemen from Ire land who said that if the influence of the landlords was de stroyed by the ballot, there would remain nothing to counteract the influence of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, as the ballot would not affect spiritual power. What was the position of the Irish elector ? Oa the one side of him there was the spiritual influence of the priest, and on the other the material influence of the landlord— the landlord here, the priest there, the elector between them—"pull devil, pull baker." (Laughter.) One of the many quirks and quibbles used against the ballot was, that if you gave the ballot to the electors with the pre sent qualification they would refuse any extension of the franchise. The noble lord the member for the city of London yielded to those who used that argument. But what took place in Australia One of the very first acts which the ballot-elected parliament in Australia did was to give such an extension of the suffrage as nearly amounted to universal suffrage. (Hear.) But it would be said, " Oh, but Australia is a remote colony." It was a remote colony, but it was peopled by Anglo-Saxons, and your Anglo-Saxons ' in whom it was so becoming to vote openly, adopted th e ballot. (Hear.) He hoped the example of the Anglo-Saxons of Victoria would be fol lowed by the Anglo-Saxons of the mother-country. One of the advantages of raising this question of the ballot was that it afforded an occasion of wringing before the house and the country practical instances of the tyranny arid malversation which occurred during the year in con nection with elections, and that there was no value in the argument of those who raid that the aristocracy were becoming politically more virtuous. He did not know whether the right hon. gentleman the member for North ampton was in the house, but he wished to state, for his edification and that cf the house, what took place at the last election for North Northamptonshire. The two can didates, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Vernon, addressed the elec tors from waggoce. (Laughter) Mr. Hunt, according to the Northampton Mercury, said "he would go against the ballot through thick and thin." They perhaps knew that at the different polling places the numbers polled varied according to the circumstances of each locality. Ia the Peterborough di trict 316 votes were recorded for his opponent, and 161 for him (Mr. Hunt) ; but he knew that he had 316 good wishes beside the 161 votes. In Wellinborough, Mr. Vernon had 392 votes to his 251; but they knew the sort of screw which was put upon the people there, and that there was in that neighbourhood a large landed proprietor who would put on a screw for a Whig. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Hunt) knew of his own knowledge that the screw was worked. [A Voice in the cro xd--` Because you put it on yourself.']" Much laugh ter.) S much for Mr. Hunt. Then Mr. Vernon rk se, and said "that the present election had thrown more light on the necessity for the ballot than anything that Lad recently taken place." Now Mr. Fitzpatrick Vernon bad two brothers-ic-law in the house who voted against the balls ; his Ether voted against it, and his father in-1 'w, who was the hereditary owner of two rotten pocket boroughs. (Laughter.) The house would not for get the pompous sessional order which was passed by them to prevent peers from interfering with the election of members of the House of Commons. When they in sisted on that order being printed, was it not like the case of Dogberry when he insisted on being recorded in a particular manner ? (Laughter.) It was a pharisaical pretence which was never intended to be acted upon. It was notorious that one-third of the members of that house were returned by peers who concerned themselves in elections to that house. The peers laughed at them, ridi culed them, and, if he might venture to use such an ex pression, "took a sight" of them. (Laughter.) He held in his hand a ietter from Lord Lilford to Mr. Hunt, and a more rernarkab'e document, one more unconstitu tional, or show . ng more conten pt for the order of the House of Commons, he nevelt-read. He says, " You also forgive me for saying that neither by property nor position should I think you qualified to represent it (the cotary) in Parliament. Holding this opinion, without airy disrespect towards yourself—(laughter) --I must re quest that my tenantry may not be canvassed for their vo•ee in your favour." (Laughter.) He did not know in what manlier the hon. member (Mr. Hunt) acted, hut he (Mr. Berkeley) if in his place, would have canvassed every one of Lord Li.Erd's tenantry. But let the house not suppose that Mr. Hunt was without a eau on his side. (Laughter.) If Mr. Vernon had hie lofty L Hord, Mr. Hunt had his bold Bile cie ugh. (Laughter.) Tne address of his grace was not Ea insolent or dictatorial in manner as the commuhica- tion !row Lord Liiforcl, but it was plain enough. It was addressed by hiy °race's steward to the tenantry, and was as follow.; : Payne will be obliged by Mr. S.- and-so attebdieg the election on Monday next. Mr. Hunt b.s. ha goo d (Much laughter.) Who vnuli take proceedings against Lord Liltord for what be had done ? It he had been seen standing at the poll. ing booth abd doing what his steward was doing no no tice would be taken of it, notwithstanding the standing order of the house. Ferhaps it might be said, why not the hon. member fur Bristol take proceedings. (Hear.) His answer to that was that be was taking proceedings. (Hear.) He was pointing out the proper and coustitu tioual way in which Lord Lilford's voting machines might be freed from his lordship's power—be was pointing out to them the mode by which, instead of passing a phari saical order which meant nothing, they could do a great act of juctice to the people and of credit to themselves. (Hear, hear.) He had usually been in the habit of referring to recent elections, and quoting from the speeches of the varioci candidates who had given opinions on the ballot. ifs appealed to the house whe ther he had ever done this in a party spirit, or treated it as a party question, or even raised the question with whom he acted, at the expense of those be opposed. (11 "-) There had recently been several elections con ,,icluelit on th e accossion of Lord D:rby's Government, and he had been enabled to get the opinions of a few members of the Government on the s ubject. The r i g ht bon. gentleinao the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been asked several questions; he, however, felt no diffi.- ty in what the ject.He made yaatiZarectltai Americana n ea vi ll hi g e e h n , eralising the sub d of the Tor coming from toe Re said he had no rea iwn to object to. w ?uld opp ose t h e measure, because it would tend to dimi n i sh j ust influence of property. In that sentence was i the ntained the real es sauce of the opposition to the nleas a re— n y right dreaded iht ho t o o . lose their influence. Tha t langueofeotthhee gentleman did very wel l a ddressed to f a rmers, but if he repeated it there he Z u at i r Ymen and . d be asked what were his views as to the due and constitution a l i licence of property. That influence he (Mr. Berkeley ) wished to El aintain. It was only the undue and n i i ; • influence he wished to diminish . From the speech Ofthste right hon. gentleman he turned to that of a noble lord (Lord Naas.) He was asked whether he would object to enter into an inquiry into the working of the ballot in Australia. He said he would not. That was a remarkable *youth for "a Tory. (A laugh.) He saw no difference between the noble lord and many who eat around him. The noble lord continued to say that in Australia the supporters of the ballot were the men who lived in the towns ; the landholders—the squatters, as they were called—were opposed to it. That statement of the noble lord be (Mr. Berkeley) could unequivocally contradict. Mr. Nicholson, the founder of the ballot in Australia, had answered the noble lord, and stated that he had been returned by a rural district, the county of North Berke, containing 8,000 electors., There was only one other argument to which he would refer that had been used by a member of the Government, for whom he and the whole house had the highest respect, he meant the President of the Poor Law Board. In a speech addressed to the electors of North Wilts, Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt had opposed the ballot on a rather new ground, the pre valence of original sin. (Great laughter.) The right my hon. gentleman said, "The reason why the ballot in eyes is offensive and to be deprecated is this—there is in the heart of every single one of us such an element of wickedness, and such a proneness to act contrary to whatever is good and worthy of approbation, that for the due and proper discharge of every trust we find that publicity is the very best possible guarantee." That was the doctrine of original sin ; every one of them at their birth inherited the fallen nature of Adam, they had not the fear of God before their eyes, but, moved and insti gated by the devil, they delighted in everything that was bad, and abhorred everything that was good ; ergo, says the right hon. gentleman, they must have open voting. (A. laugh.) He could not admit that was good l.'gic. If they were all of them miserable sinners, elec- tors and non-electors, how could the supervision of 30,000 nomelectoral sinners have any good effect on 1,000 electoral scamps ? A flattering picture the right honourable gentleman drew of them. What a set of blackguards they must let into their clubs, and what a set of mauvais sujete they must admit into the Bank of England. (Laughter.) He was lately at a meeting for the election of a chaplain to Dulwich College. Three hundred clergymen had sent in applica tions. Lord Stanley was in the chair. Like the rest of the nobility he appeared to have a partiality for old bat voting, and took the poll that way. Of course the whole election was tainted with original sin, and instead of electing an orthodox clergyman of the Church of Eng land, they must have got a Papist, or a Puseyite, which meant the same thing. (Laughter.) There had lately been an election of vestrymen in Belgravia, in St. George's Without, of course by ballot. The candidates were Lord Ernest Bruce, Gen. Sir W. Codrington, and Phipps. (Great laughter.) Not Phipps the warrior, and slayer of men—not the knight of the Bath—(laughter) —but a peaceful Phipps, a slayer of sheep, a knight of the cleaver. (Continued laughter.) The result of the election was that Lord Ernest Bruce was at the head of the poll, Phipps was second, Sir W. Codrington lost his election. Now, according to the right hon. gentleman, they should look on Lord Ernest Bruce and Phipps as miserable sinners, elected by original sin, but on Gen. Codrington as a perfect saint. (Laughter.) He had so often answered the argument as to the franchise being a trust that he would not now refer to it ; but if hon. gen tlemen used that argument he hoped they would tell the house in what did a breach of electoral trust consist. He had only to thank the house for having allowed him to makeso long a speech on so hackneyed a subject. (Hear.) It was a :. abject of great importance, and he trusted his friends would express their opinions on it. (Hear, hear.) Ito time was approaching in which they were about to enter on their great profi;gate Saturnalia. The orgies were in preparation. Shabby-genteel men were to be seen about the Carlton. The Whig whippers-in were looking for some respectable gentleman to supply the place of the lamented Mr. Coppock. Men in the moon were pre paring to descend on boroughs in silver moonbeams. In the country, the owners of the machinery were oiling the cogs and greasing the wheels for the work. Influence would again beat work ; intimidation would stalk, and drunkenness stagger through the land. He would ap peal from the House of Commons to the independent electors of Great Britain and Ireland ; at the hustings let them have a Shibboleth for every man—elect those who can pronounce it ; those who cannot whether they come in the guise of Whig or Tory, reject. Let the Shibboleth be " The Ballot." (Hear, hear.) Mr. P. W. MARTIN seconded the motion, and in doing so hoped that the house would not ignominiously reject the resolution as had been previously done. He could not understand how it could possibly happen that the salutary influence of property could be affected in any manner by the adoption of the ballot, although he could readily understand how the abuee of that authority could be checked by a system of secret voting. The hon, member proceeded to refer to a speech delivered in the southern division of the county of Nottingham by the chairman of the election committee, in which it was broadly laid down that it was the duty of the landlords to be down upon any tenant who might happen to change his political opinions after being accepted as a tenant. He had been engaged in at least five contested elections and at four of these it was clearly understood to be the rule that the tenants on an estate were bound to vote aecording to the opinions and wishes of the landlords. (Hear, hear.) The preamble of the bill was verbatim the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Chelmsford, and therefore deserved very serious consi deration on the opposite side of the house. He denied that there was anything un-English in the vote by ballot —it was used at clubs, at municipal elebtions, and an act passed 150 years since, in the reign of Queen Anne, ex pressly enacted that the election of the town councillors should be triennially and by ballot. (Hear.) The ballot in Australia at the last election had caused the Govern ment candidate to be elected over the popular candidate and it was universally declared by the populace that the failure was due to the ballot, with which the populace was thoroughly discontented in purpose. He would sup port any other plan, which would equally secure the in dependence of electors. Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti—si non his utere mecum. Mr. HUNT would not follow the hon. member into original sin as he was sitting beside the best au hority on the subject (Lord Palmerston). (A laugh.) But he did object to a person dropping a ball into the box, and then coming away and telling a lie. Mr. S. ESTCOURTsaid that society was interested in knowing how the elector performed his functions. He was likewise for publicity, thinking that secrecy under the p►esent circumstances would be productive of. mis chief. He might almost say that if they could achieve secrecy, he should approve it. But they could not achieve it—they could not shut up the mouth of the voter himself or his friends, or hie relations. It was impossible for any man so to exercise his functions in this country as to conceal it from the eyes of hie neigh bours. He held that the franchise was a public trust, and he had never heard it spoken of iu any other term., and the constitution would soon be at an end if it should ever come to be considered otherwise. He believed the ballot never could secure secrecy. He based his objec tion to the ballot on this, that the franchise was a trust and that trust ought t be exercised openly. He did not believe the ballot could put an end to bribery and cor ruption. The best way of preventing bribery and inti midation was by an alteration in the present electoral districts. The true remedy was not in a little crotchet like the ballot, but in an alteration in the electoral system. _ - Su. A. ELTON said, first of all the ballot would not work, and Wa4 therefore a sham. Then they were told that it would work, but that it would degrade the con stitution ; and the% they were told that it was a Con servative measure. Now, how were these arguments co-existent with each other ? It bad been said that we were becoming more virtuous, and that bribers was at a discount. He believed such was not the case, but that members of that house were becoming more skilful in concealing their delinquencies. With regard to the fran- chise being a trust, no doubt it was, but the &enter was not answerable to the non-elector, but to his own con science only. It was abso'utely essential that there should be no artificial restraint on the elector. He re. pu , liated the argument that an extension of the fran chi 3e would place it in the hands of those who would de sire to aesail all property. He had confidence in the honour and conscientiousness of his countrymen. He believed the ballot was the only means by which they could protect the dependent classes. Tee people of the country would never believe in the tiu!li of the Whigs, unless they supported the ballot. Mr. BENTINCS could not understand how any one could support the ballot. He had never hear 2 an argu toGnt in favour of the ballot. It had been said that the ballot had succeeded in America. He trusted that such success would never be --seen in this country, if such scenes am occasionally take place in the American legia lature were to be taken as part of that success. The proper title to a bill for the ballot ought to be a bill for the prevention of the reaction of bribery. Under the bellot it would be impossible to prevent bribery, which would then go on for ever on a wholesale system. (Great laughter.) That was an argument that met the I whole case. Under the ballot every borough would have thewouldlegis laturetaking i z c have debarred wh o supported itself fr t e h m e that.. Those ballot, therefore, Were the advocates cf corruption. General THOMPSON said the advocates of the bal let did not desire to stop the proclaim his vote to all the world if he pleased ; but the object of the ballot was to allow the voter to secretly if vote if he pleased. He trusted that hon, gentlemen opposite would soon change their views upon this subject. The country expected much from them, Hitherto their ex peciations had not been met with disappointment. Mr. A. B. HOPE said the hon. gentlemen who had submitted the motion bad at all events shown courage in appealing to the example of America on the subject. The ballot bad been tried on thirty-five millions of in habitants in France. What had been its effect there ? Perhaps the supporters of the ballot did not thi n k there should be freedom of the press in this country, or i„ de _ p-ndence of the courts of law. The effects cf the ballot in France bad been to suppress the press, raise the army, and abolish the independence of the courts of law. I. was in the cause of liberty that he protested against the ballot, and he did so with the example of France pro minently before his eyes. He believed that the screw d had really been placed on the 101. boueeholder ene -' p i eyed by the manufacturing interest=. The ballot wo uld the working man in the dilemma of either having to tell the truth and lose his employment, or tell a lie and keep it. Another evil consequence would he that the present incitement to vote at all would be wanting, for under a system of open voting each individual in the community felt a pride in letting his neighbours know that he really possessed political predilections. The ex periment had signally failed in America, where the cha racter of the individual was not thought of. (Hear.) Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the friends of the ballot Contended that under it intimidation would cease. I s ipponent s' on the other hand, maintained that the xeroise of the franchise was a solemn trust. But would he ballot produce secrecy ? Reasoning from the opera-' ion of the system in America, it could be proved that 1 Lite ballot did not secure secrecy.' (Hear.) With the ex- I eption of one State in the United States, where sealed • . 1 envelopes were employed, every publicity was given to the proceedings of an election. The late Governor of Connecticut had addressed a letter to the Ballot Society, in which he said that although many voters so contrived their ballot papers that they were not made public, the majority of voters in that State paraded their ballot papers, preferring that the side on which they voted should be known. The general practice of voting in the United States—the country referred to as the model for imitation—the country of native talent—the country of revolvers—(a laugh) —was paraded as the one which ought to be followed. (No, no.) In that country, how ever, as he had shown, the voting was practically open. The mode of voting in the East India House was also extolled by the advocates of the ballot, but the system there employed was really quite as open to analysis as the machinery for taking votes for members of Perna et\ent. But was it possible to keap the fact as to which way constituents would vote a secret ? If not, and the ballot were adopted, how could candidates be permitted to canvass ? (Hear, hear.) If the ballot were to become the law, the whole system of canvassing, the whole of our electoral system, must be given up. Under a sys tem of optional secrecy the door would be opened to coercion, and upon the supporters of the motion the onus lay to prove that the ballot would insure secrecy. (Hear, hear, and cries for a division.) Mr. MARSH had every reliance on the character of the Australian colonists, and that it would work out the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race, but he was firmly con vinced that the ballot had worked injuriously to the colonists of those lands. The source of a!1 freedom was responsibility. (Hear.) According to the hon. member fi r Bristol, the ballot had insured "respectability" in Australia, but he (Mr. Marsh) had been credibly in formed that one of the first persons elected for the colony of Victoria took his seat in his shirt sleeves. (Laughter.) The honourable member proceeded, in a humorous vein, to read certain proceedings in the Vic- toria Legislature, the style of speech of the principal interlocutor causing considerable laughter. A Mr. " G.," in one of his debates, expressed a wish "not only that the typhus fever might sweep away the ministry for the benefit of the colonists (laughter), but that the whole house might share the same fate"—a wish for which the speaker was called to order by the Attorney-General. (Laughter.) The Attorney-General was then told that he might "grin," but that ho was " a miserable penny-a-liner," who had condescended to write for some blackguard newspaper, and that he had stolen his (the interlocutor's) spoons—language for which the chairman ruled him "oat of order." (Laughter.) In another legislature one member wished another " dead," then said he didn't, and deprecated the blandishments of "soft sawder." (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Marsh then continued to speak against the motion of the honourable member for Bristol, stating his belief that bribery and intimidation were daily increasing in this country, which had set its face against such prac tices. (Hear, hear.) If ever it was proved to him that such practises were on the increase, he would vote for the ballot. If ever the ballot was introduced, however, he believed it would be through the wrongdoing of its supporters. Mr. AYRTON claimed the indulgence of the house, as neither the noble lord the member for Tiverton, nor the noble lord the member for London, were prepared to grapple with this question. For the last 150 years penal statutes had been passed to secure the freedom of election, and yet Parliament refused to sanction a means of escape which would render all those penalties unnecessary. The system of penal and repressive laws had arrived at its climax of absurdity (cries of " divide, divide"). Tne ballot was not proposed as a principle in itself, but to give to the principle of free election (re newed cries for a division). With what would the ballot do battle ? Primarily with bribery (oh, oh). What a mockery was it to say that bribery was not resorted to, when it was well known that towards the end of an election votes were purchased wholesale. (Oh, oh). The ballot would next deal with intimidation. (Oh, oh). He was well aware that this was a still more tender point with hon. members. (Renewed cries of "oh, oh," aid calls fur a division). Secret voting would prevent intimidation. (Oh, oh). Balancing the inconvenience at - ached to the ballot with those bound up with the present system, there could not be a doubt that the former were insignificant. As the system was practised in Australia, it was utterly impossible to divine the manner in which a man might vote. The plan of the honourable member for Bristol was equally perfect. The honourable member, amidst the impatience of the house, which induced him to taunt honourable members with making a noise in order that they might not hear the truth, demurred to the doctrine of a member of the present Ministry, that "Education, Property, and In dependence" were to be the electoral tests. His own election had not been an affair of influences. At that election political questions had been examined by men as intelligent as those whom he now addressed. (Oh, oh, and repeated calls for a division). Lord PALMERSTON—I am anxious to state a few reasons why I cannot agree with my hon. friend, whose speech I allow, with the hon. member for Norfolk, although very humorous, was more deficient in argu ment then any of his former speeches on the same sub ject. The question is whether vote by ballot shall be permissive or compulsory. If permissive, it will be a trap to the timid ; it compulsory, it will be a gag upon the freedom of the voter. Whether they be employers, or customers, or landlords, they will pnderstand why a vote is given in secret, and the consequence to the voter will be the same whether the vote be given openly or secretly. If the secret vote be compulsory, it is impoa restrictions upon the liberties of the electors of Eng land quite incompatible with our national feeling and the principles of our constitution. But you must go further ; you must make it penal for a voter to state how he has voted—(no, no, and hear)—yon must pre• vent canvassing—(no, no)—as your object is to prevent it being kno wn how a particular individual votes. Take the case of a shopkeeper, a tenant, or workman. His vote is asked. He says, "I cannot state ho el I shall vote. I shall take advantage of the law, or I shall act according to the law, and give nay vote in secret." Would a person exercising any influence be satisfied with such an answer? If a person makes a promise and breaks it, it is introducing a system of falsehood and dis simulation, instead of promoting those objects which are to be promoted by this bill. (No, no.) I defy you by any human meals, by ballot.b_x or other contrivance, to prevent a person who wishes to know from ascertain- ing ho w an elector has given his vote. Publicity is an essential principle of the British constitution. Tne elec tor has a trust, or why do you punish him for selling his vote, since every man has a right to do what he likes with his own ? The principle upon which bribery is punished is that the vote is a trust, and that the voter has no right to part with the trust for his own private advantage. All our political functions are exercised in open day, open to all the consequences, and there is no security for the exercise of political functions unless pub lic opinion can be brought to bear upon them. Those who seek for secrecy in one political function ought to extend it to many others to which I am sure they would not be disposed to extend them. Vete by ballot would put an end to party spirit, and party spirit is an essen tial element in the working of the British constitution. On former occasions we had the example of the United States given to us to fellow. The hon. gentleman went to such a length as to attribute to the ballot all those qualities of inventive powers and all the prosperity which tee United States enjoyed, for unless he went to that length he meant nothing. Setting aside the United States, they now take refuge in the Australian colonies. In the United States there is no secret voting. It is by ticket voting, because it is customary to elect a num ber of officers at the same time, and it is convenient to place their names upon one ticket instead of voting several times. They do not pretend to say that their votes are secret. And I say that the feelings of the people of this country would be opposed to secret vot ir g. (Hear.) Do you think that the Blues and the Yel lews would go mute and colourless to the poll? It is not in the nature of Englishmen to do it—(hear)—and if you accomplish your object you will strike a blow at the national spirit of the country. I will take the example of our North American colonies . neighbours of the United States, and acquainted with the working of the ballot there. Have they adopted it ? No ; they have seen the advantage of our systsm, and follow' it them selves. Your law will not accomplish what you intend it should acconepli,h. Great frauds will be occasioned, even in the ballot-box, which I defy you to prevent. It will not accomplish the secrecy you wish for, and if it did it would strike a great blow at the country ; and as it will not afford the pro , ectioh you desire, and as it will inflict a great injury upon the public spirit of the people, I cannot recede from the vote which I have always given upon this question. (Cheers ) Mr. BRIGHT said he would endeavour to take up the time of the house for a few minutes only. He had not hoard this question discussed for some three years, but during his absence from the house ho had foraaed a rather unf.: vourable impression, from reading the reports in the news' papers, of the way in which it hal been received by the house, who were disposed, he thought, to deal rather un fairly with his hon. friend the member for Bristol. Trey _ _ seemed to have treated him somewhat rudely when he brought this subject forward, as though it were not large enough to occupy the consideration of the House of Com mons, and he (Mr. Bright) thought he had observed alittle of this feeling to-night in what had fallen from the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. (Hear.) But he would beg to say that this was not a small subject; it was not one that they could hustle out of the door of the house, and say they would have nothing to do with it, because nobody in the country really cared anything about it. (dear, hear.) There never was a greater mistake than this conclusion. He admitted that it was rather an unpleasant question, if that were a reason why they should wish to dismiss it. But he had seen many unpleasant questions discussed there which had at length come to b 3 welcomed i❑ the house by very large majorities, who had admitted that their previous conduct upon them had been en tirely wrong. If they want e d to know what sort of many reformers whenth ebYu quektion it was, let them ask any portion :site wishfor Parliamentary reform. Hon. gentlemen theoppo ` Pmpula.tion of the country who had expressed ta w st e ht n he t yo ts mustoe their es ea c t o q n s i see of the house, constituents histt e '(1I enough r: B t ' d o r not k g t o w 8 sides that o this was a very important andif question with their constituents and the publi c , hers of the hous e were theyeywished to know how far mem ninny members of the influenced by it, let th e m a sk h ow favour. Why, nukes tan 2 house had recorded their votes in it s of Commons, who, some 12 months of this very House make the noble lord the member s f a o r fiv were assembled to (cheers) —and came to this house to supportto dictator— (cheers) —and votedtor— in favour of a proposition which he had treated m' t • idiots to-night as one which could only be advocated by • tots or fanatics. (4, Oh, o h," and cheers.) He wanted to put to the house two or three points on the subject, and he wouldnot go to Australia—he was now unwilling to introduce anything into this country which was growing up across the Atlan tic, or on the other side of the Pacific. They required it for their own interests and for their own security, Was there a country in the world in which there was so m uc h colonial wealth by the side of such deep and miserable po verty as this ? (Hear.) Did not the majority of the people —whether in the counties or in the boroughs, consist of persons who were struggling in business, and under the pressure of a fierce competition ? And was it not clear from this that this was peculiarly a country in which unfair in fluence might be expected at elections ; and if a remedy could be suggested, was it not a subject which the house might be asked, at least, fairly to consider, and, if just, to apply it. i(Cheers.) The noble lord the member for Tiver- ton had spoken of the force of party feeling which was ne cessary to carry on the Government of thaeountry, and he had spoken of the manly spirit and greaTstrength of that feeling. But if that party feeling be strong must not the position of men be raised in a correspond ing degree ? Did ho not recollect what it was for which they had been contending ? Some ten years ago there was a great question before the country—the question of the corn laws. We were all, continued the hon. member, exasperated upon that question. You com municated your wishes to the public. We charged upon you crimes and misdemeancnrs which you had not com mitted. But great feeling was excited, and if the elections on your side were influenced by your endeavours, so they were also by the Anti-Corn Law League. When those struggles were impending mans' feelings were under the apprehension, on your part, that you were going to be ruined, and upon our part that we were going to rid the country of an unjust and iniquitous law. There was exas peration on both sides ; but when there was so great wealth on one side, and so much struggling poverty, temp tation, and trial on the other, I say that power was brought to bear upon that poverty, and the wealthy and the power ful acted upon the weak and the defenceless. (Cheers.) In thousands and tens of thousands of cases, to my certain knowledge, men went up to the polling-booth, not with a lie in their mouths, but when they were asked how they voted, by what they then and there did they committed themselves in the face of Heaven to a lie as gross as ever was uttered in the world. (Cheers.) And look at the great prize for which you were contending the other day, if there had been a general election, in consequence of the vote of confidence, which did not come off. (Cheers.) lion. gentlemen who were very anxious to continue in the Government have made a very great struggle to bring themselves back, and a friend or two with there. Thera would have been abundance of party spirit and manly feeling-- (ironical and counter cheers)--and what would have been the result ? I don't say you would have fought harder than we should on our side. But the harder the battle the greater the victory—the richer the prize the greater would have been the struggle— the greater the temptation to bribery the greater the incentive to undue influence. (Cheers.) In your elections, what is there that would have enabled the weak to shelter themselves from your power ? Their virtue would have succumbed to the influences brought to bear upon them. (Cheers.) It is not the noble lord the member for Tiverton who wants the ballot. (Cheers.) I never advised the ballot for the sake of the noble lord. I advised the ballot for the poor, the de fenceless, and the weak. It is the shelter which common sense and common morality have afforded in every coin munity which has granted to its members the right to ex ercise the elective franchise. (Cheers.) And if we had never seen anything of elections in this country--if we had only studied the question in our closets, from what we have read we should be led to the conclusions to which I have endeavoured to lead the house. I believe it is a farce to bring any new evidence before the house, because with re gard to the facts of this case every member on this side of the house and the other is equally convinced on the sub ject. But I have here a letter which was handed to me by a gentleman who, while he lived, had a great deal to do with election matters—thelate Mr. Coppock--who, though he was connected with many election operations which I should be very sorry to defend, and which I greatly regret to believe to have taken place in the country of which I am a citizen—yet in public and in private was always the advocate of any measure which should make it possible to work elections in this country without impurity and cor ruption ; and he bAieved there was no weapon whatever by which you could at all hope to strike down undue in fluence and corruption at elections like the ballot. (Fleur, hear.) The hon. member then read the note, which was dated Portobello, July 23—no year—and addressed to a Mr. Welder ; and was in the following terms: - " I under stand that you are i n d ou bt which way to vote, a n d I de sire you t o vo t e f or M r. Fitzgerald. If you d on 't d o thi s, you leave my f arm ." (L au ghter-) That was very l acon i c; no tenant whatever, however obtuse, could mistake its meaning. That letter was written to a farmer. Mr. Cop pock also gave him (llrr Bright) at the same time two or three extracts from letters written by solicitors seeki ng t o be employed as age n ts. One was this, "I wish t o k now whether lam to b e re t a i n ed again for Mr. —. I am offered 25 guineas f ro m th e other side ; and if I don't h ear from you by two o' c lo c k, I s hall accept the offer." Anoth er was—" As every vote is of importance, I don't w i s h t o have or take any retainer ; as in the case of a scrutiny it might be inconvenient ; and I must rely upon you f or pay ment on the same scale as last time." Another solicitor wrote to say that his father-in - law had considerable inte rest iu the borough, and that several of his men had votes which they would give to Mr. A -- , but that a retaine r would be expected. Other letters went to the same effect —offering services and expecting retainers ; bei ng profes sional men they could not be expected to work for nothing, Now he would ask the house the reason why these solicitors' votes wore worth 25 guineas each ? It was because .th ese men turned the screw ; they knew their influence over the list of voters, and that A, B, C, and D had s ma ll or l arge mortgages upon their property, and they kne w th a t many of the voters were und er s t ru ggling circumstances; in fact, they knew the private affairs of the larger number of elec• tors, and before they were so essential to the candidate ; and, therefore, when they were paid 25 guineas they got more at the marrow of the subject than any other man could do, and thus it was that all this machinery of lawyers became apparent; and thus it was that the evidence showed this intolerable working of the screw. (Cheers.) He said the noble lord the member for Tiverton did not want the ballot. Well, rich people did not want many things that the poor required. Laws were not so much in necessity for the rich as for the poor, and it was for the defence of the poor voters that they asked the house Lo grant the protec tion of the ballot. Out of doors the subject was much dis cussed, and would any man say that those who advocated the ballot did not represent as .snormoctot wow:aunt of opinion in the country? (Cheers.) Did they think the poor voters could not batter tell where the shoe pinched than the noble lord the member for Tiverton? (Cheers.) Of course they could. There was no questiou which would attract t o its banner so many persons as the ballot. They could pass n Reform Bill 'without making it a part. They had been given to un lerstan I that something in the shape of a Re for.n Bill was in the contemplation of the Government ; but he (Mr. Bright) did not place much reliance on the statements. Governments did not live long now-a-days, and perhaps the Government might not live to next ses sion; an 1 if they did live they might not be able to keep the promise. But he bogged to tell the Government -and they had already exhibited some good points—that if they should introduce a Reform Bill, and not add to it a clause conferring vote by ballot on the people, they would firel existing constituencies show no enthusiasm for their mea- sure. (Cheers.) The great body of the people would regard such a bill as another mode of subjecting them to another species of degradation. (Cheers.) The noble lord the mem ber for London once brought in a Reform Bill, so called — though it was no Reform Bill at all—and subsequently thousands of people, at a meeting at Stockport, declared that the franchise would bo of no use to them without the ballot was included with it, because hundreds of these men worked for ono particular employer, or one firm of em ployers; and although he (Mr. Bright) did not believe that manufacturers would exercise this power more than land lords in counties did, yet when they came to a fierce and exciting contest he would not trod any poor or defenceless countryman to the tender mercies of either a landlord or a manufacturer. (Cheers.) There were several members who proposed a reform in Parliament, but he believed the noble lord the member for London was the most sincere in his convictions upon the question, though at present he (Mr. ( Bright) confessed he thought the noble lord felt afraid of member disturbing mb er fo ro Tiverton ther thin things. been par a d e d through the r, . hear.) The noble lord the coun try as a great reformer ; not only was he to settle things abroad, but he was to do everything at home. Well, every thing abroad was left in confusio n , and nothing at home was dope by the noble lord — (cheers)—and the noble lord, in answer to the hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. Dun combe), with a frankness which he (Mr. Bright) ad mired, admitted that the Government of which he was the head had not prepared a Reform Bill. Thee might have talked about it, but there was no bill ready ; he was in favour of a bill for reform, and if he had been in office he would have brought one in. He (Hr. Bright) was not going to make a charge against the noble lord for not keeping his promise. (Haar.) Then the right hon. gentleman opposite was in favour of reform, and there were many persons who thought that the bill of the present Government would be a good on e . At any rate the present Government wore getting 111 of proper t y qua lifi ca ti on , and that would be a great achievem en t. (Ch eers .) Hon. mem bers oNeosite were more reason able than they formerly were, and were not half so frightened as they used to be when he (Mr. Bright) first knew them. (Laughter.) Thus the right hon. gentleman and the two noble lords were going to re deem their promises ; and the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford (Hr. Gladstone) had agreed to a reform bill when a member of Lord Aberdeen's Government.. But would the Reform Bill be for the people? They must please that great body of the people who since 1832 had been increasing in loudness and uuani mity on this question ; and was it not a fact that every pe tition presented in favour of Parliamentary Reform had _asked talia.vo included therein the ballot 2 (Cheers-) W" it not a fact also that every public meeting, attended by hundreds and thousands of the people, resolved to have the ballot. (Cheers.) Thera were men in the country who had thought of this subject a great deal more than the noble lord the member for Tiverton had considered it, and they thought that without exception secret voting should be made the cardinal point in the new Reform Bill. The noble for I might get up an I say that he had the argu ments act nauseant, but the people had not them to that measure ; and they knew that if they rapped louder and extent. (Cheers.) T hey longer the house would listen to them as they had done on other questions of great importance to the interests and welfare of this country. (Cheers.) He decle.red that measure. It was, he were determined to have this d e mocratic ho had never advocated the ballot as a but because he helieved kn it ew ;o the poor man, but if it were established to-morrow, he did not believe it would very materially cbange .the posi tion of members at the opposite side of the house. He ad vocated the ballot not because it was a democratic measure bills to reform the representation of the and just, and ho hundred the be charter of of freedom to was persuaded that if Parliament were to pass 3 peo ple, none of them wo u ld d o so muc h to effect that o bj e ct as the little bill of tw o or t h ree c l auses w hi ch the h on . gentleman the member for Bristol had invited them to pa ss that day. The party with whom he (Mr. Bright) acted were in a little difficulty, which he would endeavour to explain. The noble lord the member for Tiverton —(laughter)-- that was nut the difficulty —had been Rime Minister for three g years, a n d h a d occupied at successive p eriods many high offices in th e State. He could not avoid showin g his con tempt for the o inions of thereat majority of those who had kept him iu office. Tim n oble lord the membe r for London had als o b een P rem i er an d the loader of the great Whig party, b u t th e sp ,il s of o ffi ce had fallen to his lot to some extent as to that of the noble lord the member for Tiverton and his colleagues. If the Liberal party were to act under leader: is a great party, it stood to reason that there must b e sine° sort of accord between those who led and those who followed. (Hear.) How could t he Liberal party follow the noble l or d s an i right hon. gentlemen who had no respect, for their followers ? lie admired the con sisteucy shown by the noble lord the member for the City of London, but he had lived lone. enough to see consistency advocated with great disadvantage to the country, and in consistency attended with great advantag e. principle, but upon the ballot not so much as a grea t He looked merely as a machinery for taking votes. It had been tried with advantage in Belgium, in America, in Australia, and other pieces, and he was in favour of trying it here. H e a t s hsthere great m m e u n c t h , did not therefore think, looking to th e ex p erience w hich we had of it in other places, that it w ould be inconsi stent ufonraanni hmity on. member of doors to in he was willing to try it, although he might think that the good likely to arise from it was very gravely exag sfaayvo thatur of Berated. The noble lord the member for Tiverton could, of course, take any time he pleased, but the action of parties at his (Mr. Bright's) side of the house, under its ancient leaders, would become impossible if the present state of things continued. He therefore asked the noble lord the member for Tiverton, and the noble lord the member for London, as their names had been mentioned as joint or united leaders, whether it was fitting that they should lead a party of 230 or 210 gentlemen who were pledged to their constituencies and to their own convic tions, or whether that party were to give up this great question to follow them ? (Hear, hoar,) He wished it to be understood that he did not speak in anger against the noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Laughter.) He hal no such sentiments towards him—(laughter)— for he only sought to advance the question by fair argument. Why, he asked, were hon. gentlemen opposite so much frightened on this subject? Did they not know very well that they had often been terribly frightened before with out cause ? Did not the house remember the awful and solemn predictions of the hon. gentleman the member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), who had foretold, when the Liberal party was fighting the battle against protection, that the country would go to absolute perdition. (Laugh ter.) And yet the hon. gentleman was now, no doubt, ready to admit that the enemies of protection had conferred the greatest benefits upon the country in general, and upon Somerset in particular. (Hear, hear.) The ruin of the shipping interest had also been predicted, and yet no such catastrophe had occurred. Why, that very day a bill had been passed which at time excited violent fears, but which even the right hon. gentleman the member for the Uni versity of Oxford found the greatest possible difficulty in defending ; he referred to the bill for the abolition of church rates. That measure had been passed by a ma jority of 63, and he believed the unanimous hope of the house now was that it would be dealt with gently in that " other place" to which it had been sent, and that they might hear no more about it. (Hear, hear-) He confessed that he had faith in the people of Eng land, and that ho was of opinion that they were enti tled to the consideration of the house. Tho people now looked forward to the house with greater confidence than at any previous pericd in the history of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It had done much to relieve them of fiscal burdens and to free their industry, and depend upon it they were not insensible of these concessions, or of the im proved conduct of Parliament in reference to popular legis lation. He asked the house to try this great experiment, on the ground that the people deserved it, and because no Reform Bill could succeed in which it was not a feature. He implored them not to be led away by the flimsy argu ments of the noble lord the member for Tiverton. It was not to be expected that the noble lord at his time of life would change his opinion?, and if he (Mr. Bright) had himself been 20 or 30 years of the same opinion, he might possibly call the ballot "an absurdity," and not a great question of public policy. For the sake of morality and tranquillity for the future, he asked the house to give afair and candid consideration, and he hoped a favourable vote, to the proposition of his hon. friend the member for Bristol. Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. member for Birmingham had commenced his speech by saying that during his ab sence of three years from the house—an absence which any one who valued great abilities honestly and independently exercised, must deeply -regret—there had been an unwil lingness in the house to discuss this question. If the hon. gentleman had been among them he would have known that the reason why the discussion had not commanded so much attention as formerly was, in the first place, that those who supported his views had been unwilling to pro long the discussion—(" no, no," from the lower Opposition benches)—and, secondly, that the arguments on the ques t.cn had been so exhausted that the house was more or less tired of the subject. The hon. member for Birmingham had delivered a speech of great power, and he (Hr. Wal pole) wished to ma k e a f ew o b se rvations in reply. The hon, member had said, somewhat differently from the hon. member for Bristol, that the qeestion before them was one of political machinery, while th latter hoe. gentlemanhad said that the word " ballot" was to be the Shibboleth of the party opposite when an election should take place. He agreed with the hon. member for Birmingham that this was rather a question of political machinery than of prin ciple. They all desired that elections should be free from the contaminating and corrupting influences which still unfortunately existed, but to make the electors free, the electors must be independent, and when those influences still exist they must be detected and punished. (Hear, hear.) If it was attempted to establish any other principle instead of accomplishing the object the hon. gentleman had in view, he would find himself failing in attempting to 'throw his protection around the weak, which he desired to do against th e s t rong . H e would ask the hon. gentle man to consider whether or not they were likely, by means of laws established, or which might be established, to pre vent undue influence, that undue influence which it was sought to put down by secret voting. He would ask whether it was not clearly shown that the best means of acting was by calling in public opinion and insisting on individual responsibility? (Hear, hear.) By these means corruption and intimidation had been diminished—by the exposure and punishment which au open system of voting enabled them to apply. (Hear, hear.) There was a time when even that house was open to the corruption of foreign. Potentates, but the laws of the house, and their interfer ence in punishing the members, together with the force of public opinion, had ended that state of things. Since the Revolution, too, corruption among the electors had reached to a Most dangerous extent. Still, the laws which had been passed had diminished corruption and intimidation also, and especially of late, year by year, this had been the case. They had lately had the measure of the noble lord the member for London, which very much facilitated proof of agency and means of detection. The hon. mem ber for Birmingham argued that they could not protect the weak without having votes taken in secret. He would ask the hon. member if he did not fix his eye too much on the evils around him, knowing them to be in ex istence, without considering the full consequences which would follow from the introduction of another sys tem. Even if votes were taken in secret, every one, from the freedom with which things were discussed in this coun try, would know the opinions of his neighbours, and in timidation, even of the ballot were adopted could not be prevented, but would only take a different shape, know ledge being superseded by suspicion. (Hear.) The conse quences flowing from such a system were worse than those which existed at present. He would ask the hon. member for Birmingham if his olject was accomplished in the adop tion of the ballot, what means of detection and exposure would he have against malpractices ? When the hon. mem ber brought charges against a peer for practising intimida tion at an election, he must recollect to what measure re course had been had. He moved for a committee of the house to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the election at Peterborough. But could any result have followed if there had been no means of detecting intimi dation ? It was the knowledge that the house and the country might obtain on the way in which votes were given, the power of tracing intimidation, of following up the wrong to its source, and afterwards punishing it, that furnished the best means of preventing these evils. (Hear.) Great as would be the evils of secret voting, they would have to meet till greater if they adopted the ballot, through the means they would lose of detecting and exposing ille gal practices. The principle of public resposibility as to all matters of public concern, and the bringing to bear the control of public opinion upon these matters, was all-im portant. Whatever they did, unless they took care that a man was made responsible in whatever position he might be, their plan must be faulty. The man who committed a wrong act must be brought into the face of open day, and if they wished to encourage independence and virtue they could best accomplish it by such means as he had in dicated. The system of secret voting might open the way to deceit, treachery, distrust, and all evil passions. He begged to assure the hon. member for Birmingham that on that side of the house they were not afraid of the ballot as tending to diminish their power, but in point of public morality they thought it would be disadvantageous to the country. He felt fully convinced that the power of public opinion must be brought to bear on the exercise of the franchise throughout the country, which would sus tain men when they were acting rightly, and when they acted wrongly would visit them with punishment. For these reasons he could not assent to the introduction of the bill. The amount of good prophesied from the adoption of the ballot would, he believed, fail to be obtained, and he preferred to look to public opinion as the best security for the prevention of the evils which called forth com plaint. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—The hon. member for Birmingham has alluded so much to me that I will venture to ask the house to listen to a few observations from me. I have ad. dressed the house frequently on this subject, and have stated the reasons for my opinion, and with respect to the principle of the ballot I do not feel called upon to make any observation. I agree, however, with the hon. mem ber for Birmingham that this is a change in the machinery of the representation, but I consider it a change for the worse. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon. member dwelt strongly on the evils of the existing system, but when he came to the remedy he seemed to take almost everything for granted. He assumed that the ballot would cure all evils. I very much doubt that, because I cannot but think that the passion imported into questions agitating the public mind would exist as much as ever under the ballot. Ido not think that merely saying that a man should giro his vote in secret would cause the evil to cease. I have confidence in the natural candour and truth of the people of England. I object to try a remedy calculated to produce mischief, and which, if tried and found to fail, would lead its advocates to contend that, if from being permissive, it were made compulsory, the remedy would be complete. With respect to the small boroughs, I agree with the hon. member for Norfolk, that the adoption of secret voting would open a great means of corruption. I would ask how it is that the hon. mem , bars for Bristol and Birmingham have not been able to show us some satisfactory example of a country in which the ballot is established, and which is more free, and has more liberty of discussion than is possessed by the people of England, notwithstanding the corruption and intimidation which exist among us. The ballot has been established in other countries of Europe, and nomi nally in the United States as well as in Victoria and Tas mania, but I cannot help thinking that if this contrivance had succeeded so well, by promoting freedom, without corruption, in the old er coun t r i es of Europe, anti in Ame rica, we 'should have bad the cases in Australia held up as such splendid examples. It may be well for us to wait for other exampl es b e f ore adopting such a measure. We are far better off than any of those countries. An hon. gentleman has spoken of Hampden and Sidney, but I can not forget that those men who established our liberties did not require or adopt secrecy. (Rear.) If the hon. mem• ber for Birminghern will listen for a few minutes I R ill answer the appeal he made in reference to my Reform Bill. When I brought for ward a R e f orm Bill I said there were certain subjects it did not touch, and one of those was certainly the subject of the ballot, with rspect to which I said many ingenious arguments ha I been adduced, but I hoped it would be always recollected that., while secret ballot would prevent bad influences over the good, it would also prevent good influences over the bad. (Hear, hear.) Since that time, now 27 years ago, I have had many opportunities of meditating upon and discussing this sub ject; and last year, when I reconsidered the whole ques tion, I came to the result as unfavourable to the adoption of such a system as I had come to before. The hon. gentle ruan says it is the opinion of the great majority of those belonging t o th e Lib eral party that the ballot should be adoptd. I have never shown, I hope, any intolerance on the subject. A late lamented friend of mine (Sir W. 11.1oLsworth) was an eager advocate f or th e b a llot, and yet I recoaanereled Lord Aerdeen that he should have a seat iu the Cabinet, and give us the advantage of his knowledge and experience upon important matters. With regard to these subjects, I consider in these times—and, indeed, ever since the Reform Bill passed- it is very difficult for any party to form a Ministry, or to act together witho u t h av i ng several questions which are styled open questions of policy. (Hear, hear). With regard to the question of church ra t es , a very distinguished member the present Mini s t ry voted: for their total abolition; and of acid think the noble l or d at the head of the Government. his coll eagues were quite right to permit that diversity of opinion to exist. This is a question of the machinery . of election, and if .m en canno t ac t together because they differ upon such a question, it seems to me there must be a great de a l of i n t o l erance among those who re f use to act together under su c h c i rc umstances. (Hear, hear). 'The late Sir Robert Peel changed his opinion on a very impor tant question, upon which at one time the safety of the country in a great measure depended; but at the same time, although I think his justification was complete, I cannot but consider that some public mischief has been done by that change. (Hear, hear). I agree with the hon. member for Birmingham that this is not one of those great questions of principle on which you can say the whole working of our constitution depends. I do not even think there is anything like unanimity of opinion in the country on this occasion. At public meetings on the subject I have always found that, while many differed with me, many were disposed to coincide with my view. I think it is the opinion of a great number that, unless the suffrage is made almost universal, it is wrong Io de prive those who have no votes of that general influence of public opinion over those who exercise public functions. Believing the change is not for the good of the people, I can only give the same vote I have always given against the proposition. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BERKELEY replied. The house then divided. The numbers were— For the motion 197 Against it Majority against the motion .. The bill was consequently lost. Mr. PAULL moved for leave to brinc , in a bill to en courage and facilitate the e rec ti on a nd improvement of piers and harbours in Great Britain and Ireland. Sir J. PAKINGTON said the inconvenience of the pre sent mode of legislating in private was so great, that it was the intention of the Admiralty to bring in a bill on the subject with regard to piers and harbours ; but at the same time he would not object to the hon. gentleman' laying his bill on the table. Leave was then granted. EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY much better pleased to be left alone to settle our own quarrel. But the nature o f the co-operation with our allies seems to be misunderstood. There is no convention, no alliance, no defined common object—unless, perhaps, the published letter of Lord Elgin to Yeh may be supposed to create an obligation to retain Canton until the French demands as well as o.ur own are ceded. Each nation has its separate grievance, and has made its separate written demand. It will be probably be found that these State papers agree very nearly in the future securities they demand against the infraction of treaties and the ill-treat ment of foreigners. This concord is probably not quite accidental, but surely it is not undesirable. It is in itself a proof that the public opinion and the State policy of all the civilised nations of the world are united upon this point ; and that, in moderation and in justice, we are all led to adopt the same remedies as the only cure for diversified injuries. What would Mr. Bright have had us do ? Would he have divided our squadron into two parts drawing up one part to keep off the French, the Americans, and the Russians, while with the other half he thrashed the Chinese ! Or what would he have done in the subsequent negotiations ? Would he have satisfied himself with introducing Mr. Parkes into Canton, while the French were obtain ing for their countrymen free transit through China? It does so happen that the same remedy will secure the lives of French missionaries, and will further the development of English commerce. France is determined to protect her citizens, and demands that Frenchmen may lawfully travel in China under the protection of the Chinese Government. Does Mr. Bright wish that we should go to war with France to compel her to desist from this demand ; or does he wish that Esglishmeu should be ex cluded from the privileges that Frenchmen are about to obtain, and which are reasonable in them selves and quite necessary for the security of indi viduals and the peace of nations ?—Times. FROM RATEi. Sir J. ELPHINSTdiri moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the law, as it at present stands, by which the property of Government in the boroughs of Greenwich, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devon port, and elsewhere, is rendered exempt from local rates and taxes. Mr. DUTTON seconded the motion. The question was then put. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the question was a very important one, and ought to be inves tigated by a committee. The right hon. gentleman sug gested a slight modification and assented to the motion. Mr. W. MARTIN expressed his thanks to the Govern ment for the concession they had made, and pointed out some of the anomalies in the present system. The subject ought to be carefully investigated. Mr. WALPOLE thought the inquiry ought to extend to public establishments generally, and suggested an amendment to that effect. Sir W. CODRINGTON hoped the damage done to parishes by the pulling down of houses for public purposes would not be lost sight of. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE assented to the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and the motion was altered and put accordingly. Agreed to. pr BLIC DEPARTMENTS. Mr. WALPOLE asked Colonel Boldero to postpone his motion in consequence of the absence of the Secretary for War. (The motion was that the report presented to the house from the Committee of Contracts (Public Depart ments) be taken into consideration.) Mr. JACKSON expressed a hope that the hon, and gal lant gentleman would not do so. After a few words from several hon. members, Colonel BOLDERO postponed the motion till Thursday next. RAILWAY AND CANAL LEGISLATION. Col. W. PATTEN moved for a select committee to in quire into the best mode of securing the public interests and diminishing Parliamentary expenses in reference to railway and canal legightion. FREEDOM FROM ARREST (MEMBERS OF PARLI A MENT). Mr. HUNT moved for leave to bringlin a bill to abolish freedom from arrest in the case of members of Parliament. LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES AMENDMENT. Mr. ADAMS moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Act of 1856, to facilitate leases and sales of settled estates. The debate on the Galway Freemen Disfranchisement Bill was adjourned till Thursday next. The other orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at a quarter past 1. THE CHINA QUESTION. One of the qualities which combine to fit an Englishman for constitutional government is his habit of submission to the will of the majority. A Frenchman, a German, or an Italian always has "an idea : " his notion of liberty is to obtain the liberty of carrying out that idea, and regenerating all mankind by force. There was, a short time ago, a dwindling party among our own public men, whose borrowed watchword was, "Everything for the people, and nothing by the people," the dogma of a tyrant. Oar Constitution is founded upon principles the very contrary to that dogma. It works out in action the celebrated maxim of Plato —" We may endeavour to persuade our fellow citizens, but it is not lawful to force them even to that which is best for them." In Eng land, when the decision of the constituencies has been distinctly given, the public action of the Government must be in accordance with that deci sion, or the Constitution is violated. It appears rather odd that the public man wno stands most in need of being reminded of these trite constitutional truths should be Lord J. Rus sell. If ever there was a question upon which the sense of the country was solemnly asked and dis tinctly declare 1, it was upon the policy to be adopted by this country towards the Empire of China. There could be no mistake about the answer, and there can be no doubt that if the same question were again put the answer would be equally decisive. Now, Lord John Russell in the speech which ho made on this subject on Friday night does not attempt to re-argue the question, does not " endea vour to persuade his fellow-citizens ; but, in a spirit of carping and cavilling, he strives to impede the action of the Minister who is giving operation to the national policy iu that distant country, and he too evidently is urging the present Government to act in disobedience to the expressed will of the nation. The whole tone of his remarks tends to encourage the Government to curtail the discre tionary Rowers of our ambas sa d or i n Chi na, and to discoura g e him in his very difficult task of laying broad foundations for our future commercial opera tions in that country. But the absence of all accu rate information betrayed by Lord John Rus sell's speech is still more remarkable, and affords melancholy proof bow little even our best pub lic men feel the obligation of mastering ques tions of the highest import, when they are out of the ordinary sphere of party warfare, and affect distant countries. Lord John pretended to inform the house of the number of men engaged in the war with China, and ho exaggerated it by including those employed on the coast of India, and even the Naval Brigade now serving on the Upper Ganges. He stated that "it could not be supposed it was for the purpose of settling the question of reparation to individuals for the injuries British subjects had suffered that Lord Elgin had proceeded north ;" but he thus manifested not only an entire unacquaintauce with the only means of bringing any influence to bear upon the Court of Pekin, but a much more unaccountable forgetfulness of what had previously passed in the House of Commons. It has been proved that the Emperor of China cares nothing for the occupation of Canton. That operation was necessary to recover our lost prestige among the people of China, but it has had no effect upon the counsels of the Emperor. The only way by which peace and compensation can be obtained is by di rect communication with the Emperor, and Lord Paltnerston has declared over and over again in the House of Commons that the destination of the Elgin Embassy was Pekin. The treaty now in force gives us the right of immediate communica tion with the high officers at Pekin. That com munication has just been formally denied to us. Lord Elgin has gone to exercise in person our treaty rights, and, if he is accompanied by a fleet and an army, it is because the obstinacy of the Chinese Court renders it necessary to sup port our treaty rights by.force. Nothing can be more simple. If Lord John would only afford five minutes to a perusal of the treaty, and Aar his head of certain antipathies, he would find it a very plain matter. Unhappily, however, Lord John will not do this. As he states the amount of the force in China without knowing it, so he quotes the treaty without reading it. He says:— o b s " e r W v e e d k. n o O w n e t h a a r t t i t c h ]. e e r s e a w v e e u r : e t t w h e o r a i g r t c to e s o w n h t c r h t h w e e : j o t y n o o f t Canton as well as four other cities, and that article has been perpetually violated by the refusal of the local governmen to allow the admission of British subjects into Canton Another article in a very solemn manner bound us to pre vent the trade of opium with China, and that article of the treaty has been as notoriously violated as the others. I believe it is an article very difficult to fulfil, and pro bably the Chinese Custom-house officers have been as notoriously willing to violate that article as those who have brought opium from India and engaged in the traffic of that article. This is the position in which we stand with regard to the treaty. Now, with submission to Lord John, this i s not the position in which we stand with re;--rd to the treaty. Will it be believed in England that this deliberate statement made by L I'd John Russell is a mere figment of his own imagination ? In our treaty with China, not only is there no such article as tint imagined and produced by Lord John Russell to call down the cheers of the House, but in that treaty the word " opium" is never mentioned. It is seduluus'y and even osten ' tatiously excluded ; for whiie in the treaty with AmelicA opium is inserted as a prohibited article, this word is omitted in the treaty with England. Very evil habits are creeping in among our public men as to the relation between words and facts, but the House of Commons has a right to more ac curate information than this from men whom that assembly trusts. With the observations made by Mr. Bright, as to the inconvenience possiVe to arise from tbe joint opera ion of the fiur Powers, we are to a certain extent i nc li ne d t o concur. o doubt, we have abundant power to chastise the insolence of half-a-dozen Chinese Emperors, and we are able single-handed, there or elsewhere, to vindicate our own honour. No doubt, we should have been THE ERUPTION OF VESUVIUS. NAPLES, MAy 31. Since Saturday the eruption has proceeded with constantly increasing violence, and has presented at night a more and more magnificent spectacle. [n my last letter I mentioned that there issued from the great basin of fire in the Atrio a single stream of lava, which, after a tortuous course, was descending the declivity of the mountain. This stream has continued its course, varying in breadth according to the accidents of the ground, and seems now to direct itself to a point between Portici and Torre del Greco, but much nearer the latter than the former. It approaches close to the scattered farmhouses which lie above the towns at the foot of the mountain, many of which it can scarcely fail to destroy. In the afternoons of Saturday and Sunday two other streams of lava broke out of the great basin, and are descending the mountains towards the neighbourhood of Portici. These streams seem to follow the direction of ravines, which run nearly parallel to the ridge on which the Observatory and the Hermitage stand. These buildings have been hitherto saved from submersion by the lava by their great elevation, the fluid naturally following the direction of the lower ground at either side of them. Last night the spectacle was peculiarly grand and imposing. The lava was poured in increased quantity along each of the streams already esta blished, and being in a high state of incandesence, presented a peculiarly splendid appearance. At about 8 o'clock an immense torrent of lava broke over the ridge which confines the basin of craters, in the direction of the Somma ; it flowed down the declivity of the Somma as an immense torrent of liquid fire, and with such extraordinary rapidity that in less than an hour it had descended through a considerable portion of the mountain. Its progress was then retarded, partly by the dimi nished steepness of the ground, and partly by transverse ravines which must be filled before the fluid can advance. Nothing could exceed the splendour of this torrent of liquid fire, forming the fourth principal stream of lava ; but the most ex traordinary burst of splendour which has been pre sented since the commencement of the eruption took place soon after 9 o'clock, when all the mouths seemed to be simultaneously called into violent action, and to vomit forth such torrents of lava that the entire mountain seemed one blaze of fire ; the varied colours produced in different parts, owing probably in part to reflection, presented a beautiful and st r iki ng a p pearance . Th e l ur id ligbt diffused from this enormous burning mass rendered visible the subjacent country, the towns,-the coast, and the bay. On each night several thousands of persons of all ranks, from the peer to the peasant, urged by cu riosity, repair to the scene of this extraordinary spectacle. The darkness being complete, and the route in many parts difficult, each party is fur nished with a torch, and the view of these hun dreds of tc robes flitting about between the streams of lava is most curious, presenting the appeararloe' of multitudes of fireflies. . The Hermitage, which is close to theireat bag°, - of craters and rivers of lava, is approached by tolerably good carriage road, and, asiniy be sup' posed, hundreds of vehicles of every descriptions. from the caleche of the millionnaire to the humble' coricolo, are collected there towards midnight' Donkey parties abound, of which ladies do not fear to form a part. JUNE 1. he eruption is splendid ! There are three streams of lava, which begin just between Vesuviu s and Somma ; we went as near as possible ; We climbed to the top of a ridge of lava which b begun to cool, but it required all the carefulness 0 ' our guides to prevent our burning our feet off. ° l3 our way down we went to the top of the Observe,' tory, whence the view of the lava was splendid ; the middle was flowing as fast as water ; there wa s a rayed reflection in the smoke which was just like the Aurora Borealis in Scotland. The eruptio n began last Wednesday night ; the lava begins wher e it did in 1855. There were thousands of peopleol! the mountain ; it was an extraordinary scene. the end of one of the streams of lava, that on Castellamare side of the Hermitage, there was ' ceremony, I suppose to stop the lava. There were a saint and some priests in attendance. Country Markets. LIVERPOOL, JUNE 8. - - There was a limited attendance of buyers this mornia►. and, as a c o n sequence, th e b us i ness was dull, and the w a ll ket closed a t a re d uc ti on f rom T uesday last of about 2d per bushel on wheat, 6d to is per barrel and sack on ft° ll % ld per bush e l on oa t s , 6d per l o ad on oa t mea l , 2d Per bushel on barley, and about 6d to is per qr on beans, W l4 and Indian corn. LEEDS, JUNE 8. We have good arrivals of wheat. The flour trade is very dull, and this, with the decline in London. cause s slow trade to-day ; there is, therefore, little inclination to press sales, and the business done is at about FridaY rates. Barley nominal. Oats, beans, and other articles as before. NORWICH CATTLE—Yu/0 5. We had a large show of Scots, short horns, and a leg Irish and Devons at market to-day. Trade slow. Fat beasts, 75 Od to 7s 63 ; prime, Ss Od per stone; be about same as last week. Sheep, 308 to 35s per head, Au r good store pigs, 15s to 20s. Fat pork, 6s to 6s 6d Pe stone of 141bs; trade dull. PROVISION Beef, per lb 61d to 7ii,d Mutton, per 1b.... 6d to 7d I Lamb, do., Os 8d to Os 9d Veal, per lb ... qd to Os 7d Pork, perlb...os 53d to 61c1 Salmon, per lb .........Os Oct Grouse, per brace.,...os to Os Tallow, p stone, Os to —s 03 MARKET. Butter, p pt. is 2d to 10 3 nA i Eggs, per 18, Os 0 1 to is 'P OI Hens, p p a i r Os Od to Oa n Chickens,do. 48 Od to 66 " j Ducks, do., 4s 6d to 6r g i Ducklings,do 25 Od to 25 Turkeys, each Os Od tot e,j Potatoes, per pt., •...3" "." BIRTHS. MAxwELL—On the sth inst., at Brighton, the wife of theM l Charles Maxwell, of Wyddiall, Reds, of a daughter. to OGILVIE — On the 6th inst., at 28, R egen t- squire , WC., wife of R. A. Ogilvie, Esq., of a son. ( 16. RUSSELL—On the 6th inst at Edinburgh, Lady Alexa n Russell, of a son. RODNEY—On the 7th inst., at Le Chateau de Zou efq l France, the wife of Captain Mortimer H. Rodney, R.N. of a daughter. MARRIAGES. n Baownow —BLAnum —On the 17th April, at Peshawur, •L' e- t r e Richmond Brownlow, Esq,, B en gal Artillery, to ja ile ' fourth daughter of Sir Thomas Blaikie, Knight, of A bet dew'. CAMPBELL —Boßoucui—Ou the Sth inst ,at S. Georg e e , Sig over-square, George Campbell, Esq . , only broth er of Archibald Campbell, Bart., of Garseube,. D um bartoe s g i t i : to Margaret, the e ld e st daughter of Sir Edward Borou Bart. BOWER — On the sth inst., at Southborough, D EAT vox Tunhii (l g 3. wells, Mrs. Sarah Ann Bower, aged 60. r elict Evans--On the 2d inst., at Salisbury, Mrs. M Hereford; Evans,Are, of thellate John Evans, Esq., of the Byletts, " aged 97. 010 1. GREGORY —On the Bth inst., at 25, Theberton-street. -IrArd square, Islington, Samuel Gregory, Esq., of the '— Mayor's Court Office, Old Jewry, aged 56. ri nelli I POWELL—On the sth inst., at Burlington, near Bath, me- Walter Powell, R.M., aged 78. -..../-1 L,ompoic : Printed and Published by of No. 11 2 , Strand , Printer, at The Sun 0 ee 7 g Y -0 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the c °ll°° of hficidiesea, Wednesday, June 9, 1858. ..._,_:__ C' v e Ej, AINS Circ s ., achni tel baw d , Aur nera e( urnor ~, inck, EVI ] At Sr i The 1 , Stalls nreser Acre. k T. P `- 7 11' it Three 13 eScriph 'avenue DR • 3, LECTIII quArtei D it• KAI NOTI kid 4 ME Itre 141 k o _as fol 1, DA Ado y, —4ote ornbe. etually. New sub Mr. Mire noctety) su Air. Rare 17 th, 19th, „, The subs( ulthleas for rarther h A ~4P l2 Plicati ce . AdPlyr E Num Jte eur _ beh,.7prit ACOI] .O °Tl CE CE VE p oiic t haae ali ne 414 4104Z' Total • Claim 4 innul 4e 41i i: 4 3' ll4cn at 3l ; C 0 — P 4 nY. 7, hsb 7 isB37._ 11TER 8 8 Pei t , en and ettr,,• — , s _ e e Of as/ ~."a" Witt the '"`,, Premi 8 f "eath be TRE —werei 1 VIVOI tb.Tn EOM) envi 4 0 ,.." 1 el Kir ..r1 Enlot rat" . , 'bailor V 4 Ellin &So ft , —3 . Ong of 1 olt".4llll44l::e4"see'4B"esteltrilas k ith . z otial i ll- h bfit ; i4; :iii i itr 44l : Peer of in : ll th e 04 rec 0 uttp i titit tl , e tt4:: °l titol t s p e 41 43 ,111 ( 7n, e 4,1 b e mes-day t. h._ ttlttlgati 4 ki, 7:theevil • Ne e ,„" sei dyy tibi — L 4 t to 4 ' ll / ke d l llC l 11: -.1, 4su r ,P an y 1 4 4quare: ttltt g ,llt nu t Q 01 % 4 ea l ' 0 ,, tor oft .44 o, et:l, W. E Mess N_ Grac T eke 'guar tons !very adoih th, Cram, 11'04 1 t