The Sun. — London, England, 1859-04-13 00:00:00

the n(txt four-and-twenty hours whether he could cr could not comply with the suggestion which ac l k h th ad m m e ad an e d . Sir, th e next day Sir Richard Dundee ca b the language which he held to thatme—andllamnugu stargeme,arheihtheladt it was :not the first time that he held similar language to me on a similar o c casion several months ago—the language which Sir Richard °eDundas used was this —that on reflection he was not willin g to endeavour to enter parliament for either of the a ate which I had mentioned to him, but he recognised bro adly a and distinctly the public necessity which exist e d for one o . r more of the naval members of the Board of Admiralty. g a seat in the house. In deed, he said more ; he said he felt that he had no right to Commons, decline to be in the House of and to stand in the way of meeting the necessity which he dist inctly admitted; that we ought to have naval members of the board in this house, an d that he begged . I would not allow any feelings for him to prevent my filling up the bo ard with naval offi cersho would come into parliament , and that rather th an a w ho eany embarrassment or any difficulty to the Govern ment, he would place his seat entirely at my disposal. (Hear, hear.) Well, so strongly did I feel the public ne cessity of having a naval member of the board in this houie that although I arrived at the conclusion that I did with very great regret on personal grounds, yet it was my inten tion to avail myself of the offer made in so handsome a manner by Sir Richard Dundee, and to accept his resignation, with a view of putting some other person in his place. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Well, sir, a few days ago, circumstances of a public nature, into which I de not feel at liberty to en ter, which were wholly unconnected with anything like party politics, wholly unconnected with election matters, circum stances I say occurred within the last few days which made me feel very strongly that it was not desirable at that moment for the board to lose the services of so distinguished an officer as Sir Richard Dundas. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that these circumstances had no thi ng t o d o w ith p ar t y politics , and had nothing to do with electioneering. I submitted these views to Sir Richard Dundee, and expressed to him my wish not to avail myself of the offer he had made, but to retain his services at the board. (Hear, hear.) To that representation Sir Richard Dundee acceded, and he does remain at the naval board. (Cheers.) With reference to Sir Richard Dundas, I only wish to add—and I add it because it is due to my own feelings to do so—that throughout these communications the conduct of Sir Richard Dundas was marked by that zeal f or the public service, and by that high sense of personal honour, which always have distinguished, and which I am sure 'always will distinguish that gallan t officer— (cheers) —and I beg to add, further, that these communications did not interrupt for one single moment the friendly feeling with which I have had the pleasure of acting with Sir R. Dundee from the time when I first became connected with him at the Admiralty. (Hear) The right hon. gentleman asked me whether the vacancy caused by the resignation of Capt. Carnegie is filled, and if so, by whom. Sir, that seat is filled by Rear-Admiral Sir Henry Leeke. The right hon. gentlemen has brought forward what he seems to consider a very serious charge against Sir Henry Leeke. Indeed, he appears to consider it a charge against me, and he told me so on Saturday last. The charge is that Sir Henry Leeke told the electors of Devonport that if he were returned that place would have a share in the cadets and the per quisites now monopolised by Portsmouth. Now, in the first place, I do not understand what is meant by this mo nopoly of the cadets and the perquisites. The "monopoly of cadets" i s absolute nonsense ; and as to perquisites, I do not in the least know what the perquisites are. But, sir, it is a point for me to consider—and t his is a point on which I beg to give a broad, plain, distinct answer to the right hon. gentleman—that u p to the present moment I have not h a d one word of communication with Sir H. Leeke of any sort whatever. If Sir Henry Leeke promised cadetships which clearly he could not give, or promised per q uisites w hich, so far as I know, have no existence, all can say is, that such language was not authorised by me directly or indirectly. If Sir Henry Leeke has made any promises at Devonport of any sort whatever, I assure the hwith t ouse, upon ha (H mY honour, that I have had nothing to do ra. ear, hear.) Now, the next statement of the right hon. gentleman was that Sir Henry Leeke, find ing that he did not get on well at Devonport, had reported l iinself to the Fi rs t L ord and then gone on t o D over. N ow here again I beg to say that the right hon. gentleman is entirely misinformed. it does appear that Sir Henry Leeke has left Devonport and gone to Dover ; be I know no more w hy h e did so, or when d so, than the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) I did not know that he had done so until I heard lately, t. t° IV prise, that he was at Dover. (Opposition "" n gte sur r.) I assure the right hon. gentleman and the house that in transitu from Devonport to Dover Sir Henry Leeke did not report himself to the First Lord. (Hear) hear.) Sir, I now beg to refer to a statement which the right hon. gentleman has not inclueed in his question, but which has been circulated elsewhere. It has been stated that not only did I request Captain Carnegie and Sir Richard Dundee to endeavour to obtain seats in Parlia ment, and threaten them with expulsion from the board if they did dot comply, but I made a similar request, and uttered a threat to a third member of the board. (No, from Sir B. Hall.) I did not say that the right hon. gentleman had made that statement, but that it had been made. Now how I far attempted compulsion in the cases of Captain Carnegie and Admiral Dundee I have already explained ; and I beg to assure the house that there is no truth what ever in the rumours with regard to a third member of the ward. I had in fact no communication on this subject with a third member of the board, and none beyond what I have already stated. The right hon. gentleman having alluded to the intended resignation of Admiral Martin, I will briefly advert to that subject. Sir, it is true that Admiral Mart expressed an intention to resign his seat at the board but it is also true that that intention had nothing what ever to do with a seat in Parliament, or with anything con nected with a seat in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) His intention was founded solely on considerations of a personal nature, into which Ido not feel at liberty to enter. It is sufficient for me to say, that after a conversation which I .had with him, Admiral Martin revoked the intention which As had expressed. Sir, I have now answered the questions which the right hon. gentleman put to me with regard to the important matters to which he referred ; I have done so with entire sincerity, and without any re serve ; and havin g given this reply, I beg to add that I feel that I have done nothing of which I have reason to be ashamed, or which I need have any hesitation in avowing here or elsewhere in the most public manner. (Loud Mi nisterial cheers.) Admiral DUNCOMBE said, having been alluded to by the right hon. baronet, he wished to say a few words. It was perfectly true that when the present Government ac ceded to office, the right hon. baronet did him the honour, if an honour he might call it, to invite him to join the Board of Admiralty. He said, "If an honour he might call it," because, whether intentionally or not, the offer was made in such a way that he was quite precluded from ac cepting it. (Laughter.) If it had been made in such a raanner that he could have accepted it consistently with What was due to himself, he would have done so. What 'were the facts of the case ? In 1852, when he was at the Board of Admiralty for a short time, he consented to occupy What was usually termed in that house the post of civilian lord. Between that time and the early part of last year, When the Government acceded to office, he rose to a higher ;al* in the service, and he felt therefore that he could no longer accept a subordinate place at the board, or serve un der a junior officer. It was on that ground, and on that ground alone that he declined to accept the offer of his ht hon. friend, and he should never have breathed a syl lable on the subject if'the matter had not been alluded to as it had been. As regarded the report of the committee of 18,5 3, to which the right hon. baronet the member for Mary lebone had referred, he begged to say that what the com mittee condemned was not the conduct of the board gene t-411Y, but that of the then Secretary to the Admiralty, the late Mr. Stafford, who himself admitted that in his zeal he atePPed beyond the bounds of pru. Considering that that gentleman was now no more,dence it was, he thought, to be regretted that the matter had been referred to. (Hear.) r. B. OSBORNE said, considering that the First Lord of M the asa—_,,traity deevourin had shown such laudable assiduity in en , gto deprive him of his seat for Dover—(laughter) —he hoped he should be allowed to make a few observations. th e ni b ast say that it a pp e ared from the explanation which —Qu ' e had just heard, that, to adopt the language of the gallant admiralwho had • t spo ken, the sight hon. Bart. h a d ills "w•a- more zeal than prudence in meddling with elec eeneeri t wo matters. Now this question resolved itself into nee tZ a first, there was the private consideration con right nth the attack made upon Captain Carnegie by the side gentleman.; and next, there was the public con main ems tituted con of how long the Board of Admiralty was to re as it was then. With regard to the pri vate at cm, t aeh, Capt. hough he had but a slight acquaintance with ki — " e Pet he had su ffi cient acquaintance with him to Lew that whate ver that gallant officer undertook he was prepared to o. to ld the hou ee th at he right hon. gentleman having seats," w he offered Capt. Carnegie three "fairly eligible and to nam e 48 ) he, the three bound to continue his narrative, " fairly three seats which, in his opinion , were the First Lord t it (Opposition cheers Now he pu to of the Admiralty whe th er, when Capt. Car negie conset e d t o tak which was theught seat e his place at the board, the d before his eyes was f airl y eligible, and which was dang led gard to which 'there not that borough of Midhurst wit h re - (Hear, hear.) Moreov er, th at house 9 had been some discussion in • what c 'reover, he would ask the right hon. gen tlemanreason he had t Government boroug h ? t o suppose that Dover was a himself au nt (Laughter.) Perhaps he. could had lately given uthat question. The right hon. gentleman Dover to the brotteer appointment of inspector of packets at Raving or c apt. of an electioneering agent in that town. post to a gentle M'llwaine to retire, he had given his tor this reason that named Truscott ; and perhaps it was eligible." he th e a seat at Dover was " fairly Sir J. PA.RINGTON ' man. Whoever might be llshed to correct the hon. gentle he forced Capt. M'llw • 18 authority, it was not true that was understood). ' mit to retire. He was promoted (as Mr. B. OSBORNE said C plied for prom o ti on, nor did hea: • • M'llwaine never ap - he was informed, h e remonstrated wish it ; on th e contrary, as would leave Capt a i n C arnegie to against the change. He the right hon. gentleman, but he settle his difference with the first time that they had heard must say that that was revel ationsofpolitical jobbing from a First Lord such )—and'•r after those at the Admiralty—(hear, _ revelations it was impossible that 'alas it r a t h_ r . e _P arliament could allow the Admiralty to remain rightwn ( O pposition cheers.) On the eve ofwar—the a _tau gentleman darkly alluded to that subject—at a ;17437 orre:olie Government had just proclai med Channel uatra cting the navy the neces and strength th e to of 4. , e First Lord of the to di ...state Admiralty was so aPense with th e ul things in Europe that he was other member of hi s services of Admiral Dined read y contest-a seat in that boszd who did not choose aa, or of any ins there, the co iwna° ' to go and untry wr Whatever might be the feel remain constituted a s • —"" ut permit the Ad • it w t . Admiralty to the right hon. gentleros,„Thtlresent. (Cheers.) No , was the meaning of th; - ta "'u t _trected not to know what w Devonport with regard to the rm which had come from a-zeke. He had affected not tp7 m t ia es., made by Sir He nry monopoly of cadets, which was the what was meant by a confession that he want e d a dry le What 'al:Prising after his naval lord in that house, t o m attne ZrZ ) in the shape of a naval matters. (Oh, oh, from the lra - with regard to elt ia Now, it so happened that Si r H . Le benches.) at Devonport, who was a contractor fo r and he held out to the voter s th at if h e --' VckYard, cure his return for Devonport he would nid pro influence to induce the First Lord of the AdmiraltY n r o h a hi v e the naval examinations which are held at Portsmou th, exclusively at Devonport. That w as th e explana tion held what was said with respect to the cad e t s . A s to the Tble about the term " perquisites," however that house might be deceived by it, there was, he was sure, no man in Devonport who did not well understand what was meant by it. (Cheers.) It seemed that Sir Henry Leek() had left Devonport and gone to Dover. (Hear, hear.) He thought the hon. and gallant officer would not thank the right hon. gentle man for hav i ng given him that roving commission. He must a dd that in his opinion the country had some right to com plain that Sir H. Leeke, ha • been oh having previouslythe re tired h ad been placed on the active list at 70 years of tired list, proceeding was, hebelieved, unexampled. For ale. Such a w hat services w a s Sir H. Leeke rewarded in that manner ? Was it for what he had done at Devonport , o r for what he was expected to do a t Dover ? (Laughter.) He must say that whatever might have been the intention of the right attempted to impute dialiouourable hon. gentleman he had motives to Capt. Carnegie. (" No, no " from the ministerial benches.) The right hon.gentlemanhad not done so directly; he dealt in insinuation—hinted a fault. Leaving the hon. and gallant officer to state his difference with the right on. gen tleman he would now declare that he believed here was scarcely a man in that house or out of it wh ) would put any confidence in the Board of Admiralty a it was now constituted, and if the gallant admiral ta, member for Southwark would make a motion to inquire o the consti tion of that board, he (Slr. Osborne), who had always been opposed to such motions before—(derisive laughter from the Ministerial benches)—yes, he was opposed to them, be cause he believed the First Lords of the Admiralty did not dirty their hands with jobbery—he would give that motion his support. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I hope the house will not allow personal details, which are perhaps rather amusing, to divert its attention from a most impor tant principle in our parliamentary constitution. Ought the Board of Admiralty to be professionally represented in the house or not ? (Hear.) For my own part, I think it is due to the honour and to the influence of Parliament—and I am sure it is due to the Executive Government, from whatever party it may have been formed—that the Board of Admi ralty should be professionally represented in this house, as it has been for a long series of years. I can say from obser vation, during the existence of the present Government, that, notwithstanding all the assiduity and ability of my right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington), when questions relat ing to the administration and organisation of the navy have been under discussion, great inconvenience has often arisen for want of the presence of a naval member of the Board of Admiralty in this house. There are before us many per sons eminent for their professional abilities, connected with the naval service, and who are perhaps on account of such eminence members of this house ; all the naval measures of the Government are subject to their criticism ; and as a Board of Admiralty which is represented only by civilians cannot cope with such critics, erroneous notions are con veyed to the public mind. For more than twelve months we liave suffered for want of a professional representative of the Admiralty, and I do not think any one can be sur prised to find that the Government have taken the ear liest opportunity of remedying what they felt to be a grievance to themselves, and believed to be very injurious to the public interests. Long before the dissolution of Par liament was anticipated, her Majesty's Government bad this point under their consideration, and even endeavoured to find some opportunity of supplying the deficiency under which they have so much suffered. I‘l y right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has expressed his regret that what passed between himself and Captain Carnegie was not reduced to writing. Believing them both to be men of honour, I cannot say that I share in that regret—(hear, hear)—and I believe that when their statements come to be compared it will be found that there is no great difference between them. lam bound to say, having the honour of Captain Carnegie's acquaintance, it is by an accident com pletely in my power, il it were necessary, to substantiatethe statement of my right hon. friend. It so happens that soci ally, and not in any way connected with my official position, Captain Carnegie sought a conversation with me. He then expressed his extreme gratification in returning to public life, and told me he had accepted office with the distinct understanding of entering Parliament on the first opportu nity ; and he further stated that he looked forward with great interest to assisting me in the House of Commons, and to assisting the Board of Admiralty in those particular duties in which it required aid. (Cheers.) I had much conversation with Capt. Carnegie on that occasion, and every statement he made to me completely sanctioned the statement made by my right hon. friend, a statement which I do not think Captain Carnegie will question. I have thought it my duty to call the attention of the house to the very important principles at stake, that it might not be diverted from them by the lively comments of the hon. gentleman who still represents Dover. (Loud laughter.) Ido entreat the house, whatever may pass as to details on this discussion, I do entreat them not to be induced by party feeling to sanction the principle that it is not expedient for the public service that the Admiralty should be represented professionally here. I do not know anything which would do more to diminish the influence of the House of Commons in naval affairs. I hardlyknow what would have a greater tendency to establish an inefficient administration than a permanent board of naval officers. I am quite sure that the efficiency of that administration is best promoted by those changes which our constitutional forms promote, and that without those changes the Board of Admiralty would soon become in its practice much behind the spirit of the times. Sir, I trust the house will feel on reflection that my right hon. friend has only done his duty in endeavouring to place the administration of the Admi ralty on its proper basis. (Loud cheers) I will touch but slightly on the grievances of the hon. member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne). He wanted to know what ground we have for considering Dover a Government borough. We have no idea that Dover is a Government borough; we know that a Lord of the Admiralty taking his seat there would take an independent seat. We only think that there must be some sympathy between a port and a distinguished naval officer, as we know there have been sympathies before between Dover and a gentleman who was connected with the Admiralty. (Laughter and cheers.) Dover may be, and I believe is, completely independent; but Dover once elected a Secretary to the Admiralty—(cheers)—and, a for tiori, it is not impossible that it might elect a naval Lord of the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) I can add that I have a personal acquaintance with Sir Henry Leeke. I have always heard that he was a very distinguished man, and I must say that, having seen him, he did not give me the idea that he was of the age of 70. One thing must be admitted, that he showed great activity, for he seems to have been at Dover and Devonport on the same day. (Laughter and cheers.) I believe that in so doing Sir H. Leeke is only modelling his career on that of a more distinguished prede cessor. lam informed—perhaps not correctly, but certainly with as much correctness as has characterised many state ments to-night—that the hon. gentleman the present dis tinguished memberfor Dover did at the last election first appear for Devonport. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—I was asked to appear, but refused. (Laughter.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon. member must at least admit that there was some founda tion for my statement, which is perhaps more than can be said for many other statements made in the course of the present debate. (Cheers.) I will not attempt to say what may be the fate of the coming contest. I will only say that if Sir H. Leeke should, in a future Parliament, repre sent Dover, I hope that the hon. gentleman will find a seat elsewhere. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir G. GREY said the real question was whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was acting in accordance with his duty in placing one, two, or three seats before the naval lords, and insisting upon their sitting for the one or the other of them. But his reason for rising was to say a word or two for the gallant officer to whom allusion had been made. He had known Capt. Carnegie for very many years, and after the statement made by the right hon. gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that Capt. Carnegie had acted inconsistently with his engagement, he felt bound to say that he considered Capt. Carnegie as incapable of such a course as the right hon. gentleman himself. He had ex pected that the right hon. gentleman would have given a different explanation of the statement made by Sir J. Pak ington. He trusted that before this matter dropped the right hon. gentleman would give some further explanation in exculpation of Capt. Carnegie. Sir C. NAPIER wished to know whether Admiral Mar tin had left the Admiralty, and what was his reason for so doing. Lord C. HAMILTON would make one observation with reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) on the subject of Capt. M'llwaine. The hon. member said that the gallant captain was forced to give up his post at Dover. It so happened that his militia regiment was for some time quartered at Dover, and he then made the acquaintance of Capt. M•llwaine, and that gentleman pressed him again and again, as the greatest private favour, to write to his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to get him removed from Dover. (Loud cheers.) He stated that the peculiar softness and mildness of the climate did not agree with his wife's health —(hear, hear) —and he (Lord C. Hamiliton) understood that the gallant gentleman had previously made an appli cation to his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) on the subject. (Cheers.) Sir E. PERRY (who was received with loud cries of "oh") said that, in justice to his hon. friend the member for Dover—(oh, and laughter)—he would say that that which appeared to be a contradiction in the noble lord was not really so. (Laughter.) Captain M'llwaine had, as he (Sir E. Perry) was informed by connexions of his, complained that, being removed from Dover, he was put on the retired list. That was the real ground of the gallant gentleman's complaint. He (Sir E. Perry) would also refer to the man ner in which the boroughs to which the right hon. gentle men (Sir J. Pakington and Mr. Disraeli) opposite had alluded were treated. It certainly appeared to him that the Government had been pressing gentlemen to come forward for seats in that house, offering them the office of naval lord as a reward for their success. The house was aware of the conduct of Lord Derby's Government in 1852—conduct which he did hesitate to denounce as most flagrant. (Hear, hear.) There was then an abuse of patronage and power such as had not been for more than a hundred years before. The previous Whig Governments had succeeded in putting a stop to the corruption in the dockyards. (Oh, oh, and loud laughter.) But all that was altered by the Govern -1 ment of Lord Derby. On the present occasion the Govern ment seemed to be following a similar course. They found Sir H. Leeke, a junior lord of the Admiralty, going down to Devonport, and then stating as a reason for his election that he would exert himself to have the Government patronage removed from Portsmouth to that place. (Hear, hear.) He must say that the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty resembled more that of the Secretary to the Treasury or Government whip, than that of the first Minister for naval affairs. Colonel NORTH rose to confirm what had been stated by Lord C. Hamilton with regard to Captain M'llwaine. The hearsay statements of the last speaker were therefore at variance with the facts of the case. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE—I do not wish to go into what takes place within the walls of the Admiralty, but on the eve of a general election I will say a few words on the sub ject before us. I have always thought that the house was chosen for the purpose of representing the people. But now we are told that it is necessary that the Board of Admiralty should be represented, and that there are certain boroughs in the pocket of the Admiralty for that purpose. It has been represented that there should bea naval officer here to assist the First Lord of the Admiralty ' • would it not be a common • sense view of the question to have a naval officer for the First Lord of the Admiralty ? You would not then want a person to assist him. If you are to have a naval officer to assist, it would be better to have him seated ex officio. Here you are to represent the people. There is no reason, how ever, why there should not be a naval lord. The right hon. baronet might then go back to the quarter sessions which he adorned for so long a time. lam quite sure that he must know more of magisterial duties than he does of the navy. These are important times, and we ought to have at the head of the Admiralty a person conversant iwith naval affairs. I am quite sure, if the right hon. baronet does retire, that England will still remain, as she nowis, mistress of the ocean. Sir J. PAKINGTON—Perhaps the house will allow me a word in explanation with reference to what fell from a gallant admiral (Duncombe) a short time since. He referred to my having offered him a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I was never so astonished in my life as when I heard him say that I offered it on terms which made it impossible for him to accept it. I can only say I made that offer in terms which believed, and certainly meant to be, most friendly. Speak i‘lig from mere memory, I believe I used the expression that I ,-L hoped he would resume the seat which ho held under the thist of the Duke of Northumberland " alludes to el • laiitiuspe.ll suppose that my hon. and gallant friend must was not aware at the commencement that in that Administration he held the fifth seat, which is usually occu thet_n_istake to him. I suppose this is what my hon. friend vi b li ut an l . certainly thought that I had already ex- Plained h a d ZaTtiDU:N.ICOMBE, in. explanation, said that what case. H e h e ad nfr a om his right hon. friend correctly stated the fore never mad e Sir DE L. knowledge of the details time attributed the mistake to want of details of the Admiralty, and had there- E k7 l ,9implaint on the subject. inquired when th e re " (who was very indistinctly heard) femme h a d been Th „,,_ l) °, l t en the dockyards, to which re ference th e t a bl e . zr a a ni . f,evenm4fa since, would be placed ‘4 , um attentam. to the largo number of troops in India, and asked if it was in contemplation to send out any addition to tho artillet y there ? Lord STANLEY was rmderstoc tc say that the report in question had been some what dell Lyed, but would be laid on the table before the close of the :session. The noble lord intimated also that it wats not into nded to send any more artillery to Indla. After some further conversation the bill was read a second time EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This bill was read a sec and time. LIEN AND FREIGHT BILL. The house went into committee in order to pass a resolu tion upon which this bill might be framed. In committee, Lord LOVAINE explained that the law was at present in an unsatisfactory state as to the rights of shipowners. The object of the bill was to pass a general act which should give all the powers at pi sent conferred by local acts, without superseding the latter . It was not intended to pro ceed further than printing the during the present session. The resolution was agreed to, and the house resumed. ENDOWED SCHOOLS (No. 2) BILL. The order for the second n. ta ding of this bill was then dis charged, and the bill withdrawn. THE B ALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY, in ria ing to move for leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes of Pa rliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taker L by way of ballot, said that the first thing that would probt Lbly strike the house with re spect to his motion would be tL tat the present was rather ah inopportune time for bringing i t forward. The question had already been started on a previc ins night, and a partial divi sion had taken place, but no ar, gument had been used, nor if there had would it have been listened to at such a time. (Hear.) And yet the present appeared to him to be an extremely proper time for bringing - the question before the house, or rather, he should say, the country, which was so soon to be appealed to on the whole question of the franchise. Once before, and once only, had he stood in the same position as regarded this question as that in which he stood at the pre sent moment, and that was just previously to the election of 1852, when Parliament was about to be dissolved under cir cumstances similar to those which were now about to send them all back to their constituents. Then humbly and feebly, but zealously, did he lay before the house the state of things which would arise in consequence of the coming dissolution. He told them that the country was about to be plunged into a saturnalia, in which every vicious prin ciple would be encouraged, when intimidation would stalk and drunkenness would stagger through the land, and when in consequence the electors of the country would stand before the world as a set of debased and degraded voting machines, That prophecy of his was fully realised by the election that followed. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, so bad was the state of things in 1852, that even Lord Aber deen admitted that the condition of our electoral system was such as that no man could be enamoured of it. But exactly the same influences prevailed then which were threatened now. The two great factions of the State had had a dispute and a division which had terminated in favour of one of them. The objects of the assault had been Whitehall and Downing-street, and both attack and defence had exhibited extraordinary valour and perseverance, but the result must be a dis- solution of Parliament, and he asked the house whether that dissolution would not place the country in exactly the position which it held in the year 1852 ? The result of the election of 1852 was, that the house determined upon doing something, but was equally bent upon doing nothing effectually. They appointed a committee unfortunately the usual scapegoat in that house, and that committee investigated the corruption which had been made so manifest at the election. It finished with a report ; and, strange to say, that report was acted upon by the house. But how was it acted upon ? By the production of Corrupt Practices at Elections Prevention Act, which in his opinion should have been called the Corrupt Practices Encourage ment Act. Under that act, intended to prevent, but which really encouraged corrupt practices, they were now going to the eountry. Let them read the statement in the Times of that morning, that already £50,000 a day had begun to be spent on electioneering. (Hear, hear.) They should be told that the money would be spent honourably by the candi dates ; but would the people of England believe them ? Such was the state of things under which he was then ad dressing the house, and for the twelfth time, annually and successively was he there to urge upon the house the consi deration of the means by which alone they could hope to escape the giant evils of their electoral system. If they should not be able altogether to remove the stumbling block of bribery, they might at least alleviate the evils which were such a scandal and a disgrace to the electors. He congratulated such honourable friends of his as had always supported the ballot upon the position in which the question now stood. It had been demanded in the house and out of the house, and was that question of reform which above all others was most sought for by the people, and was more earnestly demanded by them than any other. He might refer to the gratifying fact that the majority had steadily increased year by year, until at the present moment there were 238 members who had recorded their votes in favour of the ballot during the present Parliament. In the elec tion which was approaching, he believed that the question would be urged upon every candidate, and therefore he trusted the house would bear with him while he endea voured to dispel certain delusions, and to correct certain fallacies which had been indulged in by those who opposed secret voting, and advocated the present system. He had before stated that the constituencies one and all cried out for the ballot, and he &pled he was not then over sanguine in expressing his earnest hope that many leading statesmen in that house who had hitherto turned their back upon it would at no distant period consent to become its advocates. (Hear.) When the question was first handed over to him by Sir Henry Ward, and for a long time after, it was treated with a sort of sneering contempt, and more espe cially by the Times newspaper. They were then told that the ballot came in with green peas and early gooseberries, but now they saw leading articles by the yard arguing seri ously against the proposed system, articles which were prin cipally remarkable for the violence of their tone and the weakness of their reasoning. 'What he complained of gentle men who opposed him was, that they wore a mask when arguing the question, that was to say they ostensibly op posed the ballot on grounds which were widely different from those which really influenced their conduct. The hon. member here quoted at some length one of the Times articles against the ballot, the purport of which was, that as lords, farmers, superior shopkeepers, and the clergy must always govern those they employed, the ballot would be liable to create differences between masters and men, and to originate conspiracies amongst the latter to oppose the wants, opinions, and wishes of their natural superiors. Here, then, he said, was the true cause of opposition stated, but was there any hon. member who would propound such arguments to the house. If this were sound constitutional doctrine, he wondered what the legislature of this country had been doing for so many years. They had been defining the duty of the electors to be to vote freely and indifferently, uninti midated and unpurchased ; and now they were suddenly told that they were so many cyphers, and must always look to their superiors to govern and direct them. This was a most despicable style of reasoning. There was nothing like it in fact except the passage in the " Tempest," in which twe drunken sailors were regulating the government of an island. Trinculo was to be the governor of the island, but Stephano was to be viceroy over him. In the same way it appeared the electors were to exercise the franchise, but the squires, and millowners, and shopkeepers, were to be vice roys over them. A newspaper might venture to propound such a doctrine, but it was language which should only be addressed to slaves, and no candidate would dare to pro pound it to a constituency of 100 members. (Hear, hear.) Having quoted and criticised cote of Mr. S. G. Osborne's letters, the hon. member contended that the arguments of the rev. writer against the ballot were unsound, and that it would be a protection and not an inconvenience to small tradesmen. Mr. Mill contended that open voting was ne cessary to contend against the excessive selfishness of the electors of 1838, but he (Mr. Berkeley) could tell Mr. Mill that secret voting was necessary to contend against the cor ruption practised by the candidates of the same period. He remembered Grote's committee on the malversation of the elective franchise thirty years ago, when bribery, treating, and intimidation were proved to prevail to a frightful ex tent. Then, again, at the election of 1837, when her Majes ty came to the throne, there were 120 election petitions, and so late as 1852 special legislative interference was found to be necessary. He need not go further than the Notting hamshire and Northamptonshire cases, in which the elec tors were driven by their landlords like sheep to the poll. And were they now to be told that the squirearchy and the nobilityhad become more pure and virtuous ? He contended he had made out a case whicfi completely upset that of Mr. Mill. A right hon. gentleman opposite, a friend of his, for whom he entertained great respect (Mr. Walpole), on a former occasion expressed an opinion that if the ballot were established personation and fraud would be perpetrated under the cover of secrecy, and that there would be no means of detection. He need scarcely, he was sure, reply to such a charge against the ballot, nor would he had it not been advanced by one he so highly respected. But really such an accusation was ridiculous. Under a system of secret voting, if proper securities were adopted—and he did not propose that the ballot should be adopted without such se curities—personation would be as easily detected as under open voting. They did not want to know for whom the man voted in order to detect personation. All that they re quired to know was that he did vote. If he presented him self at the polling place, and described himself as so and so of such a place, and desired to vote, where was the differ ence in the matter of detection between that and open voting ; and if the man passed himself off for somebody else, and voted as somebody else, what difficulty could there be of detecting or punishing him for the fraud afterwards ? He should say that the mode of proceeding should be that at the close of the election the ballot-box would be counted, and a return would be made ; and if the return were ob jected to, the record of the voter would be kept a certain time, to be forthcoming before an election committee, or other tribunal, for examination. It was very far from his intention to prevent an appeal in the event of a false elec tion, and, of course, in providing for the appeal, there must be the necessary machinery for bringing forward evidence. A great deal of froth had been poured forth about the ballot in Australia, without one tangible objection being advanced against the mode of voting there in operation. It had been said by one of the candidates at a late election there that secrecy was not effectually preserved by the mode in which the votes were taken. Now he (Mr. H. Berkeley) had a letter from Mr. Wilson, the proprietor of the Melbourne Arg us, which was the Times of Australia, contradicting this statement, and adding, that he was prepared to prove before any committee, or other tribunal of inquiry, that so far from the ballot having failed in Australia it had per fectly succeeded, that secrecy of voting was for all prac tical purposes secured, while bribery and corruption were practically put an end to, and that the introduction of the ballot in Australia was a brilliant success, which chal lenged comparison with any . political experiment of re cent times. On one occasion when he (Mr. H. Ber keley) brought this subject under the notice of the house, an hon. gentleman, the member for Salisbury, stated that the result of the ballot in Australia had been to introduce into the Assembly most improper persons, and that most blackguardly scenes were in consequence frequently enacted. there. Thisl statement had, it appeared, given umbrage on the other side of the water, especially as coming from a man who was stated to have been a suc cessful squatter, and Mr. Henry Downing, the mayor of THE' StEN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1859. Launceston, had written a letter stating that his attention had been called to the passage in the speech of Mr. Marsh, which he declared to be altogether unfounded. The latter gentleman stated that under the system of secret voting, now generally adopted throughout the colony, the best men were usually elected, and the people everywhere spoke with intense gratification of its working, asserting that no sys tem of voting was as satisfactory as the ballot. (Hear, hear.) These statements, he submitted, were conclusive in answer to the argument of want of success of the ballot in Australia. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, they had heard a great deal about the failure of the ballot in America. Let it be understood that the advocates of the ballot here had never put forward the American system as one which had their approbrtion. That system, though it was pos sible for a man to conceal his vote under it, was in reality one of open voting; and what he (Mr. Berkeley) and those who acted with him contended was, that no system would be satisfactory in this country which was not entirely secret. In America, in all those states where originally open voting was practised, they had come one by one to adopt the ballot, and now there were only two states which ad hered to open voting—viz., the slave states of Kentucky and Virginia, where at every election the most disgraceful scenes took place. The fact was that the ballot-box was the only security in America for those who advocated the abolition of slavery, while open voting was insisted upon by its advocates in order to intimidate those who were op posed to them. He had no expectation that any argument would have weight with the house, which was too hardened in its course for any influence to have effect upon it except the influence from out of doors. That influence, however, would be brought to bear upon them, and before long the people would demand, in a voice of thunder and as a right, that which they now solicited as a boon. It might be com plained that now, at the end of a Parliament, such a motion as he was submitting could have no particular effect, but it was precisely because they were approaching that grand national saturnalia which took place at every general elec tion, that he brought forward this motion and these state ments. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. V. SHELLEY, in seconding the motion, com plained of the course taken by Mr.Wyld in bringing forward this subject of the ballot on the night of the division on the Government Reform Bill, which he considered unfair to the hon. member for Bristol, and had therefore follo wed that hon. member out of the house to avoid voting. He was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a late oc casion, while recommending the adoption of voting papers, say that all parties were agreed that some means must be devised for doing away with the corrupt practices that took place at elections, and he hoped that as the object of this bill was to prevent such practices no objection would be offered to its being brought in and laid before the house and the country. In the rural districts, in which he passed the greater part of his life, he could assure the house that inti midation on the part of the landowners was a rife as ever. He believed that if secret voting were established, and every man could vote according to his conscience without fear of the consequences, the best man would invariably be re turned. As showing the extent to which the interference of landlords was carried, he referred to an advertisement in a country paper from a farmer for a farm of 2,50 acres, the ground of his requiring it being that he had received a letter from his landlord, a clergyman of Agar, in Essex, one passage in which was—" I hope in a few days to fix the time for coming to Maidstone to receive the rent. I hope you are a Conservative, as I am, and that you will give your vote for Sir W. Riddell. It is my opinion that landlord and tenant should always vote on the same side, and if we proceed to arrange for a new lease of the farm that will be a stipula tion." (Hear.) Now, he (Sir J. Shelley) could scarcely suppose that any man would contend that such a demand on the part of a landlord was justifiable, or that any landlord had a right to call upon his tenant to pay a second rent, in the shape of a vote. All that was now asked was leave to intro duce the bill, that it might be printed and laid before the public. (Divide, divide.) They had now for the first time a practical proposition presented to the house for doing awa3 - with corrupt practices at elections, and he could scarcely sup pose that any one would oppose its being introduced, so that its provisions might be seen and understood, and that the house and the country might judge how far the machinery proposed would be effectual for the purpose. With regard to bribery, perhaps the most effectual remedy was the widening of the constituencies, for it was obvious that it could not be so effectually perpetuated in large constituencies as in small ones. Upon the subject of voting papers, the noble lord (Stanley) two years ago, when the noble lord the member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) brought in a bill for taking votes by that system, said—" Inreference to this question of voting papers proposed by the noble lord, I think the evil will be increased in a greater degree. At present both par tie; ran a risk of being deceived ; but the proposition of th• noble lord would make them quite safe. The voter would receive his voting paper from the agent, together with a £5 note ; the note would be left, and the voting paper would be taken away signed." Now, under a system of secret voting no man would be such a fool as to lay down the £5 note, for he would have no security for the vote ; and as between landlord and tenant, master and servant, and customer and tradesman, it would render improper influence impossible. Mr. Secretary ESTCOURT could not suppose that the hon. gentlemen who had moved and seconded the motion anticipated much discussion on it at this period of the ses sion and of the Parliament. He should rather suppose that the two speeches they had heard were speeches that were intended to be spoken on the motion of the hon. member for Bodmin when many of the friends of the Ballot refused to enter into the discussion. But it appeared to him that the arguments of the hon. gentlemen were addressed not so much to the house generally as to two distinguished mem bers of it with whom, perhaps, he thought they would have some weight—he alluded to the noble lord the member for London and the right hon. baronet the member for Car lisle. The noble lord and the right hon. baronet were, he believed, the last two instances of individuals who had given their constituents reason to suppose that they were not quite so insensible to the arguments of the hon. member for Bristol as they had been in times past. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought he was justified in saying that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had intimated recently that something might possibly be gained by a further consideration of the subject of the Ballot ; and the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had referred to the question in such a manner as made it by no means surprising that the hon. gentleman should address his arguments to him. He could, besides, well understand the object of bringing the subject forward at the present moment. We were on the eve of a general election, and it was no doubt convenient for the hon. gentleman to avail himself of the means of making a fresh declaration in favour of a measure which he was aware was looked upon favourably by many people out of doors. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Estcourt) would, however, be abandoning his duty if he did not rise tc say that the Government were no parties to such a motion. They held the same opinion they had always ex pressed on the subject, and on the present occasion, as it had been a year ago, it would be his duty on the part of the Go vernment to say that their intention was to meet the motion with a direct negative. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Westminster asked the house to allow the bill to be brought in in order that its provisions might be seen and understood. But the ordinary course was for a member proposing to introduce a bill to make the house acquainted with its provisions in the speech in which he made the mo tion for bringing it in. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he should have been glad to learn from the hon. member for Bristol what the nature of the ballot was, and how he pro posed to put it in operation. The hon..member had spoken of an appeal from the decision at the hustings in a manner wholly inconsistent with his (Mr. Estcourt's) notions of vote by ballot, as if after a man had given his vote in that way it would be possible to ascertain for whom he had voted. But if by any means or before any tribunal that could be accomplished, he did not see how the hon. gentleman's system of the ballot differed very much from open voting. (Hear, hear.) It had been said by the opponents of the bal lot that they could not by secret voting prevent personation and fraud, and he would ask thehouse to consider whether supposing they could obtain what the hon. gentleman be lieved they could obtain—secret voting—they would not lose more than they gained ? He would bring under the no tice of the house two points as to what they would lose. They would lose mutual confidence, and they would lose that which, in the matter of voting for members of Parliament, ought to have greater weight with every man, the influence of experience and character. These two points of loss would he submitted, more than counterbalance any gain that could possibly arise from secret voting, even if it could be arrived at under any system. (Hear, hear.) The only instance in which he knew of vote by ballot being practised in this country was in the clubs. And why did it occur there ? Because the objection to the candidate then turned on a question of personal aversion, which had nothing to do with his qualifications. It was quite different in voting for members of Parliament, where qualification was everything. Entertaining as he did the same opinion as formerly on this subject, he should oppose the motion. Sir R. BETHELL said that during the last years he had given a silent vote on this question, and had never ven tured to address the house ; nor should he have ventured to do so now but for statements which had been made by many gentlemen to their constituents, which, as he conceived, con tained great errors and great fallacies. He apprehended that there could not be greater errors or greater fallacies than those which were brought forward on this question by his noble friend the member for London, and his noble friend the member for Tiverton. One of those fallacies was that it was contrary to the constitution of this country that there should be secret voting for members of Parliament, and that it was according to constitutional law that such voting should be open. He had been desirous of learning what was the authority for that proposition. He knew but two autho rities on the subject of voting at elections, and they were the declarations of two ancient acts of Parliament. The first was a provision in the statute Edward 111. c. 5, which de clared "that because elections should be free the king com mands that no man by force of arms, or malice, or menace, shall disturb any man in voting." The other was to be found in a statute of Henry IV., which declared "that the electors in full county (in plena comita) shall proceed to elections freely and indifferently." The obliga tions and the rights of electors were defined in these words; the right was that they should be allowed to give their votes freely, the obligation was that they should give them indif ferently. That was all that the law defined on the subject. Abundance of legislation had taken place in order to throw on the elector the obligation by means of which he was to obtain that freedom, but it was inadequate to obtain for the exercise of his right freely,what was declared bylaw to belong to him. If, then, the law was insufficient by direct enactment to obtain the exercise of all the obligations ofthe electors, it was incumbent on Parliament to consider whether there was not a mode of voting by which the exercise of those obligations could be carried into effect. That was a principle which had never been carried out, and Parliament was called on to carry out the principle of perfect freedom of election. What became, then, of the constitutional argument ? His noble friend the ° member for London, and his noble friend the member for Tiverton, had often told them that the consti tution was opposed to secret voting. He could meet that argument by a direct negative. The constitution required perfect freedom of election, and no positive enactment had secured that, and therefore the question was, what ought to be done to secure it ? He then came to another unstable argument, for he heard it stated again and again, that the elective franchise was a trust, and that the party on whom the trust was imposed had a public duty to per-Terra in the exercise of that trust, and that those who were interested in the trust had a right to know how it was exercised. That was substantially the argument, which was not, however, originally brought forward by the noble lord the member for London, but by no less a person thew Six Robert reel, There could be no greater error than to use legal terms, and to apply them to different subjects than those to which they properly belonged ; and Lord Mansfield was in the habit of warning reasoners of that kind that nothing so much mis leads as analogy. If the elector was a trustee, for whom was he trustee ? He supposed the answer would be, for the non-electors. (Hear.) Trustee for the non-electors I That was a very singular thing, for in law a man who was enti tled to the benefit of a trust had a beneficial trust, and if you made the electors the trustees for the non-electors, the ridiculous consequence would follow that the right was in the non-electors. (Hear.) Suppose that he (Sir R. Bethell) in the year 1810, had been an elector, and one of the trus tees of the non-electors, and among the whole crowd of non-electors, his " cesiui que trust," there was a great great cry of " No Popery," and he had voted in favour of Catholic Emancipation, would not that have been a breach of trust, and would not? the non-electors of 1810 have con sidered it a great breach of trust, and would he not probably have had his head broken and been carried home on a shut ter ? (Laughter.) He would have had a right to say to the noble lord, I meant to give a vote founded on an enlarged consideration of what I believed to be for the benefit of the country, and you would have me leave that alone, because it is a breach of trust, for which the non-electors according to your doctrine have a right to call me to account. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could be so absurd as to say that he who had exercised the franchise with a foresight and sagacity greater than that of those for whom, according to the doc trine of the noble lerd, he was a trustee, represented them instead of an enlightened constituency. If he bad voted in 1810 for Catholic emancipation, he would probably have been tarred and feathered, and put into the commination service—(laughter)—and yet the noble lord the member for London, and the noble lord the member for Tiverton, de dared the elective franchise was a trust, and for the due exercise of which the non-electors had a right to call an elector to account. There was a third argument, namely, that the ballot was cowardly and un-English, and they had heard the right hon. gentleman the late Home Secretary say that it was alien to and at variance with our institu tions. But what could degrade a man more than to place him in such a condition as that he was the slave to the opinions of another ? That was the case now. A right hon. gentleman opposite had used a phrase which would live, when he said that electors would go about with masks on their faces. He (Sir R. Bethell) said that that was their present condition, because you compelled tenants to put on masks and to come to the hustings as men bearing messages, and with commands laid upon them, and they went thither cursing the necessity, but obliged to submit. Did anything more degrade a man than making him into this species of slave ? If he was relieved from that condition would it tend to elevate the character of. the elector, and to place him in a situation of far greater self-respect than he now enjoyed, because of the existence at present of a sort of feudal tyranny ? that was a word which suggested the ground on which all the opposition to the ballot was founded, for that opposition had its origin in the existence of those old feudal principles which still adhered to the English character, and under the influence of which a man could not imagine that his tenants could have any opinions different to as own. It was remarked to him by a right hon. gentleman, who sat with him in a committee on a subject on which they would probably never have to deliberate again—the amendment of the oaths to be taken by Jews—that the old feudal spirit still clung to Englishmen without their being conscious of it. As the imperfection of the law to rescue electors from intimidation was confessed, he would urge the adoption of this, the only effectual mode of affirming the exercise of a great constitutional right. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL said—My hon. and learned friend has entered so deeply into the arguments which from time to time have been brought forward on this subject that I can not leave his remarks altogether unnoticed. My hon. and learned friend began by saying thatpublicity of voting cannot be constitutional, because of two ancient statutes, one of which declares that no one shall disturb by force of arms elec tors from voting, and the other that they shall vote freely and indifferently. That is no doubt the spirit of our law and our constitution. But those who framed those ancient statutes, though they would have created a system of secret voting yet they never did, but left it to the executive government to the law in force against those who disturbed the electors in the exercise of their right of voting. Nay, more; al though in 1780 and 1785 there was a considerable body of the people, and some of the best men in the kingdom who were great friends of Parliamentary Reform in this country, among whom were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, yet the only notice which was taken of secret voting is to be found in W3rvilr s papers, and an opinion is stated strongly against it. It was not until of late years that secret voting, which my hon. and learned friend thinks is a part of our constitution, was proposed, and I think now, as I thought then, that secret voting is not a part of our constitution. The argument used by my noble friend the member for Tiverton and myself is somewhat different to that which my hon. and learned friend stated that we have used. It was the second point which he noticed, viz., that publicity is the principle not only of our constitution, but of all our free institutions. It may be de sirable to create an anomaly in our system, but we know that all persons in this country charged with any duty have to perform it in public ; they have to state what they have done, and the reasons for their doing so. If a First Lord of the Admiralty deals with his junior lords inamanner which is thought to be exceptionable the matter is brought before the house—(hear, hear)—a statement is made and an an swer is given, and the next morning the whole people of the three kingdoms are able to judge who is in the right and who is in the wrong, and whether what the First Lord of the Admiralty has done is for the public welfare or injuri ous to it. (Hear, hear.) Will any one say that because the First Lord of the Admiralty is a high officer of State he is not to be questioned? No man would be able to stand up for five minutes for such a doctrine. So it is with the whole of the Government. When the Cabinet has made up its mind on a question it comes down to Parliament and states what it intends to do, and the whole public is enabled to jxdge whether they are right or wrong. So it is with the whole administration of justice. Whether it be the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, he states what is his opinion of the law, and on every trial, whether a person is accused of libel, or high treason, or any other offence, the proceedings are public to the world, and every one knows what are the arguments of the law officers of the Crown, what is the decision of the judge on the law, and what is the verdict of the jury ; and although these last do not state the reasons for their verdict, every one has the assurance that it is their unanimous opinion. So that the whole of our system of government in its every part has publicity as its inherent principle. lam not prepared to say that it may not be necessary that there should not be public vot ing at elections, all I say is that it is contrary to our usual practice, and to the usual mode of carrying on our affairs of state and our administration of justice. But then comes the question whether publicity is of use in giving votes on the election of members of Parliament. When I speak of the purity of public opinion, I do not think that it has ever been thoroughly weighed and considered what will be the effect of perfect secrecy in this respect. I agree that it is wrong in landlords to exercise their influence on their tenants, and in customers to exercise their influence on tradesmen. But there are other influences which may be at work, and which certainly would be at work if you en sured complete. secrecy in voting ; and I come now to the question which my hon. and learned friend argued as to the franchise being a trust. Ido not say that the trust of an elector is in perfect analogy with that which the law creates in a trustee, or that there is any body of persons which can be compared to a " cestui que trust," but I say the commu nity at large has an interest in the way in which votes are given in the election of members of Parliament and that whether electors or non-electors they have an interest in knowing how the votes are given which elect those persons who are to dispose of the welfare of the state. I have spoken of the influence exercised by landlords, and by cus tomers, but I remember that in 1831, speaking on this sub ject, I said we do not propose to deal with it in the Reform Bill, but when the ballot comes to be considered, it will be seen that while you prevent the exercise of bad influences, it will also he found that you interfere with good influences. lam still of that opinion. It may happen that in a con stituency there are 20 votes which may decide an election one way or the other, anu there may be a man who has those votes at his command, who has spoken loudly in favour of a candidate, and has been conspicuous as an adherent on his side ; but before the elec tion takes place he may find that he can make so good a bargain with the other side, which will result in ad vantage to himself and his friends, that he determines that he and his 19 friends shall go over to the side on behalf of whom he has not spoken, and in favour of whom he has not declared. When you come to the election, those who ex pected to get 220 votes only get 200, and the other side ob tain 220. What would be the state of things then under a system of secret voting ? Tinder a system of public voting, you know who has voted against the side to which they had professed to adhere, and if it appears that any advantage has been gained by them in consequence, these men will be held up to public reprobation. With regard to the modifi cation of my opinion on the subject of the ballot to which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Estcourt) referred, I can only say that I have so far modified my opinions that I do not think that, if secret voting was adopted, it would pro duce the serious consequences which I formerly believed it would. (Hear.) I will explain why I think so. I formerly argued that it would tend to introduce so much deceit, so much desire in men to deceive and to pretend to be what they were not, that it would have an injurious effect on the character of the English people. On further reflection, I do not believe that it would have that injurious effect. (Hear.) I believe the English character is such, and there is so much warmth and eagerness about elections, that every man will always allow his predilections to become so well known that every one will know which way he votes. I cannot concur in what was said 'by Mr. Sidney Smith in his pamphlet, that in order to conceal his vote every man will go to the wrong dinner, give the wrong toast, and sing the wrong song. (Hear, hear.) Ido not believe that any man will go through this process. I do not believe that a man on going to the poll will talk of Sir Thomas being an texcel lent man, deserving of support, and th at he intends a give a plumper for him, and then go to the p oll, and give k vote against the very person of whom he was . thus char sp acter ea - ing. Ido not believe that the effect on E n g lish will be so great as that. At the same time publicity ce is rt t a h in the a in rule of English society. (Hear , hear.) There are allured by b number of persons among electors who may be being told by their landlord s to vote a particularway_when they do not wish to do so , and that is no doubt a great hard ship. I believe, however, t hat that hardshi p is much less than it used to be, and that there does not e xist now , as my hon. and learned friend the member for Aylesbury says, a sort of feudal supremacy, and that landlords say to tenants, " Vote with me, or I will deprive you of your farms ;" but I believe that in most cases the opinions of landlords and tenants are the same, and therefore that they vote together. No doubt there are hardships on voters, especially at every general election, but comparing this with the advantages derived from publicity, I cannot but see how much has been gained for freedom by the system of men coming boldly for ward to support the principles they hold. (Hear, hear.) Men in other times have been imprisoned, and suffered for their principles in a way which is only to be compared to that which some of the subjects of the King of Naples have suffered. In later times men have eiposed themselves to trials for high treason for avowi ng principles like those which were prevalent at the French Revolution an d other doc trines. But I believe that freedom depeuds'on that determi nation to do what men think right, which was sI Iwn ou those trials, and in those declarations of independence of opinion. No one promo, except invoting, any principle but of publi. city in the conduct of our affairs ; but in that respect there is this anomaly and this departure from the general principle proposed. It will have no great effect, perhaps, but still I believe it will to a little extent weaken that self-assertion which is the main feature of the English character. Look at France; In that country they have had the ballot, and so far from its promoting freedom, it would seem that secret voting has made the voters timid, and inclined to follow any Government of the day, instead of each man's asserting his opinions manfully, as is done in this country. These are the views which induce me to oppose this motion. If at any other time a motion of this kind is carried, I do not believe that any great public injury will follow from it, for I believe that in this country the declaration of opinion is so much a habit, and our liberties are so well established, that no mere mechanical contrivance can prove injurious to them; but. I never heard of any case in which the ballot has done good, and I believe that the balance of evil is against it. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—My hon. and learned friend the member for Aylesbury has so pointedly referred to me, that I am sure the house will permit me to make a few remarks. In one maxim laid down by my hon. and learned friend I entirely concur, and his own speech is a remarkable illus tration of its truth. My learned friend said that there can be no more fruitful source of error than to take legal terms and misapply them. (Hear.) His whole speech was an illustration of this maxim, for there never was a greater tissue of fallacies than those uttered by my hon. and learned friend. He began by quoting a statute which was intended to apply; to persons preventing by force of arms electors going freely to the poll, and he applied it as if it was a law to prevent persons influencing voters. Why, it is quite plain that that statute is applicable to a different state of things to that to which the ballot is applicable. My hon. and learned friend went into a long and ingenious argument as to the meaning of the word " trust ;" and he was pleased to say that my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) and myself urged that the franchise was a trust held by electors for non-electors ; and he proved that it was not a trust in the Chancery sense of the word, and that my noble friend and I knew nothing of the word we were using. I still venture to submit, with deference to my hon. and learned friend, that the word trust, and trustees, have a legal meaning apart from that given to them by the Court of Chancery, and that a person may hold a trust for the benefit of the nation whisk does not come within the technical defini tion of my hon. and learned friend. (Hear, hear.) lam entirely opposed to the speech and opinions of my hon. and learned friend. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, Sir, I retain all the opinions I ever expressed on the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Bristol; in fact, I am more against his bill on the statement he has made this evening than ever before on any former occosion. (Hear, hear.) As far as one could understand the argument, before this the measure of secret voting was not to be absolutelyimperative, but we are now told it is to be a gagging bill, absolutely compulsory, no man is to tell how he has voted, he must -not say it to any other man, not even to hi s wife. (Hear, hear.) When he had voted he will be in the condition of the man described by the Roman poet : " Intus, lEstuat infelix quod Proxima nexiat uxor." If this bill passes everyman in England, Scotland, and Ire land will be prevented from stating how he has voted. I quite agree with my noble friend the member for the City, that this is a kind of tyranny the people of England will never submit to. The British nation will never submit to anything so unjust, so totally repugnant to the principles and spirit of the British constitution. But how is it to be enforced F How can we compel secret voting ? There is no use in a bill unless we impose some penalty. Does my hon. friend propose to impose fine and imprisonment onany man who tells how he votes ? Is it not perfectly ridiculous ? If that is to be the case we can never have a man boasting of his preference for one candidate or stating his objection to another, but that is impossible. You can never get men to be silent ; to say that a man should not tell his most inti mate friend, or even his wife—if this kind of secret voting was to be made compulsory, it would be a tyranny the people would not submit to. Why, it would make the elec tion like a Quakers' meeting. (Laughter.) There would be no speeches,. no canvassing, no meeting of friends—all must be done in sober sadness, solemn silence. Is it not ridiculous to suppose you can carry that into effect by any act of Parliament ? It is perfectly absurd. (Hear.) It is trifling with Parliament and the country to propose a law, which, in its very nature, was most unjust and totally re pugnant to the feelings of the people. ( Hear, hear.) We are told, indeed, it will enable a man to vote as he likes. I believe that in operation it would prove to be a most demo raising law. Instead of an act for the purity of elections it would be an act for the encouragement of fraud, falsehood, and corruption. It would be an encouragement to fraud. Make what machinery you wish it would be impossible to find any not liable to fraud.. Wherever vote by ballot exists fraud is perpetrated. I believe in France and Ame rice, and we know that it is so in. Australia. America used to be the ground on which 931 champions of the ballot set out their battle field, but that is now given up. In America there is no secret voting ; it is not pretended that there is Instead of secret voting, it is ticket voting. Men go up with their tickets stuck in their hats, and the only reason why their votes are taken by tickets, instead of verbally, is that, as the electors have to vote for a number of officers at a time, the ticket is found to be the most convenient mode. I say fraud will exist to a great extent. You cannot prevent collusion and fraud, by which an undue number of votes will be taken from one candidate and given to another. As to falsehood, does any man pretend to tell them it will not be a source of falsehood to a great extent. Let us assume the case of the landlord or the master manufacturer wanting to sway the votes of those holding under them or those em ployed by them, will those people be cheated by your veil ? The landlord or employer will go and say, " The election is coming, my candidate is a good man, I hope you will vote for him." The tenant or workman will say, " Things are altered, we now vote by ballot, I cannot promise. The reply will be, " But I beg you will, I know you are a man of your word, and that if you do promise, you will keep it." The same coercion that now exists (I believe it is much less than is alleged) will naturally be used for the purpose of extorting a promise. The man may refuse, and he will be subject to the same penalty as is now said to attach to a vote against the will of a landlord or employer. If the man gives the promise it leaves him more degraded—(hear, hear)—if he makes a promise knowing he will not keep it ; if he means to keep it he is equally deGTaded as if he voted. (Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, this measure would be demoralising in a greater degree than any abuses which now exist ; and they, I believe, are diminish ing every day: (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I say that secret voting is at variance, I will not say with the spirit of the British constitution, but with that practice on which our liberties rely, and of which publicity is an essential element. (Hear.) Whenever political functions are exercised it is essential to the working of our institutions that they should be exercised subject to the responsibility which attaches to them, and the opinion which the rest of the country may hold. If we withdraw political functions from publicity, we aim a fatal blow at the foundations of our liberties. It is really a play upon words to say that electors do not hold their votes in trust; if we were to have universal suffrage in the fullest sense of the term, so that every man, woman and child should have a vote, yet each of them would hold their vote in trust, and the vote ought to be public that the country might know how each of them performed their duty. It was a law of one of the Greek republics that when a civil contest arose no man should be permitted to remain neutral. The man is a traitor to his country who shrinks from mak ing.manifest the line of conduct he would pursue. The boldness and fearlessness with which men on great public occasions express their views on political questions is a part of the healthy spirit of the British constitution. Any measure which would tend to withdraw political feelings from their public expression, and which would make a man go up like a coward sneaking to the box, hardly daring to let it be seen which side his hand went, is a measure totally inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the British constitutiou. It is a mere delusion on the nation on the part of those who stand up and say that such a measure would secure the due working of our institutions. (Hear.) As to bribery, no man can tell me that secret voting would be a remedy against bribery. (Hear, hear.) • Suppose an e l ec tion agent were to go to a candidate, and tell him the chances were nearly balanced, that if certain men promised to vote for him, he would be elected, but they would not vote unless en certain . conditions. If these conditions were acted on and the candidate returned, would it not be much more difficult to detect bribery with secret voting than when every man's vote was known and the in fluences to which he was subjected ? I contend this measure does not deserve the support and approval of Parliament—(hear, hear)—and I was very glad to find a few days since, when the question was brought to a vote in one of the largest houses on record, there was such an im mense majority , against it. (Hear.) It is true my hon. friend the member for Bristol and one or two others of its most warm supporters withdrew, but to counterbalance that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the noble lord the member for King's Lynn, who, of course, would have voted against it—(hear, hear)—were also absent. If this measure is to be carried, and if electors are to be screened from any possible incon venience as a consequence of their votes, on what possible principle, on what possible analogy, will you refuse to ex tend the same protection to members of this house ? (Hear.) We stand to the country in a similar position. (Hear.) We arc just as liable to sustain personal inconvenience. eA member, for instance, who has spent a large sum f s m s o th i ari on his canvass 'Would suffer far greater pecuniary, lo which a tradesman in a country town. Every princip l e,s a That equally lead us to apply secret voting to elect'. (liea . r i:m h e e as ar u .) re r ha t equally to members of this house. being r e e x tr t o e gr nt es t s e io he would be a great misfortune. Instead of The hnieeaspraroceeeodfingprsoogfrtehasi; ihtouisseounseedrtaothaergroefat p secret nbe o fi f r e l t a t t e he years t debates h e y wer have e made be e n p m n a n d r e i e and a t h n e d n m t o h r e e divisions. I recollect the time when there was no published list of the division ; it was Mr. Horner who suggested that it was of great importance the country should know them. Now, indeed, the advocates of popular rights come and ask us to re-establish the principle of secrecy. They say, in deed, that now if a tradesman votes against the wishes of his chief customers, or if a tenant votes against his landlord, the tradesman loses his custom, and the tenant loses his farm. But what would be the consequence if this bill passed ? No man would employ a tradesman whose political opinions were not in accordance with his own ; and no man would take a tenant who was not of the same way of thinking as himself. The honourable member for Bristol referred to the case of a tenant who was turned out, but whose landlord advertised to recommend him to others ; but the only way he could get it was by having another tenant turned. out. The only result of this bill would be to substitute for one mode of coercion another still more odious. In a country town no gentleman would employ , a tradesman unless he knew him, and in the same way when a tenant wished to take a farm, the landlord would ask him whether he was a Whig or a Tory. We should have a most odious inquisition between tradesmen and their customers, between landlords and their tenants. To enforce this measure would require a tribunal totally inconsistent with the fundamental prin ciples of the British constitution. The hon. member for Westminster hrs said ho will consent to bringing in the bill that he may judge of its details and its machinery ; my to objections are not its details, but to its principle, and I shall cer t a i n ly back up the Government in their determina tion to oppose it. (Cheers.) Mr. MILLS ha d listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the noble lord, coming as it did from the leader of party many of the members of which were in favour of the amotion. He had also listened with very great satisfaction to the speech of the noble lord the member for the City, for h av ing perused with great care the passage in his address re ferring to secret voting, he felt considerable doubts as to whether the noble lord might not then, or at some future period, be found a supporter of the ballot. The speech, however, of the noble lord had left no doubt on the subject. This question had now been before the house twenty-four years, and had been discussed sixteen times:; it was there fore one less for debate than for division. (Hear, hear.) It was said this would be a complete corrupt practices preven tion act. lie would refer the house to what took place a Reigate last election, %Igo were Aye Liberal candidates, and a sort of preliminary ballot to select one. The late member for Lambeth, Mr. Wilkinson, an ardent supporter of the ballot, was one of the rejected, and he pu.blished an address declaring that the most unjust and wicked agencies had been used to tamper with the result. That showed what they might expect. He believed the proposition was a most plausible political imposture. (H e ar.) Mr. CONINGHAM could not allow the observation of the noble lord with regard to the late divil ion to pass unno ticed. He and other supporters of the balk , t had retired from the division because the question immediately before the house was the resolution of the noble lord tl ie member for the City, and they did not wish to encumber it with the ballot. He believed the ballot suffered from being brought forward as an isolated question ; it ought to be part of a great men sure of reform. It appear ed the Governme) it intended to give a strict negative to the question. The rigl it hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer held very different views, when in his address to the electors of M arylebone he ex pressed his conviction that it.was necessary to complete the machinery of the constitution by two measures, triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot. How could the right hon. gentleman reconcile those sentiments with the negative vote he was about to give ? Mr. BERKELEY, in reply, said he felt very much edified by the speeches of their two leaders on that side of the house. (Laughter.) For some time back they had looked in vain for any such unanimity, but now their leaders sat on a box, like the two Kings of Brentford, smelling at the same rose— (laughter)—although they disagreed on a most vital and important point with those who constituted their party. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to answer the audacious and flagrant speech of the noble lord. More audacious and flagrant rubbish he had never heard—(laughter)—nor de livered in a more jaunty manner. (Laughter.) The noble lord had attributed things to him he never said, about fines and imprisonment, and electors' wives. What he did say applied to the noble lord as well as anybody else ; he did not suppose the noble lord told everything he did to his wife. (A laugh.) The noble lord the member for the City had, as usual, got hold of the idea of a trust. If the electoral franchise were a trust they knew the condition that the elector should exer cise free and unfettered, according to his conscience. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had forgotten that this measure had passed the House of Commons in 1710, but was rejected in the Lords. He despaired of seeing hon. gentlemen on that side acting and holding together as a party until there was some unanimity amongst their leaders. (Hear.) The noble lord had referred to his absence from the recent division. The noble lord forgot that 140 members had abstained from voting. He would not attempt to answer the noble lord, who had gone off in his usual slight and jaunty manner, and having gained the cheers of hon. members on the other side of the house who were opposed to the bill sat down a perfect hero in his own estimation. (Laughter.) The house then divided— For the motion Against it Majority against The announcement was hailed with loud cheers from the Opposition side of the house. MANNING OF THE NAVY. Sir C. NAPIER said, in the present state of the house (there were not more than about 20 members present when the gallant admiral rose) he should not, as he had intended to do, bring the report of the Manning of the Navy Com mission before the house, but he would recommend the First Lord of the Admiralty to do all he could to make known to sailors what were his intentions relative to the manning of the navy. VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS FOR MISDE- MEANOUR. On the motion of Mr. MELLOR a bill for preventing vexa tious indictments in certain cases of misdemeanour was brought in and read a first time. The house adjourned at ten minutes to ten o'clock. COUNTRY MA.REBTS. LIVERPOOL-APIuL 12. We had a fair attendance this morning, and from the tone of Mark-lane we had anticipated an active market. To day's news, however, being more pacific, we hail nothing more than a fair consumptive business passing in wheat and flour at full prices. The finest qualities of yellow In than corn advanced ld to 2d per cental. Oats and oatmeal steady. Egyptian beans, peas, and barley had only retail buyers at former prices. LEEDS-APRIL 12. At this corn market to-day there was a very fair shelf of wheat, and the prices of all descriptions were at is per qr. advance on last week. A slow inquiry for barley, and prices as before. Beans, oats, and other articles without alteration. Averages for the week : Wheat 2,734 qrs., at 44s lid 8ar1ey......... 564 „ 363 9id Oats 135 „ 24s 10td Rye ~ Beans Peas Arrivals this week : Wheat 2,654 qrs. Oats Barley Beans • . 187 Peas Rapeseed — 772 . Linseed E ve; A l P a l rg iL e 9 ehow of ani" and there being a pcO r amount of business Wa ll , attendance orals, Our particularly market N o exhibited f O b - u W d y a oe y l frs C s : l h ats A hm o T a :a transacted, at prices for all breeds barely equal to those 01 last week- At the close a very large portion remained 1111 ' sold. Of fat beasts there was a large supply, and sales were dull at 7s 6d to 8s 6d per stone of 141bs, and all wer e not sold. Sheep—Fat sheep, 8s Od to Bs6d, prime lots 9s per stone. Pigs—Good store pigs, 25s to 30s per head. Fat poOr) 68 Od to 6s 6d, prime 7s per stone. The supply was large' COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—YESTERDAY. Amsterdam Ditto Rotterdam — 11 16 11 17 Antwerp Brussels — 25 15 25 20 Hamburgh 13 6 Paris Ditto Marseilles — 25 271 25 32 1 Frankfort on Maine — 117 1 118 Vienna Trieste Petersburgh — Madrid Cadiz —49 f L eg horn —29 771 29 I 25 321 25 37i Genoa — 401 Naples 121 1211 Palermo — 1211 121 Messina 521 62 Lisbon 63 0Nde00w1y0an0e.10............................ 60 d a ys at. 6 . 2:1 E.I. Co's ble. House bis. 6 04 ' . . Calcutta, Co.'s rupee 26 241 -- B o mbay ditto Madras ditto — 26 East India Company a Bills drawn, from the 18th 11 11 ' ° the 25th ult. _ _ Bengal £343 19 0 Madras 0 0 9 Bombay, . £343 19 0 Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard). per oz. £3 g, D Mexican Dollars " 0 0 ° Silver in Bars .(Standard) » LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL--APRIk 12. The market had a very firm appea rance all day, Pric,e6 closing at the highest. Midlands, 100; I—Blackburns , Eastern Counties, llt I —Chester and Holyheads. 491 . Sheffields 37.84 B—Cale d on i ans , 79 —Lancashre and York' shire, 92f3/ —London and North-Weste 9-16--Berwi r ns, 93t Rhnish, 5/ 41 clis.—Dovers, Northern, 45 cks, 90 r Bi r kenheads, 62 3 / 4 3—Leeds 45 3 / 4 . ----- MANcHESTER—APRIL 12. There was a fair business doing, and prices were proved, closing strong. North Staffords, 4 5-16 dis! Leeds, 03I—Dovers, 20I —Eastern Counties, lii—Grem Western of Canada, new, 6 d—Midlaids, 10017-Sheffield* 384 Trunks, 83/4. BIRMINGHAM—APRIL 12. mar Th ere was a dull business done to-day in this yet' Prices lower. In local stocks a fair business doing. LEEDS—APRIL 12. Leeds/ Londons, 93L.. Midlands, 1001 i—No rth Eas t er n, ....._ No. 1, 41 p--Bull and Selby Pure Ease, [ADVERTISEMENT. —Holloway's Pills.—Bilious AW E tions.—ln the spring and fall of the year nothing is OD; common, and few ailments more distressing, than the c1 . . 614 .,' of diseases dependent on disordered liver. The sensatgl of nausea, headache, listlessness, and loss of appetite wills once be recognized as the symptoms of liver affection which can only be relieved by regulating the action of organ. Holloway's Pills exercise a healthful influence o n the biliary secretion, known and appreciated througi l ra Great Britain and her colonies. These pills cure 0 every thi n g else fails. S ufferers for y ears from biliousneU sick headache, and liver complaints have been thorougil res t or ed by these pi lls tt. sound health and a good dige"' tion who previously had no enjoyment in life. BIRTHS. T. FOSTEB Ai .—On the 11th inst., at Sydenham, Kent , M rs ' W. Foster, of a son. " of u ammoND.—On the 11th inst., at Finchley, th e Wm. Hammond, Esq., solicitor, of a son. ° KELSALL.—On the 11th inst., at Dryburgh Abbey, til wife of H. Kelsall, jun., Esq., of a daughter. o r WEBB.—On the 12th inst., at 8, Chakot-terrace,it e g e tf park, the wife of F. C. Webb, Esq prematurely' daughter. MARRIAGES TAO BURT— GAMBIER.—On the 9th inst , atCheltenhar,, Joanna, youngest daughter of the late Captain .D.,,,„. c .al Burt, R.N., to George Powell Gambier, Esq., Engineer Department. ist BRAMBLEY-0' SHAUGIINESSY.—On the 21st 0 Febru..4 o , Roorkhee, N.W.P., Bengal, Alexander Howe Brain.:oo- Esq., to Sarah Mary, the daughter of Si r W. 41 0' Shaughnessy. Bendel' 01 DEATHS. BENTLEY East-side, —on :sidß t e h t e hn ll a th orineefint.: agedlkr l. J 63 ohn . Virra• O th n e t l h l e th B i th net. i 2 ns Birkett, Esq., aged 78. B 1 n it :E . — T. r 0 . — n Bu at Evertors, v a e t rte U tt, p;e r r an C o la is p i3 t ury on, , :: , aged 55. Gitoom.— ; On the 12th inst. at 21, Mornington-rosajr. gent's-park, Stephen Groom, Esq., late of the v , office. 3 .the prinrose, 109, eet.withou avhlzDcALP.—On the Bth inst., Mrs. Mary Ann Medc'": l '69. 1 0 LONDON : Printed a nd Published by MURDO YOV 01 of No. 112, Str and, printer, at The Sun Office' No' • Stztaxd, in t h e Precinct of the Sav o y , in tba coins Niddlese,,Wediieeday, April 18, 1869, r'.w :i.~;.