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

the next four-and-twenty hours w hether he could cr could not comply with the suggestion w hich I had made. Sir, the next day Sir Richard Dundas c am e back to me, and the language which he held to me--- and I must remark that it was not the first time that he held th a t language, he held similar language to me on a simil•o c Dungan ionse ed waa hn v us eralmon t ths i ago—the language Which Sir Ric hard —that on reflection he was not w ill ing to endeavour to enter parliament for either of the seats which distinctly the public I had mentioned to him, but ho recognised broadly and necessity which existed for one o r more of the naval members of the Board of Admiralty having a seat in the house. In deed, he said more -, he said he felt that he had no right to decline to be in the Hon: of ity Commons, and to stand m the way of meeting the necessity which he distinctly admitted ; that we ought to have naval members of the board in this house, and that he begged I would not allow . any feelings for him to prevent m y filling up the board with naval offi cers who would comeinto parliament ; and that rather than cause an y em barrassment or any difficulty to th e Govern meplace his seat entirely at m y di sposal. it, he w ould (Hear, hear.)_ , Well, so strongly did I f ee l the public ne cessity of having a naval member of the board in this house 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 Dundas, 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 mad e 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 nothing to do with_party politics, and had nothing to do with electioneering. I submitted these views to Sir Richard Dundas, 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 Dundas 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 for the public service, and by that high sense of personal honour, which always have distinguished, and which I am sure always will distinguish that gallant 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. Dundas 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, seat is filled by Rear-Admiral Sir Henry Leeke. Theright hon. gentleman has brought forward what he seems to consider a very serious charge against Sir Henry Leeke. Indeed, he appears to con s id er i t a charge against me, and he so on S a t ur d ay last. The charge is that Sir Hen told me ry Leeke told the ele c t ors of Devonport that if ha 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" is absolute nonsense ; and as to perquisites, I do not in the least know what the perquisites are. But, sir, it is a paint for me to consider—and this is a point on which I beg to give a broad, plain, distinct answer to the right hon. gentleman—that up to the present moment I have not had 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 perquisites which, so far as I know, have no existence, all I can say is, that such langguage was not authorised by me directly o r i n di rectly. If Sir Henry Leeke has made any promises at Devonport of any sort whatever, I assure the house, upon my honour, that I have had nothing to do with them. (Hear, 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 himself to the First Lord and then gone on to Dover. Now 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 but I gone to Dover; know no more why he did so, or when he did so, than the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) I did not know that he had done so until I heard lately, ta aught Yer. surprise, that he was at Dover, (Opposition , i 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. (I-rear, hear.) Sir, I now beg to refer to a statement which the right hon. un g entleman has not inclueed in his question, but Whi c h e_ _ s been circulated elsewhere. It has been stated that not o n ly did I request Captain Carneg i e and S i r Richard not 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 C,hed made that s t atement, b ut that it had been made. Now aw I f ar attempted compulsion in the cases of Captain Carnegie and Admiral Dundas I have already explained ; and I beg to as sure t h e h ouse t h at there i s no truth what hev eard er in the rumours with regard to a thi r d member of the . I had in fact no communication on this subject with B e e e third member of the board, and none beyond what I have aerearl, Y stated. The right hon. gentleman having alluded s ee, ene intended resignation of Admiral Martin, I will Maw advert to th a t su bj ec t. Si r . it i s t rue th a t Ad m i ra l elatein expressed an intention to resignhis seat atthe 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 na ture, into which I do 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 he 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 h e referred ; I have done so with entire sincerity, and without any re serve; and having given this reply, I beg to add that I feel that I have done nothing of which I have reason to be aehamed or which I need have any hesitation in avowing here or e lsewhere in the most public manner. (Loud Mi nisterial cheers.) the DUNCOMBE said, having been alluded to by l'ue right hon. baronet, he wished to say a few words. It /raB perfectly true that when the present Government ac- Ceded to offi ce, 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 Boa 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 manner that he could have accepted it c ons i s t en tly w ith W hat was due to himself, he would have done so. What were the facts of the case ? In 1852, when he was at the es i3 e s °ar s d °I Admiralty f or a s hort time, he c onsen t e d to occup y .-"' teas 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' and he felt therefore that he could no dl an teg k er in a t accept service r a viee subordinate place at the board, or serve un er a junior officer. It was on that ground, an d on th a t ground alone, that he declined to accept the offer of his lable o right oe. friend, and he should never have breathed a syl- n the subject if the matter had not been alluded to as it ae ll e ad , h een• As regarded the report of the committee of l i ebeee e l ad whieh the right hon. baronet the member for Mary referred, he begged to say that what the com mittee condemned was not the conduct of the board gene rail A , Y, but that o f the then Secretary to the Admiralty, the ate Mr• 'e Stafford, wh o hi mse lf admitted that in his zeal he t,3e at PPed beyond th e b ounds of prudence. Considering that gentleman was now no more, it was, he thought, to be regretted that the matter had been referred to. (Hear.) of Mr. B. n ti m A , .''SBORNE said, considering that the _First Lord -r------ralts , had shown such laudable assiduity in en esting to deri him of his seat for Dover—(laughter) e " A) P ed he sh o uld be allowed to make a few observations. Ile must say that it appeared from the explanation which the h eau ere ad just heard, that, to adopt the language of the right hon. bart. h e e b a ehown ad mi n cel who had just spoken, the . , ei eeee Q. ore zeal than prudence in meddling with elec temeepolle,:taatters. Now this question resolved itself . into netted wit h ' there was the private . consideration con rightattack mad hon. gentleman • e upon Captain Carnegie by the siderati mi a how 1 , a n d next, there was the public con main constitutedo the Board of Admiralty was t o re - Vete attack, although go ne t was then. With regar d t o th e pri- Capt. Ca rnegie he had but a slight acquaintance with know that wh a le n e e e h ad sufficient acquaintance with him to prepared to do. The 'hat gallant officer undertook he was house that he offered C ap t C ri ht the gentleman having told seats," w as , he th o u g ht u aPt. Carnegie three " fairly eligible and to name the 11; , bound to continue his narrative, " fairly eligible " (o ee Seats which, in his opinion, were the First Lord of the rdosition cheers.) Now he put it to negie coiasenthd tO take miralty whether when Capt. Car which was thought fairly 1118 place at the board, the seat before his eyes, wasnot Bard to which there had bee ug h and which was dangled borough of Midhurst with re (Hear, hear.) Moreover he some discussion in that house ? tleman what reason he had to ,e would ask the right hon. gen ., .Government leere ag h e suppose that Dover was a • himself answeethat ( Laughter. ) Perhaps he could had lately givtii the question. The right hon. gentleman Dover to the brother rintment of inspector of packets at ma,.11, electioneering agent in that town. Having forced. tapt. post to a waine to retire he had given his thatgentletaan,nearaed Truscott ; and, perhaps it was for this reason eligible." a thought a seat at Dever was "fairly Sir J. PAKlNGTONbewihisshedto correct th e h on. gentle man. Whoever Miht he forced C ap t . IVVl g lwaine to r eti re, He was pr omo t e d (as a u thority, it w as not true that was understood), Mr. B. OSBORNE said Catpain'iii:l'llevaine never ap plied for promotion, nor did he wis - o t n the contrary, as he was informed, he remonstrated agai' the change. He would leave Captain Carnegie th settle difference with the right hon. gentleman, but he must say that that was in a First Lord such the first time that they had heard fro ti of political jobbing at th hear),—.a/lekaftarer th ose revelations it il aMs Admiralty —(hear, as any it in vs tur ase P .- w ent could allow the Admiralty to remain kuPPesition cheers.) On the eve of a war --the right hon. ge,. darkly alluded to that subject —at time when th en}l7—.ernment had just proclaimed the neces sity of recoils tru th e e tinA r tshe navy and strengthening the ' Channel fleet— Lord of the Admiralty was so forgetful of the state of thin g s to dispense with the se re i al gs he Europe that he was read y contest member of hi s bo ar d — A dmiral Dundas, or of any y contest a seat in that house. who did not choose to go and nwothatever might be the feel ing there, the country wo u ld remain constituted as it was at tkaa affecte d Permit the A:dmiralty to the right hon. gentleman . present. (Cheers.) Now, was the meaning of the teleg ram , -- ee l eet, to know what meant by a Devonport with regard to the prorni ses —c e fled come fro m Leeks. He had affected not to kn ew „ta t tle by Sir Henry monopoly of cadets, which was the less w as re gard to confession that he wanted a . dry niir,ctsiii:ng after hi s h naval lord in that house, to instruct him e i E t halee of a naval matters. (Oh, oh, from the ministe Now, it so happened that Sir H. Leeke hal o s o ene e he l e•) at Devonport, who was a contractor for the d n oel re -- a -w e and he held out to the voters that if they wouhr e e 0 "" cure his return for Devonport he would use - his influence to induce the First Lord of the Admiralty to have the naval examinations which are held at Portsmouth, held exclusively at Devonport. That was the explanation of what was said with respect to the cadets. As to the quibble 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 Leeke had left Devonport and gone to Dover:.. (Hear, hear.) He thought th e h on. and gallant o ffi cer would not thank the right hon. gentl eman for given him .. that roving commission. H e must add that in having on the country had some right to corn s 2? plain that Sir lira o p ini on having previously been on the re tired list, had been placed on the active list at 70 years of . Such a proce edin g b unexampled. For age e was, h e believed, hlieved, what services Was Sir in H. Leeke rewarded in that manner ? Was it for what he had done at Devonport, or for what he was expected to do at Dover ? (Laughter.) He must say intention of the n h that whatever might have been the , g. . t liga. 8 41 0 1 0;w4 be had ftteiamPtOcl to iwrit. 4911°14ur'gge 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 hon. gen tleman he would now declare that he believed here was scarcely a man in that house or out of it who would put any confidence in the Board of Admiralty a it was now constituted, and if the gallant admiral the member for Southwark would make a motion to inquire in' o the consti tion of that boani, be*(ffr. - 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 amusi ng , t o *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 a n d t o the infld ence o f 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 witn 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 have 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. M 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, if it were necessary, to substantiate the 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 Secretaryl 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. I am 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 member for 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 _ _ 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 m 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 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 Wllwaine. The hearsay statements of the last speaker were therefore at variance with the facts of the case. Mr. T. S. D UNCOMBE—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 llas 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. I am 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 with naval affairs. I am quite sure, if the right hon. baronet does retire, that England will still remain, as she now is, 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 admi ra l (D uncom b e ) a s h ort time since. He referred lo v, m , y having off ere d hi m a sea t a t th e B oard of Admiralty. never so ast on i s h e d i n my lif e as w h en I heard him say a s that offered it on terms which made it impossible for him to accept it. I can only say I made that offer in terms which Admiralty I belie e d It is to thi i„ 7 , and certainly meant to be, most friendly. Speak ,, 17;t?l:re memory, I believe I used the expression that allude. b Administration t w e would resume the seat which he held under the :tainistration of the Duke of Northumberland." , _ m a j u st p a p k o ce s e e;h aia t my hon. and gallant friend must not aware at the commencement that in that eiihe held the fifth seat, which is usually occu piedalludes to ; 7,,, in . 1 7 . this is what my hon. friend plained the ~, y thought that I had already ex had just fallen from hi E i" Admiral DU.Ne 0-;)nqui-pin' case. He had at the t* -., in explanation, said that what right hon. friend correctly stated the com(tliti,:oint on the subject. knowledge of the d t time attributed the mistake to want of e a' l, of the Admiralty, and had there fore never made any inquired when the report on w t a ll verY Sir DE L. EVANS indistinctly heard) . dockyards, to which re qs since, would be placed Terence had been made some eve 01l thc tgle. He also called attention. to the large number 1 of troops in India, and asked if it was in contemplation to send out any addition to the artillery there ? Lord STANLEY was understood te say that the report in question had been somewhat delayed, but would be laid on the table before the close of the session. The noble lord intimated also that it was not intended to send any more artillery to India. After some further conversation the bill was read a second time. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This bill was read a second time. LIEN AND FREIGHT BILL. The house went into committee in order to pass a resoln- Uon 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 present conferred by local acts, without superseding the latter. It was not intended to pro ceed further than prmting the bill during the present session. The resolution was agreed to, and the house resumed. ENDOWED SCHOOLS (No. 2) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was then dis charged, and the bill withdrawn. THE' ! SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY - "EVENING, APRIL .:- 13, 18 i 9 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 a-ratification 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 pit 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 whidh 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 followed 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 250 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 away 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 ties ran a risk of being deceived; but the proposition of the 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. Varonet (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 to 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 1 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 losethat 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 H. 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 conzita) 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 mt. 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 ar 'P oument ? 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 o 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 ? Me 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 perform 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 argumemt, which was not, however, originally brought forward by the noble lord the member for London, but by no less a person than Sir Robert Peel. There could be no greater error than to us le legal terms, and ' to apply them to different subjects than th ose to which they properly belonged ; and Lord Mansfield w us in the habit of warning reasoners of that kind that nothing so much mis leads as analogy. If the elector was a t rustee, for whom was he trustee ? He supposed the answer would be, for the non-electors. (Hear.) Trustee for the no; 2 -electors ! That was a very singular thing, for in law a mein. who was enti tled to the benefit of a trust had a beneficia I trust, and if you made the electors the trustees for the n cm-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 Vie 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 lord, 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. gentlemau 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 his 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, be 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 that publicity of voting cannot be constitutional, because of two ancient statutes, one of which declares that no one shall disturb byforce 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 Wyvill'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 tothat 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 in amanner 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 judge 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 haian 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 be 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 ono way or the other, one 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.22stjo get 220 wvootmoy be ti f e et sta 2o t o e , o a f n t d h t in h g e s o t te n r side orba tain system of secret voting ? Under 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 excel lent man, deserving of support, and that he Wen& to give a plumper for him, and then go to the poll, and give a vote against the very person of whom he was thus speak ing. Ido not believe that the effect on English; character will be so great as that. At the same time publicity is the rule of English society. (Hear, hear . ) There are a certain number of persons among electors who may bp allured by being told by their landlords to vote in a p articular waysvhen they do not wish to do so, and that is no doubt_ a great hard ship. I believe, however , t hat that hardship is much less than it used to be, and that there does not exist 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 tarma but I believe that in m ost cases the opinions of landlords and tenants are the same, and therefore that theyvote at Query No doubt there a re hardshi p s on voters, especially general election, but comparing this with the advantages d er ived from publicity, I cannot but see how m uc h h as b een gainedfor freedom by the ayatern of men comi ng b o ld ly for ward to support the prineiplea they holds (par, lipart) Men in otheetimes have been imprisoned, a principles in a way which is only to be compared tocosiepate•ecidrtheir that which some of the subjects of the King of Naples have suffered. In later times men have exposed themselves to trials for high treason foravowing principles liko those which were prevalent at the FrePth Revolution, and ()the- doc trines. But I believe that freedom depends on that determi nation to do what men think right, which was shown on those trials, and in those declarations of independence of opinion. No one proposes, except iu voting, 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 bind 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 pointedlyreferred to me, that I am sure the house will permit mo 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 whioh 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 his wife. (Hear, hear) When he had voted he will be in the condition of the man described by the Roman poet : " Intus, /Estuat 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 ? 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. (H ear , h ear .) W e 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 ralising 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 all 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 conveni en t mo d e. I say raud 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 vo t e for him." The tenant or workman ill 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 degraded 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 p rac ti ce on w hi c h our liberties rely, and ofwhich 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 own 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 constitution, 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 election agent were t o 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 on 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 are just as liable to sustain personal inconvenience. A member, for instance, who has spent a large sum of money on his canvass would suffer far greater pecuniary loss than a tradesman in a country town. Every principle which should lead us to apply secret voting to elections applies equally to members of this house. (Hear, hear.) That would be a great misfortune. Instead of this measure being a measure of progress, it is one rather of retrogression. The proceedings of this house used to a great extent to be secret; of late years they have been made more and more public—first the debates were made public, and then the 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 an d ask us to re-establish the principle of secrecy. T hey say, in deed, that now if a tradesman votes against the wishes of his chief customers, or if a tenant votes again s t hi s landlord, the t ra d esm an 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 hi m 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 i n th e 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 he will consent to bringing in the bill that he may judge of its details and its machinery; my objections are Uot to its details, but to its principle, and I shall certainly back up the Government in their determina tion to oppose it. (Cheers , ) Mr. DRILLS b a d listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the noble lord, coming as it did from the leader of a party many of the members of which were in favour of the motion. He had-also-listened with very great satisfaction to the speech of the Wale lord the member for the City, for h av i ng perused with greatcare the passage i n hi s a dd ress efe rrin to secret voting, he felt consid era bl e d ou b ts as to rwhether 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. ;'(Leas., 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 electiou. There Were Ave Liberal eaudidates, 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 published 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. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGHAM could not allow the observation of the noble lord with regard to the late division to pass unno ticed. He and other supporters of the ballot had retired from the division because the question immediately before the house was the resolution of the noble lord the 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 mea sure of reform. It appeared the Government intended to give a strict negative to the question. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer held very different views, when in his address to the electors of Marylebone he ex pressed his conviction that it was necessary to complete the machinery of the constitution by two measure; 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 Br entford, 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 mariner. (Laughter.) The noble lord had attributed things to him he never said about fines and imprisonment, and electors' wives. Wh a t he did say applied to the noble lord aswell 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 thi s measure h a d 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 lO2 Majority against —3 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 Na v y 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. THE BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes of Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot, said that the first thing that would probably strike the house with re spect to his motion would be that the present was rather ah inopportune time for bringing it forward. The question had already been started on a previous night, and a partial divi sion had taken place, but no argument 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 inwhich 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 hoped 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 grin ' cipally remarkable for the violence of their tone and the 6 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 oae 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 nobility had become more pure and virtuous ? He contended he had made out a case which 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 opimon 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. I t 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 Argus, 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 th a t the result of th e ballot in Australia had been to introduce into the Assembly most improper persons, and that most blackguardly scenes were in consequence frequently enacted there. This 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 u suc cessful squatter, and Mr. Henry Downing, the mayor of COUNTRY MA.RILETS. LIVERPOOL-APRIL 12. We had a fair attendance tb is morning, and from the tone of Mark-lane we had anticipated an active mar"—et. To day's news, however, being more pacific, we had nothing more than a fair consumptive business passing in wheat and flour at full prices. The finest qualities of yellow In dian 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 show of wheat, and the prices of all descriptions were at is per qr. advanca 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 _l_r 8ar1ey......... 554 ~ 36s 9 0at5.......... 135 ~ 24s 10 d Rye.......... ~ —s Beans 7O ~ • 438 4/d Peas ....... .... .11 ~ 4ls Sid Arrivals this week : Wheat --- —..-- . 2,654 qrs. Oats Barley Beans .. 187 Peas Rapeseed — Linseed 772 NORWICH CATTLE--APUTL 9. Our market to-day exhibited a very large show of ani mals, particularly of shorthorns, and there being a poor attendance of buyers, a small amount of business was transacted, at prices for all breeds barely equal to those of last week. At the close a very large portion remained un 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 were not sold. Sheep—Fat sheep, 8s Od to Bs6d, prime lots 9s per stone. Pigs—Good store pigs, 25s to 30a_ per head. Fat pork, 6s Od to 6s 6d, prime 7s per stone. The supply was large. COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—.YESTERDAY. Amsterdam Ditto Rotterdam — 11 161 11 17 Antwerp Brussels --25 15 25 20 Hamburgh - 13 6 Paris Ditto Marseilles — 25 27} 25 321 Frankfort on Maine —117 k Vienna Trieste Petersburgh . 34 1 35*. Madrid Cadiz —49'• 49f 29 t 5 Leghorn — 29 771 25 Genoa — 4O 2,5 32k 371 1 Naples Palermo ... 121 121 — Messina l2l Lisbon— — 52 1 i 121 52 2 534 Oporto Rio Janeiro New York • • E.I. Co's bls. House bls. 130 d. Calcutta, CO.'s rupee 26 Bombay ditto 26k 224 Madras ditto 26 East India Company s Bills drawn, from the 18th ult. to the 25th ult. Bengal ___ __ , Madras Bombay,' £343 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £343 19 0 Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard) per oz. a 17 9 Mexican Dollars Silver in Bars (Standard) /) 0 0 0 LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL-Amu. 12. The market had a very firm appearance all day, prices closing at the highest. Midlands, 1001 I—Blackburn, 11 Eastern Counties 111 I—Chester and Holyheads. 49 50 Sheffields 3718—Caledonians, 79 1--Lancashre and York shire., 92/ ' 31—London and Nort h-Westerns, 93 4 1 I—Dutch Rhnish, 51 41 dis.—Dovers, 20 9-16—Berwicks, 90 Birkenheads, 621 3—Leeds N o rthern, 45 1. MANCHESTER —APRIL 12. There was a fair business doing, And prices were im proved, closing strong. North Staffords, 4 5-16 dis-- Leeds, 93I—Dovers, 204 —Eastern Counties, 11 _Great Western of Canada, ne w, 5 d—Mi dlands, 1001—Sheflieldot 381,--Trunks, Si. 13nonNaums—APRIL 12. There was a dull business done to-day in this market. Prices lower. In local stocks a fair business doing. LEEDS —APRIL 12: Londons,lands, 100 f f—North Eastern Leeds, No. 1, 4 a p--Hull and Selby Pure Ease, p. [ADVER TISEMENT.—HoIIoway's s.— ouS P.ll Affec tions.—, In the spring and fall of the year nothing is more common, and few ailments more distressing, than the class of diseases dependent on disordered liver. The sensation of nausea, headache, listlessness, and loss of appetite will at once be recognized as the symptoms of liver affections, which can only be relieved by regulating the action of that organ. Holloway's Pills exercise u healthful influence over the biliary secretion, known and appreciated throughout Great Britain and her colonies. These pills cure after everything else fails. Sufferers for years from biliousness , sick headache, and liver complaints have been thoroughlY restored by these pills tc, sound health and a good diger tion who previously had no enjoyment in life. BIRTHS. FOSTER.—On the 11th inst., at Sydenham, Kent, Mrs. I'. W. Foster, of a son. HAMMOND.—On the 11th inst., at Finchley, the wife O f Wm. Hammond, Esq., solicitor, of a son. KELSALL.—On the 11th inst., at Dryburgh Abbey, th e wife of H. Kelsall, jun., Esq., of a daughter. WEBB.—On the 12th inst., at 8 Chalcot-terrace,Regee7 park, the w if e o f F . C. Webb, Esq., prematurely, 01 a daughter. MARRIAGES BURT— GAMBIER.—On the 9th inst., at Cheltenham, Laur is , Joanna, youngest daught er o f th e late Captain Edwaru, Burt, R.N., t o G eorge P owe ll G am b ier, Esq., R O Y' Engineer Department. B RAMBLEY — O'SHAUGRNESSY.—On the 21st FebruarY, at Roorkhee, N.W.P., Bengal, Alexander Howe BratableY)_ Esq., to Sarah M ar y, th e d aughter of Sir W . Brook 0' Shaughnessy. DEATHS. BENTLEY.—On the 11th inst., Mr. John Win. Bentley, of 1, East-sid e , Bethnal-green, aged 63. BIRKETT.—On the Bth inst at Upper Clapton, J ohn Birkett, Esq., a ge d 78. " BURY. --On the . aged 55. 11th inst., at Eve r t on , Francis Bury, 13411 gent's-park, Stephen Groom,. Esq. , GROOM,--On the 12th inst. at at 21, Mornington-road, Re' office. - milt of MEDCALP.—On the Bth inst. Mrs. Mrs. Mary Ann Medl 9. the Primrose, late of the Wes' 109, Bishop'sgate-street-without, aged 6 LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county • kliddleeex,,Wedneeday, April 13, 109. i