The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-08 00:00:00

further condition, simply as payment for the single and i separate vote. If bribery be continued at all under the Ballot, it must at least be done in a roundabout and uncertain manner —by promising a certain present to every voter who may apply for it, since friends will riot be distinguishable from opponents, in the event of such or such a candidate being elected. Now, Sir, I confidently maintain that such collective bribery, in a consti_ tirency of tolerable magnitude, is not within the range of pos sibility : and even in a constituency of limited extent, it is a practice fraught with danger and difficulty—presenting much less temptation to the voter who receives, and a great increase of hazard to the candidate who pays. It is not too much to say, Sir, that the Ballot would at least restrain bribery within the narrowest limits, if it did not abolish the practice altogether. And where does the fault lie, Sir, if some rem nants of bribery should still re.nain alive, even under a secret suffrage ? Not in the inefficiency of the Ballot, but in the preposterous smallness of some of your constituencies. When gentlemen tell me that the Ballot will still leave a door open for bribery in the smaller constituencies, what does thstr argument prove ? It proves nothing at all against .1 the Ballot ; but it proves most forcibly, most conclusively, against constituencies of narrow extent. If you should find, after adopting the Ballot, that bribery still lingers among these narrow bodies, ycu can easily make your precautions complete by enlarging them. And I venture to promise that amongst a large constituency voting Ballot, the effective em ployment of bribery will be nothing short of an impossibility. I know it is contended, Sir, by imposing authorities, that the voter holds his franchise as a trust, and that for the due exercise of that trust he roust be held responsible to the public. Publicity of the suffrage, therefore, we arc told, is indispensably necessary as a means for making him respon sible. When Gentlemen speak of a due exercise of the franchise, I know not what else they can mean except the ex pression of a voter's sincere and conscientious opinion—the giving itig vote freely and indifferently, sine spe vel pretio. To make him responsible to the public, therefore, for the due exercise of his franchise, is, to make him responsible for voting in conformity with his own conscientious opinion, and not otherwise—it is to provide that be shall be perfectly se cure and unharmed if he gives a conscientious vote, and shall incur the evil, whatever it be, consequent on respon sibility, only in the event of giving an insincere vote. Im punity to the innocent voter—loss or sacrifice to the guilty voter and to him only—these are the two ends which publicity of suffrage must ensure, if it is to make the voter responsible for a due exercise of his franchise.—( Hear.) Now, Sir, let me ask, does publicity of suffrage ensure these ends, both of them, or either of them ? Does it procure impunity to the in nocent voter? Does it entail evil on the guilty voter, and on him only ? It does neither one nor the other: it is alto gether impotent for the purpose of making the voter responsi ble for a due exercise of his franchise. Its real effect is to counteract the purpose of responsibility, and to create a facti tious inducement against honest voting. It strews thorns in the path of the eonscientious elector, and drives the man of feeble virtue into dishonesty against his will. Sir, I have shown you that publicity of suffrage does not in point of fact serve to make the voter responsible for a due exercise of his fran chise. But Igo further, and I say that you cannot get any such responsibility, and you do not want it. The elective fran chise includes at once a right and a-duty—the right to express an opinion, coupled with the duty of expressing it sincerely and without reward. You may punish the voter for receiv ing or covenanting to receive any reward ; but you cannot carry responsibility any further ; you cannot make the elector responsible for voting ill. For where is the standard of voting ill ? Among Tories, to vote ill is to vote for a Whig or a Radical : among Whigs or Radicals, the reverse. " Ask, where's the north ? At York, 'tis on the Tweed ; In Scotland, at the Oreades ; and there At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where." The standard of good or bad voting is an elector's own bosom ; a right vote, to any run of any polities, is that which each of them thinks right—that which each delivers from his own un constrained free-will and sincere persuasion. Voting, Sir, is the business of the people directly and personally, not of agents delegated by the people. Each individual elector forms one component unit amongst the mighty mass required to deliver his own genuine opinion, in order that you may ar rive at a correct total. How does this consist with the pre tended necessity for responsibility ? Why am Ito be respon sible to my neighbour any more than he is to be responsible to me ? Am I bound to vote against my own conscience, because I may happen to differ with the majority of the public around me ? To acknowledge such a principle would be to annihilate the minority altogether, and to absorb them into the majority. It would be to frustrate the main object of the electoral process.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I repeat, Sir, that whether you look upon the franchise in its character of a right, or in its character of a duty—in both points of view the prime virtue of the elective system consists in collecting the opinion of electors with fidelity and independence ; and looking to this end, responsibility in the elector to any ex traneous authority is a hindrance, and not a help. I know, Sir, I shall be told that all this reasoning might be just, if 'every man in the community were a voter ;_ but there are a vast number of persons who are not allowed to vote at all ; and they (it is contended) would be deprived of all influence, and left without any security, if the qualified electors voted in secret. It is very true, Sir, that there are a large body among the population who are excluded from the franchise, and give me leave to ask how this happens ? On what grounds is their exclusion defended? With what argu ments should I be met, if instead of moving for the adop tion of the Ballot, I were now introducing a measure for making the right of suffrage universal? Why, Sir, I should be told that the great body of the poor were debarred by indigence and excessive toil from all capacity of forming a just opinion on public affairs. or of discriminating between one Member and another. I should be told that a large proportion of them entertained sentiments hostile to the principle of property, and thirsted for the forcible equaliza tion of possessions. I shouid be reminded, moreover, that the Reform Act had already enlarged the number of qualified voters to such an extent, as to make it certain that they could have no separate and sinister interest of their own, at variance with that of the entire community; and that these electors could not choose well for themselves without choosing well for their unrepresented brethren. Such, Sir, would be the points stated against me, if I were now advancing the pro position of universal suffrage. Ido not at all mean to adopt them as my arguments. I pronounce no opinion on the sub ject, because it is not now under discussion ; but I know that these are the grounds on which universal suffrage always is re sisted, and, I will add, the only grounds upon which, on prin ciple, it can be resisted. For if you once admit that the un represented classes are capable of that effort of judgment which is necessary for making a good choice of candidates, to exclude them from the elective franchise is a mere wanton insult. Now, Sir, assuming that upon these principles you are justified in disfranchising the non-electors, I affirm that all coercive interference on their part with the votes of electors can produce nothing but unmixed evil. They can not alter the choice of the electors for the better—if they interfere at all they must alter it for the worse. Do you really believe that the persons who stand without your elec toral circle are competent to control or amend the votes of those within it ? Then in common justice admit them within it at once ; for on that supposition they arc the superior party of the two. In short, Sir, by whatever line of argument you prove to me that the control of the non-electors over rhe votes of electors is good, by the same line of argument I en gage to prove to you that universal suffrage is still better. You show no cause against the Ballot, but you show much in favour of universal suffrage. Do not let us commit the flagrant inconsistency of maintaining that the unrepresented many arc at once capable and incapable—incapable of giving good votes themselves, but capable of causing good votes to be given by others--possessing no judgment of their own, but indispensably necessary for the purpose of dictating the votes of those who do possess judgment. Sir, I say that, to withhold the right of suffrage treat non-electors, and yet to invite them to exer cise coercive supervision over the votes of electors, is a pro ceeding as absurd and contradictory as it is mischievous. It the non-electors acted g enerally on your invitation, you would have practically the effects of universal suffrage, but brought about by the most violent and unwarrantable means.—( Hear.) We have heard much, Sir, lately about the tyranny of the majority, and most preposterously indeed the expression b4s been applied. But if there be any case conceivable in which the intervention of the majority deserves the name of tyranny, it is the case now before you—where the non-elec tors assume to themselves a power of dictation and coercion over the freedom of individual suffrage. I recognise no right in any majority to overrule the free expression of indi vidual conscience—hic ',turas oheneus esto-,it is the prin ciple of such compulsory interference which I am now com batting ; let it proceed from what quarter it may, from a single person or from a multitude, it is nothing better than tyranny. And those who invoke and legalise the controul of non-electors over the votes of doctors, build upon a foun dation alike unsound and unhallowed ; they appeal from the righteous independence of individual choice to the col lective violence of the majority.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I am as anxious as any man to uphold both the social con dition and the political guarantees of the unrepresented classes, and my own opinions (if this were a fit season for enforcing them) are favourable both to an extension of the suffrage to all householders, and to a better distribution of the constituencies. But I fearlessly contend that the un represented classes have nothing to lose, and much to gain, by ensuring that full protection and freedom which secrecy imparts to the elective franchise, even though they them selves aro not allowed to exercise it. It concerns them much that every qualified voter should be placed in circumstances the most favourable to an honest and conscientious use of his fran chise; it concerns them much that the poorer voters should not be degraded into a state of subserviency to the richer; it concerns them still more, that the basis of the franchise should be kept at least as wide as it is at present, and the number of qualified voters at leAst as great—for it is upon this that the coincidence of interest between the voters and the people at large altogether depends. Now, Sir, it is one of the capital charges which I advance against the present system of open voting, that it practically contracts the right of suffrage in a prodigious degree--that it annihilates the independent will of a vast proportion of the voters on the register—that out of a catalogue of eight hundred thousand ostensible voters, you find not above half that number exercising a real, effective, end un trammelled choice. Mischievous enough this is, Sir, in every respect ; but above all things it is mischievous, as it affects the comfort and security of the unrepresented classes. If the law ful extent of the suffrage as it now stands, is not more than suf ficient to assure the non-electors of perfect sympathy and iden tity of interest between the voters and the entire community, what does it become when the franchise is unlawfully contracted into still narrower limits? Adopt the Ballot, Sir, and you at least ensure that the extent of suffrage which the law allows shall be a reality and not a fiction : you impart an independent power of choice to every voter in the catalogue ; you practi cally enlarge the franchise compared with what it is at present, and you thus strengthen the union of feeling and interest be tween the electoral body and the people. Instead of depriving THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1837. adopted there with the view of protecting against intimidation, but to preserve the delicacies of that class of society.—( A laugh.) But if that Hon. Member 'Fed that argument to slim that it would put an cud to canvassing, there again the infe rence was wrong. He knew that there was a good deal of canvassing to get into clubs.—(Hear.) If there were the Ballot, then oral declarations would be required. If promises had been given, how could men recede from the performance of them ; and if they did do that, what would be their position , if asked how they had voted ?—( Ilear, hear.) If answers were refused, the man would destroy himself by such refusal.— ( [Lear.) lie was ready to do every thing possible to secure the independence of the voter ; but would the Ballot -secure it, and the party from subsequent inquiry as to how the vote was given ?—( Hear.) If they could imagine a state of society that was perfect, if that which was abstractedly per fect could be realised, then the Ballot could not be resisted, but would be an admirable and praiseworthy system, and one that ought to be adopted. Was that, however, their condi tion ? He could not support the Ballot until all other means should be tried. The common law and the statute law dig:. liked every thing like intimidation, acted accordingly, and set aside proceedings that resulted from intimidation ; he would, therefore, strengthen the statute law here. For the reasons he had endeavoured to express he must oppose the proposition now before the House. Mr. HALL should support the motion from the conviction that it was the only mode of remedying the evil sought to be corrected—that it was the only way of securing the voter un der all or any circumstances the means of giving his vote in dependently, and without the influence of threat. He expec ted that some plan would be devised, in consequence of the Report of the Intimidation Committee, fur anyone who looked through that Report must see the necessity of extensive protec tion, if they desired that all voters should be called to give free and unbiassed votes. In reply to the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury, he could say that when lie was going round to canvass the borough that he now represented, he was fre quently asked, " Well, bow do you get on ?" and " What chance of success have you ?" many adding - , " I can't vote for you, but I wish you success."—( Hear, hear.) Was that a healthy state for the elective franchise to be in 2—(Cheers.) And as to the wholesome influence of the landlords ; suppose a tenant was under a Radical landlord, and by him was desired to vote according to his bidding, and that he did so ; then that he became the tenant of a rabid Tory—( A laugh)—and by hi n was desired to vote according to Lis pleasure—what would b. 2 the state of the voter, and where was the wholesome in fluence of the landlords ?—( Hear.) A friend of his had can vassed for Westminster. When he began at the top of Regent street, lie was against the Ballot ; but lie became an advocate of the Ballot, and he avowed it, if honest, disinterested, and independent votes were required, before he had arrived at the end of Regent-street. He made that declaration on finding that the tradesmen, almost one and all, announced that they were so intimidated and coerced by their rich and powerful customers that few of them could vote as they pleased, ex cept at great peril.—( Hear.) Would the Ballot be of no use there? Would it not be of more use to them than to the humbler classes of society ? He had found the lowest class of voters by far the most independent.—( Hear.) The Ballot was required for other classes quite as much as for them.— ( Hear.) As to the answer to the illustration drawn regard ing the adoption of the Ballot by clubs, it was anything but satisfactory, clear, or conclusive.—( Hear.) With regard to the preservation of the delicacies of social society, were there no delicacies of political society that required to be protected? —( Hear.) They required quite equal protection. It might be defeated now—but he trusted that it would be brought for ward session after session until it triumphed, because he was sure that the Ballot only could give adequate remedy and pro tection.—( Hear.) Mr. JE PH SO N considered that the Ballot was the only security that could preserve the majority from the overwhelm , ing influence of the minority. Such was the state of public opinion, that he conceived, unless some more satisfactory mode of voting should be proposed, the House must give way, and come to universal suffrage or vote by Ballot, and he should giver the preference to vote by Ballot over universal suffrage. Mr. E LPH IN STONE said the question before the House was— in what way could the elective franchise be most purely exercised It was necessary as a means to effect this that they should remove the means of temptation from the elector on the one hand, and remove the opportunity to in timidate on the other hand ; so that he might safely do his duty by giving his vote according to his conscientious con viction. The Hon. Member here quoted the sentiments of an old English author who was favourable to vote by Ballot. In all the Institutions of the country, even in vestries, the sj.stem of the Ballot had been found to operate unexception ably.--( Hear, hear.) He did not see how the vote was to be protected under the present system of influence; unless he was allowed to do privately that which he could not do pub licly. The effect of the present system extended to. custom in trade, to tenantry, and all other relations in life. He was sure the country looked with the 'ureatest anxiety to the de cision of this question ; and that Hon. Members would be called upon to account for the votes they had given when they n cxt had occasion to meet their conesituents. _ _ Mr. VERNON SMITH said, when he gave his vote for the Reform Bill he did so for the purpose of forming entirely free constituencies, but not that a voter should be placed in a situa tion that he could not make up his mind on any political ques tion. He could see no analogy between the balloting used at clubs and that of the election of representatives. At clubs the black ball was introduced for the purpose of con cealing personal dislike, and to save the expression of sen timents that they might be ashamed to avow in public; but the same reason could not apply to the selection of a repre sentative. He would ask the Hon. Member for London in what way would he approach a subject which was new to him—would he not go to that person whom he had most con fidence in his knowledge of the subject ?—( Hear, hear)—but if they adopted vote by Ballot they would put a check to all discussion, and there would be no further extension of political information. He, for his own part, approved of the practice of canvassing, because it afforded the means for candidates to become acquainted with their constituents; but it would be necessary first completely to suffocate opinion, before they could make Ballot of any use. They could not be sure that, when the voter put his hand into the ballot-box, he was guided by a pure mind. What lie wanted was, to protect the public against the malignity of voters.—(Cheers from the Opposi tion.) He considered that public opinion was the best check against all the evils of human kind. There was a very grave question under the consideration of the House a few even ings ago, that had been adjourned for a week, for the pur pose of obtaining the opinions of their constituents. Now, he would ask how, if they adopted this silent system of vot ing, could they obtain the opinions of their constituents 1— ( Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume and others, and loud cheers from the Opposition.) Ho grounded his opposition to the Ballot on these reasons—namely, that it was defective in itself, and that it would check the progress of all political information. They had been doing every thing to make political knowledge shine more bright, and in steps the lion. Member for London with this motion to shut out all the light and leave us in darkness.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and dome laughter.) The last reason lie would state for his opposition was, that he did not think the Ballot would afford equal pro- tection to all classes of voters. It would be a greater protec tion to the rich than to the poor, because the actions of the poor were more open to the rich than the actions of the rich were open to the poor. Mr. BERNAL having never voted on this question, or publicly expressed his opinion on it in that House, was anx ious now to deliver it.—( Hear, hear.) Though he (Mr. Bernal) doubted that the proposed measure would prove thoroughly efficacious, yet as a representative of the people he felt himself bound to attend to the apprehensions enter tained by the majority of their constituents.—( Hear.) had never given a pledge as to the way in which he would vote, but he considered himself bound to take the course which he had stated he would.—( Hear, hear.) He was sur prised to hear the Hon. Member fur Shaftesbury say that they ought not to trust to the reports of intimidation which were circulated ; but did not every Hon. Member know that cases of intimidation existed, and that large numbers of voters were impeded in the exercise of their right by the fear of running counter to the solicitations or commands of °tilers ?—(Hear.) He would ask, was it decorous to see persons of property in large towns going about with the female members of their families to the shopkeepers, who were dependent on their customers for their existence, and threatening them with the loss of their custom if they presumed to vote against their wishes ?—( I fear, hear.) It was a practice consistent neither with moral nor political integrity.—( Hear.) He might be told that the Ballot would be of no cure for this, but the suf ferers from the evil were.the best judges of the matter; and if those entrusted with the franchise complained of the evils al- --- luded to, and the hardship they suffered in c , msequence if they demanded the ballot as a remedy, how could they bo refused ?—( Hear.) Let the experiment be tried, then, if so large a number of the conAituencies demand it. For his own part, he declared himself, though rather unwillingly, a convert to the ballot.---( Cheers.) Mr. BO RT H WICK said that the general voice of the country was not in favour of the Ballot, and the majority of his constituents cherished the privilege of voting openly. Dr. LLSIIINGTON said that the Hon. Member for Northampton professed himself an advocate of liberal opi nions, and was an opposer of the Ballot on the extraordinary and inexplicable ground, that it stopped the advance of libe ral opinions.—( Hear.) The reasons of his lion. Friend divided themselves into several heads ; his Hon. Friend had said that he was anxious to confer on voters the independent exercise of the elective franchise, and he would not take away from them the meana of forming just opinions. One of those means was discussion ; but would the Ballot deprive them of a these advantages?—( Cries of " Hear, he r.") H e (D r . Lushin.gton) advocated the Ballot, and why ? the vote of an individual could be obtained in three ways, by argument, in timidation, and bribery.—( Beer, hear.) If argum en t acre used, then the Ballot left the voter where he was, and if inti midation and bribery acre used, then the Ballot was a great m2ana of defence.—( Hear, hear.) Bribery had existed at all times in elections ; but should they not use the means of pre venting it ?—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had asked, that if the Ballot existed, how would they communicate with their constituents; but if he were elected without a contest, how would he collect their opinions ?—(llear.) When an indiyi heal once represented a constituency, he represented every individual of it, whether they were Whig, Tory, or Radical.—( hear.) All classes were dependent, as respected being influenced, except the man of property ; and should they not be protected ?—( Hear.) Public opinion was growing in favour of the Ballot day after day ; and if he was not mis_ taken, the Noble Lord the Home Secretary had said at the late election for Devon, that if similar pratioes were pttraued, the nation would be bound to demand the Ballot.---(Hear.) Let Hon. Gentlemen converse with their constituents where the populations amounted severally to 1,200 or 1,500, and where they were especially liable to intimidation, and they would find public opinion in favour of the Ballot. The lion. the non-electors of one fragment of security which they now enjoy, the ballot will give them the maximum of security which your present electoral system admits of. Sir, it is not a little singular that the same reasoners who affirm that publicity of suffrage is necessary for the protection of the unrepresented many, also contend that it is necessary for the purpose of at taching factitious dominion to the persons of the over-repro ;Tilted few. At one time you hear the Ballot assailed because it will extinguish the influence of wealth ; at another time, be cause it will extinguish the influence of disfranchised poverty. Now, Sir, how in the name of common consistency arc these two reasons to be both maintained together? Admit the one, and you at once disallow the other. Do you insist that the elector shall be responsible to the people at large? Then. at least you are bound to protect him against the tyranny of the great man in his neighbourhood. Is it your opinion, on the other hand, that the vote of the tenant ought to be made over for the purpose of swelling the consequence of his rich landlord? Then, refrain from teaching him that he is res ponsible to the people. The two arguments literally destroy one another.—( Hear, hear.) But, alas ! Sir, this responsi bility of the votenoto the people is never intended for anything raal and serious ; it is nothing better than a solemn fiction, dressed up to colour and disguise an unequal conflict between contending modes of intimidation—an alternation from one sort of tyranny to another.—( Hear.) Open voting does carry with it a certain measure of coercion occasionally exercised by clubs or combinations of the unrepresented many over the rotes of particular electors; and it is this which gentlemen are pleased to defend and extol, because it serves as a pre tence for upholding the greater and wider coercion on the part of the wealthy few.—( Hear.) You are desired by all means to admit occasional intimidation from the poor, because the same door serves to introduce the systema tic, the permanent, the all pervading intimidation of the rich. Let me beseech you, Sir, to look for one moment at the condition of the voter, and see what a business voting is thus reduced to. Coercion over the voter by the poor non voters—coercion over him by the rich—coercion by every one who has the power to coerce him—all is right, all is jus tified, on the principles which aro resorted to in opposing the Ballot. Coercion and counter-coercion are assumed to be the essential and tutelary sorces which keep the ekctors in their proper orbit. And all this while the professed purpose of the law is that electors shall deliver their suffrage freely and indifferently I—while the law punishes bath the giver and the receiver of a bribe, under pretence that the freedom of election is a sacred and a solemn thing I—(Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, on the reasonings of those who oppose the Ballot, everything like freedom or indifference of election is de nounced and set aside—it is not even tolerated as a contin gent good—it is banished as a positive mischief. One por tion of the electors are to be deprived of their freedom be cause it is necessary to maintain the coercive force of the unrepresented many. Another portion of them are to sur render their independent choice because the influence of property is to be preserved at all price, and because every rich man is entitled to confine within the sphere of his own attrac tion a troop of electoral satellites. And thus between them both, the real holder of the franchise is robbed of every thing like righteous liberty of conscience—he is degraded into the mere passive instrument of " pressure from without." Nor is this all ; for it happens often that the pressure from two op posing quarters is so violent that the elector knows not which he ought to obey, and, indeed, cannot steer clear of loss and inconvenience let him obey whichsoever he will. Sir, it seems to me that on this theory the elective franchise is little less than a curse to those who possess it ; they are forbidden to follow their own conscientious opinions, and they are left to enjoy neither the satisfaction of an independent judgment nor the undisturbed submission of a slave. Sir, I have maintained before, and I now maintain again, that the Ballot will not de prive a rich man of one grain of influence which he has a fair title to enjoy. The Ballot will not lessen in the remotest de gree the influence which he exercises, in sc far as it consists with the free agency and spontaneous obedience of those who look up to him ; and I cannot for an instant admit that be yond this limit he is entitled to one particle of influence.— (Hear.) I cannot for an instant admit that we are called upon to provide him with the means of constraint and compulsion, or even to tolerate him in the employment of them, if by the carelessness of the law he has been allowed to get them into his hands. I confess, Sir, I think it a valuable improvement that the influence of property at elections should be made to depend less upon its positive amount, and more upon the man ner in which it is expended. And I know no method so likely to induce men of property to turn their leisure to ge nerous and dignified purposes. I know no method so effectual to make them thirst for the esteem and respect of those around them, as by rendering that esteem the indispensable condition of their political influence. I have now, Sir, reviewed the principal objections usually urged against the Ballot, and when I consider how feeble and futile most of these objections are, I fool increased confidence in the justice of my cause—l feel increased assurance that the measure which I advocate must continue to grow in the favour and approbation of the people. In enforcing my proposition, I have laid no stress on mere party arguments, for the cause does not need them. It is indeed my conviction that the ballot will work favourably to liberal politics, because I believe that the real opinion of the people is on that side—l believe that truth and justice is on that side—( clear)—and sure I am, that whenever the opinion of the people is left to form and to express itself without re straint, truth and justice must in the long-run prevail.— (Hear, hear.) But whether the opinion of the people is for me or against me, I demand at least that it shall be fairly and freely taken—rejoicing when it proves to be in'my favour_ prepare to submit and to wait, if it be otherwise. And I feel that in advocating the Ballot, I am upholding nothing less than the sacred right of free judgment and free utterance in political matters—l am treading in the steps of those illustrious men who have rescued the individual conscience f. om its tram mels, and vindicated its liberty and inviolability in matters of religion—l am striving to baffle the guilty efforts of that spirit of persecution which still harasses the political world, and still defiles the sincerity and solemnity of the elective franchise. If, Sir, you can break the sword of the persecutor, and assure freedom of election, without the aid of the Ballot, proceed to the task without delay, for never was there a case uf more pressing necessity. But when it is notorious that this cannot be done, and when the alternative of the Ballot is ready within your reach, I beseech you to consider whether you can, with a safe conscience, license and perpetuate the countless mischiefs of an unprotected suffrage. The Hon. Gentleman concluded his speech, which was received throughout with great cheering, with moving for leave to bring in - a Bill accordingly. Mr. HODG ES said, after the able, argumentative, and convincing speech of his Hon. Friend—( Hear, hear)—per haps he should take the wisest course by merely saying that he seconded the motion ; but there were one or two points in the present situation of the nation which he could not but no tice, as forming an additional recommendation of the mea sure. It was very well known that the Reform Bill did not answer the expectations formed of it by the people, and the cause of that disappointment was the unsatisfactory state of the constituent body.—( Hear, hear.) It was impossible to shut their eves to the state of that House, and to the growing desire arising out of it for Universal Suffrage.—( Hear.) It could not be supposed that those who had not received the Ira chive could be satisfied with the present state of the law, which placed them in contact with the tremendous taxation of this conntry. He alluded to the New Poor Law Bill. That measure, combined with the education of the people which was in progress, would lead the great body of the people to think that they were not in the state that they ought to be in the community, and to seek the best means of improving their condition. When the immense taxation brought on by the French war was pressing on the community, Mr. Pitt saw the necessity of defending the labouring classes from its depressing effects; and in 1794 brought in Acts to defend the poor ; but by the New Poor-law the labouring classes were brought into constant contact with our tremendous taxation. Was it to be supposed that, with such means of information, they could not call for a change which it might become dangerous to refuse ? Why had the poor no confidence in the present state of the House? ,If, when the Reform Bill was passed, a provision had been made for the poor, they would then have trusted to that House, and not in vain, for protection; but he was sorry that what then took place had not gained the confidence of a large portion of the people. In former times causes were decided by large assemblies of the people; in our times causes were de cided by juries, an institution which the people would revere as long as England was on the earth. He would ask the House to give to the constituent body the same veneration as was given to the jury-box ; and then the representatives so elected would command the respect and veneration of the people, instead of being the objects of their distrust.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The course to be taken was plain. If they wished to amend the evils of the present mode of election, they must throw around the consti tuency the protection of the Ballot—( Hear)—then their deci sions would be received with the same respect as the verdicts of juries.—( Hear, hear.) At an election a tradesman had let loose on him a whole host of attorneys and agents; and as he went up to vote against the dictates of his judgment and conscience, he felt himself a self-degraded man; but put the same man in a jury -box, there lie was invulnerable ; no one attempted to influence his judgment or induce him to vio late his conscience, and he never felt himself, nor was thought by others, degraded by the exercise of his right in the dis charge of that important duty.—( Hear.) By granting the Ballot they would oppose an effectual barrier to the demand for universal suffrage, and they might safely enlarge the con stituent body, though to extend the suffrage at present would only add to their degradation, and increase the means of cor ruption.—(llear, hear.) Mr. POULTER said, the Legislature of the country having granted to a large body of people the elective fran chise, they were bound to secute to them the free exercise of that great political right.—( Hear, hear.) No Member of the House had a greater interest in the free exercise of that right; none had so little to offer to influence voters, or depended more on the honest feeling and real affection of electors.—( Hear, hear.) Few Members would more certainly support the mo tion of the Hon. Gentleman, if he had exhausted every other means of assuring protection to the exercise of the electOrs' right. What he complained of the Hon. Member for London was, that he endeavoured to make out a case in favour of the Ballot, without duly considering all the consequences. What the Hon. Gentleman said of letters written and sealed, did not support his argument ; no one could call on the persons to know the contents of such letters, and if the parties kept the secret in their own bosoms no one could know anything about it. The Hon. Gentleman appealed, as ou a former oc casion, to the Report of the Committee on threats and intimi dation ; but ho went much farther than the case would warrant. He considered the Report of the Intimidation Committee as a book of incontrovertible authority.—( No, no.) He had drawn such inference. He admitted that the book contained a valuable caseslunablebody of evid ence , an d warran t e d s t rong s uspicions in ;—(Hear)—but he must deny that the evidence in it was conclusive and consistent. As to the argument regard ing the adoption of the Ballot by clubs, he thought that an erroneous inference was drawn from it. That course was not and Learned Gentleman concluded by stating 11;5 firm convic tion that the Ballot was necessary.—( Cheers. ) Lord HO WICK was willing to admit there were great evils in the present system, and that it was desirable, if pos sible, to put a stop to them. He was as anxious on that head as the lion. Member for London ; but the question before the House—the real question for consideration—was, were the means proposed by the lion. Member calculated to obtain the object he wished for? He (Lord Howick) was of opinion that the motion if agreed to, would be attended with other consequences than those contemplated by the Hon. Member. lie did not deny that the vote by Ballot would be attended with some advantages, but he wished the House well to con sider the probable advantages and disadvantages likely to arise from the system, and make up their minds accordingly. If the subject under consideration were well and maturely weighed in all its bearings, he was of opinion that it would be round that the disadvantages preponderated.—( Hear, hear.) Neither was lie convinced of the necessity for trying the ex periment. In the first place, one of the greatest disadvantages which might be expected, and it was one to which the lion. Member for London had not alluded, but which had been men tioned in the House on former occasions,was the enormous power vote by Ballot would place in the hands of returning officers. If, as the law at present stood, a candidate was dissatisfied with the return made by that cog - leer—if it was considered that bad votes had been placed upon the poll—a Committee might be obtained, who had power to strike them off and decide which party was entitled to be placed in the House. Now, no such remedy could be applied by the Ballot. It would be impossible to know if votes were good or bad, and it often hap pened that an election was decided by half a dozen, or in many instances, by tw •or three votes. In such cases no re dress could be aforded—no redress was proposed by the mo tion of the Hon. Member. Cases would arise in which not the smallest doubt could possibly exist as to there being ficti tious votes ; but under the system proposed by his Hon. Friend the parties aggrieved could not go before a Commit tee and produce legal proof.—( Hear, hear.) What then would be the result? Whatever fictitious votes were received by the returning officer—however he might abuse his duty— there would be no possibility of producing legal proof to sa• tisfy a Committee in declaring any election null and void. lustice between parties could not he attained under such a system. It had been asked if the evils of the present system were imaginary—he did not say they were ; he admitted I that gross acts of partiality were carried on ; - but if such an enormous power as would be derived from the Ballot was placed in the hands of returning officers, would it not, to say the least, put an enormous temptation in their way? The Hon. Member anticipated many advantages by adopting the Ballot. In the first place, he said it would throw a great dif ficulty in the way of bribery, if not prevent it altogether.— ( Hear.) He (Lord Howick) thought different. Bribery would generally take place when the strength of rival parties was nearly exhausted, and then under circumstances the most pri vate it was possible for human ingenuity to devise; and, there- fore, as regarded the question of bribery, he differed entirely with the Hon. Member in supposing that vote by Ballot would stop it. He considered the Hon. Member had also much over rated other advantages which might be expected from the sys tem. The electors in a free country were entitled, and had a right to give their votes openly, to openly assert, and canvass ing openly to advance their political opinions, and by every means in their power openly to espouse the cause of that can didate whose political opinions they preferred. The Hon. Mem ber did not appear to see that it was of no use in protecting the vote alone. Political opinions must also be kept secret. He doubted whether the landlords possessed that power over their tenants which had been represented ; he doubted whether at the present day a landlord would say to his tenant, you shall not advocate such a cause—you shall not canvass for such a party ; but all the Hon. Member asked for was protection for the vote—he asked for no protection against canvassing or ad vocating a particular cause. He (Lord Howick) believed measures of protection might be formed to secure independ ence of voting without the House adopting the motion of the Hon. Member. —( Hear.) Although, as he before said, he doubted whether landlords possessed that great power over the votes of their tenants which had been represented, yet ho was willing to admit that they possessed great power; he knew they had the power to dismiss tenants at the expiratien of the leases if they voted contrary to their wishes. He knew that it was in the power of customers to choose their tradesmen's shops. He knew the power that existed; but if that power was arraigned at the bar of public opinion—if such a case was brought forward and exposed—justice would be obtained. • Public opinion was almost omnipotent—( Hear, hear)—and no man, whatever his influence, dare to gainsay such a number of voters as would determine an election. If pub lic opinion was declared openly against the practice of inti , midation, the independent elector would be set free, and find protection and security against the abuses of any such power. If it did not do away with intimidation altogether, it would certainly much diminish it. It was said that open voting had always existed, and that intimidation had always existed ; but his Hon. Friend forgot that a new era com menced on the passing of the Reform 13i11.—( Hear, hear.) In the general election of 1836 no landlord was ashamed openly to avow that his tenants voted with him; but mark the change, would any make such an avowal at the present day ?—( Hear.) He would ask the House whether any can didate at the present day dare to see reported in the columns of a newspaper that he was backed by the tenantry of any landlord ? It was the every-day practice for charges and counter-charges of undue influence to be made ; and were not those charges always denied by both parties?— ( Hear, hear.) Did not both parties on the hustings pub licly deny that no undue influence was used. Ile would appeal to the columns of all the newspapers, if such was not the fact. When he stated this he did not deny that some influence was used ; but when the time had come that both parties considered it necessary to deny it, when it could no longer be done in a corner, when every man on the hustings denied it, and trusted to the fair sense of the constituency, when such a change in public opinion had taken place, it was not too much to expect redress for the grievance under the present system. A great change had taken place since the passing of the Reform Bill ; he was, therefore, not pre pared to assent to the motion of the Hon. Member for London. —( Hear, hear.) He entertained several grounds of objection to the motion. That was the third or fourth year the subject had been regularly debated, and he admitted the propriety of it, as the subject occupied so large a place in public opinion. —( Hear, hear.) He had carefully considered what had been said on both sides. The Hon. Member for London said, why not adopt a direct course, and at once give vote by Ballot ? Now he did not think that system would prove infallible. His , ( Lord Howick's) opinion was, that secret voting was not ne cessary to create independent feeling. There must be a public vivifying spirit to keep alive the body politic.—( Hear.) He would ask were there no benefits derived from the present system? If an individual was exposed to loss, his mind and character were improved ; and if it was made known to the world, he would obtain sympathy equal to his loss. He thought bad feelings and habits would be engendered if men could not give their votes, and declare their political opinions, openly, it would be placing an obstacle on the exercise of public opinion. If it was desirable to obtain a fair esti mate of public opinion, men must have an open oppor tunity of discussing the political sentiments of those who offered themselves as candidates.--( Hear.) He wished to see all men state their political opinions openly and freely ; if that privilege were once denied, it would be impossible ever to obtain a sound public opinion. He never would assent to any measure which would prevent a manful and open expres. sion of public feeling. The Hon. Member said vote by Ball o t would soften the violence of party contests—that a vote might be slipped into the box, and no man need avow his politi cal opinion. He agreed with him that such would be the case, but he did not think it desirable that such a state of things should exist. Ile thought it desirable that it should be otherwise; and he could not think vote by Ballot would allay party contests. If, however, the Hon. Member proved that position, and that object was accomplished, he thought it of little consequence, for if a man could not openly avow his sen timents, the boasted liberty of the people was gone. Every one who had read the history of the French revolution would shrink with horror from the influence of a furious democracy, and that was the class to which the motion of the Hon. Mem ber would give a legal sanction. This was the feeling of mmy Reformers on the subject. The Hon. Member was fond of alluding to America in support of his opinion relating to the Ballot. He (Lord Howick) would refer him to the works of Dr. Tocqueville, and he would see that authority stated that no real freedom ever could exist in secret voting.—( Hear. ) The Noble Lord proceeded to state, that he for one would not vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for the reasons he had already given. He was, however, convinced that the evil of intimidation, so justly complained of, could not for any great length of time be allowed to continue in the face of the good sense and growing intelligence of the people of Eng land.—(llcar. ) lie agreed with his Noble Friend, Lord Melbourne, who, in the other Hobse of Parliament, had stated that the abuse of influence in Parliamentary proceed ings was one of the crying evils of the period in which we lived ; but he trusted that it would shortly be extinguished by the general good sense of the people.—( Hear.) If his (Lord llowick's) hopes should unhappily be deceived—if such a cir cumstance did unfortunately happen—then he might at length be driven to adopt the measure of the Hon. Member for the city of London.—( Hear.) He said so as a caution to the enemies of the vote by Ballot, who would do well not to reflect that if the evil of intimidation continued, to the Ballet the country must and shall inevitably come.—( Hear, hear.) A power too strong to be overcome would arise, and produce, as a necessary consequence, what he now might consider an un fortunate change in the law of Parliament. He confidently believed, notwithstanding, that real Reformers would even ' tually effect the object which they so anxiously looked for, without adopting the dangerous experiment recommended by the lion. Member for the city of London.—( Hear.) Mr. C. I3ULLER rose amidst considerable cries of "di vide." The lion. Gentleman began by thanking the Mem bers on the opposition benches for so large an attendance, and for their magnanimous silence on the question under discus sion.—( Hear.) The only one indeed on the opposite side of the House who had thought it worth his while to notice the subject was the Hon. Member for Evesham ( Mr. Borthwick) who had assumed a lofty and elevated tone of opposition, and had borne good evidence of the working of the bribery system. He told the House that he had seen the tenant offend his landlord, and the tradesman his customer, by the vote which he gave, and yet he would not support a legitimate mode of get ting rid of the cause of offence, namely, a knowledge of which way the vote went. In former timesevery gentleman or lady who had courage to walk over Hounslow-heath were lauded for their courage. The introduction of a good police, however, had put an end to that, and he ( Mr. C. Buller) considered that the Govern ment were entitled to the thanks of OW coautrx fat' Mting down the highWaYrllail i Nat so it w 45 with Open voting, compared with the B.allot.—(Cheers.) He did not the oe, form Bill that ho looked for support in the present question although he was far from satisfied with the arguments of dig Noble Lord who had spoken last ( Lord Howick ) ; that Noble Lord frankly told the House that if intimidations were not to be put down by other means, which he considered more ra tional and English, then, and not till then, would he vote for the Ballot.—( Hear.) Hon. Members opposed to the measure might talk as they will, the vote after all was the substance ; and he believed that if the landlord were deprived of the power of knowing how his tenant voted, he would care very little about the matter. For his own part he held, and did not hesitate to avow it, that there was a great deal more corruption in returning Members to Parliament, since the pas sing of the Reform Bill than before it. In fact he believed intimidation to be the child of the Reform Bill. True it might be said that it existed to some extent before the passing of that Act.—( Hear, hear. ) He granted that in the little towns in schedule A intimidation had existed to a small extent as compared with the more recent times.—( Hear. ) The Noble Lord seemed to think that a great im improvement in respect to intimidation had been effected ; so also, indeed, with respect to bribery. He ( Mr. C. Buller) appealed to the experience of Hon. Members if such were the fact ? He (Mr. Buller) would pass over the Noble Lord's remarks respecting the effect the Vote by Ballot had in pro ducing the French revolution in 1793. The constitution of the Government of France at the time, the Noble Lord ought to have borne in mind, though essentially democratic in prin ciple, had not had time to develope itself when another form of Government was adopted. It was the opinion of many Hon. Members hostile-to the Ballot, that it would tend to strengthen democracy. He was of a different opinion, and believed that the aristocracy of England would hold their power for a long time if they maintained it on democratic pr►nciples as trustees for and leaders of the people.—( Hear.) For the very thing which tended to destroy Legislative influence was the brute force of property, and that feeling engendered by it which held up the gentry as the tyrants ruling over the people, and not as their national leaders.--( Hear.) Again, he firmly believed that the Vote by Ballot would increase the influence of moderate political feelings.—( Hear.) Which party. lie would ask, gained most in numbers at the last election ? Why the Tories to be sure.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition. ) The Whigs, or Liberal Members fell off, but the Radicals in creased.—(Renewed cheers from the Opposition.) He did not mean to reflect upon, much less to insult Ministers by saying this—he did not mean for a moment to say that they, merely to keep their places, would change their opinions; ho would, however, wish them to change a systom which had for its ob ject the drawing away of men of moderate and calm views from the great council of the nation.—(Hear.) He would be ashamed to go back to his constituents if he were one of those who refused to give them the protection so loudly called for; he should look upon himself as the demagogue of yore, who deserted his compatriots in the field to which his fatal counsels had impelled them.—( Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER commenced by observing., that the Hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) had set forth that corruption had more increased since the passing of the Reform Act, and that intimidation was the child, the offspring of that measure. With the late elections at Shoreham and Aylesbury before the Hon. Mem ber, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was certainly surprised at the remark. As a supporter of the Reform Bill, he denied the justice of the Hon. Member's allegation, and he appealed to those Hon. Gentlemen who supported that measure, if that corruption which they sought to dctroy was the child and consequence of the Reform measure. The argument of the Hon. Gentleman reminded him (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) of the remark of the philosopher, who said there was no adultery in a certain country, because all the women in it were common.—( Hear, and a laugh.) He further denied that the Hon. Gentleman had represented justly the sentiments of his Noble Friend the Secretary at War, when he said that his Noble Friend had argued that the French revolution was superinduced by the Ballot. He confessed that he discussed this question with the greatest difficulty, because he was opposed to those Hon. Members with whom he had been in the habit of acting, and in whose opinions he generally coincided. He agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for London, who had intro duced his motion in so able a manner, that this was a ques tion which required the greatest consideration of the House. --(Hear, hear.) Among the constituency which he re presented, there had not been more than twenty or thirty of them who had on a former occasion expressed a wish for the Ballot, but subsequently the mass of them had become con verts to the Ballot—( Hear, hear)—and they had become so in consequence of the bribery and intimidation which existed, and upon these grounds it was that a change of the system was necessary. Still his opinions were unchanged, not be. cause he objected to the Ballot, not because he did not think it his imperative duty to put down corruption or intimidation ; not because he did not wish to pay every attention to the opinions of his constituents, whom he very much respected— but because he doubted if this would be the proper remedy for the evils which existed.—( Hear, hear.) No person could have more at heart the putting down intimidation and corruption than he had; therefore it was not the object, but the means by which it was to be effected, that he differed with his Hon. Friends. With regard to the Ballot, what would it effect, supposing it to be made as complete as his Hon. Friend the Member for London desired ? Would it not, then, leave the landlord the means of so circumventing his tenants as to make him sure of having their votes ?—( Cries of " Oh !") Suppose the system to be tried ill Ireland, and the landlord was an Orangeman, all he would have to do would be to make a selection of tenants who were also Orangemen, and they would naturally support the landlord, and also use their in fluence with their neighbours, which renders the Ballot under such a system irresistible, if gentlemen, on either side, to secure their election, were to make use of it, and no punish ment could ensue. Again, if a landlord or master manufac turer had any doubt as to the way his men might vote, he might say to these gentlemen, " I wish you to abstain from voting;" and this was not provided against by the Ballet, so that corruption and intim►dation would still exist. His opinion was, that if 'the House had shown a greater readi ness to punish it, and disfranchised those boroughs which were found guilty of corruption, and a greater earnestness in fol lowing out such punishments, it would have had the desired . effect. _ _ _ Mr. GROTE being loudly called for from all parts of the House, rose to reply, and said that he could congratulate the friends of the Ballot on the course which the debate had taken on this occasion, when he recollected the observa tions on other occasions, and the altered tone of his Majesty's Ministers--(Cheers)—and the manner in which his Hon, and Noble Friend the Member for Northumberland, had met the question. They had placed their opposition to it not on the ground of principle, for their conclusions were the same as those who supported the Ballot, although their premises were totally different.—(Cheers.) He contended that the argu ments which he had advanced had beet► entirely untouched, not even by the Hon. Member for Evesham, who, it was said, was the representative of Toryism.—(Cheers.) When the principal points of which he complained had not been contra dicted, namely, the evil existing and the necessity of a remedy_ being applied, it appeared to him that it, was only a question of time between those who supported the Ballot and his Majesty's Ministers. He, therefore, felt assured that Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches would support it, when they found that corruption and intimidation still existed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained, and said that his arguments had been the same on that occasion as when the question was before debated. Lord HO WICK said in explanation, that his arguments had been founded on precisely the same grounds as when he opposed a similar motion in 1835 ; but if he found corruption and intimidation still continue to exist, he would not say that he should not change his opinion. The gallery was then cleared for a divi.ion For the motion ln Against it Majority Mr. HARDY moved for - lea;e to bring in a Bill to prevent bribery and corruption at the election of Members of Par liament. Mr. HUME hoped the Bill embraced all substantial evils. He trusted the Hon. Member had inserted a clause against what was called " head money," which was as great a species of bribery and corruption as could be practised, whatever it might be nominally. He trusted that if the lion. Member had not inserted such a clause, he would not fail to do so. Mr. HARDY was of opinion that his Bill would be found to contain the most effective mode of preventing bribery and corruption that had as yet been devised. He believed the Ballot would be-unavailing in correcting the grievances. Mr. O'CONNELL said a great part of the Hon. Mem ber's speech was in direct opposition to the vote which he had just given.—( A laugh.) The Hon. Member (Mr. Hardy) had just voted for the Ballot who was now describing it as unavailing to prevent corruption. The Hon. Member was making the antende honorable. Ho was very much obliged to the Hon. Member for his rote. He would prefer at all times having his vote to having his speech, since he must make his selection.—( A laugh.) He (Mr. O'Connell) considered it was a mockery in this measure that all should turn, not upon the principals, but upon the agents of the principals.—The • principals themselves should be examined before the Committees of inquiry into bribery. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) appeared to have a full knowledge of the subject, and to be acquainted with bribery in all its ramifications.—( A laugh.) So far the subject could not be entrusted to better hands, or to one mere competent to detect bribery in all its shapes. He must call upon him, however, to make his Bill retrospective, and to make it affect all the Members of that House who had been guilty of bribery already. Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that the Bill should be made to declare that any man who was proved guilty of having cor rupted was incapable of sitting any longer in that House. Mr. HARDY was ready to insert a clause to such an effect. He would defy the Hon. _ Gentleman to prove that he (Mr. Hardy) had ever been guilty of bribing. Mr. ROEBUCK had not meant to insinuate anything of the kind ; but if the cap fitted, ho could Lot help it.—( A laugh.) Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP rose to move for a return of the number of Commissions issued under the Whig Administra tion. He believed that the expense occasioned by such coin missions had been between 700,000 and 800,000 pounds. These were strange doings for an " Economical Government." —( A laugh.) He would direct the attention of the House to the expense of paying the Revising Banisters. It had been, up to 1835, inclusive, 141,5801 He wondered what the form-Bill had cost in printing ?—(A laugh.) There had been between forty and fifty Commissions issued since the Whigs took office in 1830. Mr. T. B A RING said as to the Record Commission, to which the ciallElTlt Colonel had alloded it was necessary to furni , h FPPrillts of the Commission for referenco.—( Hear, hear.) The expenses ef the Commission had been 485,0001 . ; gut the Gallant Colonel made no outcry against the sum of Q40,00a, which had been incurred by former Govern- Meats for a similar purpose.—( Hear.) The Gallant Colonel enumerated several things as Commissions, which were in reality no Commissions at all. A sum_ of money had been_ given to the merchants of the African Coast Company, but this vsas no Commission. The rec , istry was no Commission. The Revising lia!ris'e,s was no COmmission. I believe, in deed, the Gallant Colonel understands what he moves f0r...-. ( A laugh.) However, the officers of the Treasury are, I be lieve, anxious to furnish any fair and reasonable returns the House may think necessary. Colonel SIBTHORP said that lie wished to have a state ment of plain figures as to the expenditure of this economical Government, with regard to Commissions. The Hon. Member promised a fair return. lie would wait with anxious expecta tion fdr it. He was sure it ought not to be a matter of much difficulty to prepare them. He meant no offence to the Clerks of the Treasury. It was not their fault, but that of the heads of the department. Mr. ROEBUCK said the whole affair was one of those burlesques, which were sometimes enacted for the amusement of the Gentlemen opposite. Mr. TREVOR thought the House ought to be indebted to the Hon. Member.—( A laugh.) Mr. RICHARDS was surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Bath call the expendi.ure of 4,000/. or 3,000/. of the publi4 money a builesque. Where was the Right Hon. Gentlem4ll the Member for Middlesex ?—( A laugh.) Col. SIBTHORP rose, but was called to order by Mr. ROEBUCK—who said that he had no right 't o reply. Cal. SIBTHORP said that his observations 'were not so much a burlesque as the speech of the Bath on a former night. M em b e r for The SPEAKER interposed, and said the Gallant Colonel had no right to reply. The CHANCELUR of the EXCHEQUER said that they were not d i f..posed to refuse the slightest information that Was reasonable. Amidst loud cries of " Divide" the Gallant Colonel with drew his motion. Lord MORPETH, in the absence of Lord John Russell, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Education Commission in Ireland, with reference to the instructions given to the Board of Commissioners, and the terms of the Conirnission.—Ag,reed to. The following are the Committee appointed :—Mr. Chan cellor of the Exchequer, Lord Stanley, Mr. Shaw, Lord Vis count Ebrington, Mr. Goulburu, Mr. Shell, Sir James Gra ham, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. W. Gladstone, Mr. Wyse, Lord Francis Egerton, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Wynn, Lord Le veson, and Sir Edmond Hayes. Mr. WARBURTON moved for copies of the several Sub scription Contracts entered into by persons, as subscribers to Railways, and deposited during the present Session in the Private Bill Office of this House. Mr. MORG AN J. O'CONNELL had given notice of a motion to which he anticipated but very little objection, to in quire into the operation of the small debt jurisdiction of Manor Courts in Ireland, the abuses that may exist therein, and the remedies proper to be applied. But as it was now so late, he thought it better to defer it until Thursday. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned. PUItLIC TRUSTEES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS OF TRUST. Sta—Amongst the various amendments of the law relative to Trustees, no provision has as yet been made to prevent frau dulent acts on their part ; indeed from the tenor of the Acts it would appear that fraudulent appropriation of property, espe cially by a surviving Trustee, has not been contemplated. This is a subject of much public importance, and if the inno cent and unwary can be more protected than at present from the distress and ruin which has often befallen many, it will be a boon attained of no inconsiderable magnitude. I would, therefore, respectfully submit that the object in view might bs accomplished if a Bill were passed establishing a public office for the registration of all Deeds of Trust, which should other wise be invalid against creditors, its those now are which are entered into after marriage by persons liable to the Bankrupt Laws, although binding on the immediate parties ; that accounts at the Bank and other places be marked trust or resting by any person that pleases, making it, however, imperative on Trustees to have it so done with all settled property, but not to interfere with changing accounts, which should be left, as at present, to private Trustees. Then be fore any alteration is made in such resting account, notice should be sent to the Cestui quo Trust, (or party entitled to the property,) by the public Trustee, through the office for register of births, &c., (or the clerks to the Poor Law Unions might be made public Trustees in virtue of their office,) and • the Cestui que Trust (who will of course be known to the officer of the district in most cases), should be asked if he be interested in such and such property, and its change is with his knowledge and approbation, (the amount had never been stated)—then on these queries beinr , returned through the post, verified before a magistrate, an d b under the cover and seal of the officer of the district, the transfer to be allowed but when any alteration is made in a trust account, a commu- • nication should be first made to the Public Register Office, and recorded with the names to whom future notice is to be sent, the truth of which should be enquired into by the public . Trustee, if any doubt arises. I have thus addressed you, hoping that what I have said may call the attention of some Member, who may interest him self in obtaining so desirable an Act of the Legislature as I could wish to see passed. I remain, Sir, your very obedient servant, Ilfracombe, March 2, 1837. J. B. T. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. PENZANCE, MAzcit 4.—Arrived the Penzance Packet, from St. Michael's. Off port, the James Mathison, from Singapore• and DUBLIN, MARCH 3.—Arrived the Elizabeth, Winter, - Favourite, from London. _ _ WATERFORD, MARCH 3. —Arrived the Clonnael, Davis, frail London. LIMERICK, MARCH 3.—Arrived the Harriet, Moyse, Alarm, Hannington, Ann, Cave, Mark, Bructs, and Arbutus, London. SHIELDS, MARCH 4.—Arrived the Martha, Voltys, Dantzie• HULL, MARCH 4.—Arrived the Robert, Iloltspadt, Pillau. FALMOUTH, MARCH 4.—Wind N. N. E., strong breezes and squally.—Sailed the Lyra Packet, for the West Indies; 1115 Majesty's steamer Hermes, for Cadiz and the Mediterrancaa; and Alert Packet, for Halifax. _ _ LIVERPOOL, MARCH 4. —Arrived the Zion, Ducker, froal Odessa. The Alcyone, Muir, bound to Darien, has put back, very leaky. The Congress, which arrived here yesterday, from New Orleans, experience d a heavy gale the 12th and 13th ult.; in lat. 46. long. 36 , and was struck by a sea which carried away her rudder head, stove in the dead lights, and caused her to make 5 feet water per hour. GALATZ, FEB . . 9. —The Danube was frozen over here on the 7th instant. The only vessel here of any description (excert f , river craft) is the Star, which was stranded at the entrance 0 the Danube, and there sold, she waiting for her Russian paPer ° ' At Ibraila there is only one vessel. BILBOA, FEB. 8. Arrived the Bonne Arnie, and Dorado" from Bordeaux, both laden with flour. Mr. E. Denison, Fellow of Merton College, Oxfor d ' and brother of Mr. Evelyn Denison, M P. for Notts, .s to be the new Bishop. He has been distinguished at Oxford as one, of the select preachers--has always been an advocate of libe ral and enlightened opinions in Church and State—and took ne active part in the discussion of the question respecting the Ad" mission of Dissenters to the Universities. LA PlCCioLA.—Ercry one is inquiring the na ture of the story just published under the above fanciful title. I .° satisfy the curious, let us explain that " La Picciola" is the history of a young French nobleman, developed by a series el fanciful incidents, such as the mind of a Frenchman could alone have conceived, or the powerfully wielded pen of an acorn; pushed writer alone have rendered acceptable. No one we shou ll ; imagine, ever stopped short amid the pathos of " Paul and Virginia," or the eloquence of " ..ktala," to call in questioa the probabilities of the narrative ; and it must be a very hard" hearted reader who will pause while the destinies of " Picciola" are depending, to enquire whether the story be portrait of— " Natural sorrow, fear, and pain, Which has been, and may be again." We are well content that the romance should have oc eurreti- - if only to the imagination of a miter of such promise as M. 13° Saintine. LOWER CANADA.—According to a Parliamenta r i return just laid on the table of the House of Commons, the sum required for the public service in Lower Canada, uP to May 1, 1837, will be 142,160/. 14s. 4d. ; to meet which theL will be a revenue of 148,9921., l eav i ng a t th a t p er i o d, in tu:r public treasury, after the payment o f a ll d eman d s , th e auto " f 6,8311. ss. Bd. The following is a comp a r a ti ve s t a tement the gross ordinary revenue of the province of Lower Cans°. for the years 1835 and 1836 :-1835, 205,910/. 193. 31t d : 1836, 181,8581. Os. 44d. ; decrease in 1836, 24,052/. 18g. 1' - - - - FAMILIES RESIDING IN THE COUNT are sußlied with TEAS an d COFFEES a t t h e WHOLE 'AL PRICE for CASH ; 3s. Black.. ?s. Od. 2s. 4d. 2s. 8(1. 3s. 3s. 6d. 4s. 4s. 6tl. Green..3s. &i. 4s. Od. 4s. 8(1. ss. os. 6d. 6s. 7s. Oa* Coffee, is. 6d. Is. Bd. Is. 10(1. 2s....Finest Mocha, 2 5 ., When the order exceeds £lO, th e C arr i age i s Paid' G. T. MANSEL I„ and CO., Wholesale Tea Dealers, 2, Bucklersbury, Cheapslik T. COX SAVORY, Goldsmith, &c., 47, C 0,,, of London, informs the Public, th a t h e h as a considerable varieler. SECOND-HAND GOLD WATCHES, a n y o f w hi c h he " at EIGHT GUINEAS each. They have all-been carefully &mined, and are warranted.—Watches purchased in excharl BIRTHS. On the sth inst., at Grafton M anor House, the lady of Flenia' ll° Collett, Esq., of a daughter, On the 6th inst., at Hackney, the lady of the Rev. T l ' °s ' land, of a daughter. MARRIED. 0 On the 28th ult., at St. Pancras, Captain John Ward , o f oh . lion. East India Company's S erv i ce , on the Madras Establisc re of to Emily Jane, youngest d aug ht er o f t h e l ate C ap t a in Bute the 11th Dragoons. D lED. of r elict On the 3d inst., i n S ussex -place, Regent's-park, Helen, John Ansley, Esq. i 46. h On the 2 i l i nst ., a t Ki ngs l an d, M r . F. J. Everard, age'„,. - 'vibe On the 6th inst., at Branches-park, Suffolk, aged 19, .r.' Ann, eldest daughter of H. Usborne, Esq. C'' lolle' On the sth 'inst., at Brighton, aged 73, Lydia, elict 0 f ehsr D. J. Cameron, and eldest daughter of the late 'George Far Kinloch, Esq., of London, banker. eldes t s cl° On the 27th ult., in Dublin, Viscount Kingsborougb, elde of the Earl of Kington _. tia of°I; London: Printed and Publishe — d by MURDO YO" th 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. of Middlesex.—Wednesday, March 8, 1837.