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

IMPERI AMEN T HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCh 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat a few minutes after five, CHURCH-RATES. Earl SHA FTE SHUR Y presented various petitions from the county of Somerset against the abolition of Church-rates. Lord DA CRE presented petitions from' Royston, Chissel, Leicester, and other places, praying for the total abolition of C hurch -rates. _ The Bi s h op of BATH and WELLS presented petitions from various parishes in the county of Somerset against the abolition of Church -rates. The Bishop of LL A NDA FF said that he held in his hand a petition, which he thought required to be brought to the attention of the House. It was in effect, though not in form, county petition. It was agreed to at a meeting regularly Called together, and held in the County Hall. It was con tidered a religious, and not a political meeting, and there fore all the friends of the Established Church had had the opportunity of attending it. It was attended by a great many of the gentry and clergy of the county. The meeting was opened by prayer and concluded by prayer, and in the prayer of the petition he entirely concurred, which was, that their Lordships would not consent to pass any measure for the abolition of Church • rates, because such a measure would sever the Church from the State, and afterwards there would be no longer an Esta blished Church. The petition was from the county of Mon mouth. The Right Rev. Prelate then presented petitions from a great many parishes in the same county, to the same effect. UNIVERSITY STATUTES. Lord RADNOR laid on the table a Bill to appoint Com missioners to inquire into the Statutes of the different Halls at Oxford and Cambridge, with a view to prepare new Statutes should the old ones have become obsolete, and of better car'- vying into effect the objects of those Statutes. .Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the Noble Lord meant to. include Westminster, and the other places in the Bill, which hadbeen excepted by the Bill that appointed Charity Commissionem . ' Lord RADNOR did not mean to include those places. His attention had been called to this subject by what took place two years ago when he introduced a Bill on the sub ject ; and he bad acquired such information since as to induce - him to hope would cause their Lordships to pass the present Bill. He knew not why Eton, Westminster, and other places had been excepted in the Bill appointing Charity Commissioners, .hat it was not his intention to include those places in the present Bill. The Bill was then read a first time, and the Noble Lord gave notice that he should move the second reading this day fortnight. Lord DUNCANNON laid on the table the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland from August last, and Moved that it be printed. CHURCH LANDS. Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know from the Noble Viscount opposite, whether he had any objection to lay on the table a statement of the questions which had been put to Mr. Finlayson on the subject of Church property, and the answers which had been returned to those questions? Lord MELBOURNE was not able to give an answer to t he question at present, but he would inquire if the papers were 'n such a state as that they could be laid before the House. Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to ask the Noble Vis count whether the calculation that showed that by the opera tion of the new Bill for the management of Church P,,,roperty, t h ere wou ld b e p l ace d a t t h e di sposal of the Co mmissioners 250,0001. for providing for Churches—whether that calculation rested upon the supposition that all the con version of the leases into perpetuities took place immediately ? Lord MELBOURNE said he apprehended it did not rest on the ground that that took place immediately. •I t "as matter of detail, but he apprehended that if the leases were to be converted into perpetuities, an increased rate would 14 4 be paid—therefore he considered it did not. Lord IWO UG HAM did not quite agree with his Noble Priend that this was matter of detail—not that he was going to ° PPose the measure ; but he should like to know whether, ac ,cording to his Noble Friend's conception, the lessees would °are the option of not renewing under the Deans, Bishops, a nd so on if they pleased, * till the very last year ; or if they 'eeved, to suffer these leases to expire. The Noble and Learned Lord took it for granted that they would have that ° P ii °n, which he did not understand. 'Lord MELBOURNE—No, certainly not. They would not have that option. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the only answer which he could give to that was, that it now appeared of great importance that he should have the papers which he had rat requested—which was a statement of facts, questions, and answers. Viscount MELBOURNE said that he did not refuse to lay t hose papers on the table ; his doubt was if they were at pre sent in a form fit to be produced. Lord HOLLAND said that all the statements required Would be laid on the table before the Bill was introduced in that House. It was important that they should be so. Lord ELLENBOROUGH — T hen the sooner we have t hem the better. Lord HOLLAND—Quite the contrary.—( A laugh.) Lord BROUGHAM sa id t h at he agreed with the Noble Lord opposite as to the necessity of having the papers as soon as Possible. of Lord ASHBURTON said that the measure was one the g vital importan ce , and there were so many . Interests involved in it, that he considered they Uteould have some correct calculations upon which the !teasure was founded.—( Hear.) He did not then want o discuss the general principle of the measure, but he wished t f ° learn if the calculations upon which the measure was h ° e t t_nded were borne out.--( Hear, hear.) As . for himself 70u.,1ddid not say, that considering these calculations h e e P-n k u , on any improvement in Church-lands—for atyo had not heard that they did not at present r 4 as ample produce as could be expected—. - ,^ould say, that considering this, it appeared to him that the t!tculations were founded upon some conjuring—some con lataanc° in the distribution, by which the value of Church .trims was to be increased. That, however, appeared to him, h p P r esent, tbe qite uninelligible. He could not se how, Y contrivo ance u t of that nature, the value of those lands w •u s t be i ncreased ; he would as soon believe, on the showing M r Finlayson, or of any other calculator, that four persons l in sit down t o a game of whist, and all rise up winners. s e ,. e t he measure was one which had been introduced by Go thit t !ant. and it would be presumptuous for him to say now h et , Be c alculations were incorrect upon which it was . founded. ,'' o .would state that it was desirable their Lordships should fr. i n Possession of them as soon as possible.—( Hear, hear. ) tiabs a Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that all the calcula tre•a,°Pon which the measure was founded had been made with Care, and th e object which the House had was doubtless W6, ° „ 01 poss ess i on of the information wh i c h had b een sought (HZ. the Bill came up to their Lordships' House.— the hear.) B u t at present h e cou ld no t sa y i n w h a t s h ape kisl it `tt would be sent up to them, or how the calculations the de l t 'e mad e to b ear on it in the other House, where i t was Which Y of Government to give that information upon u"erefo;t might either he adopted or rejected ; at present -crew L e it could not be stated how those calculations hi- Quill :Jo made to bear on the Bill, which would not be tion 41 up to that House without the most ample considera- Nhle 114 t: , question in which, as had been stated by the L em ~„1 opposite, so many great interests were involved. given •c'LLENBOROUGH said that the measure had nnde r .. re at alarm to l essees of Church lands, as i t was te es n° 0 (1 that i t contained penal terms as to those per- T he t 7 l lO refused t o accede to the proposition contained in it. riightsvilna 8 offered by the measure, which were disclosed a few r go to the lessees under the Church in England, were 14 0 Pe _cent. worse than those offered to the lessees in Ire 13,_r Ariother disadvantage which the English lessee laboured zntliseitreisswsheansie,t:sheeatlvhaes was forced to come ' into the plan, while protected hy clauses in the Bill. It was measure ial to have a discussion upon the full principle of the th_ on the first opportunity, so that those interested in elhmeeassivarre might understand it. was a good gl u s of LANSDOWNE said the then discussion illustration of the great inconvenience which was the result of the lions. He vvouldGaTosetralnmePt giving answers to isolated ques _nd would only further say th u a m Zce.r.ned had been most caref 11 goin g into the question then, t the interests of all parties co Lord e Igoe n e d on r s e i g d u e i r a e r d. man T n h e e n subject ought ELLENBORO UG H. —If he thought he could him a-_earnswer from the Noble Marquis, he would like to ask _ v n e e.:the lands lie which he held under the Church ? Did t ?, 3' he in the nei hbo t ',e midst of an aft g. urhood of large towns, or were they in 1 1 _ 1 " he would ,r!cultural district? Because, if the former, latter ' he derive much benefit from the Bill ; but, if the ,„ he_ would not. or,,,!LiMarquis of LANSDOWNE would not answer the .e,tlon because it would lead to others. They would most otieitY,geet,into a premature discussion of the measure, which be avoided. D said he held lands under the Church in ouid A _ ssure him mentioned by t h e N oble Baron opposite, and he Lr ° that th at measure would be beneficial. acted aeted •HATH ERTON tho ug h t t h at his Noble Friends 4,estie_with .much discretion in refusing to answer the hlogsee- N "s which had been put to them. He would only remind (>l4O Lordsat opposite that thediscussion in the other th e w as not yet finished and that it had been adjourned b aron e ( a i. P,,r,ess_ wish of the leader of the friends of the Noble shLo ienboroneh) in the other House. it rd BROUGaAM presented a petition signed by six tb s .. ao d rep p e e a r l sb n,s , al many of them Churchmen, praying for &li te • u , Church -rates. He did not wish to renew nateanssion, if such it might be termed, which had just ter ear.) He was . perfectly aware of the difficulty eli ged nog such questions produced. He felt himself ,It4e:po.;tioionwever to draw the attention of the Government to deader co the measure, in order that they might, give ta,„ nsiaeration and amend it, for he considered it e mI Y b ad. Hethat • t °6 e4ecs_meant portion of . it . which regarded it l eft 0 Uhurch. He was of opinion that it, ought e r t h e oaseprional to them to renew with the customar fines. and minerals, instance, in the Bishopric th f e l lurla tei °r a minesfor A of and Northumberland which was pretty nearly pee"- lauds held in or near towns, it was well worth person's whil i cl , % Quoit. e. to pay a sum of money for the mineral land. tteraewatPiendee:chhe owever, it might be so arranged in detail as not workinors of the plan, making it a matter of con particular case, between the Commissioners to e ettit t il in ted and the lessees, subject to certain rules and Th e 1 ?a• tea r bish° P h EX d ETER trusted that as the Noble and less e : 4 , Lord t° ne w ould abe correctly stated the rights of invert found when the proper time came leac4 l . ' t u p the ant question—( Hear, hear)—equally .444 do:lbOt ijtUvriitoicue. _to her parties--the lessors. lie would be present to the Noble and Learned Lord's mind, that the restraint upon the Church from granting leases was for a specific object, namely, to protect the permanent interests of the Church, and to prevent holders of Church property from wastefully throwing away that property, according to the present annual value. That was the reason why Sir John Smith introduced a statute in the reign of Queen Elizabeth to protect the interests of the Church. The true principle in his opinion was to rem-we the restricting power pro Canto, and to enable the Church to grant building leases. Lord BROUG H A M felt honoured by the observations of the Right Rev. Prelate, as to his endeavours to do his duty in that House; and be could have no hesitation in assuring him that he should apply his mind to the consideration of the ques tion with a resolution to do justice to the lessors as well as lessees. If the Right Rev. Prelate meant by justice to the lessors a resistanc e or opposition to the measure, as it was understood to be founded, he (Lord Brougham) would only say that he had directed his attention about 3 or 4 years ago to another sub ject in many particulars the same, both in that House and in conjunction with his then colleagues in the Admini stration ; and that on the fullest consideration, viewing the rights and the interests of all parties, they came to a clear and unhesitating, but nevertheless a deliberate opinion, that the right of the lessors would not be impaired, and that justice would not be sacrificed by the principle of the measure. He would say with great diffidence, a diffidence becoming in any person when the subject was so important, that the case as regarded its justice was perfectly clear, and from the best opinion he was able to arrive at, it appeared to him that the measure, in its fundamental principles, and with the ex. ception alluded to respecting the lessees, was perfectly con sistent with right, justice, and principle. The Nonr.E LORD next presented a petition from the stu dents preparing for the Ministry of the Dissenting Congrega tions, in favour of the abolition of Church-rates ; also from the city of Worcester, to the same effect. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. A Message from the Commons brought up an Inclosure Bill, and other private Bills, which were severally ordered to be read a first time. CHURCH-RATES. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from Bath in favour of the total abolition of Church-rates. Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were next presented by Viscount Exmouth, by the Earl of Shaftes bury, and by Lord Ashburton. The Bills on the table were then forwarded a stage. The Bishop of RIPON presented several petitions against the abolition of Church-rates. The House then adjourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARer 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. The Manchester and Oldham Road Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. The Standing Order Committee reported that the Standing Oeders had been complied with in the Dundee Improvement Bill, the Montrose Harbour Bill, and the Dundee Water Works Bill. TORQUAY ROAD BILL. Colonel SEALE presented a petition from Dartmouth, in favour of the Torquay Road Bill. WESTMINSTER BRIDGE, DEPTFORD AND GREENWICH RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, this Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.—Referred to the Middlesex list. GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH RAILROAD. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition in favour of this Bill. BLACKWALL RAILWAY. Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition front the inhabi. tants of St. Olave, Aldgate, against the extension of the Black way Railway into the city of London. YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. Sir G. SINCLAIR presented a petition from Lord Howden against certain clauses in the York and North Midland Rail way. The Hon. Baronet also presented a petition from the Trustees of the Doncaster Road to the same effect. Referred to the Committee on the Bill. The Manchester and Oldham Road Bill was read a second time. BELFAST HARBOUR. On the motion of Lord BELFAST, the Belfast Harbour Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. PORTSMOUTH JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. MACKINNON presented four petitions in favour of he Portsmouth and Southampton Junction Railway Bill. LONDON AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. M'KINNON, the London and Southampton Railway Bill was read a second time and or dered to be committed. The same HON. MEMBER next moved the second reading of the Portsmouth Junction Railway Act. Captain PECHELL objected to the motion. He had peti tions to present against it from shareholders on the line, who were induced to become proprietors under the belief that the managing Committee was composed of respectable persons, but who had since found themselves mistaken. In the pre sent case a monstrous injustice would be done to se veral parties, and he should state that public con fidence was not reposed in the Southampton line. The shareholders were impressed with the belief that there would never be any return, and they prayed that the line might not pass during the present Session. There was now a de mand made of a power to raise 400,000/. additional, which the petitioners objected to, and he trusted that the circumstance of the shareholders opposing the Bill would have due weight with the House. No necessity had been shown for a line between Portsmouth and Southampton, for there was already a water communication four times a-day.-- ( Hear.) The shareholders already saw that their interests had been sacrificed. He bad no objection to the parent track from Southampton to London being carried, but he should certainly oppose the present ; and would therefore move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. MACKINNON would assure the House that he had not the slightest interest in that Railway. He was surprised, after the resolution that that House had come to, that every Railway Bill should have a second reading, that the Hon. Member should now resist it. He had not brought forward a single argument to oppose the motion. What was the real state of the case? The people of Portsmouth were desirous of joining the Southampton line, which would be done at about the 64th mile.stone, and by this means they would be enabled to get to London. The expense of the line would be only 300,0001. There was no tunnel, and gradients were very easy, and the only argument that had been :urged against it was, that some of the share holders were opposed to the extension of the line.—('Hear.) As a further proof of the line being a desirable one, he might state the fact, that it was supported by the Ordnance Depart ment—it was not opposed by the Admiralty, and was almost unanimously supported by the inhabitants of Portsmouth. He was so satisfied of the justice of the case, that he would confi dently press the second reading of the Bill, which would prove a public good. Mr. F. BARING said his appearing there to oppose the Bill proved that the feeling of the people of Portsmouth was not so favourable to it as was stated by the Hon. Gentleman who moved the second r ea di ng o f t h e Bill. Neither could he agree in the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Gentleman that the House was bound to give a second reading to the Bill. He thought there were circumstances in this case which ought to induce the House to throw out the Bill, unless they were to abrogate the power they undoubtedly had of refusing a second reading to any Railway Bill. The terminus of this line was not in Southampton—in fact it de pended entirely upon the support which the Southampton line might receive. The estimates were very incorrect, and the Company were obliged to come to Parliament to ask for a further loan.—( Hear, hear.) On the part of the in. habitants of Portsmouth, who were not at all friendly to this railroad, and also on the pal t of the large number of landed proprietors, whose property would be cut up by this railroad, he asked the House not to put them to the expense of a Com mittee. They ought at least to postpone the Bill till they had an opportunity of knowing whether the London and Southampton Railway would have the power of raising a suffi. cient sum of money to complete their own line, as otherwise 'there would not be a fair chance of the branch Railroad being completed. He thought it only fair that the Bill should be postponed for a short period. Mr. C. PELHAM did not think that the Hon. Gentle man, the Member for Portsmouth, had stated any sufficient reasons for postponing the second reading of this Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMI3E thought that the House would be doing a very great injustice if they threw out this Bill on the second reading. He knew very little about this Bill—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—but he thought he knew quite as much as many other Hon. Members who came there to vote on it.—( Hear, hear.) He had sat on the Com mittee of the London and Southampton Railway, and lie could inform the House that it was always in contemplation to extend the line to Portsmouth. Full thirty miles of that railroad had already been completed, and it would be exceed ngly hard on the parties, if they threw out the Bill on the second reading, when the London and Southampton railroad had been undertaken in the full confidence that they should have the benefit of its extension to Portsmouth. Sir J. GRA HANI agreed with the Hon. Member who had just sat down that the House ought to require a strong case before it threw out a Bill on the second reading ; but in this case he thought that a strong case had been brought forward. Now what were the circumstances stated by the Hon. Mem ber for Portsmouth, which had been mistaken by the Hon. Member opposite? It was the-fact that the terminus of the London and Southampton Railway was at Southampton ; but it was not the fact that it was at Southampton : it wa between that and Portsmouth. Now the Southampton and London Rail way was not completed ; not only so, but it could not be pro ceeded with unless four hundred thousand pounds beyond their estimated capital was advanced. Now the owners of the land through which it was proposed that this undertaking should pass, thought it but reasonable before their property was cut up, that time should be given in order to see whether the London and Southampton line would be completed or not. For his own part, he thought the House would do well to ex ercise its undoubted right, and throw out the Bill upon the second reading. Captain PECHELL said that five-sixths of the land-owners were against the line. Strangers were thee ordered to withdraw. The House divided, and the numbers were— For the Second Reading Against it 77 Majority aga i ns t t h e S econd Reading —33 The Bill is consequently lost. BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. HOPE, the Birmingham and Glou cester Railway Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1837 PRESTON AND LANCASTER RAILWAY. Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the Preston and Lancaster Railway. DEPTFORD AND GREENWICH RAILWAY. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the Deptford and G:e enwich Railway Bill. PANCRAS PAVING BILL. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the Pancras Paving and Lighting Bill, and complaining that the Stand ing Orders had not been complied with. STAFFORD AND AVON NAVIGATION. On the motion of Sir E. WILNIOT, leave was given to bring in a Bill to amend several Acts relating to the naviga tion of the rivers Stafford and Avon. COMMERCIAL RAILWAY. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from Aldgate Ward against the Commercial Railway Bill. Lord JAMES STUART presented two petitions in favour of the Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Ayr Railway Bill. On the motion of Lord RUSSELL, the Cranfield (Bed ford) Enclosure Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against the Westminster Bridge and Greenwich Railway Bill. Mr. CLAY presented a petition against the Commercial Railway Extension Bill. On the motion of Mr. DUNLOP, the Glasgow, Paisley, and Ayr Railway Bill, was read a second time.. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from an indivi dual named Thomas Green, stating that he had been induced, for the payment of ten shillings, tosign his name as a subscri ber to the lists presented to that House ,by the Westminster Bridge and Deptford Railway Company. He further'itated that he was no shareholder, and had paid no deposit upon the shares which stood in his name. As the Bill had been read a second time that night before he (Mr. W.) came in, he would now move that the petition - lie upon the table, and in the meantime he would make further inquiries into the matter. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition in favour of the Gran town Pier Bill. grounds on which I found that recommendation. I will not at the present moment trouble the House with the details of the measure--(Hear)—but I will very shortly lay before it the general terms of the Bill which I propose fur your adoption, confident as I am that there is no insurmountable difficulty in the way of its complete execution. The object of this mea sure is to provide the means of making the process of Vote by Ballot so clear that any voter in the community, however un educated, shall be able to understand it distinctly, and by which, at the same Cute, his vote will be kept secret. Though . I am perfectly prepared to enter into these explana tions of detail, when the convenient season shall arrive, I think it best to omit them for the present. Sir, if I eere discussing the comparative advantage of open or secret suf frage, considered simply and exclusively as modes of voting, I should be enabled :to prove to you that the Ballot, consi dered on this ground alone, presents the clearest title to your ereference. It disengages you altogether from that disorderly tumult and vexatious obstruction a hicii is inseparably con nected with the pronunciation of a candidate's name at the hustings, and with the continuous proclieiiation of the varying state of the poll. It secures to you the inestimable advan. m i ce of quiet, gentleness, method, and propriety from the beginning to the end of the ceremony of polling. But, Sir, I do not rest my proposition exc l us i ve l y on t hi s narrower ground. My main purpose is, to procure free, sincere, and independent voting—to get the sense of the commu nity fairly and freely taken. I desire, above all things, to • protect the individual voter against seduction or coer cion from without, in the exercise of his franchise. I de sire to guard the nation at large against fraud and spuri ous returns, in collecting the aggregate sentiments of the electoral body. Your present system shamefully fails as to both these important points : I contend that you will attain iieithev of them without adopting the Ballot. At the first statement, Sir, of the object which I aim at, it should seem that I ought to have every man in the community heartily conspiring with me fur the attainment of it, at least everysin core politician, whether he he Whig, Tory, or Radical; for how can any man repudiate the principle of general freedom of votes, without assuming to himself a despotism little less monstrous than that of the ancient Inquisition in matters of religion? What more will any man venture to dem an d, ex cept that he shall be all owe d full liberty of expressing his own opinion in his own vote ; and is I.e not bound, as an es sentialecondition of his own freedom in this respect, to accord the4ike to every other elector whatever ? Besides, Sir, apart from such considerations of individual arrogance, look at the matter in a public point of view, and see whether the same principle is not forced upon us by reasonings the most evident that can be i mag i ne d. Wh at i s the public object for the , •accomplishmeet of which elections are instituted in England, as well as in every other country where they are known ? It is, surely, to collect the sense of the people. Al low me to read;to you a few words out of Mr. Burke's " Thoughts east the Causes of the present Discontents," s(page 304) : 1 . 1 It •is material to us to be repro-` seated really testi Aorta fide, and not in forms, andlypes, end shadows, and fictions of law. The right of elec tion was not established merely as a matter of form, to satisfy some method and rule of technical reasoning ; it was not a principle which might substitute a Titus or a Mmvius, a John Doe or a Richard Roe, in the place of a man specially chosen ; not a principle which was just as well satisfied with one man as another. It is a right, the effect of which is to give to the people that man and that man only whom by their voices ac tually and not constructively given, they declare that they know, esteem, love and trust. This right is a matter within their own power of judging, and feeling ; not an ens rationis or creature of law ; nor can those devices by which anything else is substituted in place of such an actual choice, answer in the least degree the end of representation." Now, Sir, take the right of election as it is here described in the forcible lan • guage of Mr. Burke, and let me ask, how can you give effect to that right, if the votes of electors be not fairly and feely taken ? How can you find out " that man and that ~,a n only whom the people know, esteem, love and trust," if the mode of election be such as to deter electors from telling you their real minds ? Let me not be accused, Sir, of t rifling with your time'when I presume thus emphatically to remind you that free agency is the very soul of voting. However little such a propo sition may be controverted in words, verbal assent is far from being all that is required. You find freedom of election re cognised in the law books as the normal state of the Constitu tion ; nay, you find it not only formally announced, but loudly extolled as the bulwark of English political liberty. But, Sir, the more forcibly we are touched with the solemnity of these declarations of right, the more we are delighted with the picture as we find it exhibited in books of authority, the stricter ought to be our watch that the reality as it exists corresponds with so pleasing a description. Now let us look fur a moment into the world without, and examine whether elections are really free, as our lawyers have directed and as our forefathers have promised and vowed that they should be ? Let any man examine candidly, and he will see that no two things can be more diametrically opposed than the profession and the reality. The pretence is freedom of election—the reality wide-spread coercion and servitude. In profession, de pendence of the voter is unknown; in practice, it prevails at all times and everywhere. Listen to the panegyric of Black stone, and you will be beguiled into the belief that every man's vote is his own vote, the outward manifestation of a free and living conscience within him.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) Descend into the committee-room, or accompany the can vassers in their progress at an election, and you will find that it is not modes of persuasion, but modes of compulsion or seduction, which they rack Weir ingenuity to discover. First, the method of acting upon an elector's fears; next, that of acting upon his hopes ; last of all, that of acting on his heart and understanding. These, Sir, are the tactics of elec tioneering genius—they, are the varieties of that which is commonly known by the plausible name of influence. The wide extent of this unrighteous interference, and its encroach ment on the freedom of the elective franchise, was so forcibly described in a speech delivered last year by the highest authority—the present Prime Minister of England—that I shall beg permission to borrow from that speech a few sen tences of no ordinary moment. It is thus that Lord Melbourne expressed himself last year:—" The great disease of society, the great impediment to quiet government, the great evil of the day, the greatest prevailing ab use a t present i s, that every one thinks he has a tight to employ his influence over another ;, each practises it, and each exclaims against its practice in a third person. The landlord enforces it on his tenant, the customer over his tradesman—they force conscience, and they drive persons against their will to the poll, to vote contrary to their own wishes. I say, then, that upon whatever side this influence is exercised, it is a cruel tyranny and a gross injusti ce . I sa y that it is a great ev il : it i s one too prevailing in a greater degree in this than in any other country; and in no other country but this, where there is a popular form of government does it prevail." Sir, these are memorable words, and I am enabled to cite not only the authority of Lord Melbourne to my present purpose, but also that of Lord Brougham : and I cite both these distinguished authorities with the greater confidence, in proof of the actual sate of the fact, because I know that both of them are unfavourable to the remedy which I recommend. In an article in the Edinburgh Review for January, 1833, universally understood to have been written by that Learned Lurd, and written, I may add, in direct hostility to the Ballot, the extent of intimidation at elections is described in language which it is impossible to surpass ; the coercion resorted to at the first election after the Reform Act, then just terminated, is depicted in the most revolting colours. Here are distinguished testimonies, such as can neither be denied nor eluded, respecting the actual state of the electoral world. Be it remarked, too, that they demonstrate this im portant fact—that intimidation of voters has become more notorious since the passing of the Reform Act. But, Sir, I may dispense with the necessity of quoting individual testi monies in proof of such a conclusion, for the Reports of Committees of this House afford materials more than sufficient for the most insatiable appetite. I pass over those Committees which yotehave named for the purpose of investigating the proceedings of particular boroughs, though these are neither few in number nor insignificant in their results. I confine myself to the Report of the Coin inittee appointed generally on bribery and intimidation at elec tions ; and I scruple not to affirm that the evidence taken be fore that Committee fully bears out the worst statements that have ever beer, made respecting the extent of undue interfe rence in elections. A large number of respectable witnesses C•om all parts of the kingdom were examined before that Com mittee, and the facts set forth by them illustrate the working of evil influence over electors in all its shapes and varieties. Follow the series of evidences in this volume, Sir, and you will see that wherever any man possesses the means of inflic fief; injury upon another, or withholding benefit from him, the power is made subservient to electioneering purposes. It is thus that landlords deal with their tenants, customers with their tradesmen, employers of labour with their labourers, and in like manner every class of persons whose social position gives them a grain of ability to oblige or annoy their neigh bours. Sometimes these influences are put forth more openly, sometimes more covertly, as the case may be ; but in substance the intimidation is always the same—" Vote as I desire, or it wid be worse for you if you do not." lii Ireland, from which country many of the witnesses examined before the Intimidation Com niittee were taken, the distemper is the same in kind, but of exaggerated malignity ; the coercion over electors is more ter- • rific and undisguised ; and the condition of the poorer class of electors under these circumstances is depicted by more than one instance as little less than pitiable. You will not wonder, Sir, that in such a state of feeling and with such an absence of protection, every species of fraud and wrong is committed on the aggregate result of elective franchise. It stands proved, that numbers of electors arc constrained to vote in opposition to their real sentiments—that many others suffer loss and in jury, because th e y w ill not su b m i t to this means of escaping it. It is proved, moreover, that many electors are deterred from voting at all, w hil e no i ncon sid era bl e port i on o f qualified 17- sons consider their franchise as an inconvenience, and decline to put themselves on the register; and it is well worth your attention, Sir, th a t thi s i s an ev il no t in course of diminution, but in course of increase—of marked and rapid increase. The threats of expulsion of tenants, 'realised in the awful sentence, hoc, mea sunt, veteres migrate coloni—the resolutions of exclu sive dealing —are more rife and more violent than ever. If we only advert to the recent election in the county of Longford, we shall find an extremity of terrorism and a fierceness of menace almost without parallel. As to exclusive dealing, the leading organs of Tory principles are found preaching it syste matically and universally. In Blackwood's Magazine, and in the Quarterly Review, exclusive dealing has been insisted onus a matter of strict political obligation : the maxim which they, appear to enforce is, without reserve, whoso will not vote as we bid shall be unto us as a stranger and a sojourner. In some towns, so great'has been the anxiety to secere the theeeniqh•-• going operation of th 9 principle of exclusive dealing, that lists of . tradesmen voters o n one side or on the other h ave b ean printed and circulated for the use of intimidators—lists of tradesmen to be patronleed or avoided. I hold in my hand, Sir, a printed list of this kind, printed by some zealous Conserva tives of the town of Cambridge after the last election! It is entitled, " An Alphabetical List of the Cambridge Tracippmen who supported the Conservative Candidate at the last Election, which took place on the 7th and Bth days of January, 1835. The persons whose names are preceded by an asterisk divided their votes in favour of one of the Radical Members." The list is most accurately classified and subdivided, according to the various trades of the voters ; there are no less than 76 different trades enumerated, amongst which the voters named, being 441 in number, are distributed ; and I shall only add that I am informed the list has been but too rigidly and ex clusively adhered to in apportioning the custom of 'Members of the various Colleges in the University. I am sorry that I am unable to mention the name of the printer by whom the list was put in type ; but I do not find the name of the printer specified any where. At the close of the list I find the follow ing paragraph :—" When we observe the diabolical spirit with which the Church of our forefathers and the glorious Consti tution of our country is assailed, and see that our enemies are banded together to raze them to the dust, we think that the present list of the supporters of Church sod Sta:e principles in the town of Cambridge is not altogether uncalled fur. We believe that many whose names do not appear in this list have deserted the ranks of our opponents and joined ours; but as their opinions are not upon record, we do not think ourselves justified in making them public at present, although, in a short time, we hope to have the pleasure of doing so, as the time cannot be far distant when the reckless imbeciles, who changed their theoretical motto of peace, retrenchment, and reform, to the practical one of place, pension, and plunder, who now goad with tyrannic cruelty our starving countrymen, must yield to make way for better and more honest men. An election will then take place, and our friends shall have a new, and, we doubt not, a much amended list of the Conservative tradesmen of this borough, as speedily as possible after the poll is taken ; the result of which we fear not, as truth must triumph, justice must prevail." I make no remark, Sir, upon the style of this composition, emanating as it does frotn a soil so pre-eminently classical ; I shall merely observe that it proclaims and insti gates nothing less than &deliberate conspiracy against the free dom of the elective franchise, and I believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman who represents Cambridge has been told, as well as I have, of the use which has been made of the list in that town—at least his supporters know it and feel it to their cost. I cite it as one amongst many evidences to prove that the practice of exclusive dealing, as a means of perverting the suffrages of voters, is working itself mere and more into the habits of wealthy and powerful men, and tends to become more and inure the established resource of those who can employ it with effect. Sir, I think it impossible that any man who will candidly weigh these evidences--I may say, any man who will take the trouble to recollect his own experience and observa tion—will rise and state that elections as now conducted are free and pure, or that they are at all likely to become so for the future. It cannot be superfluous, therefore, either to re mind you of the magnitude of the evil, or to suggest new precautions for eradicating it. Now, Sir, the one and only pee Caution which . my humble ingenuity can discover is the Ballot ; and I declare with perfect sincerity that I am ready to lay it aside if any other a.ode, equally effectual for attain ing freedom and purity of election, can be pointed out to me. But I listen in vain fur any such hint—out of the infinite number of Gentlemen who oppose the Ballot, not one can disprove the existence of the evil complained of, not one will condescend to start the idea of any alternative remedy.— ( Hear, hear.) What, then, remains fur mo, except to cling to my own proposition with increased tenacity, and to enforce it again and again on the House and on the public ? Surely, Sir, the House will not so far abdicate the greatest of all func tions, as to tolerate and connive at the continuance of those monstrous enormities in our electoral system, which have now become matters of such disgraceful notoriety. He who allows oppression shares the crime, and we shall lacked show that freedom of election has become vile aiid wosililess in our eyes, if we reject every proposition calculated to rescue it from those iniquitous practices by which it is now subverted. The mea sure which I propose to you will accomplish this end with perfect certainty ; I say it confidently, with perfect certainty. Make the suffrage secret, and yod at once make it free, be yom.d all possibility of disappointment. The snares by which electoral independence is beset, the menaces by which it is overborne and prostrated, will all be effectually defeated by a system of secret suffrage. The Ballot will be an Act of Emancipation for all dependent voters; it will protect them against every variety of the many-headed principle of intimi dation, whether arising from a persecuting superior, from the artificial force of a combination for exclusive dealing, or from the violent hostility of an excited neighbourhood. My scheme of protection is equal and universal, for all classes in society, and for all shades of opinion in politics. I wish to guarantee free and unembarrassed voting to every elector, be his politics what they may; and I am very sure that there is no other way of accomplishing this except by means of the Ballot. To secure perfect freedom of election, by a method so simple and an innovation so moderate as that of vote by Ballot, is surely an experiment well worth trying. And can there be any expedient more gentle and harmless in its work. iig than that which I present to you? It trenches upon no man's rights; it alters no man's proper position: it creates no new privilege, it inflicts no disfranchisement or degrada tion. When the amount of existing evil is so great and so se rious, it would be well worth your while to purchase an ef ficient remedy, even at the cost of strict prohibitions and severe penalties. But the remedy which I propose involves neither vexatious prohibitions, nor a single grain of penalty.-- ( Hear, hear.) Ido not ask you to enact sharper laws against bribery and intimidation, but I show you the means of pre venting them. The Ballot affords the fullest measure of relief, by its own self-acing operation, without the uncertainties of legal process, and without the bitterness of punishment. You have made several valuable improvements of late in the mode of conducting the poll, in the time which it is allowed to last, and in the subdivision of polling districts, all tend ing to make the process of voting more convenient and less toilsome. This is very well, but is it not a far more pressing necessity that you should study the means of making the process of voting free and pure ? If it be useful, as assuredly it is, to provide that the voter shall not be required to travel more than a certain number of miles to the poll, is it not much more essential that lie should be emancipated from all constraint, and preserved from all intimidation when he arrives there? Unless this be done, you may carry the detail arrange ments of voting to what degree of perfection you please, still the result will be untrue and unfaithful : you will not reach that which is the only ultimate purpose oT every elective sys tem--that which was the great promise and watchword of the Reform Acts—the clear expression of the confidence of the people. There arc some Gentlemen who tell us that they are averse to any theoretical or organic reforms, but that they burn with zeal for the removal of all proved abuses. Let such persons, Sir, peruse the Report of the Intimidation Committee, and I promise them that they will find therein an ample harvest of proved abuses--a harvest rank and pining for the sickle. Are not the evils of open voting completely practical and fearfully manifest ? And shall the remedy against such evils be dismissed as an idle and irrelevant pro position, not bearing upon the actual state of society ? ( Hear, hear.) Sir, I say that we ought to be thankful if there be an impiovement in the mode of voting within our reach, calculated to remove one-tenth part of these mighty mischiefs. lam prepared to prove that the Ballot will go far to abate the whole of the mischiefs, and therefore that it is among the most practical of all practical measures.— ( Hear, hear.) For whence is it that election abuses in all their grossness and variety, at least three parts out of four, take their origin ? It is from some' species of force or con straint put upon the will of the voter ; from the struggles of extrsneous tyranny to grasp his vote, without the smallest re ference to his own consent or inward preference.—(Loud cheers.) Now, will any man tell me that such attempts at compulsion can possibly be continued, when you shall have adopted the vote by Ballot ? Will any man tell me that the menaces and the violence now employed against the open voter will still remain in fashion as a mode of attack against the se cret voter ? Sir, Ido not hesitate to say that the supposition is inconceivable. A man voting secretly is out of the reach o f all assailants ; h e i s mas t er o f his own conduct, let the inti midator bsstir himself as he may ; no individual consequence, good or bad, can be made to attach to the way in which his vote is given. Intimidation against electors will cease, be cause it will become entirely useless--because it will conduce to no man's profit or power. I need not remind the House that the surest mode of warfare against crime is to, disap point the criminal of his expected booty. Now, Sir, if Gen tlemen will lay to heart the multiplied enormities detailed in the report of the Intimidation Committee, and will recollect at Or same time that the large majority of them will be alto gether banished by secret voting, I confidently affirm that they must agree with me in calling the Ballot a measure not only of extensive benefit, but even of urgent necessity. It is not upon any light prejudice —not upon any partial or fanciful objections—that they ought to turn away so healing a remedy from their lips. But what are those objections against the Ballot which outweigh its direct and indisputable benefits, and which induce Gentlemen rather to perpetuate the vast catalogue of evils which stare them in the face, titan recur to the infallible corrective of secret voting ? Some objectors seem to turn with horror from the task of reasoning on the subject ; they talk as if the very mention of secresy were an in supportable dishonour. It may be convenient to hold such language, when the object is to decry the Ballot ; but I shall never believe the any one of the declaimers against the Ballot entertains a real belief that secresy is dishonourable. Why ? Because their actual proceedings prove the contrary. Is there a man living who feels dishonoured while voting by Ballot in his club, or in any private association of which he may be a member ? On the contrary, the practice of secret voting is invariable among the most honourable men of the land— among men of all classes in society and of all political parties —among Noble Lords and Centlemen in the fashionable clubs, as well as artisans in their unions, and labourers in their benefit societies. In every private association, without ex ception, the Ballot is adopted as the only sure. method of sin cere, independent, unembarrassed expression of opinion. What better proof can you have that there is nothing in the practice which conflicts with the moral feelings of any man? What batter proof can you have that the effects of the Ballot are not only uniform and unerring, but also clearly understood and familiar to all classes of the population ? lam fully justified, Sir, in asserting, on the authority of these extensive analogies, that the Ballot is an expedient known and proved by the full est actual trial. That so far from being novel and un-English, as some persons have most preposterously alleged, it ie upto. riaibly conformable to English practice and Enzlisli manners, and that in advocating the extension of it to a new case, to which it has never yet been Applied, 1 am only treading in the beaten path of sontsd and practical legislation_ole 4r* L e o .... I ant only demanding an ascertained remed for the correct i on e ief ascertained evils. I knew, Sirs that there are many objec tions specie on various kromids against the Ballot ; but is there any QUO of the objectors who disputes the fact, that the Ballot will infallibly bring about fair and free election ?„--(llear.) Well, then, if this be the indisputable truth, that the Ballot will procure freedom of election, I contend that my case is proved ; for, in an inquiry relatin g simply to the best mode of taking votes, whatever best conduces to the main purpose of election it incontestably right to be chosen. No, Sir, the oh- - • nisi}T-1- jectors against the Ball o t d o n o t Imn nia s i o break ground upon this the material moit7tif - ntheireii&; ;Key put aside freedom of election, as if it tvilisif4fOts,sauinasosilless consideration, and they attack my proposition on the plea of certain collatersd consequences, which, if they could even be shown to be just and probable, would .Vet be iotalty foreien to the essential mei its of the case in hand.—( Hear.) For xamples there is no groulal of reproach more forcibly insisted noon against the Ballot, than its alleged tendency to multiply false promises and false declarations. We are told that the voter will promise to vote fur one man, and then afterwards vote for another ; we are told again, that after having given his vote under fasour of secrecy, lie will declare that he has voted in a way contrary to the real fact. Now, Sir, thus much is unquestionably true, that while speech is free, false promises and false declarations may be uttered, if individuals choose it, and that on a matter known only to himself; a man may speak falsely, without being detected. What then? Is it intended that there shall he no matters whatever discussed privately and confidentialiy because false statements may be made respecting them, the falsehood re mailing undiscovered ? Arc we to have no such thing as scaled correspondence by the post because a man may state one thing in writing to one person, while he communicates the direct contrary by word of mouth to another? The secresy of the post opens a door to falsehood, just in the same way as the secresy of the ballot ; but if I were to name any one act of despotic Governments which excites peculiar abhorrence, it is the breaking the seal of private letters, and the violation of confidential epistolary intercouse between man and man. And what then, I pray you, ss.ould be thought of the impudence of any private individual who should claim the right to unseal his neighbour's correspondence, under pretence of taking security that no untrue assertions should be made to hint alit the contents of it? Such a claim, Sir, would he scouted as fiat - 10c impudence—but in what respect, let me ask, is the pretension less impudent when applied to voting at else-' lions ? When a man says, " I have a right to know how my neighbour votes, and if lie is allowed to vote secretly he may deceive me ; therefore, in order that I may not be deceived, coo (the Legislature) must compel him to vote openly." Now, Sir, who shall deny that this is a claim monstrous and unjustifiable on the : face of it ?—(Hear, hear.) First prove to me, I say, that you have any right to know your neighbour's vote, before you claim to be invested with the power of look ing over his elbow in order to discover it ? I contend that you have no right to know it at all, against his will and con sent--not the shadow nor pretence of a right ;he may disc close it to you Hite pleases, but you must take your chance of his giving you false information, on a matter where he is fully entitled to withhold information altogether. You would have no right whatever to fish out your neighbour's vote against his wish, even if your motive were nothing worse than an innocent curiosity ; bow much less right have you to do so, when your motive is one of malignity and op psession ?__when you try to penetrate the secret of his vote, for the direct purpose of inflicting evil upon him, if he will not alter it at your bidding ?— W hen you are seekine to accompli s h the double mischief o f d e f rau di ng your country of an honest vote and of turning the revelations of the voter to his ruin ? This, Sir, is the real purport of the complaints wide]] you hear so loudly put forth against the mendacity of the Ballot —the outcry which is raised against it on the ground that it affords encou ragement to lying. What are such complaints except the murmurs of disappointed tyranny, raised by those who are trying to extort confessions from a voter, with the express view of turning those confessions against him, and making them the evidence for visiting hint with ejectment, or dis missal, or loss of custom ? Persecutors, Sir, of every class, may well be angry with the Ballot —fo r it frustrates their mis chievous purposes—it enables the voter to do his duty to his country, it ithonn baring his bosom to the assault of private malice—mid they fad their account in denouncing the means of escape from wrongful persecution as if it were an encou ragement to wrongful deceit. Ido not stand here, Sir, as the defender of falsehood ; but I will not shrink from saying, nevertheless, that if I am reduced to choose b. tween the two evils—successful tyranny on the one side, and the success of falsehood, as a defence against tyranny on the other—l still not shrink from saying that the last is by far the least evil of the two. And is not this, Sir, the real alternative ? Is it not the alterna tive to which mankind are always reduced, Whenever the spirit of persecution, religious or political, has poisoned the hearts of the superior classes? The annals of past history present hut too copious records of religious persecution, and what has been the uniform result? Some few resolute and heroic spirits have endured martyrdom rather than submit, even in appearrnce, to a creed which their conscience repu diated; but the greater number of the persecuted sect has evaded the tyranny of the oppressor by rendering outward homage to the worship thrust upon them by force, while they reserved their own sincere and conscientious devotion to be offered in secret. Such has been the history of all persecuted sects—of the early Christians under the Pagan Emperors of Rome—of Protestants under Catholic persecution, as well as . of Catholics under Protestant persecution—of Protestant Dissenters in England and Scotland, when the Church of England sought to put them down—of every religious sect, without exception, which has been proscribed by the abuse of sovereign authority. N ow, Si r, i s there any historian so bigoted as to revile these oppressed men for carrying on their own worship secretly, when they were prevepted by violence from following it openly ? Is it an unpardon able sin, when, under the pressure of penalties, they com bine outward conformity with secret.dissent ?—( Hear.) Sir, I venture to say that there is no man of common generosity who will so treat it—there is no one whose wrath w ill not turn against the persecutor rather than against the man who is com pelled to dissemble in order to escape persecution. Now, Sir, substitute the political for the religious conscience, and sou have the precise case of the dependant elector voting by ballot —you have the precise case of the tenant, who, to avoid eject ment and ruin, professes acquiescence in the unjust dictates of his landlord, while he avails himself of the ballot to vote agreeably to his own real sentiments. Secrecy, Sir, is the refuge °Nile weak against the strong ; and we are fortunate indeed when the injustice of the strops , admits of being effectually defeated by secrecy, as it doea ha the case of voting. Deny to the menaced voter the refuge of secrecy, and what is the consequence ? You secure the triumph of injustice —you strengthen the force of the political perse cutor, for the worst of all purposes —you impart to him the hundred eyes of Argus, combined with the hundred arms of Briareus. No, Sir, this is neither genuine morality nor en larged wisdom. Abolish persecution and injustice how and when you can ; the sooner tho better : but until you have done so, do not close up the only door by which the sufferer can escape them. Sir, when Gentlemen attack me on the ground tharthe Ballot has a tendency to cause false declarations or false promises, I might well rest my case in reply on the argument which I have just stated. I might well defend myself by saying that such falsehood is the least of two evils, where there is only an alternative of evils to choose out of. But I shall not content myself with this reply. I can repel the attack still more effectually. Gentlemen tell me that the Ballot makes hypocrites. I tell them that open voting makes hypocrites—hypocrites at least as many in number, and much worse in kind ; for what is an elector who votes against his conscience except a hypocrite?—( Hear, hear.) And will any man who has read the Report of the Intimidation Com mittee deny that such hypocrites are made by thousands under the present system of open voting ?—( Hear, hear.) Take the matter at the worst, the same elector who would be a hypocrite under the Ballot, would also be a hypocrite under the plan of open voting. lie now speaks truly, and votes dishonestly ; under the Ball o t h e may speak falsely, but he would vote honestly ; he now plays the hypocrite to his coun try, he would then cheat only the intimidator who had tried to suborn him. I repeat it again, Sir, no new hypocrisy is created under the Ballot—no additional falsehood whatever. The falsehood which it introduces is far more pardonable and less mischievous than that which it supplants. For if there be any one claim paramount and indisputable, it is the claim of the nation to require a sincere vote from every elector ; under open voting, the intimidator defeats this claim ; under the Ballot he may indeed try to defeat it, but he fails ; instead Of causing a lie to be told to his country, he only causes a lie to be told to himself. Whatever may be the tone of morality current among those to whom free voting is bitter and dis tasteful, I shall not be afraid to declare that an insincere speech made for the purpose of averting the unjust vengeance of an intimidator is, at least, a smaller evil than an insincere vote given by an elector to his country. But, Sir, I have taken the comparison most unfairly to my own case. I have taken the comparison as it would stand, if attempts to intimidate continued to be as prevalent after the introduction of the Ballot as they are now. It is time to ask, however, whether this would be the fact ?—whether the attempts to intimidate would still remain in fashion after the Ballot had rendered them abor tive, and destroyed all possibility of carrying them to a success ful issue ? I affirm that no such futile efforts will continue to be made ; if common prudence be of any avail in governing the actions of men, none such will continue. Fcr what man will be insane enough to waste his fire on a mark out of sight and out of reach. What man will commence the work of im potent intimidation, with the certainty not only of failure in his object, but of aggravated bitterness On the part of those whom he idly endeavours to overawe ?—( Hear.) It is not in nature, Sir, that such things should be. When the process of intimi dation is forbidden to be consummated, it will no longer be begun—the trade will be at an end—a landlord will no more think of trying to coerce his tenant, than be now thinks of coercing any neighbouring gentleman, when the Ballot shall have rendered the vote of the one as independent as the vote of' the other. Now, Sir, this is all that any man can desir e; for let intimidation be discontinued on the part of the superior, and there will be no chance of insincerity on the part of the dependant. Sir, in endeavouring to make good my proposi tion of this evening, I have brought before you chiefly the evil of intimidation, the great and master evil by which the legiti mate purpose of elections is now subvei ted. But there is also another mischief of considerable moment-.the mischief of bribery. How will the Ballot affect bribery ? Sir, lam pre pared to show that the Ballot is the most powerful antidote against bribery which it is in your power to administer. To establish this conclusion, I would be quite content to take as my evidence the feelings of any mercenary elector. Ido not believe that there is a single voter, accustomed to take bribes who will not feel that his market is struck from under him when he is directed to vote in secret. His vote is at once re duced from a certainty to a contingency —a contingency of which l oast by no ingenuity convey any evidence ; and this is but a sorry piece of merchandise when its value comes to be measured in m one y, Th en, b es id es, the Ballot ensures absolute ignorance of the state of the poll, from the begin ning to the end of it. The candidate neither knows how many votes, he has got, now how many he will get ; and he has, consequently, no means whatever of determining how ninny voted must be bought in order to procure a majority. How bribery is to be carried on at all, in the midst of such dark ness and uncertainty, I know •not--( Hear, hear, hear:) — but sure I am, that it can not be carried on in the direct and easy manner that it is now—it cannot be transacted be tween individual and individual, a certain sum down without LOTTERIES. Mr. PEASE wished to ask a question of the Hon. Alder man the Member for London (Alderman Wood). Ile wished to know whether the Hon. Member intended to bring in a Bill to raise funds, either by lottery or by a tax upon coals, for the purpose of improving the streets of London ? Mr. ALDERMAN WOOD said that it certainly was his intention to ask leave to bring in a Bill similar to that men tioned by the Hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that he would allow that Bill to pass. Lord SANDON, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet (SirJ. Hobliouse) in his place, wished to call his attention to a sub ject of some importance. It would be in the recollection of the House that a Committee was appointed to inquire into the appropriation of the, revenue upon salt in India; that Committee had reported on the subject ; and he wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet whether any steps ha been taken to carry the recommendations in that Report into effect ? Sir J. HOB HOUSE said that the Report had been sent to the Governor-General of India, and be understood that it had given very general satisfaction in that country, but he had not yet received any further information upon the subject. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE. The SPEAKER informed the House that it was his inten . • tion to sit to-morrow at three o'clock ; first, for the purpose of receiving petitions on the Irish Poor-laws, in order that they might be referred to the Committee ; and, at fou'r o'clock, he should resume the regular business of the House., With respect to the petiti ons regar di ng t h e Ballot, he had to re quest that Gentlemen would present only one at a time. THE BALLOT. Mr. HUME presented petitions from Norwich in favour of the Vote by Ballot ; also a petition praying for Universal Suf frage, the abolition of Property Qualification for Members of Parliament, and for equal rights for all men. Petitions were also presented in favour of the Vote by Bal lot by Mr. Potter, from Wi g an ; by Mr. Strutt, fr o m a place, Vie name of which we could not learn ; by Mr. Finn, from 21 parishes in the counties of Kilkenny and Sligo; by Mr. Dundas; by Mr. Wilbraham ; by Mr. Ch ar l es B u ll er, f rom t h e county of Roscommon, in reland, from the borough of Bandon, from, Falmouth, and from Liskeard ; by Mr. Scholefield, from Bir mingham ; by Mr. Hodges, from parishes in the county of Kent; by Mr. Blake, from a parish in the county of Galway; by Mr. W. Roche, from the city of Limerick ; by Mr. Ewart, from Liverpool ; by Mr. W. S. O'Brien, from parishes in the county of Limerick ; by Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Kerry; by Mr. Sharman Cranford, from Dundalk ( Louth), from Fahan and Dywlagany (Donegal), from Cloncs East (Monaghan) and from the city of Armagh ; by Sir Richard Musgrave from WaterfoNl ; by Mr. G. S. Barry from 11 parishes in the county of Cork ; by Sir R. Nagle from Westmeath ; by Mr. Jephson from Mallow ; by Mr. Leader from Bridgwater and from Preston, signed by 7,000 inhabitants; by Mr. I'. Duncombe, from Knaresboraugh ; by Alderman Wood, from Gloucester ; by Mr. Roebuck, from Bath, Cockermouth, and other places ; by Mr. Tooke ; by Mr. Gully from a parish in the West Riding of Yorkshire ; by Mr. Harvey ; by Mr. Holland from Evesham ; by Mr. Maher from Wexford; by Mr. Robinson, signed by 1,350 inhabitants of Worcester, including the Mayor; Mr. Morgan O'Connell, from the county of Dublin; by Mr. Bodkin, from the town of Athenry, from the parishes of Adricool, Liskeary, Moycullen, Donaghpatrick, Kilcummin, Claregalway, Shruel, in the county of Galway, and from the parish of St. Nicholas, in the county of the town of Galway ; and by Mr. Pryme, from Cambridge. Mr. GIOTE presented petitions to the same effect from Richmond, Yarmouth, Brighton, Leicester, Oxford, and other places. TRADE WITH JAVA. Mr. P. M. STE WART begged to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he had arranged with the Dutch Government the terms of the treaty of 1824, and if an indemnity had been insisted upon with respect to the excessive duties charged? He wished to know first whether he had been enabled to prevail upon the Dutch Governmet to adjust the duties present and prospective in strict conformity with the terms of that treaty ; and secondly, whether he had been enabled to convince the Dutch Government that they were bound in honour and fair dealing (the latter they should un derstand) to refund the excessive duties charged, amounting to half a million sterling? Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to his Honourable Friend, regretted to say that the old observation was in this case verified, that nothing was more difficult to con. vince a man of than the truth that would deprive him of a profitable injustice—( Hear)—and he regretted to say that the Dutch Government formed no exception to that rule. No doubt the construction the Honourable Member had put upon the treaty was the true and the just one. He (Lord Palmerston) had been endeavouring, ever since the question had been first started, to convince the Dutch Government that their construction of the terms of the treaty was erroneous, and not conformable either to its letter or its spirit. He had received a private communication that a tariff had been issued in Java, placing the difference of duty upon the difference of national flags ; but he had not been able to obtain any official communication from Holland to that effect. So far with regard to the first branch. The result had not been stated in any communication with the Dutch Government on this subject, but he had reason to hope that they had come to the determination strictly and literally to execute the treaty. With regard to the second branch, that, of course, could not be brought to a conclusion till they had disposed of the other branch of the question. He had announced to the Dutch Government that they would insist on their claims, not only for the future, but also upon a restitution for the past. Though the second branch therefore was postponed till after the, had settled the first, he could assure the House that it would not be abandoned.—( Cheers.) Mr. P. M. STE WART said that this question had been pending these thirteen years. ( Hear, hear.) He could only state that, thanking the Noble Lord for the answer he had given, he should be speaking falsely if he said that that answer was satisfactory. He would wait till the Noble Lord had satisfied himself on this subject ; and if he did not think the Noble Lord's views satisfactory, he would then take the liberty of bringing the question before the House in a substantial shape.—( Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL asked some question respecting the difference of duties levied upon Dutch and English goods. From the noise in the House, we could not catch the exact words of the question. Lord PALMERSTON said, in reply, that the treaty was, that goods imported into Java by British subjects, and by Bri tish vessels, should pay twice as much duty as goods imported by the subjects and in the vessels of Holland ; and where there was no duty levied upon articles imported by the sub jects and in the vessels of Holland, there should only be a duty of six per cent, levied on English goods. The Dutch wanted to make the difference of duty depend not upon the nationality of the subjects, but on the nationality of the goods themselves ; that is to say, they w an t e d th e diffe rence to apply to Dutch goods, if imported in English vessels. Ile had not received this information, as yet, officially. BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN AMERICA. Mr. ROBINSON wished to know whether any progress had been made in the settleme n t o f t h e boundaries of the-Bri tish possessions in America? Lord PALMERSTON said that no progress had been made in the question at p r esent - -commuideations were still going on, and although he believed both Governments were equally actuated by a sincere desire to bring the question to a settlement, yet there had been such difficulties in the way that that desirable object had not been attained. ADRIANOPLE AND RUSSIAN TURKEY. Lord D. STUART wished to know from the lion. Mem. ber for Bath, when it was his intention to bring forward his motion with reference to Adrianople and Russian Turkey. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he had put off his motion on the subject referred to by the Noble Lord at the request of his Majesty's Minister the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not being prepared for the dis cussion. At the time he delayed bringing the subject forward he was told by the Government that an early day should be set apart for the discussion of the subject ; that day, however, had not yet arrived, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was pre pared to bring the subject forward at any period. Lord PALMERSTON thought the Hon. Member might make some arrangement with the Noble Lord at the head of the Home Office, in order to enable him to bring the Subject forward at an early day. BALLOT. Mr. GROTE then rose to bring forward the subject of which he had given ‘s ith respect to the Ballot, and said—l have received great encouragement in bringing forward the present subject from the numerous petitions which have been laid upon the table of the House in its favour.—( Hear, hear.) The House is perfectly aware that the subject is one which I have more than once introduced to the notice of the House. My o toh b fe je mi c me t tnp is orbe t i importance bring nocfe p,oafr i i n a the haemßeinllt measure t_o t ( nk e Vote Elie aarm. a blioulita Impressedtl o lu t r i e n cao t shmeimaelectionrecommend the Attention of the House, I will, as shortly as I cap, state the 7V* , ' • • ."I';•7‘. • . /