The Sun. — London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

Til E. SUN, LONDON, ". - lag contests to wring and extort from them their promises in his favor; and when he had at 1 ngth screwed them into returning him by means of these abominable appliances, the candidate would turn round and coolly tell his constituency, those bought and intimidated unfortunate , , that he was the most honoured man in the woad. iii firing elected by their free and unbiassed suffrages.—(Laughter) Then, hav ing been thus returned to that House, whenever such a gustation as the ballot was brought forward, ho ( Mr. Berkeley) had always observed that such candidates were ever foremost to enact the manly British lion, and indig• =may protested that they could not support the ballot—it was against their conscience to do so—they were virtuously shocked at the bare idea of the lying and deceit to which they believed it would inevitably lead.—(Latighter.) Well, then, this was the system to which the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Northampton would adhere, because he Was so fond of the truth and such a hearty hater of deceit, and because he could not bear that they should institute such a state of things as might be productive of lying, as he called it. Then having looked at his system, he ( Mr. Berkeley) would now turn to examine the system he assailed, and for this purpose he must be allowed again to quote from Mr. Grote.—[The Honourable Gentleman here read an ex tract to the effect that the ballot would merely empower the voter to vote without being observed by a witness, and would only enable him either to perform or break his pro mise without being found out if he were so disposed ; it held out no inducement or reward for violating his promise.] — And certainly the same thing might be said with reference to every solitary or private act of every man's life. But why were Hon. Gentlemen so afraid that the voter would break his promise the moment he could do so with impunity? Why, it Was but too well known that the promise given by the voter was in thousands of cases extorted compulsorily, and not the consent of his free will, or the dictate of his honest con *fiction ; and would not be made except to one who took an ungenerous advantage of him, and who possessed the power of inflicting a penalty incase of refusal. Compulsory promises might be broken, but those which were voluntarily given would be faithfully kept if the vote could be secretly recorded. He would cite an instance that fell under his own notice in support of this view. It occurred at the Bristol election in 1841, which was severely contested. He (Mr. Berkeley) canvassed a populous parish with several very experienced canvassers, and they had taken the greatest possible care Slot ta put down anything doubtful among the list of pro mises, and always to weigh well the character of the party promising in the first instance. Having quitted the ground with his party. the opposite party then came upon it. They were both upon the best terms with each other : no acrimo • nious or bitter feeling existed on either side. His opponents asked him (Mr. Berkeley) what had been his success, and he told them how many more he computed he would poll in that parish than he had done at the previous election. Well, the answer they made him (Mr. Berkeley) was very ominous—it was, " You think so, do you ? and you have that number of promises.—(This was about six o'clock in the evening.) Before four o'clock to-morrow we will change 100 of your promises." Well, after the election, he (Mr. Berkeley) was informed by his friends that sixty of the Promises which had been voluntarily made to him had been changed, it being estimated that 40 of the men were intimidated, and twenty bought. Did not such a case es this call loudly for the ballot? To whom would it be best that the lie should be told? To the man who came forward in a fair and open manner, and as a candidate sought only free and voluntary promises, or to the base suborner of conscience, who came with his bribes and intimidation? He put this forward to the House as one of the strongest instances that could be adduced to prove the harmlessness of the ballot, . and the iniquity that prevailed under the existing system of voting. He had abstained from going into the question of the ballot as it was affected by the practice that obtained in the nations of antiquity, and particularly among the Romans and Athenians; but as there had been so much talk about the immorality of the ballot, he would remind Hon. Gentle men, and particularly , the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that they had a strong recom mendation of the ballot in the circumstance of its having been adopted by the highest authority that could possibly be adduced for any earthly institution.l The very first Christian election that ever took place was transacted by ballot.— . (Hear, bear.) And it was an election under the most solemn circumstances. The House would remember that between the death of Christ and his ascension, that there occurred a vacancy among the Apostles, throug the self immolation of Judas Iscariot, and 120 of the disciples of Christ assembled together to elect Judas's successor. There -were two candidates, Matthias and Barsebas. The votes were taken by ballot, and Matthias was elected by a, majo rity. Now he (Mr. Berkeley) would not pretend to say that the election took place in this form by Divine command—far from it; but he thought he would be borne out in saying that it took place with the warrant and under the seal of inspiration.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Berkeley) feared that he must look for the opposition of the Noble Lord the • Member for London to this motion ; but he trusted that as this had been hitherto left an open question by the Govern • anent. that it would be left so also on the present occasion. And he would. pray the Noble Lord, who so strongly advo cated public education, to reflect that education was always most dangerous wherever there existed discontent, and es pecially wherever there were real grievances to be redressed. —(Hear.) It seemed to him (Mr. Berkeley) that the im provement of the social and political condition of man ought to go hand in hand, for if they attended to the former and not also to the latter, they would only make me n more acutely feel the degradation into which they might be plunged. For himseif he (Mr. Berkeley) had the highest respect for the Noble Lord, and perfectly concurred with him that reforms in this country, for the safety of the constitu tion, should be carried out gradually and with steady pro gress ; and he felt deep gratitude tp the Noble Lord tor the • advancement towards civil and religious liberty which this country had made under his auspices; but he (Mr. Berke -1_92 w ould take leave most r espect f u ll y t o u rge upon him b i f!s . any one subject wer e more calcu l a t e d tha n another to de deprive hint of the good feeling and gratitude of the nation, it was, that he was disposed to abide by the per nicious doctrine of "finality." He (Mr. Berkeley) believed be had disclaimed that doctrine—he trusted he had totally eliscarthd it; but still the general impression abroad was, that as regarded the Reform Bill, he was still predisposed to main. ain it. It seemed -o him (Mr. Berkeley) that the as sertion of the dogma of " finality" in any nation was a 'convertible term with the assertion of the " perfection" of that nation ; and to assert the perfection of any sublunary measure whatever savoured strongly of arrogance and pre sumption, and should be scouted, above all, in these en lightened times. He (Mr. Berkeley) wished it to be dis tinctly uncle stood that he bad not been in any way iidt • einced in bringing forward his motion by any agitations that prevailed upon this subject out of doors. He w.is aware that the class of persons calling themselves Chartist., adopted the ballot ae one of the five points of their charter ; but he (Mr. Berkeley) considered the ballot to be disgraced by their advocacy of it: for he considered the Chartist body to be violent opponents of reason, and enemies of all true reform. Such was the result of his observations; although at the same time lie freely admitted that he fully believed that many conscientious men supported the Charter. It was from no, desire to fan any excitement existing upon this subject that he now introduced this question; he was solely actuated to do so from the respect which he enter tained for the industrial and trading classes, upon whom open:voting pressed heavily. He entreated the House to Strike off the fetters from such men, who so well deserved it from their country, seeing they had passed through such an ordeal recently, and bad nobly come out from it with the highest credit to themselves.—(hear, hear.) He did not ask Ahem to create any new constituents • toat was not his prayer now; but he asked them, and asked them confidently, to do justice to those constituents who already existed, and had delegated the present Assembly with their authority —he implored the House to do them justice, to seek no Linger to oppress them, to seek no longer to be their task triasters ; but to allow them the same measure of liberty of 'thought, of conscience, and of action, which Honourable Members themselves valued even above their lives; and he (Mr. Berkeley) was sure, that as the best safeguard of the throne was to be found in the affections of the people, so Would they find that the best security, the best bulwark for ,the institutions of this great country , wo ul d be constituted u 3" those bonds of gratitude, which they would materially help t o weave around the hearts of the various orders of our Iw4 La l community by the act of grace which he now craved at the bands'of that House.—(Applause.) The Honourable Member concluded by moving,—" That it is expedient, in the election for Members to serve in Parliament, that the votes of the electors be taken by way of ballot." Colonel THOMPSON said it afforded him great pleasure to follow the Hon. Mover of the question, because he felt it ' removed from his (Colonel Thompson's) side. the charge of being men who wished to act in contradiction to the unity -which was so essential to the well-being of the - country. They did not present themselves as the organs of an in sulated patty; they marched under their proper officers, dis avowing all principles of disunion or discord ; and re joicing when they could see united with them those who had ancestral connexions and territorial rights, which were the pledges that they would not go along with them in anything dangerous or generally hurtful. One of the • • strong arguments used by the enemies of the ballot had been, that the exercise of the franchise was a duty. Now, with that its friends most entirely closed ; and the Hon. Mover and himself (Colonel Thompson) had long been in the habit of seeing, in the course of their pro fessional experience very similar duties discharged, and how? When they had both sat at court -martial and having a duty to perform, they sought to be prote ct e d in its exercise b y ' w hat ho might designate a kind of b allot ; at all events, u y, giving their opinions in secret, for the officers took a solemn oath that they would never disclose their "wn or any brother officer's opinion expressed in Court. Nor was this all, for he could point to the Court where Medical ( fficers sat, and where oaths were administered that one member would neither divulge his own nor any other member's vote. And why should not the veteran common • soldier, posse-sing a vote, who saw how his officers sheltered themselves by secrecy, claim to have the protection of the ballot to shield him from the vengeance of the wealthy or Powerful man whom he feared to offend by the• way he fell bound •in his conscience to vote ? He would appeal to the . Pon. Member whether the alacrity of the soldier in following his, leader was not invariably much dependent upon the consciousness that those in high stations exercised fairness and even-handedness to their inferiors; and he wcuid ask whether it was not politically and militarily advisable to cherish and foster such sentiments of confidence in the minds of the people? Their ancestors had acted upon this princi , ple, and to this their successes were owing; and this principle it was that made the soldier and the civilian steady and faithful to their superiors in the hour of trial. To take a recent instance, the celebrated 10th of April last showed .• that the people were, with but few exceptions, loyal and de , notedly attached to their ancient institutions; and again, why had the late rebellion in Ireland gone off like a morning fog,,and left no other feeling in that country except the hope that England would not be placed behind France in the ex . hibition of its moderation after it had triumphed over every resistance.—(Hear.) He ascribed it to the feeling gaining ground, that the days had gone by when any one class would regard its interests as inimical to those or any other class- • Receet events must have convinced the aristocracy that-no danger was to be apprehended from the reforms sought by the people; they only sought for justice; and had no real jealousy or antipathy to a hereditary aristocracy that would manifest a disposition to deal fairly with them.— (Hear.) With regard to the ballot, he (Colonel Thompson) would ask one question—What had any honourable man to ]ose, by the downfall of intimidation, which would result from protecting the humble voter? There might be some few gentlemen who felt that they could not afford to part with the tyrannical powers they now possessed over their poorer brethren, but he was sure that ninety-nine out of every one hundred of those whom lie now saw around him entertained more honourable and humane sentiments. In conclusion, he had much pleasure in seconding the motion. Mr. W. FAGAN rose to vindicate • his reverend friend Dr. . Murphy from the animadversions passed upon his conduct by the Hon. Mover in this question. He could say that considerable exaggeration had ,existed as to the transactions previous to Kinsale election, and the Rev. Doctor had never practised any intimidation whatever to induce the voters to vote for Mr. Watson ; on the contrary, he had never spoken to them regarding the election, but he earnestly took the op portunity of impressing upon them the solemn duty of avoid mg all bribery and corruption. With reference to what had taken place before the. Kinsale Election Committee of that • House, he (Mr. Fagan) had never been made aware of the circuusstasite4ilLit.was. alluded to that night, and he bad only that moment looked over t h e evidence a dduced by the gar Ellen Brion) who spoke to having seen a bribe offered to James Mahoney; and from the cross-examination it appeared that she referred to her havri e mentioned the circumstance when at confession with Dr. Murohy. The sign which the Reverend Doctor had made to the girl, I , if indeed he made any at all, doubtless was meant to convey to the witness his sense e , d.isappr ,val at her introducing before such a tribunal what occurred at so solemn an occasion as a confession. He (Mr. Fagan) had the honour of the Reverend Doctor's acquatu ance, and fully believed him utterly incapable of intimidating any body ; and he felt it to be only due to the ReVerend Gentleman to s tate what he (Mr. Fagan) had now done to defend him in his absence. Mr. P. HOWARD rose amid cries of " Divide ! divide !" He said he could not consent to any departure from the great constitutional principles which had recommended open voting to our ancestors. He maintained that the franchise was a trust to be exercised not only for the voter himself, but also for the entire community, under a solemn responsibility, and subject to that guarantee and safeguard as to its faithful exercise, which publicity alone could effectually afford. He detested bribery and corruption as much as the most zealous advocate of the ballot could; and he regarded those who resorted to such disreputable prac tices to gain a seat in that House as the very worst enemies to open voting in existence ; but be believed t tie vast majority of the electors of this country were beyond the pale cf these corrupt influences; and he further believed, notwithstand ing all that had been alleged to the contrary, that experi ence proved that the tradesman who steadily and inde pendently obeyed his conscience, without being a bitter par tizan, was ever in the long run most reepested by his feb low-townsmen, and who was at the same time very rarely a loser of custom in his business. Ha was, he confessed, fa vourable to approximating the suffrage in very small con stituencies almost to household sutiraga; but he trusted the House would resist all attempts to engraft the exotic of the ballot upon the indigenous stuck of our ancient and vene rable constitution. Colonel SIBTHORP had never practised himself, nor au thorised any one else to practise for him, either bribery or corruption in any shape or form; and therefore he was quite indifferent as to the result of the present motion, and would entirely abstain from voting upon it at all. He would leave the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to lead his own troops, but he believed they would be guilty of mutiny and leave him in the lurch on the present occasion.—(A laugh. ) Lord DUDLEY STUART cordially supported the motion, although he did not cherish such sanguine expectations from the ballot as some of its warmest advocates seemed to do, because he feared that those who were determined to be cor rupt, and use corrupt influence, would devise some other scheme by which to carry out their wicked purposes. Still the evils of intimidation were so great in the towns and counties of the kingdom, that unless some measure were adopted as an auxiliary to the Bill for Preventing Corrupt Practices at Elections, which had recently been introduced, the people would lose all their confidence in the Government, and discredit their sincerity; for if bribery were a species of corruption. intimidation was equally so, and equally claimed their efforts to repress it. He had supported every one of the recent reform propositions of the Honourable elember for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and he hoped the House would at least now adopt the ballot, whieh was one of them. He hoped their next step would be to shorten the duration of Parliaments, and he (Lord Dudley Stuart) would take the opportunity of now giving notice that he would himself, early in the next session, bring forward a measure to consti tute the Parliaments triennial. Mr. URQUHART said the House had had some expe rience in a recent debate of the value of past reforms. He thought the financial condition of the country claimed at that moment the first consideration, and he believed that if they went on tinke'ring the institutions of the country, the result would be to create incessant alarm, and in the end to reduce the English constitution to a :cuput mod uum. The speech of the Honourable Member only tended to show that the House was very corrupt. Its corruption, how ever, was known before, and would not be diminished by such motions as that under consideration. The Honour able Member had, in support of his case, referred to sacred history, to show in what mode the successor of the apostate apostle was chosen. As well might he have brought forward the superscription on a Roman coin as a reason for changing the stamp of the English Mint. The apostles very naturally followed the practice which prevailed at the time in the states of 'Greece, about which there was nothing to recommend it to Englishmen. The Honourable Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) had on more than one occasion spoken of the contrast between the practice of clubs and the mode of electing Members of that House. It was strange that an Hon. Gentleman who was generally so well informed should not be aware that in clubs, even in the Carlton Club, which he expressly named, the practice of voting had been set aside, because it enabled ten or twelve Members, who banded themselves together, to do what they pleased. As regarded America, he would observe that so far from purity of election being the result of voting by ballot, the reverse was the fact; and he trusted that the people of this country would not be induced by groundless and ignorant analogies, to abandon the performance of a great practical duty. After a few words from Mr. TANCRED, which were totally inaudible, Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, I think it due to the Hon. Gentleman who has made this motion, and who has sup ported it by arguments of great ability and ingenuity, that before I give a vote contrary to the motion, I should state some of the grounds which will induce me thus to vote. ( Hear, hear.) I can hardly pretend, Sir, to any novelty of argument, because it has been my fate on oche r occasions to speak on the subject now before the House. I consider, and in that view I am supported by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman who seconded the motion, that this is a proposal to make the exercise of the right of voting an act in contradiction to the usual policy and principles of stir Government and Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman says that in courts-martial the members of the court take an oath that they will not reveal the opinion which they and their fellows may give upon any case under consideration. It has been thought requisite for the due management ,f courts-martial, and for the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule into such proceedings. But it is a special rule ail' ming military bedies, and at variance with the general rule of our Con stitution, having been introduced, as I imagine, for the pur poses of the special discipline of the army and navy of this country.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, not denying that such a rule may be right and necessary for the purpose of main taining military or naval discipline, of ensuring obedienne, and of inducing due subordination to the chide of military or naval bodies, 1 say that I stand here, not to introduce into the general practice of the constitution those special rules which are necessary for the preservation of military or naval subordination, but to preserve the open and free spirit of our Englise institutions.—(Hear, hear.) Looking, Sir, at examples, I do not find any instance in which secrecy is made the rule of our political institutions.—(Hear, hear.) I fine that in the case of a trial it is thought advisable, and even necessary, for the due administration of justice, that the court should be open. The witnesses appear and give their testimony in public; the judge delivers his opinion in public before the court and the assembled people, there being reporters to take down everything that ne says; and if the jury deliberate in secret, their vote must, at least in case of conviction, be known ; for it must be the unanimous verdict of twelve men. Therefore, Sir, in courts of justice publicity is the rule. I can understand that the argument might be used—and if we are to introduce this principle into the right of voting, I do not know but that it may have great force—that it would be far better, if the witnesses were not subject to intimidation for telling the truth, that it would be far better, in order that the judge might be entirely impartial, if he were not an object of put,. lie censure and public calumny for taking that course which a t thereforearndgunin et, Irepeat, betteriftr nrh trials were be sheicsrceotracnidenncoetmpauy tabldicic.Tteh,a o u i s ) e p d o , s e b d u t t 0 I t c h o e n c g e e i n v a u st and it spiritw ou l o d be a f our n s argument institutions.—([sear, tuentirely(rp of l- House thiLaur.2e, artheollt,igthhaent,onaestiim'egeairtdswastheth,dmeglihbtertaltiaiotntshe ought not to permit the presence of strangers, and for a a lo n n d g tsheeriesdeolifbe3ryears s s t r o a f n g t e h r e s i w i e o r u e s e n o in w t e r fact eoniy a i d )a ni r i t tt i a e l i t y l , known; yet, as the spirit of freedom gained ground—as our institutions became more popular, it was insisted upon, asserted, and finally conceded, that all the deli berations of this and the other House of Parliament should be public. Again, it was not exactly known, except from private memoranda and notes taken by individuals, what were the votes of Members on particular questions. An Honourable Friend of mine, however, thought it advisable that the votes of every Member should be !mare, and that on that account they should be regularly taken down by the officers of the House, and printed with the votes. After a struggle, he succeeded in his object, and now the votes of every Member on every subject may be known to the whole country. It might be • contended that the decisions of this [louse would be more impartial without this publicity; that Members would have a better opportunity of consulting their own judgment and their own consciences, it they were not liable to those attacks from their constituents, and those im putations upon their motives which are consequences of their votes being known. But still you have deciaed, and decided I believe rightly, that publicity shall bs the rule, thinking that, whatever may be the inconvenience of publicity, it is desirable that a man should have to stand up and defend his vote; that he should not deny any vote which lie may have given, and that he should vote openly and publ cly, according as his opinion may dictate. I think then, Sir, 1 may jtis lv say that what is now proposed is at least at variance with the general spirit of our institutions.—(Hear, hear.) 1 will say further that it accords with the popular spirit of our institutions that all these public doings— the exercise of every political trust should be carried on in the face of the country and of the world. We are now asked to say that there shall be an exception, and that exception shall be with regard to the constituent body of this kingdom. The Hon. Gentleman proposes no alteration in the number of electors. He still leaves us open to that charge which was made by the Hon. Gentleman who is now sitting near him (Mr. Hume, as was understood), that only one in seven of the male persons of adult age were to have the right of voting. In this one iu seven he proposes to leave the power of electing Menitstis of Parliament, un controlled by any knoisledge of their - proceedings, un controlled by any exercise of public opinion, and completely pietei).) (if the object could be eff ected—u p on that point I ma y s p ea k afterwards —but if the objec t could be effected coin concealed. Therefore one.seventh of the male adults of this kingdom are to have what the constitution of Venice gave to the inquisitors of that state, a secret and despotic power over all the affairs of this kingdom. For, be it observed, the electors of this kingdom are the ultimate judges with re spect to any political changes or any political measures which may be required.--(Hear, hear.) Whatever may be the wishes of the Crown, whatever the opinion of the House of Lords, such are the powers vested in this House that the Crown would have no resource in case of a dif ference with it but to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the great body of the electors, and if that body should send representatives to this House in favour of some par ticular claim, or of some particular measure, there would be no force in the constitution of this country ; and so long as this House retains the whole power over the supplies—the power of the purse in its hands—l see not how there can be any force in that constitution to resist this vote of the elec tors, as expressed by a large and decided majority of the [louse of Commons. Now, if this power is so great, if it is, in fact, the ultimate and supreme power of deciding the des tinies of this country, so much the more cautious should you be in saying in what manner the power is to be exercised ; and while you say that everything in this country shall be public—while you declare that openness and publicity is the great rule of our constitution, and distinguish this modern free constitution from many of the institutions of ancient re• publics—so long as you say this, you should be cautious how you make a change under which this supreme, this irrespon sible, this despotic power is to be exercised in secret, without s l y public opinion to r e v iew it, and according to the mere w de S rs i t r a , n li d n a t n h y e inconstitution w ho Imciotuilsd well un derstand ta c oae s e There fo ll a osf n ar2a d r: eihnes democratic caprice is h n.lt as oan t d h ye e cinid " The sovereignty is placed in numbers. i e ll ; io t n h s ey o aadvueltnomt nothing in to d th o i b s u c t ou t n o t s ry a; which party has majority, and if they choose to exercise their powers secretly they should be allowed to do so." 1;31d o such is not the nature t . your present electoral constitution. The very fault which the Hon. Member for Montrose has attributed to the electoral body is, that it is a select body. It is poly a portion of the people of this country who hay* the elective franchise, and, therefore, the franchise is a trust repoeed in them which they are to exercise for the benefit of the whole community. Well, then, the question is now, haw can they best exercise it? How can they exercise it in the manner most likely to be conducive to the good of the com munity? I say that they will exercise it best if they give their votes publicly—if every man is obliged to say, I give my vote for such a person," and knows that he must abide by his vote. Now, Sir, Ido not deny that there is great fierce in the objections made by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. 11. Berkeley) to the present system. With great justice to his own argument, he has laid stress on the scenes of intimi dation and corruption which take place under the present mode of voting. Undoubtedly, these are great defects ; but, at the same time, I would not, on account of de fe.s or abuses, surrender a great principle— e u W ar. ) and that, too, a principle which I consider to be an essential and vital one in our constitution.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman save, that in a certain case at Bristol lie had a great many more promises than he had received on a former occasion ; but that his opponents said that they would turn one hundred of the voters who had so promised, and he added that they did, in fact, turn sixty of them, some by corruption, others by intimidation. But that, no doubt, was not only a great loss to the Hon. Gentleman, but very disgraceful, both to those persons who used the means employed, and to theYe who permitted themselves to be so turned. Bat another question now arises. Suppose we were to say, " We find these abuses so great, so odious, that we are determined to try whether secresy will not do—whether there be not a certain mechan ism by which some very ingenious cerpenter, some person who can make a box very cleverly, can secure to us all the benefits ef freedom of voting in this country." I do not believe that, practically, you would attain that object; I do not believe that you can make that change; I believe, in the first place, that if it were un derstood that large sums would be paid to certain electors if the election was carried by the opponent of the Hon. Gentleman, the existence of the ballot would not, for example, prevent those who had promised to vote for the Hon. Gentleman from being turned, and voting against him. Ido not think it at all follows, though it is usually argued by the advocates of the ballot, that the man who has the power of voting secretly will vote against the person from whom he has received, or expects to receive, a sum of money for his votes. I believe that, as according to the old proverb, " There is honour among thieves," so also there would also be a sort of honour among those who had been bribed, under the influence of which they would say, "These learerriceeitedantellielmw:ip sviort,espfeo,rikittlimge generallycandidate , votes, by which you cin c han g e the habits of a people.— n two i a y sgu b eps e p i h ie ar f tv i esw beenht o h m a t there is no ingenious meth od of takin g (Hear, hear.) I really do not believe you will find that a man who bad been canvassed for his vote would say, " I am a decided blue," or " I am a decided yellow ;" " I am a de cided Whig," or " I am a decided Tory ;" and endeavour to deceive everybody for' a fortnight together, in order to keep the favour of his landlord, or to preserve the support of his customers, and when the moment for the voting arrived, give his vote in direct contradiction to all that he had previously proposed. I do not think that it is in the English character, and that it is the meaning of those who say that the ballot is un-English. Ido not think that in the midst of the excitement of an election, when some men are saying ' I am for this candidate," and others " I am for that candidate," when they are talking warmly and ar guing in the market •place, or some other public resort, that their candidate is the best—l do not think that it is in the English character for men under such circumstances to pro pose what they do not feel, and in the end to give a vote in direct contradiction to all that they have been saying. I believe, therefore, that those persons who would take any pains to find out what voters meant to do, would actually discover it, that the men would not disguise the way in which they intended to vote, and that there would be the same kind of intimidation, the same kind of influence em ployed as is now used at elections.—(llear, hear.) My opinion is, that when you had sacrficed t he g reat principle f publicity, when you had resorted to se cresy, you would not find that you had gained the object which you had in view ; that with a great deal of contrivance, and a great deal of ambiguity, you would come at length to pretty much the same result, have pretty much the same influences—the same corruption—the same intimi dation as you now wish to remove. Now I know it was the opinion of the late Lord Spencer, who used to vote for the ballot, because he thought that if people wished for the ballot they ought to have it, that the result of elections would be pretty much the same under the ballot as it is at present. But if the result of elections would be very nearly the same as it is now, there is surely no sufficient ground for adopting this change in our institutions.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I think those who consider the adoption of the ballot an advisible change in our institutions, ought to show an instance of a country in which the ballot has produced those effects which they say it would be so advantageous in producing here; they ought to give us some kind of example or precedent by which we might be guided. Now I never could find in ancient history, or in ancient writers, any goad authority in favour of the ballot. It would be pedantic to refer to what has been said on this question, and indeed all that could be introduced has been referred to on former occasions in this House. There was the ballot, and I believe that that was a better contrivance than was ever established anywhere else— in the Republic of Venice. There they had a contrivance of ballot iiivotving five or six different elections, one within an other, thirty choosing forty-five; forty-five choosing nine; nine choosing sixteen ; and so on : so that ultimately nobody could know how the vote had been brought about. But then that was a Government of extreme secresy, and, at the same time, of extreme aristocratic despotism; and, therefore, it certainly does not afford an example of which the advocates of the ballot have cause to be proud. We have had of late an example of the ballot under the constitution of Fratice,which certainly does not tend to encourage any other country to a.topt it. We know also that it exists along with universal suffrage in the United States of America; but nobody pretends that the voting in the United States iseit her secret or free from a great deal of corruption, from a great deal of treating, and, above all, from a most disgraceful system of condemnat iou and influences by a few persons acting upon a great multi tude. I have heard of seven or eight people there who could move forty or fifty thousand persons to vote for a par ticular candidate whom they had chosen ; and I own that there is nothing in the elections in the United States of America which induces me to think that we should make a good charge if we endeavour to imitate them.—( Hoer, hear. ) Now, Sir, an lion. Gentleman whom I see sitting on a bench behind me (Mr. Cobden) referred one day to the practice of the clubs in Loadon, and other institutions of that description, and said that in them the ballot was generally ;Monte I. The Hon. Gentleman who has just sat dawn de nied that that is the case, meaning, probably, that the practice is being abandoned ; but whether that be so or not, I hold that the case is entirely difTereut from that which we are now considering.—Hear.) What is the case of a club? You there have an association of three or four hundred dif ferent persons. A gentleman wishes to belong to the club. The question is not whether he shall be the solo representa tive of the club, or whether he or some other gentleman shall represent it, but whether he is a companion with whom the members would like to associate—a person of whose manners and conversation they would approve; and whether or not, for that reason he should be elected into the club. Now, in the first place, it is not a very great distinction to be chosen as one of those three or four hundred; and, in the next place, it is certainly not very agreeable—not, certainly, a personal offence, but at the same time not very agreeable—for a gen tleman voting against another on such an occasion, to say that he does not choose to associate with the person who has been pi p leo r ar o lsrd p oe o n s fsG e d. But the case of an election is totally dif. ferent. In that case you have sometimes to choose between another. two who u w r ho ca h n o ld l oned iara tenso w s a e ntd two o speaking p political l i l i o c ef a ma l nb o e p erl i se n e i t o toi n o e tn)e a a t e n n l e l io ts whichtwo there. ysw The ntulhep q woc u ll e tiuit s obi t em i , oabnl opinions.—(Hear, u) e l v r nw e ii,oe, is, not like d (hi as i t whether a t , hpeprr associatest hear.)he o n m c , candidate gr,i a id sl at i let a tno member i s a er e p o e t . the sojl N l: e e r p N T:eS m e .e n i t i understand a person saying openly to a candidate—" I have whom b eenl long acquainted e. stlrve,yrt,tovahuhianittloet 31,Ieios unhpwreioNgoi. political esso l aan • lowerunoe,htp7iiymnfeooicourtbnlespaf have a e arr esrvoe a eni nkma g ln e lynt n ),l7 t .);; l wn e :E t ninfsa, while fibuol should Ea e n e n l y i - I yours are the very reverse of mine; he will represent my opinions best in a political assemby, and this is a question of political opinions, and nothing else. I shall give my vote for your adversary and not for you." There is nothing per sonally offensive in that language—nothing, in fact, at which any man would have a right to take offence . it is not a cise in-which a man has to decide whom he will associate with and whom he will not ; but it is a matter of public duty and public trust, and the question is, who shall represent the individual in the great councils of the nation. So I hold that this is not a case analogous to that which we are now arguing. The Honourable Gentleman then alluded to another case, which I believe was not altogether appropriately introduced. The Honoyu)orsalboitle, there e tl b em ei a n n g said the choice of the Apostles was a case in point; now in that instance it was not a question of the majority or mi -1 t ap e o s st t l e es ti t ll o a seL 'a c - t time enda b m n se, a d t t aers other. lAs one by lot to join with Ln in interpreting the will of God. two ueri tpYe'rsbounts Ntvoh His proposi tion was not brought forward in the shape of a Bill, which These were not the only difficulties the Hon. Gentleman had n they could discuss in its various stages, and by which toa va cancy, contend ari d i n i t wwodai determine theme i (airdemtebirnemee respect to his proposition. tinhoeyiec(oitulvdoteisltlgablfits,rh.bylw Members ofthat Parliament,theballo declar ballot b sh u o t ul t d he be H t u l n ie . Gentleman merely prop o sed a resolution , ing that such a change in the mode of vo tin g was expedient. Now, such a change could only be effe cted b y law, which must be assented to by Parliament before it could be adopted. I therefore held it to be very inexpedient to pass a resolution condemning the present mode of voting ; for the Hon. Gen tleman does not propose to introduce a Bill which is to go through its various a stages by which this change is to be effected.— (Rear, hear.) 'lf we are to have such a change, let a Bill for that purpose be brought forward which we can consider, and see how the Hun. Member proposes to effect his object. All that the Honourable Gen tleman now did watt merely to propose a resolution to be placed on the journals of the House, that it is expedient that the votes for the election of Members of that House should be secret, and be taken by way of ballot. Now this is a course of prociredirig not. very consistent with the prac tice of this House, n or can it be attended with any public ad vantage. Certainlyt.:the Honourable Member mi g ht follow up his resolution. su.pi toeing it to be adopted , by proposing to introduce a Bill ; bt it I should oppose the introduction of such a Bill, because I believe such a change would be inju rious, and not be attended with advantage to the community. (Hear, hear.) It wee aid be a change which would be quite contrary to that open system 'which had ever prevailed n7t believe eould in this country—it we 'old be a change to adopt this prin ciple of secret voting, whi c h I am satisfied would fail in effect, because it Y hear.) do nottha that change th e fr effect of thenavowal e open of opinions which char: icterksed the peo p le of this country.— adop tion(Hear, of the plan would ba a tt en d e d w i t h an y gr eat results, for I believe that if re( to alopt the scheme and it failed, as I am satisfied it would, cc,mplaints would continue to be made that corruption still e x%sted, and intimidation still prevailed, and, therefore, we she aeld be told that we must go on with further changes as t ,h e ballot had f • ailed, because it had not been accompanied with other measures I—( aeud cries of "Hear, hear," from Mr. Cobden and other Hon, Members The lion. Gentlem an, then, admitted thi s , an d d en i e d the observation that t' tie ballot would not be sufficient of itself. —(Hear, hear.) If this is the case, I think that it would be far be tter at once to proceed to such a pre Pos ition as had been made by the Hono ura bl e Member for 'lontrose.- 1 :Hear, hear.) I believe the Hon. Member was found fat t with on a former occasion when he brought forwa'N I his motion, and was told lie would have had a better sir Alice of success if he had confined himself to one propositiot i instead of asking for universal suffrage, the lessening the duration of Parliaments, electoral districts, and vote by ballo t. Whether that proposition was wise or un wise I wall iot stop to consider, but at any rate we had then the whole "scheme before us.—( Hear, hear.) It is now con fessed=—ant I I would beg Hon. Members who intend only to vote fit th is change will so reflect on it—it is now avowed openly - the t this change alone would not produce a perma nent. a nd I oeneficial improvement, but that it must be re gareaed ora ly as a part of other changes.—(Hear, hear.) ath rho e observations, I shall warn the House not to adopt this l eroposal for secret voting; and, above all, ,after the avowal ',which we have heard, I cettaiuly shall vote against it.—(clleere..i - - WEDNESDAY EVENING, Mr. COBDEN said that it must be in the recollection of the House, when his lion. Friend the Member for Mon trcoe brought forward his motion for a reform in that House that many of his lion. Friends who were among the more t discreet reformers in that House said that it was very un wise to bring Members down to vote on four questions. His Hon. Friend thought he was much more likely to succeed if he brought forward one at a time. All must recollect how his lion. Friend was censured for adopting the course which he did. And now what did they hear from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government ? He found fault with the ballot because it was calculated to give to ore-seventh of the male adult population of this country the power of a Venetian oligarchy. Were his friends and himself who wished to have the franchise extended to a larp portion of the male population to be answered by this?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had recorded his vote against the exten sion of the suffrage; how then could he consistently come forward and make use of such an argument?—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he viewed the question of the ballot with less interest than he did twelve years ago.—( Hear.) He believed at that time there was less corruption in the boroughs, and the county constituencies were less subservient. He still believed, however, that vote by ballot was the best mode of suffrage for this or any other country.—(Hear, hear.) He would vote for the measure, because he believed that it was demanded by a very large portion of the electors of the country, and also because he had never heard a valid argument against it. Certainly the Noble Lord, with his great talent and long experience , if he could have found valid arguments against it. would have brought them forward, but he had completely failed in doing so. The opposition-to the question must be on its last legs, when nothing more had fallen from the Noble Lord than what the House had just heard. The Noble Lord said that the ballot was contrary to the open and free constitution of the country. It certainly might be open, but was it free ? • The franchise was open because they had not the ballot, but with past experience could they say-that it was free? The Noble Lord asked whether, in having secret pro ceedings in a court of justice, a judge or jury would not be less liable to obloquy or calumny than if all their proceedings were open ? This, however, was an unfair analog!. With respect to a jury, it was necessary, in cases of conviction, in criminal cases, that it should be unanimous, but this was unneces.ary w here there was an acquittal. But if the Noble L or d relied on the illustra tion of the jury, what did he say with respect to the grand jury, which was a secret body? In Scotland, also, where it was not necessary that the jury should be una nimous, there was no means of getting at the individual opinions of the jury. The Noble Lord also said that a person might be exposed to obloquy for openly giving evidence in a court of justice. He ( Mr. Cobden) denied this, and also the assumptipn that the judges for their conduct in court were liable to be calumniated.—(Hear; hear.) It was noto rious that no class of persons in thi s coun try was so far re moved from obloquy or charges of th a t kind as the judges for their conduct in their respective Courts. The Noble Lord also was not very correct in his analogy as to the votes in that House, for the votes of Members in that House were very different from those given by electors in choosing Members. The Members of that House were sent there to perform by delegation the duties of legislation which the large mass of the people. could not directly perform them- selves. if the Noble Lord reflected for a moment he would see that the case he mentioned did not hold good; for the Members of that House were subject to periodical election, and the electors to whom they were responsible might tell them, "we will not elect you again."--(Hear, hear.) The case was very different front the electors of th e coun t r y. To whom were the electors of this country responsible for the votes which they gave? Were they responsible to the non electors? Would any one tell him so? If it were - said that they were responsible to the non - electors, then it must be assumed that they were competent to judge the electors. If that were so, why not then give them votes ?—(Hear. hear, and loud cheers.) It came out in the course of the Noble Lord's speech to whom he considered they were responsible, namely, to the Marquis of Exeter and others who held the nominations of Members for boroughs.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have forgotten the theory of the constitution which he had lauded so much. The people of this country were to make the laws by which they were governed, and were to tax themselves. The an cient doctrine was, that every housekeeper should have the right of voting at the election of Members. The origin ot the custom was, that the right should be bestowed on the heads of families, but afterwa rds h ouseholders alone were did not seem to him to m a k e m uc h y was he so a nx i ous to d epart thought to have the power of nomin ating the Members of that House. As the Noble Lo rd was so fond of lauding the the of ai o n r c y ai tso?ef Theatgh a ie Nobleen o s n t s t t h i et Lordut b i a on l 'lot. The Noble Lo r d did no t say that aristocratic institutions could not be maintained if the ballot were adopted, but he said it was only bearable in a democracy. The drift of his argument was, that they could not maintain the institutions of the country with the ballot. Towards the end of his speech, however, lie said that the adoption of the ballot would make very little change on the people, for that manly feeling would still exist which would induce them to avow as to which way they voted; and he said that the late Lord Spencer on this ground, and also, as the people wished for it, said he would not make much objection to it. Where, then, was the Noble Lord's objection to it? The Noble Lord said that the disadvantages of the ballot were not merely confined to itself, for if it was carried, the advocates of it, being disappointed at its success, would require an extension of the suffrage. If the people exercised the franchise pretai nearly as they did at present, wl.ere was the danger to the institutions of the country to adopt the ballot? The Noble Lord had alluded to what he (Mr. Cobden) had said on former occasion with respect to clubs, but he then mentioned Ivan) other instances in which the ballot was resorted to, such, for instance, as the East India Company. The Noble Lord keens that the directors of the East India Company. who governed 100,000.000 of peopla, were elected by the pro prietors of East India Stock by vote by ballot. The mode in which it was done was that every proprietor, whether gen tleman or lady, had a card presented to each, with the list of the names of the candidates printed on it, and they ecratched the names of those parties out for whom they did not intend to vote. Now, if they allowed the ballot at the Ea•O. India House, for the election of those who governed 100.000,000, surely there could, be no great strength in the ar4ulnent of the Neble. Lord as to clubs? Ile believed the same system of voting eas also in use at the Bank of Etig lan I. "It appeared, then, that in many of the male trans ac, inns of nee the ballot was adopted, to prevent the incon yenience which arose from open voting. The Noble Lend also alluded to foreign countries. He (Mr. Cobden) believed the ballot was used in all countries on the Continent. It sees used in France, Spain, and Portugal, and in every vil lage in Russia at the election of the head men of it, and this - n he had seen himself. He did not, however, wish to look to those countries for any analogy with this, where t he En g lish people had been so log accustomed to se lf-government. It , however, they must go ab roa d f or a parallel, he wauld refer them to a pe , ple as well abl e as the people of this c ountr y to govern themselves. He w ou ld e o to the United States of America. lie said nothing res p ec ting a republican Govern ment, nor was he going to s t a t e that he preferred it to our own form of Government. If they looked to Spain and por tugal, the people of this country were fifty years in advance of the inhabitants of those countries as respected self-govern ment. If, however, they regarded the condi tion of the , people of many parts of the United States where there wee . E , no hierarchy, no aristocracy, and no sovereign , but _ g a sitir t l i- a democratic race, descended from a plebeian rac e of I men, they would find that never in the history o f the wonrldsisusvcahs there an instance of a people governing thems elves with moral, intellectual, and social results as w as the case with the people of the New England States of America.—(Hear.)w.o He did not include all the American States , but an y one ha I ever been in America would, he felt assured, agree with him in staling that the descendantsof a pleb eian race of Eng lishmenegarth.— of the the inha • , ( Hear.) The people of England were germane to intrusted in New England had succeeded in goverhnem them selves better than any people on the fa ce bitante of those states, and were as capable th arison wi with self-government; as any race on the of fea°. states of America, except with respect to t h e northern states. in which there was no slavery. The n how did the ballot operate in those countries? The Nob le Lord said i t did not o u t the . earth the - (Hear.) He deprecated all cases o f comp pTahe Noble Lord that this was the case.—(Hear, hear . ) so me men coup certainly said that in that count r y electors. The succeed, but he said nothing in way o f ex 1 nation to show influence thirty or forty thousan d Marquis of Lord did not say how, but th e y had no Marquis of Exeter there to influence them after his fashion. But he (Mr. Cobden) would go further, and s a y —in that country s ome men influenced hundreds of thousa nds of electors.— (Hear, hear.) Such men as Clay and Webs ter indeed would influence not only hundreds of thousands, but millions of electors.—( Hear, hear.) But how was that influence ob tained ! It was from their high moral and intellectual quali ties they had obtained their influence.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said that corruption existed in North America. lie (Mr. Widen) denied that this was the case.—(Hear. ) He would give the strongest proof that corruption could not exist in the United States. Universal suffrage existed in all the free states. The President had only 5,0001. a year, and all the Government functionaries were paid on a small scale. He did not believe that in such a country, where • the votes were taken at very short periods, and where the common labourer earned five shillings a day, and where an acre of land could be purchased for six or seven shil lings , that cor rupt practices could be carried on. lie did not beli eve that v of i n a g n t yh beeney one state madeoof the a t h a t oin a country where the expenditure of the Government wa sd on so limited a scale, an where fortunes were so m uc h on an r having could a equality, that it was ' possible for any body of men to e instancee lihnai change United ge purchase the votes of their fellow-citizens.-_( Hear.) Th en with regard to the ballot. D i d the Americans like the b a ll ot themselves? a t t a; States ye abandoning e the mode of voting there? —(Hear, hear.) No, but there had been a gradual ex tension of the ballot to the States in s s h r e i s e ? u s proposition pd theyi m e ballot, ever y eer hear or e y which it had not hitherto been adopted. He believed, al- though he could not speak it; Positively on the subject, that there was not a state which was not a slave state in which they had not adopted vote by ballot.—(Hear, hear.) But this was a practical question with regerd to our own people. The Noble Lord did not grapple with the main case, but bad alluded to circumstances which had been brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Bristol, as showing the neces city for protection to the voter and the prevention of corrup • tion ; but he was sure that there was hardly a Member in that House who could not cite analogous cases.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Carlisle had defended open voting, but was there ever anything so disgraceful as what occurred at the last election for that place, as described in the blue book? There was a Mr. Head, who resided in the neighbourhood, and who appeared to be an amateur cor rupter.—(A. laugh.) He wrote a cheque for 1,0001., which he gavejto his clerk to g et disc ounted, and the amount he ordered to be expended at the election. The result was that for several days the town was in a beastly state of in toxication, and still this Mr. Head, with abominable hypo crisy, was engaged in the d i str ibution of tempera n ce tracts. _(Laughter , and c ries of Hear, hear.") The Hon. Mem ber for Stafford also, who was for open voting, came forward with the case of his own borough. What was the state of the purity of the elections in that borough he thought had been well known since the time of Sheridan.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that at the last election he set aside all political questions, and told the electors that if he sent by them to P arliament was , he would have none of the chiineras of the ballot or free trade. but that be should serve the country in a peculiar way ; and the Hon. Member added that they returned him, although his opinions were very dif ferent from theirs. —(Lang Laughter.) If the Hon. Member's eon stituents had returned him on the ground that he should act very differently from all other Members in the House, he cer• tainly had completely fulfilled his pledge.—((treat laughter.) It was notorious, however, that that borough had never been fortunate enough to induce any man to contest it a second time in consequence of the expenditure, but the H onoura ble Member, perhaps, might go again to Stafford, and induce them to return him a second time. He was in favour of the ballot, however, • not so much for the sake of the towns as for the counties. He believed if the electors of the counties had the ballot, that some of the best Members that could be sent would be returned by them to that House. Would any one tell him that the electors in many counties were free to choose whom they pleased, or whether it was not notorious that they were influenced in their votes?—(Hear. hear.) In some counties, where there were 5,000 or 6,000 voters, they might depend upon it that the candidates, or rather Members, would be selected by floe or six noblemen sitting at their firesides. Lord Stanley, who did not conceal his opinions, openly stated that county elec- tions was a question of acres, and that if they told out the up and prospered. The main argument in favour of the number of farmers on one or two noblemen's estates in a ballot was that the shopkeeper or persona in an humble state county, he would tell who would be returned.— (Hear, of life possessing the franchise might be injured by its free hear.) He recollected also that the Noble Lord at the head exercise, but he wanted to know if it was a principle in of the Government in 1335 said, that when he was a candi- our constitution (as this argument seemed to assume) thatno date for Devonshire, he found that some of the members of mai should be placed in a position by which the exercise his cenimittee who had taken an active part in supporting of his public duty would be attended with private inconyeei him had been obliged to vote against him.—(Hear, hear.) ence ?—(Hear, hear.). He had not heard any argument He ( Mr. Cobden) also recollected some elections in Lance- advanced to-night to induce him to change his former shire, where, in one election, a great number of electors came opinion upon this question, and still believed that vote by to Ormskirk to vote for a blue candidate, while in the pre- ballot was inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitu vious election they had voted for the yellow candidate, tion.—(Hear, hear.) and in the election before that for the blue candi- Mr. VILLIERS agreed that the people of England were date. This had arisen from the circumstance that the pro- a frank, open, and independent people, and that was the perty had twice changed hands, and the tenantry on the reason why they had never submitted to an abuse when estate were marched up as oxen to the shambles.—(Hear, they had discovered it to exist, and that was why they had hear.) He wished to see men to whom the franchise was come before the House on the present occasion ; they saw entrusted possess more dignity of character, which was im- that men were bribed and intimidated, and they would bear possible to be the case while such influence was exercised it no longer. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin over them. He was, therefore, anxious that for the sake of had referred to an argument of the Hon. Member for the the counties the ballot should be at once adopted. The Noble West Riding, and had stated what was the practice in the Lord said that he did not think that the ballot would put a United States, but the Hon. Member for the West Riding stop to the great abuses which existed, but if these great had pointed to particular states in America where there were abuses were admitted to exist, it was an additional argument no slaves, the New England States, where was our own race in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Alontrose. and our own institutions; they had insisted on the protection He was glad that the Hon. Member for Bristol had brought to voting, and there had been no case in which that system forward the present motion, as it was an answer to the cavils had been abolished. The answer which the Hon.and Learned which had been urged against the proposition of his Hon. Gentleman had adduced referred to what had taken place Friend the Member for Montrose. If the House rejected the in the slave states, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman motion, it would make one more addition to the catalogue to made out that where there was anything bad and iniquitous show the people of England the want of harmony which ex- to defend, there men insisted upon open voting.—(Hear.) isted between that House and the middle classes which it He thought the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for pretended to represent, and it would do more than anything Oxford, was quite conclusive upon this subject. Nobody else, notwithstanding the statements of the Noble Lord or denied that by the ballot bribery and intimidation would be any other Prime Minister to the contrary, to show that it was prevented. They were at that moment legislating to prevent essential to get rid of the block to legislation in which they those evils, for a Bill to prevent corrupt practices was betUre were placed.—(Cheers.) the House. The ballot was a far more efficacious mode of Mr. HENLEY rose amidst cries of " Divide." He said preventing those evils. The only argument against the that he hid heard a great many speeches of the Hon. Gen- ballot was, t hat there might be cases in which there would tleman which had surprised him, but he was more surprised be an approximation to the present system. It was ad at that which he had just heard than at any of his previous milted that the knowledge of how a man voted was the speeches. The Hon. Gentleman had been pleased to say root of all existing evils. As the Hon. Member for that the Noble Lord had forgotten the principles of the con- Oxford had said, those who opposed the ballot were etitution ; but he (Mr. Henley) believed that the Noble apprehensive that the electors were not trustworthy. He Lord was a much better authority on the subject than the (Ir. Villiers) did not mean to say it was not an advantage Hon. Member for the West Riding. The Hon. Member to have persons for representatives who possessed rank, denied what the Noble Lord had stated as to the courts of station, and property. So far as he knew, safety was felt justice. From the principles of the Hon. Gentleman he in persons of that sort being in the Legislature, as there could well understand why he objected to go to courts of was a kind of conservative spirit amongst them. But justice for an analogy. Surely the Hon. Gentleman would would the ballot exclude such !persons ? No. The Hon. not say that there was no such thing asi ntimidation of wit- Member fur Bristol had quoted the opinion of Mr. Grote to aesses in Ireland. Would he also be hardy enough to say show that men of property would be the persons selected that the judges on the bench in Ireland had not been threat- under the ballot. But then something else besides property ened in consequence of the course which they had felt it would be required. The representative must have character to be their duty to take in trials in Ireland? Did the and reputation.—(Cheers.) Now he could not see the mis- Hon. Member mean to say that Ireland was not a chief of that. Under the present system any man who hap part of the empire? The Honourable Member complained pened to possess the influence of property might, without that the Noble Lord did not adduce any powerful arguments reference to charadter or ability, become a member of the against the ballot, but surely the weight of argument Legislature. There was a preference for property in this should come from the side of those who proposed the adop- country, as there ever must be in a commercial and indus tion of the ballot. The Noble Lord had said that open vot- trious nation like this; but let an elector have the free ex ing had ever been the practice in this country, and it was for ercise of his opinions secured to him by the ballot, and then the Hon. Gentleman and his friends to show the advantages fortune and birth would .be useless without character and which the public would derive from this measure before he credit.—(Cheers.) Of course, men would prefer a good man came forward and called for such a great change in the con- to a bad one, but at present they had no choice. He be stitution 'of the country. The Hon. Gentleman passed very lieved that at present any man who had a fortune might fee . :lightly by the continent of Europe. He ( Mr. Henley) was certain of obtaining a seat in that House. Establish the not surprised at this, for the information which the Hon. ballot, and this would not be the case. He believed with Gentleman gave the House on former occasions with re-pest his Hon. Friend the Member fur Oxford, that there was no to the continent must make him rather chary as to giving reason to fear the sort of men who would be sent to the such positive opinions again. The Hon. Member had told Legislature under the ballot. Another advantage that the House that the result of his experience on the continent would be obtained by the establishment of the ballot would was, that there was no disposition for change, or the slightest be, that they would give the wealthy classes the greatest chance of revolution. possible interest in the education of the people.—(Cheers.) Mr. COBDEN declared that he had said nothing of the If they felt alarmed on account of the prospect of ignorant kind. proceedings in the election of Members for the Legislature, Mr. HENLEY observed that the Hon. Member certainly they must feel deeply interested in the question of educating sail so with regard to France. He, however, dealt very the people. He thought they required some stimulus of tenderly and cautiously .with the continent. The Hon. that kind.—(Cheers.) The people were still much neglected, Member said that in every state almost there was voting by and a very large portion of them were in a very degraded ballot, but he did not attempt to show that any possible state. There was something wanting to excite the wealthy benefit had resulted from it. The Hon. Member also said classes to extend to the people the advantages of know that the ballot existed in Russia. No doubt the Hon. ledge, and he knew of nothing more calculated to produce Member looked with great complacency at what took place that result than to make the wealthy classes feel danger if in Russia. He could understand this admiration of Russia, they did not do it.—(Hear, hear.) Everything that had for if the Hon. Member's party were in power, there would been done with respect to elections this session was calcu be as much tyranny here as in that empire. The Hon. lated to lower that House in the estimation of the people, Gentleman had not shown any advantage which America and the House was now about to separate without having possessed from the ballot, and when the Hon. Gentleman taken any steps to prevent the recurrence of those disgrace specially took America as his battle g round, he ought ful events which had been so frequently this year disclosed not to have shrunk from the task of proving by Committees of that House.—(Hear, hear.) They could the benefits which he conte nded that the bal- not under the present system amend the mode of conducting lot had showered upon it. The Honourable Gentleman said elections, and therefore they ought to devise some other sys-• that there was no corruption in America—the Noble Lord tem. He knew that it was an argument urged in private said that there was a great deal. The country must decide more than in public, that under any other system people of between them ; but, at all events, it was known that with property would get in d to the House. The men of prcperty, every political change in the United States there was a great it was contended, woul . i t aways constitute the majority. But how, he would ask, dust hey now get into that House? chaffering and change of offices and situations of all sorts, a circumstance which would go to influence votes just as well Everybody knew that . at present 3,00 how was 4,000/. were as hard dollars. He contended that they ought not to at - re q uired to get into Parliament. And that mous e as in demoralising the constituency, and in tempt to introduce a great change like the ballot, without spent? showing that corresponding public benefit would be the re- tempting the people to crime and vice. Under the present suit. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) said that it was system they were only adding to that vice which they for the counties, not the boroughs, he wanted the ballot. expressed themselves as wishing to see overcome. The 3,000/. Now, it was very natural, but at the same time it was very was spent in corrupting whole families, and everybody barefaced, for the Hon. Gentleman to attack county consti- must have observed that is those places where the money tuencies considering the open way in which a public society, was so spent there were more assize cases than anywhere of which he was one of the founders, had gone about menu- else. This was a great moral question. It was a question factoring faggot votes for a political purpose. He presumed of education, and lie believed that no sufficient argument that the creators of these votes kept a pretty tight hold on had been shown against the proposition of his lion. Friend those who held them.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide, the Member for Bristol, namely, that of taking votes by eivide.") The Ilonoerable Gentleman, in inveighing against ball t. He would not say that that mode was perfect or county Alembers and county constituents, had made a without some evils, but comparing it with the present sys very unfair attack on a body of men of whose habits he could tem, it was infinitely superior, and ought therefore to obtain know but very little.—(Divide , divide.) He (Mr. Henley) their supp ort. (Cheers.) held that men who would bribe would find the means of as Mr. H. BERKELEY replied. The Noble Lord objected certaining how votes were given, even under cover of the to his having proposed a resolution instead of a Bill. But ballot,and that the introduction of that system would increase it the House should agree to the resolution, a Bill would corruption while it diminished the means of investigating very soon follow. As America had frequently been alluded into and punishing electoral abuses. to, he would state that he bad resided six years there, and Mr. muNTz characterised the speech of the Noble Lord had closely observed the working of the American system, at the head of the Government as sophistical and elusive of and lie never heard of anything like intimidation, or any the question at issue. In opposition to the Hon. Gentleman thing like a bribe in that country. who had just sat down, he believed that the ballot would The House then divided, when there appeared, be made to act secretly. and that a great dea l of p eace For the resolution appeared, 86 e comfort and confalence to all classes would result Aga inst it . . I m from its introduction. Since 1800 the ballot had worked- Majority in favour of the ballot Amu -ably in the Netherlands, to the satisfaction indeed The result was received with considerable cheering. of all classes and its interests. Why, then, could it not The A TIORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in he as well managed here? Hon. Gentleman taiked about a Bill to confirm the incorporation of certain boroughs. The it being an nn-English system. Why, lie was as English Bill was subsequently brought in and read firsts time. in habits and feelings as any man, but would he like On the motion of BoUVERIE, a Bila brought in his account-books and records f private affairs to and read a first time, to explain au Act made in the Ist year be exposed openly in the streets? No, it was of King William and Mary, for exempting their . Majesty 's oeither wke, just, or expedient to te ll the whole truth at all Protestant subjects,dissei!th dissenting from the idhurch of England, times, and if any lion. Member d id so he was unworthy of from the penalties ) of certcertainj laws.' the confidence of those who sent h im there.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. RAI 11ALL obtainel leave to bring in a Bill to exempt Then, again, he heard of the spirit of the constitution. from the legacy duties all cln2ri' able bequests, not to private What was the constitution, but the laws actuall y existing individuals, but to public bodies. .it the time being? Why , e ver y time the y met liere they The House adjourned at Five Minutes past Twelve. ,dtered that constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He protested against the spirit of the constitution being in-de a peg whereon to hang objections to all reforms.—(Hear. hear.) This was no party question, it had nothing to do with party—or, at all events. both parties were equally interested in it. In his own borough one-seventh of the constituency never voted at all, because they were afraid of their pecu niary interests suffering from the exercise of their political privileges. The question was, then, whether under such a system the people were justly dealt with—whether they could exercise their electoral rights without detriment to their worllly prospects. He contended that they could not, and that very bare fact was, in his opinion, a sufficient reason for the introduction of vote by ballot. Holding these opinions, he would cordially support the motion before the House.—(Cheers.) Mr. P. WOOD differed entirely from the Hon. Member who bad designated the present as a " fantastical" motion. He thought it one of the most important motions of the pre sent session—the most important after that lately brought forward by the Hon. Member for Montrose.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the Government talked of the ballot as the introduction of a new principle of secret voting. It was no doubt new—but what then? Before the Reform 11111, in the rotten borough days, it had signified very little whether voting was secret or open ; but after the Reform Bill had passed the whole aspect of the question underwent a change, and the time had now come when they could not slant their eyes to the fact that the question was, whether they could or could not trust the people.—( Hear, hear.) It was the middle classes—the shopkeepers of the various towns—whose opinions it was desirable to have, and- they were the very people whose opinions were never ascer tained. The statistics of the Westminster elections fully explained that fact. He was shocked to hear the Noble Lord speak of the evil influences of secret voting, and of trusting the exercise of the franchise to the caprice of those who voted in secret. Were these electors persons capable of expressing public opinion, or were they not? If they were, then they were the men who ought to be called forth as a body of additional electors. Jurors were not sub ject to the influences to which electors were subjected. In fluence was brought to bear on the electors, which it was the intention of the Reform Bill to exclude ; and to adopt the means of putting a stop to this influence would be one mode of satisfying the people that the House was really in earnest on the subject of bribery. But was there not the greater question of intimidation, which affected a large and nume rous class of tenantry. He held in his hand the report of the Committee which had sat with regard to the borough of Stafford. Although the Committee stated that none of the facts relating to tt e Marquis of Exeter's interference at_ the time of the petition had been proved, except the ejectment of tenants in 1830 and 1347, yet he was glad to find that the Committee had come to the conclusion that looking at the fact of one-third of the consti tuency being tenants of the Marquis, and to the discharges served on fourteen tenants in 1830, and sixteen in 1847, undue influence had been made to operate on the minds of a portion of the constitu ency, and they had been placed under bias and restraint in the exercise of the elective franchise. Could any one say that this was not influence from which the ballot would pro tect them ? The House was asked what would be the result of the ballot? and was told that the result would be the same as it was without it. If the result would be the same with honest means on the one band, and dishonest means on the other, then why not obtain the result by honest means? There was nothing to fear as to the destruction or overthrow of the Government. What was the case on the 10th of April ? Did not the whole class of voters and non-voters come forward in a mass to rally round the cause of order? Look at the result of the ballot in the last election for France. Was the present National Assembly of France one which was destructive of all order, or one which was favourable to the restoration of order? Every one felt that the Assembly was favourable to the restoration of order, and yet that As sembly had been elected by the ballot and by universal suffrage. It was no use to attempt to govern a country where there was liberty of speech by any other influence than the direct influence of persuading that you were in the right, and that you were honest and sincere, and intended the wel fare of the people. Let the Noble Lord only throw himself on the whole people of England in the same gallant manner in which he threw himself on the constituency of London — let him deal frankly with them, and he would find the ex periment most satisfactory, and that all persons were anxious for good government. Mr. NAPIER—The Hon. Member for the city of Oxford had stated that the people of England were a frank, manly, generous, and independent people. He (Mr. Napier) ad mitted they were so, and it was because they possessed those qualities that he deemed them worthy ,of exercising., the tran::hise in a manly, open, and independent manner.— ( Hear. hear.) IL was under the present system of voting that their constitution had grewn up e —a constitution w nch partook of the character of the peop le ; but Hon. Members on the other side of the House would now introduce into it an entirely new principle—a princip le at variances h w ithhad its n. spirit, and opposed to the gen ius of the Brit Allusion had been made to America, but he too heTahrd something of the working of the b allot in that Hon. Gentleman then read an e xtract from the e observations of of an American, in which be said that the state of Virginia had refused to admit the ballot. Mr. COBDEN—But Virg inia is a slaysoeisetmaste.r—eieHweatr) its Mr. NAPIER, observed that upon a working the ballot had been abolished in Virginia in 1830, and open voting substituted. Mr. MACGRtGOR—Yes, on account of'slavery— (Hear.) b Mr. NAPIER w ished to see open,t be eagons, so that public opinion might en a public duty to disc h a r g e— ( Hear)—that genialmhaving influence under which ell our injtitutious had grown HOUSE OF LORDS, August 8. on authority which led him to believe the facts were as he fold stated, and if so, such interference was s hoLy unjustifiable in point of policy, and a gross violAtidn of the law of nations. - But he had also been infortoed, in the same high authority, of another ited more flagrant broach of internatiouul law. It roust be well' known to their Lordships that for some time the King of Nap', s, in the exercise of his undisputed and indis put3ble righti, having succeeded in 'arranging affairs on. the Continent, bad been making preparations to obtain the ri storatiou of his authority in the island of Sicily. in sush -1 ca , e this country had no right to inquire into the theoretical or practical abuses of the ktugdom of Naples, nor to ask whether the constitution of that country was such as she could in theory approve of. We had nu right to inquire whether the Sicilians had any just cause of complaint, and still less had we any right to interfere with any efforts which the King of Naples might think fit to make for the restoration of his sutoority over any portion of his revolted subjects.' If o ur mediation were asked by either party, or if it were necessary to 'prevent any effusion of blood, God forbid he should complain of such interference, but unless our mediation were asked, our :clear, plain, and distinct course was to remain wholly neutral. He wished to ask whether the Government had practically recog tii,ed, that principle, or whether it was in execution of orders sent out by ' them that the fleet in the Mediterranean had entered the Bay of Naples, and surrounded the vessels prepared for the purpose of transporting the Neapolitan troops to Sicily? and although there might be no distinct inten tion to prevent the sailing of that expedition, still the British fleet was placed in a menacing position towards it. That was a matter with regard to which the House had a right to be informed of the intentions of her Ma jesty's Government in placing that' fleet in loch a posi tion. • Ile had a right to ask, and toe House had a right to know, whether the British admiral had any instruc tions to prevent, or in the slightest degree to interfere with any expedition which the King of Naples might send forth for the purpose of endeavouting, to ; re-estab lish his authority in Sicily, or will he he left, so far as 13riiish authority is concerned, free to use his efforts for the object he has in view? He held that up to the pre sent time they had not recognised the' 'independence of Sicily, and h© made it matter of complaint, that not having done so they had laid down conditions olowhich they would recognise that independence. The state of affairs between Naples and Sicily was not such as to warrant our interference, for the struggle was stillgoing on, and was at present of doubttul, .suecess. He was told that when the Sicilian Assembly elected the Duke of Genoa as their King he was saluted by the Bri tish fleet off Palermo, and further, that the same. vessel which brought to Sicily the attaché to the British Em bassy, also conveyed from Sicily, the delegates sent to offer to the Duke of Genoa the Crown, which, however, with great judgment, he had thought it expedient to de cline. Such interference, he repeated, was highly un justifiable, and contrary to every principle of . interns tiosal law. The questions he had to ask, were —first, whether there had been any interference on the part of the British Government with respect to the internal affairs of Sicily, the form of constitution she might think iit to adopt, or the Sovereign she might think fit to choose? and, secondly, whether any instructions had been given to the Admiral on the Mediterranean station to in terfere in the slightest degree with the free exercise of the authority of the King of Naples, or whether, if he sent a squadron to reduce to obedience his revolted sub ji ets in Sicily, it would be allowed to proceed to its des tination without hindrance on the part of that fleet? For the sake of proceeding in accordance with the forms of the House, he would conclude by moving an address to her Majesty, for copies of correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the British Ambassador at Naples. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he felt it quite unnecessary to follow the Noble Lord through alt the details of his lengthened statement, but he had no hesi tation in giving him such information as was in his power at present with respect to the nature of thet iaterference, if it could be called such, which her Majesty's Government had exercised regarding the differences existing between the Two Sicilies. Before he did so, however, he felt anxious to remove an erroneous impression which appeared to exist in the minds of the Noble Lord and others of their Lordships, namely, that there had been on the part of the British Go vernment in this transaction, any desire to accomplish the separation of the Two Sicilies. In the differences that ex isted between the King of Naples—with whom they were, and, be sincerely tru-ted, would long continue to remain, in a state of amity—and the kingdom of Naples, their desire, wish, and interest, certainly was to maintain the connexion wt.ic) had hitherto existed. Long after those disturbances, to which the Noble Lord adverted, had commenced, the whole object of the course taken by her Majesty's Govern ment, both previous and subsequent to that mission which had been alluded to in somewhat contemptuous terms by the Noble Lord who brought ,forward the motion —the whole olject of the Government, he repeated, was to main tain the connexion between the two countries. His Noble Friend (the Earl of at into) had only gone to the State of Sar dinia, because he was earnestly solicited so to do by the King of 'Naples, and when there, ooth by counsel and advice, he did all he could to promote the adoption of those measures, through the instrumentality of which the only chance existed of friendly relations being maintained, and he begged to in form the Noble Lord opposite that instead of being received with scorn and disrespect they were received in a spirit of amity. At that time the British Government had every rears n for hoping that the first and favourite object of their interfcr nee would be accomplished. Indeed, there was a period when their friendly suggestions were on the point of being accomplished, but changes took place in the councils of his Neapolitan Majesty which created unexpected obstacles to their being corned into effect. Our advice, counsel, and action were directed to the object of maintain ing the friendly connexion of the Two Sicilies, and. that otject alone ; and it was from the want of no exertion on their part that the issue had not been otherwise than it turned out. The Noble Marquis having passed a warm eulogium en the zeal, skill, and efficiency of Lord Napier, who was entrust - Jot with the business of this country at. Naples, proceeded to observe, that from the time it became manifest Sicily would not remain part of Naples, their good wishes for Naples, their anxiety to favour the people, and their interest for the family of the King of Naples, did not eea.e with this new feature of things. They were most anx ious to use their influence that a Prince of the House of Naples should be chosen Sovereign of that kingdom, which had become perfectly independent, as it became more and more evident that the people of Sicily were so united and displaS ed, such military powers, that they would maintain th'eir independence. The British Government did not with hold that counsel or advice which they thought necessary under the circumstances, but it was unaccompanied by Any thing like a condition or the semblance of a threat.—(Hear) Their opinion was in favour of the form of Govern ment based on monarchical principles, rather than of the form of U vernment founded on republican principles—ad vice which he considered it was sound for them to give, and desirable for the Sicilians to receive. Assuming that that advice was successful, the British Government did not hesi tate to add their conviction, that a monarch should be selected from some of the allied states, and that the selection should not he the means of introducing a foreign Prince into Sicily. Looking back to this advice, he expressed his bliiief that it was such as they had not the slightest reason to rear t. The Noble Lord was quite wrong in supposing the British Government required an assurance from the Duke of Genoa, or that any such representation was made to the King of Sardinia. With respect to the question which the Noble Lord put in reference to the fleet under Admiral Parker, he could assure the Noble Lord that the Gallant Admiral went of his own accord to Naples, relative to an explanation which he deemed necessary, in connexion with a transaction which had no reference whatever to the contest between the kingdoms of r!;•icily and Naples. Lord STANLEY stated that he had no desire to press his motion, but lie could not conceal from their Lordships that lie regarded the answer of the Noble Marquis the President of the Council as extremely unsatisfactory; nor was it such an explanation of the views and principles of the Government on a matter so important, as the country had a right to ex pect. It was quite clear, that . at a period when the King of Naples had not resigned all hope of re-establishing his own authority in Naples, the British Government had felt it con sistent with the duty they owed to a friendly Sovereige, to offer advice to the insurgent Sicilia ns as to the mode in which they should constitute themselves an independent country. The Noble Marquis bad stated that no condition was affixed vb to el rsothholaaet sovereign v d e v i ro i e c tio e gr mn ; bintdet Sicwi na independent to o m s a ti n ao i to n f e e , s t saos t h ss o e hoon ß o r to i ho t s s d h oa coun try would recognise the independence of that state, being in itself no small inducement , i f not a condition, to r -pro ceed toi. the election of such Sovereign. T he Noble fo ltl _ their wish the Sovereign so sel ec t ed should be an I ilia t ctu o i s s e ha re d v n o o lt t io d g en o i t e l d b joo th t f o t f h t e ho ßri Ki ti o sh g GofovNearnplmose,ntthaint iinvJedas tt r n t t t l e k nva e t eo rdw n si o tia f hlt allies, with neutrality which it was their dut y , as well as d F i r i i n a c , e a ' e a o n u d rs i f e " e e r l t t a a i i n i a l and wth Th e e K conduct S abry their interest, to maintain betw een . a mother-country and which they should be iyonfliunecon Princeen d s is her revolting dependents. Moreover, it was giving counsel as to secure your posi tion was not so successful or complete, power, and if they were not re cognitionof them, as an independent to persons in arms against their Sovereign, and whose to give the support of condition, as against the Sovereign , • h tell the Sicilians how they t best secure England, and to not in that position, the British Government was not: in a Government did still intend to to know whether the British h f between t e insurgent orces in maintain strict neutral% their co-operation and support . He thought they hada right and whether they authorised Italy and the King opposition N p . the way of, any which he tn . ht think fit to send to force a ny person to offer pposition do, or throw any obstacles in to wards regaining his power, and which, at the present mo wer ment,.he. was intimidated from sending by the control of the British fleet on-the waters of Naples? He asked whe ther, as matters now stood, they adhered to neutrality, and if they did, it was impossible that a British Admiral could endeavour to prevent any expedition which the King of Naples might send forth for the recovery of his lost domi nion, as he had a right and authority to send, and any inter ference with which could not take place on the part of Eng land without a violation of the law of nations. The Earl of MINTO explained the circumstances con nected with the presence of the fleet at Naples. It was un derstood that a Naples steamer, on the waters of Corfu, with a number of Sicilian refugees from Calabria on board, had hoisted British colours. These refugees were brought over to Naples. Admiral Parker demanded access to those per sona to ascertain their cause of complaint. The access was refused, and this circumstance he (Lord Minto) thought would prove more than sufficient ground for refusing an ex planation. The Admiral then took upon himself the duty of judge., and be was certain that the judgment of that dis tingtfished officer, as on previous occasions, would be found most prudent and firm. He (Lord Minto) denied, as Lord Stlnley seemed to insinuate, that he had proceeded some what officiously to Sicily. lie was most unwilling, in the first instance, to go there, and he had not done so except at the urgent entreaty of the Neapolitan SeVereign and Govern ment, his object being to maintain the connexion beta4en the two countries. Tile Duke of ARGYLL expressed his deep regret that the British Government had thought it their duty, at so early a period, to recognise the kingdom of Sicily. It was for the interest of Italy that there should be consolidation and not division. He felt confident that the Government intended to maintain the connexion between the two countries; but Issoregretted they had, so, soon, leaked upon the King of anitY effurae tusregain is IMP& ible. EarhGRE wh ,Y . . saids,elest. en (he proper he time arrived the 'GOVernment would be able tel show - Mat they had not acted in this matter withoutlifia - elution: - They now laboured under the disadvantage of being uOlible. from prudential mo dves, to explain the Justice of their OHO - . The Earl of MALMESBURY considered h is Noble Friend's (Lord Stanley's) question ietuained unanswered, and, therefore, he should again very distinctly and briefly ask, with the view of 004 information, wee the fleet Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock. The Salmon Breed Preservation Bill. was read a third time and passed. The Public Works (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed, atter a few words from the Earl of DESART and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE. COPYHOLD BILL. Lord WHARNCLIFFE asked what course it was in tended to pursue with regard to the Copyhold Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was not his in tention to proceed with the Bill during this session. SICILY AND NAPLES. Inrd STANLEY, while he hoped to obtain an answer to the question of which he had given notice last night, thought it would be better to make a mo tion for papers, as it would enable him to ask the Noble Marquis to enter more into details with regard to the question of Sicily than he would in giving an answer to a question. The success of the French re volution and the acknowledgment of the French republic had given rise to an insurrection in Sicily, which for the time had been successful. It was an ecknowledged principle that in all such cases foreign Gi3vernments should maintain the strictest neutrality. On this principle we had abstained from interfering in the affairs of Italy, we had condemned German interferftce in the affairs of Holstein, and we had praised the answer of M. de Lam atine to the Irish deputation; a:.d if there was any country in the world in which it was incumbent to maintain the doctrine of non interference it was England, which had Ireland at its door, with a large portion of the population al ways willinti to accept foreign intervention to shako off what they were unjustly taught to consider the yoke of the mother country. It was most unfortu• nate that at the period when the affairs of Naples re quired great tact and judgment, the British Minister should have been absent from his post, and the conduct of affairs should have been left to an able but an inexperienced young man. He believed the Noble LOrd opposite, who had a roving commission to all the Southern Courts, happened to be at Rome at the time of the Sicilian outbreak, and that he had been invited to come to Naples by the King, and to interfere between the King and his revolted subjects. He believed that although the Noble Earl had been invited to inter fere, his advice had been disregarded by both parties. His mediation was disregarded, and the Neapolitan troops had been driven from Sicily. An insurrection followed in Naples, which was at first successful, but afterwards a reaction took place, and an agreement was come to be tween the King and the liberal party of Naples. Measures were then undertaken by the King of Naples to subdue his revolted subjects in Sicily, With regard to the recognition by foreign Powers, of the independence of any revolted State, be thought that no friendly Power should recognize such independence so long as there was any chance of the friendly foreign Power to which such revolted subjects owed alle giance being enabled to make its supremacy re cognised.—(Hear, hear.) The self-constituted Provi sional Government of Sicily proceeded to consider the form of government to be established. Communications it was were opened with the Britis h authorities ; an stated that a communication was made through the me dium of Mr. Fagan, an attaché of the British Embassy at Naples, that it was th e p leasure of the British Gehins -1 ve rnment that the Sicilians sho uld adopt thuelitE;loenhaerecee eh did a as form of government, an d that they their king the son of the King of S s a h r od inhom ia. m i ss ion was entru sted; but he belie ved he should not err to w S such not know who the G entleman was very wide of belongingnamteoththae native t he was a o the markf the if he. n c re o rurnetdryf,r hs extrem e liberal party of that country ; and that opinion was confirmed by an examination of a very useful little work, called Dodd's Parliamentary Companion, in which he found that a gentleman, named Fagan, was in 1847, returned, for the first time, as a Member for the City ot Cork, and that in politics be was an avowed repealer of the union between Great Britain and `lreland.—(Much laughter on the Ministerial benches.) Perhaps he was wrong, and if so, the Noble Earl could correct him. Earl MINT O—Go on---go on. Lord STANLEY—In this, however, he believed he could not be contradicted in stating, that previous to that event, agents from Sicily were received in this coun try, he meant formally and officially received and admitted to interviews with the Noble Lord at the head of the n t g o l t a h n a d t Noble osnolifn L o ' t t a )r, Foreign-office. They submitted their views with regard to r u e t future constitution ormed hy. hrn o ft that re cognise Sicily as a republic, but would d w a to nd th w e narchical form of Government were chosen, o and ei-na"-• a son of the King ot Sardinia elected as their King. He believe, it further to be the case that a effect was made by directi on of L c(om d m p un er atio to thtn on King of Sardinia through o ur Minister it ns Turi to the also to the British Consul ac Turin, tut' at Palermo, Mr. tTood who lost no time in letting the condition be known 1 / 4 e which England would recognise the independence of Sicily. All that might, perhaps be a fable, but.he hid it - - - AUGUST 9: 1848. flommori I