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

• Y;,. 'nit SUN, LONDON, !lag contests to wring and extort from them their promises in his favor; and when he had at length 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 unfortunates, that he was the most honoured man in the world, in being elected by their free and unbiassed suffrages.—(Laughter) Then, hav ing been thus returned to that House, whenever such a question as the ballot was brought forward, he ( Mr. Berkeley) had always observed that such candidates were ever foremost to enact the manly British lion, and indig• nantly 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.—(Laughter.) Well, then, this was the system to which the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Northampton would adhere, because he will 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 hero 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 /1118e 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 viction ; and would not be made except to one who took an ungenerous advantage of him, and who possessed the power of inflicting a penalty in case of refusal. Compulsory promises might be broken, but those which were voluntarily given would be faithfully kept if the vote could be secretly recorded. e would cite an instance that fell under his own notice in It 'PPort• of this view. It occurred at the Bristol electio n in 1841; which was severely contested. He (Mr. Berkeley) canvassed a populous parish with several very experienced c anvassers, and they had taken the greatest possible care not to put down anything doubtful among the list of pro- M ises, and always to weigh well the character of the party Promising in the first instance. Having quitte d the g round 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 e 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 me evening.) Before four o'clock to-morrow we will change 1 0 0 of your promises." Well, after the election, he Mr. "" e rkeley) was informed .by his friends that sixty of ( the trehmissa which had been voluntarily made to Trim had " changed, it being estimated tha t 40 of the men were intimidated;' and twenty bought. Did not such a case as 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 fair and open manner, and as a candidate sought only free and voluntary promises, or to the base suborner of conscience, i thci eame,with his bribes and intimidation? H e p ut this forward to the House as one of the strongest instances that and be adduced to prove the harmlessness of the ballot, ‘,"'"'", the iniquity that prevailed under the existing system of the He had abstained from going into the question of sgse 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 ,„, Th e immorality of the ballot, he would remind Hon. Gentle "'en, 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 havin g D eers adopted by the highest authority that could possibly be addueed for any earthly institution.. The very first Christian election that ever took place was transacted by ballot. — (Hear, bear.) And it was an election under the most ib kemb 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 1•20 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 litY• Now he (Mr. Berkeley) would not pretend to say that t_tie ele c ti on t oo k pl ace i n thi s f o rm 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 !notion; but he trusted that as this had been hitherto left an open question by the Govern ment, 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- P e s c i ss slly wherever there were real grievances to be redressed. - ,7ksotear.) It seemed to him (Mr. Berkeley) that the im rol'ement of the social and political condition of m an ou g ht to go hand in hand, for if they attended to the former and not also to the latter, they would only make men more acutely feel the degradation into which they might be Plunged. For himself 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 tress; and h e f e lt d ee p gra ti tu d e t o th e N o bl e Lord for the advancem en t towards civil and religious liberty which this country had made under his auspices; but he (Mr. Berke ley)t would tak e l eave most respect f u ll y to urge u pon him that, a "ta"y_one subject w ere more ca lculated than another nat _ on deprive him of the goo d f ee li ng an d gratitude of the , it was, that he was disposed to abide by the per• vicious doctrine of "fi na li ty. " He (Mr. Ber k e l ey ) b e li eve d he had disclaimed that doctrine—he trusted he had totally discarded it; but still the general impression abroad was, that as regarded the Reform Bill, he was still predisposed to main' ain it. It seemed to 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 perf e ction of any sublunary In sasure whatever savoured strongly of arrogance and pre sumption, and should be scouted, above all, in these en - Lghtened times. He (Mr. Berkeley) wished it to be dis tinctly understood that he had not been in any way influ enced in bringing forward his motion by any agitations that Prevailed upon this subject out of doors. He was aware that the class of persons calling themselves Chartists, ad opted the ballot fie one of the live points of their charter; 1, b "t he (Mr. Berkeley) con sidered the ballot to be disgraced "y their advocacy of it : for lie 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 he freely admitted that he fully believed that many conscientious men supported the Charter. It vies fro m no d es i re , t o fan any excitement existin g upon this subject that he now introduced this question; he was solely actuated to do so from the resp ect which he enter tained for the industrial and trading classes, upon whom ° Pelt voting pressed heavily. lie entreated the House to e f trik e off the fetters from such men, who so well deserved it from their country, seeing they had passed th rou g h such a n orde a l recently, and had nobly come out from it with the highest cr e dit t o t h emse l v es.—(Hear, hear.) He did not as k "em to create any new constituents; that was not his t rayer , now; but he asked them, and asked them confidently, L ' s " 0 justice t o those constituents who already existed , had delegated the present Assembly with their authority e implored the House to do them justice, to seek no tri °nger to oppress them, to seek no longer to be their task masters ; but to allow them the same measure of liberty of ssf e u gut, of conscience, and of action, which Honourable (li mbers themselves valued even above their lives; and he thr,r). Berkeley) was sure, that as the best safeguard of the j'e was to be found in the affections of the people, so wo uld tb.. . they find that the best security, the best bulwark for b'':_!nstitutions of this great country, would be constituted y ei L hose bonds of gratitude, which they would materially soatei P a e Weave around the hearty of the various orders of our ► community by the act of grace which he new craw , d tingeands of that House.—(Applause.) The Honourable M th _ e ,r . concluded by moving,—" That it is expedient, in election for Members to serve in Parliament, that the 'Ts of the electors be taken by way of ballot." to follow THompsoN said it afforded him great pleasure bethe Hun. Mover of the question, because he felt it beinmovedg h i nen who wished to act in contradiction to the unity was so essential to the well-being of the :country. he did rot pres en t themselves as the organs of an in :10 ted party ; they m arc h e d u nder their proper officers , dis ., j'"ng all principles of disunion or discord ; and re oic, "ing when they could see un it e d with them those who h_ ancestral connexions and territorial rights, which were ab the ?idges that they would not go along with them in anything 1 nag dangerous or generally hu r tf u l. One of the strong arguments used by the enemies of the ballot had been, that the exercise of the franchise was a duty. • with that its friends most entirelyclosed; and the Hon. Mover an d himself (Colonel . Thompson) had long been i n th e h a bi t of seeing, in the course of their pro . fessional e x p er i ence very s i m il ar d ut i es di scharged, and how? When they had both sa t a t cour t martial and havi ng a duty s , to perform, they sought to be protected in its l exercis eevents, by what he might d es i gnate a ki n d o f b allot ; at by . giving their opinions in secre t, f or the officers all took a solemn oath th at th ey wou ld never disclose their own or any brother officer's opinion expressed in C ourt . Nor was this all, for he could point to the Court where medical officers 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, possessing a vote, who saw how his officers sheltered ' , .themselves by secrecy , c l a i m to h ave t h e protection of the ballot to shield him from the vengeance of the wealthy or powerful man whom he feared to offend by th e way h e f e l t bound • n his conscience to vote ? He would a p pea l t o th e lion. Member whether the alacrity of the soldier in following is leader was not invariably much dependent up on the . con sciousness that those in high etationsexercisedfairness a nd even-handedness to their inferiors; and he would ask 'Whether it was not politically and militarily advisable to Cherish and f os t er suc h sen ti men t s of confidence in the minds of, 'the people? Their ancestors had acte d upon th i s preset l''es and to this their successes were owing ;and this principle f at w as that made the soldier and the civilian steady and aithful to their superiors in the hour of trial. To take', a recent instance, the celebrated 10th of April last showed t hat the pe o pl e were , w ith b u t f e w ex c epti ons, l oyal and de v_o,tedly attached to their ancient institutions ; an d aga i n, • ' v iay had the late rebellion in Ireland gone off like a morning f og, and s ,left no other feeling in that country except th e hope that England would not be placed behind France in th e ex hibition of its moderation after it had triumphed over r esistance.— gaining (Hear.) He ascribed it to the feeling everyground, that the days had gone by when any one class e lv i ould rega r d it s i n t eres ts as inimical to those ce' any other s !'ss• Recent even ts must have convinced the arist ocracy aat no d anger was to b e ap p re h e nded from th e re f orms a‘o s u ht by the people; they only sought for justice; and bas no real j ea l ousy or an tipathy to a hereditary aristo crac y thatl would manifest a disposition to deal fairly with them.— t . .) With regard to the ballot, he (Colonel Thompson) ,_ 3 nid ask o ne quest i on —Wh a t h a d any honourable m an to a by the downfall of intimidation, which would result fr omprotecting th e h um ble voter? There might be sonic w gentlernen wh o f e lt th a t they could not afford to part With poor er the ty rann i ca l powers t h ey no w possessed over th eir *ver breth ren , b ut he was sure t h a t n i ne ty-nine ou t o f one hundr e d o f th ose w hom he now saw around hint econclusion he mo re h onoura bl e an d h u mane sentiments. In he had much pleasure in seconding the motion. Mr, W. FAGAN rose to vindicate his reverend friend Dr. lurnhv from the animadversions passed upon his conduct by tile. Hon• Mover in this question. He could say that Previous to had ,existed as to the transactions flon,r_ertvteauit;irshtio Kinsale election, and the Rev. Doctor had never ~rPraactised any intimidation whatever to induce the voters to Mr. Watson; on the contrary, he had never spoken I.° t hem regarding the election, but he earnestly took the op it (it impressing upon them the solemn duty of avoid .",tie if bribery and corruption. With reference to what had Vi tt n Place before the Kinsale Election Committee of that i ! ( ? l ree , he (Mr. Fagan) had never been made aware of the circumstance Wait was , alluded to that night, and he had 010.11111), Ethilaetrtiriaulent looked over the ev id ence a dd uce d b y t h e who spoko to having seen a bribe offered to James Mahoney; and from the cross-examination it appeared that she referred to her having mentioned the circumstance when at confession with Dr. Murphy. The sign which the Reverend Do ctor had made to the girl, if indeed he made any at all, doubtless was meant to convey to the witness his sense of disapproval 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 Reverent Doctor's acquaintance, and fully believed him utterly incapable of intimidating any body ; and he felt it to be only due to the Reverend Gsntleman to state 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 fur 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 is 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 enerni•s to open voting in existence ; but he believed the vast majority of the electors of this country were beyond the pale of 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 respected by his fel low-townsmen, and who was at the same time very rarely a loser of custom in his business. He was, he confessed, fa vourable to approximating the suffrage in very small con stituencies almost to household suffrage; but he trusted the House would resist all attempts to engraft the exotic of the ballot upon the indigenous stock 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 saecies 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 Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and he hoped the House would at least now adopt the ballot, which 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. lie thought the financial condition of the country claimed at that moment the first consideration, and he believed that if they went on tinkering 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 mortuum. 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 othe 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 our 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 of courts-martial, and for the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule into such proceedings. But it is a special rule affecting military bodies, 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 thin 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 obedience, 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 English 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 find 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 he 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 that . 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 ot pito lic censure and public calumny fur taking that course which his conscience may dictate, and therefore I btter if mighttrials were secret, and not public. That argument, repeat, used, but I conceive that it would be an argument entirely opposed to the genius and spirit of our institutions.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, as regards the deliberations of this House, although at one time it was thsught that the House ought not to permit the presence of strangers, and for a song series of years strangers were not i:1 fact admitted, and the deliberations of the House were only partially known ; yet, as the spirit of- treedotn gained ground—as our institutions became more popular, it was insisted upon, asset ted, 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 front private memoranea 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 knawn, and that on that account they should be regularly taken down by the officers ut 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 House would be more impartial without this publicity; that Members would have a better opportunity of consulting their own judgment anal their own consciences, if they w ere nut 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 decided, and decided I believe rightly, that publicity shall be 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 he may have given, and that he should vote openly and publicly, according as his opinion may dictate. I think then, Sir, 1 may jus' say that what is now proposed is at least at variance with the general spirit of our institutions.—(Hear, hear.) I 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 then try 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 'toys sitting near him (11r. 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 in seven he proposes to leave the power of electing Members of Parliament, un controlled by any knowledge of their proceedings, un controlled by any exercise of public opinion, and completely (if the object could be effected—upon that point I may speak afterwards—but if the object could be effected completely) 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 p o litical 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 i louse of Commons. Now, if this power is so great, if it is, i t n i o f i a o c s t 0 , t t h t i o i m u n e t t r3e y, and d s s um s m o p c r h e n t t l e i o p o m w o e r r e o c f a o d t e i o c u i d s i n s h g o t o h l e de d yous- and b gpp e uruee.b.e i ,a n : vet: whatoeihile oo n n3,usg : ay th that manner everythingthe countryis to be shallexercised b e rule of o r uas constitution, declare that openness distinguishan d pu blicity is the cs—so a n k st e it a ut c i h o a n n f g ro e m many of the institutions of ancient re • you this modern undersa y w this, hic tr you ti(i) t you h should supreme, b thiscautious rre, phoonw sible, this despotic power is to be exe s rcised in secret, without any public opinion to review it, and according to the mere will and caprice of those in whom it is vested. Sir, tin the case of a democratic constitution I could well understand any c m id i e ll ; io t n h s ey one saying, " The sovere o ignty is placed in numbers. are th o em manyto d a a d v u e lt males in t this country, which party has the majority, i r t h i e s r for a r t it ning o d but to say and they choose to exercise their powers secretly they should be allowed to do so." Bat such is not the nature of 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 only a portion of the people of this country Rho haTe the elective franchise, and, therefore, the franchise is a trust reposed in them which they are to exercise for the benefit of the whole community. Well, then, the question is now, how I 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 force in the objections made by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. 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 ere great defects ; but, at the same time, I would not, on account of de feeta or abuses, surrender a great principle (Hear. ) and that, too, a principle which I consider to be an essential and vital one in our constitution.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman says, that in a certain case at Bristol he 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 those 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 carpenter, sonic person who can make a box very cleverly, can secure to us all the benefits of 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 Tote 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 wages have been earned. and I will vote for the candidate to support whom I received them." Sir, speaking generally, my belief is that there is no ingenious method of taking votes by which y ou can change the habits of a eople.— (Hear, hear.) I really do not believe you will fin p d that a man who had 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. Ido 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.—( Hear, hear.) My opinion is, that when you had sacrficed the great 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 'rote 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 involving 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 France,whicle certainly does not tend to encourage any other country to adopt 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 is either secret or tree from a great deal of corruption, from a great deal of treating, and, above all, from a most disgraceful system of condemnation 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 change if we endeavour to imitate them.—(Hear, near.) Now, Sir, an Hon. Gentleman whom I see sitting on a bench behind me (Mr. Cobden) referred one day to the practice of the clubs in London, and other institutions of that description, and said that in them the ballot was generally adopted. The Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down 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 different 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 sole 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 proposed. But the case of an election is totally dif ferent. In that case you have sometimes to choose between two persons who hold one set of political opinions and two who hold another. I am now speaking of an election at which there are four candidates and two Members to be chosen. The question here is, not whether the candidate is a person with whom you would like to associate as a member of the same club, but whether lie is a person who is fit to represent you political opinions.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I can very well understand a person saying openly to a candidate—"l have been long acquainted with you, you are a gentleman for whom I entertain the highest respect personally ; I should much prefer you to your opponent, for I have known you for many years. while I never saw him before in my life; but then I know that his political opinions are my own, while yours are the very reverse of mine ; lie 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 nothinss per sonally offensive in that language—nothing, in fact, at which any man would have a right to take offence . it is not a case in which a man has to decide whom he will associate with ind whom he will not ; but it is a matter of public duty and public trust, and the question is, who shall represent the that this is not a cas individual in the great o co a u n n a c lo il g s o o n f s the t n h a a t t io w n. hic r v, l ,e h a o r ld e e ihii which u l r a b 1 believee G'entl m e , i a n s a n n othen altogether alluded to another The Honourable Gentleman case in point; now in now arguing said the choice of the Apostles was a arguing. of the majority or mi that instance it was not a questiiint, appropriately introduced. eority, but to determine the matterdbyes there being two persons who had been name by the other apostles to select aney, and it was determined as At o les to e re a Va- Gentleman had These were not the only difficulties the • His proposie to contend in with respect to his proposition. a Bill, which ,ne by lot to join with them in interpreting the will of God. tion was not brought forward in the shape of they could discuss in its various s ta g es, and by which they could establish by law that the b allot should be the (node of voting for Members of Parliament, but the lion. Gentleman merely proposed a resolution , declaring that such a change in the mode of voting was expedient. Now , euch a change could only be effected by law, which m ust be issented to by Parliament before it could be ado p ted. I therefore heldit to be very inexpedient to p ass a resolution condemning the present mode of voting ; for the lion. Gen tleman does not propose to introduce a Bill which is to go through its various stages by w hi c h this change is to be effected.—( Hear, hear.) If we are to have such a change, let a Bill for that purpose be brought forward which we can consider, and see how the lion. Member proposes to effect his object. All that the Honourable Gen tleman now did was 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 proceeding not very consistent with the prac tice of this House, nor can it be attended with any public ad vantage. Certainly the Honourable Member might follow up his resolution, supposing it to be adopted, by proposing to introduce a Bill ; but I should oppose the introduction of such a Bill, because I believe such a change would be inju rious, and n o t b e a tt en d e d w ith a d van t ag e to the community. (Hear, hear.) It w ou ld b e a c h ang e w hich would be quite system a which chauge hadto adopt ever t p h r i e s vailed prin ciple of secret voting, which I am satisfied would fail in effect, because by it you could not o f opinions which characterised the people of this country.— (Hear, hear.) 21 do not believe that the effect of the adop tion of the plan would be attended with any great results, adopt for I believe that if vouscheme - the and it failed, as I sin satisfied it would, complaints would continue to be made that corruption still existed, and intimidation still prevailed, and, therefore, we should be told that we must go on with further changes as the ballot had failed, because it had not been accompanied with other measures.--(Loud cries of Hear, hear," from Mr. Cobden and other lion. Members.) The Hon. Gentleman, then, admitted this, and denied the observation that the ballot would not be sufficient of itself. _-(hear, hear.) If this is the case, I think that it would be far better at once to proceed to such a pro position as had been made by the Honourable Member for Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) I believe the Hon. Member was found fault with on a former occasioa when he brought forward his motion, and was told he would have tied a better chance of success if he had confined himself to one proposition instead of asking for universal suffrage, the lessening the duration of Parliaments, electoral districts, and vote by ballot. Whether that proposition was wise or un wise I will not stop to consider, but at any rate we had then the whole scheme before us.—(Hear, hear.) It is now con fessed—and I would beg Hon. Members who intend only to vote for this change will so reflect on it—it is now avowed openly that this change alone would not produce a perma nent and beneficial improvement, but that it must be re garded only as a part of other changes.—(Hear, hear.) With these observations, I shall warn the House not to adopt this proposal for secret voting ; and, above all, after the avowal which we have heard, I certainly shall. vote against it.—(Cheers.; WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1848. Mr. COBDEN said that it must be in the recollection of 1 tions was a question of acres, and that if they told out the the House, when his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon- number of farmers on one or two noblemen's estates in a trose brought forward his motion for a reform in that liouSe f county, he would tell who would be returned.—(Hear, that many of his Hon. Friends who were among the more l hear.) He recollected also that the Noble Lord at the bead discreet reformers in that House said that it was very un- of the Government in 18:35 said, that when he was a candi wise to bring Members down to vote on four questions. His date for Devonshire, he found that some of the members of Hon. Friend thought he was much more likely to succeed it his committee who had taken an active part in supporting lie brought forward one at a time. All must recollect how him had been obliged to vote against him.—(Hear, hear.) his Hon. Friend was censured for adopting the course which lie ( Mr. Cobden) also recollected some elections in Lance he did. And now what did they hear from the Noble Lord shire, where, in one election, a great number of electors came at the head of the Government ? lie found fault with the to Ormskirk to vote for a blue candidate, while in the pre ballot because it was calculated to give to one-seventh of vious election they had voted for the yellow candidate, the male adult population of this country the power of a and in the election before that for the blue candi- Venetian oligarchy. Were his friends and himself who date. This had arisen from the circumstance that the pro wished to have the franchise extended to a large portion of perty had twice changed hands, and the tenantry on the the male population to be answered by this?—(Hear, hear.) estate were marched up as oxen to the shambles.—(Hear, The Noble Lord had recorded his vote against the eaten- hear.) He wished to see men to whom the franchise was sion of the suffrage; how then could he consistently come entrusted possess more dignity of character, which was im forward and make use of such an argument?—(Hear, possible to be the case while such influence was exercised hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he viewed the over them. He was, therefore, anxious that for the sake of q uestion of the ballot with less interest th an h e did twelve the counties the ballot should be at once adopted. The Noble years ago.—( Hear.) He believed at that time there was less Lord said that he did not think that the ballot would put a corruption in the boroughs, and the county constituenci e, sto p to the g reat abuses which existed, but if these great were less subservient. He still believed, however, that vote abuses were admitted to exist, it was an additional argument by ballot was the best mode of suffrage for this or any other in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. country.—(bear, hear.) He would vote for the measure, He was glad that the Hon. Member for Bristol had brought because he believed that it was demanded by a very large forward the present motion, as it was an answer to the cavils portion of the electors of the country, and also because he which had been urged against the proposition of his lion. had never heard a valid argument against it. Certainly Friend the Member for Montrose. If the House rejected the the Noble Lord, with his great talent and long experience. motion, it would make one more addition to the catalogue to if he could have found valid arguments against it. would show the people of England the want of harmony which ex have brought them forward , but he had completely failed in isted between that House and the middle classes which it doing so. The opposition to the question must be on its last pretended to represent, and it would do more than anything legs, when nothing more had fallen from the Noble Lord than else, notwithstanding the statements of the Noble Lord or what the house had just heard. The Noble Lord said that any other Prime Minister to the contrary. to show that it was the ballot was contrary to the open and free ,constitution of essential to get rid of the block to legislation in which they the country. It certainly might be open, but was it free ? were placed. — (C heers. ) The franchise was open because they had not the ballot, but Mr. HENLEY rose amidst cries of " Divide." He said with past experience could they say that it was free? The that he had heard a great many speeches of the Hon. Gen- Noble Lord asked whether, in having secret pro- Oman which had surprised him, but he was more surprised ceedings in a court of justice , ajudge or jury would not be at that which he had just heard than at any of his previous less liable to obloquy or calumny than if all their speeches. The lion. Gentleman had been pleased to say proceedings were open ? This, however, was an unfair that the Noble Lord had forgotten the principles of the con analogy. With respect to a jury, it was necessary, in stitution; b ut he (Mr. Henle y ) believed that the Noble cases of conviction, in criminal cases, that it should be Lord was a much better authorit y on the subject than the unanimous, but this was unnecessary where there was an Hon. Member for the West Riding. The Hon. Member acquittal. But if the Noble Lord relied on the illustra- denied what the Noble Lord had stated as to the courts of tion of the jury, what did he say with respect to the justice. From the principles of the Hon. Gentleman he grand jury, which was a secret body? In Scotland, also, could well understand why he objected to go to courts of where it was not necessary that the jury should be una- justice for an analogy. Surely the Hon. Gentleman would nimous, there was no means of getting at the individual not say that there was no such thing asi ntimidation of wit opinions of the jury. The Noble Lord also said that a person nesses in Ireland. Would he also be hardy enough to say might be exposed to obloquy for openly giving evidence in that the judges on the bench in Ireland had not been threat a court of justice. He (Mr. Cobden) denied this, and also ened in consequence of the course which they had felt it the assutnptipn that the judges for their conduct in court to be their duty to take in trials in Ireland? Did the were liable to be calumniated.—(Hear, hear.) It was noto- Hon. Member mean to say that Ireland was not a rictus that no class of persons in this Country was so far re- part of the empire? The Honourable Member complained moved from obloquy or charges of that kind as the judges that the Noble Lord did not adduce any powerful arguments for their conduct in their respective courts. The Noble Lord against the ballot, but surely the weight of argument also was not very correct in his analogy as to the votes in should come from the side of those who proposed the adop that House, for the votes of Members in that House were tion of the ballot. The Noble Lord had said that open vot nseelecwtoerrse in se c n h t oo th si e n r g e ing the i h i a o d n. ev G e e r n b t e le e m n a th n e a p n r d ac h t i i s ce fr i i n en t d h s is to co s u h n o t w ry t , h a e n a d d i v t o w n a to s g fo es r very different from those given b to Members. perfo rm by The i e le g l a e m t i o b n e r s t h o e t that duties ot of legislation which the which the public would derive from this measure before he large mass of the people could not directly perform them- came forward and called for such a great change in the con selves. If the Noble Lord reflected for a moment he would stitution of the country. The Hon. Gentleman passed very see that the case he mentioned did not hold good; for the slightly by the continent of Europe. He (Mr. Henley) was Members of that House were subject to periodical election, not surprised at this, for the information which the Hon. and the electors to whom they were responsible might tell Gentleman gave the House on former occasions with respect them, " we will not elect you again. --( FT " e --ear, hear.) The to the continent must make him rather chary as to giving case was very different front the electors of the country. To euesh positive opinions again. The Hon. Member had told whom were the electors of this country responsible for the the House that the result of his experience on the continent votes which they ga ve? W ere they responsible to the non- was, that there was no disposition for change, or the slightest electors? Would any one tell him so? If it were said that chance of revolution. they were responsible t o th e non-electors, then it must be Mr. COBDEN declared that he had said nothing of the assumed that they were competent to judge the electors. kind. If that were so, why not then give them votes?—(hear, Mr. HENLEY observei that the Hon. Member certainly hear, and loud cheers.) It came out in the cours e o f t h e sa i d so w ith regard to France. He, however, dealt very Noble Lord's speech t o w h om he considered they were tenderly and cautiously with the continent. The Hon. responsible, namely, t o th e Marquis of Exeter and others Member said that in every state almost there was voting by who held the nominations o f Members for boroughs.-- ballot, but he did not attempt to show that any possible (Hear, hear.) The N o bl e Lord s eemed to have forgotten benefit had resulted from it. The Hon. Member also said the theory of the constitution w hi c h he had lauded so much. that the ballot existed in Russia. No doubt the Hon. The people of this cou ntry were t o make the laws by which Member looked with great comolacency at what took place they were governed, an d were to t a x themselves. The an- in Russia. He could understand this admiration of Russia, cient doctrine was, that every housekeeper should have the for if the Hon. Member's party were in power, there would right of voting at the election of Members. The origin of be as much tyranny here as in that empire. The Hon. the custom was, that the right should be bestowed on the Gentleman had not shown any advantage which America heads of families, but afterwards householders alone were possessed from the ballot, and when the Hon. Gentleman thought to have the power of nominating the Members of specially took America as his battle ground, he ought that House. As the N o bl e Lord w as so fond of lauding the not to have shrunk from the task of proving theory of the constitution, why was he so anxious to depart the benefits which he contended that the bal from it ? The Noble Lord did not seem to him to make much lot bad showered upon it. The Honourable Gentleman said of a case against the ballot. The' Noble Lord did not say that there was no corruption in America—the Noble Lord that aristocratic institutions could not be maintained if the said that there was a great deal. The country must decide ballot were adopted, but he said it was only bearable in a between them; but, at all events, it was known that with ' democracy. The drift of his argument was, that they every political change in the United States there was a great could not maintain the institutions of the country chattering and change of offices and situations of all sorts, a with the ballot. Towards the end of his speech, however, circumstance which would go to influence votes just as well he said that the adoption of the ballot would make very as hard dollars. He contended that they ought not to at little change on the people, for that manly feeling tempt to introduce a great change like the ballot, without would still exist which would induce them to avow as to showing that corresponding public benefit would be the re which way they voted; and he said that the late Lord suit. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) said that it was Spencer on this ground, and also, as the people wished for for the counties, not the boroughs, he wanted the ballot. ti, said he would not make m uch ob j ection to it. Where, Now , it was ver y natural, but at the same time it was very then, was the Noble Lord's objection to it? The Noble Lord barefaced, for the Hon. Gentleman to attack county consti said that the disadvantages of the ballot were not merely tuencies considering the open way in which a public society, confined to itself, for if it was carried, the advocates of it, of which he was one of the founders, had gone about menu • beteg disappointed at its success, wou ld re q ui re an extension factoring fagg ot votes for a political purpose. He presumed of the suffrage. If the people exercised the franchise pretty that the creators of these votes kept a pretty tight hold on nearly as they did at present, wLere was the danger to the those who held them.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide, institutions of the country to adopt the ballot? The Noble divide.") The fionoarable Gentleman, in inveighing against Lord hadalladed to what he (Mr. Cobden) had said on a county Members and county constituents, had made a former occasion with respect to clubs, but he then mentioned very unfair attack on a body of men of whose habits he could many other instances in which the ballot was resorted to, know but very little.—(Divide, divide.) He (Mr. Henley) such, for instance, as the East India Company. The Noble held that men who would bribe would find the means of as- Lord knew that the directors of the East India Company, certaining how votes were given, even under cover of the who governed 100,000.000 of people, were elected by the pro- ballot ,and that the introduction of that system would increase prietors of East India Stock by vote by ballot. The mode in corruption while it diminished the means of investigating which it was done was that every proprietor, whether gen- into and punishing elect oral abuses. tleman or lady, had a card presented to each, with the list Mr. MUNTZ characterised the speech of the Noble Lord of the names of the candidates printed on it, and they at the head of the Government as sophistical and elusive of scratched the names of thoseparties out for whom they did the question at issue. In opposition to the Hon. Gentleman not intend to vote. Now, if they allowed the ballot at the who had just sat down, he believed that the ballot would East India House, for the election of those who governed be made to act secretly. and that a great deal of peace 100,000,000, surely there could be no great strength in the and comfort and confidence to all classes would result argument of the Noble Lord as to clubs? lie believed the from its introduction. Since 1800 the ballot had worked seine system of voting was also in use at the Bank of En g - admirably in t he Netherlands, to the satisfaction indeed land. 'lt appeared, then, that in many of the main trans- of all classes and its interests. Why, then, could it not actions of life the ballot was adopted, to prevent the incon- be as well managed here? Hon. Gentleman talked about venience which arose from open voting. The Noble Lord it being an un-English system. Why, he was as English also alluded to foreign countries. He (Mr. Cobden) believed in habits and feelings as any man, but would he like the ballot was used in all countries on the Continent. It his account-books and records ef private affairs to was used in France, Spain, and Portugal, and in every vii- be exposed openly in the streets? No, it was lags in Russia at the election of the head men of it, and this neither wise, just, or expedient to tell the whole truth at all he had seen himself. He did not, however, wish to look to times, and if any lion. Member did so he was unworthy of those countries for any analogy with this, where the English the confidence of those who sent him there.—(Hear, hear.) people had been so long accustomed to self-g overn ment. If, Then, again, he heard of the spirit of the constitution. however, they must go abroad for a p ara ll e l, he eveuld refer What was the constitution, but the laws actually existing them to a people as well able as the people of this country to at the time being? Why, every time they met here they govern themselves. He would go to the United States of altered that constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He protested America. He said nothing respecting a republican Govern- against the spirit of the consti tution bein g made a p e g meat, nor was he going to state that he preferred it to our whereon to hang objections to all reforms.—(Hear. hear.) own form of Government. If they looked to Spain and Por- This was no party question, it had nothing to do with tugal, the people of this country were fifty years in advance party—or, at all events, both parties were equally interested of the inhabitants of those countries as respected self-gover n- in it. In his own borough one-seventh of the constituency merit. If, however, they regarded the condition of the never voted at all, because they were afraid of their pecu people of many parts of - the United States where there was niary interests suffering from the exercise of their political no hierarchy, no aristocracy, and no sovereign, but a simple privileges. The question was, then, whether under such a democratic race, descended from a plebeian race of English- system the people were jastly dealt with—whether they men, they would find that never in the history of the w orld was could exercise their electoral rights without detriment to there an instance of a people governing themselves w ith such their worldly prospects. He contended that they could that very bare fact was, in his • • moral, intellectual, and social results as was the case with not, and the people of the New England States of America.—( Il ea ) reason h America.—(Hear.) for the introduction of vote by ballot. Holding He did not include all the American States, but any one who these opinions, e would cordially support the motion before had ever been in America would, he felt assured, agree with the House.— (Cheers.) him in stating that the descendants of a plebeian ra ce of Eng- Mr. P. WOOD differed entirely from the Hon. Member lishmen in New England had succeeded in them- who had designated the present n governing it as a fantastical" motion. He thought one of the selves better than any people on the face of the earth.— most important motions of the pre the inhae sent session—the mast important ( Hear.) The people of England were germane to after that lately brought ;,ward by the Hon bitants of those states, and were as capable of being intrusted Member for Montrose.—(Hear.) The oble Lord at the . with self-government; as any race on the face of the earth. d of the Government talked of the the ballot as the introduction -(hear.) He deprecated all cases of comparison with of a new principle of secret voting. states of America, except with respect to the n orthern states,in lt was no doubt new—but what th en ? B e f ore th e R e f orm in which there was no slavery. Then how did the ballot Bill, operate in those countries? The Noble Lord said it did not whether voting was secret or open; but after the Reform Bill succeed, but he said nothing in way of explanation to sho: d w . h a d passed the wh o l e aspect of the question underwent a that this was the case. — (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord change,change, and the time had now come when they could not had certainly said that in that country some men could shut their eyes to the fact that the question was, whether influence thirty or forty thousand electors. The they could or could not trust the people.—(Hear, hear.) Noble Lord did not say how , but they had no Marquis It was the middle clas ses — the shopkeepers of the various of Exeter there to influence them after his fashi on. But he towns—whose o p inions it w as desirable to have, andthey (Mr. (Mr. Cobden) would go further, and say—in that country were the very people whose ni op i • ons were never ascer some men influenced hundreds of thousands of electors.— tained. The statieticeof the Westminster elections fully (Hear, hear.) Such men as Clay and Webster indeed would explained that fact. He was shocked to hear the Noble of secret influence not only hundreds of thousands, bu t millions of Lord s p eak of the evil influences voting, and of electors.—(Hear, hear.) But how was that in fluence ob- trustin g th e exercise of the franchise to the caprice of tained! It was from their high moral and intellectual quali- those who voted • in secret. Were these electors persons ties they had obtained their influence.—( g public Hear, hear.) T he capable of ex opinion, or were they not? If Noble Lord said that corruption existed in North Amer ica. they were, then they He (Mr. Cobden) denied that this was the case. — ( Bear.) forth as a body of were the men who ought to be called additional electors. Jurors were not sub tle would give the strongest proof that corruption could not jest to the influences to which electors were subjected. In exist in the United States. Universal suffrage existe d in all fluence wasb the free states. The President had only 5,000 1 . a y ear, and intention of rought to bear on the electors, which it was the the Reform Bill to exclude •and to adopt the , all the Government functionaries were paid on a small scale. means of He did not believe that in such a country, where t he v o te s putting a stop to this influence would be one mode lie of satisfy • ying the people that the House was really in earnest were taken at very short periods, and where the common on the labourer earned five shillings a day, and where an acre of subjectofbribery. But was there not the greater land could be purchased for six or seven shillings. that cor- question of intimidation, which affected a large and nume ro us class of tenantry. lie held in his hand the report of rupt practices • could be carried on. He did not believe that the Committee which had sat with regard to the borough of .., - in a country where the expenditure of the Gov ernment was Stafford. Although the Committee stated that none of the on so limited a scale, and where fortunes were so much on an facts relating to tt e Marquis of Exeter's interference at equality, that it was possible foy any, body of men to the time ofthe had been proved, the purchase purchase the votes of their fellow-citizens.--(Hear.) Th en ejectment of tenants in 1830 and 1847 , yet he was glad to with regard to the ballot. Did t he Americans like the ballot find that the Committee had come to the conclusion themselves? Did they ever hear of any one of the that d Unit • United looking at the fact of one-third of the consta- States abandoning the ballot, or could they state an instance tuency • been mad of any serious prousition ever havingh. )e to change being tenants of the M • arquis, and to the discharges served on fourteen tenants in 1830, and the mode of voting there? --(Hear, ear. No, but there ballot to sixteen in 1847, undue influence had been made to had been a gradual extension of the _. the States in operate on the minds of a portion of the constitu which it had not hitherto been adopted, lie believed, al- envy, and they though he could not spea k p ositively OR the subject, that v had been placed under bias and restraint in the exercise of the elective franchise. Could any one say a there was not a state wh ich was not slave state in which _ ballot—(Hear, h 'eh that this was not influence from which the ballot would pro they had not adopted vote by . 9 ear.) But tect them? The House was asked what would be the result regard to our this was a practical question with The Noble Lord did not grapple with the main case, but had been brought same as it was without it. If the result would be the same alluded to circumstances which had as before the with honest means on the one hand, and dishonest means on House by the Hon. Member for Bristol, the showingprevention the neces- the other, then why not obtain the result by honest means? sity for protection to the voter and tion ; but he was sure that there was hardly a Member in of the Government. What was the case on the 10th of that House who could not cite analogous cases. _ (Hear, April ? Did not the whole class of voters and non-voters hear.) The Hon. M e mber for Carlisle had defended open come forward in a mass to rally round the cause of order? voting, but was there ev er anything , hing so disgraceful as what L oo k at the result of the ballot in the last election for France. occurred at the last election f or that place, as described in the Was the present National Assembly of France one which d who r • blue book? There was a Mr. Head, who . resided in the was destructive of all order, or one which was favourable to neighbourhood, and who appeared - the restoration of order? Every one felt that the Assembly rupter.—(A laugh.) Ile wrote acheque and for 1,0001 ., which was favourable to the restoration of order, and yet that As he gave Ito his clerk to get discounted, the amount he sembly had been elected by the ballot and by universal ordered to be expended at the election.a. The result was suffrage. It was no use to attempt to govern a country that for several days the town was in beastly state of in- where there was liberty of speech by any other influence than with toxication, and still this Mr. Head,. ti of oominable hypo- the direct influence of persuading that you were in the right, crier, was engaged in the distribution „ temperance tracts, and that you were honest and sincere, and intended the wet -(Laughter, and cries of , " Hear, hear.) The lion. Mem- fare of the people. Let the Noble Lord only throw himself ber for Stafford also, who was for open voting, came forward on the whole people of England in the same gallant manner with the case of his own borough. What was the state of in which he threw himself on the constituency of London— the purity of the elections thought had let hint deal frankly with them, and he would find the ex been well known since the time of (Hear, hear.) periment most satisfactory, and that all persons were anxious the last * — The Hon. Gentleman said that at o _ l election he set for good government. aside all political questions, and told the woulc ecto rs that it' lie Mr. NAPIER—The Hon. Member for the city of Oxford was sent by them to Parliamenn i have none of the had stated that the people of England were a frank, manly, but that chimeras Of the ballot or free trace, but the country in a peculiar way ; and the Hon. Member added milted they were so, and it was because they possessed those that they returned him, although his_ the iopinionsi were very dif- qualities that he deemed them worthy of exercising the ferent from theirs.—(Laughter.) If on. Member's eon- franchise in a manly, open, and independent manner. stituents had returned him on the ground . that he should act. , (Hear. hear.) It was under the present system of voting very differently from all other Members in the House, he cue that their constitution had grown up—a constitution which tainly had completely fulfilled his pledge.—(Great laughter.) partook of the character of the people; but Hon. Members It was notorious, however, that that borough had never been on the other side of the House would now introduce into it fortunate eno ugh to i n d uc e an y man to contest it a second an entirely new principle—a principle at variance with its time in consequence o f t h e expenditure, but the spirit, and epposed to the genius of the British nation. Honourable Member, perhaps, might go again to Staflord, Allusion had been made to America, but he too had heard and induce them to return him a second time. He something of the working of the ballot in that country. The was in favour of the ballot, however, not so much Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the observations for the sake of th e t ow ns as for the counties. lie believed if of an American, in which he said that the state of Virginia the electors of the counties had the ballot, that some of the had refused to admit the ballot. best Members that could be s ent would be return ed by them Mr. C OBDEN—But Vir g inia is a slave state.—(Hear. ).. to that House. Would a n y one tell him that th e electors in Mr. NAPIER observed that upon a solemn review of its many counties were free to choos e whom the y pleased, or working the ballot had been abolished in Virginia in 183 0 , whether it was not notorious that they were influenced in and open voting substituted. o f s lavery—Olean) their votes ?—(Hear. hear.) In s ome counties, wh ere th ere Mr. MACGREGOR—Yes, on account were 5,000 or 6,000 voters, they might depend up on it th at M r . NAPIER wished to see open , manly v o ting _ on all oc the candidates, or rather Members , would b e selected by five casions, so that public o p inion might be brought tobear upon or six noblemen sitting at their firesides. Lord St an l ey , w h o men h av i ng a public duty to discharge—(Hear)—that h d did not conceal his opinions , open l y stated tha t county elec - .. , genial influence under which all our institutions a grown up and prospered. The main argument in favour of the ballot was that the shopkeeper or persons in an humble state of life possessing the franchise might be injured by its free exercise, but he wanted to know if it was a principle in our constitution (as this argument seemed to assume) that no man should be placed in a position by which the exercise of his public duty would be attended with private inconveni ence ?—(Hear, hear.) He had not heard any argument advanced to-night to induce him to change his former opinion upon this question, and still believed that vote by ballot WAS inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitu tion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. VILLIERS agreed that the people of England were a frank, open, and independent people, and that was the reason why they had never submitted to an abuse when they had discovered it to exist, and that was why they had come before the House on the present occasion; they saw that men were bribed and intimidated, and they would bear it no longer. The Hun. and Learned Member for Dublin had referred to an argument of the Hon. Member for the West Riding, and had stated what was the practice in the United States, but the Hon. Member for the 'West Riding had pointed to particular states in America where there were no slaves, the New England States, where was our own race and our own institutions; they had insisted on the protection to voting, and there had been no case in which that system had been abolished. The answer which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had adduced referred to what had taken place in the slave states, and the lion. and Learned Gentleman made out that where there was anything bad and iniquitous to defend, there men insisted upon open voting.—(Hear.) Ile thought the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, was quite conclusive upon this subject. Nobody denied that by the ballot bribery and intimidation would be prevented. They were at that moment legislating to prevent those evils, for a Bill to prevent corrupt practices was before the House. The ballot was a far more efficacious mode of preventing those evils. The only argument against the ballot was, that there might be cases in which there would be an approximation to the present system. It was ad mitted that the knowledge of how a man voted was the root of all existing evils. As the Hon. Member for Oxford had said, those who opposed the ballot were apprehensive that the electors were not trustworthy. He (Mr. Villiers) did not mean to say it was not an advantage to have persons for representatives who possessed rank, station, and property. So far as he knew, safety was felt in persons of that sort being in the Legislature, as there was a kind of conservative spirit amongst them. But would the ballot exclude such !persons ? No. The Hon. Member for Bristol had quoted the opinion of Mr. Grote to show that men of property would be the persons selected under the ballot. But then something else besides property would be required. The representative must have character and reputation.—(Cheers.) Now he could not see the mis chief of that. Under the present system any man who hap pened to possess the influence of property might, without reference to character or ability, become a member of the Legislature. There was a preference for property in this country, as there ever must be in a commercial and indus trious nation like this; but let an elector have the free ex ercise of his opinions secured to him by the ballot, and then fortune and birth would be useless without character and credit.—(Cheers.) Of course, men would prefer a good man to a bad one, but at present they had no choice. He be lieved that at present any man who had a fortune might feel certain of obtaining a seat in that House. Establish the ballot, and this would not be the case. He believed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, that there was no reason to fear the sort of men who would be sent to the Legislature under the ballot. Another advantage that would be obtained by the establishment of the ballot would be, that they would give the wealthy classes the greatest possible interest in the education of the people.—(Cheers.) If they felt alarmed on account of the prospect of ignorant proceedings in the election of Members for the Legislature, they must feel deeply interested in the question of educating the people. He thought they required some stimulus of that kind.—(Cheers.) The people were still much neglected, and a very large portion of them were in a very degraded state. There was something wanting to excite the wealthy classes to extend to the people the advantages of know ledge, and he knew of nothing more calculated to produce that result than to make the wealthy classes feel danger it they did net do it.—(Hear hear.) Everything that had been done with respect to elections this session was calcu lated to lower that House in the estimation of the people, and the House was now about to separate without having taken any steps to prevent the recurrence of those disgrace ful events which had been so frequently this year disclosed by Committees of that House.—(Hear, hear.) They could not under the present system amend the mode of conducting elections, and therefore they ought to devise some other sys tem. He knew that it was an argument urged in private more than in public, that under any other system people of property would get into the House. The men of property, it was contended, would always constitute the majority. But how, he would ask, did they now get into that House? Everybody knew that at present 3,0001. or 4,000/. were required to get into Parliament. And how was that money spent? Why, in demoralising the constituency, and in tempting the people to crime and vice. Under the present system they were only adding to that vice which they expressedthemselves as wishing to see overcome. The 3,0001. was spent in corrupting whole families, and everybody must have observed that in those places where the money was so spent there were more assize cases than anywhere else. This was a great moral question. It was a question of education, and he believed that no sufficient argument had been shown against the !proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, namely, that of taking votes by ballot. He would not say that that mode was perfect or without some evils, but comparing it with the present sys tem, it was infinitely superior, and ought therefore to obtain their support.—(Cheers.) Mr. H. BERKELEY replied. The Noble Lord objected to his having proposed a resolution instead of a Bill. But it the House should agree to the resolution, a Bill would very soon follow. As America had frequently been alluded to, he would state that he had resided six years there, and had closely observed the working of the American system. and he never heard of anything like intimidation, or any thing like a bribe in that country. The House then divided, when there appeared,— For the resolution Against it . . Majority in favour of the ballot The result was received with considerable cheering. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to confirm the incorporation of certain boroughs. The Bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time. On the motion of Mr. BOLTVEINE, a Bill was brought in and read a first time, to explain an Act made in the Ist year of King William and Mary, for exempting their Majesty's Protestant subjects, dissenting from the church of England, from the penalties of certain laws. Mr. RAPHAEL obtainei leave to bring in a Bill to exempt from the legacy duties all charitable bequests, not to private ndividuals, but to public bodies. The House adjourned at Five Minutes past Twelve. HOUSE OF LORDS, August 8. 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, after a few words from the Earl of DESART sad 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 tentio❑ to proceed with the Bill during this session. SICILY AND NAPLES. Lord 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 acknowledged principle that in all such cases foreign Governments should maintain the strictest neutrality. On this principle we had abstained from interfering in the affairs of Italy, we had condemned German interference in the affairs of Holstein, and we had praised the answer of M. de Lareartine to the Irish deputation; and 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 willing to accept foreign intervention to shake 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, he 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 were opened with the British authorities ; and it was stated that a communication was made through the me dium of Mr. Fagan, an attach 4 of the British Embassy at Naples, that it was the pleasure of the British Go vernment that the Sicilians should adopt the m onarchical form of government, and that they should choose a d s their king the son of the King of Sardinia. He d not know who the Gentleman was to whom such a mission was entrusted; but he believed he should not err very wide of the mark if ho inferred from his name that he at he was a native of the (sist e r country, belonging to t i. e e xtreme liberal party of that country ; and that _opino l was confirmed by an exa mination of a very useful lit tle work, called Dodd's Pa rliamentary Companion, in wh ich he found that a gentleman, named Fagan, was in 1847, returned, for the first time, as a Member for the City of Cork, and that in politics he was an avowed repealer of the union between Great Britain and Ireland.—(Much laughter on the Ministerial benches.) Perhaps ho was wrong, and if so, the Noble Earl could correct him. Earl MINTO—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 Foreign-office. They submitted their views with regard to the future constitution of Sicily to that Noble Lord, and were informed by him that England would not re cognise Sicily as a republic, but would do bo if a mo narchical form of Government were chosen ' an d a son of the King of Sardinia elected as their Ki ng . H e believed it further to be the case that a communication to tha that effect was made by direction of Lord Pa lmerston to the King of Sardinia through our Minister Mr. Turin, and also to the British Consul at P a l ermo who lost no time in letting the condition which England would recogni se t h e Sicily. All that might perhaps b e a f a bl e, n d l e r . be known Goodwin.e c but ofon he had it on authority which led him to believe the facts were as he had stated, and if so, such interference was wholly unjustifiable in point of policy, and a gross violation of the law of nations. But he had also been informed, on the same high authority, of another and more flagrant breach of international law. It must be well known to their Lordships that for some time . the King of Naples, in the exercise of his undisputed and indis putable rights, having succeeded in arranging affairs on the Continent, had been making preparations to obtain the restoration of his authority in the island of Sicily. In such a case this country had no right to inquire into the theoretical or practical abuses of the kingdom of Naples, nor to ask whether the constitution of that country was such as she could in theory approve of We had no 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 authority over any portion of his revolted subjects. If our 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 nised 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, stilt the British fleet was placed in a menacing position towar.is 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 such a posi tion. He had a right to ask, and the Clouse 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 endeavouring to re-estab lish his authority in Sicily, or will he be left, so far as British authority is concerned, free to use his efforts for the object he has in view? He held that up to the pre synt time they had not recognised the independence of Sicily, and he made it matter of complaint, that not having done so they had laid down conditions ou which 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 still goieig on, and was at present of ' doubtful success. .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 attache 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, ho repeated, was highly un justifiable, and contrary to every principle of interna tional law. The questions ho 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 fit to adopt, or the Sovereign she might think fit to choose? and, secondly, whether any instructions had been given to tee 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 eqaadron to reduce to obedience his revolted sub jects in Sicily, it would be allowed to proceed to its des tination without hindrance on the part of that Ileet? For the sake ot 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 be felt it quite unnecessary to follow the Noble Lord through all 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 that interference, 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, he sincerely trusted, 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 which 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 object of the Government, he repeated, was to main tain the connexion between the two countries. Nis Noble Friend (the Earl of elinto) 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, both by counsel and advice, he did all he could to promote the adoption ot 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 real -n for hoping that the first and favourite object of their interference would be accomplished. Indeed, there was a period when their friendly suggestions were on the point of tieing accomplished, but changes took place in the councils of his Neapolitan Majesty which created unexpected obstacles io their being carried into effect. Our advice, counsel, and action were directed to the abject of maintain. ing the friendly connexion of the Two Sicilies, and that object alone ; sad it was froni 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 on the zeal, skill, and efficiency of Lord Napier, who was entrusted with the business o f thi s country Naples,at proceeded to observe, that from the time it became manifest Sicily world 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 cease 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 displayed such military powers, that they would maintain :heir 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 tnent based on monarchical principles, rather than of the form of G , ,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 be the means of introducing a foreign Prince into Sicily. Looking back to this advice, he expressed his belief that it was such as they had not the slightest reason to regret. The Noble Lord was quite wrong in supposirig 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 Sicily and Naples. Lord STANLEY stated that he had no desire to press his motion, but he could not conceal from their Lordships that he 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 Sovereign, to offer advice to the insurgent Sicilians as to the mode in which they should constitute themselves an independent country. The Noble Marquis had stated that no condition was allsed to that advice ; but was it not manifest the British Go vernment informed Sicily, that so soon as she could esta blish a sovereign free independent state, so soon this coun try would recognise the independence of that state, being in itself no small inducement, if not a condition, to pro ceed to the election of such Sovereiken. The Noble Mar quis had not denied that the British Government informed those revolting subjects of the King of Naples, that it was their wish the Sovereign so selected should be an Italian Prince, and if an Italian Prince, the eon of the King of Sar dinia, a course certainly inconsistent wish the conduct by , which they should be influenced towards all allies, and with that:strict neutrality which it was their duty, as well as their interest, to maintain between a mother-country and her revolting dependents. Moreover, it was giving counsel to persons in arms against their Sovereign, and whose posi tion was not so successful or complete, as to r secure aui they rwreere cognition of them, as an independent powe r, d give e'n t . th w e as s support r i t n e a f condition, d i i n tio t t h e a a t spaegsiatilnesn; the ee British Sovereign, G Governme nt He thought they hada right their co-operation and support. Englano, and to tell the Sicilians how they might best secure between insurgent forces in the _ e to know whether the Br itish Government still intend to maintain strict neutrality and Italy and the King of IC 91 to, or throw any obstacles in he might think tit to send to wardswhich, at the present mo ment,tahney way p erson of, t o anyi n offer forceff h e r i opposition power, whichand '' whether they authorised he e g w ain as i nt i m idated from sending by the control o f tließritish 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:Bert:h. ofi t a t ssAh a l dc iemlial Naples ronau lrrspe.atur Parker eeerTheses steamer,d fr o me r o me n fau t nc h gd e eatel w das b a awr t ecei e ae r r e esso o nb f t or C oo board,ut r ug f oh u w i t ph over ea r h d. h a to o n i s N u t m e a d p b sons to ascertain their cause of complaint. The access was refused, and this circumstance he (Lord Minto) thought would prove more than sufficient ground fbr refusing an ex. planation. The Admiral then took upon himself the duty of judge, and he was certain that the judgment of that dis tinguished officer, as on previous occasions, would be found most prudent and firm. He (Lord Minto) denied, as Lord Stanley seemed to insinuate, that he had proceeded some what officiously to Sicily. He was most unwilling, in the first instance, to go there, and he had not done so except at the urgent entreaty of the Neapolitan Sovereign and Govern ment, his object being to maintain the connexion betwi,en the two countries. The Duke of ARGYLL expressed his deep regret that the British Government had thought it their duty, at no 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 he regretted they had so soon looked upon the King of Naples' efforts to regain Sicily as impossible. • Earl GREY said that when the proper time arrived th Government would be able. to show that they had not acted in this matter without due caution. They now laboured under the disadvantage of being unable. from prudential mo tives, to explain the justice of their policy. The Earl of MALMESBURY considered his Noble Friend's (Lord Stanley's) question remained unanswered, and, therefore, he should again very distinctly and briefly ask, with the yiew of getting information, VAS the bet e