The Sun. — London, England, 1835-06-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNB 2. Lord DENMAN took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. Mr. TooKu, and others from the Commons, brought up the Oaths Abolition Bill and the Grand Junction Railway Bill. The Hon. Member also brought up a message from the Commons, requesting that their Lordships would communi cate any depositions they had relative to Moore's Di vorce Bill, from India. The Noble Lord on the Woolsack said their Lordships would send an answer by their own mes sengers. Mr. Clark, the Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, presented a return of the number of trials which had taken place before the Central Criminal Court. Numerous petitions were presented in favour of the Great Western Railway Bill, by the Marquis of Salisbury, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Bute, Lords Ellen borough, Seagrave, and the Bishop of Exeter. A great number of petitions were presented in favour of the Islington Market Bill by the Marquis of Salisbury, the Mar quis of Westminster, the Earl of Sefton, and Lords Suffield and Templemore. Lord FARNBOROUGH presented four petitions against the Bill. The Bishop of EXETER presented two petitions from Wells, praying that a clause might be inserted in the Great Western Railway Bill to prevent Sunday travelling.—(Hear.) AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. The Duke of BUCC L E UGH presented a petition from 1,000 owners and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, praying for relief from agricultural distress, and a similar petition from the agricultural association of Scar• borough. ISLINGTON MARKET BILL. Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition from the county of Essex, in favour of this Bill ; also, a petition from the town of Chelmsford, which was to the same effect. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions against the Bill from the graziers of Melton Mowbray, from the magi- Arates and clergy of St. Mary, Vington, and from the butchers of Finsbury, Southwark, and the Tower Hamlets. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions in favour of the Bill from the counties of Northampton and Lincoln. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. Lord LONDONDERRY wished to recall the attention of the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) to the questions which he had put to him last evening, and to which the Noble Viscount had promised to give an answer this day. Viscount MELBOURNE could only state, as far as he understood, that the Royal William, since called the Isabella Seconda, had been fitted out for the Queen of Spain at an expense of 1,9431., the expanse to be paid by the Spanish Government. There had been also sent out to Spain 13,000 carbines, 3,000 pistols, and 10,000 sabres, all of which amounted to 2,0001. This expense was also to be defrayed by the Spanish Government. On the 10th of March 1835, however, the Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) had informed the Government of Spain that he would not press for the money. The Duke of WELLINGTON regretted that his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Londonderry) had not thought proper, previous to putting questions to the Noble Viscount opposite, according to the rules observed on such occasions, to give notice of his intention.—( Hear, hear.) If the Noble Marquis had given notice according to the usual practice of their Lordships' House, he would certainly have attended in his place, and would have given such answers as it was necessary for him to give respecting the share which he had taken in these transactions.—( Hear, hear.) It was quite true, as the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) stated, that arms and ammu nition bad been furnished to the Spanish Government, ai:d had not been paid for, and it was also true that he (the Duke of Wellington) had expressed an intention on the part of his Majesty's Government not to press for payment. Lord LONDONDERRY had not made any communica tion to the Noble Duke of his intention to put these questions, but he would take care to do so in future. THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he would avail himself of the opportunity to say a few words relative to a-s O bject which he introduced in that House some short time since, relative to the resignation of the Marquis of \Vellesl'-y as Lord Chamberlain. He always felt delicacy in bringinir these subjects forward, but when he found that the respectable Press of the country had stated that the illustrious Duke be hind him bad upon that occasion stated circumstances not founded in fact, and drawn references without foundation, he thought it his duty to bring it forward. The correspon dence that had taken place completely bore out what he h••.d stated, and it also placed all parties on such a footing that there was no necessity for the production of the papers unless, in deed, the Noble Viscount wished it. Viscount MELBOURNE said that he had no wish what ever for the production of the correspondence. IRISH PETITION. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then rose to pre sent the petition, of which he had given notice, from the Protestants of the north of Ireland, signed by up wards of fifty-thousand persons, praying for the protection of the Established Church. He felt highly honoured in having a petition of such vast importance entrusted to his care. It gave him some satisfaction, after the many political disappointmer he had felt, it might have been placed in far abler hands, but not in the hands of those who were any better wishers to the petitioners than himself.—(Hear, hear, hear. ) At the meeting at which the petition was got up many excellent speeches were made, he would not now attempt to dilate upon all the reasons that had been 10.- duced for the getting up of the petition ; but there were some few remarkable circumstances attending it, to which he would call the attention of the House. A Noble Marquis bad signed the petition who was a Mem ber of the Government that passed. the Reform Bill, bnt when that noble personage found that those with whom he was connected were pursuing a course that was likely to be destructive to the Established Church he, to his great cre dit, withdrew his connection front them.--( Hear, hear. ) The Noble Marquis then referred to a letter which had been written to the Lord Lieutenant by an Hon. Member of •the other House (Mr. Sheil), in which he called for the dismissal of the Marquis of Downsbire. That Noble Lord was not dismissed. The next person whom the gentleman alluded to bad attacked, was the humble individual then addressing the House.--( Hear, hear.) He had only to say that censure was all that he wanted to have from such a quarter. He was very sorry that the Hon. Gentleman had not been able to find some better foundation for his censure than the false one of charging him with being the orator of an Irish mob, and therefore unfit for the service of his Majesty. The next name on the petition was that of a gentleman who had signed a petition against the Reform Bill, and on the presentation of it, the Noble Earl then at the head of the Government (Earl Grey) though he quarre'led with the fact of his name being to the petition, yet bore testi mony to the respectability of the gentleman—that gentleman was Col. Ford, one of the best landlords in the county, and of the utmost respectability. A great deal had been said in order to run down the meeting ; it was said that the landlords had got up the meeting by driving their tenants to it like droves of sheep—to such a charge he did not think it ne cessary to reply further than by saying that in the county of Down the feelings of attfthment between landlord and tenant were very strong, and in his opinion, if it was so in other counties, it would be much for their benefit. At that meeting, however, there were no banners—they had no exciting tunes—they had nothing like the procession which had taken place a few days ago in Dublin at which the representative of his Majesty assisted, a procession which the Noble Viscount opposite (Melbourne) had not yet satisfactorily shown to be of a legal character. While he was upon that point he would take the opportunity of im pressing upon his Noble Friend near him (the Earl of Roden)—of asking him most anxiously, to use his powerful interest with the Protestants of Ireland, that on the 12th of July they might not in consequence of that proces sion, also have one of their own. He was certain that his (the Earl of Roden's) influence so exerted, would be much more powerful for good than the menaces of the Noble Viscount opposite ( Melbourne. )—( Loud cheers. ) He remembered well that in a very eloquent speech their Lordships were told that a Noble Marquis, who had been of aauch service to his country in India, was about to go to Ireland, in order to put an end to all party feeling. He was very sorry that he was obliged to say that the policy pursued by that Noble Marquis was the least likely to effect his object ; though at the same time he felt obliged to say that the Noble Marquis had been of great use to the people of Ireland, by various measures which had been introduced under his auspices.—( Hear.) That brought him to the taunt of the Noble Viscount, that he had the petition in possession for 8 months. He was too honest to conceal from theNobleViscount that he had a motive in so doing. He trusted that by pre senting it now he would open the eyes of his countrymen to the most unnatural coalition which had been formed. He therefore thought that his Majesty's Government would do justice to Ireland, and did not feel called upon to embarrass them by any discussion upon this subject.— ( Hear, hear.) He thought that their course would be such as to give confidence to the Protestants of Ireland.— If the Noble Viscount doubted him—( Viscount Melbourne : " Not at all."—A laugh.)—When, however, he says that not only did Mr. O'Connell nominate persons to office, but that he sat on the Treasury Bench, saying, " we will do so and so," was it possible for the Protestants of Ireland not to see that Mr. O'Connell and the Noble Viscount were one and the same? Did they not know that the Noble Viscount's Administration existed upon Mr. O'Connell's breath, and that if Mr. O'Connell were to desert them they would be obliged to resign ?—( Hear. ) Mr. O'Connell himself went about town boasting that, al though he was not officially connected with the Government, yet he had the legal appointments of Attorney and Solicitor- General in his pocket.—( Hear, hear.) He (the Noble Marquis) had heard and believed that all the law appointments in Ireland were under the directions of Mr. O'Connell.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Noble Lords opposite might cheer, but he still believed that to be the fact. He could as sure their Lordships that he had received letters from persons in Ireland, expressive of the greatest apprehension in conse quence of the influence exercised by Mr. O'Connell over the Government of that country, and who declared (what was perfectly true) that the position of tirt behind the scenes was more fatal to Ireland than if he had been Attor ney-General. The Noble Marquis then read a letter from an individual whom he described as nossessing the very best in formation of the state of the public feeling in Ireland. The writer stated—." That since the change of Government, affairs had been materially, and for the Protestants in that country, ruinously altered; and that he saw much greater ground to fear the result of the secret influence which Mr. O'Connell possessed, and would most assuredly exercise, than he did the effects of the direct acts of the Legislature itself. Every office would be filled by his nominees. The judgment seat and the constabulary force would also be filled from hls ranks. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1835. This was no exaggerated picture. The question of the forfeiture of estates was already openly discussed, and was brought more prominently before the public than it had ever yet been in the whole history of Ireland." Noble Lords might deceive themselves, but he had done nothing more than state what was the impression on the minds of a great portion of the people of Ireland. He would ask if there had not been a palpable influence exercised upon the Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government by Mr. O'Connell as regarded Ireland ? He would tell the Noble Viscount that there had been.—(Opposition cheers.) This was his conscientious belief, and it was this which had in duced him to state so much to their Lordships as he had done. Some very severe animadversions had been made on some Members of their Lordships' House by Mr. O'Connell in another place. It happened to him (the Marquis of Lon donderry) to be well acquainted with a certain event that had occurred in Ireland between a relation of his own and the Hon. Member for Dublin. He was perfectly aware that as that Hon. Member had taken his line, any measure of the nature to which he (the Noble Marquis) alluded was unne cessary to be pressed upon him. If the Honourable Member for Dublin had clothed himself with the garb of a miserable impunity, and had placed himself in a situation which all others who ranked in society as gentlemen were sepa rated from, those who came under the lash of his animadversions must bear it as they may, and must let it pass as the idle wind which they regard not. The Hon. Member for Dublin not only attacked the living, but those who were gone equally fell under the wanton lash of that person. He (the Noble Marquis) did not allude to what had been said of a lamented relative of his own, but the other day Mr. Alex ander's name was most wantonly brought forward by Mr. O'Connell. If that Hon. Gentleman, when using that great magical word Reform, would endeavour to reform himself a little, it would not only be more beneficial to Ireland, but he (the Noble Marquis) should respect him much more as a fellow-countryman. The Noble Marquis concluded by pre senting the petition. Viscount MELBOURNE : My Lords, the - observations which have been made by the Noble Earl will not render it necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any great ' length. From the beginning of the Noble Lord's speech, was in hopes of being able to bear testimony to the great prudence and discretion which he manifested, but in the con clusion of it he relapsed into his usual strain—( Ministerial cheers)—and certainly indulged in language not characterized by that wisdom which marked the commencement of it. I appre hend that the petition is the expression of the sentiments of the people by whom it was voted, at the time at which—(hear) —and in the circumstances under which it was voted— (loud cheering)—and that undoubtedly it should have been presented to the persons to whom it was addressed that body, at least at the first convenient opportunity after it had been so agreed upon by that meeting. Now, my Lords, when was this petition - adopted? It was agreed upon on the 31st of last October, and the Noble Lord presents it now on the 2d day of June, at a period at least of three months after your Lordships have been sitting.—( Hear.) Now I beg leave to say, that in other hands than those of the Noble MarqUi,i, and at other times—( Hear, hear)--a petition of this sort might be made subservient to party views and party projects.—( Hear. ) It might be kept in the pocket of the individual to whom it was committed, during the time that a Ministry was in power to whom it was not suited to present it ; and it might Le brought forward again, and that with great pomp and ostenta tion, at a moment when other Ministers were in power, upon whom it might be thought more effectually to operate--( Hear, hear). But the Noble Lord said, that he did not think it worth while to present it to your Lordships at an earlier period. Why, whose petition is it, pray ?—( Loud cheers.) Is it the petition of the Noble Lord, I ask, or is it that of the meeting from which it purports to come ?—(Renewed cheers.) Was the Noble Lord given a discretionary power to present it, or to detain it, according to his pleasure ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Who gave him, I should like to know, any con trol or command over the presentation of that petition what soever ? Was it not his duty, then, to be directed by th,=.t. meeting what to do ? My Lords, as soon as that meeting wa; dispersed it was gone—it was. functus officio ; and it could not afterwards change the direction already given as to the thin: of its presentation. Whatever private intimation the Noble Lord might have had, he had no right to do otherwise than full the directions given by that meeting. We do not know now, my Lords, that this petition, under the present altered circumstances of the Government and the country, is expres sive of the real opinions of the persons who originally agreed to it.—(Great cheering.) We may presume that it is so ; but I say we do not know that that is their opinion upon the present occasion. Why, then, I own I should have been much better satisfied if the Noble Lord had persevered in the prudent course he has followed for the last three months, and had abstained from presenting the petition at all to this House ; for it does compel me to do -what I otherwise should not have done, namely, to go a little into the circumstances connected with the getting up of that petition. Undoubtedly the meeting at which the peti tion was adopted was viewed with great anxiety by the Go vernment of that day. It was a meeting in pursuance of a re- , quisition signed by the Lord-Lieutenant of the county and n great number of noblemen and magistrates who were charged to preserve the public peace, calling an exclusive meeting of Protestants.—( Great cheering.) Now, I do not wish to us.• any language of bitterness and asperity, but I do put it to Noble Lords on the other side of the House, whether it was consistent with the duty of those Noble Lords, considering the station they held, and the responsibility with which they were charged—l put it more particularly to the Noble Earl who so lately brought a strong charge against the Irish Go vernment respecting the late procession in Dublin, on the ground that it was exclusively a Roman Catholic assembly-- whether it was wise or prudent, under the circumstances, for persons in such a station to call a meeting of that kind, and in that part of the country ?—( Hear, hear.) Consider, toy Lords, if this example had been followed—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches)—consider if, in those parts of the country where the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, exclu sive meetings of Roman Catholics had been called ; consi der, my Lords—and I appeal more particularly to those are so anxious not to divide that country into two distinct classes—what a source of discord and animosity that must shortly have been.—( Loud cheering.) But I beg leave to observe to your Lordships that that example was not fol lowed—(loud cheers)—by the Roman Catholics—(renewed cheers)—and as it has not been adopted, I have nothing more to do than to express my strong opinion of the imprudence of the Noble Lords who were the promoters of that most dan gerous example. This meeting was called against the then existing Government, and against the strong and decided opi nion of the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—a nobleman who has to-night received the highest meed of praise—the tribute of admiration of the Noble Lord opposite—and whose opinion I much wish had had the same weight with the Noble Lord on that occasion which it appears to possess at present. In all the praise which has been given to my Noble Friend I cor dially concur. It is no more than, nor even so much as he de serves. I only object a little to the time at which it has been given.--(Ministerial cheers.) I wish it had been bestowed at a period when it might have been of some service, and when it might have tended to support his Government—if, indeed, it could have given any support to one of his high and eminent character. Ido not, I confess, admire that practice which delays all praise to public men until it is no longer of any ser vice —(cheers and laughter)—and I beg leave to observe, that a little earnest support to a man when in office, is worth a hundred speeches of eulogy when he has retired from it.—( Renewed cheers and loud laughter.) My Lords, the Noble Lord has, in the end of his speech, adverted to the present Government, both in this country and in Ireland, and has very frequently mentioned the name of an Hon. and Learned Gentleman, a Member of the other House of Parliament. I remember the time when the Noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) told us that, by the frequent mention of the name of that Hon. Gentleman in this House, we gave him a power and influence in the country which he would not otherwise possess, and I always thought there was great weight in that observation. But that admonition seems to have been entirely forgotten by the Noble Lords opposite for we now rarely hear anything else from them but the name of that Hon. and Learned Gentleman. I can only deny most decidedly the truth of the statements which have been made by the Noble Marquis.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the speeches and letters which have been read, it is rather for Mr. O'Connell himself, than for me, to reconcile how he can give support to his Majesty's Government consistently with those letters and speeches.—( Hear, hear.) It is not a matter, at least, on which I am called upon to speak. With respect to the legal appointments in Ireland having been influenced by Mr. O'Connell, I at once utterly and entirely deny it; more especially with regard to the appointment of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, whom the Noble Lord has particularly men tioned, do I give this denial ; for it so happens, that at the very period when Mr. O'Connell was writing and publishing these letters, the present Solicitor-General had his appoint ment, and every body knows that at that time we were ex tremely anxious, if we could have compassed it, to have had Mr. Sergeant Perrin in the situation which he at present holds. They were both designated then, as they are now, by their ranks and talents, both in Parliament and in their profes sion ; and I utterly deny that they were in any respect the no minees cf Mr. O'Connell, as I utterly deny all the other im putations that have been cast upon us by the Noble Lord.— (Great cheering.) - The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE did not regret calling the meeting at which this petition bad been agreed to. He thought it was necessary to make a stand in support of the Protestant institutions of Ireland, as being essential to main tain the connection between the two countries. He never saw so large and respectable a meeting, and yet not a single breach of the peace occurred either at the meeting or on its disper sion. He admitted that the Roman Catholics offered no in terruption to the assembly. Lord DUNCANNON thought that the forbearance from all riot on the part of the meeting was owing more to the dis cipline to which they were subjected, than to the disposition of the people themselves. This meeting was as much under the direction of a particular body, as the meeting of which they had lately heard so much in the City of Dublin : and the re sult was also exactly the same, there being no breach of the peace on either occasion. Much of this was certainly owing to the forbearance of the Roman Catholics. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that at the time the meeting in the county of Down was convened, a cessation of the payment of tithes had pl.acc i T - C - land ; the clergy were suffering the utmost extremity, and Parliament was prorogued. Under these circumstances his Noble Friend (the Marquis of Downshire) convened the meet. ing, in order to express their adhesion to the Protestant Establishment, and their desire that the sufferings of tl:c clergy should cease. He did not in general approve of tLe Lord Lieutenant or the Custos Rotulorum attending such meet ings, but under the circumstances he would say it was lauda ble on the part of his Noble Friend to put himself at the head of the people to enable them to express their wish that some measure should be adopted for the protection of the Pro- I t: stant religion in Ireland. The forbearance of the Rom an Catholics had been alluded to ; but, in his opinion, they had as - great an interest as the Protestants themselves in support ing the Established religion of the country. , p Earl FIT ZWILL lAM said, that if the object of the meet ing was such as the Noble Duke had stated it to be, then the Noble Duke's speech had read a pretty wholesome lesson to a considerable number of their Lordships, to whom it was owing that the clergy of Ireland, at the time the meeting took place—(Loud Ministerial Cheers)—were suffering in the manner just described ; because if a certain Bill had been passed last session, those persons would not have been in a si tuation to call for the sympathies of the people. The Duke of WELLINGTON explained. Lord FARNHAM said if the Bill, as originally introduced by the Noble Lord (Hatherton) in the other House, had been brought up to their Lordships, it would have been passed ; but by the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill was totally altered; and, instead of being calculated to afford relief to the clergy, it would have been to them a Bill of Pains and Penalties. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that the reason why he voted against that Bill was, that he mistrusted the feelings of the individuals who supported it. Lord HATHERTON assured the Noble Lord (Farnham) that he was completely in error in supposing the Bill of last session was altered at the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. The Bill would no doubt have passed both Houses of Parliament;, but he was bound to state that he believed it would have been universally resisted by the people of Ireland, and that the Go vernment never could have enforced an arrangement founded upon it. Those connected with the landed interest in Ire land declared that they could never agree to the money being vested in the land. The Government, therefore, abandoned that principle ; but the suggestions proceeded from the Irish Members generally, although Mr. O'Connell was de puted by those gentlemen to express their sentiments to the House. But he (Lord Hatherton) asserted, because he knew it to be the truth, that Mr O'Connell was net the individual at whose suggestion the alterations were made.—( Hear.) With reference to the immediate subject of the petition, he car:alnly should have been exceedingly sorry if the matter had been disposed of without his having had an opportunity of en tering his protest against the principle upon which the meet ing whence the petition emanated was got up. Such a meet ing was, he believed, entirely without precedent or parallel in the history of Ireland. He did not know that it was neces sary for him to say more upon that occasion: except that it was only with the greatest possible difficulty that the Irish Government prevented other places from following the baneful example of Cavan and Down.—( Hear. ) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could not hear with out remark, from a Noble Lord who had filled one of the highest and most responsible situations in the Government of Ireland, language which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had never before heard uttered within the walls of that House. The Noble Lord had spoken of the Church of England in Ire land as a sectarian Church. Such language he believed had never before been heard in that House, and he could not help thinkinvhat it was as unconstitutional in itself as it was unusual for their Lordships to hear.—( Hear. ) The Earl FITZWILLIAM trusted that the Most Rev. Prelate would allow him (Earl Fitzwilliam) to send him back to his Latin grammar and Latin dictionary. What was the meaning of the word sect ? Whence was it derived ? and in what sense ought it to be regarded ? In the strict and literal sense of the word, was not the Church of England as much a sect as the Roman Catholic Church as the Baptist Congre gation ? as the Presbyterian Church ? as the Unitarian Con gregation ? He begged leave to tell the Most Rev. Prelate learned and reverend as he might be—(cries of " Spoke ")-- that if he meant to say—(renewed cries of " Spoke.") Ha could tell those Noble Lords that interrupted him, that he had a right to speak, and he would speak.—( Cries of Order.") The Earl of WICKLOW rose to order. Lord H ATHERTON, in explanation, admitted he had used the phrase of which the Most Reverend Prelate com plained, but certainly had not used it in the sense in .xhich the Most Reverend Prelate seemed to regard it. _ _ _ Earl FITZWILLIAM again rose; and having explained what he conceived to be the Inc:v. - ling of the word sect, de clared that, in his opinion, the Church of England was just as much a sect in this country as the Roman Catholic, the Uni tarian, the Baptist, or any other branch or denomination into which Christians were divided. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that what the Noble Earl said was etymologically true. Grammatically 'and etymologically every branch of Christians was a sect, but the Church of England was not a sect in the eye of our law, nor was it ever so characterized in common parlance. If the Noble Lord went back to etymology, he might just as well say, looking at the Greek derivative of the word " hierarchy," that the Church of England was a heresy. But the term sect, in its usual theological acceptation, was, in his opinion, properly applied to a body or class of persons who divided or separated themselves from that which was acknowledged to be a Church. But when the Noble Earl talked of Unitarians not being a sect, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) should be glad to be informed when they were ever regarded in any other light ?—( Hear.) The Earl of RODEN defended the character of the Pro testant meeting held in Ulster on the 30th of October last. Noble Lords were entirely mistaken when they supposed that that meeting was attended by only one class or one sect of the Protestant community of the North of Ireland. The occasion Vsat gave rise to the great, glorious, and constitutional meeting held in Ulster in October last, was an anxiety on the part of the Protestants in Ireland to preserve the Protestant religion in that country, and to hand down to their children that secu rity of life and property which had been handed down to them. This anxiety on the part of the Protestants of Irekind was na turally excited by the Bill introduced into Parliament last year, and by which it was proposed to transfer the surplus re venues of the Established Church, and to apply them to Ro man Catholic purposes. After dwelling at some length upon the distinction which existed between such meetings as that to which he had referred and the more A Orange meet ings, the Noble Earl went on to say that it would be his care to prevent, to the utmost in his power, any meeting or proces sion in Ireland on the 12th of July next. Meetings of that descriptions he felt to be illegal, and should therefore oppose them. The Noble Lord opposite had compared the procession of which Lord Mulgrave was the idol with the Protestant meeting which took place in the county of Dowv, and de clared that the one was as illegal as the other; but the Noble Lord forgot that the legality or illegality of a procession or meeting depended on the display of banners. Banners were exhibited in the Dublin procession, but banners were not ex hibited at the Down meeting. Upon that point, therefore, the Noble Lord had not a leg to stand upon. The Noble Earl, in conclusion, solemnly warned the House against the machi nations of that party which, though it appeared not upon the stage, though it was seduously and carefully concealed behind the scenes, was in fact the real governor of Ireland, and whose object he believed to be the dismemberment of the em pire, and the destruction of Protestant property, Protestant life, and Protestant religion in Ireland. The Earl of HADDDINGTON did not rise to prolong the discussion. Ho wished to advert to one point only.— Previous to leaving Ireland, on the very last public opportu nity that was afforded to him of addressing his fellow country men in that country, he (the Earl of Haddington) ventured to offer his sincere advice to the Protestant part of the commu nity, not to allow any thing to tempt them to violate the law. Considering the situation he had lately held in Ireland, he thought he was still bound to offer to the Protestants of that country the same advice at the present moment ; and he begged to join the Noble Marquis in the appeal the Noble Marquis had made to the Noble Earl (Roden), and he did so with the greater pleasure, because he was led to hope from what had fallen from the Noble Earl, that he would exercise his powerful influence to prevent any of those manifestations of party feeling and party spirit which hitherto had been attended with such baneful consequences in Ireland. The Barl of GOSFORD could state, upon the most un questionable authority, that a great many of the most respect able and most influential Protestants of Ireland were: strongly opposed to such meetings. as those which had recently taken place in Ireland, and which were so strongly defended by the Noble Earl (Roden.) He knew from persons resident in that part of the country, that every possible compulsion was used to drive persons to those meetings. The Marquis of DOWN SHIRE denied that any compul sion had been used on his part. The Earl of GO SFORD had received his information from a quarter on which he placed the utmost reliance. He had, however, alluded to no one in particular. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY shortly replied. The petition was then laid on the table. ISLINGTON MARKET BILL. On the question that the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill be now read, Lord BROUGHAM rose to present a petition in favour of this Bill from the several Inns of Court. This petition, he said, was worthy of notice, inasmuch as that it was signed by a Right Rev. Prelate, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice Chan. cellor, the Solicitor-General, about half-a -dozen King's Coun sel, all the Masters in Chancery, a great number of Barristers, and a long list of most respectable Solicitors. He had also to present another petition from an equally most respectable class of men, graziers and farmers occupying a vast deal of land in the county of Gloucester, against the Bill.—To lie on the table. The order of the day was then read. The Marquis of SALISBURY, in moving the second read ing of the Bill, merely referred to the impression that had gone abroad that the tolls of the Islington Market would be higher than those of Smithfield. That was not the fact. The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the second reading of the Bill, and read an extract from a letter of Earl Spencer to him, in which he expressed it as his opinion that both the pro ducer and consumer of the meat sent to the metropolis would be benefited by the rejection of the Bill. Lord SUF'FIELD had every respect for the Noble Earl whose letter had been read, both as a statesman and a farmer, but that Noble Earl had been misled by artful misrepresenta tions, and every Noble Lord was competent to judge of whe ther Smithfield was or was not the nuisance and monopoly it was represented to be by thousands of petitioners. Lord AL VANLEY opposed the Bill, and moved that it '-- read a second time that day six months. The Marquis of SL.:I7,P= A.," hoped it would be read a second time without further opposition. Lord WODEHOUSE was understood to speak ag.....hist the Bill, but was not distinctly heard. Lord SEGRAVE supported the Bill. The question on the original motion and amendment having been put, the House divided, when there appeared in favour of the Second Reading, and against the Amendment, 30; con tra I.—Majority, 29. _ _ The Bill was - then committed for Thursday se'nnight. Lord KENYON presented a petition against the Bill, as was understood. ',Adjourned at half-past eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. JVNR 2. In consequence of the Ballots appointed to take place to day, the gallery was not opened till half-past four o'clock. LIMERICK CITY ELECTION. The order for considering the petition of Hughes Russell and others, complaining of the Limerick City Election, was read and discharged. NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY BILL. Mr. P. HOWARD moved that this Bill be read a third time. Sir A. AGNE W rose to move the insertion of a clause to prevent travelling on the rail-road on the Sabbath.—(Cries of "Ohl oh 1") If the House would not allow him to proceed, he would move as an amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.—( Cries of" Oh, and Divide.") The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, the Hon. Baronet having withdrawn his amendment. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. LIMERICK ROADS BILL. Mr. D. ROCHE brought up the Report of the Committee upon this Bill, which was laid on the table. GLASGOW RAILWAY BILL. Mr. J. W. MAXWELL presented a petition from Lanark shire against this Bill, and praying to be heard by counsel against certain parts of it. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Mr. STEWART presented a petition from Dunbar, in support of the Church Establishment. Lord BRUDENELL presented two petitions from Wel lingborough, and another place in Northampton, complaining of agricultural distress, and asking for relief. BRIBERY. Mr. HARDY gave nodee4li; intention to bring in a Bil' for more effectually preventing bribery and corruption at elec tions, and for lessening their expences. MONMOUTH BOROUGH ELECTION. Mr. DYSON brought up the reduced list of Members balloted for to sit as a Committee to try the merits of this election, as follows I Gordon, Hon. W. Westenra ' lion. H. 1:usgr;11 e, Eir It. Talfourd, T. Noon Sturt, H. C. Pinney, W. SUGAR DUTIES Elwes, J. CAlew, R. M. Chaplin, T. Strutt, Edward Mr. C. FERGUSS ON rose to present the petition, of which he had given notice, from the East India Company, praying for the reduction of the duties on sugar and other articles, the produce and manufacture of the British possessions in India. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted that the Right Hon. Gentleman would postpone presenting the petition till the Sugar Duties were brought before the House, as that period would be the more convenient opportu nity of discussing the subjects contained in the petition. Mr. FE RGUS SON then postponed presenting the petition. THE CHURCH. Mr. RICE TREVOR presented a petition from a place in Durham, against the appropriation of any of the revenues of the Established Church to secular purposes. Mr. PE ASE would not hold the situation he at present did, as one of the representatives of Durham if he thought that the petition just presented by the Hon. Member opposite, expressed the wishes of his constituents. To his great astonishment the other day, the House had received pe titions, charging perjury upon a large body of its Mem bers.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. P.) thought it necessary to ascertain whether that was the feeling of the inhabitants of Hartlepool, and wrote to a friend there, from whom he had received a reply, which he would read to the House. The Honourable Member then read a letter, which stated that a meeting had taken place for the purpose of petitioning against the resolution of the House of Commons relative to the appropriation of Church property—that the petition had been got up in a very sly way.—( Hear. from the Ministerial benches.) The writer further stated that he had called upon many who had signed a petition, and they stated to him that they actually did not know the meaning of it—( Hear, hear, hear)—that many of them had bad never read it, and that many would sign a counter-petition at that moment.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Pease) stated this lest it should be supposed that he was acting against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, who, he believed, were most anxious for the settlement of the Church question, and thereby insuring peace to the country. Mr. RICE TREVOR had been given distinctly to under stand, that not one of those who had signed the petition was ignorant of its nature.—( Hear, hear.) Throughout the whole of the County of Durham, there was a very strong feeling upon the subject. He had 10 other peti. tions to present, but until he saw some of the other Members for that county in their place he should not do so, as he should be anxious to reply to anything they might have to say. YOUGHAL ELECTION. Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, as Chairman of the Youghal Borough Election Committee, reported to the House that the Committee had decided that John O'Connell, Esq., was duly elected—that neither the petition nor the oppo sition thereto were frivolous or vexations, and that they had altered the poll by striking off the names of several voters. DUTY ON GLASS. Mr. DAVID ROCHE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Limerick, praying for a repeal of the duty on glass. The petitioners stated that this would be a very great boon, more especially to the poorer classes, inasmuch as it would increase their cleanliness and com fort. Since the Union 300 per cent. had been laid upon the price of the article, and the duty had been increased 200 per cent. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancel lor of the Exchequer) would take the matter into his serious consideration. DUTY ON SPIRITS. The HONOURABLE MEMBER then presented a petition from the grocers and spirit dealers of the city of Lime rick, praying that they might be allowed a drawback upon the Irish whiskey, which they had purchased previous to the reduction that had been made during the Fast session in the duty upon Irish spirits. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said with respect to the duty on Irish whiskey an alteration was made with respect to the stock on hand at the earnest request of the friends of distillers, and it was stated by his Noble Friend that he could hold out no hope that the drawback would be paid. The entire reduction of the duty would not benefit Ireland, as those conversant with the subject well knew. Mr. CLIVE presented a petition from Hereford for reduc tion of duty on exciseable liquors, and one relating to the ex tension of the elective franchise. _ _ IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition from Leicester against the Bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt ; and one from Exeter for a compensation to certain officers who might sustain damage if the Bill passed into a law. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that Government had contemplated no compensation to such per sons, and, at least, before it was asked, it would be necessary to make out a very strong case. THE CHURCH. Colonel LYG ON presented a petition from Worcester, against the appropriation of the property of the Irish Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes ; also petitions from six parishes in the county of Cork, in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. HUTT, LOId — icRINGTOII, and Mr. GROTE, presented petitions from various parishes in Suffolk, Hull, and Devon shire, praying for the protection of the Ballot at elections. On the motion that these petitions be referred to the Elec tion Petition Committee, Mr. GOULBURN asked if they were to be referred to the Committee as petitions for the Ballot. Mr. C. O'DWYER reminded the .Hon. Member that the petitioners complained of improper interference and intimida tion, and prayed for the Ballot as a protection from similar at tempts.—( Hear.) Mr. PRAED moved for the returns of the number of addresses to his Majesty, which have been printed. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. GROTE rose to lay before the House the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the mode by which votes should be taken—which he proposed should be taken by Ballot. His intention now was to make such a motion, and first he would state the reasons why he ventured to offer to t h e i r consideration such a proposition. It was in the recol lection of the House, that he had made a similar mo tion during the last session of Parliament; and as his speech was then published, it was hardly necessary for him to go over the same arguments he then advanced in support of his position. He would, however, briefly recapitulate some of the most important arguments that he had then broug ht forward : — ( Hear, hear.) His intention was to submit this question to the consideration of the House at an earlier period of the session, and with that v i ew he gave notice o f his p resent motion. Before that period the Honourable and Gallant Member for Devonport ( Sir Ed ward Codrington) gave notice of a motion that he wo u ld introduce a m easure t o prevent bribery and intimidation. When the Gallant Admiral made that motion, he hoped that t h e plan he proposed w ou ld prevent bribery and intimidation, without having recourse to the vote by Ballot. Although in his (Mr. G.' s ) opinion, there was no effectual or adequate remedy to secure freedom and independence of election but by the means of the Ballot, yet he consented to postpone his motion until he saw what remedy the gallant Admiral would propose. In the Committee that had been ap pointed on this question, nothing occurred which went to show, or even held out the least glimmering hope that any other p lan than the Ballot could be e ffi cacious—( Hoar ' thheear'it Under that conviction, he (Mr. G r ot e ) came to solution that he would not permit the pr esen t Session to pass without bringing the subject under the consideration of the House, especially as recent events had rendered such a course i mperatively ne ce ssary..--( Loud cheers fro m the Min i ster ial side.) Every thi ng con nected with the exercise of the elective franchi se , was a interest, ma tt e r of public and every argument in the su pport of its r eall y inde p endent e xercise should be consi dered with the deepest attention. It was di ffi cult for him eulogizethe important conseq uences t h at resulte d passing of the Reform Bill.—( H ear .) N o d ou b t ifttroocmo nf t e h r e red great benefits upon the people of this country ; but he could not concur with those who said that it removed all the inconveniences of the . former use of the elective franchise, or that it pl,.ceu ek:c,ors in perfect sPerrity. or t h at t h e system was incapable of a n y further i mprovement. He would go fur ther and say. that the Reform Bill professedly left a great many things untouched—( Hear)--and because the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud when he brought forward the Reform Bill in 1831, avow edly stated that h e h a d not ta k en into consideration either the duration, or extension, of the elective franchise.--( Hear, and cheers.) However that may be, it could not be stated that the Reform Bill was either a , final or conclusive measure. He contended that the Reform Bill did not afford sufficient security to open voting, and that voteb; Ballot was the only free and secure means of exercising the elective franchise with independence. He assured the House that in conferring that privilege on any man, they invested him with a power of the greatest importance to the State, and that when they placed in his hands a trust of so much mo ment, they ought necessarily to deal with him as a free and intelligent agent. The provisions of the Reform Bill, when they invested him with the functions of the elective franchise, meant nothing else than that it should be so dealt with. The contrary of this would be to imply that the franchise was given merely for the purpose of making them tools and irre sponsible agents. If it were the intention of the legislature to make them such, let them not entice men of honour and inte grity to accept of such a questionable privilege. He anti ticipated that the legislature had no such intention as this, and that it was intended that by the franchise was ' meant the free votes of the people. When a man's vote was ' taken in secret he was quite sure that it would be honest, however erroneous his opinions might be. But when the votes were taken openly, the tongue was not always the true herald of the wishes. The voter may have a thousand rea sons why he should vote contrary to his private wishes. He may be desirous of conciliating the favour of a great man—he may be over-borne by the solicitation of friends or the threats of his superiors, to whom his honest vote might be likely to give offence—and thus his comforts, his station, and prosperity may be depending upon his keeping well with one party or the other. Hon. Members must be perfectly aware that in open voting there could even be a conflict between solicitation or in timidation on the one side, and his conscience on the other. Such a conflict was evil enough in itself ; but when they were also aware that it kept people from registering—that it kept them from the poll—overpowering their free choice—frustrating the end and object of the representative system and giving but an imperfect expression of the opinions of the constituencies they would all admit that the question was one of very great mag nitude and importance. The system of open voting gave an opportunity to intermeddling persons to tamper with the votes of the people, and that was abundantly exem plified in the system of election as it at present stood. Sure he was of this, that throughout the whole course of the last general election, there was scarcely c.ry newspaper in town or country, whatever its politics might be, whether Whig, Tory, or Radical, which did not contain protestations against undue influence. There was scarcely an election in which it had not been felt, whether in Yorkshire, Devonshire, Staf fordshire, or any other place. The coercive influence of the landlords over the tenant could not be doubted, for it was counted upon among the many other complex interests which were generally considered available.—( Hear, hear.) They had the influence of the landlord over the tenant, the manufacturer over the operative, the master over the ser vant, and the attorney over his client ; all these were part and parcel of a man's electioneering strength, and if any man generously declined to avail himself of them, he was most certain of defeat. On some occasions it was stated that the landlords did not mean to coerce the votes of their tenants ; but although that might be very generous, he feared that the system was too well understood, and that the previously expressed opinions of the landlords were well known. How frequently did it happen to candidates when calling upon a voter to hear him express his good opinion, but regret that he could not vote for him from the influence of their landlord ? Did they not frequently keep away from the poll altogether, or until the most urgent necessity had arisen ? Within his (Mr. Grote's) own knowledge, tradesmen, and others, in that class of life, had been grievously injured by their conscientious voting. He could multiply statements and cases of this sort, but he thought it unnecessary—he might as well at tempt to prove the existence of drunkenness, or crime, or poverty. The existence of these evils were to be deplored ; they had been felt by - several Members of the present Cabinet during the last election, and especially by the Noble Lord, now the Member for Stroud.—( Hear, hear.) The state ments of that Noble Lord, which he published in his last address to the electors of Devonshire, were fully confirma tory of the opinions he (Mr, G.) had advanced with respect to the evils of open-volin,„ and read to his mind a melancholy pic ture of the present working of the franchise. The Noble Lord alluded to the threats employed at the Devonshire election, and the effect produced, and asserted pretty plainly that had the tenantry voted according to their own free wish, intead of under restraint, the majority would have been in his favour. If on this solemn occasion, when the eyes of the whole king dom were fixed upon the electors, they ceuld not act as they desired,—what protection was there for freedom of election in future ?—( Hear, hear.) And what approach had been made towards that great object for which the Reform Bill was passed ?—( Hear.) But this was not all. The mischiefs attending open voting were felt in private society, and in the domestic circle. Animosities were excited amongst friends and associates, and a reciprocity of unkindness was created, until the state of things approached to the nature of a civil war. But, why should the electors be compelled to en dure all these evils ?—( Hear, and loud cheers.) It was a matter of no small moment to allay the political animosities which deranged society at every general election. But I find that in the election last winter for the C:ity of Dublin, the Committee of the Tory candidate came to the following reso lution, and advertised it publicly in the newspapers. I read from the Morning Chronicle of January 22...—" City of Dublin Election. At a meeting of the Committee for conducting the election of Messrs. West and Hamilton, it was resolved una nimously, That in consequence of the gross system of perse cution and intimidation practised against the respectable traders and shopkeepers, Roman Catholics as well as Pro testants, by placards and other denuncia lions, this Committee feel bound to meet the atrocious spirit of despotismpractised at this election, by pledging themselves to furnish to the nobility and gentry resident in the principal sop cares and streets, and who are the great mass of purchasers and consumers in the me tropolis, lists of those engaged in trade who support the views of the sound and respectable portion of the community, as well as with lists of those who decline to , act in conformity with such views.' " This is a curious d ocument, as it in dicates in what light gentlemen who m eddle with elec tions regard the freedom of voters—of those voters whom yet, with a cruel sort of mockery, they address in their formal advertisements by the empty tithe of " Independent electors."—( Hear, hear.) The Dublin. Committee impute to their opponents the first beginning (if gross interference with the freedom of election. How fe ir this imputation is just, I do not know ; but I take the fa ets as these Con servative gentlemen state them. " Our opponents (they say) have begun the war of interference on their side; there fore we feel both called upon and authorized to retaliate by interference on our side. Our opponents :have terrified many voters into voting for them ; therefore we, in self-defence, re sort to exclusive dealing, in order to force voters into voting for us." Now, there might be some semi and sufficiency in this reasoning, if an election were like ; a prize-fight or a horse-race, where nothing was to be stud] ied but a fair start and exact equality of advantages between tin 3 two competitors. But is the House disposed to look at an elect don in this light ? In my view, there are two other parties whose interest in the case greatly outweighs that of the candidate .s. I mean, first, the public ; and, secondly , the voters. 1 1 he public have a deep interest in promoting the choice of g ood and fit repre sentatives ; and what guarantee can they hare for this, if the business of election is to be a mere con& at of threats against threats, and intimidation against intimidation ? The voters have a still deeper interest in the business, and their treat ment forms the worst ingredient in the whole compound of mischief. They seem to be considered as lawful prize and prey, mutunt ac turpe pecus, belonging • of right to that party which can drag them with thi! greatest vio lence. Not a thought is wasted either upon their feel ings, or on their repose, or on their inte gr ity. Two years ago we were told to wait and see whet her the Reform Act, by improving and extending the • constituency, would not indirectly extirpate this misct ievous interfe rence. There were gentlemen who prophesie I that it would. Let me ask them now, whether their propheei es are fulfilled ? whether their prophecies are in any course c ar probability of fulfilment ? I think the facts up to this mo sue at are decisively against them ; I think the probabilities of the future are still more decisively against them. lam persi laded that undue in fluence over voters was never more void ely spread, or more formidable, than at the last general electio n ; and it is but too evident that the efforts of the imperative classes of society to subjugate the will of the humbler voters are nowise likely to be suspended or relaxed for the future. -I (Hear, hear.) It is my full belief, that the ties of dependence, in every form and variety, will be strained tighter and tight( Ir. I doubt not that dictation and resolutions of exclusive Belling among the masses will be brought to bear in the opyosite direction, in such places as admit of it, and those despots c influences which carry the voter to the poll without a heart au ad without a con science will be felt everywhere more v jolentl y than ever. Such are the signs of events as I read them. Isl hould, indeed, de spair of the tranquil and efficacious op erati on of the elective principle for the future, if I did not see iin th e Ballot the means of rescue and preservation. But are the met ins of rescue to be found anywhere else ? What other meth ads, besides the Ballot, have ever been suggested to eradicate st tch 'very serious evils ? There are some gentlemen who speak of the evils in terms of serious regret and indignant condemn ation, but who seem to think that they have done enough by tic tnouncing the practice of menacing and intimidating voters without any further thought as to the means of prevention, as I if political mischief's were to be charmed away, or shamed awe by by rhetoric. I have heard of nothing in the way of specific suggestion for pre venting the practice here adverted to, ex eept the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury. That Hon. Gentle man proposes to treat all acts of threatel ling or intimidation, exercised with a view to procure votes, as legally criminal, and to impose upon those who are found guilty • of such acts appro priate legal penalties. But when I look I t the Bill as a mea sure intended, not merely to condemn, bst t also to prevent — when I consider not merely the Irotson whir ch it inculcates, but the means which it affords of canopellirs g observance of that lesson—when I look at it in this / soint of view, I am com pelled to say that it will prove tota 11Y null and inoperative. —( Hear, hear.) I shall not deny - that if a Bill like this be passed, a very angry or a very indisci eet man may occasionally lay himself open to , its penalties. But I contend that the general course and 1 arevalence of the evil will not only not be arrested, but ~ even be nowise lessened by these rare and extraordina ry cases. How can you possibly detect, and prove by legal evidence, and punish, all the thousand ways in which t a man may convey to his tenant, or to his tradesmen, the apprehension of loss, in case they vote against his wishes 1 Every one knows that c;eillsv of manner and expreosion in asking for votes is almost universal, whatever May be the s disposition of those who canvass, and whatever may be their -power .as to inflicting ulterior consequences.—( Hear.) Now;-, I assert that all these imperative requests, and all the train of oppressions inflicted on tenants and tradesmen for refusal, may go on with perfect impunity notwithstriscling the Bill of ti to Hon. Gent) eman. In. so far as that Bill will be operative at all, there will be (I doubt not, without his intending it) some degree of partiality - in its operation, which forms to a certain extent an objection it. Whoiiever the poorer classes meddle at all 4vi,11 the fret doiii or outer ition's votes, each of them individually is of little weight or importance, and it is only as a combined mass that they can interfere with effect. Now, the steps re quisite to bring about concert and co-operation in a numerous body are liable to be more or less public, and the interference thus becomes cognizable by law. But the interference of the same kind, and for the same purpose,. exercised by rich men individually, needs no public notification, no joint declaration or resolution, to render it effective, and it therefore escapes legal cognizance altogether. The species of dictation which is the most wide spread and the most injurious--sub tle and untraceable in its course, but fearfully ruinous in its effects—is precisely that which the Honourable Gen tleman's Bill leaves untouched and unmolested. It la my firm belief, that all those who now employ undue power over voters would still persevere in doing so, without the smallest apprehension of incurring the penalties provided by the Hon. Gentleman's Bill—and if, by accident, one perse,Fu tor out of ten thousand should be convicted under it, his la te would be ascribed by the remainder, not to the natural conse quences of the Act, but to his folly in omitting the easy precaution of disguising a menace in the form of a request.--- ( Hear.) Now, if the Bill of the Hon. Member for Shaftes bury be thus inadequate to its purpose, are there any inYillee ble objections which sqould deter you from accepting my P r° ' position of the Ballot ? I contend that there are no such in' vincible objections—and I will endeavour briefly to exhibit the real worth of the exceptions commonly taken against it. . 17 : 1. °11 hear some object to it as being what they call un-Eng li ' i and thus much is, indeed, true, that bribery and i n timidatio n of voters are ancient, home-bred, and established Eng lish practices, and that the antidote to them has not yet been natu ralized in our electoral institutions. But if the evil be gre at ' and there be no other way of correcting it, shall we reject the only applicable remedy because, though employed in France and in the United States of America, it has never yet obt aine d legal sanction in England ? But the objection, futile as, t is, has not even the merit of being accurate in P°ll/0,. of fact. The vote by Ballot is not un-English; of the thousand private associations and clubs w hi " exist everywhere throughout the country, whenele the members are called on to perform the process of electio ur f the votes are uniformly taken by ballot. This is the mo de voting spontaneously resorted to by Englishmen when they are left to themselves in their private associations, and when, they desire to call for a free and unconstrained expression 0 ' opinion from each individual member; and surely it is not to be denounced as uncongenial to the feelings and habits o f th° nation. Some persons will tell me that undue interferenoef with the liberty of voting will still continue, even in unite 0 the Ballot, because the Ballot will not produce entire and f f fectual secrecy. A landlord (they contend) disposed to 7; oppressively, though he cannot watch his tenant during express act of voting, may yet find out by indirect and c°`; teral evidence how he has actually voted, and may punish 10 ,.. accordingly. I shall admit, Sir, that with or without the /3,.!1`t lot an oppressive landlord may deal harshly by his tenants but let him do this, or abstain from doing it, as he pleases, still hie cannot make the infliction of loss conditional on the way e which the vote is given—he cannot make his oppression 1 1 30 means of controlling or perverting an unseen vote. If tenant voter be an object of suspicion, he will not charge himself from that suspicion by falsifying his 0 , 1 0 at the poll, because it never can be made evident any one else that he has actually done so.—( llear hear.) He may be a sufferer ; he may be a sufferer wrong fully and undeservedly ; but he cannot be in any ea"; • worse off on account of conscientious voting, so long . es h i s votes in secret. Therefore he can have no motive to give to vote contrary to the dictates of hia conscience, and thus forfeit his duty towards the public. No one has ever Tod tended that the Ballot will shield voters from all sorts 611 ., causes of oppression. It is proposed as a means of relieflub; them from the conflict of private risk and public duty on specific occasion of voting. This relief it cannot fail to 1% part, and directly it imparts no more. But indirectly, and its collateral effects, it reaches much farther ; for the vote a the sole and exclusive object which intermeddlers aim at, a n ' when they cannot grasp the vote by means of terror an d , ° l 7. ercion, they will have no motive to employ these ininn u e , methods at all. Nay, they will even have a positive induco ment to exchange menace for conciliation ; for the voter wh°, _ they cannot force may yet be freely enlisted on their side 14 persuasion and gentle dealing. But then there are Gentle; men who tell us that secret voting is base and unmanly , . • cloak for hypocrisy and deceit. You bestow the e lectw d franchise upon a man for the purpose of eliciting his jaw° judgment and opinion on the choice of a representativ e —es matter of supreme moment to the State. If on full delih e " ration you command him to transmit this opinion to yo u c 0.% fidentially, what can there be base and unmanly in 2;:c obeying you ? If there be reasons, as regards the lan'T_ interest, for preferring secrecy of voting, there can no reason as regards the voter himself for de ciding otherwise. But we are told that if a man votes Se: cretly, he may promise his vote to one candidate and give is to another—he may assure me that he has voted for me, or I vote for me, while in reality he votes for my rival. ask l A D reply, why should we suppose this to be likely ? Why shoo `"' not a man who has promised his vote perform the promise; just as much when he votes secretly as when he votes openly Secrecy puts no fresh difficulty in his way—it gives him n° new motive to break his promise ; it simply enables him to do • so with impunity if he pleases; and the question still remains —why should he please to break his promise ? There call be only one reason—because the promise is not eonformable to his own natural inclinations, and has been extorted from him by a force upon his free will. This is the only case in which promise-breaking can possibly arise ; the free and voluntary promise will be observed as surely in the darkness as in the light, but the voter who has been bullied into a reluctant pr h o; mise may, perhaps, take advantage of secrecy to elude t performance of it. Now, Sir, lam not the man to speak lightly of a breach of promise ; but I venture to ask wheth it is possible to imagine any promise less binding, an d e n r re unjustifiable, than that which a voter has been constraints free give, in reference to the exercise of his trust, against will, and against his conscience ? Is this a promise such . 7 0 any man is entitled to ask of a voter ? Is it a proun'... such as any voter is justified in giving, let him be ever 5 1 . much solicited, or ever so much threatened? I say, n°'., et e Such voter has no right to enter into an engagement to so against his own free choice and conscience, because entry Zing he expressly contravenes the trust which his counting laver reposes in him. The sole intent and purpose of ine s his him with the elective franchise is, that he may delive ,_ " free and indifferent suffrage at the poll. A promi se to de free liver a suffrage which is neither free nor indifferent bt, point of fact, a promise to commit wrong—a promise °lied guilty of deliberate breach of trust. A promise elri es by fear of evil is just as insincere, and just as 111110 3 Il i, a promise suborned by the present of a bribe. Let me l e i. impress upon you, Sir, that these wrongful promise s c tute the whole of what is involved in the present arguin?..:rig they are the only promises which are in any danger of ill ; broken when votes are taken by ballot. But is it any gre at 7 IS chief that wrongful promises of this kind should be broken ea? is not rather a greater mischief that they s h o uld be observ e Suppose a man has entered into a solemn promise to c° wit any other a wrong—suppose,he has engaged to bear falS e . ur y ness in a court of justice—to give a partial verdict in th e A v ate box—to become an accomplice in any breach of trust, P ri tere d or public—will any one tell me that a man who has en j o g into such a criminal engagement, would be right in perfori°,9,,, the act of criminality to which lie has bound himself? suredly not. He has already done great wrong by the. 0 . if promise to commit a crime ;he would do still greater inbe he went on to perform such a promise, and to colni n e l lbssa crime in reality. I could say much on the conduct of to let who extort these promises, but at present my object i s you see distinctly the utmost extent of duplicity and p r° ' o o. breaking which the Ballot can by possibility let in tin° ll Take it at the worst, those promises only will be bre. _ e . which ought never to have been asked and never to " t *: been made. This is the true way of stating the argtitu f - a o and I ask whether it does not prove in favour of the against it? I contend that under secret suffrage there, will bi far less duplicity than there is at present, because men ben cease to press for unrighteous and compulsory pro:nisesr e w n der existing their power of compelling performcence. r av en the system of terrorism, the great object whiche r strive for is to tie down the voter by a solemn Pr i c t e . whether his conscience goes along with it or not : an d If plicity of one kind or other thus becomes unavoidable the voter keeps his promise, he lies to his conscience Ws Balle/J, his country by giving an insincere vote ; if he breaks, „ 0 promise, he lies to th e i n di v id ua l w h o ex t or t e d it i f ; n s him. Such is the dil emma w hi c h t hi s gu il ty encr oach es , on the freedom of the electoral conscience inevitably cret e : Open voting is the indispensable condition to its exer°7 to secret voting would extinguish it a t once . With res P e n" bribery, Sir, the inefficacy of th e ex i st i ng prohibitory at of but too well ascertained. I know, indeed, that they et'", il I several material improvements ; but imp rove theta as you ; n in other respects, you will still find that among the checks tin y obstructions to bribery, the vote by Ballot w ill prove one °, most valuable and effective. It will annihilate the confin e .; D t between the two contracting parties i n thi s un l a wful coa l ' ne —it will deprive the bribe-giver of all certainty or assuo that he receives the stipulated return for his money. will reward an individual f o r hi s vo t e , w h en t h a t ver y vo*. o for aught he knows, be given in favour of his opponenti?,:, then, it will be said, may not the candidate engage to tr -r o l f bute a certain sum of money among the voters cDndit i f i n being returned, and not until after he is returned? I shall affirm, Sir, that such a proceeding will be a 1 tog ether imp — t e l; ticable under the Ballot. But Ido affirm that, it be ...- more costly, more uncertain, and more liable en detection ,thfg bribery is at present.—( Hear.) The voter a separate bargain, as he does now for his o,wn individual v e if - : would have to give his vote under art v ncertainty of r ec fi e ing anything at all ; and the candidate,being retu r-a would have to pay every voter who after iv., b o. , instead of 01 8 A — te ing no means of distinguishing friene e : s opponent :;, - tt toti /f P r l o i m ed o for payna s e therefore, by means of thq Ballo+ , you pluck up intreinud se. by the roots, you at the saran +. strain the practice of briber- -me greatly embarrass n' e t w o But the former of it, effects separately, even f . .1 the latter did not accomps_l? would be enough, and ing case . If i t be diffie, more than enough, to make o_n sir i et , ing dishonest vote! J tt to devise adequate means for P i r ee st peculiar solici' .aide of all reasons fr• 6 from taking bribes, is not that the st rs o ,r guarding the virtue of honest vote car' not either r 0 of f il t l o in ie g r v' .If there are dishonest voters who r u t _ t he , rrect or curb, the more ought yon to cherishoar;c• .rtue of the remainder, as presenting the only C. no t very able purity at elections. And surely, Sir, it is e . r mnsistent or creditable, if, while you impose severe P.l. nP,itits for the purpose of forcing dishonest voters into the pest of honesty, you withhold from those voters who would be bon; of themselves the common blessing of safety. The Hon, 34e ist her here proceeded to combat the objection urged the Ballot, on the ground that the elector ought to give