The Sun. — London, England, 1842-06-22 00:00:00

Ireland, because he wished to see the system of taxation assi inflated in the two eeuntries ; and he was convinced that whilst Ireland was non Lady exempted front the operation of the tax, 111 she would, in fact, contribute to it in the same proportion as England or Scotland, at ti e same time that new burdens were imposed on her in the increased stamp and spirit duties. Earl STANHOPE said if he had been in the House last Friday he would have given his vote against the Bill. He thought it would prove highly detrimental to the agricultural interest, and especially when taken in connexion with the tariff, a measure to which he would give his most strenuous oppo• sition when it came before their Lordships. It was said the tariff would so far diminish the cost of living as to enable the people to pay the Income-tax more easily. He had seen so much and heard so much that he would never more be sur prised at anything which he should hear or see.—(A laugh.) He granted that there had been a great falling off in the re venue. But what else coul d be ex p ected whn they had the schemes of rash and speculatin g financiers to deal with. There was the idle scheme of Mr. Rowland Hill, which cost the country a revenue of 1,000,0001. a year.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He agreed with those who thought that the best course was to re-impose some of those taxes which had been repealed, and had not given so much relief as had been antici pated. He was not in the habit of intruding his advice on Chaacepe of the Exchequer, for he was sure that it would not be sfollowed, if indeed it would be very graciously re ceived.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But he would recom mend a well n•egulated house-tax, exempting the houses of the poor and middle classes. Also an increase of the taxes on servants and horses, exempting those persons who. kept only one horse and one servant. For although the Nt tale Marquis (Clanricarde) might call him a Chartist, he -would always recommend that taxation should commence at the highest possible point in the scale, exempting as much as possible the working_ and middle classes. He thought a re tropes:lion of the Post-office tax in part, say ltd. per letter, would produce no inconvenience, and would raise a consider able revenue. He would also recommend an increased tax upon French wines, which would be paid only by the wealth:est classes. He deprecated this (the Income) tax must of all, on account el its inquisitorial character; and he would ask, was the state oi the country so satisfactory that it was wise to do any thingavhic'n would tend to alienate the affections of the middle elassee' But it had been said that taxation had reached its limits. How could that be when some years ago the amount was sa e much greater ? In his opinion the reason was, that when the taxation was high, the country had the advantage of a cur ren sy which enabled it to sustain a heavy taxation. But that we uld never be the case again, as long as Peel's Bill was in ex ist arme e a Bill which the first breath of war would blow to pieces. He agreed with the late Sir R. Peel, who told his son the a the Bill could not be carried into effect without ruining tb e country. He could acquiesce in the Income-tax, with all it s objections, if he could believe, as was said, that t taxed the rich and spared the poor. But it was, in fact, a tax which drew from the poor through the rich. The tax would compel every prudent man to curtail his expen diture, and to make a budget for himself, to meet that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—( A laugh.) What would be the effect of such a diminution of expenditure of the rich, but increased suffering to the poor, whose distress was already such as to call for the most serious consideration of Government ? (Hear, hear.) It was awful to anticipate what might be the consequences of that distress, and there was no greater objection to the proposed tax than that it was calculated to increase it.— ( Hear, hear.) The Income-tax it was admitted, on all sides, ehould be reserved for a time of war ; but it was said that we - were at war in Chhia and Affghanistan. Now he contended that those unjustifiable wars having been undertaken withsout the consent of Parliament, Parliament could not be called on to provide for the expenses.—(Hear, and a laugh.) If foreigners, in order to escape the tax, were to withdraw from our funds the stock which they held in them, and which amounted to 12,000,0001., he called upon the House to consider what would be the effects upon the currency of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord concluded by giving his hearty support to -the anceion of the Noble Marquis opposite. Lord BEAUMONT said, that although he had given a tiles at vote against the amendment of the Noble Marquis (Lans doe ne), on Friday last, because he disapproved of some of the pro' iositions of, the Noble Marquis's resolution, still he could not give an unqualified support to the measure of the Govern ments, not because he thought an Income-tax inadmissible, or that. the deficiency which was pointed out by the scribblers of the Continent as the gangrene which was eating into the strength of England, did not exist; he objected to it: be ereuse it was accompanied with measures which he believed to 1 e ruinous. The late Government sought to make up for the diefieiency by means of the Customs, and to raise revenue they abandoned protection. But the tariff of the present Govern ment abandoned protection, a principle to which they were bound, and they also abandoned the revenue to be obtained from the Customs, so that they increased the very difficulties which they alleged as the excuse for the imposition of the Income-tax.—( Hear hear.) They had admitted to one sett of coeiplainants that the tariff would yield no revenue, for no cantle or provisions wouldhe imported; whilst to those who complained of the Income-tax they said—" You will be able to pay it, be cause you will get provisions cheaper."—(Hear, and laugh ter.) He contended that the farmer paying one half of his landlord's tax, as well as that which was directly levied on him self, would actually pay a greater proportion of the tax than ,any other class of the community ; whilst his condition would be enormously deteriorated by the operation of the tariff upon the market fur his produce. Where did they expect to obtain a compensation for those evils of the tariff? Did they expect that France would take their linen? Did they think that Mr. Clay would relax his tariff? Or did they look to the East, wheee they were utterly powerless?—(Hear, hear) —from the Courts of which Russian agency excluded everything that was not Russian.—( Hear, hear.) How did they expect, then, to raise a revenue from Customs which would .enable theist to give up this tax at the end of three years. They could not diminish the expenditure. They could not reddce the army or navy; and they would be compelled either to continue the tax or to find a substitute for it. What would the country do, too, when the three years should have elapsed, for which period this country was asked to enact this tax? He thought the Government was bound to sty what they would do then. 'Would they ask them to renew it, or would they come forward with another budget? Had they shown anything which could induce the country to hope that this tax, or others, would then be removed ".? On the contrary, they had not shown that one Commissioner would be done away with, that the poor-rates would be reduced, or that there was the slightest probability of this tax being removed. All taxes must be felt more or less by those who paid them, but the differ ence between those taxes and the Income-tax was, that they controlled their expenditure. A man might spend his money .in servants, horses, and dogs; if he did that, to what extent he did it he would have to pay, and the tax would thus be con trollable, so that a very niggardly man, though a very rich one, need not pay those taxes at all if he eschewed the aeticles on which they were levied. But it was widely different with the Income-tax. The Noble Earl said that this tax was required for the purpose of prosecuting wars in Aff ghanistan and China. He objected to that upon principle. When a war was raised to defend our country's shores from a foreign invader, then he would say that every man should pay for t h e effectually carrying on of such a war ' • but compare that with the unholy, unjust, unconstitutional war, now carrying on in Asia, and the widest difference must manifest itself between them to the most careless observer. Instead of these wars being proceeded with, they should in his (Lord Beaumont's) • opinion, be for ever blotted out from the page of British his tory. If the Noble Marquis had left out his remarks about the Corn-law, his speech might have had some little effect ;as it was; he (Lord Beaumont) should not vote for the amendment of the Noble Marquis, but muse give his voice in favour of the motion. Lord FITZGERALD thought that the whole of the argu ments of the Noble Lord who had just sat down were so many proofs that he thought there was a necessity for this tax. The tax was prcposed for three years, that the Government might then have the opportunity of revising the whole of their arrange ments. The Noble Lord had told them that he protested against the wars in which the country was now engaged. If the pre sent Government were responsible for the embarrassments in in which the country was placed by those wars, then the Noble Lord's observations would have been a little more pertinent.— ( Hear, hear.) However magniloquent the Noble Lord might be in denominating those wars as unholy and unjun, he (Lord Fitzgerald) thought that the Govern ment, by its present proceedings in India and China, was .only vindicating the honour of the country when it was called tpon to do so.—(Hear.) He did not share in the despon dency of the Noble Lord, with regard to the United States of America, when he said that there was no prospect of any im proved commercial arrangements with that country. He (Lord Fitzgerald) did hope that the good sense, and the moderation iof the Noble Lord, who was honoured with a mission to that country, and that the good sense and moderation of the two Cabinets would lead to a more cheering prospect than that in whieli the Noble Lord indulged. He thought the Noble Lord should have been more cautious in advancing those opinions. lie thought also that the immense districts of Central Asia would be much improved, and that beneficial results would follow to this country in consequence. He now turned with great deference to the speech of his Noble Friend. Without following him through the mazes of currency, he must say that he had iitere from him no argument against this tax, except -that it was an inquisitorial tax. That was a strong objection; but in answer to it, he iseed do no more than to point to the e sp.( gibes of the Noble Lerch, who had always answered that argnment, and to the speech of the Noble Marquis, whoshad brought the motion defuse the House that night, the answer would be found in the want of revenue. If the Noble Lord useant to say that he would raise a deficiency of from two min lions to two millions and a half annually by re-imposing the house-tax, or increasing the assessed taxes , be (Lord Fitz .gerald) would leave it to the country to accept of that propo station, or the proposition of her Majesty's Government. His Noble Friend saw no objections to those taxes. Had it never acurred to his Noble Friend, that the evasion of the evue- tax might easily be made, by shutting up the b, ayes? His Noble Friend he knew would not do it. He evena'd rather enlarge his house for the express purpose of nayin k e increased taxes.—(Laughter.) His • N oble Friend, (the 'arl of Clanricarde), was the' foremost the other evening to desin eto discuss the principles of this Bill. It was stated by him that the discussion had only been on the details. He (Lord Fitzgerald) must say, that he thought the discus sions of th it night were very much directed to the principles of the Bill. The speech ed. the Noble Viscount, late at the head of her lnlajesty's Ministry, was one directed exclusively to the principles of the Bill. The Noble Viscount said that la thought the .tax had met with too much opposition ; and he was not prepared to say that if he were at the bead of the Go vernment he would not carry out the Bill, or perhaps extend it ; and he (Lord. Fitzgerald) heard it remarked, ehat until the Noble Viscount came to his last sentence, he said not one word of the amendment of the Noble Marquis which was before the House. His Noble Friend (Clanricarde), however, if he had been unable to discuss the principles of the Bill on Friday night had had ample revenge to-night.—(Laughter.) His Noble Friend having replied to the Noble Viscoeunt's speech of the other evening, said he was not opposed to. the „general principle of the tax provided the necessity were es tablished. He contended, that the necessity had not 'been established, and charged the Government with having created the necessity. He (Lord Fitzgerald) would ask fearlessly of their Lordships, as he would ask of any man in that country weld been accustomed to direct his ateention to the affairs of flee country—for this was not a nett' ,subject—whether the fit vancial difficulties of this country bnci' been exaggerated by her Majesty's Government; and it they h5'A. whether they had be en cau se d by th e present Government ?- 4 Hear-) During t t htdlast si x years a sum of ten millions sterlie g le national debt, and that during a tins,/ of peace ;, and there was now had been .ai'de'd t a deficiency of two and a half %Mica" to be =sue' ens. He would ask them did he exaggerate 1.." 0 difFcul tics ? lie did not ;he could not exaggerate them. e his Noble Frientlehad not stated how he proposed to make up the of this ae.bnitted deft,:smhun than thoses of the lateletlienYis• t r y N b o a d otherbeen proposed, aneia I parnodp o ,w s t hadons t n ',heard of nt' other alternative l re }Fuse. than that now before the }Fuse. I measure In presentitne this to the c ou nt r y the G overnms nt 4 1 he r pec iot o s e a , v bu th t aa it W it as w o a ne s one which w ou ld b e accepta bl e to the w" presented upon the gro a:d of necessity. It vas a little remarkabl e however, that o the first proposal of. this measure it not onl y did not meet with t tie opposition of thte supporters of the Noble Lords opposite, it of the Liberal Press, but that Noble opposite and Ole it successive times among, friends had been found elsewhere at t -the vindicators of the principles of an In Lord Mr. Poulei t Congleton • it to have been the opinion of Lord Althorpr :1" He foun Thomson, and of a lamented friend of theirs - , - Is they found that for a week this measure did y n , r o d t al lret wit] t he opposition of the opponents of the Ministry, and its favour, the) • f ound that their opponents had themselves argued e thought they had a right—he would not say to complain_ bt tt certainly to be surprised, at the manner in which the ge es _ tio n had been met by Noble Lords in that House..—(Hear, hear. ) This country alone was not the only one whose s finances were in a state of embarraisment. The finances I of India were in a very bad state. He did not mean to mention that as the reason for imposing the In- I come .tax; but he did say, that the finances of a large country like India must be considered in making their arrangements. I In 1836 there was a net surplus of 1,566,0001. in Indian 1 finances; there now appeared, without taking into account any sum for the present great expenses, a deficiency of two millions and a half. Was it to be said, then, that he had exaggerated the difficulties of the country ? Unwilling as he was to charge upon others any administration of the revenues which they at the time did not feel justified in adhering to, he called upon them, and he called upon that Howe, to look at the state of the country when the present Ministry accepted office.—( Hear. ) He did not accuse the Noble Lord, late at the head of the Post office, for the deficiencies which had arisen in consequence of the change in the Post-office charges. He did not. But let them look at the deficiency caused by that and the previous deficiency, and they would find a sum made up very nearly equal to the whole present deficiency. The whole of the net revenue de. rived from the Post-office, previous to the alterations in the charges, was very nearly 1 , 700,0001. There appeared to be at present a revenue of 400,0001. from the Post-office ; but that was not the case—there was no revenue at all from that este 'nisi:merit. —( Hear, hear ) Nor did he say that there ought to be any. But when his Noble Friend brought forward his peony postage, it was upon the express understanding that the Government should make up any deficiencies which would arise in consequence. Would his Noble Friend now oppose 1 them for endeavouring to make up the deficiency caused by his own measure ?—( Cheers. ) He thought in justice he could not Ido so.—( Cheers.) He agreed with the Noble Earl opposite, t test it would have been impossible to attempt to make up for the deficiency by raising the postage to its former rate. It would be impossible to do so in the present state of the trade of this country. The Noble Marquis who moved this amendment said, that when this tax came into operation it would create discontent and opposition in every class of the community. He doubted that. He saw no expression of opinion either amongst the people out of doors, or in their petitions to Parliament, which would lead him to expect that indignation of millions, which was anticipated by the Noble Marquis. There had been presented to the other House only 130 petitions, to which 9,000 signatures were attached, when every facility had been offered to the presen tation of petitions by relaxing the rule of the other House, that petitions could not be received against a tax under the consideration of the House. He would say nothing of the manner in which petitions were generally got up, for it could not he said that any large portion of persons possessing incomes above 150/. a year, had been se much neglected in their educa tion that they could be led to sign petitions of the objects \ of which they were ignorant.—( Hear, hear.) But of the 130 petitions, thirty were from attorneys, and these were not against the principle of the Bill, but against parts of it. ( Hear, hear. s He did not undervalue or extenuate the incon veniences and disadvantages of the Bill, in its unequal pressure on England. But he believed that the people of this country were reconciled to the Bill by their knowledge of the exi gencies of the country, and their desire to keep up the credit of England, and to keep faith with the public creditor.— ( Hear, hear.) They were prepared by these feelings to bear with the inconvenience; and they knew that there was no tax which I could be imposed without pressing unequally. The question 1 of the sugar and coffee duties belonged rather to the debate of the other night ; but he would say, in reply to the remarks on that subject inadvertently introduced into this debate, that he did not apprehend that the proposed measures would encou rage the slave trade. With respect to the exemption of Ire land from the Income-tax, that gave satisfaction to the whole country ' • at the same time that the taxes now imposed on Ire land would produce a contribution in the finances nearly equal to what could be derived from the imposition of the Income-tax in that country. The Act of Union prevented Parliament from imposing any tax upon commodities higher than those levied in England, and the only means of raising in that country her fair share of the burdens, was by having recourse to those taxes which had already been borne by her. He would not trespass longer on the patience of the House, and, thanking their Lord ships for the indulgence with which they had heard him, he would not delay therefore the vote which he did not doubt would be the approbation of the House by a large majority to the measure of the Government.—(A laugh.) They had made their proposition with the belief and confidence, which bad not been disappointed, that it would be received with approbation by the country generally—that it would be affirmed by a large majority of the other House of Parliament, and that a measure justified by necessity, and characterised by one of the opponents of the Government, as an honest and bold measure, would be approved of by (their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that their Lordships would not be affected by the appeal which had been made to them on the part of the great body of the landowners of the country, but that they would be prepared to make those sacrifices which their ances tors had made—he admitted in times of greater difficulty— ( Hear and laughter)—and that they would confirm the propo sition to which the other House, the representatives of the people, had given their concurrence.—( Hear.) Lord MONTEAGLE apologised for intruding himself upon their Lordships on this occasion, arid he would not do so if it were not for the appeal that had been made to him in respect to the pledge which he had required from the House of Com mons, in yielding to the proposition for the reduction of the postage. But on that occasion he pledged himself to call upon the House of Commons to accede to some proposition which he might find it necessary to submit, if a deficiency were occa sioned by that *eduction—not to agree to any proposition which any other person might think proper to propose.—( Hear, hear.) The very same proposition whieh came from the Government now, had been over and over again pressed upon him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had invariably refused to propose the revival of that impost.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend opposite had cited the increase of the packet service as connected with thepenny post, with which, in truth, it had no more to do than with the war in Affghanistan. The increase of the expenditure in that department was occasioned by the necessity, that was obvious, of not leaving so important a branch of communication entirely in the hands of the United States. His Noble Friend congra tulated himself upon the complacency with which this country had received the proposition. Wait until the operation of the tax came to be felt.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend would not long be able to refer, as he did to-night, to the small num ber of petitions against the tax.—(Cheers.) It was to be recollected, that never before was there held out so large an in ducement—be would say so large a bribe—to a great portion of the people not to petition against the tax.— ( Cheers.) To look at the funds alone, it would be seen that out of '280,000 dividend warrants there were but 13,000 for amounts above 1501. a-year. That was a fair proportion of the incomes of other kinds throughout the country. He would not refer the House to the Reports of the Committee of Finance, at the head which was his late friend Lord Congleton, for those were not authorities which would have much weight with their Lordships on the other side of the House. But he would refer them to the opinions of others, for whom they would Lave more respect. In 1802, Lord Sidmouth, immediately upon the cessation of the war, came down to the House and said that nothing could justify the maintenance of an Income tax for one hour in time of peace.—( Hear, hear.) In 1815 Lord Ashburton, then the greatest merchant in Britain, de clared he had rather be examined before a bench of Bishops in Westminster-hall, upon a question of theology, than before a board of Tax-Commissioners as to the state of his books. The Noble Lord had then quoted from a speech of Lord Althorp in 1833, in which that Noble Lord denounced, in strong terms, the impolicy and injustice of an Income-tax, except in a case of extreme necessity . and above all declared that notwith standing the great difficulty of applying such a tax to Ireland, he could not allow that the difficulty should prevent the exten sion of the tax in that country if it became necessary to impose it at all. In the year 1840, the Right Hon.. Gentleman now at the head of the Government said that it would be unjus tifiable to have recourse to a Property-tax to supply so small a deficiency as 2,soo,oool.—(Cheers.) That was the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury in 1840.—( Cheers. ) With respect to the causes of deficiency, he must admit that Noble . Lords opposite had dealt with that part of the question libe rally and candidly.—(Hear, hear.) But there was one fallacy in their statements. They said that the deficiency they had to provide for was 10,000,000/. It was no such thing ; they had only to provide for the deficiency of the year. The former de ficiencies were provided for in ways which he would presently show. He had no apprehension of the present financial state of the country, if the internal state of the country were what what ought to be. He besought them not to let it go forth to the world that they were obliged to have recourse to direct taxation because all other resources were exhausted. There I was no declaration which would afford so much joy to the enemies of England. Could they hope to get credit for such an assertion ? It was unsupported by reason and fact. He might be tiring their Lordships, but what he was about to state was for the purpose of supporting the credit of the country, and therefore he trusted they would bear with him. The deficiency was net attributable to any falling off in income ; the income had sustained itself, but there had been a great increase in the expenditure. They had to provide a sum, which would more than account for the deficiency, to provide for the twenty millions paid for slave emancipation ; they had besides augmented the expenditure by changing permanent into ter.. minable annuities, an operation attended with great expense, but which would ultimately produce a large and permanent diminution.—( Hear.) It was the safest species of a sinking fund. But for these two causes, instead of a deficiency, there would have been a surplus. The slave loan was a permanent charge, but the terminable annuities constituted a diminishing charge; and it would be found that up to the year 1860, they would constitute a large and an annually increasing financial harvest.—( Hear, hear.) Their Lordships were aware that the deposits in the Savings Banks were required to be invested, or the Government had the power of converting them into stock. That speculation was a perfectly unobjectionable one, and could lead to no bad consequences, although a great deal had been attempted to be made of it.—( Hear, hear.) The deficiency of ten millions was a mere bubble, which i did very well to make use of in debate, but which could not stand the test of argument. The financial cqndition was not so bad as it was pretended to be, and the Income-tax was far from being so well adapted to supply as the Government would fain have it believed. It introduced a different law of taxation for the holders of large farms and the holders of small ones. He, however, rather rejoiced at these anomalies than other wise, because they afforded him a better hope of getting rid of the measure. If faults, if absurdities of every sort and de scription could ensure the getting rid of a measure, this mea sure would not be tolerated by the country. In case of war, when the enemy were at our gates, or, which was better ' stiil, and which was the mode of warfare to which the Noble Duke was used, in cases where we had to carry war to the gates of the enemy, a tax of this nature might be submitted to. It was a confiscation to all intents and purposes, hut which under such circumstances must be submitted to. A great portion of the community was professedly exempt from the tax, and that tax it would be attempted to make the basis of the taxation of the country. It was a dangerous notion to hold out to the country, that the millions could be relieved by taxing the tens, and would be repeated to them at a time whets they would feel the inconvenience of it. To raise mil lions they must tax the millions—such were the words of an ultra-popular demagogue, and they were true. There could be no doubt as to the comparative safety of an indirect tax, and a direct tax. Tne tax might at first be popular, but its unpopularity would soon begin, and the public credit and the revenue would both suffer in consequence. The operation of the tax on the morals of the country would be most disastrous; it would be a bounty to the man who was fraudulent, and a fine upon the man who was honest. On land and houses under the eld property tax, one of the collectors had calculated the eva sion at one-seventh of the amount of the whole property. On the funded property, the evasions amounted to from one-fourth to one-fifth ; and on profits and professions, the evasion was more ; and such would ever be the case until the Treasury could invent some process to Daguerreotype a man's income. They were about, as a means of upholding public credit, to do that which would tend to undermine private credit and private faith more than any measure that had ever been introduced. In the days of the former income tax they had a depreciated currency and a war expenditure. They had now the opposite side of the wedge to deal with ; the pres sure was growing greater and greater, the meanspeocfroriulesdeisntntionthgbeaidt. Less and less, and this was the time they chose to impose this e actier tax , , R had been said that a person could not go abroad to es t h m a a n t t u h f ca pe the tax, but suppose he took in)h roperty with him what n would eve r beforethe y do beenthen tried ? i(n time Hear, e h f e p a ea ee . TT never n e e x y then take his capital abroad. Did they rem in a to pay his invested then in foreign securities, coilldagitehee Not tingham stocking weays.e. ) would take his capital abroad, that an he thought he per rd cent.. incoNmoesuctahethiwnasg,,heinfact, a . bounty upon the etmaxigwraatsiotnheof riegatittarleismtsed. y ß f u o t r e t v h e e n daesfisuereemegy, . . . could prove that the proposed measure w orld fail in producing the effect of remedying that deficiency. If after having called for Hercules to help their wheel out of the mire, Hercules should fail—if after having imposed their. income-tax the mea sure should fail to make good the deficiency, it would be la mentable indeed. There was the export coal duty—nothing would be realized from that. From the returns he was autho rised in stating that no increased revenue would accrue from the proposed increase of duties in Ireland, and he felt assured that they would have, not a surplus, but a deficiency upon the budget as originally proposed. A house tax and an increase in the assessed tax would have met the deficiency. That would have been unpopular, and for popularity the Govern ment had chosen rightly, but not for the permanent interest of the country. For the country the volunteer budget of the Noble Earl at the table (Earl Stanhope) would have been infinitely preferable to the budget of the Government. One main cause of our difficulties, was the monetary difficulties of America ; and those difficulties would not have been felt, if we had so altered our laws as to enable the Americans to pay us in the only articles in which they could pay—their corn and their agricultural produce. Another cause of the deficiency was, the decreased power of consumption of exciseablearticles among the people at home. Within the last fur years, they had had to pay twenty millions more for corn than they had had to pay I for the preceding three years. The result of this was, that hey had less to lay out in exciseable articles, and that was the real source, he verily believed, of the present distress. He thought the Income-tax unwise and unjust, and therefore he , opposed it. The Earl of RIPON said that the question resolved it self into this—Was there, or was there not, a case of finan cid necessity, calling for the imposition of an Income-tax ? The Government admitted that the tax was objectionable, but they contended that there was an invincible necessity for it. If they were to re-impose the house-tax and the assessed taxes, he felt convinced that they would not get an amount sufficient to meet the deficiency, assuming even that the re imposition of the tax would not diminish the employment of horses, servants, and carriages. The Noble Lord who had sy‘<len last disputed the necessity, and seemed to think that if t hey let things alone all would come right in time. lie did mit dispute that if the deficiciency were made good the revenue would ultimately regain its elasticity ; but in the meantime the deficiency must be made good, and Low to make it good Was the question. His Noble iend, in dealing with the question of necessity, took no notice of the great increase within the last seven years ‘,l that portion of our expenditure in those services over which Parliament exercised a control, viz, the naval and military service. The increase of the expenditure in these services during the last six years was as much as three-and-a-half millions sterling He (Earl Ripon) had always thought it was necessary to revise the whole system of fiscal regulations to extend and open the springs of commerce, and though they might affect to despise the tariff, he could assure them that people out of that House felt very differently on the subject, and were well convinced that it was an excellent measure in its principle and its details. The Noble Marquis had stated that the Income-tax was the most unpopular one which could be proposed ; if that were the case, the Government had shown their sincerity in proposing a measure which was unpopular, but which at the same time they thought was the best which eould be devised.—(Question, question.) The question was then put from the Woolsack, when strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House divided, and there appeared,— For the Amendment Against it Majority against the Amendment The Bill was then read a third time and passed Their Lordships adjourned at Twelve o'Clock till to-morrow (this day) at Four o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 21. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Lord BARNARD presented petitions from several places in the county of Cork, against the system of Na aonal Education in Ireland. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from Lon donderry, praying for the abolition of Church patronage. Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition, signed by various parties residing at the southern side of the Metropolis, praying for the opening of the metropolitan bridges. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from an indi vidual, who had formerly acted as agent for the House of Assembly in Newfoundland, against the Government Newfoundland Bill. THE INCOME-TAX. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from the members of the Westminster Mechanics' Institution, praying that that institution, and others established for spreading in formation amongst the people, should be exempted from the local and general taxes which now pressed on them, and especially from the operation of the proposed In come-tax. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 22, 1842. METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the borough of Lambeth, praying that that part of the Metropolis should be included in the general plan of metropolitan i zuprovetnents. TEN HOURS BILL. Mr. COBI)EN presented a petition from Stockport in favour of a Ten Hours Factory Bill. THE BALLOT. Mr. SHEIL presented a petition from the inhabitant electors of the parish of St. James, Westminster, praying for the protection of the Ballot to voters in Parliamen tary elections, that protection having been found most effectual in parochial elections. i f HE LIGHT SOVEREIGNS. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN said it might be satisfac tory to the House if he stated the result of the inquiries which be had made respecting the alleged issue of light overeigns in the payments of the dockyard and the Pique. He found that all the sovereigns sent down from the Admiralty for those purposes had been pre iously weighed and ascertained to be of the ;1111 weight. Again, before they were paid out ' they were weighed one by one.- - , (Hear hear.) But the origin of the report to the contrary might be traced to the fact, that several of the men on presenting their wvereigns to some of the shopkeepers in Portsmouth were told that they were deficient of weight, and were orth no more than 19s. each. The men brought back the sovereigns to the office, when they were all re weighed in their presence, and proved to their satisfac tion to be of full weight. Great pains had been taken to prevent the issue of any light coin in the payment of the wages either in the dockyard or the seamen of the Pique. Great pains had been also taken in all the other establishments, and he had ascertained that some, but very few, light ones had been paid away at Plymouth, but not one at Portsmouth. CORN-LAWS. On the motion of Mr. HUTT, the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bonded Corn Bill was dis charged. Mr. BANNERMAN gave notice that, on the 30th of June, he should move resolutions for the admission of fo reign corn, by orders in Council, under certain circum stances, when Parliament was not sitting. NEWFOUNDLAND BILL. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that, on the reading of the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Newfoundland Bill, he would move to postpone the reading of the order for six weeks, to allow time for the meeting of the Assembly before proceeding further into the Bill ; and further, that the parties from whom he had presented a petition against the Bill, might be heard at the bar of the House. QUEEN'S LETTER. Mr. WALLACE moved for a return of the amount raised by the letter of the Queen, addressed to the Arch bishop of Canterbury, and the distribution thereof. CANADA. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the purpose to which 180,0001., granted to the Calvados, had been applied. CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTION. Captain PECHELL wished to ask the lion. Baronet, the MemLer for Wiltshire, at what time he intended to bring forward his motion respectiLg the invention of Captain Warner ? Sir F. BURDETT said that h' had given notice of his intention to bring the subject under the consideration of the House at the earliest opportunity GOLD COIAGE. Mr. C. BULLER said he wished to correct a mis , take into which he had fallen the night before, when he mentioned the name or a firm. He ought not to have mentioned names at all—(Laughter)— particularly as he was wro:ig.—(Laughter.) He stated p,sterday that Messrs. Howell and James had deducted Cd. for every sovereign they had taken since the procla mation. He had received a letter from them, in which they stated that the moment the proclamation was issued they directed their cashiers to tF.ke all sovereigns heavy or light. They had taken upwa'als of 2,000 in the course of ten days, and they found. only 150 to be light, and the loss only amounted to about 1/. 14s. Gd., or 3d. each. Mr. FOSTER wished to ask her Majesty's Govern ment if any steps were about to be taken with respect to the silver coinage. lie was aware that great inconveni ence was felt by the public owing to the limited supply cf silver coin. Mr. GLADSTONE had received complaints of the inconvenience which the public had recently suffered from the want of an additional silver currency, but he was not certain that that inconvenience was at tributable to any actual deficiency of the sil ver currency itself. The apparent scarcity or silver coin was owing to the circumstance that the half-sovereigns had suffered from depreciation much more relatively than the sovereigns ; they had of course become more discredited, and there was in consequence a greater demand for silver to sup ply the place of the half-sovereigns. Attention had been Maid to the subject, and an issue of half-sovereigns would take place at the earliest possible period to supply the place of those which had been discredited. Dr. BOWRING complained that the answer of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not quite satisfactory. The inquiry of his Hon. Friend was, whether there was any intention of snaking an additional issue of silver coin ? He (Dr. Bowring) could bear testimony to the great. scarcity of silver coin ; he had been informed that very morning by his own bankers that there was a very great deficiency of silver. Mr. GLADSTONE said, that if it should prove that the inconvenience was really owing to a deficiency in the silver coinage, means would be taken to remedy it; bat he doubted if there were any actual scarcity of sliver, for, only about four weeks since, complaints had been made by the bankers o£ a surplusage of silver coin. STADE DUES. Mr. HUT r begged to remind the Right Hon. Baro net at the head of the Government of the promise hick he had given some f,me since, that he (Sir R. Peel) would inform him (Mr. Hutt) of the result of the measures which the Government had adopted fur the settlement of the Sttule dues. As he had received no communication from the 'Right Hon. Baronet on the sub j. ct, he was afraid that nothing satisfactory had been lone. He therefore gave notice that, on Thursday next, he should ask the Right Hon. Baronet what steps had been taken for the settlement of the Stade dues. Sir R. PEEL would give all the information in his power on the subject of the Stade dues immediately.— (Hear.) The negotiations on the subject were not yet concluded. He had within the last few days had an in terview with the Envoy of the Hanoverian Government on the subject, and the Envoy had stated that the propo sitions of the British Government could not be accepted by the Hanoverian Government. He was not able to give any further information on the subject. SLAVE TRADE PRIZES. Captain PECIIELL wished, with reference to what had taken place on Thursday last, to ask where the money arising from the sale -of the prizes cap- tured by our cruisers engaged in suppressing Ike slave .trade under the provisions of the Act in 1839 was lodged, and whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to re medy the oversight of the Act of 1839, and to divide the money among the captors ? Sir R. PEEL said, that a Bill on the subject had been prepared, and would be speedily introduced. With re gard to the other inquiry of the Gallant Officer, he begged to state, that he (Sir R. Peel) had referred to the public departments, and had not yet received any answer. When he received an answer, he would inform the Hon. and Gallant Officer. CAPTAIN \VARNER'S INVENTION. Sir C. NAPIER wished to ask What steps had been taken with regard to Captain Warner's invention ? Captain Warner had, he (Sir C. Napier) understood, ex pres.scd a desire that Lord Hardwick and Lord Ingestrie should be appointed on the Commission to investigate the merits of his invention, and had complained that Sir Byam Martin and Sir Howard Douglas had demanded of him that he should make known all his erets, without having any guarantee given to Mini that they would not be divulged. Ceptain Warner further stated that Sir George Murray was fully cog nizant of what had taken and that he (Captain \Varner) was desirous of unbosoming himself to the Right lion. Baronet—(A laugh)—and that after the merits of his invention should have been tested, he would leave the question of compensation entirely in the hands ~/ the Right Honourable Baronet. lie also stated that, if a three-decker were placed before him, he could &stroy it immediately. He (Sir C. Napier) therefore thought that Government ought to ascertain whether or not Captain Warner was a eharietan. Sir PEEL said that, since the lat mention of this subject, three weeks ago, applications had been made by several individuals to have personal interviews with him on the subject of socrets which, they stated, were entitled to the utmost consideration on the partiof the State. He did not mention that in disparagement of Captain War ner's invention. Shortly after his (Sir Robert Peel's) appointment to office, he had had an opportunity of ,eing the extraordinary effects produced by Captain Warner's invention, and he signified that he was will ing., but only in the regular authorised way, to make ex periments with respect to the discovery—that he thought it rested either with the Admiralty or the Board of Ord nance to judge .of the invention—but that he himself was wholly incompetent to form a judgment upon it ; that he must permit to the heads of these departments the charge of instituting experiments of this kind, He, therefore, wrote to Sir George Murray, the Master-General of the Ordnance, to request him to name two officers to whom no. possible exception could be taken—who had the most professional knowledge and the greatest practical skill in gunnery, and everything respecting the destruction of human life.—(Laughter.) He had also stated that he thought it very hard that Capt. Warner should be put to any expense in the course of conducting the experiments, and proposed that the expense should be borne by the public. He asked, then, the House, whether or not, knowing the number of similar applications that had been made, he could have taken any better course ? The two gentlemen whom Sir George Murray had appointed for the purpose of making the experi ments were Sir Howard Douglas and Sir T. Hastings, and he would appeal to any person conversant with those subjects whether more suitable parties could be selected. What he thought right was that the experiments be taken in the first instance, and let them judge of them afterwards. That was the course which he would assure the Honourable and Gallant Admiral was absolutely necessary. With respect to the danger to human life in conducting these experiments, the Board of Ordnance would take the greatest precaution to guard against it. No experiment would be undertaken that should be attended with danger. That was the course which he had pursued, and he would venture to say, there would not be one guinea left in the Treasury, if they were to give way to all the suggestions of persons who thought that they had made discoveries, not only in things pertaining to the art of war, but to every other art. After a few words from Sir C. NAPIER the subjec dropped. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish to interfere with the motion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, but he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, as the second reading of his Bill for the prevention of bribery was not opposed, would allow the second read ing to be taken sub silentio and name some early day for the committal of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, the Committee was fixed •for Tuesday next. AFFGHANISTAN. _ . Mr. MANGLES, referring to the statements of the Eight Hon. Baronet with respect to the advances made for the war in China and Affghanistan, wished to know whether any advances had been made to the East India Company, for the purposes of the war in Affghanistan Sir H. PEEL regretted that the Ilon. Member had not given notice of his question. What he stated was, that the expenses of the war in Affghanistan required so much expenditure on the part of the East India Company, that it was inconvenient for them to be in advance on account of the war in China ; and it was in consequence of that that he had proposrd that two sums of money should be raised to defray the expenses, not of the Affghanistan but of the Chinese war. THE BALLOT. The SPEAKER having called upon Mr. Ward to bring on his motion with respect to the Ballot, Mr. BERKELEY and Mr. TiIoRNELY presented peti tions from Liverpool and Bristol in favour of the Ballot. Mr. WARD said that he rose to address the House with a very sincere sense both of the difficulty and of the importance of the task he had undertaken of sub mitting the question of the Ballot, for the first time, to the consideration of the present House of Commons.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When he talked of the difficulty of the task he did not mean merely that embarrasment which he felt, and which every man of inferior powers must feel in at tempting to engage the attention of that House to a question involving so much, both of principle and of de tail, as the Ballot ; but he had to contend with the addi tional difficulty of ridding his own mind from the recollection of the admirable ability, the aptitude of illustration, the closeness of reasoning, and the high mental and logical powers brought to bear upon that very question by his Hon. Friend, the late Member for the City of London, Mr. Grote—a gentle man whom all who knew him admitted to havo been an ornament to that House—(Hear, hear)—however much they might differ from him in political opinions— and who had brought to bear upon that question in the three first Parliaments after the passing of the Reform Bill the best efforts of his highly cultivated mind. But while there was nothing he should so much fear or deprecate as any comparison between the manner in which he might deal with the question and that adopted by his Hon. Friend Mr. Grote, he was encouraged in attempting to follow in his path by the recollection that time had brought many of his opinions, as to the consequences of open voting, to the test ; that what might have been disputed ten years ago, could not now be denied, and that instead of any reason ing upon abstract principles, he had only to ask the House to provide a remedy for evils now universally admitted, but in which many • had formerly disbelieved. He could now appeal to the acts of the House, to the Reports of the Committees, to the records of its own proceedings, to those painful and humiliating discussions which had taken up so much of their time, to show that the ten dency of the system of open voting had been progressing from had to worse, that its effects were most demoralising, most discreditable to the character of the country in the eyes of the world, and that a remedy was indispen sable, unless they meant to forfeit the confidence, to alienate the respect, and to outrage the moral feelings of the people whom they represented.—(Hear, hear,) They were called the " Bribery Parliament ;" and they deserved the name. Now, he wished to profess, in the first instance, that he did not mean to. treat that question in any way as a party question. He looked upon it as a question in which all sides of the House had the same interest, and in bringing it under the considera tion of the House, he trusted he was actuated by better motives and hopes than if he had brought it forward merely to serve the purposes of a party. He admitted at once that corrupt influence had been most unscrupulously appealed to at the late and at other elections, by Liberals as well as by Conservatives. He regretted to find that he was forced to that admission ; and he wished his own party had always steered clear of corrupt practices at elections since the year 1833. But that had not been the case. Both parties had acted upon the same system. That system was a bad one ; it was one which no honest man would attempt to justify upon sober reflection, al though he might have been tainted with it himself. It was a system which no well-wisher of his country would defend. He saw with great satisfaction that there was at present a disposition manifested on both sides of the House to look seriously to the dangers which such a system must entail upon the country. He had heard bribery denounced by the leaders on both sides in terms which would seal its fate in six months if those terms had been sincerely employed. He had a right to question the sincerity of parties, until he saw them follow up that expression of their opinions by practical remedial measures ; and he did con sider that the best test of sincerity would be to renounce that power in which the abuse originated. He thought he could show that if the p ower was re- N n v o o u u n ld ce , d be of s u o i o id n ul e yZ i ificuaetende.ing electors, the existing evil He did not approve of the policy of having recourse merely to measures of severity, .which could. never be impartially applied. He thought the present time was particularly favourable to the discussion. The balance of power in the House was not so nicely distributed that it could be materially aiVected by any slight change in the machinery of repre sentation which would give an advantage to either side. He was bound, too, to say that the Right Hon. Baronet, the leader of the party opposite, had shown a proper sense of respect for his own station, and a sincere desire fairly to discharge the duties imposed on him. He alluded more particularly to the course pursued by the Right Honourable Baronet, with respect to the Notting hiam, the Southampton, and the Belfast elections. :Some of the expressions used by the Right Honourable Baronet on that occasion lie might be permitted to recal - to the recollectkit of the House. The Right Honour .able Baronet said, c onsidering .the extent to which bribery had been stated to prevail, he did think, mid now st a t e d his deliberate o:iinion, that it would not he for the honour or dignity of the House to interpose any technical objections to prevent the inquiries. He said, also, that whoever might be the par ties compromised, or whatever might be the interest they might exert, he would not lend the countenance r.)! the Government to any suppression of the fullest in qttiry into those cases. The Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, who was one of the greatest opponents of the Ballot, had formerly used as one of his arguments against it, the improvement that had taken place in the disposition of the landed proprietors through o.lt England, and that they might safely be en- trusted with their influence over the constituencies. A singular change must have come over him during the last election, for, in a speech he de livered on that occasion, he found the most :4 weeping ch.lrgus brought against the landlords. lie found in that speech the most severe censures against the landed proprietors of the county of Northumberland, and he never heard the most strenuous advocate for the Ballot expose with so cutting a censure the mal-prat• tices and illegitimate influence of the landlords as the - Noble Lori. " The Hon. Member then referred to, and quoted at great length, from the speech of Lord Ilowick, delivered after the last election for Northumber land, in which he complained of the conduct of the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Tankerville. and Lord Oesulston, in influencing the tenantry in givit ' r their votes. He (Mr. W.) claimed the vote of the Noble Lord to night on the strength of that speech. If he were desirous to see such practices put an end to, he would vote for his motion practices which were quite as objec tionable, and quite as prevalent, as that of bribing, and for which he believed no remedy by penal enact ment would be an effectual stop. He was glad to see the Noble Lord in the House.—(Lord Howick had just come in.) He would hand him the speech he had de livered in Northumberland, and with that in his hand he did not know how he (Lord Howick) could refuse him his support. Ha now came to the Bribery Bill of the Noble Lord, the Member for London. The Noble Lord admitted, as he (Mr. Ward) did, the extent of the evil, and the necessity of a remedy, and it only remained for the advocates of the Ballot to show the superiority of that remedy to the one the Noble Lord recommended. He (Mr. Ward) had no great faith in the penal enactments against bribery. They had for one hundred years back tried such remedies. They were tried in every shape, but it was impossible by reme dies of such a natter,- to touch an evil of such a protean cha racter. Now there was no want of stringency in the existing law, as he said before. But the law had existed upwards of one hundred years, for he found during the life of De Foe the same complaint, being 135 years ago. He said, " We have lately had three Acts of Parliament to prevent bribery and corruption at elections. We have the best laws, but they are badly executed." In another passage, written in 1780, imm diately after an election had taken place, he said that some people had voted for money, some from influence, and others from intimidation, and he believed it was not impossible to debauch this nation by various kinds of intoxication. With these examples before him (Mr. Ward) he had little hope, he confessed, by any legislative enactment that the Noble Lord could introduce, of getting rid of these practices, which were privately connived at, but publicly condemned. Now he would ask any man in that House whether he thought that system would last ; could it last, at all events, without producing those effects the Right Hon. Baronet himself had pointed out in the speech which he (Mr. Ward) had quoted? There were millions of eyes upon this system, millions who were excluded from it, because they told them that a property qualification was the only criterion of fitness to exercise the franchise. When they turned their attention to those who possessed it—when they looked to the 101. householder, and the 50/. tenant-at-will, as a criterion and example of that integrity, of that disinterestedness and patriotism, which a property qualification was sup posed to secure, would they not say that the whole tenantry of England were sunk in a state of almost serfish submission to their landlords? Such was the wholesale, open-faced, unblushing profligacy that pre vailed at the last election, that out of the returns for England, Ireland, and Scotland, no less than fifty-five were impeached by petition, those fifty-five petitions affecting no less than seventy-eight seats. Every gentleman in that House knew e erfectly well that a great many cases of wholesale corruption escaped notice altogether, as there were not sufficiently clear parties in the diffetent places to petition for an inquiry. As he said, there were fifty-five peti tions against seventy-eight seats. They must not forget that in many of the Committees there were special Re ports. Now what did those special Reports say ? The Southampton Committee, said James Bruce, Esq., com monly called Lord Bruce, and C. Martin, Esq., were by their agents guilty of bribery at the election for the borough of Southampton. From the evidence it appeared that gross treating and bribery had existed ; that the sum expended was 5,0001., far exceeding the legal charges, and deserved the consideration of that House. He found in the case of Ipswich that Rigby Wason, Esq., and George Rennie, Esq., were by their agents guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich ; the Committee also resolved unani mously that they should recommend to the House to suspend the issuing of a new writ until the evidence should have been taken into consideration by the House. In Sudbury he found that it was unanimously resolved that gross and systematic bribery had existed, and the Committee recommended the disfranchisement of the borough. In Lyme Regis he found . another instance of gross bribery. From the evidence it appeared that corrupt practices had some time prevailed. He found ,that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, J. Q. Harris, Esq., was guilty of bribery by his agents, and that a system prevailed of giving to voters bread-money, dinner money, and market-money. The withdrawal of a petition was no evidence of the innocence of the parties, as had appeared from the Committees on the Harwich, Nottingham, and other elections. To such an extent was the system of compulsion carried, that the withdrawal of a petition was synonymous with a confession of guilt. He could point out many cases which had escaped the notice of the Hon. Member for Bath. It was said that the same practice occurred last Parliament with re spect to Norwich, when there was one gentleman of each party elected, but that was no extenuation of the offence, however it might warrant inquiry. These were the evils they had to grapple with at the present moment, and unless they VI ere checked. they would progress with frightful rapidity. His belief was that they must go back to first principles if they wished to have any principle at all. The first principles in voting were that the voter should be a free agent. The State was bound to secure the voter the power of record ing his own unbiassed vote—by that he meant unbiassed by the nation, or corrupt influence. He did not believe that was to be accomplished by open voting. He affirmed that by the present system of voting there never could be a fair and free election, as one party was coerced and the other bribed. This was only one portion of the evil, and it was useless to apply a remedy to one and leave the other untouched. The Hon. Member for Pomfret, who appeared to have an amiable leaning towards corruption in its mildest form, comes forward and boasts that he is the friend of the poor man. He stood up as the poor man's friend, and argues that though it might be possible to put a stop to this species of corruption, yet, he adds, with a great deal of truth, they would have another kind— namely, political corruption, in full action. He argued that if a million of money had been sent down from the upper among the lower classes at the last election, it must at least have con ferred a great deal of material happiness, and that if any enact ment took it away it must cause proportionate misery. The Legislature might reduce the amount expended, but would not check corruption. He could not but regret that the Hon. Mem ber had lent such sentiments the sanction of his talents. He remembered an election for the West Riding of Yorkshire, when the canvass was carried on with the greatest activity. The Duke of Leeds happened to die just as the canvass was beginning ; of course decency required a certain time before the canvass could be resumed; nobody could venture to sup pose what the opinions of the present Duke should be, and his tenants remained uncanvassed. During the contest he (Mr. W.) was walking with a friend of his in Sheffield, when they met a Yorkshire yeoman. The gentleman who was with him (Mr. W.) asked the yeoman if they had yet got their orders, and the countryman replied that they had received orders to be yellows. That was to vote for Lords Morpeth and Milton. Such was the state of subserviency of the English voter. He recollected another case that had occurred at the same time in Wigtonshire, in Scotland. Parties were known to be equally balanced, and for upwards of three weeks Lord Stair was made the object of the bitterest attacks by all the Conservative papers for having purchased an estate on which resided thirty voters, whose votes would turn the scale. Lord Stair had happened to be negotiating the, purchase of the estate for some time pre viously, and it was then brought to a termination. A remark able letter was written by a great proprietor of the county, and read at the hustings, and it was stated then by Mr. Murray that the coercion of the Tory gentry went beyond anything which had been known in England. He challenged an answer to his statement, and no person dared to contradict him. The letter was addressed to his Hon. Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, and it spoke of the system of intimidation and I coercion as being worse than what was practised with regard to the slaves on the coast of Africa. He (Mr. Ward) did not ' mean to say this system was practised by Lord Stair in that contest ; but he would say that discussions of that description in the face of the people of England were disgraceful. He did not mean to say that such things were confined to the counties ; on the contrary, he believed that immorality of a worse descrip tion took place in the towns, which were more confined, and where the circumstances of each voter were well known, and where exclusive dealing and published lists of voters—published even at the Universities—were put into operation to ruin the refractory voters. The Report of the Intimidation Committee teemed with facts of this description ; and was it not disgraceful that while they saw inquiries instituted to investigate them, they knew that five or six persons on each side of the House held the strings of the machine of corruption, and put all the works in motion ? He thought the Ballot, and nothing less, would put an end to bribery and the other corrupt practices which had taken place. With regard to other remedies, bad habits would get the better of the best law, but when the law failed, if the Ballot were adopted, that remedy would step in with its silent efficacy to correct the abuse which the law could not reach. Make the voter aware that the Ballot was his safe guard, and the whole mischief of corruption would be ended, _because the publication of the vote was the indispensible condition of either punishment or reward. They would not punish the voter upon suspicion. They would not inflict a penalty on him on the supposition that he had not fulfilled Lis part of the contract. He knew he might be met with the usual sophisms, that to give a vote contrary to the promise which was made of it was immoral, dishonest, and un- English. But, on the other hand, it could not be morality to vote against one's conscience, or be brew-beaten to vote in a certain way.--( Hear, hear.) He knew it was, not fashionable to say that the Ballot would insure secrecy. It might not do so, but this he was ce rtain of, that it would put a stop to intimidation, and would give a more healthy ap pearance to public opinion, and would make canvassing an honourable understanding between man and man, and not a compound of cajolery and trickery.—( Hear. ) The argument that the Ballot would destroy the legitimate in fluence of property was as unfounded as any of the others. He believed that not a particle of the legitimate influence of pro perty would be destroyed by secret voting, but then that in fluence must be applied in a different manner. The whole subject had been done so much justice to by Mr. Bailey, that he would read an extract—the last he should read to the House. He stated that the higher classes had become so accustomed to the exercise of power over the rest of the community, that they now looked upon it as a natural and even a salutary power. Now, no man who knew the long list which the English aristocracy had added to the names of our most eminent statesmen and orators, would say that there were not brilliant exceptions to Mr. Bailey's description? But if the effect of the Ballot, as Mr. Bailey believed, would be to compel the aristocracy of this country, as a class, to forego these adventitious advantages which they now possessed, and to throw themselves, as the Right lion. Baronet said the other night that he threw himself, upon the reason and intelligence of the community for support, who would deny that that was " a consummation devoutedly to be wished?"_(Hear, hear. ) He was not one of those who wished to shut out wealth and rank in this country from their legitimate share of influence. He thought with Mr. Mills, that the business of government, under a representative system, was, in effect, the business of the rich. But then he wanted to see the rich maintain their influence by fair means—by means which would raise their character as well as that of the community, instead of de basing and degrading both. A change in the present system was inevitable. It was impossible to exaggerate its evils or its dangers. If it were continued for a few years more, he be lieved that it would waste and destroy in this country all that onstitutes the strength of, and all that gives vitality to, popular institutions. Nothing could be permanent or safe under a rotten system ; and while there could be no nobler object of 1 ambition than the leadership of a free people, founded upon its intelligence and its public virtue, nothing was more pre carious or more fleeting than that power which was based upon the demoralization, and the continuance of which was dependent upon the employment, of corruption. And as the best remedy that his humble judgment could suggest, as the only remedy which he believed applicable to the present case, he called upon them, while there was yet time, to renounce the power which was the origin of the abuse, and throw thern.elves henceforward upon their public merit and public services for their standing in public opinion, and to put an end to all those odious party combinations, to that hypocrisy; to that fraud, of which open voting was the prolific source in this country, by giving their, assent to the motion which he was about to place in the hands of the Speaker, namely, That in all future elections for Members of Parliament, the votes should be taken by Ballot. Mr. BERKELEY said, he rose to second the resolution. After the best consideration, he had come to the conclusion that all those evils which Hon. Member had !predicted, as likely to occur, in the event of the Ballot becoming the law 'of the land, were to be found, in a tenfold degree, under the present system of open voting. He had ob served, in the debates on the subject, it had been said that the practice of the Ballot was unmanly and un- English. He thought this was not well said, by persons who used the ballot-box themselves. But, then, it wLs contended that the ballot-box at clubs, and the ballot-box for constituencies, were not analogous. He would ask 500 Members of that House, all of whom u.ed it, if they did not use the ballot to protect them selves from any obnoxious character, which was admirably de scribed by Sheridan, in the character of Sir Lucius O'Trigger? Well, if there were Sir Lucius O'Triggers in society, were there not Sir Lucius O'Triggers in politics infinitely more ob noxious ? He came next to the tenantry of great estates. They had there a high-pressure engine of their own to drive the screw, in the shape of the landlords, who, it was notorious, in spected the voting books as they did the crops, and were more stringent in the case of the vote than of the rent. If the tenant was backward with his vote, they ejected him ; if backward o ith his rent, they distrained him. Those tenantry were sent to the poll, with about the same ceremony as they themselves drove their beasts to the next market; and the difference be- • tween the quadruped and the biped was this, that the former was driven to the market, and thence to the knife, and the latter was driven to the polling booths,which were a species of moral shambles, where they lost their freedom of action and independence, and consequently where their self-esteem was ruthlessly sacrificed. And yet they talked of their free and independent electors. Those were the yeomen so much boasted of on all occasions. The fear after all was that unjust influence would be lost. That was true enough, but just influence would never be lost by adopting a right and honourable course. He had been entrusted with several petitions on the subject, which he looked upon as a brief. Now with regard to the bribery that took place in 1837, the only evidence he had to offer on that subject was, that 5,0001. was spent by the Tory party, and 2,5001. on the part of the Liberal. Now on the part of the Liberal party he would say he believed that not one farthing had been spent in bribery, but he could not say so much of the other party. In the election of 1841, much the same practices existed. He held in his hand a placard, dated Slay 29, 1841, signed by Mr. Fripp, declining an invitation to stand for the borough, and stating that in the election of 1837 5,0(101. was spent by the Conservative candidates. On the walls, too, it was openly posted, " Vote blue ! Money no object I" ( Hear.) He had with him a blue book, which was the Tory poll-book for the election, which was distributed at all the hotels as the guide-book to tradesmen.—( Hear, hear.) He would also call their attention to the canvassing books of the agents, which had their annotations on the margin, and these were afterwards published. The screw was not left to agents, but these were private directions for its use. The land lord's name was printed, then the landlord's residence, and next the persons - having any influence with the occupier. He had a few words to say with respect to his own canvass. In the year 1837, various parties had expressed a desire to support him, but were evidently coerced from voting with him at the poll. On the first day of the canvass, he entered the shop of a small tradesman, who congratulated him on his apearance as a candidate, in what he called " the old cause." He (Mr. Barclay) then told the friend who accompanied him to put down the man's name for a plumper. The voter said he could not give him his support; he burst into teas, and said that he not only could not vote for him, but that he should vote agaidst him. He (Mr. Berkeley) was assured by the gentleman who accompanied him, that if he pressed him he might obtain his support, but that if he succeeded he and his family would be ruined for ever. Now that was, as it appeared to him, a case which could excite no other feelings than indignation and regret. One more case and he would conclude. There was a man who reported to him that he had always been compelled, not only to vote but actually to register. When his Right Hon. Friend stood for Bristol he felt that he would be compelled to vote against him, although he was anxious to vote for him. To avoid voting he neglected to register ; but when the time for registering again came round he was told that if he did not re gister it would be visited upon him in the same way as if he had voted for the Liberals, his landlord being determined that all who rented under him should vote with him. This man actually went so far as to take physic to disable him from voting—(Laughter)—but when the time for polling ar rived, the Tory doctor (feeling his pulse) told him he was in good health and compelled him to vote.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped his Hon. Friend would join with him in endeavour ing to put down these parties by voting for the Ballot. Captain L AYARD said that at the last election for Devonport, there was a feeling in the borough that the Liberal party would not succeed on account of a dis agreement amongst themselves, and the two parties agreed to decide the question between them by Ballot. The brother-in law of the Right Hon. Baronet and Mr. Leech, walked arm in-arm to the place, and they voted by. Ballot. No man could say there would be more intimidation and corruption if the system of the Ballot were in operation. If the Noble Lord could do away with corruption he could not do away with in timidation. He (Captain Layard) should therefore heartily support the motion. Mr. CHRISTIE was surprised that the Members on the opposite side had not risen to explain the votes they intended to give on this subjeet.—(Hear, hear. ) He hoped he might he excused for rising on the same side, for in doing so he would have to pay a penalty by encountering difficulties, in conse quence of rising after the able speeches just addressed to the House. It might not be altogether unprofitable to attempt to clench the able recital of the existing evils which the House heard from the Hon. Member for Bristol. He would confine himself to one or two points of the question. First of all, he would ask the House what they proposed to do by the Ballot, and how they expected it to do what they proposed by it. With regard to what they proposed by the Ballot, it was the hope of its advocates that it would diminish the existing evils, not that it would entirely do away with, but only diminish them, and this to a great extent. It was a favourite argument of those who opposed the Ballot that it would not put an end to bribery and intimidation, and that various ways would be found to punish the voter for giving a particular vote, or, at all events, that he could be bribed to go out of the way. But, granting this, it only proved that bribery and intimidation would be much more difficult, else why resort to such clumsy expedients ? The diminution of those evils being the object of the Ballot, how was that object to be obtained? Now, suppose a person to have voted in a particular manner, and to be bribed so to do, the person who bribed would not be able to tell but his money was thrown away, and in that state of uncertainty would he be likely to give a bribe? He asserted that the Ballot would prevent the evils of intimidation and bribery that at present existed. Such being the case, he thought the Ballot ought to be established. The present system lowered public feeling, and demoralised even the higher classes themselves. Instead of giving bread to the starving thousands of the people, it should be their first duty to put a stop to the fast-spreading pestilence which was de stroying the truth, honour, and manliness of the lower orders of the country. The ncome-tax and the tariff ought not to have been made the cause of postponing the considera tion of a moral question.—( Hear, hear.) If those measures were less exceptionable, and more likely to do good, than they were, still these promises of material prosperity might be fulfilled, for a people from whom all the internal ele ments of greatness had departed, and to whom this prosperity would only be so much gilt and tinsel to hide the filth and rottenness within. Sir. VERNON HARCOURT opposed the motion. If the Ballot was adopted the landlords would keep a strict watch over their tenants for the purpose of ascertaining their political ten dencies, and the result would be a constant series of hypocrisy on the one side, and of jealousy and suspicion on the other. He believed that those who clamoured most loudly for the Ballot were jobbers who were desirous of being more highly compensated for their votes. He thought the entire commu nity would be exposed to the greatest demoralisation by the Ballot, inasmuch as there would be a check put upon freedom of discussion. Captain BERKELEY said, whenever the question of vote by Ballot had previously been discussed, he had given it his op • position. He had done so because he believed that public opinion was the best correction of oppression, but since he found that public opinion was not to have its due control, and the voter was not to be allowed to vote as he pleased, he thought he had good reason for changing his opinion.—( Hear, hear. ) The Juoges of the country had declared bribery to be the abo mination of the land; and, when that was the case, he again thought that he was justified in changing his opinion on this subject. Captain BERNAL said the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorsetshire, had designated a former Government as a shabby Government, but he would ask what could be more shabby than for a Government to treat such a question as the Ballot as it had been treated by the Govornment that night?— ( Hear, hear.) It had been the practice with many to speak as if the Reform Bill was a boon. There were many who looked up on the franchise solely in a pecuniary point of view—by such the Ballot must be regarded with dislike. There was, however, a very large class of persons who viewed the franchise with very different feelings ; and fsr them he claimed the protection afforded by the Ballot. It had been remarked by one who was once a Member of that House, and who was now an eminent Judge in Equity, that so long as the poor possessed that which the rich desired to obtain, so long there would be intimidation and bribery. Mr. M. MILNES said, if the Hon. Member for Wycombe had been longer in the Hoose, he would have been aware that her Majesty's Government never rose to speak in a great debate till late in the evening. He agreed with Hon. Gentle men opposite in saying that this question ought not to pass under a one-sided debate; but the question had been most fully debated on former occasions, when the Hon. Gentleman who first brought the subject before the House was then a Member of that House, and whose absence they must all regret, on account of his great abilities. With respect to the question of bribery, no legislative enactment would prevent it, and the only means to adopt with respect to it were those proposed by the Noble Lord opposite, to visit the offence with a moderate but certain penalty. Bribery had existed in that very House. They all knew the rumour respecting Sir Robert Walpole who was said to invite Hon. Members to dine with him, and then place a sum of money on each plate. If he (Sir. Milnes) be lieved that the people were such slaves as they were said to be, he could not refuse the remedy of the Hon. Member for Sheffield. But he did not believe it. He did not believe that bribery existed to such an extent as was alleged.—(oh, oh. ) He believed that less money was spent at the last election than at previous elections.—(Oh, oh.) Were not the Earl of Fi'z ss ildam, Lord Gainsberough, and Lord Grey, de feated in their own immediate neighbourhoods, not by bribery, but by the overwhelming torrent of public feeling ? He fully believed that if the last election had been conducted upon the bad principles alleged by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should agree with them in saying that the majority in that House were not the representatives of public feeling. The exposures which had taken place in that House he re gretted, for he believed that would not result in public good. If the late Hon. Member for Bridport had stifle' ed by it, he (Mr. Milnes) was son y for it. He was surprised that the day before the Noble Lord intended to bring his Bill forward for the purpose of exposing bribery, that the Hon. Member for Sheffield should bring forward a motion for the purpose of con cealing bribery. The Ballot would have the effect of throwing greater influence on the resident landowners. He believed the landed aristocracy would gain by the change. He did not op pose this question upon any party grounds whatever, but upon principle. The only question was, would the Ballot limit that intimidation, which was, after all, the great basis of corrup tion ? He saw that in America, with the Ballot and other appliances, still intimidation existed to a great extent. He did not say that, if bribery and intimidation went on increasing, he might not come to vote for the Ballot himself.—(Laughter and cheers.) He believed that the Ballot was a choice of evils. At the present moment he did not think the exigency existed. e did not believe that the people of England would barter their votes for a trifling comfort, for they knew they found their re- ward in public opinion. A man that was doing wrong woo - • never be very careful as to how far that wrong went. 'He, therefore, sg-ain said that he did not think that the exigency ex isted for this organic change. The people did not want it, • . and, therefore, in that respect it was un- English. If they granted this change it would lead to another change more disastrous to the Constitution. Mr. C. PONSONBY could not agree with the Hon. Gen tleman, for he fully believed that the exigency did exist in it great degree. Ail the remedies to put down corruption and bribery heretofore tried had failed, and the Ballot was the only' . remedy which would strike them down.—(Hear, hear.) A ' z , very laudable desire was manifested on both sides of the House ' , to inquire into the bribery at the late elections, and if they wished to follow up those inquiries and give them full effect, - they must adopt the Ballot.—( Hear.) Mr. BYNG said that, as the present was a public question, he could not give a silent vote. In the first place he thought the .. Ballot would essentially alter the character of Englishmen.-- . (Ministerial cheers. ) lie did not think it would be of all service to them, because he (lid net think Englishmen would ever conceal their real feelings and opioions.—(Hear, hear.) They were from their infancy brought up to love truth sou magna cat reruns et prevalebit.—(Hear, hear.) Both before and ato the election they would live in a state of wise* afraid to open their mouths to their best friends. It would also prevont canvassing, and he confessed he always ' wished to meet the constituent body face to face , and give them an account of his conduct.—( Hear, hear.) He remembered on one important question, when the " N ° Popery" cry was raised. he was near losing his election fa c r ss want of being able to meet his constituency. But a delay , '. _ ten days was occasioned by the death of one of the eand*, - dates, who got wet in his feet, and dieu.—(Laughter.) A P ` ' that enabled him to go amongst the constituency, and ea' : plain to the Dissenting voters, that if the Catholics were L . -, crificed this week, they would be sacrificed the next. II: .; .- 1 , said to them " Do you think you are loved more than tsi'l-,-• Catholics?" There were no Puseyites there.—(Much laughter') : And thus, in consequence of being able to explain himself te•-.4 the electors, he was declared unanimously elected by . t he 4 ,4 Sheriff ; and ever since he was fund of conversing and explamiag ~'a his votes to his constituents.—(Laughter, and hear, hear.). Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that he considered the He,., 'Member for Sheffield had an advantage in bringing forelar.". li; this subject after the scenes at the late election, because ' ' proved that men did not take up this question from any thee*: ,sa, retical notions of abstract excellence, but as a practical meet ,:.?. ment of existing evils.—( Hear, hear.) The public were ~.. that opinion now, and : their opinion was reflected in the `,, House. He agreed with the Hen. and Venerable Member for''' , Middlesex, that all the feelings of the country would,,:°::i the first view, be against them, and he could tualw - :-.1 stand how one like him, who was the popular Men em` , of a great constituency, and who had so deserve7st ,g earned the respect, not merely of persons of his own politi_A- .4, opinions—(Hear, hear)—but also of those who were oPln.r" •7 :-. ll :is to hire—( Hear, hear)—would wish to see the enthusiasm 0f;54',..,.4 crowd of supporters hurrying to the poll to record their . sat_.. es '...o in his favour; but it was not every county which.could 1r7:4: of such a Member—(Hear, hear)—nor every Member tt""::... , could boast of such a constituency. The theory of the C!;'_,.! stit ution was, that every man's vote was free; but that-' completely overborne in practice. With regard to intimidatiet , „ - .• he had no doubt the Ballot would put an end to everytbi n g„. ,7'.0 that kind. Every influence by means of opinion would nOt 5" , ,,,! : got rid of, nor did he think it ought. The influence of the Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland, arid the application a.',l the No-Popery cry in England, could not be put an (06_1:0' by the Ballot. Nothing but the diffusion of intelligence asu ~:: enlightenment would get rid of influence of this description•%; The Ballot, after all, was a question of principle—not a weeb . ,..r ~,, nical question.—(Hear, heal.) Recognise the right of ISA voter to vote as he pleased, and he would soon have opinionsu-, his own. If the voter had no:: opinions of his own, it was bel:', cause he did not consider the vote his own. The Ballot therefore thought would be a great improvement on the pre. trlt ,f -s s system, and he should, therefore, support it. ....,. ',.-? Lord J. MANNERS wished to know whether the Ballot if adopted, was to be forced down the throats of those who 0 71 is , not like it—who, he believed, comprised the greater numb er the electors of the country ?—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") 'D e l was no excitement whatever, at present, in the country favour of the Ballot. He thought this was an insuperable es - .ir jection to the plan, and the remedy for it was just as hopper" j able. They must first poll the constituencies for or against O s. .' Ballot by open votes, and how were they . to do this? If til could not do this, what became of their frequent appeal s public opinion, of their vox populi, vox dei? Mr. SHIEL said he was fully aware that it was more than .' difficult to give novelty or freshness to a subject that bad a ll .; .. dergone such repeated discussions, particularly when it ~M 1 been treated by men of distinguished ' talent, and introduoej f , ably as it hail been by his Hon. Friend the Member for N2: 1 ; ;i field. If it were incumbent on those who took a 01 , 0 :/ in this debate to impart to it that interest which _...." .4 only to be derived from new and refined speculatc l is° he for one should nottry to dose ; but so far from this ge ,ee tl , j d . , being one that afforded them a theme for dexterous disputiv::W it appeared to him that a great and simple question ,: e ' l t. s' rather impaired than advanced by any exhibitions of sep h , ! ' 01 and acutenesss. Where great and manifest abases ent, abuses not only capable of proof, but of which the evia"se? amounted to demonstration, where powerful facts could b .. e . , 1 11 readily advanced, sustaining the proposition of his Hon. Fr:l, - .et it was far bitter to revert to arguments which might have IV produced before, more especially because he remarked tht 40 ',, was by repeated appeals to the sense of justice on the Par 4 4* 4 the people of England that the public opinion-410 Englishmen was formed, and the Ballot, if it waLl' i t'ete carried at all, was to be carried as all the other. I t changes they had witnessed had been achieved ; those ensfle: l had been accomplished by a strenuous reiteration of *`74:7 great truths and important considerations upon the p ublic 7 - 0 ! upon parties. He therefore made no sort of apology f0r...4,4, verting in the very first instance to some very striking eirc u t iii. stances which had taken place with respect to the Ballot e..,, time the Reform Bill was first introduced.—(Hear.) s!;:;', , ,i, geared to him that in the history of the Ballot—that thol4Mae cal part of the question—was a matter deserving both of ''''o, ledge and consideration. It seemed to him that it was of importance to remove the impression that some sort of condal l was made that the Reform Bill should be final and conel,Agi as against the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the 1;;; I - ie Lord the Member for London had been subjected to & Ai si* ' deal of misrepresentation by those who had affirmed th es V considered the Reform Bill as a sort of monument of 1 4 ,8. tion, where he was " to set up his everlasting rest."—(Chou t$ He had alwats understood the words of the Noble Lord 4LI-11 1 sense entirely different to that which had been a--o'_ap:O Ito them.—( Hear.) It had been proved to demons that no such engagement had been entered into by ther - lV bers of the Government of Lord Grey. They did not salp`' the franchise should be extended, but neither did they all o ali . the mode in which that franchise should be exercised, 31,1 ' . not be changed—( Hear, hear)—and he should prow ( ' tr i those proofs before the House. In 1833, Lord nurhat t eaef i a most important statement; it was this—that a Conlow,_ or ' five individuals was appointed by Lord Grey's Governmen"tlia!" the purpose of framing the plan of the Reform Bill , and th'ifor:: Committee was formed of Lord Durham, the Right J : o loi Baronet opposite ( Sir J. Graham), Lord Brougham, the i Pyi Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), o w orl: Duncannon. The statements of Lord Durham on -thalia cation attracted a great deal of notice, because it was dei r oot‘, most important fact, that five persons belonging to the,,ate; Whig party should, in 1331, have taken a view with reT o se,,, the Ballot, so different from that which was after VP . : admitted.—( Hear, hear.) The speech made by 000, Durham at Gateshead, drew some observations Osi Lord Brougham, at the dinner given at Edinburgh t, _„° - PS: Grey ; and in July 1837, the Noble Lord, the Member P' London, stated that he had the authority of his Soverfsoo, I disclose whatever had taken place with respect to thet;to-. Bill, and the question now under consideration. He 0,00, the report drawn up by that Committee recommended tuetfilt i duration of Parliament should be shortened to five yearl , „ki 0 ' same time recommending that the votes of electors sit; for 1 taken by the Ballot.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord, nt il 1 ceived, agreed with him as to this version of the sta terne " l Noble Lord then made. That it was made, was bet,,,c4 I doubt; the Noble Lord never disguised the matter; 00 ~ of s trary, he came forward and put the public in possessi°" t iOr i the facts.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, be m e° o l9 o j that when that report was laid before Lord Grey's Gor_e ll ee! i • it was not adoi ted, but it was agreed that, upon the (1 01 7; ; Ki the Ballet, no decision should be taken one way or the etbri.or, afterwards, when the Noble Lord brought forward the Reft ALF in 1831, lie said, at the conclusion of the speech Wit he introduced the measure, that on the question of ti: g o t o r o no expression of opinion was pointed out. The Ho • bar for Montrose then said he was glad to find that tl e sti l : was a reserved question, as he was willing to set. l iet 4 e Reform Bili worked before the measure of the 7110" adopted by the Government. How then could they l e ft 5 , ..; final measure when the question of the Ballot was 0 .0.? touched by it ?—(Hear, hear.) These were the tran_ea; which took place when the Reform Bill was introtlocooeS hlm follow up those transactions. When the Chandos 6 0. , J ,i; proposed, what was the course Lord Althorp adop t trio said the clause was in principle at variance with the echoed of the Reform Bill, and he added that one great obi i f sr,. entertained to it was that its adoption would ultintat e s dtr,4 strong reasons for the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) He f0t0i 33 01 1 . 5 three facts combined ' • first, that before the ReforeloSi. brought in the Committee who formed it, t ot' of the Ballot; next that when it was t ssie into the House of Commons the Noble Lora, " 1 6 1 i v it was brought in, declared that the Ballot was a reserlder,;,, tion ; and thirdly, in the progress of the Bill, the lea_ A beiti I House of Commons', the present Earl Spencer, deolaTtioaliis sidered the principle of the Bill invaded, that an alt e " - bisF;lo Leon grafted into it, by which its principle had beet v id„,. and by which a powerful argument would be afforriwtstillis Ida let should be adopted. Now let them follow theiro- re the Commons into the House of Lords; Lord Wieloolli,s, now a Member of the Cabinet, and the opinion exr : 410' Noble Lord— Lord tl tsr -f . STANLEY intimated across the table ths,,.. - 0.- . ,S. and Learned Member had adverted to those facts b! . .,'"" iSP:#I , Mr. SHIEL admitted that he had alluded to these, ils 7 4 11539 ; but he had no opportunity of showing tbet'avolo the effect of the Chandos clause. Did it follow tha t had adverted to them before, they were not again W es o • s e r attention of the public ? He was proceeding to e el,' the time Lord Wharncliffe made that speech, he w he L.f . O P ber of the Cabinet ; but now he was a member of t - "Jot a of which the leading Reformers of that period Vi e. . 0 , part.—( Hear.) He stated that the adoption of7L n . Sr clause, if the landlords exercised their power or e ep e et. o ! prepare the way for the vote by Ballot. Lord tl e ' iir aA head of the Government, complained that w. 61; ;IS of the Bill was mutilated and destr s ° j, - 0 efte, the adoption of the clause would 7 , 0 6 V A power of the gentry of the country, and woold: de pio ° 11l the most powerful argument in favour of the , te le!, ~ Ballot. When all these circumstances, then, b t r; 0/ 0 131 . , ,5 it was most unfair for any one to assert that e t'':eot. ..4 . ..:s was meant to be a sort of stoppage to th '7 i - 0 - 0, 7 1 . 5 ; Reform Bill the counties were divided into se' pe 1 ...10 ore Om' er number of the Members was increased ; '' t bs ort es It thus given to individuals of large property in 1,1,,ece,i and Earl Grey predicted that if that pv: re,. n „ re o cised the people would endeavour .tt', 1 ', 3 ~ sit no inoonito v within legitimate limits. The same s for _ s e , down by the Noble Lord the Member _ m od' olos' It the review he published of the state of the country' n ot .00 11 , ; t 0 was not a gentleman in that House who lie p0v,„,,,,, ledged that extensive intimidation had beel so ptei_ . l7, t?, vi se w as acknowledged by the Hon. Member for,_ oo o t d. P_,,, b e said if it were continued, it would be his s 0 is 0 02 0 P,... for the Ballot. He need not then dwell on tia. t ost:bois on all sides admitted. The question then wa'_'d s i lb r o f lot; t ae done? The Right Hon. B arone t at the hesroace ti o 0 : 4 - ment had again and again declared his ab b° ,arsc t tlosl s t aose dation, and had repudiated, and extorted, a_ r e i n di* a iejs_ o ps charge, that he had been guilty of it to sol' i. 11 0 ; 0 6 it posed to be independent of him in Tamwe n o eise ror eat o bis opinions, was it not incumbent on him t d ° to his g eed doptw for putting down intimidation? He ha mead int , beolLisre s given his accordance to the effectual riseas" bad ~.( I .o* - s r Noble Friend against bribery, but nothing oe t n b ery , ~ t o Dar a b r i ber /O r against intimidation. The Right Hon' &fen a )1 0 lob e that it was not the interest of his party tO tere st 030 e ss tw ee . surely he would not allow that it was the 1 1 .0 the . the wo o* eicourage intimidation ?—( Hear, hear. ) ~.idittiot'et its on the Ballot would put a stop to i " . !", t e,:•.% t,00,. chief objections made to the Ballot ditsi.oo;, on not secure secrecy, that i t esotn_ ss ot , ieerS? so er , was the. e nt ) _lige fluence of property, and that it s _ ere ra _ a m or _.4 and guilty character. These objectioen_7,ea j o. 460_1, pot' with each other, for if it was not an objection "'.eat itt eani 2.4 ' . ct. lion,ing sTeheireeocbyieietteioonultdhnaot titbvie ottunidefrteTecur,s. -- "al— ipd be I irej U