The Sun. — London, England, 1854-06-14 00:00:00

(Hear,) He knew that his hon. friend below him (Sir J. Shelley) not long since got into sad disgrace for using the word " sham." Awed by that example, ho (Lord D. Stuart) would be more cautious—(laughter) —but he yet would venture to say that he could not understand how a ny Government, earnest in the cause of reform, could say one word against the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Since the motion was last discussed in the house he had taken the opportunity of speaking to several Americans upon the isubject, and amongst others, to the late American Minister at this CoUrt e a most distinguished and able man. (Hear.) The replyeof. the American Minister to his inquiries was this, that although there might be different grades of opi ,Mionin, the United States on the subject of the ballot, yet lye believed that if it were proposed to abolish it, every eeettuericaa would refuse to be a party to such a measure. .(Hear.) He thought as all former means of staying cor ruption and intimidation had failed, it was only just to the country and to the house to give the ballot a trial. It wait <endeavoured to set people against it by crying it down as un-English. He would not pretend to say whether it Was English or not, but he certainly thought the practice was a moist " gentlemanly" one. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Whenever any set o f gen tl emen were ca ll e d upon to vote they invariably used the ballot. (Hear, hear.) Since last year a striking i ns t ance o f t hi s h a d occurre d the Christ .Church Sch oo l e l ect i on. Th ere thecan in dates were persons occupy i ng t h e most dignifi ed posi tions—the one the c hi e f mag i s t ra t e o f t h e city o f t lon e and the other a p r i nce of royal blood Of co urse not, blood. DL h governors of the charity vote openly? O the un-Engli s h, b ut nevertheless, al practice of the b a ll o t preva il e d. ( e aE,tuniversal, hear.) Ther There was a pass age i n th e a dd ress o f L or d Jo hn Russell to the electors of the city of London which showed ballot, wedtha anti hencet a the noble lord still r ema i ne d an opponen t o f the the oppositi on o f th e Government was the present occas i on . Th e noble hadlor to be looked for on not sl given bo openly.astedtha that there there was no v o t e w hich he course that must be so while t he "b allot was howevernot thelaqwuitoef the country.. He (Lord D. Stuart) wa s not without a hope that the noble lord would yet have to give a secret vote, for he trusted the day was not far distant when the House of Commons would agree with him in thinking that the ballot was the only way i n which the ,„voice of the people of this country c ou ld b e fairly and freely heard. (Cheers.) Mr. WARNER (whose o bservations were almost totally inaudible in she calls for a division) considered the ballot • p aff orded the only means of putti ng an end to the wide- Lread and disgthis country.racefal corruption whichprevailed amongst e.electors of Lord PA.LMERSTON . — Notwithstandin g the impati ence of the house (a lau g h) , especially in reference to a subject which has been so frequently discussed, I trust I w ay be permitted-to state in a few words the grounds on • which I intend to give my vote against the motion of my boa ; friend. lam not at all insensible to the advantage w h i ch w;esad accrue from a n 7 sys t em which would create iiiiak • ffacremady against intimidation and bribery, or against the exercise of undue influence over the electors- But, in the first place, my opinion is—and I must say, that, it is an opinion not lightly formed, but of long stand , ing —that the ballot, which is proposed by my hon. friend as a reinedyewould utterly fail in accomplishing that se .ecrecy upon which is founded all the results which he pro poses to effect. No man can persuade me in this country that you can devise any means by which the people of this country will keep to themselves the political opinions which they profess—that men would not tell to their frieode and. companions the political opinions by which , the . are_ animated, the preference which they have for partierdar candidates ; and that onthe day of election it - would not be known as well with the ballot as with open voting the way.in which the great majority of the electors had given their -suffrages. (Hear, h ear .) I say th ere i s m no mechanical contrivance, no legislative enactment which Parliament aan devise which would prevent the opinions and, votes of , the great majority of electors from being known under the ballot as under the present system of, open voting. We have been told a great deal about the example of other countries. Ask any citizen of the United, States whether the ballot does produce tlla _aesceticy which we are told is the essential fnunelation of all security. It is perfectly well known that it , accomplishes no such result—that the votes of men at elections in .the United States are as well known, and as ostentatiously avowed,- as in any part of the United Iringdom—that men go to the poll with the ballot-ticket in their hats, and with coloured papers indicating the par ticular candidate for whom they are going to vote. They have the same blood in their veins which flows in ours. They are too honest and too manly not to avow their opi nionsas(hear, shear)—and to support the candidate with whom they have identified themselves. Away, then, with the nceesense—eaway with the delusion which prevails in the public mind, and which is utterly inconsistent with 41 known,faets and all previous inferences—(hear, hear)—for the great bulk of theoelectors there would be no secrecy—. they would scorn it. d (Hear, hear.) It would be repug tient to their personal feelings, and at variance with their political predilections. With some, no doubt, it m i g ht b e secret-. The sh o pk eeper, the tenant,' or a few individuals - who are under the apprehension that their vote would he productive of Some injury to their own condition and for tune and hopes—these might take care in giving their votes that. there Should be no knowledge of who the person was to whom their vote was given. But what must be the condition of that man during the interval between the commencement of the canvass and the giving of the vote? Would the ballot prevent hire from being solicited by the person who has influence over him to extort from him a promise to give his vote? (Hear, hear.) It does not follow that because a vote is to be given by a twisted piece of paper, put in a hole, that a man who thinks he can com 4imand the vote will not use that screw which my hon. end has dil a t e d upon to obtain a promise from him. Tlie promise may be given or withheld ; if it is given, and a man votes according to his promise, of what use is the ballot? If he gives a promise, and breaks it afterwards, what then becomes of your argument as to the improve ment of the people? • (Hear, hear.) Yon are, in fact, de moralising the people, instead of raising them in the scale of moral and civilised men. (Hear, hear.) If he refuses, why should he refuse except be means to vote the other . way. No m an w ill persuade me that the poison who has power over an elector will not act towards him exactly as he does at present, if the elector has given a vote against the wishes of his controlling superior. The ballot in either ease would be a perfect nullity for secrecy or for protection. The first objection to the ballot is that it would not ac complish the purposes for which those who propose it put it forward for the acceptance of Parliament. I object to it because it would not succeed. In the next place, • I object to it because it might succeed —(hear, hear) and laughter.) The objection made to the Pretender was, that he was not the son of James. 'And then, when the friend to whom such an objection was made said, "How can you bo so illiberal and unreasonable as to give currency to such a report ?" the other replied, " I object because he is the son of James." (Hear, hear.) Now I object to the ballot if it were to succeed, because I think secrecy in a matter such as that of voting for members of Parliament evoilld be an entire change in the social habits of the people. I think that you cannot debar them from those manifesta tions of their political predilections and antipathies which are vital elements of the British constitution. I think to compel mankind to hold within their own bosom all political preferences and opinions would te a great national calamity. I think, if you succeed in making the ballot entirely secret, and that the result would be only known by a tuajerity of votes on the poll, you would lose a great element of political virtue. Now, sir, the re i s anotherob jection whi c h I h ave to the ballot.' I think, if it succeeded in accomplishin g the purpose for which it was proposed, the ballot would be a great evil as bearing on the political organisation of this country. I think that upon principle - as well as theory, that it is an error. The vote given at an election is, I must contend, a trust exercised by the elector for the benefit of the country at large : It is a trust not only within the limited range to which the vote extends ; hut, oven if that measure were carried, which I say is a mis nomer—if universal suffrage were carried—if everyman of a certain age - were to vote, still I should say that it is a trust. If every man, woman, and child had the right of voting, still it would be a trust which otich individual would exer cise fdr the benefit of the nation at large. I hold that, ac cording to the spirit of the British constitution, everyman who Possess political rights and performs a political duty ought to exercise that right and perform that duty openly in the face of of his fellow-men. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend quoted a passage from a work of a highly respectable individual, Mr. Grote, to show that these objections were founded upon a fallacy. With all due deference, I must say that I ne ver h ear d a passage containing more fallacies than that which, my hon. friend has quoted. I think it is a play upon words, and not an argument addressed to the reason. I say it is a trust which every elector has to perform when he votes for a representative to sit in this house. And it appears to me to bo most essential that every man wh o h as a pol i tical function to discharge and a political act to do, should discharge those func tiOns and perform that act subject to the responsibility attaching to them, But lam told that there is no re sponsibility. Well, then, who is to judge? Are the Tories to condemn the Whip, and the Whigs the Tories ? I say there is a responsibility, and which every man of sense understands --namely, to public opinion —to the good ° p ini on of his , neighbours, and of those with whom he commonly acts ' whos e op i n i ons he values, and which ex ercises a great and governing influence on the mind of every honest man, And I do not wish to deprive any person of that rudder to keep him in the right course. If secret voting could be so arranged that all the voters could vote at elections without any man knowing how th voted, I s a y th en that you would lose an inestimable ad ey vanta ge in keeping alive those feelings of political right aand nd wrong which I think are so essential to the well-being prosperity of the country. On what ground is all thiseiegned ? - You sayevery man should be protected in. the eaefaseetlas suffra ge- g I say that if a man has a po right:that he u ra gh e t . to make up his mind to suffer any inconvenience that e - might arise from its discharge. By the same reasonin that you enable a voter to give his vote in eacret, why shoguAledanot members of this house give their votes in aeeret? voting aniongia And so i t in all countries wheresecret eeectors is established. In France it is so. And in m a n e electors" where there is given to the electors what is su be the protection of secret voting, the same secrecy of i t io . t u in g is observed in the legis lative bodies themselves. settee requir es it in the one e ase, it requires it also in the r. .The members of this house are interested equally i laical privileges, and their functions have an esinganaeP: wvinif ben the general eat efyos, should not we al and interests of the country. a member vote according to the b " tious conviction, without fear of man and pre l , e e w r n e i f l elqtae out l lmo cone . pien well es the elector to lain - self, .hou.se who'haNs.ea given jest jeeeste:smueehd that mem; s erof this ambition, would not think it a great grievan ce e_ wkQ h i a . s incurred the displeasure of h* at the next election for the votes holies (Hear.) As to the argument of as the tradesman customer or his landlorc • injury resulting to the elector from acts of this sort, so far as my knowledge goes I i believe suchses aincwashetethotbreadgreemelyn profess o A be the victims of exaggerated. I believe i n many ca their votes that they are men whose fortunes have been l a mac , ed before—(laught er )—.. and that they place upon t h e ir votes that which should moreproperly be placed at the door of their own fromnimprhuie donee. In general I think that what a man l ose s opponents he gains from his friends, and that the accounts are fairly balanced between both. Al yet I think that, alas I admit there ey be cases in which abuses preva i l, taken in the aggregate, there is a great deal more clamour made about them than there is real foundation for. Be' voteM r which. F 0 S h T e E g R felt a vel last t bound a to ea ai repeat session. on t All legislation is occasion against in failure, and the house might epee bribery, from 1831 down to the present ( tim n e o , n ha i ( t l resulted in bal lot In France, during the troubled of revolu tion, times the 1 good would be accomplished unt il t hey adopted p the h ti o o r n a , m t . h e r e e b a a i l n lo oe t r t e ri i u o m t p h h ei a r nt p l r y o p re r s e a v io a n il s ed a , ga a i n n c a l t if h h r o i hon.rymaenmd itahheyill. would not hesitate to vote Sir J. FITZGERALD had witnessed so many scenes of elections, of this Ireland arising out of open voting that he forintimidation the introduc tion at oppression in felt constrained wereconst rained to support the moti on . Th ere the elec. t kidnapped, maltreated, and coerced by their landlords to vote according to their wishes, and that fact alone should be sufficient to ind uce scrupulous minds to give the elector the protection of the ballot. Why, since his election he had received letters from some of his Con stituents imploring him to intercede with their landlords to prevent their being ejected, in consequence of their having voted in his favour, while in many places in Ire land the landlords had had recourse to the aid of the mi litary to compel electors to vote against their will. Surely, then, the best remedy for these abuses was the ballot, which he hoped this session to see carried. Mr. BRIGHT, in supporting the motion, said, that bri bery and intimidation, especially the latter, had greatly in creased of late, and that the difference between boroughs and counties was, that in the former the electors had just in dependence enough to insist on selling their votes, while in the latter they had not even that amount of independence, and the landowners returned the mem bers. He declaimed vehemently against the Ministerial opponents of the ballot, and cited the names of such mem bers of the Administration as were inclined to it as evi dence in its favour. He repudiated the leadership of men who refused to the majority of that side of the house the smallest concession, and he declared that those who deemed this question of vital importance ought to apprise Lord John Russell and Lord Aberdeen that they must take up the ballot and carry it, or else understand that they were not to rely on the support of the Liberal party. Those who did not like this course were not doing their duty to their constituents. After dilating upon the abso lute necessity of the ballot, and contending that legislation would be ineffective to repress bribery or intimidation, he expressed hie conviction that if the advocates of the ballot resolved to have it, they could succeed by the means he had pointed out. Mr. WHITESIDE, in opposing the motion, said that the ballot would lead to the destruction of constitutional freedom. He urged that in Ireland, even if the ballot pro tected the voter against the landlords, it would not pro tect him against the priests. He considered that the con stituency of the country was already large, intelligent, and upright enough to exercise the desirable influence. Sir W. MOLES WORTH next rose to address the house, and was received with loud cheers. The right. honourable baronet said—My hon. friend the member for Manchester has appealed to me in courteous terms, and I cannot refrain from addressing the house on this subject. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the house supposed that I had been converted by the speech of my noble friend near me. I listened to that speech as in duty bound, but though I always admire anything that comes from my noble friend, I must say I do not think his argument against the ballot was very convincing. (Cheers and laughter.) In fact, it was nothing more than the stock argument, which we have hoard over and over again ad nauseam. (Hear.) Since the period when my friend, Mr. Grote, made his celebrated motions in favour of the ballot (one of which I had the honour of seconding eighteen years ago), that question has been repeatedly and ably discussed in this house, and I think I must have heard every argument urged that can be urged either for or against secret suffrage. The result has been to strengthen my conviction that no measure ever can, or ever will be, really effectual in checking either bribery or intimidation which does not contain a provision that the votes of electors shall be given in secret. (Hear, hear.) As I have never heard any argument of any force in refutation of the position that the ballot is the only legislative measure which could put an end to intimidation, I will confine my observations chiefly to thequestion of the efficacy of the bal lot in arresting the prog ress of bribe r y. (H ear.) This is an important que s ti on at present, for every one admits that bribery has prevailed of late to such an extent as to com promise the character of this house, and to cast some dis credit upon the representative institutions of this country. (Hear). Both Houses of Parliament have, therefore, in reply to the Speech from the Throne, declared that it is necessary to take new and more effectual precautions against corrupt practices at elections. (Hear, hear.) Now , what ought those new and more effectual precautions to be? Ought they to be analogous to the old ones, which, after so many amendments have proved unsuccessful, or ought they to be of a new and different description ? That is the question at issue between the friends and the oppo nents of secret suffrage. My conviction that no measure will ever prove effectual in checking bribery which does not contain the ballot is founded upon an examination of the reasons why the laws which have been passed against bribery have failed. (Hear, hear.) That those laws have failed both sides of this house admit, for both sides have brought in a bill to amend th ose l aws .. (H ear.) Why have they fail e d ? I attribute their failure to the fact that they are merely penal enactments, the object of which is to deter persons from giving or accepting bribes through fear of the punishment to be inflicted in the event of de tection and conviction. Now, it appears to me that a penal enactment can only fail from two causes —either from the inadequacy of the punishment threatened, or from the difficulty of detecting and convicting the offender. (Hear.) To which of these two causes is the failure of the laws against bribery to be attributed ? Not, certainly, to the inadequacy of the threatened punishments, for they are severe, consisting of pecuniary penalties varying from eeot. t01,000e., accompanied by disfranchisement or disqualifi cation. If the severity of these punishments were to be increased, the public would probably consider them to be excessive and out of proportion to the moral turpitude of the offence; then judges and juries would become snore unwilling to convict than they are at present, and the re sult woul,l be increased impunity. And, indeed, there is reason to believe that the public consider that the punish ments at present attached to giving or taking bribes are excessive, because, though hon. gentlemen are sometimes unseated by committees of this house for bribery by their agents, yet they are rarely convicted, and generally ac quitted, of any knowledge of the bribery, and I do not remember any instance of an honourable member having been convicted of bribery by a court of justice; yet I think there can be no reasonable doubt that, after every general election, there must he many hon. members in this house who are morally guilty of bribery. (Hear, hear.) I think the impunity which generally attends bribery should be attributed to the difficulty of detecting the offence and convicting the offender. That difficulty arises from the peculiar nature of the offence of bribery, which is very different from that of the great majority of offences. Generally speaking, when an offence is committed, there is some overt and patent act which manifestly inflicts sen sible wrong upon some person, as, for instance, when a man is robbed or assaulted ' • then th e i n j ure d person k nows that he is inj ure d, f ee l s that he is wronged, and is prompted -by hie knowledge and feelings to seek out the offender and to bring him to justice. Not so when the offence of bri bery is committed. In that offence there is no overt nor patent act which manifestly inflicts sensible wrong upon any person. For the offence of bribery consists simply in the transfer of money or money's worth from the briber to the bribed ; that act need only be known to the two persons concerned in it, who are not injured by it, but who have strong motives to conceal it, strong in proportion to the punishment threatened for it, and If they keep their coun sel, the person injured by the bribery can never know that he has been injured nor feel that he has been wronged. (Hear, hear.) This essential difference between bribery and the generality of offences was clearly pointed out by my noble friend the Lord President when he introduced his bill to amend the laws relating to bribery, treati ng , and undu e i n fl uence at elections. My noble friend justly remarked that it was a very difficult task for the Legisla ture effectually to arrest the progress of bribery. I believe that the Legislature will never accomplish that task by means of penal enactments alone. For we cannot by such enactments so alter the nature of the offence of bribery as to render it less difficult of detection, and if we were to endeavour to counterbalance the hope of impunity arising from difficulty of detection by threats of the severest punishment, our Draconic laws could not be enforced, and our threats would prove vain. (Hear.) Therefore, if we want to arrest the progress of bribery we must not rely only upon penal enactments to deter men from committing that offence, but must try to combine with such enact ments measures calculated to take away the motives to commit bribery, by diminishing its efficacy, and by ren dering it less difficult of detection. I think the ballot is a measure of this description. My position is, that it would diminish the efficacy of bribery, and put an end to every kind of positive bribery except that which is the least effectual and the least difficult of detection. (Hear, hear.) To sustain this position, I must observe that positive bribery may bo divided into three kinds, accord ing to the period when the payment of the bribe is made. The first kind is, when the bribe is paid before the elector votes, on his promising to vote for the bribing candidate, whom I call A. The second kind is, when the bribe is paid after the elector has voted, and in consequence of his hav ing voted for candidate A. The third kind is, when the bribe is paid after the return of candidate A, and in con sequence of his return. The first kind of bribery, namely, when the payment of the bribe is contingent only on.the promise of the corrupt elector, is rarely. a n d never wil lingly practised by skilf u l and experienced agents, even with open voting ; for when the bribe has been paid before hand, the briber has little security that the bribed will fulfil his dishonourable engagemente--(hear)—and not sell his vote for a second bribe to the opposite party ; in fact, the briber has no security except such as may arise from a feeling of false honour on the part of the bribed, or fear of being reproached for not keeping his promise. (Hear.) It is evident that the strength of these feelings would be very mach diminished, and in many cases entirely destroyed, by secret suffrage. With the ballot corrupt electors would, when they could, take bribes from both sides, and then vote ho nes tl y accor di ng to their convictions. For corrupt electors have frequently strong political opinioes, for which they are willing to make considerable pecuniary sacrifices; and it is a well-known fact that corrupt electors will often times vote for a'popular candidate for a leas bribe than for an anti-popular one. (Hear.) I think, therefore, that with secret voting the first kind of bribery, namely, paying be fore the vote is given, will be rarely if ever practised, and When practised that the result will frequently be honest voting. (H ear .) Th e second kind of bribery which I h a v e m o n e a t e t e i a f a act i s 1 e e w i n h g e n a ascertained t i p ayment a oft thet the o b o r;i r b n e p its electorc ti n h e e n a a t vof oted for the bribing candidate. This is the ordinary mode. which the leastowznoney bri beeY, the most business-like and economical one, in goes furthest, for money is only paid (Hear.) The deft n ni t i hat votes have been actually given. when it is known it must necessaril ce ase 'Yith open voting. The third and which I would call attention is when the payment of the brie iiitcentingent upon the return of ghtebaendpirdaactteiSed w iitsh secret that this kind of t h h ri e hor3, bribin g rni well as with open voting, but with this most imporetearne ifference, that with oiron voting., in the event of the bribin erdidate being returned, only those electors would be g who had ful whether , but with filled their promise of voting for candipLit the ballot the electors would have to be °paid, they had performed their promises or not. It would seem en first thoughts that this kind of bribery would be the most advantageous for a bribing candidate., for he would only have to pay when the object of his wishes was accomplished, and his return obtained. But with open voting it is rarely, if ever, practised; and the reason is ob reflection. It holds out far less temptation to the tor than the ordinary mode of bribery. F or i n mode the corrupt elector is paid for having the ordinary A and as the payment is contingent c v o io r r ll6 ;p o t n- elec tor voted for candid a te en of the elector; the perm wins it. OD the other hand, ><a the is certain if the elector upo4 an act within the power not to detainihn house any longer—l have stated the out lino of my o bjecti ons t o the ballot. My objections to the ballet are these —that it would not prove effective to pro duce .ecrecy— th a t it wou ld no t p ro t ec t th e vo t er f rom the , e9ns qllu , 'neas of his p o l i ti ca l b ias; and even if it did pro ace 2eC TeCY, I think that it would thereby inflict a great injury ufton the British constitution. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. WALMSLET regretted that the inatanoes of in ' timidation'ilnot e d by his hon. friend who made this mo tion had badno effect upon the noble lord. It might be very well for the n o bl e l ord and those who were in an indepen dent position to contend in favour of open voting, but that systeni had proved most oppressive to the or man. It was universally f e lt th at the ballot should accompany an extension of the franchise, and that any extension of th© franchise without the ballot would be mare mockery. No reggo,:bill, therefore, wolli b 3 13tiafaTbry without .a. :~ . third mode of bribery, the payment is contingent on the return of candidate A. The payment is therefore uncertain and depends upon an uncertain event, over which the indi vidual elector can have no control, except in Lhe rare case of his vote being the casting vote of the election. Conse quently, corrupt electors must prefer the first to the third mode of bribery; and it is evident, likewise, that a much smaller sum of money, to be expended in the payment of votes as soon as they are given, would be far more effica cious in determining the votes of electors than the promise of a mach larger sum of money to be paid only in the un certain event of A being returned. Therefore the third kind of bribery would be much mere expensive than the first, could only be practised by larger capitalists, and, conse quently, by fewer persons. It is supposed, however, that bribery of the third kind would be much practised in the secret voting. Ido not believe that it would be. But if it were, my position is that with se cre t vo ti ng it wou ld b e much less efficacious and much less difficult of detection than the ordinary mode of bribery with open voting ; and therefore that the ballot, by putting an end to every other kind of bribery, would do much towards arresting the pro gress of corruption. To prove this position I must institute a comparison between the two kinds of bribery to which I have just referred—viz., between the ordinary mode of bribery with open voting, in which the bribe is paid to the elector who has promised to vote for candidate A as soon as he has fulfilled his promise, and the supposed mode of bribery under the ballot, in which the bribe would only be paid to the elector who had promised to vote for candidate A when A was returned. In the ordinary mode of bribery d r i i r t e h e t o . p e v e t t i e n g f ,0 forth h A o corrupt say B t b bargains and r i to e l t e h n e r c s o i r m r l ) e e e a l encd shan't have a farthing- from us." But in the supposed mode of bribery under the ballot, the corrupt bargain w h e ' e t i h d ebe e" you v I o f t Abe e for oreturned against you bim ;s if and have ea returned u n r o n t e e d , you shan't have a farthing whichever way you may vote." Therefore, with open voting, the temptation to the elector to vote for A is the certainty of obtaining a 51. note ; with secret voting, the temptation to the elector to vote for A would depend upon the elector's opinion of the effect of his vote on the probability of A being returned. If the elector thought that the return of A would depend upon the elector's own individual vote, then the temptation to vote for A would be nearly the same as with open voting, and equal to the certainty of receiving a 5/. note. Rut if ' the elector thought that the success or failure of A was in dependent of the elector's own individual vote. then he would have little or no motive to vote against his convic tions for A, because by the hypothesis its the elector's opi nion the return of candidate A, and consequently the pe cuniary result to the elector, would be the same whichever way he voted. Now, as it rarely happens, even with open voting, that en elector thinks that the result of a contest will depend upon his casting vote, I think that with secret suffrage an elector acting singly and alone would be little influenced in his vote by the promise of a bribe to be paid in the uncertain event of the bribing candidate being re turned. It is said, however, that with secret suffrage cor rupt electors would not act singly and alone but in combi nation, and that collective bribery would be substituted for individual bribery. For instance, it is said that a body of electors, sufficient in number to decide a contest, would combine together to be bribed ; that a bargaiu would be made with theirs to the effect that each of them should re ceive a certain bribe—say 5/.—in the event of candidate A being returned; that each of them would perceive that if they acted together and voted together candidate A would be returned, and they would be paid, Thence it is inferred that they would act together and vote together, and that their temptation to do so would be nearly equal to the cer tainty of obtaining a 51. note a piece, or nearly equal to what it is in the ordinary mode of bribery with open vot ing. I will, for the sake of argument, assume the validity of these positions ; but I maintain. that such collective bribery would be very liable to detection, and much less less likely to escape detection than the ordinary mode of individual bribery with open voting. For how is bribery generally practised with open voting ? The briber says to the elector, " Vote for A and you shall receive five pounds." Then when the day of election comes, the corrupt elector goes to the poll, votes for candidate A, receives a ticket, takes it to a stranger in a dark room in an out of the way street, and receives a five-pound note; there the transac tion ends. It needs only be known to the three persons concerned in it, namely, the briber, the bribed, and the stranger; and if they keep their own counsel detection is almost impossible. But with collective bribery and se cret voting, the promise of the bribe must be made, not to individual elect ors separately, for I have shown that an elector acting singly and alone would be little in fluenced by the promise of a bribe to be paid in the un certain event of a bribing candidate being returned, but the promise must be made to the body of electors who are assumed to be leagued together for bribery And combined action. Each of them would therefore be aware that many electors besides himself were to be paid in the event of candidata A being returned. Now, it is evid en t t h at to procure any effect by thi s mo d e of collective bribery with the ballot, the promise of a bribe must be made to a con siderable body of electors--considerabl e , I mean, in pro portion to the numbers of a constituency. For with the ballot it would be no use to promise a dozen or so of elec tors that they should be paid id the event of condidate A being returned. At present, with open voting, even in a considerable constituency, an election may be gained in a close contest by the judicious purchase of a small number of votes. But with the ballot nothing of the kind could be done. With the ballot the only effective bribery must be wholesale and collective. A moment's reflection must con vince any hon. gentleman that if with the ballot he wish effectually to bribe a constituency, he must promise to pay in the event of his return as many electors as, in addition to those upon whose unbought promises he could confi dently rely, would constitute a majority of his constitu ency. For instance, suppose the constituency to be bribed contained a thousand electors —suppose an hon. gentleman could confidently r e ly upon t h e unbought promises of 300 —thirty per cent. (a large proportion in a corrupt consti tuency with the ballot)—then to secure his return the hon. gentleman would have to promise to pay in the event of his return a body of at least 201 electors; in the same manner, in a constituency 10,000 electors, the hon. mem ber would have to promise to pay, in the event of his return, a holy of at least 2,030 electors. Now a promise ma le to so many electors, and known by each of them to be made to so many, could not be kept secret from the rest of the bribable class of the constituency; and then not only those who had voted for A, but those who had voted for his antagonist, would demand payment in the event of A. being returned. Then in what a horrible dilemma an hon. member would be placed who had obtained his return in this manner. (Hear, and laughter.) I ask any hon. gentleman who is conversant with this subject —(hear)—to put himself in the position of such au hou. member; to fancy that he bad secured his return by a promise to pay a large body of electors; that, having fulfilled his promise, he received applications for p iytnent from a large number of other electors. What would you do ? What would you say? You could not refuse payment teeny elector on the ground that be had not voted for you, because with secret suffdege you could not tell how he had voted. (Hear.) If you were to refuse on the ground that he was not one of the body of electors whom you had promised to pay in the event of your being returned, be would probably tell you that it was strange that you had not promised him ; that he was as ready to be bribed as any one • that he h a d vo t e d ' for you • and as y ou were returned,-th'at he had as goo d a right to be paid as his neighbours. If you still persevered in your refusal, you would make an enemy who knew your secret, who had perhaps voted for you, who would be re venged upon you, and who would do his best to have you detected and convicted On the other hand, if you paid him out of fear, you would have to pay every one of the bribable class of electors in the constituency; therefore, in some constituencies, you would have to pay all who had voted for you and all who had voted against you—(hear)— you would be ruined in consequence of the numbers whom you would have to pay, and in proportion to the numbers whom you did pay would be the chance of your detection. Therefore in all cases the chance of detection would be much greater than at present—in many cases it would amount to a certainty. Then you would be convicted, se verely punished, disqualified from sitting in Parliament ; your constituency ought to be disfranchised, a new and pure one substituted, and its purity would be preserved by the ballot. For one of the most beneficial consequences which I should expect from the ballot would be the preser vation of the purity of constituencies that with open voting are in perpetual danger of being corrupted. I firmly be lieve that if the ballot had formed part of the Reform Bill —if it had then been adopted by Lord Grey's Government —many constituencies which have since been a disgrace to our representative system would have remained pure. For I have shown that the ballot would have put an end to every kind of bribery except wholesale and collective bri bery. Now, wholesale and collective bribery cannot be introduced at once into a pure constituency. The adage, "Nemo repente fit turpissimus"- is as true of conetituen cies as of individuals. The history of corrupt constituen cies shows that bribery has been gradually introduced into them. I think such gradual introduction of bribery would be impossible with secret suffrage. I will my reasons for this opi n i on. I f the history of thosestate constituencies which have been corrupted since the passing of the Reform Bill be examined, the origin of the corruption may be traced either to a closely-contested election or to the bri bery of unsuccessful candidates. In the case of a closely contested election the contest was generally decided to wards the close of the poll by the votes of a few electors who were bribed. In such a case parties were nearly equal and animated by strong party feelings. When the day of election came the race between candidate A. and candidate B- was neck and neck—alternately the one, alternately the other leading. T owar d s the end of the lay nearly one half of the electors had voted from party feelings foe A, and the other half from similar feelings for B. The constituency was nearly polled out, only a dozen or so electors remained unpolled—a number sufficient, however, to decide the election ; they were the scum of the consti tuency; open voting made them the arbiters of the con test, and empowered them to determine who should be the representative of the constituency; they were indifferent to the merits of A or B; they might, perhaps, have been influenced by threats, but they were most easily acted upon by hopes of immediate gain. In the excitement of the contest such hopes were held out to them by some friend, or agent, or partisan of A. A was returned, and bribery was introduced! into the constituency. Bribery once introduced, A's party could never be confident of suc cess without brioing those whom they had bribed before, and B's party could never hope to defeat A. without 'also having recourse to corruption. A corrupt struggle then commenced ; each party strove to corrupt the electors of the opposite party, and with each successive contest the number of bribed electors increased. Both parties, being equally guilty of corruption, equally abstained from at tempting to punish each other. Now it is evident that in the first instance the motive which induced A's party to bribe was founded upon an exact knowledge of the state of the poll, and that the few votes of the unpolled electors would decide the contest. With the ballot such knowledge would not have been possessed, the motive to bribe would not have existed, bribery would not then have been intro duced, and protected by the ballot the constituency might have remained pure. With regard to the corruption of constituencies by the bribery of unsuccessful candidates. In this manner many constituencies have been gradually corrupted since the passing of the Reform Bill. At first these constituencies were very pure ; they prided them selves upon returning their members free of expense. This conduct, however, was distasteful to some persons, who had knowledge or experience of the profits of a contested election. They determined to get up a contest; then one of their number —generally a low attorney —went to Lon don to search for a candidate; he haunted the purlieus of the clubs till he found some person with more money than principle, frequently some rich parvenu who aspired to the position of a member of Parliament. This person—whom I will call the bribing candidate—was informed that there was an opening in such and such a borough for a candidate of opposite opinions to the sitting member; he was invited to hold those opinions and to stand, and he was told that th he r m on i g g ii ht be returned for a few hundreds. The invitation was accepted; a contest ensued on the first opportunity; durin g the contest large sums of money found their "w.ay from the pockets of the bribing candidate, was :" defeat ulaterious channels, into the pockets of some of the electors who had manifested their approba tion o r hi, political opinions. In the first contest he defeated for the great majority of the elec. tors were pure ; and being defeated, his corrupt practices, though known, were not punished. Thus the seeds of cor ruption were sown in the pure constituency ; they ger minated r .pidly, and produced fruit. Those who heti once tasted the fruit of corruption longed to taste it again; they communicated their longing to their neighbours. In a second contest the number of electors willing to be bribed increased, and the bribing candidate was defeated by a smaller majority. So it went on • in each successive con test more electors were bribed, and the bribing candidate was defeated by narrower and narrower majorities ; finally he obtained a majority, or the opposite party commenced bribing in self-defence; in either case the constituency be came thoroughly corrupt. It is evident that this process of seduction and corruption could not have gone on with secret suffrage ; for I have shown that the ballot would put an end to every kind of bribery except that on which the payment of the bribe would be contingent on the suc cess of the bribing candidate, and consequently it would put an end to all bribery by unsuccessful candidates. I have shown that the ballot would put an end to every kind pf bribery except that in which the payment of the bribe would be contingent upon the return of the bribing candi date; that such bribery, to be effective, must be wholesale and collective ; that wholesale and collective bribery would be very liable to detection, and far less difficult of detection than the ordinary mode of bribery with open voting. Thence I infer that by the aid of the ballot the penal enact ments against bribery which, in consequence of the diffi culty of detecting bribery, have hitherto proveclineffica thous, would become effective in arresting the progress of bribery—a progress which all friends of constitutional liberty must deplore, as it casts discredit upon this house, anti saps the fours lations of our representative institutions. As I have confined my observations chiefly to the question othpaintiionnssefcrroemt ele s c o tors would vote contrary of the efficacy of the ballot in arresting the progress of bri bery, I will only notice one objection to the balot. It is bcorrupty the publicw h who opinionw o ul d against bribery, and thus that the influence of public t s b o:t n d h e : t i li n k e . :ll d O s' f l ' V r i lll i m openly doing opinion against bribery would be weakened. It would b e eas y to show that there is no validity in this objec tion to the ballot. But, omitting other answers to it, I will content myself with expressing a strong doubt whether the public opinion that influences the actions of the bribable class of electors is hostile to bribery, ' or ever will be hostile to bribery, as long as intimida tion is practised by the upper class of electors. The public opinion that determines the actions of particular men is not the opinion of the whole community, nor of the majority of the community, nor of the respectable, nor of the intelligent portion of the community but of the class or section to whom the men belong Now, the class to whom the takers of money -bribes belong, especially in cor rupt constituencies do not l oo k u p on th e t a ki ng of a bribe as a blameabl e or discreditable act. If you converse on this subject with an intelligent man of this class, he will justify his co. duct by specious arguments difficult to refute. .1-Iteai‘oviullocritien trhaleikexamiipelewoiflt betters—ofayhsistoyou,,,w his superiors upei shouldiors iu colv w ufno h rtte o eti:at a ekfl m a oiielri cgtuh p e o o man r , refuse to ma k e a f ew poun d s by nay benefit uibou of myself, my w if e, an d my children ? who s it ury o customers, votesco conduct uct againstor more ht c ia o ct r o r u on fs p c corrupt thanconscience et e that tnoa uset to, shopkeeper,br landlord, sho vsees iannhdisvcitete procuring an means aba t o e f m c o u n rr t y o i f ng h f i a s v r o e u n r t ? with lt h i i s s ' true that I desire to be rewarded fur my pot tical conduct ; but so do many others, my superiors in station, wealth, and education ; but so does the squire, who influences half a dozen electors; so does the l arge l an d owner, whose fifty pounder s are counted by the score • so does the m ill owner, who can put t h e screw on a hundred ten pounders ; so does the great territorial magnate, who intimidates a whole county, If I desire money in return for my vote, they expect money's worth in return for their influence. The squireen asks for his dependents petty places in the Customs or Excise • the large land owner wants for his younger sons a clerkship in the Treasury or an attache ship to an embassy; the rich millowner aspires to gain a social position to be called Sir John This or Sir Thomas That; the great territorial magnate desires a peerage, or a step in the peerage—the lord-lieutenancy of his county, a ribbon, or a garter ; anti if the expectation of any of these worthies is disappointed, marvellous is the change that sometimes comes over his political convictions at the next general election." (Cheers.) It is very difficult to persuade the bribable class of electors of the fallacy of these argu ments ; in their eyes, intimidation is a graver offence than bribery ; for, say they, the magnitude of an offence is in proportion to the evil that it does to society, and the pain that it inflicts upon individuals. The evil to society from an elector voting against his convictions is the same, whether he does so for the sake of gaining a 51. note or from the fear of losing one—whether he is seduced by a bribe or intimidated by a threat; but to the individual elector the difference between seduction and intimidation is very great—all the difference between pleasure and pain. An elector seduced by a bribe feels that he is a free man, for he does what he likes; an elector who is intimidated by a threat feels he is a slave, for he acts undercompulsion. There fore, I repeat, in the eyes of certain classes, intimidation is a far graver offence than bribery. They ask, " Why should one class be permitted,to reap the ruits of intimidation, and another class be forbidden to enjoy the sweets of bribery ? When you attempt to put a stop to the one, you ought simultaneously to endeavour to put and end to the other." For these reasons I am convinced that you can never pro duce a general feeling hostile to bribery until you have put an end to intimidation by the upper class s. I will not tres pass on the house by attempting to show that it would be absurd and ridiculous to try to pat down intimidation by means of penal enactments. Yo cannot so define intimi dation as to constitute ita punishable offence. Intimidation of the most potent kind may be conveyed by a nod, a wink, a gesture, a seemingly casual expression of opinion, nay, even by an invitation to a breakfast or a dinner. I have heard of a numerous tenantry intimidated by an invitation to a breakfast. The breakfast was on the ollinda. Those who partook o f it, as a matter of cou rse , accompanied their landlord to the poll, and what tenant dared to refuse the invitation ? It is said that intimidation has decreased of late years. I find, however, much difference of opinion on this subject, one opinion being hell by the intimidating, the opposite by the intimidated classes. If you talk to one of the intimidating classes, to a landlord or to a millowner, he will tell you that ho never intimidates his tenants, his workmen, or his artisans, and that the ballot is not wanted. But if you talk to one of the intimidated classes, you will hear a different story. The shopkeeper, the tenant-farmer, the workman, and, the artisan will tell you, " We know too well the opinions of our customers, of oar landlords, of our employers, to dare to vote against them, though they have not positively threatened to punish us if we were to do so. Yet we arc afraid to vote according to our consciences, in opposition to their wishes, without the protection of the ballot." From these conflicting opinions I arrive at the conclusion that the grosser and more outrageous forms of intimidation have become less common, and in fact they are condemned by public opinion, but thatthe milder and more decent, and not less effective forms ,tre practised to a great extent ; email I doubt very much whether the real influence of intimidation on the vote of electors has much divai nished. It is notorious that if in an agriculturul district you know the opinions of the chief landowners if in ama nufacturing district you know, the opinions of the chief millowners, you can tell very nearly what Candidate a ill have the majority of votes in the district. I was much struck at the last general election by an instance of this de scription with regard to the county which I inhabit—l mean East Cornwall. I was told just before the election that the Free-trade candidate had a bad chance, that all the farmers were Protectioni s t s , and th a t my t enants would vote against me to a man. I replied that I ha i no doubt they were Protectionists, but how did their landlords intend to vote? and I asked the intentions of So - and-Su, mentioning half a dozen of the chief landed proprietors of the division. I was toad they were with us. Then said I, "Never mind the opinions of the farmers; we shall have a large majo rity," and so we had. (Rear.) But what amused me most was to find that my tenantry, with one or two exceptions, plumped for the free trade candidate. (Hoar, and cheers.) Now I did not use any intimidation. My tenants were only aware of the fact, which every one knew, that I had always been a most determined free trailer, and was a most zealous supporter of the free trade candidate. The result of that election showed that without the ballot the hon. gentle man opposite (Mr. Kendall) would not have the slightest chance of being returned again fur East Cornwall, if he be opposed. (Hear, and laughter) It appears to me that there are only three conceivable modes of preventing inti midation. Take, for instance, the case of a customer and a shopkeeper. To prevent a customer from intimidating a shopkeeper you must either conceal from the shopkeeper the opinions of his customer, or you must forbid the cus tomer from ceasing to deal with the shopkeeper in conse quence of his voting against the opinions of the customer; or you must conceal from the customer the vote of the shopkeeper. You cannot conceal from the shopkeeper the opinions of his customer, unless you prohibit th e customer from ever expressing his opinions —an inconceivable prohi bition. Secondly, you could not prevent a customer from ceasing to deal with a shopkeeper in consequence of his voting against his customer's opinions, unless you were to pass an enactment forbidding any customer from ever ceas ing t o deal opinions—anwithanyshopk eeper who had ever voted against impossiblehi en ac t men t . T here- customer's There fore, re, uttlreaslhtoeprnkaetepiveer, anti ofcon t c h e a a t lingfror alterna tive is the ballot. Similary in the cases of a millowner vote onlyof t and his workmen, of a landlord and hi s t enan t . I f you thef c s h t e o r m e e remains the wish to prevent a landlord from intimidating his tenant, you must either conceal from the tenant the opinions of his landlord, which would be impossible, or you must pre vent a landlord from ejecting any tenant who had ever voted against his landlord, in which case the tenant who had voted against his landlord would have a perpetual holding; or you must conceal the vote of the tenant from the landlord by means of the ballot. Therefore, it appears to me that any serious attempt to put down intimidation by means of penal enactments would give birth to laws of such intolerable vexation and severity, that all the intimi dating classe s wou ld cry a l ou d f o r th e p ro t ec ti on o f t h e bal lot. Bat even if by means of penal enactments an end c ou ld be put t o i n ti m i dation by the upper c l asses, suc h enactments would not put down intimidation by the lower classes. To protect the elector from the violence and the intimidationof the m o b y ou must concea l his vote from th e mo b . It is s a id th a t there is one k i n d o f i n ti m id at i on which the ballot could not put an end to ; that, for instance, a landlord who suspected that with secret suffrage his tenants would vote against his wishes would prevent them from going to the poll; that this kind of intimidation would be much practised in Ireland, where, in consequence of the wide dif ference between parties, it is more easy to foresee how elec tors would vote than in this country; that, for instance, Protestant landlords would sometimes compel all their Roman Catholic tenants to abstain from voting. Ido not deny that acts of gross anti outrageous intimidation of this description might be practised under the ballot. ; but, in consequence of their very grossness, they would be rare. They would only be practised by the most unscrupulous intimidators ; and, as I have already observed, public opi nion cond emns the grosser forms of int i m i dation. 'I should likewise o b serve that a landlord w h o w i t h secret suffrage would prevent his tenants from voting would, .with open voting, compel them to vote against their convictions. Now, it is a greater evil to the community, and is greater pain to an elector, to be compelled to vote against his con victions, than to be compelled to abstain from voting alto to this kind o f i nt i midation, i t wou ld su b s ti tute a lesser gether. Th ere f ore, even if t h e b a ll o t were no t t o put a stop evil for a greater one, and that would be a gain to the community. Moreover, for a landlord to forbid his te nantry to vote, would, as I have already said, be an act of gross intimidation of so outrageous a character, that if any act of intimidation could or ought to be punished that act could and ought. But I should doubt the expediency of making it a punishable offence. I should leave it to be put down by the force of public opinion, which, under the ballot, would become very strong against acts of gross and flagrant intimidation. For the ballot, by putting an end to all the ordinary and mild modes of intimidation, would much dimini s h th e number o f persons w h o cou ld or would intimidate. But on l y a f ew persons wou ld possess th e means of intimidating and be unscrupulous itnough to use them— and only those few would approve of the employment of such means in the outrageous manner in question —and the conduct of those who did employ such means would meet with the condemnation of all the rest of the community, both of the intimidated classes and of those who, in consequence of the ballot, bad ceased to belong to the . yitimidating. classes, and who would, therefore, be loudest in the con demnation of the exercise of a power of which they had been deprived. It appears to me, therefore, that the bal lot by diminishing the number of persons who could bribe or intimidate, would tend to create a strong public opinion both against bribery and intimidation. For the position of Hudibras, that men " Compound for sins they are inclined to By damning those they have no mind to," is equally true of sins which men have no power to com mit. I have now stated my reasons for thinking that the ballot will put an end to every kind of bribery except gross, outrageous, and wholesale bribery, which might easily be detected and punished ; and also that it would put an end to every kind of intimidation except gross, outrageous, and wholesale intimidation which public opinion would severely condemn. I will refer briefly to one of the arguments of my noble friend the Home Secretary. (Ironical cheers.) He said the elective franchise is a trust (it is a very com mon objection to the ballot), that the elective franchise is a trust confided to an elector for the public benefit—the trust being to choose a representative. It is said that the elector is responsible for the exercise of his tr - st, and therefore that he ought to vote openly, in order that the public may judge of and pronounce a judgment upon his choice of a representative. Why so ? To affirm that an elector ought to vote openly, iu order that the public) may pronounce a judgment upon a choice of a representative means, if it means anything, that the elector ought to be influenced in his choice of a representative by the opinion of the public. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) But for what reason ought an elector to be so influenced? The only reason that can be assigned must be that the public are better judges of who ought to be chosen than the elec tor is. But if the public are better judges of, they are fftter to choose, a representative ; and if they are fit to choose, they ought to choose, and therefore they ought to have votes. (Loud cheers.) But who are the public whom you consider fit to choose a representative ? The whole community, or a portion of the COM munity ? If the whole community are fit to choose a representative, then they ought to have votes, and the suffrage should be uni versal, for to vote for a candidate is so simple an act that there is no reason why it should be done by a delegate or representative. If, on the other hand, you consider that only a portion of the community are fit to choose a repre sentative, then you affirm that the other portion are unfit to choose. It is evident that only those who are tit to choose ought to have the franchise, and they ought to be able to choose freely ; therefore they ought to be protected in their choice of a representative from the influence of those who are unfit to choose, and the only means by which they can be so protected is the ballot. (Cheers.) There fore the arguments upon which the doctrin- of the respon sibility of the elector is based may lead to an extension of the suffrage or to universal suffrage, but they are not in consistent with secret suffrage; ou the contrary, they show the use of the ballot in protecting those wh3 are unfit to choose one. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) My noble friend used another argument which I have often heard pro duced before, which I shall hardly trespass on your time by noticing. (Ironical Opposition cheers.) He says, if the elector has the ballot you ought to vote by ballot in this house. Icaunot discover'any analogy whatever between the two cases. (Cheers.) An elector selects as hisrepresenta tive the man whom, on account of his political opinions, he considers most fit to sit in this house. Therefore he has a right to know whether by his votes his represen tative justifies that opinion, and if the representative changes his opinions on any important question, it is his duty to resign his seat. (Hear.) The elector has a right to know whether his representative has fulfilled his pro mises. rod.whether he is acting on the principles on which he was returned ; but the elector has promised nobody, it being his duty to choose, without fear of punishment or hope of reward, a reprosentittive of his opinions in this house. (Cheers.) The last argument of my noble friend to which I shall refer is one which has been often used. The ballot has often been denounced as a democratic measure. Now the term." democracy" has two significations—one good, and the other bad. In the good sense of the word democracy simply means popular government; and in this sense of the word I admit that the ballot will be a most democratic measure, for I believe that it would con duce more to good popular government than any other insti tutional change—then any reform bill that can be devised. (Cheers) On the other hand, democracy in its bad sense means the government of an ignorant and violent mob. But in this case I maintain that the ballot would be a meat anti-democratic measure because it would protect the elector in the exercise of his franchise from ever; kind of intimidation, and especially from the intimidation of the ignorant and violent mob. (Cheers.) In fact, if the term conservative be used as the opposite of democratic in its bad sense, the ballot would be a most conservative mea sure, for it would enable an elector to preserve his prin ciples whilst giving his vote. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) In conclusion, I must say that my firm conviction, founded upon the fact that your penal enactments against bribery, though repeatedly amended, have always failed, is that y ou you willa y u p e a v t e c r h a a r n r d e s t th mendo progressthose ofoenactmentscorruption t pt o i o a u l lo put eternity,au end to intimidation till you try the experiment of the bal lot; and if, contrary to my expectations and convictions, that experiment should fail, you will not be worse off than at present, but you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you had done your best to cure great and crying evils, which, be assured, cast deep discredit on this honse, and tend to sap the foundation of your representa tive system. The right hon. baronet resumed his seat amidst loud and prolonged applause. Mr. I. BUTT condemned the ballot, as inadequate to the repression of bribery or intimidation, as un-English, and as deteriorating to the national character. Mr. PHINN, amid continual interruption, took the con trary view from that of the last speaker, and declared that the ballot must eventually be carried. slr. KENDALL, in answer to some remarks of Sir W. Molesworth, instanced his own election success on Protec tionist principles, and in opposition to free-trade landlords, as evidence of the uselessness of the ballot. Mr. BERKELEY made a few observations in reply, but said that an answer from him was almost unnecessary, the subject having become a Cabinet question. Mr. .M.A.GUIRE, as a Roman Catholic, urged that the ballot, by protecting the humble Irish voter, would pre vent the interference of the priests, by rendering their as sistance unnecessary. The house divided, after about five hours and a-half of debate, and the numbers were— For Mr. Berkeley's motion Againit it 194 Mijimity against 37 IRISH CHURCH 'TEMPORALITIES. Mr. Sergeant, SHEE moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church is Ireland, and to increase the weans of reli gious instruction and church accommodation fur her Ma jesty's Irish subjects. He declared himself bound over in recoguisances not to do anything detrimental to the Pro testant Church, and said that he cheerfully accepted that restriction. He entered at excessive length into a discus sloe of the question, his speech being interrupted by an unsuccessful attempt at a count out. He proposed, by various reductions of episcopal and other revennes, by grouping benefices, and other economical arrangements. to obtain an income with which be desired to improve the condition of the Presbyterian and Ronan Catholic clergy, and he urged that he did not intend to injure the Estab lished Church, but to allay the differences and heart burnings which its existence in its present form occasioned. Mr. P. UR.QUHART seconded the motion. Mr. BROTHERION moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. NAPIER begged that before the debate was re sunstd members would read the answer made by the Arch deacon of Meath to all Sergeant She's statements. He considered the proposition unconstitutional, and contrary to the oath taken by the learned sergeant. the Sir debate he should meet the proposal with a decided negative. Mr. NEVirDEGATE charged Sergeant Shee with tak ing a course incompatible with the oath he had taken. The late hour alone prevented a complete answer to his speech. Mr. J. FITZGERALD protested against Mr. Newde gate's interpretation of the Roman Catholic oath, and also charged the " whips" with having tried to empty the house. Mr. LUCAS said that his complaint was, that Sergeant Shee's proposal did not deal in a sufficiently sweeping manner with the Irish Church, which had been endured too long. He refused to accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic oath. Sergeant SHEE denied that the book to which Mr. Napier had referred contradicted his statements. He warmly protested against being charged with perjury, and requested Mr. Napier to be civil. Mr. WHITESIDE begged to say that when the learned sergeant brought forward a motion he must expect to hear it criticised, and argument met by argument. (Hear.) With regard to the book which had been referred to by his right hon. friend being a refutation of what had fallen from the learned sergeant, he could only say that no man who had written a book was willing to allow that the facts contained in it had been refuted. The debate was adjourned to Monday next. On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the house then ad. journed at 25 minutes past 12 o'clock. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. NOTICES. RUSSIAN FLEET IN THE EASTERN SEAS. (Extract of a letter dated Calcutta, April 28, 1854.) " We beg to bring to the notice of the committee for managing the affairs of Lloyd's, the unprotected state of the eastern trade. The British vessels of war in these seas are few, and of small size. By tht last steamer from Singapore we have intelligence of a Russian squadron of considerable force being in the neighbourhood of that port, awaiting, it is supposed, intelligence from Europe of a de claration of war. gt.TAttEs COWELL and Co., "Agents for Lloyd's, and the Liverpool " Captain G. A. H a l ste Associati .N o n of UnderwritA rs . d, R., Secretary Lloyd's." The Essex Rifles—George Stuart, Esq.,.late Captain in the 75th Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice Lister, pro moted, June 9. East Keut Regiment of Militia—Wyndham Knight, Esq., late of the Rifle Brigade, to be Captain, vice Warre, resigned, June 7; William Henry Kebbel, Gent., late 66th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Mount, retired on half pay, June 6 ; Frederick Dickeson Bourne, Gent., late %ith Foot. to be Lieutenant, June 7 ; Thomas Mapleson Fitz patrick, Gent., late 30th Foot, to b e Li eu t enan t , J une 8 ; Robert Annesfey, Gent., to be Ensign, June 7. • the ballot. He would give his cordial support to the mo tion. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 14, 1854 sailed in company with Lady Peel and Oullinear for Callao, 1 and Virinchester for Calcutta. Sailed, March 3, Stebonheath, I for London; March 5 Birmingham. London June 5, LIVERPOOL, JUNE 13. dno of exchanged signal.; with brig !Ala, Port Philip, London, ba lat. 49.30, long. 25.10, left in February; June 5, rre At this day's market there was a small atten A tro y buyers, and the business done quite in retail. Vali for Stirlingshire, Launceston, London, 115 days out ; ship n -- i be quoted ld to 2d per 701 b. and and flour 6d per bars 4 . ,,,A vestigator, Colombo. since this day week. Oats * and oatmeal barely supP°,T4 their value. B ar l ey, beans, and peas were saleabkor_7o to 2d per , 01b., an d is per qr. under last currency, .7 . for corn iu very li m it e d demand at 40s to 408 6d pe t 'l prime yellow, an d 39 s to 39s 6d per qr. for best ww.. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. Tho Asia, from Liverpool for New York, June 1, in let. 41 N., long . 70_W. A Black Ball liner, June 2, in lat. 42 N., long. 65 W. The Ni. , gara, from Liverpool for Boston, June 4, in lat. 45 N., long. 53 W. The Arabia, from Liverpool for New York, June 7, in let. 53 N. long. 36 W. The Richard Cobden, from New York for London, May 17, in lat. 42 N., long. 58 W. The Lancaster , of Brunswick, f rom C a l cu tt a f or L on d on, May 1 1, in let. 41 N., long. 30 W. The American Congress, from New York for London, May 25, in let. 38 N., long. 68 W. The Evangeline, from New Orleans f or Li verpoo l , May 26, in let. 39 N., long. 71 W. The Annie Armstrong. from Liverpool for Sydney, Feb. 22, in let. 44 S., long. 84 E. The Jeremiah Garnett, from Hamburgh for Sydney, Jan. 15, in let. 33 S., lorg. 26 W. The Adventurer, from London, Feb.l4, with 340 barrels of oil—out dine months. The Artemesia, from London for New Zealand, Jan. 27. The Stirlingshire, from Launceston for London, and the Investigator, on the same day as the preceding. The Suffolk, from New Orleans for Liverpool, April 26, in lat. 24 N., long. 85 W. The John Hancock, May 2, in lat. 26 N., long. 79 W. The Champion, fur Liverpool, May 5, in let. 29 N., long. 78 W. The Constitution, May 26, in lat. 43 N., long. 45 W. The Hortense, fur Liverpool, Nov. 9, in lat. 50 N., long. 13 W. IVirIC—JuNE 13. 800 We get nothi ng t PS o marke ll t but wheat, and but A n quantity of that. P ar i s h a f ter parish, in which !)--tto average of years would have many licks standing is yards, have not one left ; hence until the new, "00 secured we c anno t ge t any addition to the suPPY' millers bought s p ar i ng l y, but prices remain stead/ $ week's rates. PER QUARTER Wheat, red (old) 77s to 806 Barley, grinding P . l .7 o r st; f il q ° :l 9. sas 0 , s , Ditto (new) 465 t ° ' o e; Ditto, white (new) 82s to 86s Peas Ditto (old) Barley, malting AVERAGES FOR TOR WEEK ENDING JLNE 13, 1854. Oats W heat 09 00s Od PP Bears Barley PP Peas 5 Pt 47s od 13. There was a short supply of farmers' wheat et this ti t :: SO market, which me t a f air sale at 79s to s, being not the prices curren t l ast Tuesday. A retail - demand foreign wheat, and fine qualities are i n s mall conil i 0 More inquiry f or grinding bailey. The stock of I n „":. corn, owing to r ecen t s hi pments to Ireland, is much rey'7. 4 o The linseed market continues dull, but a g ood consur ol e 34 demand fo r ca k es . N o alteration in rapecakes. jj°l3 are only dull sale. LONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT, At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 12th day of June, present the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. Her Majesty in Council was this day pleased to dscla.re the Right Honourable John Ru;selt (commonly called Lord John Russell) Lord President of her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and hillordship took his place at the Board accordingly. Her Majesty having been pleased to n. , point the Most Noble Henry Pelham Duke of Newcastle and the Right Honourable Sir George Grey, Bart., to be two of her Ma jesty's principal Secretaries of State, they were this day, by her Majesty's command, sworn two of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State accordingly. DESERTERS FROM BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPS. s s Wheat, English, re d 78 to 80i1 Ditto white • 82 to 86 Dantzie and Konigs berg Pomeranian aud Ham burgh Danish, Holstein, and Friesland 7O to 7' 'Russian and Odessa 6:1 to 7 Oats, English Ditto D anish Ditto Friesland Ditto Russian 32 to 3 Barley;' malting Ditto grinding 3l to 3t . Beans Ditto foreign Peas, white and yel Si to 5 ____ r. ( Peas, grey and black 4j, ~, t° Linseed, Black Sea °‘ Ditto PetAzsburgli to 62 -6 Ditto Riga and Arch. 53 t° ss /mei Ditto Konigsberg and Memel Per VIA, Liras. c., Hull 101 Os Od to Ol m" , Ditto fine for. 81 lOs 91 lie; 'Ditto inf. for O/ Os Od to u'L Ltpeseed OOl Os to 001 tape cakes 120 Od t, ares, English o os to it °uP )itto foreign tones l2os Oil to 12 6 ' y, Cyr Meal - ---- At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the Bth clay of June. 1854, present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council, _ Whereas by the "Foreign Daserters Act, 1852," it is provided, that whenever it is made to appear to her Majesty that due facilities are or will be given for recover ing and apprehending seamen who desert from British merchant ships in the territories of any foreign Power, her Majesty may, by Order iu Council, stating that suchfauili ties are or will be given, declare that seamen, nut being slaves, who desert from merchant ships belonging to a sub ject of such Power, when within her Majesty's dominions or the territories of the East India Company, shall be liable to be apprehended and carried on board their respective ships, and may limit the operation of such order, and may render the operation thereof subject to such con ditions and qualifications, if any, as may be deemed expedient. SEABORNE MAILS. (N Pignitles th a t t h e mails are lent from the (3eneral t by the night —and M by the mor ling—tlesp4teh.) COUNTRIEi Da) WWII 1/14 ' .t In General t'o:.r. Office, I.outhm.• Froo, ,L Von 1 )18 ten e Wsie , All", in En thin jEaci. tmerica(byltrit.pack)N Every Friday knaerica (by United Sts. packer) ..........N America (by U States packet) ..........N •• •• • Australia (ria South- I.lverpool .TXI2 , 12 Liverpool 'Southampton And whereas it hath been made to appear to her Ma jesty, that due facilities will be given for recovering and apprehending seamen (not being Hanovarian subjects) who desert from British merchant ships in the territories belonging to his Majesty the King of Hanover : Now, therefore, her Majesty by virtue of the powers vested in her by the said " Foreign Deserters Act, 1852," and by and with the advice of her Privy Council, is pleased to order and declare, and it is hereby ordered and declared, that from and after the publication hereof in the London Gazette, seamen, noL being slaves (and not being British subjects), who desert from merchant ships belonging to subjects of the King of Hanover within her Majesty's dominions or the territories of the East India Company, shall be liable to be apprehended and carried on board their respective ships. And the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, and the Commissioners for the af fairs of India, are to give the necessary directions herein accordingly. Southampton Dover .. funcerti l4 Ju ly 6 Plymouth .. Dover .. .. Southampton South= ptottl Dover .. , Southampton Southampton' Plymouth .. Southampton Southampton 16 J ane 16 Southampton Southampton. (Jane ..t, To. Jun e 16 Iv Dover ...... SouthAmpto,. Dover ...... Tviluedslll Dover /*oda ° S.Juthanapton June 6 Southampton (June 16 London i, Souttiamp. tn. July I Dover pally 14^'Ilhampto, J u ne fil PlYm uth June 1 6 IDQver •• Dover... IE IO, 311W' 'Twleedollf i Southampton Juue 16 Southampton June Plymouth June lo Dover .. I . WM. L. BATHURST. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, JULY 13. Royal Regiment of Artillery—John Thomas Cochrane, Gent., to be Veterinary Surgeon, June 9. COMMISSIONS SIGNED BY LORD LIEUTENANTS James Henry Porteus Oakes, Esq., to be Deputy-Lieu. tenant, June 9. Royal Perthshire Militia—Henry Maurice Drummond, late Captain in the 42d Highlanders, to be Major, vice Gardiner, deceased, June, 8. 3d Regiment of the Duke of Lancaster's Own Militia— John Motherwell, Gent, to be Ensign, June 6. - Ist Cornwall Rifles Militia—First Lieutenant James Rennell Rodd to be Captain, vice Trick, resigned ; Second Lieutenant Viscount Valletort to be Lieutenant, vice Rodd, promoted, June 3. ampton) M June 4 .... Ditto (via 14 atseilles) N May 8 . Ditto (via Cape of t.lood' Hope) ...... •• .• N June I Africa (West Coast) .. N,`t3d of the month. Alexandria.......... N i B, 9, 24, & 30 of Alezaadria.....• • • .. M 4th & 20th of mon. Bahamas 17th of the wont, Belgium ............N Dai1y............ Brazil • •• M,9th of the month..' Buenos Ayres ........M 9th of the month.. Cape of Good [lone ..N , l 4th of the mnnt. Cape of Good Hope ..N 14th of the month. Cape de Nerds ......N 14th of the month Ceylon (sec India) Ceylon .......• • .....N 14th of the mont. Channel Isles ........N:Mon ~Wed.,&Fdd • • • ..... M 2d & 17th of wont China (see India) Constantinople 7,8,17,24,&27 or m. Constantinople ........ 4th & 20th of mon cont. of Europe M & N Twice daily ...... Egypt (see India) France ........ M & N Twico daily.... Gibraltar .... •• • ... M,4, 7, 17, 20, 27 of co Greece (see India) Greytown .... • 111.2nd & 17th of mon. Hamburich ....N,Tuesday & Friday Havannah .......... M 2nd of the mont. Holland ...... •.•• .. M Daily Honduras .... at 17th of the month India (vlaSouthampt.)M 4th & 20th of m. , n. India (via Marseilles).sl 81h& 24th of mo,,tf, lonian Isles (see Indlay7, 17, & 27 of mon Ireland & N , Twice daily •• M. 7, 9, 17, &27 of m .. . 1 Madeira ...... •• ,9th of the month' Madeira N 1 23 d of month malta (see India) Volta • • • • ....N Mauritius (see India) Mauritius N Mexico •••••••• •• ••M Naples . • New Granada .•. ••• • M New Zealand Papal Mates ..... • •. N Peninsula .• •• ...• • M Peru .... ••••• • •• M Port Natal /4 , 1; ruqcany .• • • ....N; Venezuela .. .• .. Van Diemen's Lulu (le, AuAralla) West Indies . ."I 114th of the month` 2nd of the month. Couthimpt ,,,! Jt ll l 1 ' ' s thl s th2sthoftnon Dover .... •• ' I 16 2d & 17th of moothSouthamptth, JUn a - or• iliy private ship ..I Variou,• v.rt I:twee • 15 th 15 th 2 t h ofmon. iDover .. . • ••i 17thl7th28thotinon ISoutharopto!, Ild & 27th of mon ISouthamptoh June 16 114th of the mono; Plymouth .• 15thl A t ll2 . s tilotraon, Dover ...... 15t h 15th25 thonno».iliover ...... 12d t 17th ot itonthrSouthampton June 16 12.3 tit!, 1,,0nt Jane 4 Southantrvor, 4 u n e 16 • When Ally ut cheie late, fall u I a i Indl, , thy levatchel on the following day with the (91ception of the Dili Southampton), arc! the ‘ttltd. both of which will be lespatche day preceding. , ADVERTISEMENT.I—D 3 Barry's D e li c i ous R evs lents A rabica Food invariably re s t ores health, without medicine , inconvenience, or expense, as ' it saves 53 times its cost h other remedi es . W e extract a few out of 50,000 tests . 0 rnoni Lis of cu res , w hi c h had resisted all medicines. Cur No. 180. --" Twenty-five years' nervousness, constipation t indigesti on , an d d e bi lity, from which I had suffered gres misery, and which no medicine could remove or reliev e , hwe been effectually cured by D u B arry ' s food in a v ery short titne.— W. B. Reeve, Pool Autliony, Tiverton . Cure No. 4,203 . —" Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousnes s ' debility, with cramps, spasms and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du Barry's delicious food in a y er i short tiine.—Rev. John W. Maven, Ridlington Rectory' Norfolk.' Cure No. 1,78 k—" Not expected to live 5 1 ,. 5 ' days l o ng er . I was cured by Du Barry's admirable fo o d —Magdalena Purvis, Moffatt, Scotland." C u re 14° ' 51,4 n;. —" Fifty y ears ' indescribable agony from dyspeps ia ' nervousness, asthma, cough, cons ti pat i on, flatu l en cy ' spasms, sickness at the stomach and vonsitings, have bees removed by D u B arry ' s excellent Food.—Maria Wortham, Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure No. 3,9 0 . . • 4 Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and gen e ' - debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellen Focd.—James Potter, Athol-street, Perth." C l !, r° No. 81.—" T wenty years' liver complaint, h disorders of the s t omac h and nerves, have be en perfectly cure d b y Da Barry's Revalenta Arahica. Andrew Frazer, Haddington, East Lothian." Trevagler; Gulval, near Penzance. Feb. 20th, 1851.—Eighteen Yesr, s nervous debility, v i o l en t palpitation of the heart, t'llref bing of the te mp l es, v i o l ent pains in the left side and Isse'' shortness of breath, coughs, numbness of the extremities' cramps, spasms, fl a t u l ency, retching, and such genera weakness, that I was constantly fearful of falling when 0 a my legs ; all th ese symptoms have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Food.—Mary Gilbert."—ln canisters, suitably picked for all climates, and with full instruction s —llb., 2s. 9d.; 21b., 4s. 6d.; 51b., lls. ; 121 b., 2 2 5• super-refined, 11b., 6s. ; 21b., Ils. ; ulb., 225. ; 101 b., 335 ' The 10Ib. and 121 b., carriage f ree , on post office order. Barry du B arry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., purveyors to her Majesty, Pia' cadilly ; also at 68, Cornhill; 60, Graeeehurchsstreet; 330 and 451, Strand, 63 and 150, Oxford-street ; 55 ' ('haring-cross ; 4. Cheapside. [ADVERTISEMENT,] -- ASCOT RACEs..._.. sponTS. MAN.—Her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent, for vain' able and extraordinary improvements in the n l ° 6 powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Racecourse Opera, and Perspective Glasses, to know the di e tauces of objects viewed through them—of great ita; portance to the army, navy, and others. Messrs. S. and B. Solornons, opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe—opposite the York Hotel. --These telescopes P ° ., 5 1 ; sess such ext raor di nary powers that some, 3i inches, an extra eye-piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same tele' scope can be seen a person's countenance three miles and a half distant, and an object from 12 to 14 miles' They are of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers accordingly.— The Royal Exhibition, 1 851. - Valuable , newly invented, very small, powerful waistcoat-pocke t • glass the size of a walnut, by which a person can be see° and known mile distant ; they answer every purpose on the race-course, at the opera-houses, country se e. wary, and ships are clearly seer. at 12 to 14 miles. They are invaluabl e f or shooting, deer- s t a lki ng, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, g a meeepers, and tourists. Opera' race-course, camp, and perspective glasses, with wonderful power ; an object can be clearly seen from 10 to 12 wil es distant. Newly-invented Spectacles ; immediately are placed before extremely imperfect vision, every object becomes clear and distinct ; the most aged, • fective sight is brought to its youthful, natural, an d Otis gival stat e . D eafness—New Discovery —The Organic V; brator, au extraordinary powerful, small, newt inven ted instrume n t , f or Deafness, entiretss different f rom all others, to s urpass anything o f th e ki nd that has been, .r pro bably ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the skin, is not p ercep tibl e ; it ena b les dea f persons to hear distinctly at church and at public As" semblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely removed ; and It affords all the assist' :ince that possibly could be desired.-39, Albemarle.street. Piccadilly Observe. m•pron , ite time York Mite! B 1 R T 11 8. OF A SON. On the 11th i ns t., at Hawthorn•cottage, Stroud, Glon' cestershire. the wife of W. A. Preston, Esq. On the II th inst., at Addisconnbe-road, East Croydon, Mrs. Francis Herbert Secretan. OF A DAUGHTER. On the 11th inst., Mrs. John Kemp Welch, Brixton rise. On the 12th inst., at Sydonhani-park, Kent, the wifo of Chai les Barry, Esq., jun. MA RR IE D. On the 10th inst., at the parish church of St. Maryle' bone, Gregory Lewis Way, Esq., late Major in ILM.' ° 29th Regiment, to Mary Hay, second daughter of the late William Macdowall, Esq., arid B rand daughter of the late Sir William Dunbar, of Durn, Bart. On the 12th inst., at Holy Trinity Church, Brompten , Francis Campion, third son of Henry Wilkinson, Esq t ° Mary Ann, eldest daughter of Henry Capel Elliot, Esq' of 38, Brompton-square. L I E D. At SO. Minories, on the 10th inst., Mary Anne, wife 0 ., f F. Rawl°, Esq., surgeon, only daughter of the late Georg" Eachus, Esq., surgeon, Saffron Walden, Essex. Ott the 11th inst., at hi' residence, 31, Montague-square: John Willi am White, Esq., late Captain of the Ist Reg' nient cf. Warwielishi:e L'NDOINT : Printed and Published by M U RDO Y of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 77e Sun otHee, No. 112 ! Strand, in the Precinct of the Savor, in th o oo uuty of ALiddleoes, Wecliaesioz • Jae 11,1664, BANKRUPTS. Samuel Potts, carpenter, Hovah Villas, Sussex, to sur render, June 20. at twelve, and July 20, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assign ee , Basing hall-street ; J ones , Quality-court, Chancery-lane. George Butler, auctioneer, Nicholas-lane, June 22, at half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Butler, Tooley-street. , Villiarn Adam, merchant, Geeat Tower street, City, Juno 21, at eleven, and July 19, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, offi:ial assignee ; Lawrance, Plews, and Boyer, Old Jewry-chambers. James Rankin, wholesale clothier, - Liverpool, June 26, and July 17, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool ; Anderson and Col lins, Liverpool; Sale, Worthington, and Shipman, Man chester. Hugh Barclay, commission agent, Liverpool, June 2G, at at twelve, and July 24 at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool ; Yates, Liverpool. William Wilkinson Rawling, Samuel Rawli ng , an d John Bawling, c urr i ers , Manchester, June 23 and July 32, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Hernainau, official assignee ; Barker, Haddon:field ; Bellhouse and Bond, Manchester. John Allen, grocer, Courthorpe-terrace, Bermondsey, and York-place, Kent-street-road, June V, at eleven, and July 20, at half-past one, at the Court of B an k ruptcy. Johnson, offi c i a l assignee; May, Princes-street, Spitalfields. William Speller, builder, Warwick-road West, Padding ton, Juno 19, at two and July 19, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assigned ; Vaughan, Por teus-road, Paddington. Thomas Stone Besley, grocer, Tiverton, June 22, an d July 2', a t one , a t th e Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ; Partridge, Tiverton ; Head and V,nn, Exeter. Obidiah Williams and Henry Rawson, manufacturers, Leeds, June 30, and July 23, at eleven, at the Leeds Dis trict Court. Young, official assignee, Leeds ; Payne, Ed dison, and Ford, Leeds. Thomas Robinson Ward, scrivener, Wisbeach Saint Peter, Cambridge, June 23, and July 28, at twelve, at tho Court of Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee, Alder manbury ; Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, Gray's-inn; Wat son, 14 isbeach. John Greatwood, confectioner, Birmingham, June 27, at twelve, and July 20, at ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham; Brown, Birmingham. DIVIDENDS. July 4, T. Booth, Halifax, innkeeper—July 6, M. Long, Bristol, hotel-keeper. CERTIFICATES TO BE GRANTED. July 6, H. J. Rogers, Callington, Cornwall, surgeon and apothecary—Juiy 5, F. W. Robinson, Southport, printer, bookseller, and stationer—July 6, T Hughes, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, innkeeper, plumber, glazier, and painter— July 13, H. Winton, H. J. L. Winton, and E. Winton, Birmingham, agricultural implement makers. _ ----- CERTIFICATES. June 10, J. Bergtheil, Abchurch-lane, late of Winches er-buildings, City, merchant (first class)—June 5, H. Groom, Bray, Berkshire, miller (second class)—Nov. 30, W. Rhodes, Ablersgate-street, grocer (second class)—June 10, P. Emery, Brighton, licensed victualler (third class) — Juno 8, W. Turnt,r, Crewkerne, Somersetahire, currier (second class)—Juno 8, J. F. 'Dunne, Tavistock, dealer in musical instruments (se .ond class)—June 9, I. Steen°, Coventry, ribbon manufacturer (third class)—June 8, S. Meredith, Birmingham, draper (third class). INSOLVENT DIVIDEND. J. Davies, late of Caeca Dutton, Denbighshire—div. of is. 6d. in the pound, on and after July 3, at the County Court, Wrexham, Denbighshire. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. G. Mosley & W. Clayton, Leeds, tobacco manufacturers —E. Earl and W.Woodgate, Mary-street, Hampstead-road, carpenter, and b uilders —L W. Richardson and C. D. Blood worth, 3ear-yard, High-street, Lambeth, potters—A. F. Jacob and I. A. Smith, Liverpool, auctioneers --G Cast en Ross, George . and H. Vickerman, Howard's-buildings, Brick-lane St LIVERPOOL, June 13.—The schooner Albion, hence to Banff, in beating out yesterday through Channel, missed Luke's, wire workers—J. J. Monsen° and J Manchester-square, church decorators —$ W Gestreet,orge off s W. Carr stays in a squall, and ran upon Great Burbo. She cam© Birkenheadand S and A. Kegg, eacoinbe, coal merchants off on the flood, and . shortly after sank in the fair way.— W• Freakloy and J. Farrell, Shelton, sis a I il• —...autienseire, The Wildfire, from Quebec, at this port, passed large quan- ' ' earthenware manufa.cturers—M. Lindner and C. Carter, ties of ice from the 16th to the 23ti ult. Birmingham. merchants—J and J. Walmil Cl b SToßNowav June 7.—The Swallew, from Shields, for low ent, Lancashire. butchers—E. Mayo and F. o eY ' ... H Hick, Birining• Cape Breton, is at anchor in the Sound Of the Island of I in stockbrokers and auctioneer 'Tarausay (west coast of Harris), having sprung a leak in - 1 icle ' Birmingham , h B—j• Keep aul W. Hinc kley, mere ants and factors —D. thin , worth the Atlantic, on the , 23d of May. She will have to un• A. ningworth, and IL Illiugworth, Bradford,4 ' dergo repairs. Yorkshire, worsted spinners and stuff inane t • • CROJIA.RTY, June 10.—The William and Jane, of this D. Illingworth—J, Orm 1‘ ac me's, as far as regards port, went ashore about a mile b , yond the North Suton, merod, Newchurch, erl' G 11. ()ramrod, aud L. Or on the Bth of June, but was assisted off on the flood, with chants, and Manchester , manufacturers and mgr- out damage. commission agents, as far as gardere aJ. Orrnerod—J. Kirkham T • , .Kirkhara, R. Kirkham, CARTHAGENA, Juno 4.—The Nairns, of Shields, has put B. Kirkh L . ' back to this port, with considerable damage, having been l cloth am, ivesey, near Blackburn power-ooru c o manufacturers —J. Travis J in contact with a foreign barque (name on quarter-deck , J. and T. ' Kay, and H. Pickup, Green-brid;e " Venus"), on tho Ist of Juno. Motril bearing S. W. by woollenp . ' ,Forest of .Rossndale, Lancashire, printers—E. N. Ft • • S., distant 25 'Mks. nudrinier, and J. and W. Hunter, Witford, Oefordshi TERSCHELLING, Juno 6.—The Fortuna, from Hartlepool re, paper manufacturers (as far as regsrds E. N. : ourtlrinier)—J. Smith and A. Shop for Oberndorf, is now on shore , here; crew saved. The hard, Bradford ' cargo (coals) will be lost. , Yorkshire, worsted spinners. PENANG, May 2.--The Helvellyn, sailed heece for Lon- DIV IDENDS DECLARED. don on th e 26th o f April, has put back on the 23th, leaky. J. Archer, Old King -street. Deptford, baker—first div. ADELAIDE, March 10.—The schooner Thistle, at anchor of 1l d. in thepound, Thursda June 15 and three sub on the ni g ht o f t h e 26th o f February, was caug ht b y a sequent Thursdays, at the office H of Mr. Stansfeld, Basing heavy s qua ll , capsized, and went down in three fathoms of hall-street. water ; crow and passengers supposed to be saved. W. Hollamby, Hustpioint, grocer, miller, f Pan's, June 12 . —Th e Cant,l eo (lighter), front Havre —fi rs t di v. of 11d. in the erp pound, Thursday, June 15, arm ander to Roue n , with su gar , cotton.• an d c it rons• s tr uc k upon a th ree subsequent Thursdays, at the (ace of M r . St aus f e ld, stake at th e Grand Quai at Havre, and sprung a leak; she Basinghall-street. discharged cargo, part of which was much damaged, and R. George, Parker- s t ree t , D rury -lane, stagecoach maker has be en l a id on the Gridiron to repair. final div. of M. in the pound, Thursday, June 15, and. NEW YORK, May 31. The Th oma s Wright, from Ma- three subsequent Thursdays, at the office of Mr. Stausfeld, tanzas for London, with sugar, sprung a leak when f our B as i nghall-street. days out, and, i n ma ki ng f or Savannah, struck on a shoal T. B a lli nger, Birmingham, confectioner and baker— about 12 m il es off Ossabaw Isl a nd, Georgia, on the 2 5th of first div. of 2s. ld. in the pound, any Thursday, at the May, having about eight feet water in her hold, and re- office of Mr. Whitmore, Birmingham. mained ; the ship and cargo were expected to become a total wreck. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. Report o f e William Wilson, general merchant, Dundee.ship Nolsua,- from, Dielbouruo : - .7.!alarcit 15, Henderson and k aterimi , wr i g i l t h Gisagow. COUNTRY MARKETS. 17,17,19,27, 30 °rm. ' Jul, 4 REAT It eF: : 14Q' I teed :P . :01 11 :v re h id e sP e T ( aa l r c:' t a ('' O i ' , t he Race.cours tickets may he Cheapside ; 2(.9 ?WI; 25,Reger ;on; and at NI zit the Railway SCOT dington t hey s have array egES, to wo 'WESTERN It co nveniently pl, of the several tr Bo that parties t hat Conveyed 1 Loorse and Rae w edneaday, Jul T hursday, June , 14. B. —Ticket .1 delivered to 3 '411 be marked' tickets cannot t gers to outsi, Side tickets are ASCOT Contras p ost Horses, Fl nobility and G Carriages and ' l ltriotis Trains Leal). etfully re( trilid be addre W indsor, which , f the Padding attained. The NVednesday Thursday:, Friday, Jui OUTH: RkCEi.. °, ATION to W T hursday, 15th after the Races, Pin gl e Jour Dou - hle Jou Double Jour] Ole 12th, at V t niversal Offic , Street ; Blossom itreet, City; SP -Street, 43 o'clen Itreet ; and at ISA excepted) Carriages and *7 by a specie r roM secure Horse 13( Omnibuses Zvi t i 4l Perior Conve: 0 Convey parti Open Carriag Waterloo Sta ASCOT of the E Res and I V l i arges, on app otel, Windsor given : Carriage an Do. V Do. T Carriage an Do. V Do. T For the accon 4 bDointed Omn ';rd at Winds°, train°lanany, read; Fares, there a ° L, and Friday Each Omnibi 0 "mon may eas conveyed them Coarse half-an.' Tickets, wits b"-delivered to Will e marke t ickets cannot b gars to the outsi both outside ar Windsor, Jun THE Pri that, the ' s ociety, will be 9. July next an clnek. Notice Is also closed until the ALBER! Establi: JAJAN' S gran "eaaehold, and AIETRO The Director! ZTe on the sth Thirty days fro The Prerniur the sth of Jan tither of which Year to Membei weir as Membe proposals This Society, *hole of its pre for the whole ti For the year "nt• has been tears' standing Princes-stree STEAM y In comp general to procee ueneral screw Patch their S AY, on the 21 -,I,ENSONT. Colon 1 0 °age to Cons t ons burthen, a Tliackwall, a Passengers are Bt ftrn ships so Passage mon , lass 35 to 45 t 'nlaton As h , LPPlic , tion sho' "trees, City. THE I\l. Aufru , t jITTA," 1,80 rionding to tl d espatched wit' Le i high on the high repute Rustalla up to the Mails to an ladling and sten make the run ii s he will he MI , tons. Full par "nrs Offices, TO NE CLER( Biter mane known to other receiving a star s eriPtion used. Direct the 11 °N TIM MC CONTAIN Illustrated by New Edition, 1 rrHE SI the ext e xcessive indn t hercury, with wed by obsel Prevent it. E PERRY and street, London t °, and sold 4 ,° ,1 , 146, Lead "ow Church -3 PART I. trey Cn'fians, and is PAaT IL tr( dulgence, and ttental and h : aeapacity. I PART 111. ti t he primary o ti.elr treatmet tRZs. PART IV. cc larnple applica PART V. is The causes of Rtibject critics THE f'olll HI treating net Der bottle. 7 r emedy, for 1 31riptons, en a ottle. Perr Per box, a c Chronic lnflan ;!. A. minute Lion in society Itent only, by are in attend 4 1n, from F.l Eleven to On TUE SECR Just publithe E R Sperm, ore successi 0 9stem, obtl O tstinguislnnl tYery variet: Ueesees, ace twenty ' N ervous Dot O re addet, c autionary h 4 ,M on the 4 imports 37, B Doctor of Mc b,.. 111 7h, !Tor Licentiate The esscnt B, 9llences re , Which have 11°0 ( 1 , and pr other class o Particularly their physics the health h entitled. It is ablet Principles of in curring gri the heyday t4 eY be mitt ;old how the that thane ie (I t., ''r angemen le A uthor Practice in 4nf ertunatel enipirles wi faith in the' v t II ERVOr —roth e , )4 6 as Luln, as. c the An it ho me " 4141 Pia _