The Sun. — London, England, 1833-04-26 00:00:00

and there was no fear that promises of that kind should ever be brokern-e-(Hear, hear, hear.) Here they had the final result of all this. promise-breaking and men dacity whiels the ballot was pretended to entail u poi us. It was purely fanciful—a Bloomy fiction of deco or error. But let him ask, was there no promise-break ing now, under open voting ?—( Hear, hear.) They was scarcely a single election contest which did not exhibi not only compulsory promise-making, but compulsory promise-breaking in abundance: Dillit not eternally happen that a dependant was compelled by his superior t• break a promise which he had voluntarily made to another? Our dictators of votes, whose exquisite ingeniousnes shuddered at the very thought of concealment, extolled it the skies the sanctity of a compulsory promise made t• themselves. These very men would trample in the du the vo untary promises made by the voter himself.— (Hear., Be had already shown that the ballot wool , shut out extorted promises—h e now showed them farther. that it would shut out erorted violations of voluntary promises, and this at least was a gain instead of a loss. The more they looked at the subject, the less would the) be disposed to connect secret voting with falsehood ant! duplicity, or mien voting with truth-telling and ingenu ousness. Stoaking in a whisper was not synonymou , wan lying ; much less was speaking aloud synonytnou with truth- telEng.—(Hear.) There were cases, ni doubt, in which secrecy was conducive to fraud and de ception ; but there were also cases in which it was th only- sure road to the truth. The same coniideratios which made them exclude it in the former should mak: them tenacious of it in the latter. Where a man was called as a witness to depose to certain facts, or to relate narrative of actual events, there it was essential tha his testimony sh uld be delivered in public—tor it was only by a public hearing that they could obtain th, opportunity of confronting him with others, vviii might have be n cognizant of the same facts, and of veri fying hie assertions by a comparison with the known law of nature. But where they wanted to learn lroin a mar e not any matter of fact, hut simply his own private ju.ig ment and opinion, of which no one aould he cognizant ex cept himself; where, besides, he had no motive ab int , u to deceive you, there they were much more likely to lievi the truth by making his communication strictly confi ien tiel. It perpetually happened in private lie, that they it necessary to ask tr e opinion of A or B, with respect t the inrecrity, or the skill, or the commercial solvency of C or D, and every man to whom this necessity nceni r• knew well that the only way to get a perfectly frank an. geou'ne opinion, was to put the question in strict privacy and confidence. Now, apply these well-known maxims or ordinary lite to the case of voting at elections. They di. not want to learn from the voter any facts whatever. The) simply wanted to known the state of his opinion with re gard to the comparasise merits of the candidates before him. Of this opinion on one could be cognizant except himself; and he himself had no motive, ab intra, to tell them wrong.. If he did tell them wrong, it could b• only by the force of sonic compulsion acting upon him from without. What, then, was the rule which pa udenci prescribed ? To exclude altogether all such extraneous compulsion, to receive his opinion in strict privacy, and to let him see plainly that he had nothing to apprehend from disclosing to them unreservedly the state of his conscience. This was the single and sure way to make him speak the truth : and it became not the sagacity of legis lators to run away with a blind and undistinguisli ing antipathy against secrecy, as if secrecy were in every case subservient to mendacity and crime.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The same gentlemen, who thundered so loudly against secrecy, were profuse in extolling the frankness, the ingenuousness, the manliness Di open voting.—(Hear.) Were they really simple enough to believe, that because the voter spoke aloud, be there fore of necessity spoke from his heart? He asserted, that it was the very mischief of which he complained, that the voter was in numberless cases constrained to speak the opinion of another, net his own. And was there any thing frank and manly in this compulsory voting? Was it not in its very essence tyrannical, fraudulent, and ser• vile? Frankness indeed there was, in some few cases, where a dependent voter braved ejectment and ruin, be cause Le would not sully bis conscience with a dishonest vote. There was frankness, indeed, combined with the constancy of a patriot and a martyr. But how fared the man who behaved thus nobly better or worse than others? He suffered the full amount of injury which an offended superior could inflict, while the complaisant or unprin cipled voter, who surrendered his conscience without a murmur, swam along prosperously in all the favour and bounty of those above him. " Look on this picture and on that," and then say, whether open voting, instead of being frank and ingenuous, did not operate as the severest penalty on frankness and ingenuouness ? Whether it did not hold out an irresistable premium to servile and dis honest compliance? He knew that there were some gentlemen who objected to the ballot on a ground very different from any which he bad hitherto touched upon. They alleged that the elective franchise is a trust; that every elector is responsible to the nation for the way in which he exercises that trust, and that this respon sibility carries with it the necessity of publicly run ciiing the trust, in order that the great body of non electors may see whether he exercises it to their satisfac tion. It would, indeed, be a weighty argument, if gentle men could show th',2l open voting was either a security or A benefit to the grea't mass, of non-electors. But he thought be cou.d show them that this was not the fact, and that the argument above stated involved a misconception of the nature of the electoral trust. What was the real na ture of that trust ? Wherein did a man discharge it faith fully—and wherein did he fail of doing so ? It consisted in this-sabot a man should announce his genuine and con scientious preference between two or more candidates at the poll. His preference must be genuine—that is, it must be his own, not the preference of another man ex pressed with his voice ; it must also be conscienti6us— that is., not derived from any sinister temptations held out to him individually, apart from the rest of the community. When an elector had delivered at the poll his own genuine and conscientious preference, he then executed his duty fully, whether he agreed or diff red with others. One of two things must be supposed. The general body of elec • tors, if li-ft to themselves, aid to their own free will, will either be disposed to execute the trust faithfully, or they will not. Ether they have taken as a body, a piramourit interest in good government, or they have not. If they have, no better security was wanted for the faithful dis charge of their trust ; care only must be taken that they are not either individually coerced by menaces, or indivi dually tempted by bribes. If they have not, they will be found, of themselves, disposed to choose dishonestly. But, a ssuming this to be the case, can they be forced to choose honestly by merely making them choose in public? He con t e nded that it was totally impracticable. That which was sought from the voter, namely, an honest exptes men of opinion, could never be obtained, except from his own free will. The utmost extremity of force could not wring it from him, if he were not disposed to give it freely. It was a secret of his own conscience, which no human being could fathom, and which none but himself eoulii disclose. If an e'ector sere disposed to vote dis honestly, lie might do so just as easily in the face of the fullest congregation, as in his own closet. The wisdom of his vote might be judged by others ; the honesty of his vote could never be. he known except to himssli. No pqman supervision could force a man to deliver an honest vote, if lie woull not do it of his own accord, because no human dist-priori:int csuld ascertain whether his vote be honest or not. Therefore would he m iintain, that so far as reearded the attainment of honest and conscientious voting, publicity was utterly fruitless and impotent, if they supposed the voter to be himself dishonestly inclined. But he should go further, and show that plitilicity of votes, as the means toward responsibility of voters, though impotent towards good, was most potent and effective towards mischief. It could not convert a single voter from dishonesty to honesty, but it made thousands of honest voters dishonest against their inclinations. For so rem as votes were individually known, the door was open. 24 for tampering with voters as individuals, and each voter became controllable by one or a few private masters, who exercised a paramount influence over hishappiness. This was the real, the mighty, the all subduing coutroul to which publicity condemned the elector. Under the mask of responsibility to the public, you fastened upon him the base and dismal chain of private dependence. Such was the ignominious subjection publicity entailed in one form or another upon half the vo ere who came to the poll. nut look once again at this pretended responsibility. From what quarter was it to come? By wh , t parties NV as it to be enforced? The voters (they were told) are to be accountabl e to the non voters : the non-voters are to watch over the voters, and to keep them straight in the path of duty against t h e voters ' own i nc li nat i ons . Did they really Imagine that the non-voters were competent t o this arduous task? Why, t h e only groun d f or t their non-voters—the being only reason whereby they ato excluded trim . the electiv e f ranc hi se — was the i r presumed incapacity of forming any judgment on political subjects. Whether this presumption were a true one o r not , i t was th j e common ground , and the only just ground, for debar ring them from the elective franchise. Now re ason i ng upon this presumption, how Wa b it possib:e to suppose that these 'poor incapables could be qualified to exercise surveillance over voters, to (live into the bottom of their heal ts, and to restrain them from giving those dishou,st votes to which tlltey were supposed to be inclined ? Why, this was a surveillance possible only to guardian angels— to beings of a higher stamp, like Minus or Rhivialnantbu') who could sound every depth and corner of the human heart. It was far above the faculties of men like him self, or those he addressed, with the grossness and infirtni les of earth about them. Certainly if the non-voters were eaaable of exercising this surveillance with effect, it was preposterous to say that they were unfit for the elective iianchitte. He would contend, that not only were they in aapable of exercising the control and supervision here as signed to them, but that whenever they attempted to exer eise it, they occasioned positive and serious mischief. For how was it that the non electoral population comported .heanselves whenever they did intermeddle in an election ? They espoused the cause of some favourable candidate— hey acted as his partisans, and as the enemies of his oppo• 'tent. They applauded every one who voted for their tOvourit e candidate ; they denounced every man who voted against him. They exacted a blind submission to 'heir will, without once inquiring into the honesty, or the eonstience, or the sincere persuasion of the voter. Was ,his the responsibility which they would wish to see pre vailing in our various cities and boroughs? In his eyes it v 39 purely mischievous. Dictation by an assembled •rowd is no less odious than dictation by a private intlivi ntal ; for it ended both ways in the same great evil— spurious anti insincere voting. It was desirous the voter should not be sheken in his sincere determination either by he vultus instantis tyranni, or by the civiuna ardor pray,' jubentium ; aad for that reason he wished that neither the tyrant nor the crowd should know how he voted. His conscience was, in his (Mr. Grote's) view, an august oracle—to be consulted with silent respect— merely taking care that no force of any kind was put upon 'he priestess, nor any bribes tendered to seduce her. tie thought he had now shown that this pretended re possibility of voters to non-voters was, at the best, a nere nul ity ; that it never could, under any circum seances, make men vote honestly, if they were inclined to vote dishonestly ; anti that, whenever it was attempted to le enforced, it created the very mischief against which it it ()leased to guard. Where, then, was the security for wisest voting? It lay in the will and disposition of the :otter himse f. If it were not there it was nowhere. It :he voters were sufficiently numerous to have collectively he same interests as the whole community, they could lave no wish except to choose honestly ; and all that the oegislitture had to do teas, to grant them the proiection of he ballot, in order to ensure their being left to their own free will. And he would take leave to remind •tiem that this was the only ground on which their late extension of the constituency could for a moment re vindicated. It they had relied upon the response inlay of the voter as their guarantee for honest voting, any extension of the constituency would have tieen absurd and injurious ; for a small constituency was far more peintedly responsible than a numerous constituency, and every step which they took in enlarging the consti tuency, was a step in diminution of the responsibility of each individual elector. Nay, upon this principle, the eineleheaded constituency of Old Sarum would have been rae best in the whole kingdom, fur they had there tespon sibiliry concentrated to the utmost possible degree; and as a general rule, nomination would be better than repre •entation ; fur there could be no doubt that one or a few norninetors are much more clearly responsible than one 'Sr two thousand electors. But no, the framers of the Reform Bill did not contemplate that their now constitu ency would be dishonestly inclined—they did not look to esponsibility of the voter as the proper guarantee for honest voting. They proceeded upon a wiser and more righteous principle ; they aimed at giving us a constituency numerous enough to have no interests opposed to honest totting. What he asked of them now was, that they would •-nsure to us a c instituency in fact, where as yet we have had only a constituency in name—that they would give us a body, not of mere paper voters, not of lifeless cyphers, net of voters in waxwork, but of real, self-determining men ; that they would guard every voter in the exercise of that free and unembarrassed volition, without which he was worse than disfranchised.—(Heer.) He had already trouble I the House at great length ; but there was yet another argument which he could not omit to notice. They were often told that the influence of rich men over voters was a very salutary thing, and that the ballot was mischievous, as tending to destroy it. Gen denten did, indeed, draw a distinction between legitimate influence and illegitimate influence—tneaning (as far as he understood) all such influence as the present law did not fot bid, as contrasted with bribery, which it does forbid. He himself acknowledged a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate influence ; but he drew the line through very different points, and he thought that much of that influence which the law now tolerated, was incalculably more pernicious than the bribery which it affected to con demn.—(Hear, hear.) How much influence over voters ought a rich man to have ? As much as he could pur chase ? No, certainly; for even the present law forbids the idea of his purchasing any influence at all. He (Mr. Grote) said, not as much as he could purchase, hut as much as he deserved, and as much as unconstrained free men were willing to pay him.—(Cheers.) Amongst un constrained freemen, the man of recognized superiority, moral and intellectual, would be sure of obtaining sponta neous esteem and deference. These were his just deserts, and they came to him unbidden and unbespoken—( Hear.) But they would come to him multiplied tenfold, if, along with these intrinsic excellencies, he possessed the extrinsic advantages of fortune—(Hear, heir)—if he were marked out to the attention of mankind by the con spicuous blazon of established opulence and station—and if he were thus furnished with the means of giving ampler range and effect to his virtuous dispositions. These were the p: itnary elements which, when combined in the same person, raised to its highest pitch the admiration of man kind—(Cheers)—and insured their willing obedience; this was the meed which awaited men of birth and for tune, if they employed their faculties industriously, and to the proper ends. lie did not deity that poorer men might attain it also; but with them the ascent was toilsome, the obstructions numerous, anti the success at best uncertain. --(Hear, hear.) With the rich man the road was straight and smooth, the willing public met him half-way, and joyfu'ly hailed the gradual opening of his virtues.— (Hear, hear, hear.) He was the man to whom they de lighted to pay homage, and their idolatrous fancy was even disposed to forestal and exaggerate his merits. This was, in his opinion, the legitimate influence of wealth and station—to serve as the passport, as the ally, as the handmaid, of superior wisdom and virtue. This influence was as gentle and kindly as it was lasting and infallible ; it was self-created and self-operating derived from the most universal propensities of the human will ; and it was, moreover, twice blessed; for it blessed as well as the few who exercised it, as the many over whom it was exercised.—(Cheers.) If our great and wealthy men would be content with this legitimate influ ence—if they would employ their superior opportunities in acquiring that mental superiority which really fitted them to guide and govern their countrymen—then would their ascendancy he assured beyond all competition, under arty system of voting, and the business of governing the mass of the people would be as easy as the management of a flock by the shepherd.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But it was the curse of our species, both I ere anti else where, that the great and wealthy men would seldom or never pursue this straight and righteous path to dominion. —(Cheers.) They would insist on governing mankind, witnout taking the trouble to acquire those qualities which make mankind willing to be governed by them. " Diversissimas tee pariter expectant; ignav'ae volupta tem et praeinia virtutis." They chose to rule by mere dint of naked wealth and station, unallied with. those beneficent ingredients which bestowed upon rulers WI empire over human hearts as well as over human pets ins, Then came the strain and tug to make the influence of weal'b alone, in worthless and ungifted hands, equiva lent to that of wealth anti mental excellence united. Wealth in itself; apart from all personal merit, insured the power of conferring individual favours, and in flicting individual injuries ; it enabled a man to deal out bribes, open or disguised, with one hand, and brows with the other. It conld not, indeed, obtain for him the heartfelt esteem of a willing public ; but it served as a two-edged sword to steal away the simulated demon strations of esteem, and to extort those votes which he had not virtue enough to earn. This was, in his opinion, the illegitimate influence of property—when it superseded and disenthruned the diviner pi dities of the man and the hero—when the favours and injuries which its possessor could (feel out were made to stand in the place of talents and virtues, and to usurp that recompense which the people delighted to bestow on the glorious compound of mental superiority with worldly station.—(Loud cheers.) Now when he was asked whether the ballot would impair the influence of wealth and of wealthy men, he replied, that in all these cases whi-re this influence was really le gitimate and beneficial, not only it would not be impaired, but it would be strengthened and exalted. Under open voting, the influence of wealth was alike in every hand— alike whether combined with worthlessness anti medium icy, or with the rarest virtue and ability. Ejection of tenants, dismissal from employment, or privation of custom, were engines which the worst man could employ, as well as the best—nay, the worse he was, the more effectually would he employ them, since he would be less restrained by scruples of justice and tenderness. Wbell votes were given openly, they had the hurtful influence of wealth stretched t o i ts utmost pitch, while the salutary in fl uence was tirelya. btrrondlgdeed a n drid otecnou. oteßrwtirtrkthede a b t al t i h ot e d le e e e s o t u , l if os n e o d t tehnis cchoienlculisceadl a heap 6eu t o . f . good lt ban a i n s d h e d evil,hro from with t m li ad ex u a f c P t the e" °f votera both the hope of private favour and the fear of injury • , but that affectionate and willing homage, which wealth , combined with mental excellence so infallibly awakened, , was left in full empire over his heart, anti became th determining principle of his vote. Fear not, that the rice man who employed wealth and leisure as they ought ti be employed—in elevating his own mental character, ant • in affording co n spicuous evidence of active virtue—fear not that such a man should lose one particle of influence by means of the ballot. His standard was planted in the interior of men's bosoms; his ascendancy was as sure and operative in the dark as in the light; his admonitions and recommendations needed no coercive power to insure atten tion.—(Hear, hear.) And what harm would ensue, if that coarser and baser influence, which could not exist without coercive force, were suppressed and extirpated altogether? What harm, if the worthless and unfurnished • minds, who now dictated their commends to expectant and timourous dependants, were compelled to restrict their ascendancy within the narrower limits of persuasion and and goodwill ?—(Cheers.) He maintained that not on 1), no harm would ensue, but very great good, in this, as well as in other ways; that it would so materially strengthen the motive for men of wealth and station to extend their knowledse, and to enlarge their sphere of active virtue. As matters stood now, a man's influence was in the ratio of his property.—( Hear ) Whether his character were good or bed, whether his capacity were vast or limited in either case his power over the comforts of others, anti his consequent means of perverting their votes, was equal. So long as he could thus command their votes, he had no motive to earn their esteem and admiration.—(Cheers.) But if their votes were rendered free instead of servile—genuine instead of simulated—then he could only hope to obtain them by really deserving them ; then would he have a powerful motive to attract to himself those heartfelt sentiments, from whence alone free spoken votes proceeded ; then would he he stimulated to enrich his own mind with those comm inding acquire ments, without which he could scarcely aspire to be use. ful to hie country at large. The question had been started, whether an uneducated gentry were not the gleafest of all national evils? Certainly, if not the greatest, they were among the greatest, of national evils; nor was the counterpart of the proposition less true, that a gentry well educated, and of enlarged sympathies with the people, were among the foremost of a'l national hlsss ings. He was sure dint the most eff ctu-il way of assur ing, and perpetuating to themselves that b essing, would be to render the vote of an elector inaccessible to all coercion, and attainable only by those who should have earned his genuine esteem.—(Hear, hear.) This was the only prize which could stimulate the listlessness, or soften the natural pride, of one whose wealth placed him above the communion of his fellow men ; and by rendering the suffrage secret, lock this precious prize in a casket, which could neither be stolen by fraud, nor ravished by tyranny ; reserved it in the inmost sanctuary, as a free will offering to ascertainiel merit, and as a stimulus to all noble aspirations. If he had no other ground to ask for the ballot, he would ask it on this—that it was the only schoolmaster of a frivolous and self-indulgent aristocracy In conclusion, he would say, that if they possessed the power of breathing into English voters a new heart and spirit, so that they should become insensible to all the threats and temptations of the private seducer, and open only to the admonitions of those who came to guide their rational and conscientious preference—it they could ope rate this great moral improvement in the bosoms of the voters themselves, would they not eagerly hasten to do it without a moment's delay ? He knew that human power reached not so far as that ; but he knew that tee ballot would go near to accomplish the same end—not, indeed, by rectifying all the moral infirmity of the voter, but by breaking the force of those seductions which would other wise overpower it. This was all that they can do with respect to the frailties and liabilities of our common na ture ; they could not altogether eradicate them, but they might circumscribe their range and counterwork their effi c ; they might disarm and beat off those ministers of evil who strove •o take advantage of them. They could not render a man invulneratile, but they might at least enable him to walk unhurt.—(Hear.) It was among the most important topics to which Legislative attention could be directed, to calculate accurately the force of temptation to which every man stood exposed, and to re move it altogether, if that could possibly be done—if not, to diminish it to the utmost practic II extent. The Hon. Member sat down amidst considerable cheering. Sir W. INGILBY, having been engaged for six months canvassing for votes, could speak as to the species of compulsion to which electors were liable. He believed they were more afraid of a country attorney, backed by the steward of the 'Squire, than of the 'Squire and Parson united—(Hear, hear) ;—for if the attorney could not gain hie point by astuteness, he would do it by holding out threats of the pains and penalties of the law. He would read an extract of a letter which had come into his hands, written by an attorney, to the effect that he gave notice to the recipient of the letter, that he could not vote without having a freehold, under heavy pains and penalties. lie knsw nothing more likely to tiring the clergy into disrepute than their interfering at elections; a:..d if it were for no other reason than that he wished to preserve them from falling into odium among the people, he should vote in favour of this motion. He spoke with regret of anything that was likely to be injurious to the character of the clergy, being himself almost part and parcel of the Church. —(A laugh.) He most cordially second d the motion. The Earl of DARLINGTON said he was surprised and disappointed to find, that although the representation was now completely amended—although the people now really had a voice in that House—yet that there should be still such a spirit of restlessn• as, that many would not be satisfied till all the institutions which were old were brought to an end. The object of this motion was to throw into the hands of the Democracy a greater degree of weight, and a degree of power, that was hardly con• sistent with the wellbeing of other classes in the State. lie certainly must oppose the views of the Hen. Member who proposed the motion, as he did not wish the object of that moron to be attained. If the Reform Act had not been passed, he might have been in favour of the motion. So Ling as the firmer state of things continued, there might be some reason for the Ballot, because the sin illness of the constituency might enable a powerful individual to influence them ; but that was no longer the case—the constituencies now were too numerous and powerful to be thus influenced. The events of the two last years had rendered the motion totally unnecessary. He was there• fore surprised that the Hon. Member should, upon the very first day of the Session, have given notice of this motion, before it was possible that he or any one else could have had any experience of the composition and character of the Reformed House of Commons. With the fee ings of an Englishman he protested against this secret and unmanly mode of voting. Every change in the institutions of a country was in itself an evil as a change, and ought not to be adopted unless there was some accompanying benefit. lie did not think that any public benefit could arise from this change. He thought it would not even effect the object whien was the avowed aim of those who proposed it. In • his opinion it would be impossible for men to conceal suc cessfully the mode in which they bad voted. They would be sure to intimate by conversation who was their favou rite candidate and whom they meant to oppose. But whether it was effective or not, it would produce a bad moral effect. It would tend to destroy the honourable confidence between man and man, and would make all men look with jealousy upon each other. Besides, he did not believe it was necessary. He did not deny there might he a few cases of tyranny, but they were to be • met not by this scheme of the ballot, but by the remedy of public opinion ; anti he believed that there was nothing so corrupt in the framework of society as to render such a remedy hopeless. But if this motion could be supposed to be effective in making the voter free from the controul of his lanclord, would it make him free from that of the public agitator? However goad the ballot might be in a republic, he thought it was uttetly incompatible with a co nstitutional MOO archy, for a constitutional monarchy could roc exist at the same time with a perfect equality of rights, anti he bet eyed that, those who supported the hello desired this perfect equa sty. lie had always been a sup porter of a constitutional monarc h y , an d h e did no t wish to see the introduction of anything that would tend to de stroy it. Mr. PETRE said he had not been able to discover in the speeches of the Gentlemen who eupp irted the motion • any reason why the new mode of election was not suffi ment to secure to the people the benefits of a free repre sentation. lie wished to know whether the House of Commons was not composed of the representatives of the people ? and whether it did not prom i se to the peo ple as ,„„ e n good, practical freedom, and happiness, as any as sembly that could be imagined? There was as much wisdom in knowing whet e to stop as where to begin. Clad France known th a t great po i nt i n 1789 or 1791, what misery would have been spared to her and to Europe ? He looked upon this motion as an attempt to take away all responsibility from those who voted at dee dons, by enabling th e m t o act w i t h secrecy : an d h e was the more astonished a t i ts i ntro d uct i on at the present nio !tient, as this was especially the age distinguished by the un i ve rse! call for p u bli c i ty i n all pu b l i c an d pol i t i ca l af fairs. He did not think that liberty needed the assistance of the ballot. She did not flourish in darkness, but would meet and vanquish despotism in the broad anti open day-light. He did not think that France had been tuts rally benefitted by the introduction of the ballot; and in America, which was the other country most frequently referr e d to by the supporters of the ballot, he believed that canvassing and election contests were carried on with as warrn a spirit of party feeling as in any other place in tbi vorll. He believed that, if adopted, the ballot woul inahle a man to take bribes with more impunity, an -.eat would be its only effect. If corruption still possesset a powerful influence, he thought it was to he met, not bt the secrecy of the ballot, but by extended instruction among the people, by which alone voters would be made at once intelligent and independent. Alt. TAYLEURE observed, that in his opinion the ballot was necessary, in order to render the Reform Bill perfect. Wri , o were they that required the protection of the ballot ? The honest, the industrious, but the poor and the humble ; and not he that did not need it as a safe guard—the ruined and profligate tradesman, who, having nothing to care for, defied all control. The careful, the industrious, the frugal tradesman—the man who hoped. by steady attention to business, to support himself and family in respectability, was, on account of his family, checked by the fear of offending his customers, and must either determine to vote against his conscience, or to ruin the prosperity of his family. For such a man the ballot was required ; and who would say that such a man did not deserve its protection ? He was at a loss to reconcile the arguments by which this motion was combatted. At one ;foment its opponents said that the ballot would be de- grading to men, by teaching them to conceal their opi nions, while at another they asserted that the ballot would not enable them to conceal opinions or votes, for that the utterance of one would betray the others. The great principle on which he supported the ballot was this, that it would put an end to flattery on the one side, and to servility on the other. No man would take the pains of attempting to influence a vote, when he knew that it could be given independently of his control, nor any labour to wring from a voter a promise, the performance of which he knew be could not enforce. The rich man would cease to think that be had a right to the vote of the poor man, ind the poor man that it was his duty to give it at thi bidding of his wealthier neighbour. The necessity of the measure had been amply shown by what took place at the last election, and he should therefore most cordially -upport the motion. Mr. FRANCIS BARING did not know what was the mighty evil which called for the remedy proposed by the lion. Member opposite. He wished to ask whether the present Members of that House were prepared to de clare themselves the ❑ominees of influence and power, or whether, on the contrary, all were not ready to agree that they had been returned by the free voice of he people ? Could they then submit to an argument that took it for granted that that House did not really repre sent the people ? If the Hon. Mover of this question ad 'flitted that this would not put a❑ end to bribery alto gether, be admitted enough to show that the motion ought not to be carried. If justice now was not, as the Hon. Member admitted, sufficiently quick of foot to catch the doublings of guilt, it certainly would not be, if this motion was carried ; for agents would find the means of taroperieg with clubs, and rendering the attempted secrecy perfectly useless. But there was one argument which had not been ttrought of at all, but which was of considerable import. ance. It was said, that by the operation of the ballot, the tenant would be enabled to vote independently of the control of his landlord; but it was not recollected, that it the landlord had not the means of seeing how the vote was given, he at least had the means of preventing the tenant from voting at all ; and if he chose to exercise his power to that extent, the measure of the Hon. Mem ber opposite would be perfectly useless. The system of open voting was prevalent in some of the States of North Arnerica, and in them it was said to be bad in its eff•cts ; in other states where secret voting existed, it was said to he accompanied with every benefit and political blessing imaginable; but yet he had never heard of the difference of effect produced all over the United States, where both ways of voting were used. He spoke of the general effect of bath ways of voting. He would come to a state in which secret voting was employed. In New York they voted by ballot, which, according to its sup porters, is to preclude every species of interference and intimidation. He would refer to the best evidence upon the point—to the Governor of New York, who declared, in an official paper to his Minister, that in elections under this very ballot system intimidatio❑ did prevail. The Go vernor's paper declares that " Government officers were guilty of br ibery and corruption, and that for many years they had acted improperly with regard to the election matters." Of course the paper spoke of the officers of Government in the states where the ballot existed. The paper went on to mention the different officers who were influenced in their votes, or who exercised their influence over others ; namely, those employed in the Navy Yard, the Custom House, the Post Office, and in the Judicial Departments. Triose officers, and all those employed in the several estab lishments mentioned, aff trded proofs, that under the ballot, influence and intimidation might be exercised. Having cited the opinions of the Governor of New York—that was to say, of a practical man—it was clear that the working of the ballot was not unattended with influence and intimidation. It followed, necessarily, that in America, inhabited by a shrewd people, it was not thought possible to put the ballot into general execution, and that it was incompatible with the existence of a free people. As to the argument of the Hon. Mover of the present resolution, taken from the rff tits of the working of the ballot in France since 1820, it was not to be relied on. Such an argument should not be taken from a short period of the history of any country. The ballot had existed in France from the very first time of popular ex citement—namely, since 1790, they had voted secretly in that country. If the Hon. Mover was inclined to state its blessings since 1820, he would allow him to say that the calculations were not the most correct in the world. Its workings since its first establishment should be consi dered, and then it would be found, that under it were elected a Robespierre, a Danton, and a Marat. Conse quently, no one should argue as to its good effects from a particular period of history, but see whether, during the whole time it had been used, it had produced benefits or otherwise. When he sat on the other side of the House, he had uniformly opposed the system of ballot, and he certainly would still continue in that opposition. Dr. LUSHINGTON said he would commence by ask ing a plain and simple question. Was there any one who woul I not admit that, if the proposition of the Hon. Member for the City of London became the law of the land, that the effect of it would not be to diminish corrup tion and bribery, so much and so justly complained of, and that it would not be the only remedy that any rational individual could point out ? If there was any motive for human action, interest was one, and money and pains were ordinarily bestowed in precisely the same proportion as that interest could be obtained. To obviate the interested motives of human actions was most necessary, and the pre sent proposition was so founded on the principles of human nature, that if any measure cool I do it, it certainly would. But, said the fl! , n. Member for Boston, " I have listened to the speech of the Hon. Member for London, and I have seen no proofs of this interested spirit of human nature ; I have been disappointed that no evidence of the evils for which a remedy is sought has been laid before us." Now would anybody, who took a sincere and impartial vietv of the matter, seriously deny the existence of those evils?— (Hear.) Could anybody deny that bribery and corruption did not still exist at elections ?—( Hear, hear.) If tnere were anybody so wilfully blip 1, or so blinded by prejudice, as to make such a denial, let him look to the proceedings of that House during the present session—to the election committees—to the disgrace which stained the election for Hertford—( Hear, hear)—and to the evidence that had been laid on the table of that House. When any Hun. Member considered all this—and he supposed that every Hon. Member did, since it was his duty so to do— how could it be exp-cted that the House would listen to a detail of evidence upon a subject which was already as plain as clear day? Undue influence and intimidation were nut used ! How could any body say so; how could anybody say that he had not heard of their having been put in practice? Was their any Hoo. Member of that House who had stood a contested eh-ction who had not experienced the effects of intimidation ?--(Hear.) Had not the Noble Lord who sit on the bench below him, in his contest for Devonsfjrc, experienced the effects of in• timidation and undue influence ?—(Hear, hear.) That both those things existed nobody would deny ; and they were both a curse to the single individual whom they forced to viola'e his conscience, and poll for the man he disliked, and a curse to the country, because they brought about tie election of persons decidedly inimical to the wel nire of the State.—.(Cheers.) That was his opinion, and i: was not based upon vague theory, but upon unerring experience. Within the space of three years, he had passed through the ordeal of two contested elections, the last of which was for the Tower Halide s. Intimidation had been extensively practised upon both these occasions, par ticularly on the poor of those districts ; and no one could fully imagine how oppressive and injurious that intimida tion was to many individuals. In the Tower Hamlets, to be considered inimical to the W. et India interest was no recommendation; indeed, as he would show, it was a cause fur the exercise of intimidation. Ho could give many proofs of it, but one specimen, out of a long list, would be sufficient A well known West India house in town went to one of its tradesmen, and inquired, " Will you vote for Captain Marryat ?" The answer was, " Yes.' " You have two votes ; will you give the second to Or Lusbiugton ?" The answer again was, " Y e s," " Very well ; since you are prepared to dispose of your second vote as you say, make out your account, and never expect to do business with our house again." The tradesman, though poor, was independent, and was determined to maintain his opinion. Yet intimidation was used, end the -radesman told him (Dr. Lushington) of it an hour after It took place. If the franchise was extended—and it was by the Reform Bill—protection should be afforded to the voter in precisely the same degree as the franchise was extended, in order to rid him completely of the power of foul oppressors. O❑ what principles was the Reform Bill founded? Oa the principles he hail always advocated—those of good government. He had always contended, that if it was desired to have contentment at some, and equal justice dealt out to all classes of the coin inanity, it would be necessary to have the representatives of that House chosen by a large body of men. That point had been acceded to. But was it not a mockery of justice that open voting should be sill continued, by which the dependence of voters was perpetuated? It had been re aeatedly said that the franchise was a public trust of vast importance. So it was. Now what was intended by the vote by ballot? Why, to give to those public trustees the best way to enable them to execute the trust confided to them.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded with saying, that as the House had been during the week exhausted with late sittings, he would •rouble them with no further arguments, but merely assert, from his own experience, that the vote by ballot was indispensable to secure the free exercise of the elective franchise.—( Hear.) Sir G. PHILLIPS said, that though be was opposed to the system of ballot, yet he would admit that an argument in favour of it had been presented by those who were ad verse to it—by the Conservatives as they called themselves, who exercised over their tenants and dependents a control as to voting in a manner entirely inconsistent with the Reform Bill. He thonght, however, that before the system of election was changed, the House should have more experience of the working of the Reform Bill. He did not see how ballot could prevent bribery; indeed, he thought th it it would only cause double bribery, since it would enable the voter to delude both parties. Much Lad been said about the effects of ballot in America. An American friend of his had told him, that too much importance was attached to it by both parties—those for it and those against it. That was what he thought also, and, there• fore, he wished to put the Conservatives and all parties on their guard, and to remind them that the ballot might be employed for good as well as abused for bad purposes. He contended that publicity was absolutely necessary in all public elections.—(Question.) Major FANCOURT considered that a Reformed Parlia ment should be tried before ballot was granted, and in that opinion he was backed by a large majority of his con stituents. He therefore contended that the measure was brought forward prematurely, and that it would be better to wait and see whether it was really necessary or not. It had powerful advocates in that House and out of doors, and a very talented portion of the press was in its favour. When th at was the case, it was with diffidence that he expressed an opinion unfavourable to it; but yet he could not help thinking that the ballot militated against the pre sent constituency of the country. It was a characteristic sign of the times, that great pains were taken to represent the gentry of the country as a class totally distinct from the great body of the people. Now lie maintained that the gentry of England were not a class whose interests were distinct from those of the people, and that they ware distinguished above all the Aristocracy of all the other countries of Europe, and that such a proud distinction would be destroyed by the influence of the ballot. That was a circumstance be never wished to see take place. The baliot was a measure not only unnecessary, but of a revo lutionary tendency.—(Hear.) So far from preventing underhand practices, it would give rise to the most whole sale bribery— (Hear)—to a deep, designing and heartless duplicity, which were not at present the characteristics of the British nation.—(Hear.) Secret voting would en tirely fail of attaining the proposed objects. The right of franchise was a politically responsible trust; but by secret voting you would entirely do away with that must im portant featuee—the responsibility. Public opinion was new the greatest hold upon all people, from the highest to the lowest ; but this restraint would he wholly done away with in the important step of election by the secret voting. Great stress had been laid by some Hon. Members, and by others out of the House, on the following supposed incontrovertible argument:—Gentleman opposed to the ballot had this question put to them by its advocates— " In your clubs you elect members by the ballot; why then, since experience teaches you that this is the fairest system for your own purposes, why should it not be applied to political elections ?" The reason was p 1 iin—because the election of members for clubs was not a political election, but a personal one. There was no contest whatever in this instance; the only question was, whether the candidate is a fit person for gentlemen to associate with.—(Hear.) In this case, therefore, the election t eing purely personal, the system of secret voting did away at once with any chance of ulterior unpleasant personal feelings, or results to or towards either party. But in a political qiust;on the case was wholly different, the candidates being chosen or rejected on public grounds, not on per sonal grounds, as in the former instance—(Hear, hear)—_ therefore, though secret voting was unquestionably the best system in the one case, it was by means so in the other.—(Hear.) As to the influence of landlords over tenants, customers over tradesmen, and so on, which was so dreadfully complained of, lie decidedly thought such influence, in most cases, lecitirnate and beneficial to all parties.—(Hear.) Generally speaking, the interest of the one was the interest of the other.—(Hear, hear.) He did not consider the influence of station and property in general as of an injurious - tendency. He thought it would be utterly impossible to ba sure of secrecy, particu larly in county elections ; or if there were secrecy, it would inevitably be attended with the grossest duplicity. A great deal had been said about the alleged advantages derived from the adoption of the vote by ballot in Ame rica and France, but he tholLzht we ought rather to look to the preservation in all its real purity of our own Con stitution, than to be looking abroad, picking and borrow ing flow the constitutions of other countries. He consi dered that the ballot would tend to produce a fatal dis severance of those interests between the richer and poorer classes, the junction of which constituted the excellence of our political system ; and he should, therefore, object to this measure, as he would to all other measures which he should think calculated to produce such calamitous results. Lord ALT HORP observed, that he felt himself placed in rather an awkward dilemma by the vote which he should think it his duty to give against this motion. An Hon. Alettiber on the other side of the House, some ses sions ago, had divided the House on a similar question to the present, and he (Lord Althorp), on that occasion, had certainly divided in favour of the ballot ; and on every i other occasion he had expressed himself in favour of the adoption of this mode of voting; but at the same time he must be allowed to say that he had never in any instance urged it as the sine qua non of good representation. He had been fully aware that there were objections to it ; • but, o❑ the whole, he had been inclined to prefer it to other methods. At the time of the discussions on the Reform Bill, many gentlemen who agreed with him in this opinion, and some of whom did really consider it an indispensable measure, had agreed to unite in not pressing it for the time, but to wait for_ a fitting occasion to bring it forward ; and he did not feel that be should now he justified, under the present circumstances of the country, in giving his vote for this motion.—( Hear.) He had never, in a single instance, supported any change of reform unless previously satisfied that great practical inconvenience would result from not having such change or reform ; he did not fur a moment mean to deny but that instances of parti cular evils and abuses resulted from the system of open voting—(Hear, hear)—but, as lie before said, it must fully appear that great public or national evil is the effect of a certain system, before any one would he authorized in making so important a change as this.—(Hear, hear.) His present position was, that no evils did exist, to any such extent as to influence national interests—(Hear, hear)—and therefore he should net advocate such a change. It had been stated by the Hon. Mover, that when his Noble Friend intoduced the Bill or Reform, he bad stated that it was by no means a final measure...-. (Hear.) But lie (Lord Althorp) would appeal to all the Members of the late Parliament, and all who bad attended to the proceedings, whether those who promoted that measure did not constantly state that they considered it, as far as it related to the representation, as a final measure. —(Hear, hear.) He, for one, most certainly had that idea throughout. --(Hear.) It might be said that his vote to night was inc.tnsis.ent with his former vote on the subject ; but he should be still more inconsistent with the whole course of his conduct during the progress of this reform measure, if he gave his vote fur the motion.— ( Hear, hear.) He must here? observe, that if certain Hon. Members really thought, as they stated, that a e r d a t i i o n n a while mo re the manly ßeinr way, if if they t had Bill w„8 going on.—(Hear, hear, hear.) H e ac k now l e d ge d the Reform Bill would be utterly useless and ineffici e nt without the vote by ballot, he considered that th e se g‘ nh- men would this a declaration accit that there were one or two g en tl emen—one, f or i nstance, the late Member for Pr es t on —(H ear, b ear, f rom M r. Warburton)—yes, and th e H on. M em b er who was cheer ing, who always had expresse d t h eir intention to have the - , 7 Vote by Ballot. He gave them every credit for their manliness, but he thought ~it would be much better that l certainly thought, however, that both the _O O e fi e ve • /1' di the opponents of this measure had considerably las they should give the Reformed Parliament f 3 a d ir voe llo . 1 13 , 14 either its benefits or its evils. He did not be _ sso a hat it must inevitably destroy the influence of r . c r e ak or, on the other hens, wholly prevent bribery' reit,e4goa , lered that it would only render bribery too bet be rr Tills had always been his expressed opinion' n e s o fli s peated that he did not, at present, see that the ern o sf open system were so great as to render the pror i ot! important change necessary. He had trels ; s al; j long on the attention of the House, in order to e . b r e l lo reasons for his changed vote on the subsea , an d they would be satisfactory.—( Hear.) could tell the House a very good story, in il l ,l t . r a ys or the evils of the present system, ten times more o.s;bey goons to its character than any they had hear.d of A th lr e . p C ro O p ß os ß e E d s r y T ste h m ad .L l7 H ay! ar b , ee h n ea a r, st a r r e id nt a ou Liti s ug o n . s P t P i o supposed they would not let him.--(Hear, aun.aidf There ha I been a great deal said about the ballotvia rice, and one Hon. Member had said this systenasltse, from general in the United States, but that Hon.. sO . hail omitted to state one fact, which was, that thoss,s: where there was no ballot were the Slave Stites ,t ginias, Carolinas, and Georgias. In all the Free G S e a tie sS' by ballot was the system of election. II"n• . t rj er felf too, had been told a story about Government in being exercised in America—a proof that hab ° d o)? sure remedy against corruption ; but the Hots do do understand the circumstances of the case, whi c the difference. But the fact was, that the il lust 7 tlll no reference at all to the general Government of ttbeelt:, States, but to a number of persons employe d i 0 of Gh yards, &c., of New York, the nominal Governor 0 had been in opposition to, and of a differe nt pa 04' the President of the United States. He ( *. s r eat was not going to talk to th e m much fong-t ere r , subject, but he would just give them 3 b e s ot , —(Hear)--to show the working of the present ss voting. There was the Member for West Stirem;es hal said that nothing would s atisfy him bu t t a ore.a /Si ballot; and could there be found another Ma n s I s etr„ pendent, more even-minded, more beloved anu,,r,, for his talents and virtues, than this G e ntleina n ' s dreo hear.) This Hon. Member then stated that ina a j e ss„, evils and hardships resulted from the Iwo sY L his own instance, he had known many individua'h- fe at' in favour of him, yet who had come to him W i t sh oe their eyes, stating that they were compelled to e°'" f atlal hire, or that they would lose their bread ; an clea 'd ° e/ the( this excellent Gentleman uniformly recounn eo s sle o S l „ under the circumstances, to comply with their "hot' consciences.bt these e e s n e people, obliged t otHhv though u t (e g: lgr:aicn s. attached t)tkhne rwa part fi aa t r i nt i o d g o feg i a thiiel t this well, and he knew this; statement to be perfe a , //1 , of • and that it was but an illustration of the wall s st o , whole system. He knew who were the canvassesst elections there : not gentlemen themselv es ' gatherers and hired overseers, and such like. 0 0 . Noble Lord could not encoura ge th e existen ce ° st , system as this ; and yet the o n ly wa y of putt in g li s tba; o it would be the vote by billot—(llear)--tb ° s ug o oll le . " never been any very great favourit e of his. ' lir e ; great questions, triennial parliaments and vote ti o d they had only been postponed during the dud' Orj the Reform Bill, not quashed a s was re presen t Ors then was the wonder that one H on . Member for ( o°s should have put down his notic e with referen r)I! ballot on the first day of the s e s s i on , o r that ari (4be flO, ber for the city should have put d o wn his no tice , ' O s ' ing forwird the question of tri enn i a l Parlialnen;eP; same time ? Now this could not h a ve been de 00: under the clear underst a ndi ng th a t tl , e-e q ue ct ali °S t : only been postponed during the immediate the Reform Bill. At any rate, whether t"'',4 were carried or not, it was worth while bri as d l u cti ° S s ward, if were only for the hearing the i nt , rci . te ee s ' the Hon. 'Member for London, anti the suPP e s ' o e t t r a °' from the Hon. and Learned Member for the I °- : lets. Some Hon. Members had seemed to g e il e a' very excited state, very foolishly, about "l e p let!' l , ert ; wanting to have property seized hold of an"; n e t s and about the invasion of the rights of propettr, of " s heard no:hing to warrant him in fearing an ',, direful calamities. There had been something "rlitscif; the rights of property; bet what had been is, P ,salf s • insisted on were the duties of property. a n osea, l 'a denied that property was entitled to the P r ir ge°,,,' those who had no property ; all that had bee° - ,b e s that the latter should have the advantage' ', o oae l q entitled to, in return for the protection of the Id hiei was all very well that the higher classes sh °ll ,, s y' l bodies of the lower ; all he w an ted was, that t"-booli nut be allowed to hire their souls ; that thlit, allowed to vote as conscience, not proper t y' f fol i d ( Hear)—that they sh ou ld no t be deprived O'sta,, their families for c onsc i ence sa k e . All tin' ot e 0 ;, averted by the vot e by b a ll ot . A s it wa''diti attorneys, tax-gatherers, and hired o verseers' work. These w e r e th e t oo l s t h at h a d put ha l ' , t o e ' °,' in their plac e s, how e v e r abh orren t u ndue it' ll° risa /4 appear to them personally. They talked of the aitse: being the protectors of the p e o p l e . Yea a" gh e e tel!,, nature, but are they so in re a lity ? Unfe e ' a ,sse ta s What could be a more truly grat ifying thing " e pP, nobleman looked up to by a whole parish, or t t cv e b re as their natural protector ! B u t w here 1 0 1 d e e o /,' nobleman ? As it was, peopl e did not cocc i ' s th em e { be their natural prot e c o r wh o transpor te " seven years for killing a hare, and had thri les rl, scuffling with his gamekeeper.—(On ob laugh.) He had never tried to set the po,,d tec as tio a n m to er t i h t e to io, h ve it r ns c e l rich—(oh ! oh ! and a laugh)—thougb b e d'J a l/ opportunities as most people, and though , l ee t es :e this pro sure that if the aristocracy continued to WO" 9 ifO r rather inclined to shake it off. a e- sa himself —(A An HON. MEMBER, whose name we ce u ,,, lot ' • opposed the motion, and contended that the u"' , 4 ' from acceptable to the majority of the peoP le 'b, Mr. O'CONNELL said, that he woul d °p ;1 00 ' t r House for a few minutes. lie thought th at of el/ hers who had spoken against the adopti on tst l it ;il; ballot, though they said they were av e— s brought forward no sound argument again w a ' s tn e k a The question at issue was really this. r s i ' it tibia', belong to the voter or to anybody else ? r 0 ,19 en a t 's ' oe. property, or merely the property of those TIP else an info, nce over him? Those who ° ,,,, • itt ro ira i, vote ought to belong to the voter, should 6° ' • 1 1 ' ai ballot ; those who thought that , ' nit't it was e a s e , and that he oug ht not to h ave t h e free °,j se l2 should oppose it. Without vote by ball° e l: - 0 0ra i ' l lie L was impossible that a vo t e cou ld b e a voter:fl f oe: ° was bribery and interf e r ence t o i n fl u enc e e There was hope of gain on the one hand, a n ss itte9;j4 on the other ; and, if there was not actual " 10 t e , i tt was at least the expectation of a brihe fe man to vote contrary to his conscience• j, ti e estli s 51 0 '0e, there were two views in which the considered. In the first place, ought $ b e es 11 1 1; his own ? and, in the second place, ought "- t o b- se "It to sell it? It would be conceded that a sstevito:o,o", be allowed to sell his vote, and the bal lot vic e 110 1 / security against such a sale ; for, if ther e b y ha l So ballot and secrecy (without which vote . e ' r , ;0 0), nothing) he was not lik e ly to g e t a per 01,,e)t would give money for a vot e , when hel,,-(`d e ba ( ascertaining bow it would b e exercise7.'oLe op 1/ t great deal had been said in the course n; ,tra e- s et those who oppo se d th e q ues ti on , of the u e e sa / de e', influence of property whi c h th e ballot o , fb e i° t o If ; denied that such would be the effect. boel.o property in the ha n d s o f a man who Rano °l l 0 well, would ev e r r ema i n , an d wou ld ever " - sins. e solr the minds and consciences of those tindesebirbdiool' I present it w as no t t h at ki n d o f iufluen ee bore. No. It was th e h ars h u nforgi v ' ss 5 0 0, i e OP had influence now o ver hi s treraib lio '' . l s sva a her tenantry. —(Hear.) It had b e en said tbalitad beef e on ble to maintain secrecy of ballot, and til t m icas ° forward as an argument against the a° ° r u is beg v ballot. But if it were impossible, lie se : s i; abe s 'al t ; what worse situation were they them ' t a o , ° 4ll r et e; present ?—( Cheers. ) But he denied th a jos io i de a ti g 'rations it would he impossible to u la t won' at 7 ' (Cheers.) It had been said that the ball° wog doe' " 1 / a system of hypocrisy,which might be i s be 0 1? , - effects. But he would ask if there co i n oa t , fi tlr more dangerous apt ties of hypocrisy t ran ., bis of; doted a man to give his vote contrarY ,t, st s eon4/ (Cheers.) Another effsct of vote by ivi r l' , ° .ao o 6 9, it would put an end to the s yetem 1 °llt to be t t A situation of puttlic trust, which one of not for favour, but on account of the m i e b i es r o t re st chosen._( Hear, hear.) It was ini Pd v ery p s i 0 1; politic, na refuse the Ballot. TheY seven Die , tended the suffrage, but th en, by t" i ise ivhsioolj were admitted to exercise o f the franc ' a nd bY E cities could not withstand a bribe, e bo : theY w ee ta r ballot and secrecy of voting, A l o-° er On tbeeeb , bonus to bribery and perjury. riss. e ye t cordially support the motion of the et , City of London.—(Cheers . ) lion' / ,1 Sir R. PEEL said, tha t though the on t ioe g te o Member for Dublin had n ot made a 1$ et fpl was well known that he had longpu:' ery e we subject, and as be was a person iv 'tntild have I St; on- i ~~