The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-24 00:00:00

umwv tow,. •••-•,••••••••• PERIAL PAItLIAMEIN T. HOUSE OF LORDS, .Tuxr.• 03. The Loan Ca,..:•;cr:J.Lon took seat on t h e w ei a saek at iihree o'clock, and witnesses were heard from that hour until past five o'clock on the Stafford iiisfranchisetnent Bill, when the further proceedings on t';:e Bill were adjourned until three o'clock to-morrow (this '!,a,y). A PEER, whose u:,,me we could not learn, presented a peti tion from a place is Ayrshire, in favohr of the Irish Municipal Bill as I...a7isc,d by the House of Lords. A irrxber lioisr.! of Cotimulls of Railroad Bilis were brought up frotn the Vac Duke of LEINS'fEIZ. presented t;ome petal:T.l.s sg . .tinst tittles, but we could not catch the nranes of tho places fr om which they came, his Grace being almo,st toWlz" , inaudible the Gallery. Lord WYNFO RD presented a pet'xion from Stockport, in favour of the Irish AutliciF7A Bill cei pnssed by their Lord ships' House. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from the mayor and coveoratioa. of Devizes, praying that iheir Lordships would reconsider the Bill for the regulation of mu nicipal eorporatie - As in Ire'land, so as to meet the just expecta tions of the per,ple of tl..at country, and to fulfil the hopes in spired by the - words of 'cis Majesty's speech, and promote the kappiness and prospe..-ity of the whole empire. Earl BRO ';VNL OW presented a petition from llorneastle in favour• of the Irish Municipal Bill, as passed by their Lord ships Ho•ase, PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. Lori LYNDHURST, in moving the Order oithe Day for the second reading of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, which had beeen several days upon the trble of their Lordships' House, eves desirous of stating to their Lordships why it was that he t aok that duty upon himself. His Noble and Learned Friends who were connected with his Majesty's Government were so much occupied with other important duties, that it was not possible for them to pay that attention to the present Bill which was necessary to pass it through their Lordships' Hawse, and therefore it was that he felt it to he his duty ten bring it under their Lordships consideration. He would say one word as to the history of the Bill. In the sessir, a of 1834, a Bill similar to the present Bill passed the louse of Commons, end was read a first time in their Lerdships' House ; but it proceeded no farther. In the last session the same descrip tion of Bill passed the Haase, of Commons, having been read a second time in that Hcease without a division. When it came up to their Lordships' House, it was referred to a Com mittee; but it was so late in the session before the evidence was printed, that the Committee made no Report upon it. In the prsesent session the Bill now on the table came up to their Lordships' House, having passed the other Haase of Parliament ; and was referred, as in the last year, to a Select Committee, who had reported in favour of the: principle of the Bill, and thus the Bill came upon their: Lordships' table. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had directed a Commission to ineedre into the state of the criminal law of the country. The Com mission had done so, and. had examined a number of wit nesses of various classes who were likely to thou any light on the subject, and, after the most full inquiry, the Com missioners reported unanimously in favour of 4 , - he principle of the Bill being attopted. It was under these circumstances that he now submitted the Bill to their Lordships' consi deration for a second reading. The: first point that must strike their Lordships in lookim; at the subject was the glaring ;.nconsistency of' the prey eat anomalous state of the law, in the litigation of property of any description or in any shape a man might have the assistance of as many Counsel as Le thought proper; but is a case that affected his character, hi's liberty, and his life, Ise was deprived of that assistance. 'ibis must appear to all, us not only inconsistent and unsatis tisfactory, but absolutely absurd. In the case of crimes of the deepest dye, hie;re treason, Counsel were allowed to ad dress the jury for e:Oe, prisoner, and this was also the case in the lowest class o f crimes —misdemeanors; and thus in the two extreme classes of crimes Counsel were allowed to ad dress the it' s . ) . upon the facts, whereas in the intermediate cases this orivilege was denied to prisoners. This was cer tainly } ,ordering „ on absurdity. He could multiply instances to the'ir Lordships of the anomalous state of the law, but he was . sure it could not be n ecessary. W hen the question was agetated some ten or twelve years ago the opinion of the p rofession was decidedly againt the change; but from the inquiries which he had made he thought be might undertake to say that a great majority of the profession was now in fa your of the principle of the present Bill. He knew a great many cases in which he had been concerned either as Counsel or sitting as Judge, in which the evidence had been so extensive and so complicated in its character that it would have been ridiculous to say that could not be contradicted, and drat the observations of Counsel upon it would not have been of the greatest iinportaece both to the Jury, to the in terests of the prisoner, and to enlighten the mind of the Judge. H.O would beg leave to refer the House to a letter written by `Sir Richard Atkins with reference to the trial of Lord Rus sell. There was another authority to which he would refer— certainly an extreme one. It was that of Lord Jefferies, who upon one trial said that lie thought it was a hard case that any n'.an should 'nave Counsel to defend himself on a twopenny trespass, and have witnesses examined upon oath, when, if he had committed murder —nay high treason, as the law then stood—he could not have had a Counsel or witnesses examined on oath, though his life, estate, and honour were all alike concerned. This was part of the authority in support of the Fill ; and, on the other side, he was hound to admit, there was - the respected name of Sir Michael Foster, but that learned person had not expressed himself strongly upon the subject. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had looked into his book, and he made an extract from it, in which he expressed himself in words very guarded with respect to the question. He said—" lam far from disputirg the propriety of this rule ; but in all these cases we must be governed by a balance of the evils and of the inconveniences." He (Lord Lyndhurst) admitted this authority, and that even the doubts of this Learned Judge were entitled to great attention, and it was in consequence partly of those doubts, and in consequence of an examination of what had appeared to him to be the evils and inconvenience of departing from the present system, that he had formerly opposed in the other House of Parliament a Bill similar in principle to the present. He had since had occasion to ob serve the progress of opinion on the subject, to make obser vations respecting the opinions of the Bar and the Bench, to see the working of the system, and the result had been that lie was satisfied that the evils and the inconveniences had been greatly exaggerated, and that—being greatly exagge• rated--they ought not to be put in competition with that which the obvious justice of the case appeared to require. Now, it was said that prisoners might them selves address a jury, and Mr. Sergeant Hawkins bad said that the address of a party accused, was likely to be attended 'with more beneficial effects, than when made by a Counsel. With all clue submission to this authority, it ap peared to him (Lord Lyndhurst) to b , e a mere mockery.— ( Hear.) How few were the number of persons, even persons of education, who were accustoms e to public speaking, and how few were there who, when esalled upon for the first time to exercise this power—this rift—could go into the merits of a case, point out the improleabilities of the evidence, and the inconsistencies which preer:iled either on the one side or on the other, so as to meet the ends of justice? This observation applied to persons ref education ; but how few persons of education were put upon their trial? The great mass of pri soner' were eniefe,rined and uninstructed, and when the cir cumstance of three condition, the novelty of their position, the anxiety of mine which it would naturally create, and the fatal consequences which would result to them from the mere slip of a phrase, now absurd it was to say that it was better for the party accused to defend himself, and that he would do it with more effect than if his defence were conducted by Counsel. What kind of speech, he would ask, for a prosecution, was likely to have the most fatal effects against the accused? H e would take the case of a party indicted for a capital offence, where the case depended on the great mass of circumstantial evidence; what speech, he repeated, would have the most fatal effects against the accused ? Most assuredly the speech of an ingenious Counsel, who would collect every little fact of a case, arrange them in such order, and in such a manner, and intersperse them with such oc casion observations, so as to lead to the conclusion of guilt. Speeches of such a description were usually intro sluced with expressions of great mercy towards the prisoner, end the hope that he would be able to extricate himself from the foils in which he was entangled. Such a speech was likely to produce a much more powerful effect on the minds of the jury than any speech of zeal or passion. But there was another consideration of still greater importance, which was the experience of the world on this matter. What was the practice of the other coun t r i es o f civilise.d Europe? England boasted of the tendeeness of her laws—at least in the adminis tration of them, and he thought she stood above all the civilized nations of Europe in this respect. Nosy there was not a country in Europe that did not allow a prisoner to defend himself by Counsel on matters of fact as well as of law, except this e.ountry and Ireland. Look at the case of Scotland. Th en , a party accused of felony had a right of making a f u ll, defence by Counsel on the matter of fact ; and could the P nwee, then, justify that privilege in one part of the country Fend deny it to the other? It was said that there was a difference between the laws; but he believed there was no grotueds of distinction sufficient to warrant the practice in the noernern part of the island to the exclusion of the rest of the empire. Again, what was the case in the English colonies, where the criminal law of England prevailed ? Mr. Wallace said that prisoners were allowed to be defended by Counsel or. matters of fact and of law, and that no inconvenience had arisen from that practice in those places. In the United States, 'where the common law of England was the common law of the country, this Privilege was allowed without inconvenience or complaint of the existence of those evils which, it was supposed, would arise from its establishment in England. What then what the objection? The only one hinted or al luded t o , b ut which no one would openly avow, was time. It was said that it would extend beyond measure the duration of the sessions and assizes, that it would entail great expense i had on the cou n t r y. Thi s was state d as an o bj ec ti o n ; but t always bee n p roteste d aga i nst, b ecause i n a ma tt e r of life and death everebody .must be satisfied that an argument, founded on consiuerations of time and expense, ought to have no weight in depriving a man' of a fair trial. There was another objection which was nearly obsolete. It was—that a Judge Iva% Counsel for the prisoner. A Judge could not be an ad vocate fcr a prisoner —that was not the office of a Judge ; and if it were, he had no means of discharging his duty by communicating with the prisoner, by ascertaining the cha racter of the witnesses. Another objection was, that the change would lower the tone and charrer of judicial pro ceedings in criminal matters. It was said that everything was orderly, that everything was quiet, that there was no riot or passion ; that the witnesses on the part of the prose cution were impartially examined, and the witnesses for the defence in the same manner, the Judge merely dissecting the evidence and submitting it to the Jury. He admitted all this, and also that sor.lething like warmth and zeal would be in tro,doced into Courts of Justice if Counsel wefe found to argue on behalf of prisoners ; but he thought that the e: is anticipated bad been greatly exaggerated. lie had b:2en in the Court of King's Bench, and hail heard many cases of misdemeanour tried there, under the superintendence. of the Lord Chief Jus tice ; and he never found any want of order or of the tran quiilitky neetssary to the ends of justice. ,The ., sa . m .. e nt re 3 n o l i a n r t : t o l r 7t no in t applied to Assizes. There was anodicr most im,:ot Whet was the best mode of investigating truth ? It was said that in the av,gumeßtt of Counsel passion w0 b u . 1d i, .. 11 :.u) , .,t , t , a co for fair inquiry'. Ile had considered -that . ° , , little Coutacl eisladoutthoisf D to p .i i i itt!tl y t e t r ); h m e at i t i c a r d ed corn - upon circumstantial evidence privilege. In cases dependin: no man could venture to that it was not of the utmost whether "as im portance that Cot'.:. - acl should have an opprtunity of olyierVin4 upon the evidence. Another objection was that the ebaiitt;. tars of the judges would be affected by the thante, and that if a speech . were' made on prisoner. the judge would nave to reply to its dh 1 the.; appear to he a party against the prisoner % at denied tip a the judge would have any . such duty tn 14 trtorm ; for if he exposed the sophistries of the Counsel.; the'inconsistencies of the evidence, and connected any errors of by directing • • his notes, attention to Ili, notes, he woy',l . e doing abundantly sufficient for the ends of justice., lie would submit that the present practice was un sutorted by authority, that if it were continued it would act • partially between the accuser and the accused, that it was contrary to the practice of all civilised countries, and that the alteration was required because it was essential to the due in veatigation of truth in the most important questions that could come before a Court of criminal justice.—( Hear.) Lord WYNFORD begged to be understood as by no means opposed to giving Counsel to prisoners, far he had never yet. heard any reason against prisoners having Counsel which did not go the fell length of declaring that Counsel were of no usie in any case whatever. From ids own experience he should say that he had efttn felt the want of Counsel in cri minal eases. He remembered a case on -circuit in which a maa was tried for a murder in Leicestershire. It was alleged that ho had come out of Yorkshire for the purpose. The trial lasted the whole day, and he had stated very strongly to the jury the fact that a woman had sworn that the prisoner left Barnsley, it, Yorkshire,- on the Saturday, just in sufficient time to get to Melton Mowbray, in Leicestershire, to commit the murder. He had no sooner left the Bench than the attor ney came to him, and stated that the old woman was mistaken in the week. He immediately arrested the execution of the prisoner, and the man's two masters were brought from York shire, when they produced books showing the work that be had done for a week after. Upon representation of the cir cumstances the man received a free pardon. Now, in that case, if Counsel had called his attention to the real fact be should immediately hare directed an acquittal. A Mr. Wyldc, who was Sheriff of London, during his shricvalty saved the lives of five persons by an investigation of the facts subse quent to conviction, and if thiS were the case in one year, how could it be said that justice was properly administered ? He had always been of opinion that prisoners should be permitted to make a full defence by Counsel ; but at the same time he was aware that some additional assistance would be necessary. His Noble and Learned Friend talked of trying the experi ment. The gaols were now very li g ht, an d he thought that a better opportunity than the present could not be selected. He would, however, confess that he should like the Bill bet ter if it contained some provision entitling prisoners to have Counsel. the Lord LYNDHURST explained. Lord DENMAN apprehended that it was clear his Noble and Learned Friend opposite was arguing merely in favour of the principle of the Bill, and that the consideration of the details would be reserved to the Committee, if their Lord ships agreed to the second reading of the Bill. He was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of returning his, thanks to his Noble and Learned Friend for introducing this measure, which he thought was essential to the honour and due administration of the law, to the course of truth, and the protection of innocence. He was strongly tempted to refer their Lordships to one of the standing orders of the House, which their Lordships might, perhaps, not be aware stated this principle. He alluded to the forty-seventh Standing Order, which bad reference to the trial of such as came to the judi cature in that House. The effect of it was that as the House of Lords was the Court highest over all others, the proceed ings should be most f a i r an d equa l, an d that, therefore, in all cases of moment, the d e f en d an t s h a ll h ave cop i es o f deposi tions pro and contra, after publication, and that the de fendant might have a learned Counsel to assist him. This was a most express authority in favour of the principle of the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to the case of a Peer twice tried for high treason in 1745, at . which time the privilege of having Counsel was denied by the House of Commons, and he taught that the words of Simon, Lord Lovett, who was the Peer in question, which be was about to read, would carry conviction to every man capable of being convinced. They were—" If you do not allow me counsel, my Lords, it is impossible for me to make any defence by rea son of my infirmity, for I neither can see nor hear. I have come up to your Lordships' bar at the hazard of my life. I have fainted several times already. I was up early—as early as four o'clock. I ask assistance, and if you do not allow me counsel it will be impossible for me to make any defence." This description of infirmity might answer, for aught their Lordships knew, the description of. every prisoner put on his trial for his life. The real question was, what did the prin ciple require, and what did justice and truth now demand at the hands of the legislature? When he was at the As sizes at Liverpool, two Scotch Judges sat with him on the Bench, and one case that came before him was a pro secution for uttering a counterfeit sixpence, which was merely a misdemeanor. The next was a prosecution for uttering two sixpences, which was a felony ; in th e f ormer case th prisoner had a Counsel ; but in the latter he was not allowed to have one. The practice by the ancient law of England was undoubtedly to allow prisoners to defend them selves by Counsel; but now it almost amounted to sending a man into Court with a halter round his neck, to show cause, as it were, against a rule why he should not go forth to be executed.—( Hear, hear.) The single argument in favour of the present practice was, that the case, in regard to criminal offences, ought to be made out so clearly than no Counsel should be able to shake it. The fallacy of the argument was evident, because it must be utterly impossible to say whether the case was or was not so made out, unless the opportunity were given to Counsel to attempt to upset. it. In favour of the principle of this measure he had the authority of his late lamented friend, Sir James Mackintosh, who had advanced upon that subject the most convincing arguments. He wished also to state that Lord Brougham had authorised him to say that it was his (Lord Brougham's) firm conviction that the Bill ought to pass. In 1826 that Noble Lord hbd become a convert to that opinion, and had then spoken in the House of Commons on behalf of such a proposition. He was exceed ingly sorry thatlhe Report of the Commissioners was not be fore their Lordships, because there was much that was highly important in that document. No less a person than the late Attorney-General (Sir F. Pollock) had stated before those Commissioners that he had seen convictions take place and executions follow whilst in his judgment such decisions ought not to have been pronounced. It was also the opinion of Mr. Alderman Harmer, who must have had considerable practical experience, that many of his clients had been unjustly con victed, and be ( Alderman Harmer) gave this remarkable rea -1 son—because, he said, the guilty man very often made a good defence, whereas he never yet knew of an innocent man, who upon being called upon, could make any defence. It was said that the Bill would rather do harm than good to the prison ers. Why, it was not the object of the measure to do good to prisoners generally, but to prevent the innocent from suffering for the guilty. He could not conceive that there could be any person acting in the character of a Judge, who would not feel desirous to hear Counsel on both sides. He was not entitled to refer to the opinion of the Judges, because they had de clined on account of their position to give evidence before the Commission ; but he could not refrain from alluding to an ob servation which had fallen from one of his brethren, who had said, "the fate of the men in all probability depends upon the conclusion to which I shall come ; this may be a long, con tradictory, intricate case, and yet I am 'allowed no time to form my opinion upon its merits, except the short period which is occupied by the ceremony of the witness taking the oath." He thought that the situation of the unfortunate man, when he was called upon for his defence, but was at the same time told that his Counsel could not speak for him, was scarcely less en viable than the situation of the Judge who had to pronounce upon a case so brought before him, or than the situation of of his Counsel, who might be standing by, feeling, perhai s, that if he were allowed to speak he could place the matter in a very different, and to his client much more favourable, Lord ABINGER was understood to express an opinion in favour of the principle of the measure, but at the same time to qualify that opinion by an apprehension as to the consequences which might ensue. He consequently thought it might be a suggestion worth their Lordships' consideration whether so great an experiment ought at once to be finally determined. He must assent to the second reading, but he should feel called upon to Oppose many of the details. The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his entire acqui escence in the principle of this measure. The Noble Lord who had proposed the second reading to their Lordships had said that he did so because no Member of his Majesty;§ Go vernment deemed disposed to take the matter up. He could assure their Lordships that lie hied intender so. to do, though he now rejoiced that he had not sooner moved !it, because he had thereby secured the very able assistance of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst). The Bill was then read a second time. The Dublin Police Bill was read a third time, and passed. INSTRUMENTS OF SASINE (SCOTLAND) BILL. Their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee upon this Bill, which, with two amendments, proposed by the Lord Cnancellor, was afterwards reported to the House. The Sale of Bread Bill passed through a Committee, and was reported with amendments. Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter to Eight o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Ju 23. The SPEAK ER took the Chair at four o'clock. STOCKPORT GAS COMPANY. Lord F. EGERTON moved that the petition in the case of the Stockport Gas Company should be referred to a Com mittee of Appeal. Mr. MARSDEN opposed the motion. After a few words from an Honourable 'MEMBER, the House divided— Aye 5.............................. 23 Noes Majority against .................. 4 226 DURHAM SOUTH-WEST RAILROAD. Mr. HUME said, it would be recollected that the House had laid down rules for the guidance of Committees upon railroads. The Committee on the Durham South-west Rail road reported, but the Report contai4,d no answers to the sc- T IIE StrN , LON : k.: 1 4 lb E 2 A' 1, ). qukries werc direete.il to 'such casks. Upo n th at it wlit ' o ,eitticd that the ,C9r4rmtt9g should re assemble fr%rofthe..Al,lo',Pg required. When this Commiteee iliV.7 . tt..c.te to the resolution that tho"s'e;oitly sh'6lllA atVeqt'. 'who had voted the preamble not pea`ve . d.. V/ere but ;ew of the Committee who calm: to that VOle. His motion now was that tile Com mittee should assemble again for th o p urpose of ew.sidering the preambl e. 7,1 r. NVA S"'. ...A contended that as there was no question -.c of tn.n-its, his lion. Friend was completely shut out of Court. Sir J. GRAHAM concurred in the Report of the Commit tee, and voted on the resolution, but yet he was disposed to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex.• Had he been present in the Committee at the time he would have rotes ett . preamble net proved. After a few words from Mr. P. THOMSON and Mr. WAsoN, the gallery was cleared for a division ; but none took place, anl the motion was ultimately agreed to. Mr. GULLY rose, in consequence of a statement which had gone forth to the public, in which he had been misrepre sented, and which had appeared in the Times and 66 Morn ing Herald. It was stated by those papers, in reporting some observations which fell from him (Mr. Gully) on a former evening, that he had, in answer to the Hon. Member for-Brad fora, stated that he (Mr. Gully) had not paid head-money, or been guilty of bribery in any manner whatever. He hoped, however, that it was in the' recollection of the House that his answer on that occasion really was, that if he had paid head 'money, or had been guilty of bribery, he would have thought himself unworthy of a seat in that House.—(Cheers.) VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. Hume, -Mr. Hodges, Mr. D. W. Harvey, Colonel Bcaucicrk, and Mr. Heat',cote presented petitions in favour of voting by ballot, from Bristol, Southwark, 'Canterbury, and other places the names of which were not stated. Mr. GROTE then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice. I mean to ask for leave to bring in a Bill providing the votes shall be henceforward taken in secret by way of Ballot. If lam allowed to bring in my Bill, I shall show the House that the regulations essential to a system of secret voting may easily be framed, with perfect convenience to the voter, and entire certainty as to the main object ; and I may safely promise gentlemen, that if they are not at variance with me on the ground of prin ciple, they shall have very little reasou to complain on the score of deficiency in the details. By assenting to my present motion, they will not be called upon to pronounce an irre vocable determination in favour of secret voting, until they see the details through which it is to be brought into op e ration. To justify myself in calling for the interposition of this House, I must offer you proof of the existence of some evil requiring remedy, and susceptible of remedy. I must make out to you a case of exigency, such as nothing but the powerful and com manding arm of the Legislature can effectually deal with. Now, Sir, how do the facts stand with reference to your eke tive system? Have you pure and free elections, or anything at all like them, as matters stand at present ? Put this ques tion to any man of any politics, and I apprehend that the an swer which you will obtain will be one and the same. How ever indisposed men may be to act vigorously in rectifying the evil, there are but few who are bold enough or blind enough to deny its reality ; nay, Sir, I believe that on this subject I labour under a difficulty opposite to that which is com monly experienced by those who submit motions to Parliament; for the evil which I seek to correct is not unknown, not unperceived, not of recent growth, but trite, too familiar, and of too long standing to excite those feelings of repugnance which properly and intrinsically belong to it. Gentlemen talk of election abuses as a matter of course, which it may be decent to punish for the sake of appearances when a flagrant case happens to be detected, but which none but visionaries or enthusiasts will ever pretend to suppress or eradicate. Practices which might be in full keeping and consonance with the general rottenness of our system of representation as it stood previous to the Reform Act now stand out in glaring , contrast with the principles of that measure, and still more with the promises and declarations of its authors. When the Noble Lord, who first introduced the Reform Act, announced his memorable purpose of gueranteeing to us a House of Com mons possessing and deserving the confidence of the people— when Lord Grey proclaimed to the world that nomination of Members of Parliament should cease to exist, and that repre sentation should be erected everywhere in its place—l con tend that, these declarations did, in their fair Meaning and spirit, imply a pledge to leave none of the known and standing disorders of the elective system without correct tion and redress. I now call upon the Noble Lord for the fulfilment of his beneficent pledge, and I am sure lie will not be surprised if the electors, whom his own Act has created, entreat from him that protection which is necessary to the quiet and conscientious exercise of their franchise. But, Sir, there is one other circumstance yet behind, which, even if it stood alone, would render a prolonged indiffe rence on this subject intolerably disgraceful to our character as a Legislature. Sir, the extent and prevalence of these election abuses do not now depend upon mere presumption, however general, and however confident ; it is not now a mat ter which every one believes, but which no one can formally prove ; it rests upon something better and stronger than all this —upon positive, authentic, and indisputable testimony, col lected and sifted by your own Committees. The House will not forget that there have been several special investigations of this kind : they will not forget the disclosures made before the various Parliamentary Committees on Stafford, Warwick, Hertford, Ipswich, York, Yarmouth, and other places : they will not forget the reports made by the Municipal Corpora tion Commissioners, in reference to the conduct of the free men in many important Parliamentary boroughs. These mul tiplied investigations have brought to view a body of dark and infamous details, which cast a melancholy shade over the genual picture of election management in England.-- ( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, over and above the testimonies collected by these special Committees, important as they are when singly taken, and still more important in their aggre gate effect, there is yet another document more weighty and conclusive than all of them.—(Hear.) I allude to the re port of the Committee of last year on bribery and intimida at elections. It will be recollected that the House appointed this Committee last year to inquire generally into the extent and prevalence of these evils, and to suggest the best means of preventing. them. I hold in my hand, Sir, the voluminous se ries of evidences received and published by that Committee, and I scruple not to assert that proofs more irresistible can hardly be conceived of the depravity and the subjection which now so largely pervade our elective system. Mr. Cockburn, a Barrister, examined before that Committee, who gave evi dence distinguished for its ability, stated that from all the in formation with which his practice and his inquiries furnished him, he concluded confidently that bribery prevailed at elec tions to an extent of which the House and the country had scarcely any idea. The witnesses whom th e Committee examined from Bristol, Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich—Mr. Staff, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Cowell—go far to corroborate and sustain this conclusion. You see in those places and elsewhere a system of bribery, standing, perpetual, incorpo rated with the habitual proceedings both of agents and elec tors. Yoe are plainly told that a candidate who refuses to conform to it conducts his election at the greatest disadvan tage ; you are apprised that it enters into the calculations of a eel tain class of electors like the annual return of the fair and the races.—( Hear, hear.) Such, Sir, is the tenor of the evidence which the Committee on bribery and intimidation collected with regard to the first branch of their subject. Now, how stands the fact with regard to the second branch ? Sir, the testimonies collected by the Committee in proof of intimidation, are even more abundant and more decisive than those in proof of bribery. It seems that all parties whatever make loud complaints of intimidation, some from one quarter, some from another; but all with one accord proclaiming that this mighty evil is of continual occurrence. Such, indeed, was the sense entertained by the Irish Government under the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in January and February, 1835, of the violent intimidation alleged to have been practised at the elections w hich had then just terminated, that they directed special inquiries to be made by several of the chief consta bles, and reports to be sent to them on the subject. It is from these reports that much of the evidence taken before the Com mittee on this branch of election intimidation is drawn, some of the chief officers in the constabulary force having been personally examined before them. These witnesses depose to popular tumult and violence in many parts of Ireland, for the purpose of overawing electors, and constraining them to vote on the popular side; they depose further, that these violences were in many cases inflamed and countenanced by the Catholic priests; and they state several cases of exposure of voters, who were about to vote against the popul a r candi date, to larming threats and ill-usage from the mob, as well as to the risk of being ruined by resolutions of exclusive deal ing. With regard to other branches of intimidation, we have not the same advantage of elaborate inquiry undertaken by local functionaries, under the special direction of the Govern- Inent. Yet notwithstanding this disadvantage, notwithstand ing the absence of official investigation, a bcdy of testimony no less conclusive and authentic was furnished to the Committee by numerous spontaneous witnesses. It has been incontes tably shown that intimidation by the people and the priest, take it at the worst, is only one amongst many varieties and descriptions of intimidation. If the free-will of voters is occa sionally borne down by the violence of the mob, it is still more frequently overruled by the dictation of landlords and agents, and generally of rich purchasers and consumers. Perhaps Honourable Gentlemen might imagine that these mischiefs and abuses are peculiar to Ireland. Would, indeed, that the fact were so I But it is in this case as in others : Irish abuses are the same in kind as English abuses, only on a gigantic and exaggerated scale. The testimonies col lected from various quarters of England reveal the same mis chiefs, the same oppressions, the same sufferings and pros tration of the voter on this side the Channel as on the other. Sir, I know not bow the House may deal with my proposition of to-night, but of this I am most certain, that I approach the subject with a sincere desire to understand the evil in its full extent, and to fathom it in all its depths and recesses—l s p. proach it with no purpose of making a part stand for the whole, or the species for the genus—above all, I approach it with the deepest anxiety to provide an adequate remedy —a comprehen sive and all-sufficient remedy. I stand upon this plain and broad position, that elections ought to be free—free absolutely and universally—l try to put down without reserve all inti midation, from whatever quarter it may come : I furnish the elector with a shield against every sort of tyranny over his vote, whether it be single-headed or many-headed tyranny. One think I shall just remark, in reference to the Catholic priests, because it connects itself with the general question as to the latitude of interference admi s sible. It seems to be ass ume d by Gentlemen opposite, that Catholic priests have no right t o interfere in elections at all—that they are debarred by th e functions which they exer c is e f r om doing so. Now, Sir, this is a position to which I can by no means accede. I never can consent to divest any man, be he layman or ecclesiastic, of his character of citizen; because there is no man of any pro. fession who is not interested in the goodness of the laws, and in the proceedings of this House. But, Sir, though I stre- iiiuusly tbe right of Ahe„prirst ;9 iiitcrfsre,at cleption,s, oinl viu of ipterffri%;, prigs ai AS 4111(14;1-6, df any dther i!L4I; interierl in the wrong way as well as in the right.—( Hear, hear, hear. Sir, if gentlemen will read the evidence of Mr. James, of Hereford, taken before the Committee on Bribery and Liti midation, they will see that the clergy of the Church of England are not behind-hand in zeal and active industry at the critical moment of an election. And in the evidence of James King, gentlemen will find a statement still more strik ingly illustrating this conclusion—they will find it recorded that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge dismissed his gardener from his service, because the man re fused to comply with his request that he would vote against the Right Hon. Gentleman the present Member for the town of Cambridge. Now, Sir, do I complain of the Vice-Chan cellor of Cambridge fur interfering at elections ? By no means ; he had the clearest right to interfere if he chose ; but I say of him, what I should say also of a Catholic Priest, that he had no right to interfere in a way utterly subversive of all liberty and sincerity of voting.—( Cries of " Hear.") What shall we urge in our def7nce, Sir, if we neglect to ap ply any remedial measure, when the distempers in our electo ral system have been thus proclaimed as it were by authority, thus blazoned forth in the full daylight of Parliamentary recognition? Have gentlemen made up their mind to see this leprosy cleave to us and to our posterity for ever ; or do they fondly expect that it will die away of itself, without any active precautions on our part to counterwork or neutralise it ? Sir, I am so far from expecting any future abatement in the practice of intimidating at elections, that I see every reason to fear a contrary result ; I see strong ground for anticipating that undue power over the liberty of voters will be exercised henceforward more vigorously and auda ciously than ever. Now what arc the remedies which have been suggested to correct it? According to my view of the case, the only remedy is secret voting. But is there any differ ent proposition started by the ingenuity of others for the ac complishment of the same end? Sir, I regret to be obliged to state that this report, explicit and voluminous as it is in the exposition of existing evils, is miserably poor and unproduc tive in the suggestion of remedies. All the witnesses to whom the question is put, agree in thinking that any direct and formal enactment, imposing specific penalties on intimi dation at elections, would be ineffectual and unvailing : in point of fact, every witness, who proposes any remedy at all, confines himself to the suggestion of vote by ballot. So much then, Sir, is undeniable, that the evils attending the present system of elections are most extensive and revolting, and that no other remedy has been, or can be, propounded for them, except the vote by ballot. On this ground alone, I am entitled to ask that you do not reject my proposition without attentively and deliberately weighing it. For this at least must be admitted, even by the warmest opponents of the ballot, that it is a simple and intelligible change that it trenches upon no existing rights, that it neither confers new political privileges on any untried fraction of the people, nor cancels any existing privileges which the law at present sanc tions ; that it neither unduly aggrandises nor unlawfully de presses any order of your citizens. Nor can it be said that the adoption of the Ballot involves the necessity of any other special changes, or of any costly machinery to be created for the purpose of -carrying it into operation. If the trial suc ceeds, much will be gained ; if it fails, nothing will be lost. Voting by Ballot is only another name for unfettered and un biassed voting ; and when Cicere, in speaking of the Ballot at Rome, calls it Tabella, vindex tacik libertatis—the up holder of silent liberty—he says nothing more than what is ac curately and emphatically true. It will be said, perhaps, that strangers, though they cannot see an elector vote, may guess or suspect how he has voted; or the elector himself may be compelled to tell them. True ; he may tell, but who is to de termine whether lie tells the truth ? You may compel him to tell you what he dreamt last night, or any other personal mat ter, unknowable except to himself : but can you have the smallest assurance that his statement is an accurate one, if he has any interest in making it otherwise ? Whether the elector tells or not, however, I do not in the least doubt that his vote will be, in many cases, guessed or suspected. But why is this ? Because his political sentiments are guessed or sus pected; and it will be assumed, as a matter of course, when he votes secretly, that his vote follows his real sentiments, whatever they may be. Now, this very presumption, shows that the Ballot is perfectly efficacious towards its proposed end ; because it shows that no elector voting in secret can have any motive for voting contrary to his own real feelings. Throughout all the records of penal experience, there has never yet been discovered any method of suppressing crime so efficacious as that of removing the motive to the per petration of it, and rendering it no longer conducive to the interest or ambition of crißinals. Sir, I challenge any one to refute this reasoning : I challenge any one to dis prove the alliance—the eternal and indissoluble alliance— between secresy arid freedom. We are seeking for a re medy against intimidation, and for protection to the liberty of the honest voter : I contend that the remedy stares us in the face, if we did not wilfully avert our eyes from it. If there be any gentleman to whom intimidation of voters by the mob is an object of genuine abhorrence, and not a mere theme for declamation against the political capacity of the people, I call upon him to support my present motion. He may assure himself that no mob, no united assemblage of people, will be able to divert or appropriate to themselves the suffrage of one single unwilling voter when votes are given by ballot. My proposition goes to rescue the political con science from every species of constraint and tyranny, and to leave the act of voting, what the constitution promises it shall be, free, indifferent, and spontaneous. I well recollect, Sir, that when the Committee on bribery and intimidation was appointed last year, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, now Attorney-General, observed, that he hoped the appoint ment of such a Committee would render the ballot unneces sary. I, on the contrary, took the liberty of saying, and I re peat it now, that the Ballot affords the only sufficient solu tion of the important problem confided to the Committee. The elector (we are sometimes told) holds his franchise for the benefit of the community, and ought to exercise it under responsibility for which purpose publicity of the vote is essentially necessary. To me, Sir, it seems that this much extolled responsibility of the elector is either a phan tom, a word without meaning, or else it is nothing but a mask for the precise mischief of intimidation, to be let in and lega lized under another name. For to whom is the elector to be responsible ? I shall be told that he is to be responsible to the public. But the public, to each individual elector, can be no other than that fraction of the public with whom he is in im mediate dealing or communion, his neighbours or townsmen, or fellow constituents, who alone take any cognizance of the way in which he votes. Your responsibility, therefore, comes to this—that an elector is to be rewarded with the good will of his neighbours, if he votes as they approve ; he is to be punished with their if his vote be such as they disapprove. Admit this to be just, and you sanction the principle of intimidation at once. If goodness of election depends upon the responsibility of electors, we cannot too soon repeal the Reform Act, and cut down our electors to a select few : for the smaller the consti tuency, the more perfect will responsibility become—nay, the constituency of Old Sarum before the Reform Act presented an example of electoral responsibility exalted to its highest point. Lastly, Sir, I beg you to consider what it is that an elector has to do, and then ask yourself how the performance of his task can ever be made the subject of accountability to parties without. He has no specific train of duties to perform on which the criticism of the public can fasten : he has only to record his preference, without any reason assigned, between two or more candidates, and the virtue of the process consists in his delivering his judgment genuinely and sincerely—in tegro ac libero anitno. Now, Sir, I confidently maintain that this is a process which must spring exclusively from the free will and inward conscience of the elector himself : no human super vision can extort from him a true verdict, because no human eye can discern what the true verdict is : if responsibility to the public has any effect upon him at all, it will induce him to abandon his own judgment altogether, and vote for that candi date whom lie believed to be the favourite of the public ; thus violating the most essential obligation of the franchise. Look at it which way you will, Sir, this idea of the responsibility of the electors is a compound of mischief and illusion : the numbers of the body and the nature of the franchise conspire to render it useless to any good purpose, and effectual only in silencing , the free and honest expression of individual con science. Sir, on the former occasion when I brought for ward thiS motion, the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud contended, that though the ballot does away with all the evil influences over voters, it removes them at the same time out of the reach of all good and improving influences. I may safely challenge the Noble Lord or any one else to prove that such an effect will flow from it. Surely there can be no good influences except those which operate upon the elector through the medium of his own conscience and conviction-- those which he obeys freely and spontaneously, apart from all calculations of f u t ure p ro fit or l os s t o himself Now, will any portion of such influences as these be enfee bled, when the suffrage is rendered secret? Sir, I contend that they will all be left entire and unimpaired: they will be as powerful under the Ballot as they arc at present ; nay, they will be expanded and fostered to a degree much be yond what is at present practicable. The evil . ' influences at elections are now most formidable and triumphant; it is pub licity alone which secures to them this triumph ; it is publicity which renders thousands of honest voters traitors to their po litical convictions, and to their inward conscience, though it cannot in any case create a sense of public duty in the bosom of the dishonest. Make the suffrage secret, and you banish all these evil influences at once. Hitherto, Sir, I have spoken chiefly of the effects of the ballot in extinguishing intimidation over electors. But perhaps I shall be told that it will' not be equally effectual in preventing bribery. No doubt, Sir, the specific agency of the Ballot is against intimidation ; but its effect will be important and powerful in checking bribery. It will entirely suppress bribery according to the modes at pre sent practised. It will greatly hamper and discourage bribery under any conceivable form or process; it will render the at tempt to bribe voters, even under the most favourable circum stances, more uncertain, more costly, more difficult, and more hazardous. When the suffrage becomes secret, you cannot buy an elector's vote individually and separately, for he cannot sell the certainty of his vote; he can sell the probability of it : this is the best which he has to offer. He may certainly offer this con tingency for sale if any one will buy it ; but what man in his senses will ever pay down the purchase money for as commodity of which there is to be no assured and ostensible delivery ? In fact, the ballot will go nearer to eradicate bribery altoge ther than any other measure which could be devised while the suffrage remains public. There is this essential distinction between bribery and intimidation. In both you have two con spirators who confederate against the freedom and purity of election ; but in the case of intimidation, one of , the conspira tors is an unwilling agent, and therefore the conspiracy is totally broken up the moment he is left to his own freewill. Whereas in the case of bribery, both parties are willing agents, in so far as they can trust each other, and therefore the same precaution's are not so omniFotent to their intended purpose— they serve only, but they do serve most effectually, to discon cert and confound such a conspiracy, by destroying all avi donee or certain'fy ean'snmtnne,ion of t! bargAn. V 7, ever, I.ldolr.s that this is doiog Ct rri 0.1:07 inc all Oth MCI tts,.tnucli f assuming tbn'' paibliCity rt of the vote y. etise cinnplete, even if I werc to; t" 4, •! 7 It (fan be - • 4, Fhown thit the ballot will el.t.et!i4:', 4 ,1a ion• Your honest voters cry to you for protection a, , , ; ;',.:r'st• tion—they arc men who would spurn the idea of a bribe, of of turning their votes to any corrupt- profit—but they do pray to be guarded against wrong , and loss and oppression in the conscientious exercise of their franchise. A measure is pro posed which completely accomplishes this object; tend. am I really. to be told, as a fatal objection to we elown grant you the Ballot ; it is true that it does away with intl= midation entirely, but there are still sonic distant possibilities of bribery which it leaves not absolutely barred out, and there , - fore it is not worth our consideration." I must contend, that this would be the most extraordinary ground of exception ever yet taken to any kgislative proposition. It is my duty to ' touch upon one or two other objections which I know Ity be made against the Ballot, and I shall proceed to do so with - cr,' much brevity as possible. What member or a Club is there who does not. feel that the harmony and kindly fellowship among the general body is essentially maintained by the secrecy with which voting is carried on ? Well then, Sir, the special point for yours consideration is, whether voting at Par liamentary elections be one of those occasions on which secresy is better or worse than publicity. Now, Sir, perhaps I may be considered as unduly presumptuous ; but I challenge any Gentleman to point out any one good consequence arising from publicity of votes, or any one bad consequence aris ing from secresy of votes at Parliamentary elections.— ( Hear, hear.) Gentlemen may perhaps say that the vote of the superior person must be proclaimed, in order that it may serve as a guide and index to the inferior. There might be something in this reasoning if votes were the only way open to a man of making known his political opinions. But I need not remind you, Sir, that secresy of voting is per fectly compatible with full publication of opinions by the tongue or the pen, wherever any man chooses to make his opinions public. Sir, I look in vain for any one advantage, private or public, derived from publicity of votes ; I find no one disadvantage, still more no dishonour, attached to secrecy. His Majesty, in calling a new Parliament, wishes to get toge ther a House of Commons possessing the confidence of the people. In order to be sure that he arrives at the truth, he takes the opinion of every separate elector, confidentially, apart from the hearing of any one else. What dishonour can there be in secresy, when it is only the handmaid of sincerity, the pledge of free speech, as between the voter and the public? I have attempted to prove—and I think I have proved—that secret suffrage is absolutely necessary to protect the honest voter in the conscientious discharge of his duty to the public. Do my opponents refute me, and prove the contrary ? They do no such thing. They omit altogether the duty of the voter towards the public, and they carry your attention to the pri vate obligation of the voter, as regards some third party ; they expatiate on the maintenance of good faith, as between pro miser and promisee. I must consider that this is a pure di vertion of your attention away from the main point at issue; for the business of the Legislature is, to place an elector on the best and most convenient footing for discharging the spe cial duty required of him by the public. Whether he tells truth, or keeps his promises to third parties, must be left to his own feelings and his own sense of propriety. But, Sir, let us take the objection as it stands, and inquire what it amounts to. The ballot, we are told, will lead to false pro mises and false declarations on the part of voters. How or why should it produce this effect ? Does it command any voter to break his promise ? Does it hold out to him any new inducement or reward for breaking his promise? No, nothing of the kind ; it merely enjoins him to perform the act of vo ting without a witness, and thus indirectly enables him to vote either according or contrary to any previous promise, without being found out, if he be inclined to do so. We are told by Milton, that " Ease will recant Vows made in pain, as violent and void." But wherever the vow has not been made in pain—wherever ease has made the vow, ease will keep it also. This, Sir, is the whole amount of the mischief of promise-breaking ; and I entreat the attention of the House to it, that none but com pulsory promises are in danger of being broken, when votes are given secretly. Let me put the question now, what mischief would ensue if these compulsory promises should come to be broken? A voter ought not to make such a promise if it be at variance with his own sentiments and conscience. Granted : but assuming that he has been guilty of the weakness and the wrong of giving such a promise, are we to arrange our system of voting for the express purpose of compelling him to keep it? To do this would be nothing less than seeking to deprive the voter, by our own act, of the means of faithfully discharging his duty to his country—a duty prior to all private private agree ments with third parties—a duty implied in the very possession and exercise of the franchise. The evil of intimidation, the evil of mendacity, and the evil of promise breaking, will all disappear at the same time, and before one and the same simple remedy—a free and secret vote.—(Cheers.) Gentlemen tell me that the Ballot will be fatal to what they call the legitimate influence of property. Now, Sir, I deny this assertion point blank in any defensible meaning which the words "legitimate influence " can be made to bear—in any meaning of the words which a patriot or a freeman can ac knowledge. I assert fearlessly that under a system of secret voting the legitimate influence of property will be preserved unimpaired; nay, more, that it will be even exalted beyond what it is at present. There is only one species of influence which the Ballot will withdraw from a rich man—it will take away the power of rewarding or punishing electors according to the manner in which they vote. Now, Sir, I would ask, and I hope the question will be plainly answered, whether it be really this power of rewarding or punishing electors which gentlemen mean when they talk, of the legitimate influence of property ? Does the House intend to recognise in any one citizen of this community—Peer or Commoner, titled or un titled—a legitimate authority to reward or punish electors for their votes? If we do, Sir, the sooner in all consistency we re peal our statutes against bribery the better—the sooner we drop the farce of affecting to condemn intimidation the better. Sir, I have now exhausted, not, indeed, all that can be said on this important subject, but at least all that the House will bear to hear from me about it, and I have to thank them for the patience with which they have listened. Before I con clude, permit me, in a few words to recall to your attention the point on which you are about to decide. Permit me to re. mind you that I am aiming at no end which is not in the strict est and highest sense constitutional. I am aiming at nothing except the freedomiand integrity of the parliamentary suffrage ; a purpose not merely within the limits of the constitution, but absolutely essential to its working and vitality—absolutely es sential to the attainment of a House of Commons really pos sessing the confidence of the people, which the Reform Act so emphatically promised to us. Permit me further to call to your remembrance the humiliating fact that freedom of elec tion, as things stand at present, is in many places little better than a dream and a fiction. Your election arrangements arc traversed on all sides by corruption and intimidation ; your electors arc, in many cases, compelled to vote against their real sentiments, in many cases deterred from voting at all. This fact, if indeed, it were not already notorious enough, has been publicly and incontestibly certified by the evidence taken before your own Committee ; and I venture to warn you that if, after such overwhelming notoriety of the evil, you remain doaf to all suggestions of a remedy, you will implicate your selves in something little short of the guilt of connivance and participation.—( Cheers.) Now, Sir, for this acknow ledged evil I have ventured to suggest a remedy. Let those who object to it provide a better if they can : all I shall say is, that my ingenuity can discover no other remedy either like or second to it. I propose to you the Vote by Ballot—a mea sure simple, specific, easy of introduction, and bearing pre cisely upon the mischiefs under your consideration.—( Cheers. ) I have endeavoured to show you that the Ballot is an antidote, complete, unfailing, and all-sufficient, as against the master evil of intimidation, and that it is the most powerful of all correctives as against bribery. I have proved that it is the only expedient for enabling an honest voter to walk in the path of conscience without serious loss and peril ; and that the State can have no security for obtaining what is the primary purpose of election—a genuine and sincere expression of sentiment from the elector—except by taking his vote in secresy and solitude— " Nam vera3 votes tum demum pectore ab imo Ejiciuntur ; et cripitur persona, manet res." . . —( Hear, hear.) I press upon you the adoption of the Bal lot, no less as an effectual protection to the honest voter, which he has the fullest right to demand—than as a certificate to the public of the genuineness of all votes, and of the un impeachable title of all representatives chosen.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill, providing that the votes at elec tions for Members of Parliament be taken secretly by way of Mr. LEADER seconded the motion There are two kinds of influence ; there is, first, the moral influence which a great man who is also a go>d man is certain to obtain over the opinions, the feelings, the very thoughts of his poorer neighbours and dependents ; of that influence no man can complain. There is, on the other hand, the immoral influ ence not gained by goodness ; but by strength over weakness, by wealth over poverty, by greatness over dependence, and exercised not with a beneficent desire to advance the welfare of the community, but to augment the power or promote the selfish interests of those who exercise it ; such, 1 regret to sa y, is the influence too commonly used by the creditor over the debtor—by the rich over the poor—by the great merchant over the small trader—by the landlord over the tenant—by the great and powerful, in short, over the humble and the weak ; to such an extent, indeed, does this sys tem of undue influence prevail in this country, that most landlords appear to think that they have as good a right to their tenant's vote as to the rent of their farms. It con , stantly happens, for instance, that a landlord makes a favour of granting his permission to a candidate, or to a candidate's friend, to canvass his tenants for their votes. As if, forsooth, the candidate would be violating the landlord's property, poaching upon his preserves, if he were to canvass the tenants without the landlord's sanction. Again, Sir, to prove that the votes of tenants are considered to proceed not from their own feelings, or knowledge, or conscience, but from their landlord's mandate, is it not notoriously matter of congra tulation among Tories, when a great estate passes by inhe ritance or purchase, or other meuns, from a Reformer into the hands of a Tory ; and, on the other hand, is it not cause of rejoicing among Reformers when a Tory's estate passes to a Reformer. There is a case i n p o i n t w hi c h occurred only last year. In the western division of Somerset Lord Egre mont has a large estate, with a command of, perhaps, 200_ or 300 voters. The manage men t o f th e e state was entrusted to resident steward ; till withi n a y ear that steward was a staunch old Whig. I need not inform the House that the tenants always voted for the Whig candidates. Well, last year the good old Whig steward died, and after a short interval another steward was appointed. The new steward is, like barrister; ; bpt unlikehis predecessor, i. a cry respectably ?)reflecessor, he is a very deeided TO7V. He is, indeed, faolo,.;s; co.• having been the unsuceessful d..,te r!,•evr•ar co^tc elections. his appointment was of T f u-y cantli course 11.11:e-1 yzith ,i;oy by the Tories of West Somerset. Well a short tinw after' an old Tory lady in the same division! of B Gwel'set died, and left her estate to very decided Reformer... " Good news," said toy His:. Friends the Members for West , 'oinerset, t.ti,y had looked so grave on the appointment of the Tory ,;!(.3:"ard ; " Chi-, Is some cornpeation for that unfortu nate aft sir." Sir, these filets clearly prove one thing—that it is looked tr.‘on as a matter ef course that v'hatever the tenant's real ()pinion may he, his vote invari:olly follow the vote of his landlord. I find another instal - we of ;his sort of influ enee in the evidence given before the Bribery and Intimida tion Committee. There are, in South Devon. > !tree parishes i(lgOtiter, called Battery, Staverton. and Bro.'dhampston. fo pari:)ll of Rattery, there were 0 1 votes F oiled at the lest electio9 of 1835. Only one was a freeholder",. the rest were /e.,4s,elio:ders under one and the same landhohier, Sir Walter Career, io whom the whole parish belongs. NOri, in the election of 1:332, these electors all voted for Mr. Bu:teel tin!rtform candin'Ne. At that election, their landlord, Sir W- Carew, t - ! ?d for Bulteel; but in 18.35 they all voted foe Mr. Parker, the Conseevative candidate, against Lord John Russell. What could trussibly have caused this total change? When I tell the House that their landlord, Sir Walter Carew, voted for Parker, they said not, lam sure, think it ne cessary to look further for any other cause ; but Members opposite may say, as the landlord of Battery conscientiously changed his opinion, why should oot his tenants of Battery have also conscientiously changed their opinion? There is, fo: tunately, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, a satis factory answer to that objection. It seems that the farmers o f the three parishes of Battery, Staverton, and Broadhamp st9n form one class of persons, are a very intelligent set of men, and ors_ , in the habit of associating very much together; they are all of them Reformers out principle; and, in 183 2 , almost all of them voted for the IZeform candidate ; but in 1835, the farmers of one of the three parishes, that is, of Battery, voted against the Reform candidate, while their friends and neighbours, the farmers of Staverton and Broad hampston, voted, as before, almost unanimcasly, in favour of the Reform candidate. What is the secret of this partial change ? Why, simply this—that in Battery the farmers were all under the influence of one landlord, who h, his mind, whereas the farmers of Staverton and Brcadhamp ston were under little or no influence, and could von: accor dingad changed to their own conscientious opinions. I whit no t weary the House by citing any more instances of this mid" influence ; let the most incredulous Member look into else evidence given last year before the Bribery and Intimidatien Committee, and lie must be convinced of the almost universal existence of this immoral and degrading influence. In the feudal times the Baron was followed to the wars by his tenants —a glittering train of steel-clad men-at-arms: the system is still the same, though neither so warlike nor so imposing : now the landlord is followed to the poll by his tenants—a sub missive train of coerced electors ; and the results in both Cases arc nearly the same. In old times the Baron who could raise the greatest number of good fighting men attained for himself by their courage and good service, rank and power and con sequence; in these times the landlord who can command the greatest number of good voting men, is sure, through their votes, to obtain for himself or his family; place or pension or patronage ; indeed these things can seareCly be attained in any other way. I have myself heard the curses and the threats of men who had been compelled by s ts ern necessity to sacrifice their vote to the interest of their children. have myself heard the son of a voter who had suffeeed and been half-ruined because he would not give a dishonest vote, cursing the author of their misery, and wishing him it: his grave. Are these the feelings which the gentry of Eng , - land desire to produce in the hearts of their fellow-country men ? They may sneer at curses, they may laugh at threats; trusting to their wealth, and their station, and their power, they may exclaim with the tyrant of old, " Oderint dune metuant ;" but the time must come when the people's hate and the people's indignation will make them tremble. Our opponents say that in smell constituencies bribery would, under the Ballot, be carried on wholesale. Now, granting for a moment that this argument io worth anything, it is an argument not against the Ballot but against small constituen cies. Let, therefore, no constituency eonsist of less than 1,500 or 2,000 voters, and the richest mart in the country would soon find his purse exhausted, and his seat too dearly purchased, even if he could purchase one at all. Again, in what method do our opponents say that bribery under the Ballot in cases of small constituencies would be carried.' on ? Why, in this manner—that a candidate should promise, if ,tue cessful, to distribute a certain sum of money among the elect tors. Now, under the present system it is notorious that in many places there is bribery on the part of the unsuccessful as well as on the part of the successful candidate. On the very showing, therefore, of our opponents, half the existing bribery would be stopped. The real fact is that the Ballot would very soon put down bribery altogether. With respect to intimidation, in spite of the denial of our opponents, the Ballot must have a very good effect, even although it should net prevent some men from occasionally exercising a tyran nous power over their dependants. Great horror is expressed by our opponents at the prospect of the influence of property being taken away by the Ballot. The bad, the immoral, influence of mere property, unsupported by character and moral worth, would undoubtedly be diminished ; but the good, the moral, the only proper influence of property in the hands of a good man enjoying a good character for judgment, honesty, and knowledge, far from being diminished, would be vastly in creased by the Ballot. Are there not many laws against bri bery? And what is bribery but the undue, the immoral influ ence of property ? And in speeeehes in this House we hear of the horrible injustice that the Ballot would bring upon the rich, by depriving property of its in.9uence. Now call the elective franchise a right or a trust, as you please, the duty-of an elector is to deliver his genuine and co .nscientious opinion at the poll, whether it agrees or disagrees With .that of other people ; any elector, therefore, who under undue influeuce gives a vote against his opinion, is guilty of a beeach of pub lic duty ; but the man who by undue influence ,coerces his vote, is doubly guilty—the man that makes another thieve is more guilty than the thief : the man who hires a false witness, is more guilty than the base perjurer : the man who pays an assassin, is more guilty than the murderer ; and thus the man who makes another vote against hie conscience, is more guilty than the man who so votees What 1 exclaim some Hon. Members even on this side of the House, are the electors insensible to feelings of independence? Alas, no ; they have strong feelings of independence, but they have also a very natural feeling for themselves, for the welfare of their families, for the livelihood of their cfsildren. Can we blame them when we see them tempted by gain (call it bribery or head-money, as you like) on the one hands threatened with misery on the other, if they neglect what they may perhaps consider in their individual case an unim portant public duty, in order that they may attain, what to them is an all-important, a vital object—that is, the means of securing a livelihood for themselves and their family. Are you then prepared (say our opponents) to state that the House of Commons is not composed of the real representatives of the people of England ? To that question I answer that, ad mitting as I do with gratitude the great improvements in re presentation produced by the Reform Bill, I do maintain that this House does not, even now, fairly represent the real feel ings of the electors of this country ; and that it never will re present them fairly until the electors generally can, under the protection of the Ballot, give an honest and conscientiou s vote. Look to the counties especially; are there not many county Members in this House who represent not the great body of the electors, according to their beeriest opinions—b ut the clergy, the magistracy, and the few great proprietors , whose tenants are compelled to vote against their real opinions. If an example is wanted of undue influence in a populous city, look to the case of Bristol, as stated before the Committee on bribery and intimidation ; if an example is wanted of un due influence exercised by one great proprietor over the con stituency of a small town, look to the ease of Ripon, es stated before the same Committee. The abuse is notorious' and the people believe there is no remedy for it but th e ballot. As to secrecy not being insured by the ballot, .all that I ask this—recognize the principle that every man s° vote should be his own and another man's, that every man should be enabled to vote as lie pleases, and protected in the exercise of his elective franchise • but so long as open v otin g continues, this cannot be effected. ' Allow my Hon. Friend the Member for London to introduce his Bill, and I will venture to declare that lie will so frame the clauses of the Bills that he will so regulate the machinery of voting, that in spite of threats and of spies—in spite of public intimidation and of domestic treachery—the vote of the elector must perforce remain a secret to every human being but himself. I have now gone through most of the arguments usually urged against the ballot, but it seems -to me that in all these ar guments and assertions we have only the professed reasonse of our opponents for disliking the ballot. It appears to that their real bone fide reason for opposing the ba llot is this, that an _ they know the Ballot would take from the wealthy d d powerful their undue influence and t heir unjustco po nse w ee, an uently that it would place the choice of Mem bers (and q the chief power in the State) where it ought to Ire by right, in the hands of the electors. The consequence of this would be, that the rich and the powerful who wished to administer the affairs of the State, would be compelled to render themselvee fit by knowledge, energy, and conduct to occupy those places which they now habitually hold, riot because they are fit to en to have hold them, but because they happ inherited a teat g estate, or to descend from a noble family, or because they have zealously devoted themselves to one or other of the two aristocratic parties. It is acknowledged on all sides that cor ruption is p ra ctised —it is acknowled g ed that intimidation pre vails to an unparalleled extent—it is acknowledged tha t undue influence i s exercised in the most revolting manner-- offer you a remedy for all these evils y ou reject ei i t t ,. How whenwe then can we, how can the people, believe that you are sincere and earnest in your professions and your de clarations a gainst these abuses? In this respect I am more surprised at the opposition offered to us by certain Reformers on this side of the House, than by the Conservative Reformers opposite. The present Ministers know (for they have told us) that they are the representatives of the people as well as the Ministers of the Crown. They are undoubtedly the most liberal and the most honest, and therefore the most popular Ministers who ever ruled this country. They have generally deserved the confidence of the people, and they have had, and (so long as they go or. in the same liberal_ and honest course) they will continue to have, the support of the popular party in this House. Knowing all this—as t h ey well know it—and being well assured that the great major ityr of the aristocracy of birth and of wealth—that the ba a , ra. l clergy, the magistracy, and the squirearchy are g r eis 11 the against them, and that they are maintained in pot . ve *st by s ne e will of the people alone; why, I say, do they p the people's power sisting as a Government this measure, which, aboesi-esi would increase their power—by increasing, friends to Why are the and their confidence in Ministers ? all others t o oppose ballot now in the Government compelled