The Sun. — London, England, 1853-06-15 00:00:00

~' their speeches, an d to see the contrast between them and t he mise ra bl e futile break-down arguments of Cabinet .misters. (Hear hear.) B u t h e f e lt b oun d t o mee t th e Mostst obje c ti ons on record to the princ i ple o f vo te by ballot. mie members of the present cabinet seemed but too glad to hcreep under th e ga b erdine of the Times for shelter. The ot, said the Times, was a question not of philosophy tothe fact. It would not prove an efficient protection voter, because in these days every man's opinions were known. He (Mr. Berkeley) • would admit that the question was on e o f fact and not of philosophy. But on w hose side was the fact, and on whose side was the phi the PhY, or rather the sophistry ? (Hear, hear.) " Does inn ballot (it is asked) prevent a man's opinions from being ?' The concealment of a man's opinions depended ballot prevented but the main and material fact was, that the fe s tld Prevented the man's vote from being known. V`Pers.) He was speaking in the presence of an assembly 'et protected themselves from the Sir Lucius O'Triggers to society by means of the ballot, and he put it to them if the ballot did not enable them to conceal their W 4- es, and, if th ey wished it, their opinions also ? (Hear, e a_s : .) Well, b u t t h e Sir Lucius O'Triggers of polities :17 more dangerous than the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of hay ; and was i t fair or just, he would ask, in them. rntheir broad acres and their broad cloth, to seek to eeal their votes and opinions by means of the ballot and (m y the same protection to men who wore fustian and answe r who we re tenants-at-will? (Hear, hear.) Would they but newer that question ? (Hear.) He often put it before, he never yet got an answer. (Hear.) But he denied tb o a i ,.mere matter of fact, that the electors could not conceal (R e l. ° Pillions, and that they must necessarily be known. .) It was said that the poor electors were too garru- O lal, and that their opinions must be known. Why there witeesroe hundreds of thousands of poor persons in this country asi oa ci ated together who (lid keep their secrets inviolate. r ' heat) He was, himself, a member of the Foresters l!nd Odd Fellows Secieties—(laughter)—and he had no bt many of the members around him were in the same position. (Rear, hear.) He knew there was a vast number 31. Odd Fellow s in the House ofCommons. (Muchlaughter.) b e e e w he never knew that the secrets of these societies had rts n bet rayed either from garrulity, or drink, or any isplaced confidence in woman. (Laughter.) He had hea r d th e wives of Freemasons' declare that there could be t 6 ° s ecret in f reemasonry, because if there was they would f r Sur „ unee to get it ou t of them i n the i r soft h ours. S o muc h be e l habits of the pele. (Laughter and er s a genera -.Le had b een c h a llenged to "` to deal with facts, and Onini"' now produce evid ence to show that the political th ells of th e e l ectors were not generally known. In men days and under the present electoral system, poor they no more dared to assert their political opinions than Th dared to give their votes contrary to the wishes of political landlords. The tenants-at-will, it was said, had . no of sherdj opinions of their own. They had political opinions The • °Nvn, but they dared not express them. (Hear.) but t hey o f thi s country l ik ew i se h a d th e i r op i n i ons , "ue,Y were o bli ge d to conceal them or their bread would be end (Cheers.) He was sorry to detain the tOT so 'Ong, but on this point he begged their attention rnii .",". o evidence of Mr. James Mather, given before a corn 1t...„""e in 1835 : " Y ou h ave b een a l an d surve y or ?—I shire In what count i es ?—Brecknoc k , Sh rops hi re , York me , Oxford s hi re, Middlesex ; but my b us i ness h as ca ll e d to s many other parts of England. You have had an :1 3 torsu st i ty of meowing the opinions of farmers on most • ? - --My business has led me among that thei• of Men. I wish you to confineyourself entirely to s i„sr Political relations with their landlords, and with a te' vr t° that part of the subject I ask, among what class of .4 9 ' o rit s do You believe most independence is to be found ? d usb n a g those who have a leasehold tenure ; but their in- Ik - "ence is very much governed by circumstances. 84 et circumstances?—The length of the lease, for in iest e • I have always remarked that farmers are more llesi to assert their political opinions at the commence prent of their tenure than at its conclusion. (Cheers.) I l i tt f: r e o _ n y g ou mean in cases where they disagree in politics With their landlords 7—Yes ; and especially if the landlord politician. There are some landlords who do • niaterfere. Is that, in your opinion, a large class ?—No, bis.s wue e 'llatrary for if thelandlord have no strong political -his own, in nine cases out of ten he interferes with ‘entry fom the instigation of some neighbour wbo win- between You r consider that politics are liable to breed ill th e tween landlord and tenant 7—l do, especially when e tenants have leases. How 9 Where they are tenants asat-7111 ? --- --Much less . because . tenants-at-will have no will .ss sal' as politics are a c o oncerned ; they know they must vote 7t ., their landlords please, and make up their minds to do so. iZ ea r.) Are there not exceptions to the rule ?—There may hut you will find them veryrare. Have you found, gene- Y, that will are contented to be thus go tha-riltesl have observed that the most intelligent among ra ss , s 'ass, consequently the best agriculturists are by no th -- ' 4l c ontented ; but they cannot help themselves ; while "e h • • i sai en, w ose families have held their farms without s N disturbed from generation to generation, are just as n 7.!. satisfied to pay their votes to their landlords as their rents, and consider it much the same thing. Do you Gen ial s er this class of men less intelligent ?—I do. These are tell same sort of men who oppose all improvements, and thi n 3 ' l3 n that their fathers did so before them, and that the tenet on as well then as they do now. Do you think ban sss nry of the country generally would like to vote by th s " - -A vast majority would ; but there are a class of th ""' w, I have no doubt, would have as much horror of a ballotho as I have known them profess for subsoil, dram t, and the drill plough. You have said that you think y r : M ajority of farmers would prefer the ballot, how do n presence ll ount for the fact that fewer petitions have Commons the by that class of men to the House of n3e N s ? arlY other in favour of it ?—The reason appears to 11,, - ; 11 • When you say farmer's, I take it for granted you morn. teaants-at-will. Well, thes!,. a no e dare sign a petition on a political . su l bject tenant-at-will than he th re vote ithout the concurrence of his andlord a_nd re ; ballot i w s more dreaded by landlords than anyother °l-111 whatever. Then you think tenants-at-will dare h u l % ptert a : an y . political opinions ?—I do not say that ; d say th at they dare not express them. If a tenant apo-1iw,1.11-'i'vesrae- to express opinions hostile to those of a strong fay tenant lit landlord—for instance, if he were known to be a t e llrable to the ballot, he would be treated as he treats ainted sheep, and be drafted from the flock." (Cheers ? ) th e tb l ieY turned over the 900 pages of evidence contained in te - H uuck from which he quoted, they would find, by the k B-111 °nY of Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Fitzgerald, both of them kagistrates, and of the late Col. Bruen, who had been a 4Zeleber of that house, that the electors of Ireland dared : 1 . 6 1 re to express their political opinions than the tenants- Was in England. (Hear, hear.) The only difference vot, that the Irish landlords did not disguise or. mince the e r , but op en ly p roc l a i me d th e i r r i g ht to command the th at °f their tenants. (Hear) And he would show that lke e ethig was as rampant now in Ireland as it was in to He would show that coercion of the voter existed 1/ 4 ' 41 extent which was scarcely credible. (Hear, hear.) s s , was the case of Mr. Henry De Burgh, a landlprd t o s s s ile county of Monaghan. Mr. De Burgh rites e a "a° editor of the Daily Express as follows :- 4P, St. Doulough's, Raheny, August 17, 1852.—Sir, PouraPs you will make use of the inclosed Genes is a t e ftee to snit the purposes of the day. John Murphy . aßb ah e llant on the lands of Skeborn, in the county of Aron di re asked him for his vote. He voted against me. laatl; e 7, d the sub-agent, Mr. Johnson, to enforce all rent slue and payable, without pressure or hardship. l e r te the letter No. 1 • this morning I received from ; 13 a3r the letter No. 2 ; wrote my reply No. 3. You you „Take what editorial use of the subject and le ter afar, Tate. If the landlords of the country (i.e., the Con be a e l iv e,) would all do likewise, the priests would . soon se al , llsidered. by their own flocks as the political ---j ` l3lrea theyunquestionably are.—HENRY DR BURGH." . have a ti " Monaghan, August 5, 1852. Sir, —I paid ir is day received instructions from Mr. De Burgh, raid ea o „ - cm You for all rent and arrears of rent to be t ake Your holdings up to May, 1852, otherwise to so - se neces sary procee di ngs f or th e recover y of it.— l.sa.r,„, ()b edient, JOHN JOHNSON.—Mr. John Murphy.— Au g -l ' i is must be settled next week, J. J."—" Skeborn, N. a ' 18 52.—Mr. De Burgh,—Sir,—lnclosed I send b ea , „I,lote I got from Mr. Johnson, which will, I hope, )1A- Ares excuse for troubling you. I hope, sir, you will whals rs evere at this unusual season to press for rent. °lit a rs ' Would be able to accomplish in two months, with for 115 10 any injury, would be a heavy loss to press svouir , as I have grass taken for two of my cows. I Month cc as lose their benefit for the three best summer,' as butter is 3d. per pound better now than in fo t ; 11 1- • will be able to pay you in October all demands. dal g noise, respected sir, you will be so kind and in l'raYef; as to grant the time I have requested, and I will Paid " r Your welfare. I have to remark I have all rent 40 414 11 P to as M T , --saY, 1851.—1 am, your respected servant, s u e Sir,—lf7 lll 'llir. you favour me with a reply, sue rss sn care Mr. ohn Leghorn, Clones.'" This was 4 aa-es Pe eted me--ster's Yours •.—" St. Dunlough's Raheny, heri s s " 16 , 1 852.- Sir, of the 10th was forwarded j aatr e 4 . 11 , r• Johnson has acted strictly according to his ` 1 ) .. 1 y s >, 4°llB . You refused your landlord the compliment tureen vote. Be it so. Let there be no compliment the /18' - Vote as you please ; but pay up your rents No doubt"a they are usually payable, or I shall make you. laronrhut your political supporters will grant you the reLt d I refuse and enable you to pay your year's sers an a t e . ss on the fat day of May, 1852.—Your obedient Wgle e AkENRY DE BURGH.—Mr. John Murphy, Scarvy, etter Then he thought Murphy would have been the vi ss hat r l i f s tt .s he ballot. (Loud clieeis.) He thought after j a. u h a , th-e•zurmoted, they might come to the conclusion t as i t smin of the tenant voter was as great in Irew irenty.ono was in England. (Hear, hear.) It was no a O r d ?;ears since the noble lord made . a speech_ t 'dais subject and he hoped some friend might ionrlttne the noble lord abide , t y o estl.ftpc b o y ra th e a t t o s t pe n e a lh. The noble t,itr!itll7. abefalliollpoattif.sc hwouldGa ,elve.ran,ge,d at elect r b e e a , t a I re - hend the inconvenience this that I must pleasure, or see the e tr of Eng ions contrary to the feelings of them lisoib:s-p,ins.itseto,uald have no doubt ; I should a once re , n , ounce I lord a nd at once adopt the vote by ballot The AO doubt, passed much of his time in the it at otn e hYelTsnsion of his brother, the Duke of Bedford, of sp y tenant forever heard it insinuated that he ever punished v o ss any vote he ave or that ho ever intimidated -Gr from voting against him. (Cheers.) Cense earl Y ' the noble lobrdmiht have . some excuse at that 3 ' Period for thinking that the tenants would not be len: (1 at cti ele - ons contrary to their feelings. But he Must i a l ) Pose that the noble lord, like Rip Van Winkle, tyiasnosevethsletpt,2o years, if he was not cognisant of all the si nce • a had been thundered into their ears ever at. wi f, and if he did not see and admit that the tenants under their separate leaders, and led ee kssa o i t u'ra v to their own opinions and the good of the ran a g s ea rt not notorious that the electors of the tirls:iaB.lllial:eit:ee:te:at.;e7voted for Whig or Tory as it changed into the alas landlords of these respective opinions ? (Hear.) that proved in ev id ence, an d Mr. Ward clearly showed i s s e Gri d : s ad was so. (H ear , h ear. ) W ho could be deaf to t ona fTe in the case of the South Notts election, where 1.1,414, nor'bo s were led up to vote like so many vermin ? ue d eaf ts ) Was the noble lord deaf to all this ? Was upo n th e " t he state of things now existing ? He called roar e d , noble l or d, as an h oneet man, to deny, if he nichc o nviction of the truth of the representation If heave of the existing state of things. (Hear, h* la pl ed Could not, he called on the noble lord to fulfil vote b y ge, and to vote for the ballot. It was said that the Sl obs ballot w 't „," Could tb s , a' a measure of democratic tendency. °l-as to th e b e so, when the noble lord told them tt th e , 0 geed sense, the moderation, and the wisdom . a t, l! e t ni uti:; nnto "? l ,(ei t ia h ?n a aro t t, t ob l ifee t hey owed the continuance of their con mere in th e b converting What loyal, prete ru wi a s t e u , r a a n l d Pa m w o e d r era wa te s p r i viie " mcrats, socialists, and republicans ? Was p 1 , 1 : 11 conzie c Z: c f _ i fiving au unfettered vote fraught with t ut ,: Its effect would • 11 1(1, s u ? (Hear, hear.) The effect of the ballot r ight n " 18 ° Pinio bebe t t e he ea r i e ry ste e r e a t tio tb n e of a onvertin to Cmsar the things that are Caesar's." 144 ° ball o r t c r a i n s tiao usurped d oc r • achede nl:eviao.g rnanneocuratkrch g the English people into socia a notion appeared. to him stark l and i ngs of o rs*) lie should glance at the pro ant. , fo r the n election,.in England, and of another in Ire anseat, th e ii ,t i a l t r P °s e °I s howing that the ballot was the connitubonal than surrounding t e i t i,_cGr rution, acnor aeitutional, protection against violence Ana moors .. Yainedy against intimidation far the Polls ing booth with armed soldiers. (Hear, hear.) The'English election which he selected as an illustration was that of Oldham. It appeared from the report that Mr. Fox and Mr. Heald were the candidates for the,t borough ; that Mr. Fc - had a majority of the electors in his favour, and that M Heald had a majority of the ruffians. (Laughter.) IVLen a right good agent of the Derby or St. Alban's breed undertook to return a candidate for a given borough, he first of all tried the efficacy of bribery and corruption, and, if those aids failed, ho then, in the last resort, hired a mob to thrash the unfriendly electors going to and returning fror4 the poll, and to smash their windows. Now there wet. certain men who were so unmanly as to object to have their bones broken, so unmanly as to object to the upsetting of carriages, so unmanly and so un-English as to consider-ie intrusion of a brick-bat on the tea-table of a family party an unwelcome event. (Laughter.) Well, by such aids as these the legitimate majority of Mr. Fox was very nearly converted into a minority ; and his hon. friend whom he was happy to see present, would no doubt be ready to confirm his statement, that had it not been for the marvellous firmness of his friends he would have been defeated by a minority. Nor was that case peculiar. They had it in evidence that Clitheroe and Blackburn were in exactly the same position as Oldham ; in short this was the common rule of English elections. Now for this state of things the ballot was a certain remedy. Nobody would break a man's bones in order to persuade bi n to vote in a particular way ; nobody would upset a carriage in order to prevent a man from voting ; nobody would smash windows if it were impossible to tell bow the vote was given ; and he maintained that the ballot was the constitutional mode of election. Well, then, in Ireland the ballot would have prevented the catastrophe at the Six-mile-bridge. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, no land lords would pile up their tenantry on cars like living bales of goods, and consign them to the next polling booth with the aid of the military, if the ballot were established, be cause these men might accept their conveyance and then vote in their teeth. (Hear, hear.) No mob would as semble either to rescue a voter from a tyrant landlord, or to ill-use him if he were an opponent, seeing that it would be utterly impossible to know which way he was going to vote. It was contrary to common sense to say that under the ballot the peace of the country would be disturbed as it had been during general elections. (Hear, hear.) He challenged any hon. gentleman to match such places as Old ham and the Six-mile-bridge and Blackburn, or even Cli theroe, in any country where the ballot was established. (Hear, hear.) If they questioned the Belgian, he would tell them that, though great interest was felt in his national elections, peace and order were the rule, and the opposite the exception. (Hear, hear.) If they questioned the Frenchman, he would tell them that nothing could be more orderly than French elections—(hear)—he would tell them that in the vicinity of the voting inns in France the trades men never closed their shops, that the doors were not closed, nor the windows sm ., shed. Perhaps the French man would tell them, too, that John Bull was so accus tomed to his national luxuries of beer, boxing, and bribery, that he would never part with them. (Laughter.) If, again, they questioned the American, he would tell them that at his national elections peace was the rule, disturbance the exception. He was afraid—he (Mr. Berkeley) did not say it—he was afraid Jonathan would add that John Bull would never get rid of his corrupt electoral system until he had got rid of the corrupting influence of a hereditary peer age. One word, before he concluded, with regard to the boroughs which contained dockyards. The atrocities per petrated in these boroughs, in the shape of punishment and reward, were fully and fairly before the public ; and Chatham had the unenviable notoriety of having never returned a member contrary to the interests of the Go vernment of the day. (Hear, hear.) Now, the only way in which they could prevent the electors oesuch boroughs from being punished for political virtue and rewarded for political vice, was by giving them security at the poll. Until that was done, never would merit meet with its desert, or the stream of patronage flow in the right chan nel. He should not be doing justice, however, if he admit ted that the dockyard voters of Chatham were more under the influence of others than the tenant-farmers ; and he maintained that if they attempted to disfranchise the elec tors of Chatham, they ought, at the same time, as a mat ter of justice, to disfranchise the tenant-farmers of the county of Kent. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was, then, because he objected to the exercise of this tyranny over electors, that he entreated the house to free the country from its pernicious consequences ; it was because he would practically carry out the senti ments of the noble lord, and restore to good sense, wisdom, and moderation the privilege of recording an unfettered vote that he sought to protect those great qualities of the people. (Cheers.) When they heard of democracy, he en treated the house to remember the conduct of the people in 1848, that memorable era, when the democracy were found the prompt protectors of their country. (Cheers.) He would call upon them to remember the conduct of the people at the Great Exhibition, marked as that conduct was by great intelligence and by the love of order—he would call upon them not to forget the conduct of the people at the interment of England's great captain—(hear, hear)—marked as their conduct then was by deep reverence and respect for the mighty dead—the aristocrat who lay in the coffin before them ; and then he told them to get rid of their paltry terrors and their aristocratic tremblings at democracy. (Cheers.) He called upon that newly elected House of Commons to stand forward and prove themselves worthy of the people who had sent them there ; he called upon them to restore to the people a great privilege, a chartered right, to which they were as much entitled as they were to enjoy the sun that shone in God's firmament or the breezes of spring ; and that they might do this he entreated them most respectfully, but most earnestly, to legislate on this subject. (Loud cheers.) Sir J. V. SHELLEY seconded the motion. He said after the speech which had just been delivered, he should not feel justified in detaining the house at any length. If it would be difficult to bring forward any new arguments in favour of the ballot, it would, he thought, be still more difficult to bring forward any new one against rt. (Hear.) The arguments in its favour had been strengthened a hundred-fold by the decisions of the recent election corn mittees. It was curious to reflect how much time had been wasted in the discussion of this subject. In 1838, in intro ducing this subject, Mr. Grote observed that the necessity for a remedy against bribery and intimidation- was con fessed on all sides, and on the same occasion the noble lord the member for the city of London observed that when all acknowledged that the evil prevailed to a great extent, they were bound to provide a remedy. Since that time the noble lord had often been strong enough to propose a re medy, but to the only remedy of which the case admitted he had refused his assent. He did not know what remedy the noble lord meant to propose now ; but his (Sir J. V. Shelley's) constituents were strongly impressed with the necessity of being allowed to give their votes by ballot. Some of them, who lived in the fashionable parts of West minster, or in such streets as Regent-street, Bond-street, and Oxford-street, had no wish to be subjected again to the annoyance and discomfort of being visited by fine ladies in carriages, and having the screw put upon them. (Hear, hear.) He would be glad to learn what was the opinion of the country gentlemen on this subject, but he perceived that at present that party was represented solely by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball). On the occasion to which he had already alluded, that of the debate in 1838, the hon. baronet the member for Herta (Sir B. Lytton), in replying to the argument that the ballot would weaken the influence of property, ob served that there were two kinds of influence, legitimate influence and improper influence ; then when improper in fluence was being used to over-rule the conscience of the voter, the ballot would be a protection, and place the poor and the rich man on equal terms, but that wherever a great proprietor was more beloved than feared, legitimate influence could not be taken away by the ballot. He hoped the opinion of the hon. baronet would now have due weight with the country party, and that they would not pay themselves the bad compliment to conclude that if the ballot existed, the constituents would not select persons of their class. (Hear.) At all events he should vote for the motion with the greatest cordiality. The question that leave be given to introduce the bill having been put, Mr. E. BALL opposed the motion, not believing that the ballot would materially remove existing corruption. He twice apologised for being unprepared with a speech, but he favoured Lord J. Russell with a solution of the reform problem, by advising him to give all the county voters votes for the county boroughs, and all borough voters votes for their counties, in addition to the franchise at present respectively enjoyed by both classes. He would let any person who might desire a county vote have it on paying a certain price at a register office, the money to be divided between the elected members, and he greatly amused the house by declaring how gladly he would re ceive such money. Mr. J. PHILLIMORE thought that the ballot would be a specific remedy for a specific evil—intimidation. He denied that any earthly power had a right to ask a man why he voted in a particular way. The ballot would re move from a dishonest voter one motive for acting dis honestly, while it would protect an honest one. Needed in England, this protection was still more needed in Ire land. He reminded the Government that the ballot was part of the original Reform Bill, and was laid aside be cause it was thought that the extension of the franchise would render it unnecessary, but as results had shown that this was not the case, the remedy must now be tried, in the absence of any better suggestion. Mr. BRADY advocates the ballot, not as certain to cure all the existing evils, but because the present system was a bad one, and because a constituency of the country was not in a position to make that house a reflex of popular opinion. He cited cases in which tenants in Ireland had been hardly treated on account of their political conduct. Mr. S. HERBERT said, in listening to the speech which the hon. member for Bristol had addressed to the house, he was struck by one peculiarity, namely, that differing in thought from his previous speeches on the subject, there was a consciousness on his part that how ever plausible the theory of the ballot might be for the purpose of redressing intimidation, it was powerless with regard to bribery. He made his case with regard to inti midation by going back a very considerable period, and the principal evidence he adduced of the evil of intimidation, to which no man could be more opposed than he (Mr. S. Herbert), was given before a committee which sat not in 1853 but in 1835. He accused the noble lord of having slept the sleep of Rip Van Winkle, while the evils of inti midation had been in operation since the Reform Bill. He (Mr. Berkeley) must have slept the sleep of Rip Van Winkle, in not seeing the effect which public opinion had had since that time in redressing the evil of intimidation. He recollected the time when the late Duke of Newcastle put boldly forward the theory that every man bad a right liked • h his meaning that every man 'todo as hewith own," had a right to do as he liked with the consciences of other people ; but now-a-days, depend on it, there was no man alive who would come forward with such a statement or proceeding. And what was th e i n f erence f r om that ? Why, that the st a t e o f th e j t r a t t ify lie su d c r h ew a public feeling was very much altered on that subject; that a man felt he would shock public opinion and damage his own character if he attempted to put forward such a state ment as that he had a right to interfere in that manner with the franchise of his tenants. He need not give in stances, because hon. gentlemen must be aware of the alte ration which had been effected by the pressure of public opinion on that subject. The hon. member for Cam bridgeshire was a proof that there, at any rate, the tenants exercised their choice, otherwise he would not be a member of that house ; and he saw another hon. gen tleman oppo site, the member for Nottinghamshire, who was returned by the tenants in the teeth of the opposition of the land lords.—(A Hon. Member—" Those are exceptions.")—But many exceptions tended to invalidate a rule. He could quote another exception—himself. In the county which he had the honour to represent, at the election which took place last summer, a great many of the tenantry voted against him, and amongst others many cf the tenantry with whom he was connected. Many of them were tenants-at-will, men of substance who would think it a great piece of impertinence on the part of their landlord to interfere with them. Well, then, the hon. gentleman thought that bribery was an awkward subject to deal with, and actually apologised for it, saying, what was very true, that it was a seductive thing, and that thereiw ere what he called redeeming qualities in it. [Mr. H. Berkeley made an observation across the table which we did not hear.] The redeeming quality was this, that a man might get money dishonestly provided he put it to a good pur pose. But was it true that intimidation was.the gigantic evil of the elective system ? He (Mr. S. Herbert) appealed to every gentleman in the house, whether during the last 20 years intimidation had not been diminishing, and whe ther, unfortunately, bribery had not been increasing. Since the Reform Bill intimidation had decreased. The pressure of public opinion, which was much stronger than acts of Parliament, had had its effect on intimi dation, but on bribery it had had as yet none. Need he ask the house to recollect all the dreadful cases of bri bery they had had this session ? This blot on our electoral system had become more prevalent, and not only candi dates but electors seemed to think it was one of those offences which were venial, provided they were not found out. The hon. gentleman opposite said they wanted the ballot on account of its effect on Ireland, and that Ireland was the great seat of intimidation. Now, would the ballot in Ireland have the effect of preventing intimidation ? The hon. member for Leominster wanted to know what it was they objected to—bribery, intimidation, or the remedy? He (Mr. S. Herbert) objected to all three. He objected to bribery and intimidation, and he said the ballot was not the remedy for them. It was impossible to suppose that the fact of every man giving his vote in secret would necessarily cause it to continuo secret. The struggles in Ireland were between the priest and the landlord ; the relation of the tenant with the priest was peculiar, and the relation with the tenant was common. Unless the ballot enabled the tenant to be independent of both their remedy would be useless. In England, with a tyrannical landlord or a tyrannical customer, as the hon. gentleman described, the ballot would lead to a system of espionage, because, supposing the ballot turned out to be a system of perfect secresy, then the political opinions, the political associates of every man would be canvassed, and it would be natural to suppose that he had voted according;) t political opinions. He was not afraid of intimidation ls*- cause public opinion would be too strong for it, but he asked, would the ballot be effective in putting down bribery ? A candidate who now went down to a borough might spend a great deal of money uselessly, but have the ballot and it would be a question of play and pay ; the candidate would say, "I pay if I am returned, but not if lam not returned." At present a candidate bribed a man and got merely his vote ; with the ballot he made the man who was to be bribed his agent, and he made it his inte rest not only to give him his vote, but to make others give theirs • they would canvass for him. How would this act upon the voter ? Why, the voter, who was sometimes now deterred by the fear of detection, would have this mantle of darkness thrown over all his proceedings, and might be induced to vote in a way which otherwise he would not do. How was it that bribery was generally found out now ? The first thing was that generally a number of men came to the poll about ten minutes before it closed, and gave their - votes. The agent or the opposing candidate said, "why here is so and so, who has been yellow all his life, voted for blue, or has been blue all his life, and voted for yellow ?" Investigation ensued, and ultimately the bribery was brought home to him. But under this system of .secresy the imputation of a corrupt motive could not be suggested ; no one would know how any one had voted ; no suspicion would be awakened, and there would be no reason for making those inves tigations which resulted in a committee up stairs, and ended sometimes to the great dissatisfaction of honoura ble members. If that were so, they gave the candidate the advantage without the risk of losing his money, and they gave to the voter the possibility of voting without the , chance of detection ; and so far from the ballot tending to diminish the chance of bribery, it would give every in ducement to the candidate to bribe, and enable the voter to be bribed without discovery. The hon. gentleman said why not give this right to the poor man which in clubs the higher classes habitually used. Now, one of these was for political, and the other for social purposes. The object of a ballot in a club was to enable them to act on predilec tions which they might not be able to justify, but which they had a right to exorcise, for this reason—that every body had a right to choose the persons that he would asso ciate with. A man had a right to select his associates, without giving any public reason, and without being called on to give any justification for the aversion or prejuditie he entertained. But in public functions a man must feel his responsibility. It was nothing to tell him there was no responsibility in giving a vote. Why, to vote for a mem ber of Parliament was to constitute the fountain head of of political power. Talk about the rights of the demo cracy. These were the duties of the democracy as well as the rights ; and if the voters were to exercise the franchise, they must exercise it for the benefit of the public under the responsibility of public opinion. There was no reason in the world why they should adopt the theory of the hon. gentleman; but it was because the franchise was a public trust, and the source of public power, that he desired to see that it did not tend to vitiate our public system. The lion. gentleman said that some persons confounded demo cracy with the ballot, and that it was said you could not have the one without the other. It was true that if you had the ballot, one great argument against universal suff rage was lost. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman quoted the case of foreign countries, and said they were arguments and proofs in favour of the manner in which the ballot would work in this country. He need not have gone so far. That system was not confined to clubs—it was adopted in the parish of Marylebone in the election of vestries under Hobhonse's Act. Elections of that kind in Marylebone differed in nothing from ordinary political elections, and were carried on with the same vehemence, the same acrimony, and party spirit ; and there was an entire openness of proceeding, everybody's vote was well known, and if any one was persecuted, or any custom lost, they were acted on in just the same way as if there were open voting. Then with regard to America, Mr. Tremen heere, in his work on America, gave up the notion of secresy in vote by ballot ; and said that the mode of taking votes in the United States was open and ostenta tious ; that the ballot was a good mode of taking rapidly and easily the votes of a vast population - but any no tion of secresy was quite given up, and no attempt was made at concealment of the political predilections of voters. He said that " the term ballot in the United States meant nothing more than a mode of taking votes, which were openly and ostentatiously given." Now, in this country there were scrutineers for the purpose of striking off bad votes, such as the persons who voted had no right to give. Under the ballot how could that be done, how could it be ascertained who had or who had not a right to vote ? That system must be put out of the question. Look at the working of that plan in that re spect in America. It was stated by a writer on the subject, " that there were many false votes given, and in the case of a candidate who had obtained the promise of the votes of half the constituency ho was yet beaten by a majority greater than the whole constituency put together." (Hear.) Again, it appeared from the evidence of an American that the system had only changed the course of corruption, and instead of buying hundreds of voters, the plan was (and this was an improvement he, Mr. Herbert, did not think we in this country would adopt immediately, for it would require a little time for ingenious men to invent deiices of the kind)—the plan was only to buy one or two of the judges with whom the result of the election rested; and there was no means of detecting them in making false that hich could only be done by a scrutiny of the ballot box ; and there was nothing to prevent the abstraction of one kind of tickets and the substitution of others. That then seemed to be the common practice, and that was the sys tem which was said afforded the greatest security to voting. He would read an extract from the message of the Gover nor of the State of New York to the Legislature, in 1850, in which he said that" the alarming increase of bribery at elections was a subject worthy of their attention ; that the preservation of their liberties depended on the purity of elective franchise as exercised by the citizens, and he trusted they would adopt measures to protect whom—the voters ? not at all ; but effectually to secure the ballot-box from corruption—so that after adopting the system in this country the hon. gentleman the member for Bristol would have to bring on motions not to protect the voter, but the ballot-box, which he himself had introduced. His (Mr. Herbert's impression was, that there was one state in the Union in which there was compulsory secresy in voting. In the United States the ballot was used as a means of rapid voting, but the system of compulsory secresy was so far from being universally adopted that it was, in most cases, considered hateful, and strong arguments were used against its introduction into the other states. The hon. gentleman said that he would have it compulsory. But how was he to do it ? How was he to compel secresy among men proud of their resistance to power and to the blandishments of authority ; how was he to prevent them from going up to the ballot-box and stating for whom they were going to vote. It was not in the nature of the English character for a man to skulk behind a mask when he was doing an act of which he was proud. (Hear, hear.) Sydney Smith, in his admirable pamphlet on the ballot, which he (Mr. Herbert) wished it was consistent with the rules of the house to have read by the clerk at the table—(a laugh)—for it would be better than any speeches or arguments, humorously asked how you were to get an English voter to conceal his opinions ; in that case he must hurrah at the wrong dinner, drink the wrong beer, and break the wrong head. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Berkeley) said that the English were not garrulous ; but were they apt at concealing acts of public duty ? He (Mr. Herbert) would say, being half an Irish man, that although on the other side of the Channel taci turnity was not their forte, it was possible they would not divulge the nature of their votes. But for an Englishman to acquire the powers of concealment necessary to this sys tem of voting, he could become such a hypocrite as to make it doubtful whether he would be entitled to exercise the franchise. It could not be kept out of sight what an effect would be wrought on the national character and institu tions if this system of perfect secresy was obtained. How was public opinion to be formed among the constituencies if every man's opinion was concealed ? It would go to the root of our whole political system. The case was different in France, although he preferred to take America for the purposes of comparison, because the people came from the same stock, and the operation of certain influencies on them would be more akin to that on the minds of English men. But in France the political system was exactly the opposite of ours. It was a common phrase among French men, "it faut ecrascr l'inclividuel." That was not our 113 a tom ; and we did not put our political system into a state shape. If that was abandoned it would be contrary to the spirit of our free institutions—contrary to the spirit of our Saxon institutions, which were so consonant with liberty ; and if we were to adapt the English character to a system which would render men ready so to abrogate their rights and their duties as to perform them under the veil of secresy, you would demoralise the English character, and sap the very foundation on which our liberties were built. He did not speak thus from any fear of the immediate effect of the ballot in the loss of the influence of wealth, of public virtue, or station. He believed that it would make no very sensible impression on the return of members. He did not object to the system in a ptirty or political point of view, but because he believed it would tend, by destroy ing the self-respect of the constituency, to strike a blow at one of the best qualities of the national character, which was created by the exercise of public functions, whether in high or in humble life, and which required a fearlessness which had been given to the national character—a stability which was inconsistent with a system of concealment. Actuated by these feelings he should vote against the in troduction of the measure. Lord A. LENNOX opposed the principle of the ballot, denying that secresy would be preserved under such a sys tem. He denied that it would put a stop to bribery, and although ho was of opinion that the bribery at the last election was a scandal to the country, and he would be ready to coincide in any measure that would put a stop to it, yet he did not believe that the ballot would have that effect. An ancestor of his, whom the noble lord opposite, in a re cent work, had called "The reformed Duke of Richmond," had expressed an opinion which he thought was well de serving of attention. He said that the idea of the ballot could only have arisen from a wish to avoid some improper influences ; and he conceived that it was much nobler. openly to check such influences than to seek to evade them by concealment and deceit—it was more consistent with the character of Englishmen openly to express their opinions than to indicate in a secret manner those whom they wished to entrust with their suffrages. (Cheers.) There ward character well suited to th e di gnity of f ree d om ; was, in fact, about Englishmen an open an d straightfor and it would l e most unwise and dangerous to public morality t o pass a law, the essence of which was meanness and ser vility, and which would inculcate a disregard for truth, or, .v.l l / 4 , THE' SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENIN - G, JUNE 15, 1853. at best, but a regard for the outward semblance of integ rity. (Cheers.) On these grounds he (Lord Lennox) should vote against the motion of his hon. friend. Mr. COBDEN remembered that about nine years ago he brought forward a motion in that house, on which he had bestowed more than usual trouble and attention, and which time and experience had since proved to have been founded in sound and true policy. He remembered that the right hon. the member for Wiltshire, who was then in the Cabi net, and the colleague of older and shrewder heads, was put forward to answer that speech, which was accompanied by some memorable circumstances. Now the right hon. gentleman was a little older, but he had hardly gained much wisdom from experience—(laughter)—for he had done precisely the same office now that he did then for older and more sagacious colleagues. He had now taken up the defence of a question which had been as completely established by reason and argument as free trade had been' in 1844—(cheers)—and he ventured to predict that the right hon. gentleman would live to make as manly a disa vowal, after he bad seen by experience the results of the ballot, of the opinions he had expressed that night. (Laughter and cheers.) This question, he (Mr. Cobden) repeated, had been settled by reason and argument ; and if they were discussing the ballot simply as a question affect ing a body of men, all of whom rested upon a social equality, there could not oven then be one argument or reason sug gested why it should not be adopted. (Hear, hear.) Hide as they might—conceal it even from themselves, if they could—the fact was that they opposed the ballot because they ei.tered upon a discussion of it with a In idea that it was the duty of somebody to know how somebody else voted. (Cheers.) But if a body of men—if 500 individuals were placed in one apartment, and they wished to know honestly the opinion of the majority of those men ; if no one had right or power, or pretension, to exercise any un due influence whatever, or any mastery over them, except what he derived from argument and reason, they would not find ono of those 500 men that could say why the ballot should not_ be adopted. (Hear. hear.) The right hon. gentleman had given them some arguments with which he (Mr. Cobden) would now proceed to deal. And in the first place he must correct the as sumption of the right hon. gentleman that any one who had spoken before him had admitted that the ballot would be totally inoperative to put down bribery. What had been admitted by all its advocates was that it was per as against intimidation, and that it was a very potent obstacle to bribery. But the right hon. gentleman went further, and said that bribery might be an increasing evil, but that intimidation, owing to the operation of public opinion, was decreasing with the lapse of time. He com pared the present period with 1833 ; and said that we had very much improved upon the state of things then; for po pular opinion had to a certain extent put down intimida tion. He (Mr. Cobden) denied that. What had been done was, that the counties, in a vast majority of cases, had so far succumbed to intimidation, and had so far become sub servient to territorial interest, that they had ceased to make any struggle for independence. (Cheers.) Talk of intimidation having diminished ! Was it not the recog nised principle and etiquette in county canvassing, that it was an insult to large proprietors to canvass their tenants without first obtaining their permission ? (Cheers.) Would anybody deny that ? Why, he had heard of one case, in which there were two proprietors of rival pretensions, where there was a quarrel, and some talk of a duel, in con sequence of their having poached upon each other's manor. The counties; before the Reform Bill, were the strongholds of liberal opinions in this country. There were members fer counties who took their stand on that side of the house in defence of all our old constitutional freedom, and it was mainly county members that had carried the teform Bill itself. (Cheers.) Why, then, had such a complete change taken place They could scarcely now point to any county where a contest, however hopeless, had been attempted on liberal and reforming principles. (Hear, hear.) The simple cause was, that they had given the proprietors such power by the control of their tenants' votes, that the free holders, the ancient stronghold of popular rights, had been swamped by a body of men, the most dependent and the most subservient politicians they had in tne country. (Cheers and murmurs.) They had had the experiment tried. In South Northumberland, in North Northumber land, in Hertfordshire, in Herefordshire, and in West Surrey, they had had contests ; and whether or not there had been any diminution of intimidation, let the right hon. member for Morpeth answer. (Cheers.) He would call Sir George Grey into the witness-b [Th n. ox. e ho member then quoted a hustings' speech of Sir George, in which he complained that the name of those who had ex ercised undue influence over their tenants, against him was " Legion.l But it was the same on the other side. He found in a local paper this statement :—" Lord Ossulston and Lord Lovaine address the people from the windows of the White Swan." (A laugh.) Lord Ossulston, speaking of the Beaumont and other influence in South Northum berland, said—" Mr. Liddell went up to one of the polling places, where he sat with the patience of Job, for three hours, hearing vote after vote recorded against him. At last a single elector polled for him, and he rose and publicly thanked the voter, 'to the surprise of all who did not know that he was present. A short time after wards, one of the voters who had polled against Mr. Liddell, came up to him, and taking him by the hand, said, " I have been compelled to vote against you, but it is a d—d bad business." (Laughter.) I have given you the man's own language, for I think the profaneness of the expression is redeemed by its honest sincerity. (Great laughter.) Lord Lovaine also complained that the Green wich Hospital estate was canvassed by his opponent in company with a Government commissioner, and that the tenants had given their votes against him (Lord Lovaine), although they were in his favour. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) might call attention to the case of Hertford shire ; but in every case they would find the same ter rible intimidation practised. Indeed, the counties had ceased to exist for all purposes of useful discussion or manly contest. (Loud cheers and murmurs.) Well, now, let them go to Ireland, where county contests had been renewed. Had they seen any failing anywhere of this horrible intimidation in Ireland, by the priests on one side and the landlords on the other? (Hear.) Why ho had begun at one time to cut extracts out of the papers giving records of these cases, but he had thrown up the task in sheer despair, for it was all intimidation and violence in Ireland. (Cheers.) So much so, that the United Service Gazette stated that 30,000 soldiers and police had been kept actively employed throughout the late elections, and that they had visited 182 polling places during the contest. (Hear, hear.) Was that a state of things to be passed over or to be remedied ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle man said they could not remedy it in Ireland unless they passed such a measure as would protect the people both from the priests and the landlords. But what did they want to protect them against ? They wanted to protect voters against any coercive influences that should compel them to vote against their will. (Hear, hear.) He might be told that the influence of the priests would be exercised in a private manner—in a manner which, whatever it might seem to them, they neither could, nor bad they a right, to interfere with. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) did not ask them to protect a man against a voluntary in fluence. He denied their right to prevent any man from taking counsel from those whom he knew, or supposed to be better able to advise him than he was to instruct him ' self. (Hear.) Bat this he did say, place a man in such a position that he might either follow or disobey, as he pleased, the instructions of those who undertook to guide him, whether they were landlords or priests. They had had, however, on the previous night, an explosion from the honourable member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) from which it appeared that there were some influences exerted by priests which were not volun tarily submitted to. 111: e (Mr. Cobden) had heard of a Roman Catholic who had voted against the wishes of his priest, and his seat in the chapel had been torn up in consequence. Now that was a species of in timidation calculated to make a man vote against his conscience; and so if they had the ballot it might protect a man, to some extent, even against the influence of the priests. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, he said, let them try the ballot. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman told them that it would be no remedy against bribery. He stated that bribery would be carried on wholesale—that one of your Parliamentary agents would go down to a town and say to a number of people, " If you can return So-and so I will give you so much to divide amongst you ; but unless he is returned you have nothing." Now his (Mr. Cobden's) answer to that was, in the first instance, that they did not intend to have any of these little manageable boroughs. (Cheers.) It might be perfectly true of such places as Wilton or Shoreham, for instance. But he would put it to the house, could any Parliamentary agent go down to such towns as Birmingham or Manchester, where there were constituencies of 5,000, or 10,000, or 15,000 electors, and buy them up wholesale? (Cheers.) With so large a number to be represented, 26,000,000 persons to be repre sented by 658 members, they would have under the new Reform Bill—unless it was to be a mere sham and pretence —none but large constituencies ; and he would appeal to the house whether it was possible to buy constituencies of some 8,000 voters each? (Cheers.) It had raver been done under the open system, and it would certainly not be dune under the ballot. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentleman had touched upon the ballot at the clubs, but he had not been very happy in explaining why they wero indulged in that luxury while the people wero not to have it. (Hear.) It was said that in clubs they dare not vote openly ; but really if any improper person were proposed for the only club in London to which he (Mr. Cobden) belonged, he should not hesitate to vote against him to-morrow. (Hear, hear.) It might be very inconvenient no doubt to vote openly ; but were they to shield themselves against this slight inconvenience when they would not allow the same privilege to the masses? (Hear, hear.) Nor was the prac tice confined to the clubs. The East India Company voted by ballot, and he did not find any provision in the new bill to prevent them from continuing to do so. Twenty years ago the magistrates for Devonshire adopted it in elections fur their chairman, and those of East Sussex in the election of a chief constable. The noble lord opposite said that the ballot would destroy the national character. Did that apply to these magistrates? (Hear, hear.) But he found in a Breconshire newspaper an account of an archery meeting, and in that too he found a ballot for members. In fact, there was no country in the world in which the ballot was so much used. The right hon. gen tleman seemed to think that the secret voting was intended to be compulsory ; but when the bill passed a voter might, if he pleased, cover his hat with the name of his favourite candidate, or shout it at the top of his voice. All they contemplated was such a provision as should enable every body to vote without anybody else knowing how he voted. (Cheers.) Those who chose to be canvassers, or open and above-board partisans, might do so ; but the number of those who took an open, and prominent, and noisy part in these public discussions and contests was a very small fraction indeed. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that the ballot was not popular in America. He could state, from some little acquaintance with America, that any politician there who proposed to abolish the ballot in any state in which it prevailed, would be considered as little better than a political madman. (Hear, hear.) It was the cardinal article of their political faith ; and there never had been an instance of a state which had adopted the ballot having departed from it, but the tendency had been constantly the other way. (Hear, hoar.) At the present moment there were not more than one or two, and those slave states— Virginia was one—whore the ballot was not tolerated. (Cheers.) Much had been said about the cor ruption of the last election. That was patent to the world, and they all admitted it. It was not merely bribery and corruption in the ordinary sense of the word that they had to deal with ; the great blot and disgrace of our electoral system was the blackguardism and bullying that prevailed at those contests. At Oldham it was stated by Mr. Fox's chairman that his supporters would not have been able to vote at all, had they not crept down by-roads to the poll ; and some actually went to Manchester and returned by another train that it might not be observed that they were going to vote. At Blackburn there was not merely open violence on the day of election, but for days and weeks afterwards the blackguardism was kept up, people were carried off, and all sorts of violence were committed. In one case a gun was fired, and two shots were lodged in the face of an individual. Was that an English, was it a desir- that had occurred on great able state of things for this country ? Could we find it i n any other country ? He ventured to say that the scen es witnessed at Blackburn only during the last election sur passed eat -1 hope from the ballot was that it would change the character o troinuagthrocouitttyh allo A of our elections—put an end to brass bands, flags, and ban ners—and abate the nuisance of drinking and open houses. (Cheers.) With the vote by ballot people might poll as quietly as they wont to church on Sundays, as was, in fact, done both in America and England in almost all cases of voting by ballot. (Hear, hear.) These evils being acknowledged what other remedy was there but the ballot? The right hon. gentleman should remember that he did not speak in the name of a united Cabinet, at least one of his colleagues was as hearty for the ballot as he (Mr. Cobden) was. The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-Gene ral, and the Judge-Advocate were all prepared to vote for it. (Hear, hear.) So were a majority of the ordinary supporters of the Government ; and if the Opposition benches had remained as thin as they were about nine o'clock, the question would very soon have been settled. (Cheers.) Hence the question became a very serious one for the Government to consider. It was the question of all others in which the electoral body took the deepest in terest. (Hear, hear.) Let the Government analyse their own supporters, and they would find that almost every representative of a large and powerful constituency voted in favour of the ballot. (Cheers.) If the Government were prepared and determined to resist the ballot, what other remedy had they for these evils? Committees were appointed, and commissioners sent forth into the country, and inquiries made into that which eveg one well understood ; but they wanted the remedy. Every thins- would be tried except the real remedy, as in the case of the Dorn-law agitation. There was a remedy, which had been recommended by the profoundest thinkers of the age, for evils that were acknowledged to exist. Would they give Bentham and Grote a trial? (Cheers.) If not, why not? (Hear, hear.) The matter had been discussed there more than twenty years ; on no ques tion had argument and reason been so triumphant. At least the Government might try the experiment for the sake of the country and for their own sakes. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest this. The seats for a very large borough were likely soon to be vacant by the decision of a commit tee of that house. (Hear, hear.) Why not propose that the ballot should be tried in the election for that great borough? He would not have it first tried in a small pocket borough with 200 or 300 electors ; that would not be a fair experiment. (Hear.) Were they afraid of the mischief that could be done by venturing to have a solitary election on the principle adopted in all their clubs, in the India-house, and in social meetings—a system of voting which was carried on successfully and with increased favour in America, Belgium, Switzerland, and France ? (Hear, hear.) Were Ministers resolved, in spite of the world's experience, of classical authority, and of all the recommendations of the system, not to give it a trial ? Then what did they drive the country to? Must there be a ballot league, as there had been an anti-corn-law league? (Cheers.) He thought they had grown wiser. He had been encouraged, by the success of the budget, especially of its key-stone, the succession tax—(cheers)—to hope that the time had come when questions like this would be fairly decided by argument—that at any rate, the Legisla ture would consent to try an experiment, without compel ling the country to resort to associations and agitation. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest another experiment. Pass an act to make the ballot permissive. (Hear, hear.) He had such faith in the principle that he would offer the most handsome terms. Le them pass an act which should enable any constituency that chose to adopt the (ballot, to try the experiment ; and having come to that decision, that they should, on notifying the same to the Home Se cretary, elect their members by ballot during that Parlia ment, retaining the power to return again to open voting if they did not like the ballot. (Hear, hoar.) That met the argument that the people did not want the ballot. Once for all, as they were threatened with a Reform Bill, for a Reform Bill without the Ballot was a threat—(hear, hear) —he said most emphatically he would rather have no ex tension of the franchise, he would rather not run the risk of spreading the virus of this corruption, and the horrors of this intimidation among another stratum of society ; he would rather they remained as they were than subject another and a more dependent class of the people to the same corrupting and debasing influences as the present electoral body suffered from. (Hear, hear.) He therefore entreated the Government, if they were not prepared to grant a Reform Bill with the ballot, to postpone it, and let the country have the ballot alone. (Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL and the Lord-Advocate rose together, but the latter gave way in deference to what appeared to be the wish of the house. The hon. baronet said, that last year he gave to a similar proposal to that now made by the hon. member (Mr. H. Berkeley) his silent, but not less earnestly-felt, adhesion. Since the time of Mr. Grote to the present day able and powerful arguments had been adduced in support of the present measure. He brought to the same view of the subject the hearty advocacy of an honest heart, and that was sure to meet with the sympa ties of some of those whom he addressed. He had advo cated the ballot, not from a hasty conclusion, nor was he actuated either by a love of reform or a desire of upsetting the institutions of the country, but from considerations of what it appeared to him, with his limited experience of judging, was calculated to promote the liberty and inde pendence of the people of this country. (Cheers.) It seemed to him that the ballot was a means of promoting purity of principle, and freedom of election. He believed, in his own mind, that, as the greatest possible publicity ought always to accompany the political action of a con stitutional Government, so, on the other hand, the greatest possible secrecy ought always to accompany the sovereign expression of public opinion in the exercise of the elective franchise. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Therefore it was that he thought this measure, which would tend to elevate the public mind, and render it independent of political animosity, and unbiassed by the heat of political passions, ought to meet with the regard of that house. Out of doors the balance of political , opinion already indisputably in clined to this free and honourable system ; and as the balance of public opinion inclined that way, ho firmly believed that, sooner or later, the sense of the majority of that house must also equally incline to it. (Hear, hear.) It was possible that the motion might not be adopted that night, but its success was a mere matter of time • and it must be a source of considerable gratification to him and others Who had faith in their political convictions and looked forward to the accomplishment of their political views —it must, he said, be a source of considerable gratification to them to remark on each succeeding occasion on which the measure was submitted to the house, the rapidly diminish ing numbers of the majority by which it was resisted. This was a cl-ar proof to him, and to everybody else who had got any sense—(laughter)—of the progress which it was making in the public mind. The hon. member for the ' West Riding had truly said that the representatives of the great towns were all in favour of the ballot. Let hon. members go to any of the large towns where was a great concentration of population, like Birmingham, for instance - -and see if that was not the fact. He would venture to say that he only echoed the feelings of thousands out of doors when he repeated that the public looked forward to vote by ballot as a measure which would ultimately remove the stumbling-block of political iniquity. He appealed to the house if ever there was a more fitting opportunity than the present, or one in which there was greater probability of success, for submitting a measure like that of vote by ballot to the House of Commons, after the gross scenes of bribery and intimidation which had unhappily prevailed at the last general election. He did not mean to apologise for anybody in that home ; that he must say that it was most unfair and ungenerous to endeavour to throw all the blame of those proceedings on the friends and supporters of the Derby Administration. The real fact was that both parties were equally to blame. Taking the first 13 seats which were declared vacant on account of bribery and cor ruption, he found that six of those were occupied by what I were called Liberals, and seven by Derbyites—a tolerable equal division he thought. Now, the ballot would strike this evil at its root, and therefore it was that he was in ' alined to give it his support. If they asked him for a proof I of the evil which rendered the ballot necessary, he should not take the case of poor working artisans in the dockyards, whom the noble lord the member for London proposed to crush, but he would take the cases of Hull and HaiwiCh and of Clitheroe and Tavistock. He did not know who was proprietor of the borough of Tavistock; but this he knew, that if the noble lord the member for London disfranchised the dockyard artisans and left unscathed the electors of Ta,vistock, he would be guilty of conduct which ought certainly to meet with the reprobation of that house. (Hear, hear.) But he would go farther, and ask them to come with him to the " Fountain," at Canterbury, and see what passed there. He would go further, and remind them of the case of Thomas Morris of the " Waggon and Horses," and of the reasonable quantity of beer which he had orders to distri bute among the electors of Blackburn. Didn't these cases call for political action? (Hear, hear.) Well, the ballot would strike these evils at the root, and therefore he for one would give his hearty and cordial assent to it. But he was anxious from the position which he acci dentally held, that he should be perfectly understood in regard to the support which he gave to the ballot. He did not want to see it affect—and he did not believe that it would affect—the legitimate influence of property. He believed that there were many hon. gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the house who were inclined to oppose the ballot because they thought it would not only interfere with, but absolutely annihilate, the legitimate influence of property ; but he was persuaded that they were quite mistaken on that point ; and he knew this, that if they could prove to him that it would have that effect, he should be as earnestly opposed to it as he was now vigorously endeavouring to support it. (Hear, hear.) But he repeated that he did not think that it would in any way affect the legitimate influence of property. He regretted to say there were certain hon. members in that house, and among others the hon. members for the West Riding and Man chester, who frequently threw stones at the legitimate in fluence of property. (Mr. Cobden—No.) He could prove it as regarded the hon. member for the West Riding, at all events ; for be (Sir R. Peel) well remembered that when the case of Bridgnorth was under discussion in that house a few weeks ago, that hon. member mentioned the ease of Mr. Whitmore, and said here was a case for the ballot. Now, the influence of Mr. Whitmore, which the hon. member had condemned, was evidently founded upon the affections of those among whom he resided ; and, if Mr. Whitmore ha:d not exercised that influence —an influence which was the result of that sense of responsibility which his property had entailed—he (Sir R. Peel) could only say he was but little qualified for the situation he occupied. Therefore it was that he wished to maintain the legitimate influence of property ; and that he did not wish to throw a stone at its influence. He knew that the ballot must pass, for he considered it inevitable. Its supporters might be beaten on the present occasion • but next year, or in three or f our years, it must pass. P (Hear, hear.) Of course, the re might, as there were, after all , great political changes, be a great convulsion in the country afterwards, but that convulsion would s ubside—eels; and quiet would succeed —and the political influence of property once more assume its proper tone. (Hear, hear.) The people of this country were far too sharp and acute not to discern the wide differ ence which existed between the permanent advantages they derived from the legitimate influence of property and the questionable results which followed the noise and tur bulence of the mob. Hon. members, therefore, need not at all fear that the ballot would destroy the legitimate in fluence of property. At the name time, he maintained that secrecy of voting meant freedom of voting. In this country they had had few opportunities of testing that assertion, but ho begged to call the attenti on o f t h e h ouse to a case which occurred in Spain only the other day, and to another which had lately taken place in Tuscany, which would show the value of the ballot in despotic countries. And if it was of value there, it would surely be equally valuable in a country like this. The Government of Bravo m ur ilk, was succeeded by that of General Roncali, who soon showed that lie was anxious to continue the same violent political course as his predecessor had done. He dissolied the Cortes, and sent them back to the country. So far all was easy. But then came the Senate. He elected 45 senators at once, and what was the result? There were four secretaries to be elected, who, by exercis ing coneide*ble authority in the Senate, held great politi- cal influence, and having vote by ballot in the Senate, the senators elected four individuals to those offices in oppo sition to the candidates proposed by the Government. It was quite clear that if the Senate had not had the ballot they would have been intimidated by the Government. (Hear, hear.) The case which had occurred at Florence was this : Prince Lichtenstein proposed, as a member of some club or reunion, a member of the Windischgratz family ; but as in Italy all Austrians were naturally enough hated, the young member was blackballed. Prince Licht enstein was, of course, furious at this result. He called out the military, occupied all the most important posts of the city, and threatened to interfere with the public amusements. He then called a meeting of the club, and said, " Gentlemen, the ballot is all nonsense ; let us have publicity of voting. " The cons e que nce wa s that, with the sword hanging over the heads of the electors, the candidate who was in th e fi rs t i nstance blackballed was' unanimously elected. (Laughter.) Now, these were cases, and afforded st r iki ng proofs of theefficiencyciency of the ballot. (Hear, hear.) He had heard the other night, with the greatest possible surprise, the noble lord the member for London say that her Majesty's Ministers were not going to govern the country by c h ec ki ng t h e progress of demo cracy, but that they were goi ng t o ma k e democracy Con servative. Now he confessed that to endeavour to make democracy Conservative in a country where aristocratic influence had had dominion for 160 years did appear to him a monstrous proposition. (Laughter.) He remem bered some time ago having heard the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) toll the noble lord that he was a subordinate of a subordinate. Now, he (Sir It. Peel) begged to correct the right hon. gentleman. He assured him that the noble lord was nothing whatever of the kind. He had the distinguished authority of Lord Aber deen for stating—(laughter)—that he had no subordinates at all. (Hear, hear.) Now, really, when the Prime Minister of the country stated that he had no subordinates, he must have a very moderate estimate of his political position. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had the other night also attacked the religious sympathies and in sulted the loyalty of the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; and then the house was told that these were only his own private opinions. And yet the noble lord was the leader of the House of Commons. (Hear.) When questioned in that house on the subject, what did he do? He quoted a very sensible opinion of Lord Melbourne's, which he evidently meant to throw in the teeth of Lord Aberdeen—(laughter) —that if the members of the Government were only agreed about the course which they pursued, it was of no conse quence whether they were all agreed with regard to the grounds by whichthey arrived at that course. One would think, from this, that the noble lord and the members of the Government were all of the same opinion with regard to public questions. He begged the house just to look at the opinions of the Cabinet upon this very question of the ballot. There was the right hon. gentleman the member for SouthWark (Sir W. Molesworth)—the glorious Radical of Southwark —(lrtughter) —who looked at the ballot as the anchor of the salvation of this country ; and he (Sir It. Peel) thought he was perfectly right. Then there was the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), who was then sitting with great complacency under the gentle breezes which fanned the Admiralty flag. (Renewed laughter.) That right hon. gentleman looked upon the ballot as the Cape Horn of polities—as the Ultinuz Thule of political navigation. (Continued laughter.) With re gard to those few hon. gentlemen whom the country re gretted to see so much separated from their legitimate con nexions—now that there was no longer any necessity for their separation—he did not know how they were to vote. But there was one bon. gentleman upon whose vote he could with certainty rely, and that was the hon. and gallant cap tain, the eccentric member for Middlesex—(loud laughter) —the hon. and gallant captain, the eccentric member for Middlesex, would, he believed, with the most unrestricted confidence, vote with him in favour of the ballot, and, as the minds of the public were at present running upon the hos tile attitude assumed by Russia towards Turkey, he might perhaps, in the lobby, be able to establish an " entente cordiale" with the hon. and gallant gentleman on that in teresting and important subject. He felt it incumbent upon him, although occuping a humble position in the house, to ask the house to consider the present inefficiency of the system of electoral legislation, and to note the evils which had for the last 20 years been making such rapid strides, and which, in his opinion, the ballot could only curtail. The house would probably recollect that in the Parliament of 1844 there were eight cases of conviction for bribery and treating; in the Parliament of 1847 there were 14 similar eases; but, after the last general election, out of the 16 seats which were attacked by petition, three only had not been lost, and 13 hon. gentlemen were almost at once found, by their agents, guilty of bribery. There had been, since, a great many cases in which the sitting mem bers had also been disqualified on account of bribery by their agents, but he did not know their exact number ; but, whatever it might be, it was evident that the evil was on the increase. There was the borough of Aylesbury, which had on two occasions been convicted of bribery, but he could not say whether or not the purity of the borough had been improved since her Majesty's Solicitor-General had been connected with it. (Laughter.) Let the house consider the case of the Wigton Burghs. At the late gene ral election Sir J. M`Taggart polled 140 votes, and Mr. Caird polled 139. Mr. Caird petitioned, but was unable to withstand the Earl of Stair and 11 lawyers staring at him. (Loud laughter.) In addition to that he was unable to bear the expenses of a scrutiny, and it seemed to him a great proof of the inefficiency of the electoral legislation that the expense of a scrutiny should be permitted to deprive an hon. gentleman of a seat who might—he would not say that he was—have been fairly entitled to it. Blackburn and Chat ham had both been found guilty of bribery, but since the act called "Sir Robert Peel's Act," for regulating the consti tution of election committees, only St. Albans and Sudbury had been disfranchised. There was now a chance of urging upon Parliament the adoption of the ballot, and he would ask all those hon. members who were dissatisfied with the present system to rally round that popular standard ; and, if any hon. members were waverhing or halting between the two opinions, he would venture to ask them to con cider the inefficiency of the present electoral system, both as regarded the corrupt practices and the intimidation prevalent at elections, and as regarded the expenses of prosecuting a petition before a committee ; but, above all, to consider the demoralisation which resulted from that corruption and intimidation, and, weighing well these considerations, to figure to themselves what would be the best course to adopt for the purpose of improving the public mind. (Hear, hoar.) He would ask the house to weigh well these considerations, and he felt convinced that many hon. members would be inclined to sanction the measure, as one which, while it acted as a check upon corruption and intimidation, would not attack the legiti mate influence bestowed by the possession of property. It was a measure, he believed, which, from encouraging independence of conscience and freedom of opinion, must tend to promote the interests of all classes of the commu nity. But, whether the measure should be successful, or whether it should be thrown out, the time had passed for meeting a proposal for the introduction of the ballot with sneers and illiterate taunts, for the matter had created in quiry, and the more its principles had been clearly and fairly put forward, the more favourable had been the opinion formed of the views which it advocated. He would therefore ask Parliament to endeavour, by investi gation and. inquiry into the present system of electoral legislation, and into the methods for correction of its abuses, to recognise the adoption of the ballot as the safest guarantee for final and complete success. (Cheers.) The LORD ADVOCATE would limit himself but to a very few observations. He was opposed to the ballot, not because of its democratic-tendency, his fears were alto gether in the other direction. (Oh, oh, and. cries of Hear, hear.) He believed that there was that involved in the ballot which was altogether antagonistic to the principle of freedom of Government. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) and he was quite sure it was more from caprice and accident that the question of the ballot had become identified with the creed of some of those who pro fessed liberal opinions in this country. (Hear, hear.) Ono principle above all others ought to be made the policy of our Government—that the influence of public and popular opinion was the best or rather the only security for the honest exercise of public duty. And on the contrary, he felt convinced that the more they probed this question of secret voting to the bottom, more and more it would be found that it was not altogether so uncongenial to the spirit of such Governments as those of Spain and Tuscany as some gentlemen seemed to imagine. (Hear.) If it was meant that the voter only heldhis vote for his own interest and advantage, he (the Lord Advocate) had no argument against the ballot., but if he had then no argument against the ballot he could have no argument against bribery and corruption. (Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, if a man held the franchise for the public good, if he bad a duty to perform towards his country and its institutions, he could not do so under the ballot. The error of hon. gentlemen who supported it was here—they had an evil to remedy, and they never looked into the intrinsic merits of the remedy they proposed. (Hear.) The ballot would not prevent bribery—it could not prevent intimidation—and if it did not do so, it would tend to increase it and the other evils attendant upon our system. Let them intrc duce the ballot, and they would unloose those tics by means of which the general healthfulness of our consitution had been preserved, and which had made this house the best exemplification of the representative system that the world had ever seen. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") Much had been said about the use of the ballot in America, but the hon. member for the West Riding knew very well that practically there( was no such thing as secret voting in that country. He believed that the ballot was a wea pon taken from the armoury of arbitrary power. Freedom and. publicity of action were the life-blood of our constitution. They circulated from the lowest to the highest, and once their course was obstructed there might remain the empty skeleton of the constitution, but it was beyond all power to resuscitate the spirit of a nation once it was departed. (Hear, hear.) Let them deal with the question as they might • but this should. be remembered, they never could succeed. in making an honest man of a knave ; let not matters be so arranged, then, as to make it impossible to distinguish between them. (Hear.) Mr. BRIGHT viewed with satisfaction the increased earnestness which had been evinced by the members of the Treasury bench with respect to this motion, because he gathered from it that they intended either to concede the question, or to buckle on their armour and contend against it. Ho admitted, as the measure was now proposed by the hon. member for Bristol, that the responsibility laid upon the supporters of the ballot of showing that there was a case, and that the remedy which they proposed was appli cable to it. The general arguments by which they were met might be comprised under three heads—either the evil complained of was not so great as they charged it to to be, or the ballot would not cure it, or, if it did, the cure would be as bad as the disease. (Hear.) Ho had gone with some care into the figures to which the hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had referred, and he found that during the present session there had been 16 members of the house unseated for bribery alone, 4 for treating alone, 7 for bribery and treating combined, 1 for an illegal en gagement to pay money, and 2 for intimidation and riot — making altogether 30 members who had been unseated for occurrences which they believed the application of the ballot would very much tend to remove, if it did not re move them altogether. At every general election since the Reform Bill there had been an immense number of peti tions presented against tho returns. In 1833 there were 33 petitions ; in 1835, 30 ; in 1838, 60; in 1841, 43 ; in 1847, 40; and in 1853, 76. Where there had been more than one petition for a borough he had reckoned them only as one. In all, there had been 315 peti tions during those six general elections, or an average of not loss than 47. It needed, he was sure, no argument to show that the house stood in a position of con siderable humiliation before the public and the world on account of those proceedings, and it was difficult to say whether the members of the constituencies had most lost c haracter. (Hear.) There were boroughs completely'un der the control of a patron, like that of Stamford, and others with a large number of electors under the control of the Government, like that of Chatham. There were large cities even, such as Westminster, in which a great number of electors constantly and. notoriously abstained from going to the poll on account of the extreme preSsure which was put upon them by persons to wilora they were i under some obligation. (Hear.) Ireland was, perhaps, ' oven more notorious still ; and he invited the right hon • the Secretary at War to go with him to a northern county in that country, and he would show him that the spirit of the Duke orNewcastle was not dead, but lived as much in the Marquis of Londonderry as ever it had done in the Duke of Newcastle. (Hear.) (The hon. member, in il- I ustration, quorted several passages from a correspondence published in tire newspapers about a year ago, between the Marquis of Londonderry and Mr. David Ker, in which the noble marquis, in reference to the county of Down, spoke of "his voiles," and of his right in cons id erat i on of his influence, and the money which his forefath ers h a d ex pended in the county, to return one member.) The Rev. Mr. Ford, of the comity of Down, was an exile on ac count of pecuniary embaprassments, and in his absence his son and the rector of the parish managed his election eering business, and they called the tenants into the farm yard and treated them, in order to induce them to break the promise they had given to vote for the candidates pro posed by Sharman Crawford. These extracts ought to satisfy the right hon. Secretary at War that the spirit of the Duke of Newcastle was not dead, and, therefore, that tho argument which the right hon. gentleman had founded on the contrary supposition was untenable. Lord E. HILL begged to be allowed to inform the house that the correspondence on which the hon. member had commented in such kind terms, had no reference to the present representation of the county of Down. (Hear.) Mr. BRIGHT said he was glad that Mr. Ker had not suffered himself to be driven from the field, but stood for the county. The hon. member then proceeded to read passages from other correspondence relative to other elec tions in Ireland, with the view of showing that improper influence had been used to procure the return of members. Mr. Blayney, a barrister, wrote to John Rooney, his bailiff, on th e 22d of May, 1852, expressing his regret at hearing his tenants " were inclined to vote for the mur derers of the tenant league"—(laughter)—and declaring that if they should do so, they would be visited by marks of his displeasure. In the county of Monaghan the agent of Lord Blayney wrote as follows to that nobleman's tenantry :—" I wish the tenants to vote for Sir G. Forster placed Mr. laeedvi Leslie, li and I have nohes e i x ta p t e i c e t the tenants over l a w m h s o n m I surprised te that th a e n e y e t o i n n e ty s u l s d n p m u e rp e o f se t h v o e ti n tenants,g for D r e . n G r a r e y e e , i a n s . n t r g a n t g h e mandate, wrote to Lord Blayney, in London, complaining of it, and his lordship wrote a very gentleman-like letter, in which he repudiated any wish to influence the votes of his tenants, notwithstanding which the agent persisted in coercing them, in order to make them vote as he wished. Much was said about the influence exercised by the Catho lie priests in Ireland, but as far as his observation ex tended, the priests only exerted themselves to counteract the pressure put upon the tenants by the landlords of Ire land. (Hear, hear.) Protestant clergymen, however, could interfere in election matters as well as Catholic priests. The Dean of Ross, the agent of Lord Stratford, wrote a letter to the Belfast Chronicle, to which he begged to solicit the attention of the hon. member for Warwick shire, who was slumbering at the end of one of the opposite benches. (A laugh.) In this letter the rev. gentleman s •d ( 1, " Lord Stratford is most anxious for the return of Mr. Inglis, and the result of the contest will prove to his lordship whom he may regard as his friends in his future relations with the town." A list had been furnished him by two gentlemen, named Richardson and Miller, of 27 tenants who voted against the wishes of the noble lord, and who since received notice to quit, while six had actu ally been evicted. Seven persons, who did not vote at all, had received notice to quit, and one had been evicted. He (lid not know whether the Secretary at War might consi der these cases exceptional or exaggerated, but he believed the hon. members for Ireland could show that they were neither the one nor the other. The question was, would the ballot remedy such evils ? In his opinion, it would ,• he did not conceive that Lord Londonderry would have written the letter he had read, had the 7,000 electors of the county of Down gone up to vote by secret ballot ; nor did he be lieve, had the ballot existed, that the gentlemen of Mona ghan would have pursued the course he had described. Let him take the case of Durham. He knew something about the city of Durham, for he had fought two contests., there—the fiercest contests known there for many year s. Well, at Durham, Lord Londonderry, who seemed to have a mania for this sort of power, had more than 100 men 'sm ployed in his collieries within seven miles of the city—a circumstance giving them each a vote—and these men the noble lord would bring up in omnibuses and carts to vote at the elections for the city of Durham for his member, and then have them taken back again as they came. He himself had no reason to complain of Lord Londonderry or his 100 voters, for it so happened that, owing to some dis pute at the time between the noble marquis and the church party at Durham, the noble marquis's men were not quite in hand, so that many of them voted as they pleased on that particular occasion. What he complained of was the system—a system as ruinous to the individuals who sup ported it as it was disgraceful to the country in which it was practised. He would now advert to the United States. In the United States, as was well known, there were far more Parliamentary elections than in this country, for, be sides the elections to Congress, there were the elections to the 32 or 33 states ; yet such a thing as an election peti tion with such a charge as corruption or intimidation or bribery, was not, he believed, known in the United States. (Hear, hear.) The Secretary at War, followed by the Lord Advocate, had endeavoured to make out that nothing could be so detrimental to morality as the secret ballot system. Now, if there was a state, or province, or district in the world in which the whole population was emphatically well educated, comfortable in their circum stances, independent in their character, superior as a body of men to any equal body of men to be found anywhere in the world on the same space of ground, that province, that state, was the State of Massachusetts. (Hear, hear.) Now, the State of Massachusetts, the colonists of Boston, established the ballot so far back as 1634, and the only time when the ballot was discontinued there was when it was abolished by Governor Andrew, who was sent there bylames 11. in 1688, and who, in his anxiety to destroy the liberties of Massachusetts, conceived that his first and most effective step was to overthrow the freedom of election by ballot. (Hear, hear.) In order to exhibit the present position of the vote by ballot in Massachusetts the hon. member then read portions of two letters from Messrs. Dawson and Amason Walker, the former now, and the latter lately, a member of the Massachusetts Legislature, describing the mode of voting by ballot, and declaring that the franchise was regarded by the entire population of the province as the Palladium of their liberties. The ballot itself was described to be enclosed in a self-sealing en velope, so that, while the name of every person voting was checked as ho dropped his envelope into the ballot box, it was impossible to know how he voted. [The hon. member hero exhibited one of the envelopes bearing the stamp of the State of Massachusetts, used in voting by ballot in that State.] There was no possibility of fraud under the system there practised ' • and when he heard gentlemen s p ea k o f the impossibility of securing perfect secrecy, he must, say, we would be the most stupid people in the world if we could not make some mechanical contrivance to effect that object. (Hear, hear.) He believed the noble lord, the member for the city of London, and the house, were anxious to put an end to the corruption that pre vailed, but they would never succeed in doing so un less something better than they had hitherto tried was resorted to. (Hear, hear.) If they found an effectual system existing in the New England States, it surely w as worth their while to see if they also could not by some other means than acts against bribery and corruption secure the object which they all aimed at. (Hear, hear.) The dignity and character of that house were maged not merely throughout the country but the world by the transactions that occurred at some of their elections. Just as there were men who did not like to go through the un pleasantness of a canvass for a seat in the East India Company, so there were men who did not like to submit to the humiliation or degradation connected with seeking a seat in that house. If they were not hypocrites to them selves and the country, they were bound to take up this question in earnest, and not only give leave for the intro duction of the present bill, but pass it on to the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Mr. S. KNOX denied some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Manchester with reference to the intimidation of electors in Ireland, and observed that the object of the ballot seemed to bo that people should pro mise one way and vote another. (Hear, hear.) Lord E. HILL defended the Rev. Mr. Ford from the imputations cast on him by the hon. member for Man chester, which seemed to imply that he had gone away for some crime or another. [Mr. BRIGHT said, he had only stated the rumour that he had gone away from pecu niary causes.]—That was nearly the same thing, for it left • the house to infer that he had to fly for some cause that he could not face. Now, he could testify that a more honourable man, a better landlord, did not exist in the county of Down. (Hear.) He denied also the inferences that might be drawn from the hon. gentleman's statement with reference to his election and that of Mr. Ker. In fact, Mr. Ker was returned in spite of the Marquis of Londonderry. (Hear, hear.) Then, as to Major Waring, ho was a strong Protestant—indeed known as a King William man, but that did not suit the hon. member for Manchester, who preferred a Roman Catholic. The hon. gentleman had enough to say against the landlords, but not a word as to the intimidation of the Roman Catholic clergy. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL.—My right hon. friend the Secretary at War, and my right hon. and learned friend the Lord Advocate, having addressed the house upon this subject, I should hardly have thought it necessary to say anything ad not my personal conduct been misrepresented—unin tentionally, no doubt—by the hon. gentleman who brought forward this motion. The hon. gentleman thought fit to represent that, while I had held very popular language in opposition, I had, when in office, changed my course and taken a very different view of the subject. The fact is, that the speech the hon. gentleman alluded to was made in the month of July last, previous to my election for the city of London. I had voted in this house against the ballot a few weeks before, and when I was asked before a large meeting in Guildhall what course I should take on the ballot, I said I should vote against it, and I gave my reasons to that numerous assembly, which - generally meets in Guildhall on those occasions, against the secret voting the hon. gentleman proposes. It was not, as the hon. gen tleman supposed, wheal accepted office; but at that time, as I had constantly done, I stated my intention to vote, and I have voted, against this secret mode of voting. It appears to me--and I stated to my constituents at that time—that the foundation upon which the argument rests is a foundation entirely contrary to that upon which the hon. gentleman the member for the West Riding bases his I ar gument upon this occasion. The hon. member for the West Riding says that no man has a right to inquire how another man votes. The principle which I stated was, that this is a public trust, and that every man who exercises that public trust exercises it subject to the opinion and judgment of all his fellow citizens. (Hear, hear.) Be it remarked that the hon. gentleman who made this motion has proposed it as a change by itself. My hon. friend the member for Montrose proposes it in connexion with some other measure ; but, be that as it may, the hon. gentleman proposes that those who have a right to vote should exer cise that vote without any of his fellow citizens knowing how he votes. This is contrary to the principle which prevails with regard to all our other institutions, and the general principles of the Constitution. I have heard it said and have seen it written, that to say that any person should have the power of judging how a person who exer cised the trust might vote, was saying that that person was himself qualified to vote. (Hear.) I hold that that language has no force in it, because we might as well say that no one should criticise the conduct of a judge or the verdict of a jury, unless he was qualified to sit as that judge or give a verdict as a jury. (Hear.) We might as well say no one should criticise a work unless he was qualified to write it. It seems to me the people of this country, unless the suffrage is made to extend to every man, have a right of exercising their judgment on the mode in which the votes of individuals are given, and I hold that that superintendence and that exercise) of public opinion is a most wholesome check upon voters. Rat hold besides this, that the enactment of a secret mode o 1