The Sun. — London, England, 1857-07-01 00:00:00

joined by law—would be intolerable tyranny upon the non-electore. Now, this was assuming covertly that which to hon. member, however audacious, dared to assume openly in that house—namely, that there was a body of men :n this country under whose control the electors ought to be. It meant that or nothing. (Hear, hear.) When it was said that electors would turn tyrants over the non•electors if this secret voting was given them, that might be an argument for universal suffrage, but it was no argument whatever against the ballot. It was an argument for universal suffrage, because if tho non electors were to have the power to control the electors, why make tyrants of them—why not rather give them the franchise ? He did not think that that could be got out of. (Hear.) M. Disraeli, of the manor of Hughenden, in the County of Buckingham, could vote for whom he pleased ; he was perfectly inde pendent of everybody ; but John Brown of High Wy combe was not independent enough to go against his I tyrant. John Brown, therefore, naturally turned to ' Mr. Disraeli and said, " Yoa are a man of great import ance in the House of Commons—an ex-Minister and Privy Councillor ; assist an humble man like me and free me from my tyrant." "Go away, John Brown, go away," the right hon. gentleman would say ; " You will become a tyrant and a bully, and tyrannise over the tyrant you have, if you were allowed the only remedy against the grievance of which you complain." (Hear, and laughter.) John Brown naturally said " Good Heavens ! what a position to place me iu. lam not an independent man. You recollect, sir, the time when you 'stood for High Wycombe and told ns that we were suf fering under unparalleled tyranny, and were subject to little knots of tyrants, and now when I bring the facts ,before you you say, John Brown, I shall no longer as sist you.'" Tie right hon. gentleman, or any other gentleman had a right to change his opinion, but he 'could not change facts, and could not help being a wit ness as to the terrorism which prevailed, and as to petty tyrants who existed, and whom he desired to put down. Consequently, however much the right hon. gentleman might choose to change his mind, the right hon. gentle man was a witness still on the side of thoee who advo cated the ballot, and he thought there was no possibility of the right hon. gentleman showinghow the non-electors became tyrants by the simple fulfilment of that which the law enjoined. Now ne found that during the last Middlesex election a noble friend of his indulged in what he considered an unconstitutional maxim. He found that Lord R. Grosvenor said that the electors ought to be responsible for the discharge of their duty. To whom, he asked, were the electors to be re sponsible but to God, their own consciences, and to an intelligent deliberate public opinion ? (Hear, from Lord R. Grosvenor.) He was glad to hear his noble friend cheer him, and he perceived that his noble friend had fallen into the delusion which the noble lord the member for London indulged in. (Hear, and laughter.) So, then, the noble lord thought that an intelligent, de liberate public opinion could only exist under open vot ing. He maintained that is could not exist under open voting, but only under secret voting. As his noble friend had treated him with that good-natured ironical cheer, let him ask his noble friend to consider what effect pub• lie opinion had on the mind of a mars under secret voting, and what effect it had under open voting. With the bal lot the elector could carefully weigh the opinions of pub lic men, the merits of great public measures, and the arguments in the public press, and then, after getting the best information he could, and deliberating upon it, be went to the poll and gave a conscientious vote in secret. Now, take the case of open voting. Under that system of what use to the 500 dependents of Lord Tills or That was public opinion ? The press might write by the yard, public men might talk by the hour ; all that could make no practical impression on their minds, for when they went to the poll our great national engine, the screw, was at work, and they could not vote but as their landlords commanded ! (Hear.) Take the case of any set of men—the workmen at the mills, for instance. Of what we was public opinion to them ? They were not called on to form their opinions by public opinion, but . by the wills of their masters, and nothing could be easier than to give an illustration of this by referring to any great question of reform. Let them take the abolition of the corn laws, for instance. How long was that abolition postponed because the electors dared not carry out public opinion at the polling-booths ? How long was public opi nion set in for the abolition of the corn laws before it was accorded ? How long did public opinion notoriously wage war against the corn laws in vain ?—until at length something very like a great and powerful conspiracy was called into existence to overcome the duresse put on the electors ; and that it was which was the cause of the abolition of the corn laws. Two very eminent men, acknowledged to be authorities on the question of the corn laws, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, had often de clared that if the electors had had the ballot they would have stood by public opinion, which was with the non electors, and the corn laws would have been abolished 30 years before they were. (Hear.) He had DOW attempted to answer some of the latest arguments against the ballot. The usual mode of attack had been by guesses and sur mises. When gentlemen had nothing practical to offer in defence of open voting, they had recourse to guesses and surmises, observing that such and such things would happen if protective voting were a lopted. But if the house turned to examples it would see that where the ballot existed the best results bad followed. Hon. mem bers might take "Hansard" and look through it from one end to the other and they would find no instance in the speeches against the ballot of the failure of the ballot wherever it had been established. Who ever heard of the ballot failing in England? It procured safety for those who voted under it and preserved the peace, and a choice was made which was correct and true. He found the same was the case in other countries. It was so in MI land. There the ballot acted peculiarly well; and so it del in Belgium. It might fee said that the priest in Belgium exercised an influence over the electors. That was an evil which could not be coped with. It a body of men submitted their conscience to another body amen that could not he helped, but so long as men voted according to their will that was all that could be attempted to be attained. In Sardinia the ballot was retarded as the keystone of liberty. Many hon. members—and probably among them the noble member for the city of London— might be acquainted with Sig. Valerio, one of the sena tors of the Sardinian Chamber of Deputies, who had ex pressed his opinion that " without the ballot the Legis lature (of Sardinia) would be returned by the aristocracy, the bishops, and the priests." This country had received a somewhat useful lesson with regard to the conduct and equipment of an army in the field from little Sardinia, and be thought that with respect, to civil Government it might also learn ti lesson from the absence of intimida tion on the part of the priests and aristocracy at the Sardinian elections. He (11r. Berkeley) would ask the house to compare the absence of intimidation in Sar dinia with the intimidation exercised by the priests and the aristocracy in this country. In America the ballot was perfectly successful in all states where due attention had been paid to the secrecy of the voting. In all those States where intimidation or corruption had crept in it was found to be the result of a loose mode of balloting, but wherever the strict secrecy of the ballot had been maintained it had been attended with the best effects. Ha had on former occasions brought the case of America before the hou3eat such length that he would nut now have said anything more on the sub ject but for a paragraph in the Times which was very likely to be quoted, as anything which wee supposed to • teil against the ballot was eagerly sna.ceed at. Tns.t paragraph appeared under the poinpouc heading—"Ae Election Contrast." Now, a residence of many years in America, and a knowledge of the character of the people of that country, led him to doubt whether this paragraph had been writ'ea by an American. The paragraph commenced by assuring its readers that the • London Times was the proper authority with regard to the English representative system, and the writer then proceeded to draw a co,uparison between the mode of election in England and the mode of election in Ame rica, declaring his preference for the English system. He (Mr. Berkeley) certainly thought, with regard to the case of America, that, considering the system of centralisation which prevailed there, the secret com mittees, the absence of the candidates, the eheels within wheels which existed, and the general com plexity of the system, the ballot worked infinitely better in other countries than in the United States. He might instance Sardinia, and the Canadian and Aus traiian colonies of Great Britain. But when he found a writer in an Atnerican paper thus asserting the supc- riority of the English patrician system over the Awe - ricau system of ballot, he would not believe the author was an American, for he would evide - itly prefer a legitimate and anointed King to an elected President, and there were not 10 men from Maine to Alabama who would frank such an opinion. One fact was worth any amount of speculation on a subject of this niture, and be might therefore inform the house that no State in America which had originally commenced with the bal lot had ever changed it for open voting, while these States in whiei Open voting was originaly established had gone over one by one to the system of ballot, with the exception o f t wo slave States, and one of those States (Virginia) bad at the last election rendered itself infamous, for the voters who went to record their votes openly fur C.l mel Fremont were attacked, hunted, and obliged to fly for their lives. It appeared that an . American gentleman of great reepectability, an advocate -cf New York, Mr. Compt on Williams, hat lately visited this country, and had very ki n dl y g i ven his ep touching the Americon system of e l ec ti on to a society . with which he. (Mr. Berkeley) was connected, the Bal lot Society. At the request of that society Mr. Williams attended a public meeting at Uaverfordwest, his an. cestors having been Welshmen, where he expressed opinions, .some of which he (Mr. Berkeley) begged per mission to quote. [The hon. member then read some lengthy ex racts from the speech of Mr. Williams, who said that in his own country he had never heard any ex pression of hostility to ,the ballot, or of a desire to resort to such a viva voce system of voting as existed in England. • In his own State, New York, the only mode of voting . was by ballot. All the electore were furnished with slips number of representatives to be of paper, stating the elected, and these slips, which were called the " ballot?," were either printed or written. I t was u n necessar y to make a candidate an enemy by telling him he woull vote against him, for the ballot afforded protection to the elector. He (Hr. Williams) expressed his surprise to find that unsuccessful attempts had been made in England for twenty-five years to obtain the ballot. The object sought to be secured in America was that the elector should rote for himself and not somebody else for him, and that object was effectually secured by the ballot. He regretted to say, however, that intimidation and bribery were not totally unknown in .America. (Hear.) There were u that country great po litical combinations ; there were political captains of tens and fifties and hundreds, who boasted that they could — "repel their followers to vote as they pleased ; but those were mere words, for they had no power to control the rotes of the electors. The votes were secret, and although %lectors might give promises, it could not be known whether those promises were fulfi led or not. It was i theref ore perfectly useless to extort such promises. H e had heard it said that men might watch the box, and see how their tenants and employes voted, but he defied them to do so successfully. It was, for example, exceed ini-r,;y important to know how the State of Maine voted, for that gave the cue to the elections generally ; and last " fall" the Democrats were determined to expend their whole strength on that State, with the view to insure the return of their party. They had also made arrangements to have the news of the election in the State of Maine sent by telegraph to New York, and on the receipt of it 50,000 men were ready to form a procession in that city in honour of the victory ; but when the telegraphic mei sage arrived in New Yor it stated that the Republicans had gained the election in the State of Maine by nearly two to one against the Democrats, and that result (ilr. Williams said) was entirely due to the ballot.] He would now call the mo , t serious attention of the house to her Majesty's Australian dominions. There the ballot was ad )pted as the law of the colony of Victoria. It had been tested there, and the result had been that all the evils which sprang up under the system of open voting —intimidation, violence, and corruption—had received their death-blow. He would crave the permission of the house just to draw a comparison. Let him lay before them a sketch of some of the proceedings at our late general election in England under open voting, and then a brief sketch of the elections in Australia with the ballot. Having done that, he would then simply ask the house to " look on this picture and on that.' The general election in 1852 was a regular old Whig and Tory fight ; but the election of 1857, though less of a party struggle, presented the same appalling features of the malversation of open voting. First of intimidation, which he had always said was the great malady of our electoral system. Look to the counties. There political 1 freedom was a perfect farce. To make this plain he would refer the house to the mode of registration. They all knew that in the counties their election agent simply divided the great mass of the electors into classes, ac cording to the political views of the landlords. On the one side he put A. B. under the class of "yellow," be cau.ie he was a tenant of Lord So-and-so, or Squire This or-That ; and on the other he placed C. D., under the category of "pink," because he was a tenant of Lord T'other-thing. The feelings of the elector were never for a moment regarded. - He was simply treated in the mat -1 ter as the tenant of So-and-so ; and it was well known that in counties it was thought a want of etiquette for one landlord to canvass the tenantry of another. That, in fact, bad led to duels on more than one occa sion in the old times. But now, when people were a little more peaceably disposed, out came the county gentle men at an election with a flowing placard addressed to " the free and, independent electors." "Free" to do what? Not to vote as they pleased, but "free" to go to the poll, and " free" to be turned out of their farms if they did not do the bidding of their landlord. When Sir 11. Ward brought forward this question he cited the case of an estate which had changed hands three times in a very few years. It first belonged to a Tory, then to a Whig, and then to a Tory again ; and at every election during that time the tenantry upon it invariably voted in accordance with the politics of the landlord for the time being. (A. laugh.) Again, in Lanarkshire, during the life of the late Duke of Hamilton, who was a Whig, his tenantry there always voted for a Whig, but when the present duke, who was a Tory, succeeded to the title, they turned round and voted for the Tory candidate at every election. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Mr, Ber keley) had before him a specimen or two of the extent to which intimidation flourished in the counties. In the Times of the 20th of April last there appeared a memorial addressed by the Londonderry tenantry of the Marquis of Waterford to his lordship in reference to the then forthcoming election for the county, together with the reply of the noble marquis, which he would read to the house. Let the house remember that the memorialists belonged to a class of gallant men who, as the late war abundantly proved, were ready to die on the hill side, and shed the last drop of their blood for their country. The petitioners say : " That they are inclined to believe your lordship is warmly attached to the tenantry on your lordship's estate, and that you respect their feelings and conscientious con victions ; that, acting under that belief, they respectfully approach your lordship to request yon will be gisciously pleased to permit them, at the approaching general elec tion, to record their votes according to the dictates of their consciences —(a laugh)—and that you will give directions to your agent and representative here to protect them in the religious and faithful exercise of their electoral rights. Several landlords in this county have already done so. This favour being so reasonable a request on their part, your tenants do not anticipate a refusal, and have nominated Messrs., &c., a deputation to wait on your lordship, and they, as in duty bound, will ever pray," (A. laugh.) What was the answer to that communica tion ? " A.shbrook l April 3. " Sir,—l am directed by the Marquis of Waterford to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, together with a memorial from some of his tenants in this county, and to say that he would wish them to vote for Mr. Clark and Sir H. Bruce at the coming election. (Laughter.) " Yours faithfully, "Rev. N. M. Brown." "V. B. BEAUFORT. He (Mr. Berkeiey) supposed that if the noble marquis had not been pleased to be sweetly tempered they would have had a still rougher reception. (A. laugh.) He would now, by way of antithesis, present an extract from the speech of a great landlord in this country, and a mem ber of that house, which formed a pleasing contrast to the document he had just read. Mr. Robartes, in the course of an address to his constituents at the last electi n, called on them to reflect on the posi tion of a poor but. honest voter who was compelled to vote against his political convictions ; and he (Mr. Robartas) declared that, putting himself in the position of such a wan, if he were asked if he desired to have the franchise, he would rather be without it if he was to hold it on the understandin g c , that he was to vote in opposition to his conscience. He further said be should like to see the ballot to-morrow, because he should then feel more at liberty to speak to his tenants on political subject'', and to try to win them over to his Own convictions. He was afraid to do so now, because if he spoke strongly there was always an idea that some unfair means would be used to compel them to vote in a particular way. He should therefore continue as before, to support the motion of the hon. member for Bristol. (Hear.) A more noble specimen of the conduct of an English gentleman was not to be found. (Hear.) Tnat man need never fear the ballot. His sentiments were founded upon the sentiments of one of the finest characters ever drawn by Steele and Addison—Sir Roger de Coverley. The old knight said, "I lova to enjoy my own opinion, and consequently I never con strain the opinions of those who depend upon me." (Hear.) In the Tablet of May 15, under the head of " Freedom of Election in Ulster," he found a statement that 20 tenants of the Marquis of Hertford had received notices to quit on account of their votes at the Lisburn election. He found in a Woolwich paper a paragraph having reference to the election preceding the last for West Kent, in which it was :aid that a clergyman of the Church of England who resided in Essex, but bad property in Kent, having intelligence that a tenant was about to vote for Mr. Martin, despatched to him this let:er "I hope in a few days to fix the time for coming down to receive the rent. (A. laugh.) The object of the present letter is the West Kent election. I hope you are, like myself, a good conservative, and will vote for Sir Walter Riddell at the approaching election. Landlord and tenant should always vote upon the same side—(laughter)—and if we proceed to a new lease that will be one of my stipula tions." (Laughter.) The rev. gentleman had strange ideas of the rights of conscience. The paper stated that the "scrow" would not work, and that the tenant retained his inde pendence. (Hear.) Another instance of intimidation been the subject of legal proceedings under the Corrupt Practices Act, in the case of " Queen v. Barnwell" and that was a failure. The house would do him the jtr,tico to recollect that he had lifted his voice agamst the Cor rupt Practices Act, and that he had branded it as a dis graceful specimen of insincerity. It was enacted for the I)snefit of candidates, and not for the interests of electors. Toe legal expenses were carefully cut down and the il legal expenses were left untouched. The cases which c )uld be specified were cases of unsuccessful intimidation and they were few in comparison with those which, be ing successful, passed unknown. In South Wiltshire a noble lord contested the county against the present hon. member, and he was celebrated by a county poet in he roic verse : " Without a fault, and with lots of tin, "The best of the three is Lord Henry Thynne." (Laughter.) He did not know how such a man could eel to win an election, but Lord Henry Thynne did fail, and in his parting address attributed his failure to inti• inidation. At Seuth Northamptonshire Lord Althorp was charted with intimidation, and he retorted by mak ing the same charge against the other side. In Cum berland threats were made of publishing the poilbook, and in Bedfordshire it was actually done in the form of a newspaper supplement. In West Sussex there was no opposition-I:seethe return of Lord March and Captain Wyndham, and both members inveighed against the bal lot. The gallant captain said that the non-electors had as much right to know how the electors voted as the electors had to know how he voted. But the non-elec ' tors had not to control, to reward, and to punish the electors, as the electors had to control, to reward, and to punish their representative. If a member of pariament voted in secret it destroyed the very eeience of the rephe sentative principle. He left the gallant captain to recon cile his view with that of Mr. Burke, who said, " The House of Commons never could control the functions of Government unless the members themselves were con trolled by their constituents." Lord March took up the °id song, and said the ballot was unmanly and un English. Within a very few weeks both he and his noble father, th e D uke o f Ri c h mo nd, gave a notable example of the diff erence between examp l e a nd precept. It chanced that a chief constable had to be elected. In the western division of Susie' eight out of nine members voted against the ballot. It was understood that the votes in that division f or the mend a bl e were not to be taken openly. Everyb o d y hsiusp a p r o m se ; dthatthe Duke of Richmond would have appe are d w i th the ballot-box of the Conser vative Club under e t e n n t a . n c u i n e g a t h p e p e b a a r l e l d o t , w t i h t a u u p o o n ld a but his grace, to avoid coun - He deposited the old hat i n a cornerhat moat a n and i u n: d g ednei packaol u t s o of e x u tpe the dcard s i .. cards. The magistrates put the names of the candidates on the cards, and deposited the c ar d s i n his grace's at. What was the difference between voting by ballot and voting in an old hat! Why should the one be called un manly, un-English, and cowardly; and the oth er b rave manly, and British ! He could see no difference b etween ' the two things. He called both voting by ballot; at all events, the mode adopted by the Duke of Richmond car ried out the principle, if not the letter, of the system of voting which he wanted the house to sanction by its ap pr val. So much, then, for the elections in counties. The e committees now sitting upstairs would show the scenes that were enacted at the laat elections. Those preeious disclosures the house would have an opportunity of con sidering, and he trusted it would la y them to heart. He had stated that in 1832 Mr. Disraeli s p oke of an intoler able terrorism as then prevailing. That system produced a terror of two kinds—in the first place, a terror of ruin, and in the next a terror of loss of life or mutilation. Of the latter he had an admirable example before him in the right hon. gentleman t he Vice-President of the Board of Trade. and he ce uld not help Raping that it was a very hard case when co.ndidat es were com p elled to look for their only protection against mob violence to the quan tity of their brains and the thickness of their skulls. The broad handkerchief of the Times was now waving in the air still wet with tears for the right hon. gentleman. That journal not only mo urned for him, but actually embalmed his wounds , in three or four leading articles. How came it, be asked, that the Times did not look to the other cases of violence that occurred during the last elections ? The treatment reeseived by the right hon. gentleman was bad enough and m atch to be deprecated, attention to those but why did not the Times direct it:: cases of violence that took place in Ireland ! Not a word was said aboutthem, but the right hon. geritlemansome how or other, enjoyed the favour of the gimcl'h and all its sympathies was reserved for him. He thought that his noble friend the member for the city of London wa s a good deal to blame for the acts of violenc e a n d intimi dation that disgraced the recent elections. In more than one part of the country the noble lord had been cited as a great authority under whom those who committed the violence had acted. The noble lord had told the people over and over again that the elective franchise was a trust. (Hear, hear, from Lord J. Russell.) He very much doubted the soundness of that proposition, because if au elector discharged his duty by voting for whom he pleased without let or hindrance, he defied the noble lord to show him what the breach of trust was in the reverse case. But what he wished to say was that the noble lord was responsible for much of the violence perpetrated 'at elections. Two or three sessions ago be brought forward the case of the Cork election, at which the supporters of a gallant friend of his, Gen. Chatterton, were brutally used, although he admitted that the two representatives of Cork were gentlemen of the highest respectability, who would be the first to set their faces against such violence. Nevertheless, some disgraceful things were done, and, according to the evidence, they were instigated by the priests, who said to the people, " Lord J. Russell tells you that the elective franchise is a trust ; now, boys, all , who vote for Chatterton are guilty of a breac h of trust.' It such arguments were addressed to ignorance or ma lignity there could be no mistake as to the result, for a mob was not able to discriminate between what the noble lord really meant and what they believed him to say. (Hear.) He held in his hand a polling-book, got up by a society of non-electors in Rochdale with a view to exclusive dealing, and a more complete instrument of tyranny he never saw. The electors were designated under their various trade or crafts, the supporters of Sir Alexander Ramsay being distinguished from those of Mr. Miall, and, although there could be no doubt that the book had been got up against the former, be was sure that Mr. Miall would scout the very idea of stleb publication, for a man more fond of liberty and of free dom of voting in elections did not live. (Hear, hear.) Here, again, the' noble lord the member for the city was cited as an authority for these shameful and tyrannical proceedings. "The theory of the present representative system," said this compilers of the Rochdale polling . - book, "according to a great constitutional authority — Lord John Russell—is that 101. householders hold their votes in trust for the class who do not possess that pro perty qualification, as well as in their own right, and this vindicates the practice of publishing a list of the voters' names." (Hear, hear.) He would not trouble the house with any more details regarding the violence and intimidation perpetrated at the last elections. The scenes that occurred at Drogheda, at Lisburne, in Gal , way, and in other parts of Ireland were perfectly shock , ing, and it was very interesting to read the truthful ac count 3 given by the reporters of the maiversation of the franchise, and compare them with the mendacious state ments of interested parties. But, instead of dwelling upon the Irish elections, be would proceed to direct the attention of the house to the elections which recently took place in the colony of Victoria. The establishment of the ballot in Australia was mainly due to Mr. Nichol son, and, though opposed by the same arguments as in this country, the syetem had operated in the most Betio ' factory manner. The hon. member quoted from the Australian newspapers paragraphs referring to the re ' cent elections in that colony, showing that in no case had there been any violence or disturbance, and stating that the ballot had imposed a decided and welcome check on the noisy and turbulent demonstrations which had hitherto beau inseparable from a contested election. In addition to the tranquillity with which they had been conducted these elections had been characterised by great completeness of polls—a fact which was an answer to the objection that in this country it was not from terror, but from apathy, that persons abstained from voting. Hitherto the Australian elections had exhibited the same paucity of voters compared with the number of electors that was to be found in England, but at the last election the number of voters polled in some of the districts was within one or two of the whole number upon the regis ter. (Hear.) The expenses, too, had been greatly dimiuished ; and such had been the effect produced that many of those who were formerly opposed to the ballot were now to be found in the ranks of its supporters. Among others, the Attorney-General, who before the election was particularly hostile to the ballot, had an nounced his determination in future to support that mode of election. (Hear.) Sincerely thanking hon. gentlemen for the attention which they had given him while be brought tketn these details, without which he could not establish his case, he submitted that he bad now proved to the house by facts that wherever the ballot had been tried it had been productive of none but the hap piest results, and that there was nothing to beset against it except suppositions, guesses, and calculation that it would not do in England what it had done elsewhere under precisely similar circumstances. (Hear.) A. Libe ral Government never appeared to him to such disad vantage as when it opposed a Liberal measure, and was forced to seek protection under the gaberdine of Tory ism. (Rear.) That was a position iu which he was sorry to see his hon, friends, and it was matter of great regret to him that in this matter he stood against his friends and Ras defeated by them. It was now, how ever, practically understood that the ballot was opposed by the aristocracy and landocracy, because they would not give up the power over the constituencies which was given to them by open voting. (Hear.) But why should not they give up that power ? They lived in a loyal country—a country in which the aristrocracy was beloved by the people—(bear, hear)—and a country which vrt - .3 essentially anti-democratical. Then, why did they not seek to gain from the love of the people that which they now compelled by an usurped au. thority ? (Bear, hear.) Depend upon it they would stand much batter with the people if they did so. It was unmanly, and showed moral cowardice to adhere to the existing state of things, not to trust to the people in whom they might confide, and rather to compel obe dience from their fear than to obtain it from their love. He had ever seen that it was impossible that any reform bill should be final unless protected votes were one of its provisions, and he now entreated the Government, at the last moment, to adopt the conviction arrived at by their friend Sidney Smith, whom they had so often quoted, who wrote the most brilliant pamphlet, but unsound as it was brilliant, in favour of open voting and against the ba'lot. What said Sydney Smith, In a recently published letter, written in reply to a correspondent who had corn plimented him upcn his able writing, he said with regard to the ballot, " But it will come, though I write never so wisely." He (Mr. Berkeley) told them that it must and would come—(cbeers)—and that therefore it was infinitely better that they should give to the people that which they would at the present moment receive as a precious boon rather than wait and be compelled to eurreoder to them that which they would demand as a rieht. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman concluded by mov ing for leave to introduce a bill to cause the votes of the Parliamentary electors of Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot. Sir J. V. SHEL LEY, in seconding the motion, con gratulated the friends of the ballot on the prospect of having the question properly debated on that occasion ' • last year there had been only one speech on the subject, and no member of the Government had expressed his opinion. It was difficult for him (Sir J. Shelley) to say anything after the speech of his hon. friend, which had far outshone any of hie former performances, and had en tirely disposed of the objection that the ballot was un- English. Another objection was that it would be ineffec tual to stop bribery and corruption. It was hard to say what would be the result, but nothing could be worse than the presentstate of things. As long as they had per sons bad enough to bribe, there would be found persons poor enough and weak enough to accept the bribe ; but the screw now put on was worse than bribery, which pro duced one good to a poor man, that itgave him the means of paying his rent ; but to tell a man that he would lose his customer was most un-English. (Hear, hear.) He had the honour of representing one of the largest coned tuencies in the kingdom, and he could assure the house there was no single question on which his constituents telt so strongly as on the necessity of giving protection to the electors. There was no doubt that for some cause or other a very small proportion of the electors recorded their votes. He had himself gone through a contest, and he had seen ladies driving about to different shops put ting on the screw ; the result of this system was, a number of most respectable tradesmen made themselves non-electors in order to avoid the difficulties they would be placed in. To show how the system acted he would read to the house a report of a conversation between a friend of his and a respectable tradesman in Westmin ster who had formerly resided in a county town, where he was known to have been a strong politician, but was now doing a flourishing trade in London. The hon. baronet then read the report of the conversation in which the tradesman in question, who was designated as "Mr. C.," declared he had not voted at all ; he was afraid to do so on account of his wife and family. He had never voted against his conscience, but his conscience told him he had a wife and family to support. He dared not re main on the register, and was therefore a non-elector, and thousands were in the same position in the city of Westminster. He had voted once before for General Evans, and had lost three of his best customers in con sequence. He (Sir J. Shelley) would not wish to give the name of this person, but he would have no objection to mention it privately to any hon. member. The con versation was a sufficient proof that many deprived them selves of the elective franchise on this account. The hon. baronet then read an extract from a speech of Mr. Grote in 1838 on this aspect of the question, and con tinued that he believed no person would now stand up in the house and say that the ballot would not enable a man to give his vote according to his conscience. He had ob tained 1855, the numbers in . favour of the last ten years. ttaoitnael:2asnoa;nalysis of the divisions on this question in the 218 ; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36 7 - 274,asuAregawienrset—itp_repsreenste,olt6, 6; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36—total, 2 p 3 o 3 se T d o o ri f es. 13 members These g i v i ng a majority of 52,. or 15 more than in the previous session, but 8 less t han in 1853. The majo rity was a, andcointhe Government, proved d m th e a n t t,lO Whigs, the Liberals had nothi n g t o do but Stick togethe r on the ques tion. However much th e y m ight deplore the fall of the present Government, yet it came to this, that if they tine eerely believed that a reform bill was necessa r y , an d, at t n o rn f tb thss same time, believed no reform bill would be success ful which did not give protection to the voters, they had only to stick together, and not rest satisfied unless the ballot was made a Cabinet question. (Hear.) They might have a change of government, but it would be only be a temporary one, and right hon. and hon. gentlemen who now opposed, would be supporters of ithe ballot. In the division last year the ayes present wore 113, tellers 2, pairs 43 ; the noes were, present 153, t e ll ers 2, p a i rs 43, making te majority 40. There voted with the majority 27 Liberals and Peelites, of whom 13 were members of the Government, leaving only 14 Liberal independent members voting against the motion, and there was only one Liberal member amongst the pairs. Several mem hers of the Government voted in favour of the motion, including Lord Duncan, Sir B. Hall, Admiral. Berkeley, Sir A. Cockburn, Sir . Bethel!, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Massey, and Mr. Osborne. He believed there would be a majority in favour of the motion this evening ; he would not, how ever, further trespass on the house, but begged to se cond the proposition. (Cries of " Divide.") The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that after the direct appeal made to the members of the Go vernment, and put in so catechetical aform by the hon. mem ber for Bristol, he should be wanting in courtesy to him if he did not take the earliest opportunity of stating the views which he had formed on this question. He regretted to find that these views would not coincide with those en tertained generally on either side of the house. Ho was un able to adopt the views so clearly stated by the honourable gentleman who made this motion ; he did not form a very sanguine estimate of the beneficial results of the ballot ; but, on the other hand, he did not share the alarm with which it was regarded by some gentlemen on both sides of the house. He trusted they would afford him an opportu nity of stating as briefly as he could the grounds on which he had arrived at this conclusion, after the best consider ation he could give to a subject so difficult and on which such discordant opinions were entertained. When a ques ti on was first brought under the consideration of that louse it sometimes happened that the member who introduced it arranged the arguments in favour of his opinion in a gene ral discursive manner, somewhat in the form of an essay, with a view of introducing the subject to the house, and showing the arguments on which his proposition rested. Such was the state of the present question, when it was first brought under the notice of the house by Mr. Grote; and all who heard the speeches delivered by him during a series of years must admit it was impossible that the arguments could be stated with greater clearness or in more elegant language. In his hands the question passed through what might be called the didactic period ; from him it passed into the hands of the hon. gentleman oppo site, and with him it had reached the stage which he would venture to describe as the humorous, and the hon. gentle man had, with great command of facts, great play of imagination and wit, annually brought it before the house in a most diverting manner. Having passed through those two stages, the subject might now fairly be considered to have reached the third, which he would call the practical one, and consider whether or not the ballot was adapted to the wants and circumstances of this country. In order to arrive at a practical result on this question, the natural course would be to consult experience as to what effects the ballot had produced in other countries. If they looked to the continent they would find a state of things totally different from this country. (Hear, hear.) It was difficult to profit by the experience of the continent, as no powerful state there bad hitherto been able to consolidate a parlia mentary government. The only states in which a free con stitutional government existed were those of the second rank. In reference to the operation of the ballot on the continent he would take the liberty of referring to the statement made by a distinguished statesman and political writer who was examined before a committee of the house in 1837—he meant M. Da Tocqueville, the author of a work on the Democracy of America and another on the French Revolution. g e was examined beJore the bribery committee, and in answer to some questions upon the ' ballot, stated that the object of the secret voting in France ' was to protect the voters against the power of the Govern ment. The executive Government was the omnipotent • being which the voter in France dreaded, against which he sought the protection of secret voting. That being the case, the experience of France was of little value in this country, where there was no overwhelming influence of a centralised bureaucracy to overawe the voter. Neither did he think that the example of this institution in some co!onies, where it had lately been introduced amongst a new society, could be of much assistance to a country whose social and political, condition was so different. The country to which they must look for a lesson in this regard I was the United States of America, and ho believed he would not misrepresent the supporters of the ballot if he said their object was to introduce into England the mode of voting practised in America. The hon. gentleman said the working of the system there was perfectly successful, and held up the practice of the United States as a model for imitation. Mr. BERKELEY Was understood to say he held up as an example the principle, but not the details of the insti• talon. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had misun- etas b . r but to The t voters ascertaino motion f then Great theeren abe practised lonfe the United lieamsmtaean, Parliamentary they should look to the detail s o f th e mo d e of voting now votes ef ß o ' r r i e t t ,, h in e house was "That leave be g i ven t o b r i ng i n a bill to cause and Ireland to be taken by ballot." The motion assumed that they knew what was the meaning of the word ballot as applied to elections. There was no mode of ballot known to our law ; there was no legal meaning attached to the word ; and to arrive at its meaning they should take it foT e c r .orte: he eteh e w t ne a ho i l s euue . lbrdje but zcic azo t ht h uoe e hta principle nol ri o ien f t vy t et h hro y e : as it is established in,theUnited States, and where its mode r. o s ap y f ar s i w t en e c o s m e r nt k . ot i n in O g fnoirstmhn t r avel l eriohsti msfttetus United States the word ballot' has, in its general accepta tion, nothing to do with the word ball,' but means a piece of paper, with the names of the candidate or candi dates written or printed upon it.' In the Southern and Western States generally the voting is entirely open, and usually viva voce. At all elections in the ether States the friends of the different candidates stand round the voting places, with the written or printed voting papers (called tickets) in their hands, and as each voter approaches he takes from the hands of one of the agents of the candidate or candidates for whom he intends to vote one of these lists, openly before all the world, and delivers it, folded or unfolded as the:case may be, to the persons taking the p o ll. The tickets are now universally, I believe, printed; and being printed u pon : coluured paper —the colour or some dis tinguishing device indicating the p arty to which the candi dates belong—the very fact of presenting a paper thus coloured or larked, though it might be folded up, in itself at once shows which side the voter takes at the election." That appeared to be a correct description of the mode o f voting now practised in America, andit entirely agreed with the information he had always received from American gentlemen. They neve rdesc r ibe d the ballot as secret voting, but as a mode of votingby tickets. The distinction between the ballot and the mode of voting practised in this count r y was that here an authentic register of the votes was kept, but in America there was no such thing. If a person stood by the booth he might take a list of those who voted; but there * was no authentic authorised list. In order that he might not be accused of referring to doubtfulor partial wit nesses, he would next quote some pamphlets published by the Society for Promoting a Knowledge of the Working of the Ballot, of which the hon. gentleman was cho.iriaan. They had published several tracts ; one was called " The Ballot in America, " and showed the mode of voting in ope ration there. It stated in reference to the system adopted in the state of New York : " Where there is, on the one hand, no register of electors, and on the other band, a sys tem of printed tickets, .it is perfectly clear that, for some local reason, the inhabitants of the state are not really de sirous to secure secrecy in voting either for themselves or others. This may be called ballot, but it is not secret vot ing." That was the description given of the practice in the state of New York. This might be called the ballot, but it was certainly not secret voting. The tract ended with this summary The result generally may be said to be thus; that while in the various States above named different forms of ballot are made of, one great principle has been kept in view, that of securing to every elector the option of secrecy with regard to his vote. In short, as has been well expressed by an eminent statesman of our own coun try, in none of these States is any record kept against any man of the m anner in which he votes.' In a country , where the suff ra ge is almost universal, and where great in equalities of condition amo n g those generally prevail, it is not surprising that many should who possess it do not ap pear indiviunally indifferent as to the observance of secrecy in its exercise. But protectionis afforded by law to all who feel its want, and choose to avail themselves of it." That description exactly accorded with what was said by Mr Tremenheare. It showed that the American practice was this, that if the voter in America chose to conceal his vote he had the power of doing so, but that if he did nut think fit to conceal it he might exhibit it, and that, thei •• fore, secrecy was confined to those who were desirous of having it. He wished the house to be in full possession of that fact, because he thought it was very important with reference to the practical working of the system. The next tract to which he wished to direct attention was N o. 5 of the same series ; it was called " The Teat of Experience as to the Working of the Ballot in the United states ;" and he was the more desirous of quoting it because expe rience was that to which he was desirous of appealing on that occasion. The Society for Promoting the lutroduc tie' of the Ballot became aware that some important trans actions in reference to this subject had taken place in the state of Massachusetts, a nd accordingly, in the month of April, 1855, the honorary secretary of the society, Mr. Wickham, aPdressed a letter t o M r . Walker, who was then the Secretary of State for Massachusetts , requesting information with regard to the recent changes of the law in that state in reference to the ballot. He wished p erti cularly to call the attention of the house to this corre spondence, and to the facts disclosed in the letters and documents sent by Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker decrib id the state of the l aw on the subject in Massachusetts. The ballot was, it appe ar ed, already in existence there, and therefore this state a l rea dy possessed that perfect security against all electoral evils of which his hon. friend had given such a glowing description. However, it did not produce all the results which the friends of the ballot in this country seemed to think inevitable. It seemed that it was decided by a court of law that a printed vote was a written vote withi n th e m eaning of the constitution. " This decision," M r . W a lker said, " made a great change in the character of th e b a llot. It destroyed a great pert of its secrecy, for as soon as the legality of printed vut 39 was admitted, each of the different parties would have something in the size and appearance of its tickets by which it could be readily distinguished from those of other parties. One, for example, would have tickets printed on yellow paper, another on blue, another on pink, Sec. Often times, moreover, such tickets were ornamented with some pictori▪ al represent a ti on , so that a man's vote could be re cognised almost as far as the man himself. Hence very soon after printed vo t es wer e introduced complaints began to be heard from a ll p ar ts of the State, especially from the large commer c i a l an d manufacturing towns, that the secrecy of the ballot was impaired, that intimidation and coercion Kwere used at the polls, and the independence of the voter greatly lessened." He then went on to say that "The evil had now become so great that many people felt anx i ous for a change in the mode of voti▪ ng and various improvements were suggested, but the great practical difficulty seemed to be"—this, let the house observe, was the state of Massachusetts, in the year 1810, when vote by ballot was an established institution of the . State, embodi e d i n t h e co nstitution—" the great prac tical difficulty seemed to be to get a method which would be perfectly secret and at the Beale time afford perfect se curity against fraud ;" and he added that " the two ob jects appeared fora king time incompatible." Therefore it appeared that at that time Mr. Walker, the Secretary of State, thought that secret voting and security against fraud were incompatible, and no means were at that time known in the Unit e d St a t e s of reconciling these objects ; showing, as it seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) in the most conclusive manner that, according to the practical view of the United States, secresy was not an essential part of vote by ballot• Throughout the speech of his hon. friend it was assumed that secrecy was !.n es sential part of vote by ballot. Ho contrasted vote by ballot with open voting, and he said that open voting was a rati fication of a treaty between two dishonest men, irnplyin; that ballot was a secret mode of voting by which that ra tification was frustrated : and therefore the whole of his argument fell to the ground, if it was shown that secresy was not an essential part of vote by ballot. Mr. Walker proceeded with his narrative. After remarking that the great difficulty was to find a means of reconciling secresy of voting with security against fraud, he said—" While thus thinking upon the subject, it suddenly occurred to me, for I had never heard it suggested, that the true me thod was to enclose the ballot in an envelope, and then, having sealed the same, place it in the ballot-box." Well, the result of this sudden inspiration to Mr. Walker, was that a bill was prepared and presented to the Legislature, but the result was that it was rejected, and the former mode of voting was continued. " But," ho said, "in the following year, 1851"—it was not a very ancient history —" the liberals, consisting of the democrats and free soilers united, came into power, and a bill for the bettor security of the ballot was again introduced into the legisla ture, and passed by a handsome majority." Therefore, in the state of Massachusetts, secret voting was for the first time established by law in 1851. Mr. Walker sail that this mode of voting by enclosing the vote in a a sealed en velope ocourreci to him for the first time ; thereby showing that no similar system existed in any other State. Mr. H. BERKELEY observed that it existed also in the State of Michigan. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said Mr. Walker did not mention Michigan when he said that the thine occurred to himself for the first time. He said— " The law had now passed and remained in force till 1853," that was two years. "In 1853 the conservative party came again into power, and not daring directly to re p ea l the ballot la w , it virtually destroyed its efficacy by pro viding that any voter might use the envelope or not as be pleased." Let the house observe that this alteration in the mode of voting took place under the use of the sealed envelope ; and it must therefore be supposed that the elec tors of Massachusetts were faithfully represented, and that the views of the majority were carried into effect in the repeal of secret voting. Mr. Walker said that this altera tion emasculated the law, as every man who voted under the envelope would be presumed and taken to be hostile to the dominant party. Then he said that soon after the virtual repeal of the ballot law, further alterations tock place. The amended constitution was submitted to the people, containing a clause re-enacting the sealed-envelope system, but this amendment was rejected by a small ma jority,and the people were thrown back again on the existing law. Be concluded his narrative with this sentence : "A party was elected, calling itself American ; the legislature elected by this party is now in session. The restoration of the Sealed Ballot Law was proposed in the popular branch, and carried by a good majority, it was, how ever, lost in the Senate, the more conservative branch, by a majority of one vote. So that the law now stands, that the voter may deposit his vote in a sealed en velope, or not, as he may choose." Tais history of the ballot in the state of Massachusetts showed that the ballot having been at first practically an open ballot, so that every person who polled was enab:ed to ex hibit his vote if he thought fit to do so, a system of com pulsory secresy was afterwards introduced ; that that sys tem remained in force about two years, when it was re pealed, and so far as appeared from these publications it had not since been introduced. Therefore, so far as any in ference was to be drawn from his hon. friend's publications the inference was this, that there was now no State of the wasAwma k r i American su existence.narrativeUnion w h ear He de the pina fr s et y rl s Tr t e e f, m ir tm o h f a t t h compulsorypraerptol frt o r f o m a vo c t o 3, i i l n n r g .. . e mittee of the Senate and the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, to which his name was appended. The committee described the evils of voting in the same sort of way as his lion, friend had described them in speaking of this country ; they described them as existing in full vigour under a system of ballot ; and they then went on to say that the use of a letter envelope which had within a few years been introduced into the country had been sug gested as a cheap, an efficacious, and an easy remedy for all the evils complained of He was afraid of wearying the house by citing too many passages, b u t a t t h e same time ho was desirous of placing before them in an authentic form evidence of the true working of the ballot system in America. There was nothing to show that there was at that moment a single State of the American Union in which a system of compulsory secresy existed in regard to voting. (Hear.) In the majority of the States undoubtedly the system of vote by ballot existed, probably it was to be found in branches of most of the State constitutious, but the practice of voting by ballot was this, that the voter placed a ticket in a box, and there was no poll clerk —no person to receive or record his vote. There was, there fore, no complete list of the votes after the election, the votes being ascertained by counting the number of tickets deposited at the polling place ; but on the other hand, every person was at full liberty to exhibit his vote if he thought fit, and the general practice was, in fact, to exhibit the votes. Now, in considering what would be the effect of acceding to the motion of his hon. friend, they must ask what was the system he recommended. (Hear.) Did he re commend the sealed envelope system, or did he recommend the system of optional secresy ? He adopted the terms used by the Ballot Society. All hishon. friend's arguments were founded upon the assumption that the secresy ought to be compulsory; and yet the whole experience of the United States was against a system of compulsory secresy. It had only been tried recently as an experiment, so far as he knew, in a single state, where it remained in operation only two years, and it had not been re-established since. It was clear therefore that the test of experience—to use the lan guage was geof clear, a title-page he l said, t e- pae that tlee th et tract e to t of which h e experience had in h t referred e United States was against compulsory secresy, and in favour of optional secresy. Well, now, let them consider what would be the effect of an attempt to introduce compulsory secresy in this country. The whole of their electoral pro ceedings were founded on the assumption that the opinions of the candidate wore avowed, and that he had certain sup porters among the voters, who came forward to support , him on public grounds. His friends perhaps formed a com mittee on his behalf, and they appeared in public as the advocates of the political opinions which he had espoused. He put forward addresses declaring his opinions ; he can vassed the electors on the ground that be held such opinions; he hoped that they would support him as entertaining si milar opinions. The whole conduct and course of an English election was publicity of opinion on the part of the candi date as well as of the electors. (Hear, hear.) No parson in that house had greater objection to intimidation at elec tions than he himself had. He fully sympathised iu every thing that his hon. friend had said against that practice ; he objected quite as strongly as he did to the illegitimate exercise of the influence of landlords and others with the view of coercing their tenants or their dependents at the pull, and there was nothing which his hon. friend had said on that subject to which he did not assent. But hosing made that declaration, he must add that he was not prepared t o adopt his hon. iriend's remedy, or to admit that it would in fact be a remedy. (Hear, hear.) His firm conviction was that if they attempted to introduce a system of compul sory secresy of voting in this country, it would be an at tempt to row against an irresistible current, it would be an attempt to force upon the people of this country an in stiinttion thoroughly repugnant to their habits and nature. (Cheers from the opposition side cf the house.) He be lieved that if-his hon. friend, instead of using the atnbigu one phrases that he had done, were to bring in a bill dis tinctly embodying the sealed envelope system, or a bill making it compulsory upon every voter to conceal his Vote at an election, he would find that the general feeling of the country was against him. (Hear.) If there was to be a compulsory system it must be accompanied with a penalty for the violation of secrecy ; to that extent they must in evitably go. If they visited a man with a penalty for showing his vote at an election, how could they allow a candidate to visit the electors and ask them for their votes? (Hear, hear.) If the election was to be secret—if it was to be as silent as a funeral—it would be utterly in consistent with such a state of things to permit any inter course between the candidate and an elector. His hon. friend had been indulging in general phrases, reading ex tracts from newspapers, and so on, without perhaps very minutely considering' the details of the measure which he wished the house to adopt. Ho was inclined to think that he had never actually faced the system of compulsory sec . rosy, and that what he had in his mind was, in fact, op tional secresy, that is to say a law which would permit a man who wished for secresy to give his vote without ex hibiting it. If he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not misinterpret the views which the community enter ' tained on this subject, that. was the kind of ballot which • the majority of persons had in their mind, and it was that which was held to be a panacea for all electoral evils. Now, supposing a measure for the introduction of the gal ' lot to have been embodied in such a form as he had indi cated, namely, that of optional secresy, or the allowing persons to conceal their votes if they wished to do ' so, he must be permitted to express an opinion that the great majority of the voters at elections were prepared to avow their votes—(cheers)—that the great majority were, in fact, desirous of avowing them—(hear, hear)—that they had strong feelings in favour of one candidate, and against another ; and that they were not, as his hon. friend hal eescribad many of bis countrymen to be, mere flocks of sheep who were driven up to the poll. Though many of them might not be very exalted in station they nevertheless held very decided pc;litical opinions, which they retained for years, and he thought every gen tleman who had been in the habit of canvassing a consti tuency would bear testimony to that fact. Well, now, he thought that if vote by ballot were introduced in an op tional form, the result would be that a great majority of electors would exhibit their votes. The only effect of the change would be that those who wished to intimidate or coerce a voter would give him notice that he would be watched at the poll, and that if he did not display his vote it would be assumed that he had vote i contrary to their wish. The only result of such a law as could ba practically worked in this country would be that as regarded persost who were resolved upon intimidation, the mode of intimi dation resorted to would be changed, while no effectual pro tection would be given to the dependent voter. He would suppose, what he hoped would never occur again in this country, that there was a division between different classes of sooiety in reference to the laws relating to food, and that on that subject the agricultural interest was arrayed against the rest of the community. He would suppose that there was a rural parish in which there was to be found a blacksmith and a wheelwright who were small freeholders working for neighbouring farmers, and living by the cus tom of those farmers ; and he would suppose that these small freeholders were informed by the farmers before an election that unless they exhibited their votes at the poll ing place it would be assumed that they had not voted in a certain prescribed manner, and that th e i r custom wou ld in that case be withdrawn. ti what respect would such a law of optional secresy afford any protection to a dependent voter? It was clear that it would not afford any protection. In order to give effectual protection they must do what had never been done yet in the United S se es —th e y must alter the whole course, and character of their elections, and the very habits of the people; they must attempt to do by legislation what legislation would in fact be powerless to effect. For tips° reasons, not because he thought voting by ballot un-English or unmanly, not because he shared in any of those popular objections to the ballot which his hon. friend had treated with so much contempt, but because he believed that in one form it was utterly impracticable, ir reconcileable with the habits of this country, and not re , commended by experience in .those countries which were held up as models for imitation, and because be believed that in the other form it would be found ineffectual for the object iu view--for those reasons his felt bound to oppose the motion. He thought it was to public opinion—to the diffusion of sounder views as to the relations between the electors and those who were able to control their votes— that they should look for an improvement of the present • system. In support of the view that public opinion tended to remove the worst evils of a system of intimidation, he would appeal to the election which had recently taken place. He did not mean to say that that election was un tainted by the vices of intimidation and coercion. With regard to bribery, he did not believe the ballot would pro duce any effect; with regard to intimidation and coercion, no doubt if every one could keep his secret, protection might be afforded. He could not anticipate compulsory • • secrecy, so long as public opinion in this country remained what it was. The other system, which was practically that of the Unit e d St a t es, would leave them in the state in which they were. They had been tending gradually more an 1 mere at each succassive election to a state of things in which all the electors would be allowed to exercise their independent judgment, as he believed the great body of the electors had done at the last election. Judging from such moans of observation as ho possessed, it was his firm belief that even if the votes at the lnst election had been taken under the shield of any form of ballot which his hon. friend (Hr. Berkeley) could devise, the result would have been substantially identical with that which open voting had produced. (Hear.) Mr. GREER was glad that the right hon. gentleman had rested his argument on the results of experience, as the advocates of the ballot were prepared to meet him on that issue. (Hear, hear.) The right bon. gentleman said a good deal about the optional secret voting in the United States. Was he prepared to concede such a system in a modified form ? What was the result of experience with regard to the system of open voting ? It was ono of the principles of the constitution of this country that every elector had a right to exercise the franchise, yet they knew that in point of fact this right had not been enjoyed. The hon. member then went, in the midst of great uproar, to contend that the motion of the hon. member for Bristol only carried out the principle of an act of Parliament passed during the present reign for the protection of the voter; but the calls for a division were so loud and persistent that but a few broken sentences reached the gallery. He contended that while the gentlemen of England persevered in the use of the ballot at their clubs, to deny its aid to the poor voter was mere hypocrisy. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL, whose rising was the sighal for loud cheering, spoke as follows :--Although, sir, I might well claim as an excuse for not addressing the house upon this subject, that I have often done so on former occasions, yet as my hon. friend the member for Bristol, considering this to be a new Parliament, has thought it necessary to make, I may say, greater exertions to prove his case than he has ever made before, I will venture to trouble the house with some of the views which I entertain in opposition to his. (Cheers.) It is not to be denied that my hon. friend and his ballot committeehavo made a very considerable impres sion upon a part at least of the public, and I have cer tainly thought it my duty to consider and reconsider the various arguments which are adduced for and against the measure. Sir, it appears to me that my hon. friend, and those who are with him, rest their case upon three assump tions of fact and of opinion, all of which I believe to be erroneous. The first assumption is, that at the present moment there prevails so much of intimidation that it is impossible that the opinions of those who are entrusted with the legislative franchise can be fairly ascertained. Thenext assumption is that the voter has a right, an indefeasible right, to give his vote without reference to the opinions of any other but himself, without being brought before any tribunal of opinion to answer for his vote. (Hear, hear.) The third assumption is, that there is a very general and prevailing opinion throughout the country in favour of secret voting. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I will consider these several assumptions. The first that I have stated is, that intimidation prevails to such an extent that the opinion of the voters is not fairly ascertained. If, sir, the hon. gen tleman relies upon particular instances, I will allow that there is no general election which passes without instances of intimidation taking place and being brought forward in this house. But when my hon. friend passes from the proof which he has brought forward several times of differ ent instances—such as the conduct of the steward of the Marquis of Waterford, in the present instance--when he proceeds from these to state that the general elections did not fairly represent the opinions of the constituent body, I conceive that he is gravely in error. My hon. friend cites as a proof of his proposition an instance which I should have thought would have been one of the last he would have chosen, viz., the elections after the Reform Bill. Now, with respect to the elections for the counties for the last quarter of the century, I remember that at the time when the Reform Bill was first proposed, that of the 80 members who then represented England and Wales, 76 were elected to vote in favour of reform. I remember, after that, when there was a question of the repeal of the corn laws, and protection was the banner on one side and free trade on the other, that the liberal members, who had a vast majority at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, became a minority. I believe that, in both those cases, such was the opinion of the electors who sent those members. I believe that the great majority in favour of the Reform Bill represented the opinion of the counties in favour of that act ; and I believe no less that the majority in favour of protection likewise represented the opinion of , the counties, where views favourable to free trade un doubtedly did not prevail. And, sir, in opposition to the view of my lieu, friend, that had the ballot existed the corn laws would sooner have been repealed, I will refer to a statement made by Mr. Cobden. Mr: Cobden stated that when he and Mr. Bright--and there could not be two more powerful and talented advocates in any cause—(cheers) - and of whom I may be permitted to say, that each day I regret their loss to this house—(cheers) —Mr. Cobden stated when he and Mr. Bright first went to Leeds ma order to hold a meeting there, there was some difficulty in filling a room with those who were favourable to a repeal of the corn laws, and when they passed through the streets they were entirely unnoticed. Mr. Cobden went on to state that the year of the repeal of the corn laws was the first in which the working classes generally were in favour of such a measure, and that then he and Mr. Bright were received at Leeds with acclamations. I remember that in 1841, when parliament was dissolved, the working classes were tel.], on the one hand, that the repeal of those statutes would bring cheap bread, and on the other that it would produce low wages. Naturally their minds were confused by these conflicting statements, and I believe that the general impression was that the proposed steps in legisla tion would chiefly result in a general depression of wages. Speaking of the influence of landlords, I would say that I really believe that tenants generally prefer to vote with their landlords rather than against them. I will give an instance which I heard from Lord Spencer when Lord Al , thorp, who was no advocate for the turn-laws, but who was a liberal landlord, not likely to disturb any tenant on ac count of his political predilections. I asked him whether his tenants generally were with him in favour of free trade, and he told me that generally speaking they were protec tionists. I asked which way they were accustomed to vote, and he told me that they usually voted with him. (Cheers and laughter.) I mention this as an instance of the natural tendency of tenants to vote with their land lords. I may point as another instance of the manner in which, under existing circumstances, the current of public opinion is duly represented, to the fact that during the struggle between protection and free trade the coun ties almost always returned conservative and therefore protectionist candidates. But we see at the late elections how the question of free trade and protection is at an end, and all are free-traders; that liberal candidates have again come into the places which they formerly held, and that they have in many instances received the same favour as they enjoyed before the question of protection and free trade arose. Yo intimidation on the part of landlords has prevented the return of those liberal candidates—returns which I believe, at all events I hope, will take place to a still greater extent at the next election. (Cheers and laughter.) I then come, sir, to the next assumption, which is an assumption always made, but against which I, for my part, mu s t a l ways pro t es t , viz., that in contradistinc- L tion to every other claim, the country, the e lecto r s—th e' , freeholde r s, th e leaseholders, and 101. household e rs--ar e to • be accou n t e d i nv i o l a bl e ; that they are to ba considered , without sin and without error; and that there is to be left • in their hands a distinct and free power of giving their vote in whatever manner they please. I was amused, when I • considered the tenor of his speech, by my hon. friend stat , ing that the right of voting is a trust. It is a trust in • common with all other powers in this country. I go to the • Sovereign on the th rone , w h o is a t rus t ee f or t h benefit . of the country ; I go to the other house, the members of which hold their seats upon trust for the public good ; I say the same of the Ministers of the Crown; I say the same of the judges of the land ; and I say the same of the electors, who are to choose the members of the Commons , House of Parliament, whose function it is to dispose of the property and to maiutain the liberty of the people of this country. Will any one contend that that is a wrong prin ciple, or that there is any class who ought to be free from this inspection and control of public opinion, which at taches to persons in tho highest positions in this country? I will take the case of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Lord Ellenborough. He was a person of great talents, of eminent learning, and entirely qualified to hold , that high position. We are told in that amusing and instructive work, "The Lives of the Chief Justices," by Lord Campbell, that Lord Ellenborough felt extremely hurt at the public comments which were made by the press and by individuals as to his conduct on the bencb. Will the honourable gentleman say—indeed, I am sure he will not say--that it was wrong that such comments should have been made ? Shall I say, then, that in the case of a man like Lord Ellenborough, dispensing justice before the eyes of the world, that such comments are just , and reasonable, and useful, and yet that they ought not to be made in the case of freeholders, and leaseholders, and 101. householders, who of all classes are to be freed from all examination and observation? (Cheers.) My hon. friend might make out a case, perhaps, if he were to imagine • - that there were a system of universal suffrage, or manhood suffrage, so that every person of full age could g i ve a vote ; but that would be a new theory, a theory not of the British constitution, but of some other. What the British constitution does, is to give to certain persons, with certain qualifications and under certain conditions, the power to choose representatives, and then to leave the nation, and public in general, tee control, criticise, and check that power. (Cheers.) This is the rule which ex tends over judges on the bench, over ministers of the c rown. and over all persons exercising authority in this country—it is the rule of public opinion. . Take any question as to China, as to Italy, or as to the present un happy state of India ; upon shy of these the Government, as the executive and the responsible counsellors of the Crown, may adopt what measures they please, but they must, nevertheless, in taking these measures, be subject to public opinion, and to the sanction of this house. (Hear, hear.) It is said that it is impossible that electors can do wrong. I think I have known instances in which voters have come round a candidate, have formed a com mittee, have canvassed for him, and, after all, have re ceived bribes from the other side, and have given their votes for the opposite candidate. Now, let the manner of voting be secret, as my hon. friend desires, and we should then be liable to have committees acting in this way, and at the close of an election informing the candidate of his want of success, and assuring him of their endeavours in his behalf, whilst, in point of fact, they might have voted (and it would be impossible to as certain the fact) for the other candidate. (Hear.) MY hon. friend says that a v o t er may g i ve a pr omise to f . t . candidate, and yet be a t liberty to break that pr omis e . e , 1 suppose I must accept th a t as goo d m orality, but 1 only say it is strange and new t o me. (H ear .) My hon. friend put the case of Brown. Brown was verymuch intimidated. I beg to bring Jones and Robinson into court. (Laughter.) Brown is asked by his landlord to go and canvass for a candidate who is going to stand fora county. He says the etection will not takeplace for some time, but we aregoing to have a dinn er i n favour of conservative policy ; you are a good conservative, and if you will take the head of the table and give the toasts, and lead the way, it will be a great advantage. Brown says certainly. He presides at the dinner, gives the wrong toast, he makes the wrong speech, sings the wrong song, and having done all this and persuaded the gentlemen at the table that he is an ex cellent conservative, he goes on the day of election with anothe r ticket and votes for the liberal candidate. (Hear, from Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned member for Sheffield thinks that a lair proceeding. (Laughter.) I am not now speaking of the morality of the vote. But this is the sort of thing people mean when they say the ballot is un-English -that treachery is un-English, that promise breaking is un-English. (Hear.) I am inclined to be of that opinion. (Cheers.) I now come to the last assump tion of my hon. friend, that the proposal of the ballot meets with great favour in the country. I believe that although there is a large party in favour of the ballot— s that although a great body of the electors feel sore after an election—that although they believe intimidation has taken place—yet Ido not believe that the general opinion of the country is in favour of secret voting. I have had cce-siou to address great numbers of the people—from 31.300 to 4000 at the time—and I have stated my objecti ns to the ballot, and I have always found the meetings nearly equally divided, if I had not the majority in my favour, when I spoke against the ballot. I believe there is much truth in the clear statement which my light hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made with respect to the ballot. He has entered into details respecting the American elections. He has shown that whilst there is the ballot in that country, the ballot is by no means synonymous with secret voting. Y. u may often know by the form of the ticket which way a man votes. In other instances he takes a ticket of a particular colour, blue or yellow. If he does that there is an end of secresy, and an end of the security against intimidation ; because if you say that the secresy is optional, you at once give the customer, the landlord, the means of defeating the secresy altogether. He may say, if you vote secretly —if you have a voting paper done up in an envelope, and it is not the colour or shape of ours, we know how you have voted, and will consider you as much an enemy as if we knew you had voted for the opposition. There is no resort but a compulsory secresy, under which no man shall be allowed to state what his vote was. Now, does any man believe that would take place more in England than in America? Does any man believe that the truth telling people of this country would not, nearly every one of them sa y, " I am so eager for the return of Sir Thomas So and So, that I shall give him mp vote, and I hope my neigh bours will do the same?" That would be the general prac tice, and secresy would be confined to a few; and being confined to a few would not benefit that few. (Hear.) I think there is mischief in introducing a new mode of vot ing, which would tend to take away something from the openness of the character of Englishmen. I think there is mischief in introducing a considerable innovation that is not likely to succeed. I cannot believe there would be a complete change iu the character of Englishmen owing to this new mode of voting, and I think as far as it goes that the evil would far overpower the good. (Hear.) I do not believe that the elections in this country, generally speaking, are produced by intimidation and corruption, and I cannot agree with my honourable friend when he says that open voting is a corrupt agreement he tween one rogue and another. (Great laughter.) We have gone on for a long time with this imperfect and corrupt mode of voting. We have gained great liberty, and it was not until of late years that this mode of secret voting was thought of. Liberty has made greater ad vances in this country than in any other country in Eu rope, sad therei a more freedom here than in the United States of America. (Hear.) Look at the Liberal measures which have been passed during the last 25 or 30 years, un der the system of open voting. I will not go into detail, but I may mention the carrying of parliamentary reform, the repeal of the corn-laws, the opening of corporations, and a number of other measures; all of which have been carried into effect under that system of voting which my hon. friend says is an agreement between one rogue and another. I beg to demur, on behalf of this much maligned house and this much maligned constitution, to the state ment of my hon. friend. (Hear.) He says, last of all, only consider the case of Australia—in Victoria you have the most wonderful specimen of secret voting, which has succeeded admirably, and even the Attorney-General has been convinced. The constitution of Victoria to which he refers is that which I introduced two years ago. When we are told that it is to be held up as a great object of imita tion I am reminded of a passage in the amusing play of " The Rovers," where one of the characters tells the glori ous news that the plans have been successful —that the venerated and inestimable inheritance of Britons, Magna Charta, was signed last Friday week, the 3d of July. (Laughter.) The remarks on the new constitution of Vic toria are of that kind. For my part I should be waiting a few years. Before following the example of Victoria, which may be a good example, we, the older and more cautious assembly of the two, may wait a few years, in order to see whether this triumph of secret voting does answer as satisfactorily as it promises to do. (Hear.) With regard to the statement of public opinion I cannot avoid noticing one of the rem ar k s ma d e b y the hon. ' mem ber for Westminster, who seconded the motion. He said, ant made it apparent by figures, that the great majority of the liberal party in the last parliament voted in favour o f the ballot—that there were, perhaps, not more than 10 or 20 persons out of office who voted against the b a ll o t. N ow I don't know why gentle men who have been elected by large constituencies should be excluded from the right of voting merely because they have accepted office. (Hear.) The hon. members says that as the great majority of Libe rals were in favour of the ballot, they had only to go to the noble lord at the head of the Treasury and tell him they would not support his Government any longer unless he and his Cabinet carried the ballot. Now that, coming from an adherent of my noble friend, is the most degrading proposal I ever heard. (Cheers ) Sir R. P ee l a t one time said the state of the Irish Church is such that it forces me to abandon the views I have held respecting Catholic eman cipation. I could under Stand the same statesman saying the course of the discussion on the corn laws induces •nee to think that the best course for the welfare of the coun try, and one which is not injurious to conservative institis tions, will be the repeal of the corn laws; but to tell gen tlemen who are not convinced—to tell members of the Cabi net that because the great majority of their supporters vote in favour of the ballot they must do the same —would be a most disgraceful proposal, and a Minister of the Crown whom the member making such a proposition professes to respect, will show he deserves that respect by scornfully rejecting any such proposition. (Cheers.) My hon. friend talked of a person—a tenant or tralesman—giving his vote against his opinion. It has justly been said that that vote is a lie, and that the member returned in consequence of that vote is the incarnation of a lie. I should say that the votes of members of a Cabinet in favour of the ballot against their own opinions—against their decided convic tions—would be pronounced a lie, and that a measure, carrying out the ballot as their deliberate opinion, would be but the embodiment of that lie. I must say, that I think my hon. friend deserves success, from the ability he has shown and the perseverance he has manifested on this question. (Hear, hear) For my own part, if Parliament should decide that the ballot is to be the law of the land, I, like others, must bow to that law ; but, until it is made the law, so long as I can give a vote in the House of Corn mom on the subject, that vote will be given against secret voting, and in favour of the old and national system of open voting. (Cheers.) Mr. BERKELEY then replied, amid cries of "Divide, divide." He remarked that in the case of Victoria the experiment of the ballot, so far as it bad been tried, had proved perfectly successful; and after what had taken place in the city during the last election, he was surprised that his noble friend had not yet made up his mind to support the ballot. He had a strong hope that a change would shortly take place in the opinions of the house, but he felt that it would not arise from anything that would occur within these doors, but from the strong feeling that would be brought to bear upon Parliament from without. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to explain an unintentional misrepresentation which hishon. friend had given of his meaning. What he stated with re gard to America was, that vote by ballot prevailed gene rally throughout the United etates, but that there wee only one state in which it had been accompanied by com pulsory secresy—that that compulsory secresy had existed for only two years, and had since been repealed ; and that therefore it did not appear that there was one of the United States in which vote by ballot was now accompanied by compulsory (Hear, hear.) lhehou A y e s s eset . ..................... d .... . ..d— -. 189 Noes The motion was thus lost. REGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPERS. Mr. AYRTON, in moving for a copy of the case sub mitted to the law officers of the Crown, respecting the re gistration of newspapers and other printed papers, and their opinion thereon, complained that the Government had not submitted a full and entire case for consideration, inasmuch as by the old statutes it was provided that no per son should print or publish any newspaper, pamphlet, or other paper containing any news or any remark thereon on any matter in Church or State, which shall not exceed two sheets, without gi v i ng recogn i zance to the Crown for 4001., with two sureties for the like amount. The necessity for registration, he contended, had expired with the stamp duties on newspapers, and the case ought to have been • submitted, as it affected publications of all kinds, and not have been confined to newspapers only. ' Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he could not quite understand the object of the honourable . gentleman's motion, but he could not feel justified in com . plying with the terms of is. Two years ago, when the compulsory stamp was abolished, he had distinctly stated that the law effecting the registration of newspapers would be in no way affected by the measure which abolished the stamp duty. (Cries of " Divide.") Mr. AYRTON said he would not divide the house, bat would take another opportunity of bringing the subject for ward. THE SUPERANNUATION BILL. Lord NAAS moved for leave to i.ring in a bill to repeal the 27th section of the S uperannuation Act of 1831, and entered into a lengthened and elaborate detail of the ques tion at issue between the civil service and the Government. Mr. T. HANKEY seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed it, and explained his reasons by a multiplicity of figures and a reference to the data of Government actuaries. Sir F. BARING said he hoped Government would al low the bill to be brought in, and have the matter fully discussed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he bad no ohjection to the introduction of the bill on the un derstanding that it was for the purpose of allowing a full discussion of the question, and that it did not pledge the Government to the principle of the bill. Leave wai then given to introduce the bill. CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS. Mr. WILSON brought in a bill for the improvement of the law relating to the conveyance of mails by railways. The other orders of the day were then disposed of and the house adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock. BIRTHS. OF A SON, On G wood cumberland -, he 29th Juno at the D owager Lady B a t sman ' s, i n w plaee, the Hon. M rs. George Dash the 30th June, at P u t ney, the wife of Herbert H. On r. Playford. - - OF A DAUGUTER. square On the 28th Jun o , M rs , Moss Woolf, of 16, Wellclose- On the 28th June, at Grove-bill, Worcestershire, the wife of Benjamin Bright, Esq. MARRIED. On the 30th Juno, at St. George's, Hanover-square, Count Aurelio S of Forti, Romagna, to Georgiana Janet, second daughter of John Craufurd, Esq., of Auche names , N.B. On the 27th June, at St. George's, Hanover•square, Cap tain Wm. W. W. Humbley, late 9th Lancers, to Elizabeth Nelson, only surviving (laughter of the late Wm. Nelson Watson, Esq., of Gainsborougb, Lincolnshire. DIED. On the 26th June, at the house of his sister, Lady' Georgiana Fane, of Upper Brook-street, • the Hon. Mon tague Fano. on the 28th June, at Hammersmith, Edward Miller Esq., for many years of the Commissariat Department Treasury, aged 72. On the 29th June, in Middle Scotland-yard, Whitehall, Mary Ann, wife of Joseph Hanby, Esq., of Addleatono Lodge, near Chertsey, Surrey. On the 25th June, at Bridgewater, Richard Woodland, Esq., banker, aged 73. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Wednesday, July l e 1857. THE SUN, IiONEON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 1. 1857.