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

joined by law—would be intolerable t y rann y upon the non-electors. Now, clad this was assuming cove rtly that • which no hon. member, however aud a t c b io a u t there was a assu me openly in that house—named body of men :n this countryud under whose control the e l e ctors ought to be. It meant t hat or nothing. (Hear, bear.) 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 argume nt whatever against the ballot. It was an argument for universal suffrage, because if the non electors were to have the power to control the electors, w hy make tyrants of them—why not rather t g i v e them he out of. (Hear.) Mr. Disraeli, franchise ! did not think that of that the could be got n or of Hughenden, in the Cou nt y of Buckin g ham, 3:act:aid vote for whom he pleased • he was perfectly inde e p ndant of everybody ; but John Brown of High Wy combe was not independent enough to go against his tyrant. John Brown, therefore, naturally turned to Mr. Disraeli and said, "You 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 in. lam not an independent man. You recollect, sir, the time when you stood for High Wycombe and told ns that we were sud 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 gist you.'" The right hon. gentleman , or any other gentleman' had a right to change his o p ini o n, but he could not change facts , and could not hel p being a wit ness as to the terrorism which prevailed, and as to p ett y tyrants who existed, and whom he desired to put down. Consequently, however much the right boo. 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 he 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 I (Hear, from Lord R. Grosvenor.) He was glad to hear his noble friend cheer him, and he perceived that his noble friend had fellen 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 it could not exist under open voting, but only under secret voting. As his noble friend bad treated him with that goodelatured ironical cheer, let biro ask his noble friend to consider what effect pub ' lie opinion had on the mind of a man 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 measure, and the arguments in the public press, and then, after getting the best information he could, and deliberating upon it, he went to the pen' 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 This or That was public opinion 1 The press might write by the yard, public men might talk by the hour ; all that could make no practical impression ou 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 l (Hear.) Take the case of any set of men—the workmen at. the mills, fur instance. Of what use 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 cut 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 longdi , l public opinion notoriously wage war against the corn laws in vain f—until at length something very like a great and powerful oonspiracy 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 now attempted to answer some of the latest areuments against the ballot. The usual mode of attack had been by guesses and sur ' raises. When gentlemen bad 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 wool I see that where the ballot existed the best results had 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 land. There the ballot acted peculiarly well; and so it did in Belgium. It might be 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 of men that (meld not be 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 regarded 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. Valerie), 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.he thought that with respect to civil Government it might also learn a lesson from the absence of tail:nide tion on the part of the priests and aristocracy at the Sardinian elections. He (Mr. Berkeley) would ask the house to compare the absence of intimidation in Sar dinia with the intimidation exercised by the priests and the. tteistocraoy 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 eli thoee States where intimidation or corruption bad crept in it was. found to be the result of a loose mode of halloting, but wherever the strict secrecy of the lad been maintained it had been attended with the bast effects. He had on former occasions brought the case of America before the house at such 'length that Lie would not now have said anything more on the sub htenbuts fora, paragraph in the Times which was very Jtkely td be quoted, as anything which was supposed to tea against. the ballot was eagerly snaschcd at. Thet paragraph appeared under the pompous heading—"An Election Contrast. " Now, a residence of many yeers iso4nnaerica, and a knowledge of the character of the people of that country, led him to doubt whether this pasagrdpla lead been written by an American. The pansgeaph coMmenced by assu r i ng it s rea d ers th a t th e Loudon imea .was the proper authority with regard to the,Epglielayepresontative system, and the writer then preceeeteate s dra.w a comparison 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 regar d t o . the case of America, that, considering the system of centralisation which prevailed there, the secret com mittees, the absence of the candidates, the wheels within wheels which existed, and the general coin plexita 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 tralian colonies of Great Britain. But when he found a writer in an American paper thus asserting the supe riority of the English patrician syetern over the Ame rican system of ballot, he would not believe the author was an American, for he would evideetly 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 nsturo, and he 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 those States i.n which open voting was originally established bad gores over O ne by one to the system of ballot, with the exception of two slave States, and one of those States (Virginia) had at whothe last election rendered itself infamous, tor the voter s openly for Celenel Tremont t went to record their votes obliged to fir for i rere attacked, hudnterill, that an American gentleman of great v v;r es iltea t t s ab a il p i p y e , a a re n t, advocateasn of New York, Mr. Compton this country, and had very kind a l els had lately visited kindle thaisaopscincijottnys touching the Americon system of with which he (Mr. Berkeley) w as lot Society. At the request of that seciet ee 'l d, the lid- attended a public meeting at Haverfoyrdwer. an cestors having been Welshmen, where he''t ex p ressed h opinions, some of which he (Mr. Berkeley) be g ged mission to quote. [rise hon. member then real Borne Bo lengthy ex racts from the speech of M r . Williams, who ' said that in his own country he had never heard any ex pression of hoitility 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 electors were furnished with slips • of paper, stating the number of representatives to be elected, and these slips, which were called the " ballots," were either printed or written. It was unnecessary to make a candidate an enemy by telling him ho would vote against him, for the ballot afforded protection to the elector, He (Mr.Williams)expreered his surprise to find that unsuccessful attempts had been made es ll '. Eklarid . for twenty-live years to obtain the ballot. ane . object sought to be secured ill America was that the elector sihould vote for himself and not somebody else for - him, and that ohject was efft:c!:uaily secure d by the ballot. He regretted to say, however, that intimidation and bribery- were not totally unknown in America. (Hear.) There were in that country great p-s -ditical combinations ; there were p e L d n, c aptains Ih I of tens i and fifties and hundreds, who boasted that they could 9. - hpel their followers to vote as they p leased ; but those ,yere mere words, for they had no power to control the . votes of the electors. The votes were secret and although electors might give promises, it not be known M wh e ther those , promises were CI led or alt was therefore perfectly useless is exert such promises. He bra beard it eaid that men miglit watch the b ox; and sees i • - Y how their tenants and employes voted, but he defied them to do so successfu'ly. It was, for example, exceed ingiy 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 proce ssion in that city in honour of the victory ; but when the telegraphic mes sage arrived in New York it stated that t he Republicans bad gained the election in the State of Maine by nearly two to one against the Democrats, and that result (Mr. Wilaros said) was entirely due to the ballot.] He would now call the most serious attention of the house to her Mejesty's Australian dominions. There the ballot was adopted as the law of the c olon y of Victoria. It had been tested there, and the result bad been that all the evils which sprang up u nder the system of open voting —i n ti m idation, violence, and corruption—had received th e i r death-blow. He would crave t h e permission of the house just to draw a co m p arison. 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 ak the house to " look on this picture and on that." Tne 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, I which he had always said was the great malady of our electoral system. Look to the counties. There political 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 cause 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 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 Fuple were a little more peaceably disposed, nut 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 bad changed bands 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 accerdance 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 electien. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Kr. Ber lte.ley) 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 way 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 conscienti ous con victions ; that, acting under that belief, they respectfully approach your lordship to request you will be graciously pleased to permit them, at the approaching general elec tion, to record their votes according to the dictates of their consciences—(a laugb)—and that you will give directions to your agent and representative here to protect them in the religious and faithful exercise of their electoral ri g hts. Several landlords in thi s coun ty h ave a l rea dy d one 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 ! " Ashbrook, April 3. " Sir —I am directed by the Marquis of Waterf or d t o acknowledge the receipt of your letter, together with a memorial from some of his tenants in this county, and to say tkat lie would wish them to vote for Mr. Clark and Sir H. Bruce at the coming election. (Laughter.) " Yours faithfully, "Rev. N. M. Brown." " J. B. MiIIEAPORD. He (Mr. Berkeley) 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 g re a t l a ndl or d in this country, and a mem ber of that house, which formed a pleasing contrast to the document he had just read. Mr. R.Thartes, in the course of an address to his constituents at the last election, 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 (hir. Robartes) declared that, putting himself in the position of such a man, 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 understanding that he was to vote in opposition to his conscience. He further said he should like to see the ballot to-morrow, because he should then feel more at liberty to speak to his tenants on political subjects, and to try to win them over to his own convictions. He was afraid to do so now, because if be 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.) That 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 love 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 said that a clergyman of the Church of England who resided in Essex, but had property in Kent, having intelligence that a tenant was about to vote fur Mr. Martin, despatched to him this letter : " I hopo 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 "screw" would not work, and that the tenant retained his inde pendence. (Hear.) Another instance 'of intimidation been the subj,:et or legal proceedings under the Carrupt Practices Act, in the case of " Queen v. Barnwell" and that was a failure. The house would do him the justice to recollect that he had lifted his voice against the Cor rupt Practices Act, end that he had branded it as a dis graceful specimen of insincerity. It was enacted for the benefit of eandidatea, and not for the interests of electors. Tae legal expenses were carefully cut down and the il legal expenses were left untouched. The cases which c mid 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.) Ho did not know how such a man could tail is win an election, but Lord Henry Thynne did fail, and in his parting address attributed his failure to inti• midation. At South Northamptonshire Lord Althorp was charged with intimidation, and he retorted by mak ing the same charge against the other side. In Cam 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 to the 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 bad not to control, to reward, and to punish the electors, as the electors had to control. to reward, and to their representative. If a member of parliament voted in secret it destroyed the very essence of the repre sentative principle. He loft the gallant captain to recon oil, his view with that of Mr. Burke, who said, "The flouse of Commons never could control the functions of Government unless the members themselves were con trolled by their constituents." Lord March took up the old sons", and said the ballot was unmanly and un English. Within a very few weeks both he and his noble lather, the Duke of Richosand, gave a notable example of the difference between exampleand precept. It chanced that a chief constable had to be elected. In the western division of Sussex eight out of nine members voted against th e b allot. It was understood that the votes is that divisio n f or the consta bl e wer e not to be tak e n openly. E verybody supposed that the Duke of Richmond would have.appe are d with the b a ll o t-b ox o f the Conger cativo he ballot, hit upon a most ingenious expedi. ClClsb under hi s arm; but his grace, t o avo id coun tenancing ect. He appeared w i th an old hat and a pack o f car d s. He' deposited th e o l d hat •In t a corner namea an o d f candidates tthe cards. The magistrates pa the on the cards, a n d d epos i ted the cards in his grace's hat. What was the diff erence between -en voting by ballot and th d e ea lt votieg in an old hat! Why shoull the one be called un manly, un-Eoglisb, and cowar dl y; and the be th r brave, manly, and British !H e cou ld see no differencew b te the two things. He c s ll e ,l b o th vot i ng by ballot; e t at e all n events, the mode adopted by the Duke of Richmond car rie 1 out the principle, if not the letter, of the system 9 f voting which he wanted the h ouse t o sanct i on by its a pr osal, So much, then, for the e le c ti ons i n counties. The csmtnit tees now sitting upstairs would show the scenes that were enacted at the laat elections. Those precious disclosures the house would have an opportunity of con sidering, at.d he trusted it would lay them to heart. H e load stated that in 1332 Mr. Disraeli spoke of an intoler .4blo terrorism as then pievailing. That system produced terror of two kinds—in the first pine, a terror of ruin, and in the next a terror of loss of life or mutilation. Of the latter he bad an admirable example before him in the right hon. gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. and he could not help Raping that it was a very hard case when candidates were compelled 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 mourned 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 received by the right hon. gentleman was bad enough and much to be deprecated, but why did not the Times direct its attention to those cases of violence that took place in Ireland ! Not a word was said aboutthem, but the right hon. gentleman some: how or other, enjoyed the favour of the limes, and all its sympathies was reserved for him. He thought that his noble friend the member for the city of London was a good deal to blame for the acts of violence and intimi- dat'on 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 hal 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 an elactor 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 he 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 toset 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 breach of trust." If such arguments were addressed to ignorance or ma• lignity therecould 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-electori 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, he was sure that Mr. Miall would scout the very idea of such a 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 the compilers of the Rochdale polling book, "according to a great constitutional authority— Lord John Russell—is that 10/. 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, is Gal way, and in other parts of Ireland were perfectly shock ing, and it was very interesting to read the truthful ac counts given by the reporters of the malversation of the franchise, and compare them with the mendacious state ments of interested parties. But, instead of dwelling upon the Irish elections, he would proceed to direct the attention of the house to the elections which recently took place in the colony of Vict iria. The establishment of the ballot in Anstralia was mainly due to Mr. Nichol son, and, though opposed by the same arguments as in this country, the system had operated in the most satis 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 been laseparable 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 came 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 diminished ; 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 he brought tkem these details, without which he could not establish his case, he submitted that he had now p rove d 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. (Hear.) 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 'A as 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 nut they give up that power? They lived in a loyal country—a country in which the aristrocracy was beloved by the people—(hear, hear)—and a country which was 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 ? (Hear, hear.) Depend upon it they would stand much better 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. lie had erer 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 bad so often quoted, who wrote the most brilliant pamphlet, but unsound as it was brilliant, in favour of open voting and against the ballet. What said Sydney Smith? In a recently published letter, written in reply to a correspondent who had com plimented him upon 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—(cheers)—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 surrender t them that which they would demand as a right. (Cheers.) The bon. 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. SHELLEY, 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 his 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 present state 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 hirn the means of paying his rent ; but to tell a man that he would lose his customer was tweet un-English. (Hear, hear.). He had the honour of representing one of the largest coneti tuencies in the kingdom, and he could assure the house there was no single question on which his constituents felt 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 skew 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 be 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 %Vesta:inflater. He had voted once before for General Evans, and had lost three of his bust customers in con secinence. 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 1833 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 an analysis of the divisions on this question in the last ten years. In 1855, the numbers in favour of the measure were—present, 166; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36—total, 204. Against it—present, 218 ; tellers, 2 ; pairs, 36 total, 256; giving a majority of 52 , or 15 more than in the previous session,but 8 less than in 1853. The majo rity was composed fl 3 members of the Government, 10 Whigs, and 233 Tories. These numbers proved that the Liberals had nothing to do but stick together on the qua tiou. However much they might deplore the fall of the present Government, yet it came to this, that if they sin. ce:ely believed that a reform bill - WAS 1104?e8a3rYi and, at the same time, believed n• reform bill would be success ful which did not give protection to the voters, they bad 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 tempDrary one, and right hon, and hon. gentlemen who now opposed, would be supporters of ithe ballot. In Vie division last year the ayes present were 113, tellers 2, pairs 43 • the noes were, present 153, tellers 2, pairs 4 3, making thei 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 bers of the Government voted in favour of the motion, including Lord Duncan, Sir B. Hall, Admiral Berkeley, Sir A. Cockburn, Sir R. Bothell, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. .11orsman, 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 EXCHEQ UER said that after the direct appeal male to the members of the Go vernment, and put in so calechetical a form by the hon. mem ber for Bristol, he should be wanting in courtesy to him if he did not take the eeriest opportunity of stating the views which he had formed on this question. He regretted to find that these views mould not coincide with those ear tertained generally on either side of the house. He was un able to adopt the views sc,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 =elusion, 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 house it sometimes happened that the member who introdneadit arranged the arguments in favour of his opinion its 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 seriesmore elegant gte o elh f pne gt7 y aga : hu a eoatd r s ot Ilia Inmu m dtgi ougubshtaethtz the h ands stated :G et Inae seh i dwi t : iftthhwhtaehansed hsi didac tic omt hn great er p e. o gentleman questionas bpt clearness period imp ossible mi o t h ad n a ;p t oaf srrtsol from 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 whether whichor not t e would ul b d a c ll a o ll t w the as practical adapted two stages, the subject might now fairly be cons id ere d t o reached hethird, haveer and consider 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 had 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. Re was examined bosom 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 ho think that the example of this institution in some colonies, 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 was the United States of America, and he believed be 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. Wien. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had misun derstood the hon. gentleman, bat to ascertain the principle they should look to the details of the mode of voting now practised in the United States. The motion then before the house was "That leave be given to being in a bill to cause the votes of the Parliamentary voters of Great Britain 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 moaning they should take it as it is established in:the United States, and where its mode of working is not a mere detail, but the principle of the system. On this subject he would quote the authority of a recent traveller, Mr. Tremenheere, who had taken every pains to inform himself on the subject. He said—"au the 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 poll. The tickets are now universally, I believe, printed; and being printed upon coloured paper—the colour or some dis tinguishing device indicating the party to which the candi dates belong—the very fact of presenting a paper thus coloured or marked, 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 of voting now practised in America, andit entirely agreed with the information he had always received from American gentlemen. They never described the ballot as secret voting, but as a mode of voting by tickets. The distinction between the ballot and the mode of voting practised in this country 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 m ight 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 doubtful or 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 chairman. 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 s ecrecy 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 : Ths 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 r egard 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 suffrage is almost universal, and where great in equalities of condition among those who possess it do not generally prevail, it is not surprising that many should ap individually indifferent as to the observance of secrecy pear in its exercise. But protection is 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 not think fit to conceal it he might exhibit it, and that, thee a 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 time system. The next tract to which ho wished to direct attention was No. 5 of the same series - it was called " The Test 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 appealiug on that occasion. The Society for Promoting th e Introduc time of the Ballot became aware that some important trans actions in reference to this subject had taken place in the state of Masaachusetts, and accordingly, in the month of April, 1855, the honorary secretary of the society, Mr. Wickham, apdressed a letter to Mr. 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 oularly 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 decribsd the state of the law on the subject in Massachusetts. The ballot was, it appeared, already in existence there, and therefore this state already 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.deoided by a court of law V3at a printed vste was a written vote within the meaning of the constitution. " This decision," Mr. Walker said, " made a great change in the character of the ballot. It destroyed a great pert of its secrecy, for as soon as the legality of printed vet es 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 yellowpaper, anoth er on blue, anothe r on pink, &c. Often. times, moreover, such tickets were ornamented with some pictorial representation, so that m an a m's vote could be re cognised almost as f ar a s the an himself. Hence very soon after printed votes were introduced complaints began to be heard from all par ts of the State, esp eciall y from the large comme r ci a l and manufacturing towns, that the secrecy of the ballot was impaired, that intimidation and coercion were used at the polls, and the independence of of the voter reatly lessened." He then w a e t n that to say that "The evil had now become inso great that many people felt anxious for a changet of voting and various improvements sted, but web l ' ' ' 'ug tt e is let the the great practical difficulty seemed to e in ,he year house observe, was the state of Massachusetts,t f 1810, when vote by ballot was an established institution ra o . the State, embodied in the constituti on— h t o t d eg w p o ul c d tical difficulty s eeme d tel be to get ame w time afford perfect se• be perfectly secret and at the added that ' the two minty against fraud ;" and - • " incompatible. Therefore ob jects appeared for a long time Walker, the Secretary it appeared th a t a t th a t time Mr. and security' against of State, thought that secret voting . were at that time fraud were incompatible, and no means . 'e objects ; known in the United States of reconciling the.. s E x . showing, as it seemed to him (the Chancellor of tn. 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' Throughoutthe speech of his hon. friend it was assumed that secrecy was an es sential part of vote by ballot. He contrasted voteby ballot with open voting, and he raid that open voting was a rati fication of a treaty between two dishonest men, implying 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 L-gislature, but the result was that it was rejected, and tlie former mode of voting was continued. " But," he 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 better 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 er..- velope cccurred to him forthe 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 mentio❑ Michigan when he said that the thing 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 repeal the ballot law, it virtually destroyed its efficacy by pro viding that any voter might use the envelope or not as he pleased." Let the house observe that this alteration in the mode of voting took place under the u-e of the scaled. 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 took place. The amended constitution was submitted to the people, containing a cause 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 ho may choose." Tnis history of the ballot in the state of Massachusetts showed that pealed,had no and sines s° iwerbobnafeanteaecsirendvwt. rehihaanisewsatr, IHnneotdhdfetruahopitcenmae appea redtfdrsheyth. the ballot having been at first practically an open ballot, so that every person who polled was enabled to ex hibit his vote if he thought fit to do so, a system of com pulsory secrecy was afterwards introduced ; that that eye riesiy:Ttsfeeerfhdhmer:oo: naoeh.sff t afo h tntirhe e joeoe : w,p e nmrsa, eopnit p . ptuosuol farl bsol Statei c compulsory publications i vo o of n t s ti hn i ge l tern remained in force about two years,, when it was re. as any n f t American rameaes Walker's kr n e i je e n f er e wrsneeanxnus narrative Union coin mittee of the Senate and the House of Itepres y e r i t et fo a rfo ti ma ves 3i o r f Massachusetts, to which his name was appended. The committee described the evils of voting in the same sort of way as his hon. 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 bad within a few years been introduced into the country bad 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, but at the same time he 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. (Heir.) In the m ejority of the States undoutedly the system of vote by ballot existed, probably it was to be found in branches of most of the State constitutions, 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 generalpractico 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 his hon. friend's arguments were founded upon the assumption that the secrecy 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 of the title-page of the tract to which he had referred —it was clear, he said, that the test of experience in the 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 secrecy in this country. The whole of their electoral pro ceedings were founded on the assumption that the opinions of the candidate were 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 he 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 person in that house had greater objection to intimidation at elec tions than he himself had. He fully sympathised in 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 poll, and there was nothing which his hon. friend had said on that subject to which he did not assent. Buthaving made that declaration, he must add that he was not prepared to adopt his hon. riend'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 secrecy 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 stitution thoroughly repugnant to their habits and nature. (Cheers from the opposition side of the house.) He be lieved that if his hon. friend, instead of using the ambigu ous 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. He was inclined to think that he had never actually faced the system of compulsory sec resy, and that what he had in his mind was, in fact, op tional secrecy, 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 evil. Now, supposing a measure for the introduction of the bal lot to have been embodied in such a form as be had indi cated, namely, that of optional secrecy, 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 ehutions 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 had described many of bis countrym en t o be, mere flocks •f sheep who were driven up to:the poll. Though many of them might not ba very exalted in station they nevertheless held very decided political 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 bo 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 voted contrary to their wish. The only result of such a law as could be practically worked in this country would be that as regarded pergolas 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 suppoee 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 their c us t o m would in that case be withdrawn. ie what respect would such a law of optional secrecy afford any protection to a dependent voter ? It was clear that it would not Weill any protection. In order to give effectual protection they must do what had never been done yet in the United S' a' es—they must alter the whole course and character of their elections, and tho very habits of the people; they must attempt to do by legislation what legislation would in fact be powerless to effect. For these reasons, not because he thought voting by ballot me-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 hell up as models for imitation, and because he believed that in the other form it would be found ineffectual for the object in view--for these reasons he 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. Ide could not anticipate compulsory F • ore cy , so long as public opinion in this country remained what it was. The other system, which was practically that of the United States, would leave them i❑ the state in which they wire. Theyhadbeen tending gradirdly more and more at each 6UCCAssive 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 lest election. Judging from such moans of observation as he possessed, it was his firm belief ,hat even if the votes at the last election hail been taken under the shield of any form of ballot which his hon. fliend (Mr. 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 bon. gentleman had rested his argument on the results of experience, as the advocates of the ballot were prepared to meet hi m on that issue. (Hear, hear.) The rigfit hon. 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 one 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 it division were so loud and persistent that but a few broken sentences reached the gallery. He contended that while the ge , Alemen of England persevered in the use of the ballot at the'r clubs, to deny its aid to the poor voter was mere hypocrisy. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL, whose rising was the signal 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 hen. friend and his ballot committoehave 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 theircase 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 irnpossiblo 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 cited as a proof of his proposition an instance which I should hat, 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 thoso 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 hou, 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 advocator 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 in 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 told, 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 corn-laws, but who was a liberal landlord, net 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 vote with him. (Cheers and laughter.) I mention this as an instance of thj 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 male' instances received the same favour as they enjoyed before the question of protection and free trade arose. No 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, must always protest, viz., that in contradistinc tion to every other el drn the country, the electors — the freeholders, the leaseholders, and 10/. householders—are to be accounted inviolable ; that they are to be considered without sin and without error; and that there is to be loft 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. Igo to the Sovereign on the throne, who is a trustee for the 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 iu the highest positions in this country? I will take the case of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Lord Ellenborongh. 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 Ellenborongh felt extremely hurt at the public comments which were made by the press and by individuals as to his conduct on the bench. 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 10/. 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 give 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, to control, criticise, and check that power. (Cheers,) This is the rule which ex tends over judges on the bench, over ministers of the crown. 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 any 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 (anti it would be impossible to as certain the fact) for the other candidate. (Hear.) My hon. friend says that a voter may give a promise to a candidate, and yet be at liberty to break that promise. I suppose I must accept that as good morality, but I only say it is strange and new to me. (Rear.) My hon. friend put the case of Brown. Brown was very much 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 for a county. He says the election will not take place for some time, but we aregoing to have a dinner in 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 electio n w ith another ticket and votes for the liberal candidate. (Hear, from Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned member for Sheffield thinks that a fair proceeding. (Laughter.) lam 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 bo of t h at op i n i on . (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— that Although a great body of the electors feel sore after an election—that although they believe intimidation has taken place—yet I do not believe that the general opinion of the country is in favour of secret voting. I have had occasion to a ddre ss grea t num b ers o f th people—from 3000 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 right 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 i n th a t country, the ballot is by no means syionymous with secret voting. Yt u may often know by the form of th e ti c k e t 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 secrecy altogether. He may say, if you vote secretly —if you have a voting paper done up in an.envelope, an 4 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 world not, nearly every one of them say, " I am so eager for the return of Sir Thomas So and So, that I shall give bin mp vote, and I hope my neigh bours will do the same ?" That would be the general prac tice, and secrecy would be confined to a few; and being confined to a few would not b.nefit 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 in 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 nct 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 be 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, and there i s more freedom here than in the United States of America. (Hear.) Look at the Liberal measures which have been passed during the last 2.5 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 au 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, aid 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 _ot " 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 Jolye (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 remarks made by the hon. mem ber for Westminster, who seconded the motion. He said, and made it apparent by figures, that the greatenajority of the liberal party in the last parliament voted in favour o t the ballot—that there were, perhaps, not more than 10 or 20 persons out of office who voted against the ballot. Now I don't know why gentlemen 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. Peel at 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 understand the same statesman saying the course of the discussion on the corn laws induces me to think that the beat course for the welfare of the conne try, and one which is not injurious to conservative institu 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 vete 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 tradesman—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 igmade the law, so long as I can give a vote in the House of Com mons 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 o f Vi ctor i a the experiment of the ballot, so far as it had been triode 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 states, but that there was 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 repeal e d ; an d th a t therefore it did not appear that there was one of the United States in which vote by ballot was now accompanied. by compulsory secresy. (Hear, hear.) The house then divided— Aes No y es 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 giving recognizance to the Crown for 4001., with two sureties for the like amount. The necessity for registration, he contended, had expired with the stamp duties ou 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 be could not quite understand the object of the honourable gentleman's motion, but he could not feel justified i* 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, but would take another opportunity of bringing the subject for ward. TUE SUPERANNUATION BILL. Lord NAAS moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the 27th section of the Superannuation 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 ba brought in, and have the matter fully discussed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he bad no objection 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 was 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 the 29th June, at the Dowager Lady Bateman's, ix Great Cumb er l an d pl a ce, the Hon. Mrs. Ge orge Dash. wood. On the 30th June, at Putney, the wife of Herbert IS. Play ford . OF A DAUGIITER., On the 28th June, Mrs. Moss Woolf, of 16, Wel'close' square. On the 28th June, at Grove-hill, Worcestershire, the wifo of Benjamin Bright, Esq. M Alt . R lED. On the 30th June, at St. George's, Hanover-square, Count Aurelio SAffl, of Forti, Romagna, to Georgians Janet, second daughter of John Cz aufurd, Esq., of Auche' names, N. B. On the 27th June, at St. George's, Hanover-squarn, Cap tain Wm. W. W. Humbley, late 9th Lancers, to Elizabeth Nelson, only surviving daughter of the late Wm. Nelson Watson, Esq., of Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. DIED. On the 26th June, at the house of his sister, Lad,' Goorgiana Fan; of Upper Brook-street, the Hon. Mon' Lague Fano. Ou 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 Addlestone Lodge, near Chertsoy, Surrey. On the 25th June, at Bridgewater, Richard Woodland , Esq., banker, aged 73. LONDON : Printed and Pabtighod by MURDO YOUNG' of No. 112, Strand, ranter, at 27te Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the F r"i" of the Sever. in the count/ of Middlesex, Wednesday, July 1, 1807. THE SUN, LONEON, WEDNE DAY EVENING, JULY 1, 1857 L Stato. The each ; Ron. Hon. lion. grea is la —w will Rail thus sent Pin rep rate eng Ito or lac r•f