The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, 1853.

The question that leave be gins is landau the bill
having been put,
Mr. H. BALL opposed the notion, not because he was
not disgusted with the election practises recently exposed,
but because be considered the proposed remedy altogether
inadequate to meet the evil. What be considered the best
means of meeting the evil he preeeened to explain, his sys-
tem being founded upon the payment of members, the
desirability of which ho maintained in feeling terms—
'with Niels etheerity, indeed, as to amuse the house en-
esedingly.
Mr..l. PHILLIMORE considered that, whether the case
of the honest or dishonest voter was taken into consideration,
the argument in favour of the ballot was equally unan-
swerable. And any argument which applied to England
applied with double force to Ireland, where a vote under the
present system was a curse rather than a privelege. He
answered a favourite objection to the ballot by main-
taining that if it stopped intimidation it did everything,
because it could not substitute anything worse; and
that, at any rate, in the sheens) of any other pro-
posed remed the people had a right to demand
this. The ballot, moreover, had the support of some
of the greatest men of all times, from Cicero down-
wards, and white they availed themselves of its be-
nefits, they had no right to deay them to the people.
Mr. BRADY was in favour of the ballot, because the
present bad system was the cause of incalculable evil among
all classes of society, and failed besides to make the House
of Commons a true reflex of public opinion.
Mr. S. HERBERT said in listening to the speech which
the hon. member for Bristol had addressed to the house, he
was struck by one peculiarity, namely, that differing
in thought from• his previous speeches on the subject,
there was a consciousness on his part that how-
ever plausible the theory of the ballot might be for the
purpose of redressing intimidation it was powerless with
dresgtiaal
b to bgroiibengryb.ack a Hemvacelrye
considerablehis eswit
period,
regard toani ndtimthie-
principaly evidence he adduced of the evil of intimidation,to
which no man could be more opposed than he (Mr. S. Iler-
bert), was given before a committee which sat not in 1853
but in 183.5. Ile accused the noble lord of having slept the
sleep of Rip Van Winkle, while the evils of intimidation
had been in operation since the Reform Bill. lie (Mr.
Berkeley) must have slept the sleep of Rip Van Winkle,
in not seeing the effect which public opinion had
had since that time in redressing the evil of intimidation.
But was it true that intimidation was the gigantic evil of the
elective system ? He (Mr. S. Herbert) appealed to every gen-
tleman in the house, whether during the last 20 years
intimidation had not been diminishing, and whe-
ther, unfortunately, bribery had not been increasing. Since
the Reform Bill intimidation bad decreased. The hon.
member for Leominster wanted to know what it was they ob-
jected to—bribery, intimidatioo, or the remedy? He (Mr.
S. Herbert) objected to all three. He objected to bribery and
to intimidation, and he said the ballot was not the
remedy for them. It was impossible to suppose that the
fact of every man giving his vote in secret would neces•
eerily cause it to continue secret. The struggles in Ireland
were between the priest and the landlord ; the relation of
the tenant with the priest was peculiar, and the relation
with the tenant was common. Unless the ballot 'enabled
the tenant to be independent of both their remedy would
be useless. In England, with • tyrannical landlord or a
tyrannical customer, as the hon. gentleman described, the
ballot would lead to a system of espionage, because, sup-
posing the ballot turned out to be a system of perfect se-
cresy, then the political opinions, the political associates
of every man would be canvassed, and it would be
natural to suppose that he bad voted according to
his political opinions. He was not afraid of in-
timidation, because public opinion would be too strong
for it, but he asked, would the ballot be effective
in putting down bribery? How was it that bribery
was generally found out now ? The first thing
was that generally a number of men came to the
poll about ten minutes before it closed, and gave their votes.
The agent or the opposing candidate said, ' why here is
so and so, who has been yellow all his life, voted for blue,
or has been blue all his life, and voted for yellow?" Inves-
tigation ensued, and ultimately the bribery was brought
home to him. But under this system of secresy the impu-
tation of a corrupt motive could not be suggested; so one
would know how any one had voted; no suspicion would
be awakened, and there would be no reason for making
those investigations which resulted in a committee up stairs,
and ended sometimes to the great dissatisfaction of hon.
members. If that were so, they gave the candidate the
advantage without the risk of losing his money, and
they gave to the voter the possibility of voting with-
out the chance of detection ; and so far from the
ballot tending to diminish the chance of bribery it would
give every inducement to the candidate to bribe, and
enable the voter to be bribed without discovery. 1 he
bon. gentleman saiekerby not give this right to the poor man
which in clubs the higher classes habitually used. Now,
one of these was for political, and the other for social
purposes, and there was no analogy between the two
The honourable gentleman quoted the case of
foreign countries, sod said they. were arguments
and proofs in favour of the manner in which the ballot
would work in this country. He need not have gone so
far. That system was not confined to clubs—it
was adopted in the parish of Marylebons in the elec-
tion of vestries under Hobhouse's Act. Elections of
that kind in Marylebone differed in nothing from ordinary
political elections, and were carried on with the same vehe-
mence, the same acrimony, end party spirit ; and there was
an entire openness of proceeding, ever body's vote was well
known, and if any one was persecuted, or any custom lost,
they were acted on in just the same way as if there were
open voting. Thee with regard to America, Mr. Treuien
heere, in his work on America, gave up the notion of secresy
in vote by ballot ; and said that the mode of taking votes
in the United States was open and ostentatious; that the',
ballot was a good mode of taking rapidly and easily
the votes of a vast population ; but any no-
tion of secresy was quite given up, and no
attempt was made at concealment of the political predilec-
tions of voters. He said that " the term ballot in the United
States meant nothing more than a rude of taking votes,
which were openly and ostentatiously given." Again it ap-
peared from the evidence of an American that the system had
only changed theeourse of corruption, and instead of buying
hundreds of voters, the plan was (and this was as improve-
ment he (Mr. Herbert) did not think we in this country
would adopt immediately, for it would require • little time
for ingenious men to invent devices of the kiad)—the plan
was only to buy one or two of the judges with whom the
result of the election rested ; and there was no means of de-
tecting them in making false that which could only be
done by a scrutiny of the ballot box and there was nothing
to prevent the abstraction of one kind of tickets and the
substitution of others. Sydney Smith in his admirable
pamphlet on the ballot, which he (Mr. Herbert) wished it
was consistent with the rules of the house to have read by
the clerk at the table—(a laugh)—for it would be better
than any speeches or arguments, humorously asked how
you were to get an English voter to conceal his opinions;
in that ease he must hurrah at the wrong dinner, drink
the wrong beer, end busk the wrong head. ("Hear,
hear," sad • laugh.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Berkeley)
said that the English were not garrulous ; but were
they apt at concealing acts of public duty ? He (Mr.
Herbert) would say, being half an Irishman, that
although on the other side of the Channel tacituraity was
not their forte, it was possible they would not divulge the
nature of their votes. But for an Englishman to acquire
the powers of concealment necessary to this system
of voting, be could become each a hypocrite as to
make it doubtful whether he would be entitled to
exercise the franchise It was • common phrase
among Frenchmen,; a Jed[crow lindivitinel." That
was not our systm; and we did net put our political
system into a state:lea to: If that was abandoned it would
be contrail. to the t of our free institutions—contrary
to the spirit of our institutions, which were so conso-
nant with liberty; and if we were to adapt the English
chancier to a system which would render sass ready so to
abrogate their rights and their duties as to perform them
under the veil of sump, you would demoralise the English
character, and sap the very foundation on which our liber-
ties were built. He did not speak thus from any fear of
the immediate effect of the ballot in the loss of the influence
of wealth, of public virtue, or station. lie believed that it
would make no very sensible impression on the returns of
members. He did not object to the system in • party or
political point of view, but because he believed
it would tend, by destroying the self-respect of the
constituenery, to strike a blow at one of the best qualities of
the national character, which was created by the exercise of
public functions, whether in high or in humble life, and
which required • fearlessness which had been given to the
national character—a stability which was inoonsisitent with
a system of concealment. Actuated by these feelings he
should vote against the introduction of the measure.
Lord A. LENNOX opposed the principle of the ballot,
denying that secresy would be preserved under such a
system. lie denied that it would put • atop to bribery,
and although be was of opinion that the bribery at the last
election was a scandal to the country, and he would be
ready to coincide in any measure that would put a stop to it,
yet he did not believe that the ballot would have that effect.
Mr. COBDEN remembered that about nine years ago be
brought forward a motion in that house, on which he had
bestowed more than usual trouble and attention, and which
time and experience bad since proved to have been founded
in sound and true policy. He remembered that the right
hon. the member for Wiltshire, who was then in the
cabinet, and the colleague of older and shrewder heads, was
put forward to answer that speech, which was accompanied
by some memorable circumstances. Now the right hon.
gentleman was a little older, but he had hardly gained
much wisdom from experience—(laughter)—for he had
done precisely the same office now that he did then for
older ind more sagacious colleagues. He had now taken
up the defence of a question which had been as completely
established by reason and argument as free trade had been
in 1844—(cheers)—and he ventured to predict that the right
bon. gentleman would lice to make as manly a disavowal
after be had seen by experience the results of the ballot, of
the opinions he had expressed that night. (Laughter and
cheers.) This question, he (Mr. Cobden) repeated, had
been settled by reason and argument ; and if they were dis-
cussing the ballot simply as a question affecting a body of
men, all of whom rested upon a social equality, there could
not even then be one argument or reason suggested why it
should not be adopted. (Hear, hear.) Hide as they might
—conceal it even from themselves, if they could—the fact
was that they opposed the ballot because they entered upon
a discussion of it with • Istent idea that it was the duty of
somebody to know how somebody else voted. (Cheers.)
But if a body of men—if 500 individuals were placed in one
apartment, and they wished to know honestly the opinion
of the majority of those men; if no one had
right or power, or pretension, to exercise any un-
due influence whatever, or any mastery over them,
except whet he derived from argument and reason, they
would not find one of those dOO men that could
say why the ballot should not be adopted. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman had given them some argu-

meats with which he (Mr. Cobden) would now proceed
to deal. And in the tint place he mast correct the as-
sumption of the right hon. gentleman that any one who
had spoken before him had admitted that the ballot
would be totally inoperative to put down bribery. What
had been admitted by all its advocates was that it was
perfect as against intimidation, and that it via a very po-
tent übstacle to bribery. (Rear, hear.) But the right
hon. gentleman went further, and said that bribery
might be an increasing cell, but that intimidation, owing
to the operation of public opinion, was decreasing with
the lapse of time. Ile compared the present period with
1833; and said that we had very much improved upon the
state of things then, for popular opinion bad to a
certain intent put down intimidation. He (Mr. Cobden)
denied that. (Hear, hear.) What had been done was, that
the counties, in • vast majority of cases, had so far sue-
curbed to intimidation, and had so far become subservient
to territorial influence, that they had ceased to make any
struggle for independence. (Cheers.) Talk of intimida-
tion having diminished ! Was it not the recognised prin-
ciple and etiquette in county canvassing, that it was an in-
sult to large proprietors to canvass their tenants without
first obtaining their permission ? (Cheers) Would any-
body deny that? Why he had beard in one case, in which
there were two proprietors of rival pretensions, where
there was a quarrel, and some talk of a duel, in consequence
of their having poached upon each other's manor. (Hear,
hear.) The counties, before the Reform Bill, were the
strongholds of liberal opinions in this country.
There were members for counties who took their
stand on that side of the house in defence
of all oar old constitutional freedom ; and it was 'mainly
county members that had carried the Reform Bill
(Cheers.) Why, then, had such a complete change taken
place ? They could scarcely now point to any county
where a contest, however hopeless, bad been attempted on
liberal and reforming principles. (Hear, hear.) The sim-
ple cause was, that they had given the proprietors such
power by the control of their tenants' votes, that the free•
holden, the ancieat stronghold of popular rights, had been
swamped by a body of men, the most dependent and the
most subservient politicians they had in the country.
(Hear, hear.) Was that a state of thiuss to be passed over
or to be remedied ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man said they could not remedy it in Ireland unless they
passed such • measure as would protect the people both
from the priests and the landlords. But what did they
want to protect them against ? They wanted to protect
voters against any coercive influences that should compel
them to vote against their will. (Hear, hear.) Ile might
be told that the influence of the priests would be exercised
in • private manner—in • manner which, whatever it
might seem to them, they neither could, nor had they •
right, to interfere with. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Cobden)
did not ask them to protect a man against a voluntary in-
fluence. He denied their right to prevent any man front
taking counsel from those whom he knew, or supposed to
be better able to advise him than ho was to instruct him-
self. (Hear, hear.) But this he did say, place a man in
such a position that he might either follow or disobey, as he
pleased, the instructions of those who undertook to guide
him, whether they were landlords or priests. (Hear,
hear.) Therefore, be said, let them try the
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman told them that
it would be no remedy against bribery. lie stated that
bribery would be carried on wholesale—that one of your
parliamentary agents would go down to a town and say to a
number of people, " If you can return So-and-so I will give
you so much to divide amongst you ; but unless he is re-
turned you have nothing." Now his (Mr. Cobden's) an-
swer to that was, in the first instance, that they did not in-
tend to have any of these little manageable boroughs.
(Cheers.) It might be perfectly true of such places as Wil-
ton or Shoreham, for instance. But he would put it
to the house, could any parliamentary agent go down
to such towns as Birmingham or Manchester where there
were constituencies of 6,000, or 10,000, or 16,000 electors,
and buy them up wholesale ? (Cheers.) With so large a
number to be represented, 26,000,000 persons to be rem-
seated by 6-58 members, they would have under the new
Reform Bill—unless it was to be a mere sham and pretence
—none but large constituencies ; and he would appeal to
the house whether it was possible to buy constituencies of
some 8,000 voters each ? (Cheers.) It had never been dome
under the open system, and it would certainly not be done
with the ballot. (Loud cheers.) The right bon. gen-
tleman said that the ballot wu not popular in America.
He could state, from some little acquaintance with America,
that any politician there who proposed to abolish the ballot
in any state in which it prevailed, would be considered as
little better than a political madman. (Hear, hear.) It
was the cardinal article of their political taith; and there
never had been an instance of a state which had adopted the
ballot having departed from it, but the tendency had been
constantly the other way. (Hear, hear.) His great
hope from the ballot wu that it would chaege the character
of our elections—put an end to bran bands, flags, and ban-
ners—and abate the nuisance of drinking and open
houses. (Cheers.) With the vote by ballot people might
poll as quietly as they went to church on Sundays, as was,
in fact, done both in America and England in almost a/1
cases of voting by ballot. (Hear, hear.) These evils
being acknowledged, what other remedy win there bat
the ballot ? The right hon. gentleman should remember
that he did not now speak in the name of a united cabinet ;
at least one of hie colleagues was as hearty for the ballot as
he (Mr. Cobden) was. The Attorney-General, the Soli-
citor-General, and the Judge Advocate were all prepared
to vote for it. (Hear, hear.) So were • majority of the
ordinary supporters of the government; and if the opposi-
tion benches had remained as thin as they were about 9
o'clock, the question would very soon have been settled.
(Cheers.) He would suggest another experiment. Pass
an act to make the ballot permissive. (Hear, bear.)
He had such faith in the principle that he would offer the
most handsome terms. Let them pan an act which should
enable any constituency that chose to adopt the ballot, to
try the experiment ; and having come to that decision, that
they should, on notifying the same to the Home Secretary,
elect their members by ballot during that parliament, re-
taining the power to return again to open voting if they
did not like the ballot. (Hear, hear.) That met the
argument that the people did not want the bal-
lot. Once for all, u they were threatened with a
Reform Bill, for • Reform Bill without the ballot was a
threat—(hear, hear)—he said most emphatically he would
rather have no extension of the franchise, be would rather
not run the risk of spreading the virus of this corruption,
and the honors of this intimidation among another stratum
of society ; he: would rather they remained as they were
than subject another and a more dependent class of the
people to the same corrupting and debasing influences as
the present electoral body suffered from. (Hear, hear.)
He therefore entreated the government, if they were not
prepared to grant a reform bill with the ballot, to postpone
it, and let the country have the ballot alone. (Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said that last year he had given • silent
*dilation to this measure, and he now wished to confirm it.
He had adopted the ballot, not as the result of a hasty con-
clusion, not from a mere love of reform, or a desire of up-
setting and unsettling old institutions, but from a belief
that it was calculated to promote the iborty and independ-
*nee of the people, and the purity and freedom of elections
He was for supporting the legitimate influence of property,
and it was not to distrust it that he supported the ballot,
and whatever convulsions might follow the passing of the
ballot, and all great changes occasioned more or less of con-
vuleions,abe legitimate influence of property, which the
people of this country well understood the advantages ol
and appreciated, would be maintained, and contended that
secret voting was free voting. (Hear. hear.) They had
not often in this country the means of testing this, but they
had in other countries. There were two eases occurred the
other day—the one in Spain and !the ether in Tuscany,
which 'bowed, ae he thought, coachnively, the value ofthe
ballot. He heard the noble lord (J. Russell) say the
other night that ministers were not going to govern this
country by checking the progress of democracy, but that
they were going to make democracy conservative ; but it
appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) that to attempt to make
democracy conservative in a country where the aristocratic
element had been dominant 160 years was • monstrous
deception. (" Oh," and a laugh.) It had been said by a
right hon. gentleman on that side, on one occasion, that the
noble lord was the subordinate of a subordinate ; but he
had the authority of the noble earl at the head of the
government for saying that that was not the fact. Lord
Aberdeen had told them that he had no subordinates, and
certainly if that was the case, u it would seem to be, the
present prime minister of this country stood is an
extraordinary position. As he said what Lord Aber-
deen had stated appeared to be correct, for they had
the noble lord (J. Russell) one day coming forward with a
speech insulting the Roman catholic population of the
United Kingdom, which, however, they soon afte r wards were
told was a mere private opinion; and on another day they
were threatened with a measure to deprive the poor dock-
yard artisans of their birthright, which, however, had
been since abandoned under the conviction, as he believed,
that the house would throw it out the moment it made its
appearance. (Hear.) But the members of the present
" united " cabinet seemed to differ in everything. They
were not even agreed upon the ballot. There was the
member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), that glorious
radical—(laughter)—who looked at the ballot as the
anchor of political salvation in this country. He (Sit R.
Peel) thought he was right. (Hear.) But there was the'
right hon. baronet the member for Cariisle, who sat e
complacently beside him under the Admiralty colours, be
looked upon the ballot as the very Cape Horn of politics—
as the ultima thule of political navigation. (Laughter.)
lie knew:not what course the two hon. and learned gentle•
men on the Treasury bench intended to take ; but they had
the gallant captain, the eccentric member for Middlesex.
They had heard a good deal about the Dardanelles lately,
and of powers acting in harmony that were formerly belli-
gerent—at all events, he might say in restricted confidence
that he should, on this question of the ballot, have the gra-
tification of meeting the gallant captain in the same lobby,
and establishing with him the entente cordiale. (More
laughter.) Was there not then an ample case made out
for the adoption of the ballot ? Let them consider the ex-
pense of these numerous election petitions, the denial of
justice which frequently ensued, and the demoralisation of
the constituencies arising out of the existing system of open
voting, and then ask themselves whether they were not
called upon to do something to endeavour to improve the
public mind ? If they weighed these considerations well
and fairly, they would be ready to sanction this measure of
the ballot as heartily as he was, convinced that it would not
I deprive property of its legitimate influence, but would pro.
mote the interests of all classes of the community. (Hear )

The LORD ADVOCATE considered the ballot repug-
nant to the principle of tree government, and he believed
it was from the mere caprice of accident that it had been
regarded as one part of the principle+ of those who professed
liberal opinion+. However congenial secret voting might
be to the principles of absolute government, as is Spain, it
was utterly opposed to the principles of a free constitution.
The duty of the voter being a public one, and eptrusted to
him for the public good, ought to be openly performed
ander the public cognisance. He thought the fel-

wothiwch"ithile
wgnoeontatedralphuetn'ittht-ua7f
Iseylof the advocates of the ballot
looked only at the evil without ri gardiug atth
jectionable elements of the remedy they • F..% -d
i and they seemed to forget that by intraduc.'ing
ballot they would be introducing a new element- 41
would extend to the whole electoral oyetem and affect the
sapnidri tw tah
loosenp optbl e The
ties ballot I
Prevent bri-
bery
ose
and intimidation ; and if not, it would, as he
lieved, increase all the evils of the present systetn—(of: 01,‘
land where would be your committees, your public oaths
infra., your bodies of men banded together for one m
arbitrary power, and as tending to shut out that 'mit nee;
s
o be
l
s a
which was the basis of free goverumeat. asnej;
bookt
hoelewceleicmdtca s' hot' hrutt haswhlt:Pieahastrtiuynop: stmdual ti
rib::: prompted
wd,hesi
eeaptli disrameti was
maintained.
e:ellteeenoidgi nation trtirbitleo. PeaeetuErtoalla that bunwliottttati'ol h'aireui Zia Che
.Uech: I :ear. et.t'l biLl ni
v°llPoul df:ti common
u.
tram
the throne to the peasant which was the lite blood of
f
they checked or obstructed thaCpublic spirit, although the
might keep up the ewpty skeleton, they
of the power of all law to resuscitate it agile. (Rear.) Let
the law deal with bribery as a crime, and he believed that
the law, if fairly carried out, was strong enough to vied!
cate itself; but whatever they did, it was their most
portant duty, in the interest of public freedom itself, to de
nothing which would make it impossible fur them to alts.
tinguish between the honest man and the rogue. (Chectsl
lls
said
tßhuaMr.
tt was
in he a, BRlGHT,wmari et ww.hht:atrteoef hourpa public
ldf,
cs thet
beua gfsiohr::ni
end at
wattiitgit"tut he
was willing either to go on or adjourn. (Adjourn, adjourn.)
ate
perio I of the session, the house would probably lie disposed
to site little later than usual. ((fear, hear.) 'the subject
was worthy a fair and full discussiou ; and he was glad to
find that on the present, the government me t it more the.
neatly than on former occasion, from which be
augured that they would either concede the question or
were prepared to buckle on their armour and contend
against it. (Hear, hear.) Ile admitted that the advocates
of the measure were bound to prove that the cote was one
which required a remedy, and that the remedy they pry
posed was the one applicable to the case. (Hear, hem)
The general arguments by which they were met might he
comprised under three heads—first, that the evil complained
of was not so great as it was represented ; secondly, that
the ballot would net cure it ; and, thirdly, teat if it cured
it, it would be as bad as the disease itself. He would not
go at that hour into the particulars of the cases which had
been brought before parliament during the present *aeon,
but he would give the number of the seats which had been
vacated under charges such as made it ueceesary for them to
bring this subject before the house. During the session 1G
members were unseated fur bribery only, 4 were unstated
fur treating only, 7 for bribery and treating combined, 1
for an illegal engagement to pay money fur getting posses.
sion of a seat, and 2 for intimidation and riot—the
use of the Irish county. (Laughter) These made
altogether 30 members unseated tar occurrences
connected with elections, which they believed
the ballot had a tendency to cure, if it would not alto-
gether remove, them. (Hear) What had been the num-
ber of petitions presented to the house after all the general
elections 'Mee the Reform Bill ? In 1833 the number of
petitions was 33; in 183.5, 33; in 1838, 60; in 1811, 43; in
1847, 40; and in 1833, 76, making altogether 282 petitions
presented since the Reform Bill, or an average of not less
than 47 for the six general clectioss. It needed no argu-
ment to show that, under these circumstances, the house
stood in a position of considerable humiliation
before the country and the world. And it was difficult to
say whether the house or the constituencies lost more of
character. (Hear, hear.) They had boroughs under the
control of one patron, as Stamford; they had large bo-
roughs under the control of the government of the day,
such as Chatham ; and they bad even large edits such as
Westminster, where it was notorious thist many electors
abstained from voting on account of the extreme
pressure put upon them by men towards whom
they stood in some relation of obligation. (Hear, hen.)
But leeland, perhaps, afforded cases of more notoriety than
England, and ha would invite the right hon gentleman,
the Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert), to go with him to
a county in the north of Ireland, where be mimed see that
spirit of the Duk- of Newcastle lived as much in the Mar-
quis of Lendonderry as it did in the former noble: moo.
(Hear.) They were battling for the purification of the
electoral system, and therefore he would offer no
evidence except that which was perfectly true and
undeniable. He would read to the house extracts
from the correspondence of the Marquis of Londonderry
in reference to the last election for the county of Down.
(The hoes. gentleman then quoted large extracts from the
well known correspondence of the Marquis of Londe'.
decry, in which be called the member for the county of
Down (Mr. Kerr) "his member," and called the seat the
family seat. The reading of these extracts elicited much
laughter from the members.) Was not the case of the
Marquis of Londonderry a fair parallel to the Duke of
Newcastle, and did it not overturn the assertion of the right
hon. gentleman that the corruption and evil of the days of
the Duke of Newcastle were unknown now ? (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Dungannon (Mr. Knox) alai
wrote a letter with regard to the same county of Down elee-
tion, in which he asked the tenants to vale for. Lord E.
Hill and Mr. David Kerr, " hoping that as they had been
always treated with consideration, they would not forget
what was due to their landlord by supporting the tenant
league candidate (Mr. Sharman Crawford), whose vanity
got the better of his good sense." There was also mother
letter from Major Waring, who said that as a general elec-
tion was about to take place, and as the interest of the
tenants and of the landlord was inseparable—(" hear,
hear," from the opposition aide)—yea, but the tenant was
always required to go with the landlerd—(uheerr)—al the
interest of the tenants and the landlord was inseparable, he
thought it to be his duty to make known his intentions to
them, and if they were disposed to act with him, he would
be obliged if they gave their first vote to Lord E. Hill, the
tried and true friend of his country, and he did not intend
to ask them to promise their second vote for the present.
After some additional illustrative matter, be said,—
well, the question now to be decided was this, the
remedy for the evil ? He would like to ask whe-
ther these letters would have been written if there
had been vote by ballot ? Would these gentlemen who talked
about murderers have darea to write such letters while
there was the protection of the ballot ? No, for then they
would not only have been condemned for their tyranny,
but they would also have been ridiculed for their
folly in writing such letters. (Hear, hear.) But let the
house return again arrow the Channel, and take a borough
in England. Take Canterbury, where the bribery was
carried on under the mask of giving 10s. to colour-men ; or
Cambridge, where the electors were bought at the rata
of 101. a head ; or Derby, where the price was 21. or IL
Wee the money paid before the election in these caul
No; it was paid after the voting—after the delivery of the
pods. (A laugh.) In this country people were net in the
habit of paying for goods before their delivery, and it
Deemed that in these guilty transactions at parliamentary
elution' the precaution was taken of not paying the money
until the contract was kept and fulfilled. (Hear, hear)
But the ballot would prevent all this. Ile came now
to a particular point in this question which he
hoped the house would allow him to go into in detail,
because it related to the manner in which the ballot had
worked in America, about which the right hon. gentleman
the member for Wiltshire appeared to be under same
misapprehension. Now, let the house bear in mind that in
the United States they had more elections than we have.
They had elections—general elections—throughout thirty-
three states, yet such being the che.k of the
ballot that charges of bribery and corrup-
tion were altogether unknown on the country.
(Hear, hear.) A few nights ago he was speaking upon thin
subject to • distinguished man connected with the United
States, who load, on fact, held the office of AttomerGe•
penerralceivine twhahatt"exuenitrteyff
Somersetahire, but he forgot that the hon. gentleman
generally was in a good humour at that hour of the night
t h(eat l a luaguhg ho
f.)
the ge
hon. wu
member a t a lossfo to
r
(Laughter.) But let the helms bear with him for a moment
on this point as the right hon. gentleman the Semliki-at-
War, and the learned Lord Advocate, had both endearoutetl
to persuade the house that it would be something detri-
mental to the British character to adopt the ballot. It,
however, had not done so in America, according to the aa-
thority he had just stated. He wished them, then.
atonothaderopetounatry7s
the dignity of that house was at present lowered, and
which bad
the character of representative institutions damaged,
tale solemnly declared workedth‘t he well,h in t
uogh
not only in this country, but throughout the world ; and if
they did not wish to appear hypocrites in the face of the
country and of the world, it became hon. members either
to point out a remedy as good as that of the hon. member
s
for Bristol, or to vote for this bill in order that it might
be sent to the other house of parliament. (Cheers.)
Mr. S. KNOX contradicted Mr. Bright's statement widt
regard to Mr. Sharman Crawford, alleging that the tenants
in the case referred to were left to vote as they pleased.

Lord E. HILL said he mast deny in toto what the hon.
member (Mr. Bright) had said with rk gar,' to the Ili,.
William Ford. The hon. member e4id that gentleman was

expatriated.
Mr. BRIGHT arid he had only st.ited that be wed
an exile.

Lord E. HILL continued—At all erente the hon. mem-
ber had implied that he was compelled to fly. The Rev.
William Ford held property in the county of ['own of the
value of 7,0001. a year, and a more honourable man cr a
better landlord did not exist. With regard to tne hen.
member's long tirade respecting the Marquis of London-
derry, he thought the delicacy of the house bad already
been sufficiently shocked. (Laughter.) Majar Wang
was a strong protestant ; in fact, he was called a " hind
William's man."

Mr. BRIGHT said he did not know it.
Lord E. HlLL—Then the hon. member knew It now.
(Laughter.) Perhaps the hon. member would prefer a
Homan catholic. At all events, it was notorious that the
Roman catholic priests exercised more influence at the last
election than the landlords.
Lord J. RUSSELL'-After the speech of my right hoc.
friend the Secretary-at-War, and my hon. and learnal
friend the Lord Advocate, I should hardly have thought it
necessary to say anything, hal not my personal conduct
been misrepresented, no doubt unintentionally, by the boa.
gentlemen who brought forward this motion (Mr. 11.
Berkeley). The hon. gentleman thought fit to repreSeg
that, while I had held very liberal language in opposition,
I had, when in office, upon this subject, ch..nged my coup,
and taken a very different view of the matter. Now the
(get is, that the speech to which the hot:. gentleman alludes
was made in July last, previously to my election for the
City of London. 1 bad voted in this house 11111,1" t
the ballot only a few weeks before, and when
asked in the Guildhall, 1 stated that I should on any otha

woes sow sestina it, and gave as my reason, to the
R„..rosis assembly which tills the Guildhall ow such OVA-
that I was averse to that went voting which the bon.
piroplied. It was not in • speech after I had ac-
ot„d office, but at that time that I states! my intention of
as 1 always had done, against the ballot. It ap-
f tll We. aud I stated ao to my constituents at the time
j.i'whi^h I refer, that the foundation upon which the truth
Mt, is a toundation entirely contrary to that upon which
the h. n itentlatuts the member for the West Riling (Mr.
(ohdon) hoses his argument upon on this occasion. The hon.
gentleman says that no man has a right to inquire how ano-
ther mto votes. The principle an which I rested and do
riot i that this s • public trust—:cheers)—and that every
man who exi reises that trust, does so subject to the opinion
of t. itow countrymen. (Hear, hear.) And, he it re-
mark,l, that the lion. gentleman who made this motion
doss not s ek to enlarge the number of voters. lam aware
that this is not the case with the hon. member for tho West
hiding. I have beard it said, arid I have sien it written,
that to suppose that any other person could have the right
or judging of a man's vote is to say that all have a right to
vote. I hold that that argument has no force in it,
ixnuee we might as well say that no one can
criticise the conduct tf a judge or the verdict
of a Nei unless he is qualified to sit as that judge or
M give a verdict as that jury. On toe same principle we
ruiglit soy that no one had a right to criticise a work who
could not write such a one himself. In fees, it seems to me
that the people of this country have aright to exercise their
judgmeot upon the mode in which the votes of individuals
arc even, and I hold that exercise of public opinion to have
aar st excellent and wholesome effect. I hold also that the
eocoorog.ment of a secret mode of voting would, as my
karma friend the Lord Advocate justly argued, be hostile
to the general spirit of liberty in this country. (Hear.) The
spirit of liberty is nourished in this country upon, the courage
with which men have stood forward and linen ready at
any sacrifice to uphold their opinions. This has been the
case from the day when Sir J. Elliott allowed himself to be
imprisoned, until death was the constquence, to the day
whin Sydney was willing, with unmoved pulse, to suffer
condemnation. His lordship continued, he would not go
into the question of the effect of the ballot in foreign
countries. Ile would, however,_ say one word upon what
had been said as to the state of Idasiachusets. He (lid not
wish, to say any thing against the people of the United
States of America—theme were no doubt a great and free
people, hut be had doubts whether this country ought
to follow them to the extent which some hon-
ourable gentlemen indicated. It should be recol-
lected that the ballot was not established in Maseachueets

until within about two years or so since. The former mode
of voting, though dissimilar from ours, was not secret.
About two years ago, the democratic party, being in power,
introduced the secret ballot ; but, within a short time, •
bill for repealing that system was passed by a majority of
107 trots s—the ayes being 114, and the noes only 7. The
hoe. gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr. Bright)
said that the present convention would repeal
that law, but rids was not at present an as-
cured fact, and no argument could be grounded
upon it. Ile would further mention that among the majo-
rity who voted against the ballot were the most ensinriri
patriots and statesmen in Hassachussets. That old patriot
of America John Randolph bad even said that, it you
wished to make the inhabitants of a state a set of aeoan-
drils, you had only to give them secret voting. (Hear,
hear.) He (Lord I. Russell) thought that, inttead of his-
tory proving the advantage of 'egret voting, it had done the
reverse. 'fake, for instaace, the case of Venice, where
it had led to tyranny and despotism. If that be
the case, the house should pause until it bad some better
foundation for adopting this measure. At present, the only
proof which existed showed that it was hostile to all that
was noble, to all that was manly, to all that was free in the
institutions of this country. (Loud cheers )
Lord D. STUART moved the adjournment of the debate.
The house divided:
For the adjournment
Against it
The house then again divided on the motion for leave to
bring in the bill.
For the motion 172
Against it
RETURNS ORDERED _ _

Mr.BOWYEti—ce;o;edforaOaailrW for further pa-
pers, or eatraets from papers, regarding the relation of
foreign ►sites with the Court of Rome.
Mr. lIASTIE moved for an account of the declared
value of the various articles of British produce and manu-
factures exported to the British West India Colonies in
each of the past seven years ending the sth day of January,
1853, with the rate of duty upon each article an
the colonies, and of the quantities of the principal
articles f the growth and manufactures of tho British
Writ India colonies imported into the United Kingdom,
and of the quantity cleared fur home consumption; the rate
of duty charged on each article, with the Gazette average
price of sugar for each year ; also the number of ships, din
tinzuishinie British and foreign, with their tonnage, that
have entered and cleared for the British West India cola
nits during each year of the period; similar return for the
East India Company's territories and Ceylon ; similar re-
turn for china; similar return for the Mauritius; similar
return for the North British American colonies; similar re-
torn for New South Wales and the Australian colonies;
similar return tor the United States of America; aimilar
return for Cubs; similar return fur the Brazils; and, simi-
lar return for MOI/00 sad the other ports of South America.

In:RH 4M ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. BENTINCK moved that the following be the select
committee to inquire into the Durham election petitions:
Mr. Bentinek, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Fellow's, Mr. Robert
Philhmore, end Mr. Isaac Butt.
Mr. BUTT objected to the committee, on the ground
that, with the empties of Mr. Fellow's none of the mem-
bers named bad been twelve months in the House of Com-
mons. He moved ea an amendment, "That the General
Committee of Elections be instructed to name five members
to serve on the ccmaalttoe."