The Express.
London, England, 1865-07-01 00:00:00

Vat erpreols.

Atlvadieasseala s
be at the OS tat:ad tar 11; Lemke Ireelig
em" 10, Mereeetweireek Tw by
.• so' ab she clay at yabtiestim

TEN Immo, Kir 110111101. Mama ChM
Hose, Gordon: Madmen on Snowdon sad Wright..—B
SAM. Mourn Bothers, kaokinsno. and C
Dowd= and Nowa—And NO SONG NOIVIM.

PRINCINNS.
TNN Immo, NUM-STRINGS AND NDDISNISINGB.
—ARRAN NA FORM Nam D. Emdmalt., Brolipeat
N. Vaabotholl, D. NehireaDv=AVrtarmArlog:
skmalcault mad Mr N. APOIODY•

BRITAWRIA.
Tan SMIRK /113 FRIULI DETZCITVT. Mews. Rey
folds sad Dramaroad ; Min G. Mika—TlC MAGIC MIMING
CAP. Mama Merrood, Oka. sad Lola ; al Cams sad
Mrs. Lsarr...Aad LUCARTAA BURGlA.—Gammassi st

TM HIGH WATER AT LONDOLDBIDGIL
DIY Marais& 7b. lia.....Anorsoon. 7b. 40s1.
TO4ollaoll, Maeda& M. fat.—..Aglersocr. O. 30m.

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 1.

WI most really be making some progress to-
wards freedom of election. The last few days
have brought with them signs which do not per-
mit us to think otherwise. Coercion and inti-

midation, although still kept too much in counts-
nonce by the example of the great and high, are
becoming disreputable. Landlords hitherto im-
perious are beginning to execute deeds of manu-
mission. Dukes, Railway Companies, and Chari-
table Corporations have begun the movement,
and no one can tell where it will stop. Even the
Duke of MARLBOROUGH has caught a glimpse of

the public aspect of the matter. From the letter
of his agent, Mr. WitArr.uiv, which we published
yesterday, it will be seen that he acknowledges
that it would be " unjust and oppressive " to re-
quire his tenants to vote for his favourite can-
didate against their will. That was what the news-
papers have been telling him, but for a long while
be could not perceive the truth. Mr. WHAT/LEY
Is now instructed to inform the world
that, although the Duke warmly sympa-
thises with Mr. BARNEIT'S Conservative opinions,
" it is not and never has been the Duke's wish to

" deprive any of his tenantry of the free exercise
"of their votes, whi he trusts they will record
"at the approaching election to the best of their
" judgment and for the good of their country."
This is very well fora beginning. It has not the
heartiness and the decision of the Duke of %VII-
LANGTON'S letter to his tenants—it is an act of
toleration ; but it is more than could have been
reasonably expected, for the past will leave its
trues, even in repentance. We should be
sorry to be hypercritical, but we must point out
that liberty to do what somebody else thinks good,
differs very little from bondage. The Drat's
letter would have been more graceful if it had not
contained so positive an intimation of his dis-
approval of one candidate, and his patronage of
the other. He lets his tenants clearly see that he
will think their beat judgment very imperfect if it
leads them to vote for HIER; and that the
real good of their country is only to be promoted
by polling for Darwin. There are some
things, however, that we are entitled to
assume will be changed in consequen• e of
this letter. Thus, Mr. Banns= will, of
course, not bout again, at meetings of the elec-
tors of Woodstock, that he has the Duke's influ-
ence, nor ask why he should not have it. Nei-
ther, we presume, will the Duke's steward or his
deputy steward accompany him on his can-
vass. The transition from the old to the
new state of things, from severe restraint
to indefinite freedom, may be expected to give
rise to some novel practical questions, but the
Duke will feel that his honour is concerned in the
strict fulfilment of Mr. WHATILLZER declarations,
both in their letter and their spirit. That gentle.
man, indeed, is not only anxious that the future
state of things should be worthy of his principal,
but that the past should stand in a new and
pleasing light. That, we fear, is impossible.
What is done cannot be undone. It would be
better not to ask the public to believe that the
Duke always desired that his tenants should
record their votes with perfect freedom.
Distant observers may easily misconceive the
character which the relations between the Duke of
MARLBOROUGH and the electors of Woodstock have
assumed, but it is impossible that those electors
themselves can have been mistaken, together with
their member, on a point so important to both
parties as the Duke's wishes and intentions.
The Liberal electors of Woodstock have never
dreamed of the existence of a political liberty such
as Mr. WHATELEY now informs them it has always
been the Duke's desire they should all enjoy. They
have been visited by the Duke's servants and men
of business, by those who have the control of their
holdings and the disposal of the Duke's custom,
and have been canvassed by them for the Duke's
candidate. If there were any reasonable doubt
as to the manner in which the Duke'. influence has
hitherto been exercised, the letter of Lord ALFRED
CHURCHILL, the sitting member, announcing his
retirement from the representation of Woodstock
at the dissolution of this Parliament, would
have dispelled it. Lord ALFRED Cnoncarts.
knows, if any one does, the terms upon
which members are chosen foe Wood-
stock, and he has said that he was returned
by an " Influence," and that that Influence being
withdrawn he can be returned no longer.
Why ? Not because the electors were disinclined
to him, but for a far different reason. Within
these few days Lord ALFRED has expressed
his present conviction on this subject. In a
letter to a contemporary he writes :—"I have
"reason to believe that previous to issuing my
"address last February I could have counted
"upon the votes of four-fifths of the electors, snd
"I am confident that I still retain their sympa-
" titles. I have never expressed the slightest wish
"to retire from the representation of the be-
" rough. It may naturally be asked, Walt