The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1848.

Zeller of die Embalm* in Ms undewination of the system
of lavishly throwing away revenue when MOMS didhon.ot
n
meet expenditure; but he to;.k leave to ask the right
baronet whether se did not think that 15,0001., or even
60,0001. per annum would no have been better bestowed,
had it beeponaared in order to relieve charities from the tar
now ins on them, than the 60,0001. flung away on
the copper duties ? lie also took leave to ask the right bon.
berenet whether he did not think that 16,0001. a year raised
from the charitable bequests in the country could not have
been better spared from therevenue than the 40,0001. or
60,0001. remission of the corn duties which the right hon.
baronet had made in violation of the law at a time when
parliament was sitting, without asking its consent or advice
The existing duties on bequests operated unquestionably as
a great discoursement to charitable disposed individuals.
Sir 1) L. EVANS supported the motion, and said
he could enumerate 150 charitable inetitutions which could
neither be described u absurd nor ridiculous
Mr. HL ME said that in Scotland there prevailed a strong
feeling in favour of some such measure as that now proposed
by the hon. member for St. Albsti's.
After a few words (rem Sir C. liviutett, who was wholly
inaudible,
Mr. W. P. WOOD cautioned the house not to adopt
rashly and without due deliberation the principles of a mea-
sure which involved the most serious considerations. The
Statute of Mortmain and the whole of the legacy duties
ought to be revised before any step of this kind was taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated
that he had no objection to the bill being laid on the table
with the understanding that he did not give in hie adhe.
fence to its principle.
Lord It. GROSVENOR was understood to say that the
object of its introduction was that its principles might
thereby be affirmed by the house.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said if such was the
avowed object, he should divide the house against the intro-
duction of the MIL
Sir G. GREY said that it was unusual to consider the
leave to bring in a bill u an affirmation of its principle.
After a few words from Mr. DUNCAN in explanation,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his concurrence
in what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend the mem-
ber for Oxford (Mr. W. P. Wood).
Sir R. PEEL could not assent to the euitcestion that the
acquiescing in the tint reading of a bill implied an approba-
tion of its principle. He had known many absurd bills to
be brought in and read a first time, and afterwards rejected
at a subsequent stage. The principle of &measure was always
dioesesed on its second reading ; and if it were now asked to
aMrea the principle of this bill on its first reading, he should
decidedly give his vote against its principle. He did not de•
sire to encourage parties to neglect the clsims of their families
and to dispose of their wealth its charitable bequests. (Hear,
hear.) The first claim upon a man was to provide fur his
family ; end, generally speaking, this was done unostenta-
tious!), : while, in some instances, to gratify personal vanity,
tome men forgot thou claims' and sought to be advertised as
having bequeathed his 10,0001. to some charity. If that
were the object of any man he (Sir R. Peel) had no respect
for the motives by which that man was actuated.
(Hew, hear.)
Alter a few words from Mr. Rice,
Lord It. GROSVENOIt intimated that, as the seconder
of the motion, he should not object to the hon. member for
St. Alban's accepting the offer made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to allow him to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. RAPHAEL acquiesced, and leave was then given to
bring in the bill.

THE BALLOT.
Mr. 11. BERKELEY rose to move, " That it is expedient
in the election for members to serve in parliament that the
votes of the electors be taken by way of ballot." He ob-
served that, after the able scanner in which the ballot had
been advocated by Mr. Grote and others, he might perhaps
be accused oft t t ty and presumption in meddling with so
important • subject, of which it might truly he said, in the
language of Cicero—" Tabelks, clocks tacite liber [alit."
But the ballot was one of that class of questions which had
always succeeded more by the force of their own merits than
by the ability of their advocates ; and on this ground he
tnisted for the house's indulgence for a few momenta while
he trespassed on their attention. Since the passing of the
Reform Bill, such had been the onward march of public
opinion that the ballot seemed only a very minor question.
From recent concessions made to free trade by the leaders on
both sides the house, he was not without hopes of mewing
them come forward as the advocates of this question. The
baltit had been already affirmed by this house in 1810, but
had been rejected by the upper house. Assuming
that the merits of the ballot were fully known
to the country at large, he would address himself
to some of the more prominent objections. It was said
that secret voting would be an innovation on the
present electoral system; that it would not prevent bribery,
if it prevented intimidation; that the ballot box would not
secure secrecy; that it was un-English, and calculated to
produce immorality, lying, and deceit. Fired, as to its being
an innovation, he denied that such was the case. The
franchise was originally uncontrolled; but persons of influ-
ence gradually undertook the control of the opinions of
those beneath them, and then bribery and corruption crept
in. The ballot was a most conservative measure, as tending
to protect the franchise, and convert it from a mere nomints
umbra, a mockery, a delusion, into a real and a substantial
right. At present, the franchise kept the word of pro-
mise to the ear and broke it to the hope. Tbe
arguments by which it was contended that the
ballot would not prevent bribery were very sophistical.
Would any one purchase goods without the certainty that
they would be delivered) Look at Great Yarmouth—see
the agents there with howls of sovereigns before them ; the
voter entering at one door, receiving his bribe, and going out
at the other door, to vote as he was expected to do. But
would any one invest a sum of money—would the Duke of
Richmond send down Lord A. Lennox—or would the
monster ',peculator, Mr. Attwood himself, undertake such a
traffic if there was no certainty of the result being obtained ?
He could not believe that such would be the case. Even if
the evil were not cured in small constituencies, the good
effected in large boroughs and counties, by the ballot,
would be a eufficient counterbalance. (Hear.) The small
boroughs would not be in a worse state than they .
now were, and pub is opinion might operate bene-
ficially upon thesis. He could not believe that the ballot-
box would fail to ensure secrecy. America had been referred
to, hut in America there was no reason for concealment, for
property was generally diffused, and tyranny was scene. In
America they had the ballot, and needed it not. Here
we nto ded it, hut had it not. In answer to
the allegation that the ballot was un-English, he would
refer to the practice of the clubs, where were assembled
valour, learning, and wealth. These all weight protection—
from what? Perhaps from ill-will, intimidation, or tyranny.
No one would accuse these men, members of parliament, and
others, of unmanliness. But they sought protection from
the bully, from the Sir Lucius O'Trigger of society,
who, if excluded from • club, would consider it
"a very pretty quarrel as it stood." (Hear, hear.)
But was there not a bully of politics, as well as of
society ? Undoubtedly ' • and he eschewed equal arms, and
sought to wound in the dark. If the victim was a trades
man, his credit and custom were assailed ; if a tenant, let
him look for ejectment; d a servant, for his discharge.
(Hese, hear.) He accused not hon. gentlemen of unmet• li-
nes because they adopted the ballot ; but he asked them to
extend the game protection to other,. But it was said the
ballot-box would destroy the legitimate influence of pro.
perty. To this objection, he could not reply better than in
the eloquent words of Mr. Grote, who, in 1836, said—" I
mono fearlessly that, under a system of secret voting, the
legitimate influence of property will be preserved unim-
paired; nay, more, that it will be even exalted beyond
what it is at present. Ther_e is only one species of influence
which the ballot will withdraw bom a rich man ; it will
take uway the power of rewarding or putt filling electors ac
cooling to the manner in which they vote." Now, Sir, I
would ask, and I hope the question will be plainly an.
veered, whether it he really this power of rewarding or
punishing electors which gentlemen mean, when they talk
of the legitimate influence of property ? Dies the house in-
tend to recognise is any one citizen of this c immunity, peer
or commoner, titled or untitled, a legitimate authority to
reward or punish electors for their votes? If we
,10, Sir, the sooner in all consis.ency we repeal
our statutes against bribery, the better; the sooner we drop
the farce of affecting to condemn intimidation the better.
For what is this privilege of giving to an elector a reward for
hi. vote, in plain and unvarnished English, except brit 1,4
him ? And what is the privilege of punishing him for his
vote, except a license of intimidation ? But I, sir, deny the
position entirely. I maintain that this influence which arises
from the power of rewarding or punishing voters, is renticli-
at. dby the law and by the constitution. I maintain that a
matt is no mere warranted in employing his legal powers as
a landlord for the purpose of reducing and coercing his
tenants' votes, then in employing his funded property to die
tribute among them bribes in hard cash. P. is the ancient
decirine et the constitution that elections ought to be per-
Petty tree ; and the hallo. cue have no other effect than that
of realising this strictly constitutional end. But all legiti-
m tae influence co property consists fully with freedom of elec.
tioti ; and therefore it consists fully with vale by ballet.
Few hon. members, either in that house or on the hustings,
would assert their right to dictate how the elector* should
axe rise their trust ; but in some instances this unconstitu-
tional sentiment had been boldly avowed. It was said by
the opponents of the ballot that the statements of the de-
plorable
degradation of constituencies wi re exaggerated. No
one would believe this who had read the evidence before the
committee of 1835. The noble lord the member for London,
the right hon. baronet the member for Ripen, and the right
hon. member for Northampton, had professed scepticism on
this head. He would, therefore, quote from the evidence he
had referred to as to the evils existing in 1835, and would
then show that those evils mid existed in lull force, all at.
tempted remedies having proved failures. Lee islation had
been directed, not to the prevention of secret in-
fluence, but to the punishment of bribery when
discovered ; and the law of agency had been so
extended that almost any hon. member might be
committed by an indiscreet agent, without any'
remedy whatever being provided against the sail itself. Be-'
tore the committee of 1835, Mr. A. Cockburn stated that the
only method of detecting bribery, mutually agreed upon, was
by making it uncertain whether the agreement would be
carried out. A number of witnesses connected with West-
minster
stated that much influence was exercised by the go.
vernment offices, end by persons of wealth ; so that the
tradesmen were much more influenced than those in a small
borough would be by direct btibes. Out of 13,000 registered
electors in Westmin-ter, only 4,500 had voted at the pre-
ceding election; and a great number of others avoided being
placed on the register. Such was the character of the elec-
tion
in Westminster in 1837. In 1841 the election turned
on the question of free trade, and was hotly contested. The
exertions of the aristocracy in support of Capt. Roue were
most energetic • there were lar:e bodies of lady-
canvassers. (Hear, hear.) One tradesman at the west
end of the town, who was strongly in favour of
tree trade, and had always been • liberal, stated that, en the
day before the electi-L, no fewer than al: carriages with

coronets encomaively drew up before Ida icor ; from these
descended parties of ladies, who so warded him with threats
of withdrawal of custom and denounaisty him to others that
he consented not to vote. (Hear, hear,) So far from
(Rios) A few months after, Capt. Roue turned rouad
epinuvletruntiounfalg
oolythiwemiatlind.bruyealwthwiyt.hferormucneustitoemfou;
with his leader, heedlem of all this wear and tear of the
exerciseanuddh eotfhh a this slut
ffyf aer
mar enidlni sy
a.
consciences of eleetors, and voted for free trade.. " t
shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue' (Cheers.Wha )
Another case to which he would call the attention of the
house was that of a publican in Westminster, in reference to
whom aristocracy and democracy had both combined in doing
what was wrong. Shortly before the election he was waited
upon by a lady, who said to him in effect. " You su me
us • pply
with beer ; my servants are in the habit ofing yourhouse.
If you give your vote against Capt Rous, I shall not only
withdraw my custom hut shall forbid any one of my fer-
ventn ever again to enter your house ; but if you vote for us
I will see what can be done fur your son in the customs."
((dieat laughter.) The poor man was overcome by argu-
ments so forcible, and he voted for Capt. Ronk At the
house of this same man, twelve tailors, all tierce democrats,
regular "Uuffeys,"who were to • man supporters of General
Evans, held their weekly orgies. (Laughter.) At the neat
meeting -night after the elect ion, when they heard how the poor
man had voted, they summoned him before their tribunal,
denounced him, not only as a publicao, but a sinner and an
apostate, celled fur their reckoning, and quitted the Louse.
(" Hear" and laughter.) Three were but two cases out of
50 similar ones which he could adduce. At the election co
the noble lord (J. Rumen) for the City in 1847, he (Mr.
Berkeley) was on his committee for the west end ; and was
contim.ally met with declarations from tradesmen that th. y
hat no votes ; they had suffered from having the franchise,
and were de•ermined to have it no more, unless accompanied
with the protection of the ballot. (Hear ) At Birmingham,
a conservative tradesman, named Phillips, had attributed
the loss of Mr. Sp, onei's election to the intimidation of the
other party, but said, he was too good a tory to ask for the
ballot. (Laughter.) In helm', priests and landlords
seemed to vie with each other in intimidation. The
evidence of 1835 contained some remarkable die.
closures as to the conduct of two magistrates
in Tipperary, who, while strongly denouncing the intimi
dation of the priests, maintained that their own was per-
fectly allowable. One of these, Mr. Wilcox' avid he thought
the 'landlord had a legitimate right to the votes of his
tenants. (Laughter.) Col. Bruin roundly maintained the
right of landlord. to discharge servitets or eject tenants for
not voting as they wished, menoioning instances where he
had exercised that power " for punishing the refractnry."
(Laughter.) Two clergymen described the disastrous affects
which open voting produced on the tenantry, and stated
that the ballot was absolutely necessary. The same state of
things had prevailed in 1837, 1841, and 1847. A stronger
case of landlord intimidation could not bs conceived than
that whico was proved before the late Kinsale election anm-
mittee; and the conduct of a Father Murphy hod also been
very reprehensible. No stronger case could be adduced
for the necessity of protection. To say that these
evils were exaggerated was a weak invention of
the enemy. The last objection was, that the ballot was
productive of lying and deceit. The right hon. member for
Northampton V. Smith) had said the ballot would con-
vert the habits of the 'teeters into one continued lie. Surely,
then, there was something in the present system which en-
couraged truth. So far from this, he maintained that the
existing electoral system was one vast lie, and might be
summed up in that comprehensive term "humbug."
(Laughter.) Standing orders were passed every session
soainst the interference of peers at elections ; but the moo
extraordinary illustration of the way in which these orders
were attended to was furnished by Mr. Dodd. in his " Par
lismentary Companion." He gave, in a tabular and alpha.
betical form, the list of boroughs in which peers exercised
influence in the return of tee members—in all no fewer than
62, in England and Wales, containing 43,000 in-
habitants, and returning 98 members. Of these, 57
were returned by the direct influence of the aristocracy.
In all there were 49 peers and 25 wealthy commoners who
exercised a direct influence in the return of members of
pariiament. (Hear, hear.) In the face of such • etatement
as that what a farce were the sessional orders ! (Hear, hear.)
Under the present so-called open system of voting the can-
didate addressed his constituents as free end independent
electors, well knowing that they were all slaves, and slut
having obtained his return by the pressure of every screw
knows to unscrupulous agents he thanked the elector for
their " free and independent suffrages." (Cheers.) Then
having taken his rest in the house, such a candidate was sure
to be foremost in acting the British lion, and in declaiming
against the " nu-English " practice of secret voting.
(Laughter.) The hon. member having read a long extract
from a speech of Mr. Giote's in disproof of the assertion that
the ballot would tend to produce habits of lying and deceit
among the electors, proceeded to quote a case which had oc-
curred to himself in 1841. He (Mr. Berkeley) had +slimmesd
a populousparieh and had taken every pains to arrive at a cor-
rect r, sult as to undtubted promises. After the election, how-
ever, he ascertained that sixty volunteer promises had been
broken. His friends calculated that of these forty had bees
intimidated and twenty bought. Which, then, was the
worse lie—that which: was told to the constitutional can-
MOW, or that told to the base suborner of briber, and per-
jury? With reference to the antiquity of the ballot he
might, with all respect, remind the house that the very fine
Christian election that took place was one by ballot.
Between the death of our Saviour and his ascension a
vacancy occurred among the Apostles, and the ballot was the
mode adopted for filling up the vacancy. Was there not a
strong probability that that mode of selection had been
adopted under divine inspiration ? He feared the opposition
of the noble lord the member for London ; but be prayed
that noble lord, who was a strong advocate of education, to
recollect that the more enlightened the people became the
more acutely would they feel any unconstitutional coercion
respecting the exercise of their franchises. (Hear.) He
trusted that the noble lord would in Vile, as in other cases,
discard the doctrine of finality, and look at the question
with that care and rpenness to conviction which its merits
and importance deserved. He did not hope for the support
of the chartists, w..om he had always looked upon as the
propagandists of violence, but he hoped for success from the
growing influence of enlightened public opinion. He
iaa-
plored the house to emancipate the con•titnencies who had
gent them there, and who, by their recent conduct in meet
excited times, had deserved so well at their hands. ( Hear,
hear.) Give the people the ballot, and they would have in
their gratitude the hest security fur the stability and security
of the national institutions. (Hear, hear.)
Col. THOMPSON, in supporting the motion, wieheel to
call the attention of the house to one objection which had
been urged against the ballot. It had fr. quently been
urged that the exercise of the franchise was a duty, and
should be performed openly ; but it should be renumbered
that the members of • court-martial, assembled as th. y were
to perform most solemn duties, yet were bound by • solemn
oath, equivalent to the teensy of the ballot, not to disclose
the votes or opinions of any member of the court. Why
should not the poor man:have the same protection ? (Hear,
hear.) Did he not deserve it ? Had not his conduct on the
10th April entitled him to the consideration of that hou e ?
(Hear, hear.) Had not his conduct then, arid in the so-
called rebellion sin e, which had gone off like a summer
cloud, proved that there was its rooted dissension between
him and his leaders ? (Hear, hear.) Why then should he
be left behind the people of France in obtaining privileges
which h. asked tor in so different a manner? (Hear, hear.)
He (Col. Thompson) believed in his heart that there was no
hostility on the part of the people to the hereditary srieto-
eerie), of the country, and that therefore these was no reason
for keeping from them a concession which was essential to
the freer exercise of their most sacred privileges. With these
few obeervationidhe begged to second the motion.
Mr. FAGAN, amid loud cries of "divide," vindicated
the Bev. Mr. Murphy from the charge of intimidation as
r carded the Kinsale election, or subsequently in the com-
mittee. He was quite convinced, from his knowledge of the
high character of that rev. gentleman,
_that he was lee ipable
of the conduct which had been imputed to him by the hon.
member for Cheltenham.
Mr. P. HOWARD, while acknowledging the ingenuity
with which the motion had been advocated, could not feel
himself justified in departing from the old constitutional
practice of open voting.
C 1... SIBTHORP said that on this question he did not
intend to give a vote one way or the other. He should leave
the noble lord the member fer London to tight the ha'tle
with his own mutinous troops. He (Col. Sibthorp) had
never practised bribery or intimidation, and, therefore, be
took no interest in the question.
Lord D. STUART suppornd the motion. The state of
i
things at present existing n some metropolitan boroughs
should be put en end to, although he had som • doubts as to
whether the ballot would prove an efficient remedy. How-
ever, when they saw toe system which was going on
throughout the country, it was full time that the house
adopted some measure fur the protection of the people.
Mr. URQUHART protested needn't the time of the
house being mkt nup with such idle motions (Ironical
cheers.) He held to the old fashioned opinion that the ballot
was an un-English practice.
Mr. TANCRED, having been a member of the Kinsale
committee, felt bound to state his belied that no intimidation
had been practised by the rev. gentleman who had been
alluded to by the hon. member for Bristol. The fact
was that the committee, thinking that the witness under ex-
amination felt embarrassed by his presence, requested him
to
w
, and
nooeeßt
erom:S:mm:So.to
ItovahLnue
considered—and have r, as Ihw
te. I can hhdme
yeiabuat
tippoup
odfrt
eten eeht
ot
enet
madgyvt torhoot
we,
iu:wnhenmid:yat
grounds
novelty
supported
whichselep
oltinlmyt
ryubii
ohcini
much
111.1
motion—to
in my Le:CT
I Inilt jolioa;mylv:i Ear:eV
ia—ue°ecujdtemahestse by the hon and gallant member who seconded
the motion—that this is a proposal to make the exercise of
the right of voting an act in contradiction to the usual
heNdicih:thwo:appe'ennecerandry freemilislpairyritobecfdienocue;
policy and principles of this government and constitution,
(Hear, hear.) The hon. and gallant gentleman says, that in
courts.martial the members of the court take an oath that
they will not reveal the opinions which they and their fellow-
jurors have given in the court. It has been thought re-
quisite
for the due management of courts-martial, and for
the preservation of discipline, to introduce that rule, but it
att
rt
,ibsnuplcatere variance
military
todd lbie:Foindoceifiantldyeph,lfbdlharffeLtriehcgcriietnehiangstepegradalcithnuad!lnepe::::di77:loe.ffontbros:dthitettihuhe:dteiiopsocincun,hrplyip.!naoindaf
tlisni.re,h,:otiftlbLltridndegnhymeirnielgitafutrybraisotbs:undcehi-t
tinhacinarmtainyinangd.
ttohosinetsropedpcuvece.rurvinitoe:aytsawthry.the general practice of the constitution
to
English constitution. (Hear.) Therefore, looking at those
examples, I do not find there is any instance with respect
to those political institutions in which eecresy is made the
rule. 1 find that in our courts of Arrive, though we hare

autdor;,:thkboele:dhoitwtihnse: bye7"deehr:rtfth..rUsll4
it is thought
sary for the due administration of justice—that feet „eeeee
shouti be open—that the wenekes should eeriest. eeeeeetni
the trial byjury,
end give their testimony in public—that the Judge
deliver his opinion openly betore the court and the mekee,-
uPelisP;lean' with
ditwh irethP:':ergearrsdptore*tretj
secret, their vote must be known, for the vertect emu eeee_l4
unanimous verdict of the whole twelve men who estee.e7
it. Therefore is our courts of justice publicity is the ""eee
(Hear.) I ran understand the argument used to tbis 'lse'eeee
—end if you are to introduce this principle into the esee,
nistnitien of justice it would have force and tfhe
it would be better if witnesses w- re not eules.c"
intimidation for telling the truth ; end that the judge, kb
impartial, should not be pia rte to public calumny 41—er
sure for taking that course which his conscience eioele
I and that, therefore, trials should he secret, and peg
That would he a fair argument ; but it would beu i.e.p
merit opposed to the genius and spirit of our colutioeee
I (Hear.) And again, with retard to the deinerstie.7
this house ; it was thought for a long time that we
s,e!
not to admit strangers; and for a long time they erie...
admitted, and the deliberations of the house were owe".
tially known to the country ; vet, u the spirit of (4
gained ground, and our lute uti became mere
the principle was insisted upon, and asserted, atiM
obtained, that all our deliberations, and the deli •
the other house, ehould be public. '1 lien it me nee
exactly known, from the private memoreade ea
notes of members, how the representatives of ",,,
people voted on particular questions, sod it
proposed by an hon. friend of mine that the banes,' 7.
members who voted and the way in which they voted shesei
be printed and published, and after a strugels my sae
friend succeeded M hie attempt, aridnow the votes el,
bers on all questions that come before the house are
e
known to the whole country. It might be ceteodedett;
the decisions of the house would be more impar•de
members have better opportunities of consultime their ;.A.7
ments and consciences, if they were not liable to the sin;
from their constituents, and imputations as so their De,
to which they are now subject, and which are the re::
quence of their votes being known. But you have dense
and decided rightly that publicity shall be the rule, Le
whatever may be the inconvenience atteuding it, in one
that every man should be able to stand tip sod 4. •
tend his vote, you require that the vote &ea
he openly and publicly given. Then, sir, ee,
I think, fa;rly say, that what is now proposed
least at variance with the spirit of our instituti ne. I mem
the popular spirit of our institutiens is, that all their pee
doing.—the exercise of every political trust—ehould be es,
ried on openly in the face of the country and of the wok
But we are called upon now to say there shall be an eutp
Lion, and that exception shall be with regard to the tuna
of the electoral privilege by the constituent body of es
kingdom The hon. gentleman who brie gs leeward theme
position makes no proposal for aey alteration in the coulee
of the electors. lie admits the statement of the hon. nee*
for hlentrose, that only. one in seven of the adult male pew
lation of the country have the right of voting, and to thisiel
in 'even he proposes still to give the power of dieting ere.
leers of parliament unrestrained by the check which a know
ledge of their proceedings would impose, or by any elm'
of public opinion, thus giving to this one in seven all the
weight which the constitution of Venice gave to thir pad
inquisitors, a secret and despotic power over the whole ads 4
kingdom; for be it observed the electors are the ultimate
judges in regard to all political changes and vlitical met,
.urns. Whatever may be the wislu s of the errs. or the
wishes of the House of Lends, such are the powers vested it
this house that the crown would have no re.eurce, ia the
event of a difference with this house, but to dieseve pea.
meat, and appeal to the great body of the electors; and iEther
shout 2 send beck representatives in favour of some earnests:
change or some particular ,r ensure, there is no force in thecae
stitution of the countryso long as the House of COIIIMOMStattIie
whole power of granting the supplies—the control of the
public purse in its hands, that can resist the will of the eke
tors, as expressed by a large and decided majority of the
House of Commons. (Hear hear.) In proportion unit
power is great and supreme, it is necessary that we shoed
have the security of puolicity in its exercise ; and wheelie
say everything should be open and public, and that operas
and publicity is the great rule of the constitution, and teal
which distinguishes the modern constitution at this coney
from ancient republics—so long as we say this, we should be
cautious how we make • charge, by which this supreme, di
irresponsible and despotic powsr should be exercised
secret, without any public means of reviewing it. Is
a purely democraec constitution I can well undying
that with so many millions of male adults in the coastty,
each having a direct voice, it would be for thtm to dues
whether they should exercise their privileges secretly a
openly ; but !heti!, not the nature of our constitution. let
' great fault which the hon. member for Montrose imputed to
it was that only a pillion of the people were in possetioe
the elective franchise, therefore the right to vote is a Ina
reposed in them which they ate required to exercise for the
benefit of the whole community. lilt got vim,. then is, how
will they best exercise it, and In the manner most fat the
public good ? I hold they will best exercise it by Ririe
their votes eublicl7—(hear)—by every man being obliged
when he votes to give his name openly and say who he van
I for, and by being obliged to stand and abide by the vote. I
do not deny that there Is force in the eke-
tion made by the honourable gentleman, who Ia
with great justice to his own argument laid stress on the
scenes of intimidation and corruption that occasionally tat
place under the present mr de of voting. Undoubtedly ea
is a great defect in the system ; but it would not be for tie
sake of defects or on account of abases treat I woi.
surrender a great principle—(bear,hear)—and that prisote
an essential and rite! principle of the constentiou. Tte
hon. gentleman says that at a recent election at Bristol la
had many more promises than at previous elections, and the
his opponent told him that he would take 100 of those vo:m
who had so promised from him, and that by means of camp
lion and intimidation he did actually succeed in taking flea
him upwards of 60 votes which had been promisee:lmb'
(Mr. H. Berkeley). That was no doubt a great loss to th
hon. member, arid was disgraceful both to the parties ses
resorted to such means and those who permitted themselves
to be influenced by them. But another question ocean,
whether the change you propose would remedy the erl!
IC you say, these abuses are so great and odious ma
will try to remove them by some new mode of utile,
you will try whether secrecy will not d•,, and whether
there may not be a certain piece of mechanimb called a be-
lot-box, contrived by some carpenter, which shall meant'
lug all the benefits of purity and freedom of voting. lis
not believe, practically, you would attain the effect you
elpate by this means: but, further, I do not believe yet
lcould make the change. I believe, in the first plane ife
was understood that large sums would be paid to tartan
voters by the opponents of the hon. gentleman if they reed
against him, and they accepted those brit,es, that they wall
vote for him afterwards, even though tr.e mode of vain
were secret. Ido not think it follows at all, as is ovally
argued by the advocates of the ball it, the because aam
receives a certain sum of money and has the power of voting
secretly, that he would there fare vote a. nio.t the person
from whom he has received, or expected to receive, suit
money. I do not think that it at all follows ;tor as, accniat
to the old proverb, there is honour among thieves, I be-
lieve there would be the same kind rot honour automata,
bribed and the bribers, and that when men r. ceired their S.
or their 101. each for their votes, they would say—l have rei-
ceived this money as wages for a certain work, and I Drag
behave honourably to the person who has paid me toped=
that work. This would be the result, generally speskee;
and I believe there is no contrivance of the kind suggested,
no ingenious method of taking votes by which you cis
c tonne the habits of the people. Ido eot think you would
find that a man would endeavour to dec. ire his lendltrd or
his customer for a fortiiieht by satin • that he inter,:ol
give his vote to one candidate, and then, at the last moment.
voting for another, and against all he had said. That is not,
I think, any part of the 'English character; sad hut eta
meaning of the argument, when people say the ballot isnot
English. It is not in the English character that in s fist
of excitement, during a contested election, when mss seta
openly and warmly on political en .tees, and scow
their musette publicly in the ma: Let place in brow
why they think the candidate Ciey prefer is to
hest, that they should profess what they do not nely
feel, and afterwards go and vote in direct contra•licties to
all they have profe-sed. (Conservative cheering.) I belie*
therefore, that those who choose to tithe any mitre in due
NO might easily find out how each elector meant to 1e
bi
the same intimidation, the same undue ;retie mu, wane
used at elections for members of perhameet were rote
taken by ballot as are used now. I sup, then, that wha
you would have sacrificed the great co satiation') priori!
of publicity and substituted secretor ter it, yr u woalc.
that you hail not t.brained the object you had in new—
(hear)—and that with a great deal ot cootrivance and
the same influence, the lame corruptatu, the same ID
timidation would prevail at elections es you cornea,
biguity you would come to much th, s ant rt. sult, and Ma.
of now. (lie r, hear.) 1 know it was the opin;us !ti
the late Lord Spet err —vr ust d tu vote t
iii
ballot, because lie thought that forth'
the people wishei .
ballot they should have it—(hear, and a Idudh)—thst
result of election under that system would be much the ,
as at present—(hear, hear, from the reform piety) ; hot
so there is no sufficient ground for this change in o ,coo
lotions. But, air, I think those who argue that we sitto,+'
adopt the ballet as an advisable charge in our inatitiorte
should show us an instance of some country where the.1.1.e1,;?!
has been adopted and found useful (bear, belt)
tit!
example of some country in which it has prod d e°u
effects they say are so adeantageous--aed thus giveri
example or precedent to guide us in this chum'.
have never been able to find in ancient Mao/ e.
ancient writers any good authority in layout tall
ballot. It would be pedantic to refer to w. 21;
been said on this subject by various authors—the erre., a,,
all that could be advanced has been said in the vane _
cussions which have taken place on this reiestion.nre
was the ballot—and in a better and more completefo
in any other country—in the repuoiic of Ve.io;
every security was taken to ensure its efficiency e'er the 35
five or six different elections ; first, 4.5 chose 33,
ato:ra. eee.
chose 9, and the 9 chose 16 ; and thus the eleetirm
ducted in such a way that no one could say how ttletetere
been given. But that was s governmeut of tieese
_ne9.
and aristocratic despotism, and cannot ire takes .. ?ft;
pie in favour of the present proposition as pPb_e!bw in
r
country. You have another example in en ,D,,da
experience of that is not tech as I t,_.that
encourage us to adopt it. We know,
the ballot exists combined with universal etsW
is secret or free from corruption there, and, above.
see:ese
see
from that disgraceful system of combined a andandtereeel
thC'eving
!ti
United States ; but I apprehend nobo.ly will mi
by means of whit-
.r a few persons control w ten e el et
multitude. We have heard of instances
fee
eight persons have induced 40,000 or 50,000 Pe5 Does
according to their views, and from all the knoeseeee veiled
i wilier' '47,00
of that oountey, see nothing in the exempt oltee c ZiTes.
States which induces me to think we should ma

fiend change if we adopted the same system as prevails
thee. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman behind me
referred the other day to the practice of the clubs in
London, and other institutions of • like nature,
where he said the ballot was generally adopted in
the election of members. The hon. gentleman who
has just spoken has, however, denied that that is now
the practice 111 the Chihi ; but whatever may be the fact as to
that, I hold vat that practice refers to • c an entirely differ-
ent from that sero are now discussing. The clubs are coin
prsad of some 400 or 600 members, and when a gentleman
i
applies to he admitted the question s, not whether he should
Ice the sole representative of the club, but whether he would
be a fit companion fur the members to associate with—that
is, whether his manners, convereatioe, and habits are such
is would make him a desirable companion. There is, there-
fore, a great difference between choosing • member of • club
and electing a member of parliament. In the fleet place, it is not
a great distinction to ho one of the 300 or 400 members of •
dub. In the next place, it is nut agreeable for a man to say
directly and pointedly that he does net wish to associate with
the party propoecd, and there:ore secret votirot is properly
resorted to. The case of an election is totally different.
There you have to choose betook n two persons of ono set of
political opiniona—that in, in a place which re urns two mult-
i* and two of another; mid the question is not whether
these are parties with whom you would like to associate,
but whether they are fit to represent your political
opinions.ying I can understand the case of a man
sa to another,Known 1
ou long ; and, person-
ally, I have great respect for you 1 know nothing of your
opponent but that his politic-1 opinions are mine and yours
are net; therefore I eh ill vote for him, because he can repre-
sent my opinions in a ie laical msembly which you cannot."
There would be nothing personally offer Alva in that, nor
anything at which any man could reasonably take offence.
This is not like electing a man as a member of
a club—it is a matter of public duty and trust.
It is • question, in fact, who will, in my opinion,
be the best man to represent me in parliament, and to assist
in earning on the affairs of the country in the great council
of the notion. I hold, therefore, that the case of choosing
members in a club is nu parallel to that of the election of
members of parliament. The hon. gentleman brought for-
ward ail* an example of a more sacred kiwi —the election of
the apostle in the room of Judo'; but that was • question
between two persons who should best interpret the will of
heaves, and is no parallel to the present. The proposition now
is not for leave to bring in • bill to establish certain chum
in the mode of voting at elections, but that a resolution
should pus decleriog that such a change is expedient ; but
as that change can only be effected by a law which must be
anented to by parliament, I hold that it would be most in-
expedient for us to pass a revolution condemning the present
mode of voting, when no bill is propane d by which the pro-
p-wed change is to be effected. It such a change is to be
mole let a hid be introduced, end let us consider it in its
various stages, and decide on the second reading whether its
principle shall be adopted or not; but for the house merely
to place in its journals that it is expedient that venting be
members of parliament should be secret and taken by
way of ballot would be nit very consistent with the
usages of parliament, ~or of any public advantage.
If the honourable gentleman were to follow up that
resolution (should it be carried) by • bill, I certainly should
oppose it, fur I think such • change would be injurious and
not advantaiteout to the country; it would be a change
which would profess at least to depart from that openness
and publicity which is an enclitic feature in our institutions,
and to adopt seeresy as the rule in one of the most
important functions of our civil polity—it would be •
change which wou'd utterly fail to its effects, for
you would never by such a law succeed in changing
the open manly unreserv.d habits of the people t hear, bear),
and though so to I should rejoice in the &there, I do not
think its effect would bo merely nugatory. 1 think those
who had adopted this plan—those who found intimidation
was still rife, and that corruption prevail.d would say " this
change has failed, because you have not accompanied it with
other ciianges, which we thiuk necessary," and we should
be called upon to adopt something else as an accompaniment
(Cheers from the reform party.) The hon. gentlemen allow
then that this change would not be sufficient ? (Hear, hear.)
Then, if that he the case, I think it would he far better to
have at once such a proposition as wait made by the hon.
member for Montrose. (Hear.) I was not one of them
who found fault with the mode inshit;; the hon. gentleman
iieroduced that motion; he said "let us have a change in the
qualification for the franchise—let us shorten the duration of
uoluiment—let us alter the electoral districts and adopt the
ballot as the mode of voting." Whether that scheme was
wise or not, we had the whole scheme before us; and it is
now confessed—and I would urge hen. gentlemen who are
favourable to this change only hot to lose sight
of the fact—it is now avowed that this change alone
would not produce the good effect of making popular elee
time pure, but that it is brought forward rue one of a series of
changes, nut white those other changes ore to be—what is to
be their character—whether they are to include household
suffrage or universal suffrage, we know not; we
are only told that if see adopt this change,
it will be wholly and entirely insufficient, and
having this avowal, I shall conclude by earnestly inviting
the house not to adopt the proposition, and by declaring that
it will be satisfactory to me at least to give my vote against
it. (Hear. hear.)
Mr. COBDEN reminded the noble lord that when Mr.
Hume brought forward his motion he was censured for
including so many chances in it. Tne noble !lord found
fault with the ballot because it wu calculated
to give to one-seventh of the people the power of the Venetian
oligarchy ; hut were those who wished to extend the suffrage
beyond the seventh of the population to be answered by
that argument? lie 'jeered the question of the ballot
with lees interest than he did twelve years ago. Had
it been adopted at that time it would have
done much to put an end to that corruption in
the boroughs and subserviency in the counties which
they had now to deplore; but it was now too late to remedy
mum of the evil. He believed the ballot was the best mode
of taking vette in this or any country; and he should vote
for the question by keen* as he had done when it
was proposed in connexion with ethers, because
he believed a large portion of the electors were
favourable to it. The question must be on its last legs
when no better answer could be advanced against it than
that which they had heard from the noble lord. (Hear.)
The noble lord began by saying that Reef et votaig was con-
trary to the man and free consti:uo. n of the coun-
try. It was true the mode of election was open;
but would the noble lord tell him it was tree ? The noble
lord had referred to the practice in the courts, and had
quoted the case of the jury giving their verdict in open court;
but that was an unfortunate analogy, for though the jury
must be unanimous when it convicted it we, net necessary
that it should be so when it did not, nor were the
votes of each juror published. Then, as to the
grand jury, which was the first tribunal, that woe
a together a secret tribunal. In Scotland, too, when the ver-
dict deoenaed on the majority. there was no publicity of the
votes of the jurors. Ile denied that the judge who tried,
et the witnesses who gave evidence, ever incurred
obloquy, as the noble lord had inferred, on account
1111 the judgment and evidence given in a court
Ohm; but no CAPP of voters was Ire from the obloquy which
open voting brought on the elector,. Still leas was the
noble lord happy in the analogy he had drown from the pro-
ceedings of that house. The members of that house were
sent there to perform by delegation certain duties
for their constituents, and they were held respon-
sible for their acts ; or why were they subject to
periodical election? And how were the coutituencies to
form • judgment upon them if they did not know what they
had done? But were the electors responsible tot
nomele et ors ? (Hear, hear.) If they were, then
the non.' lectors must be competent to judge of the''
woy its which the trust was exercised ; and Oki+ was an
argument fur extending the franchise to them. (Hear.)
But the fact war they we re responsible not to the non
electors, but to the Marquises of Exeter and the patrons
of the borough. (Hear.) The noble lord appeared to
forget toe theory of the constitution he lauded so much. The
theory was that every freeman and householder ohould be
entitled to vote. The noble lord argued that with the ballot
we could not maintain our institutions, and then be went on
to show that the ballot would effect but little change. (Hear.)
Then where was the great objection It came back to thin,
mat the effect would not be merely negative, but that it
would create 'demand for the extension of the suffrage. The
hem gentleman referred to the ease of lb, East India Cowpony
when the election of the director who orocured 100,000,000
'ilieu of men was taken by the ballot. With. regard to
foreign countries, the ballot was adopted in almost all conti-
nental countries, hut he would not admit the analogy of coon.
tries 50 years behind our own. If an analogy was to be drawn, :
he would take the New England states, and he would
irk what had been the result of the ballot there ? In every
one of those states it had been adopted and was in full force.
There was but little chance of corruption in a country
bee the United States, where universal suffrage was the
rule—wages were high, land cheap, fortunes were
nearly equal, and the emoluments of the government low.
The hon. gentleman referred to the case of Carlisle and Sral
ford as stowing the necessity for the ballot in this country,
and referring to the speech of Mr. Urquhart, said he had at
all events redeemed the pledge he said he bad given to his
constituents, that he would be in parliament unlike
all other members. (A laugh.) So honestly had
the hon. gentleman carried out his promise of agree-
ing with nobody, that he ought to be elected free of
ett'ense the next time he offered himself as • candidate.
Hear, hear, and laughter.) But it was not so much for the
boroughs as the counties that he whihed to see the ballot in
Operation. (Hear, bear.) It was a question of vital im-
portance to the county constituencies, for he believed if they
mewled the ballot they would send some of the best repro.
sentatives that the country could afford to that house.
!Hear, hear.) How many contests for counties bad there
been at the last election ? That was a good test of the in-
dependence of the county voters • for if they found in
counties with 5,000, or 6,000, or 7,000 nominal electors on
the list that there was no contest in nine-tenths of
at=
they might mike up their minds that the election was e
oy nix or seven gentlemen sitting at a comfortable fireside.
Indeed, Lord Stanley, with that frankness which
Imished his character, told them that the election was a
question of acres, and that they had only to tell out the
number of acres to ascertain the personto be elected. (ber.)
If county members would only tell the house what *sr
knew from their own experience of county election', what
tales would they not hear. In 1835 the noble lord at the '
head of the government stated that when he was a candidate
for Devonshire some of his own committee, who had pro-
mised him their votes, were obliged to vote against him.
(Hear.) He had seen at the election for Lancashire in 1837
persons in the Ormskirk district coming up to vote with blue
ribbons who at the next election marched up in yellow
colours. In 1841 the colour was changed again because the
property had changed hands in the interim. The farmers
were marched up like so many cattle decked for the
shambles. He wanted to see the farmer class in this country
men of more character, dignity, and self-respect than they
ever could be under so degrading a practice, (11441.) it

was for the she of the counties, therefore, in particular that
be wishe: to me the ballot carried into effect. He did not
believe that the ballot could be carried alone now, but he
found in the arguments adduced against it additional rea-
gens for the changes proposed by his hon. friend the member
for Montrose. (Hear.) Hewes glad that the hon. member for
Bristol hod brought the subject of the ballot before the house,
breaues it answered the cavils brought agaiegt tho motion of
his hon. friend. (Hear.) The decision of the house, dad-
, verse to the motion of the hon. member for Bristol, would
add one to that catalogue of blew:ten which showed the want
of harmony between the legislation of that house and the
opinions of the great body of the people; and would tend,
amongst other things which they now witnessed, to bring
about that change in the representation which the noble
lord so much deprecated, be; which he thought would he for
the interest of the country and absolutely necessary to enable
them to get out of that dead-lock in legislation to which the
present system had brought them. (l,heets.)
Mr. HENLEY said that the lest speech of the hon. mem-
ber surprised him • great deal more than even former
speeches delivered by him. Hi. course had of late been a
little eccentric. liebelieved the people of the country would
give the noh,e lord more credit for acquaintance with the
principles of the constitution than the hou. gentleman, and
also for remembering them better. The hou. gentleman
denied that there was any intimidation of witnesses. But
did be recollect that witnesses were intimidated in Ireland?
(Hear.) The hon. gentlemen alluded to the grand Junes.
But it the hon. gentleman knew the constitution of grand
juries. he must be aware that the object of secresy there
was to protect the prisoner on the one hand, if the evidence
was not sufficient to send hint to trial, and the crown on the
other hand. It was for the advocates of the ballot to show
the necessity of that system. But he deni .d that
they had done so. He heti-Ted that if this chat ge we re
made, it would only forma steppingstone to other changes,
! and that it would nut remedy the evil which its advocates
prof, seed to have in view.
Mr. MUNfZ said that he believed the country wanted
•he b.illot; and it ought to be sufficient to show that any
Len could not exercise petition' tights openly, in order to
.educe them to concede it. . . ,

Mr. W. P. WOOD did so extremely differ from the idea
that this was a " fantastical " motion, that he could not
kelp saying that, in his opinion, it was of the
deepest importance to the country that this and
other reruedi questions should be seriously copal-
dered. The Reform Bill was carried as a question of
" confidence," and it little mattered then what was the eye•
tem of voting. But it was when that bill was fairly passed
that thin question became one of the first importance, mid a
time had come now when they must consider whether they
were disposed to trust the people or not. The large mass of
the middle classes—the shopkeepers of the country towns—
who
telt the bad influence of corruption and intimidation,
had great reason to complain of the existing system. The
noble lard spoke of the caprice and irresponsibility of a
vote under a ballot. Caprice was a wrong word to use,
and as to responsibility, to whom was the responsibility
owing ? If to the non-elector,, then surely there was no
good reason for excluding that class from the franchise.
Hear.; After all the delay and dawdling which they had
witnessed on the part of the house respecting the Barough
Elections Bill, it was time they took up this or some other
measure se same indication to the country that they intended
to check hrib .ry. Then as to intimidation he held in his
hands the report of the Stamford election committee, which,
although it stated many of the facts alleged in the petition
had not been proved, yet declared that the effect of former
ejectments had been very prejudicial to the freedom of
election in that borough. Wes it not time, then, to do
something ? Was all the bribery and menacing to pass for
nothing, because, as the noble lord said, freedom of election
from such influences would produce no other electoral re•
sults ? No! He was bound to say that he believed the
question came bark to this—confidence or no confidence;
and, for his part, prepered as he was to trust the
people, he should gladly vote in favour of the measure.
Mr. NAPIER vindicated the claim of the English people
to exercise their electoral suffrage openly and fairly, in ac-
cordance with their open and frank character of mind. He
saw no more r( aeon why voters should vote in secret than
why their r. presentative in parliament should vote in secret.
Mr. VILLIERS folly admitted the frank and inde-
pendent character of the Englieh rople, and it was this
very character which made them when they saw an abase
insist upon its removal until it was removed, as they
were now deieg in regard to the abuse which open voting
had engendered. This was eminently a practical question, and
ss such it must he treated. The vote by ballot was proposed
an a means of preventing that bribery and intimidation
which had been proved to constitute such rea.erial elements
in the election of that b. use; and no one denied that practi
tally the means so proposed would put an end to the evil so
denounced—denouneed alike in the house and out of the
house. There could be no question that it was desirable to
have property end rank legitimately repress nted in that
assembly ; and it was his full cceviction that prop.,rty anal
rank would stand as full a chance of their legitimate repre-
sentation with the ballot as without it.
I Mr. H. BERKELEY telt called upon to ray only a very
•few words in reply. The arguments had been pretty much on
one side, and the country would be of that opinion. The
noble lord had taunted him with bringing forward a resolu-
tion instead of a bill, but if the resolution were to be carried
a bill would very soon follow, and a great step would be
gained if the noble lord would give his consent to the 1, solu-
tion. Nothing but assertions against the ballot had been
I heard, no proof of its inefficacy had been brought for-
ward. He had been six years in America, where the ballot
wan in use, and he had never heard one word against its
' operation.
The house then divided—For the motion
I Against it
The numbers were announced amidst loud and reiterated
cheers.

CHRISIINA RAO OF BARODA.
Lord STUART laid that although he was aware there
were many circumstances favourable to the Chit= which he
had undertaken to advocate in the person of Chriahna Rao,
he felt the at /talon was too tar advanced to proceed with the
motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment
of • committee, and be therefore begged leave to with-
draw
it.
Sir J: DORMOUSE commendei the course pursued by
the noble lord, which he said would be advantageous to hie
client.
GOVERNOR OF VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
Mr. ANSTEY was about to bring forward his motion for
an address on the conduct of Sir W. Denison, the governor
of Van Diemen's Land, but in the absence of the Under
Secretary for the Colonies postponed it until • future day.
NEW BILLS.
The ATTORNEVGENERAL brought in a bill to con-
firm the incorporation of certsin boroughs, which wu read
a first time.
Mr. BOUVERIE obtained leave to bring in • bill to ex-
plain an act made in the first year of King William and
Queen Mary for exempting their Majesty's protestant sub-
jects dissenting from the Church of England (rem the
penalties of certain laws.
COLONIAL EXPENDITURE ADJOURNED

DEBATE.
Mr. COBDEN, in the a.mence of the hon. member for
Southwark, moved the resumption of the adjourned debate
on colonial expenditure.
Mr. F. SCOTT was about to address the house in support
of his amendment, when
Mr. B. OSBORNE suggested to him whether it was not
better at so late an hour and with so small an attendance to
postpone it
Mr. SCOTT consented to postpone it to that day lortnight.
The house adjourned at five minutes past 12 o'clock.

PABLIAMENTARY

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
VOTE BY BALLOT.
Drcusioa on Mr. Berkki's motion, "That it is expedient in th elec-
tion of members to serve in Parliament that the Totes of the elec-
toral be taken by way of Itadlot."—Ayes, , Noes, 81.
AYES.
Adair, R. A. 8. Pox, W. J. Hewett, F. Smyth, J. A.
Anderson. A. Gilson, T. M. Hunts, G. F. !Smith, J. B.
Barnard, E.G. Glyn, G. C. Norrens, Sir D. J.Spearman, IL J.
lierkeley,Fln.C.F Orrene, J. Nugent, Lord Stuart, Lord D.
Bernal Greek& C. W. O'Brien, T. Tittered,
Bouverie,, Hn. E.Hastie, A. Opt S. C. 11. Tenison, E. K.
litiwrinz, Dr. Ileuillem, T. E. Osborne, R. Thompson, G.
Boyle, lin. Col. henry, A. Paget, Lord A. Tbornay, T.
Bright, J. Heywood. J. Paget, Lord C. Townstiend,Capt.
Brockahurat, J. 11111, Laid M. Peareon, C. Torte, Co.. C.J.K.
Brothel ton, J. llobhoure, T. B. Probe& Capt. Villiers+, lion. C.
Brown, W. Hodges, T. L. Pet°, 8. M. Waists", T.
Clay, .1. Hume, J. Pigott, F. Ward, IL 0.
Clay, Sir W. llumphery, Ald. Pilkington, J. W. ',thew, 3. P.
Cobden, R. Kershaw, J. Power, Dr. Willcox, B. M.O.
Collins, W. Lockr, J. Raphael, A. Williams, J.
Demme, Hn.T.V.Lushington, C. Reyesilds, J. Wilson, M.
Dracaena, J.T. MtCullagh, W. T./tic:ado, 0. Wood, W. P.
Divett, E. lisGregor, J. Rice. E. R.
Duncan, G. Manatee, It. D. Roberta., J. A. eattess.
Mind" Adm. Milner. W. M. E.Rornilly, Sir J. Berkeley, H.
Mane, Sir De L. Mitchell, T. A. Salmi, Col. I hompson, eel.
Fagan, W. Morris, D.
NOES.
Ansley, T. C. Duncuft, J. Heald, J. Palmerston ,
Arkwright, G. Dwane, P. P. Heathcote, G. J. Patten, J. W.
Aabley, Lord East, Sir J. B. Hiklyard, T. B. T.Plowden, W.H.C.
Baldwin, C. B. Ebrinaton, Visa Hobbouae, Sir J. Prior, Sir It.
Bentinek, IA 0. Edwards, H. flood, Sir A. Renton, G. W.I.
Birch, Sir T. B. Elliot, Hon. J. &Mothers, Lord Rumbold, C. E.
Bourke, It. 8. Fergnaon, Sir &Howard, P. H. Rumen, Lord).
Bowie., Adm. Fitzgerald, W. Illloward, Sir H. Benders, 0.
Brosdley, 11. Fitzpatrick, J. W.Jones, Capt. Beot,, Ho
Lord
n. F.
Buller, Bir J. Y. Faye?, J. Lacy, H. C. Seymour,
Burrell, Sir C. M.Forbee, W. Law, Hon. C. E. Shelburne,Earl of
Carew, W. 11. P. Forester, Hu. G. Legh, G. C. Smith, Hon. ILV.
Chaplin, W. J. Fox, 8. W. L. Lockhart, W. Somerset, Capt.
Oodrington,Sir WErtwen, C. IL Lowther, Hn.CoLSturt, H. G.
Coles, 11. B. Gaakell, J. M. Maffiterman, J Urquhart, D.
Corry,Rt. Hn.H.Gladstene, W. E.Maunacll, T. P. Wad:lington,ll.B.
Courtensy, Lord Goddard, A. L. Moody, C. A. WeLesley, lA. C.
Cowper,lln.W.F.Granby, Marq.ef Morgan, 0. Wood, Sir C.
Cubitt, tV. Grey, R. W. Morpeth, VireL n•' M•
Denims), J. E. Hall, Col. Noel. Hon. G. J. Henley,
Dodd, O. Hampton, G. A. Palmer, R.. Napier,

DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE, YESTERDAT.—Ar-
nun:tents respecting the validity of the pipe water rate were
further heard.
APPROACH OP THE CHOLERA.—The number of
deaths in London during the week ending August 6 was
1,038; the average being 972. Of this excess 21 deaths are
ascribed to cholera, and 97 to scarlatina,--the ge deaths
from the latter being only 37. The moot noticeable tact,
however, in this last return of the registrar-general 41 the
grist increase of mortality from diarrhcea and dysentery.
During the last three weeks in May the deaths from these
diseases were only 12, 16, and 15, respectively; during June
they had increased to 37 ; and now, for the week ending
August 6, we find they have risen to the serious number of
154 ; which is more than double the average of the season.
It should be remembered that diarrlicca was the forerunner
of cholera when that scourge made its last visit to London ;
and no time should be lost in making sanitary preparations
for the impending visitation.