The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

rOND-HAND PIANOFORTEL-CRAMBR,
MALI" ad Ow am a am amaarma at Ilassadamad 'bar
aa tag mot Mamma maim aa - mom adaw-61.
an&

Co exprtoo.

TO OOH3UPONDIPTS.
OWLSINDY taardatt lar ..11ma sum.," Loan Waft paper.
art le at dr 011aa, 1116 lasarderinia. by Ti. egad • ti.
day .1 rallardaa.

LOTS
TA/sßvisnoe TRII LOTS CR/AL MMIIIIA jraciwisl ClAlmea-
Ask; MA• Llriels, and 11/O.WILAIL—JACW• RATUAN 710111
CANTOIL—PA +IMRE/ AT 001 In. NA Ones Miss; Ille/INa-
Amrceib.—A/A TUN GALICIAN flull —Owmum se.

RI SOWS.
Tun [yams. LOttli 1111411311T11. assa—Anilis
EaILLINU WEIZTII OAT: ir„Tbe Miami •Mar
bat nu, Gobsaftse. Mara. alenerk. Ram led
0. Mum 111.. Heat l& I 21.4 &

AD
Tyr aIAORICag, MIT.
sod
baerwi , W.. akodrar4.-1111 TWO POLTIr =VI r =arm
Warlarag.—,r TU1102211.111 or gigIICOS. gran. B.
mar. .11106 3L Mew. —Orman a& 10142.15.

MOE WATER AC LONDON INZDOIi.
Tam Dwr—Manien. ..Anarea. R 100.
Vripsume—lgoman. eh es

LONDON, B.4TUADAY. MARCH so.

To " tlevate to a doctrine" the pretensions of
musty landowners to coerce their tenantry at elec-
tions was net the way is w►ich Sir HENRY Darner
°mild expect jolt now to earn the thanks of the Con-
servative party, tither inNorthamptonshire ar in the
country. That the tenant's vote is en appurtenance
oldie 'oil, and not the prerogative of the citizen
acid that consequently, in the words of Sir Hr.ssr,
" no tenant has a right to use his landlord's land to
" vote agaiiiet him," may peas for sound, saving

truth en the Bench of Quarter Sessions; but it is
about the meet insulting proposition which an arro-
gant oligarchy could throw down before the people.
Acoordiegly, we are not surprised that a gentleman
of Mr. Rrtatrrt.t7•e acuteness and perspice.

city should have seized, at Beckley, - last
Wednesday, the first opportunity of declar-
ing to his constituents, that touching the rela-
tions of landlord and tenant, he did not share the
opinions of his loquacious neighbour. The Hon.
Member was too cautions to meddle with the phi-
losophy of the question; but he dealt with its
natural history in a strain which was both enter-
taining and instructive.

A contested election was a nuisance—" a most nn-
mitigated nuisance," said Mr. KNIGHTLEY ; •
declaration which, after the hacknied hustings
common-places about distinguished honour and
eternal gratitude, has an air of freshness and sin-
cerity. It was a nuisance, he continued, to the
candidate who had to pay, and a nuisance to the
constituency, which was very much annoyed and
disturbed. Especially was this the case where the
screw was put on ; " which, be was sorry to say,
"without attacking any party, was too often the MIL"
Sir /I mrav DItTDEN, he proceeded, had said that
when the tenant differed from the landlord, he should
not vote st all ; and for speaking thus the Daily Nemo
had hauled him over theocials, and had recommended

the application of the ballot. But the remedy would
not work," for with the ballot it would be as much in
" the power of the landlord to insist on his tenant
" not going to the ballot-box as it is now to keep
" him back from the polling-booth." We must
pause here for a moment; we have got a new view
of "the power of the landlord." Sir HENRT Day-
DEN, we well remember, claimed to decide what his
tenant might not, and should not, do at the polling-
booth. Mr. XXIGHTLET tells us, and he knows,
that it would be just as easy to keep him from going
there at all. Some of the effects of this authority must
be curious. Would the landlord be satisfied with a
moral blockade, or would the recusant tenants be
valet-Nes for the day on their farms ? Here and
there, where • devolution of property had suddenly
thrown the political sentiments of landlord and
tenants out of harmony, we might expest to find
at elections a whole lordship in a state of siege.
We begin to agree with our authority that in
Northamptonshire, at any rate, and for the tenant-
voters, a contested election must be " a great
" nuisance."

Well, these general considerations got over, we
come to a formal review of county tenant voters.
Mr. KNIGHTLET has enumerated for us the lead-
ing genera. First, there were the free and inde-
pendent voters, who, as always happens on these
occasions, were the persons "before him." For
them the franchise was a benefit to be enjoyed, an
important public duty to be performed ; they de-
tested the ballot. Then came a clam of which we
shall do well to take note, people who, " not taking
" any very great part in public affairs, get confused
"in the matter of Conservative-Liberals mid Liberal-
" Conservatives, Peelites and Whigs, and not oaring
" much about who gets in, give their vote to oblige
" a friend, a landlord, or a customer." We venture to
my that Mr. KNIOIITLEY has here fallen upon a dis-
tinction which no future nomenclator can afford to
disregard. The voters who "get confused" will
always hold the balance of power in their hands. It
stands to reason that people to whom a vote is of no
value except as it enables them to put some one
under a private obligation, do not want to have the
transaction buried in a ballot-box. Having vindi-
cated this virtuous class of electors, having spoken
first of those who are free and public•epirited, and
then of those who know nothing of public duty and
do not want freedom, there remained one elms,
namely, those who have a public conscience but are
not free. Mr. XxtonTLIT Neves it for last, evidently
because its company is not good enough for the
others. Thus he introduces it :—" Then who would be
" benefited? The sneaking, lying scoundrel who
" made up his mind to tell a deliberate lie, in the
" meanest manner, for the lowest motive ; a person
" who sold his birthright for a mess of potage, and
" after eating the potage, wanted back hie birth-
.' right—he could use the ballot and lie with im-
" punity. Were they prepared to be coerced and
" insulted by the ballot for his sake ?"

There is a picture! To this the 30!. tenant
franchise has come within six-and-twenty years
after the passing of the Reform Bill. The " honest
"and independent" voters for whom the Marquis
of CIIANDOS stood sponsor in 1832 have the alter-
native of either still writhing under the screw or be-
coming" lying scoundrels." Mr. KNIORTLLY speaks
angrily, because be foresees that the freedom which ac-
companies the ballot would really be used. He is very
indignant that a man should withdraw his acts from
hie landlord's eye ; but he has no wrath for the people
who get first "confused" and then venal, and who end
by selling their vote for the favour of their customers
or their landlords. Addressing the " independent
" electors before him," he talks of possession of the
franchise entailing a public duty. Suppose, then,
that by the importunities of the owner of an estate
a tenant has been induced to promise his vote to the
woese candidate, is he absolved by his private en-
gagement from his public duty ? Are there not two
incompatible obligations on him 2 To one of them
he mu,t be unfaithful. There is no escape from the
dilemma. Inevitably he will break his promise to his
landlord or he will betray his public duty. It is the
landlord who places him in this immoral position
and on him be the responsibility. The franchise is
not a birthright which any voter has a right to chop