The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP' THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We have extracted from the French Papers of
Saturday as many particulars of the surrender of
Algiers (which we mentioned yesterday) as had
leached Paris on Friday night. The French Press,
of all colours of opinion, seems to have viewed this
important success in its true light. The pride of a
military people is flattered by the renewed visit of
yietory to their standards,—the national honour is
viedicated by the punishment of a barbarian despot
rrho had insulted it,—humanity is avenged by the
destruction of a nest of piratical vultures,—and the
fidelity of the army to the Bourbons is strengthened
by being again entwined with the laurels gained
under their auspices. The glorious news was an-
-I,ounced at Paris with becoming " pomp and cir-
cumstance." The cannon of the Invalides told the
universal inhabitants of Paris of their happiness ; the
Niinister of Finance repeated his telegraphic feu de
foie to the jobbers at the Exchange; and the Court
called upon the pious to vent their satisfaction in a
Te Deum at the Cathedral. All the Journals, both
liberal and 'loyalist, join in the chorus of praise;
led never, if we might trust declarations, was French
gratitude more unanimous in rewarding French
prowess. The Ministers are of course over-
joyed, because they consider the triumph gained
orer the Dey of Algiers as a triumph gained over
• the Liberals in the Chamber; and the Liberals toss
up their caps in the air with delight and defiance, to
zenounce that the victorious army is their ally, and
'`'lliat they will never permit the confiscation of its
dory for the benefit of an Apostolical Cabinet. 'We
i “re still without details of the latter days of the war-
fare, and of the cause of the speedy surrender of the
city. It would appear, however, that the French
/
,quadron in the bay assisted the army, and that the
Dry yielded, both because his fortifications could
not withstand a regular siege, and because mutiny
land desertion had thinned his ranks. The imme-
-0 (flute gain to the army in prise money must be con-
siderable. The shipping of the state, the military
.cares in the arsenals, atad the artillery on the forti-
tieationa, without ifteluding the treasures of the Dey,
[and the other effects that must fall into the hands of
k the victors, must remind its veterans of the former
Iti.iys of glory and plunder under Napoleon. All
the talent and seal of the Liberal journals ere directed
to show that there is no connexion between the
`events in Algiers and the proceedings in the elec-
toral eolleges,—that the triumph of the army
is not the triumph of a party,---and that the
Ministers must be defeated in the Chamber,
though victorious over the Dey. The latter
fact is put beyond a doubt by the result of
the elections whose proceedings tare already
known. Out of 321 returns (including ell those of
the two series except three), the opposition have
' obtained lB7, and the Ministry 127. The elections
postponed to the 12th and the 19th are expected to
confirm, if not to increase, this proportional success.
—Times. •

- .......___
The last Session of a Parliament is always peni-
tent, end therefore, we are not to be surprised that
Ministers did not find that ready acquiescence in
their measures which obedient majorities heretofore
• had accustomed them to expect. But the re-
pentance of an expiring Parliament is seldom pro-
ductive of any positive good; its exhibition of tardy
and reluctant virtue is rather of the negative kind;
it is distinguished more by resisting the progress of
Leal! measures than promoting any good ones. To
the circumstance of representatives who have ne-
elected or abused their trust being ashamed to meet
their constituent*, without performing some act or
atoning virtue, we probably owe the effectual oppo-
sition that was given to that most infelicitous at.
tempi at originality of commercial repletion, which
the late Sugar Duties Bill unfolded to the ago-
Mailed nation-.-a Bill which, from its complicated
details, its inequality of operation, and its radical
ignorance of the real nature of the interests to which
it was meant to apply—seemed intended to prove
11 how fur financiel weakness and absurdity could be
carried„ under the semblance of official ingenuity.
To the seine cause we may ascribe the demolition
of the new seale of stamp duties, which set all Ire-
sand once more is it state of agitation, and the with-
drawal of the proposed spirit duties—another mea-
sure which had no other effect than to produce ex.
citement and encourage speculation. Indeed all
these financial experiments had no other result than
to unhinge for the time the mercantile relations of the
Empire; but as they were proposed without wis•
doer, SO they were abandoned without grace or dig-
oity. Though the Government wanted decision
in those matters, end dared not persevere, they en-
deavoured to obtain credit for Armees in obsti-
il tistely persisting with the Beer Bill—one of the
most objectionable measures, both as to the prin.
eiple on which it is founded, and its inevitable con-
sequences, that baa brought discredit on the spirit
of modern legislation. On the committal of that
Bill in the House of Lords, the reasoning of the
Duke of Richmond, not being easily met by argu-
ment, was only answered by the votes of a silent
majority. Silent we call it, because, when the task
of defending Ministers from arguments which in-
volved the serious charges of practising injustice and
encouraging immorality was delegated to such a
Senator as Lord Ellenborough, the Administration
I may be said to have been worse than unite. In
fact, on this Bill, which involved the vested inte-
rests of 50,000 families, and went to break down
property to the amount of thirty millionson this
Bill, which INSIMOt fail to have a moat demoralizing
influence on the habits of the people, the Govern.
ment, on that occasion, with the exception of a
speech from the President of the Board of Control,
amid an interlocutory remark from Cie Duke of Wel-
lington, were literally dumb. The principle of a free
trade in beer we do not object to, although Sir It.
facet gave it his determined opposition only two
or three years ago; but we do object to opening
the trade in that way which must cover the land
with low tippling. houses, throwing every danger.
sus inducement )r) the way of the peasantry
tied the working times to stay away from
their families, and prefer the dens of drunkenness,
disorder, and riot, to the domestic; enjoyments
if any still remain, of their own 'fire-sides. In
!'he instance of the rorgery Bill, also, the Govern-
went have mistaken obstinacy for firmness; they
hove persevered without credit, because they knew
nest when to yield with dignity. The House of
Commons had, with the atingle exception of the for-
gery of wills, thrown out OA whole of the black
catalogue of Sir IL Peel's capita punishments.
The Government, culled upon by the petition of
1,000 bankers, and the united voices of commercial
men, magistrates, lawyers, clergymen, end other in- i
t elligent arid practical members of society, from more I
than 200 cities, towns, and districts of the United
Kingdom, had a noble opportunity IA doing what
would be, at the Rama time, equally wise and popu-
lar, and sacrificing sanguinary prejudices in deference
r
tO the authority of enlightened public opieion. But
what the House of Commons had done in aid of
4 more humane, a more moral, and more judicious
spirit of legislation, the House of Lords have undue.
The here& arm Legislators, at the close of the Seg.
~, 'ion of Parliament, had no constituents to meet.
'rig had no account of their stewardship to ren-
i,. eer ; and this shows, in the strongest point of view,
; the nsceseity of insisting on a pure and effective re-
presentation in the other House of the Legislature.
We lerpe_the House of. Commons will now throw

out, tbi Bill altogether, us it is but a mockery of
amendment of the law as it OM kind will proceed'
de novo with that work of improved legislation on
this subject in the nest Session. As to the promised'
i kw reforms, Parliament will he dissolved withom
sifeeting sny thing in that restpect, notwithstanding
the Speech from the Throtte..—lwarming
Our contemporary (the Times) adept that our in-
formic*, in an article in the Chronicle of gaturday,
from his approbation a the ballot in Ptenelt doe.
that he Wad favourable to balloting in general,
watt unfounded, tilt the circumstances which recom-

mend the ballot in France do,not odd in. England..
Our contemporary says :
" The French electoral system and ours are more remark-
able for their points of contrast than their features of re-
semblance. In France there are no municipal bodies with
local privileges—no Magistracies elected by the people in-
dependent of the Crown—no shield interposed between the
most obscure election in the most remote hamlet in the
kingdom and the power of the general Government. The
Prefect, Sub-Prefect, Mayor, and other local officers in each
department, derive their authority from the Crown, and
being removable at its pleasure, act as one body on the in-
terests of the single unprotected vater. Nor are they likely
to be scrupulous in the mode of exercising their authority, if
we may judge front the late circulars issued by all the chiefs
of Administrative Boards to their subordinate agents. The
clerks in the Post-office, the employla of the Customs, the
collectors of the direct taxes in the provinces, the officers
of the Tribunals of Justice, even the officers of the
army, were all told, in direct terms, that the retention of
their commissions, and consequently their means of exist-
ence, depended upon the nature of their votes. Were the
votes of these persons to be given openly, it is inferred,
and perhaps justly, by our neighbours, that not one of
their bulletins would tell for a liberal candidate. But are
the freeholders, citizens, and burgesses of England in this
situation when exercising their electoral franchises? Some
of the classes above mentioned (such as Revenue Officers)
are forbidden to approach the poll-book in England, from
a belief that they could not, with our open system, give an
independent vote.
"But the difference between the situation of the voters
in the two countries consists not so much in the institu-

tuns which shelter the electors from direct power in the
one more than the other, as in the very constitution and
numbers of the electoral assemblies themselves.—
The whole constituent body in France, created by
uniform laws, consists of only about 80,000 per-
sons, who must be the greatest proprietors in
the kingdom, as their qualification is based on
property alone. The Electoral Colleges thus often consist
of Clubs of Electors, where, according to the opinion of
our neighbourp, a Ministerial candidate could not with
safety be black-balled without secret ballotting. Accord-
ingly, in all the directions given to the electors by the con-
stitutional party, the voter is directed to conceal his bulle-
tin from the President and Secretaries of the Assembly.
In many cases the Liberals bring a large piece of paste-
boird or a screen to conceal the hand of the elector from
the President while writing the name of his favourite can•
. .

didate, and more than one petition will be presented to
the Chamber, at its next meeting, to annul returns, en
the ground that the officers of the Colleges inspected the
operations of the voter, so as to know the contents of the
sealed paper which he threw into the urn. We need
scarcely show how different the electoral body of England
is in this respect. There are as many persons entitled to
the elective franchise in Westminster alone as return the
172 Members for the greater Colleges over the eighty-eix
departments of France!
tr The arguments against the use of ballot in the elec-
toral system of this country (into which we cannot now
enter) have always appeared to us irresistible ; but our
neighbours know best their own situation, and when they
assure us that without ballet the great body of French
voters could not exercise freely and independently their
most sacred franchises, we are not such coxcombs as to
pronounce them in the wrong. Eallot with them extends
to the Legislative Chamber as well as Electoral College;
and, whatever may he thought of the honour of French
Deputies, we have been assured that the result of a deli-
beration, as indicated by the black and white balls thrown
into the urns on the President's desk after the rappel no-
minal, is often very different from that indicated by the
number of ayes and noes,' which lie bad counted be-
fore the scrutiny by the open trial of sitting and standing,
or what in England would be called r the show of hands.'"
We take our contemporary as an authority for the
state of Oa French Electoral system; we will admit
" that there are in France no municipal bodies with
local privileges-eno Magistracies elected by the
people independent of the Crowne.eno shield inter-
posed between the most obscure elector in the most
remote hamlet in the kingdom, and the power of the
general Government ;" and we will admit all that
he has also stated with respect to England to be
perfectly correct. Still we arc ut a loss why the
circumstances in which England differs from France
constitute irresistible argument against the use of
the ballot in the electorial system of this country.
The object of our contemporary, we are ready to
believe, Ye the same with our own, namely the pro-
tvetion of the property and persons of the governed.
it is believed by our conterrporary, that u Repre-
sentative Government is the one best calculated to
afford such protection. He will admit, also, we
imppose, that a Representative Government can
only afford a protection to property, if the mass of
property be represented. In this country property
in the mass is inadequately protected, because the
franchise is so distributed that individuals possessing
singly large properties, though small compared with
the mace of property, are enabled to influence the
Elections to their own separate benefit. Our con-
temporary, on Friday last, expressly stated in
answer to Mr. Hume, that property was not pro-
tected by the English system of representation.
,g Will (said he) the lion. Gentlemen (Mr. 'fume)
affirm that an English County Election, as at present
j conducted, is likely to end in the return of the fittest end
most independent Mt:inhere of Parliament ? Let the lion.
Gentleman look at the frightful expenses of an election-
contest, for any, but pia:daily for a large county, and
then say that a county is, in general, a less strict mono-
poly than the closest burgh. if by flip word independent
the richest individual be meant, then we agree with Mr.
flume tat a County Member will, in nine cases out of
ten, be the ricinet person, or rather some one member of
the richest family in the county for which he is delegated.
Hut is a County Member, so eleet,tel.e-namely, through his fa-
' cultyof vending an immense sum of moneyor rather through
the affluence of his knot of relatives and friends, the more
five for the magnitude of the alliance to which be (twee
his return ? We are far from thinking so. Such a mem.

)er is generally—we du not allege always --brit the crea.
imp of a junta, whose particular interests, prejudipen, and
instritoLog be must obey, or be will be abandoned by
dient."

The evil to be partied labia in England is,
then, according to our contetoor4ry, the preventing
Members from being the creatures of a junta, whose
intereas, prejudices, and instructions be must obey,
to the detriment of the public interest. It seems
to us then, that it. is !.! distinction without a differ-
ence to say that in Prancer, the functionaries who
constituted the general Government would, if the
clectoo were not protected by secrecy, influence the
electors to 004 advantage; and that in England
there are juntas in each county who influence
the electors and force the return of their creature,
end in turn compel, through sue!) creature, the ge-
noel Government to promote their partici,* inte-
rests and prejudices. In both eases the electors re-
quire to be Prati!eted against undue influence—in
France the undue 4uence of the Government
timetionaries, and in England the undue influence of
the juntas who compel the Government form-
tionatioa to promote their separate interests at
the relieves of the country. We admit that
die English electoral system is full of anomalies;
that there are as mew parsons entitled to the
electoral franchise in Westminster alone as return

• .
the 172 Members for the greater Colleges Aver the
86 Departments of France. But what does this
psove.?‘ Ater& ly that in Westminster the power of
any one family, Ar )(not of families, of influencing
voters, either by bribery pr intimidation, must be
much more circumscribed than in places where the
number of electors is small. If the whelp jcingdom
were circumstanced us Westminster is, the use of
the ballot wad be less necessary. We allow, also,
that in many pluses where the franchise is confined
to a small number of poor men, the ballot would
be superfluous : there are still many places in
England where the ballot would defeat the projects
of the jo,a. who return creatures who must obey
their particular Iptprests, prejudices, and instructions.
Our contemporary haying condemned the system
in so far as it enables juntas toptjse their creatures
to be returned, must admit that the influencing
tenants and others to return the creature of the
junta is (Ifi ev4, Under the present system, he
allows, that the dupe i seldom able to give a con-

scientious vote,
" How (said Mr. Windham, in 11is celebrated speech on
Mr. Curwints Reform IMO—how, if the sale,of a seat on
any commutatio3 of services ponnectO with such an object
be gross corruption, can we tolerate the influence which
property gives in biassing the minds of tltose who are to
give their votes? How a landlord, for instance, should
have any more influence over his own tenants, than over
those of another man? How a large manufacturer should

be able to bring to the poll more of his own workmen,
than of those employed in the service of his neighbour?
How an opulent man of any description, spending his
fortune in a borough town, should be able to talk of his
influence among the smaller tradesmen—or be at liberty
to hint to his baker or his butcher, that laying out such a
sum with them as he does, he expects that they should
oblige him by giving a vote to his friend, Mr. Such-a-one,
at the next election ? If all this is not corrupt, upon the
principles on which we are now arguing, I know not what
is. What has money spent with tradesmen, or work given
to manufacturers, or farms let to tenants, to do with the
independent exercise of their right, and he conscientious
discharge of their duty, in the election of a Member to
serve them in Parliament? A fine idea, truly, that their
decision in the choice of a Representative is to be influenced
by the consideration of what is best for their separate and
private interest."
Let us take a case alluded to by a contemporary
(the Globe) on Saturday last. " There is a report
of another contest in Westmoreland ; but though
Mr. Brougham would have long ago been returned
there if the election had rested with unbiassed and
bona fide freeholders, yet the unbounded sacrifices of
the Lonsdale family, and their connexions, and the
number of paper freeholds created have made, we
believe, the return of the Lowther candidates, if
they choose to persevere in incurring the expence,
as certain as that of the patron's candidate in a close
borough." If the ballot be a protection to the
French electors who would otherwise be afraid of
the general Government, it must be a protection to
English electors in all cases, where powerful families
endeavour to bias their votes in the manner de-
scribed by our contemporary (the Globe), Ile
who wills an end, must will the means condu-
cive to that end. The ballot, as we have
said, would not be efficacious in all cases,
but it would undoubtedly be efficacious in the
cases which our contemporary (the Times) holds up
for animadversion. As far, therefore, as the ballot
defeats the object of those who procure the return
of creatures bound to promote their separate inte-
rests at the expence of the general interests, the
ballot, is on the principles of our contemporary, en-
tided to his approbation, except it can be shown by
him that the ballot which affords protection to the
French voter would not afford protection to the
English voter. But this question has been so well
put by the Westminster Review, that we cannot do
better than quote his words :

" All the evils of misgovernment which we suffer, and
to which we are liable, cumulated with all the eviler of
that horrid immorality which results from the giving and
suborning prostitute votes, arise from this, that the people
of England do not choose the Members of Parliament ;
that the majority of them are chosen by a small number
of men. It is so clear as not to admit of being ren-
dered clearer by argument, that what gives this small
number of men the power of choosing is the openness
of the voting. It is the openness, therefore, of the
voting that corrupts the Government of England, and
corrupts the morals of the people of England. That
which enables the men who hold the voters in depend-
ence to suborn the votes, is their knowing how the vote is
given. Reader it impossible for them to know how any
vote is given, and their power over it is gone. The power
either of rewarding.a prostitute vote, or punishing an ho-
nest one, is useless, whenever it has been made impossible
to be known whether the prostitute or the honest vote has
been given. Effect this impossibility ; take away the
power of knowing how the man who votes for a Member
of Parliament has bestowed his vote, and see the conse-
quences. You give effectual securities to the public that
the affairs of the public will be managed for their interest,
not efterificed to the interest of their rulers; and you take
away at the same time one of the most terrible engines of
moral depravation which ever was wielded for the pollution
and degradation of any portion of mankind."
Our contemporary, of course waves the argument,
that secret voting is an evil, because be admits it to
be a good in France, as it leads to n good end. But
we contend that he is bound to extend his reasoning
to this country, not because the ballot would be
efficacious in all cases; but because it would, at all
events, be a remedy in the cases of which be com-
plains, and which cases are of paramount import-
ance, in giving a character to the Legislature.—
Morning Chronicle.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Alderman Wood attended at the Mansion-house,
yesterday morning, with Madame Cumuli Rebasei,
a very handsome and interesting Spanish lady, with
a child in her arms two months old. He stated that
she was the daughter of a Spanish exile : her father
%vas a rich and distinguished person well known to
several of the Spanish Generals now in this coun-
try. She was educated in Paris; she came from
Gibraltar, with one child, about eight months since;

her husband arrived since. lie was a merchant at
Genoa : he wished to take his wife and two children
to Naples. They had been living upon Bs. a week,
and had to pay out of that 4s. for rent; they had
pawned all their clothes. Lady Cockburn, Mr.
Wood, and Mr. Slade's family have assisted them,
and will subscribe to assist in sending them to
Naples : this will require 60/., as the clothes are
Dawned for 20/. The case is very distressing. Mr.
Wood will receive subscriptions ut 24, Great George-
street, or in Southwark; Mr. Slade, at the Irish-
chamber, Guildhall-yard.