The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-17 00:00:00

OF ENGLAND.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH brought before the
house the information promised in debate to the Right
Rev. the Lord Bishop of London on Friday, the 12th May,
respecting infractions of the authorised worship of the
Church of England, which were particularly mentioned as
having taken place in St. Andrew's, Holborn, as well as
other churches, and also the solemn oath alleged to have
been taken by the Rev. J. Goring, of St. Paul's, Lorrimer-
square, and his curate, in a pastoral address
issued by him, called " The Seal of Confession."
The noble lord regretted that the subject had not fallen
into abler hands than his, but at the same time he would
state that he had paid much attention to this
subject. It could not be denied that the cere-
monies 'of the Roman Catholic Church were
making great inroads into the State Establishment,
and he made that assertion on the testimony of
several most respectable ministers of the Church
of England. Ho referred in particular to Stoke
Newington, where he had attended service at
Stoke Newington, and found that the service and psalms
were intoned, and the whole proceedings conducted in
conformity with the ritual and ceremonies of the
Church of Rome—indeed so completely that per-
sons might imagine themselves in a Roman
Catholic place of\worship. He referred to the practice that
prevailed in other metropolitan churches to show the
growth and extent of Roman Catholic ceremonies amongst
the Protestant clergy ; and he contended that it was
evidsart some very vigorous measures must be adopted
to arrest the progress of those practices which were gradu-
ally undermining the Protestant form of religious service
in this country. He adverted next to the churches
specified in his motion, and said that the testimony on
which the imputed practices were alleged to exist could not
be impugned.
The Bishop of LONDON said he was quite ready to use
his authority and power in checking these practices when-
ever he could do so legally and with any prospect of success.
Lord EBURY had long deplored the inefficiency of the
law on this subject, but five years ago, when he made an
attempt to provide a remedy, no one of their lordships
would second the motion. In his opinion the Government
or the bench of bishops ought to take up the question
without delay.
After ineffectual efforts on the part of the Earl of
►SHAFTESBUItY and Lord HouoirroN to address the house,
which manifested a decided disinclination to prolong the
debate, the subject was allowed to drop.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked whether the
Government would consent to the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the operation and results of the
Fisheries Act. Ho complained of the manner in which the
measure had been carried out, especially in Ireland, where
the most ancient rights of property had been summarily
abolished.
Earl GRANVILLE could not agree to the request of the
noble marquis to grant an inquiry, for which, he said,
there could as yet be no necessity, seeing that the act had
been in operation only one year. Tho commissioners in
Ireland had given many decisions, and 44 of them had been
appealed against. Of these, however, 13 had been affirmed,
and one dismissed on technical grounds, and he believed
that most of the others had been withdrawn.
After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE
who spoke approvingly of the commissioners, the subject
dropped.
The Union Chargeability Bill, the Dockyards Extension
Bill, the Drainage and Improvement Land Acts (Ireland)
Amendment Bill, and the Drainage and Improvement of
Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)
Bill), were severally passed through committee.
The Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Bill, the Militia Ballots
Suspension Bill, and the Militia Pay Bill, were read a third
time and passed.
The Commons' amendments to their Lordships' amend-
ments on the Courts of Justice Concentration (Site) Bill
were agreed to. The Lords' amendments to the Courts of
Justice Building Bill were not insisted on.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Mansfield and Worksop Road, Metropolitan Market, Mid-
land Great Western Railway of Ireland (No. 2), North of
England Union Railway, Ogmore Valley and Ely Valley
Extension Railway Companies, Swansea and Aberystwith
Junction Railway, Ventnor Harbour.

would be incurred. In short, the whole system would

break down.

Mr. BRIGHT charged the Admiralty with eKti avagance
and waste, and declared that their managetamt was not
reputable to themselves, was discreditable Parliament,
and oppressive to the country. The Secretary to the Board
was the great reformer of this departm •,u l efore he took
office, and used to make speeches to wh :. those of Mr.
Seely were mere whispers of discontent. He had now been

[ti office six years, yet none of his predecessors had been so
_ _

perpetually found fault with on all sides, whilst none had
ever been so confident and plausible in the answers he gave
to those who contended with him. The only excuse he

could make for him was, that the Admiralty was so vast,

so expensive, and the whole concern so chaotic, that it
was hopeless to attempt any improvement.

The house having divided, the motion for going into

committee of supply was negatived by 36 to 34, being a
majority of two against the Government. Thus the amend-

ment of Mr. Seely became the original motion. This un-
foreseen result appeared to take the Ministerial bench com-

pletely by surprise. At once the four Government whips,
Mr. Brand, Colonel White, Mr. Hugessen, and Mr. Adam,
were summoned to the presence of their chief, who had

been in the house all the evening and voted in the divi-

sion, and who now dispatched them to beat up the haunts
of his supporters. Meanwhile, the debate continued, and
the motion was opposed byMr. Scourfield, Mr. Neate,

Lord R. Montagu, Mr. Corry, Mr. Childers (lay lord of the
Admiralty), Admiral Walcott, Mr. Finlay, and Mr. Laird.
Mr. BRIGHT urged the Government not to divide a

second time, but rather to accept the motion, which had
been framed in terms which were equally reasonable and

gentle, and would really assist the Admiralty in the right
performance of their duties.
Mr. 0. Stanley, Mr. Dalglish, and Mr. Ayrton supported

the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON argued that no other than a naval

officer could efficiently superintend the fitting out of a ship
intended for warlike purposes. Those who now held the
office were perfectly competent to",perform its duties, and
as the resolution was erroneous in the conclusion to which
it pointed, and unjust in regard to the censure it appeared
to convey, he hoped the house would not assent to it.
The whips now returned to the house jubilant and re-
joicing. They had done'itheir spiriting efficiently andawell,
if not gently; for upon a second division the motion of Mr.
Seely was negatived by 60 to 33.
Mr. H. TRACY inquired whether it was intended by the
Government to recommend to the Crown the amalgamation
_ _ _

of the civil and military Orders of the Bath ; and moved

an address for returns.

Lord PALMERSTON replied that such an amalgama-
tion was not in his opinion desirable, and stated his reasons
for coming to that conclusion.
The motion for returns was withdrawn.
Mr. DILL WYN drew attention to the purchase by tho
Government of the Soulages collection for the South Ken-
sington Museum ; and moved for copies of the correspond-

ence and papers relating thereto.
Mr. WARNER ridiculed the idea of expending a large
sum of money upon a collection which was of the most

trumpery and worthless description.
Lord ELcHo •approved and Mr. LOCKE questioned the
wisdom of the purchase.
Mr. POTTER explained that he was one of the persons
who had originally bought the collection at Manchester
for £14,000, and he considered that the Government had

got a great bargain.
Mr. H. BRUCE observed that persons of the highest
taste and consideration approved of the purchase, which
had given a great impetus to the development of the
ceramic art in this country.
The motion was then withdrawn.
THE BALLOT.

Mr. H. BERKELEY rose to move that, as a general elec-
tion is impending, and as we have no law which can put
down the intimidation of voters, nor prevent bribery, it is
therefore expedient that a trial should be given to the bal-
lot. The hon. gentleman, who was not very distinctly heard,
was understood in the commencement of his observations to
refer to Mr. Cobden's declaration in 1852, that ho regarded

the ballot as the primary step to all reform. lie then went
on to say, that all speeches and all arguments in favour of
the ballot were deducible from the arguments of Mr. Grote,

delivered many years back—arguments which kept crop-
ping up upon all occasions, but never so visibly as on the
approach• of a general election. Mr. Gladstone, junior, had
recently stated that the ballot had received its quietus from
the pen of the Rev. Sydney Smith, and again more lately
from the pen of Mr. Mill. He did not explain how the
ballot could receive more than one quietus. (A laugh.)

Now with regard to Sydney Smith, no doubt he had wri
ten a sparkling and superficial pamphlet against the ballot,
but, so far from thinking that he had given it a quietus, he
thus expressed himself in a letter addressed to the late Lady
Grey : " I have written a pamphlet against the ballot—very
clever, of course—but the ballot will come, write I never so
wisely." (Hear.) Then, as to Mr. J. S. Mill, who was the
cheral de bataille not only of Mr. Gladstone, junior, but of
the Times newspaper, Mr. Mill said: "If I thought the
electors of this country were in a state of hopeless and
slavish independence upon particular landlords, I should
be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot." That was
certainly a slovenly mode of getting out of his former
opinion, for he did not touch upon intimidation by cus-
tomers, intimidation by credit, or upon the frightful
power wielded by attorneys, who interfered in the affairs
of every person they could come near, and out of their
knowledge created a screw which they used in a most
Satanic manner. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) if he (Ur.
Berkeley) :thought that the upper classes had become
politically virtuous, and the electoral classes politically
pure, he would not ask the house to give to the electors the
protection of the ballot. But he would show them that from
1835 down to the present time the electors had remained in
precisely the same condition, or, if any change had taken
place, it had been for the worse. The evidence taken before
Mr. Grote's committee in 1835 showed what was the state
of the constituencies at that time ; and Lord Palmerston, at
the nomination at Tiverton, July 25, 1837, said, " My belief,
founded not merely on what I have heard from others, but
on my own observation, is that a system has been exten-
sively pursued to deter the electors, by threats of injury to
themselves, from electing freely and independently a mem-
ber to represent them in Parliament." From that period to
1847 the election committees presented a series of evidence
which they could not turn away from. In 1848 he first had
the honour of becoming the advocate of the ballot in the
House of Commons. He was quite aware, however, that
the feeling of the houso was against the ballot, but he was
not now speaking to the house, but to the people out of
doors. From 1848 up to 1862 nothing could be more deci-
sive than the evidence given before the committees. The
modern boroughs were just as bad as the old and impeni-
tent ones. (Laughter.) There was not, indeed, a pin to
choose between Wakefield and Gloucester. Lord Aberdeen
had admitted that our electoral system was in such a state
of profligacy that every one ought to be ashamed of it. It
was clear at that time that something must be done, so a
committee was formed of almost all the lawyers in the house,
who set their heads to workand produced the Corrupt Prac-
tices Prevention Bill, which was probably the worst bill
that ever was seen. (Laughter.) Then with regard to elec-
tions which had recently taken place. In East Kent both
candidates united in declaring there had been great in-
timidation on either side ; while at Exeter, both Mr. Cole-
ridge, the Liberal candidate, and the Tory newspaper
testified to the amount of intimidation which bad been
practised. At the last-named place a cart was thrown
into the river, and a jackass had its tail cut off. (Loud
laughter.) The people there, who were insolent, con-
temptuous, and metaphorical, said that that was
not the only donkey that would be served so
at the general election. (Renewed laughter.) He
submitted he had pointed out evidence to prove that they
had not at all improved in their electoral morals, and that
they were as bad as ever they were. If this wore so, he
wanted to know what had induced Mr. Gladstone, jun.,
and Mr. Mill to turn short round on the ballot. When
both the dominant parties were about to go to the country
in what Mr. Dickens described as an auriferous and malty
shower of sovereigns and beer, were they satisfied that in-
timidation should be practised ? Let them look northward
and ask why five to four was betted upon Milbank against
Merritt. (Laughter.) But the meaning of it was this :
The late Duke of Cleveland was a Tory, and the present
Duke of Cleveland was a Whig, and every man who sup-
ported Mr. Merritt for the last election would vote against
him at the next, for the voting machines called free and
independent voters must do what the Duke of Cleveland
wished them to do. Lot them turn next to the southern
division of the county of Durham, and ask themselves why
it is expected that two Liberals will be returned for it.
Simply because it was overshadowed by Baby Castle, and
the free and independent electors must vote according to
the dictates of their landlord. There was the borough of
Ripon ; as long as it was under the influence of Miss
Lawrence, it was a refuge for every destitute Tory. (A
laugh.) But since it came into the hands of Lord de Grey
and Ripon there was not a sounder Whig borough in the
country. He believed Lord do Grey and Ripon would be
glad to have the ballot introduced into the borough of
Ripon. The hon. member next referred:to a speech de-
livered in 1864 by Mr. Mill, in which he spoke of the de-
sire of the vulgar rich who made their money by manufac-
tures and commerce to gain a high social position for
themselves by purchasing the votes of electors at any
price, and threw back the taunt upon Mr. Mill by saying
there was nothing of which the country was more proud
than of the men who raised themselves by manufac-
tures and commerce. He wondered what London, with
her Rothschilds, Crawfords, Goschens, and Dukes, would
think of Mr. Mill's reproach against the men who made
their money by trade and commerce. It was recorded
in the journals of the house that the distinguished
committee who inquired into the election in Yorkshire, in
1828, reported that the votes of the electors, if they so de-
sired it, might be taken anonymously. The hon. member
quoted the report of that committee to show that they
ruledwebaci se.enattnhhveaaot ,
ntvi
nsobwtegecedwra,,uahshsieseaevi man refused to have his name recorded
as t socowardly, notth therebye
frivolous
unmanly,
nm invalidated.an y
assertion
t Thatunconsti-
tutional. a t
ssot he vote
edwr
The hon. member next referred to a case which
had occurred at Salford of a voter who, acting on the prin-
ciple that a vote was a trust, put up a notice in his shop
window inviting non-electors residing near to come in and
inform him whether he was to vote for Garnett or Brother-

ton. By the day of the election he found 57 in favour of
his voting for Brotherton, and only 23 in favour of
Garnett, so he recorded his vote in favour of Brotherton.
If that, said the hon. member, was not giving to the noble
lord (Palmerston) who held that doctrine—the reductio ad
absurdum, he did not know where it was to be found. The
man whom the law invested with the duty of voting dis-
franchised himself and enfranchised men whom the
law declared to be unfit to vote. (Hear.) If that argu-
ment was worth anything, it was only fit for universal
suffrage ; for if the non-electors were to dictate to the elec-
tors, it would be much better to give them votes and let
them vote themselves. On the great authority of Grote,
" the ballot was the silent defender of liberty." Demos-

thanes, addressing an assemby who voted by ballot, said,
" Your voting is secret ; you have nothing to fear ; for

safety is secured to you by the wisest regulation that your
lawgivers ever made." In pressing the house to agree to
this resolution he would point out to them that by adopt-
ing it they would give practical effect to the words of De-
mosthenes. (Cheers and laughter.).
Lord PALMERSTON—The arguments which my hon.
friend has used are those which ho has often repeated,
and the arguments which I will suggest can only be those
which I have often repeated. My hon. frined has said,
and has often said before, that nothing new is to be
urged against the ballot. Why, nothing new can be put
to truth, and when you have urged the strongest argu-
ments against a proposal, if you are called upon to say
anything new you are called upon to use a weaker argu-
ment than you have used before. My objections to the
ballot are comprised in a very short statement. My hon.
friend to-night has represented a vote as a function con-