The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-29 00:00:00

THE EASTERN QUESTION.
-- - --

Mr. LA:YARD gave notice that he should bring for-
ward this question on Friday, the Bth July.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. BONHAM-CARTER moved for leave to bring
in a bill to provide that whenever a commission to in-
quire into the corrupt practices at any election for any
county, division of a county, city, borough, university,
or place, in the United Kingdom shall have issued,
under the provisions of the act of the 15th and 16th
years of her present Majesty, the votes at the two elec-
tions next subsequent thereupon in any such place shall
be taken by ballot. He said on the passing of the Re-
form Bill it was expected that that measure would have
Produced freedom of election, but it was soon found
that it did not stop intimidation, bribery, and other cor-
rupt practices, and the opinion began to spread that the
ballot would be the only remedy. The great debate on
the ballot took place in 1838, and in 1839 the question
culminated, the numbers who divided being nearly 550.
Afterwards interest in the question declined. During the
last parliament ma ny measures were passed for the purpose
of obtaining purity of election. The last general election
was an exciting party struggle, and 30 member 3 had
been unseated for bribery and corruption. They need not
be surprised, that after 225 contested elections, followed
by more than 100 petitions, the question of the ballot
should be revived. In 1852 the numbers who voted for
the balicit were 246, and 144 for it ; and in 1853, the
numbers were 232 against it and 172 for it, so that there
was an increase in the supporters and a diminution in
the opponents. Finding that there was such a large
number in the house ready to support the application
of the ballot, and seeing that a large number did not
present themselves at the division, knowing probably
that their constituents were not unfavourable to the
measure, he had thought it right to give an opportunity
to members who might be doubtful as to its applica-
tion generally to try the experiment on a small
scale. He would now state the bounds of the
measure to which it would at first apply. The Lords had
not signified their assent to a commission for Maldoli,
but he proposed it should be one of the boroughs
in which the experiment should be tried. It contained
845 electors, and 5,888 inhabitants. Last night the
address was sanctioned by the House of Lords for
Barnstable and Tynemouth. Barnstable had a consti-
tuency of 869 electors, and Tynemouth 1,169. For
Canterbury, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Cambridge, there
were commissions sitting. In Cambridge there were
1,984 electors, in Canterbury 1,874, and in Kingston-
upon-Hull upwards of 5,000. These constituencies were
of a variable character, and afforded a fair opportunity
of trying the experiment. Some of these boroughs were ,
so large that if the commissions reported that they ought
to be disfranchised there would lbe great difficulty in
disfranchising them. There was c3rtainly a considerable
portion of these electors who were freemen, and they
might withdraw the franchise from them ; }nit he did
not think that the corrupt practices were confined to the
freemen. He proposed that the returning officer of any
borough should be held responsible to apply the act.
when, from common notoriety, or from a notice in tl.e
booths,era operation o
at f Gazette, the borough came under the ep
the bill ; that there should be polling
present, at which the electors should present them-
selves, and that when an elector was identified, the
poll-clerk should present h elector
should a card, which the
should take behind a screen, and that he should put the
card into a box. He did not apprehend that this Was a
perfect scheme, but he was quite ready to hear sugges-
tions for its improvement.
He
thoughttheheusienwto
ould
be glad to see some new element introduced the
debates on this question. He thought that, on general

grounds, this was an opportunity which ought not to be
lost of giving a fair trial to tthe ballot, so that both its
advocates and opponents might see its effect in working.
Mr. F. PEEL was sorry that the rightlon. gentle-
men who usually occupied the Treasury bench were ab-
sent from the house this evening. As, however,. the
noble lord the member for London had stated to him
some of the reasons why he should oppose this bill,
he (Mr. Peel) would trouble the house with a few ob-
servations on this occasion. He certainly thought
that after the full and complete discussion which the
ballot had received during this session, it would not
again have been brought before the house after so
short an interval of time. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Bonham Carter) said that he brought forward the
question with a view of giving a trial to the
ballot ; but it certainly seemed that a question like
that ought to be disposed of upon broad and general
grounds, and not upon an exceptional piece of legisla-
tion. If the ballot• were really calculated to suppress
the anomalies and disorders of the electoral system, it
ought to be applied universally, and not to any particu-
lar district. If on the other hand, although it might
cure evils of one description, it Would open a door to
other evils of another class, then what right had the
house to inflict it upon a particular district, and to throw
the miseries of experimental legislation upon one part of
the country in order to give a lesson to other parts ?
Besides when particular laws were to be for particular
places, it was usually upon the application of persons
connected with and interested in the locality acting by
the desire of the inhabitants, or at least of a section of
them. No such desire had been put forward in this in-
stance. Nor did the hon. member's proposal give the
I ballot a fair trial. It seemed to be pretty generally ad-
mitted that for cases of bribery and corruption the bal-
lot would not be attended with any very good effect ;
it was rather in those places where intimidation
existed that its exponents hoped that it would prove
useful. But this bill applied it to cases of bribery. The
bill, too, if passed into law, would be inconsistent
with the act to which it referred, for at the very time
that the commission was sitting and endeavouring to
bring to light the corrupt practices attending an election,
another election would be going on in the very same
borough, of which all the proceedings would be shrouded
in the most complete and convenient silence. For these
reasons he trusted that the hon. member would with-
draw his motion.
Mr. H. BERKELEY, though a friend to the ballot,
certainly objected to its introduction in such homoeo-
pathic doses. He must deny the statement of the hon.
gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that the friends of the ballot
were of opinion that it would be ineffectual in putting an
end to bribery ; on the contrary, they believed that in all
constituencies of any respectable size the ballot would
put an end to corruption and bribery.
Mr. FRENCH, who rose amidst great cries for a
division, said that, as her Majesty's ministers were not
in their places this evening, and it was understood that
the house would not sit late, instead of proceeding to
consider this rather important question, he begged to
move that the house do adjourn.
The SPEAKER put the question, which was answered
by an almost unanimous affirmative, and the house ad-
journed.

Lord Burghley has paired for a fortnight with John
Heathcote, Esq., M.P. for Tiverton.

QUEEN'S BENCH—June 28.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MASTERS.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and
Lord Campbell sentenced him to be imprisoned in the
House of f:lorrection for two years.

THg ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WARREN.

This was another prosecution for perjury arising out
of the same committee, the alleged perjury consistine, in
the statement that, in the presence of Sir Alex. Cock-
burn,' his agents had promised to use their influence to
get the defendant a license for his beer-shop. This was
denied by Sir Alex. Cockburn, and the other gentlemen
present on the occasion ; but as some conversation took
place which was calculated to induce the defendant to
believe that such a promise had been made, the jury,
under the direction of Lord Campbell, found a verdict.
of ' not guilty.