The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-15 00:00:00

:NVENING, JUNE 15, 1854,

THE BALLOT.

The speeches of Mr. Berkeley and of Sir William
Molesworth on the Ballot were unanswerable and unan-
swered. Lord Palmerston with his experience must
know that in counties the influence of the landowners
and others is altogether overwhelming, and in many cases
turns the election almost into a farce. Nothing will
make county voters free voters but the Ballot. Sir
William Molesworth's statements are of great impor-
tance to the Liberal party, and means ought to be taken
at the next general election to secure men ready to en-
dorse the principles of the hon. member for Southwark
on this question.
There would be little difficulty in carrying the Ballot
if Lord John Russell, and two or three of his brethren
in the Cabinet would give in their adhesion to it. Lord
John, when he was a defeated candidate for the county
of Devon, wrote to the electors of Stroud that though
he opposed the ballot at that time he must become its
supporter, unless some means could be adopted for put-
ting an end to the intimidation that existed in Devon,
and generally in all counties. Does he in his conscience
believe that Devonshire intimidation is over ?
In examining the Division list, if we take out the 27
liberals from the majority of 194, and add them to the 157
who supported the motion, we have 184 liberals, and
only 167 conservatives. Every elector should look over
the following list of 27 liberals who opposed the ballot,
and let the constituents of these gentlemen tell them
that they ought to have supported the motion. We can-
not but think that if the liberals understood each other
properly, that the Coalition could not go on unless they
agreed to support the ballot. The liberals who opposed
the motion were—

Baines, Right Hon. M. T. Mackinnon, W. Alex.

Drumlanrig, Viscount Mulgrave, Earl of
Duff, George Skene Palmerston, Viscount
Duff, James Peel, Frederick

Dunlop, Alex. Murray Phillimore, Robert J.
Elcho Lord Seymour, Lord

- ,
Elliot, Hon. J. Ed. Shelburne, Earl of
Gladstone, Right Hon.W. E. Whitbread, Samuel
Graham, Right Hon. Sir J. Wilson, James

Greene, Thomas Wood, 'Right lion. Sir C.
Herbert, Henry Arthur Wortley, Right Hon. J. S.
Hervey, Lord Alfred Wrightson, W. Battie
Hogg, Sir Jas. Weir Young, Right Hon. Sir J.
Mackie, John
Mr. Hume's name is not in the division or pairs. He
has been too unwell since Monday to attend the house.
—Daily News.

It appears almost a truism to say of a cabinet
avowedly formed of discordant elements, that its mem-
bers are at variance with each other. Nevertheless
matters are now in such a state that it is a political
announcement of some importance to say that the
differences of the cabinet have assumed a form very
nearly irreconcileable with their continued cohesion.
The direct antagonism between Lord Palmerston and
Sir W. Molesworth in the debate of Tuesday evening
was an event not insignificant in itself. It may be that
Sir William's Radical speech was the result of the anti-
cipat'on of a speedy break up. " Make to thyself
friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, for thou
mayest be no longer steward," is a precept which pro-
bably Sir William has Christianity enough to have
read, and prudence enough to translate into the mean-
ing, "Be reconciled with the Radicals, as the day of
your dismissal from office is at hand." We more
than suspect, indeed, that the whole matter was
previously arranged between Sir William Molesworth
and Mr. Bright. Everything that occurred bears
this appearance. Mr. Bright made an appeal to
the Cabinet Minister who represented the opinion
of the ballotists to state his sentiments in the debate.
In answer to that appeal Sir William Molesworth rises
and delivers a speech which, beyond all question, was
elaborately prepared. Does not this look very like an
arrangement for extracting an extempore speech from
the representative of the Radicals at the council board ?
Upon the character of the antagonism between the
Chief Commissioner of Works and the Home Secretary
it is scarcely necessary to say anything. Whatever be
the merits or demerits of Mr. Berkeley's proposal, it
involves, at all events, a great constitutional question.
Upon this question one Cabinet Minister in the House
of Commons falls foul of another. Sir William Moles-
worth answers Lord Palmerston, and answers him in a
tone savouring very little of kindly feeling.
The division list exhibited a disunion at least as re-
markable as that of the debate. Sir Win. Molesworth
does not appear to have realised his boast that he re-
presented twelve members of the Government on this
question. On the other hand Lord Palmerston does
not seem to have carried with him the majority of offi-
cials which would entitle him to say that he represented
the feelings of the ministry. Upon a question of vital
moment, a question upon which Lord Palmerston put
himself forward as the champion against the ballot, by
rising to reply to Mr. Berkeley—upon this question the
votes of the members of the Government were as
follows :

FOR THE BALLOT.
Sir W. Moleswortb, Cabinet Minister.
Admiral Berkeley, Lord of the Admiralty.
Sir Richard Bethel, Solicitor-General.
William Keogh, Solicitor-General for Ireland.
Mr. Villiers, Judge-Advocate-General.

AGAINST THE BALLOT.
Lord Palmerston, Home Secretary.
Sir Charles Wood, Cabinet Minister.
Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir John Young, Irish Secretary.
Sir James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty.
Lord Drumlanrig, Comptroller of the Household.
Lord Elcho, Lerd of the Treasury.
Mr. Sidney Herbert, Cabinet Minister.
Lord A. Hervey, Lord of the Treasury.
F. Peel, Under Secretary of State.
Here we have the vote of the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty contradicted by that of a junior lord; the Secretary
for Ireland one way, the Solicitor-General for Ireland
another. Five Cabinet Ministers voting against the
ballot, one Cabinet Minister speaking for it. It is im-
possible that such a state of things can last. Sir W.
Molesw orth made his speech as his retiring one. Mr.
Bright took care that about this there should be no mis-
take.
We have already intimated our belief that there is a
serious quarrel in the Cabinet upon subjects of more
pressing practical importance. There is nothing in the
proceedings at the London election yesterday to alter
that opinion. We still believe the elevation of Lord
John Russell to his new office to have been a direct and
plain triumph over Lord Aberdeen. The offering the
Colonial seals to Sir George Grey is another. We only
hope that these changes indicate the triumph of the
ant:-Russian party in the Ministry.
To what a miserable state are we reduced when we
have to speak of an anti-Russian party in the Cabinet of
the Queen. The words imply that there is a Russian
one. There is not in the country, or in the House of
Commons, a man who does not know that it is so. Yet
there is not a man in the House of Commons who has
the courage to say it, and to follow that up by a resolu-
tion which alone could retrieve the present House of
Commons in the estimation of the country—a motion to
address the Queen to remove Lord Aberdeen from her
councils. .

How easy would it be to frame such a resolution from
the materials of the secret despatches. What House of
Commons would venture to negative the proposition,
that the conduct of the war ought not to be entrusted to
the man who is the bosom-friend of the aggressor, and
who, ten years ago, was made the confidant, and, be-
cause the confidant, the accomplice of his infamous
designs. If such a vote was proposed and carried in the
House of Commons, then we might believe that assembly
truly to represent the feelings of the nation. Outside
the House of Commons there is not one Englishman in
500 who does not feel the interests of this country in
peril while Lord Aberdeen—the friend of Russia, and
the minister of continental despotism—is permitted to
occupy the place of Prime Minister of England.—
Morning Herald.