The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-09 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY

EVENING,

Mr. COBDEN said that it must be in the recollection of
the House, when his lion. Friend the Member for Mon-
trcoe brought forward his motion for a reform in that House
that many of his lion. Friends who were among the more t
discreet reformers in that House said that it was very un-
wise to bring Members down to vote on four questions. His
Hon. Friend thought he was much more likely to succeed if
he brought forward one at a time. All must recollect how
his lion. Friend was censured for adopting the course which
he did. And now what did they hear from the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government ? He found fault with the
ballot because it was calculated to give to ore-seventh of
the male adult population of this country the power of a
Venetian oligarchy. Were his friends and himself who
wished to have the franchise extended to a larp portion of
the male population to be answered by this?—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord had recorded his vote against the exten-
sion of the suffrage; how then could he consistently come
forward and make use of such an argument?—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he viewed the
question of the ballot with less interest than he did twelve
years ago.—( Hear.) He believed at that time there was less
corruption in the boroughs, and the county constituencies
were less subservient. He still believed, however, that vote
by ballot was the best mode of suffrage for this or any other
country.—(Hear, hear.) He would vote for the measure,
because he believed that it was demanded by a very large
portion of the electors of the country, and also because he
had never heard a valid argument against it. Certainly
the Noble Lord, with his great talent and long experience,
if he could have found valid arguments against it. would
have brought them forward, but he had completely failed in
doing so. The opposition-to the question must be on its last
legs, when nothing more had fallen from the Noble Lord than
what the House had just heard. The Noble Lord said that
the ballot was contrary to the open and free constitution of
the country. It certainly might be open, but was it free ? •
The franchise was open because they had not the ballot, but
with past experience could they say-that it was free? The
Noble Lord asked whether, in having secret pro-
ceedings in a court of justice, a judge or jury would not be
less liable to obloquy or calumny than if all their
proceedings were open ? This, however, was an unfair
analog!. With respect to a jury, it was necessary, in
cases of conviction, in criminal cases, that it should be
unanimous, but this was unneces.ary where there was an
acquittal. But if the Noble Lord relied on the illustra-
tion of the jury, what did he say with respect to the
grand jury, which was a secret body? In Scotland, also,
where it was not necessary that the jury should be una-
nimous, there was no means of getting at the individual
opinions of the jury. The Noble Lord also said that a person
might be exposed to obloquy for openly giving evidence in
a court of justice. He ( Mr. Cobden) denied this, and also
the assumptipn that the judges for their conduct in court
were liable to be calumniated.—(Hear; hear.) It was noto-
rious that no class of persons in this country was so far re-
moved from obloquy or charges of that kind as the judges
for their conduct in their respective Courts. The Noble Lord
also was not very correct in his analogy as to the votes in
that House, for the votes of Members in that House were
very different from those given by electors in choosing
Members. The Members of that House were sent there
to perform by delegation the duties of legislation which the
large mass of the people. could not directly perform them-
selves. if the Noble Lord reflected for a moment he would
see that the case he mentioned did not hold good; for the
Members of that House were subject to periodical election,
and the electors to whom they were responsible might tell
them, "we will not elect you again."--(Hear, hear.) The
case was very different front the electors of the country. To
whom were the electors of this country responsible for the
votes which they gave? Were they responsible to the non-
electors? Would any one tell him so? If it were-said that
they were responsible to the non-electors, then it must be
assumed that they were competent to judge the electors.
If that were so, why not then give them votes ?—(Hear.
hear, and loud cheers.) It came out in the course of the
Noble Lord's speech to whom he considered they were
responsible, namely, to the Marquis of Exeter and others
who held the nominations of Members for boroughs.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have forgotten
the theory of the constitution which he had lauded so much.
The people of this country were to make the laws by which
they were governed, and were to tax themselves. The an-
cient doctrine was, that every housekeeper should have the
right of voting at the election of Members. The origin ot
the custom was, that the right should be bestowed on the
heads of families, but afterwards householders alone were
did not seem to him to make much
y was he so anxious to depart
thought to have the power of nominating the Members of
that House. As the Noble Lord was so fond of lauding the
the
of aionrcyai
tso?ef
Theatgh a
ie Nobleen osnt stthi
et
Lordutbiaonl 'lot.
The Noble Lord did not say
that aristocratic institutions could not be maintained if the
ballot were adopted, but he said it was only bearable in a
democracy. The drift of his argument was, that they
could not maintain the institutions of the country
with the ballot. Towards the end of his speech, however,
lie said that the adoption of the ballot would make very
little change on the people, for that manly feeling
would still exist which would induce them to avow as to
which way they voted; and he said that the late Lord
Spencer on this ground, and also, as the people wished for
it, said he would not make much objection to it. Where,
then, was the Noble Lord's objection to it? The Noble Lord
said that the disadvantages of the ballot were not merely
confined to itself, for if it was carried, the advocates of it,
being disappointed at its success, would require an extension
of the suffrage. If the people exercised the franchise pretai
nearly as they did at present, wl.ere was the danger to the
institutions of the country to adopt the ballot? The Noble
Lord had alluded to what he (Mr. Cobden) had said on
former occasion with respect to clubs, but he then mentioned
Ivan) other instances in which the ballot was resorted to,
such, for instance, as the East India Company. The Noble
Lord keens that the directors of the East India Company.
who governed 100,000.000 of peopla, were elected by the pro-
prietors of East India Stock by vote by ballot. The mode in
which it was done was that every proprietor, whether gen-
tleman or lady, had a card presented to each, with the list
of the names of the candidates printed on it, and they
ecratched the names of those parties out for whom they did
not intend to vote. Now, if they allowed the ballot at the
Ea•O. India House, for the election of those who governed
100.000,000, surely there could, be no great strength in the
ar4ulnent of the Neble. Lord as to clubs? Ile believed the
same system of voting eas also in use at the Bank of Etig-
lan I. "It appeared, then, that in many of the male trans-
ac, inns of nee the ballot was adopted, to prevent the incon
yenience which arose from open voting. The Noble Lend
also alluded to foreign countries. He (Mr. Cobden) believed
the ballot was used in all countries on the Continent. It
sees used in France, Spain, and Portugal, and in every vil-
lage in Russia at the election of the head men of it, and this
-n
he had seen himself. He did not, however, wish to look to
those countries for any analogy with this, where the English
people had been so log accustomed to self-government. It,
however, they must go abroad for a parallel, he wauld refer
them to a pe,ple as well able as the people of this country to
govern themselves. He would eo to the United States of
America. lie said nothing respecting a republican Govern-
ment, nor was he going to state that he preferred it to our
own form of Government. If they looked to Spain and por
tugal, the people of this country were fifty years in advance
of the inhabitants of those countries as respected self-govern-
ment. If, however, they regarded the condition of the ,
people of many parts of the United States where there wee.
E ,
no hierarchy, no aristocracy, and no sovereign, but _g a sitirtli-a
democratic race, descended from a plebeian race of I
men, they would find that never in the history of the wonrldsisusvcahs
there an instance of a people governing themselves with
moral, intellectual, and social results as was the case with
the people of the New England States of America.—(Hear.)w.o
He did not include all the American States, but any one
ha I ever been in America would, he felt assured, agree with
him in staling that the descendantsof a plebeian race of Eng-
lishmenegarth.—
of
the
the inha • ,
( Hear.) The people of England were germane to
intrusted
in New England had succeeded in goverhnem them-
selves better than any people on the face
bitante of those states, and were as capable
th arison wi
with self-government; as any race on the of
fea°.
states of America, except with respect to the northern states.
in which there was no slavery. Then how
did the ballot
operate in those countries? The Nob
le Lord said it did not
out the. earth
the
- (Hear.) He deprecated all cases of comp
pTahe Noble Lord
that this was the case.—(Hear, hear.)
some men coup
certainly said that in that country
electors. The
succeed, but he said nothing in way of ex 1 nation to show
influence thirty or forty thousand Marquis
of Lord did not say how, but they had no Marquis
of Exeter there to influence them after his fashion. But he
(Mr. Cobden) would go further, and say—in that country
some men influenced hundreds of thousands of electors.—
(Hear, hear.) Such men as Clay and Webster indeed would
influence not only hundreds of thousands, but millions of
electors.—( Hear, hear.) But how was that influence ob-
tained ! It was from their high moral and intellectual quali-
ties they had obtained their influence.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord said that corruption existed in North America.
lie (Mr. Widen) denied that this was the case.—(Hear. )
He would give the strongest proof that corruption could not
exist in the United States. Universal suffrage existed in all
the free states. The President had only 5,0001. a year, and
all the Government functionaries were paid on a small scale.
He did not believe that in such a country, where • the votes
were taken at very short periods, and where the common
labourer earned five shillings a day, and where an acre of
land could be purchased for six or seven shillings, that cor-
rupt practices could be carried on. lie did not believe that
vofi nagnt yh
beeney one
state
madeoof the
at ha t
oin a country where the expenditure of the Government wasd
on so limited a scale, an where fortunes were so much on an
r having
could
a
equality, that it was ' possible for any body of men to
e instancee lihnai
change
United
ge
purchase the votes of their fellow-citizens.-_( Hear.) Then
with regard to the ballot. Did the Americans like the ballot
themselves?
atta;
States
ye
abandoning
ethe mode of voting there? —(Hear, hear.)
No, but there
had been a gradual extension of the ballot to the States in
sshreise?u s
proposition pd
theyi m e ballot, ever
y eer hear
or
e y
which it had not hitherto been adopted. He believed, al-
though he could not speak it;
Positively on the subject, that
there was not a state which was not a slave state in which
they had not adopted vote by ballot.—(Hear, hear.) But
this was a practical question with regerd to our own people.
The Noble Lord did not grapple with the main
case, but bad
alluded to circumstances which had been brought before the
House by the Hon. Member for Bristol, as showing the neces-
city for protection to the voter and the prevention of corrup •
tion ; but he was sure that there was hardly a Member in
that House who could not cite analogous cases.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member for Carlisle had defended open
voting, but was there ever anything so disgraceful as what
occurred at the last election for that place, as described in the
blue book? There was a Mr. Head, who resided in the
neighbourhood, and who appeared to be an amateur cor-
rupter.—(A. laugh.) He wrote a cheque for 1,0001., which
he gavejto his clerk to get discounted, and the amount he
ordered to be expended at the election. The result was
that for several days the town was in a beastly state of in-
toxication, and still this Mr. Head, with abominable hypo-
crisy, was engaged in the distribution of temperance tracts.
_(Laughter, and cries of Hear, hear.") The Hon. Mem-
ber for Stafford also, who was for open voting, came forward
with the case of his own borough. What was the state of
the purity of the elections in that borough he thought had
been well known since the time of Sheridan.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman said that at the last election he set
aside all political questions, and told the electors that if he
sent by them to P arliament
was , he would have none of the
chiineras of the ballot or free trade. but that be should serve
the country in a peculiar way ; and the Hon. Member added
that they returned him, although his opinions were very dif-
ferent from theirs.—(Lang Laughter.) If the Hon. Member's eon-
stituents had returned him on the ground that he should act
very differently from all other Members in the House, he cer•
tainly had completely fulfilled his pledge.—((treat laughter.)
It was notorious, however, that that borough had never been
fortunate enough to induce any man to contest it a second
time in consequence of the expenditure, but the
Honourable Member, perhaps, might go again to Stafford,
and induce them to return him a second time. He
was in favour of the ballot, however, • not so much
for the sake of the towns as for the counties. He believed if
the electors of the counties had the ballot, that some of the
best Members that could be sent would be returned by them
to that House. Would any one tell him that the electors in
many counties were free to choose whom they pleased, or
whether it was not notorious that they were influenced in
their votes?—(Hear. hear.) In some counties, where there
were 5,000 or 6,000 voters, they might depend upon it that
the candidates, or rather Members, would be selected by floe
or six noblemen sitting at their firesides. Lord Stanley, who
did not conceal his opinions, openly stated that county elec-

tions was a question of acres, and that if they told out the up and prospered. The main argument in favour of the
number of farmers on one or two noblemen's estates in a ballot was that the shopkeeper or persona in an humble state
county, he would tell who would be returned.— (Hear, of life possessing the franchise might be injured by its free
hear.) He recollected also that the Noble Lord at the head exercise, but he wanted to know if it was a principle in
of the Government in 1335 said, that when he was a candi- our constitution (as this argument seemed to assume) thatno
date for Devonshire, he found that some of the members of mai should be placed in a position by which the exercise
his cenimittee who had taken an active part in supporting of his public duty would be attended with private inconyeei-
him had been obliged to vote against him.—(Hear, hear.) ence ?—(Hear, hear.). He had not heard any argument
He ( Mr. Cobden) also recollected some elections in Lance- advanced to-night to induce him to change his former
shire, where, in one election, a great number of electors came opinion upon this question, and still believed that vote by
to Ormskirk to vote for a blue candidate, while in the pre- ballot was inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitu-
vious election they had voted for the yellow candidate, tion.—(Hear, hear.)
and in the election before that for the blue candi- Mr. VILLIERS agreed that the people of England were
date. This had arisen from the circumstance that the pro- a frank, open, and independent people, and that was the
perty had twice changed hands, and the tenantry on the reason why they had never submitted to an abuse when
estate were marched up as oxen to the shambles.—(Hear, they had discovered it to exist, and that was why they had
hear.) He wished to see men to whom the franchise was come before the House on the present occasion ; they saw
entrusted possess more dignity of character, which was im- that men were bribed and intimidated, and they would bear
possible to be the case while such influence was exercised it no longer. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
over them. He was, therefore, anxious that for the sake of had referred to an argument of the Hon. Member for the
the counties the ballot should be at once adopted. The Noble West Riding, and had stated what was the practice in the
Lord said that he did not think that the ballot would put a United States, but the Hon. Member for the West Riding
stop to the great abuses which existed, but if these great had pointed to particular states in America where there were
abuses were admitted to exist, it was an additional argument no slaves, the New England States, where was our own race
in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Alontrose. and our own institutions; they had insisted on the protection
He was glad that the Hon. Member for Bristol had brought to voting, and there had been no case in which that system
forward the present motion, as it was an answer to the cavils had been abolished. The answer which the Hon.and Learned
which had been urged against the proposition of his Hon. Gentleman had adduced referred to what had taken place
Friend the Member for Montrose. If the House rejected the in the slave states, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
motion, it would make one more addition to the catalogue to made out that where there was anything bad and iniquitous
show the people of England the want of harmony which ex- to defend, there men insisted upon open voting.—(Hear.)
isted between that House and the middle classes which it He thought the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for
pretended to represent, and it would do more than anything Oxford, was quite conclusive upon this subject. Nobody
else, notwithstanding the statements of the Noble Lord or denied that by the ballot bribery and intimidation would be
any other Prime Minister to the contrary, to show that it was prevented. They were at that moment legislating to prevent
essential to get rid of the block to legislation in which they those evils, for a Bill to prevent corrupt practices was betUre
were placed.—(Cheers.) the House. The ballot was a far more efficacious mode of
Mr. HENLEY rose amidst cries of " Divide." He said preventing those evils. The only argument against the
that he hid heard a great many speeches of the Hon. Gen- ballot was, t hat there might be cases in which there would
tleman which had surprised him, but he was more surprised be an approximation to the present system. It was ad-
at that which he had just heard than at any of his previous milted that the knowledge of how a man voted was the
speeches. The Hon. Gentleman had been pleased to say root of all existing evils. As the Hon. Member for
that the Noble Lord had forgotten the principles of the con- Oxford had said, those who opposed the ballot were
etitution ; but he (Mr. Henley) believed that the Noble apprehensive that the electors were not trustworthy. He
Lord was a much better authority on the subject than the (Ir. Villiers) did not mean to say it was not an advantage
Hon. Member for the West Riding. The Hon. Member to have persons for representatives who possessed rank,
denied what the Noble Lord had stated as to the courts of station, and property. So far as he knew, safety was felt
justice. From the principles of the Hon. Gentleman he in persons of that sort being in the Legislature, as there
could well understand why he objected to go to courts of was a kind of conservative spirit amongst them. But
justice for an analogy. Surely the Hon. Gentleman would would the ballot exclude such !persons ? No. The Hon.
not say that there was no such thing asi ntimidation of wit- Member fur Bristol had quoted the opinion of Mr. Grote to
aesses in Ireland. Would he also be hardy enough to say show that men of property would be the persons selected
that the judges on the bench in Ireland had not been threat- under the ballot. But then something else besides property
ened in consequence of the course which they had felt it would be required. The representative must have character
to be their duty to take in trials in Ireland? Did the and reputation.—(Cheers.) Now he could not see the mis-
Hon. Member mean to say that Ireland was not a chief of that. Under the present system any man who hap-
part of the empire? The Honourable Member complained pened to possess the influence of property might, without
that the Noble Lord did not adduce any powerful arguments reference to charadter or ability, become a member of the
against the ballot, but surely the weight of argument Legislature. There was a preference for property in this
should come from the side of those who proposed the adop- country, as there ever must be in a commercial and indus-
tion of the ballot. The Noble Lord had said that open vot- trious nation like this; but let an elector have the free ex-
ing had ever been the practice in this country, and it was for ercise of his opinions secured to him by the ballot, and then
the Hon. Gentleman and his friends to show the advantages fortune and birth would
.be useless without character and
which the public would derive from this measure before he credit.—(Cheers.) Of course, men would prefer a good man
came forward and called for such a great change in the con- to a bad one, but at present they had no choice. He be-
stitution 'of the country. The Hon. Gentleman passed very lieved that at present any man who had a fortune might fee.
:lightly by the continent of Europe. He ( Mr. Henley) was certain of obtaining a seat in that House. Establish the
not surprised at this, for the information which the Hon. ballot, and this would not be the case. He believed with
Gentleman gave the House on former occasions with re-pest his Hon. Friend the Member fur Oxford, that there was no
to the continent must make him rather chary as to giving reason to fear the sort of men who would be sent to the
such positive opinions again. The Hon. Member had told Legislature under the ballot. Another advantage that
the House that the result of his experience on the continent would be obtained by the establishment of the ballot would
was, that there was no disposition for change, or the slightest be, that they would give the wealthy classes the greatest
chance of revolution. possible interest in the education of the people.—(Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN declared that he had said nothing of the If they felt alarmed on account of the prospect of ignorant
kind. proceedings in the election of Members for the Legislature,
Mr. HENLEY observed that the Hon. Member certainly they must feel deeply interested in the question of educating
sail so with regard to France. He, however, dealt very the people. He thought they required some stimulus of
tenderly and cautiously .with the continent. The Hon. that kind.—(Cheers.) The people were still much neglected,
Member said that in every state almost there was voting by and a very large portion of them were in a very degraded
ballot, but he did not attempt to show that any possible state. There was something wanting to excite the wealthy
benefit had resulted from it. The Hon. Member also said classes to extend to the people the advantages of know-
that the ballot existed in Russia. No doubt the Hon. ledge, and he knew of nothing more calculated to produce
Member looked with great complacency at what took place that result than to make the wealthy classes feel danger if
in Russia. He could understand this admiration of Russia, they did not do it.—(Hear, hear.) Everything that had
for if the Hon. Member's party were in power, there would been done with respect to elections this session was calcu-
be as much tyranny here as in that empire. The Hon. lated to lower that House in the estimation of the people,
Gentleman had not shown any advantage which America and the House was now about to separate without having
possessed from the ballot, and when the Hon. Gentleman taken any steps to prevent the recurrence of those disgrace-
specially took America as his battle ground, he ought ful events which had been so frequently this year disclosed
not to have shrunk from the task of proving by Committees of that House.—(Hear, hear.) They could
the benefits which he contended that the bal- not under the present system amend the mode of conducting
lot had showered upon it. The Honourable Gentleman said elections, and therefore they ought to devise some other sys-•
that there was no corruption in America—the Noble Lord tem. He knew that it was an argument urged in private
said that there was a great deal. The country must decide more than in public, that under any other system people of
between them ; but, at all events, it was known that with property would get indto the House. The men of prcperty,
every political change in the United States there was a great it was contended, woul . itaways constitute the majority. But
how, he would ask, dust hey now get into that House?
chaffering and change of offices and situations of all sorts, a
circumstance which would go to influence votes just as well Everybody knew that. at present 3,00
how was 4,000/. were
as hard dollars. He contended that they ought not to at- required to get into Parliament. And that mouse
as in demoralising the constituency, and in
tempt to introduce a great change like the ballot, without spent?
showing that corresponding public benefit would be the re- tempting the people to crime and vice. Under the present
suit. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) said that it was system they were only adding to that vice which they
for the counties, not the boroughs, he wanted the ballot. expressed themselves as wishing to see overcome. The 3,000/.
Now, it was very natural, but at the same time it was very was spent in corrupting whole families, and everybody
barefaced, for the Hon. Gentleman to attack county consti- must have observed that is those places where the money
tuencies considering the open way in which a public society, was so spent there were more assize cases than anywhere
of which he was one of the founders, had gone about menu- else. This was a great moral question. It was a question
factoring faggot votes for a political purpose. He presumed of education, and lie believed that no sufficient argument
that the creators of these votes kept a pretty tight hold on had been shown against the proposition of his lion. Friend
those who held them.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide, the Member for Bristol, namely, that of taking votes by
eivide.") The Ilonoerable Gentleman, in inveighing against ball t. He would not say that that mode was perfect or
county Alembers and county constituents, had made a without some evils, but comparing it with the present sys-
very unfair attack on a body of men of whose habits he could tem, it was infinitely superior, and ought therefore to obtain
know but very little.—(Divide, divide.) He (Mr. Henley) their support. (Cheers.)
held that men who would bribe would find the means of as Mr. H. BERKELEY replied. The Noble Lord objected
certaining how votes were given, even under cover of the to his having proposed a resolution instead of a Bill. But
ballot,and that the introduction of that system would increase it the House should agree to the resolution, a Bill would
corruption while it diminished the means of investigating very soon follow. As America had frequently been alluded
into and punishing electoral abuses. to, he would state that he bad resided six years there, and
Mr. muNTz characterised the speech of the Noble Lord had closely observed the working of the American system,
at the head of the Government as sophistical and elusive of and lie never heard of anything like intimidation, or any-
the question at issue. In opposition to the Hon. Gentleman thing like a bribe in that country.
who had just sat down, he believed that the ballot would The House then divided, when there appeared,
be made to act secretly. and that a great deal of peace For the resolution appeared,
86
e comfort and confalence to all classes would result Against it . . I
m
from its introduction. Since 1800 the ballot had worked- Majority in favour of the ballot
Amu-ably in the Netherlands, to the satisfaction indeed The result was received with considerable cheering.
of all classes and its interests. Why, then, could it not The A TIORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
he as well managed here? Hon. Gentleman taiked about a Bill to confirm the incorporation of certain boroughs. The
it being an nn-English system. Why, lie was as English Bill was subsequently brought in and read firsts time.
in habits and feelings as any man, but would he like On the motion of BoUVERIE, a Bila brought in
his account-books and records f private affairs to and read a first time, to explain au Act made in the Ist year
be exposed openly in the streets? No, it was of King William and Mary, for exempting their. Majesty'soeither wke, just, or expedient to tell the whole truth at all Protestant subjects,dissei!th dissenting from the idhurch of England,
times, and if any lion. Member did so he was unworthy of from the
penalties) of certcertainj laws.'
the confidence of those who sent him there.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. RAI 11ALL obtainel leave to bring in a Bill to exempt
Then, again, he heard of the spirit of the constitution. from the legacy duties all cln2ri' able bequests, not to private
What was the constitution, but the laws actually existing individuals, but to public bodies.
.it the time being? Why, every time they met liere they The House adjourned at Five Minutes past Twelve.
,dtered that constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He protested
against the spirit of the constitution being in-de a peg
whereon to hang objections to all reforms.—(Hear. hear.)
This was no party question, it had nothing to do with
party—or, at all events. both parties were equally interested
in it. In his own borough one-seventh of the constituency
never voted at all, because they were afraid of their pecu-
niary interests suffering from the exercise of their political
privileges. The question was, then, whether under such a
system the people were justly dealt with—whether they
could exercise their electoral rights without detriment to
their worllly prospects. He contended that they could
not, and that very bare fact was, in his opinion, a sufficient
reason for the introduction of vote by ballot. Holding
these opinions, he would cordially support the motion before
the House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. P. WOOD differed entirely from the Hon. Member
who bad designated the present as a " fantastical" motion.
He thought it one of the most important motions of the pre-
sent session—the most important after that lately brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Montrose.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lord at the head of the Government talked of the
ballot as the introduction of a new principle of secret voting.
It was no doubt new—but what then? Before the Reform
11111, in the rotten borough days, it had signified very little
whether voting was secret or open ; but after the Reform Bill
had passed the whole aspect of the question underwent a
change, and the time had now come when they could not
slant their eyes to the fact that the question was, whether
they could or could not trust the people.—( Hear, hear.)
It was the middle classes—the shopkeepers of the various
towns—whose opinions it was desirable to have, and- they
were the very people whose opinions were never ascer-
tained. The statistics of the Westminster elections fully
explained that fact. He was shocked to hear the Noble
Lord speak of the evil influences of secret voting, and of
trusting the exercise of the franchise to the caprice of
those who voted in secret. Were these electors persons
capable of expressing public opinion, or were they not? If
they were, then they were the men who ought to be called
forth as a body of additional electors. Jurors were not sub-
ject to the influences to which electors were subjected. In-
fluence was brought to bear on the electors, which it was the
intention of the Reform Bill to exclude ; and to adopt the
means of putting a stop to this influence would be one mode
of satisfying the people that the House was really in earnest
on the subject of bribery. But was there not the greater
question of intimidation, which affected a large and nume-
rous class of tenantry. He held in his hand the report of
the Committee which had sat with regard to the borough of
Stafford. Although the Committee stated that none of the
facts relating to tt e Marquis of Exeter's interference at_
the time of the petition had been proved, except the
ejectment of tenants in 1830 and 1347, yet he was glad to
find that the Committee had come to the conclusion
that looking at the fact of one-third of the consti-
tuency being tenants of the Marquis, and to the
discharges served on fourteen tenants in 1830, and
sixteen in 1847, undue influence had been made to
operate on the minds of a portion of the constitu-
ency, and they had been placed under bias and restraint in
the exercise of the elective franchise. Could any one say
that this was not influence from which the ballot would pro-
tect them ? The House was asked what would be the result
of the ballot? and was told that the result would be the
same as it was without it. If the result would be the same
with honest means on the one band, and dishonest means on
the other, then why not obtain the result by honest means?
There was nothing to fear as to the destruction or overthrow
of the Government. What was the case on the 10th of
April ? Did not the whole class of voters and non-voters
come forward in a mass to rally round the cause of order?
Look at the result of the ballot in the last election for France.
Was the present National Assembly of France one which
was destructive of all order, or one which was favourable to
the restoration of order? Every one felt that the Assembly
was favourable to the restoration of order, and yet that As-
sembly had been elected by the ballot and by universal
suffrage. It was no use to attempt to govern a country
where there was liberty of speech by any other influence than
the direct influence of persuading that you were in the right,
and that you were honest and sincere, and intended the wel-
fare of the people. Let the Noble Lord only throw himself
on the whole people of England in the same gallant manner
in which he threw himself on the constituency of London—
let him deal frankly with them, and he would find the ex-
periment most satisfactory, and that all persons were anxious
for good government.
Mr. NAPIER—The Hon. Member for the city of Oxford
had stated that the people of England were a frank, manly,
generous, and independent people. He (Mr. Napier) ad-
mitted they were so, and it was because they possessed those
qualities that he deemed them worthy ,of exercising., the
tran::hise in a manly, open, and independent manner.—
( Hear. hear.) IL was under the present system of voting
that their constitution had grewn upe—a constitution w nch
partook of the character of the people ; but Hon. Members
on the other side of the House would now introduce into it
an entirely new principle—a principle at variances
h withhad
its
n.
spirit, and opposed to the genius of the Brit
Allusion had been made to America, but he too heTahrd
something of the working of the ballot in that
Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the e observations
of of an American, in which be said that the state of Virginia
had refused to admit the ballot.
Mr. COBDEN—But Virginia is a slaysoeisetmaste.r—eieHweatr)
its
Mr. NAPIER, observed that upon a
working the ballot had been abolished in Virginia in 1830,
and open voting substituted.
Mr. MACGRtGOR—Yes, on account of'slavery— (Hear.)
b
Mr. NAPIER wished to see open,t be
eagons, so that public opinion might
en
a public duty to discharge—(Hear)—that
genialmhaving
influence under which ell our injtitutious had grown

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 8.

on authority which led him to believe the facts were as
he fold stated, and if so, such interference was s hoLy
unjustifiable in point of policy, and a gross violAtidn
of the law of nations. - But he had also been infortoed,
in the same high authority, of another ited more
flagrant broach of internatiouul law. It roust be well'
known to their Lordships that for some time the King of
Nap', s, in the exercise of his undisputed and indis-
put3ble righti, having succeeded in 'arranging affairs on.
the Continent, bad been making preparations to obtain
the ri storatiou of his authority in the island of Sicily.
in sush -1 ca,e this country had no right to inquire into
the theoretical or practical abuses of the ktugdom of
Naples, nor to ask whether the constitution of that
country was such as she could in theory approve of.
We had nu right to inquire whether the Sicilians had
any just cause of complaint, and still less had we any
right to interfere with any efforts which the King of
Naples might think fit to make for the restoration of his
sutoority over any portion of his revolted subjects.' If
our mediation were asked by either party, or if it were
necessary to 'prevent any effusion of blood, God forbid
he should complain of such interference, but unless our
mediation were asked, our :clear, plain, and distinct
course was to remain wholly neutral. He wished to
ask whether the Government had practically recog-
tii,ed, that principle, or whether it was in
execution of orders sent out by ' them that the
fleet in the Mediterranean had entered the
Bay of Naples, and surrounded the vessels prepared
for the purpose of transporting the Neapolitan troops to
Sicily? and although there might be no distinct inten-
tion to prevent the sailing of that expedition, still the
British fleet was placed in a menacing position towards
it. That was a matter with regard to which the House
had a right to be informed of the intentions of her Ma-
jesty's Government in placing that' fleet in loch a posi-
tion. • Ile had a right to ask, and toe House had a right
to know, whether the British admiral had any instruc-
tions to prevent, or in the slightest degree to interfere
with any expedition which the King of Naples might
send forth for the purpose of endeavouting, to ; re-estab-
lish his authority in Sicily, or will he he left, so far as
13riiish authority is concerned, free to use his efforts for
the object he has in view? He held that up to the pre-
sent time they had not recognised the' 'independence of
Sicily, and h© made it matter of complaint, that not
having done so they had laid down conditions olowhich
they would recognise that independence. The state of
affairs between Naples and Sicily was not such as to
warrant our interference, for the struggle was stillgoing
on, and was at present of doubttul,
.suecess. He
was told that when the Sicilian Assembly elected the
Duke of Genoa as their King he was saluted by the Bri-
tish fleet off Palermo, and further, that the same. vessel
which brought to Sicily the attaché to the British Em-
bassy, also conveyed from Sicily, the delegates sent to
offer to the Duke of Genoa the Crown, which, however,
with great judgment, he had thought it expedient to de-
cline. Such interference, he repeated, was highly un-
justifiable, and contrary to every principle of . interns-
tiosal law. The questions he had to ask, were—first,
whether there had been any interference on the part of
the British Government with respect to the internal
affairs of Sicily, the form of constitution she might think
iit to adopt, or the Sovereign she might think fit to
choose? and, secondly, whether any instructions had been
given to the Admiral on the Mediterranean station to in-
terfere in the slightest degree with the free exercise of
the authority of the King of Naples, or whether, if he
sent a squadron to reduce to obedience his revolted sub-
ji ets in Sicily, it would be allowed to proceed to its des-
tination without hindrance on the part of that fleet?
For the sake of proceeding in accordance with the forms
of the House, he would conclude by moving an address
to her Majesty, for copies of correspondence between
her Majesty's Government and the British Ambassador
at Naples.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he felt it quite
unnecessary to follow the Noble Lord through alt the
details of his lengthened statement, but he had no hesi-
tation in giving him such information as was in his power
at present with respect to the nature of thet iaterference, if
it could be called such, which her Majesty's Government had
exercised regarding the differences existing between the
Two Sicilies. Before he did so, however, he felt anxious to
remove an erroneous impression which appeared to exist in
the minds of the Noble Lord and others of their Lordships,
namely, that there had been on the part of the British Go-
vernment in this transaction, any desire to accomplish the
separation of the Two Sicilies. In the differences that ex-
isted between the King of Naples—with whom they were,
and, be sincerely tru-ted, would long continue to remain, in
a state of amity—and the kingdom of Naples, their desire,
wish, and interest, certainly was to maintain the connexion
wt.ic) had hitherto existed. Long after those disturbances,
to which the Noble Lord adverted, had commenced, the
whole object of the course taken by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, both previous and subsequent to that mission which
had been alluded to in somewhat contemptuous terms by
the Noble Lord who brought
,forward the motion—the
whole olject of the Government, he repeated, was to main-
tain the connexion between the two countries. His Noble
Friend (the Earl of at into) had only gone to the State of Sar-
dinia, because he was earnestly solicited so to do by the King
of 'Naples, and when there, ooth by counsel and advice, he
did all he could to promote the adoption of those measures,
through the instrumentality of which the only chance existed
of friendly relations being maintained, and he begged to in-
form the Noble Lord opposite that instead of being received
with scorn and disrespect they were received in a spirit of
amity. At that time the British Government had every
rears n for hoping that the first and favourite object of their
interfcr nee would be accomplished. Indeed, there was a
period when their friendly suggestions were on the point of
being accomplished, but changes took place in the councils of
his Neapolitan Majesty which created unexpected obstacles
to their being corned into effect. Our advice, counsel, and
action were directed to the object of maintain-
ing the friendly connexion of the Two Sicilies, and.
that otject alone ; and it was from the want of no
exertion on their part that the issue had not been otherwise
than it turned out. The Noble Marquis having passed a
warm eulogium en the zeal, skill, and efficiency of Lord
Napier, who was entrust-Jot with the business of this country
at. Naples, proceeded to observe, that from the time it became
manifest Sicily would not remain part of Naples, their good
wishes for Naples, their anxiety to favour the people, and
their interest for the family of the King of Naples, did not
eea.e with this new feature of things. They were most anx-
ious to use their influence that a Prince of the House of
Naples should be chosen Sovereign of that kingdom, which
had become perfectly independent, as it became more and
more evident that the people of Sicily were so united and
displaS ed, such military powers, that they would maintain
th'eir independence. The British Government did not with-
hold that counsel or advice which they thought necessary
under the circumstances, but it was unaccompanied by Any-
thing like a condition or the semblance of a threat.—(Hear)
Their opinion was in favour of the form of Govern-
ment based on monarchical principles, rather than of the
form of U vernment founded on republican principles—ad-
vice which he considered it was sound for them to give, and
desirable for the Sicilians to receive. Assuming that that
advice was successful, the British Government did not hesi-
tate to add their conviction, that a monarch should be
selected from some of the allied states, and that the selection
should not he the means of introducing a foreign Prince into
Sicily. Looking back to this advice, he expressed his bliiief
that it was such as they had not the slightest reason to
rear t. The Noble Lord was quite wrong in supposing the
British Government required an assurance from the Duke of
Genoa, or that any such representation was made to the
King of Sardinia. With respect to the question which the
Noble Lord put in reference to the fleet under Admiral
Parker, he could assure the Noble Lord that the Gallant
Admiral went of his own accord to Naples, relative to an
explanation which he deemed necessary, in connexion with
a transaction which had no reference whatever to the contest
between the kingdoms of r!;•icily and Naples.
Lord STANLEY stated that he had no desire to press his
motion, but lie could not conceal from their Lordships that
lie regarded the answer of the Noble Marquis the President
of the Council as extremely unsatisfactory; nor was it such
an explanation of the views and principles of the Government
on a matter so important, as the country had a right to ex-
pect. It was quite clear, that.at a period when the King of
Naples had not resigned all hope of re-establishing his own
authority in Naples, the British Government had felt it con-
sistent with the duty they owed to a friendly Sovereige, to
offer advice to the insurgent Sicilians as to the mode in which
they should constitute themselves an independent country.
The Noble Marquis bad stated that no condition was affixed
vbto
el
rsothholaaet
sovereign
vdevi
roiectioegr
mn; bintdet
Sicwi na independent
to
omsatinaoito
nfee,s tsaost hss
oehoonßortoihot
ssdhoa
coun-
try would recognise the independence of that state, being
in itself no small inducement, if not a condition, to r
-pro-
ceed toi. the election of such Sovereign. The Noble
foltl _
their wish the Sovereign so selected should be an I ilia
tctuoisseharedv noolttiodgenoiteldb
joothtf
otfhtehoßriKitioshg GofovNearnplmose,ntthaint
iinvJedas
ttrn
tttleknvaeteordwnsiotiafhlt
allies,
with
neutrality which it was their duty, as well as
dFiri inac, ea' ea on ud rsi fe
"e
e rlttaai ini al
and wth
Thee KconductS abry-
their interest, to maintain between. a mother-country and
which they should be iyonfliunecon Princeen ds is
her revolting dependents. Moreover, it was giving counsel
as to secure your
posi-
tion was not so successful or complete,
power, and if they were
not re-
cognitionof them, as an independent
to persons in arms against their Sovereign, and whose
to give the support of
condition, as against the Sovereign,
• h
tell the Sicilians how they t best secure
England, and to
not in that position, the British Government was not: in a
Government did still intend to
to know whether the British h f
between t e insurgent orces in
maintain strict neutral%
their co-operation and support. He thought they hada right
and whether they authorised
Italy and the King
opposition
N p.
the way of, anywhich he tn. ht think fit to send to-
force
any person to offer pposition do, or throw any obstacles in
to-
wards regaining his power, and which, at the present mo-
wer
ment,.he. was intimidated from sending by the control of
the British fleet on-the waters of Naples? He asked whe-
ther, as matters now stood, they adhered to neutrality, and
if they did, it was impossible that a British Admiral could
endeavour to prevent any expedition which the King of
Naples might send forth for the recovery of his lost domi-
nion, as he had a right and authority to send, and any inter-
ference with which could not take place on the part of Eng-
land without a violation of the law of nations.
The Earl of MINTO explained the circumstances con-
nected with the presence of the fleet at Naples. It was un-
derstood that a Naples steamer, on the waters of Corfu, with
a number of Sicilian refugees from Calabria on board, had
hoisted British colours. These refugees were brought over
to Naples. Admiral Parker demanded access to those per-
sona to ascertain their cause of complaint. The access was
refused, and this circumstance he (Lord Minto) thought
would prove more than sufficient ground for refusing an ex-
planation. The Admiral then took upon himself the duty
of judge., and be was certain that the judgment of that dis-
tingtfished officer, as on previous occasions, would be found
most prudent and firm. He (Lord Minto) denied, as Lord
Stlnley seemed to insinuate, that he had proceeded some-
what officiously to Sicily. lie was most unwilling, in the
first instance, to go there, and he had not done so except at
the urgent entreaty of the Neapolitan SeVereign and Govern-
ment, his object being to maintain the connexion beta4en
the two countries.
Tile Duke of ARGYLL expressed his deep regret that the
British Government had thought it their duty, at so early a
period, to recognise the kingdom of Sicily. It was for the
interest of Italy that there should be consolidation and not
division. He felt confident that the Government intended
to maintain the connexion between the two countries; but
Issoregretted they had, so, soon, leaked upon the King of
anitY effurae tusregain
is IMP& ible.
EarhGRE wh
,Y.
.saids,elest. en (he proper
he time arrived the
'GOVernment would be able tel show-Mat they had not acted
in this matter withoutlifia- elution:- They now laboured
under the disadvantage of being uOlible. from prudential mo-
dves, to explain the
Justice of their OHO-.
The Earl of MALMESBURY considered his Noble
Friend's (Lord Stanley's) question ietuained unanswered,
and, therefore, he should again very distinctly and briefly
ask, with the view of 004 information, wee the fleet

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
The Salmon Breed Preservation Bill. was read a third
time and passed.
The Public Works (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed, atter a few words from the Earl of
DESART and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE.
COPYHOLD BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE asked what course it was in-
tended to pursue with regard to the Copyhold Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was not his in-
tention to proceed with the Bill during this session.
SICILY AND NAPLES.
Inrd STANLEY, while he hoped to obtain an answer
to the question of which he had given notice last
night, thought it would be better to make a mo-
tion for papers, as it would enable him to ask
the Noble Marquis to enter more into details with
regard to the question of Sicily than he would in giving
an answer to a question. The success of the French re-
volution and the acknowledgment of the French republic
had given rise to an insurrection in Sicily, which for the
time had been successful. It was an ecknowledged
principle that in all such cases foreign Gi3vernments
should maintain the strictest neutrality. On this
principle we had abstained from interfering in the affairs
of Italy, we had condemned German interferftce in the
affairs of Holstein, and we had praised the answer of M.
de Lam atine to the Irish deputation; a:.d if there was
any country in the world in which it was incumbent
to maintain the doctrine of non interference it
was England, which had Ireland at its door,
with a large portion of the population al-
ways willinti to accept foreign intervention to
shako off what they were unjustly taught to consider
the yoke of the mother country. It was most unfortu•
nate that at the period when the affairs of Naples re-
quired great tact and judgment, the British Minister
should have been absent from his post, and the
conduct of affairs should have been left to an able
but an inexperienced young man. He believed the
Noble LOrd opposite, who had a roving commission
to all the Southern Courts, happened to be at Rome at
the time of the Sicilian outbreak, and that he had been
invited to come to Naples by the King, and to interfere
between the King and his revolted subjects. He believed
that although the Noble Earl had been invited to inter-
fere, his advice had been disregarded by both parties. His
mediation was disregarded, and the Neapolitan troops
had been driven from Sicily. An insurrection followed
in Naples, which was at first successful, but afterwards
a reaction took place, and an agreement was come to be-
tween the King and the liberal party of Naples.
Measures were then undertaken by the King of
Naples to subdue his revolted subjects in Sicily,
With regard to the recognition by foreign Powers, of
the independence of any revolted State, be thought that
no friendly Power should recognize such independence
so long as there was any chance of the friendly foreign
Power to which such revolted subjects owed alle-
giance being enabled to make its supremacy re-
cognised.—(Hear, hear.) The self-constituted Provi-
sional Government of Sicily proceeded to consider the
form of government to be established. Communications
it was
were opened with the British authorities ; an
stated that a communication was made through the me-
dium of Mr. Fagan, an attaché of the British Embassy
at Naples, that it was the pleasure of the British Gehins-
-1
vernment that the Sicilians should adopt thuelitE;loenhaerecee
eh did a
as
form of government, and that they
their king the son of the King of Ssahr od inhom ia.
mission was entrusted; but he believed he should not err
to w
S such
not know who the Gentleman was
very wide of
belongingnamteoththae
nativet
he was a o
the markf
the
if he. ncreo rurnetdryf,r hs
extreme liberal party of that country ; and that opinion
was confirmed by an examination of a very useful little
work, called Dodd's Parliamentary Companion, in which
he found that a gentleman, named Fagan, was in 1847,
returned, for the first time, as a Member for the City ot
Cork, and that in politics be was an avowed repealer of
the union between Great Britain and `lreland.—(Much
laughter on the Ministerial benches.) Perhaps he was
wrong, and if so, the Noble Earl could correct him.
Earl MINT O—Go on---go on.
Lord STANLEY—In this, however, he believed he
could not be contradicted in stating, that previous to
that event, agents from Sicily were received in this coun-
try, he meant formally and officially received and admitted
to interviews with the Noble Lord at the head of the
ntgoltahnadt NobleosnolifnLo'
tta)r,
Foreign-office. They submitted their views with regard
to
ruet future constitutionormed
hy.
hrno ft
that
re-
cognise Sicily as a republic, but would dw
atondthwe
narchical form of Government were chosen,oand ei-na"-•
a son of
the King ot Sardinia elected as their
King. He believe,
it further to be the case that a
effect was made by direction of
Lc(omdmpun eratio to thtn
on
King of Sardinia through our Minister
it nsTuri to the
also to the British Consul ac Turin,
tut'
at Palermo, Mr. tTood
who lost no time in letting
the condition be known 1/4e
which England would recognise the independence of
Sicily. All that might, perhaps be a fable, but.he hid it