The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-23 00:00:00

TRIS DAY'S MARKETS.

CORN EXCHANGE.

The supply of English wheat on offer, to-day, was rather
limited ; but al: kinds moved off slowly, at Monday's cur-
rency. ,The general condition of the samples was by no
means first-rate.

There was only a limited inquiry for foreign wheat;
nevertheless, holders were firm in their demands. The show
of samples was large.

We had a fair inquiry for most kinds of barley, at full
quotations, and fine malt was quite as dear as on Monday.
We had a fair sale for oats and peas, on former terms.
Beans moved off slowly, at Monday's decline in value.

The flour trade ruled heavy. In prices, however, no
change took place.

ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.

Wheat. Barley Malt. Oats. Flour.
English 2,810 I 2,590' 4,730 ; 3,940 620
Irigh
Foreign — 1 1,480 1 4,170 460 sks
30 blu

THE BALLOT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—Will you kindly insert the accompanying
letter on certain fallacies of the Times as regards
le Ballot, which the editor of that paper declines
admit ?—I am, &c.,

F. HENRY F. BERKELEY.
Victoria-square, Feb. 22.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,--You have refused insertion in your paper

- ,
to letters of mine, addressed to you in perfect
courtesy and in the desire to correct certain mis-
statements which I found in your columns, and
when by the kindness of other editors the letters
which I had the honour to address to you appeared
in their papers, you answered my statements in
your own columns, thus evincing the fact that you
attached importance to communications to which
you denied a circulation. The fact is a contradic-
tion to your assertion in your leading article of
to-day, that consistently with space and time
you. were always ready to afford me a full and fair
hearing. I know too well the value of space in your
paper to attempt improperly to avail myself of it.
Will you allow me, then, to ask you, in reference
to a column and a quarter of ingenious wordiness in
to-day's Times, what one ai gument there is against
the ballot? Are you prepared now to deny that
which you very recently asserted, that on secrecy.
depends the independence of the press. One word
on your to-day's argument on the analogy of the
press and the ballot. The metaphysical essence
called a "newspaper" clearly is responsible so far
as the law of libel is a cheek upon the editor, as the
metaphysical essences called " St. Albans" and
"Sudbury" were responsible to the bribery laws and
were disfranchised : the difference is in the present
positions of the units of which those essences are
made up. Unless the individual writers in the press
were personally unknown, and therefore personally
irresponsible, if they were compelled to attach their
signatures to their articles, and so become respon-
sible for them, no pay which the Times could offer
would procure men of talent to undertake the ardu-
ous office. The liberty of the press would then receive
its death-blow, and that which is an Englishman's
distinctive pride and boast would depart for ever.
We have seen a remarkable instance of this in the
last day or two. Nearly every paper has had ano
nymous articles against a recent scandalous legal
appointment. Professional newspapers, as well as
the ordinary press, have spoken out freely, because
the writers wrote secretly. Would there have been

the same outspoken burst of indignation had a
record been kept against every writer of the articles
he wrote on this point ? To the secrecy of the
press and its consequence—the independence •
the press—the country owes its deliverance from a
bad judge. Such is the fact as regards the writers
in newspapers. How different the position to
the elector ! He has as solemn a duty to perform,
but in the performance of that duty he is not
equally protected. At the present moment tha
majority of electors do not perform that duty—they
are not permitted "to do their own voting;' while
secrecy protects your writers from that very malign
influence which you are determined to perpetuate
on the elector, and your writers consequently "do
their own writing." Say what you please, the two
cases are perfectly analogous. As for stabbing in
the dark, and secrecy producing evil deeds, and the
electoral ballot-box being a horror, why have you
not the same horror of all the other ballot-boxes ?
Parliamentary elections are almost the only viva
voce elections in this country, and parliamentary
electors are consequently almost the only electors
who suffer under intimidation. It may do very
well to bluster in a leading article about stabbing
in the dark, relying on the article taking effect on
thoughtless persons ; but who can the elector stab ?
What is the meaning of an elector stabbing some
imaginary person or persons P When an elector in
secret votes for the candidates Brown and Jones
and rejects Robinson, does he stab Robinson ? If
the elector voted in public, according to this, he
must stab some person ; and surely, since we are
to use your terms, it is much better that the elector
should stab Robinson with his vote in secrecy, if

it so please him, than be compelled, under a threat
of ruin to stab Brown and Jones in public, and
send Robinson to Parliament. I pass by that evi-
dent attempt to bully the man while you shun his
arguments which pervades your leading article on
the " Ballot Dinner." So far from taking umbrage,
I am pleased to see how very little lightning accom-
panies such an amount of thunder.
I am, &c.,
F. HENRY F. BERKELEY.
Victoria-square, February 18.