The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-18 00:00:00

MILLWALL CANAL COMPANY.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
DUBLIN TRUNK CONNECTING RAILWAY BILL

This bill was withdrawn.
THAMES NAVIGATION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, Mr.-DonsoN
in the chair.

Clauses 1 to 5 were agreed to.
On clause 6, that one of five additional conservators be
appointed by the Board of Trade,
Mr. AYRTON moved to leave out all after appointed,
and insert "by the Metropolitan Board of Works, who
shall be at liberty at any time to revoke any appointment
made by them, and to appoint another conservator instead,
when and as they may think fit "
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
Clauses 7,8, 9, 10, and 11 were agreed to.

On Clause 12, section 1,

Mr. AYRTON moved to leave out " or in default" to
" Board of Trade," and insert " the Secretary of the Con-
servators."

After a short discussion, the clause was retained in its
original form.
Clauses 13 and 14 were agreed to.
Clause 15, relative to voting papors, was withdrawn.
Clauses 16 to 43 were agreed to.
On clause 44, with regard to compensation,
Sir G. BOWYER, in reply to Mr. AYRTON, said the
clause did not give the owner any right to compensation
in respect of tolls, because the bill provided for the aboli-
tion of these tolls. But supposing a man had laid out a
good deal of money on any of those weirs, and handed
them over in a very good condition, he had a•very fair
right to compensation for the expenditure he had incurred.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said the learned gentleman's ex-
planation was to him most puzzling. (Hear, hear.) The
abolition of the tolls seemed to him to be the very reason
why compensation should be given.
Mr. AYRTON said the words of the act were that any
person having any estate in any lock, dam, or weir was en-
titled to compensation. In order that they might define
what compensation was to be given for, he moved that
"estate" be left out of the clause.
Mr. LOCKE said that any tolls or right of fishing was
part of the estate, and therefore the clause ought to be
altered or struck out altogether.

Mr. GIBSON said the intention of the committee Was
this—that persons who had laid out a good deal of money
on locks, and really laid out more than was really required
should be compensated—that their claim should be consi-
dered.

Mr. AYRTON then withdrew his amendment, on the
understanding that the clause would be amended by Mr.
Cave.

Clauses 45 to 56 were agreed to.
Mr. AYRTON moved' the rejection of Clause 58, but,
after some discussion, the amendment was negatived.
iow
Clauses 59, 60, 61, and 62, after a short discussion,
agreed to, and the chairman was ordered to repoAuerrne-
grass.
An adjournment took place at four o'clock.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
Lord J. MANNERS and Sir S. NORTHCOTE took the oath
and their seats on re-election.
THE JAMAICA COMMISSION.
Mr. J. 8. MILL—I beg to give notice that on Thursday
next I shall put the following series of questions to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer :—Whether any steps have
been or will be taken to bring to trial Lieut. Adoockfor un-
lawfully putting to death two men, named Mitchell and
Rill, without trial, and six persons after alleged trial by
eourUmartial on charges not cognisable bya military court;
for
°gging without trialMr.JohnAnderson and others,and
authorisinga one Henry Ford to flog many men and women
without trial, one of whom-, named John Mullens, died in
consequence Whether any steps have been or will be taken
to bring to trial Captain Hole for hanging one Donaldson
trial;without
r2O forshooting and permitting to be shot
hanging and Pns without trial ; for putting to death by
shooting
fth thirty-three persons after trial by a
130-called military court or acts not cognisable by a military
court, and without observance;lora of the rules prescribed by
the Articles of War various men and women
without trial ; and for being after the fact to the
unlawful putting to death ogf accessory
persons by soldiers
under his command. Whetherualunny:sxutsps have been or will
putting John
be taken to bring to trial Lieut.
Burdy to death after a shnilar unlawfuirtl, and for per-
mitting the men under his command u to fire at unarmed
peasants, and cause the death of several persona
Whether
;o trial En-
any steps have been or will be taken to bring
sign Cullen and Dr. Morris for putting three men to death
without trial, and Dr. Morris for shootincr
ou William
Gray. Whether any steps have been or willbee . n-t 0
bring to trial stipendiary magistrate Fife for burning houses
of peasants, putting to death one person without trial, and
being accessory to the unlawful putting to death of various
others. Whether any steps have been or will be taken to
bring to trial. Attorney-General Bishop, Lieut. Brand,
apt. Lake, and Capt. Field, for sitting as presidents or
embers of alleged courts-martial, by whom numerous
ersons were unlawfully put to death. Whether any steps
have been or will be taken to bring to trial Gen. O'Connor
for having been accessory before and after the fact to nu-
merous unlawful executions, some of them without trial,
and others after the illegal trials already specified. Whether
an steps have been or will be taken to bring to trial Col.

Nelson, brigadier-general in Jamaica, for unlawfully caus-
ing to be tried in time of peace, by military courts irregu-
larly composed, for acts alleged to have been done before
the proclamation or beyond the jurisdiction of martial law,
and after such trial to be unlawfully put to death the fol-
lowing persons :—Geo. Wm. Gordon, Edward Fleming,
Sam. Clarke, Wm. Grant, Geo. Ilacint )sh, Hy. Laurence,
Letitia Geoghan, and six other women, one of them in a
state of pregnancy; Scipio Cowell, Alex. Taylor, Toby
Butler, Jasper H. Livingstone, and various other persona
who had been previously flogged; and about 180 other
alleged rebels ; and for authorising the flogging without
trial of Alex. Phillips, Richd. Clark, and numerous others.
Whether any legal proceedings have been or will be
ordered to be taken against Mr. E. J. Eyre, lately governor
of Jamaica, for complicity in all or any of the above acts,
and particularly for the illegal trial and execution of Mr.
G. W. Gordon. If not, whether her Majesty's Government
Are advised that these acts are not offences under the cri-
minal law ?

METROPOLITAN WORKHOUSES.
Mr. G. HARDY, in reply to an inquiry of Mr.
Fawcett, stated that the Government did not contem-
plate introducing any general measure relating to the
infirmaries in the metropolitan workhouses during the pre-
, sent session, by reason of the want of time to consider the
subject fully. The condition of those places, however,
should receive immediate attention, and the powers vested
in the Poor-law Board, which had hitherto been in abey-
ance, should be put in force, they being adequate to dealing
with the existing evils. He should also ask the house to
grant to the commissioners the power of altering and en-
larging the sick wards where necessary, without the con-
sent of the guardians ; and early in the next session he
hoped to be able to bring in a-general measure relating to
the workhouses of the metropolis. (The statement of the
right hon. gentleman was received by both sides of the
house with cheers.)

Lord STANLEY stated, in answer to Mr. Greufell, that
he had not seen the paragraphs in the Berlin Borsen Zeitung
to the effect that " the English Cabinet had given it to be
understood that England would not allow any part of'
Hanover to be handed over to Prussia, it being the interest
of Great Britain to see the integrity of Hanover main-
tained on account of certain eventual hereditary claims ;"
but he assured the house that the statement was absolutely
without foundation.

Mr. GRAVES moved an address to the Qiteen for a
Royal commission to inquire into the present condition of
the seamen of the mercantile marine, with the view of as-
certaining whether, within the last 20 years, the supply
of British seamen had or had not fallen off either in point
of numbers or of efficiency, and, if in either a continuous
decline should be apparent, then to ascertain furthsr
what were the causes which had led to such decline,
and whether any remedy could be suggested. The
hon. member quoted statistics to show that since the
year 1858 there had been both a proportionate de-
cline in the number and a deterioration in the quality of
the seamen employed in the merchant service, and that the
increase in the number of foreigners sailing in English
ships had been vastly in excess of that in native sailors,
compared with the growth in the amount of tonnage. For
this state of things he suggested that the true remedy
would be the establishment of training ships at various
harbours round the coast, and a revival of the old system
of apprenticeship. _ _ _

The motion was seconded by Mr. LIDDELL, and opposed
by Mr. HENLEY, who objected to all Government inter-
ference as having a tendency to land us in the French
system, which was essentially a bad one. It was not by
means of training ships that the race of seamen had been
reared who had fought and won our greatest naval battles,
but through lengthened apprenticeship, which brought
men face to face with and accustomed them to danger, and
made them hardy and adventurous sailors. He believed
the decline in efficiency was to be traced to the shortening
of the term of apprenticeship to the sea and to the super-
ficial and inadequate knowledge imparted in school ships,
where it was not easier to make a thorough sailor than to
teach swimming on the grass.

1 Sir S. NORiHCOTIT did not dispute the accuracy of
the representation which had been zAade of the present
condition of the mercantile marine. The facts were pa-
tent. They were before the house in returns lying upon
the table. There was no doubt that, relatively to the
quantity of tonnage employed, a falling off had taken place
in numbers within the last few years. It followed, there-
fore, that quality was likely to some extent to be deterio-
rated.
The knowledge of these circumstances, however,
made it unnecessary to institute an inquiry by means of a
Royal commission. He admitted that the question required
to be dealt with, and in order to do that the first step
should be to take up the recommendations of the com-
mission appointed whilst Sir J. Pakington was at the
Admiralty on the last occasion ; and he promised that the
subject should receive his careful consideration, and after
looking into it he would make a definite explanation of
the views of the Government respecting it.
Mr. GRAVES having expressed himself satisfied with
the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, the
motion was by leave withdrawn.

THE BALLOT.
Mr. BERKELEY said he held in his hand a petition
from the inhabitants of Bridgenortb, which ho begged to
move should be read by the clerk at the table.

The petition, which was in favour of the ballot, was
then read.

Mr. BERKELEY then rose to move " that, having re-
gard to the failure of all direct legislation against corrupt
practices at parliamentary elections, it is expedient to
make experiment of the system of taking the votes at such
elections anonymously, according to the laws now in fore!)
in other parts of her Majesty's dominions." He said he
feared he must not expect any great favour in bringing
forward this question in the present House of Commons,
which had steadily opposed reform, and• shown itself hos-
tile to extending the privileges of the working classes. For
29 years during his service in parliament he had been pain-
fully impressed with the evils which had crept into our
electoral system, and which had from the commencement of
her Majesty's reign been steadily on the increase.: No
doubt our electoral constitution in its original state was
well adapted to give the people that voice in the election
of representatives which free institutions demanded, but of
our electoral constitution in its present state of abominable
demoralisatidn we had every reason to be ashamed. (Hear,
hear.) There was no hon. member who would dare to
gainsay that each elector ought to vote freely and in-
differently, without fear of consequences. He would
call the attention of the house to a few of our greatest
authorities. Lord Russell had said " our most an-
cient statutes, our greatest constitutional laws, and
our best maxims, lay down the proposition that the
people of England ought to elect their representa-
tives freely and indifferently." No doubt his lordship
referred to the opinions of such men as Walpole,
who spoke in eulogistic terms of the priiilege of electing
members to serve in Parliament; to Burke, who, speaking
of the electoral franchise, said '•his unbiassed opinion, his
mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, the elector
ought to sacrifice to no man living." Lord Chief Justice
Holt had said—" It is a great privilege to vote for those
who make the laws which govern life and property—a pri-
vilege not to be deputed to another." If to delegate it were
to depute it to another, what should they say to its being
continually wrested from the rightful owners and used by
others who could have no possible claim to it, more
especially by that noble class of non-electors who were
forbidden by the orders of that house to interfere in elec-
tions ? The miserable state of our electoral systaPl was
admitted on, all hands, and was the laughing-stock of
Europe. As they had found no other remedy, he asked the
house to try that which the most enlightened writers, from
Daniel Defoe down to Jeremy Bentham and J. Mill had in-
sisted on as the one most likely to produce purity of elec-
tions, and the principle which was adopted by England's
greatest Parliament in the year 1628 under the_advocacy of
Hamilton, Pym, Elliott, and Coke ; which a century after-
, wards passed the House of Commons under the advocacy
of Walpole, but was rejected in the Lords by the Opposi-
tion of Godolphin ; and which in the present century had
had the advocacy of Lord Macaulay, Sheil, Molesworth,
Bethell, and many others. (Hear hear.) He was con-
sequently asking the house to make an experiment for
which he had some little sanction, and he hoped that
no; young member kwould accuse him of desiring the
adoption of a crotchet of his own. (Hear, hear.) These
great authorities had left a fortress of argument, which
although unassailable by any reasoning he had ever heard
of or read, had yet fallen from time to time under the hot
fire of unscrupulous bolts. The arguments used against
the ballot were, first, that it was unmanly ; next, that it
was un-English—(hear, hear)—thirdly, that it was not
successful where it had been tried ; and fourthly, that it
was wrong in principle, because the franchise was a trust
held by the electors for the non-electors, and must be exer-
cised (Hear, hear.) No doubt hon. gentlemen
oppositeopenly.app
arge
ument of
unman
approved of these arguments, but they would not
As to
in theth a
clubs, more
ment
recogniiisneest,:eit
answerswas
the
mode t o them. f
voting
particularly in the military and naval clubs, and our mili-
tary and naval men were
not supposed to bevery unmanly.
But passing this by,
tshould bo remembered that an act of
Parliament was passed every year to enable courts-martial
to vote in secret. (Hear, hear.) He thought that not a
word could be said against the manliness of secret voting.
That the ballot was un-English was a complete farce, and
where it
the third objection, that it had been unsuccessful
the contrary was
had been tried, was equally erroneous, for
the fact. He would first refer to America. (Hear, hear.)
But He thought he should have a cheer. (Laughter.) that
was an ironical cheer from a member opposite. He bad
never held up America for modes of voting which this
country ought to imitate. On the contrary, he had always
held up America as having a system which ought to be
shunned, for in America a man might stick his voting
paper in his hat, or hold it in his hand—he had seen men
do it—for every one to see. Yet open voting in. America
had led to great corruption and intimidation, and
every man in America would think those madmen who
proposed to abolish the ballot, and to have open voting
instead: The ballot protected the voters from evil conse-
quences—from violence and Lynch law, from drunkenness
and demoralisation ; and so the Americans had got the
ballot. When his royal highness was in Philadelphia there
was an election going on, but there was no di •
sorder. People
ware seen in the streets talking in knots, but there was no
more disorder than in au English
town on a market day—

there was no drunkenness, no roughs, no lambs, and no
men in the moon— (laughter)—and any person might ven-
ture to ask his royal highness what he thought of an elec-
tion in America and in this civilised country. He had on
former occasions adverted to Belgium. There were many
gentlemen from that country now being entertained by
the volunteers, and they could say whether they would
like to give up their system for our own. He might refer
to_Paris, where the people voted by ballot against and in
the very teeth of the Government, and they continually
proved that they could so vote without coercion. His
friend, Sir John Bowring, had lately received a letter from
Paris, in which the writer scouted the idea that the ballot
was not successful in France, and he (Mr. Berkeley) would
be happy to hear any evidence to the contrary. In 1862
there were commissioners from the colonies in Australia to
the Great Exhibition, and while they wore in this country
certain questions were put to them by the Ballot Society,
and the answers Were that voting by ballot quite prevented
the way in which a man voted from becoming known un-
less he chose to mention it ; that it prevented bribery—
disorder—and that diminished expenses. The Times had
written against manhood suffrage and the ballot—two
things which had no connexion—but the Melbourne cor-
respondent of that paper took it to task, and wrote in
favour of the ballot. There could be no doubt that the
ballot had worked well in the Australian colonies. The
fourth objection against the ballot was a very paltry one,
and as unsound. It was that the franchise was a trust held
by electors for the benefit of non-electors, consequently it
must be exercised openly in order that non-electors might
know how electors discharged their trust. He had no ob-
jection to calling the franchise a trust ; but it was a trust
with a limit, and with functions clearly defined, and
they were that electors should vote freely and indif-
ferently, without fear or reward. If electors voted
openly they could not discharge the functions of
their trust. Non-electors were either whigs, tories, or
radicals, and were frequently strong partisans, and pushed
their opinions to extremities. If a Tory non-elector found
an elector voting for a Whig he was base. If a Whig non-
elector discovered an elector voting for a Tory he was
faithless ; and a Radical non-elector considered an elector
unworthyif he did not support the Radical candidate. That
was the consequence of open voting. What was the re-
sponkbility of an elector ? It might be financial ruin—per-
sonal violence—notice to quit by his landlord from his
house and home ; and in many cases that reduced a man to
poverty. " You take my life when you do take the means
by which I live" might very often by said by electors.
Those were responsibilities which electors ought not to
bear. (Hear.) He would next refer to a resolution of the
great Parliament of 1628. The House of Commons at that
time decreed that the elective right was not a franchise in
the nature of a possession or a privilege, but a service to
be used pro bono public(); the elector was to discharge those
services as his conscience dictated. Next as to the demo-
ralisation in which constituents were sometimes plunged,
and upon that he would say one word in reference to au
election which had just taken place at Guildford. Now
he quite concurred in the opinion that the appointment of
Mr. Bovill to the office which he held was as graceful to
the Government as it was honourable to the hon. and learned
gentleman hiniself. (Hear.) When at Guildford as a can-
didate—whether blushing under the honours which had
been showed upon him he did not know—the hon. and
learned gentleman used these remarks in reply to some
person who asked him whether he would vote for the bal-
lot : "I will not. (Hear.) To be a representative of the
people was a great trust ; and what would they think of
their representatives voting by ballot ?" What would they
think, indeed ! (Laughter.) He (Mr. Berkeley) had heard
of a man who, when asked if ho could speak the German
language, said he did not think that he could, but he
had a brother who could play the German flute. (Oh,
oh.) There was just as much analogy between the
functions of an elector and a member of Parliament as be-
tween the German language and the German flute. (Laugh-
ter and "hear.") An elector was answerable to no one. If
his vote was given freely and indifferently, he discharged
the duty imposed upon him by law. He could not be re-
warded or punished, but members of Parliament could be
both rewarded and punished. They made their speeches
upon the hustings, and if they did not act up to them the
electors knew what to do, and therefore he would repeat
thero was just as much analogy between the German lan-
guage and the German flute. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
learned gentleman while at Guildford went on to say that
he trusted the time would never come when honest Eng-
lishmen would be afraid to record their votes openly.
(Hear, hear.) It might be very well for the Solicitor Ge-
neral, with his position and his wealth, to say he could go
to the poll and record his vote openly, but let them sup.
pose the case of William Bovill, the tallow-chandler, or a
man dependent on another, and could it be said that the
time had come when he could record his vote without fear.
(Hear, hear.) There wore thousands of such cases, and this
was not confined to the working classes but extended to
the educated classes. He would cite one class—the medi-
cal profession. What young medical man, with a rising
family, dare give a vote ? If they wanted an answer to
this let them take any directory, and having found the
names of the medical men, turn to the register and then to
the poll-book, and they would be satisfied that that class of
men, who wore rarely qualified by their education to give
a vote, were virtually excluded from doing so. Was there
no intimidation at Guildford ? no interference by high
personages ? lie held in his hand a letter from Earl Percy's
steward, dated Albury, July 10—" Mr. Dowling.—Please
make up my bill, as I may probably desire to close the
accounts on Saturday next." (Hear, hear.) Ho would
mention another case, in which he might be excused
from naming the individual. A tradesman at Guildford
attended at Albury-park, the seat of the Earl of Percy, the
day before the election, having received a message that a
certain person there, whom he (Mr. Berkeley) would not
name, but who certainly had a right to command, wished
to see him, and that person, whose name would not be
stated, asked the tradesman how he intended to vote. The
tradesman said he had not made up his mind—(laughter)—
and the intimation was immediately conveyed to him—
"Unless you vote for the Solicitor-General you shall never
do any more work in this house :" and the statement was
likewise made that it was the intention of Lord Percy to
send for the poll-book, and that he never more would em-
ploy those who voted against the Solicitor-General. He
(Mr. Berkeley) had reason to believe that these statements
could be fairly borne out ; at all events, they invited in-
quiry. If they were true, he might fairly say the Solicitor
General was a little two-faced when he said that the honest
Englishman ought never to be afraid to give his vote.
With regard to the demoralisation of constituents, Mr. Ma-
caulay, Mr. Brooke, and others came to the conclusion, after
the Reform Bill of 1832, that the fatal omissions in that
bill were the close and rotten boroughs, and the neglect to
protect the electors at the poll. Things went on until Lord
Aberdeen's administration, when an act was passed which
had the evident intention of protecting delinquent candi-
dates, because the candidates could get off on any pretence;
and although the punishment, if any, went to the elector,
it was in point of fact nugatory, because no jury could be
found to convict. Of that bill Lord Derby had said it was
of no more use than so much waste paper, and yet it
went to the country ; and now, after their septennial
saturnalia, and smarting from its orgies, here they were,
helpless and hopeless, with that act of parliament for their
guide. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Instead of its being
a Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, it was a Corrupt
Practices Encouragement Act, and was so viewed through-
out the country. If the house doubted the position in
which they were placed, let them look at the leading
Tory papers. He supposed they might now call the Times
the leading Tory paper—(laughter)—but the Standard and
Morning Herald had been supposed to occupy that posi-
tion. They complained loudly of the state of things at the
last elections. Sir G. Jenkinson, the Rory baronet, had
stated that he was told at the election for Nottingham at
two o'clock on the polling day that he could win the elec-
tion if he would resort to certain means, but he preferred
saving his honour and losing the election. The hon. ba-
z onet added subsequently that if the ballot would provide
a remedy for such a state of things he would vote for it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was another authority
as to the insufficiency of the existing means of preventing
bribery and corruption, and as ho (Mr. Berkeley) had
looked in vain in the address of the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer for a declaration on the subject, and as
Lord Derby did not propose a remedy, he (Mr. Berkeley)
asked the house to accept his resolution. He advised the
hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Mill), who had back-
slided to some extent on this subject, to support the mo-
tion. He found in that column of the local paper a charge
against the Duke of Somerset of having evicted his tenants
without any ceremony or any other pretence than that
they voted against him, and that none butthoso who voted
for him should live in his houses. He hardly dare trust,
himself with reading it, but it was so. (Cries of " Read.")
Well, besides that, there was a statement in a newspaper
that the Marquis of Bath had evicted 12 of his tenants at
Frome, without any other reason being assigned than that
they had all voted for the Liberal candidate. These were
statements publicly made, and he did not think that any
man, however exalted his station, was too high to give a
contradiction to thorn, if they were untrue. At all events,
if the aristocracy of England allowed such accusations to
go forth without proof, they did themselves a great in-
justice in not contradicting them. He had like-
wise the statement of Mr. Whitmore, at one time
mayor of Bridgnertb, but as be had presented
that gentleman's petition that night, and had it
also read at the table, he would not further dilate on it,
except to state that that gentleman was turned out of
his house on account of the manner in which he voted.
He trusted, therefore, that be should be successful in gain-
ing his hon. friend's vote. But he was afraid that when
great philosophical characters got hold of some point, there
was very great difficulty in inducing them to let it go.
(Laughter.) At all events, if his respected father were
here, he would say to him, " My son, stick to the ballot, and
neglect the whim of the moment." (Loud laughter). That,
therefore, was his appeal to the hon. member, feebly but
zealously and honestly urged. He now asked the house
to try the experiment of the ballot, not in his own name,
but in the name of the illustrious men whom he had quoted.
He called upon hon. members to dismiss all uaworthy fears
of the people, for they might be trusted on account of their
lohoynaseltywandont hnoontegistvye. t
hTe hme
tp eh
eo pplre
0,
the
eotwi
()env eer ,f t felth ethat the
net,

because it would be protecting them from the oppression
of those above them. That he had good reason to know
was the feeling of the people. The ballot, however, must
come, because justice could not deny it for ever; and he
appealed to them if it were not better to gracefully yield
the boon at once, rather than wait till they were forced to
yield it ungraciously. Let not therefore their fears deny
that which at no distant day their fears would compel them
to grant. He would not detain the house further than by
stating that he had a firm conviction that the words of
Bentham were true, namely, that " secrecy of the suffrage
was the pole star of reform." (Cheers.)
Mr. MOWBRAY said, in rising to offer a few observa-
tions in opposition to the motion, he considered he had a
right on behalf of the House of Commons to complain of
the attack made on it by the hon. member for Bristol, in
describing it as a hostile House of Commons. The hon.
gentleman was the last person from whom such a charge
ought to have proceeded.
Mr. BERKELEY remarked that what he said was
"hostile to reform."

Mr. MOWBRAY said on the 28th May last the house
passed in the most general terms an instruction to the
committee on the Reform Bill, that the committee should
have power to make provision for the better prevention of
bribery and corruption, not specifying any particular plan,
not excluding this particular crotchet of the hon. member
for Bristol. But against that particular proposition the
hon. member for Bristol recorded his vote. (Hear.) He
thought, therefore, he had a right to say that the house,
whenever he took its general feeling as expressed by the
resolution or as evinced by the various inquiries which had
taken place before the various election committees, had
shown itself indifferent to ary measure for the prevention
of bribery and corruption. The hon. member had taken
them back 240 years and over all portions of the globe,
but he owned when he recollected the freshness of the
illustrations with which the hon. gentleman had been in
the habit of portraying the organs of these septennial
saturnalias that he had not entertained them with such
amusing illustrations with reference to the demoralisation
and bribery as he had been accustomed to do. The hon.
unmanly, he said
gentleman had divided his arguments into four classes,
thatfirs t ,
tthhea t
allballotthe
elbeingubs,
and especially at
military clubs ; but he need not remind the house how often
baililloatnpswreevraitledthaet
that argument had been quoted, and how it had invariably
failed from want of analogy. One was the election of a
person for social purposes ; the other was the election ea
person to discharge a great public trust. But when the
hon. gentleman taunted them about the doings of clubs he
thought he was going to enlighten the house with regard
to the arcana of one with which he was conversant, and
tell them what was the position of the Reform Club also
with regard to the ballot. The hon. gentleman said the
second argument against the ballot was that it was un-
English, and he met that argument by saying that it was
not so. He (Mr. Mowbray) contended that it was against
the feelings, habits, and convictions of Englishmen—nay,
more, it was so far un-English that it was opposed to
the general opinion of this country. America used to be
the stock argument in favour of the ballot, but now
America was given up, and the hon. member took them to
Wimbledon to see the volunteers. Then the hon. member
took them to France, and he quoted a French elector, who,
speaking of the candidates, said, " T hey enforce a promise,
but they cannot secure a vote." That was exactly what
the opponents of the ballot said, that they might get a pro-
mise, but the man would tell them a lie, and would not
give them the vote. (Ironical cheers.) Then they were
taken to the Australian colonies, and if those colonies had
not adopted the ballot within the last half-dozen years he
did not know where the hon. member would have gone for
his argument. The hon. member had completely failed to
prove that the ballot had been successful to such an extent
in Australia that it was right it should be adopted in this
country. Then the hon. gentleman came to the argument
against the ballot that the franchise was a trust. The hon.
gentleman always found a difficulty in encountering that
argument. He was obliged to admit that it was a trust,
but then ho tried to explain that in his own way ; he said
it was a trust which the voter was to exercise fairly and
indifferently. Clearly it was not a property. The hon.
member, he supposed, would not contend that a man had
a right to sell his vote. The franchise was a sacred trust,
and the voter must not be allowed to shelter himself under
secret voting. Publicity was the first principle of all our
proceedings in public life ; publicity characterised the pro-
ceedings of the house, of courts of justice, and municipal
institutions. But he believed that the attempt at secret
voting would be inoperative, for the Englishman's whole
course of action must be altered, his election speeches and
canvassing must be put down, his tongue must be tied
among his own friends and in his own house. It was be-
cause he believed the ballot would tend to degrade the
public spirit of this country ; because he thought it would
tend to endanger the institutions which had given us
greater freedom than any other nation that he opposed the
adoption of" this motion.
Lord H. PERCY said, as the hon. member for Bristol
had brought unfounded accusations against his brother, he •
repudiated them with scorn. The hon. member had brought
three accusations. Two of them he had not heard of before,
but with regard to the interference of his brother's steward
he was prepared to deny it. (The noble lord then read a
letter from the steward in which he stated that he had em-
ploye the voter in question, but that he found he could
get the work done for less, and had therefore written to
state that he desired to close the account).
Mr. ONSLOW said he did not wish to enter into the
general question, but to state to the house certain facts which
had come to his knowledge within the last few days, and
which had transpired in the borough which he had the
honour to represent.. He admitted that gentlemen on his
side of the house were as guilty of evil practices as certain
gentlemen were on the other. The Liberals were, how-
ever, very clumsy imitators of those masters of the ait,
the Conservatives. (Laughter, and cries of " Ob.") The
great landowners were bitter enemies of the ballot, and
why ? Because the last thing in the world they would
give up was tho political influence which they most un-
justly and unfairly exercised over their dependents.
There was an election at Guildford last week, when
the Solicitor-General was one of the candidates. The
hon. and learned member was opposed by a gentleman who
came forward, not because he had any wish to sit in Par-
liament—(laughter)--but because the occasion was the first
and most fitting opportunity that was afforded of protest-
ing against a Government which he with many other per-
sons believed did not enjoy the full confidence of the coun-
try, and also of protesting against the methods that had
been adopted for the purpose of defeating the most modest
proposal of reform ever offered to the country. (Cheers
and laughter.) This gentleman came forward, and he (Mr.
Onslow) did his best to help him. They got at least half
the promises in the borough. There were 647 and
voters,
the Solicitor-General polled 316 ; but the intimidation that
was used was so extreme that it threatened to ruin the
trade and prosperity of the borough, and so the Liberals
withdrew their man. (Laughter.) They had a
right to assume that those who had 'promised them
their votes would have appeared at the poll if they had
dared. (Oh !) For forty years the Liberals had always
stood at the head of the poll ; and why did they not on the
late occasion? How was it then that the Solicitor-General
should have polled3l6 and the Liberals only 12 ? (Laugh-
ter.) Such a thing was unparalleled in the annals of Parlia-
ment. The „fact was that if they had persevered the town
would have been half ruined : the tailors would have had
to close their shops, the shoemakers would have made no
shoes, the laundresses would have been unemployed, the
butter would have been unchurned, and the whole borough
would have been ruined. (Laughter.) The noble lord as-
serted that the letter he had read had nothing whatever to
do with the matter ; but he (Mr. Onslow) had it in his
hand. It was dated Albury-park, July 10, and it was writ-
ten to a saddler Mr Dowling—Please make out your
bill, as I may probably desire to close the account on Sa
turday next"—the day after the poll. (Cheers.) He (Mr.
Onslow) would make no comment on that letter (Cries
of "Name.") It was written by Mr. G. W. Howes, the
steward of Lord Percy. To mention another case. There
was a tradesman in Guildford who went to Albury-Park
on the morning before the election. He was in his draw-
ing-room and was doing his business there. (Laughter.)
The nearest relation of Lord Percy was in the room, and
that party—(a laugh)--said Well, how are you going to
vote ?" The tradesman replied, "I have not made up my
mind." The Party then said,' "If you vote against the
Solicitor-General, you must not come to this house again ;
it is the intention of Lord Percy to send for the poll book,
and those who vote the wrong way shall no longer come
near this house in the way of trade." (Cries of
"Name.") He (Mr. Onslow) had the greatest possible
faith iu his information and if the noble lord wished he
would give it to him in a private interview. Ho consi-
dered that the Liberals had only rolled so few votes in
consequence of the bribery corruption, and intimidation
which were employed on the other side. (Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR ...Ta
ENERAL said the very style and
tone of his hon. colleague's remarks showed that he had
recently returned from the hustings. The letter which he
had just produced was represented at the Guildford elec-
tion to have been received from a peer of the realm. It
was made to do duty iu a most remarkable manner, and
suspicion had in consequence attached to a noble lord re-
siding in the neighbourhood of the town. After all, what
did that letter prove ? Admitting that its object, notwith-
standing the disclaimer of his noble friend, was really to
intimidate Mr. Dowling, it had wholly failed in its object.
For what did Mr. Dowling do ? Why, the very first thing
he did on receiving it was to express his intention of re-
cording his vote, as an Englishman should do, in accord-
ance with his own political views. The letter, therefore,
instead of proving any necessity for the ballot, was really
an argument against, it. (Hear, hear.) Then the hon.
gentleman told a story of somebody that had told him that
somebody had been to Albury, and that somebody had
said something to him there. This was the that time that
he (the Solicitor-General) had heard of the matter, or he
would have inquired into it ; but he could quite under-
stand that in many places statements of the kind might be
made. One of his own housemaids had said to a work-
man, "If you don't vote for Mr. Bovill don't show your
face here again ;" and he (the hon. gentleman) had no
doubt a good many housemaids had said that. (Laughter.)
The fact was, the housemaid had been long in his service,
and took a warm interest in his success ; but the man to
whom silo spoke was a decided Radical, and nothing

that she could have said could have had the least,
influence upon his vote. He (the Solicitor-General) had
long resided in the neighbourhood, and had associated
himself with persons of all shades of opinion ; but he
had never heard it suggested that any number of house-
maids would deter any workman or tradesman in the town
from exercising his privilege of voting as he pleased. As
to the result of the late election, he could only say that
the opposition candidate had been selected with great care,
and he was convinced that that gentleman had only been
withdrawn in consequence of the total failure of the friends'
expectations, and after resorting to means which he (the
Solicitor-General) would have been ashamed to imitate.
(Cheers.) They opened a number of public-houses by way
of maintaining the freedom of election and the independence
of the voters. (No, no.) He (the Solicitor-General) said
" Yes." He was pressed to follow the example, but he de-
clined. He was ashamed to take up so much time by re-
ferring to the Guildford election, and he could only repeat
that nothing which had occurred had ih the least degree
shown that there was a necessity for the ballot. (Cheers.)
Capt. VIVIAN (who spoke amidst cries of " Divide ")
deprecated the introduction of any personal element into
the discussion. He really did not see why the subject should
be treated as a party question at all, as it was only a ques-
tion of procedure, and merely concerned the mode of taking
votes—not the votes themselves. Ho agreed that the fran-
chise was a trust, to be exercised for the benefit of the non-
electors. But if on the day of nomination the non-electors
decided by a show of hands that the polling should take
place by secret instead of public voting, the returning offi-
cer might be authorised to declare the mode of election in
conformity with that decision of the non-electors. (Oh,
and hear, hear.)

Mr. LOCKE (who rose amidst loud cries of "Divide ")
said that his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Mowbray)
made use of the reference which had been made by his
hon. friend (Mr. Berkeley) to the Frenchman,who told him
that under the ballot he could made a promise, but that it
could not be enforced, as an argument against the ballot.
Now he (Mr. Locke) contended that it was a strong argu-
ment in fovour of the ballot, because he denied the right
of a man first to exact a promise, and then to enforce it.
What right had a man to enforce that which they all
admitted was a secret in the bosom of the person who had
the right to exercise it ? He admitted that the franchise
was a trust, and that the voter should have full oppor-
tunity of performing that trust, but under the present
system you get a promise, and then you wish to have the
means of preventing the voter from performing that trust
according to his conscience. The ballot was the only mode
in which he could exercise his trust as an honest and con-
scientious man. In the Reform Club they for a time aban-
doned the system of a general ballot, and they delegated
the trust to forty members who were called the forty
thieves—(laughter)—of whom he had the honour to be one.
(Laughter.) But they had recently at a general meeting
determined to return to their first-love, and now the old
system of general voting was adopted. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. BERKELEY, in reply, the
house divided--
For the motion ... 110
Against it 197-87
Mr. HUNT obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable
her Majesty to declare gold coins to be issued from her
Majesty's colonial branch mints a legal tender for pay-
ments; a bill to confirm provisional orders under the
Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) and the
act amending the same ; and a bill to amend the acts relat-
ing to the intended courts of justice.
Tho Militia Pay Bill was read a second time.
The County Assessment Bill was read a third time and
passed, as was also the Now Forest Poor Relief Bill.
The other orders on the paper having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.