The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1835,

of the election did not speak the opinions and principles of
the inhabitants of Devon—that it did not speak the real opi-
nions of the people—but that it spoke only the influence
exercised over the people by Tory Magistrates, Tory land-
lords, and a Tory Clergy.—( Hear, hear.) If this were the
fact all he (Lord Stanley) wanted to know was, how all
those people had been so changed since the previous elec-
tion. There were at the last election the same landlords,
the same clergy, tke same Magistrates that there had been
at the election that had taken place only a year before.—
(Cries of " No, no, no" from the Opposition benches.) Did
Gentlemen cry " No, no ?" What, then, in the interval had
there been such great transfers of landed property in the
county of Devon ?—( Cheers.) He believed that there had
been at both elections the same clergy, the same incumbents
of the same livings—the same persons in the Commission of
the peace—and the same landlords, holding the same pro-
perties. Surely the different results of the two elections
must have been occasioned by some change in the conduct,
some alteration of policy in his Noble Friend—(Hear, hear)
—for the clergy landlords and magistrates possessed no more
influence at the last election than they had done at the pre-
ceding election. He (Lord Stanley) would throw overboard
all that had been said about the Ballot being un-English,
and he would consider' the question in its consistency and re-
lation to the practice and spirit of the Constitution, and to
the Reform Bill of Lord Grey, who, in discussing
that Bill, had laid down the principle that wealth
and landed property should have, and ought to have
their due influence.—( Hear.) In elections the elec-
tors doubly represent the non-electors as well as
themselves, and the Constituency as well as the Member
returned have equal and ascertained duties, and he as a Re-
presentative had as much right to know who his Constituency
were, and whether they approved or disapproved of his con-
duct, as they had a right to know of him what his conduct
had been in that House. He thought it not only a trust but a
duty—he considered it not only a privilege but a duty ; and
that it was essential to him as a public man to point out to the
country and the people those electors who had changed their
opinions, whether from private, public, or other motives. He
claimed a right to that publicity as a Member of Parliament,
as well as his constituency did to know his public conduct, and
how he had represented them and the country at large.—
(Hear, hear.) He had never disguised those views of the
question from his constituents. Whether he had sat for places,
as he had done, where such opinions were popular, or where
they were unpopular, he had always stated openly that it was
best for the Constitution that publicity should be given to the
conduct of every man who had a voice in the State, whether he
belonged to the higher or less humble classes.—( Hear.) It
was said that vote by Ballot was un-English ; it was so with
respect to the way public duties were discharged. America
had been mentioned. Let them look to America, to which
country he had paid a short visit ; and from what he saw of the
Ballot he must say that he did not consider it an efficient pre-
ventive against bribery and corrupt practices at elections. At
all elections in America the votes, though taken by Ballot, were
as public, as notorious, and as much jobbed for as they were in
this country.—( Hear.) He happened lately to receive a letter
from a young friend now travelling in America, who was a gen-
tleman of a liberal family, and educated on liberal principles.
As the letter was a private one he had no right to mention
the name of the author, but he would read an extract from
it, containing the opinions of the writer on the Ballot and
universal suffrage. " What a pity," says the writer, " you
cannot ostracise one of the followers of the doctrines of
Mr. (he would say Mr. Blank, as he did not wish to
mention names)—( A laugh)—and let him see the working
of the Ballot and universal suffrage in this country. Under
the former there is as much cheating, bribery, and jobbing
as can be, and at elections scenes of tumult and violence arc
consequent on the latter privilege." The letter then went
onto say, That there was one thing common in America,
which was not perhaps observable when he (Lord Stanley )
travelled in the country. I find all the lawyers and statesmen
here leaning more or less to the Conservative side in England.
—( Hear, hear.) Federalists, Nullifiers, Whigs, and Jack
sonites all agree, and say that we must take care what we arc
about in England. Though they had the Ballot and Uni-
versal Suffrage, the way voters voted was notorious" This
letter was written by a good Whig, and it contained the fol-
lowing remarkable expression :—" Even though I had come
here a Radical, I believe, from what I have seen, that I
should return to England a Tory." ( Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He had received this letter from Washington ;
the writer bad been present at the sittings of Congress ; and
the above was the view he conceived of the working of the
Ballot and of Universal Suffrage. With respect to having
the votes kept secret, the Ballot would be a simple and easy
remedy, provided all parties were agreed on observing. se-
crecy. But the moment you had the Ballot, the elector
would have set in against him all, the influence and scrutiny
of family and other private connections ; he would have
to conten.l against Conservative Clubs, and the prying of
Reform Associations, all of whom would be inclined to dis-
cover how he had voted. Set all this against the Ballot and
the elector, and, moreover, set all the violence of party at
contested elections, and then tell him the vote would be as se-
cret as it was, or more so than it was, in America. Such an
opinion he would laugh to scorn.—( Hear.) He would now
come back to what his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) said
about trusting in the forbearance of landlords, and upon that
point he agreed with his Noble Friend. If they had the Ballot,
lie would say, as a landlord, that he would not only see whether
the elector dependent on him voted ; but he would see him put
. the ticket into the balloting urn.—( Oh, oh.) He did not mean
to say that that was a desirable course of proceeding, or a course
that ought to be adopted by landlords, unless forced to it by
expediency ; but he. as a landlord, would be driven to that ex-
pediency if the Ballot were employed, in order to satisfy him-
self.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend seemed inclined to
adopt the amendment of the Hon. Member for North Derby-
shire ; but, 113 he knew there was always much misrepresenta-
tion out of doors as to putting or not putting the previous ques-
tion,lie was rather in favour of meeting.the motion by a direct
negative. On the previous question he would prefer having
an amendment for a direct negative moved, and perhaps he
would have done so did not a feeling of prudence restrain him
from increasing the numbers of the minority. He would ac
quiesce in the previous question, and vote for it, inasmuch as
it seemed to be supported by his Majesty's Ministers.

Sir F. BURDETT did not. concur in the anticipations of
good or evil that Hon. Mem,bers on both sides of the Hodse,
interested in the question, expected from it. His opinion was,
that the Ballot would cause none of the dangers those person's
who opposed it said it would. At the same time that he made
this avowal, he did not see that it would be attended by all the
advantages expected from it by the Hon., Learned Mem-
ber for Liskeard, and by these Hon. Members who took the
same view of the question.--4 Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
(Stanley) seemed to think that there was some understandinc,
between the Ministers who carried the Reform Bill and the
party who enabled them to carry that measure—that it was
understood between them that it was to be a final measure ;
and that, therefore, it was discreditable and dishonourable to
propose any alteration in a question that was to be considered
finally settled. The measure was expecially accepted, and
was left open to future consideration.—( Hear, hear.) If that
was true, there was nothing to prevent him now from giving
an unbiassed vote on the question. The Noble Lord truly
said there was no better time for disposing of the question
than now, and if there was no bar of honour—no infringe-
ment of pledges—he thought that an argument for the
mode the question was now met in.—( Hear, hear.) He
was struck with the eloquence the Noble Lord ( Stanley)
displayed on all subjects, but the determination he had come to
that night did away with all the cogent arguments urged by
the Noble Lord in the beginning of his speech. When the
Noble Lord referred to America, he begged to say, that he
( Sir F. Burdett) was not one who looked to America, or to
any other country for its institutions ; but looking to America
with reference to this question, the way the Ballot was consi-
dered in this country and America was not the same, and the
adoption of it here would not, of course, produce the same re-
sults. He confessod that the Ballot was not generally liked
in this country, though some individuals, like the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard, set a high price on it ; but
they were totally mistaken if they thought that the working of
it would be exposed to no difficulties. The great objection to
it was the habits and the feelings of the people of this country,
who, if they had the Ballot, would not suppress their feelings,
and conceal how they had voted. He who concealed his feel-
ings and his vote would be considered to have acted disre-
putably, while, on the other hand, he who did not conceal them
would be thought to act a manly part.—( Hear, hear.) The
whole thing would work badly, and would be defeated by the
people themselves. He would vote for the motion, because if
the measure should turn out not to be effectual, it would serve
to take away the delusions under which the people laboured
respecting it.—( Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. O'CONNELL would protest against the assertion
that there was any pledge of honour given on this subject by
the Government who carried the Reform Bill, or by the indi-
viduals who voted for that Bill, that would now exclude them
from voting in favour of the Ballot. There was- no pledge
given by them that the question of the Ballot should not be
introduced. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had quoted a
speech delivered by Lord Althorp, but that speech was made
after the passing of the Reform Bill, and not whilst it was
under discussion or before it. The Noble Lord (Lord Al-
thorp) had given no pledge that the Ballot should not be in-
troduced. On the contrary, it was understood that measures
for shortening the duration of Parliament and for the Ballot
should be introduced if found necessary. It was for that that
the Radical Reformeis voted for the Reform Bill. They in-
tended to give that Bill a fair experiment, but said they
would have the Ballot if that experiment failed ; and the
Tories showed by their conduct that it had failed. If that
Bill only took power out of the hands of one oligarchy to
bestow it on another ; if it only took power from the aristo-
cracy of birth to give it to the oligarchy of wealth and pe-
cuniary property, it failed.—( Hear.) If no pledge had been
given, why should they now hear of the honour of Go-
vernment and of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) being
committed on this question. If that Noble Lord was
bound by honour not to entertain this question, why did be
not say that he acknowledged that he was ? Why, heard that
Noble Lord say that the question remained open, and whilst
the Noble Lord declared his opinions to be unfavourable to the
Ballot, he allowed that it was a question open to the future
consideration of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) An- anonymous
letter had been produced from America, containing arguments
ins
t the Ballot. Might, not the copy of that letter have
aga
been manufactured in this etruntry and sent out to America to
serve the prposes of deception ?—( No, no.) He did not say
that such was the fact; but,'after all, what authority was an
anonymous letter?--4 Hear.) The Noble Lord ( Stanley)
had seen an open mode Of voting in one State of America;
but that was not voting by ILl:at—it was no more the Ballot
than open voting on the hustings wag' in this country. If every
one knew:Nhat the ticket was that was put into the ballot-box,
it was anyihing but voting by Ballot. Out of the 30 States
of the American Union, in all but three voting by Ballot was

adopted, so that there was a great majority in favour of secret
voting. They were told by the Noble Lord that the Ameri-
cans had no faith in the experiment, and that they were all
Conservatives in America, and that there was no country in
which the democratic spirit was more tyrannical. The letter
the Noble Lord had read contained nothing but a sneer against
the institutions of America, If they were what that letter
represented, then they were the most degraded of beings. He
owned that the Americans deserved severe reprehension for
continuing that most odious traffic in human slaves. The
Americans Conservatives indeed They had not persevered
in keeping up the national debt. They had at any rate got
rid of that portion of Conservatism, for they had paid the
debt to the last farthing.--( Cries of " Question.") The Ame-
ricans last year had made the power of France bow before them.
And yet those were the people whose institutions were sneered
at in the letter read by the Noble Lord. The Jacksons, and
such men as he, were made light of, but he thought that there
was something in the name of Jackson that ought to make him
be treated with respect by the English people.—( Question.)
He protested against taking any history of America from
anonymous correspondence, and he protested against the
statement which he had made as to the nature of the elective
franchise. The Noble Lord called it a trust, and he (Mr.
O'Connell) called it a right given to an individual, who was
not responsible to any man for its exercise, and accountable
only to his conscience and his God. The trust was placed in
the Members of that House, who were supposed to be selected
for those qualities on account of which the trust was given.
The Members of that House were servants, while those who
elected them were their masters. As masters they were en-
titled to know what their servants did; but what right had
any one to call upon masters to give an account of their
proceedings ? The Noble Lord had also stated that
voters might be influenced in the discharge of their duty
by public opinion. He would grant that, supposing public opi-
nion to be right ; but who was unacquainted with the fact that
at present not only public opinion, but bribery and intimida-
tion, influenced the voter? Now if they intended that a man
should have his vote as his property, he called upon them to
allow him to vote as he pleased, the only way in which he
could do that being the vote by Ballot. But if they did not
intend that it should be a property, let them affix a settled
price to its exercise, or else at once transfer the vote to the land-
lord. It had further been alleged open voting tended to a
more easy discovery of bribery, while secret voting, though it
might abolish bribery by detail, would leave bribery by whole-
sale, and render its detection almost next to impossible. But
how could that be when, if you bribed 500 persons by whole-
sale, each and every one must be acquainted with the bribery,
and when from the secret being in the possession of so many
the corruption was so much more the likely to transpire, and
so much the more easy to be proved ? Having made these ob-
servations in reply to the most material remarks of the Noble
Lord he should not further detain the House.—( Cries of
" Question," and " Divide.")

Mr. E. L. CHARLTON complained that the Hon.
Baronet, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, had entirely
mistaken the purport of the observations made by the Noble
Lord the Member for Lancashire.—( Cries of " Divide," and
much uproar.) The Noble Lord showed that the Ballot had
been tried in America, and had failed.—( The cries of " Di-
vide" completely drowned the remaining observations of
the Honourable Member.) After claiming a hearing, and
attempting to pursue his argument, the Hon. Member ad-
dressed some remark to Mr. Hume, who was seated just
below the Hon. Member.

Mr. ROEBUCK--The Hon. Member has applied lan-
guage to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, such as I never
before heard made use of in this House. It is quite unpar-
donable.

Mr. CHARLTON—Sir, I beg your pardon.—(Much
laughter.) I heard the Hon. Gentleman below me contra-
dict what I said.
An HON. MEMBER—NO.

Mr. CHARLTON—I put it to the Hon. Member himself
whether it was not so, and I then asked him to be goodenough
to hold his tongue.—( Shouts of laughter, amidst which Mr.
Hume rose.)
The SPEAK ER said that before this proceeded further
it would be for Hon. Members to reflect upon the serious in-
terruption which such disorderly scenes occasioned, and espe-
cially at that hour, to the despatch of business.—( Hear.)
Mr. CHARLTON then renewed his attempt to gain a
heating, but without success. The Hon Member said it was
rather hard that he should be prevented from replying to the
remarks of a preceding speaker. If he had seen any symp-
toms of reluctance to hear him in the body of the House—if
those signs of impatience had proceeded from the respectable
part of the House--(Laughter and cheers)—he would at once
have desisted ; and now, rather than continue such a scene of
confusion, and cause the character of the House to be lowered,
he should resume his seat.

Sir R. PEEL—I have recently heard the very able speech
made on the principle of this measure by the Noble Lord,
the Member for Devonshire—( Loud laughter)—the Noble
Lord the Member for Stroud, which to my mind car-
ried complete conviction. To that speech I attach par-
ticular importance, because from his recent experience
in a popular election the Noble Lord must have gained
such information as to enable him to pronounce a judgment
well entitled to the consideration of the House, and that
speech accordingly, followed by the able and argumentative
address of the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire com-
pleted the conviction which I entertained upon the principle of
the Ballot. At the same time that my conviction was derived
from the able arguments of the two Noble Lords who took the
same view of the question, it was, if possible strengthened by
the utterly abortive attempts of two subsequent speakers to
weaken any one of their conclusions. One of those Gentle-
men has directed his attention to the subject, attaches great
importance to it, and possesses considerable powers in debate,
and sure I am that if the Noble Lord had taken up a false
position there is no man more competent than the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman to discover its weakness. Now I ask any
impartial man who is not committed on this subject, and whose
mind is not made up, whether the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man did succeed in shaking any one of his positions ? I must say
that on this subject I should hare been disposed to attach consi-
derable weight to what fell from the Hon. Baronet. I pay him a
sincere compliment when I say that I am sure he delivered upon
this question an opinion perfectly unbiassed by any party consi-
deration, and after the longest experience, perhaps, of any man
living in popular election. Now what did the Hon. Baronet
admit ? Why, that the speech of the Noble Lord bad nearly
convinced him, and that he had consequently been on the point
of taking a different course to what he at first proposed. The
Hon. Baronet further stated that the anticipations of the dis-
advantages which would ensue from the introduction of the
Ballot, and the apprehensions as to the evils, were equally
delusive, and that in point of fact, we can neither gain nor lose
anything by its establishment. Then, Sir, I ask why should we
adopt a measure which is perfectly delusive 2—( Cheers.) If,
after all his experience of popular elections, it be his deliberate
judgment that we have nothing to hope or fear from the Bal-
lot, does he not also see the great evil of adopting securities
which he admits to be delusive ? As to the argument of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman what was it? Why, in the first
place, that no pledge was ever given on the subject of the
Ballot during the discussion of the Reform Bill, that no such
pledge could be quoted from the speeches of Lord Althorp, and
that there was no pledge of honour to prevent its adoption by the
Legislature. But did not the Noble Lord prove beyond the pos-
sibility of a doubt that the Government which brought forward
the Reform Bill considered it as a final measure, and was de-
termined to resist all further changes in the representative
system ? Could he bring forward a more cogent proof than
that unanswerable extract from the speech of Lord Althorp—
the leader of the House of Commons, and a witness the more
unexceptionable, as in an unreformed Parliament, his own
opinions were in favour of the Ballot ? The next ob
jection of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was levelled
at the quotation which the Noble Lord read from a letter in
reference to America, and the operation of the Ballot system.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says that in that case the
Ballot was not secret, but open. But what is the conclusion
which we draw ? That human nature overlooks all restric-
tions, and that the intention was to have a secret Ballot, but
that the influence of party was stronger than the operation of
the law, and that parties became so deeply interested in the
result of the election, as to render all concealment impossible,
and to put it to an end.—( Loud cheering.) The Honour-
able Gentleman has certainly, I must admit, brought for-
ward his motion in the spirit which has been so justly cha-
racterized by the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire,
and delivered the speech introducing it not only with great
ability, but with exemplary temper.—( Hear.) The Honour-
able Gentleman has, however, in the course of his able and
eloquent speech, made one omission which, in my opinion,
must prove fatal to the success of his proposition, for the Hon.
Gentleman says that he would not—that it forms no part of
the intention of his motion—exclude that which ho designates
as the really legal influence of property. He says that he
thinks a man of property—a man of character—a man in
whom confidence can be placed, will exercise, and ought to
exercise, the influence which his position gives him over those
who are his neighbours, tenants, or dependants, even though
the Ballot should be in operation ; but if he does think so, I
ask him whether that is not directly contrary to the principle
which is meant to be laid down by that motion ?—( Cries of
" No, no," from Mr. Grote.) Yes, but I contend that it
is.—( Cheers.) By the introduction of the Ballot it must
be intended, or the argument of the Honourable Gentleman
is worth nothing, that every individual character shall view
public affairs for himself, and, having formed a certain opi-
nion, how he can deliver his vote apart from influence or per-
suasion of any kind. If, then, the influence of property be ad-
mitted, surely the Ballot must exclude that influence if it have
any operation at all ; but if the Hon. Gentleman wishes to re-
tain the influence of property, as he says he does, is it not
better to let it remain as at present under the controul of pub-
lic opinion than to resort to secret voting, which must defeat
the acknowledged efficacy of the free influence of public
opinion ?—( Cheers.) What now is the difference in point of
principle between the functions of the constituent body and the
functions which we, the representatives of that constituent
body, are called upon to exercise? If the Ballot be good as
regards the constituent body, why is it not also good in refe-
rence to the representative body? Are we inacessible to the
force of influence, or do we not act, in the votes which we
give on many of the questions that come before us, rather in
conformity with party connexion than 'upon abstract principle,
in reference to their individual merits ?—( Oh, oh.) What I will
it be said by any one Member of this House, that, upon every
question that comes before us, we act in accordance with the
abstract merits of that question, without any view to party, or
perhaps the very existence of the Government we
wish to see in power ?—( Cheers and laughter.) If we are to
try every question by its abstract measure, I, for my own part,
can see no reason why, if the Ballot be considered good else-
where, it should not also be good for us—why we should not
have the Ballot introduced into the House of Commons. No
doubt a vote by Ballot might be given on purer principles than
an open vote, but then you must, at the same time, take human

nature into consideration, and make due allowance for its
proneness to err. For my own part I must say that I think
the Ballot would be, to say the least of it, inconvenient; that
it would not afford the security for the proper exercise of the
elective franchise which was given by acting in the face of
day, and subject to the control of public opinion. The in-
fluence of public opinion is the greatest security the country
can have for the conduct of the representative body, and why
it should not produce the same effect in the constituent body
I certainly have yet to learn.—(Cheers.) But the Hon.
Gentleman admits, if I apprehend him rightly, that in certain
cases the Ballot would be inefficacious.

Mr. GROTE—No, I did not.
Sir R. PEEL—I say that the advantage of the Ballot could
at least be only partial, and that the partial good it would pro-
duce would be absolutely nothing as compared with the in-
fluence of public opinion.—( Faint cries of " Divide.") I see
that the House is impatient, but I assure Hon. Gentlemen
that it is not my intention to detain them long.—( Cheers. )
I agree, Sir, with the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire
in the first place, that we should not exclude that due and ne-
cessary influence which property ought to possess ; and in the
next, I do not believe that the Ballot would have any such
effect, even if it were adopted.—( Cheers.) Do what you will,
I tell you that it is not in your power to exclude the influence
of property, because, according to the constitution of human
nature, it must always exist ; and, that being the case, I am
desirous to let in the light of day upon its exercise, and leave
it under the control of public opinion. Now, Sir, with respect
to the manner in which it is proposed to meet this motion, I
shall offer only a very few remarks. The Noble Lord the
Member for Stroud is on principle opposed to the Ballot. His
Majesty's Government intends to resist the motion, and where,
then, is the necessity of not coming to a decision upon it at
once 2—( Cheers.) By a direct negative all we affirm is,
that our minds are unconvinced, and that instead of adopt-
ing a new experiment we think proper to adhere to the
present system ; and this, I confess, appears to me to be the
natural, the only course which we ought to take.—( Cheers. )
I come to the same conclusion as the Noble Lord ; and the
inclination of my mind is, that we should not do that which
is calculated to delude the public into supposing that our
opinion on this subject is not made up. With respect to
time—is this the fitting opportunity for entertaining such a
discussion ? A number of questions remain to be disposed of,
while others, and some of them of extreme importance, have
been postponed until next season. We have, therefore, with-
out this question, enough of business on hand to occupy our
time for a long period, and am I, consequently, unreason-
able when I ask the House to dispose of this motion at the
present moment, and not to adopt a vote which must lead
to an impression on the part of the public that we are un-
decided—that our minds are not yet made uv about the mat-
ter? Under these circumstances I hope the Noble Lord will
act upon the impression with which he came down to his
place this evening; that he will, as leader of his Majesty's
Government in that House, so far set an example as to avow
to the country what the opinion of the Government is on this
subject ; that he will concur with us, who wish to meet
the question with a direct negative, rather than agree to a
proposition so inconvenient in its nature as that brought for-
ward by the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derbyshire ;
for that proposition *was alike inconsistent with the senti-
ments expressed by ilt4 Noble Lord himself, as it was ad-
verse to the principles entertained by the Noble Lord, the
Member for Northumberland. I do, Sir, hope that they
have over-rated the inconvenience which the proposition of
the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derbyshire, had raised,
and instead of voting for his amendment, they will now
come to a negative or affirmative decision of the main ques-
tion.—( Cheers.) Sir, it would be idle to suppose that such
a decision could be binding on this House, or that any vote to
which we may come, can preclude Parliament, at any future
time, from opening the question. The fact is not so, and,
therefore, instead of voting for the previous question, I hope
all those who are opposed to the principle of the motion will
give it a decided negative, and that the Noble Lord will al-
low me to avail myself of his authority, by voting with me at
once against the proposition of the Hon. Member for the City
of London.—( Loud cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL had already stated to the House that
if the motion came forward as a substantive motion he should
give it a decided negative. The Noble Lord the Member
for Lancashire, and the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, seemed
to wish that the question should be met by a direct negative,
rather than the previous question, but for his ( Lord J. Rus-
sell's) part he must say that the Hon. Member for Derby-
shire moved the previous question without his knowledge.
He should be glad if his Hon. Friend would withdraw his
amendment—( Hear, hear)—but certainly if he did not do so,
he (Lord J. Rnssell) must adhere to the intention which he
had expressed, of supporting that Amendment, although, at
the same time, he should prefer deciding the question by a
direct negative, to voting for his Hon. Friend's motion. --( Hear. )
Mr. G I SBO RNE begged to confirm the statement of the
Noble Lord, that his amendment was proposed without any
concert with the either the Noble Lord or any other Mem-
ber of his Majesty's Government. At present he was unfa-
vourable to the question of the Ballot, and certainly unless he
could be convinced that secret voting was more advantageous
than open voting, he must give the resistance of his vote to
the motion of the Hon. Member for the city of London. As
the Noble Lord seemed to wish him to withdraw his amend-
ment, all he could say was, that he was perfectly ready to adopt
that course. _ _

The amendment having been withdrawn,
Mr. GROTE briefly replied, saying that, whatever the
fate of his present motion might be, he should renew the pro-
position at all convenient seasons.
The Gallery was then cleared, and the House divided, when
the numbers were—
For Mr. Grote's motion
Against it
Majority —.173
ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

On the motion of Mr. PEASE a Select Committee was ap-
pointed, " to inquire into the nature, cause, and extent of those
lamentable catastrophes which have occurred in the Mines of
Great Britain, with the view of ascertaining and suggesting
the means for prewenting the recurrence of similar fatal acci-
dents." The following are the Members :
Pease, Joseph Davenport, J. Raines, E.
Russell, Loid John Copeland, W. Mackinnon, W. A.
Maule, Hon. Fox Thompson, Aid. Hindley, Charles
Ridley, Sir M. W. Barclay, David H ,wkes, T.
Ord, W. Don, O'Connor Brotherton, J.
Lambton, H. Strickland, Sir G. Guest, J.
Williamson, Sir H. Lowther, Viscount Bell, M.
Trevor, Hon. A. lrton, S. Rippon, C.
Harland, W. C. Biddulph, R. M. Gully, J.
Bowes, T. Mostyn, E. Wrottesley, Sir J. B
Young, G.' F. Trelawney, Sir W. Thornley, Thomas
Vivian, .1. H. Durham, Sir 1. H.
Mr. O'DWYER moved for some returns, of which we
could not learn the nature ; but which being opposed by Mr.
Shaw, the House adjourned at two o'clock.

LIST OF THE MINORITY
Of 146 ( Tellers included), who voted in favour of Mr. Grote's Mo.
tion, for the Ballot.
Against the Motion 319 /
173 Majority.
For it

Number
Aglionby, H. A.
Ainsworth, Peter
Attwood, T.
Bainbridge, E. T.
Baines, E
Baldwin, Dr.
Barnard, E. G.
Barron, H. W.
Barry, G. S.
Beauclerk, Major
Bellew, R. M.
Bowes, T.
Biddulph, R.
Bish, T.
Blackburne, J.
Blunt, Sir C.
Bodkin, John James
Bowring, Dr.
Brady, Denis C.
Brock lehurst, J.
Brotherton, J.
Browne, D.
Buckingham, J. S.
Buller, C.
Bulwer, H. L.
Burdett, Sir F.
Callaghan, D.
Chalmers, Patrick
Chapman, M. L.
Chichester, J. F. B.
Clay, W.
Codrington, Sir E.
Collier, J.
Couyngharn, Lord A.
Crawford, W. S.
Crawley, S.
Dennistoun, Alex.
Divett, E.
Duncombe, W.
Dundas, J. C.
Dunlop, C.
Dykes, F. L.
Elphinstone, H.
Evans, G.
Evans:Colonel
Ewan,- W.
Fellowes, Hon. N.
Ferguson, Sir R. C.
Fielden, J.
Finn, W. F.
Fitzsimon, N.
Fitzsimon, C.

in the House ... 465 '
Gaskell, D. Roebuck, J. A.
Gillon, W. D. Ronayne, D.
Gisborne, T. Rundle, J.
Guest, J. J. Russell, Lord C. J. F,
Gully, J. Russell, Lord
Harvey, D. W. Ruthven, E.
Hawes, B. Ruthven, e. S.
Hawkins, J. H. Scholefield, J.
Heathcote, R. E. Seale, Colonel
Hector, C. J. Sharpe, General
Hindley, C. Shell, R. L.
Hodges, T. L. Sheldon, E. R. C.
Humphery, J. qiers, A, G.
Hutt, W. Oaland, Sir G.
Johnstone, A. S rutil, E.
Kemp, T. IL Talbot, J.
King, E. B. Talfourd, T. N.
Langton, Col. G. Tancred, H. W.
Leader, John Temple Thompson, W.
Lister, E. C. Thorneley, Tlf as
Lushington, Dr. Tooke, W.
Lushington, Charles Trelawney, Sir W.
Lynch, A. H. Tulk, Charles A.
M'Cance, John Turner, W.
M'Namara, W. Tynte, C. J. K.
Maher, John Villiers, Charles P.
Marshall, W. Wakley, Thilllias
Marsland, H. Walker, C. A.
Molesworth, Sir W. Walker, R.
Mullins, W. F. Wallace, It
Musgrave, Sir R. Warburton. H.
Nagle, Sir R. Ward, H. G.
O'Brien, C. Whalley, Sir S.
O'Connell, J. Wigney, I. N.
O'Connell, M. J. Wilde, Thomas
O'Connell, 1). Wilks, J.
O'Connell, Morgan Williams, W. A.
O'Connell, Maurice Williams, W.
O'Connor Don Wood, Alderman

O'Dwyer, C. A.
Parrott, J.
Pattison, James
Pease, Joseph
Philips, M.
Ponsonby, J. G. B.
Potter, R.
Power, P.
Power, James
Rippon, C.
Roche, W.
Roche, D.

Wyse; T.

TELLERS.
Grote, G.
Hume, Joseph

PAIRED OFF.
FOR.
Simeon, Sir R. G.
Bulwer, E G. E. L.

AGAINST.
Egerton, Lord Fran.
Dssuliton, Lord

Died on Sunday, the 31st of May, at his house
in Blandford-square, William Smith, Esq., formerly one of
the representatives for the. city of Norwich. The integrity of
his conduct during forty-six years' service in Parliament, and
his consistency in maintaining the principles of civil and re-
ligious liberty during a period so trying and eventful, will en-
title his name to an honourable place in the list of those who
have lived for the benefit of their country and mankind.
Mr. Beardsworth is about retiring from his esta-
blishment at Birmingham.
LITERARY NEWS.— During the present season a
greater number of novels of real merit have been published
than we recollect for a long period. Those most in request
at the libraries, and with reading societies, are the following
Belford Regis," Miss Mitford's new and charming book ;
" My Life," by the author of " Wild Sports of the West,"
and " Stories of Waterloo." Mr. Maxwell ranks as one of
the most popular writers of the day. " Lodore," by Mrs.
Shelley, a work which will raise still higher the reputation of
this sucpessful novelist. " The Last Days of Pompeii," by
Mr. Bulwer, a second and revised edition. This is confes-
sedly the finest work of this author. " Francesco Carrara,"
by L. E. L., thickly studded with beauties, this work is
second only to Mr. Bulwer's " Pompeii." A second and re-
vised edition of Capt. Chamier's " Unfortunate Mau." This
new production of the Smollett of our time abounds in amuse-
ment. " The Heir of Mordaunt," by Miss Cathcart. A
domestic novel of great merit. " Village Reminiscences," by
an Old Maid, (said to be the production of a distinguished
leader of fashion), written with considerable ability and know-
ledge of the world, and " Sketches of a Seaport Town," by
Mr. Chorley. Various and amusing, these volumes are cer-
tainly destined to a longer existence than many works of the
present day.

PRICES OF STOCKS THIS
Sank Stock 217 18
I !ler Cent. Red. 89% 90% 90
3 per Cent. Cnnt, ... 90%% 14 90%
it', t,er Cent %MI 67i
Ditto iced 98% 8 %
•
tiew :;X, per Cent 99% Xl4 %
4 4er Cent. f Assented --
/Dissented
&ink Long Annuities to expire
Jan. 5, MO 16%
Oct. 10, 1859 -
Jan. 5,186 C 16%
an. 5, 1880 -
April 5, 1880 --
Jan. 5. 1870 -,

PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS '
Austrian Bonds —
Belgian Bonds 994 V,i
Ditto Account 96%
Brazilian Bonds —
Dittc Account —
Buenos Ayres Bonds —
Ditto Account —
Chillian Bonds —
Ditto Account
Columbian Bonds --I
Ditto Account
Columbian Bonds, Int. 36 % 6
Ditto Account 36
Danish Bonds 76l 6 11%
Ditto Account
Greek Bonds —
Ditto Bonds, 1825
Ditto Account —
&lex man Bonds, 5 per cent —
Ditto Account —
Ditto, 6 per cent.
Ditto Account —
Neapolitan —

PRICES OF SHARES THIS
Bolanos MiningiCompany«.
Brazilian Imperial Mining Lo. (Issue
Redmoor Consolidated Mini g Comp,
Real del Monte Mining Co., Registeri
Ditto Unregistered
United Mexican (issued at 21. pm.)
Ditto New Scrip..
Provincial Bank of Ireland

COURSE OF EXCH)
Amsterdam C.F. 12 6V,
Ditto, at sight l2 4,4
Rotterdam 2U. 12 64,
Antwerp l2 Cy
Hamburg M.B. 13 14',
Altona l3 1454
Paris, 3 days' sight 25 65
Ditto 2 Us. 25 95
Bordeaux 25 95
F-ank orton Maine, Ex. M 152 4
Petershingh, ruble 3 Us. 101 A
Berlin
Vienna, effective fl 2 51. 10 6
Trieste ditto lO 7
Madrid 37
Cadiz
Bilboa .
Barcelona
Gibraltar 4B

NGE, YESTERDAY.
Leghorn
Genoa 25 95
Milan 3l
Venice 471.;
Naples 4014
Palermo per oz. 12:
Lisbon s7►q
Oporto 57%
Rio Janeiro 37
Bahia
Buenos Ayres
Dublin, 21 days' sight ll4
Cork 154

PRICE OF BULLION, PER OZ.
Portugal Gold, coin £0 0 0
Foreign Gold, in bars.-- 3 17 9
New Doubloons

?Jew Dollars_ __
0 4 r;

Silver, bars, standard 0 4

iIIGH W A I'ER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
'l(rning 36 minutes after 7. f Evening 3 minutes after S

HAMBURG, MAY 1835.
lIEINE BROTHERS, CONTRACTORS for
the STATE of HAMBURG'S GREAT LOTTERIES,
being requested to publish the Scheme of the approaching Sixty-
sixth Lottery in the English Papers, and to have Tickets on Sale,
with Agents in England, beg to state that neither can be done,
because it is illegal for,the English Newspapers to publish Foreign
Lottery Schemes, and for any Agents in England to sell Foreign
Lottery Tickets. On the other hand, they beg to state, as it is
NOT illegal for any person in England to PURCHASE Foreign
Lottery Tickets, that any person desirous to purchase, on addressing
them by mail, will receive a full Sattme, and any desirable infor-
mation on the subject (Gratis), by return of post.

HAMBURG, MAY 1835.
FJEINE BROTHERS but to inform all those
who have to remit to them Eight Pounds, that upon receipt
of a Ten Pound note, Two Pounds will be returned in gold by re-
turn of mail.

HAMBURG, MAY, 1835.
HEINE BROTHERS beg to state that a Ticket
of the Sixty-sixth Hamburg Great Lottery, costs, at the
first price, Eight Pounds.

The publication of THE SUN NEWSPAPER commenced this dai,

at 15 minute* past 3 o'clock.

~ ~
_~ ~~~ ~~
..<- ...-

~~3;Y}

~"~U
'T ~:%

zcht